BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
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.
Present:
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.
BUSINESS SPOTLIGHT
The
Business Spotlight video for I-CON Systems was presented.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
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
Engineering
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)
Facilities
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)
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S CONSENT AGENDA
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.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER’S CONSENT
AGENDA
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.
REGULAR
AGENDA
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.
COUNTY
MANAGER AND STAFF BRIEFINGS
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.
COUNTY
INVESTMENT ADVISOR REPORT
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.
PROOFS OF PUBLICATION
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.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Commissioners Dallari, Carey and Constantine submitted their ex parte
communications into the record (received and filed).
GENEVA
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RIGHT-OF-WAY
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.
VILLAGE ON THE
GREEN PD MAJOR AMENDMENT
& 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.
TESORO
TOWNHOMES PD REZONE/Jean Abi-Aoun
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.
TRANSMITTAL OF
BROADSTONE FOREST LSFLU AMENDMENT
&
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.
ALTA SEMINOLE LSFLU MAP AMENDMENT AND REZONE/
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.
TRANSMITTAL OF
GRANDEVILLE AT WESTSTATE
APARTMENTS
LSFLU MAP AMENDMENT AND PD REZONE/Matthew Gourlay
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.
GRANDEVILLE AT
WESTSTATE APARTMENTS
EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
VESTING
DENIAL APPEAL/Matthew Gourlay
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.
DISTRICT
COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
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.
COMMUNICATIONS
AND/OR REPORTS
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.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S REPORT
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.
ATTEST:______________________Clerk_____________________Chairman
js/tp/kf