JUNE 13, 2006

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 13, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners’ Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida.  Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton G. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; Jennifer Hill; and Robert A. Pool.  Commissioner Debbie Stivender was not present, due to another commitment.  Others present were:  Sanford A. (Sandy) Minkoff, County Attorney; Cindy Hall, County Manager; Wendy Taylor, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; and Sandra Carter, Deputy Clerk.


Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.


Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that staff would be bringing them a request from Procurement Services for approval of the contract for the Construction Manager to Centex Construction, for the Renovation of the Judicial Center, Detention Center, Energy Plant, Mulit-Level Parking Garage, and Tax Collector/Property Appraiser building.

Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that, at the close of the meeting, he would like to hold a short Closed Session, so that he could update the Board on the union negotiations and receive direction from them regarding same; and that he would like to have a discussion with the Board regarding property located in Tavares, on Hwy. 19, that the County was looking at acquiring.

Commr. Cadwell stated that he would like to add to the Agenda two appointments to the Lake-Sumter EMS Board, which will require action.

On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved to place said items on the Agenda.


Commr. Hanson introduced to those present Senator Carey Baker and Representatives D. Allen Hays and Hugh Gibson, as well as Lake County Sheriff Chris Daniels and representatives from various cities in the County.


Commr. Cadwell stated that, no matter how bad the political war got in Tallahassee, Senator Baker and Representatives Hays and Gibson were always there for Lake County and the Board appreciates it.

Commr. Hanson stated that she appreciated the votes they made respecting local government, noting that often that does not happen, but the three of them were there for the County right down the line.  She stated that, whether the County got the funds it wanted or not, what was more important was the fact that they supported the underlying principles and separation of powers and the respect of local government.

At this time, Senator Baker gave the Board a brief update about what occurred in Tallahassee during the last year, noting that it was probably one of the best legislative sessions in the past six years.  He stated that they felt it was best to focus on growth issues and education, therefore, spent nearly $3.1 billion for education, allowing the School Board to increase its teachers’ salaries by approximately 8%, which will go a long way towards not only encouraging people to move to the State of Florida to teach, but also for the State to retain its current teachers.  He stated that $2 billion was added to the State’s transportation budget, as well, which is going to allow the State to spend more money on S.R. 50, U.S. 27, U.S. 441, S.R. 46, and S.R. 466, among other things.  He stated that they spent approximately $500 million on affordable housing issues and there is more money for the States Attorneys and Public Defenders, to make the County’s citizens safer.  He thanked Commr. Cadwell for his role as President of the Florida Association of Counties during the past year, as well as his role in getting legislation passed that deals with the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Act.  He discussed Article V funding and the Save Our Homes Amendment.  He stated that he and Representatives Hays and Gibson work closely together and work hard for Lake County, in a team effort, and that they appreciate the Board’s input, noting that they do listen.  He stated that, if they all do the right thing, when it comes to government policy, it is good politics at the same time.  He thanked the Board for all its hard work.

Representative Hays addressed the Board and thanked the Commissioners, as well as staff, for their quick response to any questions the Senators or the Representatives may have had, noting that things happen quickly in Tallahassee and they do not have three days to wait for someone to respond to their questions.  He stated that the State approved a $5 million match for the joint library that is to be located on the Lake-Sumter Community College campus in Clermont; $1 million for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC); $1.5 million for the Umatilla Wastewater Plant; almost $270,000 for the Lake Gertrude/Johns Lake project; and money for the Harris Chain of Lakes and for the Lake Griffin dredging project, as well.   He stated that the State’s total budget was approximately $72 billion and, of that, two main items consumed more than half of it - $32 billion for education and $23 billion for health care.  He stated that they put a little over $3 billion aside for a rainy day, at which time he noted that Tallahassee has had wise spending habits and conservative management of the tax payers’ dollars.  He stated that it is money that the citizens of the State send to Tallahassee and it is the Florida Legislature’s responsibility to utilize it wisely.  He stated that another thing they were able to do was get funding for a study of the Wekiva River Basin, as it relates to septic tanks in that area, noting that the Department of Health was trying to superimpose data from a study that was done somewhere else in the State, but they asked that it be site specific.  He stated that one of the things they have facing them is the challenge of planning for the State’s growth over the next 15 to 20 years, noting that, between now and the year 2050, it is projected that the State is going to have four million new residents just in the seven counties that comprise Polk, Lake, Osceola, Orange, Seminole, Volusia, and Brevard.  He stated that the counties cannot continue their land management and utilization principles, as they have in the past, noting that, if they do, it has been projected that they will consume in new urbanization about 1.6 million acres of land.  He stated that a lot of the leaders in said counties got together and formed a group called myregion.org, which is something that they, at the State level, are going to have to support, encourage, and fund, to get the different counties and cities thinking in a regional format, because the decisions that are made in Lake County are going to affect the other counties in the region, as well, and they have got to get into a cooperative, mutual type mind set and work toward regionalization.  He stated that he is trying to get involved with myregion.org as much as possible and would encourage the Board to do the same thing.  He thanked the Board for all their help and support.

Representative Gibson addressed the Board and discussed the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), noting that the County received $1.4 million for it and they hope to be able to tap into several more million and come up with a nice EOC.  He stated that, after having spent nearly all his life in public safety, it was a nightmare to see what the County has to work with.  He discussed the issue of health care and funding for it, at which time he noted that the State has been working on Medicaid reform, which he elaborated on, noting that, rather than putting it in 67 counties, they only put a pilot program in two of the counties – Duval and Brevard.  He stated that there are going to be some radical changes, noting that they are going to change how people are placed in nursing homes and how emergency rooms operate and they will be visiting HMOs.  He stated that the House of Representatives and the Senate are going to need to work together, regarding the issues of Medicaid and Medicare, which is important for the people of Florida.  He noted that they have put a lot of money away, should the State not have a good year next year.

Commr. Cadwell discussed two issues that Senator Baker and Representatives Hays and Gibson did not cover, which he feels are very important to local government, being impact fees and annexation language.  He stated that it was a good year for local government, noting that they came away with some things that did not particularly make the cities or the County happy, but it was good legislation, and the Board appreciated their efforts.

Commr. Pool stated that he appreciated what Senator Baker and Representatives Hays and Gibson have done for Lake County, noting that the environment they have created is going to benefit everybody.  He stated that he feels they are doing a good job.

Commr. Hill stated that she would reiterate what the other Commissioners stated, but that she would like to thank Representative Hays for taking a serious look at growth management, noting that it had been discussed for years and years and, when he became one of the County’s representatives, he made some very difficult changes, but the County has benefited from them and will continue to benefit from them.  She stated that she appreciated his efforts and noted that she will be working very closely with Representative Gibson, since she is on the Health Care Committee, which she looks forward to.


At 9:40 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 10:00 a.m., in order to enjoy some refreshments provided by the County and to allow the public to meet and mingle with Senator Baker and Representatives Hays and Gibson.



Ms. Carol Stricklin, Growth Management Director, addressed the Board stating that, as staff has been preparing the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which is a long-range plan to direct growth in the County, there has been a lot of discussion among staff, as well as the community, about how to plan for development of specific geographic areas and do planning that is more detailed than the Comprehensive Plan, but less incremental than looking at development on a project by project basis.  She stated that Mr. Geoff McNeill, Vice President of MSCW, Inc., who has prepared numerous area master plans, as well as sector plans, which is a specific type of plan authorized under the Florida Statutes, which includes the Horizon West Project in Orange County, was present to give the Board a presentation about various types of area wide planning techniques.  She stated that, at the conclusion of his presentation, staff would like to have some direction from the Board, as to whether or not they would like for staff to bring them back a proposal for doing some area wide master planning for Lake County.

Mr. McNeill addressed the Board stating that projections were run a couple of years ago on growth in the United States and its ability to handle growth and it was determined that, in the next 20 years, there is going to be a population growth of between 50 and 60 million people in the United States.  He stated that, only about 18 million of that 50 to 60 million will be handled in in-fill development, because of current policies and the time it takes to handle redevelopment and in-fill development, so the remaining 30 to 40 million people will have to be handled in green field development.  He stated that the issue is not that the County is going to grow, but how it is going to grow – what will the residents have when they arrive in 2050 and what will our children’s children have, in terms of a legacy.  He stated that the County has to go beyond the Comprehensive Plan and beyond 20 years, at which time he noted that myregion.org is looking at it on a regional scale.  He then gave the following power point presentation:

Why Sector Planning?

·         To provide a vision for how a community/area sees itself now and at full build-out.

·         To support innovative and flexible planning and sustainable development strategies.

·         To address sprawl and incremental development by evaluating trends and shaping community patterns.

·         To evaluate impacts to regional resources and facilities.

·         To allow for middle-range planning for areas smaller than a county comprehensive plan, but larger than zoning, PUDs, or DRIs.

·         To shape Community Patterns, which encompass land use, land ownership, transportation networks, open space, environment, and public realm-“place making”.


            Defining Sector Plans


            Two Types:


                        1.  Optional Sector Plan, defined and regulated by Florida Statute, Chapter 163.3245.      

                        2.  Others are defined by a geographical area.


            Florida Optional Sector Plans


·         Authorized by F.S. 163.3245 in 1996.

·         Initiated by the local government in agreement with DCA.

·         Address large geographic areas, or “sectors” (minimum of 5,000 acres).

·         Two phases:

                  1.)  conceptual, long-term build-out overlay

                  2.)  detailed specific area plans

·         Sector plan adopted as a comprehensive plan amendment eliminates requirement for DRI process.


            Process Per Statute


            1.)  Agreement

·         Defines the geographic area.

·         Identifies planning issues.

·         Identifies requirements for intergovernmental coordination.


            2.)  Conceptual Overlay

·         Includes a conceptual framework map.

·         Conveys design guidelines and principles that address urban form.

·         Identifies public facilities and natural resources.

·         Includes procedures for intergovernmental coordination.

            3.)  Specific Area Plan

·         Minimum of 1,000 acres (within the sector plan).

·         Identifies and analyzes the distribution, extent, and location of future uses.

·         Identifies public facilities and natural resources.

·         Addresses intergovernmental coordination procedures.

            Mr. McNeill discussed the Levels of Planning and how it can be applied and the Types of Plans, as follows:

            Comprehensive Plan


            Identifies goals, objectives, and policies for the twenty-year growth and development of a city or county (defined by Florida Statute).


            Middle-Range Plan


            Area Plan smaller than comprehensive plan, but larger than zoning, PUD, or DRI.  Provides specific planning for a defined geographic area, to shape future development patterns.


            Middle-Range Plans:


            Sector Plan


            Creates a build-out vision for a defined area via a collaborative comprehensive planning process, which includes public and private participation.


            Framework Study/Small Area Plan


            Recognizes and protects the unique character of an area with a strong identity, viewsheds, and transition from urban centers to rural edges.


            Corridor Study


            Examines land uses between two geographic points, along a route used for the transport of people or goods.  Corridor plans consider both land use and transportation issues.


            Rural Plan


            Aims to protect the character of rural areas by preserving scenic views, wildlife and natural areas, forests and open fields.  Typically encourages clustered development served by water and sewer.


            Mr. McNeill stated that the State provided for five initial optional Sector Plans, as follows, which he reviewed in detail with the Board:


            Optional Sector Plan Projects

            Horizon West, Orange County


·         Located in southwest Orange County

·         66,000+ acre study area (38,000 acres in Orange County)

·         Three counties, three cities, one special district involved

·         First Florida DCA-approved sector plan

·         A public-private partnership

·         Used shared visioning and consensus building define and prepare the plan

·         Implemented as a comprehensive plan amendment

·         Village Land Use Classification requires all property to be developed into independent, self-sustaining villages

·         Each village to be 1000-3000 acres and contain 2-4 neighborhoods, with a mixed-use village center as prototype

·         Each neighborhood to be approximately 500 acres, with neighborhood school/park as focal point


            Bay County


·         75,000 acres around West Bay in Bay County

·         Public-private partnership initiated the process, in response to proposed relocation of airport

·         Aimed to guide growth and direct economic development, while protecting critical natural resources

·         Florida DCA-approved sector plan

·         Plan calls for preservation of conservation area networks bordering West Bay and its tributaries

·         Designed an industrial and commercial regional employment center complementary to airport

·         Residential villages to be building blocks of neighborhoods, as urban villages and low-intensity villages


            Palm Beach County


·         57,000 acres in central western Palm Beach County, known as Central Western Communities

·         Area contained low-density rural residential subdivisions and 13,000 acres of citrus groves

·         Population of 32,000 in 1999, projected to grow to 55,000 by 2015

·         Primary issues identified:

-          Balancing land uses and preserving rural lifestyle, while planning village and town centers

-          Planning for regionally-significant public facilities

-          Planning for preservation of regionally-significant natural resources

·         Four years pending comprehensive plan amendment approval

            Other Types of Plans

            North Jacksonville Vision and Master Plan


·         147,300 acres, including Jacksonville International Airport, JAXPORT seaport facilities, core industrial base, and critical environmental resources

·         Process undertaken to guide growth and protect natural resources

·         Used shared visioning and engaged multiple interest groups to develop long-term vision

·         Identified hierarchy of places to create a town center and several village centers

·         Identified 65,600 acres of critical lands to be preserved and designated 5,200 acres to comprise greenway system

·         Implementing through guidelines, rather than comprehensive plan policy


            St. Johns County NW Sector Plan


·         80,000 acres west of I-95 and east of the St. Johns River

·         Addressed growth and development pressures in northwest St. Johns County

·         Originally 2 corridor studies, turned into sector plan

·         Called for designation of future employment centers, regional mixed-use centers, greenways, greenbelts, and blueways

·         Adopted as comprehensive plan amendment


            Lessons Learned


·         Sector planning requires commitment and patience

·         Provide incentives to encourage better design, open space and conservation, and public realm – “place making”

·         Vision must be unique to the area

·         Estimate infrastructure priorities early in process (beyond twenty years)

·         Maintaining citizen support for original vision throughout build-out is critical to success

·         Plan must focus on graphic vision

·         Plan must include trend analysis context for understanding the vision

·         Plan should address key performance and design guidelines, not policy

·         Plan should lay groundwork for finance mechanism to implement vision

·         Best used in greenfield areas

·         Success strongly influenced by number of properties and property ownership patterns



            Sector Plans:

·         Create a vision for full build-out

·         Combine growth management policy with community patterns in middle-range planning

·         Create alternatives, in context for incremental development approvals

·         Can be initiated publicly or privately, but require public participation and public-private partnership

·         Optional sector plans best used in greenfield area


            Current Status

            Orange County

·         Three villages and Town Center approved

            Bay County

·         Second SAP in progress

            Palm Beach County

·         Pending BCC transmittal

            North Jacksonville

·         Specific design guidelines being drafted, corridor studies being conducted, implementation ongoing

            St. Johns County

·         Adopted plan, implementation ongoing


            Discussion occurred regarding the sector planning process and the Horizon West project, at which time Mr. McNeill answered questions from the Board regarding same.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she has been very frustrated with the County’s Comprehensive Plan process, because she feels it is anything but comprehensive.  She stated that it is very fragmented and is one development after another, with no sense of community and no attempt to develop a sense of community.  She stated that even the Comprehensive Plan that staff is working on now is based upon using the same tools that the County has always used to get where it is now and the County is not developing in a coordinated comprehensive manner.  She stated that the County has got to do something different that what it is doing now, which she elaborated on – it is not too late.  She stated that it may be too late for some parts of the County, but those areas can be retrofitted at some point in the future, noting that there are planning tools available that the County did not know about earlier.  She stated that she was not sure the County realizes that time and land is running out and that it is critical that the County look at preserving land and 50% open space and making sure that it is contiguous and meaningful; otherwise, they are wasting their time and the County will continue to develop and look like the City of Clermont.  She stated that times change, the Board’s thoughts change over time, and the economic situation changes, noting that the County is not in the same situation that it was in 15 years ago, when all the freezes wiped out the citrus industry, making land available so close to the City of Orlando.  She stated that, in 1990, the County did not have a future land use map (FLUM), but they do know things today, so things can change, if the Board and the community have the will to do so.  She stated that the County needs to look at build-out, at which time she noted that there is a fear of what the County is going to look like 20 years from now, or 50 years from now.  She stated that the County can take charge and develop a plan, or it can sit back and do what it has always done.  She stated that, even though the County has a Comprehensive Plan that is being changed and will eventually be approved by the State, she feels it is not the type of plan that the County will be proud of in the future.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, when the County finishes its Comprehensive Plan, he would like for staff to create a map showing that it will work.

            Ms. Stricklin interjected that the County will have a new Comprehensive Plan in place that will provide an overall framework that will be more effective than the current Comprehensive Plan and will show how the County will develop in specific geographic areas.  She stated that staff was before the Board to seek that direction, so that they can begin to identify those areas and write that framework into the Comprehensive Plan.  She stated that staff would like to proceed with sector planning for specific areas, noting that it will become one of the tools, along with the rural area planning and the historic villages that the Comprehensive Plan will lay out, as implementation strategies, when the plan is adopted.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he was willing for the County to move forward with some type of a work program that the Board could look at and approve.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the Board could initiate sector planning, or optional planning, and that it could be added into the Comprehensive Plan, without destroying it or slowing it down, because it is just a tool.

            Commr. Pool stated that the Board has an opportunity to take a good look at the areas that concern them, so it is important that they authorize staff to begin the plan, as requested, noting that, if they do not do it, they will regret the outcome of their failing to plan for the future.

            Ms. Stricklin informed the Board that the next thing that would need to take place is a worksession, where they would look at specific areas where sector planning might occur, which would be based upon property owner interests and the context of where those growth pressures are, and staff would bring back to the Board a listing of areas where that technique might be appropriate, along with a potential schedule and the resources needed.  She stated that most of the large scale studies are done with consultants and there are some costs associated with it, which staff would identify for the Board.

            Commr. Pool interjected that he felt a retreat, where a variety of issues could be discussed, in a relaxed atmosphere, would help the Board more easily formulate opinions, as the County goes forward.

            A motion was made by Commr. Pool and seconded by Commr. Cadwell to move forward in developing a work program and plan for pursuing master planned communities for Lake County.

            Under discussion, Commr. Cadwell stated that he did not think it was bad planning to wait until the Comprehensive Plan is done and questioned whether Ms. Stricklin, as a planning professional, thought those things could be done at the same time, with her identifying parcels.

            Ms. Stricklin stated that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be in place, as the policy framework, before sector plans can be fit within it.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he wanted to make sure that the work gets done that the County has been working on and that the Comprehensive Plan is ready to go.

            Commr. Pool stated that he hopes the Board can take the information from the Comprehensive Plan and utilize it to the best of their ability and have the planners help them with the goal that they want to achieve.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote.


            At 11:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for 10 minutes.



            WE GROW?”

            Mr. Phil Laurien, Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), addressed the Board stating that the second workshop that was held by the ECFRPC was the spring board from which the local input – the maps that were made by the residents of Lake County - will be used to make a composite map of the future vision of the County, which is then going to be synthesized into the other six counties in the region, which are Osceola, Seminole, Orange, Volusia, Polk, and Brevard, as part of the myregion.org effort.  He then gave the Board a power point presentation, reviewing the following:

·         Looking forward, we know the region will grow

·         4 million newcomers will be here by 2050

·         2000 population:  3.05 million for 7 counties

·         2050 projected population:  7.2 million

·         We have choices as to how we grow

            Mr. Laurien stated that the study that was conducted by the University of Pennsylvania Urban Design Studio of the seven county areas that were looked at started with population data, noting that they looked at the existing population and then to the year 2050 and saw those additional four million people that are expected to come to the region.  He reviewed some important things to consider, with regard to existing transportation, as follows:

·         Transportation is dominated by over 26,000 miles of roadways

·         94% of the region’s commuters are auto-dependent

·         4 independent public bus systems, LYNX, SCAT, VOTRAN, AND WHAT, are funded through general taxes

·         26th largest metropolitan region, with 12th largest airport

            Mr. Laurien stated that, with regard to commuting patterns, some things to consider were:

·         80% of work trips within the region are intra-county trips

·         33% of work trips are to and around Orange County

            Mr. Laurien stated that the region is not set up like many areas of the country, in that it does not have a concentric city center, surrounded by rings – it has a variety of off-set centers of population, which plays into a very interesting article that was in the Orlando Sentinel recently that looked at the most expensive commuter cities in the United States and the City of Orlando was ranked No. 3, with No. 4 being Jacksonville, and No. 5 being Pensacola.  He stated that he was very surprised to see that, questioning where Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. ranked, noting that Atlanta was ranked near the top.  He stated that the region currently has an imbalanced transportation system, at which time he reviewed the following:

·         The existing bus systems have a steady rider base and provide reliable service

·         Bus system to bus system connectivity is limited, and inter-system service is non-existent

·         Existing mass transit proposals have limited scope

·         The transit systems are not sufficiently designed for a key market:  tourists

            The conclusions of the Penn Design study, regarding the transportation issue, are as follows:

            The magnitude of growth projected for the area will overload a road system that is already highly congested.

            Transit would strengthen existing centers, anchor future growth, relieve strain on the road system, and help protect the air quality and fragile ecosystem of Central Florida.


            Mr. Laurien stated that we have choices in the matter, noting that Choice No. 1 would be to do nothing and just continue with the existing development patterns; however, if we do, the pros and cons of it are that we know how that looks and works.  He stated that one of the cons is that the 2005 Penn Design study found that current low density development patterns are land consumptive.  He then reviewed the following:

·         In 1993, there was an average gross residential density of 1.56 dwelling units per acre in the seven county region.


·         By 2000, average residential density had dropped to .99 units per acre, which is a 33% increase in the amount of land needed to house the same population.


·         In 2000, there was a total of 849,350 acres of developed land.


·         1.16 million acres of additional developed land will be needed by 2050 to accommodate 4.15 million new residents under current development patterns.


   Low density development patterns are expensive to service.


·         The Penn Design study estimated it cost $90,000 per acre to provide roads, utilities and other services to newly developed land with current development patterns.


·         Developing the 1.16 million acres of new land by 2050 would cost $104 billion.


      Penn Design also found that:


·         If we change development patterns to allow higher densities on just 25% of the land area, then 420,410 acres could accept the 4.15 million new residents.


·         Most of that higher density could be in townhomes and low rise apartments.


·         The cost savings on infrastructure alone would be enough money to buy all environmentally sensitive lands in all seven counties and pay for a transit system in the high density corridors.


      If we continue existing patterns, it is a matter of local choice how we grow, but there are regional consequences:

·         Traffic.  Low density development is a traffic generator, causing 10 new trips for each new home per day.  Our roads become congested and, ultimately, result in gridlock.


·         Alternative, mixed use development can generate as little as 4 trips per home per day.  60% less traffic!


            Mr. Laurien stated that Choice No. 2 would be to consider alternative development patterns and, if so, which ones would the County want to consider, where would they go, and who gets to choose?  He stated that this leads to the discussion of “Smart Growth”, which the American Planning Association defines as follows:

·         “A collection of planning, regulatory, and development practices that use land resources more efficiently through compact building forms, in-fill development, and moderation in street and parking standards.”


·         One of the purposes of Smart Growth is “to reduce the outward spread of urbanization, protect sensitive lands, and, in the process, create true neighborhoods with a sense of community.”


·         Maryland enacted “Smarth Growth” legislation in 1997.


·         Maryland directs state growth related expenditures into locally designated compact growth areas.


      Smart growth can mean:


·         Conservation subdivisions in rural areas, rather than large lot subdivisions.


·         Traditional Neighborhood Developments in urban areas, which is a mixture of stores, offices, residences, schools and related public facilities within walking distance of each other in compact neighborhoods (gave examples of each).


·         Our oldest Florida cities were based on pedestrian scale, walkable communities with public green space, and mixed uses.


            Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Design


·         Architects such as Andres Duany and his firm DPZ of Coral Gables, Florida, are a school of planners who advocate a return to traditional neighborhood design in new communities.


·         They call this “neo traditional design”, taking the best design cues from our best historic communities.


      What is a neo-traditional design?

      It is:

·         Formal land design

·         Rich architectural details

·         Dense core

·         Grid streets

·         Mixed uses

·         Guidelines for architecture, materials, and common open space

·         Distance from the center of a neighborhood to its edge is ideally ¼ mile, or a five-minute walk.


            Traditional Neighborhood Details:

·         Mixed Uses.

·         Tree Lawns, Streets, Sidewalks and Curbs.

·         Typical Density:  4-6 units per gross acre for moderate density TNDs, with 2-3 story structures.

·         Much higher densities for urban town centers.

·         Minimum house front setbacks (0-15’).  Houses with 0’ setback are masonry construction.

·         Maximum front setback – 15’ from sidewalk, for porch.

·         Lots on street closest to the Transect “Core” have shallowest setbacks.  Increase setbacks as you move outward.

·         Privacy/party walls.

·         Garages:  Accessed by alleys, or set 10-12’ behind building line for front load garages.  No snout houses!

·         Streets:  Wide enough for on street parking, at least on one side.  ROW typically 60’ with curb and gutter. (Historic and Traditional Neighborhoods)

·         Architecture:  Using formed-based codes to describe architectural style and building materials.

·         Housing mix:  Single family, multi-family, multi-story and architectural detail create character that works with higher density, to create an attractive urban compact design.

·         Central public open spaces are essential as relief from higher densities. (Historic and Traditional Neighborhoods)

·         Useable centralized open space.

·         Pedestrian scale.


            Mr. Laurien reviewed a traditional neighborhood design concept that he created for a community called Sunbury, which is a town center that was platted in 1811 and looks much like Mt. Dora, as well as a neo-traditional big box design that was zoned in the early 1990s, in Liberty Township, in Central Ohio, that is a predominantly residential, mixed-use development four stories in height, formed in the shape of a crescent.  The building shape embraces an upscale shopping street with views of public gardens, soccer fields, and tennis facilities, with the parking area for the residents being located behind the building in tree-lined courtyards, rather than vast seas of asphalt.  He then discussed alternative development policies, questioning the following:

·         Should they be an option in our community?

·         What are the benefits?  Reduced costs, preserved green space, reduced auto trips, if transit can be incorporated in limited high density corridors.

·         What are the tradeoffs?  Higher density in some areas.

·         Bottom line:  It is still a matter of local choice in Florida.

            Mr. Laurien then reviewed a game that people were asked to play at a couple of workshops that were held recently, showing on maps what they feel the region should look like in 2050, by indicating with dots where they felt high density, low density, green spaces, infrastructure, etc. should be located.  He stated that his next task will be to take those maps, create a composite, and show the Board a vision of what the County’s residents would like for the County to look like in the year 2050, which he noted he will bring back to them at a later date.  He stated that it will become part of the canvas for the next event in myregion.org, which will be in late September or early October, and, at that time, the Board will have the ability to play with said maps, using computer aided technology (Paint the Region), which will allow them, as well as the residents and elected officials, to keep adjusting the future, until they create a final vision that they like.

            It was noted that the final vision selected by Lake County residents in the round two workshops (Fall, 2006) may guide elected officials in their contemplation of future Lake County development patterns, and, to accomplish a better development pattern result in 2050, Lake County and its cities may wish to amend their comprehensive plans to incorporate their long-range vision from the myregion project.

            Discussion occurred regarding traditional neighborhood designs and conservation subdivisions, at which time Commr. Hanson stated that several years ago the Board looked at creating an ordinance that would include the traditional neighborhood design, but that staff at that time had a difficult time getting there.  She stated that the templates are in place, so she feels it would be very easy to include it in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), as an option.  She stated that she would like to have Mr. Laurien come back to the Board with another presentation at a later date and that she would like to see the County incorporate traditional neighborhood designs and conservation subdivisions, by whatever means it takes.

            Mr. Laurien stated that the County could mention in the Comprehensive Plan that it encourages the traditional neighborhood design.

            Commr. Hanson stated that she just wants the County to do whatever it needs to do to make sure that developers know it is acceptable and to encourage both of those types of developments.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned whether the County was in the process of doing anything like that now and was informed by Ms. Amye King, Deputy Director of Growth Management, that staff is working on policies for both the conservation subdivisions and for the traditional neighborhood design for the Comprehensive Plan and that those drafts are going before the LPA at the present time.  She stated that staff would be happy to bring the matter forward in a workshop, or staff could continue working through those policies with the LPA and bring the entire document forward to the Board at a later date.

            Commr. Hanson suggested that staff give the Board an update on what it currently has and to continue to work on it with the LPA.

            Ms. King stated that it was staff’s intent to have workshops with the Board during the month of July and go through those policies.


            At 12:10 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and would reconvene at 12:40 p.m.



             Mr. Jim Bannon, Director of Facilities Development and Management, addressed the Board stating that the County has not received a proposal from the City of Clermont, related to their present library, but that staff has had discussions with their City Manager, Mr. Wayne Saunders, about the library and that he believes the City would propose to be responsible for dealing with all the issues related to the exterior envelope of the building, as well as the exterior landscaping and property associated with the building, and that the County pay for any improvements and upgrades to the interior of the building.  He stated that staff looked at the building and came up with an estimate of $1.8 million to fix up the interior of the building, which he noted was distributed to the Board this date.  He stated that it is a conservative estimate, which is based upon gutting the building, and that it includes the cost of professional services, furniture, fixtures, and equipment.  He stated that it comes out to approximately $120.00 per square foot, so it is staff’s opinion that it would be an expensive undertaking.

            Commr. Cadwell questioned the County’s share of the joint library that is being constructed at Lake-Sumter Community College and was informed by Ms. Wendy Breeden, Library Services Director, that the cost of said project is estimated to be $13.5 million.  She stated that the County has already given the college $5 million, which the State has matched, and the County will be receiving a $500,000 public library construction grant, as well.  She stated that staff will also be coming before the Board at the June 20th meeting for $500,000 in library impact fees, for a total of $11 million from the County, of the $13.5 million estimated cost.

            Commr. Pool stated that the City of Clermont, as well as its citizens, has always enjoyed Cooper Memorial Library being downtown.  He stated that it is an expense that the County does not have in the budget, however, noted that he feels the scenarios are on the high side.  He stated that the City does not have to have a Taj Mahal, but a building that is functional.

            It was noted that the size of the current library is 7,200 square feet, compared to the Lake-Sumter Community College library, which is proposed to be 53,000 square feet.

            Commr. Pool stated that he felt the County could invest some dollars to maintain the presence of a children’s library in downtown Clermont, noting that he would like to see at least a portion of the Cooper Memorial Library stay downtown.

            Ms. Breeden stated that a third of the library could be used as a community room, the way the building is laid out.

            Commr. Pool stated that he feels there should be more of a partnership, rather than the County doing it all.

            Mr. Bannon stated that the dilemma the County has is that they are working up estimates based on just looking at the building, and what was presented to the Board this date is the best estimate that staff can give the Board at this time.  He stated that, if they were to look at giving the Board more estimates, they would need to get a consultant on board and get a series of different estimates for different scenarios and then come back to the Board with new numbers.

            Commr. Pool questioned whether the County has the ability to extend its lease one or two more years on the existing facility and whether that time frame would allow the other building to open, to see what type of user-ship there will be.

            Ms. Breeden interjected that the project’s completion date is August of 2008.

            Commr. Pool stated that the City of Clermont has always envisioned a library in the downtown area, noting that it is something that has always been there and it is tough to have it go away.  He stated that there are some hard feelings involved with it and a lot of people would not be happy, if the site were to be abandoned in its entirety, which is why he was trying to come up with some idea for a partial utilization of the building and a better partnership with the City, as the County moves forward.

            Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager, City of Clermont, addressed the Board stating that the City has proposed to gut the existing building completely, leaving a shell, and put a new roof on it and then the County could do what it would like, to accommodate a library on the inside.  He stated that there may be something in between that would be a best case scenario, but that he felt what is being proposed would be the way to go, to take the next step and come up with a plan to make the building a useable library.

            Commr. Pool questioned whether the Board felt there was an opportunity for the County to meet the City halfway, noting that, if they were to meet halfway, he would prefer to keep the library, in some capacity, in downtown Clermont.  He stated that it may not be the library the City once had, but some form of a library in the downtown area, and, if it is not going to be successful, based on the new library, they need to make other plans, as they go forward, noting that it will still be a useable building for the City.

            Mr. Saunders stated that they have to have a starting point and the City Council felt the proposal was a legitimate one.  He stated that he would be happy to take any ideas the Board might have back to the Council and talk to them about it.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he felt the Board needed to consider how the County’s relationship with the other partners was going to be affected, which he elaborated on.  He stated that he worried about how it would affect the whole system, therefore, feels that the second scenario that staff brought forward is the one that makes sense, noting that the initial cost to the County would be the moving in cost and the furniture expense, but the ongoing operation would be as a city library, who is a member.

            Commr. Hanson concurred, noting that the situation has changed from when the County made the agreement with the City of Clermont, and she feels that many of the County’s residents will use the new library at Lake-Sumter Community College – the joint use library, as opposed to the downtown Clermont library.  She stated that it would probably be used exclusively by the citizens of downtown Clermont, which makes sense, and another very real possibility is that the other cities would want the same type of relationship, which would not be cost effective for the County.

            It was noted that the lease on the current library is expiring and will have to be renegotiated.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the City could take the existing library and make it into a community center and library, but that it would be their decision to make.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that, once the Board decides it is a relationship that the County needs to have, the City can make their own decision regarding whether to remodel the Cooper Memorial Library and keep leasing it, or whether to do something else downtown.  He noted that the City would get the reimbursement that the County does for all the other cities in the County, for the one library that it would have, which would be a partner library.

            Mr. Saunders stated that, when the Cooper Memorial Library Board entered into an agreement with the County, they transferred all the assets - the books, computers, etc. and questioned whether the Board was talking about transferring all those assets back to the City.

            Ms. Breeden interjected that the City did give the County their collection of books, but that she was not sure the County would want to relinquish all of it, because then there would be no collection for the joint use library.

            Commr. Hanson stated that the County has got to find some equity in that and give it back to the City, or determine what the value of the collection was when the County took it over, compared to how strong it has gotten since then.

            Mr. Saunders stated that there are a lot of hard feelings about the matter, as Commr. Pool alluded to earlier, noting that the people that transferred all those assets did so with the idea that there would be a downtown library from now on.  He stated that, if the Board wants them to go back to where they were four years ago, the City is going to want all of that stuff back.

            Ms. Breeden informed the Board that, in the agreement that the County has with the Cooper Memorial Library Board, the County has the right to relocate the library and also to rename it.

            Mr. Saunders stated that, if the Board was saying that the County was going to move the library out of the downtown area and take all the assets with it, and, if the City wants a library, it will have to build one and put all the books back in it itself, that was being a little extreme.  He stated that, if that is the direction that the County is heading in, he would think that the assets that were in the library, when the Cooper Memorial Library Board, in good faith, transferred it to the County, with the idea that there would be a library downtown, would remain downtown.

            Commr. Hanson questioned how much money was put in the new rental space and was informed that it was almost $400,000.  She stated that that would be a trade-off, too, because, obviously, the situation was where they could not remain as a library for any period of time, so the County put money, also in good faith, into it.

            Mr. Saunders stated that, if everyone involved realized that the County was going to have to put $400,000 into that building, they would have just closed it down for six or eight months and spent that money on the old building.

            Commr. Pool interjected that, as the District Commissioner, he was told that it was not cost effective to refurbish the building.  He stated that he felt that was the way to go, but was told that the library needed to vacate the building.

            A motion was made by Commr. Pool that the County split the cost of the building 50/50 with the City, but the motion died for lack of a second.

            A motion was then made by Commr. Cadwell and seconded by Commr. Hill that the Board have staff present Item No. 2 - Member Scenario, contained in the City of Clermont’s proposal for the Cooper Memorial Library, dated April 17, 2006, to the City, as the County’s first option, and then wait to hear back from the City regarding it.

            Under discussion, Commr. Pool stated that, whatever the Clermont City Council decides to do, the collection issue needs to be resolved one way or another.  He stated that he might not support the motion, but that he did not want anyone to think that his “No” vote was not in favor of trying to help the City and support the library.

            The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried, by a 3-1 vote.

            Commr. Pool voted “No”.


            PARKING GARAGE

            Mr. Jim Bannon, Director of Facilities Development and Management, addressed the Board stating that the purpose of this presentation was to look at the future use of the proposed parking garage – whether the Board envisions it being used exclusively by the public, or whether they envision it being used by employees, as well.

            Mr. Bob Egleston, Project Manager, HLM Design Heery International, Inc., addressed the Board and gave a brief overview about what the parking garage is all about, noting that it is meant to serve the entire campus of buildings and to take into account any deficits that currently exist in the parking count.  He stated that, when the campus is expanded, the parking garage will take care of all the expansion parking required for all the new buildings, so the question is how the Board wishes to operate the parking garage, noting that, up to this point in time, the Board has allowed all the parking to be free.  He stated that, on the site plan, the parking behind the courthouse will be designed for staff, so it will be reserved parking, not open to the public.  He stated that the balance of staff will park in the garage, along with any other public that will be coming to the courthouse, or any of the other downtown campus buildings.  He stated that there are three options that HLM sees as being open to the County, the first being that it can allow the garage to continue to operate in a free mode, where everybody can come and go as they like, but the risk to that is, because of its proximity to other downtown buildings, other downtown patrons might utilize the garage.  He stated that, hopefully, there will be enough parking to accommodate an overflow, because of the parking requirements downtown.  He stated that the next option would be to have a partial pay, or validation system, where one would take their ticket, if they are downtown on county business, and get it validated, giving them free parking, noting that anybody else would be charged for parking.  He stated that the third option would be that everybody pays, except jurors, at which time he noted that he would highly suggest that anyone reporting for jury duty be free from payment, noting that they can use their jury summons to validate their ticket.  He stated that, under the free operation, all there will be will be maintenance costs for the garage, but, under any of the pay scenarios, there will be an operational cost, in managing the garage and having a cashier to manage the cash flow.  He stated that, if the Board were to choose this date to operate the garage as a free, or pay garage, they could incorporate it now, or they could wait a number of months, or even after the garage is built, if the County decides later on that it is not working and they need to add a cashier’s booth.  He stated that it can be done outside the confines of the garage, so it will not impact the day to day operations.  He stated that, whatever option the Board chooses, they will want to make sure that they designate reserved parking areas for staff, at which time he noted that it has been suggested by the constitutional officers that their parking spaces be towards the back of the garage, because the citizens come first in their minds.

            Commr. Cadwell stated that he was not in favor of charging people to park in the garage and that he felt the public parking should be on the lower levels, with staff parking on the upper levels.

            Commr. Pool concurred, noting that he feels free parking is the way to go.

            Commr. Hill questioned the safety aspect of parking in a public garage and was informed by Mr. Egleston that, because all the parking is concentrated in one area, and, because the Courthouse is next door, if the Board decides to place a security system and cameras in the garage, it can be monitored from the Courthouse, in the Central Control Room.  He stated that there are some security issues that the County will want to make sure it takes care of, being good lighting and good visibility, which he elaborated on, noting that it is something the Board will need to think about.

            Commr. Pool suggested that the garage be constructed in such a way that a few more floors could be added in the future, should there be a need to do so, which would lessen the imprint and impact to the City of Tavares.

            Mr. Egleston stated that his staff looked at that scenario, however, noted that it would be a two tray garage – one lane down and one lane back, which is somewhat inefficient, in building a parking garage, because the County would be paying a lot of money for just a single loop around.  He stated that the problem is that, from the north property line to the south property line, there is not enough width available to get a full width parking garage in that location, noting that it would have to shift way over to the west, which would affect the future expansion of the two buildings.

            Commr. Hill questioned whether the issue of stormwater had been addressed for the construction projects and was informed by Mr. Egleston that they had taken a quick look at it, but that it would continue to develop as the courthouse expansion takes place, and the nice thing about the garage property is that, because it is set so far back off of Texas and Sinclair Avenues, there is a nice buffer for doing stormwater work.  He noted that they will be addressing the stormwater issue for the entire campus.

            It was the consensus of the Board that parking will be free in the parking garage.

            OTHER BUSINESS



            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, stated that this request pertained to a lease agreement with Strickland Warehouses, LLC, for office space for the Supervisor of Elections.  He stated that the space consists of 10,000 square feet of warehouse space and 4,000 square feet of finished space, all air conditioned.  He stated that it will replace the current space that the Supervisor of Elections has at the Golden Triangle Shopping Center.  He stated that it involves a fixed five year lease, but allows the County to cancel, if the money were not to be budgeted, so, if the County had a change in the Supervisor of Elections, who did not want to use the facility, the County could cancel the lease.  He stated that it calls for an increase each year of the CPI, or 4%, whichever is less, and the rental rate is $12.25 per square foot, to start.

            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board approved a request from the County Attorney for approval of a lease agreement with Strickland Warehouses, LLC, the owner being Ralph Strickland, for office space located on Rossiter Street, in Mt. Dora, for the Supervisor of Elections’ Support Center.



            Mr. Sandy Minkoff, County Attorney, informed the Board that the property owners of a parcel of property located at Main Street and SR 19 that the County recently made an offer on rejected said offer.

            It was noted that the County had offered $300,000 for said property, but that it would not be submitting any further offers, in that it is felt what the property owners are wanting for the property far exceeds what the County is willing to  pay.






            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that the Board had before them a copy of the Centex Contract for the Construction Manager for the renovation of the Judicial Center, the Detention Center, the Energy Plant, the Multi-Level Parking Garage, and the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser buildings.  She stated that the contract indicates the pre-construction lump sum fee is $600,000 and the final construction cost of the project will not be determined until the completion of construction documents, at which time they will come back to the Board as an amendment, for approval.

            Commr. Hanson declared a conflict of interest, stating that she would be abstaining from the discussion and vote, due to the fact that one of her sons works for Centex Construction.

            On a motion by Commr. Pool, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 3-0 vote, the Board approved a request from Procurement Services for approval of the contract for the Construction Manager for RSQ No. 05-094 to Centex Construction, for the Renovation of the Judicial Center, Detention Center, Energy Plant, Multi-Level Parking Garage, Tax Collector, and Property Appraiser Buildings.  The Pre-Construction Lump Sum Fee will be $600,000.00, inclusive of a Document Reproduction Allowance of $100,000.00.  The final construction cost for the project will not be determined until completion of the construction documents and negotiation with Centex on the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP).  The GMP will be brought to the BCC as an amendment to the contract, requiring BCC approval before construction begins.

            Commr. Hanson had declared a conflict of interest, therefore, did not vote on the motion.



            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, informed the Board that approximately 100,000 of the County’s NACo (National Association of Counties) Prescription Drug Discount Program cards have come in, which will be put in government offices, libraries, health centers, the Health Department, participating pharmacies, etc.  She noted that the program is scheduled to begin July 1, 2006.


            NACO AWARDS

            Ms. Cindy Hall, County Manager, stated that the County has won two NACo awards, one of them being for the Sharps Disposal Program, a program that was brought to the County’s attention by Mr. Jack Fillman, Chief of Administration, Department of Public Safety, regarding the safe disposal of objects having the potential to puncture or lacerate, at which time she distributed to the Board a flyer regarding same, for their perusal; and the other one for the Home Heating Oil Recovery Program, which was initiated by Mr. Charles Cox, Environmental Specialist/Lead Storage Tank Inspector, Water Resource Management, Department of Environmental Services, and Mr. Mike Bowers, Division Director, Water Resource Management, Department of Environmental Services, at which time she noted that, thus far, they have recovered 3,300 gallons of oil from 47 homes in the County.  She stated that a Press Release will be sent out regarding said awards and, hopefully, those individuals will be able to go to Tallahassee and accept the awards.




            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Pool and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board reappointed Mr. Cecil Shumacher to the Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Board of Directors, as a Citizen Advocate.




            On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Hill and carried unanimously, by a 4-0 vote, the Board appointed Mr. Ken Mattison, President, Florida Hospital Waterman, to the Lake-Sumter Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Board of Directors, as the Hospital Representative and CEO of Florida Hospital Waterman.



            Commr. Hill informed the Board that she recently attended a Central Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization (CFMPO) meeting that was held at Bok Tower, in Lake Wales, and that she felt Mr. T. J. Fish, Executive Director, Lake-Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organization (LSMPO), who also attended said meeting, would be giving the Lake-Sumter MPO a report at their next meeting.



            Commr. Pool stated that he attended a planning conference last week at Disney’s Coronado Springs Resort and that the County’s planners were there talking about how the Commissioners perceive and interpret information provided to them by the planners and how they work, collaboratively, with them, as a group.  He stated that commissioners from other counties attended the seminar, as well, and that it was very interesting to hear each of them talk about their various staffs.



            Commr. Hanson stated that the East Lake County Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring their First Annual Mt. Plymouth/Sorrento Pause for the Pledge at VFW Post 10474, located at SR 46, in Mt. Plymouth, noting that, since 1980, the Annual Pause for the Pledge of Allegiance has been observed around the Country, as citizens recite the 31 words of the Pledge, at 7:00 p.m. EDT, as a patriotic gesture and a statement of unity.  They are asking that, if anyone cannot join them in person, they remember to pause where they are and join them in spirit, on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 6:45 p.m.  She noted that the VFW will present a Flag Retirement Ceremony, as well.

            CLOSED SESSION

            It was noted that immediately following the adjournment of this meeting, the Board would meet in a Closed Session, to discuss union negotiations.


There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m.


                                                                        CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN