August 28, 2018


     The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, August 28, 2018, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.


Chairman John Horan (District 2)

Vice Chairman Lee Constantine (District 3)

Commissioner Robert Dallari (District 1)

     Commissioner Brenda Carey (District 5)

Clerk of Court & Comptroller Grant Maloy

     County Manager Nicole Guillet

     County Attorney Bryant Applegate

     Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer



     Dr. Dwayne Mercer, CrossLife Church, Oviedo, gave the Invocation.  Commissioner Dallari led the Pledge of Allegiance.


The Business Spotlight video for I-CON Systems was presented.


     Nicole Guillet, County Manager, announced that there is an add-on, Item #23A, Brookdale Senior Living Facility/TEFRA Revenue Bonds. 

     With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the Consent Agenda and public input was closed.

     Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to authorize and approve the following:

     County Manager’s Office

     Human Resources    

 1.  Approve the benefit renewals for Lincoln Financial, Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, Allstate, Aetna, Chard Snyder, Compsych, and AIG National Fire Union Insurance Company; authorize the County Manager to execute the renewal agreements; and approve the County Regular and Wellness premium rates for Plan Year 2019.  (2018-0868)


Community Services

Community Assistance

 2.  Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Heart of Florida United Way Mission United Community Partnership Agreement to help serve Veterans with a central contact to access community support in the areas of legal assistance, employment and education.  (2018-0895)

Community Development

 3.  Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program Annual Report and Local Housing Incentives Certification form for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) Annual Performance Report (APR).  (2018-0901)

 4.  Approve and accept the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Snapshot/Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2013-R-61, and the HOME Program Activity Report, pursuant to Seminole County Resolution #2015-R5-1, for the month of July 2018.  (2018-0902)


Development Services

Business Office

 5.  Authorize the Chairman to execute the Release of Lien for Impact Fees at 178 Northshore Circle, Casselberry, Tax Parcel #09-21-30-522-0000-0300, Northshore Development Corporation of Seminole County (previous owner), Stephanie L. Cook, Personal Representative for the Estate of Paul W. Capps, Jr. (current owner).  (2018-0852)

 6.  Authorize the Chairman to execute the Release of Lien for Impact Fees, at 182 Northshore Circle, Casselberry, Tax Parcel #09-21-30-522-0000-0290, Northshore Development Corporation of Seminole County (previous owner), Stephanie L. Cook, Personal Representative for the Estate of Paul W. Capps, Jr. (current owner).  (2018-0844)

Planning and Development

 7.  Authorize the release of Performance Bond #268010708 in the amount of $588,724.15 for Brookmore Estates Phase 2; Pulte Home Company, LLC, Applicant.  (2018-0872)

 8.  Approve the plat for the Whitetail Run single-family residential subdivision containing 31 lots on 21.61 acres zoned PD (Planned Development), located on the east side of Old Lockwood Road, approximately 300 feet north of Brickell Place; Nicholas Gluckman, Applicant. (2018-0811)


Environmental Services

Solid Waste Management

 9.  Approve the Renewals of the Non-Exclusive Franchise Agreements concerning Commercial Solid Waste Collection Services for Advanced Disposal Services Solid Waste Southeast, Inc., Container Rental Company, Inc., and Waste Management Inc. of Florida d/b/a Orlando Hauling, effective from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2019.  (2018-0910)


Fire Department

Business Office

10.  Approve the Automatic Aid/First Response Interlocal Cooperation Agreements with Sanford Airport Authority, the City of Longwood, the City of Lake Mary, the City of Oviedo, and the City of Sanford.  (2018-0908)


Public Works


11.  Adopt appropriate Resolution #2018-R-114 and authorize the Chairman to execute a County Deed providing for County surplus property located at the intersection of Main Street and Shepherd Avenue (Property Identification #35-19-30-5AJ-0D00-0570) to the City of Sanford and providing for the release of mineral rights on the surplus property.  (2018-0893)


12.  Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the First Renewal to Reflections of Hidden Lake Community Services Department Lease.  (2018-0866)


Resource Management

Budget & Fiscal Management

13.  Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-115 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-074 through the Public Works Grants Fund to reduce Grant funding in the amount of $24,714 for the CR 46A Safety Project.  (2018-0859)

14.  Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-116 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-077 and execute a State-Funded Grant Agreement with the Florida Division of Emergency Management in acceptance of $6,560 through the Hazards Analysis Program.  (2018-0894)

15.  Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2018-R-117 implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #18-079 through the General Fund and Various Fund Reserves in the amount of $2,325,000 to increase funding for Health Insurance Medical Claims.  (2018-0898)

Grants Administration

16.  Approve submittal of a grant application to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity requesting $17,000,000 through the Florida Job Growth Infrastructure Grant Fund for construction of Oxford Place road project.  (2018-0896)

17.  Accept the Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Grant Notice of Award in the amount of $387,920; and authorize the County Manager to execute all Subrecipient Contract Agreements with the 18th Circuit Court and treatment providers related to the Grant Agreement.  (2018-0897)

Purchasing & Contracts

18.  Approve a Single Source Procurement, SS-603249-18/BJC; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division (PCD) to purchase infrastructure equipment and P-25 compliant radios from Motorola Solutions, Inc. of Plantation up to an amount of $8,200,000 contingent on future funding availability.  (2018-0913)

19.  Award three (3) Master Service Agreements (MSAs) for RFP-1932-18/TAD, General Consulting Services for Planning & Development, to Canin Associates, Inc., GAI Consultants, Inc., and Renaissance Planning Group, Inc.; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the MSAs.  Estimated Annual Usage is $250,000.  (2018-0884)

20.  Award RFP-603188-18/TLR, Term Contract for Seminole County Library Book Lease Program to Nubro, Inc., d/b/a Brodart Co., Williamsport, PA, for a not-to-exceed amount of $220,308 per year; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Agreement.  (2018-0873)

21.  Approve Change Order #1 to CC-1295-17/RTB, Salt Creek Stream Restoration with Bio Mass Tech, Inc. of Land O' Lakes in the amount of $98,570.51; add an additional ninety-four (94) calendar days to Substantial Completion; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Change Order.  (2018-0869)

22.  Approve Work Order #28 (Limited Remedial Action Plan for 100 N. Winter Park Drive) under PS-9738-14/JVP, General Environmental Services with E Sciences, Inc. of Orlando, in the amount of $283,198.49; and authorize the Purchasing & Contracts Division to execute the Work Order.  (2018-0871)



23.  Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the First Amendment to Amended and Restated Disclosure Counsel Services Agreement between the Clerk, the County, and Holland & Knight, LLP.  (2018-0914)

23A. Approve appropriate Resolution #2018-R-118, and approve, solely for the limited purposes of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the issuance by the Capital Trust Agency of its senior living revenue bonds (American Eagle Portfolio Project), Series 2018, for the purpose of financing the senior living facilities herein described (Brookdale Senior Living Facilities), two of which are located in the County; and providing an effective date.  (2018-0916)


Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.




Clerk & Comptroller’s Office

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the following:

24.  Approve Expenditure Approval Lists dated July 30 and August 6, 2018; and approve the BCC Official Minutes dated July 24, 2018. (2018-0904) 


     Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.



     The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk & Comptroller’s “Received and Filed”:

1.  2017 Tax Roll Recapitulation Report from the Seminole County Tax Collector identifying errors, insolvencies, double-assessments, and discounts.


2.  Letter dated August 1, 2018, from Governor Rick Scott accepting Carlton Henley’s resignation as Seminole County Commissioner, District 4, effective August 1, 2018.


3.  Agreement with West Publishing Corporation for West Proflex (which replaces the 2017 Westlaw Agreement.)


4.  Performance Bond #B3238553 (Pavement, Curbs and Sidewalk) in the amount of $44,153.77 for the project known as Allure on the Parkway; Carriage Encore II, LLC.


5.  Maintenance Bond (Private Road) in the amount of $57,368.05 for the project known as Brookmore Estates Phase 2; Pulte Homes Company, LLC.


6.  Addendum #5 to Development Order #18-20500026 and Corrected Addendum #4 to Developer’s Commitment Agreement #18-20500026; Cameron Heights Village A; American Land Investments of Celery Avenue, LLC.


7.  Addendum #4 to Development Order #18-20500012 and Corrected Addendum #3 to Developer’s Commitment Agreement #18-20500012; Cameron Heights Village C; Garner and Kathleen Gehr.


8.  Addendum #2 to Development Order #18-20500021 and Addendum #1 to Developer’s Commitment Agreement #18-20500021; Skyway Beardall PD Rezone; Landco Development Group, LLC.


9.  Work Order #11 to RFP-0532-15 with Connect Consulting, Inc.


10.  Closeout to Work Order #14 to CC-0559-15 with Central Florida Environmental Corp.


11.  Amendment #1 to Work Order #4 to RFP-0672-15 with The Colinas Group, Inc.


12.  Work Order #8 to RFP-1294-17 with BSE Construction Group, LLC.


13.  Work Order #4 to PS-1474-17 with S2L, Inc.


14.  Five Points Redevelopment P3 Project Agreement PS-1804-18 with CGL Companies, LLC, as approved by the BCC on May 8, 2018.


15.  Construction Services Agreement CC-1893-18 with TDH Construction, Inc.


16.  Construction Services Agreement CC-1918-18 with Seminole Masonry, LLC.


17.  Construction Services Agreement CC-1966-18 with Glen Holt Aluminum, LLC.


18.  Term Contract IFB-603175-18 with EarthBalance Corporation.


19.  Amendment #2 to Work Order #57 to PS-8047-12 with Tierra, Inc.


20.  Amendment #2 to Work Order #78 to PS-8148-12 with Keith & Schnars, P.A.


21.  Work Order #89 to PS-8148-12 with CDM Smith, Inc.


22.  Work Orders #15 and #16 to CC-9184-13 with Affordable Development.


23.  Amendment #1 to Work Order #5 to PS-9462-14 with Ayres Associates, Inc.


24.  Bids as follows:

     RFP-603188-18 from Brodart Co.; Baker & Taylor, LLC;


     IFB-603217-18 from Brown & Bigelow, Inc.; BSN Sports; Good Sports of Central Florida; Pyramid School Products;


     CC-1918-18 from Seminole Masonry, LLC; Mack Concrete Industries, Inc.;


     CC-1966-18 from Glen Holt Aluminum, LLC; TDH Construction, Inc.; Linton Enterprises, Inc.; Blackstreet Enterprises;


     PS-1920-18 from DRMP, Inc.; KCCS, Inc.; Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc.; Infrastructure Engineers, LLC;


     PS-1946-18 from Atkins North America, Inc.; Quest Ecology, Inc.; Environmental Science Associates;


     RFQ-603247-18 from Aquatic Plants of Florida; EarthBalance Corporation; Cardno, Inc.; and


     PS-1804-18 from CGL Companies, LLC; ZHA, Inc.; O&S Associates, Inc.



     Chairman Horan noted that the Board has approved Items #1 and #15 and pointed out that there is a presentation regarding the benefits. 

     Christina Brandolini, Human Resources Manager, addressed the Board and began the 2019 Benefits presentation (copy received and filed).  Ms. Brandolini stated that over the past several years, their health insurance claims have steadily been increasing, which has a direct effect on the premiums that must be collected in order to fund those claims.  Ms. Brandolini displayed the Total Claims (Fiscal Year) chart and talked about how the claims have been on the rise.  The claims were increasing about a million dollars each year; however, this year they have seen nearly a $3 million increase from the previous year.  Because of that, they will have to look at premiums and come up with some ideas on how to find a solution to prevent this from continuing to happen.

     Ms. Brandolini reviewed the information on the Claims History and FY 18/19 Projections slide and explained how claims costs have increased.  She noted that the proposed rates are to assist in covering the rise in overall insurance claims costs.  She displayed the 2019 Proposed Employee Premiums and noted this is both the employer and employee contributions to the premiums and that is what is going to help fund the claims they are assuming for the next fiscal year.

     Ms. Brandolini advised that the Next Steps will be to engage with Hylant to strategize planning for the future; to plan several work sessions to discuss trends, solutions and projections for 2020; to continue the wellness efforts; and to educate employees on how to be prudent consumers of the plan to help mitigate some of those rising costs.

     Andria Herr, Hylant, addressed the Board and stated the frame she would like to put around this conversation is the fact that the County’s plan is not performing any differently than most of the plans in the United States.  Ms. Herr pointed out that things are being done in health care in the United States today that are simply miraculous.  She has been doing this long enough that she is seeing things which are cured that in the beginning of her career would not have been curable.  While they look at this from the perspective of “how long can they sustain it,” she would tell them that they have to figure this out because the technology that is coming through the pipeline is significant.  It is improving lives and improving outcomes; people are living longer and living more active lives.  She emphasized that there is not an end in sight, including the drug pipeline.  Ms. Herr advised they do have to get in front of this from the perspective of becoming better consumers of health care, which is really hard to do these days; but they are seeing more products come through the pipeline that address that as well.  She believes further conversations are worthy and she believes the Board is doing the right thing in terms of the budget.

     Commissioner Dallari stated he appreciates Ms. Herr’s insight and working with her has been an advantage for the Board to understand her industry.  He then asked Ms. Herr whether the County needs to do a medical chart audit for patients.  Ms. Herr stated the County should probably not be doing medical chart audits.  She advised that the County’s carrier is probably doing medical chart audits on the largest claimants so that has been outsourced.  She suggested they should consider a claims audit, which is very different from a medical chart audit.  It separates the private information of the consumer and moves it to the financial payment methodology so they will never know who the claim is for but will see the payment methodology.  Commissioner Dallari stated he hopes they will be looking at that and Ms. Herr agreed that they can look at that.


Agenda Item #25 – 2018-0888

     Bill Wharton, Planning and Development, addressed the Board to present the request for the First Amendment to the 2015 Seminole County/City of Sanford Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) as described in the Agenda Memorandum.  Mr. Wharton began his presentation (copy received and filed) and displayed a map of the Eastern Area from the Joint Planning Agreement.  He pointed out that Sub-Area 4 wraps around the eastern and southern areas of the Sanford Airport generally following Lake Mary Boulevard.  He displayed the Planning Sub-Area 4 map and indicated the location of the subject property. 

     The Wyndham Preserve map was displayed.  Mr. Wharton pointed out on the map that the subdivision fronts on and has access to East Lake Mary Boulevard.  The developer would like to add an additional phase to Wyndham Preserve by incorporating the property shown in green on the map.  Both properties are within the Sanford city limits. 

     Mr. Wharton noted that the issue in Sub-Area 4 is that the residential densities are limited to 3.5 dwelling units per net buildable acre north of Eaglewoods Trail and 2.5 dwelling units per net buildable acre south of Eaglewoods Trail.  The subject property is south of Eaglewoods Trail and is limited to the 2.5-dwelling-units-per-acre requirement.  The proposed Amendment to the JPA would allow the subject property to be developed at 3.5 dwelling units per acre similar to the existing density within Wyndham Preserve.  Since the subject property would become part of Wyndham Preserve and only have access through the existing development to East Lake Mary Boulevard, Mr. Wharton advised that both the County and the City believe this to be compatible with the area.  An Aerial of the Area depicting the subject property was displayed.  The Sanford City Commission approved the Amendment to the JPA at their August 13, 2018 meeting and staff recommends the Board approve the Amendment as well.

     Commissioner Constantine asked whether there are any other properties in this JPA that are of similar nature that might be coming back.  He wondered if this is going to become a commonplace occurrence or if it is just a singular piece of property that seemed to be different than the rest because it was south of Eaglewoods Trail.  Mr. Wharton replied that he does not know the answer but offered to check into the matter with the City of Sanford and get back to the Commissioner.  Because of the way the density is gradually lower in this particular area, he thinks this may be the only one. 

     Ms. Guillet stated they think the property is unique for several reasons.  First of all, the rest of the project was originally approved under a different land use designation prior to the JPA.  She added that this piece can only be accessed through that existing subdivision.  They don’t know of any other circumstance out there that would be consistent with this.  Ms. Guillet advised that the language in the JPA is specific to this property; so anyone seeking any other changes to the JPA or seeking to do anything with respect to density would have to come back before the Board in a public meeting to request that. 

     Commissioner Constantine confirmed with Ms. Guillet that the property is already in the City of Sanford and part of the JPA; that there is access only through the existing property; and that the other project is already there.  The concern that the Commissioner would have is that it is not setting a precedent for other properties in that area simply because the Board is allowing this property.  Ms. Guillet reiterated that they believe this is a very unique set of circumstances that do not exist elsewhere in the JPA area.  She added that is not to say that folks will not come forward and ask for changes because anyone can always do that.  With respect to this and the way the Amendment is written and the circumstances with this particular development, they think it is unique.

     With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the item and public input was closed.

     Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the First Amendment to the 2015 Seminole County/City of Sanford Joint Planning Agreement.

     Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.


     Nicole Guillet, County Manager, presented the request for authorization to proceed with the closing regarding Rolling Hills pursuant to the Florida Communities Trust requirements.  A two-page document (copy received and filed) regarding the results of the August 23, 2018 Florida Community Trust Board meeting was distributed.  Ms. Guillet reported she has very happy news and explained that last week they had their final meeting with the Florida Communities Trust Board with respect to the land exchange for the Jetta project and the Rolling Hills project.  They have received final approval from the FCT Board to move forward with the purchase of Rolling Hills and the exchange of the grant requirements from Jetta to the Rolling Hills site. 

     Ms. Guillet stated the reason she would like to get authorization to move ahead with the closing is because of one outstanding issue.  As part of the due diligence on the land exchange, they had to do appraisals on both properties and the rule associated with land exchanges requires that the parcels be of equal value; the exchange parcel has to be at least the same value as the original parcel.  When this was originally proposed, the Rolling Hills property was valued much higher than the Jetta Point property.  That situation has reversed and there is about a $1.5 million difference between the value of the Jetta property and the Rolling Hills property in favor of the Jetta property.  Ms. Guillet explained that as a consequence of that, they need to pay back a pro rata portion of that original grant and that amount is $593,000.  That would go back to DEP.  She stated they do have the opportunity to apply for a waiver, which they do intend to do (unless directed by the Board not to).  She pointed out that remediation is the factor that caused the difference between the two appraisals. 

     Ms. Guillet advised that she is seeking the Board’s authorization today to move forward with the closing, which is scheduled on Friday, with the understanding that they may have to return a portion of the original grant if they do not receive the waiver.  Discussion ensued with regard to when the $593,000 would need to be paid back to the State.  Ms. Guillet talked about how they would have to apply for the waiver by November under the terms of the approval and pointed out that while she can’t make any predictions on whether the waiver will be granted, the FCT Board has been extremely supportive once they understood the project.  She explained it is money from the original grant that would be going back and suggested they keep in mind that the Jetta property is assessed at a much higher value than they had originally thought it would be.  Their hope would be to recoup that through the sale of that property.  Further discussion ensued with regard to when the repayment of $593,000 would be required.

     Ms. Guillet stated another one of the conditions is that the County provides financial assurance for the remediation work.  She stated this is unusual and they have never done this before, which is something they seem to say a lot about this project.  The FCT Board wants the County to escrow the money for the remediation with the State.  They would have to escrow the funds anyway, but they are going to escrow it with the State.  That agreement will come to the Board on September 11.

     Upon inquiry by Commissioner Dallari, Ms. Guillet explained that the remediation appears to be the reason the value of Rolling Hills went from $6.2 million to between $4.2 million and $4.8 million.  Commissioner Dallari questioned if the remediation comes in lower than what is anticipated, will the State be adjusting those numbers.  Ms. Guillet stated the appraisals won’t change; they are what they are.  With regard to the amount that the neighborhood has to expend, their assessments would go down if the remediation comes in under $1.5 million.  The Commissioner wondered if the mitigation changes because there is less contamination once they start getting in there, would the numbers change again in reference to the State.  Ms. Guillet stated she does not expect them to change because she believes they have a “pretty good handle” on what the contamination is.  The appraisal was not tied to the $1.5 million; it was tied to the site conditions, which the County has done a very good job of capturing.

     Commissioner Carey stated if the value of Rolling Hills went down because of the site conditions and they remediate that, then it is gone; so the value of Rolling Hills should go up.  Ms. Guillet stated that is absolutely their argument.  Commissioner Carey suggested they ask the State to allow them to reappraise the property after the remediation has occurred and they could agree that they would wait to sell the Jetta Point property until that point.  She thinks the determination should be made after the cleanup has occurred.  The fact that the State has asked the County to escrow the remediation money with them is the guarantee that the remediation is going to be done, and they should not be penalized for it. 

     Commissioner Carey suggested they could go back to the appraiser for Rolling Hills and ask what the value of the land would be if this condition did not exist.  She reiterated that the County is about to remediate it and is going to escrow the money with the State to make sure that happens.  The Commissioner suggested they write a letter asking for clarification and say under the circumstances the appraisal was adjusted for the site condition; however, it is going to be fixed and here is an estimate from the appraiser of the value after the situation is remediated.  Chairman Horan stated he believes it would be an excellent idea to make a record like that.  Ms. Guillet stated they have actually sent a letter similar to that to the State and they will make that same argument; that will be the basis of their argument for a waiver, that the value will be invested back into the property as they do the remediation.  Commissioner Carey emphasized that she thinks they need to ask the appraiser to give the value once the solution has been provided.  She thinks they need that as a support document; something independent, third-party, and separate from the County or the State to make sure that those values are determined.  Discussion ensued.

     Andrew Kaplan, 342 Nebraska Avenue, addressed the Board to state he has been a resident of Seminole County for 40 years.  Mr. Kaplan talked about the steering committee meetings that were held at his house in the beginning of this process and how he explained to his son that this was what the First Amendment and democracy in action looked like.  He explained how this process enhanced the “community feel” regardless of whether they got the park or not.  They are very happy they got the park.  Mr. Kaplan thanked all of the Commissioners for their hard work.  He knows this has never been done before and he thinks it is wonderful to do something that has never been done before.  This is going to be a beautiful park in the heart of Seminole County and invited everyone to come and visit because this property is truly a beautiful piece of property.

     Commissioner Dallari stated it is extremely satisfying to see a community like Rolling Hills come together with the civil discourse they had and actually work with County staff.  He told Mr. Kaplan that the way he took the “bull by the horns” and walked the neighborhood and kept everyone informed is the way communities should be.  Commissioner Carey talked about how Commissioner Henley was a leader in this and she regrets that he is not present today to be able to vote on this because it was a really important issue to him.

     Chairman Horan stated he has practiced law for 35 years and was involved with a lot of public bodies.  He said that he has never seen a public body try something that was this innovative; it was groundbreaking.  The Chairman stated without the expertise and persistence of the County Manager, this would not have happened; and without the cooperation and great work of the public citizens, this would not have happened.

     Kit Bradshaw, 480 Raymond Avenue, addressed the Board to state that she is a former newspaper editor and reporter and used to cover the Town of Jupiter’s town council and worked very closely with all of the people in the administration.  Ms. Bradshaw thanked all of the Commissioners and gave a special “shout out” to Ms. Guillet and her staff for all the work they did to get this thing to go together. 

     With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the item and public input was closed.

     Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

     Commissioner Constantine talked about the first meeting that was held at the Rolling Hills Country Club.  He stated that at that meeting, someone said Rolling Hills really does not have a homeowners association.  The Commissioner pointed out that the fact of the matter is whether they have one now, organized or unorganized, they certainly have a community and something that he does not think really existed as much as it could have before.  Today they have a community that has bound together in a common cause.

     Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to authorize proceeding with the Rolling Hills closing pursuant to the Florida Communities Trust requirements.

     Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.

     Ms. Guillet added her thanks and noted it really was a team effort with Joe Abel and Rick Durr leading the Leisure Services folks; Kathy Moore and the MSBU group; and of course the County Attorney’s Office with Paul Chipok and Lynn Porter-Carlton.  She thanked the Board for all of their support and thanked the community.  The level of civic engagement from the community was admirable and made her proud to be a part of Seminole County.

     Mr. Applegate stated that what Ms. Guillet accomplished as the mastermind and team leader on this was masterful.  He thanked Mr. Chipok and Ms. Porter-Carlton.  Mr. Applegate advised that Ms. Porter-Carlton will handle the closing and emphasized that every “i” is dotted and “t” is crossed.


     Scott McIntyre, Managing Director and Senior Portfolio Manager for First Southwest Asset Management, addressed the Board to present his Investment Advisor’s Report for August 28, 2018 (copy received and filed); and he advised there is a lot going on.  Mr. McIntyre advised there was a strong second quarter of growth and explained that whenever you have strong economic growth, that allows the Fed to move forward and continue to pull back in all of the stimulus that they have in the system and raise interest rates.  As much as there has been improving growth, there are a lot of headwinds in place right now. 

     Mr. McIntyre displayed the Key Economic Factors and reviewed the five reasons to expect a slowdown listed on the slide.  Inflation seems to be heating up but it is not yet a problem.  Tariffs could create higher prices.  He talked about how the spread between the two-year Treasury Note and the five-year Treasury Note has gone from 47 basis points since mid-February to 10 basis points yesterday.  It is a real flat curve and usually when it is a flat curve, there is not much incentive to go out and capture that additional yield.

     Chairman Horan asked whether they could stay short term and be okay and Mr. McIntyre responded that it is not quite as easy as that.  He stated what they are anticipating is that whatever slowdown happens in the economy, it is not going to be that significant because if there is a recession anywhere in the near term horizon, the Fed is going to stop raising rates and potentially lower rates.  At that point you would have second-guessed yourself and wished you would have gone out much longer and locked in.

     Mr. McIntyre advised right now the condition is that they are getting some moderating growth in the months after the second quarter ended and there is some global uncertainty.  He added the response to all of that is going to be to diversify.  He advised they are going to suggest a little less in purchases than they did last time because they are not getting paid as much to extend as they were the last time he was here. 

     Mr. McIntyre reported there is less tax money that came in the last tax season, both in terms of individual taxes and in corporate taxes.  A lot of that has to do with the tax cut.  They got improved growth from that but the growth will not necessarily show up as taxes into the coffers until next year or later this year.  The government has less money to operate with, and they also increased the deficit when they had the tax cut.  As a result of that, the government will have to issue more Treasury debt.  That Treasury debt is coming over the course of the next month or so; so they want to make sure they have some powder dry so when yields move up probably because of the supply, they can address it.  He stated that for right now they want to diversify and there are going to be fewer purchases.

     Mr. McIntyre reviewed the GDP chart and explained this is a report card on economic growth.  He indicated the bar to look at is the last bar, which is 4.1% for the quarter.  That was the strongest quarterly growth since 2014.  If you take out the inventory component and look at real growth, it was the strongest since 2006.  He announced there is no question they have good growth; but the question is, is it going to continue.

     Mr. McIntyre reviewed the Employment chart and pointed out the blue bar is non-farm payroll; those are company payrolls.  The last time they saw non-farm payrolls, it was down; but they did get increases in June and May so all in all the last three months have been pretty good in terms of job growth.  He noted that they did pay for it because when you cut taxes, you are expecting something back and they got some job growth and had a good past quarter.  He cannot deny that unemployment is very near a 17-year low.

     Mr. McIntyre reviewed the U.S. Purchasing Managers Surveys chart and explained that the red line is service managers and the blue line is factory managers.  He stated that any number above that heavy mark at the bottom, the 50 mark, means expansion.  When you are up around 60, that is significant expansion.  Mr. McIntyre pointed out that in the last month that they did this survey, there was a downturn on both the factory managers and the service sector managers.  What they saw when they read that is there was almost uniformly concern with the impact of trade.  They are seeing higher prices and their profit margins are being squeezed.  Mr. McIntyre talked about trade and tariffs in relation to Mexico and China.

     Mr. McIntyre reviewed the Inflation chart and stated that the blue line is overall inflation and includes food and energy prices.  Energy prices have been rising and are now flattening out.  If 2% inflation is enough and that is what they are looking for, the blue line is a little more inflation than the Fed would want.  They factor out food and energy prices because they know they are volatile.  They look at the grey line and the red line.  They would like to see 2%.  Their favorite inflation indicator is the grey line, and it is close to 2% now.  Mr. McIntyre explained that they could make a case if they needed to that if the economy slowed down, the Fed could pause for a while because inflation is where they want it to be.

     Mr. McIntyre reviewed the Retail Sales chart and stated that retail sales are consumer spending and that is what drives the economy here in the U.S.  The red line is year-over-year and they can see that has moved up recently.  Consumers are spending.  He reported that in the last Commerce Department report, they went back and did a five-year revision.  One of the things they looked at was the savings rate.  He stated they thought the savings rate was 3.4% for U.S. savers, which is not very much.  They revised it from 2016 to 2017 and that two-year period was up from 3.4% to 6.7%.  It is shocking that the error was that big that they revised it to essentially double.  Once you get past that idea, consumers are probably in better shape than thought.  Spending could potentially increase in the future, the economy could potentially strengthen in the future, and there could be a little more inflation in the future.  These are all support for the idea that they are not going to go “all in” at today’s interest rates.

     The Current Interest Rates charts were displayed and Mr. McIntyre suggested the Commissioners could look at this information on their own time because there are a lot of numbers.  The most important thing that he wants to show the Commissioners is that in looking at the 12-month Treasury Note, you can see that the yield has come down a little bit since the last time he was here.  It is the same with the two-year Treasury Note; the market yield has come down a little bit since the last time he was here.  Mr. McIntyre stated he does not think that should happen because the Fed is still on path to raise rates three weeks from now.  Again, he believes this is a reason to keep a little more powder dry than they might normally do.  Mr. McIntyre displayed the Interest Rate Outlook slide and discussed the Fed’s raising of rates and how monetary policy lags.  He pointed out there is a pretty good chance they are 50 basis points higher in terms of the overnight rate between now and year end.  He added that in the August Fed minutes, the members all expressed concerns about tariffs so that is a big wild card.

     With regard to Recommendations, Mr. McIntyre noted that the County has a pretty big allocation to the Qualified Florida Bank Savings/Money Market Funds.  He advised that they actually raise their rate on the money that the County has got deposited right when the Fed makes their move; so if the Fed raises rates 25 basis points a month from now, all of those deposits move up by a quarter.  There is no lag on that; and in a rising rate environment, that is a pretty good investment to be in.  Mr. McIntyre stated they want to continue to diversify.

     Mr. McIntyre stated he was looking at the Florida Education Investment Trust Funds (FEITF) that the County already has and has had for a while, the investments with that particular pool.  He explained that they allow you to go out and pick a date in the future and they will pay you a set rate, a fixed rate, between now and when it matures.  Their rates relative to Treasuries are really good.  Mr. McIntyre talked about why he is recommending that the County add to their position and pick up another block of $10 million in that FEITF pool.  It is still within the County’s limits.  That will pay out until May of next year at 2.50%.

     Mr. McIntyre stated they believe the County should take a $10 million Treasury Note out to December 15, 2019.  The yield is 2.52% and is full faith and credit.  It is above the portfolio yield so it helps to boost the yield a little bit.  It locks in a little bit and levels it at the highest they have been in ten and a half years.  He thinks they will wind up buying larger allocations to Treasuries or some other investment type the next time he is here.

     With regard to the Current/Proposed Portfolio slide, Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the County’s weighted average maturity is going to go up as a result of the suggestions he is making but not by very much.  They are still under six months, which gives them a lot of maneuverability and ample liquidity.  He then displayed the Benchmark Comparison graph and advised that this is the first time they have overlaid the Seminole County portfolio performance on top of the benchmarks.  With regard to the benchmarks, he discussed the one-year CMT (Constant Maturity Treasury) and the six-month CMT and explained how that is a lagging index.  He stated it smooths it out and is more realistic.  It is a benchmark that they use for almost all of their municipal clients.  It gives an idea of where you should be if you are investing all methodically in Treasuries.  He stated they like to put the SBA on the graph because everyone is aware of what it is.  There is a lot more risk associated with the Florida Prime so you add a little bit to your portfolio for yield but not too much.

     Mr. McIntyre stated in looking at the County’s red line and going back a couple of years, the County was earning one-quarter of one percent.  That was the market.  They were a little bit behind the Treasury benchmarks and quite a ways behind the Florida SBA.  He advised that it looks like it jumped up sometime in early 2017 and then they have pretty much been with the SBA, which actually is very good considering the fact that the SBA has investments that are not as conservative as the County’s investments. 

     Chairman Horan requested that Mr. McIntyre go back to his Recommendations and explain in detail what he means in the first recommendation by “May 2019 @ approximately 2.50%.”  Mr. McIntyre stated that the pool is not an overnight pool but is a fixed term/fixed rate pool.  He stated what the Board is going to approve hopefully is the idea that the Clerk’s Office is going to go to the pool and say they want to add a $10 million deposit with the pool and would like to go out to May of 2019.  The pool is willing to pay them between now and then 2.50%.  Chairman Horan asked Mr. McIntyre if that is what the direction would be to the Clerk and Mr. McIntyre answered yes.  He added that the Clerk had a number of positions with them already; so they are actually taking this out to the end of their ladder.

     Chairman Horan referred to the Recommendations and quoted from the slide “to Purchase $10 million December 15, 2019 1.375% Treasury Note @2.52% approximately.”  Mr. McIntyre explained that the 1.375% is the specific Treasury Note, the indicator, the coupon.  The yield on it is 2.52%.  Chairman Horan asked Mr. McIntyre to describe to the Board what the Clerk would be doing.  Mr. McIntyre explained that the process they have at this point is that the Clerk has a number of broker/dealers that they work with.  They go out for bid.  They say they would like to see a bid on the December 15, 2019 Treasury Note 1.375 Coupon and need to see it within a half an hour’s time and the bid needs to be good for 10 minutes.  Then they will get bids by email or fax.  Mr. McIntyre stated they actually have been on the line with the Clerk’s Office the last couple of times looking at live screens to make sure that the bids are acceptable and that the market is not moving on them.  The Clerk’s Office then accepts with the broker/dealer that has the highest yield available and that is the end of that transaction.

     Chairman Horan asked Clerk Maloy if that is clear and Clerk Maloy responded that his office has been doing that.  Chairman Horan asked if it is working and working well and there is no confusion as to that.  Clerk Maloy responded that his office is not confused at all.  Mr. McIntyre stated there are other security types that the County could buy.  They are not buying commercial paper but they can buy agencies.  He noted that he might have mentioned it before but he feels like he needs to mention it now.  Chairman Horan stated they saw the slide that had the agency notes and so forth.  He presumes that may be a diversification that Mr. McIntyre might recommend.  The Chairman talked about the safety and security of just riding the interest rates and noted they have to invest under a certain type of standard that puts an emphasis on the return “of their money” and not a return “on their money.”  The rates are going up and the security is there. 

     Chairman Horan stated he has seen the agencies and those instruments are appealing and he presumes Mr. McIntyre will move the County into that in a diversified and a deliberate way when the time comes.  Mr. McIntyre stated that is true and he just wanted to put it out there.  He stated the process is going to be a little different.  If he sees a two-year agency that makes sense, like Federal Farm Credit, once they talk about it at the Board meeting, it will be gone by the afternoon.  It gets a little more difficult when they talk about going through the process using a broker/dealer because the Board would approve the Federal Farm Credit to December 2019 at a 2.60% yield but in terms of going and finding that bond, it probably will not be able to happen with the way that the policy is written.  He emphasized that he wanted to put that out there.  Chairman Horan stated they get that.  He stated since Mr. McIntyre has real-time information and is communicating with the Clerk, they would presume that is something that can be done; and as they improve their technology in terms of being able to see real time what some of those things that move faster actually are, they presume they can communicate well and communicate with each other so that they can maximize that to whatever direction Mr. McIntyre needs within the discretion he can go ahead and exercise.  The Chairman reiterated that they all understand that.    

     With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to the item and public input was closed.

     Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to direct the Clerk to follow Mr. McIntyre’s Recommendations as presented to the Board today.

     Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.


     Commissioner Dallari stated they have talked briefly at the Budget Workshop about the annual increase to County employees at the rank and file at 3% and the managers at 2%.  With the recent review that he has been seeing that the Cost of Living index is now 2.9%, he wanted to pass out a document (copy not received and filed).  Commissioner Dallari indicated that he has asked staff to run some numbers for him to move them up.  He stated he is not looking for a decision now, but he wanted to make sure they all have this information so at a later date if they want to act on it, they could.  It is basically what the difference is.  If they are asking their managers to receive 2% and the cost of living is at 2.9%, they are actually falling behind.  They all know they are having problems with staff retention.  This is just the first go-around.  In moving the division managers up to 3% and the rank and file up to 3.5%, the Commissioner wanted to know what the differences were and wanted to pass that information out to see if the Board wanted to have any discussion at a later date.

     Commissioner Carey stated there were plenty of times when the CPI was at 1% and the employees got 3%.  Commissioner Dallari reported that in the packet that he had distributed there is also a past history of the CPI as well.  In reference to Commissioner Carey’s comment, Chairman Horan stated that was then and this is now and time is unidirectional.  He stated they will deal with this issue as a specific situation. 

     When asked by the Chairman as to the number of open positions at the County, Ms. Guillet stated they have 37 positions posted and there are a number of other open positions that are not posted yet.  Chairman Horan stated they are in a competitive market and know what is happening in the market.  They know what they have to do to attract talent.  Commissioner Dallari stated it would be wrong for him to bring this up at the last moment and that is why he is bringing it up now.  The Chairman stated they can discuss this at the next meeting or discuss it at the public workshop.  His own inclination is that you have to do something at this particular stage to address the problems they have.  If they don’t want to address the problems they have at this particular time, then they will just continue to have a migration of talented people move out of the County.  That will make it more difficult for the County Manager to provide quality services to the public.  At a certain point, it is going to affect the elected officials. 

     Chairman Horan stated he considers it his highest duty to take care of what has been entrusted to him and that includes putting it in the hands of competent operational people who know what they are doing and to have a sufficient staff to do that.  The Chairman pointed out that is never going to be easy but it has been his practice since he got into office eight years ago to tell people what they need to hear.  He added a lot of times that is not necessarily what they want to hear but he will continue to act that way because that is the right thing to do.


Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 10:50 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m. with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Jane Spencer who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Terri Porter, who were present at the Opening Session.


     Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.

     Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5 voted AYE.


Commissioners Dallari, Carey and Constantine submitted their ex parte communications into the record (received and filed).


VACATE/Joseph A. Ranaldi


Agenda Item #26 – 2018-0865


Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of a Resolution vacating and abandoning an uncut portion of the unnamed street right-of-way, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 31, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, for property located near the intersection of East Main Street and 1st Street, Geneva, Joseph A. Ranaldi, received and filed.

     Danalee Petyk, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum.  She advised that Joseph A. Ranaldi of Seminole County Public Schools, who is the Applicant, petitioned the County to vacate this unnamed street right-of-way for the use by the Geneva Elementary School for its playground area.  The Applicant has provided letters of no objection from all applicable utility companies.  Public Works also has no objection to the requested vacate.  The request complies with the requirements of the Land Development Code and the Florida Statutes.  Ms. Petyk stated that County staff recommends approval.

     Joseph Ranaldi, Applicant, addressed the Board and introduced himself as the Executive Director of Operations.  He stated they wanted to thank the Commission and staff in working with them on this project.  He knows that the Geneva community is very appreciative of it.  He added the fact that they were able to team with the County and work with them on a right-hand turn lane to tie into the new drive that they are going to be putting there is much appreciated.  Commissioner Dallari asked when the drive and the turn lane will happen.  Mr. Ranaldi replied they expect to start construction on their part of the drive towards the end of September.  They are still going through the final permitting with the Water Management District; they have received preliminary approval for that.

     With regard to public participation, no one in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt appropriate Resolution #2018-R-119 vacating and abandoning an uncut portion of the unnamed street right-of-way, as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 31, in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, for property located near the intersection of East Main Street and 1st Street, Geneva, as described in the proof of publication; Joseph A. Ranaldi, Applicant.

     Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.


& REZONE/Lifespace Communities, Inc.

Agenda Item #27 - 2018-0030

Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider approval of a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) for approximately 75.76 acres, located on the south side of Sabal Palm Drive, approximately 1,000 feet east of Wekiva Springs Drive; Lifespace Communities, Inc., received and filed.

     Matt Davidson, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum.  He advised the request for a Rezone is to develop a new healthcare facility consisting of 60 skilled nursing beds, 18 memory care beds and 66 assisted living beds.  The development will also consist of an additional 273 independent living units in 3 different building types.  These building types include a single-story duplex; a 3-story, 12-unit villa; and a 4-story building.  The Applicant indicates these components of continuum of care have become vital to the long-term viability of senior living communities.  The 9.81 acres of former golf course fairway adjacent to Sabal Fairways Villas will remain in its current state and will be used as open space. 

     Mr. Davidson noted that the Applicant is requesting modifications to three site development standards from Chapter 30 of the Land Development Code: the parking, building height and buffers.  Staff is in agreement with justifications for each of the requested Code modifications and finds the proposed PD Major Amendment to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the trend of development in the area.  The Applicant has been working together with the Sabal Point Community Services Association, which is the 978-family homeowners’ association for the surrounding Sabal Point community.  The Association has provided a letter of support for the proposed development.  The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the Board approve the request with the condition to allow only single-story buildings along the east side and the southern corner bisecting Pod B on the Master Development Plan.  He noted the revised Development Plan showing the requested change has been included in the backup.  Mr. Davidson stated staff recommends approval of the request.

     Commissioner Carey asked if it is correct that they are requiring single-story on the east side and the Development Order states that they have a maximum building height of 65 feet.  Mr. Davidson responded there is a maximum building height of 65 feet throughout the entire development; however on their Master Development Plan, they are showing that pod is limited to 27 feet on the east side.  Commissioner Carey then questioned what the setback requirement from the edge of the property is to the 65 feet.  Mr. Davidson advised that minimum setback is 35 feet.

     Jim McNeal, on behalf of the Applicant, addressed the Board and stated they are in agreement with the staff presentation and recommendation, and they are in attendance to answer any questions the Board may have.  Commissioner Carey commented she did have a conversation with the Applicant about the fact that they have a number of assisted living facilities and skilled nursing, but they have a real shortage in their community of Medicaid beds.  She explained she had asked Mr. McNeal if they had any Medicaid beds or if there will be any as part of this expansion.  She said she asked him to look into the ability for them to be able to get some of those because there is a real shortage and they need to start thinking about that requirement and what it takes.  She noted the County Attorney could maybe circle back around to the Board and let them know if it is a Certificate of Need that they have to have or is it asking the State to grant a certain percentage; maybe they could look at that in future development orders going forward.

     Wayne Hunicke, 547 Timber Ridge Drive, addressed the Board and stated he is president of the Sabal Point Community Services Association, and their 978 families actively support this project for several reasons.  The first reason is through discussions with LifeSpace Communities, Inc., they have adjusted the footprint that is seen in the current proposed plan of development, and that has been very positive for the community because it preserves open space and open space views.  The neighbors are very happy about that.  Secondly, they believe that the addition and modernization adds both facilities and services for Village on the Green’s need for the future, and they are happy to have that in their community.  The last part really is that with approval of this project, it brings to a conclusion the repurposing of the Sabal Point Golf Course and they are extremely happy about that.  He thanked the Board and staff for what has been a 10-year journey at least.  Chairman Horan commented he is glad this has turned out very successfully and it does not happen unless you have cooperative citizens who are willing to get involved like this.

     David Roberts, president of Protegrity Holdings, addressed the Board and noted their buildings are adjacent to the subject property.  He has two concerns and the first one is the safety of their tenants and of the tenants’ clients.  The only thing that separates them from this development is a row of bushes with quite a few vacancies.  He added one of their tenants is the Seminole County Tax Collector which brings in a variety of clientele to pay their taxes.  He stated he has no control over where they go and they wander out toward the golf course periodically for whatever reason.  He wondered if there is some way to have a wall to separate the two properties.  His second concern is more global than that and it is the traffic on Wekiva Springs Road itself.  It is already very difficult at times to get out of their parking lot onto Wekiva Springs Road and he opined this will only make it more complicated. 

     Mr. McNeal stated in regard to Mr. Roberts’ concern about fencing and a demarcation line between the two properties, they are happy to look at that during the site plan process and make whatever adjustments are necessary at that time.  He does not know if they have enough information at this point in time to know the full extent of the concern, but they are happy to meet with Mr. Roberts and discuss it and then address it in the site plan stage.

     Commissioner Constantine said he is very pleased about the way this project has been put together.  The community had a lot of concerns when this was started years ago, but Mr. McNeal met with the citizens and worked out the concerns and problems.  

     With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

Motion by Commissioner Constantine, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt Ordinance #2018-28 enacting a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development), and approve the associated Development Order and Master Development Plan, for the development of a new healthcare facility on approximately 75.76 acres, located on the south side of Sabal Palm Drive, approximately 1,000 feet east of Wekiva Springs Drive, as described in the proof of publication; Lifespace Communities, Inc., Applicant.

Commissioner Carey commented they have a lot of golf course communities that have struggled and some have closed.  She opined this is an excellent example of redeveloping those closed golf courses especially for Village on the Green.  It is so convenient for people that have loved ones that are going to assisted living facilities, skilled nursing or memory care units when they are close by.  To have that ability to stay in their community and move from the big home where they raised their family to an independent living and then assisted living and so on through the continuum of care she thinks is a great role model as they continue to see this golf course issue arise and she thinks it is something they should look closely at as allowable under a lot of circumstances and she thinks this is a good outcome.

     Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.


Agenda Item #28 – 2018-0023

     Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider approval of a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) for a 53-lot, single-family attached subdivision (townhomes) on approximately 7.83 acres, located on the northwest corner of Orange Boulevard and Missouri Avenue, Jean Abi-Aoun, received and filed.

     Ms. Petyk reviewed the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum.  She advised the applicant is requesting the rezone in order to develop the property with 53 single-family attached dwelling units (townhomes) with a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per net buildable acre.  The subject property was originally rezoned to the New Orleans Townhomes PD in 2005 with entitlements for 53 townhome units and the Future Land Use Map designation was amended from Suburban Estates to Medium Density Residential at that time.  The proposed PD has since expired requiring a new rezone, development order and master development plan being presented today; however, the Medium Density Residential Future Land Use designation remains. 

     Ms. Petyk noted that with this rezone, the Applicant is requesting the same previously approved entitlements for 53 townhome units.  The subject property is surrounded with Suburban Estates Future Land Use to the north, west and south across Orange Boulevard and PD Future Land use to the east.  Also, A-1 Agriculture zoning is located to the north, west and south and PD across Missouri Avenue to the east.  A 25-foot buffer will be provided along the east and south property lines, and a 6-foot masonry wall will be on the west property line.  A minimum of 25% of common useable open space will be provided.  Access will be provided onto Missouri Avenue.

     Ms. Petyk stated the Planning and Zoning Commission met and voted unanimously to approve the request with the recommendation that the Board direct staff to conduct a warrant study for a traffic light from the Missouri Avenue and Orange Boulevard intersection; therefore, staff recommends approval.

     Jean Abi-Aoun, Applicant, addressed the Board and indicated he is with the civil engineering group that is representing the developer.  He displayed a few slides (received and filed) starting with the 2005 – Approved Site Plan.  He noted they can see there were 53 units with access onto Orange Boulevard.  The Proposed Site Plan slide shows that it is exactly the same layout with 53 units except the access is off of Missouri Avenue and there is a roundabout close to Orange Boulevard.  He explained this change came about after several discussions with County staff.  They determined that the conditions from 2005 to 2018 have changed especially on Orange Boulevard, and they wanted to change the access to Missouri Avenue.  Mr. Abi-Aoun advised they have no issue with that and noted they will contribute to some improvements at the intersection of Missouri and Orange.  Staff is requiring they add an eastbound left-turn lane on Orange Boulevard going onto Missouri.  They are also dedicating a 10-foot right-of-way on Missouri and building a sidewalk and staff is also requiring that they dedicate 25 feet on Orange Boulevard and they have agreed to that.  He pointed out that they are dedicating close to 7% of their developable area for improvements.  He then reviewed the Project Facts slide.  He commented they are not asking for any waivers on the project and they are complying with the PD.  The final slide was displayed showing a rendering of what the building will look like and an example photo of the wall they are proposing.

     Michael Cendiotti’s name was announced, and it was determined that he did not wish to speak.

Bruce Anderson, 1730 Perch Lane, addressed the Board and stated he was very involved in 2005 when the plan had the Orange Boulevard entrance approved.  At that time, the neighborhood was pretty happy with the townhomes, the wall and the extra landscaping.  By August 1 of this year, they saw the entrance had been moved to Missouri and they are opposed to this.  They met with Planning staff and they noted the change of access came about because of a special study they are conducting in connection with the Five-Year Road Improvement program for all of Orange Boulevard.  They found that staff was very knowledgeable not only of these properties but of all the conditions in the area; they were looking at present and future conditions to solve.  Staff showed them a plan which unfortunately that was not shown at P&Z, of very detailed improvements to Orange Boulevard and also to Missouri Avenue including left- and right-turn lanes that would solve their current problems and would easily address the safety issues brought up by the new project.  He opined it is almost like a frontage road; instead of having three of them competing, Missouri, the townhomes, and Orange, consolidate the entrances and put them on Missouri, and do large improvements at the intersection of Missouri and Orange Boulevard.  He expressed this information was sent out to the neighborhood and most people were satisfied and appreciative of the efforts by staff.  He believes some people today will dissent and that is their right, but he is asking for approval of the project.

     Cindy Haller, 1731 Beacon Drive, addressed the Board stating that at a community meeting held last night that she attended along with many of her neighbors, and there was overwhelming opposition to the entrances being on Missouri Avenue.  She heard Mr. Abi-Aoun say that the County was forcing him to make the entry and exit for the townhome community on Missouri and he does not care one way or another.  Ms. Haller wondered if it is true that the County is mandating the entrance on Missouri because it was not like that in the old development order that was approved and viewed as valid numerous times up to 2015.  She asked for consideration in moving the entrance and exit onto Orange Boulevard and let it go into the community rather than into their narrow local and residential street which is Missouri Avenue.  She added if the number of cars is an issue, perhaps there needs to be lower density of the number of townhome units in Tesoro.  She thanked the Board for their time. 

     Commissioner Carey expressed that after the public is finished speaking, maybe they could have their Public Works Director who is making the call on the road access address this issue.

     Ransome Welborn, 4600 Canal Drive, addressed the Board indicating he has lived in St. Johns River Estates since 1973.  When he moved there, Missouri Avenue was a dirt street and they had a paved entrance to their subdivision.  About 4 years later, he requested maintenance on those streets and the County required them to increase the right-of-way on Missouri from 50 feet to 85 feet before they would maintain them.  So he and other people purchased the property up to Nebraska and presented that to the county making it 85 feet.  Then they paid to repave all of their streets before the County would accept maintenance of them.  He opined they now have a normal amount of traffic in and out of St. Johns River Estates and Nebraska where there is another subdivision going into Orange Boulevard, which is a little bad sometimes, but most of the time it is pretty good.  But what is being proposed is adding 53 units and about 60 units on the opposite side of Missouri going into one entrance that seems to be about as busy as it needs to be.  It would be a total mess if 120 cars are trying to exit around the same time to go to work.  Most of the other subdivisions enter off of Orange and not off of a side street.  He opined Orange will need to be improved even if the entrances are put on Missouri. 

     George Sellery, 5231 Shoreline Circle, addressed the Board stating he has an issue; the Board has three items they are considering today, this one and two others.  He said in all three cases, staff is now considering all these long-standing development orders to be expired.  He displayed a two-page document (received and filed) with excerpts from Section 30.449 and 30.450 of the Land Development Code.  Mr. Sellery indicated the Code cites Section 30.449 - Planned development time limitations.  He said he has worked with attorneys all his life and they say read the entire sentence.  He read aloud the partial sentence, “…Planning and Zoning Commission to determine the appropriateness of the planned unit development zoning classification….”   He noted this was last changed in 2012.  The second page of the document showing Section 30.450 was displayed.  Mr. Sellery stated the exact next cite in the Land Development Code states, “Binding nature of approved development plan.”  He read aloud, “An approved master or final development plan along with any associated conditions of approval shall be binding upon the applicant or any successors….”  He then said this is completely different than the zoning classification one cite before that.

     Mr. Sellery opined people rely on these development orders when they buy real estate and read language contained in the recorded development order.  He stated as late as 2014, this development order, which would have been expired, was still valid according to staff comments on another proposal.  He added the zoning classification on this project has not changed one bit, it is still the same; the only thing they did was throw out the development order.  So when you are amending the development order, P&Z would be looking and the Board would be looking at what has changed from point A to point B.  He remarked they did not change the zoning; they are changing the development order, and the item they are changing is Orange Boulevard, the entrance.  He knows the County Manager was the Development Director when all this was going on and 15 years later they are still being held as valid.  He stated this is a big issue that they need to decide.  He used to be County staff and they are wrong sometimes and the Board needs to look at these things seriously. 

     Mr. Sellery said in the agenda item, the Public Works Director states both Missouri and Orange are operating at service level A.  He opined that is absolutely not correct and there is no way that is an A-rated road.  And if it was an A-rated road, it wouldn’t be in the five-year improvement plan.  He wants to put it back on Orange and asked why make the turn in to Missouri and what is the absolute difference.

     Mark Houghton, 1750 Beacon Drive, addressed the Board and said they had a meeting last night and they do not oppose the project, but there are 60 homes going in across the street so there will be 150 vehicles entering on Missouri, which is a narrow road.  When you are turning left, sometimes the cars at the stop sign have to back up so the people can turn in because it is too narrow.  He stated Orange Boulevard should be widened, which is in the plans he thinks.  He indicated everyone in the meeting except one person was for the entrance on Missouri.  He remarked they think it would be best served to let the people coming into the subdivision in the northeast corner to make their turn in the turn lane from the right-hand lane or from the turn lane in the subdivision rather than trying to make everyone go into one small non-ninety-degree turn lane.  Also, when I-4 is backed up, Orange Boulevard will back up all the way from C15 all the way past Oregon.  There is no way people are going to be able to come home or get out during that traffic with an additional 300-some residences; everyone else comes out onto Orange and why can’t they. 

     With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

     Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

     Commissioner Carey stated she would like Mr. Jreij to address this because Missouri is a public road and it is a narrow road which is why they are asking for additional right-of-way, 10 feet on Missouri and 25 feet on Orange Boulevard.  She said she thinks most of the projects they have seen come forward, if they are on a corner on Orange Boulevard, they have required the access to be on the side street and not on Orange Boulevard.  And for those developments that are on Orange Boulevard that do not have a side street, obviously they have to have access from Orange Boulevard.  She asked the Public Works Director to talk about not only what they are proposing on Missouri but also what they have planned for Orange Boulevard.

     Jean Jreij, Public Works Director, addressed the Board and advised that currently on Orange Boulevard, they have the consultant looking into the preliminary design for safety improvements which consist of a turning lane along Orange Boulevard, a bike lane, and also a sidewalk and bike trail.  And on Missouri for that development, they already provided an additional 10-foot right-of-way, and the development to the east side of it would be required to provide the same.  Also they are providing an east left-turn lane along Orange and Missouri.  If the development is approved, they would be required to provide a south left-turn lane on Missouri to Orange.  That will provide better access and better traffic flow to that area and also prevent some future conflict with access when they make the improvements on Orange Avenue.  They discussed it with staff and they really believe it is better to have access on Missouri than on Orange Avenue.

     Commissioner Carey stated that right now there is no turn lane on Missouri, and as part of this development, there is a proposed eastbound left-turn lane and when the project to the east comes in, they would have to put in a westbound right-turn lane onto Missouri.  And then if you were coming out of Missouri, there would be a left- and a right-turn lane when they get to Orange.

Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Jreij to explain why the entrance on Orange will not work.  Mr. Jreij advised if they have to access to the left, that will be a conflict if they provide access from Orange.  Another conflict would be if they provide access directly to Orange, then later on they’d have to extend the turning lane all the way to Missouri to provide another eastbound lane to Missouri.  Commissioner Carey asked if it is Mr. Jreij’s professional opinion that this is a better solution.  Mr. Jreij replied that yes, it is a better solution.  They have discussed it at length with the staff and staff believes it is a better alternative.

Commissioner Dallari then asked if Mr. Jreij would also discuss the rating of the road, verifying that the road is rated as an “A.”  Mr. Jreij stated he thinks the capacity on that road in that area is about 7,000 to 8,000 vehicles per day and that is considered an A-rated road.  The improvement is not going to be a four-lane road; they are making safety improvements.  Commissioner Carey indicated for those who are not familiar with Orange Boulevard, it is two lanes with ditches on the side, and as development comes forward, they then close those ditches and put in sidewalks, so there are safety improvements.

Commissioner Carey wondered if they could also ask the County Attorney or someone in Planning to address the comments that were made about the Code that says after eight years development orders expire.  Ms. Guillet stated with PDs the access points are part of the zoning criteria; they are specifically outlined.  So if there is a change in an access point in a PD, that is considered a rezoning.  It’s confusing and there are a lot of different layers but the development order in a PD rezoning is the document that outlines all of the specific zoning criteria in that particular PD.  Because a PD is a negotiated zoning district, the zoning criteria is outlined in the development order.  And through the development order itself or the attached master plan are the access points, and when access points are changed in a PD, that is considered a rezoning because part of the zoning criteria is being revised.  That terminology is a little bit different with PDs than with regular rezonings, but that is why the development order is amended because the PD zoning criteria is being amended.  Commissioner Carey added the underlying land use remains multifamily so it is not a land use change which is different than a zoning change.

     Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to adopt Ordinance #2018-29 enacting a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development), and approve the associated amended Development Order (the development order was amended to add 25 feet of right-of-way on Orange Boulevard) and Master Development Plan for a 53-lot, single-family attached subdivision (townhomes) on approximately 7.83 acres, located on the northwest corner of Orange Boulevard and Missouri Avenue, as described in the proof of publication; Jean Abi-Aoun, Applicant.

     Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.


& PD REZONE/Alliance Realty Partners, LLC

Agenda Item #29 – 2018-0035

     Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider approval to transmit the proposed Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from HIP-TI (Higher Intensity Planned Development-Target Industry) to Planned Development (PD), and a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) for a mixed-use development consisting of 12.04 acres of multifamily residential and five (5) acres of commercial on approximately 17.04 acres, located on the southwest corner of International Parkway and SR 46, Alliance Realty Partners, LLC, received and filed.

     Rebecca Hammock, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board to present the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum.  The property is subject to the SR 46 Gateway Corridor Overlay Standards for the portion of the property that is within 320 feet of the center line of SR 46.  The PD proposes 260 multifamily residential units at a density of 21.6 dwelling units per net buildable acre and C-1 Retail Commercial uses.  The PD proposes to permit all C-1 Retail Commercial uses except for those uses specifically prohibited by the development order.  It also proposes to allow the uses of a microbrewery, a wine shop, and a liquor store associated with the supermarket.  The PD Master Development Plan proposes 240 multifamily units of 3 and 4 stories with a maximum building height of 51 feet, and proposes 20 two-story carriage units with a maximum building height of 35 feet. 

     Ms. Hammock discussed an evaluation of the HIP-TI Future Land Use designation performed by the County’s planning consultant, Renaissance Planning.  It prioritizes Target Industry on HIP-TI lands west of I-4 but notes that properties at the intersection of SR 46 and International Parkway may serve a different supporting function for HIP-TI.  She then advised that a neighborhood gathering area will be incorporated into the retention pond design or into the commercial tract designated at Lot 2.  She talked about the landscape buffers, sidewalks, and based on the Applicant’s request, a school impact analysis.

     Ms. Hammock stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the request, which at the time was requesting C-2 commercial uses.  Since then, the Applicant has revised the request to allow C-1 uses and prohibit additional uses as outlined in the proposed development order including the prohibition of hotel/motel.  Staff finds the requested PD zoning classification to be compatible with the trend of development in the area, and the proposed Future Land Use Amendment from HIP-TI to PD would allow the subject property to function as a gateway to the broader HIP-TI area.  Staff recommends transmittal to State and regional review agencies.

     Charlie Madden with Madden, Moorhead and Stokes addressed the Board stating he is representing the contract purchasers of the property, who are Alliance Residential and White Development.  Alliance Residential is the multifamily component of the mixed use and White Development is the commercial portion of the property.  Mr. Madden displayed a presentation (received and filed) and stated the property is on the southwest corner of International Parkway and SR 46.  There are various commercial uses across the street from the subject property, some large-lot home sites to the west, and Tall Trees and Savannah Park are to the south with Savannah Park having both townhomes and three-story apartments.  He pointed out the hospital that was recently approved and said about a mile south of the site is the Allure project, another recently approved PD.  He talked about the various commercial uses that are on SR 46.

     Mr. Madden advised they held five community meetings and they met with the three immediate adjacent neighbors to the west who would be most affected.  They wanted to pay special attention to the buffering and the setbacks they were going to impose for the project.  He noted the first page of the presentation is an aerial rendering that was presented at the initial community meeting.  On the west side of the property, they are proposing some two-story carriage units.  A tree survey was done after meeting with the three neighbors on the west side so they could demonstrate to them a more extensive landscape buffer plan.  Their intent on the buffer they will be leaving along the west property line is to leave it natural.  He added they talked with them about the kind of fence that they want and since there are a lot of trees, the neighbors appear to be okay with a six- to eight-foot PVC fence in order to remove less of the natural foliage.  They had also agreed to place the fence 30 feet inside the property line; there is a tremendous amount of undergrowth and thick vegetation in that 30 feet.  Mr. Madden displayed the next page and stated it is an enlargement of the area he is talking about and he pointed out the existing tree canopy and how they changed a few parking spaces and the spacing of some buildings in order to keep all the trees. 

     Mr. Madden displayed the Proposed Code Buffer which gives a better view of the plantings and specifically what they are planning to do to provide an adequate buffer.  Commissioner Carey asked if he is showing in the exhibit that they are planting additional canopy trees for the residents on their side of the property.  He replied it is something they told Mr. Salzburg they would do.  Mr. Madden noted that Savannah Park Apartments to the south have three stories with a 45-foot maximum height, but they were 100 feet from the property line.  He said they would not have any three-story buildings and are asking for a maximum height of 51 feet, but 6 feet of that is a parapet to hide the A/C equipment on the roof.  They think a very fair request is that their building would be over 200 feet from the property line and they are asking for one additional floor, but they believe that the additional setback and the buffering will provide compatibility between the uses.  He then showed Plant Palette stating it is a little more detailed about the plant types and then showed a perspective of what it would look like from the neighbors’ homes based on actual trees and proposed planted trees. 

      Commissioner Carey stated the perspective and other exhibits show a six-foot wall.  She expressed her preference is walls over fences.  He explained one of the neighbors is a fence contractor and they are working with the neighbors and letting them pick out what they want.  He thinks in the spirit of saving trees and foliage and underbrush, he felt a PVC fence could be put in without taking that out.  Commissioner Carey opined they can do that with precast walls; you don’t have to pour footers the whole length of the wall.  Mr. Madden said they would still have to clear out areas for the columns.  He indicated they would continue to have dialogue with the neighbors on their preference of the type of fencing or wall that they would want.  He noted if this gets transmitted, by the adoption they will have an answer on what it would be and what it would look like.

     Mr. Madden stated that Matt West from Savannah Park wanted a car wash to be a prohibited use so they added that, and he also wanted the dumpsters to be in the northern half of the multifamily and they agreed to that.  He also wanted there to be the opportunity, if the County wanted to get involved, to do a monument-type sign (knee wall) at the corner that would introduce the International Parkway corridor.  With the hospital going in across the street, they have had some interest for some doctors’ offices.  He added they were in negotiations with the Terracina and Lake Forest HOAs and their counsel, and they ultimately came together about the hours of operation.  He displayed the slide showing the type of architecture they would use and a photo of First Watch Café that may lease there if the project is approved. 

     Mr. Madden detailed the height and setbacks of other buildings/properties close to the subject property.  He feels they have provided adequate buffering and setbacks to make them compatible with the properties to the west.  Commissioner Carey questioned what the setbacks are on the two-story and four-story from the south, from Wayside Drive.  Mr. Madden responded the setback is over 160 feet for the four-story and on the two-story, from the north side of Wayside Drive right-of-way, it is 66 feet. 

     Commissioner Dallari pointed out on page three of the amended development order that it lists marijuana dispensaries under prohibited use.  He asked if that means they are not allowed to have pharmacies because they have to dictate per state statute that marijuana dispensaries have to be allowed where pharmacies are allowed.  Ms. Guillet noted because medical marijuana dispensaries have to be treated on equal footing as pharmacies, any prohibition on a medical marijuana facility would also result in a prohibition of pharmacies.  County Attorney Applegate agreed.  Mr. Madden stated a pharmacy would be an allowable C-1 use and it was not their intention to ban a pharmacy.  Commissioner Carey reiterated if you ban medical marijuana dispensaries then you have to also ban pharmacies because they cannot be treated differently according to the law.  Commissioner Dallari stated he just wants to make sure the Applicants are aware of what they are committing to.  Commissioner Carey added if they want pharmacies to be an allowable use, then they would need to strike the prohibition of marijuana dispensaries.  Upon inquiry by Mr. Madden, Ms. Guillet advised they would need to talk to their own legal counsel about what sort of private covenants and restrictions they could have on the property.  The County would be unable to enforce a prohibition on medical marijuana dispensaries that did not include a prohibition on pharmacies.  Commissioner Carey explained if the owner of the building as a landlord philosophically does not want to lease to marijuana dispensaries, that is their prerogative, but a governing body cannot treat marijuana dispensaries any differently than any other pharmacy.  If they leave in the development order the prohibition of marijuana dispensaries, which was done at the request of the Lake Forest community, it would also exclude pharmacies; and if they don’t want to exclude pharmacies, they would need to eliminate that provision.  Ms. Guillet stated they could also defer this issue since this is a transmittal and look at it between now and adoption.  Mr. Madden stated they will look at it and make the changes before adoption.  He thanked Commissioner Dallari for bringing up that issue.

     Norma Hess, 861 Belles Ferry Loop, addressed the Board and advised she is the director of the Savannah Park HOA.  She moved to Sanford from Miami five years ago to avoid increasing traffic jams and runaway roads with little consideration for the existing communities.  The quality of life in Savannah Park and the surrounding communities changed when three-story rental properties were built in the middle of their community, dividing their communities.  She believes the proposed three-story building is more like a four-story building with the large decorative structure on top.  She thinks their community has been battered enough.  She said the gates will be installed right in front of their community making it a dangerous situation.  There will not be enough parking and the tenants will be forced to park along Wayside, which is a two-way road.  She talked about the drainage problems this project would cause and the carports that were built next to their community becoming dangerous projectiles during hurricanes.  She wondered if there is proper fire equipment to battle fires at three- and four-story buildings and if there is enough manpower to aid the communities with rising crime and illegal drugs, etc. that will increase with these large developments.  She stated there are 26 rental apartment buildings within five miles of their community and there is no public transportation nearby; to access SunRail, they still need a car to get to the station and SunRail does not run on weekends. 

     Ms. Hess said with 1,000 students, Wilson Elementary cannot survive in the situation they have currently, and the apartments will bring in more families with children that will attend Wilson and make the overcrowding even worse.  The school traffic on Orange is so bad that the line extends all the way to Wayside and it takes her 40 minutes, bumper to bumper, to gain access to the school parking during pickup hours.  She noted if they ever had an emergency at the school, there is no easy access for the fire trucks or emergency responders to enter the school because it is blocked by cars waiting to pick up the children.  She asked that the Board think of the consequences of another rental property in this community.  Their way of life is rapidly changing and not for the best.  (Photos of traffic around Savannah Park and Wilson Elementary received and filed.)

     Paul Michelson, 5363 Factors Walk Drive, addressed the Board and stated he has lived in Savannah Park for seven years and has been a resident of Seminole County for 35 years.  His main concern is not necessarily what is going in but responsible growth; just because they can stick up a four-story building does not necessarily mean that they should.  He said a hospital is going in, the Department of Transportation is also, they have two traffic lights between Wayside and all the way to 46A.  Over the last few years he has seen a lot of traffic on International and a lot of backup to Wayside.  He opined it is backed up to a point where they have to put another entrance into a 260-apartment unit that will essentially immobilize people trying to get in and out of their complex.  He does not feel there is a mass calling for more apartments in that area, and 1.6 parking spaces for each unit will cause massive clutter on
Wayside which is not in any way, shape, or form ready for overflow of parking.  He reiterated he is not opposed to growth but would like to see a restriction on the height. 

     Chris Flynn, 355 Still Forest Terrace, addressed the Board and advised he is the president of the Tall Trees HOA.  He said when he moved there in 2001, he was fully aware that the community was going to change.  When he bought his house, the backyard was full of about 60 to 100 feet of trees between Tall Trees and International Parkway.  One day they had a meeting at Savannah Park and a builder said they wanted to build on the backside of the property and they were sold on two-story buildings.  What happened was the inner piece of the property ended up becoming vacant and then turned into three-story apartment buildings.  He displayed a photo (received and filed) that is taken from outside of his pool screen door looking at the balconies of the people that live behind him.  He noted that is one of the reasons they chose not to meet with the builders of this community.  He stated his concern about the new property is the height.  The development order states the maximum height of 35 feet in one-story buildings and this meets neither one of those criteria.  Also the development order states no access to Wayside Drive, and this community is asking for access to exit and enter off of Wayside Drive.  He noted the traffic is already bad enough and this will triple that traffic.  He indicated the Land Development Code requires two parking spaces per dwelling, and the Applicant is asking for smaller parking spaces only hitting 1.65.  Most people that live in apartments will own a car for each of the drivers themselves as there is no public transportation up and down SR 46 for them to jump on the bus.  The A/C units will sit on the roofs.  They are going to have something sitting at 45 feet in the air and when there are high winds or a hurricane, there are no wind buffers that will stop that wind causing projectiles to be flying through the air.  He discussed the school study and stated their area is inundated with more growth, more people, and they don’t have the school system to support it.  He is not opposed to development on the land but is asking for some consideration to keep it at a maximum of three stories and to not have the entrance and exit off of Wayside Drive.

     Cindy Haller, 1731 Beacon Drive, addressed the Board and stated she lives in St. Johns River Estates and has been a resident of Seminole County for 25 years.  She drives Orange Boulevard, SR 46, International Parkway, and Wayside Drive, so she does have an interest in responsible growth and asking this Board to respect that.  She expressed she wants to speak in opposition to the Broadstone Forest project as proposed.  She feels they have too many apartments and they do not raise property values.  She added there are over 6,000 apartments within five miles of this site.  She opined there needs to be more restaurants on their side of I-4, and 12 acres of apartments and 5 acres of commercial are wrong; it should be the other way around.

     George Sellery, 5231 Shoreline Circle, addressed the Board and stated this is a bad development; this is not the original development order.  The last development order said C-1 multifamily not permitted, and it was upheld by staff in 2017.  He stated the development order the Board is being asked to approve says, “The development order will perpetually burden, run with and follow this property and be servitude upon and binding.”  It does not say the terms and conditions of this development order shall expire in eight years from the signed date of this order if substantial completion has not occurred.  He talked about the number of parking spaces, the size of those spaces and off-street parking.  He opined the study they turned in was based on urban standards so if they had buses and SunRail, then 1.65 (parking spaces per unit) might be great.  He indicated the P&Z Commission voted against this project four to one.  He said 1999 was the original development order and basically it should have been expired in 2007 based on everything they have been saying up here.  He asked even with the Governor’s extension, why it was held valid in 2017 by County staff.  Finally, Mr. Sellery discussed density and HIP-TI.  (Apartment Listing & Renaissance Study Comments, November 2017, received and filed.)

     Steve Salzberg, 109 Wayside Court, addressed the Board advising he is the president of the Wayside Woods HOA.  He stated he keeps getting referred to as the property on the west side but they are actually Wayside Woods, which consists of 13 homes on 24.7 acres, and it is adjacent to the property pending the development.  The average property values are between $500,000 and $700,000.  He displayed pictures (received and filed) of some of the backyards of houses on Tall Trees to show that a two-story building will absolutely take away all of their view, their sunrise, and they will have people overlooking their properties.  He said his issues with the heights are that Fire Station #34 does not have a ladder truck; it cannot accommodate a ladder truck.  He noted there are three tower trucks that are nearby.  One is at 17-92 and 1st Street, one is in Altamonte Springs at Douglas and 436, and one is at Tuskawilla and Red Bug Road.  He said Station #34 cannot handle a three-story building and asked why they are putting up a four-story building.  He asked whether someone would even rent there if they knew that on the third or fourth story they could not be gotten to in case of an emergency for a minimum of at least 15 to 20 minutes.  He spoke to the Fire Department and they told him that they can respond to that location, but as far as the ladder trucks go, if there is a ladder truck that is not available, they are just not coming.  Mr. Salzberg opined that this is insanity and they could not rent those apartments if they had to tell people that ahead of time.  He said there are also some wildlife issues and there is an Indigo snake colony on the buffer on the east side.  The FWC confirmed that the west buffer area of said property is a nesting area for Indigo snakes and there are signs posted (photo received and filed).  They cannot just be pushed away and removed; they would have to extend the buffer to eliminate that, which will be pretty tough. 

     Mr. Salzberg stated that Mr. Madden’s landscape crew came through to offer them a few trees.  He said Mr. Madden confirmed that no trees will be harmed over a minimum diameter of 18 inches; they strongly request that it be no more than 12 inches in diameter.  He displayed more photos (received and filed) stating they show the other side of the buffer that Mr. Madden was showing, which is his backyard.  He then displayed a rendering of the proposed four-story building (received and filed) and talked about the opening in his backyard that they want to try and cover with some trees and opined they are not going to put up 50-foot trees.  They offered five trees and a little fence.  Mr. Salzberg expressed they are not opposed to building on that property but in a professional and rational manner.  So as they consider the future of this area, he wants them to ponder this:  when they are home at night lounging by their pool or maybe having an outdoor affair with friends in their backyard, is that what they want towering over their property.  If he puts a four-story building behind his house, his property values will not increase.  He currently has his house up for sale and has already been told that he will need to lower the price if this project continues.  He advised their HOA is asking them to drop the extreme elevation. 

Mr. Salzberg talked about issues with parking on Wayside Drive, traffic and the school bus stop.  If Mr. Madden wants to put entrances on the property and he wants this to be the gateway to Sanford, have him put them on 46, have him put them on International Parkway.  You don’t put a huge building on the backside of a property and then make the main entrance a two-lane road across from another main entrance of another complex that is also way too high.  He opined they should go back to the plans from 2009 which was three ponds and some retail space and a lot of parking areas.

     Joseph Humphreys, 883 Cardinal Pointe Cove, addressed the Board stating his home is off of Longwood and Markham.  He indicated he used to work for the development company in southwest Florida.  They dealt with sensitive areas: Sandoval, Captiva, and those kinds of areas.  He was also a realtor for 30 years and he is not opposed to development, but smart development.  He moved to this area because of the beautiful nature of the community.  His community is one house per one acre, and the areas around him are two and three acres.  In the last several years development has exploded and all of his neighbors are complaining about the traffic and that the rivers are dropping.  They had a field behind them with cows grazing and this same engineering firm stated they were going to protect all the trees around the buffer, but now they are all lying on the ground.  They were all cut down including trees along the Wekiva Trail on land that happens to belong to the County.  He talked to County Parks who said they went out and fined them.  They then had to come back and plant trees to replace the ones that they cut down on County land.  He now has a house that is two stories high in his backyard, and he cannot imagine if it was three or four stories.  He said it is okay to develop but they need to stop paving over everything.

     With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition, and public input was closed.

     Speaker Request Forms and Written Comment Forms were received and filed (unless otherwise noted).


     Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 3:30 p.m.; reconvening at 3:45 p.m.


     Mr. Madden clarified the main entrance to the apartments would be on International Parkway and SR 46.  As far as the location of where the arrow was shown on the Master Development Plan, staff had told them they wanted that to line up with the Savannah Park driveway that comes out on Wayside Drive.  The power company just placed a large concrete pole right in the middle across from the Savannah Park driveway, so staff also had them put in a stipulation that if it couldn’t be moved, and they move the entrance to the west, that it would become a right-in and right-out only.  That would be for tenants only; not for anyone else.  If you wanted to go rent an office there, you could not get in that way.  You would have to go in from International Parkway or SR 46.  Commissioner Dallari asked whether anyone had spoken to FP&L to see about moving the pole.  Mr. Madden replied they have not talked to them about that yet; it may be too costly to move. 

     Mr. Madden said he does a lot of apartment complexes in Central Florida and in regard to the parking, they rely on the Urban Land Institute Parking Study.  That document does say 1.65 and that is what works in reality.  In a high urbanized area, they say the parking spaces can actually go down to eight and a half feet; nine feet is what works for his customers, and nine feet was what the Board approved for the hospital across the street.  They are looking at 55% for one-bedroom, 35% for two-bedroom, and 10% for three-bedroom, and that is 403 bedrooms at 1.75 spaces per unit, which is 455 spaces more than one parking space for every bedroom in the community.  If there were parking problems in a rental community, they are not going to have customers.  Commissioner Dallari stated in looking at the plan Mr. Madden provided to them, he is looking at total parking and it says 1.83.  Mr. Madden explained that he was talking about the minimum they have on the Master Development Plan.  When they did that, they were actually able to get more.  They were at 1.83 on that plan and the minimum that they would do is 1.75.  They like having that flexibility because, for example, if there were some trees in parking areas that they could save by putting an island around it, they could some flexibility and lose a few spaces.  There is no proposed parking on any of the exterior streets; that would not work.  Upon further inquiry, Mr. Madden stated the 1.83 and 1.75 does include the 40 spaces for the parking garages. 

     Mr. Madden advised in regard to community outreach, at their initial community meeting, Matt West, a Savannah Park resident, told him that he would be the liaison to their HOA.  Then they had some correspondence with the HOA president and were told that Mr. West was acting as an individual and not representing the HOA.  Mr. Madden said that Mr. West supports the project based on the things that they agreed to do for him as a resident of Savannah Park.  They emailed the HOA president stating if they had any questions to let them know.  They reached out three times to the Tall Trees management company.  They actually get the addresses from the County so they are consistent with what the County sends out for notifications.  In Tall Trees, for example, there are no homes within 300 feet of the property line, so a resident would not actually get a notification of the community meeting, which is why they contacted the management company.  He noticed some people showed up today and he reiterated they tried to have a dialogue with them three different times.

Mr. Madden stated in connection with the property values, when people say things like you are building this project next to us and you are devaluing our properties, he said he always asked himself whether that is true.  He can only look up studies that have been done to try to verify the facts on that and one of the studies the Sierra Club and the Urban Land Institute did on high density development is called Myth or Fact (received and filed).  It talks about the national values of apartments and in fact, apartments next to single-family do not devalue that with proper buffering and setbacks and so forth.  In their study they looked at property values increasing by 2.66% not near multifamily, and it was 2.9% near multifamily; and then low-rise is 2.91% and high-rise at 2.79%.  Savannah Park was 45 feet, next door was 45 feet with a 100-foot building setback to Tall Trees.  Mr. Madden displayed Savannah Park Aerial (received and filed).  He stated Savannah Park was under construction in 2015.  He pointed out the 100-foot building setback for homes in the area marked “1 through 6” and stated they back up directly to the apartments and those marked “7 through 12” back up to the two-story townhomes.  He then looked at the ones that back up to other homes and looked at the increase in values from 2015 to 2018.  The ones that were against the apartments had a 16% to 17% increase in values for the homes that back up to the three-story apartments.  Against the two-story townhomes, it was generally 15% to 16%.  The homes that backed up to other homes also increased 15% to 16%.  These are based on the Property Appraiser’s website (document received and filed) showing that in this case there is no apparent difference in the increased escalation in property values for the ones that back up to the three-story apartments in Savannah Park.

Mr. Madden remarked they had a Threatened and Endangered Species study done and they didn’t find any Indigo snakes or endangered species, but if this gets transmitted, they will look into that more prior to adoption.

Mr. Madden mentioned that all up and down International Parkway, there were approvals for much higher heights.  In his mind, a 200-foot building setback with four stories is better than a 100-foot setback with three stories.  They tried very hard to do adequate setbacks and buffers to make sure that they did not adversely affect the property owners to the west. 

In regard to the recreation area, Mr. Madden noted that if you go onto the Alliance Residential website, you will see the kind of recreation areas that they do.  They would do a trail around the pond; however, that is not the main source of recreation for the apartments.  He said they would do an incredible pool and landscaped area and for someone to say that recreation for the apartments will just be a pond is not correct. 

     Chairman Horan asked what the distance between the four-story building and the nearest contiguous property line is, and Mr. Madden replied it is around 213 feet.  He further stated the height of the building would be 51 feet; which is 45 feet with a 6-foot parapet.

Commissioner Carey stated she did not see anything in the plan that proposes any kind of parking along Wayside Drive but she would make that a restriction anyway.  Mr. Madden explained it is a gated apartment complex community so they cannot have parking outside.

Commissioner Dallari wondered if they had done any traffic studies or analysis for this area.  Mr. Madden noted their traffic engineer is in attendance today, Mr. Mohammed Abdallah with Traffic Mobility Consultants LLC.  Mr. Abdallah stated they performed a traffic analysis in accordance with County requirements.  They found all the roads operate at adequate levels of service and are projected to do that at buildout of the project.  Commissioner Dallari asked what the level of service is for the roads at buildout.  (The response was inserted here from later in the minutes.)  Mr. Abdallah responded that at buildout, 431/Orange will be at A, International Parkway at B, Oregon at A, and 46 at C except for one segment, which would be at E, and that is based on existing and committed traffic.

Chairman Horan stated in this case, they would not be evaluating it based on capacity of the roadways but would look at it for operational and safety when it came in for final engineering.

Commissioner Carey requested that Ms. Hammock talk a little about International Drive because a lot of people made reference to the suburban nature of the area.  She added that International Parkway, when it was extended by a prior county commission, was never intended to be a suburban area of the county; it was always intended for high intensity development.  She again asked Ms. Hammock to talk about what the vision has always been for the International Parkway corridor so the people kind of know what to expect.  Ms. Hammock stated the County made significant infrastructure improvements along International Parkway, and as part of that they adopted the higher intensity planned development target industry (HIP-TI) future land use designation, and this property currently has a future land use designation of HIP-TI which permits a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of floor area ratio of 1.5 dwelling units per acre.  Commissioner Carey commented this project is considered much less than that and Ms. Hammock expressed that that is correct; a floor area ratio of .35 is proposed for this project.

Chairman Horan said he noticed as part of the staff recommendation, they mentioned something to the effect that the proposed future land use amendment from HIP-TI to PD would allow the subject property to function as a gateway to a broader HIP-TI area centered on the I-4/SR 46 interchange as recommended by the HIP-TI future land use evaluation commissioned by the County.  Properties at the intersection of SR 46 and International Parkway could become a neighborhood destination with a mixture of residential and commercial uses providing shopping and housing for persons employed in nearby target industry areas.  Chairman Horan wanted to know what led her to make that comment in the staff report.  Ms. Hammock replied in the study of the HIP-TI area that was presented last year by Renaissance Planning, they recognized this particular area where this parcel is located as an area that could be more retail and residential because of its frontage on SR 46.  So it became more of a gateway entrance into the HIP-TI area and would allow support uses for the other target industry uses along International Parkway.

Commissioner Carey asked whether the County Manager or her staff would address the comments made about the fire coverage because as stated, they have a lot of very tall buildings like the Westin along International Parkway already with more coming.  She said fire coverage has always been a concern of this Commission and it has always been reported as adequate.  Jim Reynolds, Fire Department Director, stated as the Board knows, they do have challenges with tower truck coverage in that area of the county.  They are working on a joint agreement with the cities of Lake Mary and Sanford to try to address the tower truck issue in the northwest part of the county.  Commissioner Carey noted that a lot of people build three-story buildings because they have a lot of different requirements on a four-story building.  She asked if they are required to have sprinklers.  Mr. Reynolds advised apartment buildings have life safety sprinklers; they don’t cover all the void spaces that are in a building.  They are basically designed so that the people that occupy those buildings can get out but they do not necessarily put the fire out completely.  Mr. Reynolds stated a tower truck is going to respond from Altamonte or Sanford; it would be under the automatic response agreement that the Board approved today.  The challenge is with the response times in meeting the standards. 

Ms. Guillet advised they have been actively engaged in discussions with Lake Mary and Sanford to do a joint project to address the need for a tower truck in this area.  Commissioner Carey confirmed with Ms. Guillet that they are then addressing the issue of keeping our response times in this entire area going forward because they already have a lot of building with more coming.  She asked when they expect to have this resolved.  Ms. Guillet said she hopes they are close on the tower truck issue but in case that particular negotiation does not work out, they are starting to look at maybe another option for that.  For Station #39, they are just trying to figure out the best location.  They do have that piece of property at Yankee Lake but they are looking to see whether or not that is actually the best place for that station.  She knows Mr. Reynold’s group is actively engaged in evaluating both of those different issues.

Chairman Horan questioned whether there is certain infrastructure that has to be put in under the ground for fire in terms of piping and pressure for the HIP-TI.  Mr. Reynolds answered it depends on the size of the buildings and the type of buildings, but yes, there are water requirements in the Building Code.  Chairman Horan stated then that infrastructure would have to be in place to meet the Building Code requirements of the four stories.

     Ms. Guillet commented that on the issues they are working on regarding the tower truck and Station #39, they would be working on those regardless of whether they were considering this project.  This is just something they are looking at with respect to the corridor and the general area.

Commissioner Carey stated this is a transmittal hearing and so there is a considerable amount of work that still has to be done after transmittal.  She clarified that there is no parking on Wayside Drive either being requested nor would that be allowed.  She believes the issue that Commissioner Dallari brought up about the pharmacy and the medical marijuana dispensary needs to be addressed in the development order sometime between transmittal and adoption of that coming back to the Board. 

     Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to approve the transmittal of the proposed Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from HIP-TI (Higher Intensity Planned Development-Target Industry) to Planned Development (PD), to State and regional review agencies, and subject to final approval and adoption of the LSFLU Map Amendment Ordinance, adopt the associated Ordinance enacting a Rezone from PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development); and approve the associated Development Order and Master Development Plan for a maximum of 260 multifamily residential units and 76,230 square feet of nonresidential floor area on approximately 17.04 acres, located on the southwest corner of International Parkway and SR 46, as described in the proof of publication; Alliance Realty Partners, LLC (John Zeledon, Vice President), Applicant.

     Under discussion, Commissioner Constantine commented to the residents that a previous Commission made the recommendation, which he thinks is proper in this location, that International Drive would be a higher intensity use.  He opined this particular project fits what has been planned for but he does have some concerns that he expressed to both the developer as well as to staff that he would like to see them, as they go through this process, look at lowering the height of the four stories.  He thinks they are all concerned about the fire issue, but that is the case all along International Drive.  He is supporting the transmittal in hopes that as they continue on this, they can find some way to agreement in some of the things that have been suggested by the citizens today.

     Commissioner Carey said to be clear, the development order allows for the 51-foot height and the motion supports that.

     Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.


WP South Acquisitions LLC

Agenda Item #30 – 2018-0004

Continuation of public hearing from July 24, 2018 to consider adoption of an Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential, High Intensity Planned Development Transitional and Planned Development to Planned Development, and adoption of the associated Ordinance enacting a Rezone from RP (Residential Professional) and PD (Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development), for a 243-unit multifamily residential apartment complex on 12.53 acres, located on the northeast corner of West SR 426 and Tuskawilla Road, as described in the proof of publication; WP South Acquisitions LLC.

Commissioner Dallari noted that Matt Davidson, Planning & Development Division, is leaving the County for the private sector and he commended him for his professionalism and a job well done.  He added he is happy for him and said his new place of employment is getting a phenomenal employee.  Several Commissioners echoed Commissioner Dallari’s comments.

Mr. Davidson addressed the Board to present the item.  He advised staff has received a request for a continuance from the Applicant in order to explore a luxury townhome project with significantly reduced density. 

Mr. Madden, on behalf of the Applicant, stated the project has been a rollercoaster and they have done their best to try to get the neighbors to embrace multifamily, but circumstances have not allowed that nor do the neighbors want that.  He said they have decided to pursue another avenue and they are asking for 60 days to try to figure out a townhome layout that they could present to them and hopefully come back to the Board united.  He knows there were concerns about the 60 days and about what they are up to and why they are doing this or that. 

Mr. Madden noted that a developer’s agreement was drafted and it specifically addresses that the sole purpose of this delay is for exploring a townhome option versus multifamily.  It got into some specifics as far as they would agree to a maximum number of units which would be 120, and that is about 10 units an acre.  Whether they can fit that on there or not he does not know; right now they are actually being worked on as they speak. He explained this is going to take some negotiations between buyers and sellers and it is all going to happen quickly because they have a small window to make this happen.  They will obviously be modifying the development order and the master development plan, and they will be going back to DRC and back to P&Z and ultimately back to this Board.  That is all outlined in the agreement.  The only reason they would not come back with it is that a deal could not be made for the less intense project.  If the seller does not want to “play ball” on this, then they will all go away, but it could come back again in the future.  He noted they are asking the Board to grant the continuance consistent with the development agreement which the County would need to sign.

Ms. Guillet further explained that the reason for the continuance is for the express intent of pursuing a townhome project and that is what the agreement states.  Mr. Madden added that if they went away, it would not mean that someone else could come back and apply for apartments later; but for them, apartments are off the table.  Ms. Guillet noted the other important element of the agreement is that it requires them to go back through DRC review so staff can do a thorough review and also back to the Planning Commission before it comes back to the Board in November.  November is the trigger date because on November 18, if nothing is done, the Comp Plan Amendment dies, so the whole proposal would then be off the table because of some State timing guidelines.  Mr. Madden stated the agreement outlines the DRC, P&Z, and BCC dates that they have to meet.  If they get beyond that, it will be dead so they have to move fast and he believes they can accomplish it and staff agrees.  County Attorney Applegate stated that in no way does the agreement bind the County to any approval.  Mr. Madden said the plans are being worked on now and they will be meeting again with the residents once they are finished.

Ms. Guillet clarified that they have been stating 60 days but it will actually be a continuance until November 13th.  Chairman Horan stated this continuance is not to buy time in order to come back with the apartments; they are giving them time to go back and consider a different type of development.  But if this did die, someone could come back and bring apartments.  Commissioner Dallari added they would have to start all over at that time.  Chairman Horan questioned if there is an issue regarding school impact fees.  Commissioner Carey advised that is not even considered at this point, and Ms. Guillet noted that is not part of this extension.  Chairman Horan expressed he just wanted to clarify that. 

Mr. Madden stated he was asked if the proposed townhomes would be two or three stories, and he advised they are two stories.

Joe Wheeler, 2664 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board and stated he is speaking on behalf of an HOA.  He stated they have had a year to prepare whatever it is they are going to present, and they have known since day one, at the first community meeting, that the community was not behind this.  They managed to work their way through the system by having continuance after continuance after continuance.  He opined he is not opposed to a townhome development, but the agreement simply says that they are going to explore the possibility, and if that doesn’t work, all these people that are here today are going to have to turn around and rearrange their lives to come back.  He does not understand why if they are willing to go to townhomes, up to this point today, they have always said the developer only builds apartments.  If they are legitimately concerned about transitioning their development, why don’t they just pull the plug on it, abandon it here today, and proceed with their efforts at building a townhome.  If they go with the townhomes, they still have to go through the whole process.  Mr. Wheeler talked about why he thinks the item was continued several times. 

Commissioner Dallari asked Mr. Madden to go into some detail about why they are asking for another continuance and why they are willing to switch from apartments to townhomes.  Mr. Madden responded they clearly do not have any support for the apartments.  The request for a continuance is complicated; there are some contractual things between his client and the seller that need to be worked out.  At the end of the day, if they withdrew and started over, there could be a new applicant.  He opined this is a better scenario because they are willing to work with the residents and the residents had said they would support townhomes.  He believes it is a win-win for everyone rather than just saying no, go start over.  His client has made a large investment of money into this process and this project.  It would not be a reasonable request to ask for a continuance if they wanted to continue to explore apartments, but they are bound by this developer’s agreement to go to something the residents say they will support.  He asked why wouldn’t they keep going and try to come up with a project that works for everyone. 

Kathy Wheeler, 2664 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board stating she lives in the Bear Creek development that borders the proposed project.  She said she guesses it is difficult to understand why they don’t start a new project.  Everything that has already been considered from the traffic study to what they submitted to the State; everything has been considered on high-density, 243-unit apartments.  It looks to her like they are changing horses in the middle of the stream.  She guesses she would want a guarantee that if they continue this, this particular apartment complex that they have been so much against is totally off the table.  She guesses her concern is that Mr. Madden could come back in November saying he couldn’t work the deal on the two-story townhomes and wants to try again for this after there has been an election.  She is not opposed to two-story, low-density townhomes.

Commissioner Carey commented that there will be the same Board in November; the new board will not take the reins until December.  The benefit with this developer’s agreement is that the apartments are off the table.  A townhome project is being proposed so all of the evidence he has already submitted will be considered at a lesser density and a lesser impact because the townhomes will have less impact.  She reminded they have a landowner and an applicant.  The landowner is one person and the applicant in this case is someone else.  If the applicant is not successful at the end of the day, he goes away; the landowner still owns the land and it would still be for sale, so it could be commercial or offices.  They would have another applicant at some point in time, and they do not know what they will ask for.  She believes with this developer’s agreement, there is a great benefit to the residents around there because they are taking the apartments off the table if they do not have to start all over again.

Anthony Scotti, Clayton Crossing Way, addressed the Board noting he is president of their HOA.  He stated he understands what is being discussed but hopes the Commission understands that there is a cause for anger.  They have returned here again and again and if he has to come back, that will be his fifth day of paid time off from his job.  He pointed out that at the last meeting about this, the Board indicated that that was going to be the final continuance.  They have a lack of trust.

Mr. Applegate stated if the Board grants the continuance based on the developer’s agreement, the applicant cannot come back and submit an apartment plan because the continuance would be based on the fact that they are asking for the continuance solely to be able to bring back a different plan related to townhomes.  Ms. Guillet added the Comp Plan Amendment upon which this is based will expire on November 18, so there is not even an option for another continuance after that date.  She said they understand there are some trust issues; the applicant volunteered to do this agreement to ensure that everybody understood the terms of this continuance.  She added she thinks this is the only time the County has ever done an agreement like this.

David Alexander (no contact information) addressed the Board stating he reiterates some of the comments by Joe Wheeler and others surrounding assumptions in this contract.  One of the concerns he has is that they are not precluded from withdrawing the application at any point in time.  If a proposal cannot be made surrounding townhomes, they could withdraw it tomorrow.  Commissioner Dallari remarked that that is a good thing.  Mr. Alexander said he thinks there are delay tactics that have been implemented by the developer.  They have been here three times and have said their objections to the continuances and said their position with regards to the project, and he would just ask that they move forward with a vote that the continuance be denied and then a vote can be had surrounding the proposed project.  He believes the citizens are entitled to a vote just like the developer is entitled to their vote.

Wayne Baker, 3797 Kinsley Place, addressed the Board saying he agrees this is not optimal, having people take time off, but also understands Commissioner Carey’s point that if they have to have something there, it is better than what they’ve got.  He questioned whether there is a cap of 110 units.  Commissioner Dallari replied the cap is at 120 units.  Mr. Baker noted he saw in the agreement there were access points on Aloma as well as Tuskawilla and asked whether they could be modified in the future.  The residents in his community have the greatest concern about the injection of any amount of cars on Aloma that close to the intersection of Tuskawilla where people are going to be going across four lanes to make a U-turn to get back out to the 417.  If that is stipulated that there is a requirement for free access and not emergency access, that really needs to be rethought. 

Kami Corbett, on behalf of the Seminole County School Board, addressed the Board to advise she objects to the discussion she just heard with respect to the impact fee vesting.  This applicant has made an application for vesting to the lower impact fee and that was denied by County staff.  The applicant has appealed it and it is her understanding that the applicant is asking that that not be considered before this Board while all of this is going on.  She does not think that is appropriate or consistent with the Land Development Code.  The applicant made an application and as of the application date, staff issued a timely denial of that and that appeal should be heard before the Commission on its merit separate and apart from anything else that is going on. (No Speaker Request Form received.)

Robert Shideler, 4648 Creekview Lane, addressed the Board thanking them for their time.  He asked that if a continuance is agreed upon by the Commission, that they try to be sensitive to all the people that come here to speak because they have been here since 1:30 p.m. and had to wait several hours to speak.

Commissioner Carey addressed the Chairman stating maybe when this is heard in November, it could be the first public hearing item.  Chairman Horan stated they could set it to be heard first; they just cannot predict how long the meeting will go.  He said he thinks it is a good suggestion.

Eric Cappebianca, 2722 Regal Lane, addressed the Board and asked for a recess in order to read the developer’s agreement.  A copy was provided to him.  He stated his house backs up to the proposed townhomes so he is in opposition to both the apartments and the townhomes.

Sharon Saidi, 4660 Misty Way, addressed the Board and thanked them for their patience.  She asked if the developer’s agreement could be read aloud.  Commissioner Carey offered a copy and explained that the Commissioners also just received it today at noon.  Commissioner Carey further commented that her job is to evaluate whether this is a better option for the citizens.  If the continuance fails, then they will vote on the project as it is right now.  Ms. Saidi stated that is correct and that is what they kind of thought was going to happen.  Commissioner Dallari pointed out if a vote on the apartments fails, then in a certain time period, a new applicant could come back and present a request for apartments again.  Ms. Saidi noted that she too has been here four times and she has the concern that this may be a bait and switch operation as well.  She is trusting the Commissioner that that is not what this is.  Commissioner Carey noted that is why they have this legal document.  Mr. Applegate advised his office met with Mr. Madden yesterday and he has known Mr. Madden seven plus years, and if Mr. Madden said he is coming back with a townhome plan, he knows that is what he will come back with.  He reiterated that if the Board approves the continuance based on the developer’s agreement and they came back to try to get the apartment complex approved, it is his opinion that that would be a legal issue. 

Jacquelyn Clement, 1388 Augusta National Boulevard, addressed the Board and stated she is president of the Board of Trustees at Tuskawilla Presbyterian Church.  They have consistently opposed the apartment complex, but she and some other members of the church that are in attendance are not opposed to this continuance based on their understanding of the discussions.  They would like Mr. Madden to know that a wall around whatever the community turns out to be and adequate parking are very important to them. 

Mr. Madden expressed that everybody is talking about their concern of a bait and switch when they come back in November.  He pointed out that the process will not allow them to do that.  They are going to have to resubmit something in the next two to three weeks to the County where it will all be public record.  He noted Joe Wheeler has been his contact and he will stay in contact with him through the process.  Also, if the buyer and seller cannot work something out and they just go away, he will let them know that also. 

Paul Wolbert, 2826 Regal Lane, addressed the Board to ask who drafted the agreement.  Mr. Applegate responded that his senior assistant county attorney for growth management in his office drafted the agreement.  Mr. Wolbert explained his concern was whether the County Attorney had input into how this agreement came together, and Mr. Applegate said that he did.

Mark Maskiell, 2844 Bear Island Pointe, addressed the Board and said he represents Cypress Reserve HOA.  They would like to offer their support for the townhomes proposal.  They request medium density zoning to support the townhomes.  In light of the new information, they do support a continuance.

With regard to public participation, no one else spoke in support or in opposition and public input was closed.

Speaker Request Forms and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

Commissioner Dallari expressed he has never been an advocate of apartments west of the 417.  Before this meeting, he also said he would not grant another continuance, but now they have an agreement that actually binds them to bring back townhomes.  However, it is difficult to make a decision on townhouses until it gets vetted out by staff and until it gets vetted out by the P&Z, and until the public can actually see it.  They cannot change at this date from apartments to townhouses just because they want to.  He appreciates the applicant doing that.  He added the agreement was written by Paul Chipok in the County Attorney’s Office with input from Mr. Applegate.  He first saw the agreement at noon today.  His comment to the Applicant was that he needed assurances that there would not be a bait and switch, and he believes this agreement does that.  He cannot guarantee though that they will like the townhouse project because it has not been vetted yet.  If they voted down the project and didn’t grant the continuance, another group could come back at a later date again requesting apartments.

Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Developer’s Agreement, and based on that agreement, approve the request to continue to November 13, 2018 at 1:30 p.m., in order to give time to reissue the request for a townhome development instead of an apartment complex on 12.53 acres, located on the northeast corner of West SR 426 and Tuskawilla Road; WP South Acquisitions LLC, Applicant.

Under discussion, Commissioner Constantine stated he wishes he could support the adequate time to come back and to work on a townhome project.  Even at 120 units, it is a major project and it needs to be vetted and it needs a certain amount of time to do that.  He believes they should start all over again and he also believes that the citizens, as indicated, deserve an answer.  He does not believe that the previous postponements were for any other reason than to hope that they can find the votes.  He respects that they want to change it and he respects the County Attorney that stated they can control this.  Two postponements is what it says in the Code and he is afraid that now it will set a precedent that everybody is going to come back if they want to continue to postpone something.  He doesn’t believe that anyone would come back with apartments if they voted it down today, which is exactly what the citizens want.

Chairman Horan stated that no one here has proceeded in bad faith, not the developer, the owner of the property, nor has anyone on this Commission proceeded in any way, shape or form in bad faith.  He said this was originally voted to be transmitted to the State, three to two.  In the interim, one of the three Commissioners approving the project resigned.  There is now a two/two Commission.  He wants the record to reflect that that is the “elephant in the room.”  Now what they have is a continuance to try to see if there is something that can be worked out between the property owner, who by the way is a constituent and a voter and a taxpayer, and this Commission with regards to what has occurred under these very unusual circumstances.   

Districts 1, 2 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Constantine voted NAY.


Chairman Horan recessed the meeting at 4:50 p.m.; reconvening at 4:58 p.m., with Deputy Clerk Terri Porter being replaced by Deputy Clerk Kyla Farrell.




Agenda Item #31 – 2018-0024

     Proof of publication calling for a public hearing to consider transmittal of a proposed Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commercial to Planned Development, and a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PD (Planned Development) for multifamily apartments on 17.64 acres, located on the north side of West SR 426, one-fourth mile east of SR 417, Matthew Gourlay, received and filed.

     Joy Giles, Planning & Development Division, addressed the Board and advised that the Applicant has modified the request from what is currently shown in the agenda memorandum by reducing the maximum density as well as the maximum building height and number of stories as follows:  the Applicant proposes to develop the subject property as a multifamily residential apartment complex with a density of 16.7 dwelling units per net buildable acre for a maximum of 295 units; the development consists of 8 buildings with 3 stories each for a maximum building height of 45 feet; the development shall maintain a minimum building setback of 45 feet with the exception of a 25-foot building setback along the west perimeter adjacent to the existing commercial development and a 25-foot setback on the north perimeter adjacent to the existing FDOT retention pond.  Ms. Giles reviewed the rest of the item as outlined in the agenda memorandum.

     Ms. Giles stated the location of the proposed retention pond for the subject development will provide a distance of 150 feet from the west perimeter and 250 feet from the north perimeter to the closest proposed building.  She indicated staff finds the request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the trend of development in the area and recommends approval.  Ms. Giles pointed out the Planning and Zoning Commission voted four to one to recommend transmittal of the request with the condition that the buildings be limited to three stories.

     Commissioner Carey confirmed with Ms. Giles that the amended Development Order (received and filed) indicates all of the changes that Ms. Giles identified at the beginning of her presentation.

     Sam Sebaali, Florida Engineering Group, addressed the Board on behalf of the Applicant.  He introduced the Applicant Matthew Gourlay; legal counsel Scott Glass, Shutts & Bowen; and Mohammed Abdallah who is the traffic engineering consultant.  Mr. Sebaali advised he concurs with staff’s recommendation as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation to transmit the project.  He provided a brief history of the project and confirmed that they are agreeing with the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation of limiting the buildings to three stories.  Mr. Sebaali displayed a map (included in the agenda memorandum) which illustrates the Future Land Use designation of the parcel and the surrounding properties.  He pointed out the site has a Future Land Use designation of Commercial and reviewed the designations surrounding the property.  From a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, he feels that what they are proposing fits well within the surrounding community with PD on two sides and multifamily to the north.

     Mr. Sebaali stated on the east side there is an existing multifamily development with a density of 14.2 units per acre.  On the north side is a multifamily residential development with a density of 20 units per acre.  The average of the two is a little bit over 17, and they are proposing 16.7 dwelling units per acre.  He reiterated they feel like it is a good fit between two existing multifamily developments.  He pointed out to the southwest is Commercial and to the northwest side is single-family that has a Future Land Use designation of Commercial but it is currently used as large single-family lots.

     Early on Mr. Sebaali recognized that they would need to address the fact that they have single-family to the northwest.  He displayed a plan which shows the proposed development (copy received and filed).  Mr. Sebaali stated early on they decided to put the retention pond in the northwest corner of the site so it would provide a buffer from the existing residential.  The Code requires a 50-foot buffer, and they have proposed about 80 feet of passive use.  In addition to that, they have worked with staff to put a significant amount of landscaping on the west side, so they are proposing a landscape buffer to the west.

     In regard to the 4-story building that the Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned about, Mr. Sebaali stated that building is over 150 feet away from the west property boundary.  They had originally agreed to put an eight-foot fence or wall along that western property boundary because they were proposing a four-story building.  They are now proposing three-story buildings and they feel eight feet is too aggressive, so they would like to potentially drop that fence to six feet in height given that they are proposing a significant amount of landscaping.  He advised they are willing to consider eight feet if the adjacent residents would like to have an eight-foot fence on that side. 

     Mr. Sebaali expressed they did spend a lot of time on figuring out how to buffer and how to keep the building away from the single-family residences.  Everywhere else is surrounded by compatible multifamily residences with similar character and densities.  The other area that they looked at is across the street to the south where there is a major arterial (SR 426) and an existing single-family residential development.  He explained that property is Medium-Density Residential Future Land Use but it was developed as single-family.  They looked at how they mitigate any impacts from the proposed development.  On the plan he pointed out the two front buildings on Aloma (SR 426) and stated those buildings will act as liner buildings, so from Aloma you really won’t see anything to the north of those buildings.  Along Aloma, the closest building (which is the southeast building) is 45 feet to the right-of-way line.  So in reality, the building itself is about 200 feet from the closest lot line on the other side, and the closest house is about 250 feet away.  If you look at the other building, there is much further separation.  Mr. Sebaali stated they feel like the project fits well and is compatible with the surrounding development.  The property was designated for commercial use, and what they are proposing is lower density and intensity than a commercial development. 

     Mr. Sebaali explained the entrance to the development lines up with the existing left-turn median opening which was planned for the property by the County and FDOT.  He stated there were some concerns about lighting and light overspill to the south.  Any light at night would be directed at the opposing driveway and would not go into homes.  From that standpoint, they are not creating any impacts; so they feel the separation and the way it is laid out provides consideration to the existing single-family on the south side.  On the plan, Mr. Sebaali pointed out parking lots, buildings and green areas.  He expressed there is a significant amount of greenspace and amenities.  If you are driving on Aloma looking north, you will see a formal lawn area and a club house.  That view shed is going to be a nice view shed with a landscaped boulevard.  So from a development standpoint, he feels they have done a good job addressing the surrounding communities.

     Looking at the big picture, Mr. Sebaali stated this is an infill development site.  It was set aside on the Future Land Use map as commercial development.  They are always encouraged to develop infill properties.  In this case, the existing roadway infrastructure is there, water and sewer utilities are there, and Fire is there.  Mr. Sebaali expressed he believes that this is the ideal site for development being that it is an infill project.  He added the site doesn’t have a floodplain or any wetlands, so they are not causing any impacts to resources. 

     Based on his presentation, all of the work they have done up to today, the fact that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, Mr. Sebaali respectfully asked the Board to support his request and approve the project as presented tonight.

     Chairman Horan asked what developments you would pass if you were to proceed west on SR 426, past the curve, and towards SR 417.  Mr. Sebaali answered Mystic Cove.  Matthew Gourlay, Applicant, addressed the Board and stated there is one development to the west before you hit SR 417 and that is Mystic Cove, a tax credit, affordable multifamily deal.  Commissioner Dallari asked what the setback is from the right-of-way and Mystic Cove.  Ms. Giles replied the apartments for Mystic Cove are further back because there is a commercial outparcel as part of the Mystic Cove PD; but she is not sure exactly how far but knows it is at least 150 feet.  Commissioner Carey confirmed with Ms. Giles that it is commercial in the front and apartments in the back.  Chairman Horan asked what the density is of Mystic Cove, and Ms. Giles answered approximately 14.5 units per acre.  

     Winston Schwartz, 3528 Legacy Hills Court, addressed the Board and stated he is one of the owners of the Aloma Business Center, which is immediately west of the proposed development.  Mr. Schwarz advised he has talked with the developer and communicated with County staff regarding one concern.  He would like to see a fence to prevent pedestrian traffic through his property to the convenience store which is immediately in front of his property.  He expressed he is in support of the land use because he thinks it is a good use for the property.  The property has been somewhat problematic in the past in that it has been a home for transient people, and at one time it was a homeless camp.  There have been issues with safety and security at his business park.  He opined having the property developed would be a good thing for all of the neighboring properties. 

     Mr. Schwartz advised his conversation with Mr. Gourlay was that they would entertain a fence to prevent foot traffic between the properties.  There is a sidewalk along Aloma for people to use.  Mr. Schwartz asked that that conversation be noted so staff or the developer can communicate back to him in regard to the fence.  Chairman Horan explained they can work that out with regard to the Development Order, but right now they are just at the land use stage in the process.  Commissioner Carey stated this is just a transmittal hearing and if it gets approved, there will be time for any of those types of issues to be addressed.

     Joe Wheeler, 2664 Creekview Circle, addressed the Board and stated he is in opposition and has decided to submit his written comments (received and filed) instead of making a public comment. 

     David Alexander’s name was announced, and it was determined that he was not in attendance.

     After reading Mr. Wheeler’s written comment, Commissioner Carey stated in the revised Development Order that the County was given, the Applicant is going from a four-story building to a three-story building.  Mr. Wheeler advised he did hear that during the presentation.

     Harold Dunn, 5321 Blackburn Court, addressed the Board and expressed he has two personal main objections to the proposal.  The first one is ingress and egress both for Lakes of Aloma where he lives and for the apartments.  To get in and out of Lakes of Aloma, if you want to go west, you have to turn east and go down to Dean, make a U-turn and come back.  Mr. Dunn respectfully requested that before the Board seriously considers a project like the one proposed, they monitor the traffic coming out of Lakes of Aloma.  His second objection is what is going to happen to the schools.  He discussed his experience dropping his granddaughter off at Rainbow Elementary.  He thinks they need to address those two concerns before they think about putting that many people in that area.

     Linda Houston, 5423 Birchbend Loop, addressed the Board and stated in regard to the current issue, she would like to call attention to four points.  She explained the first point is the original planners.  Decades ago they laid out plans for the successful and sustainable economic development of the County while simultaneously preserving its natural beauty so as to remain a desirable place in which to live.  The second point is the county’s citizens who pay taxes, maintain properties, patronize local merchants and businesses, and work locally for or in the County.  Ms. Houston hopes that the Board recognizes the citizens’ great concerns with the project.

     The third point is what she calls the outsiders.  Ms. Houston explained developers pop in and claim a supposed cost-benefit formula on how they will make everything outstanding and profitable.  However, quite often they want to dismiss the carefully structured reasoning behind the original County Development Plan by asking for variances; in other words, special exceptions to fit their bottom line so they can do a quick “grab and go.”  She opined that variances can lead to collateral damage.  Ms. Houston explained point four is actually a few questions that are not meant to offend.  She asked if representative government is becoming an oxymoron.  It appears sometimes to her that the citizens are marginalized and quickly dismissed when bringing up concerns about development.  She asked whether or not the Board would carefully consider the cumulative overall impact of allowing one variance after another.  Will the Board stick to the original Land Use Plan and do what is best for the County’s constituents?  In conclusion, Ms. Houston respectfully asked that each Board member considers the legacy that they will leave Seminole County and vote no to the variances and density. 

     Daniel Houston, 5423 Birchbend Loop, addressed the Board and stated he has lived in the Lakes of Aloma subdivision just opposite of the proposed project for 28 years.  He expressed this experience reminds him of the song lyrics “they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”  He displayed a picture (received and filed) that shows a view of the proposed project where people walk and live.  Mr. Houston stated the stand of trees was dismissed on the basis that it was planted by the woman who owned the property, as if that mattered.  He discussed the trees.

     Mr. Houston stated the proposed high-density infill takes everything and gives nothing back in return.  The project will tear those trees down from end to end, north to south; and they will replace them with a few token trees and shrubs.  The project turns its back on the neighborhood and paves paradise with parking lots and tower blocks.  He asked how the hardscape will improve the neighborhood or community.  Mr. Houston stated the proposed project will cause more safety problems on Aloma.  The requested variance is designed for maximum profits only.  The poorly planned, high-density project as shown is not a good fit for the neighborhood or community.  He discussed development and opined they could have the best of both worlds by keeping the original plan for the corridor, which prescribes lower density and less pavement, and therefore should allow for more of the existing tree stand to remain in place in order to buffer the complex visually from Aloma.  He asked the Board to reject the rezoning.

     Chairman Horan asked Mr. Houston if he moved into Lakes of Aloma before or after SR 417 was there.  Mr. Houston answered he thinks it was already there before he moved in.  Discussion ensued regarding the history of SR 417.

     Gene Crane, 5346 Birchbend Loop, addressed the Board and pointed out the property in question lies on the inside radius of 426 and is somewhat orphaned due to the surrounding development that also includes single-family home units.  Decades ago a lack of planning of controlled access points to these and other adjacent properties left drivers to negotiate multiple blind spots to make left turns as well as U-turns at an increasingly dangerous intersection which is uncontrolled at Starwood Drive.  Mr. Crane submitted and discussed photographs (received and filed) of local roads and intersections that traffic from the proposed property would have to use.  He stated something is not right or safe.  There is no doubt that at some time the property will be developed, he just asks that it is done in a comprehensive and responsible manner.

     Sharon Rosenfeld, 9434 Brownwood Court, addressed the Board and stated although there are many concerns being addressed, she will focus on the safety of Aloma.  The Seminole County Comprehensive Plan states that safety is the primary concern for every transportation system.  There is an implicit promise from the government to its residents that the County’s transportation network will be safe and reliable.  Ms. Rosenfeld expressed she listened to the transportation consultant as he reported that Aloma is under capacity.  She asked if being at capacity is the goal.  She opined the goal should be safety.  Ms. Rosenfeld stated everyone accepts that traffic is a part of growth and that growth is inevitable.  What people must not accept is a road that is not safe and Aloma is not.  She pointed out as statistics show, Aloma is plagued with accidents.  Ms. Rosenfeld discussed some of the statistics and her own car accident experience on Aloma.

     Ms. Rosenfeld expressed it is mindboggling to her that an area that is so ridden with car accidents is not only being ignored but being considered as an acceptable area to add more cars therefore increasing the likelihood of even more accidents occurring.  She stated it would be neglectful to open the road to more drivers.  The new drivers would have to cross multiple lanes of traffic and often make U-turns which would only increase the number of accidents.  The new drivers would also block the ability to safely make a left turn into her neighborhood.  The problem on Aloma between Tuskawilla and Dean needs to be addressed and fixed, not made worse.  She asked the Board to vote against the project.

     Chairman Horan asked Ms. Rosenfeld if she has passed her comments on to her State representatives.  Ms. Rosenfeld answered she hasn’t but it is her next course of action.  Chairman Horan explained 426 is a State Road, so it is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation.  He advised Ms. Rosenfeld needs to address comments concerning that particular road to her State representatives.  Commissioner Carey stated she thinks it is good advice for Ms. Rosenfeld to talk to her State representatives.  However, it is not uncommon for the Board to bring issues to FDOT’s attention when there is a problem in the county.  While she encourages Ms. Rosenfeld to take the matter to her State representatives, she is confident that Commissioner Dallari will also be taking it to the State representatives’ and FDOT’s attention.  Upon Commissioner Carey’s request, Ms. Rosenfeld submitted her statistics (received and filed) for the public record.  Ms. Rosenfeld reiterated her concern is the higher the density, the more cars there are on the road to increase the number of potential accidents.

     Cynthia Parrish, 5479 Baytowne Place, addressed the Board to talk about Seminole County Schools and the waiver that the developer is trying to get for the impact fees.  She stated the schools in the district (Rainbow Elementary School, Tuskawilla Middle School, and Lake Howell High School) are already at or over capacity.  Instead of paying their fair share, the developer is trying to get a waiver to allow them to avoid paying the new education system impact fees which went into effect in January of 2018.

     Chairman Horan advised Ms. Parrish that the Board is still on Item #31, and he believes she wants to speak in regard to Item #32.  Ms. Parrish responded she didn’t know Item #32 was on the Agenda, and Chairman Horan said she could go ahead and speak now and they will take her comments into consideration for Item #32.  Ms. Parrish noted her comments tie into both items. 

     Ms. Parrish stated the waiver would be a significant loss of money to Seminole County Public Schools (SCPS).  With nearly 295 units at a loss of $5,000 per dwelling unit, SCPS would lose over $1 million.  She asked if this would create a precedent for future developers.  Ms. Parrish discussed the great school system in Seminole County and noted people move to the county for the schools.  She submitted an Orlando Sentinel article from January 18, 2018, (received and filed) that talks about raising impact fees in Seminole County and quotes Commissioner Carey.  Ms. Parrish stated if the developer doesn’t want to pay their fair share of the impact fees for SCPS, then she would ask the Board to deny the proposed development.

     Chairman Horan reminded the Board will take her comments into consideration for Item #32.

     Anthony Scotti, Clayton Crossing Way HOA President, addressed the Board and stated the reason they are hearing so much outcry is because it is a very mechanistic approach that does not consider the exterior systems.  It works well as an isolated system, but it does not work well in reality.  He briefly discussed traffic and public transit.  Mr. Scotti stated he believes this parcel would be best used as commercial.  He opined they need commercial in the area.  If they want to build the area as a center, then they need to add offices instead of adding to the population which is the root cause of all of the traffic concerns.  They would reduce automobile trips by adding commercial and it would benefit everybody and build a richer neighborhood.

     Mr. Scotti asked that the Board consider his comment.  He stated whatever they decide to put on the parcel, some concerns would be alleviated if they consider landscape buffers that are natural and undisturbed on the Aloma side.  As designed, some of the buildings don’t allow for a very wide buffer.  However south of the driveway and on the west side of the project, it could stand to have a 40-foot natural, undisturbed buffer with the pine trees that are already there, and north of the driveway you could have 80 feet or more.

     Laurent Domaingue, 5303 Blackburn Court, addressed the Board and noted he lives in Lakes of Aloma.  He discussed capacity at the schools in the district and expressed it is of high concern to him as a new father.  Mr. Domaingue stated another one of his concerns is crime, so he pulled data from the Sheriff’s Office and submitted a map from CrimeReports (received and filed).  He opined the apartment complex will bring more crime regardless of whether or not it is gated.   Mr. Domaingue submitted a map of the area (received and filed) and pointed out the two small pockets of apartments.  He stated it is not consistent with the area because the area is mostly single-family homes.  He discussed the traffic problem in the area and submitted photos of traffic jams (received and filed).  He also submitted a petition opposing the development (received and filed).

     Allison Kravchvk, 5497 Baytowne Place, addressed the Board and presented four photographs (received and filed).  Ms. Kravchvk stated it is important to understand that SR 426 slopes and there are hills involved.  She discussed zoning of the surrounding developments on the first photograph and displayed the other three photographs.  She appreciated the developer saying that they are going to get rid of nine units and reduce the buildings from four stories to three stories, but it doesn’t really take care of the density issue.  Three-story buildings in the area do not make sense.  Ms. Kravchvk explained as you drive down Aloma, you see the smaller homes and Mystic Cove to the west.  What is important to understand as you are driving along Aloma is that it is on an incline.  So when the land is developed they will put it on a hill and make the buildings three stories.  So not only do they have traffic concerns, but they are putting this big cube in the middle of a residential area.

     Ms. Kravchvk stated in regard to traffic, she has talked with FDOT and they are in a really tough spot in that one-mile section because they can’t add more traffic lights since they can’t have a traffic light within a certain distance of another traffic light.  She asked the Board to help the citizens with regard to the traffic problem and discussed serious safety concerns.  Ms. Kravchvk agreed that they should develop the land and she understands that it needs to be developed, but she thinks commercial makes sense considering the context of what they are dealing with.  She reiterated that three-story buildings don’t compute and the density is a huge, significant issue for the residents.

     Ian Dowling, 5130 Morning Dew Loop, addressed the Board and stated he is representing his household as well as the residents of 5120 Morning Dew Loop and 5140 Morning Dew Loop.  Mr. Dowling stated there are three households on Morning Dew Loop and they are the households most impacted by the project.  It is directly adjacent to the front of their properties and only 75 feet from the front door with zero trees.  Mr. Dowling presented three renderings of the proposed apartments.  He stated the property is currently zoned for commercial and the developer has stated that the property will turn into something along the lines of a Walmart or Target.  However, on that side of 417, there are no businesses of that magnitude. 

     Mr. Dowling reviewed and submitted a presentation (copy received and filed) outlining surrounding zoning, subdivisions, buffers, and building heights.  He pointed out a six-foot wall is easy to climb over and even easy to look over.  Mr. Dowling stated the proposed development is not going to fall in line with what is currently surrounding the land for several miles each side.  He asked the County to afford the same courtesy given to his neighbors to the north and provide him the protection of a 10-foot wall.  He stated the proposed walking trail around the pond will bring people right up against his property.  In regard to lighting, Mr. Dowling explained light will flood over in his direction so he has requested that the developer install “dark sky” lighting to help buffer that light.  He would like that request noted and to be made official.

     In closing, Mr. Dowling reiterated the project does not conform to the surrounding area.  Even taking into account the reduction of four stories to three stories, it will be the only property with an incredibly high population density of 36 to 37 units per building.  That is double to triple the number of units at nearby developments.  If the project goes ahead, he strongly suggests that they proceed with a maximum of two-story buildings.  Mr. Dowling asked the Board to think long and hard about the project because it will most certainly negatively impact the surrounding area as well as greatly reduce nearby property values.

     Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

     Robert Shideler, 4648 Creekview Lane, addressed the Board and stated he is speaking on behalf of someone who had to leave.  Mr. Shideler stated over on Howell Branch Road there is an area called San Pedro where they just cleared land for 700 homes.  Even though it’s about five miles away, if you use Google Maps, it sends people down Howell Branch and up 426 to get on the 417, which will have a major traffic impact just from the San Pedro development alone.

     With regard to public participation, no one else in the audience spoke in support or in opposition to Item #31, and public input was closed.

     Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

     In rebuttal, Mr. Sebaali stated some of the speakers discussed variances.  He clarified that they are not requesting any variances; they are submitting for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Planned Development.  He explained the property has a Future Land Use of Commercial and a lot of the speakers said they were okay with Commercial, while at the same time the biggest complaint was traffic.  Mr. Sebaali compared a similar project that the Board approved and the traffic impacts of both projects.  He discussed commercial uses and stated any reasonable amount of commercial development would generate about four to six times the amount of traffic that the proposed project would generate.  So if traffic is the concern, what he is proposing is a good project.  If compatibility is the concern, they have multifamily on the east and north side, so he isn’t sure how much more compatible they could be.  As far as density, the project’s density is below the average of the two adjacent properties.

     In regard to building height, Mr. Sebaali stated if you look at the development to the east, they do have smaller buildings.  But when you look at the proposed project, there is a lot more greenspace.  A lot of the speakers wanted to preserve greenspace, and the proposed project does that.  He believes what they are proposing is a good project for the site.  As far as traffic concerns, Mr. Sebaali reminded that they have done a traffic study.  The roadway is operating below its capacity.  He understands there are a lot of operational issues, and he is not dismissing that.  If the Board transmits the project, he would like to study all of the areas that were brought up.  He reiterated they have done a traffic study but because of the additional concerns that were brought up, he will work on additional traffic studies.  He is willing to work with staff to deal with the operational issues which are localized to a specific area.

     Mr. Sebaali summarized that what they are proposing tonight is less intense than a commercial development and the density fits well within the surrounding community.  He believes the neighbor that is on the northwest side of the property does need more buffering and he is willing to go to an eight-foot, opaque fence for that area in addition to the extensive landscaping.  And as part of the design, there are some oak trees on the property line that they will do their best to not remove unless they have to because of grading or other issues; but the current intent is not to remove the oak trees on the west boundary line.  Mr. Sebaali asked for the Board’s support of the project.

     Chairman Horan asked what the original proposed buffer was by the northwest neighbor’s property.  Mr. Sebaali responded if you look where the retention pond is, the eight-foot fence would be along that entire retention pond and they would drop it to six feet because it’s beyond the residential and extend it further to the south.  Chairman Horan asked if it is correct that the current Future Land Use designation allows up to 268,939 square feet of commercial use, and Mr. Sebaali answered that is correct.  Ms. Giles explained staff’s report stated the square footage of the site and that that square footage would allow 0.35 FAR (Floor Area Ratio).   Chairman Horan stated if someone wanted to submit a commercial project, that project could generate somewhere close to 12,000 daily trips.  Mr. Sebaali explained that is why he stated a commercial project would bring more traffic issues than the proposed project.

     Commissioner Carey stated she doesn’t ever recall approving a ten-foot wall in the county.  In regard to the ten-foot wall in Mr. Dowling’s presentation, if the project is transmitted, she asked staff if they could confirm the height of the wall because she thinks it is an eight-foot wall.  Commissioner Dallari agreed. 

     Commissioner Dallari stated in reviewing the project, he went out to the site with staff and paced off where the three-story buildings were in the surrounding area.  He saw that they were anywhere from 200 to 250 feet from the right-of-way line.  He expressed it concerned him that it is really not consistent with the area.  Commissioner Dallari pointed out in the Applicant’s testimony he didn’t hear any proper testimony for going from Commercial to PD.  

     Motion by Commissioner Dallari, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, to deny transmittal of a proposed Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commercial to Planned Development to State and regional review agencies; deny adoption of the associated Ordinance enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PD (Planned Development); and deny approval of the associated Development Order and Master Development Plan for multifamily apartments on 17.64 acres, located on the north side of West SR 426, one-fourth mile east of SR 417, as described in the proof of publication; Matthew Gourlay, Applicant.

     Districts 1 and 3 voted AYE.

     Chairman Horan and Commissioner Carey voted NAY; whereupon, the motion failed for lack of a majority vote.

     Chairman Horan surrendered the gavel to Vice Chairman Constantine.

     Motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to approve the transmittal of the proposed Ordinance enacting a Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commercial to Planned Development to State and regional review agencies; subject to final approval and adoption of the LSFLU Map Amendment Ordinance, adopt the associated Ordinance enacting a Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PD (Planned Development); and approve the associated Development Order and Master Development Plan for multifamily apartments on approximately 17.64 acres, located on the north side of West SR 426, one-fourth mile east of SR 417, as described in the proof of publication; Matthew Gourlay, Applicant.

     Districts 2 and 5 voted AYE.

     Commissioners Dallari and Constantine voted NAY; whereupon, the motion failed for lack of a majority vote.

     Vice Chairman Constantine returned the gavel to Commissioner Horan to resume the duties of Chairman.

     Chairman Horan explained both motions have failed so there is no transmittal of the Applicant’s application to the State.




Agenda Item #32 – 2018-0740

     Continuation of public hearing from July 24 and August 14, 2018, to consider an appeal of the denial of Educational System Impact Fee Vesting for the Grandeville at Weststate Apartments development, located on the north side of West SR 426, one-quarter mile east of SR 417, as described in the proof of publication; Matthew Gourlay.

     Frank Consoli, Interim Director of Development Services, addressed the Board and presented the item as outlined in the agenda memorandum.  He stated staff recommends the Board uphold the denial of the Educational System Impact Fee Vesting for the Grandeville at Weststate development.

     Chairman Horan reminded that Ms. Parrish’s comment during Item #31 will be considered as part of the record for this item.

     Scott Glass, Shutts & Bowen, 300 N. Orange Blossom Trail, representing the Appellant, addressed the Board.  Mr. Glass distributed a copy of his presentation entitled Grandeville at Weststate, LLC’s Argument on Appeal (received and filed) and reviewed the document.  He stated why staff thought the vesting request was based on approval of a particular project is a mystery.  The application clearly stated it is an impairment of contract.  The Administrative Code provides two different theories for vesting; one of which is if you meet a certain point in the development process (final engineering plans), and they are not there.  They are not even close to that point in the process, so that was clearly not the basis for the application to vest and could not logically be the reason for denying the application. 

     Mr. Glass explained they applied under the impairment of contract.  The original application for vesting certificate also states that the application was based on a potential $2 million impairment of contract.  He doesn’t disagree with staff’s conclusion that building permits are not final approvals because clearly the contract isn’t conditioned on obtaining building permits, but it is conditioned on not having a government action at the time of closing which impairs the value of the contract.  Mr. Glass stated his client has determined in good faith that they cannot proceed with the closing of the contract with the application of the new School Impact Fees because it has decreased the value of the contract by almost $2 million.

     Commissioner Carey asked whether or not the contract was subject to the rezoning being approved, and Mr. Glass answered no.  Commissioner Carey asked if they intended to buy the property whether they got the rezone or not.  Mr. Glass responded they had the option to buy the property whether they got the rezone or not.  Commissioner Carey stated she knows they had the option, but she is asking specifically if there is a clause that says that they don’t have to close on the property if they don’t get the rezone.  She asked if the contract is subject to the rezoning of the property.  Mr. Glass answered he would have to review the contract himself.  Commissioner Carey explained usually when people are purchasing real estate, if they are trying to do it for a specific purpose and it is zoned commercial and they need multifamily zoning, there would be a clause that would say subject to receiving the appropriate zoning.  Mr. Glass stated after tonight’s action, they may want to close on the purchase and sell to a commercial developer.  The contract remains impaired by the application.  The denial of vesting was for a legal reason that doesn’t follow the application. 

     Commissioner Carey stated there is nothing that would have prevented the Board from approving the rezone and denying the request, and then they would have a choice to make and it is just a business decision.  Mr. Glass responded except that the application for vesting certificate originally satisfied the County’s criteria.  So if the County turned it down after it clearly satisfied the County’s criteria, he would have had recourse.  Commissioner Carey replied she understands but it doesn’t meet the criteria because it was submitted 20 days prior to the Board adopting it.  And there was extensive discussion about what would be considered vesting or not.  The determination was made that it was very specific as to where you had to be in the process.  The Board, amongst themselves, debated about possibly considering the ones that are in the process.  The Appellant didn’t even go to DRC until January 17th, and the Board had already adopted the policy at that point.

     Mr. Glass explained they are not applying on the basis of where they were in the process.  There are two different paths an applicant can go down and they applied under one but the County denied them under the other.  Chairman Horan stated they are going under the impairment of contract provision. 

     Chairman Horan stated he thinks the County Manager has identified something that relates specifically to Commissioner Carey’s question and it is paragraph eight of the contract.  The Chairman read “The Purchaser, at Purchaser’s expense, will diligently seek all approvals from any applicable governmental entities… so as to allow for Purchaser’s Project, with all appeals having lapsed.  Once the site plan approval for Purchaser’s Project becomes ‘final’ with all appeal periods having lapsed, Purchaser, at Purchaser’s cost, will prepare construction/engineering drawings and will present the same to appropriate governmental and quasi-governmental agencies for approval and for other approvals as may be required.  Once those plans are approved and building permits are available (contingent only upon payment of applicable fees), the Property will be deemed to have the ‘Final Approvals’ and Purchaser will proceed to Closing.  Notwithstanding anything contained herein, if Final Approvals include less than a minimum of 250 Units, Purchaser shall have the unconditional right to terminate this Agreement and obtain the return of its Deposit.”

     Commissioner Carey commented that it would be very unlikely to have a contract to purchase something with a Land Use change and not have that language in there for the protection of the buyer.  Mr. Glass stated the Board is saying there’s only one way to impair a contract under the Administrative Code.  Chairman Horan stated what he is trying to figure out is, they are taking this issue up because even though the Board denied the project upon which the impact fees are based, they could take an appeal.  He asked if the decision is reversed and the Applicant came back, could the Board take up the appeal at that point.  Mr. Applegate answered he thinks they could; however, the language is clear and that is why he respectfully disagrees.  He explained he could make the argument that they don’t even need to discuss it.  But the language of the final sentence of paragraph eight that the Chairman read into the record is clear.  Chairman Horan stated in other words, this is ripe for decision right now because the facts would not change with regard to an appeal of what the Board decided on Item #31.  Mr. Applegate answered that is correct.  Mr. Glass noted he would agree with Mr. Applegate if there was only one way to impair a contract; but anyone who has ever dealt with real estate knows there are many things that can impair a contract, and a failure to satisfy conditions precedent to closing is certainly one of them.

     Alison Kravchvk, 5497 Baytowne Place, addressed the Board and stated she isn’t sure what just occurred but she thinks they are trying to say that they are not vesting over some sort of technicality that the cost of paying the School Impact Fees would reduce it such that it impairs the contract.  She said she doesn’t know because she is not a lawyer, but she is a mother and a citizen who is proud of the county’s school system.  She discussed how wonderful she feels the schools are in the county.  Ms. Kravchvk expressed she doesn’t think the developer meets the vesting criteria.  She asked the Board to not let them get away with not paying their fair share of what is right should the development ever be appealed.

     Speaker Request Form was not received and filed.

     Joseph Ranaldi, Executive Director of Seminole County Public Schools, addressed the Board and stated he just wanted to highlight a couple items that are in the agenda memorandum.   He explained the primary thing that they did on the School Impact Analysis is looked at it from a CSA standpoint, which is in the Interlocal Agreement, but they also looked at it from the individual school standpoint for the schools that the development would actually be zoned for and identified what the impact would be for those specific schools.  At the elementary level it would exceed capacity by 79 students, which is close to 4 classrooms.  At the high school level, it would exceed capacity by about 48 students, which would be another 2 classrooms.  However, there are multiple developments that are within the CSA that have not entered a request for reservation or a request for their SCALD.  With those two developments, it will take all of the capacity down and it will be negative within the CSA.  

     Commissioner Constantine stated every time the Board gets a report, the report always deems that there is capacity because it’s countywide.  He thinks this information about specific schools and specific areas would be extremely important when making zoning and rezoning decisions.  Mr. Ranaldi replied that is why they did it for this development and will do it for all future developments.

     Kami Corbett, Attorney representing Seminole County Public Schools, addressed the Board and asked them to uphold staff’s recommendation of denial of the application.  She reminded that there were a lot of discussions regarding what impairment of contract is and isn’t under the Lee County case, and she has the utmost confidence in the County’s legal counsel and their recommendation.

     Mr. Glass advised the Appellant is withdrawing the appeal of the vesting denial.


     Commissioner Carey suggested in light of the hour, unless there is something really pressing for their District Reports, the Board should just ask for any further public comments.

     Commissioner Dallari advised he would like to suspend District Reports.  No objections were voiced.


     The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:

1.    Copy of a letter dated August 10, 2018, from James Stansbury, Chief, Bureau of Community Planning, to Ann Catris, Registered Agent, re: Seminole County Industrial Development Authority, Notice of Noncompliance.


2.    Letter dated August 17, 2018, from Chairman Horan, to Grey Wilson re: his appointment to the Seminole County Parks and Preservation Advisory Committee; term ending January 1, 2021.


3.    Letter dated August 17, 2018, from Chairman Horan, to Matthew Criswell re: appreciation for his service on the Seminole County Parks and Preservation Advisory Committee.


4.    Letter dated August 17, 2018, from Franklin Martz, II, City Manager, City of Altamonte Springs, re: update on upcoming city improvements.



     Ms. Guillet stated there was a recent work session on major projects, and one of the items they talked about was the pending unsolicited, now solicited, proposals for the 5 Points project.  Under the State statute, discussion of those projects can only be done under closed session until such time the Board makes an announcement on a decision.  She explained if the Board is still so inclined to have a closed session, staff will prepare for that on September 11.  She will need a motion to go forward with that and the Chairman will have to read a statement into the record if the Board decides to move forward with having the closed session.

     Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Dallari, to schedule the closed session on September 11, 2018, so the Board can hear the information.

     Districts 1, 2, 3 and 5 voted AYE.

     Chairman Horan read the following statement (received and filed) into the record, “Pursuant to Section 255.065(15)(d), Florida Statutes, at the conclusion of the September 11, 2018 regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, the Board of County Commissioners will conduct a Closed Executive Session for a staff presentation and discussion with the Board pertaining to the two Public Private Partnership proposals Seminole County received in response to the January 3, 2018 Request for Proposals (SCP3-0001-18) entitled:  Consolidation and Redevelopment of the 5 Points Seminole County Government Complex Public-Private Partnership (3P).  The Closed Executive Session will be transcribed by a certified court reporter.  The attendees will be:  Commissioners John Horan, Lee Constantine, Brenda Carey, and Bob Dallari, County Attorney A. Bryant Applegate, Senior Assistant County Attorney Paul Chipok, County Manager Nicole Guillet, Assistant County Manager Meloney Lung, Public Works Department Director Jean Jreij, and Purchasing & Contracts Manager Ray Hooper.  The transcription of the Closed Executive Session and the 3P Proposals will remain exempt from Public Records disclosure until such time as disclosure is allowed pursuant to Section 255.065, Florida Statutes.”

     Ms. Guillet pointed out the statement says “at the conclusion of the meeting,” which means they would do it after the afternoon session.  She isn’t sure what they have on the agenda.  Commissioner Dallari asked how long the presentation may be.  Ms. Guillet answered it will just be staff and it shouldn’t be long because they will give the Board the opportunity to look at it before the meeting.


Chairman Horan announced that he will not be present for the September 25 meeting, and there is a good chance that he will not be available for that evening’s Budget Public Hearing. 


There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m., this same date.