BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
April 24, 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 24, 2018, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
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 the Court and Comptroller Grant Maloy
County Manager Nicole Guillet
County Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy Clerk Terri Porter
Reverend Tom Eggebrecht, Ascension Lutheran Church, Casselberry, gave the Invocation. Commissioner Constantine led the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Business Spotlight video for Zenerjen was presented.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Agenda Item #1 – 2018-0683
Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve a Proclamation declaring April 25, 2018, as Denim Day in Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Lui Damiani, Executive Director of the Victims Service Center of Central Florida, addressed the Board and talked about the Victims Service Center and the Christian Service Center. He expressed his appreciation for the Proclamation.
Agenda Item #2 – 2018-0684
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve a Proclamation declaring April 28, 2018, as Beta Sigma Phi Day in Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey advised the Proclamation will be presented at their Founder’s Day event this weekend.
Agenda Item #3 – 2018–0678
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve a Proclamation recognizing April 2018, as Fair Housing Month in Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Olivette Carter, Community Services Director, and Donna King, Community Development Manager, addressed the Board and thanked them for their support.
Agenda Item #4 – 2018–0663
Grant Maloy, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller, introduced Jenny Spencer, Director of the Comptroller’s Office, and Dan O’Keefe with Moore Stephens Lovelace. Mr. O’Keefe addressed the Board to present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended September 30, 2017. He displayed the presentation (included in the agenda memorandum) and began by reviewing Required Communications. He next reviewed Services and Deliverables relating to an Unmodified Opinion on the Financial Statement and Auditor’s Report on Compliance and Internal Control. He noted if there was a situation where there was a material weakness or a significant deficiency, they would be required to report that. If there was a violation of any type of law or regulation, they also would have to report that, and there were none. He noted these laws include local, federal and state.
Also under Services and Deliverables, Mr. O’Keefe discussed the Auditor’s Management Letter and the Independent Accountant’s Report. He then reviewed Auditor Responsibilities and Management Responsibilities. With regard to Internal Controls, Mr. O’Keefe stated they do absolutely look at the County’s internal controls and there are certain internal control features that they have to test. In particular, they are required to test internal controls related to federal financial assistance and state financial assistance. They do not express an opinion on internal controls because that type of engagement would be very detailed and in depth; however, it does not mean they ignore them. If they saw a material weakness or a significant deficiency, they would have to report it.
Mr. O’Keefe discussed Compliance and stated it is extremely important in these types of engagements. Compliance is anything that has a direct and material impact on the financial statements themselves. They identify those compliance requirements and test them. He gave the example of long-term debt stating it is not just a number sitting in the financial statements, it also represents bond covenants and other requirements that have to be met in order to be complied with, and they go in and test those items that have any type of financial significance.
Regarding Communications of Significant Matters, Mr. O’Keefe explained there were no audit adjustments made during the course of the audit. There were no unreported or unadjusted differences. They had no disagreements with management. As far as they know, management did not seek opinions from other accountants. He discussed the Risk-Based Audit Approach saying when you look at risk, you have to look at each year standing alone because there could be significant things that occur within one year that are different from another year. He then cited the example that this past year they had Hurricane Irma that created a lot of different challenges and added a certain level of risk, so they had to do some additional testing in different areas.
Mr. O’Keefe covered Management Representations and stated Jenny Spencer was the point person that they dealt with as far as gathering the information they needed. He said they use governmental specialists and pretty much all his team does is audit governments; it is the largest governmental practice group in Central Florida. They also use IT specialists. He then reviewed the Audit Schedule.
With regard to New Accounting Standards, he reported there is a new accounting standard that will be kicking in next year, and there was nothing really significant this year that impacted the financial statements. Next year the other post-employment benefits will be very similar to the pension requirements, which all of the debt and liability associated with other post-employment benefits will have to be recorded. In the County’s case, they do not actually pay out true other post-employment benefits; they get caught by this implicit rate calculation which is an actuarial calculation. He explained if an employee retires and they retire before they are eligible for Medicare, they can stay on the County’s insurance plan, which is required by statute, even though they are paying the premiums. There is an actuarial calculation that goes through that says because you have an older population in your plan, there is an implicit cost to that. It is required by statute that they are allowed to participate and it is not really costing the County any extra money, but it still has to be calculated because the theory is that it is driving up the premiums in some manner.
Mr. O’Keefe reviewed the General Fund (Pages 22 and 24). He asked the Board to keep in mind that what they see in the CAFR is the consolidation of all the General Funds of the County including the Board of County Commissioners and all of the Constitutional Officers. He likes to measure what their unassigned fund balance is at the end of the year as a percentage of expenditures, and this past year it was 24.3%. He opined this is actually pretty good; he knows their target is around 20% and they are above that. He added from a budgetary standpoint, most entities budget their reserves based off the revenue component, but they are dealing with actual information here. He said he runs a financial condition assessment so when he looks at it, he looks at it based on their spending activity and that number is actually pretty good. Mr. O’Keefe noted that General Fund Budget (Pages 88-89) is an overview of the budget, and in looking at their total budget in their General Fund for the year, the bottom line is they underspent what the plan was and the revenues came in pretty close to what they estimated. This is a huge compliance issue for any local government and the County is in compliance with the budgetary requirements of the County and the State’s statutory requirements.
Mr. O’Keefe mentioned that Commissioner Dallari has asked for this information in the past and displayed General Fund Reserves comparing Seminole County to other counties and cities. He reviewed the same comparisons for Water and Sewer Reserves, and Water and Sewer Operations. Chairman Horan questioned if these are actually the surplus based upon annual operations. Mr. O’Keefe replied the balance would be unrestricted net position, which is basically their equity in the system that is not obligated for anything, so that would be the reserve compared to the expenses of the system. Mr. O’Keefe then discussed the Solid Waste Reserves and Solid Waste Operations. He noted that Seminole County’s operations number is deceiving because they had a lot of additional expenses going into that system due to Hurricane Irma this year, which is how this County tends to account for it. He then explained how Orange and Osceola counties plow a lot of these into a holding fund and accumulate them over a period of time, and then go through the battle with FEMA. Seminole County has always used the resources within the Solid Waste account to help mitigate that and then go back to FEMA and try and get reimbursed as much as possible. He opined overall the condition of the fund is very good.
Mr. O’Keefe displayed Value of Taxable Property showing Seminole, Orange, Osceola and Lake Counties along with the seven cities. He explained this is something he has been looking at this past year because he was curious to see what the recovery trend is for the different entities in the area. He stated 2008 was the high watermark and after that there was the bubble, the crash, and a lot of the residential properties’ values went way down. He added they can go down really fast but it takes a long time to come back up because of the Save Our Homes calculation that is built back in, so they will trend up more gradually. The only thing that will get an entity above where they were back in 2008 is growth, which is what happened with Orange County. They had a major growth spurt in the past three to four years which has popped them up over 100%, but the existing properties that were subject to the reduction in value are no different from what they have in Osceola, Seminole and Lake Counties. He also noted this list shows where the growth is happening in the municipalities. He said it is an interesting chart and he knows the Commission looks at it quite a bit in terms of what the property values are especially with everything that is happening in the Legislature right now with the possibility of another homestead exemption coming out of nowhere. He added all these things put financial stress on entities. Chairman Horan stated he would be interested to see the property values in Sarasota because that is the county he usually looks at. Mr. O’Keefe responded that he thinks Sarasota is in their financial condition assessment but the information that is loaded in is actually a year old which is why he does not like to use it.
Chairman Horan remarked the CAFR that is produced by the Clerk’s Office is top notch. He thanked Ms. Spencer saying it is a really well-done job. Commissioner Dallari added he appreciates the presentation and also commended Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Spencer for doing a great job. He added he’d like to thank anyone associated with putting this together including staff in the county.
Commissioner Dallari noted that Mr. O’Keefe mentioned that two other counties have something like a disaster fund and this County just uses their Solid Waste Fund. He asked what the pros and cons would be for doing it both ways. Mr. O’Keefe replied he does not recommend one way over another; he thinks it is far more important that the documentation supports the items submitted to FEMA, which have to be done in accordance with what FEMA wants. The problem with that is they seem to change as you are submitting information. And, as they know, it takes a long time to get those reimbursements. Mr. O’Keefe said it really is about funding; where does it make sense to fund those costs up front. He added there is nothing wrong with the way this County is doing it or the way the other counties mentioned are doing it.
Commissioner Carey talked about the FEMA reimbursements and stated she appreciates the good work from the Clerk’s Office and also from Mr. O’Keefe’s firm.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
County Manager Nicole Guillet advised there is an add-on, Item #14A relating to the acquisition of hardware associated with the CAD project. Commissioner Dallari stated he would like to pull Item #11 regarding the Master Services Agreement for SCADA and Security Improvements for Utility Systems for separate discussion.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Items #5 through #14A, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to authorize and approve the following:
County Manager’s Office
Tourism Development Division
5. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Joint Funding Agreement between Seminole County, the Sanford Chamber of Commerce, the Sanford Airport Authority, and Orlando Sanford International, Inc. in the amount of $5,000 for the funding of two information booths at the Orlando Sanford International Airport. (2018-0672)
Community Development Division
6. Approve and accept from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation FY 2017/2018 State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Disaster Recovery funds in the amount of $214,000 for the purpose of providing housing assistance to low and moderate income persons who were impacted by Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria. (2018-0677)
7. Approve and accept the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Snapshot/Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2013-R-61, and the HOME Program Activity Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2015-R-51 for the month of March 2018. (2018-0676)
Planning & Development Division
8. Authorize release of a Private Cash Maintenance Bond (Paving and Drainage Agreement) in the amount of $788.35 for Oviedo Retail; David Shanahan, Applicant. (2018-0670)
Budget & Fiscal Management Division
9. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-53 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-042 through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fund for the purchase of a Ford F-150 vehicle in the amount of $19,807 for use with various grant activities. (2018-0669)
10. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-54 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-044 through the General Fund in the amount of $50,778 and through the Solid Waste Fund in the amount of $46,872, for a total of $97,650 to appropriate budget from reserves for consulting services related to Hurricane Irma, which is eligible for 85% reimbursement from FEMA. (2018-0679)
Purchasing & Contracts Division
11. Pulled for separate discussion by Commissioner Dallari.
12. Award RFP-603065-18/TLR - Promotional Assessment Testing Process for Ranks of Battalion Chief and Lieutenant to Gerald Greenwell d/b/a CPS HR Consulting, Sacramento, CA; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Agreement. (2018-0644)
13. Award RFP-603016-17/PCD - Seminole County Fire Department CAD/Mobile System, to TriTech Software Systems, Inc., San Diego, CA; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to negotiate and execute the Agreement; and approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-55 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-043 in the total amount of $1,119,913 through the Public Safety Grant Fund ($1,000,000) to establish funding for an appropriation from the State of Florida and through the BCC Projects fund ($119,913) which is transferred from General Fund reserves. The estimated cost of this contract is $2.2 million for the initial five-year term. (2018-0599)
14. Award IFB-603094-18/BJC - Term Contracts (2) for Miscellaneous Bridge Repairs to Proshot Concrete, Inc., Florence, AL; and Sieg & Ambachtsheer, Inc., Deland; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Agreements. (Estimated annual usage $450,000) (2018-0653)
14A. Approve and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to procure the anticipated list of CAD support hardware by waiving County Administrative Code and using expedited procurement procedures, best practices, informal quoting that meets the required delivery and invoice date of June 15, 2018, in order to comply with CAD receipt requirements of the $1 million grant appropriations. (2018-0693)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Consent Agenda Item #11 – 2018-0536
In regard to a request to approve the ranking list and authorize staff to negotiate rates in accordance with Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute one Master Services Agreement (MSA) for PS-1566-17, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Security Improvements for Water and Wastewater Utility Systems, Commissioner Dallari stated they already have contractors on board to do this. He noted they include DCR, Revere Control Systems and Site Secure. He wants to know why they are not just going to the contractors to make these improvements per their master plan and why they are asking for another plan to tell the contractors what to do when they are already on board. He opined they should just be instructing them to do this on a regular basis.
Chairman Horan explained the item they are discussing involves a procurement of engineering services for the SCADA system for their wastewater. He mentioned he also asked the same question of staff as to why they are separating out this scope of work. Commissioner Carey said she is also a little confused as to why they want to hire people to do work that should be already in place.
Ms. Guillet noted that Ralph Terrero, Director of Environmental Services, and Mike Riley, Interim Utilities Operations Manager, are in attendance to answer questions.
Mr. Riley addressed the Board to advise the contract they are putting out right now is not for programming services such as the DCR and the Revere contracts they have right now. This contract is for their security vulnerability assessments, and they are looking for a contractor to come in and do inventory assessments on all of their current equipment and to look at all of the programming services to ensure they are using their programs up to full capability. Commissioner Dallari said he doesn’t understand because they have been using Site Secure at all the wastewater plants and asked why they do not just have them also do the inventory. Chairman Horan wanted to know why they are separating out this scope of work to go to a separate consultant. He wondered if there is a technical reason or a regulatory reason. Commissioner Dallari stated Site Secure, to his knowledge, are the ones that put the system in. They design it, tweak it and maintain it, and he wants to know why they are not using them. Chairman Horan questioned if they are required to put this out to bid. Commissioner Carey asked doesn’t the master plan for their utilities call out certain things to be done and said they have vendors already under contract to perform those services. Mr. Terrero addressed the Board to explain the consultant would be looking at all the master plans and recommending what they need to use. He added they would do an inventory of the assessment and they think that should be done by an engineering backup instead of having the contractor do it. Commissioner Carey said that is why she was trying to get clarification on the scope because it is her understanding that there is an advertisement going out for a new consultant to update their master plan. Mr. Terrero clarified that is for the SCADA master plan.
Ray Hooper, Purchasing & Contracts Division Manager, addressed the Board and pointed out when you are talking about CCNA and hiring professional engineering services, they have a tendency to segregate the operational and maintenance aspects. They basically do the study, they do the engineering aspects, and then they engage DCR and Revere to do the operational and the maintenance. He suggested it is much more economically feasible to do that because if you clumped it all under CCNA, they would be paying huge prices as far as overhead and things of that sort. It has been beneficial to the County to do the operational maintenance under a regular RFP rather than CCNA.
Commissioner Carey questioned when the last master plan was updated, and Mr. Terrero answered it was about 2012. He added as technology changes, they have outdated communications equipment on pump stations and they are trying to go back and review it to see how they can improve what they have.
Commissioner Dallari noted if they are going to be going out for an overall master plan, he does not understand why this is not dovetailed into that to get the economy of scale in that they are actually doing just one master plan and not just “piece-mealing” this. Commissioner Carey asked if that RFP is already out there to which Mr. Terrero replied they already have it out. Mr. Hooper added they currently have it out on the street; it has been closed and is under evaluation and it is scheduled to come to the Board in May.
Commissioner Dallari expressed he is not ready to move forward with this and he thinks that Site Secure is already on board and they have been using them for years. He does not know why they would incur an additional cost to the ratepayers. Commissioner Carey noted the annual usage for this is estimated to be $450,000 and agrees they could probably roll it all into one master plan scope of work and not pay overhead and profit on multiple contracts.
Ms. Guillet asked whether the scope for the master plan encompasses SCADA and if this is something that could be rolled into that. Mr. Hooper responded that SCADA is a very unique system and you want to have consultants that are extremely knowledgeable about SCADA systems as far as project management goes, experience and so forth. The general engineering is just a general qualified consultant with engineering expertise. Ms. Guillet stated she asked the question because if for some reason the Board decides they want to abandon this procurement because they think it will be covered by the other procurement, she just wants to make sure that is actually the case. Mr. Hooper indicated he knows that the top two ranked firms under Item #11 did participate under the other RFP, and he thinks they are going through a recommendation to bring both those consultants to the Board to award a Master Services Agreement, so if they want to look ahead, they are sort of covered in that aspect. He said the question was did the scope of services for that general one include SCADA and security. He advised it was general. Can the contractor do it? Possibly. Would it be a violation of any rules and regulations that he knows of? Absolutely not.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to continue to May 8, 2018, the request to approve the ranking list and authorize staff to negotiate rates in accordance with Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute one Master Services Agreement (MSA) for PS-1566-17, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Security Improvements for Water and Wastewater Utility Systems.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the following:
15. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-56 creating Section 14.10 of the Seminole County Administrative Code, which would delegate authority to the County Attorney to execute Satisfactions and Releases of Lien in favor of Seminole County in criminal cases. (2018-0658)
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #15, and public input was closed.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS CONSENT AGENDA
Clerk & Comptroller’s Office
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the following:
16. Approve Expenditure Approval List dated April 2, 2018; Payroll Approval List dated April 5, 2018; and the BCC Official Minutes dated March 27, 2018. (2018-0673)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk & Comptroller’s “Received and Filed”:
1. Florida Public Service Commission Consummating Order #PSC-2018-0162-TRF-WS re: Application for approval of tariff for the gross-up of CIAC in Charlotte, Highlands, Lake, Lee, Marion, Orange, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, and Seminole Counties, by Utilities, Inc. of Florida, Docket #20180025-WS, issued March 26, 2018.
2. Conditional Utility Agreement for water and sewer services between Seminole County and Sun-Tec Builders, Inc., for the project known as Brighton Estates.
3. Satisfaction and Release of Code Enforcement Board Lien for case #10-136-CEB, filed against Sherry L. Johnson; as approved by the BCC on January 9, 2018.
4. Right-of-Way Cash Maintenance Bond for the project known as The Watermark at Vistawilla Assisted Living Facility, in the amount of $2,529.60.
5. Maintenance Bond #30007620 (Water and Sewer Facilities) for the project known as Grocery Store Balmy Beach, in the amount of $3,731.20.
6. Recording of Plats and Title Opinion Letter for the Hickman Commercial Replat; Manhar Patel.
7. Recording of Plats and Title Opinion Letter for Windsor Square; Park Square Enterprises.
8. Developers Commitment Agreement #18-20500003, for Hideaway Cove PD; Delaney Land Company, LLC.
9. Developers Commitment Agreement #18-20500004, for East Lake Drive PD; Strong Intergroup Corporation.
10. Natural Lands Contract for Services with Heather Mahoney.
11. Parks Contract for Services with Madelyn Escudero.
12. Tourist Tax Funding Agreement for Central Florida Super25 Qualifier with Perfect Game Youth Florida, Inc.
13. Closeout to CC-0704-16 with Masci General Contractor, Inc.
14. Closeout to CC-0846-16 with L7 Construction, Inc.
15. Closeout to CC-1252-17 with Linton Enterprises, LLC, and memorandum giving signature authorization to Donna King.
16. Closeout to CC-1290-17 with Glen Holt Aluminum, LLC.
17. Closeout to CC-1331-17 with Glen Holt Aluminum, LLC.
18. Change Order #3 to CC-1369-17 with Dager Construction, Inc.
19. Work Order #1 to PS-1522-17 with Tierra, Inc.
20. Amendment #4 to Work Order #11 to PS-3914-08 with Atkins North America, Inc.
21. Nineteenth Amendment to Term Contract RFP-601461-12 with Florida Cleaning Systems, Inc.
22. Second Amendment to Term Contract RFP-602203-15 with Raynor Shine Services, LLC.
23. Services Agreement RFP-603047-18 with Charles Aquatics, Inc.
24. Amendment #1 to Work Order #57 to PS-8047-12 with Tierra, Inc.
25. Amendment #1 to Work Order #61 to PS-8047-12 with Ardaman & Associates, Inc.
26. Amendment #1 to Work Order #19 to PS-8146-12 with CDM Smith, Inc.
27. Amendment #2 to Work Order #20 to PS-8146-12 with E Sciences, Inc.
28. Closeout to Work Order #30 to CC-9192-13 with Corinthian Builders, Inc., and memorandum giving signature authorization to Donna King.
29. Change Order #1 to Work Order #35 to CC-9192-13 with M&J Enterprises International, Inc.
30. Change Order #3 to Work Order #30 to CC-9192-17 with Corinthian Builders, Inc.
31. Bids as follows:
IFB-603094-18 from Sieg & Ambachtsheer, Inc.; Proshot Concrete, Inc.;
PS-1522-17 from Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc.; Ardaman & Associates, Inc.; Page One Consultants, Inc.; Professional Service Industries (PSI), Inc.; Tierra, Inc.; Terracon Consultants, Inc.; Tierra South Florida, Inc.; S&ME, Inc.; Andreyev Engineering, Inc.; ECS Florida, LLC; Nadic Engineering Services, Inc.; NOVA Engineering and Environmental, LLC;
IFB-603092-18 from Anixter, Inc.;
RFP-603065-18 from Ergometrics and Applied Personnel Research, Inc.; FirstIdea, Inc.; Resource Management Associates, Inc.; The JTS Association, Inc.; Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc.; CPS HR Consulting; Morris & McDaniel, Inc.;
BID-603125-18 from Presidio Networked Solutions, LLC; Total Communications, Inc. DBA Frontier Communcations; and
IFB-603091-18 from The Budd Group, Inc.; BrightView Landscape Services, Inc.; Premier Lawn Maintenance; Aqua Terra Works, LLC.
Agenda Item #17 – 2018-0624
Patt Hughes, Code Enforcement, addressed the Board to present a request to consider an appeal of the Deputy County Manager’s denial of a request to waive the Code Enforcement Board lien of $308,000, for Case #14-63-CEB, on the property located at 2980 E. SR 46, Sanford, Tax Parcel #32-19-31-513-0000-2800; Edward Hillery Heirs, previous owner; Virginia Miller, current owner.
Ms. Hughes advised the property owner’s request is for a total waiver of the lien totaling $308,000. She reviewed the background timeline. She advised staff recommends the Board uphold the Deputy County Manager’s denial of the requested waiver.
Commissioner Carey confirmed that in about three months’ time period from the time Ms. Miller got the property and realized there was a violation on it, she had it cleaned up. Ms. Hughes noted the owner would have done the cleanup sooner, but with Hurricane Irma, she had difficulty in getting the dumpsters to take the debris away.
Virginia Miller, property owner, addressed the Board to state she cannot afford $308,000, and she did not know the lien was on the property. She explained there was another property she purchased and the property at 2980 E. SR 46 was an additional property that she only paid $800 for. Her attorney did not check to see if there were any liens on the property and had advised her to purchase the property because it was such a great deal. She said she wanted the property to build her daughter and grandson a house on it. She added when she received the letter of August 7th stating there were liens on the property, she immediately started making arrangements to do what she needed to do. On August 9th, she advised she was robbed and she met with Code Enforcement who gave her a little while to obtain the permit. She then obtained the permit and got everything in compliance. It took a while to get the dumpsters because of Hurricane Irma.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Items #17, and public input was closed.
Commissioner Carey stated this is one of those situations where an attorney is advising someone because Ms. Miller owned the property adjacent to this lot. She only paid $800 for the lot and it is only valued at the Tax Collector’s Office at $4,400, with a $308,000 lien against the property. Within 20 days of Ms. Miller getting the notification that there was a problem, she acted to clean it up. She has acted responsibly and it was not her who caused the condition.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to grant the appeal, thereby overturning the Deputy County Manager’s denial of the request to waive the Code Enforcement Board lien of $308,000, for Case #14-63-CEB, on the property located at 2980 E. SR 46, Sanford, Tax Parcel #32-19-31-513-0000-2800 owned by Virginia Miller; and authorize the Chairman to execute the Release of Lien.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Agenda Item #18 – 2018-0635
Ms. Hughes advised the request to consider a reduction of the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate lien of $3,800, to the administrative costs for Case #17-84-CESM, on the property located at 1449 Shadwell Circle, Lake Mary, Tax Parcel #12-20-29-5HG-0000-0130 (Samuel M. Bleus, Owner) was pulled from the agenda due to the property being in repeat violation.
Agenda Item #19 – 2018-0600 (Continued from 3/27/18)
Commissioner Dallari advised he received a call from one of the owners, Mr. Stansberry, of the subject property last week advising they had a medical emergency of a family member living outside of the country and they had to go to them. He is asking for a continuance of the request.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to continue to May 8, 2018 the request to consider an appeal of the Deputy County Manager’s denial of the requested reduction of the Special Magistrate lien of $171,250, to $1,000, for Case #14-57-CESM, on the property located at 131 Warblar Lane, Casselberry, Tax Parcel #15-21-30-503-0B00-0270; Equity Trust Co. Custodian FBO James M. Stansberry IRA and Yanick R. Benschop, current owners /Appellants, Sandra Laborde, previous owner.
Gene Mills, Sand Dollar Realty Group, addressed the Board and advised he is in attendance to represent the owners in the event the item had to be heard today. He noted the medical emergency involves their first granddaughter and they are now in Holland. Mr. Mills explained his concern about when they may return. Commissioner Dallari advised he had to continue the item to a date certain, so if they have to continue it again, they will do that.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the continuance of Item #19, and public input was closed.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 10:55 a.m.; reconvening at 11:00 a.m.
Agenda Item #20 – 2018-0643
Jean Jreij, Public Works Director, addressed the Board to request approval of Alternative A, which specifies the final design of the Lake Monroe Trail Loop. The trail will be constructed from Sanford's Riverwalk along the east side of Mellonville Avenue to the north side of Celery Avenue to CR 415. He noted they brought this item before the Board in July of 2017, and staff was directed to go back and look at alternatives to bring the trail to the street. He distributed and displayed his presentation (received and filed) which is an updated version from the one provided in the agenda memorandum.
Mr. Jreij showed the cross section, Mellonville Ave. – Sanford Riverwalk to 8th St. On-street Bike Lanes (Not Recommended). He stated if they bring it down the street, there would be seven feet on each side for the bike lanes. The Tree Removals slide was then shown. Mr. Jreij said a survey was prepared by their consultant, CPH, as part of the project. If they selected to go with the bike lane on the road, the slide shows the impact to the trees on the east side. Some trees would also be impacted on the west side.
Minimum Impacts – Bike Lane Alt. was displayed. Mr. Jreij stated they prepared this small table to show the impacts on both the east and west sides. He advised they would need to remove about 49 trees in total, 29 driveway crossings would be impacted and about 5 walkway crossings. In regard to cost estimates for construction, he advised the eight-foot sidewalk/trail along the east side would be approximately $300,000 to $350,000. The estimate for the on-street bike lane is $1,700,000 to $2,000,000, which is not including the stormwater system or utility conflicts.
Mr. Jreij talked about the Recommended Typical Sections. The existing sidewalk on the east side (Mellonville Ave. – Sanford Riverwalk to 8th St.) is about four feet wide. This cross section shows the location of the existing sidewalk and an extension towards the street; it would not be toward the property line. Commissioner Carey clarified that they have an existing four-foot sidewalk and there is enough width between the sidewalk and the back of the curb to do the expansion to the eight feet. Commissioner Henley questioned if there would be additional right-of-way needed, and Mr. Jreij advised no. Commissioner Carey asked if the on-street was done, whether it would still encroach more to the other side of the driveway going towards the properties. Mr. Jreij responded that yes, the minimum would be to extend seven feet on the east and seven feet on the west side. Plus, that would not replace the trail; there would still be a sidewalk on both sides and it would impact a lot of trees. Commissioner Carey stated they have already lost a lot of trees on Mellonville which is supposed to be one of their scenic routes. Commissioner Dallari stated in regard to the cross section shown (page 7), they are talking about removing the existing sidewalk and putting down a new eight-foot trail bed. He asked whether they would have to root prune all those trees to make sure they would survive. Mr. Jreij explained the trees would not be impacted in that area along the east side. Ms. Guillet noted the photographs on the next pages will show there is a significant distance between the existing sidewalk and the trees that are out there. Mr. Jreij added if during the final design they can shift the 8 feet more towards the curb, they will do that, but there is enough room even for the 12 feet when the consultant looked at that. Commissioner Carey stated she would expect, just like they have done with the trail, if there was an opportunity to make a curve in the trail to miss a set of trees, that they would do that as well. She noted they have quite a bit of right-of-way out there; it is the County’s right-of-way and not someone’s yard even though they have been maintaining it probably. Mr. Jreij then displayed several photographs of the Mellonville Avenue area, street level sections and aerials.
Chairman Horan questioned what the plan is if they take the trail and put it on the west side; how do they get across, how do they connect up to the trail on the lake. Mr. Jreij replied they would have to cross the street, and they looked into that on the west side and the recommendation the consultant made was to go on the east side. Chairman Horan said then you could not stay on the south side of Seminole Boulevard to connect to the bike lane if it were on the west side. Commissioner Carey added they would have to cross back over at Celery Avenue. Commissioner Dallari noted though that they have to cross streets everywhere.
Mr. Jreij advised that staff recommends Alternative A which is from Riverwalk to the east side of Mellonville. It would be eight-feet wide and concrete. Along the east side from 8th Street to Celery Avenue, it would be 12-feet wide and also from Celery Avenue to SR 415 on the north side.
Commissioner Carey questioned whether they had confirmed with FDOT that they will still get the grant funds if they go from 12 feet to 8 feet or less; her question is more about whether they can go less than 8 feet. Mr. Jreij responded in the area from Riverwalk to 8th Street, they met with DOT and they approved the minimum width of 8 feet in that area. Ms. Guillet noted that normally their minimum is 10 feet. Chairman Horan clarified that they have confirmed with FDOT that the grant money is still good if they go down to 8 feet.
Commissioner Dallari said he knows that staff and the consultant are making the recommendation for the east side and asked what the negatives were about going on the west side. Mr. Jreij advised there are more crossings, some major tress that would be affected and also the utilities. Chairman Horan added they have power on the west side, eight power poles and five guidelines, and there are none on the east side.
Doreen Freeman, 705 Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board and stated she will be displaying slides which will show emergency vehicles rushing down Mellonville, cars leaving the road on SR 417, school entrances, ballpark entrances, tennis court entrances, and three subdivision entrances, on both Mellonville and Celery (received and filed).
Ms. Freeman distributed to the Board a Survey of Items to be Cut Down or Moved to Accommodate the Lake Monroe Trail Plan “A” & Plan “C” which she said she distributed previously in June or July of last year (received and filed). She reviewed the survey results in connection with Plan “A”. She noted there are massive trees by the ballpark and there is no place to go except toward the baseball field, and they would have to take out all the landscaping that Sanford just put in a couple of years ago. She added it would all have to go if they put the trail in or they would have to have the trail zigzagging all over the place.
Ms. Freeman read a list of questions that she also submitted in writing. Attached to the list of questions are the final report from CPH and the tally sheet evaluating five engineering firms for PS-9351, MSA for design of the Lake Monroe Trail Loop (all received and filed). Mr. Freeman stated she believes the tally form was tallied incorrectly.
Josilen Grover, 207 S. Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board noting she distributed a couple of handouts (received and filed) which include (1) Florida tops most dangerous list for fourth consecutive time, (2) Stark Statistics and what we face on Mellonville/Celery Ave. and FDOT’s Priorities, and (3) Completing Florida’s Streets by FDOT.
Ms. Grover stated Florida leads the nation in pedestrian deaths and is the most dangerous state for bicyclists according to the CDC. Also, Florida takes the top seven spots in the Pedestrian Danger Index. The urban areas are built around automobile-focused street design that encourages an increase in drivers’ speed which results in injury and death to pedestrians while also suppressing walking and bicycling out of safety concerns. After the release of Smart Growth America’s 2014 findings in their publication, Dangerous by Design 2014, the State of Florida and FDOT took the data to heart and decided to do a 180 in regard to urban planning. Ms. Grover opined the State of Florida is so on board with Complete Streets and redesigning roadways to accommodate mixed use that Smart Growth America has now listed FDOT’s plan in their 2017 publication, Best Complete Streets Initiatives of 2017, and she briefly discussed that. Ms. Grover expressed that what she sees from the three paths (alternatives) is that cost savings is first and safety is dead last. She concluded stating they have an opportunity to lead by example and asked the Board to scrap all three options and have a landscape architect seek an actual path through legitimate nature for the trail and instead refocus their energies on taking the lead to safer roadways by pursuing Complete Streets on Mellonville, Celery and all the other streets in need of updates, repairs and sidewalks.
Yanick Booz, 207 S. Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board to state she is concerned that this project is being rushed to a vote again without the due diligence needed that they are designing a safe and beautiful trail system. A major error made from the start of this proposal was asking for bids to connect CR 415 to the end of the Riverwalk using only Celery Avenue and Mellonville Avenue. She opined the five companies that submitted proposals only looked at the narrow path given in this directive. Once the winning bid was selected, CPH began work by flagging their yards with utility markers. When they questioned the details of the project and asked for a public meeting, two additional paths were hastily created and immediately deemed not feasible. She expressed instead they should have asked for proposals with the question, “How would you connect Riverwalk’s end to CR 415?” She added this would have invited landscape architects and engineers to use creativity and ingenuity to design something unique. This could be an opportunity to set the Seminole County portions of the trail as a destination and not just a throughway. She stated that safety must be given the highest consideration over the cost and/or quick completion of a project. She asked the Board to deny all three paths as presented and find a better way to complete the trail.
Jay Jurie, 408 S. Virginia Avenue, addressed the Board and said he lives in the neighborhood under discussion although he does not live on Mellonville. He is a pro bicyclist and is in favor of having a bike path around the lake but has concerns and questions about this specific project. His comments echo some of the previous speakers’ concerns. At the last meeting in July or August of last year, there was a vote taken to look further into the Complete Streets project, and he doesn’t believe any of that is reflected in the item today. He added he does not see any real evidence that the Complete Streets concept was really examined, at least not in more than perhaps a superficial fashion. He credits staff with narrowing the path to eight feet; he thinks that is a significant move, but reading from the attachment for Item #20, the report states “staff investigated the options with the conclusion that implementing a bike trail and implementation of Complete Streets would create more of an impact to the adjacent homeowners.” He remarked there is no explanation of this and he finds it troubling. In the handout he received from staff this morning (presentation by Mr. Jreij), in regard to Minimum Costs – Sidewalk vs. Bike Lane Alts. (page 6), he feels that with the level of explanation here, he is not just baffled but troubled because there really is no explanation to support this. He would like to see that and he thinks this item should be sent back for some further exploration and explanation to the taxpaying public.
Speaker Request Forms and a Written Comment Form were received a filed.
Commissioner Carey stated she guesses there are some members of the public that do not recall the process. She asked that either the consultant or staff walk through the schedule of what they have done because there has been a process to this and there have been public meetings about this. There were alternative routes looked at including going deeper into the neighborhood, which had a lot of opposition as well. She opined it is always difficult to change something in a neighborhood that has been in existence for so long.
Mr. Jreij advised they had CPH on contract to evaluate certain alternatives and they evaluated Alternatives A, B, and C. Chairman Horan thought there was a public meeting held on December 1, 2016 at a point where the project approached 30% and asked if that was correct.
Matthew Cushman, Project Manager for CPH, addressed the Board to advise they were not actually at 30%. He explained as part of the design process when they were surveying, there were questions raised by some members of the public. It came to the Commission at that point in time. They were then requested to analyze additional alternatives. Also, they held a public meeting in which they provided a questionnaire to be able to get feedback from all of the residents. Chairman Horan added there were 86 residents who attended that meeting on December 1, 2016, according to the data he has in front of him, and the residents were asked to complete that questionnaire. The questionnaire said which alternative do you prefer and of the 86 in attendance, 75% preferred Alternative A. Mr. Cushman stated that is correct. In one of the prior presentations to the Commission, they showed a broken down summary of those surveys. There were five particular elements they had provided. The majority, or 63% of the respondents and/or family members, had recently used a Seminole County trail showing that there was a lot of interest in the use of the trail. A slight majority, 52% of the residents, expected to be a regular user of the trail. The majority, 62% of the residents’ properties are directly adjacent to one of the proposed options, meaning that the majority of the residents live adjacent to the trail and will be directly impacted. Also, 76% of the respondents believe there is a public benefit provided by these trails. He opined the important point to this meeting is that 75% of the respondents preferred Alternative A. Commissioner Carey said she thought that at that time, it was a 12-foot wide proposed trail. Mr. Cushman pointed out it actually was 14-foot wide. Along Mellonville, there is sufficient right-of-way to provide a 14-foot wide trail with no right-of-way impacts and with no tree impacts.
Commissioner Carey stated there has been a PD&E process, there has been public discussion about this, there has been input from the residents in this area, and the direction of this Board was to go back and look at Complete Streets. Mr. Cushman noted the presentation given in July of last year was actually the conclusion of the PD&E report that at a prior meeting they were requested to complete, which is a full analysis of all three alternatives as far as looking at cost, looking at safety, looking at everything that the public had requested as well as issues that the Commissioners had requested. At the July meeting, there was the additional request to consider Complete Streets and the impact that it would have on this project. He remarked if you aren’t familiar with the construction process, the numbers can seem to be exaggerated; however, the cost ($2 million) is not a cost that CPH has prepared; this was prepared by County staff and he has not seen their information. He explained if you look at the cross sections, there is a relatively steep slope going up from the roadway, and when you are putting a bike lane in, you have to maintain the existing roadway slope which is going downwards. Because of that there is a significant amount of cut that will have to take place, and then you have to be able to go from that elevation back up to maintain the driveways. Those costs are primarily due to utility impacts. Saving all the trees which has been an important part of this process, unfortunately, would have to be removed. Commissioner Carey noted the road would also have to be widened to accommodate all of this. Mr. Cushman agreed and indicated for Complete Streets, the road would have to be widened significantly. There is no way to do it within the existing roadway limits.
Commissioner Carey stated as she looked at these cross sections, the back of the curb of the roadway would actually end up closer to the residents than the back of the sidewalk is today if they were trying to do Complete Streets, and asked if that is correct. Mr. Cushman responded that the back of the curb of the sidewalk would directly line with all of the historic trees that are there along the corridor right now. Commissioner Carey said she thinks that is how they came back to this recommendation, at least in her discussion with CPH, to do the eight-foot sidewalk due to not only cost but impact. Mr. Cushman advised that with Complete Streets, the back of the curb itself would be closer to the residents’ properties than the current curb, but it would not be closer than the sidewalk. The actual existing sidewalk would remain in place.
Chairman Horan questioned whether the road is owned by the County. Commissioner Carey replied it is not; it is the City of Sanford’s. The Chairman then asked if the City of Sanford is going to pay the $2 million. Mr. Cushman informed them that Jeff Davis with the City is in attendance today. Chairman Horan stated they do know that the City of Sanford had sent a letter approving of the project and approving of Alternative A. He added they are talking about all these costs but Mellonville is not their street. Commissioner Carey pointed out neither is Celery Avenue anymore; the maintenance of Celery Avenue has also been turned over to the City of Sanford. It is her understanding that they do not have this in any kind of a work program to do a Complete Street there.
Mr. Cushman stated this is an FDOT LAP (Local Agency Program) project that was approved, and it has been in the works for a long time. It was finally approved in 2013 or 2014, and because of the nature of this trail, it is the final segment within the Lake Monroe trail loop. There is a lot of public interest, by the City obviously, and by the County as well, because this will be a promotional item for the County, and there will be a lot of attention. There is already national attention on it for future use for marathons, for bicyclists, for family. Commissioner Carey added because it is part of the regional trail connectivity. Mr. Cushman expounded on that saying it is part of the regional trail system and it is tying right now the coast-to-coast trail that is going along the west side of Lake Monroe to the north side. This provides an alternative connection that brings those trail users down into the city on the south side and going up the east side along CR 415; hence, the importance of the connection.
Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Cushman to give them his background. Mr. Cushman advised he is a transportation engineer; he specializes in roadways, trails, traffic signals, anything that is transportation related. Commissioner Dallari questioned whether anyone in their firm is certified in Complete Streets. Kurt Luman, Vice President and Transportation Director for CPH, stated as far as they are aware, with all the projects they have worked on, the DOT does not have a certification for Complete Streets. They do have Complete Street manuals and CPH has had a lot of Complete Streets designs. Commissioner Dallari said there is a certification for it and they have actually had classes in downtown Orlando. Mr. Luman advised they have taken those classes and they’ve actually designed over 20 Complete Streets in their portfolio. Commissioner Dallari reiterated he was just asking if anyone in their firm is certified in Complete Streets. Mr. Luman replied they are not but they are experts in that area. Commissioner Dallari opined most people don’t realize in regard to Complete Streets, it is not actually a design; it is looking at different aspects of a road. You look at rail, you look at buses, you look at trucks, you look at small cars and large cars. Mr. Luman agreed stating it is multi-modal. Commissioner Dallari stated that is the definition that people who actually are certified have given him; it is not an actual design, it is a criteria. He asked if CPH reviewed it completely, the aspect of Complete Streets. Mr. Luman responded that they have done that on multiple projects. Commissioner Dallari remarked there has been some dialogue here that someone said that with Complete Streets, it actually moves an element further back. Well, Complete Streets doesn’t do that; you actually look at all the different elements of it. He asked if they checked the box and reviewed it for those other multi-modals of transportation. Mr. Luman recounted since the previous meeting back in July, CPH was told to hold fast and not do anything and wait for staff to work things out, so they have not analyzed a Complete Street. It is something they can do, he said, again, they are qualified to do it. Commissioner Dallari stated he just wants to be clear. The other aspect of it is that when CPH was given this project, they were given the three different alternates, A, B and C. He said so you didn’t look at how to get from point “a” to point “b”. It was just look at the three different alternates, is that correct? Mr. Luman stated when the project started, they were given one alignment from the County, and they did look at the alternates as the project continued forward.
Commissioner Dallari said CPH was given the three alternates to look at and asked if they looked at other alternates. Mr. Cushman responded no. The three alternates were derived when the public came before this Board sometime, he believes, in May of 2016. Staff requested CPH to develop the alternates and to review them to look at the safety factors and to provide multiple alternatives. Chairman Horan asked if they were the three alternatives presented at the December 1, 2016 meeting. Mr. Cushman replied yes, they were. Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Cushman to discuss a little bit about the east side and the west side of Mellonville; what are the pros and cons. Mr. Cushman advised on the east side of Mellonville, because of the available space that is very flat and the existing sidewalk, they can basically put a 14-foot-wide trail at grade with minimal work. That was one of the original items. And it didn’t require any crossings of Mellonville. He added they analyzed the safety aspect; any additional crossing to a major through street with no stop control is a safety concern. On the west side, all the utility lines would require relocation. There were also tree impacts on the west side as compared to no tree impacts on the east side even with a 14-foot-wide trail, let alone an 8-foot-wide trail.
Commissioner Henley noted he was looking at the Attendee Questionnaire for the December 1, 2016 meeting. He asked how far along was CPH in their design at that particular meeting and were they able to give a complete or detailed analysis of the impact for the entire route. He said he was looking at the document that was submitted by Ms. Freeman on Plan A and the impact of Plan A, according to her. The Commissioner stated he wants to know if it had been validated as to whether she is correct or not because it looks like an awful lot of impact on Plan A. He added he just wondered if this type of detail was provided on that evening to the people there that they were apparently surveying. Mr. Cushman responded he cannot attest to anything included in her packet because he has not seen that; however, the impacts that are observable are going to be driveway impacts and tree impacts, which are pretty cut and dry as far as numbers. He added they did not provide that level of detailed information on December 1; it was after their presentation to the Commission that CPH was asked to provide additional detail and go to that additional level of a formal-type PD&E report. So, he said, the answer is no, that was not presented on the 1st. It was, however, presented to the public again. Ms. Guillet noted they did provide the alignments. Commissioner Henley asked the County Manager whether it would be appropriate to have staff see if this is accurate because to him, it is significant, particularly if this type of detail was not available at the meeting where they took a position. He added this is the first time he has seen this and it concerns him.
Commissioner Carey indicated the community meeting that was held was really held with the residents from the river to Celery Avenue along Mellonville; it was not with the residents along Celery Avenue going out to 415. The concentration really was from the river to Celery so that they could look at the alternatives and that was a direction that was given, to go back and look at the alternatives to see what the impacts are and to talk to the community about it. Then 75% of the residents that live in that area voted to select Alternate A. So the Complete Streets came up at their last meeting. She noted in regard to the analysis that Ms. Freeman submitted, she has no validation that it is accurate or not, but it includes Celery Avenue as well as Mellonville. She mentioned she does not have an issue if the Board wants to continue this to get this validated, but they have been talking about this project for two years and it is LAP funding. She thinks that at some point, they are either going to have to move it forward or it is going to be taken off the LAP funding list, and this is their opportunity to try to build more trails, which they have done a great job of. They have 63 miles of trails in this community, and making this connection has been a priority of MetroPlan and their representatives of MetroPlan, so the question is what is the best way to make that connection.
Commissioner Carey stated she is happy to continue this to the next meeting so that they are able to analyze the information that has been submitted for confirmation. Maybe the Board members could go out and personally take a look at this particular area so that everybody has it foremost in their minds. She added she is extremely familiar with the corridor. She can make a motion at this point to go with Alternate A, but it sounds like the rest of the Board would like some validation. Commissioner Dallari expressed he would recommend they continue this. They are looking at this from a transportation aspect but he knows CPH also has a consultant on their team who is a landscape architect, and since they are dealing with people’s homes, he would like to have a landscape architect actually look at some of this. Commissioner Carey noted County staff has looked at this based on the direction that was given by the County Manager, and so if they are going to continue it, she would like to continue it to validate the information that was given to them by residents. She noted there are going to be impacts. There are always impacts when they make a change to existing conditions and that is just the nature of the beast.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to continue Item #20, request to consider approval of Alternative A specifying the final design of the Lake Monroe Trail Loop to be constructed from Sanford's Riverwalk along the east side of Mellonville Avenue to the north side of Celery Avenue to CR 415, based on the comments of her colleagues for a final decision.
Under discussion, Commissioner Carey stated the people who have already voted on this have not felt the need to continue to keep coming back because they have already made their opinions known in the vote that was taken in December. Commissioner Henley commented his concern is that he has seen nothing on Alternate C, the pros or cons or cost or impact or anything else. He is concerned all the details they are seeing here were not available for those people at their meeting. Commissioner Carey noted all the alternates were presented at that meeting. Commissioner Henley reiterated he knows nothing about Plan C and he also likes the question that was raised about the input from Sanford other than “you guys go ahead and do it.”
Commissioner Carey suggested they give this back to the consultant instead of their staff. The Chairman noted if they give it back to the consultant, the consultant will bill them. Commissioner Carey replied she understands that, but obviously staff has a lot of oversight to do, and there are landscape architects on that firm. There are people that have designed Complete Streets and there are people that can go back and look at this. She does not want them to make a mistake which is why they have continued this so many times. She opined that investing a little more money to make sure they get it right isn’t going to kill them. She asked if the Board wants to go until June so they have 30 days to look at this and said she is happy to continue this to a date specific.
Commissioner Constantine expressed he is frustrated because he remembers the meetings that they’ve had and they seem to keep coming back and there are more questions and more concerns. Ms. Guillet stated she wants to make sure she understands if they are going to continue it again, what exactly is the Board’s expectation, because when they talked last time, they talked about looking at an on-street bike lane and to do it properly, you have to do a bike lane on either side as they all know. They talked about understanding what the different impacts would be. They talked about giving them an order of magnitude with respect to what that approach would be versus the Alternative A that was originally recommended to the Board. She added they didn’t talk about doing detailed cost analysis because as they know, there is a significant amount of work that goes into that. When you have a project that is around $300,000 to $350,000 versus upwards of $2 million, you can just see from an order of magnitude there is a significant difference. If the Board wants them to get into greater detail on that, they can, but that was their discussion because they knew there would be a significant gap between the funding for both of those. That is how staff went forward after the last meeting when the Board considered this. She repeated she wants to make sure that they are answering the questions that the Board has with respect to this if they are going to take another look at it because Commissioner Constantine is correct; they bring it forward and there are more questions. She would like the Board to please clarify exactly what their expectation is if they continue this and what they want staff to bring back.
Commissioner Constantine stated the concern he had at the last meeting was that Ms. Freeman had indicated that there hadn’t been another meeting for discussion. He noted he had heard that there has been three different times that staff has tried to contact her since the last meeting and that just hasn’t happened. Ms. Guillet recounted there was some discussion at their meeting in July of last year that the Board directed staff to have another community meeting, so they did go back and look at the video from that meeting because that was not staff’s recollection. The Board did ask them to look at some additional options, but there was not direction from the Board to have another community meeting. That being said, staff did try to reach out to Ms. Freeman to have a one-on-one meeting with her before today and they were unable to make that connection. Chairman Horan commented just so the record is clear, there have been two public meetings concerning this. There was one on December 1, 2016 and another on July 27, 2017.
Commissioner Carey explained she made the motion to continue based on the comments that she heard from the other Commissioners, but she is also ready to go forward with Option A. She thinks staff has done their job. They did what they were asked to do and that is to go back and look at this, look at Complete Streets, look at the cost, look at the analysis. As they can see, she does not think the Complete Street option would work in that section knowing that section and all the problems that they have out there already. Also, the City is not willing to support that; they are supporting Option A as well. It is $2 million and that is not even counting the stormwater or the utilities, and stormwater is an issue out there. She reiterated if there is not support from the Board to continue this, she is ready to make a motion to move forward. She noted there is a motion on the floor.
Chairman Horan announced a motion has been made and seconded to continue and called the question.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey clarified in regard to the motion, she would like to have the information that has been submitted to them by the residents validated. She would like to have a breakdown on the cost estimates that have been done by staff and a little more detail on what the design or Concept A looks like. She opined maybe they need to come back and make another presentation to the Board because it has been a year, so she would like a complete presentation at the next meeting by CPH of what alternates were presented, make sure everybody gets notified of the meeting, and then they will be able to make a decision. She added if something new comes up then they will get that information as well, but she would like staff to provide some detailed breakdowns on how these numbers were derived since CPH did not do them. They know what it costs to build a trail per mile, and she believes that was the analysis that was used.
Chairman Horan asked the County Manager how much time they will need. Ms. Guillet advised they don’t have to schedule it to a date certain, so they will pull the information together as quickly as they can in order to ensure that it is comprehensive. Then they will notice folks about the meeting. She noted they did send out notice at the last meeting to the neighbors and they will do that again when they reschedule this. Ms. Guillet said she expects it will be end of May, beginning of June.
Commissioner Carey questioned whether there would be an issue with the funding timeline, and Mr. Jreij stated it would be okay. Commissioner Carey confirmed with him then that the LAP funding is not at risk at this point.
Chairman Horan directed they make sure the City of Sanford has full notice of what is going on here because the City has already told them they are in favor of Alternative A, and if they do something different, they need to make sure the City is on board because Mellonville is not a County street. Commissioner Carey suggested the County engineers and CPH reach out to the engineers at the City of Sanford and keep them in the loop.
Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 12:00 noon, reconvening at 1:30 p.m. with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Terri Porter who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Kyla Farrell, who were present at the Opening Session.
PROOFS OF PUBLICATION
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Henley, 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.
HESTER AVENUE PD REZONE/Jack & Carol Rosier
Agenda Item #21 – PH-2018-0623
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PD (Planned Development) for a single-family residential development on approximately 9.7 acres, located on the west side of Hester Avenue, approximately 700 feet south of Ronald Reagan Boulevard, Jack & Carol Rosier, received and filed.
Danalee Petyk, Planning & Development, addressed the Board and presented the item as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She advised the P&Z Commission met on January 4, 2017, and considered the previous proposal of a Small Scale Future Land Use Map amendment and Rezone to Planned Development (PD) in order to develop the property with residential townhomes at a density of eight dwelling units per acre and voted unanimously to recommend denial of that request. The revised request was not required to be reviewed by the P&Z Commission. Ms. Petyk stated staff finds the current proposed development to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the LDC (Land Development Code); therefore, staff recommends the Board adopt the ordinance enacting the Rezone.
Paul Partyka with Partyka Group, Inc., 404 Park Lake Drive, addressed the Board and stated he had a meeting with the community yesterday; and the result of that meeting is that overall, they seem to be very pleased with the fact that only 32 units will be there (that comes out to be 3.3 units per acre). Park Square Homes provided him a list of elevations, and the homes will range from about 2,100 square feet to as much at 2,700 square feet with a list value of at least $300,000. Mr. Partyka opined it is a very nice project, and it is what the people wanted. He added from a value-of-homes standpoint, it will be better for the overall community. Mr. Partyka stated there will not be more than 32 homes on the parcel, and he assured the community that the Developer’s Agreement protects them on that.
Commissioner Dallari stated in the Master Plan it says a six-foot vinyl fence on the south and west sides only. He asked about the north side where there is a separation to a different type of use. Mr. Partyka responded he doesn’t see a problem with that if it is a necessary item. Commissioner Dallari reiterated he doesn’t understand why it’s only on the south and west because the plan eludes that the fence is all the way around it, but it clearly says south and west.
Commissioner Carey stated the parcel adjacent to this along Ronald Reagan is Kids House; and as she recalls, they either have a wall along there or were planning to build a wall for security. Commissioner Dallari indicated if there is already a fence there, that’s fine; but he believes the wall Commissioner Carey is talking about is along Ronald Reagan and Hester, not separating the two pieces. Commissioner Carey reminded Kids House came to the Board with the additional piece of property that they were acquiring and the Board rezoned it. Commissioner Dallari clarified it is on Hester and Ronald Reagan. He stated he doesn’t know if there is a fence or any delineation between the two pieces. Commissioner Carey advised they certainly would want there to be, but she believes there is something in the discussion the Board had with Kids House about their security and they were intending to do something on the parcel that the Board later purchased and designated for Kids House.
Ernest Hamilton, Executive Director of Kids House, 5467 North Ronald Reagan Boulevard, addressed the Board and read a statement (received and filed) from Kids House Facility Architect Bob Burke. The statement addressed their concerns regarding the privacy for the children at Kids House. In his statement, Mr. Burke requested a 40-foot setback along the development’s north property line. Chairman Horan asked Mr. Hamilton to address the issue Commissioners Dallari and Carey were discussing. Mr. Hamilton stated the wall is near Hester and Ronald Reagan; but the line that Kids House is speaking of already has a fence, but it’s not a privacy fence. They can see the other property because there is not a wall at that property line. Commissioner Carey stated when they acquired the additional piece that was recently added to the Kids House parcel, there was some discussion about the responsibility of Kids House for making sure that there was privacy; and she thought there was some discussion about the fact that Kids House may be required to build a wall. She advised she needs somebody to go back and look at that because it isn’t the neighbor’s responsibility to take care of the kids at Kids House, it is Kids House’s responsibility. She remembers having a discussion about securing the property when they acquired it so she doesn’t know that the burden should all be on the adjacent property; she thinks it is up to Kids House to secure their own boundary. Chairman Horan pointed out the project currently has a 25-foot setback and a 20-foot landscape buffer.
Colleen Jarrell, 5769 Autumn Chase Circle, addressed the Board and stated she has lived in Autumn Chase for over 15 years and her property used to be agricultural just like the rest of the surrounding properties. She opined Autumn Chase spurred the development in that area. Ms. Jarrell indicated she is not opposed to the development, she just asks that this be forward thinking with the rezoning considering the overall area south of Ronald Reagan. She appreciates the work the owners and developer have done in listening to the residents and modifying their plan from townhomes to single-family. While she supports the single-family land use, she is still opposed to rezoning to Planned Development. She explained her reasons for being opposed to the rezone.
Commissioner Carey asked staff to explain the Development Order process that goes along with a PD zoning, and Ms. Guillet discussed the process for rezoning a property. Ms. Jarrell stated the Master Development Plan doesn’t have all of the items that are required including the graphics showing topography and open space, a preliminary wetland and floodplain delineation, general buffer and landscape concepts, structural concepts and streets. They don’t have any of that information so the community is leery to know if their intent is actually going to be single-family. Ms. Guillet responded that by the terms of the Development Agreement before the Board today, they would be restricted from doing anything other than single-family unless they came back and went through the entire rezoning process again.
Ms. Jarrell questioned why staff stated the project is in compliance with the LDC when it isn’t because it doesn’t include the items that are supposed to be included. Ms. Guillet deferred to staff because she doesn’t receive the submittal packages, but she assumed the submittal package was complete, they just may not have included everything in the agenda item. Ms. Jarrell pointed out the open space requirement is different than what the County requires; they say 15% and the County requires 25% for 4 units per acre.
Commissioner Carey stated at the zoning process, they typically haven’t gone through and delineated the wetlands and all of that because it’s net-buildable lots so they may not get 32 lots, but they can’t get any more than 32. So there is a difference between PD zoning and where they are in the process versus a straight zoning. Commissioner Dallari stated another way to look at this is if they went straight zoning, if they had four units per acre, they could put in roughly 38 lots; but this way they can only put in a maximum of 32.
Ms. Jarrell stated she understands, but she would rather it be Low-Density Residential. She wants it zoned with the Future Land Use Plan. Commissioner Constantine pointed out staff has estimated there is 1.5 acres of wetland; but if you look at the map, it looks like a whole lot more than 1.5 acres. He opined what Ms. Jarrell is saying is, she would rather keep it at R-1 (Residential) knowing that they can put four units an acre in the acres that are usable instead of coming back and saying they are going to redesign it no matter how much acreage is wetland to get 32 units. Ms. Guillet indicated the Development Order says the maximum allowable density would be four units per acre, and it will be based on the developable land.
Melody Manger, 5679 Autumn Chase Circle, addressed the Board and requested that the Board stick to the current Future Land Use designation of Low-Density Residential. She pointed out there is a lot of environmentally sensitive land in the area and they have a lot of pressure on Hester Avenue as far as traffic is concerned. She would like to see less than what the developer is proposing. Regarding the enormous wetland area on the property, she doesn’t want to see that lost forever because there is only so much wetland in the county and once it’s gone, it’s gone. Ms. Manger noted the proposed lots are less than 5,000 square feet and she opined that is not in keeping with the area. Some of the other subdivisions are at least 10,000 or more square feet. She asked that the Board hold the line on Hester Avenue and follow the existing Future Land Use designation of Low-Density Residential.
Jean Michaels, 370 Miller Road, addressed the Board and stated she has learned a lot listening to everybody, but 32 homes is a lot for that area. She is a nature lover and has seen what growth has done to certain areas of Sanford and around the county. Those homes will just add more traffic getting out from Hester to Ronald Reagan Boulevard. The other way out is Sanford Avenue to Lake Mary Boulevard, and several accidents happen at that intersection. There are only so many places traffic can go. Ms. Michaels stated the environment is very precious and they can’t get it back.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #21, and public input was closed.
Speaker Request Forms and two Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt Ordinance #2018-14 enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PD (Planned Development) for a single-family residential development and approve the associated Development Order and Master Development Plan on approximately 9.7 acres, located on the west side of Hester Avenue, approximately 700 feet south of Ronald Reagan Boulevard, as described in the proof of publication; and encourage the developer to work with Kids House to construct one separation between the housing development and the Kids House property; Jack & Carol Rosier, Applicants.
Commissioner Dallari stated in the Development Order, it clearly states that the minimum width of the building line is 40 feet. He inquired about the surrounding area’s minimum lot lines and opined 40 feet is small. He asked if there were any examples of 40-foot lot lines in the area. Ms. Petyk answered there are none in the immediate area, but there are 40-foot lots elsewhere in the county and 50-foot lots are becoming more common. Rebecca Hammock, Planning & Development Division Manager, addressed the Board and stated Hawk’s Crest is one example of a development where 40-foot lots were proposed and approved.
Commissioner Constantine asked if the width of the lot would change if they kept it Low-Density Residential. Ms. Hammock answered if they were to propose R-1 (Single-Family Residential), they would be 70-foot-wide lots. Commissioner Carey stated in a number of projects that have been approved in that area, clustering is part of the PD process and why people sometimes go to PD so they can preserve the natural areas by clustering the homes on smaller lots in different areas. That has been approved on a number of projects going down Hester Avenue to get to Autumn Chase.
Commissioner Dallari stated in looking at the site plan, there is a body of water, and Ms. Hammock noted it is a wetland that may have been a pond. She added the developer will have to mitigate for that. Commissioner Dallari asked if they are going to keep it and whether or not that is the reason they need smaller lots. Ms. Petyk indicated they are going to keep 1.5 acres of the water body. Commissioner Dallari asked how big the water body actually is. Ms. Petyk answered they are not at the final-engineered-plans stage yet so they just have approximations, and there is approximately 2 acres of wetlands total. They proposed 1.5 acres to remain on the property, which she believes is the actual water area plus a little bit of the surrounding land. Commissioner Carey opined they would improve the wetland and make it a feature of most of the homes. Commissioner Dallari stated he doesn’t see anything in the Development Order that tells him that they’re actually going to keep that. He indicated he can understand wanting the narrower lots to keep the water body, but it doesn’t actually say it. Commissioner Carey pointed out it says there appears to be a 2-acre wetland on the subject property, and they’ll have to address it prior to final engineering. Ms. Petyk advised it is on the Master Development Plan. Mr. Partyka stated he expects that water body will be reconfigured a little bit, but it’ll basically be in that general area; and they expect that water body to be roughly 1.5 to 1.7 acres of water which will be for retention. He added whatever has to be done in terms of mitigation will be done. Commissioner Dallari stated he wants something in terms of a commitment and he doesn’t see that yet. Mr. Partyka responded he has seen some of the preliminary drawings, and that general area will be about the same; and the Board will see that with the submittal of the Site Plan along with final engineering.
Commissioner Constantine referred to the FLU Zoning Map included in the agenda memorandum and reiterated the wetland looks a lot larger than just the pond. He asked if they are only able to get 7 acres, would they only ask for 28 units; and Mr. Partyka answered that is correct. Mr. Partyka explained the Development Order is clear that if they find less acreage, they will not build any more than 4 units per buildable acre with a maximum of 32. So if it comes down to 6 acres, it’s only 24 units. Commissioner Constantine confirmed with Mr. Partyka that the plan is not to destroy any of the wetlands in the preparation.
Commissioner Constantine asked why Mr. Partyka wants PD and not Residential. Mr. Partyka answered the project follows the Low-Density Residential Future Land Use; they are not changing any Comprehensive Plan. The Board doesn’t have to worry about anything other than Low-Density Residential even with the PD zoning. They did PD to allow for the unique retention area that may be bigger than anticipated. The values of the homes are still going to be expensive. If they effectively start all over and go to straight zoning, it’ll add another six months to seven months of bureaucracy and processing. Another reason they kept it at PD is so they wouldn’t have to incur more fees and extend the timeline. Commissioner Constantine stated if the wetland turns out to be 3 acres, and they only have 6 usable acres, they will only be able to put 24 units there. Commissioner Carey stated her motion is based on the Development Order that says a maximum of 4 dwelling units per net-buildable acre and a maximum of 32. There’s an assumption about the wetland being 1.5 acres; but if it turns out that it’s 2 acres, then he only gets 8 lots.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
WILSON AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE/
Rinehart Partners, LLC
Agenda Item #22 – PH-2018-0682
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider a Resolution vacating and abandoning an uncut portion of a public right-of-way known as Wilson Avenue, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 27, in the Public Records of Seminole County, for property located on the east side of Rinehart Road, 500 feet south of Garnet Lane, Rinehart Partners, LLC, received and filed.
Joy Giles, Planning & Development, addressed the Board and presented the item as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She stated staff recommends the Board adopt the resolution.
Phillip Hollis with Rinehart Partners, LLC, 1190 Business Center Drive, addressed the Board and stated it is an honor to be selected by FDOT to develop the property, and a necessary part of that process is the vacation of the right-of-way. He appreciates the Board’s consideration and is available for any questions or rebuttal should it be necessary.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #22, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2018-R-57 vacating and abandoning an uncut portion of a public right-of-way known as Wilson Avenue, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 27, in the Public Records of Seminole County; and authorize the Development Services Director to execute the Perpetual and Permanent Right-of-Way Easement for Rinehart Road over a portion of the vacated Wilson Avenue, as described in the proof of publication; Rinehart Partners, LLC, Applicant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
STARWOOD DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE/
PEC Surveying and Mapping
Agenda Item #23 – PH-2018-0400
Continuation of a public hearing from March 27, 2018, to consider a Resolution vacating and abandoning a portion of a public right-of-way known as Starwood Drive, being the south 653.95 feet of Starwood Drive right-of-way lying in Section 31, Township 21 South, Range 31 east of Seminole County, as described in the proof of publication, PEC Surveying and Mapping.
Ms. Giles stated the Starwood Drive right-of-way vacate was a continuance from the March 27 Board meeting. Staff is requesting another continuance to the June 26 meeting in order to allow the Turnpike Authority time to review the application.
With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the continuance of Item #23, and public input was closed.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to continue to June 26, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, request to consider a Resolution vacating and abandoning a portion of a public right-of-way known as Starwood Drive, being the south 653.95 feet of the Starwood Drive right-of-way lying in Section 31, Township 21 South, and Range 31 east of Seminole County, as described in the proof of publication; PEC Surveying and Mapping, Applicant.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
NUISANCE ABATEMENT RESOLUTION/
1851 Shadyhill Terrace
Agenda Item #24 – PH-2018-0567
Continuation of a public hearing from March 27, 2018, to consider a Resolution issuing an Order to declare the existence of a Public Nuisance at 1851 Shadyhill Terrace, Winter Park; require corrective action by May 24, 2018; and authorize necessary corrective action by the County in the event the nuisance is not abated by the record owners, Heather and John McCandless.
Liz Parkhurst, Building Division, addressed the Board and presented the item as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She stated previously in January of 2016, the property owner applied for a permit to rebuild the structure. After review of the permit application request, permit documentations and plans were requested from the Applicant. Nothing further was received and after 180 days of inactivity, the permit application expired. On March 12, 2018, the property owner submitted a permit application to rebuild the structure. Ms. Parkhurst explained this item was continued from the March 27, 2018, Board meeting to allow for the plans review process to be completed and a permit to be issued to rebuild the structure. The plans review team has reviewed the permit application documents and they requested additional information two separate times from the Applicant. Yesterday the Applicant submitted additional information for review. Also at the March 27 meeting, due to the nature of the nuisance and concern of the safety for the neighborhood, the Board ordered the property be secured. Ms. Parkhurst informed the Board that staff inspected the property and confirmed the structure is now secured. She stated staff recommends that the Board issue an Order declaring the unoccupied structure a public nuisance and require corrective action be taken by May 24, 2018; and in the event the record property owners do not take corrective action by May 24th, it is further recommended that the Board direct staff to abate the public nuisance. Ms. Parkhurst indicated Building Official Paul Watson is available for any questions.
Commissioner Carey stated staff was reviewing the plans and requested additional information, and staff received that yesterday. She assumed they haven’t completed the review process yet, and Ms. Parkhurst confirmed it is still in review. Commissioner Carey noted permits haven’t been issued for them to resolve this at this point; so if they’ve responded and the ball is in the County’s court, then it may be that the Board should continue the item. Commissioner Dallari stated he would like to hear from staff and the property owner, and then they can ask the appropriate questions.
John McCandless, 3012 Kingfisher Point, addressed the Board and stated over the past few weeks since the March 27th meeting, he has secured the property. On the 28th and 29th, it was secured as requested. They then started the process of having their drawings brought up to the new building code, and they were submitted and comments came back. He added truss drawings and resubmitted those so there were a couple submissions over the last couple of weeks. He was notified this morning that all of the paperwork was in compliance, and now he is waiting on the County to issue the fees to be able to pick up the permit.
Ted Bondhus, 3975 Waterview Loop, addressed the Board and noted he is the president of Autumn Glenn’s HOA. He stated he looks forward to the McCandlesses moving forward on the property because it has been a source of frustration in the neighborhood. Mr. Bondhus opined things are now progressing properly, but this has been going on since March of 2013; and the McCandlesses took over the property just a few months later in May. He has been in communication with the McCandlesses and they have submitted plans and addressed concerns. Mr. Bondhus stated they are very knowledgeable in construction, but their intent to repair was given to the HOA in December of 2014 and an application was submitted in January 2016. They applied for permits at the same time and it’s taken this long for those things to come to life. Mr. Bondhus pointed out the McCandlesses are no strangers to construction because they own a large company, and he wants to see the project move forward. He stated the HOA would like to see it rebuilt and not abated.
With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #24, and public input was closed.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner Dallari asked if staff sees any reason why the McCandlesses wouldn’t get a permit. Building Official Paul Watson addressed the Board and answered not at this time. Commissioner Dallari asked when the permit could be issued. Mr. Watson responded he checked before he came in, and the plans had been reviewed and everything was good. It had gone back to updating and should be updated within the next day or two. Then there will be a price put on it; and once they pay that, the permit will be issued.
Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Watson that the permit is good for 180 days from the date it is issued. Commissioner Carey stated she would suspect that construction would begin within that period of time. She asked what the schedule is for completion based on the level of construction of the permit. Mr. McCandless answered he can complete the project within six months. All of the materials and long lead items have been procured so he is ready to go as soon as he gets the permit. Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. McCandless that construction will be completed within six months from the date of the issue of the permit.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to continue to May 8, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, request to issue an Order to declare the existence of a public nuisance at 1851 Shadyhill Terrace, Winter Park; require corrective action by May 24, 2018; and authorize necessary corrective action by the County in the event the nuisance is not abated by the record owners, Heather and John McCandless.
Commissioner Carey asked for a friendly amendment to continue for six months to make sure that the process has been completed; because if the permit is issued, there is no abatement issue if they are under construction. Commissioner Dallari declined the friendly amendment and explained he wants to make sure the permit is actually obtained and paid for because if the permit has not been paid for, then he wants to continue moving forward with the abatement. He added once the permit has been paid for and they are moving forward, he has no problem making it a motion to continue for six months. He wants to make sure that all of the paperwork, including the payment of the fees, has been accomplished.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY MORATORIUM ORDINANCE
Item #25 – 2017-0321
Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance extending a temporary moratorium of ninety (90) days prohibiting the operation of any Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Dispensing Facility within Seminole County, and on the issuance of Building permits, Development Orders or Land Use/Zoning permits for Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Dispensing Facilities within unincorporated Seminole County, received and filed.
Paul Chipok, Assistant County Attorney, addressed the Board and stated the County currently has a moratorium on medical marijuana treatment centers in place for 210 days, and that expires on May 1st. Before the Board today is an ordinance proposing to extend the moratorium for an additional 90 days to July 30th. During the 210-day moratorium, the Legislature has considered many amendments to the medical marijuana statute, but no changes were made this legislative session, so they are operating under the same rules they have been. The basic rules are that the County is preempted from regulation of medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facilities except they can either ban them completely or treat them in the same manner as they treat pharmacies. The State requirements do have a locational requirement of 500 feet from schools for medical marijuana treatment facilities. In Seminole County, pharmacies at this point in time are allowed in any commercial district.
Mr. Chipok reviewed the Board’s four options detailed on the Medical Marijuana Regulatory Options page in the agenda memorandum. In summary, the four options are: ban completely, do nothing, revise the LDC to limit pharmacies and medical marijuana treatment center dispensaries to certain zoning districts (prohibit in Restricted Neighborhood Commercial and Convenience Commercial), or revise LDC to limit pharmacies and medical marijuana treatment center dispensaries to certain zoning districts with additional restrictions and prohibit in Restricted Neighborhood Commercial and Convenience Commercial.
Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr. Chipok that this is an ordinance that only deals with unincorporated Seminole County. She asked if the seven cities within the county have all taken independent action on the issue. Mr. Chipok answered five cities have regulations in place to allow medical marijuana treatment dispensing facilities. He isn’t sure about Winter Springs but believes they have a moratorium, and he believes Lake Mary also has a moratorium at this point in time. Five have allowed it and two are pending action. Commissioner Carey inquired whether or not the cities that have allowed it have allowed the facilities wherever any other pharmacy could go. Mr. Chipok answered the net effect is yes. Each one tweaks it a little bit as to where they want them to go in what type of commercial districts. Commissioner Carey opined that is a little easier to regulate in the cities. She stated the request is asking for another 90 days. She asked what is going to be different 90 days from now. Mr. Chipok explained at this meeting, the Board would give direction as to what type of regulation they would like to see. Conceptually, staff could craft those regulations and bring them to the Board for adoption of an ordinance before the expiration of the moratorium, if necessary.
Bill Hyde, 2379 Audley Street, addressed the Board and stated his comments may sound in opposition to his own words but he did not vote in favor of medical marijuana for the state of Florida. However, 70% of the people in the state of Florida and in Seminole County voted to support it. The County has had plenty of time to figure out what they wanted to do, and they have done essentially nothing. Mr. Hyde doesn’t think that is fair to the 70% of the people. He discussed how Oviedo is handling the issue and stated the County doesn’t need another extension, they need to take action. He asked the Board to go by the will of the people.
Steve Edmonds, 1022 Vannessa Drive, addressed the Board and asked how many public notices are required for a moratorium. Mr. Applegate answered the ordinance is required to be published once. Mr. Edmonds asked whether or not the ordinance from the P&Z Commission is still indefinitely tabled. He stated he watched the tape and there were a number of comments stating that it should be indefinitely tabled. Mr. Edmonds opined the County has done nothing in regards to this issue in the last 210 days. It is disrespectful to the 70.5% of citizens in the county who voted in favor of medical marijuana dispensaries. He stated in the last presentation, the Board voiced that they were for the idea of access for patients. The idea of a moratorium speaks directly in contradiction to the tone of the last meeting. Mr. Edmonds advised the State of Florida has many different restrictions of where they can go and how they can go in. There is not going to be any more than five total in Seminole County; two of which are already spoken for within city limits, so that only leaves three. He opined there is no need to continue a moratorium. If the Board is for small businesses and for the will of the people, let the moratorium expire.
Chairman Horan confirmed with Mr. Edmonds that he is in favor of lifting the moratorium. Mr. Edmonds added he is in favor of lifting it and doing nothing else and letting the law work the way it is now.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner Dallari stated the last time this came to the Board when they adopted the moratorium, he voted against it. The reason he voted against it is because he believes the voters had spoken overwhelmingly. He believes there is enough regulation in place for the State to make sure that medical marijuana dispensaries are put in the correct areas, and he will not be supporting the extension of the moratorium.
Commissioner Carey indicated she doesn’t think anything will be different 90 days from now than it is today, and she doesn’t think it is reasonable to try to regulate pharmacies in unincorporated Seminole County to restrict where these facilities could go. She stated if the moratorium expires, then the code for all pharmacies will apply across the board. She is not making a motion to do anything, so it will just expire on May 1st unless somebody else makes a motion to continue the moratorium.
Chairman Horan stated his recollection of the prior hearing and the reason for the moratorium is that the Board was trying to get the lay of the land because they didn’t know what the cities were going to do at that particular time, and they didn’t know exactly how many dispensaries would be approved. So if they had a moratorium in place, they could then make a decision based upon concrete facts that had already developed as opposed to figuring out or deciding what would be in the future. He thinks the Board should allow the moratorium to expire. He asked if the Board needs to take any action to do that, and Mr. Applegate answered they do not. Chairman Horan asked what happens to the item. Mr. Applegate answered he always prefers a motion for approval or denial; but in this case, the moratorium dies. Chairman Horan stated no action is going to be taken on this particular item, so the moratorium will expire. Mr. Applegate noted he cannot force anyone to make a motion.
Commissioner Constantine asked from a legal standpoint, is there any suggestions that staff feels is necessary if the Board allows this to expire today. Mr. Applegate explained if it expires, state law has made it very clear that it has to be treated like any other pharmacy. The State has put out memos and guidance; there are numerous requirements that they have to comply with, like they have to be 500 feet from a school. He doesn’t believe there is any further action the Board has to take right now. If staff wanted to come back with recommendations, the Board could consider it at that time.
Chairman Horan stated as he understands it, taking no action basically allows the moratorium to expire and exposes the County to the regulations of state law. And if there is further action that needs to be taken by the County down the line, they are not foreclosed by taking no action today. Mr. Applegate stated that is correct.
Commissioner Dallari announced tomorrow morning he will be having breakfast with the UCF folks at the Interlachen Country Club and will meet the head coach of UCF’s football team. He thanked the Chairman for writing a letter welcoming the head coach to the area.
Commissioner Dallari asked staff to look at doing an amnesty week or amnesty period for Code Enforcement so people can get caught up. He isn’t sure if that is even legal, but he knows some Cities have tried it. He asked staff to spend some time looking at it and report back to the Board. Ms. Guillet stated she isn’t sure what Commissioner Dallari is asking for. Commissioner Dallari explained a way for people to bring up all of their Code Enforcement violations so they can actually get things cleaned up on their property without coming in front of the Board to ask for their fees to be waived. Mr. Applegate stated they will look at it. Commissioner Dallari stated he wants to know if there is a better way to do it.
Commissioner Carey asked if Commissioner Dallari is saying that if there’s a Code violation on someone’s property, and the County had an amnesty week, and they clean it up in that week, that any fee would be waived. Commissioner Dallari answered maybe the fees would be waived up to the Admin Fee portion. Commissioner Carey stated the issue she sees with most of their Code violations is that people don’t see any need at all to be responsible until they want to take some action that requires them to bring their property up to Code. Commissioner Dallari thought he would try to talk about it and see if it’s worth it.
Chairman Horan stated he hasn’t given it much thought, but it might not be a bad idea, especially in select cases where the County knows they’re not going to get any money because of the value of the property. Commissioner Constantine noted it has worked in other areas and it makes sense. Chairman Horan and Commissioner Constantine stated they would be in favor of looking into it.
Commissioner Dallari’s ex parte communications were received and filed.
Commissioner Constantine announced he will also be at the football breakfast tomorrow morning with Commissioner Dallari. Allen Trovillion will join him at the breakfast.
Commissioner Constantine stated Chairman Horan will be at the Florida Wildlife Federation picking up the County’s award for Defender of Wildlife. Chairman Horan noted he is picking up the award on behalf of the Board and it is for the County’s bear ordinance and is quite an honor.
Commissioner Constantine discussed recent events in his district including the openings of a Walmart Neighborhood Market, a new section of the Wekiva Parkway, and the Alexander at Sabal Point.
Commissioner Constantine stated over the past weekend he attended the Rotary’s Club Program of Rising Achievers. He is now an emeritus member of the Rotary Club of Seminole County South.
In regard to Bear Aware Day, Commissioner Constantine stated they had very active participation during a meeting at the Hunt Club Library.
Commissioner Constantine discussed how proud he is of the members of the Board for everything they do for the community.
Commissioner Henley stated at the Port Authority meeting last week, a CPH representative was there to inform SCOPA that the second phase is now expected to cost $1 million. They appointed a budget committee to begin to work on it, and a member from CPH will participate in their budget planning. Chairman Horan asked if the Port Authority’s land and buildings are in the title of the Port Authority or the County. He asked who insures those buildings. Commissioner Henley answered the Port Authority does. He added the County provided the initial money to get the land, but it is under that board.
Commissioner Carey discussed the Boy Scout event that she attended Monday night and thanked Wharton-Smith Construction for chairing the event and their donation. She noted they presented the first annual Community Service award to Wayne Densch, Inc. for their support of scouting.
Commissioner Carey’s ex parte communications were received and filed.
Chairman Horan announced the most recent class of Leadership Seminole will be graduating May 18. He is otherwise occupied and asked if any other Board member was available to attend. Commissioner Dallari stated he is available.
Chairman Horan stated every year he goes to the Character Key High School Video Awards. It is inspirational and his district’s Winter Springs High School has won the award seven of the last eight or nine years. He congratulated Winter Springs for winning again this year. Commissioner Carey noted they typically recognize the winner of that award at the Leadership Legacy Awards Luncheon.
Chairman Horan discussed attending the Cost of Poverty Experience (COPE) and announced they are doing it again on May 9th. He recommended the experience for anyone who is interested in the issue.
Chairman Horan attended the Mayors and Managers meeting last week and had discussions with the Mayor of Sanford, Jeff Triplett, concerning a couple of issues that are coming up: the affordable housing issue in the Goldsboro area and the project they have there and also the issue concerning homelessness to make sure the City of Sanford is fully apprised of what the County is doing and how they are going about it. He also encouraged Mayor Triplett to avoid the kinds of things they experienced when the airport tried to establish a building moratorium in and around the airport. They need to continually communicate with each other to make sure that those kinds of surprises don’t come up.
Chairman Horan asked staff if there has been a report concerning the batching of the amendments. Meloney Lung, Assistant County Manager, answered she sent it out to everybody. Chairman Horan stated there are 12 amendments that are going in front of the people and they are batched in such a way that you may like 2 or you may like 1, but you may not like all 3 or 4 that are batched together. He opined it is a particularly low forehead way to do it; but nonetheless, that is going in front of the people.
Chairman Horan stated he announced the Seminole County Legislative Recap. He thinks what was most instructive during that recap was the work that’s being done with regard to Lake Jesup, that funds have been secured that have been matched with federal funds concerning the potential work that will open up the channel for the possible restoration of Lake Jesup.
COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:
1. Letter dated April 3, 2018, from Traci Houchin, City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Board of County Commissioners re: Notice for Ordinance #4446; 3.4 acres between Rinehart Rd. and CR-46 and between CR-46 and Rinehart Rd.
2. Letter dated April 3, 2018, from Traci Houchin, City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Board of County Commissioners re: Notice for Ordinance #4447; 39.88 acres between Kentucky St. and Eaglewoods Tr. and between Skyway Dr. and Sipes Ave.
3. Letter dated April 3, 2018, from Traci Houchin, City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Board of County Commissioners re: Notice for Ordinance #4448; 22.16 acres between Pine Way and no southerly road and between Sipes Ave. and S. Brisson Ave.
4. Letter dated April 3, 2018, from Traci Houchin, City Clerk, City of Sanford, to Board of County Commissioners re: Notice for Ordinance #4449; 17.35 acres between E. 8th St. and Celery Ave. and between Crescent Blvd. and Scott Ave.
5. Letter dated April 9, 2018, from Maryann Barry, CEO, Girl Scouts of Citrus, to Chairman Horan re: Update following April 8, 2017, wildfire.
6. Letter dated April 10, 2018, from the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners (signed by all Commissioners), to Bernadine Lanzano re: appreciation for her effort to keep the community clean and trash-free.
7. Letter dated April 11, 2018, from Donna Gardner, City of Casselberry, to Chairman Horan re: Annexation Ordinance #18-1478; 27.34 acres along Red Bug Lake Rd. south of the Eagle Cir. Intersection, effective April 5, 2018.
8. Letter dated April 12, 2018, from Michael Lomax, President and CEO, UNCF, to the Board of County Commissioners re: appreciation of the gift of $4,500 made on March 30, 2018, to UNCF.
9. Letter dated April 13, 2018, from Henry Pinzone, Environmental Management Engineer, Environmental Management Office, Florida Department of Transportation, to Commissioner Horan re: Public Information Meeting for Colonial Parkway Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study. Meeting to be held on May 10, 2018, at the Double Tree Hotel Orlando, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
10. Letter dated April 17, 2018, from Chairman Horan, to Pamela Nabors, President/Chief Executive Officer, CareerSource of Central Florida re: Appointing Matthew Walton to the CareerSource of Central Florida Board of Directors representing Seminole County.
11. City of Lake Mary Notice of Public Hearing. Meeting to be held on April 24, 2018, at 6:00 p.m. at the City of Lake Mary Municipal Services Building re: development of a mixed-use project on 153.59 acres.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Mr. Applegate stated on May 11th, Assistant County Attorney David Shields, has been asked by the City, County and Local Government Law Section of the Florida Bar to teach his legal writing course. On May 18th, Mr. Applegate is presenting at the Seminole County Bar on Baseball and Ethics, which the Florida Bar has officially approved as a CLE course so that lawyers can get ethics credit. He announced Assistant County Attorney Desmond Morrell has been selected to participate in the Florida Bar Leadership Academy. He is one of the very few attorneys throughout the state that was selected, and it is an extremely competitive process. The selection committee considered the applicants’ experience, reputation in the community, leadership roles, and legal acumen in making their selection. It will allow Mr. Morrell to collaborate, network, and explore best practice of law under the direct guidance of the Florida Bar’s top practitioners and judges. He will be working at governmental ethics, and this is a huge honor for Mr. Morrell and everyone in the County.
ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA
Bill Hyde, 2379 Audley Street, addressed the Board and stated in government and politics there is no such thing as coincidence. He discussed an item on tomorrow’s DRC agenda concerning the proposed River Cross development and stated the community had a very lively discussion and it was great. Mr. Hyde saw that there is another meeting scheduled, but this one is organized by folks with a different agenda. He opined there is no coincidence here, there is something going on. Mr. Hyde discussed the rural boundary and transition zoning. He shared a picture (received and filed) of the property across from his house that is now being developed. He warned against compromising with developers.
Commissioner Carey asked who organized the community meeting Mr. Hyde is referring to. Mr. Hyde answered Katrina Shadix. He clarified that meeting had nothing to do with the County; it was folks discussing what is going to be happening when they start talking about rural boundary and changes in Land Use and the item coming up on the DRC agenda.
Speaker Request Form was received and filed.
Debbie Alvine, 1871 North Street, addressed the Board and discussed the February 27th meeting where the speed limit on North Street was set at 35 mph. She stated there was direction to staff that in two months’ time they would come back and look at a holistic way for Traffic Engineering to slow down the speed limit. She asked what the process is and what the status is. Ms. Alvine presented petitions (not received and filed) from neighbors who want the speed limit lowered to 30 mph. She asked how to find out what is going on with the holistic study. Ms. Guillet answered Ms. Alvine can speak to Jean Jreij, Public Works Director, and indicated he has started briefing the Commissioners on the trucks and the holistic study. Commissioner Carey stated they have a list of people who have an interest in the North Street issue, so there is no reason why when there is a summary update prepared that staff can’t distribute that to the public. Ms. Guillet responded she isn’t sure that there is a formal report, but Mr. Jreij can absolutely speak to citizens regarding what staff has been working on. Ms. Alvine asked who to give the petitions to, and Ms. Guillet answered she would take them and get copies out to everybody.
Ms. Alvine voiced her concerns regarding commercial motor vehicle traffic on North Street. She stated Mr. Jreij indicated to her previously that he would be willing to support a restriction on commercial motor vehicles that was enforceable, did not negatively affect commerce, and had a positive outcome. She presented him with both the truck ordinance from Fremont, California, and a physical description which meets all of the requirements. Ms. Alvine stated the Board is in favor of closure or relocation of the rest areas. She opined having commercial motor vehicles of all sizes within 25 to 50 feet of your house at all hours day and night is worse than a semi-truck idling in your backyard. She encouraged the Board to adopt an ordinance fashioned after Fremont, California, and post restrictions on North Street, Raymond Avenue, and Palm Springs; 10,001 gross vehicle weight, two axels, single unit, six tires and greater restricted to local deliveries only.
Chairman Horan stated there is a work session that will begin at 3:20 p.m.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 3:12 p.m., this same date.