A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 26, 1994, 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: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Rhonda H. Gerber; Don Bailey; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.
Commr. Cadwell gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Chairman opened the meeting.
Commr. Cadwell introduced Mr. Duane Gorgas, the Mayor of Howey-in-the-Hills, stating that he was part of the Leadership of Lake County class and would be present during the meeting to learn more about county government.
AGENDA UPDATE
No revisions were made to the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING - ROAD VACATION
PETITION NO. 754 - JAMES AND TONI WILKINSON - MT. PLYMOUTH
Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, explained this request, noting that no letters were received in favor of or in opposition to the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for approval of Road Vacation Petition No. 754, by James and Toni Wilkinson, to vacate street and lots, Craig's Addition to Sorrento, Section 30, Township 19, Range 28, Mt. Plymouth area - Commissioner District 4.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
REZONING
PETITION NO. 12-94-4 - CP TO R-1 - THOMAS J. SHANNON
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, informed the Board that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting a 60 day postponement of this case, in order to prepare management plans, as requested by the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Stubbs submitted, for the record, a letter (Exhibit A) from Wicks Consulting Services, Inc., indicating the request for postponement.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for postponement of Rezoning Case No. 12-94-4, Thomas J. Shannon, a request for rezoning from CP (Planned Commercial) to R-1 (Rural Residential), for silvicultural uses, until June 28, 1994.
PETITION NO. 5-94-2 - R-1 TO PUD - SPRING VALLEY PUD
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, informed the Board that the applicant and staff were requesting a 30 day postponement of this case, in order to work out some utility issues.
Mr. Stubbs submitted, for the record, letters (Exhibits A and B) from Utilities, Inc., regarding the matter.
Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that he had contacted Utilities, Inc., the City of Clermont, and representatives of various groups and that, based on consultations with the County Attorney and the Planning Department, was requesting a 30 day postponement of this case.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for postponement of Rezoning Case No. 5-94-2, Spring Valley PUD, a request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), for single-family residential development, until May 24, 1994.
PETITION NO. 7-91A-2 - W. T. COX AND KARICK PRICE - SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN PUD/DO-DRI
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, informed the Board that staff and the applicant were requesting postponement of this case until a date and time certain, based on a conference call with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), on April 22, 1994, in which staff was informed that DCA had not reviewed the project. He stated that, rather than moving forward and possibly having an appeal filed, on DCAs behalf, staff would like to work out the issues. He submitted, for the record, a letter (Exhibit A) from Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, the applicant's attorney, requesting said postponement.
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that there were a number of issues involving this case, therefore, felt that it might be appropriate to hold a special meeting, to hear the case. He suggested May 19, 1994, at 9:00 a.m.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that, once the Board takes final action on the Development Order, it will have 30 days to render a decision to DCA and DCA will then have 45 days to decide whether they want to accept it or appeal it. She stated that, due to the circumstances, she felt that a continuance should be granted, to give her client time to address the issues.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request for postponement of Rezoning Case No. 7-91A-2, W. T. Cox and Karick Price, Sugarloaf Mountain PUD/DO-DRI, until May 19, 1994, at 9:00 a.m.
PETITION NO. 15-94-4 - A + CUP683-5 TO CFD - FOREST HILLS METHODIST CHURCH
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, explained this request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
No one present was in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from A + CUP683-5 to CFD (Community Facility District), subject to the applicant meeting the conditions listed in Resolution No.
1994-82, to bring the request into compliance and for the construction of a new church facility.
PETITION NO. CUP94/3/1-2 - CUP IN A - JAMES AND SHIRLEY MCKINNEY
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, explained this request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.
No one was present in opposition to the request.
There being no one present who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for CUP in A (Agricultural), subject to the applicant meeting the conditions listed in Resolution No. 1994-83, for the placement of a mobile home on the site, for the care of an infirm relative.
It was noted, at this time, that staff had not been sworn in, at which time the Deputy Clerk administered the oath to same.
PETITION NO. 14-94-2 - AR TO A - JOSEPH AND JOYCE CLAVELOUX
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, explained this request. He submitted, for the record, a letter (Exhibit A) from Mr. James Westbrook, President, Lake Nellie Groves, Inc., supporting the request.
It was noted that a Unity of Title will be required to pull the property in question (two three acre parcels) together.
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated that this case involved lot splits, consisting of six acres, therefore, the applicant is entitled to two building permits. However, he had spoken to the Department of Community Affairs about the matter and they indicated that they would not have an objection to a Unity of Title, so there will only be one building permit issued for the six acres.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.
Mr. Stubbs answered questions from the Board about the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one present was in opposition to the request.
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Claveloux, appeared before the Board, were sworn in, and answered questions regarding the request.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from AR (Agricultural Residential) to A (Agricultural), subject to the applicant meeting the conditions of Resolution No. 1994-84 and executing a Unity of Title form, for the placement of a mobile home.
PETITION NO. 16-94-3 - R-6 TO LM - WILLIAM FEIKERT
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, explained this request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.
Mr. Stubbs answered questions from the Board regarding the request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one present was in opposition to the request.
The applicant, Mr. William Feikert, appeared before the Board, was sworn in, and answered questions regarding the request, as well as reviewed a plat of the property in question and plans for his showroom with the Board.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Swartz noted that he felt approval of the request would be further intrusion of commercial light manufacturing into the area in question. He stated that the area presently has a multitude of problems and he did not feel that the County should push what would be a commercial, industrial use further back into a residential area.
The Chairman reopened the public hearing, to allow the applicant to further address the issue.
The applicant stated that he planned to have a showroom on the corner of Bay Street and Old Hwy. 441, with a storage building, a parking area and a retention pond behind the showroom. He noted that the property would also be landscaped.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved a request for rezoning from R-6 (Urban Residential) to MP (Planned Industrial District), subject to the applicant meeting the conditions of Resolution No. 1994-85, for the construction of storage buildings.
Commr. Swartz voted "No".
PETITION NO. 9-94-2 - A TO R-4 - JACK R. AMON
Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, explained this request and noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.
No one present was in opposition to the request.
The applicant, Mr. Amon, was sworn in, for future testimony.
Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, representing the applicant, appeared before the Board stating that her client agreed to enter into a Developer's Agreement with the County, to address some issues that arose during the review process. She stated that a report her client received from Planning and Development states that staff feels the request is consistent with all the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, requested that it be entered into the record as such.
Ms. Bonifay stated that there were a couple of issues that staff recommended, that the Planning and Zoning Commission had a different opinion on, one being a request for some additional road right-of-way, so that there would be a continuous 40 foot strip along the highway. She stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission suggested her client negotiate with staff regarding the matter, which they did, and her client agreed to dedicate up to 40 feet along the roadway, so that the County would have the requested 40 feet of right-of-way.
Ms. Bonifay stated that the second issue was a request from the Alternate Transportation Coordinator, Mr. Craig Willis, with regard to Rails-to-Trails and an abandoned railroad right-of-way. She stated that she and her client have been working with Mr. Willis to try to come up with something that both parties are agreeable to. She stated that her client does not feel he should give right-of-way to the County, however, he recognizes the importance of the right-of-way.
Mr. Willis, Alternate Transportation Coordinator, appeared before the Board stating that it appears the piece of property in question is going to abut the road right-of-way. He stated that there was a question as to whether there was going to be a gap between the railroad abandonment and the road right-of-way, however, in further researching the matter, it does not look like there is going to be.
Mr. Willis noted that the whole corridor is on the Department of Environmental Protection's Acquisition List. He stated that the State is in the process of revamping it, therefore, the County is trying to obtain some ISTEA (Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) funds, to cover the County's preacquisition costs for Phase I. He stated that, if that happens, this project could be moving along at the same time that Phase I is moving along.
Ms. Bonifay interjected that the issue in question is a 40 foot wide strip that would be available for Rails-to-Trails. She stated that, since there are P-2000 funds available and her client wants to be a participant, they are requesting the County to amend the Developer's Agreement to state that it will be a 40 foot wide bike path that will be adjacent to the 40 foot wide road right-of-way.
Ms. Bonifay stated that her client would like for the County to pursue acquisition of the right-of-way and give him a certainty that, at the end of a two or three year period, if no acquisition has taken place, or the County is unable to purchase it, he will be given an impact fee credit for the fair market value of the property. She stated that this would be a way to compensate him. She stated that she did not feel a "taking" was appropriate. She also requested that her client's access to the development in question, which goes along the frontage of the property, not be impeded and that he have adequate points of access in and out of the development.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of open space, with respect to the Developer's Agreement.
Ms. Bonifay stated that her client has already met the open space requirement, without giving an additional 40 feet, which she elaborated on.
The applicant appeared before the Board and answered questions regarding the request. He then requested that, if for some reason the Rails-to-Trails project is not done, that this agreement not be indefinite.
Ms. Bonifay interjected that she would like for it to be for a two to three year period.
Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, interjected that it could be for three years, if P-2000 funds are available, and, if they do not become available, then Mr. Amon would receive transportation impact fee credits for the fair market value of the property.
Further discussion occurred.
There being no further individuals who wished to address the Board, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commr. Swartz questioned Mr. Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations, about several aspects of the Developer's Agreement, then requested that, in the future, if staff is going to award points, to indicate what it is and where it is. He discussed the fact that a requirement of the Code, for PUDs, is that 25% of the gross land area be considered as open space, however, this Developer's Agreement only requires 10% and it is 10% of something that is not even on the property and it does not say how the County is going to get it.
Commr. Swartz stated that the Board should be making sure that the County gets what it needs and that they see what the project is going to look like. He stated that the County is not doing that, which he does not understand. He stated that he felt the County was ill advised in entering into this agreement and that he felt the County should do what it should have done last month, on a number of the zoning requests that came before the Board, which is to send it back to Zoning, get it done as a PUD, find out where the Rails-to-Trails needs to be, figure in the open space requirement, give them a credit for that open space requirement and not toy around with three years and three years, hoping that maybe it will pay back. He stated that he felt the County was making a mistake by not doing so.
Commr. Bailey questioned, under Commr. Swartz's scenario, what the County should do if Mr. Amon agrees to give land somewhere else, but not give the land that the County wants for the Rails-to-Trails. He questioned whether the County would have the authority to take the land.
Commr. Swartz stated that he had no problem with rerouting the portion of the Rails-to-Trails that crosses Mr. Amon's property to some other location on the property that might work better for him. He stated that the Rails-to-Trails people would probably prefer getting it away from the road. As far as the 25% open space requirement is concerned, he stated that the County has a right to decide where and what that open space requirement will be.
Ms. Bonifay, Attorney, stated, for the record, that due to this public hearing falling under quasi-judicial rules, she was having a problem with the fact that Commr. Swartz and other commissioners were bringing up issues and entering into whole new avenues of debate, yet she, on behalf of the applicant, could not respond. She stated that she should be entitled to cross-examine staff, as to why they approve certain things and why they allow certain things.
Commr. Bailey stated that the Board had before them a developer that was not giving them the land they wanted, but, at least he was being cooperative. He stated that he felt the County needed to start working with the developer and provide some incentives, or he may say that he is not going to do anything.
Mr. Willis noted that Mr. Amon had been very cooperative with the County, thus far.
Commr. Bailey stated that he had a problem with government using its powers to "take" something from somebody.
Commr. Gerber stated that it depends upon who government is "taking" it from. She stated that, in the Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes it states, "right-of-way is still being requested without any benefit to the applicant" and she felt that was a fallacious statement. She stated that she felt there would be a benefit to the applicant, as she felt he would probably use the Rails-to-Trails as a marketing tool to sell his homes. She stated that, for the County to think Mr. Amon will get no benefit from the right-of-way, whatsoever, is not an appropriate way for the County to handle the matter. She noted that she would not support the request, without the dedication of right-of-way.
Commr. Bailey questioned how the Commissioners could sit as a Board and decide who they are and are not going to "take" from. He stated that the Board needs to be consistent. He stated that anytime the County denies people the right to use their land, it is a "taking".
A brief discussion occurred regarding the issue of "taking" one's property and whether or not a "taking" of one's property had occurred in the County, in the past.
Commr. Swartz reiterated the fact that the County should obtain the land that it wants for the Rails-to-Trails and not put itself in the position of having to come back, with limited tax dollars, and buy back what should have been required to begin with.
Further discussion occurred, at which time Commr. Hanson suggested that this case be postponed for 30 days, in order to work out the issues involving the case.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board postponed Case No. 9-94-2, Jack R. Amon, a request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-4 (Medium Estate Residential), for the construction of single family residential structures, until the Board Meeting of May 24, 1994. It was noted that this case would be first on the agenda.
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 10:40 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 15 minutes.
ADDENDUM NO. 1
COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA
DEEDS/PUBLIC SERVICES
On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a request from Public Services for acceptance of the following Non-Exclusive Easement Deed:
Robert L. and Patricia L. Thorp
Lee Street (4-9788B)
COMMISSIONERS/COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, questioned whether the Board would like to reschedule the three Board Meetings in July, due to the July 4th holiday.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter, however, no changes were made in the present schedule.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 (CONT'D.)
REPORTS
CONTRACTS, LEASES & AGREEMENTS/COUNTY ATTORNEY/MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, explained this request.
Mr. Alton Roane, City of Eustis, appeared before the Board and thanked staff for their help and support in this matter.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval and execution of an Interlocal Agreement between Lake County and the City of Eustis, relating to the annexation of enclaves.
Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
MEETINGS/MUNICIPALITIES
Commr. Cadwell reminded the Board of the League of Cities' Dinner, to be held Thursday, April 27, 1994.
RESOLUTIONS/SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
Commr. Hanson requested the Board's support in approving a Resolution honoring Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections.
On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved a Resolution honoring Ms. Emogene Stegall, Supervisor of Elections, for her many years of service to the County.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Commr. Hanson noted that she had invited the secretaries in the Board of County Commissioners Office to join her at Vic's Embers Restaurant, in Leesburg, to honor Secretary's Day and invited the rest of the Board to join them.
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
Commr. Hanson informed the Board that the Clerk's Office had inquired as to whether county offices would be closed on Wednesday, April 27, 1994, in honor of former President Nixon's funeral.
A brief discussion occurred regarding the matter.
Commr. Hanson requested Mr. Wahl, County Manager, to contact Mr. Neil Kelly, Chief Deputy, Administrative Services, Clerk of Circuit Court, and inform him that county flags will be flown at half mast, however, county offices will not be closed on April 27, 1994.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS (CONT'D.)
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/COUNTY MANAGER
Discussion occurred regarding the County Manager's Annual Performance Evaluation.
Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt Mr. Wahl was doing an excellent job. He stated that the County had a lot of tough issues come before it over the last year and a half and was pleased with how Mr. Wahl handled them.
Commr. Gerber stated that she was fairly satisfied with Mr. Wahl's job, however, was concerned about some issues that came up, since the evaluation, and the way that Mr. Wahl handled them. She stated that she would approve a cost of living adjustment, but would not approve anything beyond that.
Commr. Bailey stated that he felt Mr. Wahl was doing an outstanding job, however, noted some areas that he felt more attention needed to be paid to. He suggested that Mr. Wahl update the Board, on a monthly basis, concerning any outstanding issues and the Board can decide, at that time, whether or not they want to hold a workshop meeting to discuss the issue. He stated that he would support a motion to retain Mr. Wahl.
Commr. Swartz stated that he felt he made himself clear in his written evaluation of Mr. Wahl, however, he feels that it is the Board's responsibility to not only evaluate, but to hold responsible the two chief officials that the Board has the authority to hire and fire, being the County Manager and the County Attorney. He stated that there are issues that have occurred and he feels will continue to occur and no action has been taken - issues of grave concern to the people of Lake County.
Commr. Swartz stated that he would probably bring back to the Board an issue that had been before them recently, in which he felt staff did not act properly, within the parameters of the action that the Board took, and he feels that is government out of control. He stated that he felt the Board needed to look more critically at some of those issues and not just act like they did not occur. He stated that, with regard to the evaluation of Mr. Wahl, itself, he did not have any further comments, beyond his written comments.
Commr. Cadwell and Commr. Bailey commented on Commr. Swartz's remarks.
Commr. Hanson stated that she feels Mr. Wahl has done an outstanding job and, in looking through the evaluations, the perception is either nothing or very good. She stated that Mr. Wahl is very active in the community and has shown, to her, a sincere effort to bring the community into county government. She stated that she feels Mr. Wahl is a very "hands on" County Manager that wants to know what is going on in every area of the government, therefore, it keeps him stretched very thin. She stated that she feels the Board is expecting a tremendous amount from him and she feels that he is making every effort to follow the policy of the Board.
Commr. Hanson stated that she feels the Board needs to be there to rectify problems, find out what the solutions are, and move forward. She stated that she did not feel there had ever been an attempt, on Mr. Wahl's part, to ignore any problems within the County. She stated that the Board has set its goals for this year, so, if there are major areas that are being ignored, in the community, that the Board has not set as goals or priorities, then the Board needs to look at itself. She reiterated the fact that she feels Mr. Wahl has done an outstanding job in guiding the County through a time of tremendous change and challenges.
Commr. Cadwell commended Ms. Lois Martin, Director of Human Resources, on the evaluation form, noting that he felt the scoring system was a fair one.
On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board approved to retain Mr. Pete Wahl as County Manager and to award him a 2% cost of living increase and a 2% merit increase.
Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "No".
RECESS & REASSEMBLY
At 11:20 a.m. the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that several months ago this County's Planning and Development Department staff had been contacted by Mr. Bruce McClendon, from the Orange County Planning Department, relative to a project that they have been undertaking with property owners in southwest Orange County. He stated that some of those same property owners own property in southeast Lake County, therefore, Mr. McClendon and the consultants working on the project have held periodic discussions with this County's Planning and Development staff. He stated that the Orange County Planning and Development staff plan to take their concept to their Board of County Commissioners sometime in early May, 1994. He stated that Lake County's Planning and Development staff have been requested to brief the Board, prior to the Orange County Planning and Development staff doing that, so that this Board will know exactly what is being proposed to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Bruce McClendon, Planner, Orange County Planning Department, appeared before the Board stating that his job with Orange County, during the one and a half years that he has been with them, is to reconstruct their Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he is not aware of anybody that is happy with their plan, even the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He stated that Orange County worked very hard, for many years, to make DCA happy, but, they are now at a point where they want to make the people that live in the community and the people that make decisions happy, so they are trying to use a new approach in developing a Comprehensive Plan for Orange County, which means that they are working harder to develop a "vision" component for their plan and are trying to do more in the area of environmental planning. He stated that Orange County has done an excellent job of developing rules, regulations, restrictions, guidelines, standards and criteria for environmental protection, but, in reality, it has not done near as good a job in planning for protection of the environment.
Mr. McClendon stated that Orange County put a series of rules and regulations in place that were developed, supposedly, with the environmental community's participation and with the theory that one could develop anywhere in the County that they wanted to, as long as they met the rules, regulations, standards and criteria. However, they had developers coming in and doing exactly that, meeting those rules and regulations only to have neighborhoods, environmentalists and elected officials telling them that, even though they met those things, they did not want the developers to develop in certain areas, which was very frustrating to the development community.
Mr. McClendon stated that the reality of the issue is that part of the rules and regulations was to see that development did not happen in the wrong places, from an environmental standpoint, and the rules and regulations do not do that, because the County did not do the environmental planning that really identified it. He stated that Orange County, despite all its rules and regulations, never did an environmental assessment - determine, from an environmental standpoint, where it did and did not want development to take place. He stated that Orange County is presently in the process of hiring a consulting firm to do an environmental analysis of all of Orange County and develop a Cumulative Composite Overlay so that they will have, for the first time, a ranking indicator, geographically, of where they want development to take place in Orange County. He stated that, once they have done that, they will use their rules, regulations, etc., to minimize the adverse impacts of development, as it takes place in those areas of concern.
Mr. McClendon stated they want to make sure that those areas they would like to see as permanent open space be left as permanent open space. He stated that this is not easy to do in Florida, because existing legislation states that they have to have short range plans of 10 to 20 years in duration. However, that is not sufficient, from an environmental standpoint. He stated that Orange County wants to know, 50 to 100 years from now, what areas are still going to be open space - protected from development and encroachment of urbanization. He stated that they also want to know, in all the other remaining areas that develop, whether it develops five years from now or 100 years from now, what it is going to develop as - what kind of land use will take place there and, to do this, they need to put together a development plan. Mr. McClendon stated that Orange County is also trying to develop what is left of transferable development rights, because they realize that, if they do not have enough money to acquire all the property that they want to see as permanent open space and do not have sufficient regulatory authority to take property from people, to assure that, for public purposes, they do not develop their property, they will need a way to mix and capture the benefits of the free market system and the land market value that exists there, so that there is a reason for the market place to set aside permanent open space.
Mr. McClendon stated that, if the County wants to use the transferable development rights for property that is sensitive, to have it transferred rather than taken away, but allow those rights to be traded away in a market transaction, then people who have environmentally sensitive property can voluntarily participate in the program. He stated that, as part of the program, developable rights are given an evaluation in the market place and purchased by developers who want to increase density or intensity or are trying to speed up development in another part of the County.
Mr. McClendon stated that Orange County is also looking at developing an Adequate Facilities Ordinance, noting that, if they have a full buildout plan and know how a piece of property is going to be developed and what type of land use it will have, they can decide what mechanism they want to use, to control the timing of a development. He stated that Orange County is not happy with the current 20 year plan, as they feel that it is too far of a horizon, from a timing standpoint, and too short of a horizon, from a long-range planning standpoint. He stated that the Adequate Facility Ordinance would have a point-base system, so that, as property develops, it can go through the process and get permits, provided the developer is able to accumulate enough points in the point system for the property to be recognized as right and suitable, from a timing standpoint, for development. He noted ways in which a developer could acquire points.
Mr. McClendon stated that, if a developer accumulates enough points, then they will be given permits and the urbanization process takes place. He stated that Orange County feels this is a much better system - it is a timing based system and is superior to the current system. He stated that they do not feel the current system is going to lead to compact and continuous growth, however, they do feel that the Adequate Facilities Ordinance will.
Mr. McClendon stated that Orange County hopes to be where they want to be in approximately six months. He stated that, rather than try to do the project on a countywide basis, they felt that there would be some advantage to trying it out, as a demonstration project, and picked southwest Orange County to be the test market. He stated that the southwest Orange County community had a great outpouring of interest, but felt that it would not hurt if they had some expertise on their side. He stated that the County encouraged the community to hire a consultant, which they did. The County then gave the consultant all sorts of data, technical support, graphics assistance, etc. - everything but money.
Mr. McClendon stated that the consultant is now under contract with Orange County, because after the study was partially completed, the Orange County planning staff went back to their Board of County Commissioners and requested the County to become a full partner in the relationship and pay half of the consulting fees.
Mr. Jim Sellen, Miller, Sellen & Associates, Orlando, appeared before the Board stating that his firm was hired by a group of individuals known as Horizons West, which he noted consists of approximately 100 property owners including everyone from Walt Disney to some major agricultural owners to some people that own a five acre tract in Orange County. He reviewed a map (on display) showing development trends and how it is contributing to tremendous congestion on the highways, however, noted that, contrary to what some people believe, transit is not a solution, at least not at the present time. He stated that, since jobs cannot be moved to where housing is, housing is going to have to be moved to where the jobs are. He stated that the main thing is to see how they can resolve this issue, which is a major one. He stated that, in defining the area, it is impossible to look at a jurisdictional boundary, because it does not exist. He stated that whatever happens in southwest Orange County is going to effect east Lake County and whatever happens in east Lake County is already effecting southwest Orange County.
Mr. Sellen stated that, regarding the issue of utilities and land use, Orange County and Lake County need to be communicating. He stated that there are a lot of things that Orange County and Lake County have in common, which he elaborated on. He stated that there is no political boundary, when it comes to defining the wetlands corridors and the wildlife corridors. He discussed the transfer of development rights, noting that it is not "taking" property, it is identifying the fact that whatever the county does in land use is a windfall to somebody and a wipeout to somebody else, therefore, what the County has to do is make the process fair. He stated that, to do that, there has to be a way to transfer that wipeout back over for use by someone else.
Mr. Sellen stated that the real estate community is going to love this process, because they are going to have a whole new marketplace to deal with, and the people who own the land are going to love the process, because they are going to end up having a market that they probably would not have had for possibly ten to fifteen years, because the rights that they may not have been able to use, for years down the road, may be able to be used somewhere closer to urban development. He stated that it is going to take a while for everyone to become comfortable with the process, but he feels that there is some potential there and it bears looking at.
Mr. Sellen stated that Horizons West had a workshop, in which they defined all the opportunities and constraints for development. He stated that they discussed all the things that are going to effect how an area will develop - environmental issues, infrastructure, and land use policies - and documented it. He stated that he would provide the Board, the County Manager, the County Attorney and the Planning Director with a copy of same, for their review.
Mr. Sellen stated that they are going to use said information at another meeting, on May 19, 1994. He stated that they are going to be discussing, at that meeting, what alternatives they should be looking at, as far as future growth and development is concerned in this area, which he elaborated on. He stated that they will then have a third workshop, probably sometime in July of 1994, at which time they will put forward some long-term policy recommendations for Orange County, which he noted Mr. McClendon will use in his next update of Orange County's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Sellen stated that the State has come out with something called ICE (Intergovernmental Coordination Element), which will become the basis for making sure that there is intergovernmental cooperation. He stated that Orange County and Lake County have both had their problems with DCA, however, he feels that when they agree on something, they need to go before DCA and present a unified front on what should happen in an area.
He discussed the geographical area that Orange County is concentrating on and suggested that Lake County look at expanding what they are doing, build on the initiative that Orange County started and become a part of it, and look at becoming a part of Horizons West. He stated that there are some real benefits to the two counties working together, while there is a major consulting firm doing the data collection and analysis, and that, whatever the two counties can do together is going to be much cheaper and more productive and will help lead to the development of a joint planning area agreement between Lake County and Orange County. He stated that the counties have enough things that they agree on that they can find a nucleus to build joint planning area agreements around.
Mr. McClendon commended the County on hiring Mr. Paul Bergmann as its Planning and Development Director, noting that he is one of the most respected planners in the country.
Discussion occurred regarding the Horizons West project, at which time Mr. McClendon and Mr. Sellen answered questions from the Board regarding same.
Mr. McClendon noted that the Horizons West project is an experiment, therefore, all Orange County will lose in the process is a few dollars and some time, if it does not work. He stated that they have their existing plan, that has been approved, so the risk is not as great as it sounds.
Commr. Hanson noted that she was encouraged to see that Mr. McClendon felt, as she does, that 20 years was a shortsighted plan. She feels that 50 years is the time frame that the County should be looking at, not 20. She stated that the other issue is top down planning, noting that the plan cannot work, as long as it is a top down plan. She stated that it has to come from the grass roots. She agreed with Mr. McClendon that regulation is not the same as protection and that Lake County really has no true environmental assessment to build its plan on.
Regarding the issue of points, Commr. Hanson stated that all the County is doing is looking at the market and what makes sense. She stated that she feels TDRs will only work if is countywide or regional, that it will not work in an artificial situation where one does not have a market for it and she does not believe in TDRs being used as a reason to limit density. She questioned what Mr. McClendon wanted from this Board.
Mr. McClendon stated that he would like to see Lake County do several things, (1) trust its staff and allow them to participate in the process, without the fear of second guessing, as long as they do not damage anything, noting that all they are doing is generating data, developing alternatives, and thinking; (2) look at finding some financial resources to do the kinds of things that Orange County is doing. He stated that the counties have a window of opportunity, to do some things together, before ISTEA becomes a part of the regulatory process.
Mr. McClendon stated that Orange County would like to pursue a Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) with Lake County, noting that they would like for Lake County to be the first county they do one with. He stated that the two counties could develop a joint land use plan where the plans at the border are compatible with each other and respectful of each other and both parties can see the benefit of participating, for the beltway, as true partners in the process, not as reactors to it. He stated that the County will just need a little financial support and staff will need to be encouraged to coordinate and communicate.
Discussion continued regarding the matter, at which time it was noted that the County would have to utilize TDRs and plan some type of a buildout map that recognizes that the County has got to preserve agricultural lands, or open space, or the County will end up being paved from one end to the other.
Commr. Hanson stated that she felt the major issue was going to be transportation, because the growth is going to be here, as long as people keep coming to Florida and there is growth from within. She stated that people feel the congestion on the roads, which urban sprawl, or lack of, contributes to.
Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, appeared before the Board stating that there are a lot of opportunities for Orange County and Lake County to work together. He stated that staff from the two counties are developing a system of monthly or quarterly meetings, to share information. He noted that staff would be providing the Board with some alternatives, at a future date.
Commr. Swartz stated that, if the Board were to come to an agreement on utilizing a process, in the fashion that Mr. McClendon outlined in his presentation, he would be in favor of it, because he feels that is a good example of what Lake County should be doing with its Comprehensive Plan. He feels that Lake County's plan is flawed internally and externally, the only difference is that Orange County is approaching their problem and Lake County is not.
It was noted that Mr. McClendon was not talking about site specific areas, he was talking about a broad area.
Ms. June Noblitt, a property owner in the Horizons West area, stated (from the audience) that she was very supportive of Horizons West and requested the Board to go to one of the meetings and listen to what they had to say. She stated that she was not asking the Board to take a stand, or participate in any way, she was just asking them to listen to what they had to say.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS (CONT'D.)
COUNTY EMPLOYEES/COUNTY MANAGER (CONT'D.)
Commr. Cadwell noted, for the record, that in his earlier motion to retain Mr. Pete Wahl as County Manager, he did not indicate a date for Mr. Wahl's raise to take effect. He stated that he intended to make the raise effective as of Mr. Wahl's anniversary date.
There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
________________________________
CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK
sec/4-26-94/5-3-94/boardmin