BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
April 10, 2018
The following is a non-verbatim transcript
of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, April 10,
2018, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE
COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD,
FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Present:
Chairman
John Horan (District 2)
Vice
Chairman Lee Constantine (District 3)
Commissioner
Robert Dallari (District 1)
Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)
Commissioner Brenda Carey (District 5)
Clerk
of Court & Comptroller Grant Maloy
County
Manager Nicole Guillet
County
Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy
Clerk Kyla Farrell
Father Gilbert Medina, All Souls Catholic
Church, Sanford, gave the Invocation; and Chairman Horan led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT
The
Business Spotlight video for Big Tony’s Chopp Shop was presented.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Agenda Item #1 – 2018-0652
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to
adopt a Proclamation recognizing Master Chief Petty Officer Charles J.
McDevitt, Jr., United States Navy, Retired, as Seminole County’s April Veteran
of the Month.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Master Chief Petty Officer Charles J.
McDevitt, Jr., addressed the Board and expressed his appreciation.
Commissioner Constantine asked Ed Burford,
Veteran Services Officer, to inform the Board of the impact the Veteran of the
Month presentations have had on the community.
Mr. Burford addressed the Board and discussed how the Veteran of the
Month is selected and thanked the Board for having this type of presentation for
veterans.
-------
Agenda Item #2 – 2018-0660
Motion by
Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to adopt a
Proclamation declaring the week of April 8 – April 14, 2018, as National Animal
Control Officer’s Appreciation Week in honor of those who protect and support
animals in Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Carol Coleman, Animal Services Manager, accepted the
Proclamation and thanked the Board for the recognition. Commissioner Dallari commended the Animal Control
Officers for doing such a tough job so well.
-------
Agenda
Item #3 – 2018-0662
Carla Wilson and Brian Wilson addressed
the Board to present an appreciation award from The Humane Society of the
United States to the Board. They thanked
the Board for all of their work on the bear ordinance, greyhound ordinance, and
puppy mill ordinance.
-------
Agenda Item #4 – 2018-0616
Motion by Commissioner Constantine,
seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt a Proclamation declaring the month of
April 2018 as Water Conservation Month in Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Debbie Meinert, Water Conservation,
accepted the Proclamation and stated the St. Johns River Water Management
District (SJRWMD) is awarding 27 cost-share programs for recipients all around
the district, and the County is number 17 so they are being awarded that right
now from SJRWMD. The award is for the
cost-share program which is going to provide the County with the University of
Florida’s H2O tool, which is a software that is going to help the County figure
out if their conservation programs are effective and how efficient they are and
what direction they would need to go if something isn’t working.
Commissioner Dallari asked when they can
actually see the results from the new software.
Ms. Meinert answered she believes they will get results within six
months to see how it is working, and it is going to connect with some of the
other entities in the county, like the Property Appraiser’s Office. She noted it is only for County use at the
moment, but in the future there will be a portion of it that is customer
friendly.
Ms. Meinert discussed a new program they
are implementing to help people determine whether or not their toilet has a leak. She handed out a door hanger that has two
tablets attached to it with instructions on how to use the tablets. She confirmed that staff distributes the door
hangers into the community.
-------
Agenda
Item #6 – 2018-0633
Motion
by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt a
Proclamation declaring the Month of April 2018 as Springs Protection Month in
Seminole County.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Kim
Ornberg, Watershed Management, addressed the Board and discussed the importance
of springs. She thanked the Board for
always being supportive of protecting the springs.
-------
Agenda Item #5 – 2018-0629
Motion by
Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt a Proclamation
declaring the week of April 8 – April 14, 2018, as National Public Safety
Telecommunicators Week.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Lou Tomeo, Undersheriff, addressed the Board and expressed how
proud he is of the work his staff does day in and day out and briefly described
their job responsibilities.
Don Harkins, Public Safety, addressed the Board and stated he is
responsible for planning analytics and information technology. They are on the verge of selecting a new CAD
system that will shave seconds off of processing calls as they receive them in
emergency situations, and seconds make a difference in lives for his
department. He thanked the Board for
their help with the new CAD system.
Commissioner Dallari explained the County is investing quite a
bit of money into their towers and radios, and this CAD system is really the
last critical piece. Chairman Horan
pointed out they recently received $1 million from the State to upgrade the CAD
system. Commissioner Henley described a
recent event where he called 911, and commended the County’s emergency people
for their great work.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Nicole
Guillet, County Manager, stated there is one add-on item, Item #18A, which is authorization
to conduct some additional work related to the Rolling Hills environmental
assessment.
Motion by Commissioner Carey,
seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to authorize and approve the following:
County Manager’s Office
Business Office
7. Approve
travel and mileage reimbursement to Commissioner Lee Constantine for
miscellaneous travel from January 2018 through March 2018. (2018-0657)
Development
Services
Planning
& Development Division
8. Approve the plat for the Brookmore
Estates Phase 2 Subdivision containing seventeen (17) lots on 13.90 acres zoned
PD (Planned Development), located on the north side of Chapman Road, approximately
4,000 feet west of Alafaya Trail; Chad Moorhead, Applicant. (2018-0628)
Environmental
Services
Business
Office
9. Authorize the release of Maintenance Bond
(Water & Sewer Facilities) #1961796M in the amount of $36,052.67 for the
Bellevue subdivision; and Maintenance Bond (Water & Sewer Facilities)
#58732478 in the amount of $20,270.46 for the Aloma Trails subdivision. (2018-0654)
Public Works
Engineering Division
10. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-47 and a
County Deed releasing the County’s interest in the subject area being acquired
by FDOT (Parcel 137.4) for the State Road 429 (Wekiva Parkway) Right-of-Way
Project. FDOT FPN 240200-4. (2018-0631)
11. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-48 and a
County Deed releasing the County’s interest in the subject area being acquired
by FDOT (Parcel 138.4) for the State Road 429 (Wekiva Parkway) Right-of-Way
Project. FDOT FPN 240200-4. (2018-0630)
Resource
Management
Budget
& Fiscal Management
12. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
appropriate Resolution #2018-R-49 implementing the Budget Amendment Request
(BAR) #18-038 through the Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) Program Fund
to transfer a fund advance of $5,700 to cover expenditures for Horseshoe Lake
(North) Aquatic Weed Control MSBU. (2018-0646)
13. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
appropriate Resolution #2018-R-50 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR)
#18-039 through the 2014 Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund to re-allocate budget in
the amount of $372,999 from Project Contingency for Hurricane Irma repaving
projects. (2018-0641)
14. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-51
implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-040 through the BCC Health
Insurance Fund to recognize revenue received from BMG Money, Inc. in the amount
of $5,000 for the Seminole County Wellness Program. (2018-0642)
15. Approve
and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-52 implementing
the Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-041 in the net amount of $652,809
through the General Fund and Fire Fund to appropriate budget of $708,000 from
Reserves for the Telephone System Refresh project. (2018-0647)
Purchasing
& Contracts Division
16. Approve
Amendment #1 to RFP-601670-13/TLR - Seminole County Medical Director with Todd
M. Husty, DO PA, Oviedo, with an estimated annual amount of $229,726
plus an annual increase not to exceed 3%; and authorize the
Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Amendment. (2018-0596)
17. Approve the
ranking list and authorize staff to negotiate rates in accordance with Section
287.055, Florida Statutes, the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA);
and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute one (1) Master
Services Agreement (MSA) for PS-1802-18/RTB - Miscellaneous Capacity and
Safety Improvement Evaluations (Estimated Annual Usage of $350,000). (2018-0645)
18. Approve
the ranking list and authorize staff to negotiate rates in accordance with
Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act
(CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute four
(4) Master Services Agreements (MSAs) for PS-1709-18/RTB National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Engineering Services (Estimated
Annual Usage of $400,000). (2018-0573)
18A. Approve Amendment #4 to Work Order #21
(Response to FDEP Comments on Rolling Hills Golf Course) under PS-9738-14/JVP –
General Environmental Consultant Services Agreement with E Sciences, Inc.,
Orlando, in the amount of $33,604.60; and authorize the Purchasing &
Contracts Division to execute the Work Order Amendment. (2018-0674)
With regard to public
participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the
Consent Agenda and public input was closed.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER’S CONSENT
AGENDA
Clerk
& Comptroller’s Office
Motion by Commissioner
Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the following:
19. Approve
Expenditure Approval Lists dated March 12, 19 and 26, 2018; Payroll Approval
Lists dated March 8 and 22, 2018; and the BCC Official Minutes dated February
27 and March 13, 2018. (2018-0650)
Districts 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
The
Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk & Comptroller’s
“Received and Filed”:
1. Executive Order #2018-1 declaring a state of
local emergency and establishing a local burn ban.
2. Florida Public Service Commission Consummating
Order #PSC-2018-0152-CO-EQ re: Petition for approval of renewable energy tariff
and standard offer contract, by Florida Power & Light Company, Docket
#20170226-EQ, issued March 20, 2018.
3. Cash Maintenance Bond for water and sewer
improvements, and Maintenance Escrow Agreement, for the project known as
Highland Memory Garden, in the amount of $3,122.
4. Performance Bond #0173341 (Roads, Drainage,
Water, Sewer, Hardscape & Landscape) for the project known as Lake Florence
Preserve, in the amount of $603,743.10.
5. Subrecipient Agreement for Program Year
2017-2018 with Goldenrule Housing & Community Development Corp., as
approved by the BCC on 6/10/14 in connection with the Interlocal Agreement with
the City of Sanford regarding the administration of their CDBG funding.
6. CDBG Program Subrecipient Agreement for
Program Year 2017-2018 with United Cerebral Palsy of Central Florida, Inc., as
approved by the BCC on 7/25/17.
7. Addendum #1 to Development Order #17-20500028,
and Developers Commitment Agreement #17-20500019, for Certus Senior Living PD;
Daniel H. Dittmer & Dustin D. Dittmer CO TRS et al.
8. Addendum #1 to Developers Commitment Agreement
for Isola Commercial Center PD; Longwood – 1, LLC.
9. Bill of Sale accepting the off-site water and
sewer system for the project known as Highland Memory Garden.
10. Conditional Utility Agreement for water and
wastewater services between Seminole County and Mud Hole Custom Tackle, for the
project known as Oviedo Commercial Center.
11. Conditional Utility Agreement for water and
wastewater services between Seminole County and Spring Tree Village Apartments
II, LLC, for the project known as Spring Tree Village Apartments, Phase 4.
12. Parks Contract for Services with Ethan Brewer,
Sergeneno Rankin, and Catherine Jolley.
13. Work Order #8 to PS-0157-15 with S2L, Inc.
14. Change Order #3 to CC-1252-17 with Linton
Enterprises, Inc.
15. Work Order #2 to RFP-1294-17 with Pat Lynch
Construction, LLC.
16. Change Order #3 to CC-1342-17 with Corinthian
Builders, Inc.
17. Change Order #2 to CC-1369-17 with Dager
Construction, Inc.
18. Change Order #1 to CC-1458-17 with Linton
Enterprises, Inc.
19. PS-1522-17, Master Service Agreements (3) with
Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI), Ardaman & Associates, Inc.,
and Tierra, Inc; as approved by the BCC on 12/12/17.
20. Amendment #7 to M-6607-11 with The Triece
Company.
21. Work Order #13 to CC-9184-13 with Affordable
Development.
22. Fourth Amendment to IFB-602230-15 with Cypress
Supply, Inc.
23. Bids as follows:
PS-1405-17
from DRMP, Inc.; Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.; CDM Smith, Inc.; Cribb
Philbeck Weaver Group, Inc.; Metric Engineering, Inc.; and
RFP-603047-18
from Charles Aquatics, Inc.
REGULAR
AGENDA
Agenda Item
#20 – 2018-0627
Mary Robinson, Planning & Development
Division, addressed the Board and presented the request as outlined in the agenda
memorandum. Commissioner Constantine
noted it is a wonderful event.
Motion by
Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the
Special Event Permit for the Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra Concert at 400
Woodbridge Road, within the Springs Association recreation area, to be held April
28, 2018, with rain-out day on April 29, 2018, subject to staff’s recommended
conditions of approval; Carl Rendek, Orlando Philharmonic Orchestra, Inc.,
Applicant.
With
regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in
opposition and public input was closed.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Agenda Item
#21 – 2018-0655
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded
by Commissioner Carey, to approve a reduction to the Code Enforcement Board
lien of $11,325, for Case #04-69-CEB, to the total administrative costs of
$627.37 on the property located at 225 Temple Avenue, Fern Park, Tax Parcel
#19-21-30-507-0B00-0040, owned by Todd Powell; require this reduced amount to
be paid within thirty (30) days or the lien will revert to the original amount
of $11,325; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Release of Lien upon
payment in full; during the afternoon
session (page 114), the Board approved a waiver of the Administrative Costs
of $627.37, which would be a total
waiver of Code Enforcement Board lien of $11,325, and authorized the
Chairman to execute the Release of Lien on the property located at 225 Temple
Avenue, Fern Park, Tax Parcel #19-21-30-507-0B00-0040, owned by Todd
Powell.
With
regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in
opposition and public input was closed.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY
MANAGER AND STAFF BRIEFINGS
Agenda Item
#22 – 2018-0659
Ms.
Guillet stated at the
last commission meeting, there
was _.Á1_a discussion regarding the rural area. One
of the follow-up items
that the Board requested
and what staff committed to
bring before the Board
was _.Ů1_an update
and _.Ý1__.Ţ1_summary of
the rural boundary. She
explained this is an institution
that's been in place
in some form or fashion
since 1977, so staff thought
it _.÷1_might be
beneficial for folks to
get _/$1_a brief
history of the boundary.
There are actually
two _/01_rural boundaries so she wants to explain the distinction between the Charter boundary and the Comprehensive Plan
boundary, and give a reminder of
what these two boundaries
are_/J1_, what they
are intended to do and how
they came to be. She noted the Board received
quite a bit of
back_/`1_ground information
(included in the agenda memorandum) prior
to the meeting including a
very detailed timeline as
to _/k1__/l1_the history of
the boundary since 1977. There is also a
fact sheet with the number of acres, land uses that are out there, and some maps as
well_/…1_. Ms. Guillet stated staff has a very
brief presentation for the _%_Board that
provides a
10,000-square-foot look at what the
boundaries
are_/˘1_, the two
different boundaries, what they
are intended to accomplish, and some of
the characteristics that distinguish the two of
them_/Ĺ1_.
Chairman Horan emphasized_/Í1_ as part of the agenda memorandum, there _/Ň1_is a
wealth of material that
can be accessed _/Ű1_online
concerning the history of
the rural boundary,
the distinction between _/ô1_the Comp
Plan boundary and the Charter boundary, and things like _0%1_that.
Tina
Williamson, Development Services Director, addressed the Board and presented a
PowerPoint presentation entitled “Comp Plan Urban/Rural Boundary vs. 2004
Charter Amendment Boundary” (received and filed). Ms. Williamson
stated she has a brief presentation to
summarize some of the
differences between the boundary that is in the Comp Plan
and _0h1_the boundary that is in _0i1_the County Charter.
She began her presentation by advising in 1991, the Board amended the Comp
Plan to include the Urban/Rural
boundary. It
is _0‰1_a descriptive
boundary which means it is
depicted graphically on the map and there is no metes and
bounds legal description as
part of that.
In 2004, the Charter boundary was
approved by voter referendum
and _0°1_is depicted graphically on a map with a metes and bounds legal
description which has been adopted into the Comp Plan. One of the _0ż2_major differences
between the two boundaries
is that if a property _0Í1_is within the Urban/Rural boundary and is annexed into a City, the
City then gains land use authority over the property, and
they can apply their own
future land use designation
to it as opposed to the Charter boundary, which if
a _0ô2__#_City were
to annex into the Charter
area, the County would
still maintain _1!1_land use
authority over that and
the County would still
be _1,1_responsible for authorizing
any future land use amendments_161_. Ms. Williamson added another difference is that the Comp Plan includes specific standards for amending the Urban/Rural boundary and the Charter does
not _1K1_contain
specific standards for
amending the Charter boundary.
Ms.
Williamson referred to the map in her presentation and n_1[1_oted it
shows the 1991 boundary in red, and the Charter boundary is the hashed area. She
reviewed the East Rural
Area _%_Timeline which notes significant events
between 1991 and 2013, including the Comp Plan amendments to protect the Geneva Freshwater Lens
in 1993 and the Charter Rural boundary amendment in 2013 to
remove the Mermel property.
Lastly, Ms. Williamson
briefly discussed Proposals Affecting the East Rural Area
slides. She pointed out the most recent one was Florida HB 883, but _2A1_the
Senate did not take
any _2H1_action on
that bill. Chairman
Horan confirmed with Ms. Williamson that that was the bill recently considered
by the most recent Legislature. He asked
if it passed either house, and Ms. Williamson answered it was a House bill and
the Senate did not take action on it.
Ms.
Guillet stated she would like to
go back to talking about
the two different _2 1_boundaries because
she is not sure that
everybody understand_2Ş1_s that there are two separate boundaries
and really what their distinctions are. She reiterated there is an
Urban/Rural boundary
within the County's Comp Plan
which predates _2Í2__2Ď1_the
Charter amendment rural boundary.
And the boundary
that is in the Comp Plan _2â2_is really a land use regulatory tool; it is intended to
reg_2é1_ulate uses
within the rural area. The
Charter boundary
is a boundary
that was established by
a _302__#_Charter, and the
primary function _391_of that
particular instrument is
to designate
who _3F2_makes land
use _3J2_decisions within the
rural boundary area.
It doesn't _3V2_define what
rural land uses are,
and it doesn't talk about or discuss rural land uses at all. It's
not a land use regulatory tool other than to say who has authority to make
decisions about land use within the rural boundary area. Chairman Horan noted it is a structural
foundational document. Ms. Guillet
agreed and added it simply designates who has the authority to make those
decisions with respect to land use in the rural boundary. It also indicates who has the authority to
make changes to the rural boundary, and
that Charter amendment
contemplates by ordinance that the Board
can make
the_3ł1_ boundary
smaller, but it cannot expand the rural boundary. It
can amend the configuration of it by
ordinance at its
discretion, and there are
no _3Ď1_guidelines
within the Charter
amendment to direct that
discretion; it simply leaves it as if the Board
feels it is necessary, the Board can move the line.
Ms.
Guillet explained in regard to the Comp Plan, to move properties
outside of the Comp _3ő3__#_Plan rural
boundary, there is a very
specific, detailed
and stringent set of standards that
have to be met in
ord_421_er for
the_441_ Board
to _471_amend
the _4:1__#_Comp Plan
and move something out
of _4A3_that Comp
Plan rural boundary
and _4H1_change the
land use designations on
it_4R1_. So there are
two _4V2_different issues that
the _4]1__#_Board could deal
with, with respect to
the rural boundary.
The issue of the
Charter amendment line
and the configuration of
the Charter amendment boundary and the effect
of _4„1_any action
the_4‡1_ Board
may _4‰1_take on
that to change that
line would simply be
who _4•1_ultimately can make decisions about the land uses on whatever property
is _4˘3_affected by such an
action. If the Board
has removed it from
the Charter rural boundary
and it annexes into _4˝1_the City, _4Ŕ1_the City _4Ă1_then has
the _4Ć3_ability to
make the decisions with respect
to _4Ě1_land use.
For
clarity, Commissioner Carey proposed
if it is in the rural boundary and it's
adjacent to a city, and they plan
to_4ň2_ annex into
the _4ö2__#_City, unless _4ü1_the Board decides to
remove it from the _5.1_rural boundary, they
would still have jurisdiction over the land _5>1_use. Ms. Guillet responded that is correct. She
added _5C1_any revision to the land
use _5I2_designation
would have to meet the standards that are in the County's Comp Plan
for that revision. Chairman
Horan commented that is exactly the issue that was litigated when the City of Winter Springs
challenged the Plan and lost
the challenge. Ms.
Guillet stated she would defer to the County Attorney
because she was not involved in that litigation so she doesn't recall the specifics of what the issues
were on that. Commissioner Carey suggested if Ms. Guillet
is not familiar with that litigation, she needs to look at it because the County prevailed in that litigation
and she should get familiar with why the County prevailed. Ms. Guillet advised the County
Attorney's Office is reviewing that.
Chairman Horan pointed out the
boundary of the 1991 Plan and the boundary of the Charter are not the same. Ms.
Guillet agreed they are not
the same, but they are very close. Chairman Horan stated if
they were to consider land use applications within either boundary, they both
go by the same Comp Plan regulations. Ms.
Guillet explained all of the properties within
the Charter amendment
boundary are governed by the land use policies in the _%_Comp Plan
that relate to the Urban/Rural boundary. Chairman
Horan indicated those same standards
apply to property that may be in the Comp
Plan rural boundary but not
necessarily in the Charter
rural boundary. _%_Ms. Guillet
advised that is correct. She
clarified if the Board was to take an action to move the _%_Charter boundary line on a piece of property, to
remove a piece of property from the rural boundary, and if it remained in
unincorporated Seminole County, the provisions in the _%_Comp
Plan _6~1_that govern the Comp Plan
Urban/Rural boundary would still apply to that property even if it were not in the
Charter boundary unless
it _6›1_annexed
into a city.
Commissioner
Carey_6¤1__6Ą1_ asked what the requirement is to remove
property from the Urban/Rural
boundary. She noted there is a burden of proof to take it out of
the rural boundary. Ms. Guillet answered
there are a number of things
that an applicant would have to demonstrate in order to remove property from the Comp Plan Urban/Rural boundary. Ms. Williamson
explained basically there is a demonstration of need that is required. The
applicant would have to provide analysis showing that there is not enough land
available for the population of the horizon year of the plan that is projected;
there is not enough land area in the urban area to accommodate that growth in
the urban area. _%_She displayed page FLU-116
of the Comp Plan (included in the agenda
memorandum) which addresses standards
for amending the Urban/Rural _"_boundary and stated _"_there are also some other standards related
to conservation, open space and protecting natural resources, but the main
thing is demonstration of need. Ms. Guillet added they basically have to demonstrate
that there is a need to encroach into the rural area in order to accommodate
the urban development needs of the County.
Chairman Horan inquired about the fourth standard
on page FLU-117 of the Comp Plan (included in the agenda memorandum), and Ms. Guillet stated the fourth standard basically relates to
public facilities. If there was a need to locate a
school or some other critical public facility, someone could demonstrate that; that is really related
more to public improvements. Bryant Applegate, County
Attorney, summarized the four elements:
population need, affordable housing,
economic development, and the
need for a public
facility. Commissioner Dallari stated he believes there are all kinds of_#_ things that whoever is going to be presenting
would have to demonstrate.
Chairman Horan asked if that would apply to just the Comp
Plan border.
Ms. Guillet answered yes. Commissioner
Carey pointed out if they are
not removing the land from the Charter
boundary, the Comp Plan still applies, so the only way that she sees that it could be impacted
is if the Board agreed to
remove a piece that was contiguous to a city that could be annexed into a city because otherwise, as long as it's staying in the county, whether it's the Charter or the Comp Plan, the Comp
Plan is going to apply. Ms.
Guillet stated that is
correct. Chairman Horan expressed
if you have a piece of land that is contiguous to a city, that consideration tactically and strategically
would have to be taken into consideration in terms of removing it or leaving it
in the county and
coordinating the land use with that land use that the c_%_ity may have.
Commissioner Carey stated they need to clarify
"contiguous to a city." She
used Snow Hill Road as an
example and advised the City
of Oviedo is annexed up to an
imaginary line in the sand, and on one side of the road they have urban designations and
on the other side they have
the rural boundary. She asked if that is considered to be contiguous
since there is a road separating it; and Ms. Guillet
answered under the annexation statute, that would be contiguous. Chairman Horan stated in the past they have discussed issues
like transition. _%_He thinks the reason some of those provisions are in there is that
strategically and tactically they have to actually take a look at whether the
land is contiguous or not and whether or not the transition can be better
employed by the County, City or by some kind of joint-use agreement.
Commissioner
Carey stated she has a comment and it is the same
comment she had back when
they heard this in 2006, and that is at some point they have to talk about transition because _:\2_they are not going to go from four
units per acre and some imaginary line and then one unit per five or one unit
per ten. They are
always going to have the pressure on the boundary until that is solved. In
all those areas where land is contiguous, she would like to talk about
transitional _:•1_zoning and
how they transition from four units
per acre on one side of an imaginary line to one unit
per_:¨1_ five
on the other side. In some cases, the transition may have to happen on the
rural side; but again, without looking at it and understanding what
every piece potentially is today, they don't really know the answer to
that. Commissioner Henley responded the answer would lie with the Board.
Chairman Horan stated that is exactly the point he was making which is, if there is
something that is going to be created, it is the way the Charter amendment is set up and the
way the Comp Plan is set up, that lies within
the providence of the Board
unless they make the decision to take a contiguous area out of the rural
boundary; and at that
particular point, there's a responsibility of the City. Ms.
Guillet replied if it annexes, then that is correct. She added another distinction between the Charter boundary and the Comp Plan Boundary
is that the Charter boundary is of course part
of the home rule Charter. Until
the Charter is amended, the Board is bound by the provision in that Charter. The
Comp _%_Plan is different.
The Board or any future Board could amend the Comp Plan
at any time. So while the criteria and
the mandates and the expectations that are in the Charter are fixed, and the Board
or any future Board doesn't
have the authority to impact that unless there's some sort of voter initiative
or referendum to revise that language, the items that are in the Comp Plan are always subject to review and revision by the Board or any future Board.
Chairman Horan stated he thinks the
reason it was set up that
way in the _%_Charter, if he remembers correctly, is because they
wanted to put the
responsibility for those land
uses in the hands
of the governing body _<]1_that would
be least _<a2_likely to benefit
from sprawl, from extending urban _<l3_services to a
particular area _<s2_beyond it. If
it's not contiguous to
a city, the _<˝2_total authority is
in the County
in terms _<Ç1_of the land uses. If
it is con_<Ď1_tiguous
to a city, the
total authority is in the County; however,
they can actually _<á1_abandon
that authority by moving the
line if the _<ě1__<í1__<î1__%_City wants to annex _<ń2_it. Ms. Guillet
indicated that is a correct statement. She referred
to the Mermel property
which ultimately became part of
a _=21_development.
It was a very small
piece of property that was
used for retention and a tot lot. In that case, and the only case other than the
Rook property right after the
Charter Amendment was passed, it is the
only piece of property that the BCC
has removed from the
rural boundary. And when the
BCC _=e1_did
that, they did _=i1_that through a tri-party development agreement_=r1_ that very specifically fixed what the future
land uses could be. So the BCC
moved the line but they did it only under the condition
that there was a
development agreement
that fixed what the uses would be on
that property; that there
would be no vertical construction,
that there would just be
retention and a tot lot. Upon inquiry from Chairman Horan,
Ms. _%_Guillet stated the three parties in that instance
were the County, the City, and the developer. The BCC
was able to do that
because there is nothing in the Charter
amendment that precludes the BCC from doing that.
Commissioner
Dallari stated he believes in the Comp
Plan as it is stated as well as the Charter. He
believes in the
rural area, and he
will uphold the Charter and the Comp Plan for the rural area. He also believes that this County is special because of that
designation and it is something that should always
be upheld.
Chairman
Horan recessed the meeting at 10:55 a.m., reconvening at 11:00 a.m.
Richard Creedon,
1172 Apache _%_Drive, addressed
the Board and stated he is speaking as President of the Geneva Citizens Association. He
thanked
the Board for their continuous support of
the rural bound_>‚1_ary that
was originally instituted in
2004 with the support of almost 60%
of the voters _>–1_in the
entire count_>›1_y. Mr.
Creedon stated defending the
rural boundary may require
some new thinking
and they need to be willing
to think out of the box in a
proactive manner. He has confidence
that the Board will be
equal to the _>ä1_task. He
did not ask the folks in his community to attend
this meeting
because he felt that wasn't necessary _?<1_because he has confidence that the _%_Board will do the right thing.
Chairman Horan reminded that the only thing
regarding this issue on the agenda today is an update and
a _?e2_briefing.
The Board is not taking
any _?n1_action because
there is no action to
be taken on the agenda. Mr. Creedon noted that is why he did not ask the people to come out; this is sort of like policy, this is not specifics. But
when the specifics come,
he will get the community out if he needs to.
Chairman Horan advised there are going to be work sessions and they
will be doing some other things on this as well.
Don Peterson, 3585 Canal Street, addressed the Board and commended the forward thinking of the Board. He
stated in the upcoming rest
of the year, there are
going to be some issues
that come before the
Board, probably soon, and he
wants to urge the _%_Board to
keep on thinking forward, looking _@61__@71_at the whole picture,
and backing up the
citizens. The
citizens need the green
area. The people
love_@J1_ it,
and to keep taking it
out _@R1_is
the wrong thing to
do.
Mary Jo Martin, 1450 Lake
Harney Road, addressed the Board and stated several years ago,
a lawyer argued for his client
that it was a matter of fundamental
fairness and rights that he should
be _@|1_able to
sell one resident per three acres
instead of one resident per five in the rural area. She says
this is a matter of
fundamental fairness
and _@ś1_rights. Seminole
County citizens have the right to decide what
they voted for and
approved to be _@±1_put in
the Seminole County Charter_@µ1_. They _@·1_have the
right to have an
area_@ľ1__@ż1_ with agriculture, nurseries, ranches, and an ever
pop_@Ě1_ular annual
extension farm day for all county citizens to be able to see and
learn about rural
life. They
have the right to have
protected horseback riding
and _@ę2_hiking trails, canoeing/kayak trails, birding trails with
over 92 active bald eagle nests without encroachment by houses and traffic to
ruin the experience. They have the right to have a place
where they can buy land in the rural area, and not have to worry that they will
end up in a subdivision or a transition area.
Ms. Martin
stated they have a right to
see and maybe even own family land with horses, goats, chickens, without close
neighbors to complain and the right to feel competent that each and every BCC through the years will respect
their vote and subsequently their rights without whittling away the area and
will have the courage to stand up for what is in the Comp Plan
when it states, "a clear and sharp distinction
between rural and urban densities is considered more effective in protecting
rural character" and "transitioning of land uses is ineffective in a
rural area since it does not clearly identify the future limits of urban
development and will likely lead to urban sprawl." She
thanked the BCC for keeping the rural area rural for all of
its citizens and having the
courage to stand up to those who wish to delete or change any part of it which
would cause a domino effect of urbanization as stated in the Comp Plan.
Pam Meharg, P.O. Box
2977, addressed the Board and
stated she is speaking
as _BH1_the Conservation
Chair for Seminole Audubon Society.
She opined they need to talk
about the rural boundaries and start the discussion about how they can _By1_best protect
the rural landscape in
eastern Seminole County from more mischief making from
state legislators and development
interest.
The voters of_BŚ1_ Seminole
County approved the rural boundary amendment to the County
Charter in 2004. The purpose _Bť1_of the amendment
was to maintain the current densities and intensities _B§1_of the rural area, establish
a rural boundary and
rural area in the home
rule Charter_B·1_, and create
a system of checks and balances as Seminole
County planned for the
explosive growth anticipated in Central
Florida. The
rural growth allows for large
lot_BŮ1__BÚ2_, rural residential use, and agricultural
use, provides a rural
life_Bă1_style to
our citizens, limits the cost of public services, creates opportunities for
passive recreational facilities and protects environmentally sensitive plans,
especially those needed to protect water resources. The
explosive growth that was anticipated for Central Florida
has arrived and the need for a strong rural boundary is more evident and
relevant than ever. She supports
the _CN1_rural boundary in Seminole
County and encourages any transitional zones that the Board feels
may be necessary on the western
side of that rural
boundary.
Jay Zembower, 3771 Eagle Preserve Point,
addressed the Board and stated his
family owns and will
continue to own property in the rural boundary. He
cautioned the Board of the background chatter
that is going on
and urged
the _Cü2__%_Board
to deploy all assets of the assaults that are about to come
upon the rural area for a number of reasons.
He enjoys a great quality of life with horseback riding,
clean water and clean lakes. Mr. Zembower stated it is
great to make sure that
they have staff up to speed, but urged
the consideration of an outside set of eyes relooking at all the things that _DĘ1_have transpired and understanding what really
occurred. He explained at
the time, Commissioner Henley was the Chairman when a
lot of this went down, and he has a vast amount of knowledge. But
this really occurred because
of the Battle Ridge subdivision in Winter Springs. Mr. Zembower understands why there is no transition and understands the intent of the
movement of annexation of cities
and _EG1_hence, why
there is an agreement
between all parties of what
everyone could live with. He urged the Board
to look at that very closely and take the necessary steps, not only to get
staff up to speed but to deploy additional assets to take a drive-by view of
what legislation and what case law has occurred since this all went into place
so they can protect the intent of the voters of Seminole County.
H. Alexander _%_Duncan, P.O. Box 620092, addressed
the Board and stated the truth of
the matter is people vote for the members of the Board
and tell them time and
time again they want the rural boundary, so it shouldn't be
up for discussion. So
people vote
for the Board to save the
rural boundary,
but they have to come every year _F?1_to talk about this because of the people that
are saying stuff. He
has been here with his family for
decades. Mr.
Duncan stated he knows where the line
is because
he came down to the
meetings as a kid and went through
these same arguments. People who have really
been here have seen Oviedo
encroaching. He just went through this at the
October meetings with the City of Oviedo because the Mayor said exactly the opposite of what was said today and said the City has not annexed anything from
the County, so who is he
supposed to believe.
Joel Alwinson, 1725 Old River Trail,
addressed the Board and stated he is on the board of his HOA but he is not here representing it. He
pointed out that they are dancing around a big issue, and they all sort of know
what they are talking about. Mr. Alwinson
stated he wants to come
from a little bit of a more
pragmatic standpoint. He wants to think this through and not be a "no guy"
but also thinks there is some
talk that's reasonable to discuss a transition zone. People
say why do we have to keep talking about something we've already talked
about. Things change and populations change, so his position
as _H1_a
landowner is he doesn't _Hś1_want to
close a door and
then look backwards and
say if he had been a little more cooperative,
there could have been benefit for everyone involved. He lives in the rural boundary and
would like to maintain that
for his family. _%_He expressed that is the tone he wants to present as a landowner
adjacent to a very large property that they are all discussing. He
opined to say no often times results in a more negative result rather than working together and being a
little more cooperative.
Marcus Weaver, 2150 Old River Trail,
addressed the Board and stated his property is a five-acre tract, and
he had the privilege of
building his own home. With
growth at t_I€1_heir footsteps
all around the state,
urban draw lines are constantly threatened. He has had the privilege of being in a
rural area and he wishes
to continue that. He is also on the board of his HOA with Mr. Alwinson,
and they are deeply concerned with sewer treatment plants and the growth _Ią1_of UCF. Mr.
Weaver is completely 990
feet adjacent to a large piece of property that
they are in discussion with.
To come to a
compromise on a lot of
thin_IŰ1_gs is a
far better benefit to everybody. He believes that growth is inevitable_Iú1__Iű1__Iü1_, but they can _J!1_control it. He
recalled a member of his subdivision
who is passed away now, but he always
said they can _J61_slow growth
down and have a grasp on it
and be stewards of the community and stewards of their land for future
generations.
Gabrielle Milch, 252 _%_Coble Drive,
addressed the Board and expressed she is here to support
the rural boundary and request that in the Board's research they also include a component part about the water supply
situation in that vicinity. She
stated she knows with the Geneva bubble that there has been a
lot of information over the years and different withdraws and the extension of
the sewer system out into that area could be very costly. She
doesn't know if that is in
any of the five-year plans. She
discussed compatibility and transportation to and from UCF. She hopes that as this progresses,
everyone keeps an open mind and level head and that they can all research this in an efficient manner to
help to transition. If
the Board
is going to make it
an urban area, then they
need to do the research and put
in _L,2_solar and
get _L01__L11_up to
the next level of sustainable developments that
need to be _L?1_in the county.
Chairman
Horan announced the Board received two Written Comment Forms (received and filed)
from Nancy Harmon and Virginia Creedon, and those particular comments will also
be made part of the record.
Deborah Schafer, 1740 Brumley Road, addressed
the Board and stated she
looks back over the last
20 years of Seminole County's rural time
line_Lx2_, sitting through so many meetings, remembering the 1991 Comp Plan, the annexation of Battle Ridge
with Winter Springs, Live Oak and the Sanctuary with Oviedo, Chuluota design standards, How Shall
We Grow?, and the
Chuluota 2004-2006 Rural Charter Plan. They have worked with so many respected professionals over the
years to ensure protection of the rural area and discussion on transition has
been many times but the Board has always turned that
down. She discussed meetings from the past years where residents voiced their
concerns to protect the rural
boundary and stated some of those concerns are being heard today almost 20
years later. Ms. Schafer
stated they want the rural boundary and the
rural area to stay the same as it did when they did all of the plans. She
asked the Board to do
everything possible to protect
the county by not having
meetings, they have had them;
and by not having discussions, they have had
them. She asked that the Board be proactive as
they have been asked to
do with possible other folks looking
at _N-2_things.
With
regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or
in opposition and public input was closed.
Speaker
Request Forms were received and filed.
C_N[1_ommissioner Carey stated
it was this Board,
at least the majority of
this Board_Ng1_, that
adopted a lot
of the comprehensive land plans into the Comp
Plan, the rules to protect the
rural boundary including
the four C's (corridors, centers, countryside, and conservation) of
"How Shall We Grow?" Their commitment was that they
would develop in the areas and corridors that were already disturbed by
development and in the center of the
county that was already disturbed by development, and that
would become the urban
core of the community; and the countryside would be
pre_N»2_served and
the conservation areas
which are so important
to the community _NË1_would also be preserved.
She opined they have
done that. They have over 6,100 acres
of _N×1_conservation
land in the
county.
They have a lot
of _Nĺ1__Nć2_investment into lifestyle with trails
and _Nî1_quality of
life_Nń3_ issues. They have taken the lead in
water conservation and water for the future. She recalled when Geneva was
nothing except a couple of
families that had a
lot _OH1_of land. Commissioner Carey expressed
changes do come and people do come
and _Ou1_it's their right to come and ask the BCC to
consider things. But she thinks the BCC's actions
have been very solid in where this Board believes they should
protect the community. She reminded that
the _%_Board had adopted a lot of those
philosophies in the Comp Plan
to _O±2_protect the
boundary and that
is reflective
of the denials _OÁ1_that have come from the _%_Board of the applicants that have come before it.
Chairman Horan stated with
regard to the background for having this discussion and this update, one of the responsibilities that he has as Chairman
an_Oç1_d shares
with the County
Manager is to make
sure that the Board
is put in the best position
for information, history, et cetera so it can make
good decisions_P-1_. What happened with the legislative session _P31_was interesting,
and
they do have some talk about
development proposals in the rural
areas. So consequently, the reason for this discussion and the
reason for listening to public comment is to make sure that
when they have to
have public meetings
on _PW1_whatever
may _PZ1_come in front of the BCC or
that they have to
act _Pe1_in a
strategic and tactical way in the Legislature, that they
are all prepared and have
the same basis of knowledge. The Chairman
thinks they have all been given very good material and asked that people look at
the _PÎ1__PĎ1_materials that are part
of the agenda
memorandum concerning
this_Pŕ1_ item.
Chairman
Horan pointed out there are one or two things that were brought up today that
he made a note to go back and check. He
indicated one of them is the statement Ms. Martin made that there is actually a
comment on transition in the
Comp _%_Plan.
Commissioner
Constantine stated the Board
has been intently listening not only to staff
bu_Q1_t to each
other and they heard a lot from
the citizens as well. He
noted somebody asked why
they are having this discussion again. Commissioner
Constantine explained most of the Board
was _Q§2_involved in one form or another
in t_QŻ1_he battle
in the Legislature, and they all understand that that is
not going to go away. He appreciates
what staff has done
today in presenting this
issue and thinks that it is necessary that staff is reviewing all policies and
reg_R/2_ulations relating to
the rural boundary in
ord_R:1_er to
appropriately react to
any development proposals ffecting this
area_RL1_. He believes that is something _RQ1_that they
can build a consensus on and that that will give
something to the citizens to
know that their
staff and their commissioners have a watchful eye
on every single thing that
is going to happen.
-------
Chairman Horan announced there is a work session today regarding
the mid-year financial update, and they will start that at 11:40 a.m.
-------
Peter Boykin
submitted a Written Comment Form (received and filed) regarding Item #22.
-------
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 11:32 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all
Commissioners and all other Officials with the exception of Deputy Clerk Kyla
Spencer who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer, who were present at the
Opening Session.
PROOFS
OF PUBLICATION
Motion by
Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to authorize the filing
of the proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into
the Official Record.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Commissioners Dallari and Carey submitted their ex parte
communications (copies received and filed) into the record.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT
Agenda Item #23 – 2017-0043
Proof of publication
calling for a public hearing to consider adopting an Ordinance amending a
portion of Chapter 105, “Educational System Impact Fees," Land Development
Code of Seminole County, Florida; providing for an amendment to Section 105.43 Vested
Rights; providing for codification in the Land Development Code of Seminole
County, Florida; providing for severability; and providing an effective date;
received and filed.
Paul
Chipok, Senior Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board to present the
request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum.
Mr. Chipok explained that pursuant to Board direction, the length of a
vested rights certificate pursuant to the existing section, 105.43, is one
year. The request was made and direction
was given to prepare an ordinance to consider moving that out to two
years. He advised that vested rights
applications needed to be filed and approved prior to the effective date of the
impact fee ordinance and the new fees going into effect. The new fees went into effect as of midnight
this morning; so there are no additional vested rights applications that can be
considered at this point in time or applied for. Mr. Chipok explained that the nature of the
vested rights certificate, if it is granted, allows the holder of the
certificate to be entitled to have the existing impact fee applied to his
particular property for which he has a vested rights certificate. The new rates do not apply. He is granted the ability, when he pulls a
building permit, to utilize the existing impact fees or the prior impact
fees. Right now, that has a one‑year
lifespan from the date the vested rights certificate is issued. Mr. Chipok advised the only very limited
provision the Board is looking at today is to change the life of that vested
rights certificate from one year to two years.
This was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on
April 4, and the Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to
approve the ordinance with the change that the life of vesting certificates for
those units that are subject to a flat rate (single‑family, condominium,
mobile homes) would be one year and the life of the vesting agreements for
those units subject to the tiered rate (multifamily projects) shall be two
years. Mr. Chipok stated the ordinance,
as prepared and in the agenda package, is just to move it from one year to two
years.
Mr.
Chipok advised that the impact fee rates are established in Section
105.21. He displayed that section
(received and filed) and pointed out that the single‑family rate, the
townhome/condo/duplex rate, and the mobile home rate are flat rates. P&Z recommended for those three items
that the vesting certificate have a one‑year lifespan. For the multifamily, which is a tiered rate
based on the size of the multifamily unit, P&Z recommended that the vesting
certificate have a two‑year lifespan.
Mr. Chipok explained that what the Board has in their ordinance as
drafted is that across the board any vesting certificate right now has a one‑year
lifespan. The proposal as stated in the
ordinance is to extend that to two years.
He added that was at the Board's prior direction and for their
consideration today.
Commissioner
Constantine confirmed with Mr. Chipok that the deadline to apply for vested
rights is already over; so no one can walk in and ask for vested rights. He asked Mr. Chipok if it is correct that not
all of the applications will be approved and it will only be those that have
substantially been completed based upon criteria that staff is looking at. Mr. Chipok replied that is correct; he added
if they are denied, they have an appeal right to the Board of County
Commissioners. Commissioner Constantine
reiterated that no one can come in and qualify today because that vesting
rights opportunity has been eliminated and only those that have come in and
qualified can even be considered to get the opportunity to be vested.
Commissioner
Carey stated that as she understands it, there were 15 applications to the
County. Nine of them were approved based
on the fact they were already at final engineering and six were denied; so
there are six potential that could appeal to the County Commission. She then asked how many applications there
were at the cities and the School Board.
Rebecca Hammock, Planning and Development Division Manager, addressed
the Board and reported there were a total of 20 applications to the cities and
a total of 7 to the School Board. The
latest she has heard from the School Board is that six of the seven have been
approved and the seventh one is under review.
Commissioner
Carey confirmed with Ms. Hammock that the 20 applications that were submitted
to the cities were all approved although Ms. Hammock believes one of the
applications was still going to one of the city commission meetings. Commissioner Carey noted that it is a pretty
small number they are dealing with. Ms.
Hammock stated the total between the County, the cities, and the School Board
is about 42 applications plus the six that would be coming back on appeal. Ms. Guillet clarified that the 42 include the
6. Chairman Horan summarized that a
developer could submit an application to one of the cities, to the County, or
to the School Board. The Chairman
advised that 42 total applications were submitted; and of those 42, all but 7
have been approved.
Walt
Griffin, Superintendent of Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS), addressed the
Board and stated he wants to first set the record straight on a public
perception issue. Superintendent Griffin
noted he has been contacted by many of their families who seem to have the
impression that because of this particular issue, the School Board does not get
along with the County Commission. He
stated he knows that is not the case and gave several examples (SRO, shared
fiber, inclusion in the penny sales tax, and numerous roads and safety
projects) that illustrate the excellent working relationship they have. Superintendent Griffin stated he wants the
public to know the School Board and the Board of County Commissioners work together
for the citizens of Seminole County, and this is one issue that they are
dealing with and it is business.
Commissioner Dallari talked about how he is working with the SCPS’ staff
on Oviedo High School, Lawton Elementary, and Jackson Heights. Superintendent Griffin stated the
Commissioners are responsible for the growth of Seminole County and he is in
charge of schools. Those are two
different roles. He reiterated that they
have worked together very well. He
talked about how, first and foremost, the Commissioners have always supported
Seminole County’s quality school system.
Seminole County is a destination in great part because of the premier
schools that the Board has supported.
Superintendent
Griffin discussed some of the challenges with the schools and their funding at
the State level such as meeting class size, which has been in place for over a
decade now and continues to be a challenge.
He explained that when class size was imposed on them, a situation was
created where the same number of kids required many more classrooms. The Superintendent reported that since
2014/2015, SCPS has added 2,200 students, which includes almost 500 students
from Puerto Rico. Because of growth this
year, he advised they closed Lawton Elementary in Oviedo and Bear Lake in
Altamonte to anybody. Because of class
size (they cannot go over class size), there was no more room at those schools
and families had to be offered other choices for their students to be able to
attend school.
Superintendent
Griffin stated the capital millage rate was two mills ten years ago and it is
now 1.5. Back on January 1, 2016, the
assessed property values were still below ten years ago when they built the
2016/2017 budget. He pointed out they
have capital issues. He knows it is a
State problem, but it has forced everyone to look more closely at all of the
local revenue. Overall, capital revenues
(including PECO) are $20 million less annually then they were ten years ago. Superintendent Griffin discussed the
conservative work they have done to increase capacity; such as, refurbishing
Hamilton Elementary School; adding a new classroom building at Goldsboro;
refurbishing and reopening Longwood Elementary School; creating a new classroom
building at Midway; creating a 9th Grade Center at Seminole High School; adding
capacity at Lake Brantley; and adding a classroom building at Endeavor. They plan for growth but plan very
conservatively looking at every facility that they have.
Superintendent
Griffin talked about Seminole County being a "Choice District," and
how it helps them balance population.
They have diversity options, capacity transfer options, and magnet
schools. They encourage families to pick
schools that they are interested in and the District has continued to provide transportation
to all of the magnet programs. In
summary, Superintendent Griffin stated that impact fees are the fairest way for
them to raise money to build some of their classrooms. The new growth, to him, should pay for the
new classrooms for the expanded growth.
He reiterated that the public should know they have a great relationship
with the BCC and he values that relationship.
This is one piece of work that they are working on now, and they have a
lot more to come down the road.
Commissioner
Carey agreed with the Superintendent that they have a great working
relationship and that people want to move to Seminole County because of the
schools. The Commissioner stated what
was proposed by the School Board in the original resolution was to have tiers
with one set of rates for 2018 and then have them go up in 2019. She pointed out that the Board chose not to
do that. She asked what the value was in
their analysis of the dollar amount to the School Board if the Board would have
chosen to tier them. Joe Ranaldi,
Executive Director of Operations for the SCPS, addressed the Board to state
that they estimated that the tiering would have cost the District somewhere
between $4.5 million and $5.5 million based on the amount of collections they
had seen in previous years.
Commissioner
Henley told Superintendent Griffin that he appreciates very much the challenge
that he has. He added that it is not a
new challenge, and they have had it down through the years. The Commissioner stated, in his opinion, the
biggest problem with the County school system is the State Legislature and the
rules they are passing that create problems locally. Commissioner Henley noted several years ago
the BCC instructed staff regarding any project that comes before them that one
of the first things they have to do is determine the number of school‑aged
children the project will generate. The
second question they are asked is have you contacted the public school system
to see if they can absorb that number.
He pointed out that for the last several years, every answer they have
gotten back from staff and the School Board has been yes, we can absorb
them.
Commissioner
Henley stated he is a little bit confused as to what the Superintendent
described a moment ago since his staff has indicated to the County that yes,
they have room for those children.
Otherwise, this Board would be faced with a challenge of whether they
want to approve something or not since it would create additional problems. Commissioner Henley requested that Superintendent
comment on that. Superintendent Griffin
replied that he thinks the challenge is with the question they ask, "Do
you have space anywhere in the county?" because sometimes they do. He gave an example of Tuskawilla Crossings,
which is being built in the backyard of Indian Trails and Keeth Elementary
School. When asked whether there are
seats in Seminole County, the answer is yes.
When asked whether there are seats in the closest school to the
subdivision, the answer is no.
Superintendent Griffin explained the challenge they have is they have to
provide busing; they have to move kids around depending on the location. There is frequently capacity somewhere in the
district but a lot of times it doesn't make sense. If he is overcrowded at Bear Lake and there
are seats at Geneva, he still has to approve the project. He advised that he has to look at it from
38,000 feet and it is an issue that they have been working on for several years
now. Commissioner Carey remarked that
maybe they are asking the wrong question.
Commissioner
Constantine stated that when they had the work session way back at the School
Board, that was his first question, as Commissioner Henley just suggested. Every time they ask if there is capacity, the
answer comes back yes. The Commissioner
added if there is a better way to ask the question to help the School Board,
the Board would encourage the School Board to give it to them so they can all
work together to help in that capacity.
Commissioner Constantine stated he does believe Superintendent Griffin
is correct, that the impact fees are the best way to pay for growth when they
are talking about new growth paying for itself.
He agreed that the Board and SCPS have a great relationship. Commissioner Constantine remarked that he
knows the Board took the heat after the School Board negotiated with GOBA
(Greater Orlando Building Association) and gave them a $2,000 discount for a
certain period of time for phasing. The
Board decided to change that.
Commissioner Constantine advised that he made the motion and got a great
deal of heat from GOBA about that. He
wondered why that was okay and this, which is simply putting in perspective the
type of development it is and the fact that the vesting opportunity is over,
would cause such heartburn to the School Board when they didn't even talk to
AAGO.
With
regard to what question should be asked, Superintendent Griffin explained the
question the School Board should be asked is whether there is room in the
school zone that the school is zoned to.
If you want to build an apartment or a large subdivision and you want
the school to be close to the neighborhood, he thinks they have to ask the
question about the geographic area of the school. The Superintendent suggested they can talk
about concurrency and everything else but he believes there are a few different
ways to look at that. Commissioner
Constantine remarked as long as that is okay within the state law, he would be
in favor of that because it has always frustrated him when everybody says “yes,
they have full capacity” and then the School Board says they don't have enough
room.
Commissioner
Henley stated that it would help the Board if the Superintendent or his staff
had answered, as he did here, that yes, they have capacity in the county but
not in that area. The Commissioner
suggested that would put the Board in a position where they might be able to
negotiate a little bit to provide a classroom in order to get approval. There are all types of things and deals they
can work out if they have all of the information.
Ms.
Guillet stated she wants to ask for clarification. She stated her understanding is when the
School Board reviews development proposals with respect to available capacity,
they look at what is called the capacity service area (CSA). If there is no capacity available in the
capacity service area where the project is, they look at the adjacent capacity
service area; so the example of Bear Lake and Geneva, that circumstance might
be too far apart. Superintendent Griffin
agreed it might be too far of a spread but added that two concurrent areas can
be quite a few miles apart and a long distance to transport students. Ms. Guillet advised that is how it is set up
in their interlocal agreement. She does
not want folks to think the Board is approving projects in Bear Lake when there
is only capacity in Geneva.
Superintendent Griffin remarked that they are moving kids quite a
distance.
Mr.
Ranaldi explained that typically a CSA at the elementary level has three
schools. They then look at the
contiguous zones, which typically have three schools as well. So at the time, they are actually looking at
15 schools; and that is where they get the geography from Heathrow all of the
way to Geneva. They have revised those
letters to identify if they are going to a contiguous zone and then state they
are going to a contiguous zone. He added
that the key is they are not guarantying enrollment at the closest elementary
school to wherever that development is.
They have been highlighting that as well. Commissioner Carey stated as Board members,
they need to better understand if there is not anything in the area. She stated there are other solutions. Commissioner Carey referred to Seminole High
School and talked about how kids that live two blocks away can't get into the
school and are being bused somewhere else because someone else is being bused
in because they want to be in the health magnet program. She noted there was a reason why they did all
of the magnet schools and maybe the School Board needs to go back and look at
some of those issues to see how they can keep their kids closer to home because
it is not healthy for the kids.
Superintendent Griffin explained that every example that he gave of
where they are adding seats deals exactly with that issue, to try and keep
families closer to their homes.
Ms.
Guillet talked about working with the School Board for a number of years on the
interlocal agreement. The cities and the
County and the School Board have all been working together on the interlocal
agreement they have with respect to concurrency and capacity. She stated it is a tough nut to crack. The issue of the impact fee revisions really
came out of the discussions they were having in that group. Ms. Guillet echoed what the Superintendent
said about them working very closely together on a number of issues, and they
have been working together trying to resolve the capacity issue for a number of
years. Commissioner Carey pointed out
that if there are other things going on in the policies of the School Board
causing overcrowding in some areas versus others, it doesn't make a lot sense
to her to spend all of this money to build more school capacity if they have
school capacity and maybe a discussion about some of those policies could fix
some of that distribution issue. She
suggested that while they are having the discussion and they have everybody
here, they might as well just put it all out on the table. The Commissioner would prefer to see it
specific to an area when they are making their decision.
Commissioner
Dallari requested either the County Manager or County Attorney talk about
school concurrency for the school zone and not the adjacent school zone. He wondered if that is a possibility. Mr. Applegate advised that they can ask the
specific question about is it going to impact the immediate area of the school
zone. He does not see a problem with
that. The question might come down later
on as to how does it affect the overall approval process of a project that might
be before the Board, but that is for down the road. Commissioner Carey suggested their interlocal
agreement is probably part of the issue and the County Manager agreed. Commissioner Dallari wondered about changing
the interlocal agreement. Ms. Guillet
reminded the Board that five or six years ago when the State Legislature
removed the mandatory requirement for school concurrency, this Board directed
County staff to work with the cities and the School Board to eliminate
concurrency as one of the regulatory tools they use with respect to schools and
to find another way of addressing and reviewing capacity; and that is what they
have been struggling with for all of these years, to try to get there. She stated they can certainly do what
Commissioner Dallari suggested but that will take them in a different
direction. Commissioner Dallari advised
that he understands that but explained it also addresses traffic issues and
transportation issues. He just wanted to
know legally whether that was allowed or not allowed because there are a lot of
ramifications to it.
Ms.
Guillet advised there are ways to get there but there are very specific
criteria if they want to start changing and beefing up the way they approach
school concurrency. There has to be some
agreement throughout the county. There
are a number of provisions. She added
that it would take them in a completely different direction than they were
given a number of years ago.
Commissioner Constantine suggested it may be time to reevaluate that in
light of the fact that development is in a much different situation than it was
then. He added that answering the
question of whether there is enough capacity in the zone and if not, then where
is the capacity (which would take into account other things such as
transportation) would mean a lot to the Board when looking at these
developments. Superintendent Griffin
stated that would be something for them to work together on. Commissioner Carey stated she thinks it would
require their interlocal agreement to be finished, and she believes there is no
reason why it should take five or six years of discussion to not end up with an
agreement.
Chairman
Horan pointed out that in 2011, concurrency was removed as a mandatory
concurrency item and the direction went to the County Manager to remove that
from the interlocal agreement. The
Chairman stated at the time he was the Board's representative on the Public
School Facility Advisory Board. He
described how, beginning in 2012 in reviewing the agreement, they went through
countless meetings and many iterations of the agreement. He stated they never got to the point where
they got to a work product that was a revised interlocal agreement.
Commissioner
Carey suggested that maybe they could just focus on this one piece of it. Chairman Horan stated he thinks that is a
good idea and then added that this one piece of it was the linchpin. They agreed on everything else. Chairman Horan stated their dynamics are such
that they are "trying to pin a moth to the wall a lot of the
times." They are trying to make
some educated guesses; and on top of everything else, they are not getting the
money from the State they need for capacity anyway. Discussion was had with regard to the cost of
building new schools and how much will be collected from the new impact
fees. Chairman Horan pointed out that
there is no new school construction projected in the School Board's capital
improvement plan until Years 7 and 8.
Since the School Board will obviously have to accumulate money under the
impact fees for a number of years in order to just build one elementary school,
the Chairman questioned what, in the interim, they are going to use these
impact fees for. Superintendent Griffin
replied it is the list that he went through before where they are adding
classroom buildings at some of the schools and growth to existing facilities.
Chairman
Horan summarized that the School Board is going to be expanding and making
larger most of the existing schools.
Superintendent Griffin replied that it is many of them. Chairman Horan reiterated that a new school
is not in the plan for seven or eight years.
He pointed out that the amount of money the Legislature appropriated
this year for fixed capital outlays to the entire public school system in the
state of Florida was $50 million, which is not enough to build one high
school. Charter schools received $150
million. The Chairman suggested to
Superintendent Griffin that his problem is not here with the BCC and his
solution is not here. His problem and
solution are up in Tallahassee.
Superintendent Griffin advised that the Superintendents' Association has
been lobbying this for years. He stated
that impact fees are a small piece of a puzzle.
Superintendent Griffin stated he would like to make one thing clear and
does not want the public to think they are not planning for new schools. He discussed Endeavor School and pointed out they
built it on an elementary footprint.
Right now it is a special ed center.
It is fully convertible with the addition of one building to a full
elementary school, and it sits right off of Old Lake Mary Boulevard where they
have a lot of growth. They will pull
that trigger in 2020 when it is ready to go.
The Superintendent stated the new Millennium being built is built on a
high school footprint. With adding one
building and a stadium, they have a high school. The School Board has been extremely conservative
not just in putting new schools everywhere but also in proportionately adding
seats as necessary. Superintendent
Griffin talked about Controlled Open Enrollment and advised that he cannot add
too many additional seats to Seminole County because he has to offer them to
other counties. They already have
children from other counties attending their schools. He has to add a little bit as they need it
and add it proportionately. Discussion
ensued with regard to Controlled Open Enrollment. Superintendent Griffin stated it would not be
prudent for the School Board to just be putting up schools that are not at
capacity because then they are using Seminole County taxpayer dollars to
educate students from outside of Seminole County. He added their School Board clearly knows
what they are doing and they are doing it very carefully.
Chairman
Horan emphasized that the BCC wants to make sure in this process that the
schools get what they can out of the increased impact fees. He then detailed the amount of percentage
increase the impact fees went up by. He
advised these are large impact fee increases; so the BCC is not trying to hurt
the schools. They will get a lot of
increased impact fees revenue from these new fees, and it still is not going to
be enough to solve capacity.
Superintendent Griffin stressed that it is one piece of the puzzle and
he has to fight for every piece of the puzzle to keep the District
running. Chairman Horan explained how
the Board is trying to treat everyone in the process fairly and make sure that
everyone bears the burden in an appropriate way. He added they are not trying to hurt the
schools. Commissioner Henley mentioned
the large number of homeless people in the community and noted that every time
they increase these costs and fees, they disenfranchise a number of other
citizens who can no longer afford to buy a house because of these sizable
increases. They need to be sensitive to
the impact to the citizens of the county who are already paying sales tax and
things like that.
Mr.
Ranaldi reviewed the process that was put in place in order to update the
impact study. He noted they are tied to
both the ordinance and the Land Development Code in regards to the process that
they go through with the School Board.
He explained how the School Board put together the Citizens Advisory
Group and who was in the Group, as per the language in the Land Development
Code and the ordinance. Mr. Ranaldi
noted that one of the parties they are discussing right now is not specifically
addressed in the ordinance. He pointed
out they did reach out to ABC and their executive director declined to
participate. They reached out to the
American Institute of Architects.
Mr.
Ranaldi talked about the five public hearings they had with the Citizens
Advisory Group working with Tindale‑Oliver, the School Board's
consultant, going through the initial data collection to the point of the
initial recommendations. This group put
together a set of recommendations that were presented to the School Board at
the end of the final meeting. He
discussed the six additional community presentations that were held, which
included School Board members, the Superintendent, and staff, and the groups
that they met with. In addition to that,
there were two publicly advertised work sessions in which they presented the
process. There was one public hearing
where the two resolutions that were presented to the County Commission were
approved. They had three joint meetings
and presentations between the School Board and BCC along with a joint work
session on June 20. The Planning and
Zoning hearing was on December 6 and the BCC final approval happened the first
week in January. Mr. Ranaldi summarized
that overall they held approximately 17 meetings, not including the one‑on‑one
meetings held with the Commissioners during the process. They are approaching 30 meetings when it came
to actually evaluating this study as they went through the process.
With
regard to what the impact is to the District, Mr. Ranaldi displayed a chart
(received and filed) illustrating the number of units and the collection
difference and pointed out they roughly have 42 developments that they are
looking at right now. He noted they are
looking at 42 developments; however, those developments have some fairly large
numbers when it comes to the actual units they are looking at. On the chart, he reviewed the Number of Units
and reported there are 1,156 Single‑Family Detached, 3,446 Multifamily,
and 495 Single‑Family Attached.
Mr. Ranaldi advised those numbers he mentioned are the numbers they
received from the County late yesterday afternoon. With regard to the multifamily number of
3,446, Chairman Horan inquired as to the size of the unit. Mr. Ranaldi stated that none of the
municipalities actually gave the School Board the breakdown of their
units. They did receive breakdowns for
the County's units; so they averaged it at this point. Mr. Ranaldi indicated they did include the
applications the County denied because those are going back through again. He explained that they discounted these to
35% with the thought that some may come through. The actual impact to the number when they
looked at it was right around $1 million with taking 35% of the denied, if any
of them are, in fact, successful when they present to the Commission.
Mr.
Ranaldi stated in taking a look at the first year, they used 45% of the units
while County staff used 42% of the units.
He stated there is no question in regard to what the collection is going
to be for the impact fees; it is right around $6 million using the 2008 rates
for the first year. In looking at the
second year, the County discounted down to 30% and he is not sure why they went
from 42% in Year 1 down to 30%. The
School Board thought, if anything, there would be a little bit of an uptick as
developers tried to get the building permits and get their vested numbers as
opposed to the new numbers. They felt
that the 45% may go as high as retiring all of it, but they stayed at the 45%
for their Year 2 analysis.
Clerk Maloy left the meeting at this time.
In response, Ms. Guillet indicated they used the 42% and 30%
that were based on actual trends. They
looked at historic trends in recent years with respect to absorption rates for
single-family. She stated they did not
assume there would be a "mad dash" to pull permits, especially for
single‑family to take advantage of the lower impact fee because they
believe builders will build what the market demands and that they are not going
to build homes simply to save some money on an impact fee if they don't have
buyers. Chairman Horan stated that a
builder is not going to spec 150 units or spec 400 homes just to save $4,000
per unit. Mr. Ranaldi pointed out that
it was almost a third of a drop going from 43% down to 30%. Chairman Horan remarked that it was based on
actual experiences. Mr. Ranaldi pointed
out that is the kind of documentation they have been asking to get since
September as they were putting their numbers together in regards to the impact
fee collection. Ms. Guillet explained
they did it based on trends but emphasized that it is a guess because it is
just based on what has happened in the past.
She does not think that anyone can definitively say at what rate any of
these projects are going to develop because they are fact specific. She stated they felt the best way to approach
it was to take the historic trends for the last couple of years with
subdivisions that were just recently approved and that is the absorption rates
they saw.
Mr. Ranaldi continued his review of the chart and noted that in
looking at Year 2 with the scenario that the School Board put together, saying
45%, they were just a little bit over $10 million. In looking at the scenario that the County
put together in regards to dropping it from 42% down to 30%, they are around
$7.1 million. Mr. Ranaldi stated they
are somewhere between that range of $7.1 million and a little bit over $10
million in regard to the ultimate impact.
Discussion ensued with regard to Year 2’s numbers. Mr. Ranaldi advised that $6.4 million is the
figure for Year 1 that they will collect with the vesting; $16.4 million is
what would have been collected with no vesting.
He added both of those numbers are at the 45% that the School Board is
estimating.
Mr.
Ranaldi stated that in summary, they are looking at a student generation rate
from the projects that are in vesting right now of a little bit over 1,500
students. If they go to two years, they
will have to find a way to construct at the 2008 rates in 2018 with
construction costs increases. He added
that they do utilize the impact fees to leverage for construction as well. For instance, with the $60 million bond they
utilized for the opening of Longwood, for Millennium Middle School, and for the
ILC that they are doing at Midway, they pledged $3 million worth of the impact
fees in order to undertake those projects.
In the future, they will probably do similar leveraging in order to
resolve the gap that is talked about regarding “saving the money” versus “they
need it today.” With their bond rating
and with the flow of the impact fees, they are able to leverage that as well.
Commissioner
Carey and Mr. Ranaldi discussed using 45% in Years 1 and 2. Mr. Ranaldi stated the School Board is
looking at building out 90% of the units and he believes the County was at
75%. Commissioner Carey asked Mr.
Ranaldi to explain the $16 million on the chart because she does not understand
how he came up with his math. She asked
whether he is saying that the difference between one year of vesting and two
years of vesting is $10 million; Mr. Ranaldi replied that is what they are
saying. He believes the County's numbers
are around $7 million. Commissioner
Carey pointed out that there are only 42 projects and whether they are done in
Year 1 or Year 2, it is still 42 projects and that is all that there can
be. Mr. Ranaldi agreed and added they
are projecting how many units on a percentage basis will be built each year.
With
regard to the chart, Ms. Guillet stated that she does not disagree with the
numbers on the numbers of units. Her
only concern is that she is not sure that the difference between Year 1 and
Year 2 really reflects what the true difference would be because their discussions
internally were that they think most of the multifamily units will probably
develop in the first year. The
difference between Year 1 and Year 2 might not be that great.
Commissioner
Carey suggested they say the delta is $10.4.
She stated that Mr. Ranaldi told her earlier that the tiering option
that they proposed was $4.5 to $5.5 million and pointed out that is not taken
into consideration on the chart. If they
had done the tiering, it would have had a bigger impact. The Board did not go with that; so the School
Board gained $5.5 million by the Board not doing the tiering. The Commissioner pointed out that the Board
does not get any credit for that. Mr.
Ranaldi stated they really lost $5 million.
By doing the tiering, it was probably a net loss of around $5 million
when you look at the potential collections of close to $10 million at the half
tier. Commissioner Carey advised that
she asked the question before; if the rates go 100%, which is what the Board
adopted with no tiering, Mr. Ranaldi stated the difference was $4.5 million to
$5.5 million with the tiering proposed.
The Commissioner reminded Mr. Ranaldi that she is not talking about
vesting at all.
Chairman
Horan explained to Mr. Ranaldi that what Commissioner Carey is saying to him is
that he originally came to the Board with a tiering option where the first year
was supposed to be $7,000 and the second year was supposed to be $9,000. The Board decided not to accept that and
decided to give the School Board the full fees in the first year, which Mr.
Ranaldi has already indicated is a $5 million delta. The Chairman explained to Mr. Ranaldi that
what Commissioner Carey is saying is that the $5 million delta has to be taken
off the $10 million. Mr. Ranaldi
remarked that he was looking at the impact of Year 2 alone. Commissioner Carey stated at the end of the
day whether they are talking about vesting or tiering, they are talking about
dollars; so the fact is they adopted it to go 100% from Day 1 and got the
School Board $5 million more than they would have gotten if it had been
tiered. She stated she is trying to
understand what really the impact is at the end of the day, bottom line. She does old school math, but she believes it
is about $5 million if she uses Mr. Ranaldi’s $10.4 million. Mr. Ranaldi agreed that if she is using the
delta she is talking about, it is $5 million if they roll in that loss. Discussion ensued regarding previous numbers.
Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Ranaldi about
the application the School Board received yesterday. Mr. Ranaldi advised they are working that
application through legal. Commissioner
Carey remarked that the ordinance is very clear as to what the cutoff date was
so there should not be much legal to that.
She wants to be sure that everybody is clear that the cutoff date was
last week. Ms. Guillet explained that
was the cutoff date for the County and that was in the County's Administrative
Code. The ordinance says the vesting
agreements have to be in place before today.
Commissioner Carey wondered how you could get a vesting agreement in
place if it was not submitted until yesterday, which is why the County had the
cutoff date they had.
Commissioner
Constantine asked the County Manager if the County's number was seven. Ms. Guillet stated she would have to go back
and go through the spreadsheet. She
explained that the County's numbers were not that definitive and they had a lot
of disclaimers in that the multifamily would not have the same absorption rate
the single‑family development would have.
She pointed out that it is a guess whether they would develop in Year 1
or Year 2. They know the timing for
development, but every project has its own issues. Knowing whether or not a multifamily project
is going to develop in Year 1 or Year 2 from the County's standpoint is just a
guess. They only approved one vesting
agreement for multifamily. They have a
few that she thinks are going to be on appeal.
That is why she believes the number for putting all of the multifamily
units in Year 2 may not reflect impact.
Commissioner
Carey stated the reason they only approved one is because staff was using final
engineering as the determination to determine whether they were going to
approve it or not even though they had multifamilies that were in the approval
process. They had made application, were
relying on the fact that they made application.
Some had even been through the planning and zoning process and had just
not made it to the Board of County Commissioners yet. To her, that is “in the process,” but staff
made that determination and denied them because they were not in final
engineering. That will be the debate at
the appeal discussion.
Discussion
ensued with regard to the applications that have been approved by the
municipalities and by the School Board and their approval rate compared to the
County’s approval rate.
Chairman
Horan recessed the meeting at 2:47 p.m., reconvening it at 2:55 p.m.
Tom
Sullivan, attorney with GrayRobinson Law Firm, addressed the Board to state he
is here on behalf of Taylor‑Morrison Homes with respect to the vesting
provision. Mr. Sullivan advised that
Taylor‑Morrison is in the process of developing a number of single‑family
detached residential communities around the county and has applied for and
received vesting certificates for each of those projects. He explained why he is requesting equal
treatment with respect to the two‑year vesting period consistent with
staff's recommendation. He stated he
does not think it makes sense to make a distinction in the length of vesting
based on land use.
Hal
Kantor, attorney with the Law Firm of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor &
Reed, addressed the Board to advise he is here representing the Apartment
Association of Greater Orlando (AAGO).
Mr. Kantor began his presentation entitled "Seminole County
Educational System Impact Fees," displayed the Why are we Here? slide, and
reviewed the first four bullet points.
Mr. Kantor discussed multifamily developers and how they go as fast as
they can to build the product, to get the building permits, and to get it
opened. He explained how it takes three
years to get a multifamily project approved, constructed, and fully
occupied.
Clerk Maloy reentered the meeting at this
time.
Mr.
Kantor advised that it takes about a year or more to go through the processing;
it takes about a year or more to go through construction; and it takes about a
year to fill up. He suggested that when
they talk about the impact to multifamily, they have to think about what they
are really talking about. Mr. Kantor
stated the numbers that Mr. Ranaldi had were irrelevant. The only issue they are here to talk about
today is whether it is a one‑year vesting or a two‑year
vesting. He can't tell the Board the
unit count but there are probably only one or two multifamily projects that
they are really even talking about that will go into the second year.
Mr.
Kantor reviewed the Realistic Development Schedule for Multifamily Project and
talked about how developers will go as fast as they can through the
process. He emphasized that the only
point of the request for this extension is that some of these projects will
take a little longer. Lending
institutions and investors look at it and say what happens after 12 months if
they don't get their building permits.
There can't be a $2 million to $3 million “bust” in a project because of
that. Mr. Kantor explained that all this
does is allow a few projects the opportunity to get completed. He stated they have bigger issues. This is the mole hill and the mountain is a
400% increase in impact fees. He
reminded everyone they are not dealing with that toady. They are simply dealing with the fair
implementation of the ordinance. Mr.
Kantor offered to answer any questions and requested an opportunity to respond
to matters as they come up.
Commissioner
Carey referred to Mr. Kantor's schedule and remarked that they are dealing with
the water management district probably concurrently with getting through
engineering because they would need to know the answer to the water management
issues before getting to the final engineering part; so that is a couple of
months off of the schedule. Commissioner
Carey summarized that Mr. Kantor indicated that it is a three‑year
process with one year to get approved, one year for construction, and one year
to fill it up. The trigger for the
concurrency letter is the building permit.
In the apartment business, they are going to get not one permit for each
of the 200 houses that are being built but rather they are going to get one
permit for the complete apartment project that is being built. Mr. Kantor stated it is actually one permit
per building. He added it is not one
permit but rather multiple permits.
Commissioner Carey stated that would be if they were doing multiple
buildings and Mr. Kantor agreed. The
Commissioner mentioned that they could get their foundation permits for the
additional buildings. Commissioner Carey
pointed out that if someone has not started the process, they cannot come in
and ask for vesting anyway. Everybody
had to be in the process. She added that
all of the things that were approved by staff that were in final engineering
were only two months out from final plat and four weeks out from a permit.
Mr.
Kantor stated most all of these projects can get approved in the first year and
get building permits and start construction.
Commissioner Carey asked Mr. Kantor why he is arguing for two years
then. Mr. Kantor replied that not all
projects are going to take two years. If
a project has passed all of the requirements to be vested and spent all of the
money and taken all of the steps, it is unfair if someone takes 14 months or 15
months or 18 months to have the rug pulled out from under them. It is just a matter of fairness for a very
few projects. Commissioner Carey stated
she has said all along that she is trying to be fair, but she is trying to be
fair to all parties.
Denver
Marlow's name was announced and it was determined he was not in
attendance.
Scott
Glass, attorney with the Law Firm of Shutts & Bowen, addressed the Board to
state he is the attorney for Meritage Homes of Florida. Mr. Glass mentioned that Mr. Marlow is the
representative of Meritage. Mr. Glass
then distributed a document (received and filed) regarding the legal
requirement that Amendment to 105.43 treat multifamily and single‑family
equally.
Mr. Glass stated they
agree with Mr. Kantor that the entire purpose of the vesting ordinance is to
treat projects fairly. They agree that
in order to do that, fairness demands that some of these projects are so far in
and have so much money, time, effort, energy, and resources invested in them,
it is not fair to pull the rug out from under them at this juncture and change
the rules. Mr. Glass urged the Board
that whatever they do, they do it consistent with the equal protection
requirements and they don't treat multifamily differently. He pointed out that the schedule that Mr.
Kantor referenced is not different for a comparable single‑family
project. Mr. Glass advised that in order
to have an ordinance that treats multifamily differently from single‑family,
they would have to pass what is called the rational basis test, which is a
two-part test. Mr. Glass discussed how
the County would have to show there is a legitimate
objective for the ordinance in the first place and secondly, whether the
ordinance rationally advances the County towards that legitimate goal. In order to show the separation, the
distinction, between multifamily and single‑family furthers the goal of
the ordinance, which is to treat everyone that has been vested fairly, there
has to be competent evidence that shows there is a rational reason for the
separation. Mr. Glass reported that he
watched the P&Z hearing and then explained how there was no competent
evidence presented where they could decide that multifamily is somehow
different than single‑family. Mr.
Glass requested that whatever the Board does today, they treat both sides of
the industry fairly. He concluded by
stating the County has onerous but fair vesting standards and any project that
meets them should be vested and it should be for two years.
Brian
Dalrymple, 2600 Lake Lucien Drive, addressed the Board to state he is with
Taylor‑Morrison. Mr. Dalrymple
thanked the Commissioners, the Chairman, and Superintendent Griffin and talked
about how he would only educate his sons in Seminole County Schools because
there is no place better.
Mr.
Dalrymple referred to the BCC and the School Board being partners for many
years and added that the developers and builders and apartment folks, everybody
that pulls a permit, are their partners as well. They invest time and money year after year in
this county to meet the market demand.
With regard to the question of why two years, Mr. Dalrymple explained it
takes a year to get a project approved; it takes up to a year to get a project
developed, the sales office opened, and to be in operation. He suggested a litmus test, and explained if
someone is in the process and has applied for a zoning application, he believes
they have already done $100,000-plus of work; they have paid someone to apply
to get the project rezoned. He thinks
that would qualify someone as being in the process. Mr. Dalrymple stated they just want it to be
fair and do not think it should be based on an apartment guy or single‑family
builder or anything of the sort. He
thinks anyone who is in the process to be rezoned should be treated with a two‑year
extension because it will allow someone two years to absorb those increased
fees into their business model.
Vivien
Monaco, attorney with the Law Firm of Burr & Forman, addressed the Board to
state she is representing Greater Orlando Builders Association (GOBA). Ms. Monaco stated she is here to basically
support the same things that Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Glass and others have
said and ask the Board to please not treat the single‑family builders
differently than they treat the multifamily builders. There is no rational basis to make that
distinction as Mr. Glass pointed out.
The difference between multifamily builders and single‑family
builders in terms of the time that it takes and the money that it takes to go
through the development process is a distinction without a difference. Ms. Monaco displayed her presentation
entitled "Timeline for Single‑Family Subdivision" (received and
filed) and reviewed the chart illustrating the timeline for going from contract
to the first building permit; the total time to building permit from contract
is 19 to 28 months. She stated that is
the absolute minimum and does not count additional time for comprehensive plan
changes, rezoning, some sort of PD amendment, or the same types of hiccups that
Mr. Kantor was talking about. Ms.
Monaco remarked that they can see it is very much the same type of
process. She added there is not a distinction
in terms of the purpose of the vesting, which is for fairness.
Commissioner
Carey requested that Ms. Monaco go back to her schedule and pointed out that
for the public process through local governments (that being the preliminary
subdivision plans and those types of things) Ms. Monaco has four to six
months. The Commissioner emphasized that
everybody that applied for vesting that was approved is already in the final
engineering stage; so they can take nine months off of Ms. Monaco's calculation,
which would put them at 18 months basically.
Ms.
Monaco stated the other distinction that was brought up at the P&Z meeting
was that perhaps there was a difference because the multifamily housing impact
fees are tiered and the single-family is not tiered. She stated she went back and looked at the
impact fee study and found the reason for the tiering was primarily to
recognize the difference in the student generation rate of those smaller
apartments, which have a much lower student generation rate. According to the Impact Fee Act, the impact
fees have to be based on the latest and most localized data. Ms. Monaco advised they also looked at tiered
impact fees in terms of the size of the different single‑family units as
well as multifamily units. The
differences were not as great as they were with the multifamily. The differences were not as great when they
looked at the single‑family units and the student generation rates and
the other single‑family types. She
stated that is a distinction without a difference and does not have any
substantial and just relationship to the purpose of the vesting, which is
fairness.
Chairman
Horan advised that a single‑family fee is going up 180% and on average
the multifamily is going up over 300%.
He asked Ms. Monaco whether it would be fair if the Board just raised
the single‑family fee three times.
Ms. Monaco responded no, that the impact fee has to be based on the
actual impacts and those are based on the student generation rates. Based on the student generation rates,
multifamily is generating more students now than it was during the last impact
fee study.
Lennon
"Chip" Tatum, 340 N. Maitland Avenue, addressed the Board to state he
is with the Apartment Association of Greater Orlando. Mr. Tatum remarked that AAGO is grateful that
the Commission and staff are reconsidering vesting periods for
multifamily. He believes they have
demonstrated that while the change has a minimal impact on the school's impact
fee collection, it has a significant impact on a relatively few number of
multifamily developments that are already in the process and substantially
invested in these communities. He also
thinks it is important to reiterate that these developments are not creating population
growth but rather playing a critical role in housing it. The industry's investment in schools does not
stop with impact fees. The communities
and ultimately the residents pay the highest rates for property taxes and
school taxes. Additionally, apartment
communities contribute substantially to employment and to the local
economy. Mr. Tatum reiterated that they
appreciate the Commission's reconsideration of this and asked for their support
of the increased vesting period for multifamily.
Chairman
Horan asked Mr. Tatum if he was aware that the multifamily apartment unit of
1,000 feet or more generates more than twice as many children as the same size
single‑family house. Mr. Tatum
replied that is not data that they would find necessarily valid. They are going to go back to the drawing
board and look at that. They have done
some "back of the napkin" math on this and had some alternative
studies done in different counties.
Student generation rates based on what they see anecdotally aren’t
necessarily what they are seeing in practice with their communities as
well. Mr. Tatum suggested that Mr.
Kantor could provide better data on that.
Chairman Horan advised that they are raising the impact fee 414% on a large
apartment. Commissioner Dallari reminded
that they are here to talk about two‑year vesting versus one‑year
vesting and not the amount of impact fees.
Chairman Horan stated that he understands that but is just responding to
single-family comments. Commissioner
Carey stated if they could prove that there is a flaw in it, they should bring
it back because there has to be a rational nexus legally to impose the impact
fees. Chairman Horan stated that is why
he is asking the question because they are talking about “rational basis” here. Mr. Tatum stated he does not know that he could
intelligently answer the question without giving the Chairman bad data and
suggested he would like to come back and talk about that. He thinks they can address the vesting
periods.
Mark
Ogier, 237 South Westmonte Drive, addressed the Board and stated he is the past
president of AAGO and the current Developers Council Chair of AAGO representing
over 27 developers within the organization.
Mr. Ogier thanked the Board for their time in the previous meeting as
well as today to hear this issue. He
requested that the Board approve the two-year vesting period as presented by
Mr. Kantor. Mr. Ogier stated that the
student generation rates are a key number for this discussion and are provided
by third‑party consultants. The
issue with the rate with the consultants is that they take a historical look at
apartments but when looking at that generation rate, they have to look at new
apartments as well as older apartments.
The newer apartments are the ones that are being charged the rate. He stated all of the numbers are irrelevant
if the projects aren't built. He
believes the growth is here and the students are here already and they are just
housing them.
Mr.
Ogier pointed out that if new developments are not built, the impact fees don't
come in and the dollars don't come into the schools. They create an additional problem of
affordable housing and housing the work force.
If they provide a lower supply of housing, both single‑family and
multifamily, all housing costs are going to go up and all housing choices are
going to go down. He believes that needs
to be part of this discussion as they look at how to develop more housing,
single‑family and multifamily, so they can house all different income
levels. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr.
Ogier if he can address the “two-year versus one-year” issue. He added that is the issue they are
discussing today. Mr. Ogier advised that
he recommends approval for the two years.
Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Ogier if there was any reason why and he
replied because he knows how long it takes to get the different developments
done. All of the various steps they are
required to take are generally out of the hands of the developer and in the
hands of other third‑party approving authorities, some at the state level
and some at the local government level.
He advised that it just takes longer than everybody wants it to.
Mike
Mulhall, 100 South Eola Drive, addressed the Board to state he is the
development partner for Florida for Jefferson Apartment Group. Mr. Mulhall thanked Superintendent Griffin
and then talked about his children's amazing experience going through Seminole
County Schools. He stated it is
difficult to be up here "pitted" because he thinks they are all on
the same team. He would love to add more
money to Seminole County Schools because he believes they are a great asset.
Mr.
Mulhall explained they have to get their projects, which are $70 million to $80
million projects, invested. They have to
get an equity partner to kick in 30% to 40%, and then they have to get a bank
to finance the remainder. They don't do
that at the end but rather relatively near the beginning or the middle. They are underwriting the project; and if
they think there is any chance that the clock is going to strike midnight at 12
months and they are going to have a big increase, 80% of the investors, if not
more, are going to bail out and not take a chance. Mr. Mulhall noted that several years ago
construction costs went up 10% to 12% in a year. He added that to get a deal approved and get
it financed is the most critical part.
Mr.
Mulhall explained how they have to pull all of their permits at one time. They finance it at one time. They close the financing and close on the
land and they have to build. For them to
be able to provide housing, they have to get the financing. If there is anything that is uncertain like
they might have a huge bust, they won't get it financed and the project won't
happen. Mr. Mulhall noted there has been
a lot of talk about dollars and the delta between the vested and non‑vested. The reality is the projects they are working
on in Seminole County would die. If it
is so tight, they won't get any impact fees.
With a $70 million project, a portion of the taxes will be going every
year to the school system. He talked
about a project in Osceola County they dropped because the impact fees went up
and there was not a vesting period. Not
only were they losing any impact fees, they were also losing all of the
subsequent years of real estate taxes, a portion of which would be going to
their school district. Mr. Mulhall
concluded by saying that the critical part here is just the investment and the
kill ratio.
Commissioner
Carey asked Mr. Mulhall if he had a project that applied for vesting and he
responded yes. As to what point he is
at, he indicated they are in the approval process. He confirmed with Commissioner Carey that
they have been through P&Z and zoning.
He agreed they are in the final site development and getting ready to
submit that and then apply for the building permit. Commissioner Carey advised that is part of
the issue she is having with one‑year vesting versus two‑year
vesting; everybody that has applied for vesting and been approved is already at
the final engineering part of this. From
that time frame to get a building permit, if they are single‑family, it
is probably three to five months. If
they are multifamily and at site plan, it is probably ten months. She is not going to base the time of vesting
based on the fact that someone has not even started the project yet.
Commissioner
Carey pointed out that they are dealing with 42 applications. Nobody else can come and ask to be considered
to be vested. She is trying to be
realistic for Mr. Mulhall's industry, the single‑family home industry,
and also be fair to the School Board and to the County. Mr. Mulhall stated they have gotten through
P&Z. They were doing a comp plan
amendment so it has taken a little bit longer.
He noted that they sometimes have been held up in permitting for eight
months. He talked about their investors
and how they look at that. If they can
have it extended out, then they know for certain that it won't go two years. It might go 15 or 16 months, but the
investors are not going to drop the project because they have this time bomb
that is going to come hit them at 12 months.
That is the critical part for them.
Ms.
Guillet announced that they do have one vesting application they have approved
for a multifamily project and that was approved under the impairment of
contract standard rather than the equitable estoppel standard. They have simply applied for rezoning. She wanted to make sure the Board knows they
do have at least one that has not reached final engineering and also that the
ones that are subject to appeal are at different stages too.
Kami
Corbett, attorney with the School Board, addressed the Board to echo Dr.
Griffin's sentiment that the perception that they are not working
collaboratively with the County is also incorrect. Ms. Corbett stated County staff, the County
Manager, and the County Attorney's Office throughout the impact fee process was
great and very helpful. They have been
working late into the night trying to pull the numbers together and she wanted
to say that she appreciates that. Ms.
Corbett stated they support the Board's original deliberation from January and
would like the Board to stick to one year.
Tom
O'Hanlon, 827 Division, addressed the Board to state he feels so blessed to be
a resident of Seminole County and to have the Commissioners sitting behind the
dais representing the citizens. He
talked about what a great job the Commissioners do in working with all of the
different groups to make Seminole County such a phenomenal place to live. He believes the Sheriff does a phenomenal job
in keeping them safe. He feels blessed
that they have Superintendent Griffin here and the School Board and believes
they do a phenomenal job with the schools.
Mr. O'Hanlon pointed
out that they keep on talking about being fair and he applauds that, but one of
the things that has not been discussed here today is Mr. Taxpayer. There is talk about the risk of who is going
to foot the bill. He pointed out they
are the developers and they are the ones building the growth. They are making the impact so that they need
more schools. The taxpayer should not be
bearing that risk. That is the
developers' risk. He stated he is the
taxpayer and he is not bringing more people here to Seminole County. The developers are. Mr. O'Hanlon stated he knows the
Commissioners always take care of the taxpayer here. That is why they have such great services for
such low taxes, and the School Board does the same. The quality of the schools and education that
people get here for the amount of taxes that they levy is just tremendous. He stated he applauds the Commissioners and
suggested they keep doing a great job.
He advised that he is opposed to this because the school impact fees
need to be paid.
Katrina
Shadix, 995 Oklahoma Street, addressed the Board to state she believes what
they are not addressing is that they have a human overpopulation problem and
they should be addressing that first and foremost. She referred to a website, priceofsprawl.com,
and explained that it is a Florida guide to the taxpayers' costs of residential
development. These developments do not
pay for themselves and the citizens end up incurring the cost in more ways than
one. Ms. Shadix noted that people who
live in Seminole County live here because of the schools with their natural
lands being the second top draw.
Ms.
Shadix wondered what the number of trees that have been destroyed by the
developers is. She thinks it is
appalling that developers have been given carte blanche to make billions of
dollars destroying the natural lands and now they are crying "not
fair" to paying an increase of impact fees that will benefit the
schools. She stated she has no sympathy
for them in this situation. All she has
heard today is “fair, fair, fair.” That
is what has been repeated over and over.
She wondered when the developers have ever been fair to the traffic
commute times, to the rural quality of life, to their forests, to their
wildlife, or to their peace and tranquil; and the answer is never. Ms.
Shadix suggested if the County is going to allow the developers to pave over
this beautiful county, over nature, then the least they can do is make them pay
for it and pay big. She pointed out that
the Board voted to raise the impact fees 400%, and she would like them to stick
by that. She hopes the Board does not
give the developers any breaks; and if she had her way, she would like the
Board to rescind all of the approvals of the applications that were already
approved.
Bill
Hyde, 2379 Audley Street, addressed the Board to note there have been a lot of
numbers thrown around and a lot of big words thrown around; so he went directly
to the backup material that was provided where it says, "the economic
impact on individuals or businesses should be a reduction in development costs."
Development costs mean developers save a
lot of money. Mr. Hyde stated that it
goes on to say, “the proposed ordinance would result in moderate reduction in
revenues received by the School Board for constructing school facility to
address new growth." Mr. Hyde
advised that someone is going to pay for that and Mr. O'Hanlon got right to
it. At the end of the story, it is going
to be the taxpayers because when the School Board comes up short of money next
budget time, they will point back to the Board and say that the Board jerked
the rug out from under them. He
suggested it will be the taxpayers who will pay that. Mr. Hyde suggested they can't keep blaming
Tallahassee and everything else. He
remarked that the ball is in the Board's court and this is probably the one
time they will hear him say they need these taxes and fees. He suggested this is one they need to stick
with because this one will actually keep them from eventually having their
taxes raised. That is really what it is
all about. The Board has heard
"fair, fair, fair" but he really hopes the Board considers paying
attention to the taxpayers and treating them fair too.
Polly
DeLucia, President of SCCPTA, addressed the Board and stated she has a daughter
attending Seminole High School and her kindergartener is now registered to
begin at Idyllwilde Elementary this fall.
Ms. DeLucia advised she is speaking today in her role as president of
the Seminole County Council Parent Teacher Association (SCCPTA) and then gave a
brief description of SCCPTA. Ms. DeLucia
stated that a key PTA advocacy position at all levels of government is that
public schools should be adequately funded by public funds. She stressed that their schools deserve both
adequate operating funding and capital funding sufficient to meet the projected
needs of Seminole County. Ms. DeLucia
stated that toady they are speaking to their local leaders and asking that they
not extend vesting rights for the County's new educational impact fee.
Ms.
DeLucia noted that their students and families are already facing challenges as
the schools approach 100% capacity countywide.
New building in the county is not necessarily positioned to access open
student seats. Already there are more
than 200 families attending alternate schools because of capacity issues. She stressed that their public schools need
additional funds to build new student seats and the funds are needed now. By allowing extension of the vesting period,
the County will effectively push the receipt of increased funding from
development into 2020. She stated
capital projects are multiyear undertakings; and with an additional 6,000 new
students expected within five years, she believes work on these projects must
begin today.
Ms.
DeLucia pointed out that in just unincorporated Seminole County, a loss to the
schools of at least $4.6 million has already been approved through vesting
certificates. If the vesting period is
extended, over an additional $2 million could be vested through appeals. That breaks down to $1.2 million for
multifamily and $800,000 for condominiums and single‑family homes. These figures do not include any development
within the cities. Ms. DeLucia talked
about trying to get information regarding educational impact fees vesting certificates
from the cities and believes the dollars at stake from these seven cities are
significant.
Ms.
DeLucia advised that SCCPTA is supportive of a reasonable vesting policy. Developers with significantly in‑progress
projects should have their investments protected; however, developments are
speculative with no sure outcome in any situation. Government action is only one factor in a
tricky industry. She stated that
continued expansion of the vesting policies to accommodate additional
developers in an effort to be fair to them is not fair to the schools or to the
current county residents. Developers
want to build in Seminole County because their quality schools attract renters
and buyers and allow them to charge premium prices. She reiterated that if new development fails
to bear a proportional cost of the education impact that it creates, all of the
county's children will suffer.
Ms.
DeLucia referred to an argument that has been advanced by AAGO; that since they
were not explicitly invited into the Citizens Advisory Group, they were
excluded from representing their members.
She noted the County's policy required that the School Board consult
community stakeholders and a good faith effort was made to do so. Even recognizing that AAGO was not initially
invited into the discussion, Florida's policy of Government in the Sunshine
requires substantial public notice so that AAGO should have known about the
educational impact fee discussions long before this January. She explained that AAGO has used this
circumstance to push the issue of extended vesting. Last week the Planning and Zoning Commission
did vote to recommend to allow two‑year vesting for multifamily
projects. If the County Commissioners
decide to accept this, they would be recognizing the possibility of losing $1.2
million on appeal in the County alone.
Ms. DeLucia remarked
that the process of increasing the educational impact fee in Seminole County
has not been handled in a way that gives credit to any of the parties
involved. Despite inflation, growth, and
development, this School Board has allowed the same impact fee to remain in
place for ten years. Although they did
campaign for additional sales tax revenue during that period, a direct
connection between the educational impact fee for new homes and the actual cost
of enrolling new students was not maintained.
Ms.
DeLucia stated that today is the third revisiting of the subject due to
perceived fault with the educational impact fee. She implored the Board, that regardless of
the outcome of this vote, to please let the matter end today. The educational impact fee has risen. Vesting has been provided to those
significantly in progress with their developments. To continue reopening this issue prevents
interested parties from adjusting to the new reality and moving ahead with
their future plans. Ms. DeLucia
concluded by stating that SCCPTA is requesting the Board of County
Commissioners not extend vesting rights another year. Additionally, they request that discussions
of and changes to the new educational impact fee end today because continued
County action on this issue is unwarranted.
Kristine
Kraus, 3173 Bothwell Court, addressed the Board to state she is opposed to
extending and expanding the vesting. Ms.
Kraus noted that the Seminole County Schools have done an amazing job with very
little. They are constantly being under
attack both at the federal level and at the state level. She asked the Board for their help at the
local level because they do have the ability to help. The builders are for‑profit businesses
and the schools are not.
Bobby
Luthra, 5051 Isleworth County Club Drive, addressed the Board to state they
have been talking about this issue for over a year; so as developers, they all
knew this was coming. Mr. Luthra
discussed time frames and how long they have known so they could make
adjustments in developments and in what they are doing. He referred to six or seven developments in
the East Seminole County/Sanford area.
The reason why the developments are successful today and are going
forward is because of the work of the School Board in going from "D"
and "F" rated elementary schools to "C" rated schools. That is the reason why the builders are
coming. They are kind of caught in a
Catch‑22. They have done such a
good job that people can afford to come here and people will be coming here and
the developments are proceeding. He
suggested they give the schools a round of applause. As a developer, he believes they should
commend the School Board on the wonderful job they have done. He added that the reason they are in this
situation today is because of the great job they have done.
With
regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or
in opposition to the item and public input was closed.
Speaker
Request Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner
Carey advised that she has spent a lot of time talking to staff about schedules
and she has looked at these projects.
She pointed out that the original document had a two‑year
recommendation and the Board opted not to take that and instead said one. She thinks there have been some things
brought out that it may be slightly longer than 12 months. She believes that whatever they do should be
across the board. Whether it is single‑family
or multifamily, it doesn't really matter.
Commissioner Carey stated the vesting time should be the vesting time,
and she thinks 18 months is adequate for any of the scenarios they are looking
at. She stated that is something she
would be willing to support and would be happy to put it in the form of a
motion.
Commissioner
Constantine stated since they don't have the numbers, he is a little concerned
since they haven't discussed about single‑family homes. He asked what that would do if they extended
it from one year to 18 months for single‑family homes. Commissioner Carey suggested that was in the
calculations that were shown. Ms.
Guillet replied that they did a one‑year and a two‑year for single‑family
and multifamily. The single‑family
was more scientifically based in an estimate and was anecdotal. They had some trends they could look at in
order to establish that. Ms. Guillet
advised that she believes the impacts would be similar since they are talking
about 18 months as opposed to 24 months.
Obviously, they would not get as many homes; so they would have probably
half of that 30% in the second year. The
30% absorption rate was shown on the charts for the single‑family. She does not know what impact it will on have
multifamily. As she noted earlier, they
had several multifamily projects that came through and applied for
vesting. In Seminole County, they
approved one based on the impairment of contracts standard. She added this is a project that is just at
the very beginning of the review phase.
There are others that are subject to appeal. There are a number of multifamily projects in
the cities, and she is not sure at what point in the process those multifamily
projects might be. The same is true for
the single‑family projects. She
stated she does not know and can't tell the Commissioners what the impact might
be for the 20 projects that were in the cities.
Motion by Commissioner
Carey to adopt an Ordinance amending a portion of Chapter 105, “Educational
System Impact Fees," Land Development Code of Seminole County, Florida;
providing for an amendment to Section 105.43 Vested Rights moving the length of
a vesting agreement from one (1) year to eighteen (18) months; providing for
codification in the Land Development Code of Seminole County, Florida; providing
for severability; and providing an effective date. Chairman Horan called for a second to the
motion without response; whereupon, the motion
died for lack of same.
Chairman
Horan stated a lot of things have been discussed today but the issue is going
from one year to two years.
Commissioner Carey advised if there is no motion made for two years, it
will stay at one year. It is already one
year. Chairman Horan asked the County
Attorney whether they would have to take formal action on that. Mr. Applegate replied that he does not think
they do. If there is no consensus to
move it from one year to two years, then it stays at one year as the Board
previously adopted. Mr. Applegate
advised that Mr. Glass today and Ms. Monaco in her letter stated the basic
principles that apply in law. He added
that any decision of the Board to change the ordinance would have to be on a
rational basis promoting a legitimate government interest, fairly debatable,
and could not be arbitrary and capricious.
If the Board did vote to go two years and one year, they would have to
provide a rational basis for that distinction.
If the Board fails to move the proposed amendment forward, then the
ordinance stands as previously adopted.
Commissioner
Constantine stated that he thinks the problem here that has caused the greatest
angst was when they started hearing from the apartment association that they
felt they were not included in the discussion.
He does not think anybody can say they have not had their voice heard
now. The Commissioner stated he believes
the real problem was the fact that the School Board waited so long to bring
this issue forward. He thinks the Board
has been blamed a little bit here, but the fact of the matter is that $5,000
per home was not sufficient to pay for the growth that was coming. They did have a little bit of time lapse and
there was a lack of development for a while, but that has not been the case for
the last three or four years.
Commissioner
Constantine pointed out that when it was brought forward to the Board the first
time, there was vesting in the School Board's request. There was also a $2,000 discount for
homebuilders for a two‑year period.
There was no discussion of what was an up-to-400% increase for
apartments. Right now they have looked
at and discussed the fact that one year for the most part for most situations
would be sufficient. Commissioner
Constantine advised that he was waiting to hear what others had to say,
including Mr. Kantor because he said he reserved the right to come back
but didn't come back. He noted that the
one thing he does agree with is that rooftops don't pay for themselves and
ultimately the cost is going to be burdened by the taxpayers. The fact is here they have a situation where
a certain time frame had to be established to give people the ability to
complete their development. He is trying
to find a fairness issue because as the attorney just said, they need to ensure
that they are fair for both sides.
Commissioner
Constantine stated it is clear that one thing that has been misunderstood from
the very beginning is that this is not an open‑ended discussion that
anybody that comes in between now and two years or 18 months or one year from
now is going to get this vesting. The
fact of the matter is the vesting period has closed and no one else that is
looking to come in is going to get any ability to have vesting rights. Commissioner Constantine confirmed with the
County Manager that the new ordinance states the School Board has to look at
this every three years. He stated that,
in itself, will start to move the ball forward so there will be a proper
payment of impact fees going down the line.
With that said, he thinks in looking at where they are, he agrees with
Commissioner Carey that 18 months is probably the fairest for all considered;
and therefore, he would go along with that recommendation. Again, not hearing anyone else speak on it,
he thinks that is probably the fairest for both sides. He added that would be for everyone. Discussion ensued.
When
asked by Chairman Horan whether she agrees that her motion is still on the
table, Commissioner Carey agreed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Constantine, to
adopt Ordinance 2018-13 amending a portion of Chapter 105, “Educational System
Impact Fees," Land Development Code of Seminole County, Florida; providing
for an amendment to Section 105.43 Vested Rights moving the length of a vesting
agreement from one (1) year to eighteen
(18) months; providing for codification in the Land Development Code of
Seminole County, Florida; providing for severability; and providing an
effective date, as described in the proof of publication.
Under
discussion, Chairman Horan pointed out that based upon the discussion they had
here today and the different types of vesting periods and the evidence they
have of the applications and what process they are in right now, he thinks
there is a rational basis for the 18 months.
It is fair to everybody and there is definitely a rational basis in setting
it at that particular time period. He
added that the 18 months also mitigates whatever the effect might be in terms
of the effect on the School Board; the delta goes down.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CELERY AVENUE
RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE/Archie and Debbie Smith
Agenda Item #24 – 2018-0572
Continuation of a
public hearing from March 27, 2018 to
consider vacating and abandoning a remnant piece of the public right-of-way
known as Celery Avenue, as recorded in Road Plat Book 1, page 47, in the Public
Records of Seminole County, Florida, for property located at the intersection
of Celery Avenue and East SR 415, Sanford, Florida, as described in the proof
of publication, Archie and Debbie Smith.
Angi
Kealhofer, Planning and Development Division, addressed the Board to inform
them that Public Works has recommended this item be continued until May 22.
With
regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in
opposition to the continuance and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Constantine, to
continue to May 22, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible,
request to adopt a Resolution vacating and abandoning a remnant piece of the
public right-of-way known as Celery Avenue, as recorded in Road Plat Book 1,
page 47, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, for property
located at the intersection of Celery Avenue and East SR 415, Sanford, Florida,
as described in the proof of publication, Archie and Debbie Smith.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CHAPMAN
APARTMENTS LARGE SCALE LAND USE
MAP AMENDMENT
AND REZONE/Bryan Potts
Agenda Item #25 – 2018-0004
Continuation of a
public hearing from March 27, 2018 to consider a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Medium Density
Residential, High Intensity Planned Development Transitional, and Planned
Development to Planned Development, and a Rezone from RP (Residential
Professional) and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) for a
243 multifamily residential unit apartment complex on 12.66 acres, located on
the northeast corner of West SR 426 and Tuskawilla Road, as described in the
proof of publication, WP South Acquisitions, LLC.
Matt
Davidson, Planning and Zoning Division, addressed the Board to present the
request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum.
Mr. Davidson stated the Applicant is requesting a Large Scale Land Use
Map Amendment and Rezone to Planned Development in order to develop a luxury multifamily
apartment complex with a maximum density of 20 units per net buildable
acre. The complex will consist of a
maximum of 243 residential units with a maximum building height of 40 feet. Mr. Davidson talked about the three different
future land use designations that the subject site currently has; Medium
Density Residential, High Intensity PD Transitional, and PD. The majority of the site is comprised of an
expired Planned Development, which permitted office and commercial uses. Mr. Davidson described the proposed buffers
(such as a masonry wall, a six-foot high decorative metal fence, and
landscaping) and the various building setbacks.
Mr.
Davidson stated that the subject property is located in the County’s
Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and explained that TCEAs are
established to promote development and redevelopment where opportunities for
expansion or addition of new transportation corridors are limited. The Applicant has provided a traffic impact
analysis (TIA) that indicates that the roadway segments currently operate
within their design capacities and Level of Services (LOS); however, a few
directional movements (pre- and post-development) currently operate at
unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Tuskawilla Road and Aloma Avenue. Mr. Davidson noted that at full build-out,
the TIA shows that some movements at the intersection will operate at an
unacceptable LOS during the AM and PM Peak Hours with a slight increase of
delay. He advised that the Applicant
will be required to reconstruct and restripe by extending the length of the
southbound center left-turn lane on Tuskawilla Road at the intersection of West
SR 426 as part of the site plan approval process. Additional right-of-way dedication along West
SR 426 will be required for an additional future right-turn lane.
Mr.
Davidson reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the
Board of County Commissioners deny the transmittal of the subject request. He indicated that the proposed development
would serve as a transition between the single-family subdivision to the east,
Cross Seminole Trail to the north, and Tuskawilla Road to the west. With frontage on two arterial roads, it is
appropriately located at a major intersection with retail uses to the south,
west, and east of the site. Mr. Davidson
stated that staff finds the request to be consistent with the comprehensive
plan and compatible with the surrounding trend of development in the area and
recommends the Board transmit the proposed ordinance to state and regional
review agencies.
Commissioner
Carey asked Mr. Davidson whether the current uses that are allocated to
that property are more intense than the request that is being applied for
today. Mr. Davidson replied that
according to the future land use that is out there, a portion of the property
does have a High Intensity Planned Transitional Future Land Use that allows for
up to 20 dwelling units for net buildable acre.
The majority of the subject property was a previous PD that expired
eight years after it was approved in 1995.
That allowed for commercial and office uses with approximately 40,000
square feet of commercial use and 20,000 square feet of office use. Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr.
Davidson that under Seminole's own comp plan, somebody could come in and apply
for some higher intensity than what is out there and being proposed. The Commissioner asked whether, with this
transmittal, it would down‑zone the Comprehensive Land Plan; and Mr.
Davidson replied that it would for a portion of property, yes. Commissioner Dallari asked what percentage
that portion of the property would be.
Mr. Davidson stated with regard to the HIP‑TR, they did take a
look at that but he does not have specific acreage in front of him. He referred to a map being displayed (page
361 in Agenda Packet) and pointed out the smaller section. He indicated the larger section has the
expired PD Future Land Use.
Charlie
Madden, Madden Moorhead & Stokes, addressed the Board to state he is
representing the contract purchaser of the property which is Wood
Partners. Mr. Madden announced that
those present today are: Brian Borland,
a partner at Wood Partners; Greg Lee, counsel with Baker & Hostetler; and
Mohammed Abdallah with Traffic and Mobility Consultants. Mr. Madden displayed a map (received and
filed) and pointed out the portion of the property that is HIP‑TR. He stated the rest is the expired PD, which
had similar buffers and setbacks as the Clayton Crossing project. He believes it is a reasonable assumption
that someone could come in and apply for something similar to the expired PD
and probably expect an approval. He
indicated on the map the location of the “residential” that they are directly
by, Clayton Crossing, and explained that it shares a property line. He stated they had good-sized buffers and
building setback requirements to create compatibility between the single‑family
and commercial.
Mr.
Madden stated that for the past 30 years, the property has been for sale and
marketed as commercial and office; and they have not successfully sold it to
anyone for that purpose. He advised they
are here today requesting that the property be down‑zoned to the
multifamily use. Mr. Madden talked about
what was allowed in the original expired PD and what uses and buffers are now
being proposed. He referred to the
original PD uses and explained that translating those uses into multifamily
units based on a trip equivalency matrix would equate to 349 units from a traffic
standpoint. The proposed request is for
243 units. He advised they had three
community meetings.
Mr.
Madden distributed copies of his presentation (received and filed) and then
displayed the Aloma at Tuskawilla Apartments Conceptual Site Plan that he took
to P&Z and reviewed that plan. The
Landscape Buffer Plan was displayed. He
stated that at the second and third community meeting, there clearly was a
group that was not happy with the plan; but he didn't really grasp how unhappy
they were with the plan until he got to P&Z and heard their comments. Mr. Madden reported that subsequently that
plan got denied at P&Z; so they went back to the drawing board. Based on the comments they heard at P&Z,
they came back with a new plan. Mr.
Madden displayed the Alta Seminole Conceptual Site Plan and talked about the
changes that were made to the setbacks and the landscaping buffers. He indicated on the Site Plan the locations
of the two‑ and three‑story buildings and the one‑story
detached garages. Mr. Madden displayed a
black and white rendering of the Site Plan and explained how, at Commissioner
Dallari's request, they dropped 10 additional units and did more two‑story
buildings on the east side closer to the single‑family. That is how the number of units went from 253
units to 243 units. He pointed out that
they are well beyond the setbacks that were approved for a much more intense
development over in Clayton Crossing with the 120‑foot building setbacks
for three‑story buildings. He
indicated a location on the Site Plan and stated if they measure from there to
the property lines across the trail, they are meeting those setbacks which they
have proposed in their Development Order.
Mr. Madden displayed and discussed the updated Landscape Buffer Plan. He noted that the retention pond that had
been approved with the two‑story office building is now going to be an
attractive water body.
Mr.
Madden displayed the Aerial Exhibit and stated it is to give the Board a better
idea of all of the uses in the area. He
pointed out Clayton Crossing, the Shops at Clayton Crossing, Aloma Self
Storage, the 7‑Eleven, the Wendy's, an insurance office, and some
townhomes. He stated what they have done
from a compatibility standpoint is classic planning of transitioning from
commercial uses to multifamily and in their case transitioning from commercial
to three‑story buildings to two‑story buildings on the east next to
the single‑family, which makes them clearly compatible with their
neighbors.
Mr.
Madden distributed the Alta Seminole Vicinity Map and Rent Comp Summary
(received and filed). He advised that a
concern about student housing came up at P&Z; so they looked at the nearest
"competition" for other apartment complexes that are within a mile of
the site. He indicated the various
locations on the map for Mystic Cove (two‑story affordable housing), Loma
Vista (three‑story affordable housing), and Elmhurst Village (three‑story
market rate). Mr. Madden stated of their
243 units, there are 130 one‑bedroom units, 109 two‑bedroom units,
and 14 three‑bedroom units. He
then referred to the Rent Comp Summary and compared the various rents with the
rents at Alta Seminole. Mr. Madden
advised that the rents at Alta Seminole are significantly higher than the three
apartment complexes that are closer to UCF, which is where the students are
going to come from. They believe this
clearly demonstrates that students will not be renting from Alta Seminole; that
is not the Wood Partners business plan or model. The Wood Partners model is to attract working
young professionals that are not ready to buy a house yet. Mr. Madden displayed a rendering (received
and filed) of the proposed three‑story building and discussed building
heights. He noted they are asking for 40
feet, which is the same thing that was approved at The Alexander at Sabal
Point, and talked about why they are asking for that height.
Mr.
Madden advised that the main topic they heard about at the P&Z meeting was
the traffic situation. He mentioned that
they are in a Traffic Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and that they did have
their traffic engineer look at a number of issues in the area to look for
solutions to help improve the Tuskawilla/Aloma intersection. Mr. Madden stated he understands the original
PD has expired. With regard to doing
something more intense from a traffic standpoint, he suggested if they compare
the 40,000 square feet of commercial and the 20,000 square feet of office to
the 243 multifamily units, the 243 multifamily units are three and a half times
less than the previous approval. The
previous approval allowed for up to 5,521 average daily trips, and the 243
apartments will produce 1,591 average daily trips.
Mr.
Madden reported that the capacity for Aloma Avenue is 60,000 average daily
trips in this segment. After they develop,
there will be 10,900 daily trips remaining on Aloma Avenue. For Tuskawilla Road, the maximum capacity is
42,560 average daily trips. After they
develop, there will be 7,900 average daily trips in that segment available for
use before it would reach maximum capacity.
He explained that they fully recognize that during AM and PM peaks, that
intersection gets very snarled. They
understand that some of the turning movements today are failing. Mr. Madden announced that Greg Lee, with
Baker & Hostetler, is going to now talk about the Transportation
Concurrency Exception Area and then Mohammed Abdallah is going to display some
exhibits on what their proposed solutions are to make that intersection operate
at a higher level of service than it is operating at today before they
construct.
Greg
Lee, attorney with Baker & Hostetler, addressed the Board and stated this
has been a long process and they have gone through a lot of dialogue and a lot
meetings and a lot of communication, both with staff and members of the
community. Mr. Lee stated that in the
community meetings, the one overriding comment that they heard was concerns
related to traffic and transportation.
As staff indicated and as Mr. Madden indicated, they are in a Dense
Urban Land Area (DULA) as defined in the Florida Statutes. They are also part of a Transportation
Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) that was established by Seminole County. The purpose of establishing the TCEA was to
permit urban infill development and not have development relegated to areas
that are outside the urban core. Part of
the process for establishing a TCEA involves coordination with FDOT,
establishing certain improvements and rules and principles. Mr. Lee pointed out this TCEA has been in
place for a long time. The project being
in the Dense Urban Land Area and the TCEA make it excepted from transportation
concurrency. He noted that the County's
code lays out a process for projects that are similar to theirs to produce a
traffic study and identify some things that can be done to mitigate
impacts. Mr. Lee mentioned that the
other projects that were approved on this subject property were more intense
and explained that this is a down‑zone.
This is truly an effort to try and see if they can engage in infill
urban development, which was the desire of Seminole County when they
established the TCEA, and to mitigate the impact and address the impacts in a
way that leaves the intersection and leaves the area surrounding the subject
property in a better position than it is today.
Mohammed
Abdallah, Traffic & Mobility Consultants, addressed the Board and
distributed his presentation (received and filed). Mr. Abdallah displayed a map of the
intersection of Aloma Avenue and Tuskawilla Road with proposed intersection
improvements and advised that his company prepared a traffic study for the
subject site. He noted, as indicated in
the staff report, there is currently a deficiency on certain movements at the
intersection and those are based in the operation of the signal, the character
of the traffic, and some of the geometry that exists at the intersection. Mr. Abdallah talked about the improvements
that the County implemented a few years ago and how it took the extremely heavy
flow of traffic from Tuskawilla southbound onto Aloma that is trying to get to
the 417 and instead of trying to accommodate it in dual left-turn lanes, which
is what had been used until this intersection came along, they put in triple
left-turn lanes. There has been quite a
bit of attention to this intersection and some improvements that have come
along. Looking at it a few years later,
there are still challenges. Mr. Abdallah
referred to the displayed map and discussed the proposed improvements to the
intersection; such as, retiming and balancing the signal. He explained how they would modify the three
left-turn lanes by (1) removing the through cars from the outer most left-turn
lane; (2) extending the left-turn lane that is next to the outer most lane back
so it is 750 feet long; and (3) leaving the third left-turn lane as it is. He emphasized that a lot of traffic they are
handling through this intersection is commuter traffic and not necessarily
traffic just coming from this area.
Mr.
Abdallah explained that those physical improvements along with the signal
timing improvement are going to basically leave the intersection better when
they are done with it than it is today and that is with adding the traffic from
this project. He referred to a location
on the map and talked about the dedication of a right-of-way for additional
future improvements, if they are deemed necessary, along the state road. Those improvements would be to add a second
right-turn lane so there is not just one right-turn lane going from Aloma to
Tuskawilla.
Mr.
Abdallah displayed the AM Peak - No Build Level of Service map, which
represents the current conditions. He
explained that in the traffic engineering world, LOS D is amazing. If they see a LOS D, they are happy. LOS E means they are nearing capacity, and
LOS F means they are over capacity. Mr.
Abdallah referred to the red, yellow, and green arrows on the map and discussed
the traffic movement. He displayed the
AM Peak - Build/Improved map and talked about the significant improvements in
traffic movement. Commissioner
Constantine remarked that he has already seen this presentation and he believes
everybody else has also. He asked Mr.
Abdallah if he is suggesting that the developer is willing to pay for the
improvements. Mr. Abdallah stated he
believes that is the case and that everything they are proposing on Tuskawilla
itself, the physical improvements, the developer will be doing as part of this
project and is committing to do as part of this project.
Commissioner
Dallari asked Mr. Abdallah to talk about the right‑in/right‑out of
the project and how people are going to make U‑turns now. Mr. Abdallah stated with the way the access
for the project is proposed, there would be a right‑in/right‑out on
Aloma Avenue and a right‑in/right‑out on Tuskawilla. He then explained that if you live in this
community, should it be approved and constructed, and you are trying to go
toward the east toward SR 417, there are two choices to make that
movement. One choice is to come out of the
Aloma driveway and make the U‑turn at the Tuskawilla intersection. He illustrated the movement on the map. He stated it will be a challenging movement
but it is a doable movement. The other
choice is to come out on Tuskawilla and go up half a mile, make the U‑turn
at Old Bear Run, come back and make the left turn at the signal light
intersection. He illustrated the
movement on the map. Discussion ensued
with regard to making U-turn movements.
Commissioner
Carey remarked that yesterday afternoon they received an amendment to the
development order that indicated these are improvements being made by the
developer as part of the development order.
Mr. Davidson confirmed that is in the development order. Chairman Horan confirmed with Mr. Davidson
that the right-of-way on the 426 is being donated.
Mr.
Madden summarized that what he heard today is that County staff is recommending
transmittal of this and approval of their PD request. He thinks they have clearly demonstrated
compatibility with their neighbors and changed the plan substantially from what
was denied at the P&Z meeting by matching Clayton Crossing, which is a much
more intense use, with the buffers and building setbacks. They are even exceeding those building
setbacks. He believes they are a much
less intense use from a traffic standpoint over what could be developed
there. Mr. Madden explained that when
the original PD was done (although the PD may be expired), the shared access
was set up with 7‑Eleven. That was
done a long time ago, and that access is there with cross access easements with
the 7‑Eleven. That is where they
have to come in and out. They basically
have no choice but to come in and out on Aloma as well to disburse the traffic. He stated that what could go in there with
some kind of commercial/office use is going to be a much higher trip
producer. With regard to the proposed
intersection improvements and the exhibits that Mr. Abdallah just handed out,
Mr. Madden suggested that if the Board looks through those, it will be clear
they are going to improve the efficiency of that intersection after their
development is done more than how it is functioning today.
Mr.
Madden stated that despite the fact they are in a Transportation Concurrency
Exception Area, they are still doing those improvements to that intersection to
increase its efficiency. He referred the
Commissioners to the Aerial Map Exhibit from his presentation and pointed out
that in this corridor, this is the last piece.
He thinks they have done everything they can do to leave it in the best
traffic situation that it can be.
Obviously, no one likes rush hour traffic but they have come up with a
way to improve that intersection. Mr.
Madden stated they would appreciate the Board's support today. He also requested the opportunity to respond
after the comments from the public.
Steve
Shideler, 4648 Creekview Lane, addressed the Board to state he has lived in
Bear Creek for 32 years and has seen all of the changes over this time
period. Mr. Shideler referred to an
article (received and filed) that was in the Orlando Sentinel last month
regarding pedestrian deaths and issues in the state of Florida. He has not heard anything today that
addresses the pedestrian concerns. He
talked about the number of children that walk to and from school. Mr. Shideler read some of the facts from the
Sentinel article into the record. With
regard to the distractions listed in the article, he believes this project will
impact all of those. He listed the three
areas in Central Florida that are under the most scrutiny (UCF, Pine Hills and
Oak Ridge Road) and talked about how UCF has grown. Mr. Shideler continued his review of the
article. In closing, Mr. Shideler noted
that they need to improve signage and those issues. He then suggested putting a park in this area. He stated there are a number of children that
live in the area. They could maintain
the trees and the beauty of the area and yet assist the community with a park
for children to go to.
Anthony
Scotti, 5208 Hidden Cypress Lane, addressed the Board and indicated he is the
president of Clayton Crossing HOA. Mr.
Scotti pointed out that Mr. Madden kept referring to Clayton Crossing as having
higher density or more intense density and citing as his reason in his mind why
this project is compatible with Clayton Crossing. Mr. Scotti reported there are 218 households
on about 50 acres of land compared to 243 units on 12 acres. He advised that the setback that Mr. Madden
referred to does not belong to the retail center but rather is Clayton
Crossing's tract. Mr. Scotti stated that
Clayton Crossing residents are overwhelmingly opposed to this proposal. They feel like the changes are an arbitrary
urbanization. Currently, the land is a
horse farm. They understand that
eventually it will be developed; but they were hoping it would be developed as
expected, which would be commercial.
They are concerned about the impacts to the infrastructure and the
school. Mr. Scotti stated the density of
this project seems like it is five times the density of Clayton Crossing, and
they disagree with the project manager's statement that the area's growth is
trending toward this density. The
nearest high density growth that they found is many, many miles north in the
Winter Springs Town Center area where the nearest apartment complexes are being
built. Mr. Scotti stated it just seems
like there is no hardship that would warrant this kind of capricious proposal
and it is incompatible with the surrounding area. He urged the Board to deny it.
Martha
E. Pultz, 1039 Northern Way, addressed the Board and stated that she moved here
in 1981. Ms. Pultz stated she is
advocating on behalf of the owners of this property, who bought the property in
1983. She talked about the different
projects that failed to come to fruition.
She noted that now there is this proposal for a downgrade in development
into a multifamily residential and she hopes the Board will consider it. Several Commissioners confirmed with Ms.
Pultz that she is in support. She stated
she does drive in with horse trailers and drive out to take care of her
animals. She knows it is sometimes
challenging but it just takes patience.
Al
Portugal, 4587 Tigua Island Court, addressed the Board and stated that he has
lived in the Antigua Pointe subdivision for 15 years. Mr. Portugal reported that Tuskawilla is only
ten miles long and this is the last piece of that ten miles. There is another project going in near SR
434, and he has seen the degradation of the quality of life in the communities. There are traffic jams, trucks going down the
road speeding. He stated it is really
crazy right now with the volume of traffic they are experiencing in that
location. Mr. Portugal talked about how,
in the last five years, the criminal rate has increased in the
neighborhood. He stated he thought the
zoning department had denied this rezoning.
Chairman Horan informed Mr. Portugal that this item went in front of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, which is an advisory board to this Board, and
it was voted down five to one. The
Chairman clarified that that is just a recommendation to the BCC and the BCC
makes the final decision. Chairman Horan
pointed out that the staff’s recommendation is in the agenda and he believes
the staff’s recommendation is approval.
Mr. Portugal requested that the Board deny this rezoning.
Shawn
Stafford, 2584 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board and stated that he lives
in the Bear Creek subdivision right next to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Stafford indicated that he has also been
the homeowners’ association president for the last five years. He stated he is also a human factor
psychologist and an expert witness. He
does a lot of murder cases, civil cases, and traffic cases. Mr. Stafford talked about looking at the data
that is present in the traffic study and advised that he does not believe the
Board has enough data to actually make an informed decision. He then discussed U‑turns and the
number of U‑turns that will be added to this intersection. Mr. Stafford stated that while they are
improving the traffic lanes, it is a very risky behavior they are adding; and
in adding 450 U‑turns, they do not know what is going to happen to that
intersection.
Mr.
Stafford suggested that if someone goes to any of the journals on
transportation, they would see that the journals say U‑turns are very
risky. He talked about why U‑turns
are even riskier when there are multiple lanes turning left. There is data out there that suggest this is
going to be an issue, and the traffic study does not take that into account. Mr. Stafford suggested they look at other
apartment complexes that are right‑in/right‑out where the majority
of the maneuverers are going to be U‑turns and asked how that will impact
flow. He wondered whether the model
accounts for 450 U‑turns. He stated
he would argue that it does not.
Mr.
Stafford announced that his community is united against this for a number of
reasons, a lot of them emotional. Even
with traffic improvements, he asked what 450 U‑turns are going to
do. Before they got their "no U‑turn"
sign at the exit of Bear Creek Lane, they had a lot of traffic accidents. People do not expect U‑turns. Commuters that go through this area use the
area as an access to 417, and now they are putting in 450 U‑turns. He wondered how many traffic crashes they
will have in that particular area. He
concluded by emphasizing that he is definitely against this project and his
entire community is as well.
John
Fairchild, 2585 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board and displayed a
photograph (received and filed) of a large dump truck doing a U‑turn. This happened within the past month with the
"no U‑turn" signs in place.
Mr. Fairchild stated he tried to read the traffic study and saw where it
said that "U‑turns were not a thing." He talked about why they are a
"thing."
Mr.
Fairchild referred to safety, especially regarding the Cross Seminole Trail,
and talked about the road opening up from a two‑lane road and ultimately
going into two right‑turn lanes and into three left‑turn
lanes. He emphasized that is where
everybody is trying to rush through that area as quickly as possible. He displayed another photograph (received and
filed) of a street view and advised that when people approach this
intersection, they are not looking at that trail light. The trail light is green 90% of the time, and
people are focused on getting through that Aloma light as fast as
possible. With regard to adding more
congestion, he pointed out that it is not just adding more cars that could
potentially hit pedestrians, it is making people more frustrated and adding
aggravation which will make human behaviors even worse behaviors.
Mr.
Fairchild stated he has heard a lot of fancy terms; such as, DULA and
TCEA. He does not know what these terms
are but he does know “snarled.” That is
the thing that people do when they are waiting to get through the intersection
which makes them make poor decisions. He
suggested they not snarl up that intersection any more. Mr. Fairchild mentioned the U-turn into the
Starbucks and talked about why there is no way to get out of the proposed
right-out and into the Starbucks’ U-turn lane.
He advised he is opposed to this item.
Ruth
Wood's name was announced and it was determined that she was not in attendance.
Kelly
Martin’s name was announced and it was determined that she was not in
attendance. A letter (received and
filed) from Ms. Martin was submitted into the record.
Pat
Parker, 4548 Whimbrel Place, addressed the Board to talk about her family's
citrus farm and grove caretaking business (Parker Brothers Grove Service),
which was located where Think 'N Play nursery is located near Bear Creek. Ms. Parker stated that in 1917 her
grandfather and uncle bought 40 acres at Tuskawilla and Aloma. They had to work the land from scratch to
plant citrus trees. She remembers as a
little girl in the '50s and '60s that there was no traffic. There were no subdivisions; it was all orange
groves or woods. Families that lived on
Tuskawilla had acreage and they knew almost everybody that drove by. She advised her dad's mother was a Dodd and
they had family reunions on the Dodd Ranch before Christmas every year. Her uncle, Corbett Dodd, was a Seminole
County Commissioner in the '50s; and her dad, Bob Parker, was a Seminole County
Commissioner in the '60s. She noted that
the church east of them is where they vote.
Ms.
Parker stated she thinks it would be a big mistake to add an apartment building
to an already crowded road. People are
coming off the 417 and getting on it.
They have no apartment buildings around their neighborhoods. It would be better for an apartment building
to be built near the university. She
stressed that they already have backups and accidents at the intersection of
Aloma and Tuskawilla and they don't want to add to the problem.
Joe
Wheeler, 2664 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board and distributed an
information packet (received and filed).
Mr. Wheeler displayed a map and explained that the 417 is a man‑made
boundary that separates the east side from the west side. The environments on the two sides are not
comparable. Mr. Wheeler referred to a
memorandum from Planning to the Board and advised that in the memorandum, they
refer to two different apartments; Trails at Aloma and the Promenade at
Aloma. He discussed the two apartment
complexes, which are three‑story and a mile from the property that is
under consideration, and pointed out they are one‑half mile from Duke
Energy, FDOT Industrial Yard, and AK Business Center.
Mr.
Wheeler displayed another map depicting the west side of Tuskawilla and Aloma
and pointed out there is none of that industrial business there. He then listed the subdivisions on the map
and indicated the thing they all have in common is that they are single‑owner
residences, whether they be townhomes or single‑family residences. He remarked that there are no apartment
complexes along Aloma from the 417 to the county line. There are none from Aloma to 434 along
Tuskawilla that are three‑story in height.
Mr.
Wheeler next talked about when Clayton Crossing was first proposed as a
high-density apartment complex that stretched from Aloma north through the 50
acres that Mr. Scotti mentioned. The
Commission, at that point in time, thought that was not a good idea; and as a
result, they ended up with 218 or so townhomes on that 50‑acre plot of
ground leaving room for the Publix Shopping Center that now faces Aloma. Mr. Wheeler explained that in 1995, the
Commission issued a Development Order, which has expired, that memorialized the
Commission's belief that the buildings in this area should not exceed 35
feet. He wondered what had changed in
the last few years or even the last several decades that makes it appropriate
for a high-density apartment complex to be built on that particular parcel of
ground because there are no comparables in that area at all.
Kathy
Wheeler, 2664 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board to state that she disagrees
with the compatibility that the project manager presented. The three‑story apartments are not
compatible with the makeup of their community.
All of the structures in their community are single‑family homes
or two‑story townhomes. Regarding
the traffic study and the number of trips that were talked about, Ms. Wheeler
stated commercial properties have trips throughout the day. They are not all during peak hours because
most of the businesses are not open during the morning hours. The apartment complex would complicate their
traffic issues much more heavily. Ms.
Wheeler stated she thinks the traffic study report is inaccurate and reported
that the "no U‑turn" sign outside of their neighborhood doesn't
work. Human behavior says, "I need
to get to the 417 very quickly."
Anybody that goes to the 417 from this complex has to make a U‑turn
regardless of which exit they use; so it is dangerous. Ms. Wheeler described how people, not wanting
to make the U‑turn where the "no U‑Turn" sign is, pull
into their complex in the morning in order to make a U‑turn and then make
a left turn out onto Tuskawilla. That
happens to be where the kids meet for the bus; and she believes it is very,
very dangerous to have people avoiding the U‑turn sign by pulling into a
neighbored where children are waiting for the bus.
John
Oakes, 5620 South Lake Burkett Lane, addressed the Board and stated he
represents the Trinity Bay Subdivision.
Mr. Oakes remarked that he is a contractor and is typically pro‑development,
but in this particular case, he does not think the proposed development is
consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and the area; so he is opposed to
it. Mr. Oakes talked about taking a
drive from Dean Road on the east, Paul Road on the west, and Gabriella to the
north and counting 19 different neighborhoods with four of those neighborhoods
being townhomes and the other 15 being residential single‑family
homes. He pointed out in that area there
is a broad spectrum of neighborhoods but they all have one thing in common and
that is they are not rental properties, not high-density transient tenant
apartment complexes. He thinks the proposed
apartment complex would be inconsistent.
Mr.
Oakes explained that a few years ago they put a concrete barrier in front of
Trinity Bay so people would have to make a right turn and then to go to the
west, they would have to make a U‑turn at Tuskawilla. He stated there is a light there and it is a
nightmare with the light. He cannot
imagine an additional 500 U‑turns coming out of this new proposed
property across three lanes of traffic to make them. The traffic study is a novel at best. Mr. Oakes encouraged the Board to consider
this project carefully. He cannot
imagine it is consistent with the neighborhood that is there now. He noted that they call this an area in transition. Based on the neighborhoods that are there,
this area is not in transition; this is a primarily residential group of
neighborhoods and he would like to keep it that way.
Jacquelyn
Clement, 1388 Augusta National Boulevard, addressed the Board and stated she is
a member, ordained elder, and president of the board of trustees at Tuskawilla
Presbyterian Church and Preschool.
She indicated they have formally declined to
accept a proposal of sharing a driveway with this development. They feel the high density nature of this
project is going to increase demand on services including school, utilities,
law enforcement, and traffic. Ms.
Clement talked about how this complex may not be a home to criminals but it
will be a magnet for them. The impact of
that will naturally spill over onto the church property.
Ms.
Clement explained that another issue regarding the impact on their church
property is that the developer is asking for a waiver for off-street
parking. The County requires two parking
spaces per dwelling unit and the developer wants to reduce that to 1.75 and
also reduce the size of each parking stall, which will increase the likelihood
that people with very nice cars or large SUV’s are going to take up two
stalls. Ms. Clement discussed what might
happen when that parking lot gets full and suggested the risk that the
residents and visitors may try to park in the church lot is substantial. They are a church and welcome guests with
open arms; but to protect their members, to protect the children who attend
their preschool, to protect the other members of the community that they serve
with their church, they can't allow public parking on their property and they
don't want to have to police that kind of an issue.
Ms.
Clement stated the biggest issue is traffic.
She advised that they have been told the roads are not operating at full
capacity and that even when this apartment complex is fully occupied, it will
not bring the roads to full capacity.
Ms. Clement wondered what that means because when you are sitting
through multiple light cycles and creeping along at a snail's pace, that feels
like full capacity no matter what the
engineers say with all due respect.
She pointed out that there is going to be an additional driveway on
Aloma Avenue between their church and the 7‑Eleven and she believes that
is dangerous, especially when you consider that a substantial portion of the
people that are exiting the complex are going to want to quickly cross three
lanes of traffic into a turn lane to make a U‑turn. Ms. Clement urged the Board to deny this
application.
Commissioner
Carey stated that the plan they have shows there is a cross access
easement. She remembers when Tuskawilla
Presbyterian Church was approved and asked whether the church, when they got
their permit to build the church and school, was required to give a cross
access easement there. She asked whether
there is a cross access easement there as part of the church condition. Mr. Davidson replied that on the initial plan
there was a proposed cross access easement to the church property but that has
since been removed. Commissioner Carey
confirmed with Mr. Davidson that the access is going to be directly off of
Aloma onto this property and that is why they are giving the additional right‑of‑way
for the right‑turn lane.
Katie
Maze, 8410 Admiral Point, addressed the Board and indicated she is the
president of Trinity Bay Homeowners Association. Ms. Maze advised that their subdivision was
established in 1985 and it is primarily residential from the 417 west. She mentioned the Publix at Clayton Crossing
and pointed out that it services the residents of those 15 to 19 communities in
that area. She believes that adding an
apartment complex, with the transient nature of apartment complexes, would
affect the residential neighborhoods that are currently established there and
have been established for over 30 years.
Ms. Maze advised that those in Trinity Bay definitely oppose the
amendment.
Eric
Cappabianca, 2772 Regal Lane, addressed the Board and stated he is opposed to
this development. Mr. Cappabianca noted
that he appreciates the developers reaching out to the community and allowing
them to choose their trees but he would like to keep the mature oak trees that
are there and most of the nature. He
referred to Seminole County's slogan, "Florida's Natural Choice," and
stated he does not think this is the natural choice for the trail or the
consistency of the 20 or so established neighborhoods in the area. Mr. Cappabianca stated he is also concerned
for the two day-care centers in the area.
He stated they are going to pave all 10 to 12 acres and wondered where
all of the animals, the wildlife, are going to go. He suggested the animals will go into his
backyard and hurt his child, other children, and the children at the two day-care
centers. He strongly opposes this
development. When he moved in, he did
not expect there to be a three‑story and now possibly a two‑story
with a lot of noise, crime, and traffic.
Warren
Caplan, 2782 Sweet Magnolia Place, addressed the Board and stated he lives in
the Clayton Crossing Subdivision. Mr.
Caplan submitted into the record 194 petitions (received and filed) of people
that live in the area who are against the project.
Paul
Wolbert, 2826 Regal Lane, addressed the Board and pointed out that nobody has
mentioned what the availability of school capacity is for the schools in that
area. With regard to landscaping, Mr.
Wolbert referred to the trees that the developer talked about planting at the
Planning and Zoning Commission. He
stated the trees they were talking about were going to take a long time to
mature. He wants to make sure that they
have mature trees going in if this project moves forward. Mr. Wolbert talked about how the crime in
that area is going up. With regard to
traffic, he talked about how he comes out of his subdivision in the mornings on
Regal Lane and has to cut across three lanes of traffic to make a left turn to
get onto the 417. When he comes home in
the evening, he is sometimes coming from the other direction and has to make a
left‑hand turn at Clayton Crossing and a U‑turn to get into his
subdivision. He pointed out that the
"do not turn on red light" that is posted on Aloma and Clayton
Crossing doesn't work; it is a fantasy.
He talked about people being hit there and about being stuck in traffic
and not being able to make the turn because of the traffic that is going
on.
Mr.
Wolbert stated development is going to happen and it is a good thing. He stressed they need to be consistent with
the development that is going on. This
is low‑rooftop residential in the area and he believes it should be
maintained and be in that same direction, low‑rooftop residential. Mr. Wolbert stated he hopes that the Board
will oppose this and vote against it.
Katrina
Shadix, 995 Oklahoma Street, stated that she supports smart development, the
kind of development that is happening at Mitchell Hammock and Alafaya where
they tore down the Harley Davidson building and built all of those new
businesses. They could do something with
the Albertson's corner and that would be awesome. Ms. Shadix stated to tear down any swath of
land is what she is vehemently opposed to.
She remarked that she noticed the word "bear" is in a lot of the
neighborhood names mentioned with this situation. As the director of Bear Warriors United, it
is her duty to speak up for the bears, even though they are probably not there
anymore.
Ms.
Shadix stated that she sees a lot of trees in the aerial shots and cautioned
that those animals will be displaced once this small little forest is allowed
to be destroyed. She stated she speaks
for the trees because the trees have no tongues. Ms. Shadix questioned the developer as to how
many trees will be chopped down and turned into burning piles of mulch; how
many animal homes will be destroyed. She
wondered how many sandhill cranes, gopher tortoises, indigo snakes, and other
species have been documented on this parcel and whether the developers have
paid into a mitigation bank for this parcel.
She talked about why Seminole County needs a land-buying program. Ms. Shadix noted that all of the residents
are against this and she represents the trees and animals in opposition to
this.
Mr.
Lee thanked the Chairman and the members of the Commission. He stated notwithstanding the fact that most
of the people were not in favor of the project, he does appreciate their
participation in this process. Mr. Lee
referred to the comments that this area is predominately a single‑family
area and pointed out that there is a large amount of commercial development in
this area as well. As they have
indicated, the previously approved uses were commercial and office uses that
were far more intense than what is being proposed today. This is a corner at a major intersection
contiguous to and close to a lot of other commercial and other developments
that would be far worse than what is being proposed.
With
regard to the comments that there are no apartment complexes nearby, Mr. Lee
stated there is an apartment complex near the county line. He advised they do feel this is compatible
for the reasons they have expressed.
They have matched the setbacks and other development characteristics of
the neighboring projects in order to achieve compatibility. As far as crime is concerned, this is going
to be a gated and a walled community. It
is a high-end community and they take great care in making sure they keep
everyone protected and safe. They would
also go to great measures to make sure that was the case for their neighboring
landowners as well. They would not want
to have anybody spill over into neighboring properties to park or recreate or
anything like that. Mr. Lee advised they
will follow all regulations regarding any species relocation or anything else
that impacts the neighboring residents as well.
Regarding
the traffic study, Mr. Abdallah pointed out the study was consistent with the
County's standards and with every professional standard. The study was submitted to the County's
professional staff. The County has very
competent professional engineers that do this as well; and they reviewed the
work, commented on the work, and requested revisions and iterations, which were
provided. In the final document, the
County staff accepted the study and approved its findings.
Chairman
Horan asked Mr. Abdallah to specifically address the issue about the 450 U‑turns. Mr. Abdallah stated he believes there was a
statement made that U‑turns are undesirable or an unsafe maneuver. He advised that the fact is in the
professional traffic engineering world, U‑turns are really the darlings
of how you get rid of angle crashes, left‑turn crashes. He added every time you see the State out
implementing a safety project, essentially what they are doing is putting a
hard median in the road and trying to force left turns to U‑turns wherever
possible. Chairman Horan explained that
he is concerned about the number. Mr.
Abdallah thinks the number cited was extrapolated from 35% to the daily number
of U‑turns. They deal with peak
hour movements and that is all they have reported. If 450 is the number, that is a 24‑hour
number and is happening in a total day.
He stated he never estimated the daily number of U‑turns. Mr. Abdallah advised that he thinks the
gentleman extrapolated that if so many people are trying to get to work and back
from work during the peak hours, then they must be making the same movements
all day long and that is not the case.
Chairman Horan confirmed with Mr. Abdallah that the 450 number is not in
his report.
Mr.
Abdallah referred to the comment about commercial trips versus residential
trips and pointed out that the previously approved commercial development would
generate significantly more traffic. He
noted that one of the comments was that in the peak hours, it is better in
commercial. The previously approved
commercial would generate 153 trips in the morning and 280 trips in the
afternoon. This development will
generate 87 trips in the morning and 104 trips in the afternoon. By any measure, the current proposal is a
lower traffic intensity proposal than the previously approved proposal.
Mr. Lee
again thanked the Board. He pointed out
this is the last piece of infill. They
are in the middle of the TCEA with the goal of the TCEA being to develop an
urban area. He stated that a lot of the
dialogue today was about traffic and then pointed out they are in an excepted
area and will be leaving this in a better position than it is in today. He reiterated that they appreciate the
Board's time and appreciate staff's recommendation, which they agree with. They would appreciate the Board's support of
this application.
With
regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or
in opposition to Item #25 and public input was closed.
Speaker
Request Forms and Written Request Forms were received and filed.
Chairman
Horan recessed the meeting at 5:55 p.m., reconvening it at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner
Dallari talked about the various people he has met with and talked with and
thanked them all. He stated he has
driven, walked, and bicycled through this intersection many times throughout
the years. The Commissioner stated he is
glad that Mr. Abdallah and staff agreed that the “straight through to
Tuskawilla south” is going to be moved over to the right‑hand lane
because that is a right-on-red and he is hoping that will work. He believes that will make a good
improvement. Commissioner Dallari quoted from the Staff's Findings,
"While the character of the surrounding area has not changed since the
existing future land use designations were assigned, the proposed amendment is
in keeping with the development intensities originally intended for the subject
property based on its assigned FLU designations," and advised he is in
disagreement with that statement. He
explained he would not have supported the existing designation as he believes
it doesn't keep with the character and the intensity of the surrounding
uses. He also feels similarly with
regard to the proposal, that it is not in keeping with the character and
intensity of the surrounding uses. He
recognizes that it is a reduction in the intensity; however, he feels that it
is not appropriate and also feels that the proposal will negatively affect the
residents and the businesses in this area.
Motion by Commissioner
Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine,
to deny transmittal of the proposed Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future
Land Use Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential, High Intensity Planned
Development Transitional and Planned Development to Planned Development, and to
deny transmittal of the associated Ordinance enacting a Rezone from RP
(Residential Professional) and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned
Development) to state and regional review agencies, for a 243 multifamily
residential unit apartment complex on 12.66 acres, located on the northeast
corner of West SR 426 and Tuskawilla Road, as described in the proof of
publication, WP South Acquisitions, LLC.
Under
discussion, Chairman Horan pointed out that this is the first bite of the
apple. This particular consideration
today is to transmit to the state for review.
Commissioner Dallari emphasized that he is making a motion to deny
transmittal. Chairman Horan stated he
wanted to make clear that all they are talking about today is the transmittal
and not the approval of the project itself.
Commissioner
Carey asked Mr. Davidson about the assigned Future Land Use to this project’s
property and pointed out that whether that use had been adopted by this Board,
it has been confirmed by this Board many times.
She asked if the assigned Future Land Use is for medium and high density
intensity, which allows for 10 and 20 units per acre, and Mr. Davidson replied
that is correct. Commissioner Dallari
confirmed with Mr. Davidson that it also includes PD. Commissioner Carey stated it is High
Intensity PD and the PD that was on it expired, which was commercial and office
and had even more traffic problems. She
confirmed with Mr. Davidson that their report says it is consistent with the
Land Development Code. Mr. Davidson
added that it meets their transitional zoning requirements. Commissioner Carey advised that she is not
going to support the motion. She noted,
as they discussed earlier in their rural boundary discussion, they have a lot
of infill pieces that they will see. She
added this is a corridor; and as so, it has already been impacted. If they don't infill these pieces, then they
start to put the pressure on that rural boundary area. This Board has also adopted the principles of
the Four C’s; looking at the corridors, looking at centers, protecting their
countryside and conservation areas.
Commissioner
Carey explained why the County cannot buy every piece of property that people
don't want rezoned and protect it. She
stated the County's logo is what it is because they have purchased over 6,100
acres of natural lands and trails and built over 62 miles of trails. She stated when she looks at a case, she has
to look to see whether it is compatible.
Multifamily residential is residential whether they want to admit it or
not. Single‑family and multifamily
are all residential and more compatible, in her opinion, than commercial and
office adjacent to residential. The fact
that the trips are reduced by doing this residential and because of the concessions
that the developer has proposed with the additional setbacks, the two‑story
adjacent to two‑story homes, and a lot of things that have happened, she
thinks this is a very reasonable request for a site that, if it is denied,
could come back as commercial and office.
She thinks that would create more problems. The Board has put a Future Land Use
allocation on this property to be Medium and High Intensity PD, which would be
10 and 20 units per acre.
Commissioner
Henley stated he thinks the Applicant has made all kinds of concessions in
order to try to make the development more acceptable. The fact that they don't particularly want
something is not necessarily a reason to not allow it to happen. He advised this is an infill area there. The Board has heard repeatedly concerns about
traffic on almost every project that comes before them. Commissioner Henley stated because of the
downgrading of this and from the standpoint of the adjustments that the
Applicant has made, he does not feel he can support the motion in view of
that.
Commissioner
Dallari stated that to the north, the existing land use is single‑family. The Future Land Use is low density. To the east, it is single‑family and a
church, low density residential. To the
south is SR 426, which is commercial, and the Future Land Use is
commercial. To the west is Tuskawilla
Road, which is commercial and single‑family. The Future Land Use is planned development,
high intensity transitional, commercial, and low density residential. He believes that also supports what he
stated.
Commissioner
Constantine concurred that the developer has made some concessions and tried to
make applesauce out of rotten apples. He
mentioned the difficulties that there would be to develop the property, the
difficulties of ingress/egress and the intensity of the development. He was not here when that zoning was put in
and he would concur that the zoning is far too intense for the area, especially
with it being single‑family on three sides. Only on the opposite side of Aloma is more
intense and there is commercial there.
Commissioner Constantine stated that right now with the 20 units per
acre, he just cannot concur and thinks the intensity is wrong for the area. He is supporting the District Commissioner
and his recommendation of denial.
Chairman
Horan advised he has looked at this very, very carefully. He pointed out that they have made several
legislative decisions here that really dictate what his decision on this is. First, they made a legislative decision to put
this in a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. He knows the area is very congested, but they
have made a legislative decision that the subject property is in this area and
that these Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas are established specifically
to promote development and redevelopment where opportunities for expansion or
addition of new transportation corridors are limited. That is a legislative decision which he can't
seem to get around.
Chairman
Horan stated he respectfully disagrees with Commissioner Dallari that it is not
consistent with the trend of development in the area. As noted in the staff reports, there are
several different developments approved already in the area for medium or high
density that are less than a mile away.
He stated that it is obvious that apartments are being built throughout
the County. He does not think the
traffic is going to get better with this project. He thinks the Applicant has done a very good
job in offering to pay for a number of traffic improvements at that particular
intersection. He does not think they are
going to make things better, but he does not think they are going to make
things worse. He stated that in the face
of their own statute that this is a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area,
it would be difficult for him to not follow the law here and approve this
development. He will not be supporting
the motion.
Commissioner
Dallari confirmed with the County Manager that this area is in the
Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area.
He then asked Ms. Guillet if it is correct that they do that because
there is hope that someday they will put transit in the area. Ms. Guillet stated it qualified as an exemption
area because it is located in a DULA, a Dense Urban Land Area. They have the opportunity to do that to
encourage infill development and to contain and push development to urbanized
areas. She does not know if, when the
policy was actually established, there was discussion about transit; but she
does know that the statutory basis for establishing the ability to do a TCEA
was to encourage development within urban areas of governmental agencies. Ms. Guillet suggested Ms. Williamson or Mr.
Davidson could discuss the role that transit played in that decision on a local
level.
Tina
Williamson, Director of Development Services, addressed the Board and stated
there was discussion of mobility and looking at different options with transit
being one of them; things such as sidewalks, trails, bike lanes, and those
types of things. They do have mobility
policies in the comprehensive plan that were adopted at the same time as the
TCEA. Commissioner Dallari questioned
if, with that, there would not have to be a plan in place for different forms of
mobility because in order to get around this area, they need transit and there
isn't any. Ms. Williamson stated there
is a plan for mobility but not necessarily transit.
District
1 and 3 voted AYE.
Commissioners
Horan, Henley and Carey voted NAY, whereupon the motion failed for lack of a majority vote.
Commissioner
Carey reiterated all of the reasons why she supports this item and believes it
is an appropriate use.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Henley, to transmit
the proposed Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment
from Medium Density Residential, High Intensity Planned Development
Transitional and Planned Development to Planned Development, and to transmit
the associated Ordinance enacting a Rezone from RP (Residential Professional)
and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) to state and regional
review agencies, for a 243 multifamily residential unit apartment complex on
12.66 acres, located on the northeast corner of West SR 426 and Tuskawilla
Road, as described in the proof of publication, WP South Acquisitions, LLC.
Under
discussion, Commissioner Constantine described why he is not in favor of
approving this item. He stated this is
urban development gone awry and he believes they need to look at a lot of
different transition areas and look at the needs of the future of the county
and the growth. He talked about how
these land use decisions put them at the highest level it can possibly be. As they continue to move forward, he believes
they really need to look at this. Chairman
Horan stated he would agree with everything Commissioner Constantine said but
if they want to do that, they will need to change the policy. Commissioner Constantine stated statutes can
be changed. Chairman Horan stated they
should take a look at something like this and take it out of a DULA and take it
out of the TCEA. Commissioner
Constantine stated that is what he is suggesting. Chairman Horan reminded that they operate by
those rules. The developers and property
owners have to operate by those rules.
He believes the Board has to follow the law just like everybody else.
Districts
2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioners
Dallari and Constantine voted NAY.
Commissioner
Carey remarked that all of the Commissioners, except for one, were here when the
Board reconfirmed the ERA (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) and adopted the
DULA's and adopted these Transportation Concurrency areas. Commissioner Carey asked the County Manager
when the EAR amendments will come before the Board again since it is a regularly
scheduled process. Ms. Guillet stated
she does not know exactly what the schedule is but she informed the Board that
they can address their policies and the Comprehensive Plan at any time. They do not have to wait until the Evaluation
and Appraisal Report. Commissioner Carey
stated they do it in their regular course through the EAR process. She pointed out it was choices that have been
made by this Board except for one. Ms.
Williamson stated she does not know the exact date but believes there are about
three to four years left until the next EAR cycle. Chairman Horan advised the Board can perform
any legislative act at any time.
Commissioner Constantine stated they seem to be making excuses on these
things all of the time because of things that have happened in the past; that
is all he was trying to say. He
indicated that it frustrates him.
DISTRICT
COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
District
3
Commissioner
Constantine reported that he has a three-page report but in light of the time,
he will not make any comments.
District
4
Commissioner
Henley reported that he just received from their MSBU manager the latest on the
MSBU in Rolling Hills. He explained they
have to have a public hearing, which has been set for May 8. They are required to use different forms of
notice; one was mailed on April 6 to the appropriate people and the other
notice will appear in the Orlando Sentinel on April 12 regarding the upcoming
public hearing. There were 1,160 parcels
included in this property, which turned out to be more than they
anticipated. They have received 918
responses; and of those, 40 were in opposition, 242 did not respond, and 878
were in favor. Once the ordinance has
been reviewed, it will be made public.
He hopes this will move forward quickly.
District
5
Commissioner
Carey pointed out that sometimes they recognize people for their extraordinary
leadership. She advised that she has a
letter (copy not received and filed) that she will pass to each Commissioner
for their signature and then they can give it to the County Manager so it can
go out to Ms. Bernadine Lanzano. Every
day Ms. Lanzano picks up the trash on Red Bug Lake Road and has for quite some
time. They have put together some things
from Seminole County in appreciation to send to her as well.
-------
Commissioner
Carey reminded everyone that they will be honoring Dr. Hitt from UCF at the Boy
Scout dinner on April 23.
District
1
Commissioner Dallari stated he was
reading the Winter Park and Leisure minutes and they were talking about the
potential of acquiring additional property on the back side of Red Bug Lake
Road. He would like to get properly
briefed and bring that back so they can all understand what they were talking
about.
CHAIRMAN’S
REPORTS
Chairman Horan remarked that the Board may recall he discovered
they had an extra person who they could appoint to the CareerSource Board. Commissioner Constantine represents the
County on that board. The CareerSource
Board has agreed that Matthew Wilson is qualified; and therefore, they have
made a recommendation to the BCC. He
asked for a motion to nominate Mr. Wilson.
Motion by Commissioner Carey,
seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to appoint Matthew Wilson to the
CareerSource Board.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
With regard to the Girl Scouts, Chairman Horan suggested the
Board may recall there was a large fire and the Girl Scouts of Citrus are
seeking some support. He received an
update (not received and filed) about the Mah‑Kah‑Wee Program
Center one year post‑fire.
Approximately half of the 250‑acre camp was impacted by the fire
and continues to be closed due to safety concerns. They are still negotiating with the insurance
company and have been brainstorming on how to gather funds together so they can
restore this camp. It is estimated that
restorating and modernizing the camp may cost up to $5 million. He emphasized that the Girl Scouts need help
and suggested if there is anything the Board can do to promote their efforts,
it would be appreciated. Discussion
ensued.
-------
Chairman Horan announced that the Charter Review Commission
adjourned indefinitely. He advised the
CRC had one proposal that they decided to reject in terms of recommending
it. They have adjourned, not quit,
indefinitely unless they are called into action for some proposal.
COMMUNICATIONS
AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or Reports
were received and filed:
1.
Letters dated March 26, 2018, from
Chairman Horan to the following: Senator David Simmons, Rep. Jason Brodeur,
Rep. Scott Plakon, Rep. Robert Cortes, FAC member Ginger Delegal, FAC member
David Suggs re: appreciation for their support during the 2017-2018 Legislative
Session.
2.
City of Sanford Notice of Public
Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use for 120 & 124 West 2nd Street,
Sanford. Meeting to be held on April 5,
2018, 10:00 a.m., City Commission Chambers.
3.
City of Sanford Notice of Public
Hearing to Consider a Rezone for 4005 Church Street, Sanford. Meeting to be held on April 5, 2018, 10:00
a.m., City Commission Chambers.
4.
City of Sanford Notice of Public
Hearing to Consider a PD Rezone for 2247 Marquette Avenue, Sanford. Meeting to be held on April 5, 2018, 10:00
a.m., City Commission Chambers.
5.
Letter dated April 2, 2018, from
Patricia Sargent to Commissioner Horan re: why she does not support
privatization of Seminole County Public Libraries.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S REPORT
Agenda
Item #25-A – 2018-0675
Motion by
Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the
appointment of Olivete Carter as the Community Services Director effective
April 16, 2018.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Ms. Carter expressed her appreciation for being given this
opportunity. She thanked her management
team.
COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Mr. Applegate announced that Desmond Morrell has been selected
as one of 25 young attorneys around the state of Florida to be part of the
Florida Bar Leadership Academy. He
pointed out this is a huge honor and Mr. Morrell will learn a lot. It is a feather in this County’s cap that he
was selected.
ITEMS
FOR FUTURE AGENDA
Regular Agenda
Item #21 – 2018-0655
(continued
from morning session pages 9 and 10)
Todd Alan Powell, 225 Temple Avenue, addressed the Board to
explain that he did not get a chance to speak at the morning session regarding
Item #21, a Code Enforcement Lien. Mr.
Powell stated his residence is all that he has after battling cancer since
2012. He stated he cannot afford to pay
the copays on his treatment and there is no way he can afford to pay anything
at this point. He requested the Board
reconsider waiving the administrative fees.
Speaker Request Form was received and filed.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, second by Commissioner Dallari, to waive the Administrative
Cost of $627.37 for Case #04-69-CEB on the property located at 225 Temple
Avenue, Fern Park, Tax Parcel #19-21-30-507-0B00-0040, owned by Todd Powell.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Carol Learned, 103 North Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board
and stated that on July 25, when concerned neighbors and good friends on
Mellonville Avenue were here, the Board voted to look for new options for the
Lake Monroe Trail Loop. Ms. Learned
advised they have been wondering this past year what progress was being
made. About five days ago, the residents
received a letter from David Martin; and he stated that based on the meeting of
last July 25, a recommendation for final selection of Alternative A will be
placed before the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners for approval on
April 24. She stated this came as a
surprise. She asked the Board if they
could enlighten her and her neighbors as far as what option they found. She wondered if she understood it right last
July 25 that they were going to look for more options. She noted that she is confused.
Chairman Horan confirmed with the County Manager that this item
is on the agenda for April 24.
Commissioner Carey reported that at the last discussion they had, they
directed staff to go back to DOT to see if they would fund the grant if they
reduced the size of the trail from 12 feet to 8 feet or less. She thinks that DOT came back and said they
would accept eight feet but no less. Mr.
Jreij stated that is right but only in that section. Commissioner Carey stated from the waterfront
down to 8th Street, that is what is coming back as proposed. She explained that was the direction of the
Board. Ms. Guillet advised they did also
look at other options. They looked at
doing it on the other side of the street and they looked at doing an on‑street
trail. Option A remained the best option
in staff's opinion.
Commissioner Dallari asked staff if they had any advance
information they could give to the residents.
Commissioner Carey advised the residents got the notice, which is what
they will hear at the April 24 meeting.
Ms. Learned stated it would have been nice to have received a
letter. She stressed that safety is
their biggest concern and mentioned the new Heritage Park and how there is
going to be a bike lane in the street.
She believes this is what they need along Mellonville. The trail cannot come down their properties
because it is totally unsafe.
Speaker
Request Form was received and filed.
-------
Doreen Freeman, 705 Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board to
state she got a letter on Thursday and this was the first information that she
received since the meeting last July 25.
She explained that they were promised there would be other alternatives
looked at. She emphasized that she has
not received any information concerning this, yet the Board is going to vote on
this in two weeks. She wondered whether
any of the Commissioners received information on this. Chairman Horan stated they have had briefings
periodically as they have gone through the process. Ms. Freeman advised they were supposed to be
included in this process, and she has not received a thing nor has Ms. Learned
received anything. She stated she
guarantees the 21 residents along Mellonville Avenue have not received anything
and are very displeased with what is going on right now. Ms. Freeman advised that they gave the Board
an extensive inventory and study that they did on their own and it proves their
theory. She stated she would like to see
the study that the County did along the other side of Mellonville and also the
other alternative studies. She would
like to see that report in writing.
Chairman Horan explained that in terms of the public meeting
they are going to have on April 24, there will be an agenda item that will be
promulgated. That agenda item will have
material that will be pertinent to it.
He suggested if Ms. Freeman wants additional material or supplemental
material, for example the study that she was talking about and what analysis
was done, he would encourage her to go ahead and ask for that from the
staff. Ms. Freeman explained that the
last time she asked for it on "B" and "C," she did not get
it. They did not have anything. They didn't have cost factors for either
"B" or "C" because "A" was the one they wanted to
go with. Chairman Horan confirmed with
the County Manager that the agenda package should be out at the end of the
week. Discussion ensued with regard to
Ms. Freeman receiving an agenda package.
Commissioner Constantine asked whether back in July they said
they were going to have a community meeting.
Ms. Guillet stated they have had a number of community meetings. Ms. Freeman stated they have not had the
first one since July 25, not one that the residents have been invited to. She added that community means the residents
because they are affected by this. Jean
Jreij, Director for Public Works, stated that last time, when the Board
directed staff to look at an alternative to put the trail on the road, they
went and looked at it and compared it to the alternative, which is on the east
side. The impact is very great. There are a lot of trees and they would be
wiped out. He stated they do have a map
and he believes the Commissioners were shown on the map how much would be
impacted. Mr. Jreij advised they went to DOT and talked to them. If the County reduces the width of the trail
from 12 to 8 feet, that would be acceptable to them. Commissioner Carey stated as she recalls they
have five feet out there now and they were asking to do six and DOT came back
at eight. Mr. Jreij stated the minimum
would be eight feet to be considered. He
added that the location of that eight feet will be closer to the road and not
beyond what the existing sidewalk currently is.
He advised that is what they looked at and that is what they will be
presenting on April 24.
Mr. Jreij informed Ms. Freeman that he would be glad to meet
with her and go over it. Ms. Freeman
replied she would like data, printed data, of what the County analyzed and
studied and the price that they have because that is what they were promised
last time. Chairman Horan suggested that
staff get together with Ms. Freeman and make sure that whatever information she
needs she can get before the hearing and in enough time before the hearing to
look at it, review it, and analyze it.
Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Jreij if the agenda packet has cost
analysis. Mr. Jreij responded no, they
don't have formal cost analysis because they did not go that far because the
impact was a lot greater than what would be on that property. He stated they do have a map that shows all
of those impacts. To run the cost, they
would have to look at the drainage and the retention pond which would be
largely impacted. Chairman Horan stated
with regard to the various alternatives and knowing what the impediments are
and knowing what the expertise is with the County staff, he wondered whether
there was some way to come up with at least an order of magnitude as to how
much more the other alternatives would cost.
Mr. Jreij stated they already presented the other alternatives last
time. Ms. Guillet informed Mr. Jreij
that the Chairman is talking about the on‑road bike lane. She advised that they will try to come up
with some kind of estimate.
Chairman Horan pointed out if they are telling the public that
the reason they are picking this alternative is not only because it is in the
best interest and is the best location but also that it costs the least, they
must be making that decision based upon some kind of data, some kind of
analysis indicating the number of trees that would have to be taken out, et
cetera. He stated it does not seem that
would be that difficult. Commissioner Constantine stated he is not
suggesting that the outcome would have been any different than the presentation
they are going to make next week but he really thought back in July the Board
said to the community that they were going to have a community meeting with
them. Chairman Horan asked the County
Manager what the commitment was with regard to the community meeting. Ms. Guillet stated she will go back and look
at the tape. She does not recall that
they said they would have a community meeting.
They had already had community meetings.
Commissioner Carey advised they had had community meetings. Ms. Freeman disagreed and stated this was at
the Commission meeting. The Board
promised them that they would have a meeting.
Chairman Horan stated he knows there was a community meeting on
this. Ms. Freeman stated there were two
meetings. Commissioner Dallari stated
that was before the BCC had their meeting.
Commissioner Constantine advised at that meeting the Board said they
would have another. Ms. Guillet advised
staff will double check that. Chairman
Horan advised staff will check to see what the commitment was because if they
made a commitment, they want to make sure they meet it. Commissioner Carey stated if a commitment was
made, then they should have a community meeting and move the date if they have
to.
Speaker Request Form was received and filed.
-------
Maryann Barry's name was announced and it was determined that
she was not in attendance. Speaker
Request Form was received and filed.
-------
There being no further business to come before the Board, the
Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m., this same date.
ATTEST:______________________Clerk_____________________Chairman
ks/js