FEBRUARY 6, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Monday, February 6, 1995, 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: Rhonda H. Gerber, Chairman; William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell; Catherine C. Hanson; and G. Richard Swartz, Jr. Others present were: Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Pete Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning & Development; Susan Strum, Planner III; Mark Knight, Chief Planner; Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services; Jim Barker, Director, Environmental Management Services; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Concurrency Management - Chapter V

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, addressed the Board and presented the history of the Concurrency Management System and stated that there were numerous problems with it, and the way it had been adopted. He noted that it was not reviewed by the Land Development Regulations (LDR) Advisory Committee. Mr. Knight addressed the Concurrency Management - Draft dated July 15, 1994. He stated that the first issue was to identify the following in 5.00.02 Public Facilities and Services:

1. transportation facilities and services

2. sanitary sewer facilities and services

3. solid waste facilities and services

4. stormwater management facilities and services

5. potable water facilities and services

6. parks and recreation facilities and services, and

7. mass transit facilities and services

Mr. Knight stated that the draft for Concurrency Management had gone through the LDR Advisory Committee. It had been approved by the Committee, with the exception of two areas, which he would point out through the discussion. He further stated that the underlines and strike-throughs were recommendations of the Committee.

Discussion occurred regarding Page V-3, 5.01.03, Exemptions for Development with "De Minimis" Impacts, with staff answering questions concerning accessory facilities, and accessory structures, which were defined in Chapter II.

Mr. Knight addressed Page V-4, B. "De Minimis" Impacts and explained that the Transportation section was right out of the Florida Statutes. The Solid Waste section was geared toward a ten (10) unit subdivision, at which time Mr. Knight explained how staff derived at the number ten, how the process would work in terms of solid waste, and the De Minimis impact being based on the actual capacity of the roadway.

The Board members expressed a concern with there being no radius of impact, or region of impact, in terms of the ten (10) unit subdivision.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Services, addressed the Board and explained that the County had a cap of 49 lots. You can plat 49 lots at 30,000 square feet, or greater in size, and not have to put in a water system.

Discussion occurred regarding the problem that existed with people changing ownership of property, in terms of the ten (10) unit subdivision, and there being a need to make this a collective impact.

Commr. Good addressed the ten (10) unit subdivision, and requested that there be a maximum threshold per geographic area.

Commr. Swartz referred to Page V-11, Section 2., and requested that language be inserted here, or wherever necessary, to indicate that the accumulative impact of these De Minimis impacts can be reviewed, on a case by case basis, when it "can be demonstrated that the proposed development has substantial impact on additional roadways because of the location of the development in relation to arterial and collector roadways", as indicated in this section. He further suggested that another section be established between Section 1. and Section 2, which would have language that states, when the accumulative affect of a De Minimis impact gets to the point where it was having an effect on the level of service standard for that particular transportation facility that provides the access to those lots, additional ones that are impacting that roadway cannot be approved, even though they may be considered to be De Minimis.

Mr. Knight continued his discussion of the information in the draft copy of Concurrency Management and stated that there was no De Minimis established for sanitary sewer. He stated that stormwater management was taken out of the Florida Administrative Code for the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). There was no De Minimis established for potable water. He proceeded to discuss the De Minimis Development Orders, as addressed on Pages V-5 and V-6.

Ms. Rebecca Jetton, Planning Manager, Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern (GSACSC), informed the Board that she had talked with a gentleman who writes stormwater rules for the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) last week. It was his opinion, as well as hers, that accumulative impacts of 3,000 square foot houses would have an impact on stormwater every time. It was true that the SWFWMD was not going to require a stormwater permit, until a paved road was put in, because they look towards local government to take care of such issues. She suggested that the County explore the idea of at least requiring swails.

Discussion occurred regarding development orders that would be considered to have De Minimis impacts including Conditional Use Permits, with reference being made to the different types of cases that staff have dealt with in this category.

Discussion continued with staff addressing variances and explaining an example of a variance that would not be associated with another Development Order.

Mr. Knight discussed 5.01.04 Special Exemptions through 5.03.00 Concurrency Management Review, as presented in the draft.

Commr. Swartz addressed Recreation and Open Space and stated that open space requirements are required in PUDs, but have not been required on straight zoning, which would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that, if the Board decided to add land, it had to decide what it wanted to do with its level of service standard in the area of open space. If adding the land actually increased open space per 1,000 people, it would mean that the County would have to get open space from developments in order to maintain at that same ratio, which would be the 1.8 acre per 1,000 people level of service standard.

Commr. Hanson stated that she agreed, in concept, with the section on Recreation and Open Space, but that a lot of rural areas are being used as recreation areas in the County, and she was concerned about straight zoning, and the lack as set aside for parks and recreation in straight zoning.

Commr. Swartz stated that the recreation impact fee was only related to those active recreational facilities, which would be a lower number than the open space. The County would not be calculating the impact fee on open space requirement. He stated that the County was not uniformly requiring open space and recreation requirements on all residential developments.

Discussion continued regarding the issue of recreation and open space, with Mr. Knight indicating that this could be brought back up when going through the LDRs, as to the procedures and the base requirements in all subdivisions.


At 10:40 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes.

Concurrency Management - Chapter V (Continued)

Mr. Knight directed the Board's attention to Page V-15, 5.03.03 Encumbrance of Capacity, and noted the underlined language on the bottom of the page, which was the first problem area of the Committee. Mr. Knight explained that the Encumbrance of Capacity is set by the County, which is all focused on roadways at this time. He stated that the Committee does not have a problem with the County setting aside the capacity for development for two years, as stated in B. Capacity Encumbrance for Development Orders, Preliminary Plat, but the Committee did have a problem that, in the event the development did not proceed forth in good faith, the development would have to buy the capacity at that point in time, or would the County continue to encumber the capacity for larger developments. The Committee was concerned about not wanting to lock out additional development by taking an 800 unit preliminary plat and encumbrance capacity for 800 units and allowing them to continue forth with their development at 200 units every two years. The large scale development does not want to have to go forth and buy all the capacity for 800 units, in order to reserve it, provided they are working in a good faith effort in completing the development. They also do not want to lock out a ten unit subdivision next door, because an 800 unit subdivision has locked up the capacity for up to 11 1/2 years. He explained that, if someone came in with something under 200 units, the County would encumber the capacity for two years for the subdivision, and if he does not go anywhere within the two year time frame, he would still have a preliminary plat, however, he would have to undergo concurrency review again before he could go forth to the next step.

Mr. Hoban discussed the rationale used by the LDR Committee in making its recommendations and explained that, if the County wanted to encourage quality developments, it needed to give the larger developers a break, or else the County would get 25-50 lot subdivisions throughout the County without having the amenities for the bigger projects.

Commr. Swartz suggested that, when looking at the larger developments, the County look at the capacity that would be available.

Discussion occurred regarding the County Road and the State Road programs, and how the roadways for the developments could be brought into these programs, if there was a financial mechanism put into place to insure that the road improvement projects would actually take place.

Mr. Knight stated that the County was running into a situation where the larger projects are generally impacting the major arterials, and the County does not have funding control over major arterials.

After extensive discussion on the capacity encumbrance, staff was directed to bring back some modification to the language, pursuant to the ideas expressed by the Board members during the discussion.

Discussion occurred regarding the need to differentiate between PUDs and straight zoning, with Commr. Swartz explaining that some things in straight zoning ought to have the same requirements as PUDs, such as open space and recreation. He pointed out that some developers have been willing to enter into a Developer's Agreement, which would outline the percentages of open space, recreation, and road improvements, etc, on straight zoning.

Discussion occurred regarding establishing a percentage amount and a minimum number of units, with developers being informed up front that, if the level of service drops, they need to be prepared to pay, so that the road improvements can be made. There would be a combination of ways that the developer could pay, such as paying up front, with credit being given back against fees.

Direction was given to staff to use a 25% limit, but with a minimum of 50 units every two years.

Commr. Hanson stated that she would still like staff to look at the parks and recreation issue, and to bring back information that shows parks that are being created within subdivisions.

Mr. Knight referred to Page V-16, Final Plat and explained that this would be where a developer would pay for concurrency purposes only. He addressed Administrative Lot Splits and explained that most of the administrative lot splits are exempt from concurrency.

Extensive discussion occurred regarding the section on Construction Plans.

Commr. Good made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to strike the following language from the Construction Plans (Residential Subdivision) and Construction Plans (Non-Residential): "Permits required by other governmental agencies are not required for considering construction plans approved for the purpose of encumbering capacity."

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz questioned whether there should be any other changes in these sections.

Commr. Good clarified that the motion would include the addition of the words "final" and "not", which had previously been stricken from the language.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

Mr. Knight addressed Final Site Plans on Page V-17 and stated that, as long as it involved less than 15% of the overall impacts of the site, the County would encumber that capacity, until such time the actual development occurs on those out parcels within the overall commercial site plan.

It was noted, through discussion, that language would be included in the section regarding Final Site Plans, as well as the section on Final Master Park Plans, that indicates that the County would encumber the capacity, until such time that there was pressure on the roadway system, and then payment would be required. It was noted that staff would establish a time frame that would give the people the opportunity to provide payment, once they were notified, and bring back language pertaining to such.

Discussion occurred regarding Preliminary Site Plans and Preliminary Master Park Plans and the time period not exceeding twelve (12) months from the date the applicant requests preliminary approval, and the plan is reviewed for concurrency management. The site plan process was discussed, with the Board directing staff to establish a more reasonable time period.


At 12:23 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

Concurrency Management - Chapter V (Continued)

Mr. Hoban informed the Board that staff was suggesting that a six month time frame be established for the Preliminary Site Plans and the Preliminary Master Park Plans, including the right of first refusal. It was noted that the entire rezoning process would be within the six month period, if the applicant was going to request concurrency review.

Mr. Knight addressed Page V-18, Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), and explained that the extended time frames do not apply to these, because they have a different clause for the payment schedule, which was located on Page V-22, in 5.03.06 Reservation of Capacity. He noted that the County would encumber the PUD for a time period not to exceed two (2) years from the date the applicant requested PUD approval, and the PUD was reviewed for concurrency management.

Mr. Knight noted that the entire section entitled Mixed Use Quality Developments (MUQD) had been struck through. He stated that MUQDs would fall under PUD zoning requests, because they would be mixed uses.

Extensive discussion occurred regarding Section 5.03.06 Reservation of Capacity. Mr. Hoban explained that the same right of first refusal language could be placed in each one of the provisions.

Mr. Knight explained that the applicant could not get a final plat until he had paid 100%. If the applicant paid one-third on a preliminary plat, for example, and he decided not to go through with it, the County would return the funds minus 6% for administration fees.

Commr. Good requested that staff place all of the information pertaining to time frames for concurrency management onto a chart, or table, so that people could get an idea, from the very beginning, as to amount of time that would be involved with their development plans.

Extensive discussion occurred regarding 5.03.06 Reservation of Capacity, and the time frames involved.

Mr. Knight referred to Page 18 and stated that the first sentence under Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) would be reworded to include the right of first right of refusal. He stated that Mixed Use Quality Developments (MUQD) would be deleted; DRIs and FQDs would have three year encumbrance time frames with language clarifying the first right of refusal.

Mr. Knight referred to Page V-20 and stated that Rezonings, Conditional Use Permits and Mining Site Plans all have six month time frames. There was a one year encumbrance for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, however, when the first right of refusal clause is added, it will change the whole aspect. He stated that Variances and Building Permits are also six months.

Discussion occurred regarding Page V-21 C. Development Agreements, which would be pursuant to State Statute, and Page V-22, 5.03.04 Alternate Data for Capacity Analysis. Mr. Knight explained that Alternate Data for Capacity Analysis was another conflict area and was put into the document, because there are different land uses, which would have different trip generations.

Mr. Hoban explained that it would be simpler for everyone to have the ITE manual, which would indicate the number, and everyone would get the same number.

Discussion occurred regarding 5.03.05 Notice of Capacity Determination, with it being noted that there were no specific changes.

Discussion continued regarding 5.03.06 Reservation of Capacity, with Mr. Knight noting the $500 fee in the language that was deleted. He stated that the proposal of $500 was presented to the Committee, with the Committee deciding that the Board of County Commissioners would establish the fee. It was noted that this issue would be deferred for further decision.

Mr. Knight explained that the payment schedule was changed in the language pertaining to Preliminary Plat. He noted that, under Final Plat, you have to pay 100% of capacity reservation fee, which would be set by the Board of County Commissioners. He went on to explain that Administrative Lot Splits would not be exempt, and they would have to pay 100%, because they are final development orders. Mr. Knight explained the time frames listed under Construction Plans (Residential and Non-Residential). He noted that the payment time frame for Final Site Plans, as well as Construction Plans, and Final Master Park Plans would be 36 months. He went on to discuss the time frame for Preliminary Site Plans and Preliminary Master Park Plans.

Mr. Knight discussed 5.03.07 Paying for Capacity Reservation and stated that "County approved cash escrow agreement" was added as a form of payment, and "All funds collected for the purpose of reserving capacity shall be used as partial payment of the transportation impact fees associated with the development." Mr. Knight explained that right now the County has it set up so that the money goes into a concurrency account that is not allowed to be used until the impact comes into the County.

Discussion occurred regarding the money that would be refunded, if the developer chose not to go forward with his project after getting a final plat. After further discussion, it was determined that, if the money was paid back, it would be paid back with interest, if staff so directed.

Commr. Swartz stated that, if a reservation and final platting had not occurred, and the developer was entitled to the money, then he could get the money back less the administrative fee, and with whatever interest that would have accrued, but the County, at some point in time, needed to know when it could use the money to make road improvements within the impact fee district. There had to be a point at which government would know that the money that had been paid could be used to improve the road network. As long as it was a reservation prior to final platting, it would be appropriate for them to change their mind, get their money back, under these given conditions.

Mr. Knight noted that, in 5.03.13 Refund of Capacity Reservation Fee, a clause could be added to include returning interest, with staff going back and reviewing the plat.

After further discussion of 5.03.13, Commr. Swartz suggested that a fee schedule be added, with staff developing a realistic number that could be evaluated in the schedule on an annual basis.

Mr. Hoban addressed 5.06.00 Vested Rights For Concurrency, and 5.07.00 Expiration of Vested Rights Certificates and noted that the County was in the process of developing a new vested rights ordinance. He stated that staff anticipates no change in vesting in Chapter V.

The Board directed that all of the changes to Chapter V, as discussed, be brought back to the Board for a second workshop.

Chapter XIV - Platting Procedures and Requirements for

Minor Subdivisions of Land

Mr. Knight presented an overview of Chapter XIV and explained that DCA had a concern, as well as staff having internal problems, regarding lot splits. At this time, he explained the review process for minor subdivision of land into twenty (20) or fewer residential lots. Mr. Knight stated that staff does not require a roadway to be constructed in the proposal, but a roadway would be identified for future construction, as well as a retention pond area. It would be similar to a lot split, however, staff would have the ability to go back with a MSBU and charge the property owners at that time for the construction of the roadway, when there would be a need for the roadway to be constructed and a retention pond to be built.

Commr. Swartz stated that 20 lots would be too many, and the Board should take this opportunity to get out of the lot split business that has created problems and get to a minor subdivision of land that would be a reasonable number. He explained that, if that process were set up, the County would be financing improvements. After further discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that a lot split on a County paved maintained road would be far more reasonable than what was being done now, which are lot splits off of easements of possibly County unpaved maintained roads. He still felt there should be an agricultural lot split, with 40 acres being a reasonable size.

Discussion continued regarding lots splits, with no definite changes being made at this time.

Mr. Knight stated that he had reviewed the comments received from Ms. Jetton, but noted that none of her comments had been incorporated into the material before the Board. He explained that 90-95% of her comments could be simply addressed by either referencing another section of the LDRs, or pulling them into the ordinance. Mr. Knight further explained that there were major issues that were still outstanding, which included stormwater management, and open space requirements.

Ms. Jetton stated that she had a concern with the issue of incremental minor subdivisions. At this time, extensive discussion occurred regarding the issue.

Commr. Gerber suggested continuing the discussion on the LDRs. At this time, it was noted that a workshop would be scheduled for February 23, 1995 at 9 a.m.

Commr. Gerber reminded the Board of the meeting scheduled for February 22, 1995, at 2 p.m., regarding the public/private water-wastewater partnership in south Lake County.

Mr. Bergmann addressed the letter from DCA dated September 28, 1994, and informed the Board that staff has been working with DCA on the issues indicated in the letter.

Ms. Jetton explained that, in 1992 when the LDRs were proposed, they were rejected, and the primary reason was not because of the inadequacy of these particular proposals, but simply because the County was still in the process of working on the Comprehensive Plan, and it had not been approved and adopted, and therefore, they were rejected by DCA.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:18 p.m.