JULY 17, 1995

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Monday, July 17, 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 (Commr. Gerber was not present for the afternoon workshops); William "Bill" H. Good, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz; Catherine C. Hanson; and Welton G. Cadwell. Others present were: Sue B. Whittle, Interim County Manager; Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Marlene S. Foran, Deputy Clerk.


Commr. Gerber opened the joint planning meeting between the Board of County Commissioners, the Cities, and the Department of Community Affairs, and it was noted that the following staff members were present: Mr. Barry Brown, Planner II; Mr. Tom Leathers, Chief Code Compliance Officer; Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Department of Planning and Development Services; Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management; Mr. Greg Stubbs, Director of Development Regulations Services Division; Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning & Development Services; Ms. MaryAnn Bardon, Transportation Engineer, Public Services; and Mr. Frank Royce, representing the Property Appraiser's Office. At this time, Commr. Gerber introduced the following individuals who were present from the Department of Community Affairs: Ms. Rebecca Jetton; Mr. John Baker; Ms. Robin Branda; Ms. Suzanne H. Schmidt; and Mr. Mike McDaniel. There were approximately thirty (30) individuals present representing the Lake County School Board; the Cities of Mount Dora, Tavares, Eustis, Fruitland Park, Umatilla, Montverde, Howey-in-the-Hills, Lady Lake, Leesburg and Clermont; and local planners. Commr. Gerber announced that, after a presentation by the Department of Community Affairs, those present would break into the groups comprised of Planners, Attorneys, Managers, and Elected Officials for the purpose of discussing the best scenario for each city in a Joint Planning Area Agreement.

Mr. John Baker, Department of Community Affairs (DCA), appeared before the Board and explained that Florida Statutes, Subsection 163.317(1), provides the ability for counties along with municipalities to enter into Joint Planning Area Agreements that essentially provide the local government the right to exercise all of the powers under Florida Statutes, Subsection 163.317(1), within the boundaries of said agreement. He stated that a number of issues could be addressed under the Joint Planning Area Agreements such as service areas, annexation, Land Development Regulations, and Concurrency Management. He stated that a disparity of the policies that are provided has occurred in some plans in terms of the protection to natural resources, and that the Department of Community Affairs would be looking for increased protection for natural resources. He stated that, if the Joint Planning Area Agreements address land use planning, DCA would recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to reflect the Joint Planning Area Agreement, and that the agreement be executed prior to submitting the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and specify the duration of said agreement. He stated that the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) requires that local government adopt policies and procedures that deal with joint planning area agreement annexation service area provisions and, if Lake County should proceed with joint planning area agreements, DCA would request that the County amend the Intergovernmental Coordination Element.

Mr. Mike McDaniel, Growth Management Administrator, Department of Community Affairs, appeared before the Board and stated that they were present to assist the Cities and the County in exploring the issue of Joint Planning Area Agreements.

Commr. Gerber stated that the elected officials envision the following expected outcomes in regard to the Joint Planning Area Agreements: Enhancement of economic development efforts by means of more coordinated and compatible permitting processes within the County and the cities; proposal of incentives to favor development in the joint planning areas; recognize the cities' individual self identities; establish a simplified process for annexation, whereby, the municipalities are able to use a plan adopted by the municipality upon annexation; establish a process by which utilities provided by the municipality are coordinated with adjacent land uses, and land uses are approved to maximize municipal infrastructure; and establish a dispute resolution process which provides for mediation or possibly arbitration.

At 10:10 a.m., the Chairman announced that the general meeting would break into individual groups for the purpose of discussion on Joint Planning Area Agreements. She requested that each group have a sign up sheet for those in their session.


At 11:30 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten minutes and reconvene at 11:40 a.m.


At this time, the Chairman reconvened the general meeting, and a spokesperson from each group made a brief presentation of the group discussion, as follows:


Mr. Louis Stone, City of Eustis, representing the Attorneys, stated that the Attorneys established an agenda of topics, and the following issues were discussed:

1) Concern that, when annexing into the cities, the property owner is not given assurance that said property could be used for a particular use until it has been reviewed by the DCA.

2) At what point would DCA perform the review; to what extent does a joint planning area, which attempts to have an overlay of uses, need DCA approval; at what stage; and does it adversely impact the rest of the local government.

3) Concern with matching environmental elements of the County against the environmental elements of the cities.

4) Legal considerations, and a copy of the Seminole and Orange County Joint Planning Area Agreements provided by the Attorney for the Department of Community Affairs.

Mr. Stone stated that the Attorneys would continue to meet and discuss the issues of concern in regard to Joint Planning Area Agreements between the Cities and the County.


Mr. Mike Stearman, City of Eustis, representing the Managers, stated that the following issues were discussed:

1) Review of the existing utility service agreements. He explained that said agreements began with the County prior to the enactment of the 1985 Growth Management Act with the idea of resolving the issue of requiring DCA's approval, and that it was critical that this issue be resolved.

2) Control by the city of all of the permitting issuance; or a mixture of joint issuance of permits.

3) Joint reviews.

4) Joint issuance of Development Order.

5) Overlay of the Land Development Regulations with the joint planning area specifying the more stringent requirements over the County LDRs in order to enforce them as we do the joint issuance of a Development Order.

Mr. Stearman stated that the Managers would continue to address the issues and would discuss the issues of Joint Planning Area Agreements with the League of Cities.


Mr. Greg Beliveau, representing the Planners, stated that the following issues were discussed:

1) Conflict Resolution - impartial group to hear problem.

2) What are the joint planning areas geographically: a) utility service areas for some cities; b) cities with no sewer system; c) preparing a draft map of joint planning areas.

3) Annexations.

4) Two tier system - annexing into a city, the city's rules and regulations would be the guidelines. A notification process would be in place, and a process where the cities would be a partner, if within the service area of a city or a joint planning area.

5) A broiler plate segment, or basic package, so that all fourteen cities would have some consistency with one another.

Elected Officials

Commr. Good, representing the Elected Officials, stated that the purpose of the joint planning area was to provide for compatibility and capacity within urban service areas; provide for efficiency and economy in provision of services; provide for consistent protection of natural systems within city/county boundary; provide for compatible designation of land uses by city and county; provide for compatible and workable implementation of Land Development Regulations within joint planning area (LDR Overlay); and establish workable economically sound management of growth within joint planning areas. Commr. Good stated that the Joint Planning Areas should address:

1) The establishment of levels of planning which provide for the capability and capacity of city/county utility systems and employing the same development standards. i.e. Urban Service Areas and Urban Expansion Areas. Short range and long range planning areas within the JPAs.

2) Establishment of provisions to recognize natural system and (overlay maps) other restraints to urban development.

3) Incorporate unique needs of municipality and county.

4) Compatibility and consistency of land use decisions within the JPA.

5) Identify provisions for funding of urban service needs by development/community contributions.

6) Incorporate efficient/expedient annexation process.

7) Identify efficient/expedient dispute resolution process.

Commr. Swartz summarized that the areas of discussion from the group presentations this date were joint Planning area designations; compatibility of land use that needs to be resolved through plan amendments between the Cities and the County; compatibility of Land Development Regulations where possible or an overlay within the JPA; and how do you deal with the permitting and review process within the JPA. He stated that the issues were complex, and the only way for the Board of County Commissioners to give up more control was to resolve the Land Use Plan Amendment up front.

It was the decision of the Board to schedule a Joint Planning Meeting between the Board, the Cities, and DCA on October 16, 1995 at 9:30 a.m.


At 12:20 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:00 p.m.


Commr. Good, Vice Chairman, announced that the time had arrived for the workshop on street lighting and traffic signals.

Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained that several inquires and requests in the past have been received for street lights, and the purpose of the workshop on street lighting this date was to inform the Board of the costs associated with street lighting, and the on-going utility costs associated with signalization.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, appeared before the Board and explained that staff had developed a standard or rationale as to where street lighting would be installed, and the discussion this date was to talk about the processes. He explained that street lighting should be considered in areas where there are accidents in which darkness was a contributing factor or in areas where, due to geometry or traffic configuration, it was necessary to improve the visibility of traffic control devices. He stated that a survey of local power companies was conducted to determine the installation and operating cost of street lights, and all of the power companies have agreed to waive the initial installation costs and only charge a monthly fee for operation.

Discussion occurred in regard to the cost comparison of lighted intersections; at which time Commr. Swartz requested that staff determine the type of lights to be installed in terms of efficiency. He further requested that staff determine if there are stretches of roads where there was a high instance of traffic accidents where lighting through a segment of a roadway may be lighted. He stated that Joint Planning Area Agreements should address the issue that street lights become the responsibility of the city when annexation into the city occurs in a location where the County has street lights. He suggested that a Municipal Service Benefit Unit be considered on the longer stretches of roadway where street lighting was necessary.

Commr. Hanson discussed the need for street lighting in the areas of Mount Plymouth and Sorrento and suggested that a policy be drafted with separate categories to address intersection lighting and stretches of roadway.

Mr. Griffey stated that eleven signs and seven flashing beacons have been added to the county inventory over the last five (5) years at a rate of approximately 3.6 installations per year, which represents an on-going operation cost. He stated that the annual utility cost for powering the signals maintained by the County was budgeted at $28,000.00 for Fiscal Year 1995-96.

Discussion occurred in regard to a unified signalization to improve the level of service, and the feasibility of entering into agreements with the cities for the operation and maintenance of traffic signals along the arterial and collector roads within their city limits. Mr. Griffey suggested that an arrangement similar to the agreement with the Town of Lady Lake could result in reduced cost and improved response for the cities as well as an assurance of efficient operation.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize staff to prepare a procedure and a policy with regard to street lighting and traffic signals; and to initiate discussions with the cities to consider maintenance of those facilities within cities along county and state roadways to better improve Level of Service standards.

The motion carried by a 4 - 0 vote. Commr. Gerber was not present for the discussion or vote.


Mr. Jim Stivender, Jr., Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and stated that the purpose of the workshop this date was to provide the Board with an update on the progress of the Stormwater Management Program, and that this workshop was the first of the quarterly updates.

Ms. Lora Bailey, Engineer III, Public Services, appeared before the Board and directed the Board's attention to the memorandum titled Stormwater BCC Workshop - July 17, 1995, which had been distributed to the Board prior to the discussions this date. She discussed the Community Rating System Program and explained that this was a positive program that was instituted by the National Flood Insurance Program to provide incentive for communities to regulate floodplain. She stated that Lake County joined the Community Rating System Program in December 1993, and was preparing to recertify for 1995. She noted that currently there are no cities in the County participating in the Community Rating System Program, and the County has volunteered to help the cities submit the paper work to join.

Ms. Bailey discussed the Pine Harbor Drainage Remediation project and explained that Phase I began in June and was expected to be completed in July.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, explained that the above noted project was the retrofit of the stormwater management system in an existing subdivision. He further explained that it was designed with front and back yard swales placed in easements, and over the years, as the plats developed, those swales disappeared due to lot grading.

Ms. Bailey noted that the first County/Cities stormwater meeting with the Cities of Tavares, Eustis, Mount Dora and Leesburg was held on July 12, 1995 to ensure application of a unified Stormwater Management Program.

Mr. Will Davis, Executive Director, Lake County Water Authority, appeared before the Board to discuss Lake Enhancement, a grant program being initiated by Lake County Water Authority to assist the cities with lake clean-up efforts. He stated that currently the Water Authority has $374,000.00 allocated for this purpose, and $300,000.00 of said amount has been targeted for stormwater retrofit, and the remaining $74,000.00 has been targeted for a fisheries enhancement project with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. He stated that the Water Authority was requesting that the Public Services Stormwater Section administer those funds to the cities.

Mr. Griffey indicated that the Public Services Stormwater Section could handle the administration portion of the stormwater program that has been approved, and requested that Board provide suggestions on how to handle the administration of said program. He suggested the option of the Board creating a citizens advisory committee, or an appointed technical committee. He stated that staff would like to bring back to the Board criteria for evaluation of the grant, as well as a procedure for implementing said grant.

It was the decision of the Board to proceed forward and participate with the Water Authority in the Lake Enhancement program.

Mr. Davis discussed Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Remapping, and stated that the Water Authority had budgeted $35,000.00 to assist with the FEMA remapping project.

Commr. Hanson stated that St. Johns Water Management District should be a player in this issue, and suggested, with the Water Authority's initiative, a partnership with the St. Johns Water Management District.

Mr. Davis stated that the Water Authority had discussed the possibility of updating the Hydrology of Lake County Study that was completed in the 1970s. He explained that the issue of ground water withdrawal, and the impact on existing public and future public supplies of Lake County was one issue of concern that the Water Authority would be targeting. He discussed the funding of the project and stated that any assistance that the County could provide would be beneficial. He explained that the Water Authority would be starting the five year project with the United States Geological Survey to make the determination that pumping water out of Lake County would be detrimental.

Ms. Bailey discussed Aerial Topographic Mapping and explained that they were continuing with a section of Lake County west of Lake Apopka.

Commr. Swartz suggested that a press release be prepared informing the public that the County was updating extensive aerial mapping for which the Water Authority had originally provided the funding.

Ms. Bailey briefly discussed a FEMA initiated Workshop that was scheduled on September 8, 1995 for the purpose of discussing floodplain management. She stated that the topic would include minimal national flood insurance plan requirements, mapping, remapping and regulating the unnumbered A Zones.

Ms. Bailey stated that the next initiative with FEMA would be a joint effort to remap all of Lake County, and the cities would be incorporated into that effort. She stated that FEMA was scheduled to visit Lake County in August or September for a "Time and Cost" meeting to prepare for remapping Lake County. She further stated that staff would like to have electronic mapping with section, township, and ranges included on the remapping effort. At this time, discussion occurred in regard to the remapping effort.

Ms. Bailey discussed Development within Flood-prone Areas and stated that there was an apparent discrepancy in FEMA's requirement to do detailed flood studies for developments within the floodplain when the flood-prone area affects five (5) or more acres or fifty (50) or more lots in the floodplain, whichever is lesser. She explained that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan specifies that detailed flood studies would be done; however, the Land Development Regulations do not, and Lake County has not been enforcing the Comprehensive Plan policy or the FEMA regulation. She stated that it was the recommendation of staff that the Land Development Regulations be amended to reflect the Lake County Comprehensive Plan policy and FEMA's requirement for a development to submit a Conditional Letter of Map Revision when they have altered the floodplain.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, stated, for the record, that a number of the major banks in Lake County have requested that the County do frequent map amendments. He explained that new federal regulations are going to require that mortgages be assessed flood insurance on people who currently do not have insurance.

Commr. Swartz stated that he could not see any reason why the County would not immediately begin enforcing the Comprehensive Plan requirement with regard to the flood-prone areas, and the necessary detailed flood studies if they develop in the flood area.

It was the direction of the Board to amend the Lake County Land Development Regulations to reflect the Comprehensive Plan policy, and to more specifically outline what was involved in this requirement; and to not sign off on construction plans until a detailed flood study has been completed, and a Letter of Map Revision application has been prepared and submitted.

At this time, Mr. Griffey directed the Board's attention to the Land Development Regulation Modifications, and discussed Floodplain Filling and Lot Grading, Section 3.02.10. He stated that staff has developed a process titled Consolidated Residential Site Plan Preparation (CRSPP) and explained that the Citizens Review Committee has addressed this issue and their outlook was somewhat different from that of staff. He stated that staff has identify two problems, and that a letter from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), dated 5-11-95, has been included in the backup material regarding DCA's perspective of the proposed changes.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Citizens Review Committee was charged with the responsibility of looking at ways in which Planning and Development Services could more effectively and efficiently process the permits that were required from those seeking governmental review and that it was not to look at the regulations and recommend changes in the regulations. At this time, he addressed the proposed language in Policy 3.02.10, Lot Grading (Attachment 9), and noted that said language was new language developed by the Citizens Review Committee.

Mr. Griffey discussed the draft language in Policy 3.02.10, Lot Grading, and stated that it was the recommendation of staff to include a requirement that finished floor elevations must be elevated at least eighteen (18) inches above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE).

Ms. Bailey informed the Board that confirmation was received from FEMA today that Lake County was to be regulating the Base Flood Elevation.

Mr. Griffey discussed the proposed Land Development Regulations revisions for Stormwater Management, Section 9.06, and explained that the current LDRs were written with the intent that the County should develop a stormwater permitting process and that the goal was to assume jurisdiction from the St. Johns Water Management District for stormwater review and approvals, and that Lake County would be the reviewing agency for developments in unincorporated areas as well as within the cities. He explained that Board direction was to reduce the number of agencies involved in said process by limiting the County's role. He stated that the Ordinance, as well as the appendix that contains the design and construction standards, was written to indicate that the County would be the stormwater permitting agency for all of Lake County and, in order to address the Board's direction, one paragraph has been added which requires a St. Johns Water Management District permit or a Southwest Florida Water Management District permit in lieu of a Lake County stormwater permit for larger developments. He noted, however, it does not address smaller projects. He stated that it was the recommendation of staff to take the approach to continue to accept the St. Johns Water Management District permit, or to take a more aggressive approach and have the plans and calculations submitted to the County for stormwater permitting. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that the County shall continue to pursue delegation of stormwater permitting from the St. Johns Water Management District and, in order to accomplish that, the County needs to modify the regulations.

Commr. Swartz questioned if there has been any indication from the St. Johns Water Management District of a willingness to delegate in the area of stormwater.

Mr. Griffey explained that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances are written to track the regulations of the St Johns Water Management District. He stated that Lake County does have a more detailed design criteria than the St. Johns Water Management District.

Commr. Swartz questioned if the requirements currently in the Lake County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations were being met within the permit that the County was accepting from the St. Johns Water Management District in regard to stormwater; at which time Mr. Griffey discussed the present permitting process.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved to authorize staff to modify the stormwater management requirements in Section 9.06 of the LDRs to clearly indicate which of the St. Johns Water Management District stormwater permits that the County would accept; and to clarify the additional requirements that Lake County may have in the code; and to insure that the check list provided to the developer outlines said changes up front.

The motion carried by a 3 - 0 vote.

Commr. Hanson and Commr. Gerber were not present for the discussion and vote.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved the staff recommendations under the LDR Modifications, Section 9.07, Flood Damage Prevention, as follows:

- No development within the Floodway.

- Fill allowed for single family residences wholly in floodplain, without requirement for compensating storage.

- Flood studies required for developments in an unnumbered A Zone where 5 or more acres or 50 or more lots are in the flood zone.

- Letters of Map Revision submitted to FEMA when flood boundaries are altered through placement of fill material.

- Finished floor must be 18" above the BFE. The County regulates the BFE, rather than the jurisdictional line of the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs).

The motion carried by a 3 - 0 vote.

Commr. Hanson and Commr. Gerber were not present for the discussion or vote.

Mr. Stivender stated that the Board had discussed at a previous workshop, the issue of accomplishing Stormwater Utility, Mosquitos and Aquatic Plants, and Stormwater countywide with interlocal agreements with the cities to provide the cities with a management system within their cities to provide a revenue source to offset or enhance what the cities already have in place. He requested permission to proceed with the discussion at a workshop on October 17, 1995 to provide the Board with scenarios in more detail.

Commr. Swartz stated that he was not sure that he would want staff to go forward with this proposal at this time until more discussion has occurred. He suggested that a more thorough review be made by Public Services, with the assistance of the County Manager and input from Commr. Cadwell, as Liaison to the League of Cities, before a workshop on this issue was scheduled.

At this time, Commr. Good opened the meeting up for public comment.

Ms. Nadine Foley, President, Lake County Conservation Council, appeared before the Board and stated that the Conservation Council was very supportive of the Board's efforts in addressing stormwater management problems. She stated that the Board could count on the members of the Conservation Council to help educate the public about the problems associated with stormwater management. At this time, Ms. Foley introduced Mr. Bob Griffin, Chairman of the Conservation Council's Water Issues Committee.

Mr. Bob Griffin, Lake County Conservation Council, appeared before the Board to express support of the County's stormwater runoff plans. He encouraged the Board to establish utility fees so that funding could be addressed.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.