The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in special session on Monday, October 16, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in the Board Meeting Room, 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. Staff members present were: Sanford A. Minkoff, County Attorney; Sue Whittle, County Manager; Mary Shell, Executive Assistant to the BCC Office Manager; Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development; Greg Stubbs, Director, Development Regulation Division; Paula Blazer, Environmental Programs Branch Supervisor; Ken Stewart, Water Resources Engineer; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

JOINT PLANNING MEETING BETWEEN LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS, CITIES AND SCHOOL BOARD

It was noted that approximately 22 individuals were present representing the cities, and no one was present representing the Lake County School Board.

Commr. Gerber called the meeting to order and stated that Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Planning and Development, would be presenting a report.

Mr. Bergmann addressed the Board and stated that the city planners, and the County planning staff, had met on October 6, 1995. He noted that Mr. Greg Beliveau was the Chairman of the Lake County Planners. Mr. Bergmann stated that he had already received sign offs from some of the cities, as to their boundaries for the utility service area, and he was working on a utility paper. He noted that the Board had a Memorandum dated October 12, 1995, from Mr. Beliveau, regarding Joint Planning Area (JPA) amended language for notification and delegation, and a Memorandum from Mr. Jim Barker, Environmental Management Director, regarding the utility issue paper service providers meeting.

Mr. Beliveau addressed the Board and stated that the Professional Planners met on several occasions in an effort to try and come to some consensus with as many cities as possible, on the following four tasks: 1) what geographic areas were going to be discussed, and to define a joint planning area, or a utility service area, and to come to a definite boundary; 2) how to deal with development within that area and how was there going to be coordination between the County, the utility providers, and the cities; 3) the County Comprehensive Planning process and amendments/annexations; and 4) the land use and/or designations within JPAs, or utility service areas. Mr. Beliveau noted that the County Planning staff had given a deadline of August 31, 1995, for the JPA information to be submitted to staff. He thought that most of the cities, if not all, had responded back to the County, as to what areas they were considering for the JPA, and land use options. Mr. Beliveau noted that the most difficult component to reach a consensus on was the geographic areas. He thought that most of the cities had resolved their conflicts, but had yet to hear from the City of Clermont, as to the area between Clermont and Minneola. He referred to the Memorandum dated October 12, 1995, and stated that, as far as a consensus regarding the Cooperative Review of Development Application process, it had been determined that it be done on a front end loading basis, which he explained involved a form from the County that dealt with utilities and would be included with all project or permit applications. Mr. Beliveau discussed the Annexation/Comprehensive Plan Amendments process and explained, in detail, the steps on how the County would delegate to the Cities, upon annexation, all regulatory, zoning, and development/construction standards, permits, and approvals, noting that the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, FLUM designation would be the only guide for the Cities prior to the Cities amending their FLUM and Comprehensive Plans. He stated that all of the cities, except Eustis, would take the County's Comprehensive Plan and use it, as the overlaying densities, and annex accordingly, until such time the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) approved their amendment. He noted that Option 3, on Page 2 of the Memorandum, would be used by the City of Eustis, and/or other cities, so that they could negotiate with the County and specify designations within the JPA. He stated that the City of Eustis had already extended their land use designations beyond the City.

Commr. Swartz discussed locational criteria for commercial and stated that the sprawling commercial corridor development did not stop at the County line in either direction. He felt it would require, as proposed in "C", for it to be done in such a way that, whatever zoning and/or land uses that were done, it would lead to some conclusion that would protect what locational criteria was designed to do, and it would not continue to strip.

Mr. Alton Roane, City of Eustis, addressed the Board and explained that, when a city annexed a piece of property, it became a part of the city, and city police, fire protection, etc. would apply, but until the city amended its Comprehensive Plan, DCA had formed the incongruous opinion that the County's land use regulations would still apply. He explained that it was difficult enough to keep up with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Development Regulations (LDRs), but the City was being placed in a position where it would have to review any development that occurred under the County's regulations, and therefore, the question would be "who was actually in charge". He stated that the City of Eustis had suggested that some type of system be developed where, within the cities joint planning areas (JPAs), the cities and the County would work together to develop compatible land use categories within those JPAs, so that whenever the City of Eustis, or any other city, annexed a piece of property, the land use category that was assigned to the property within the city would be essentially compatible with the land use category that the County had assigned to that piece of property when it was in the County, or that it would not be inconsistent with what the County had assigned to it prior to it being annexed. Then when it went to DCA, the category that was being assigned, the density and intensity of the land use being assigned, would be essentially the same as it was in the County, therefore, if DCA had approved the land use categories, they should have no problem with it. Mr. Roane stated that this could be accomplished by the city developing the land use categories around its city and into the JPA in a manner in which it felt would be consistent with the best development of the city, and the County then adopting those land use categories, or a compatible land use category, into the County's Comprehensive Plan, or the County could have on its Future Land Use Map the joint planning areas outlined, and a notation that the land use categories within this area were the same as those adopted by the City of Eustis, or any other city, for this area. Mr. Roane addressed the issue of the LDRs and stated that there would be no major conflicts in the LDRs. The primary conflict would be in the density and intensity. He stated that there would have to be a stipulation in the JPA that, at the time of annexation, the city's LDRs would apply, and this was the type of stipulation that DCA had implied that, if this was put into the agreement, so that there was no confusion, it would be fine.

Discussion occurred regarding the utility issue paper, as outlined in the Memorandum dated October 10, 1995, from Mr. James Barker, Director of Environmental Management.

Mr. Minkoff explained that, for the utility issue, the County may want to change its codes to adopt whatever requirements ultimately were agreed upon, because it was possible that some of the cities had different requirements in terms of when someone was required to hook up and when someone was not required to hook up.

Mr. Bob Williams, Attorney, in behalf of the City of Tavares, and Lady Lake, appeared before the Board and addressed Mr. Roane's comments. He stated that he liked the idea of the Advisory Land Use Designations where the cities could work with the County to develop intensities, and land use densities, and land uses for the areas that surrounded the cities. Mr. Williams stated that an agreement that would allow the cities to apply their LDRs upon annexation would be a benefit to the city, but there were instances where a property might develop in the County, but the city might have an interest in having at least some of its LDRs applied. He explained that this happened in the City of Tavares when it provided water service to a development outside of the city limits, under an agreement by them, to annex when they became contiguous. He stated that the City of Tavares allowed them to covenant to annex by signing a recordable covenance, so that when they did become legally contiguous, they could become a part of the City. Mr. Williams stated that the City of Tavares had utility lines that extended well beyond its city limits, and it did provide service to areas beyond the city limits. He stated that he would like the County to consider, in the areas where the City provided service under a covenant to annex, allowing the City's LDRs, where they were more restrictive, to be applied. Mr. Williams addressed four important issues regarding utility services for all of the providers that provide outside of their city limits, as follows:

1. Will the County require development that develops along existing lines to mandatorily connect?

2. For those cities that currently require annexation as a condition of providing service, will you help us enforce that covenant in support of annexation.

3. We need to form a practical, workable definition of what constitutes availability.

4. How do we handle impact fees, and payment of impact fees, for forced connections, or forced developments.

Mr. Williams stated that the memorandum from Mr. Barker was discussed at the City Attorneys' meeting. He noted that Mr. Barker's definition of availability still left a lot of questions, and he felt it could pose some hardships for some potential types of development.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Sorrento area had the potential of having a fairly high density and no provision for utilities, and the natural provider would probably be Mount Dora, but she did not foresee the Sorrento area being receptive to the utilities, but at some point it would have to be addressed without the annexation.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, if the area fell within the JPA, then the annexation requirement was there, but if a city chose to go outside of that area to provide it, the issue needed to be considered in a different manner.

Commr. Swartz reviewed the draft of the utility service area for Lake County and stated that it would be much easier to require new development to connect, and to be required to annex, if that was legal. The existing developments, if they were having some problems with existing water or sewer, it would be easy to require them to connect, but those that were single family developments on large tracts with wells and septic tanks and no problems, it would be difficult to make this requirement.

Discussion occurred regarding economic availability and the need for the definition to be established for "availability".

Mr. Bergmann explained that the information before the Board was a draft for consideration and would require follow up.

Commr. Swartz felt that the Board had agreed upon including conceptually Items A, 1 and 2, as they were presented to the Board, in an agreement that the Board would want to start putting this together.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved, in the October 12, 1995 Memorandum from Greg Beliveau to Paul Bergmann dealing with JPA language, that Items A, 1 and 2 conceptually be included in further discussions for development of the JPAs, as follows:

A) Cooperative Review of Development Application

1) All project or permit applications that are processed by Lake County shall include the appropriate documentation (forms and check list) for coordination with the franchise or municipal utility provider. All projects would have an executed form by the utility provider prior to acceptance of the application by Lake County.

2) The County, at the time of "application" or "pre- application" would forward a copy of the entire submittal package to the designated contact person of the utility provider. The submittal package would also advise the representative when the scheduled review would be held by the County and the due date for comments to be received. The utility provider would then forward comments and attend all staff and public hearings, if needed.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Swartz, to approve the recommendation in Item B, 1, as follows:

B) Annexation/Comprehensive Plan Amendments

1) The City Planners and Planning Commissioner were unanimous in their recommendation that the County delegate to the Cities, upon annexation, all regulatory, zoning, and development/construction standards, permits, and approvals.

Under discussion, the difference between B. 1 and B. 3 was clarified, with it being noted that 1 would be dealing with annexation and 3 would deal with advance planning on how the area would develop.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

Discussion occurred regarding the areas with signed covenants to annex, with it being noted that most of the development criteria in the cities were more rigorous than the Countys, and there was the question of who would administer the regulations, the County or the city.

Mr. Minkoff stated that the County could clearly delegate the authority to the city to do the permitting, and it would be up to the city to worry about whether they had a Developer's Agreement, or some type of method to pay for the improvements.

Discussion occurred regarding the possibility of the County requiring additional development requirements in areas that more closely corresponded with the cities requirements. Commr. Swartz felt that A. 1 needed more study and discussion because, if the County required the cities to handle all of the permitting, the County could put into place a MSBU that would provide for some of the funding for street lights, storm water management, and sidewalk repair, which would reduce some of the fiscal impact.

Commr. Swartz made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Good to authorize staff again, as the County worked toward putting together a draft, to include conceptually alternatives outlined in B. 2, stopping after the first sentence, and Number 3, as two options toward developing those JPAs, as follows:

B) Annexation/Comprehensive Plan Amendments

2) That the Lake County Comprehensive Plan, FLUM designation would be the only guide for the Cities prior to the Cities amending their FLUM and Comprehensive Plans.

3) In the event that a City and Lake County both adopt an "Advisory Land Use Designation" within a JPA area, these designations will be at a similar or less intense use than the corresponding Lake County FLUM designation. These designations would be utilized at the time of annexation and for Land Use when the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment is processed. The City's zoning and land use designation at the time of annexation would be consistent with or less intense than the "Advisory Land Use Designation".

Under discussion, the Board addressed several issues including locational criteria and access management.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote.

Discussion occurred regarding C and whether it was intended for areas that were not annexing.

Mr. Mark Gechman, City of Tavares, addressed the Board and stated that a road system was being put together for the area between Eustis, Tavares and the unincorporated area. He stated that, if staff could work the plans out with the property owners, through a joint planning area agreement, these types of road systems could be formalized.

Mr. Mike Stearman, City of Eustis, addressed the Board and explained that area studies were being done with several of the cities and the County, and as they were completed and brought back to the cities, there was the possibility that a separate agreement might be done. He did not foresee these to be essential in the JPA at the moment, but after the JPA was done, the cities would come back and add master plans, which would require everyone to amend their Comprehensive Plans for the level of services.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in those areas that were not annexing, and in those areas that may have a master plan completed, the County may turn over more of the responsibility for all of the zoning regulatory development standards and permits.

Mr. Bergmann explained that, if a master plan was developed, whether an area was annexed or not annexed, it would piece meal and break the system apart, so that a road network could not be implemented, or a drainage system could not be developed.

Commr. Swartz stated that, in that context, Section C was fine, but he proposing an expansion of C, or a Section D, which would say lets go even further with the development of the master plans, and it would be in the development of those further master plans whereby it might be appropriate to give up even more regulatory and zoning development construction standards review in those areas.

Commr. Swartz stated that C in the Memorandum to Mr. Bergmann was fine, as a concept for the overall road, and for those types of access management infrastructures related to those. He suggested a "D" that tried to deal with areas that were either not immediately annexed, or might be annexed relative to a covenant, but might be some time down the road, but that, through some type of master plan, the concept that followed in B. 1 for areas that were annexed could be applicable in those areas, too.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Hanson and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to include C as part of the draft consideration of the joint planning agreement, as follows:

C) Recommend the development of master plans for roads, access management, and other infrastructure by cities, county and other agencies needs to be included in the Joint Planning Agreement. Adopted master plans would then be implemented by the local jurisdiction.

Mr. Williams stated that, when the cities that he represented annexed property, it was generally along County roads, and there was a question about the road right-of-way, and whether it came into the city. He felt there was not any question at all, because he did not think that the road came into the city. He stated that the cities were faced with situations like at the Tavares Middle School, which was in the City of Tavares, but the road was not, and there were issues where the police may be on a road that was outside of their jurisdiction, if they were enforcing traffic laws, or making arrests. He felt that a good way to cure this would be to include in the agreement that, if a city annexed property that was contiguous to a County road, that the County consented to the city annexing, only for purposes of being in the city, the contiguous right-of-way at that same time.

Mr. Minkoff stated that he sent to all of the city attorneys several joint planning area agreements that were in the files, mostly from Orange and Seminole counties, and one of them had the requirement, as stated by Mr. Williams. He stated that there were some procedural things, when the Board gets its first draft, that had not been addressed, which would include such issues as addressed by Mr. Williams. He stated that there would be a corresponding requirement that the city would have to annex the right-of-way when it took the adjacent property as well.

Commr. Gerber discussed several dates to be considered for the next joint meeting. After some discussion, it was noted that the joint planning meeting would be held on January 22, 1996, at 9:30 a.m.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously by a 5-0 vote, the Board approved to make sure that both the County's staff, and the groups that were meeting, reviewed, in more detail, for example, items brought forth by Mr. Williams, and secondly, that the issue of giving further delegation of regulatory zoning, development construction standards, permits and approvals be considered in such areas as described by Mr. Williams, either where there was a covenant to annex, or in areas where some type of further development of master planning had occurred.

It was noted that Mr. Minkoff and the attorneys would start working on the language for a draft, and try to put language to the areas that were approved by the Board.

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

RHONDA H. GERBER, CHAIRMAN

ATTEST:

JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK

TMR\BOARDMIN\10-16-95\10-27-95