The following are comments that have been received from Local Planning Agency members regarding the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

The following was submitted by LPA member Vicki Zaneis on August 27, 2007

Could you please forward these sites of interest to the other LPA members? Thank you, Vicki Zaneis

Industrial symbiosis
http://bioconversion.blogspot.com/2007/04/industrial-symbiosis-creating-eco.html

Eco-industrial parks
http://www.globallearningnj.org/global_ata/Eco_Industrial_Parks.htm

Eco-industrial parks
http://www.smartgrowth.org/casestudies/casestudy_index.html

Resource Recovery/Recycling
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/jtr/docs/parks.pdf

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on June 20, 2007

• Revised Rural Support
  
  

The following was submitted by LPA member Robert Kelly on May 5, 2007

Brian -

As you know, the LPA voted to include a specific, defined,  Ferndale area in the draft comprehensive plan as a special area plan and gave staff direction to include it on the map and as a placeholder in a specific section of the draft comprehensive plan.

I do see the defined geographical area defined on the new map, however I don't believe any policies or a placeholder have been added to the future land use element.

On April 24 this issue was brought forward at the BCC meeting with direction from the BCC for staff to follow the LPA's lead on whether/how it is included in the new comp. plan as the whole package will be reviewed by the BCC when the FLUE/FLUM are transmitted to the BCC.

I have a difficulty undstanding staff desire's to get direction from the BCC on a comp. plan issue that is being considered by the LPA which will go to the BCC for review. ??

Because we are in the cycle of writing a new comprehensive plan, the Ferndale area policies can be included in the new comp. plan without the need to go through a county ordinance process.  The policies can be considered similar to protection area policies, etc. and if appropriate, the LPA will consider including them in the new plan.

Since the last LPA consideration of the issue, Ferndale has developed policies that require consideration for the draft comprehensive plan.  Accordingly,  please put Ferndale on the LPA agenda for either May 17th or May 31st and advertise it appropriately so the LPA can consider and address this issue.  If there is any question if the issue needs to be specifically included in the advertisement, please advertise it to be safe.

If there are any issues or problems accomplishing this, please notify me and the LPA.

Please copy this email to other LPA members.

Thank you in advance,

Rob Kelly

The following was submitted by LPA member Robert Kelly on April 30, 2007

Brian - Hope all is going well.

Melissa DeMarco of Mt. Dora called me with some concern regarding the area in the JPA that the LPA modified during two meetings ago.

As the LPA requested staff to communicate the modification to Mt. Dora for review and any comment, we may need to further discuss the issue. Ms. DeMarco indicated that Mt. Dora council will discuss it at the city council meeting tommorrow.

One of the strategies that has been used by development groups in the past was to pursue changes based on the argument that the planning was not done correctly, or that the development patterns didn't make sense.

There is development pressure in the area at issue from several groups. Accordingly, we need to ensure that after all the input, the pattern makes sense so further argument for higher densities are minimized.

Please copy this email to the LPA. Let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,
Rob Kelly

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on November 30, 2006

Brian,

Thank you for meeting with me regarding DCA's comments on the Wekiva policies yesterday and today. I am optimistic that the revisions we discussed will satisfy the Department. Please let me know if you learn more about how DCA intends to look at Lake County's role in the septic tank replacement and maintenance issue, or if there is anything else we should discuss. I can generally be reached on my cell. Thanks again.

Keith Schue

The following was submitted by LPA member Richard Dunkel on November 8, 2006

Brian:

Now that the economic future of Lake County is squarely in the hands of the LPA, I am requesting the following information for the next LPA meeting:

1. We need to have the most current 100 year floodplain map for the county. Please note the date on the version.
2. The most current utility districts. Date the version.
3. The most current wetlands map. Date the version
   These maps should be the same scale as the 1:6000 ft County maps we are using. The same information should also be available as an overlay so IF we go back to the monitor view for planning all the pertinent info is right there for us to factor in.
4. I would like to have a list of all inquires to Dottie Keedy and her predecessor from firms looking to locate in Lake County.
   I would like to know the types of business, the number of employees and the size/type of facility or parcel they were interested in. Realizing some may be confidential, it maybe necessary to mask the identity of some companies.
5. I would like the same information from Derieth Sutton of the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission.
6. I would like the same information from the City of Leesburg, since they have an Economic Development office. I also think it would be a wonderful idea if all three could personally present this information and were available for Q&A.

I would also like staff to compute the number of acres that should be designated for non-ag economic development that would enable the county to achieve a 60/40 split between residential and other in tax base by 2025.

I do not believe it would be a violation of sunshine for you to share my information request with other members of the LPA. If anything, I believe it would help them determine other information that would help the LPA with this challenging task.

If you are advised otherwise I would appreciate being notified so I can discuss the rationale.

Regards,
Rich Dunkel

The following was submitted by LPA member Michael F. Carey on October 2, 2006

• Comments regarding the preservation of rural lands
  
  

The following was submitted by LPA member Nadine Foley on September 16, 2006

Dear Amye, Wayne, Brian, et al,

Here are my comments on the FLUE. I will be out-of-town from 9/18 - 9/22, so I've tried to get these to you before I leave. I will check in with you when I get back. Sorry that I will miss the regular LPA meeting - school concurrency, etc. Nadine Foley

1. In the 9/11/06 version of the FLUE why has Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento Community (Obj. 1-4) been inserted in with the text of land use categories and also in the tables? It was my understanding that Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento would be an Overlay and be in Goal FLU 8.0 "Historic Overlay Districts" as it is in the 8/28/06 version. And then, as more historic community planning would come in, they would be added to the Historic Overlay Districts. Did I miss something here? Putting Mt. Plymouth-Sorrento in with land use makes the descriptions of land use categories needlessly cumbersome.
2. In Policy 1.5.6 Office/Commerce (9/11/06 version page 1-35) I see that bullet item "Conversion of existing residential structures to low intensity professional office uses" has been taken out. I don't know why. It doesn't need to be the first bullet, could be at the end of the list, but seems like it would be logical to have it in Office/Commercial.
3. In the table for Commercial, there is no mention of Residential in the Permitted Uses column. In the text, multi-family units are allowed and also above store or office flats. These should be included in the table, too.
4. In the 9/11/06 version - page 1-39. The paragraph near the top beginning "Residential densities" - I think has a repetitive phrase in it. Then, I see all the Location Criteria and Design wording is taken out. I don't know why, but if it is to be addressed in the LDR's, then insert "location criteria" in the paragraph on "The Land Development Regulations shall......."
5. Goal FLU 2 - Wekiva-Ocala Area. I like how this Goal is organized now. On 9/11/06 version, page 1-81, I believe Wekiva-Ocala Protection Area should be Objective 2.7.

That's all for now. Thank you. Nadine

The following was submitted by LPA member Sean Parks on September 22, 2006

1. Objective 8.7  Special Area Plan/Overlay District (Page 1-119) Add to the following sentence to the last paragraph:  All SAPs must be approved by Board of County Commissioners prior to implementation.
   
   
2. Policy 1.8.10 Community Based Planning Approach to Rural Areas (Page 1-47) Revise as follows: 
   
   
3. Policy 8.7 Special Area Plan/Overlay District Revise as follows:
   
   The special area plan (SAP) is intended to be a “master plan” for large tracts of land included under a single Future land Use Category such as TN or WD.  The purpose of the plan is to provide a framework within which property owners, citizens, agencies and local governments can jointly participate in a planning process that defines the specific characteristics of development consistent with the assigned future land use category.  The SAP shall include provisions for a cohesive and functional transportation system, adequate public facilities and services, compatible and complimentary development. Development phasing and landscape design.  SAPs shall be developed through a public process coordinated by the County and involving the participation of affected stakeholders, citizens, agencies and local governments. 
   
4. Insert the following language as a new OBJECTIVE 8.2 (or where appropriate within GOAL 8.0 OVERLAY DISTRICTS):
   
   OBJECTIVE 8.2 KARLTON TRACT SPECIAL AREA PLAN OVERLAY
   Lake County shall establish the Karlton Tract Special Area Plan (SAP) Overlay to address historical piecemeal development patterns that have resulted in unfavorable outcomes. Piecemeal development is costly to the citizens and does not provide the opportunity for long term vision through a strategic planning process. The purpose of this Objective is to establish a citizen and stakeholder driven long range vision for the Southeast Lake County region that embraces the following principles:
   • Promotes conservation of Lake County’s natural and cultural resources;
   • Provides public facilities and services concurrent with the impacts from development and comply with adopted minimum level of service standards;
   • Requires all development to have no net tax burden on Lake County;
   • Promotes compact growth and development patterns that establishes a clear delineation between  urban and rural land uses; and
   • Minimizes detrimental impacts to health, safety and welfare that are caused by environmental degradation, nuisances and incompatible land uses. 
     
     

   Policy 8.2.1  Karlton Tract SAP Overlay Working Group
   
   Within six (6) months following the final adoption of this Comprehensive Plan, Lake County shall establish the Karlton Tract Special Area Plan Overlay Working Group.  This working group shall be comprised of an even distribution of citizen representatives including at least one from the “Four Corners” area, overlay area landowners or landowners’ representative, Lake County Growth Management staff member, City of Clermont staff member, and Local Planning Agency members.  It shall be lead by the Chairman of the Local Planning Agency or LPA appointed designee.  All members shall be appointed by the BCC.  Voting members of the Karlton Tract Overlay Special Area Plan Overlay Working Group shall not exceed eleven (11) in number. 
   
   Policy 8.2.2 SAP Overlay Relationship to FLUE Categories and other SAPs
   
   The Karlton Tract Special Area Plan Overlay Working Group shall create a master plan for the overlay through utilization of the Land Use Categories described in GOAL FLU 1.0.  The working group’s recommended master plan shall supersede or replace any SAPs that may be required for the TN and/or WD land use category as prescribed in Policy 1.5.1.5 and Policy 1.5.8.
   
   Policy 8.2.3 SAP Overlay Working Group Recommendations
   
   The working group shall recommend a master plan for the overlay based on Land Use Categories described in GOAL 1.0 and the following:

   1. Level of Service Standards for Police, Fire, Transportation, Stormwater, Wastewater Reuse, Public Facilities, and Parks and Recreation;
   2. Open Space Requirements and details (50 percent);
   3. Transfer of Development Rights system;
   4. Gateway Road Overlay Designations;
   5. Conceptual Public Lands Acquisition Plan;
   6. Long-range Transportation Plan for the overlay; and
   7. Average residential density. 
      
      
5. Create a noticeable difference between Clermont.  Through gate way road, open space (scenic view sheds) and commercial design criteria.
   
   
6. Reinsert Green Swamp legal description.

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on September 20, 2006

• Suggested edits on Public School Facilities Element

Hello Amye,

I am not sure who the author is for the School Concurrency element, but please accept the following input that I am submitting for consideration by the LPA, and share with the appropriate person(s). A number of the edits are for clarity, to complete sentences that are presently dangling phrases, or to properly define the subject of action, whether it be the county or school board. Other edits are more content related, for example ensuring that achieving concurrency or having a mitigation plan alone does not absolve an applicant from other growth management requirements of the Comp Plan. (Edits are highlighted in yellow and comments are highlighted in blue.)

Regarding the element's overall purpose, I noticed that in various places (especially toward the end of the document) that most of the policies are written as directives upon the school board. Since the Comp Plan is supposed to identify what the County shall do rather than prescribing the actions of other governments or agencies, I am not sure if this is completely appropriate. It is my understanding that the Interlocal Agreement is supposed to be where mutually agreed upon roles of local governments and the school board are explained.

Keith

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on September 18, 2006

• Comments regarding the Future Land Use Element

Brian,

Attached are my written explanation of comments on the revised FLUE, with suggested text. I hope this helps.

There are a few wording modification to what I submitted last week, mostly for clarity but also addressing issues that I have received input on from citizens. I will incorporate my comments into the most recent edition of the Word document that you sent me today. Let's meet this Friday at 2 or 3PM as suggested. Please respond to confirm. Thanks.

Keith

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on September 11, 2006

• Suggested edits on Future Land Use Element
• Slides depicting issues with Future Land Use Map

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on August 17, 2006

• Comments on Future Land Use Element

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on August 11, 2006

Brian,

Thank you for meeting with me today. I generally support what you are preparing for the Wekiva-Ocala area, but I still need to review it in the context of the entire Comp Plan.

Attached is a map for the Emeralda Marsh Protection Area and polices which I originally suggested for that area and submitted at Amye King's request. Within the policies you can see the original content that has since been deleted. Within the EMPA, I recommended three districts that are logically partioned by existing public conservation land. I recommended a "Core Conservation District" that is the northern areas farthest removed from developing areas and which should remain low density rural (and hopefully acquired for preservation one day to establish northward connectivity to the Ocala National Forest in Marion.) I also identified a "southern transitional area" and "eastern transitional area" that embraced conservation clustering and open space strategies appropriate as a buffer between public conservation lands and more urban areas to the south and toward Umatilla (similar to the Wekiva transitional land use strategy adopted within the WSA.) I still think this type of land use strategy has merit. Please let me know if you agree.

Regarding the issue of naming land use categories, I believe it is exceedingly important that we not allow the term "rural" to be abused, which is why I can not support it as an adjective in front of any category that provides for densities in excess of 1 per acre.

Rather than using the term "rural settlement" (which is just as much of a problem as the former term "rural village") I suggest something that more clearly describes its intended purpose which should be to place a confining "box" around those existing historically vested enclaves so that they do not become a seed for sprawl. For this reason, the name does not need to be pretty. How about "Vested Historic Enclave" (VHE)? The very real danger is that if the category's name contains the word "rural", then it will be used as an excuse to apply for the creation of more non-rural "rural settlements" in the future that proliferate piecemeal sprawl, leapfrog development, and desolution of surrounding lands that today actual are rural. (This is exactly what has happened in Orange County.) Another option would be to simply give those settlement areas a rural land use assignment even though they may have pcokets of higher densities today. As a non-conforming use, those pockets would be allowed to exist but could not expand.

The reason that the term "Rural Transition" is acceptable at 1 per net acre or less is because it clearly describes a land use intended to serve as a transition between urban areas and lower density rural areas. And if used wisely it can realistically achieve conservation objectives through the protection of significant open space. (As explained by Phil Laurien of the ECFRPC, this does not work well at higher densities.) On the other hand, if this category is defined as part of the urban land use series, then we are playing into the hand of those who will say that if we allow one form of "urban development" within environmentally-sensitive areas, then we ought to consider other urban development too. This whole issue already received much discussion by the LPA various time in the past before you started with the county. Personally I hope that we will stick to the framework of categories that the LPA has already agreed to and not revisit this topic all over again.

Let's talk some more on Monday. Thanks.

Keith

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on July 7, 2006

Hello Brian,

I have reviewed the revised Wekiva ordinance and will only have a few comments at the meeting Monday.

However I am writing to you because one of them is critical to the successful protection and management of open space within private subdivisions. In the county staff report regarding policy 1-26.6, you write "Staff recommends that the dedication conservation easements to Homeowners Associations not be allowed. Homeowners Associations generally do not have the resources or expertise to effectively manage natural areas. The Mandatory placement of physical delineation devices such as posts at a maximum of 50 foot intervals has been added so that the easement can be clearly identified onsite and that all subsequent property owners can also easily identify its location."

I agree that Policy 1-26.6 relating to the dedication and management of open space can be improved. The problem really is that the policy did not appropriately distinguish between the "dedication" of open space (such as by a protective easement held by a government agency or conservation organization) and the "maintenance responsibility" for open space which is borne by the owner. You are correct that it would be a mistake to have the conservation easement held solely by a HOA that could possibly later decide to abandon, abuse, or maybe even sell off the open space area. A protective easement dedicated to and held by a government entity (such as the county or state agency) or a third-party conservation organization is needed to ensure enforcement.

The cost and responsibility of open space management, however, is almost always borne by the title holder, which is the HOA. This is true whether the subdivision is a conventional PUD with 25% open space or a conservation development containing 50% or more open space. In either case, maintenance is paid for by HOA dues. For a conservation subdivision, a management plan should be required. And if the open space area contains rare habitat, listed species, or sensitive karst features, then that management plan should include provisions for a Qualified Management Entity (QME) that is paid for by the HOA and which becomes responsible for those special open space components. Where the open space is predominantly non-irrigated grasslands valuable for recharge but not containing listed species or rare habitat, the HOA may be very capable of protecting those areas on its own. (In fact it is usually easier than caring for the manicured unnatural open space landscapes that HOA's are responsible for today in typical subdivisions.) These determinations can be written into the specific management plan and PUD ordinance. As a practical matter, it is also really the only way to do it because obviously neither state nor county governments have the resources or wherewithall to take on the regular maintenance of open space internal to a private subdivision. Adding posts for identification may be useful, but that alone is not enough to ensure that the open space is properly cared for.

Attached is language that I suggest to address this issue and properly distinguish between what entity holds a protective easement and what entity is responsible for management. The county's latest revisions are shown in red and my suggested revisions are in blue. I would also like to refer you to some excellent literature which includes an explanation of how these very issues relating to HOA's and open space management have been successfully addressed throughout the country. Please see the link below and read the part under frequently asked questions...

http://www.greenneighborhoods.org/site/growinggreener.pdf

On another note, I should point out that your recommendation to modify the open space definition in Policy 1-26.4 to allow a general 50% credit for the area association with a golf course is what had been originally proposed by the LPA. DCA suggested that we change that to credit only natural areas of a golf course and reference BMPs, which is what we did. I agree with DCA's assessment, and believe that reverting back to the old text will likely become a problem with the Department. The concerns you raise in the county staff report regarding maintenance and implementation of BMP's are addressed by the open space management plan and use of a qualified management entity paid for by HOA dues, as discussed above.

I hope this helps...See you on Monday.

Keith

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on June 19, 2006

• Comments on the Economic Element
• Future Land Use Map Issues

The following was submitted by LPA member Sean Parks on March 8, 2006

• Comments on the Proposed FLUE

The following was submitted by LPA member Michael Carey on February 21, 2006

• Suggestions on latest draft
  

The following was submitted by LPA member Ann Dupee on February 20, 2006

So much conversation goes on is hard to keep track of it all.

On the elements, have ? if these were settled by majority or left for further discussion.

1. Not counting the lands purchased with bonded money as qualifying as recreational lands. I do not approve that none of it will be counted as there may be roads, trails, fishing piers, other public uses.
2. Sewer hookups mandatory for subdivisions over 5 years old.
3. Where is my request for bus stops in a safe place in new developments or where they are placed.

Interesting article sent on the rural in Maryland and Oregon. In all areas I see Development Rights purchases going on as an equitable possible solution but have heard nothing of that mentioned in LPA discussions or did I go to to sleep? Also enjoyed the presentation by the Gladdins ladies. You are such a talented group and glad you have them as friends and confidants! It is such fun and stimulating when you have people of like careers and interests to bounce ideas off and build to productive thoughts. It's what our council used to be!

I am concerned we stray from our charge, which is producing the plan in an economicaly feasible fashion for the county and its residents, present and future.

The following was submitted by LPA member Becky Elswick on February 17, 2006

Amye -
comment on Objective 9.1.3 Location Criteria #5:
walking or biking distance is specifically defined as "within a quarter mile" - considering that the School Board's transportation guidelines, considering safe access as a priority, address "1 mile" as appropriate walking/biking distances for elementary and "2 miles" for secondary students, should this policy expand the 1/4 to 1 mile???

Not being sure just how 1/4 mile is measured - if it is by the way the crow flies, then 1/4 might be appropriate as you traverse streets and maybe end up with something in excess of 1/4 mile when you follow the transportation route.... But, if the 1/4 mile is actually the transportation route, I think it would be appropriate to consider a longer distance.

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on February 1, 2006

• Executive Summary revisions

The following was submitted by LPA member Keith Schue on January 16, 2006

• Wekiva Comprehensive Plan Policy revisions

The following comments were made by LPA member Keith Schue on September 15, 2005

• Potable Water Sub-Element Goals and Objectives Comments
• Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element Goals and Objectives Comments

The following comments were made by LPA member Keith Schue on September 14, 2005

• Future Land Use Element Goals and Objectives Comments
• Public Facilities Element: Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Sub-element GOP Comments

The following comments were made by LPA member Keith Schue on August 16, 2005

• Public Facilities Element: Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Sub-element GOP Revisions (8/16/2005)

The following comments were made by LPA member Sean Parks on August 15, 2005

Ayme:

Regarding Future Land Use:

We are Lake County. We may want to consider a waterfront activities land-use category to be added to the urban land-use series.

Thanks

Sean

The following comments were made by LPA member Keith Schue on August 11, 2005

• Public Facilities Element: Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Sub-element GOP Revisions (7/26/2005)
  • Department of Environmental Protection Wekiva Facility Report
  • Designation of Signification Recharge Areas Map
  • Recharge 2005 Range Map
  • Recharge Spring Capture Zones and Groundwater Nitrogen Map

The following comments were made by LPA member Keith Schue on August 3, 2005

Rural Village
This designation is specifically intended to recognize existing compact, historically established communities that may have urban densities within rural parts of the county. In order to discourage urban sprawl, the county shall not expand or create new rural villages within the unincorporated area.

Clustering
The term clustering shall be defined to mean that the built area of a development is well defined and compact, thereby enabling the creation of contiguous expanses of open space and the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. A “clustered subdivision” shall contain a minimum of 50% open space over the total net buildable area, and at least 75% of the minimum required open space within a clustered subdivision shall be contiguous. Development within a clustered subdivision shall be clustered away from environmentally sensitive areas on site and away from adjacent public conservation land.

Net buildable area
The gross area of a piece of property less water bodies and wetlands.

The following comments were made by LPA member Keith Schue on July 25, 2005

• Economic Element GOP Edits (6/29/2005)
• Housing Element GOP Edits (5/31/2005)
• Recreation GOP Edits (7/12/2005)
• Springshed Policy Revisions (6/20/2005)
• Transportation Element GOP Edits (5/31/2005)

The following comments were made by LPA member Sean Parks on July 20, 2005

• The Conservation DIA should include section on description of potential impacts to ecology from development.
• The Conservation Element should contain an Objective that would require LDRs to better address wetland and/or surface water buffers. Buffers should be more stringent for new development and should be based on what type and size of wetland system occurs. For example if, a small (less than 0.5 acre), herbaceous wetland system with a dominance of nuisance/exotic species should require minimal or no buffers. Whereas, a large forested wetland should have a large buffer. Stormwater management systems and most accessory uses should not be permitted within the buffers with a few exceptions.
• The Conservation Element should address better protection of Floodplains.
• The Intergovernmental Coordination Element should have an Objective that requires coordination with the Lake County Water Authority. Specifically, coordinating with the Authority on FLUM Amendments when the subject property is within 2 miles of a Water Authority Property. This shouldn’t be unreasonable as traffic concurrency is often done within two miles of the subject property.
• The Transportation Element should define new LOS.
• The Transportation Element should have an Objective to promote/develop more bike lanes when CRs are resurfaced or constructed.
• The Parks and Recreation Element should foster and improve Eco-tourism in Lake County by developing a Park system that is natural resources based.
• We should consider corporate “adopt-a-Park” sponsorship for management.
• We need to designate one or two “signature” Lake County Parks.