BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
August 12, 2014
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, August 12, 2014,
in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY
SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD,
FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Present:
Chairman
Robert Dallari (District 1)
Vice Chairman Brenda Carey
(District 5)
Commissioner
John Horan (District 2)
Commissioner
Lee Constantine (District 3)
Commissioner
Carlton Henley (District 4)
Clerk
of Circuit Court & Comptroller Maryanne Morse
Acting
County Manager Nicole Guillet
County
Attorney Bryant Applegate
Deputy
Clerk Terri Porter
Pastor
David Charlton, First United Methodist Church, Sanford, gave the Invocation.
Commissioner Horan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT
The Business Spotlight video for Invacare Corporation was
presented.
-------
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners at 9:40 a.m., and convened as the U.S. Highway 17-92 Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA).
U.S. HWY 17-92 CRA
Nicole
Guillet, Acting County Manager, advised that staff would like to pull from the agenda the request to
consider approval of a revision to the CRA Redevelopment and Construction Grant
Agreement with Bill Ray Nissan.
-------
Ray Hooper, Purchasing &
Contracts Division, addressed the Board to present request to approve a ranking list and authorize staff to negotiate rates in
accordance with F.S. 287.055, the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act
(CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute one
Master Services Agreement (MSA) for PS-9464-14/AMM, Landscape Architectural
Services (Estimated Term Usage of $450,000).
Mr. Hooper advised that solicitation
PS-9464-14 was publicly advertised and eight submittals were received. The evaluation committee evaluated the
submittals, heard presentations, and recommended that the CRA Board approve the
ranking list outlined in the agenda memorandum and authorize staff to negotiate
with the top ranking firm, Bellomo-Herbert and Company, Inc., in accordance
with the CCNA.
Mr. Hooper explained that once CRA-funded
projects are identified, staff will negotiate appropriate work orders under
this Master Agreement using County policies and procedures. He stated that staff recommends approval of
the ranking list and requests authorization for staff to negotiate rates in
accordance with the CCNA and the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute
one Master Services Agreement.
Commissioner Carey confirmed with Mr.
Hooper that the same RFP, PS-9464-14, is for dual use and the $450,000
estimated usage under the two-year term is for both agenda items #2 and #18.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the ranking list as recommended by staff and authorize
staff to negotiate rates in accordance with F.S. 287.055, the Consultants
Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing &
Contracts Division to execute one Master Services Agreement (MSA) for
PS-9464-14/AMM, Landscape Architectural Services, as shown on page _______ (Estimated
Term Usage of $450,000).
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Under discussion, Commissioner Carey stated
that some of the work that could be done possibly on this is in the medians and
she would like to see staff come back with one standard median design for all
of the medians throughout the County and one for the overlay districts in order
to stop paying large design fees, thereby streamlining the process.
Chairman Dallari added that he believes the
design needs to include xeriscape in the landscaping. Commissioner Carey agreed it should be
simplified with drought-tolerant, non-irrigated plants.
Commissioner Horan questioned whether any
of the concepts are included in the Landscape Maintenance Plan. Ms. Guillet responded that they are included
in the Plan and that Joe Abel, Leisure Services Director, is in attendance to
respond to any further questions.
-------
Chairman Dallari adjourned the meeting of the U.S.
Highway 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency at 9:45 a.m., and reconvened as
the Board of County Commissioners.
-------
Chairman Dallari recognized Dr. Swannie
Jett, Health & Human Services Director, in attendance today.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Ms. Guillet stated that staff is asking that Item #4, Request
for approval of three assignments with Seminole Behavioral Healthcare on the
Consent Agenda, and on the Regular Agenda, Item #23 in connection with
construction of a parking garage at the Longwood SunRail Station, and Item #24,
Agreement regarding Sylvan Lake Sports Center, be pulled from the agenda.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to
authorize and approve the following:
County Manager’s
Office
Business Office
3. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
the Contract for Sale and Purchase of Land, as shown on page _______, between
Seminole County and Ann Takvorian, for real property located on the northwest
corner of East Lake Mary Boulevard and Moores Station
Road, identified as Tax Parcel #03-20-31-300-012B-0000.
Community
Services
Business Office
4. Pulled
from the agenda request to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
three Assignments between Seminole Community Mental Health Center d/b/a/
Seminole Behavioral Healthcare, hereafter referred to as Aspire Health Partners,
Inc. and Seminole County.
Development
Services
Planning &
Development Division
5. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2014-R-152, as
shown on page _______, vacating and abandoning the cross access easement established
in ORB 4358 PG 1297-1303, for property located on the northeast corner of Monroe
Road and Church Street, Sanford, Bill Harkins, Teton Development Corporation.
6. Approve the plat for Milford Estates
Lot 1 Replat for property located on the east side of
Brooks Lane, approximately one-tenth mile north of Gabriella Lane, more particularly
known as 5000 Milford Estates Point, Drew Sheahan.
7. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute the minor plat for Lake Forest Village Shoppes Phase 2 for
property located on the north side of State Road 46, approximately 1,100 feet
west of Lake Forest Boulevard; David McDaniel.
Environmental
Services
Solid Waste
Management Division
8. Renewal of Non-Exclusive
Franchise Agreement for Commercial Solid Waste Collection Service with
DisposAll, Inc. from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015.
Public Works
Engineering
Division
9. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute the Seminole County/MetroPlan Orlando (Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization) Fiscal Year 2014/2015 Funding Agreement, as
shown on page _______, in the amount of $167,356.
10. Approve and authorize the release
of a Right-of-Way Utilization Permit Maintenance Bond #SEIFSU0595192 in the
amount of $5,336 submitted for improvements to Sanford Avenue in conjunction
with the Dollar General Store #13646 located at 3530 Sanford Avenue.
Resource
Management
Budget and
Fiscal Management Division
11. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2014-R-153, as shown on page
_______, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #14-103 through the 2001
Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund to establish funding for the Orange Boulevard at
Markham Road Mast Arm Project in the amount of $160,000. Partial funding for this project is available
from another project within the Mast Arm Program.
12. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2014-R-154, as shown on page
_______, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #14-104 through the 2001
Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund to establish design funding for the SR 434 at CR
427 Intersection Improvement Project in the amount of $350,000.
13. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2014-R-155, as shown on page
_______, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #14-105 through the Solid
Waste Operating Fund in the amount of $20,000 to establish budget for grant
funds received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)
providing for a Bear-Resistant Cans Program.
14. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2014-R-156, as shown on page
_______, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #14-106 through the Water
and Sewer (Operating) Capital Fund reserves to provide for continuing project management
services with CH2M Hill under PS-5190-05 in the amount of $681,166.
15. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2014-R-157, as shown on page
_______, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #14-107 through the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Fund in the amount of $268,030 for
appropriation of program income and 2nd mortgage provided/forgiven.
Purchasing &
Contracts Division
16. Approve Amendment #1, as shown on
page _______, to Work Order #1, Concept Development, Design, Permitting,
Bidding and Construction Administration Services for the Sports Complex under
PS-9092-13/RTB, Design Services for Seminole County Sports Complex Projects
with HKS Architects, Inc., Orlando, for a revised total of $1,674,906.18; and authorize
the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Amendment.
17. Approve ranking list, authorize
staff to negotiate rates in accordance with F.S. 287.055, the Consultants
Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts
Division to execute one Master Services Agreement (MSA) for PS-9462-14/JVP, Bridge
Inspection Services (Estimated Annual Usage of $75,000).
18. Approve ranking list, authorize
staff to negotiate rates in accordance with F.S. 287.055, the Consultants
Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA); and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts
Division to execute one Master Services Agreement (MSA) for PS-9464-14/AMM, Landscape
Architectural Services (Estimated Term Usage of $450,000).
19. Award RFP-602025-14/TLR, as shown
on page _______, Financial Consulting Services for Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Disaster Reimbursement
to Ernst & Young LLP, Orlando, on an as-needed basis at an hourly rate of
$195; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Agreement.
Districts 1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS’ CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Carey,
seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve and authorize the following:
Clerk's Office
20. Approval of Expenditure Approval
Lists, as shown on page __________, dated June 30, July 7 and 14, 2014; and
Payroll Approval Lists, as shown on page ___________, dated July 3 and 17, 2014;
approval of the BCC Official Minutes dated June 24, 2014; authorization to
execute 2013 Property Tax Roll Final Report, as shown on page _______; and
noting, for information only, the following Clerk's "Received and
Filed":
1.
Work
Order #5, as shown on page _______, to CC-9192-13.
2.
Work
Order #8, as shown on page _______, to PS-8072-12.
3.
Change
Order #12, as shown on page _______, to CC-6877-11.
4.
Change
Order #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #18 to CC-5075-10.
5.
Change
Order #4, as shown on page _______, to CC-8105-12.
6.
Fourth
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-601448-12.
7.
Third
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to RFP-600453-08.
8.
Change
Order #2, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #19 to CC-5075-10.
9.
Closeout,
as shown on page _______, to RFP-7687-12.
10.
First
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-601921-14.
11.
Amendment
#1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #19 to PS-8047-12.
12.
Work
Order #3, as shown on page _______, to CC-9192-13.
13.
Second
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-601852-13.
14.
Closeout,
as shown on page _______, to CC-8459-13.
15.
Work
Order #9, as shown on page _______, to PS-8286-13.
16.
Change
Order #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #1 to CC-9072-13.
17.
First
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-601739-13, Forever Native, Inc.
18.
First
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-601739-13, LaFleur Nurseries and
Garden Center, LLC.
19.
Amendment
#1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #63 to PS-3914-08.
20.
Work
Order #5, as shown on page _______, to PS-8148-12.
21.
Work
Order #20, as shown on page _______, to CC-8199-12.
22.
Work
Order #3, as shown on page _______, to PS-8565-13.
23.
Closeout,
as shown on page _______, to CC-7840-12.
24.
First
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-601101-11, CS Engineered Castings,
LLC.
25.
Second
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-601101-11, Transportation Control
Systems, Inc.
26.
Amendment
#1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #6 to PS-8186-13.
27.
Amendment
#5, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #41 to PS-4388-09.
28.
Work
Order #20, as shown on page _______, to PS-8047-12.
29.
First
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to RFP-8833-13.
30.
Sixth
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to IFB-600855-10.
31.
Amendment
#1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #63 to PS-4388-09.
32.
Closeout,
as shown on page _______, to Work Order #15 to CC-8199-12.
33.
Fifth
Amendment, as shown on page _______, to RFP-601461-12.
34.
Amendment
#5, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #2 to PS-5116-10.
35.
Work
Order #6, as shown on page _______, to PS-8148-12.
36.
Change
Order #2, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #6 to RFQ-5888-10.
37.
Work
Order #10, as shown on page _______, to PS-1666-07.
38.
Change
Order #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #2 to CC-9072-13.
39.
Work
Order #6, as shown on page _______, to CC-9192-13.
40.
Closeout,
as shown on page _______, to CC-9000-13.
41.
Closeout,
as shown on page _______, to CC-8159-12.
42.
Unauthorized
Commitments Memorandum, as shown on page _______, dated 6/26/14 from
Engineering to Acting County Manager regarding payment of invoice for Work
Order #2 to PS-2144-07.
43.
RFP-601837-13,
as shown on page _______, Non-Exclusive Communications Tower and Site Lease
Agreements with AT&T Mobility for Dike Road and Wekiva Springs sites, as
approved by the BCC on 12/10/13.
44.
Locally
Funded Agreement with FDOT, as shown on page _______, for acquisition of
right-of-way, CR 46A at W. 25th Street, per approval of Resolution
#2014-R-60 on 2/11/14.
45.
Bill of
Sale, as shown on page _______, from Taylor Morrison accepting potable and
reclaimed water systems and sewer system within the project known as Steeple
Chase f/k/a L&L Acres.
46.
Maintenance
Bond, as shown on page _______, for water and sewer facilities for the project
known as Steeple Chase f/k/a L&L Acres in the amount of $93,768.49.
47.
Recording
of Plats, Steeple Chase Certificate of Title, as shown on page _______.
48.
Performance
Bond #SU1126064, as shown on page _______, Taylor Morrison (Principal) for the
subdivision known as Steeple Chase in the amount of $432,408.62.
49.
Conditional
Utility Agreement, as shown on page _______, for potable and reclaimed water
service, for the project known as Lake Irish Estates.
50.
Conditional
Utility Agreements, as shown on page _______, for potable and reclaimed water
service and sewer service, with Park Square Enterprises, for the project known
as Preserve at Lake Sylvan.
51.
Assignments
of Utility Agreements, as shown on page _______, for water and sewer service
between Zimmer Poster Service and JTD Land at Aloma Trails, for the project
known as Aloma Trails.
52.
Warranty
Deed, as shown on page _______, for Parcel #26-21-30-300-016A-0000, Daniel R.
Cash, Grantor.
53.
Special
Warranty Deed, as shown on page _______, for Parcel #19-21-30-300-0630-0000;
7-Eleven, Inc., Grantor.
54.
Recording
of Plats, Certificate of Title, as shown on page _______, Water and Sewer
Performance Bond #59BSBGQ7538, as shown on page _______, in the amount of
$223,441.91; and Private Roads Performance Bond #59BSBGQ7539, as shown on page
_______, in the amount of $287,673.84, for the project known as Tuska Reserve Subdivision.
55.
Letter
dated 7/21/14 from Tax Deed Clerk to BCC regarding Tax Deed for Parcel
#31-19-31-504-1300-0200 to be placed on Lands Available for Taxes listing.
56.
Memorandum
dated 7/2/14 from Community Services Director to Acting County Manager
regarding Amendment to NSP Unauthorized Commitment for Ameriscapes.
57.
Recorded
First Amendment, as shown on page _______, to Third Amended Developer’s
Commitment Agreement #12-205000025 for Heathrow Planned Development.
58.
Recorded
Approval Development Orders, as shown on page _______, for Variances as
follows: #14-4000037, Tony Jones;
#14-30000035, Kristin Longanecker and Ronald &
Mary Hooker; #14-30000036, Michael & April McManus; #14-30000038, William Eldert and Christina Evans; #14-30000039, Judith
Lewis-Matthew; #14-30000040, Daniel & Clara Coleman; #14-30000045, Kevin
Rowland; #14-30000044, Joshua Billy and Kristine Rivas; #14-30000046, Peter
& Laura Pelletier; #14-30000047, Russell Greenidge;
#14-30000049, Ismael Zabala; #14-30000050, Betty Orta; and #14-30000060, Kevin Mohr.
59.
Denial
Development Order, as shown on page _______, #14-30000041 for a Variance,
Laszlo Barcza.
60.
Recorded
Approval Development Orders, as shown on page _______, for Special Exceptions
as follows: #14-32000002, Raydel Dominguez and Tania Rodriguez; and #13-32000015,
First Baptist Church of Chuluota, Inc.
61.
Recorded
Development Orders, as shown on page _______, for Alcoholic Beverage Licenses
as follows: #14-27500027, Coastal
Acquisitions, Inc. for Fern Park Chevron; #14-27500026, Spirit SPE KC Portfolio
2013-7 LLC for 1640 McCulloch Road; and #14-27500024, SCOPA for 1413 Dolgner
Place.
62.
Parks
Contracts for Services, as shown on page _______, for Jason Smith and Jacob Borton.
63.
Assistant
Tennis Pro Agreement, as shown on page _______, for Jesse Jauz.
64.
Bids as
follows: PS-9464-14 and RFP-602025-14.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
REGULAR AGENDA
The Board noted, for
information only, the Informational Budget Transfer Status Report for
FY 2013/14 (June 2014).
-------
Paula Halleck, Development Services, addressed the Board
to present request to consider a reduction of the Code Enforcement Board lien
from $46,250 to $3,500, for Case #13-52-CEB on the property located at 1206
Waverly Way, Longwood, Tax Parcel #01-21-29-501-0B00-0070; Federal National Mortgage
Association, current owner.
Ms. Halleck reviewed the background timeline as
outlined in the agenda memorandum. She
advised that staff recommends the Board deny the reduction and cited those
reasons.
Commissioner Carey stated that this involved a
swimming pool situation which is a real hazard for the community. She questioned if the pool had been secured
by the prior owner, the bank, or the County.
Ms. Halleck responded that it wasn’t until the bank brought it into
compliance.
Commissioner Carey said that the Board has given
direction previously that if there exists a situation where a pool is not
secured, that the County should take action.
Ms. Halleck explained that the pool was secured with a fence, but that
the pool water was stagnant.
Commissioner Carey added that because of the black water, a child could
fall into a pool and no one would know it.
Sue King, DataQuick Title on
behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board to explain that the residents had
to go through an eviction and the bank was not able to get into the property
until March. She said she believes they
brought it into compliance in May and is asking for a reduction in the amount
of the lien.
Commissioner Carey questioned if staff researched
the court records to verify there had been an eviction filed through the Clerk
of the Court’s Office, to which they responded that they had not.
Officer Dorothy Hird,
Altamonte Community Code Enforcement, Seminole County Sheriff’s Office,
addressed the Board to advise that the property was vacant when she originally
sent notice. She added there was no one
living there so she is surprised that there was an eviction. She started the process on July 23, 2012 and
there was no one there at that time, and no one there at any time during any of
the inspections she performed.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request Form was received and filed.
Motion
by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to deny a reduction of the
Code Enforcement Board lien from $46,250 to $3,500, for Case #13-52-CEB on the property
located at 1206 Waverly Way, Longwood, Tax Parcel #01-21-29-501-0B00-0070, as
recommended by staff; Federal National Mortgage Association, current owner.
Under discussion, Commissioner Carey reminded the
financial institutions that this is a serious issue in the County and that
these matters need to be dealt with swiftly once the Certificate of Title is
issued; not seven months after the fact.
Chairman Dallari thanked the Code Enforcement
Officer for her assistance in this matter.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Request to approve an Agreement between Weston Park,
L.P., the Florida Department of Transportation and Seminole County in
conjunction with the construction of a parking garage to accommodate an apartment
complex and the SunRail Station in Longwood, was presented.
Chairman Dallari stated that Item #23 was pulled from the agenda per staff’s
request.
-------
Request to approve the Sylvan Lake Sports Center Use
and Management Private/Public Partnership Agreement with Orlando Sports
Holdings, LLC d/b/a Orlando City Soccer Club and Orlando City Soccer
Foundation, Inc., was presented.
Chairman Dallari stated that Item #24 was pulled from the agenda per staff’s
request.
COUNTY MANAGER’S AND STAFF
BRIEFINGS
Joe Forte, Deputy County Manager, addressed
the Board to request authorization to advertise the land swap of properties
located on East Lake Mary Boulevard. He
displayed an aerial pictorial (received and filed) of the property on West SR
436 and Montgomery Road. He explained
that this piece of property would be exchanged for one of the parcels on East
Lake Mary Boulevard. He then displayed
an aerial photo (received and filed) of the parcels on East Lake Mary Boulevard
next to the future Sports Complex.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr.
Forte advised that the parcel on the corner of SR 436 and Montgomery Road is
about one acre in size. He stated that
the one-acre parcel would be exchanged for Parcel #3 on the photo, which is owned
by the Kirchhoff Trust and that property is 11.7 acres. He pointed out the other property they would
like to exchange that is owned by the airport.
He added that an equivalent 14.54 acres of the 28-acre parcel would be
exchanged for 14.54 acres that fronts Lake Mary Boulevard. He further explained that Item #3 on the
Consent Agenda today included the acquisition of the 28-acre parcel.
Mr. Forte advised that the Sanford Airport
Authority (SAA) voted unanimously this morning to move forward with the land exchange
subject to the following conditions:
approval of the exchange by the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the final acquisition by
the County of the Takvorian parcel, which a final resolution for this swap
would not be brought before the Board until such time as the County has
ownership of that property; a satisfactory legal review of all components of
the exchange and contract negotiation; and SAA retains the right to consider
imposing use restrictions on the SAA land to be exchanged, i.e. the Sports
Complex.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr.
Forte advised that the remaining 14 acres of the back portion of the 28 acres approved
for acquisition today would potentially be used for additional soccer
fields. He said they can fit four fields
on that land and displayed an in-house drawing (received and filed) prepared by
staff of the plan for those fields.
Commissioner Carey confirmed that the back
portion of that property is currently being used as soccer, football and
lacrosse practice fields.
Commissioner Constantine confirmed with Mr.
Forte the properties that staff is requesting to advertise.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr.
Forte advised they were originally considering these properties as part of the Sports
Complex development, but that proved to be too expensive partly because they
would need to incorporate Cameron Road, the utilities and the drainage ditch. He added that whatever the Board decides to
do with that property in the future would be considered independent of the Sports
Complex. He explained it is likely
Cameron Road would remain as an access point so the cost to develop that would
not be as extensive as it was if they were to make it one complete parcel with
the Sports Complex; however, there is probably about $1.5 million worth of
civil work that would need to be done to those properties before developing
them.
Commissioner Carey stated they have
discussed the demand for fields and practice fields, and there always seems to
be a need for additional lacrosse and football fields. They have also talked about indoor sand
sports and indoor facilities of various kinds.
She said they are just preparing for the future because once this
opportunity is gone, for example, if the airport were to sell that piece that
they own fronting Lake Mary Boulevard, the Sports Complex would be boxed in and
they could never really expand past that.
She said she feels it is a great use and it gives a lot of flexibility
for the future.
Commissioner Constantine confirmed that
there are no plans for the parcels and that there are two separate land
swaps. He added that he does not have a
problem with the exchange of the 14-acre parcels, but would like to discuss separately
the exchange of the Montgomery Road parcel for parcel #3.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr.
Forte advised that no portion of the Jetta Point property was considered as a
part of these particular land swaps.
Commissioner Carey advised that a number of
years ago, the Board asked staff to identify any excess parcels or unutilized
buildings and to either make use of them or dispose of them. She stated that is how the Montgomery Road
site was identified, which is a one-acre parcel to be exchanged for parcel #3, and
parcel #3 is almost 12 acres located on Lake Mary Boulevard. She opined that parcel #3 is more critical to
their future sports design than parcel #1 from the airport because it is
absolutely contiguous. She stated she is
in favor of supporting both land swaps.
Commissioner Constantine stated he supports
the 14-acre exchange because it is comparable property and something they could
use in the future. He said the Acting
County Manager advised him that she is in the process of looking for various parcels
that the County does not need in order to sell them and supplement the
budget.
Commissioner Constantine stated the
property on Montgomery Road is zoned C-1, has water and sewer, is high and dry,
and will continue to increase in value because FDOT is moving Wymore and
Douglas which means Westmonte Drive will be used
more; therefore, that parcel will be more in the “value path” of I-4. He added that it is ready to be developed
with minimal cost to the owner. He said
that he looked at the appraisal of parcel #3 and he found no development costs
included in the appraisal. He said
parcel #3 would cost the County between $1.6 and $1.7 million to prepare it for
development and opined that its actual cost would be twice as much as the
Montgomery parcel. His suggestion would
be to sell the parcel in Altamonte Springs for the highest price they can get
and put those dollars into the General Reserves and then look to see if there
are funds to develop parcel #3. He
stated to exchange the Montgomery Road parcel that is extremely valuable and
could be used immediately in zone C-1 makes no financial sense and he is
opposed to advertising it at this time.
He opined that the Acting County Manager should consider selling the
Altamonte Springs parcel and that eventually down the line, the County could
purchase parcel #3 if needed. He further
stated that the two costs of the 14-acre parcel exchange are close in value,
about $1.3 million, but the cost to develop parcel #3 would make it twice the
cost.
Commissioner Carey stated the development
costs are taken into consideration with the appraisals when comparing one to
the other. She added that there will be
development costs on the corner lot in Altamonte Springs because they will need
to bust up the paved area and deal with the tanks that are underground. She said the development cost estimate is for
the County to turn it into fields and the appraisal takes all of that into consideration. She added they are talking about exchanging 1
acre for 12 acres. In addition, the
Montgomery Road site is not desirable because it is on the wrong side of the
traffic light.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Horan, Mr.
Forte stated that a gas station had been on the parcel on Montgomery Road and
they had undergone a remediation to have that property cleaned up. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Constantine,
Commissioner Carey advised that the contamination has been cleaned up and Mr.
Forte advised that the gas tanks had been removed. Commissioner Horan stated then there have
already been some costs associated with that parcel. Mr. Forte explained that it was part of the
engineering of the road widening of SR 436.
Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Horan,
Mr. Forte responded they only recently determined that they can surplus the
Montgomery Road property. The land swap
was then discussed during one of the Board work sessions. Commissioner Horan stated that the property
then has not been exposed to the open market.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Mr. Forte
advised they would advertise this for the purpose of swapping the Montgomery
Road parcel with parcel #3. Commissioner
Horan opined that a developer could see the advertisement or the meeting today
and make an offer if they are interested in the Montgomery Road parcel. Discussion ensued regarding the advertisement
and the timetable.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr.
Forte said he assumes the appraiser used like properties in the area when they
did their appraisal of the Montgomery Road parcel, which was $1,360,000. Commissioner Carey confirmed the parcel is
zoned C-1 and said that means it can no longer be used for a gas station, which
requires a C-2 zoning. She stated now
the use has changed and it is not all in one parcel, there is a small section
on the other side. She reiterated that no
one will pay more than they can get it financed for and you can only get it
financed for what you can get it appraised for.
She questioned who the appraisal firm was and opined it is a good, solid
appraisal firm who went through that exercise.
She added that it makes sense to exchange one unusable acre that the County
had acquired as part of the Montgomery Road and SR 436 widening for 12 acres for
some future vision.
Commissioner Constantine stated there is
nothing prohibiting them from purchasing property #3. He said there is a popular restaurant and a
miniature golf course next to the Montgomery Road property and that Westmonte Drive will be in proximity to this parcel. He opined there is a difference between
advertising a potential swap and advertising land for sale, and they could
advertise the property for sale to see what kind of interest they get, and it
doesn’t preclude them from purchasing parcel #3 at some later date. He stated they have put in a large amount of
the development costs on the Altamonte Springs property but they would need to
put in all the development costs on parcel #3.
Bryant Applegate, County Attorney, read
aloud a section of the Statute that relates to advertising for the public’s
benefit.
Ms. Guillet stated that from a staff
standpoint, they believe it is appropriate and responsible to plan for future
development; they do that on a regular basis.
In this case, they have a creative way to acquire property for future
development without any impact to the cash reserves. She added that based on the appraisals, it is
an equivalent swap. If for whatever
reason parcel #3 is not developed in the future, it remains a County asset, so
there is no loss to County assets through this action. She stated that even though these are two
separate actions, the land swap with the airport and the land swap with the
property on SR 436 and Montgomery Road, in staff’s opinion and in her opinion,
it does not make sense to do one without the other, because then two pieces of
land would be fragmented: the 28 acres
and the 14-acre piece that are not contiguous.
Therefore, staff is recommending that they move forward with the
advertisement of both properties.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Constantine, Ms.
Guillet stated there is no guarantee of the price the County could get for the
Montgomery Road parcel; additionally there is no guarantee of the selling price
for parcel #3 should they decide to acquire it that way. In this case, there is an even swap based on
professional appraisals. She added that
there would not be any impact to the cash reserves for the purchase of parcel
#3. Commissioner Constantine opined that
there was no real rush. Ms. Guillet
responded that she does not know what the situation is with regard to offers on
the property, but it is like any other real estate transaction; it is available
now and no one knows if it will be available tomorrow.
David Leavitt, 1000 Ridge Pointe Cove,
addressed the Board to state that he does not think it is responsible to “test
the waters” with a land swap advertisement.
He said that he believes the taxpayers would rather see that the piece
of property owned by the County be advertised for sale, especially since there
are no plans for future use. He added
that if no offer for purchase is made, then they could maybe consider a land
swap. He thinks they should let other
businesses and entities have the opportunity and know that the property is
actually for sale, not a swap. He also
doesn’t think that parcel #3 is all that desirable of a property, anyway. He does not believe that this is in the best
interest of the County.
No one else spoke in support or in
opposition.
Speaker Request Form was received and
filed.
Commissioner Carey said she does not have a
problem with the exchange because the County has already made a capital
investment in the land, which is marked as County-1 on the aerial photo, to
build a Sports Complex. She opined she
believes in appraisals and this was a well-done appraisal that took into
consideration all of the comps that you would take in a normal commercial
appraisal. She added that the one acre
on Montgomery Road has no use to the County in the future, but that this land
swap could become Phase 2 of a very important resource that the County is
putting a lot of capital into.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to advertise the land
swaps for parcels #1 and #3 on East Lake Mary Boulevard as the Florida Statute
requires.
Under discussion, Commissioner Horan stated
there is nothing stopping the public from looking at the advertisement or the
televised viewing of this meeting and offering a better deal. He said he plans to contact some people in
commercial real estate to inform them of this, which is the reason for the
Florida Statute.
Commissioner Constantine stated that when a
land swap is advertised, the advertisement is not for the potential sale of the
property. He said he hasn’t heard about
any property being purchased on the stretch of land where the Sports Complex
will be, but there is a constant amount of exchange and purchases near the SR
436 and Montgomery Road property. He
said he believes the citizens of Seminole County would be better served to consider
this parcel as excess property and have staff look for people to purchase this
property. He said he wants to publicly
say he is not against the land swap of the 14 acres, Airport-1 for County-2 on
the aerial photo legend. He added he
believes the citizens of Seminole County would be much better served if the
County sold the Montgomery Road parcel.
Commissioner Henley suggested they might
want to advertise the land for sale and/or swap and take the best deal. Commissioner Horan stated if that is proper,
he has no problem with it.
Commissioner Carey requested that the
County Attorney describe the process of disposing of excess property and the
timeframe regarding advertisements and bids.
She stated that she is not interested in having Airport-1 and splitting
the 28 acres if they do not have parcel #3 because that would fragment the
sports facility that they are investing a lot of money into. She actually would rather have parcel #3 than
Airport-1, so if it is not Airport-1 and parcel #3 together, she is not
interested in making a swap with the airport.
She added that the airport is interested in positioning their properties
so they can best help with the development around the airport. They will be getting like value to like value,
but it doesn’t benefit the County to break up 28 acres if it doesn’t become
part of the Sports Complex. Commissioner
Horan agreed.
Commissioner Carey stated per the
appraisals, the property on Lake Mary Boulevard is more valuable than the
Montgomery Road lot. She said if they
would go down the path to do a dual process which is not the motion right now,
and they get some low-ball offers, the people that they are trying to do the
land swap with might say that maybe the County’s property isn’t as valuable as
they thought it was on Montgomery Road.
Then the County would be looking at trying to do a land swap and coming
up with cash to do it.
Commissioner Carey said that they have two
appraisals on these properties and that the County’s property is worth less
money than parcel #3, yet they are able to do the exchange. She added that she is looking at the future
and her job is to be a visionary. The
County has already made the leap of faith with the Sports Complex. She made the motion the way she did because
she would not consider it if they were only doing the airport swap and she serves
on the Airport Board and they have had a lot of discussion about that.
Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Constantine voted NAY.
-------
Ms. Guillet advised that the Human
Resources Manager will be leaving that position and they have brought on James Carnicella, who will be serving as the Interim Human
Resources Manager and will be managing the day-to-day activities as well as
making an assessment of that division.
He will ultimately help recruit a permanent replacement for Ms. Lee
Ricci.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S BRIEFING
No report.
-------
Chairman Dallari advised that a work
session is scheduled in Conference Room 3024 beginning at 10:45 a.m.
-------
Chairman
Dallari recessed the meeting at 10:36 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all
Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Clerk of Court and
Comptroller Maryanne Morse who was replaced by Chief Deputy Clerk Bruce McMenemy,
and Deputy Clerk Terri Porter who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Erin Leben, who
were present at the Opening Session.
PROOFS OF
PUBLICATION
Motion by Commissioner Horan, 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.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
UNNAMED RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATE/
The Master’s Academy/Excel
Engineering
Continuation of a public hearing to consider
adoption of a Resolution vacating and abandoning the unnamed platted 30-foot
public right-of-way, including the south 10 feet of Lot 33 and including the
north 10 feet of Lot 32, lying between Lukas Lane and North SR 417, as recorded
in Plat Book 2, Page 71, in the Public Records of Seminole County, located
approximately 1,300 feet north of Slavia Road, as described in the Proof of
Publication, Excel Engineering.
Denny
Gibbs, Development Services, addressed the Board to advise that the applicant
requests the item be continued to the September 23, 2014 Board meeting. District Commissioner Dallari recommended
same to the Board.
No one spoke in support or in
opposition of the continuance.
Motion by
Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to continue to September
23, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, the request to adopt a
Resolution vacating and abandoning the unnamed platted 30-foot public
right-of-way, including the south 10 feet of Lot 33 and including the north 10
feet of Lot 32, lying between Lukas Lane and North SR 417, as recorded in Plat
Book 2, Page 71, in the Public Records of Seminole County, located
approximately 1,300 feet north of Slavia Road, as described in the proof of
publication, Excel Engineering.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted
AYE.
LADYBIRD ACADEMY OF WEKIVA
SPRINGS
PD MAJOR AMENDMENT &
REZONE/Fragomeni Engineering
Proof of
publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider
adoption of an Ordinance enacting a Major Amendment to the Wekiva Springs Road
PD (Planned Development); and associated
Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development); and approval
of the associated Amended & Restated Development Order for 4.45 acres,
located on the east side of E. Lake Brantley Drive, approximately 600 feet
north of Shining Armor Lane, more particularly known as 470 E. Lake Brantley
Drive, Fragomeni Engineering, received and filed.
Brian
Walker, Development Services, addressed the Board to present the request as
outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. He
advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval and
staff also recommends approval.
Steve Coover,
on behalf of Longwood LB, LLC, addressed the Board to state they concur with
both staff’s recommendation and the Planning & Zoning Commission’s
recommendation.
Tammy Chiriani, 505 Wekiva Springs
Road, addressed the Board to state her property is immediately north of the
project and her concern is whether or not there will be a cutout in the median
for entrance to the building on Wekiva Springs Road. She expressed her concern of a potential
increase in traffic cutting through her parking lot.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Chiriani advised
that her business’ parking lot is connected to this parcel. She stated there are entrances to their
parking lot on Wekiva Springs Road and E. Lake Brantley Drive. She described the location of her parking lot
related to the project.
No one
else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker
Request Form was received and filed.
Mr. Walker
advised that a site-impact analysis was done for this property and it was found
that no improvements were needed. It
would be a voluntary improvement if the applicant chose to do so.
Brett
Blackadar, County Engineer, addressed the Board to state there is an entrance
off of Wekiva Springs Road so the users can make a U-turn at that directional
median opening and use the entrance onto Wekiva Springs Road, which he felt
would be quicker than cutting through the subject parking lot, which was just
discussed.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Blackadar explained why he did not see an
advantage of cutting through the parking lot to access this site.
District
Commissioner Constantine expressed his empathy with the property owner to the
north of this parcel, but stated he concurs with what has been said by staff
and does not see this aggravating the problem with cutting through the parking
lot.
Motion by
Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt Ordinance #2014-34, as shown on page ______, enacting
a Major Amendment to the Wekiva Springs Road PD (Planned Development); and
associated Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) and
approval of the associated Amended & Restated Development Order, as shown
on page ______, for 4.45 acres, located on the east side of E. Lake Brantley
Drive, approximately 600 feet north of Shining Armor Lane, more particularly
known as 470 E. Lake Brantley Drive, as described in the proof of publication, Fragomeni Engineering.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
AMENDMENTS TO
THE TEXT OF THE
SEMINOLE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/Seminole County
Proof of publication, as shown on page
_______, calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance
adopting Amendments to the Introduction, Conservation, Future Land Use,
Implementation, and Transportation Elements of the Seminole County
Comprehensive Plan, Seminole County, received and filed.
Sheryl Stolzenberg, Development Services,
addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda
Memorandum. She indicated that the
majority of changes affect the implementation element and are intended to
update the plan to reflect changes made to Chapter 163, Part II, of Florida
Statutes in 2011. The BCC voted to
transmit the amendments to state and regional reviewing agencies on June 24,
2014, most of which had no comments.
Ms. Stolzenberg stated staff received a
technical assistance comment from the State Land Planning Agency, which
suggested taking a second look at this language. The department was concerned that the
language staff had proposed, which was an attempt to clarify the Small Scale
Future Land Use Amendment, was not as clear as intended. The proposed language reads as follows: “small scale amendments are generally those
Future Land Use map amendments that affect ten acres or fewer and may be
accompanied by necessary text changes.”
Staff wanted to use that language because the State had required when an
amendment to the Future Land Use map is made to Planned Development, there must
also be a text change explaining what the maximum density and intensity of the
Planned Development would be. They
wanted people to understand that this was not a requirement for Small Scale Map
Amendments.
Ms. Stolzenberg advised that staff
recommends changing the language to comply with the recommendation from the
State Land Planning Agency. She
suggested removing the phrase “may be accompanied by necessary texts changes,”
and instead state, “and if any text change is proposed
in compliance with State Statute, the change must relate directly to and be
adopted simultaneously with the map amendment.
Such a text change cannot change the goals, polices, and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan, even if such change may be necessary for the adoption
of the Small Scale Map Amendment.”
Ms. Stolzenberg submitted a communication
(received and filed) from Connie Wightman into the record and advised she had
distributed it to the Commissioners.
No one spoke in support
or in opposition.
Written Comment Form
was received and filed.
Commissioner
Constantine advised that he has no problem with the Statute changes for 163 but
has concerns with the changes in the density laws. He stated he does not see anybody so
concerned about the density that transmission lines and right-of-ways are of
serious importance to them. He believes
that as a county that is mostly suburban, they should err on the side of
Florida’s natural choice and when possible, reduce densities rather than
increase densities. He expressed his
concern in adding transmission lines and right-of-ways.
Commissioner
Constantine stated that if the County were to change their Comprehensive Plan
to be more like Orange County or Volusia County, they would need to adopt their
tree ordinances as well. He opined that
he does not see the need to increase density.
He added that he is concerned with the setback of water bodies and
believes they should have 50-foot setbacks for water bodies, not 30 feet.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Stolzenberg advised that staff believes
that the net effect will be that they will be following the vision for the
regional area that was adopted by this Commission and some of the surrounding
counties and the cities to try to incentivize development to come into the
urban area in the corridors and the centers in support of SunRail. She added that at the same time, it is
intended to protect the environmentally sensitive and rural areas by
distinguishing between the urban and the rural areas. It will also give an incentive to people to
develop on some of the infill properties that may be a little oddly shaped
because they’ve lost land to right-of-way or because there are utility
transmission lines. She advised that
staff is getting proposals from people who would like to develop in the rural
area because they find it easier to work with land that is big. She does not feel they will have a massive
increase in density but rather people who might take a second look at these
urban properties as their plan asks them to do.
Commissioner
Henley stated he has an issue with the changes that identify net buildable
acres. He feels that if there is a
unique piece of land that creates a hardship, those can be dealt with through
variances.
Nicole
Guillet, Acting County Manager, stated that the concept in revising the
definition of net buildable acreage was raised by an independent development
advisory group. She stated it is a
concern of the development community.
She added that this was originally brought to the Board as a countywide
change, but due to the concern about the impact to the rural area, they have revised
the language to address those concerns.
Regarding the setbacks from the water bodies, Ms. Guillet stated that is
a policy decision for the Board. She
stated staff is trying to achieve consistency with the Land Development
Code.
Commissioner
Henley expressed his concern in staff wanting to change the definition of net
buildable acre as it will compromise what has been in there for some time and
he feels it is working well.
Commissioner
Carey stated she does not have a problem with the revision that has come back
taking the rural area out of the net buildable acres issue. She advised that Seminole County is
designated as DULA (Dense Urban Land Area), no longer a suburban community, and
is recognized as such by the planning councils.
She agrees with Commissioner Constantine on the 50-foot, water-body
building setback. She opined that if it
comes down to changing the Land Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan, she
would want to change the Land Development Code to 50 feet. She explained that she is talking
specifically about lakes and would like to see some definition as to what
“water body” is.
Chairman
Dallari advised that he supports changing the net density around the four
SunRail stations, but not making a blanket change in the urban areas.
Ms.
Guillet recommended that if the Board wants to address density around the
SunRail stations, they should approach it in some other manner than redefining
net density.
Commissioner
Constantine stated he feels for the time being these two changes should be
taken out of the amendments.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Horan, to approve the Comprehensive Plan as presented, with the
exception of Policy Number 2.4, leaving that at 50 feet, and requesting that a
Land Development Code Amendment come forward for that to be increased to 50
feet and a definition of “water bodies” to be added to the Comprehensive
Plan.
Under
discussion, Commissioner Horan stated he thinks there needs to be some
clarification on the definition of “high water mark” and how it applies to this
change.
Commissioner
Carey withdrew her motion. Commissioner Horan withdrew his second.
Chairman
Dallari requested that additional information regarding transmission lines and
right-of-way as part of density as well as the overlay district options
proposed by the County Manager be provided to the Board.
Commissioner
Carey requested that the County Manager provide an example of, if there was a
mile of roadway, how big of a tract that would be and what the impact would be.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Horan, to continue to September 23, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as possible, request to approve an Ordinance adopting
Amendments to the Introduction, Conservation, Future Land Use, Implementation
and Transportation Elements of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, as
described in the proof of publication, Seminole County.
Under
discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Guillet advised that
they will have to bring the Land Development Code Amendment to the Planning
Commission. She advised staff will
prepare a draft and bring it back to the Board at a later date for adoption.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 voted AYE.
PINTER PD SMALL
SCALE LAND USE
AMENDMENT AND
REZONE/Ryan Stahl
Proof of publication,
as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of an
Ordinance enacting a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Low Density
Residential and Commercial to Planned Development, and adoption of an Ordinance
enacting the associated Rezone from C-2 (Retail Commercial) and R-1
(Single-Family Dwelling) to PD (Planned Development), and approval of the
associated Development Order for 5.85 acres, located on the southwest corner of
State Road 436 and Anchor Road, Ryan Stahl, received and filed.
Mr. Walker presented the request as outlined in the Agenda
Memorandum. He advised that the Planning
& Zoning Commission recommended approval and staff recommends approval of
this item.
Ryan Stahl, applicant, addressed the Board
to offer assistance in answering any questions they might have.
Carlos Pastrana, Pastrana Properties, addressed the Board to question the
accuracy of the map that was displayed.
Chairman Dallari explained that the map is an aerial and thus to scale
to a point, but not an actual survey.
Denise Goings, 675 Gladwin Avenue,
addressed the Board to express her concern with any runoff from the project and
how it might affect the wildlife in Lake Pearl.
Mr. Stahl reviewed a map (copy received and
filed) and explained how the project would not affect surrounding properties.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Constantine,
Mr. Stahl advised that they have a Declaration that will maintain the retention
pond and both parcels once completed.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr.
Stahl advised the average setback is 150 feet.
He stated the piece to the south of the subject property is a
residential property.
No one else spoke in support or in
opposition.
Written Comment Form was received and
filed.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded
by Commissioner Horan, to adopt Ordinance #2014-35, as shown on page _______,
enacting a Small Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Low Density
Residential and Commercial to Planned Development, and adoption of Ordinance
#2014-36, as shown on page ______, enacting the associated Rezone from C-2
(Retail Commercial) and R-1 (Single-Family Dwelling) to PD (Planned
Development), and approval of the associated Development Order, as shown on
page ______, for 5.85 acres, located on the southwest corner of State Road 436
and Anchor Road, as described in the proof of publication, Ryan Stahl.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
LUTHERAN HAVEN
RESIDENTIAL MEMORY CARE FACILITY PD/
Lutheran
Haven Extended Congregate Care, LLC
Proof of publication,
as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of an
Ordinance enacting a Rezone from R-2 (One and Two-Family Dwelling) to PD
(Planned Development), and consider approval of the associated Development
Order, for 1.96 acres, located on the east side of W. SR 426 and approximately
one-quarter mile north of W. Chapman Road, Lutheran Haven Extended Congregate
Care, LLC, received and filed.
Cynthia Sweet,
Development Services, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in
the Agenda Memorandum. Ms. Sweet advised that the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval and staff recommends approval of the
item.
Bill Worrell, on behalf
of the applicant, addressed the Board to offer assistance in answering any
questions they might have.
No one spoke in support
or in opposition.
District Commissioner
Dallari recommended approval based upon staff’s recommendations.
Motion
by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt
Ordinance #2014-37, as shown on page ______, enacting a Rezone from R-2 (One
and Two-Family Dwelling) to PD (Planned Development), and approve the
associated Development Order, as shown on page ______, for 1.96 acres, located
on the east side of W. SR 426 and approximately one-quarter mile north of W.
Chapman Road, as described in the proof of publication, Lutheran Haven Extended
Congregate Care, LLC.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 2:21 p.m. and
reconvened at 2:27 p.m.
MAITLAND AVENUE
SMALL SCALE LAND USE
AMENDMENT AND
REZONE/Marc Stehli
Proof of publication,
as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of an
Ordinance enacting a Small Scale Land Use Map Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Office; adoption of an Ordinance enacting the associated Rezone
from R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) and RP (Residential Professional) to OP
(Office); and approval of the associated Development Order for 1.2 acres
located on the east side of Maitland Avenue, 1½ miles south of East SR 436,
Marc Stehli, received and filed.
Joy Giles, Development
Services, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda
Memorandum. She advised that the
Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval and staff recommends
approval of the request.
Jon Walls, Miller Legg,
representing the applicant, addressed the Board to state his firm concurs with
staff’s recommendation and offered to answer any questions.
Rolly
Reel, 102 Oakwood Drive, addressed the Board to state he has the adjoining
property to the east of the site and questioned what kind of a border would be
established between the two properties.
He further inquired what kind of access point will be off of Oakwood
Drive.
Mr. Walls stated that
there will be a wall and landscape buffer 15 feet to the east of the site. He explained that the traffic from this
property will be exiting only onto Oakwood, so there will be no increase in
traffic to the eastern portion of the existing roadway access.
Upon inquiry by
Chairman Dallari, Ms. Giles stated that this is a private road and each
property owner has access so the applicant does have the right to put traffic
on this road.
No one else spoke in
support or in opposition.
Speaker Request Form
was received and filed.
Motion
by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt Ordinance
#2014-38, as shown on page ______, enacting a Small Scale Land Use Map
Amendment from Low Density Residential to Office, adoption of Ordinance
#2014-39, as shown on page ______, enacting the associated Rezone from R-1AA
(Single Family Dwelling) and RP (Residential Professional) to OP (Office) and
approval of the associated Development Order, as shown on page ______, for 1.2
acres located on the east side of Maitland Avenue, 1½ miles south of East SR
436, as described in the proof of publication, Marc Stehli.
Under discussion and
upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Giles explained that the concrete wall is
not required. However, the applicant has
already submitted for site plan review, and on the site plan, they are
proposing a six-foot concrete wall.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Carey as to whether vinyl or wood fencing has been added to the
Land Development Code, Ms. Guillet stated she believes there are a variety of
options for buffering between fencing, landscaping, and walls. She advised that she can give the Board a
summary of what the buffering requirements are and if the Board desires, they
can look at revising them.
Mr. Walls clarified
that there will be a masonry wall, as opposed to a fence, as a buffer.
Commissioner Henley amended the motion to include the
masonry wall in the Development Order.
Commissioner Carey agreed to the
amendment.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
OAK LANE REZONE/Steven Shea
Proof of publication, as shown on page
________, calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance
enacting a Rezone from R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) to OP (Office) and the
associated Development Order for 0.39 acres located on the west side of
Maitland Avenue, 1 mile south of East SR 436, Steven Shea, received and filed.
Ms. Giles
presented the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. She advised the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommended approval and staff recommends approval of the item.
Andrea Jernigan-Gwinn, representing
the applicant, addressed the Board to state she concurs with staff’s
recommendation and offered to answer any questions.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Constantine,
Ms. Jernigan-Gwinn advised that two of the three camphor trees are located on
Seminole County’s property, so they will not be doing anything to those
trees. The third tree is located next to
a neighbor on the west, who has requested when they go through the site plan
approval process, they work with them in removing and replacing that tree,
which the applicant has agreed to do.
Upon further inquiry by
Commissioner Constantine, Ms. Jernigan-Gwinn advised currently there is a wood
fence, but they will be using a landscape buffer.
No one spoke in support or in
opposition.
Motion by
Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt Ordinance
#2014-40, as shown on page ______, enacting a Rezone from R-1AA (Single Family
Dwelling) to OP (Office) and approve the associated Development Order, as shown
on page ______, for 0.39 acres located on the west side of Maitland Avenue, 1
mile south of East SR 436, as described in the proof of publication, Steven
Shea.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
2014 NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT
ROLL
Proof of
publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to
consider approval of a Resolution to adopt the 2014 Non-Ad Valorem Assessment
Roll with Certification provided to the Seminole County Tax Collector, Seminole
County, received and filed.
Kathy
Moore, MSBU, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the
Agenda Memorandum. She advised that the
purpose of this request is to provide opportunity for the public to provide
input prior to the Board adopting and certifying the Non-Ad Valorem Assessment
Roll for Tax Year 2014 for Seminole County.
She explained that the Assessment Roll is the listing of property by
property of assessments levied to fund special, specific municipal services
that offer a special benefit to properties on a localized basis.
Ms. Moore
pointed out in unincorporated Seminole County a variety of essential municipal
services are offered to the public on the basis of Non-Ad Valorem Assessment
funding. These services include street
lighting, residential solid waste management, aquatic weed control, lake
management, as well as essential construction such as road paving, metered
water service lines, wastewater conveyance, retention pond restoration as well
as neighborhood wall reconstruction.
Typically these services are provided in response to the request of
property owners.
Ms. Moore
described how MSBU’s function.
Ms. Moore
indicated the MSBU’s for which the 2014 assessments are levied were all
established previously by ordinances adopted at various public hearings and the
assessment rates for the MSBUs were approved by the Board by Resolution on May
13, 2014. As required by Florida
Statute, a notice of the proposed Assessment Roll was mailed on July 15th
to the owners of all properties listed on the Assessment Roll.
The final
assessment roll to be submitted to the Tax Collector for inclusion on the 2014
Tax Roll will include minor updates such as those needed to accommodate
residential solid waste service option changes.
The MSBU program will accept changes in collection options through
September 1st.
Richard
Young, 221 Hamlin Drive, addressed the Board to explain why he finds it
unacceptable that property owners of five acres or more are exempt from
assessments being levied.
Ms. Moore
stated that the ordinance they have is for residential solid waste only, so the
assessments that are being presented today are just for residential
properties. She said residential
properties that are five acres or larger in size have the option to be exempted
from the curbside collection portion of the assessment; however, they do
receive an assessment for the disposal services. She added that by having that exemption, they
are obligated to dispose according to County standards and at County disposal
facilities.
Ms. Moore
advised that when there are multiple single-family residences on a property,
those are assessed on a per-dwelling basis.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Constantine, Ms. Moore clarified that if it’s a
multiple dwelling residential property, they are assessed and there is not an
exemption unless a property is five acres or larger.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Moore stated that the majority of their
exemption categories require an annual application. She stated that the exemption for curbside
collection for agricultural properties that are five acres or more in size is
an ongoing exemption unless the property changes.
Written
Public Commentary received by email in response to Non-Ad Valorem Assesment Notice was received and filed.
No one
else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker
Request Form was received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Constantine, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
appropriate Resolution #2014-R-158, as shown on page ______, adopting the 2014
Non-Ad Valorem Assessment Roll with Certification, as shown on page ______,
provided to the Seminole County Tax Collector, as described in the proof of
publication.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
OLD LOCKWOOD ROAD PD REZONE/Chris
Dorworth
Proof of publication, as shown on page
________, calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance
enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PD (Planned Development) for 10.10
acres located on the east side of Old Lockwood Road, approximately 500 feet
north of Red Ember Road, more particularly known as 3151 Old Lockwood Road,
Oviedo, Chris Dorworth, received and filed.
Mr. Walker presented
the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. He advised that based on the results of a
lot-size compatibility analysis, staff recommended a rezone to the larger
R-1AAA lot size. However, the Board felt
that development trends in the area had changed over the years, and at the
time, the Board approved a rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to the denser
R-1AA.
Mr. Walker advised that
approximately one-third of a mile south of the project site is the site that
has been approved for the Ellingsworth subdivision with a Future Land Use of
Low Density Residential. After completing
a lot-size compatibility analysis, staff recommended that the property be
rezoned from A-1 to R-1AA. After
receiving a commitment from the applicant to build homes with a minimum square
footage of 2,000 square feet, excluding garages, the BCC approved a rezone from
A-1 to R-1A at that time.
Mr. Walker stated that
one-half mile south of the project is the site that was approved for the
Edwards Estates Subdivision. He advised
that staff performed a lot-size compatibility analysis, which showed that R-1AA
was the compatible zoning district for the property. However, analysis of the development in the
area supported the finding that the trend in the area is consistent with R-1A
zoning and the BCC approved the rezone from A-1 to R-1A.
Mr. Walker stated that
because of the proximity to schools, the High Density Residential Land Use, and
a consistent pattern towards more intense development on Old Lockwood Road,
staff supports the requested rezone from A-1 to Planned Development. He noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission
voted 5-1 to recommend denial.
Randy Morris, 2438 Via
Sienna, addressed the Board to distribute the School Concurrency Application
Affidavit; final engineering plan by IBI Group, Inc.; Environmental Assessment
Report by Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc.; School Capacity Availability Letter of
Determination by Seminole County Public Schools; BCC Minutes dated April 8,
2003 regarding the Hampton Estates development; and a packet of correspondence
from concerned citizens (received and filed).
Mr. Morris advised that the available capacity for schools after their
project would add 13 students, with a current availability of 278 students at
elementary level, 189 at middle school level, and 814 at high school level post
their development.
Mr. Morris explained
that the packet of correspondence he submitted included the submittals and
responses from the County and includes 77 emails, and added that 45 of the 77
emails were from unique households. He
stated of the 45 households, 21 are from Oviedo, 12 are from outside of
Seminole County, 7 are unknown, and 6 are from other jurisdictions in Seminole
County.
Mr. Morris stated that
he and the applicant made an effort to spend time and listen to the residents
before this project was presented to the BCC.
He reviewed a letter (copy received and filed) from a resident, Deborah
Schafer. He stated she has been the
guardian of the rural area, urban redevelopment, and trying to hold
conservation areas and issues up to the forefront of this Commission for
years.
Mr. Morris advised that
per staff’s request, they reached out to the community. Mr. Classon, the engineer, met for 4.5 hours
with the three adjacent property owners; the Somers, the Careys,
and the Engwalls.
He stated that at the request of the Engwalls,
they came back and met with additional neighbors. On July 5th they met with
approximately 16 people from the neighborhood for 2.5 hours to discuss the
various aspects of this issue.
Mr. Morris displayed a
PowerPoint presentation (received and filed) and reviewed the Project
Description – Stratford Manor, Stratford Manor Home – Standard Features, and
Stratford Manor – Location Slides. He
advised that the Oviedo Campus of Seminole State College is their northern
neighbor and it originally came through as a PD rather than a governmental
institution because they wanted to develop housing on the property. He discussed the Adjoining Future Land Uses
of the surrounding properties. He
advised that the subject property has a Future Land Use of Low-Density
Residential and sits within the Urban Services Boundary. Mr. Morris described the Current Zoning of
Adjoining Parcels.
Mr. Morris reviewed the
minutes from the April 8, 2003 BCC Meeting approving a rezone for a property
related to the subject property. He
displayed the Rural Boundary Line and indicated where the subject property is
on the map.
Mr. Morris reviewed the
Current Site Plan. He advised that there
will be a slight intrusion on the wetlands.
Even though they could have been removed, they kept the wetlands in
place to keep the water purity and other issues in place.
Luke Classon, engineer
on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Board to explain that with the
landscape buffers and the rear setbacks, the closest any of the existing homes
would be to the pool of any of the proposed homes would be 75 feet and just
over 110 feet to their actual home.
Mr. Morris continued
his presentation and displayed a slide showing what the site would have looked
like had they used the R-1A zoning. He
stated it would have been 34 lots and they would have taken out the
wetlands. Mr. Morris reviewed a slide
depicting what the site would look like if they were to go to R-1AA, and
advised they would have had 25 lots. He
explained that the wetlands would have been completely wiped out.
Mr. Morris displayed
and discussed a chart comparing the Alternative Zoning Options. He explained that one of the big issues at
the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting was the issue of where the water
is going on sheet flow and the effects of it.
Mr. Morris reviewed the
Probable Elevations of the Homes in the proposed project. He advised that bringing in high-valued homes
raises the value of all residences around the area.
Mr. Morris discussed
the subject of stormwater and wetland maintenance. He advised that the reason they accelerated
their Preliminary Site Plan was because the residents were afraid of a “bait
and switch.” He stated that the
applicant submitted final engineering to the BCC and stormwater/wetland plan to
the St. John’s River Water Management District.
He added that the applicant paid the expedited review fee, received
comments, and has made the requested changes.
Mr. Morris displayed
and reviewed a comparison of the Stormwater Runoff, both predevelopment and
post development.
Mr. Classon stated that
when dealing with stormwater, there are mainly two concerns with the wet pond
system: volume and the rate of
discharge. He advised that for this
project there is the mean annual and the design storm, which is a 25-year
event. They analyzed four different
storms just to put people at ease and explain.
Upon inquiry by Mr. Morris, Mr. Classon advised that the staff
requirement is the 25-year storm event and the mean annual storm.
Mr. Classon discussed
the mean annual storm, which is the typical worst storm that would occur in a
year. He compared the four different
storm scenarios and their impact predevelopment and post development. He explained the stormwater runoff impact,
both predevelopment and post development, as well as the stormwater discharge
rate, both predevelopment and post development.
Mr. Classon advised that due to the project’s location in the overlay
zone of the Econ River, the treatment volume will be increased by 50 percent.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Carey, Mr. Classon advised that the treatment volume is included
in the calculations he has discussed.
Mr. Morris continued
his presentation and stated that the density they are proposing for this site
is on the lower end of the potential density.
He advised that the site is surrounded by institutional/educational uses
on two sides, one of which has a Future Land Use of HDR and the other is just
under Public Institutional Use. He
stated that the site is surrounded by Low Density Residential Future Land Uses,
making future uses of adjoining parcels consistent with this project.
Mr. Morris advised that
the site design does not include any primary wetlands impact and does not
disturb the flood map. He explained that
due to the concern that the residents have expressed regarding the flooding and
stormwater management, the applicant risked substantial resources to have the
Preliminary Site Plan, final engineering, and permitting documents completed,
submitted, and reviewed before the hearing so that the neighbors and the Board
could have a deeper understanding of the impact of the subdivision on flooding
and stormwater prior to the zoning vote.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Carey, Mr. Classon advised that the reduction in density was
reduced from 3.99 to 3.67 based on them doing the Preliminary Site Plan.
Martie
Anderson, 3563 Queensbay Court, addressed the Board
to state she is a part of the community-supported agriculture that takes place
on the property they are talking about developing. She expressed her concern for the livelihood
of the vendors that sell their produce and other products on the property. She stated that the residents of Carillon are
very unhappy about the development that is occurring.
Commissioner Carey
stated for the record that she is not related to any of the individuals she had
ex parte communications with.
Tom Carey, 2212 Red
Ember Road, addressed the Board to state he is an owner of Sundew Gardens. He explained his concerns with the developer
who he believes is gaming the system. He
stated he feels that although Mr. Classon came out to walk through the
property, they did not have adequate time to prepare for the meeting they had
on the July 4th weekend.
Mr. Carey stated he is
not pleased with the plastic screen proposed in the Development Order and would
prefer a real wall. He opined that if
this plat passes as a PD, they will be setting a precedent for the rezoning
process for the other five-acre parcels all the way down Old Lockwood Road. He stated that he would be more comfortable
with a neighborhood of one-acre homesteads using the current zoning of A-1.
Robin Carey, 2212 Red
Ember Road, addressed the Board and displayed a map (received and filed) of the
Seminole State College Oviedo Campus Master Plan. She indicated on the map where there is a
conservation easement in which they are not allowed to develop.
Ms. Carey displayed a
second map (received and filed) and described how one side of Old Lockwood Road
was developed and one was not. She
discussed the zoning changes and explained why she is in opposition to the
development and asked that the PD be denied.
She feels there has been no negotiation and would like to negotiate what
happens to the land just north of her.
Mark Engwall, 2224 Red Ember Road, addressed the Board to state
that his property borders the east side of the subject property. Mr. Engwall
discussed how the changes in setbacks from the approval of the proposed
development would adversely affect the use of their land. He explained why he believes this property
deserves a rural designation on the FLU map and in the Comprehensive Plan. He does not feel there is a compelling reason
to grant a PD designation to this developer and noted there will be no benefits
to the community if this subdivision is built.
He urged the Commissioners to do the right thing and deny the
request.
Patricia Somers, 2200
Red Ember Road, displayed aerial photographs (received and filed) and addressed
the Board to state why she is in opposition to this development. She indicated on the photograph the location
of her property and the neighboring properties in relation to the subject
property. She expressed her concern that
because the proposed development will be raised, it will trap water on the
surrounding properties.
Ms. Somers presented a
PowerPoint presentation (received and filed) summarizing the issues and stated
the developer has submitted a swale as a solution. She expressed her concern with the swale not
being an effective solution. She feels
that the swale does not and cannot address the issues she has listed.
Gerry Parlato, 2331 Red Ember Road, addressed the Board to state
there is a water problem that started when Seminole State College was
built. He feels that Stratford Manor
will discharge more water and increase the frequency of the road washouts.
Mr. Parlato
displayed a map (received and filed) indicating areas where the washouts occur
most often. He indicated the houses that
will not be able to get in or out until the road is fixed and that fire rescue
and police have no access to the houses.
He displayed a photograph (received and filed) of a vehicle stranded due
to a washout.
Mr. Parlato
displayed several photographs (received and filed) depicting the area as it is
and surrounding wildlife. He stated that
the residents of Woodland Estates accept the responsibility and work to be good
stewards of the land. He stated they
feel privileged to maintain and live in what he considers an extension of the
Econ wilderness area. He opined that a
development like Stratford Manor is unacceptable for this area.
Andrew Somers, 2200 Red
Ember Road, addressed the Board to describe the difference between the west and
east sides of Old Lockwood Road. Mr.
Somers displayed an aerial photograph (received and filed) and stated most of
the area is dominated with wetlands and opined that a dense subdivision simply
does not fit into this.
Avian Carey, 2212 Red
Ember Road, addressed the Board to discuss the developer’s claim that the
“public good” is the donation of the wetland conservation easement to the
County rather than mitigating, dredging, and filling. He noted these wetlands, along with retention
ponds, will serve as an open space requirement in the subdivision and he feels
that the developer is “duel using” that idea.
Mr. Carey advised that
the stormwater runoff calculations do not take into account additions to
Ellingsworth such as pools or other improvement amenities. He feels these amenities will increase the
impervious service area, causing an increase in runoff, and will impact the
county as a homeowner will need to apply for variances to install them. Mr. Carey discussed drainage.
Mr. Carey opined that
the PD and the Master Development Plan as presented need to be denied as it
does not increase the public good. He
expressed his concern that a right-turn lane is not being looked into while a
left-turn lane is.
Diana Fraser, 2416 Fawn
Run, addressed the Board to state she is in opposition of this rezoning. She opined that this development brings a lot
of concern for the future of their country-style living. She stated that with the continued
development of their neighborhood, they are losing a lot of their private
lives, the wildlife, and the dirt roads are being washed away. She expressed her concerns with the impact
this development will have on the wells and septic systems of the current
residents.
Ms. Frasier displayed a
map (received and filed) indicating the area she lives in relation to the Econ
River, wetlands, and the proposed development.
She expressed her concern with developing the east side of Old Lockwood
Road.
Ms. Frasier displayed
several photographs (received and filed) of the local wildlife. She requested the Board deny the zoning
request.
Carissa Kent, 3795 Old
Lockwood Road, addressed the Board to read into the record some of the language
from the Master Plan for Seminole State College to address the issues the
developer had mentioned regarding the PD.
She expressed her concern with development on the east side of Old
Lockwood Road.
Ms. Kent expressed her
pride in the great spaces in the area, adding that 33 percent of Seminole
County is protected green space. She
feels that if they set this precedent, they will eventually lose the entire
Econ River Basin to development. She
requested the Board vote against this rezone and protect the area.
David Somers, 2200 Red
Ember Road, addressed the Board to state that he feels the policies and
procedures should be looked at. He
stated he is not asking to stop development, but asking to use the right type
of development for this area. He
explained why he believes the proposed area is not compatible with the
surrounding area. He feels that the
community has an opportunity to set a precedent for development in the
area.
Maria Bolton-Jonbert, 524 Meridale Avenue,
addressed the Board to state she and her husband own a home in Oviedo. She stated she would like the Board to
consider the people that live in the area.
She feels what is being proposed is out of line. She expressed her concern with the endangered
wildlife.
Ms. Bolton-Jonbert stated she was concerned with the increase in
traffic in this area. She advised that
the neighborhood of the home she owns has gone downhill and she does not
understand why they need to develop more.
She asked the Board to please reconsider approval of this item.
Cindy Parlato, 2452 Fawn Run, addressed the Board to state that
she thinks the traffic flow Mr. Morris was referring to is on Lockwood Road,
not Old Lockwood Road. She advised that
because there is no place for the people attending the sporting events at Hagarty High School to park, there are multiple
accidents. She asked that the Board deny
any development on Old Lockwood Road.
No one else spoke in
support or in opposition.
Speaker Request Forms
and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 3:53 p.m. and
reconvened at 4:01 p.m.
Mr. Morris presented his rebuttal to make some corrections and
clarifications. He stated that a
developer does not have to have a compelling reason to present a request to
develop. Everyone has an equal right to
present a request. He advised that the
applicant has diligently followed the codes.
He explained that the PD is a much more advantageous way for the
people’s business to be done than straight zoning. He stated that had he been involved with the
project from the very beginning, he would have gone with straight zoning.
Mr. Morris advised that Seminole County has been an outstanding
protector of the rural boundaries. He
stated that a line was set when the citizens voted on the Charter as to where
the rural boundary and urban services boundary would be. He stated that this area had been determined
to be R-1 Future Land Use before the Charter Amendment. He added that Old Lockwood Road has already
been rezoned on the east side in two separate cases, Hampton Estates and
Seminole State College.
Mr. Classon displayed a previous map and indicated where on the
Seminole State College property there is seven or eight miles that can be
developed. He advised that there is
currently a pond on a portion of that land, but it doesn’t restrict them from
filling it in and developing over it in the future. He added that they have the right to reduce
their wetlands area and adjust their conservation.
Mr. Morris advised that there is nothing in this development
prohibiting the surrounding properties from farming. He opined that developing this area will not
hurt the farming community, but it will bring more customers in as the future
residents will want to shop from the local farms.
Mr. Morris advised that the reason development has not occurred
in this area before is due to these private dirt roads. He displayed a previous photo depicting a
truck sunk into a private roadway. He
stated this is a private road maintained by the residents.
Mr. Morris advised that regarding the issue of the five-acre
lots that was previously mentioned, they have the right to be subdivided. He stated that on July 3rd and
July 5th, the Careys approached Mr.
Classon to see if they would be able to be a part of this development. Regarding the Engwalls’
argument about the setbacks, he stated they are not doing anything different
regarding the setbacks in the backyards.
He stated that to date, the applicant has not asked for any variances
and added that if someone were to put a pool on their property, it would not
require a variance.
Mr. Classon referred to a previous aerial map that depicts the
flow of water moving north. He clarified
that the contours show that the flow goes directly from the west to the
east. Mr. Classon displayed a map
(received and filed) indicating the contours of the area. He advised that they did provide a swale in
case there is any off-site flow that comes to the property and coordinated with
Duke Energy who signed off on the swale.
He stated Duke agreed on the landscape types with the applicant’s landscape
architect as well.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Horan, Mr. Classon advised the
swale is located within the ten-foot landscape buffer. He added that they have provided calculations
to show that the swale will pick up anything that travels south in terms of the
water flow. He stated there is a
seven-foot differential from the west to the east, so the water in the swale
will flow naturally rather than sit stagnant.
Mr. Morris advised that regarding the Econ setback and
protection zone, they have no impact on that, but they are under
requirements. He stated their water
quality standards are 50 percent higher than they would be in other county
areas. Regarding a turn lane, he advised
that the subdivision will have a three-car stacking capacity, which is more
than enough for a subdivision that size.
He added that Old Lockwood Road is a low traffic road, and added that he
did not mean to imply that Hagarty High School had
those trips going onto Old Lockwood Road, but rather meant the impact Hagarty has in general.
Mr. Morris advised that in terms of the issue of lighting, it is
not something staff asked them to address.
He suggested doing shoebox lighting, which will keep the lighting on
their property.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Classon advised that the buffering and utilities
will be included into the swale. He
reviewed the site plan (received and filed) and advised that they provided the
swale in the landscape buffer to collect any runoff that comes to the north, if
it does. He added that the landscaping
would be on the northern edge of the swale and would meet all Seminole County
Code requirements for the landscape buffer.
Mr. Morris stated that
they will be adding a brick wall, as opposed to a fence for the
development. He added that this will be
a gated community with roads maintained by the HOA.
Chairman Dallari
advised that he has had several meetings with various residents, including Mr.
Morris, and any decision will be based on the testimony and the public hearing.
He submitted a group of emails (received
and filed) into the record.
Commissioner Carey
advised of her ex parte communications (received and filed) and advised she has
not met with anyone but has had phone calls and correspondence with a number of
residents.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Carey, Mr. Morris advised that although the Development Order
calls for 3.99 dwelling units per acre, the maximum will actually be 3.67 and
will allow for 26 lots.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Carey regarding utilities, Mr. Classon advised that reclaimed
water and sewer are coming from Seminole County. He stated they filled out the conditional
utility agreements required by the County and that the agreements were
delivered to staff today. Mr. Morris
explained that the utilities information is on the Master Development Plan,
which is why they submitted it along with the engineering. He offered to put additional assurances in
the Development Order. Mr. Classon noted
that the Master Development Plan is an attachment to the Development Order.
Commissioner
Constantine advised of his ex parte communications and meetings with Robin
Carey and the developer.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Constantine, Mr. Morris explained that the reasoning for the brick
wall as opposed to the vinyl fencing is that in prior instances, subdivisions
and HOAs have had issues with the maintenance and appearance of the different
variations of buffers and a brick wall seems to be the best fit. He stated that this is the County standard
and they wanted to completely comply with that.
He added that regarding the issue of trees and shrub planting, they will
be complying with the County standards.
He advised that landscaping is in the Development Order, which has been
submitted with the final engineering plan and reviewed and approved by staff.
Mr. Morris stated that
regarding rear setbacks, they try to have the less impermeable sources that
you’d have in terms of the runoff and everything else.
Mr. Classon reviewed a
map of the setbacks (received and filed) and indicated the difference in the
typical lots and corner lots. Mr. Morris
reviewed the PowerPoint presentation (previously received and filed) and
compared the setback dimensions between the three different types of
zoning.
Upon inquiry by Chairman
Dallari, Mr. Morris advised that they will be locking themselves into 26 lots
with the PD zoning. He stated he would
be willing to change the Development Order to reflect that the project will
have 26 lots and 3.66 dwellings per acre.
Mr. Classon advised that the Preliminary Site Plan (PSP) currently
reflects 26 lots.
Upon inquiry by
Chairman Dallari, Kathy Hammel, Development Services, addressed the Board to
state that regarding the housing of farm animals, the Code states that any
structure that houses farm animals has to be 100 feet from any residential
home. Currently the A-1 zoning on the
lot configuration is a ten-foot, side-yard setback for any house along that
property line. The applicant’s current
setbacks will be 35 feet from the property lines.
Upon inquiry by
Chairman Dallari, Mr. Walker reviewed an email addressing issues from the
residents about the surrounding area. He
advised that the Code does not require that a PD be used only in situations
where straight zoning cannot be implemented.
Regarding “public good,” he stated that Section 30.441 of the Code
states that a PD can be used in situations where it’s enhancing protection of
natural resource areas. He advised that
the applicant is protecting more than two acres of wetland and flood area by
placing it in a conservation easement.
They are also providing a minimum 25-foot, 50-foot average buffer to
that wetland conservation area. They are
also providing 30 percent open space, whereas, this PD only requires 15 percent
open space. Straight zoning for a
subdivision does not require open space.
Mr. Walker stated that
the Future Land Use (FLU) is what determines how many homes can be placed on a
specific acre, as opposed to the zoning category. The FLU on this property is Low Density
Residential. The Comprehensive Plan
allows four dwellings per net buildable acre.
The applicant is complying with all of the FLU regulations in this PD.
Mr. Walker advised that
a Planned Development may have characteristics in it that are found in other
zoning classifications. He stated that a
PD is its own zoning classification. The
setbacks for the PD are proposed during the review process. They are not stipulated in the Code. He said part of the reason they do a PD is to
allow flexibility within the development.
Mr. Walker displayed,
at Commissioner Carey’s request, a map showing the Future Land Use of the
area. Upon inquiry by Commissioner
Carey, Mr. Walker advised that any other property owner in that area, which is
Low Density Residential, is able to come forward and request four units per
acre.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Carey, Mr. Blackadar advised that the roads in this area are all
private roads.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Carey, Tina Williamson, Acting Development Services Director,
advised that the subdivision that is in existence in that area is not a platted
subdivision and was built under the five-acre development rules prior to the
current subdivision regulations in the Land Development Code. She stated that the five-acre development
rules no longer exist in the Land Development Code.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Carey regarding the stacking issue, Mr. Blackadar advised that the
left-turn lane does not meet Department of Transportation standards. He stated currently there has to be 5,000
trips to require a right-turn lane and this development will be nowhere near
that. Upon further inquiry by
Commissioner Carey, Mr. Blackadar advised that regarding the stormwater issue,
the development will have to maintain the historic flow. He advised that the swale would take any
water that would have flowed there and run a bypass around the developed
property. He stated the same amount of
water that flows there now will flow in the future.
Upon inquiry by
Chairman Dallari regarding a maintenance bond, Mr. Blackadar stated if for some
reason within two years the swale is not working anymore, the County can come
back and make them repair it before they get their final release for the
subdivision.
Upon inquiry by
Commissioner Carey, Mr. Blackadar advised that they had the final site plan
review last week and submitted comments Friday morning. He stated in general, the stormwater
calculations are acceptable.
With regard to school
capacity, Commissioner Carey stated that schools locate their facilities
wherever the future growth is anticipated based on the County’s Future Land Use
maps. She stated that when the County
identified this area as a Future Land Use of LDR, they built schools knowing
that someday that would happen. She stated
that she understands the concerns of the residents, but as Commissioners, the
issue is compatibility and this development is compatible.
District Commissioner
Dallari stated he is sympathetic to the public outcry. He pointed out that the current Future Land
Use is LDR. The BCC has to uphold
property rights or the County is at risk to be sued. He advised he has not heard any technical
testimony to deny the request. He stated
he finds the applicant’s request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
the rights of the property owner and recommends approval.
Chairman Dallari
requested that a density of 3.67, maximum dwelling units of 26, and
coordination by the applicant with Duke Energy for the buffer and power
easement to be included in the Development Order so there is not a “bait and
switch.”
Final Development Plan
was received and filed.
Motion
by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to adopt
Ordinance #2014-41, as shown on page ______, enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture)
to PD (Planned Development), and approve the associated Development Order, as
shown on page ______, for 10.10 acres located on the east side of Old Lockwood
Road, approximately 500 feet north of Red Ember Road, more particularly known
as 3151 Old Lockwood Road, encompassing the commitments made by the Developer
in his testimony, as described in the proof of publication, Chris Dorworth.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CHAIRMAN’S
REPORT
No report.
COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS
The
following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:
1.
Letter
dated June 23, 2014 from Larisa Perry, Wells Fargo Bank, to Chairman Robert
Dallari RE: Wells Fargo’s $50,000 grant to the Florida Literacy Coalition for
the new “Florida Financial Literacy Initiative.”
2.
Letter
dated July 18, 2014 from City of Lake Mary: Mayor David Mealor, Deputy Mayor
George F. Duryea, Commissioner Gary L. Brender, Commissioner Thomas C. Greene,
Commissioner Jo Ann Lucarelli, and City Manager
Jacqueline B. Sova, to Chairman Robert Dallari RE:
City of Lake Mary’s position against fully widening to six lanes the entire
portion of Lake Mary Boulevard between Rinehart Road and Country Club Road.
3.
Copy of
letter dated July 24, 2014 from Chairman Robert Dallari to Ray Eubanks, Department
of Economic Opportunity (DEO), RE: Transmittal of
Adopted Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment to the Seminole County
Comprehensive Plan-Expedited State Review Process (DEO 14-3ESR).
4.
Copy of
Memorandum dated July 24, 2014 from Congressman John Mica to Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) Secretary Ananth Prasad and
District 5 Secretary Noranne Downs RE: DMUs to Augment SunRail Service and Mass
Transit Connections.
5.
Letter
dated July 25, 2014 from Marva Johnson, Bright House Networks, to Chairman
Robert Dallari RE: Upcoming programming changes to Bright House Networks
customers.
6.
Letter
with attachment dated July 28, 2014 from Traci Houchin,
City of Sanford, to Chairman Robert Dallari RE: Notice of Pubic Hearing
regarding Ordinance No. 4322.
7.
Letter
dated July 29, 2014 from Diana Adams, City of Lake Mary, to Chairman Robert
Dallari RE: Notice to abutting property owners for a home occupation of SunTree Services, LLC/Petrea Gebo to conduct a home occupation for a business to include
cleaning and maintenance services for commercial and residential in a dwelling
unit located at 177 W. Lakeview Avenue, Lake Mary.
8.
Letter
with attachment dated August 4, 2014 from Brady Lessard,
CPH, to Seminole County Board of County Commissioners RE: Invitation to attend
a neighborhood meeting to be held at the Orlando Sanford Airport, 1200 Red
Cleveland Boulevard, Sanford, on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 to discuss The
Seminole County Sports Complex.
9. Letter dated August 6, 2014 from Walt Griffin,
Seminole County School Superintendent, to Chairman Robert Dallari RE:
Requesting the County’s assistance in covering the cost of Tax Collection fees
on the voter-approved One-Mill Property Tax.
DISTRICT
COMMISSIONERS/COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner
Carey referred to FDOT’s public hearing at the Markham Woods HOA meeting, which
was to discuss access to the toll facility at E.E. Williamson. She stated she received a letter stating that
it has been determined that the ramps will not be warranted and they will not be
installed.
Commissioner
Horan gave an update on the transition to Managed Care on the Medicaid
Transportation-Disabled trips. He stated
they are in the first week of that transition and there will be a TDLCB
(Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board) meeting next week for
an update on how the transition is going.
He attended the annual meeting of the Transportation Disabled Commission
in Orlando and heard testimony from several of the vendors operating under
Managed Care in other districts.
Commissioner
Carey stated Medicaid Managed Care took effect on August 1st in
Seminole County.
Chairman
Dallari stated he spoke with the Executive Director of MetroPlan to come up
with a temporary fix.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S REPORT
No report.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S
REPORT
No report.
-------
There
being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the
meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m., this same date.
ATTEST:______________________Clerk_____________________Chairman
tp/el