BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JANUARY 27, 2009
The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:33 a.m., on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, in the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Chairman Bob Dallari (District 1)
Vice Chairman Mike McLean (District 2)
Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)
Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)
Commissioner Brenda Carey (District 5)
Clerk of Court Maryanne Morse
County Manager Cindy Coto
County Attorney Robert McMillan
Deputy Clerk Eva Roach
Pastor Wendell Bishop, First Baptist Church, Sanford, gave the Invocation.
Ryan Sanford, Seminole High School Football Team Captain, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
AWARDS & PRESENTATIONS
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to adopt appropriate Resolution #2009-R-16, as shown on page _______, recognizing the Seminole High School Football Team for winning the State Championship.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board presented the Resolution to Coach Mike Cullison and the team of Seminole High School Fighting Seminoles. Coach Mike Cullison addressed the Board to express his appreciation on behalf of the Seminole High School Football team. He announced that Andre Debose was selected by the Parade Magazine as an all American team member.
Mike Gaudreau, Seminole High School Principal, addressed the Board to thank the Board for recognizing the football team. He stated the recognition that the Board has given the team will live with them forever.
Janet Davis, Human Resources Director, addressed the Board to introduce and present the 2008 graduating Employee Academy Class members with plaques.
Chairman Dallari recessed the BCC meeting at 9:55 a.m. for the purpose of convening the U.S. Highway 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency meeting.
US 17-92 CRA
John Metsopoulos, Planning & Development, addressed the Board to present request to approve the U.S. 17-92 CRA Redevelopment Grant Agreement between the CRA and SafeHouse; and to approve a Resolution implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #09-26 through the Community Redevelopment Fund in the amount of $42,667.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize the Chairman to execute the U.S. 17-92 CRA Redevelopment Grant Agreement, as shown on page ________, between the CRA and SafeHouse; and adopt appropriate Resolution #2009-R-17, as shown on page _______, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #09-26 through the Community Redevelopment Fund in the amount of $42,667.00.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Dallari adjourned the CRA meeting at 9:58 a.m., reconvening the BCC meeting at 9:58 a.m.
COUNTY MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Cindy Coto, County Manager, addressed the Board to advise that Item #8, Approve Amendment #4 to PS-5191-05, has been pulled from the agenda and staff will bring it back in February.
Commissioner Carey stated she would like Item #10, adopt Resolution amending Cooperative Extension Fee Schedule; Item #14, Revisions to Animal Services Program Fee Resolution; and Item #18, Resolution amending Library Services Fee Schedule; be pulled for separate discussions. She stated she would like Item #17, authorize scheduling a public hearing relating to using non-ad valorem assessment for stormwater management, be pulled for discussion as well.
Commissioner Carey stated with regard to Item #17, the Board asked that a stormwater report be done and brought back to the Board and she hasn’t seen that yet. This particular action is giving the Board authority to establish a MSBU to replace the MSTU that they currently have. She said she would like to know why this action is coming before the Board today.
Lisa Spriggs, Fiscal Services Director, addressed the Board to explain that during the budget work sessions last year they had discussions with regard to having a study done and that is currently underway for a stormwater assessment fee. She stated statutorily, in order to keep the option open for the next fiscal year and to be able to levy an assessment, they would have to provide a resolution of intent by March 1st. What this does is modify the ordinance they currently have as an MSTU and that changes that district to an assessment district. This action would not enact any type of assessment but would allow them the ability to do that during the next taxing year.
Ms. Spriggs explained for Commissioner Henley what the difference is between a taxing district and an assessment district.
Commissioner Henley stated if staff knew what the deadline was to advertise, why didn’t they make sure the report was completed. He stated his concern is if they had the report ahead of time, then they probably would know whether or not they really want to go forward.
Ms. Spriggs advised the March 1st deadline would enable them to collect it through the tax roll.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated the big issue is people get nervous in trying times when there is a possibility that they are subject to another tax. He said this doesn’t mean that they are going to put one in place. He added if they decide to do it, he would like to know how long it will be to get a tax in place.
Ms. Spriggs stated this would allow the Board to be able to do an assessment on property taxes for fiscal year 2010. She further stated what they are amending is the MSTU and this would set the frame work for assessment.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he will not be supporting this because he is taking a very dim view on any fee increases or any new taxes.
Commissioner McLean said they are probably getting in a situation where they are not going to be in a position to look at the results of that study until the end of this year.
Ms. Coto stated the study was done in two phases and phase one will probably be completed in the spring. Staff will be presenting the results from the consultants during the budget process. The Board will then give staff an indication as to whether or not they are interested in pursuing that particular fee. If so, then they would look at how they will go forth with respect to the overall implementation. This item is intended to be a place holder just as the MSTU has been since 1993. Staff’s perspective was if the Board decided to proceed forward with the stormwater fee, a benefit unit is more defensible than a taxing unit from the standpoint that it is based upon taxable value versus the benefit the property receives. The consultants believed that this would be the appropriate manner in which to have a place holder should the Board decide to proceed forward.
Commissioner Carey stated in 1993, the Board enacted an MSTU taxing authority for stormwater and they never levied a tax on that, but without seeing the beginning of the report, how do they know that maybe a taxing unit isn’t what they want to do. She further stated the Board may want to do a taxing unit rather than a benefit unit. If the Board takes this action, they are committed to a benefit unit versus a taxing unit. She said she hasn’t seen anything that tells her one is better than the other.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Coto advised the study is proceeding. If the Board decides to implement collection of the fee and, in doing so, if the Board decides to proceed forward in Fiscal Year 2009/2010, they have the mechanism in place to do so. If the Board does not take this action, they can create a MSBU at a later date but they will lose a year of collections.
Kathy Moore, MSBU, addressed the Board to advise the Board can amend or repeal the ordinance at a later date but it is not mandatory that be done at the public hearing.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he has not seen the study and he is not ready to move forward with this. The Board can analyze the study when it comes back.
Commissioner Carey stated she was told that this action would amend the ordinance and replace it with a MSBU versus a MSTU.
Guy Minter, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board to advise the item they have now is a resolution to elect the collection of non ad valorem assessments. This resolution does not reppeal or amend an ordinance. There is a request to advertise an ordinance that will be heard the same day and that ordinance would have the effect of repealing or amending the MSTU ordinance. If the Board wants to leave that option open, they can leave the MSTU ordinance in effect. The Board could adopt an MSBU ordinance on February 24, and both options would be available until they receive the study.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Minter advised four weeks of advertisement is required for the method of collection, and they would need to adopt the resolution by March 1st. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Minter stated staff can modify the ordinance so that it doesn’t repeal or amend the MSTU ordinance. They would just create a new MSBU for stormwater.
Mr. McMillan stated he recalls that a stormwater utility study was being done. The MSTU was created to serve as a potential bridge to the MSBU so that the Board would fund the stormwater program by MSTU for a year until they put the MSBU in place because of the delay in getting the special assessments done. The Board could levy the tax for the first year and then convert it later to an MSBU.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Gary Johnson, Public Works Director, addressed the Board to advise staff is nearing the completion of the first phase of the study. That study is what they would use to present budget options to the Board, and the second phase, if the Board is interested in pursuing it further, would be more on the implementation side. The initial scope of service is validating the rules, looking at different parcel types, and looking at different types of methodologies. The one thing staff is looking at, which other municipalities may not have considered yet, is tying the assessment to some of the works that are going to be necessary to comply with the total maximum daily loads. Water quality issues that are forthcoming over the next few years and will drive a capital program that could be funded by this mechanism.
Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Coto advised she is not sure that this issue was discussed during the joint City/County Managers’ meeting. Cities are contributing to some of those basins.
Commissioner Henley stated there were some discussions in trying to identify the areas they want to take a look at and study but it never got beyond that phase. That is something that they might want to consider. He stated he would like staff to bring them up-to-date on exactly how much each municipality levies.
Chairman Dallari requested staff to submit a per capita as well as what it has been used for and how long it has been in place.
Commissioner Van Der Weide requested that this item be pulled for a separate vote.
Commissioner Carey stated what staff is trying to do is have all the options available. She said she agrees that timing is always critical and now is not the time for any new taxes. If the Board wants to do a MSTU because of the property tax reform formula, the taxing unit would count against them. She stated she doesn’t want to eliminate a decision made in 1993 that has never been funded. She is not really opposed to putting tools in the tool box, but she is not supporting any new taxes.
Commissioner McLean stated he will be supporting the item because he feels they need that flexibility. If they do not take these steps, then they will be eliminating the options they can consider.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Minter advised the thing that has to be done by March 1st is the resolution to do the method of collection and there is no requirement to do the ordinance by March 1st. Staff contemplated adopting the ordinance to set up the MSBU and then there would be a separate phase that would occur after the Board receives input from the study. The decision on the resolution needs to be done today in order to get the four weeks of advertisement in.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Minter advised if the Board doesn’t do the ordinance on the same day, the resolution would reflect that they have undertaken a study regarding the MSBU method of funding a stormwater system. That would be reflected in the resolution to utilize the method of collection if the Board adopts the MSBU ordinance.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Moore advised the Board can leave the ordinance in place as is as there is no specific requirement to have an ordinance established. The next step in the process involves the decision-making, and there would be a second public hearing at the time they have a completed assessment roll, and the property owners’ assessment roll would be mailed out in early August.
Mr. Minter advised the uniform method of collection resolution has to be adopted by March 1st to retain the option of using that method of collection during the next budget year.
Commissioner Carey stated she does want staff to get the message that they are going to use the MSBU to fund stormwater.
Mr. Minter stated the State statute authorizes local governments to use a non-ad valorem collection way before an ordinance is adopted. The statute requires the County to pass a resolution that they would like that option.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize scheduling and advertising a public hearing to consider a Resolution of Intent to use non-ad valorem assessment for stormwater management, and not modify the MSTU that is currently in place.
Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Van Der Weide voted NAY.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLean relative to Item #20, Approve Interlocal Agreement for Public Transit Services with Lynx, Commissioner Henley advised the Lynx Board has not had any problems with the interlocal agreement. He stated they have had some hang-ups with Osceola County that has to be resolved, but there are no problems from Lynx regarding this.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize and approve the following, excluding Items #10, #14, #18 & #17.
County Manager’s Office
4. Approval by the Board of County Commissioners to reimburse mileage expenses to and from various meetings in Orlando for Commissioner Henley in the amount of $79,56.
Purchasing and Contracts
5. Award CC-3464-08/VFT, as shown on page ________, Expansion & Re-vegetation of the Sweetwater Cove Treatment Pond in the amount of $1,728,827.00 to All American Concrete, Inc. of Largo, Florida.
6. Award CC-3954-08/DRR, as shown on page ________, in the amount of $165,930.00 to COMANCO Environmental Corporation of Plant City, Florida.
7. Approve Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to RFP-4214-04/TLR - Security Repairs, Maintenance and Upgrades Agreement with Site Secure, Inc. of Sanford, Florida, to extend the final Agreement Period by one (1) year.
8. Approve Amendment #4, as shown on page ________, to PS-5191-05/TLR with Brown and Caldwell, of Maitland, Florida, to increase the total Not-To-Exceed Amount for the term of the Agreement by an additional $35,848.00.
9. Authorize the Chairman to approve the re-appointment of Marie-Jose Francois, M.D., and Gregg D. MacDonald for additional two (2) year terms to the Board of Directors of the Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc.
11. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Second Amendment, as shown on page ________, to the Economic Development Commission of Mid-Florida, Inc. Master Agreement to reflect a reduction in funding from $0.90 per capita to $0.80 per capita. The remaining payment terms are unchanged.
12. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Wholesale Water Service Agreement, as shown on page ________, between the city of Casselberry and Seminole County.
13. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Customer Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Reclaimed Water Rates with Heathrow Master Association, Inc.
15. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2009-R-18, as shown on page ________, establishing Public Safety Fees under Section 20.38 of the Seminole County Administrative Code.
16. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2009-R-19, as shown on page ________, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #09-24 through the Public Works Grant Fund in the amount of $1,497,747.00 in order to provide additional funding for the Sweetwater Cove project.
Planning and Development
19. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the final plat for Sylvan Place, containing 2 lots on a 2.00 acre parcel zoned A-1 (Agriculture), located on the north side of S. Sylvan Lake Drive and approximately 380 feet west of Orange Boulevard; in Section 25, Township 19 S, Range 29 E, Rafael Grullon.
20. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the Interlocal Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Public Transit Services between Seminole County and the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX) for Fiscal Year 2009.
21. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Amendment No. 1, as shown on page __________, to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Contract No. GC684 for the Petroleum Compliance Verification Program.
22. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2009-R-20, as shown on page ________, accepting a Communication System Mast Arm Sign Easement, as shown on page ________, from Embarq Florida, Inc., for property needed to install a Mast Arm Sign along a portion of State Road 436.
23. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2009-R-21, as shown on page ________, accepting a Quit Claim Deed, as shown on page ________, from the city of Sanford for property needed for the construction of a sidewalk along a portion of West 25th Street (a/k/a County Road 46A).
24. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Third Amendment, as shown on page ________, to the Agreement between the St. Johns River Water Management District and Seminole County for the Sweetwater Cove Tributary to the Wekiva River: Sediment Control Project (SE621AA).
25. Approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Construction Agreement, as shown on page ________, between CSX Transportation, Inc., and Seminole County to facilitate installation of a new Magnum Concrete Crossing Surface and Signals for State Road 400 (County Road 15).
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Request to adopt a Resolution amending Seminole County Administrative Code Section 20.16, “Community Services-Cooperative Extension Fee Schedule”, was presented.
Commissioner Carey stated staff is looking at a charge for the use of the auditorium, and she feels the County’s facilities have been paid for with tax dollars and she doesn’t think it is appropriate to charge the citizens for using this facility.
Barbara Hughes, Extension Services Manager, addressed the Board to discuss the cleanup for the use of the facility, the fee schedule and the use of the auditorium for profit and non-profit.
Commissioner Carey stated one way to resolve the cleanup issue is to require a deposit. Discussion ensued.
Chairman Dallari stated he feels if there are companies using the County’s facilities to make a profit, then they should be charged to use that space. He further stated if it’s not-for-profit or service group, everyone pays taxes and it should be used for free.
Ms. Hughes stated she can train her staff to use specific questions in determining profit and non-profit.
Commissioner Carey recommended that be placed on the application process. She stated she feels that for-profit companies and outside Seminole County not-for-profit companies should be charged, and if it is a non-profit company in Seminole County then they should not be charged.
Ms. Hughes explained to Commissioner Henley how they arrived at the fees they have set.
Commissioner Henley stated he can support this if a company is making a profit.
Commissioner Carey recommended continuing this item so they can obtain more information about the cost.
Chairman Dallari recommended that staff rewrite this item and brief each Board member before it is brought back at the next meeting.
Request to approve revisions to the Animal Services Program Fee Resolution amending Section 20.5 of the Seminole County Administrative Code was presented.
Commissioner Carey stated the one thing that came to her attention was when they made a decision to fund the mobile unit, they did away with rebates. She stated the mobile unit is not doing very well and the reason for that is they are trying to target the lower income communities. The feedback she got from staff is they are doing it that way because they got direction from the Board. She recommended they advertise that they are taking the unit to Sanford and the first 20 people or so who signs up will have an opportunity to get their animal taken care of. She said she has a problem with the rebate program as most organizations were using the program and very few citizens were using it.
Tad Stone, Public Safety Director, addressed the Board to clarify that there were a lot of open discussions going on regarding some of the fees even though there was not a quorum at the October 2007 Advisory Board meeting. There were no discussions at the January 2008 meeting regarding the fees.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Stone advised a dangerous dog is designated by their action and not as a result of their breed.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Stone advised to determine a dangerous dog, the animal has to come off the property and attack another animal or person and it has to leave scars or marks. The Animal Control Officer conducting the investigation has to determine whether the animal meets the criteria of a dangerous dog. When it is declared dangerous, it will go before the Animal Board for a hearing and if a person doesn’t agree with the Board’s findings, they can appeal before the court.
Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Stone advised the owner of the animal has to notify their insurance company that they are going to maintain a dangerous dog on site, and that owner will have to send notification to the County that insurance company knows about it.
Commissioner McLean stated he would suggest that before they make a definitive decision, an official action by the Animal Control Board be done and a recommendation is given to the BCC.
Mr. Stone explained to Commissioner Carey how they determine in a dangerous dog scenario that the owner can keep the dog.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Stone advised there are clauses in the statute about tormenting animals.
Chairman Dallari stated some of the fees need to be adjusted and he would like to receive the Animal Control Board’s input on this. Commissioners Van Der Weide and Carey agreed.
Mr. Stone stated the next Animal Control Board meeting is scheduled in March and it will probably be May before staff can bring this back to the BCC. The consensus of the Board is to continue this item and have staff bring it back at a later date.
Request to approve Resolution amending the Seminole County Administrative Code, Section 20.30, Library Services Fee Schedule, was presented.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Jane Peterson, Library Services Director, addressed the Board to advise staff estimated that approximately 5,000 non-profit and 1,000 for-profit organizations have used the meeting rooms last year.
Chairman Dallari stated he would like to see the same program here as with Extension Services.
Commissioner Carey stated she can support the same type of discussion they had about the Extension Services auditorium.
At the request of Commissioner Henley, Ms. Peterson explained what the non-refundable process under Lost Material (Item #4) means.
Commissioner Carey stated the Clerk’s audit of libraries was just submitted and there are over $2 million in outstanding fines and fees that have not been collected. It doesn’t matter what the fine is, if they are not collecting them, then they have a problem.
Ms. Coto stated staff has implemented a program that is now a zero tolerance program with respect to the fines and fees.
Chairman Dallari asked if a minor (16 or 18 years old) runs up a bill of late fees that would go to a collection agency. He stated he would like a parent be notified of that as they may not be aware of it.
Commissioner Van Der Weide left the meeting at this time.
Ms. Peterson stated staff can revise that section.
Chairman Dallari stated he has an issue with turning a 16-year-old to a collection agency. He stated he would think a parent would want to know what is going on.
Ms. Peterson stated as of April, no one will be able to check out a book if they have a balance on their account.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms. Peterson advised the reason they are waiting until April to implement this policy is they want to inform the public of this and give the public three weeks to pay off their fines.
Commissioner Henley stated he would like a quarterly report of how many lost books there are, how many are in the arrears and how much they have collected.
Commissioner Carey stated she would like to know what progress they are making on collecting the $2 million in late fees.
Chairman Dallari stated the consensus is to have staff bring this item back to the Board.
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS’ CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize and approve the following:
26. Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page ________, dated December 22 & 30, 2008; and Payroll Approval List, as shown on page ________, dated December 24, 2008; approval of BCC Minutes dated December 9, 2008; and noting, for information only, the following Clerk’s received and filed:
1. Certificates, as shown on page ________, of No Recall for SOKC, LLC and Penn Sanford, LLC.
2. Audit Review of Facilities Maintenance Division from Maryanne Morse, Clerk of Circuit Court.
3. Work Order #22, as shown on page ________, to CC-1741-07.
4. Maintenance Bond #LPM08921529, as shown on page _______, in the amount of $3,312 for Bridgewater Commons.
5. Work Order #17, as shown on page _______, to CC-1284-06.
6. Amendment #2, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #25 to PS-0381-06.
7. M-4000-08 Basic Agreement, as shown on page ________, PBS&J.
8. M-4003-08 Basic Agreement, as shown on page ________, PBS&J.
9. Work Order #20, as shown on page ________, to PS-5182-05.
10. Work Order #45, as shown on page ________, to PS-1074-06.
11. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #35 to PS-1529-06.
12. Seminole County Victim’s Rights Coalition Subrecipient Agreement, as shown on page ________, for the 2008-2009 One-Year Action Plan.
13. BCBS True Group Applications, as shown on page ________, for Board of County Commissioners, Supervisor of Elections and Port Authority.
14. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to M-502-06 Telestaff and Webstaff Annual Maintenance Renewal, Principal Decision Systems.
15. M-600550-09 Wonderware Maintenance and Support Contract, as shown on page ________, Insource Software.
16. M-600574-09 Annual UPS Maintenance Agreement, as shown on page ________, Computer Power Systems.
17. Change Order #3, as shown on page ________, to CC-2396-07.
18. Change Order #2, as shown on page ________, to CC-1184-06.
19. Letters of Understanding, as shown on page ________, with the cities of Oviedo and Lake Mary for the Florida Yards & Neighborhood Program.
20. Assistant and Associate Tennis Pro Agreement, as shown on page ________, with John Sanders.
21. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #68 to PS-5130-02.
22. Work Order #33, as shown on page ________, to RFP-0225-05.
23. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #57 to PS-5120-02.
24. Change Order #2, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #10 to CC-1284-06.
25. Work Order #1, as shown on page ________, to CC-3321-08.
26. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to M-3063-08.
27. Fourth Amendment, as shown on page ________, to IFB-3086-04.
28. Third Amendment, as shown on page ________, to RFP-4114-01.
29. Temporary Utility Construction Easement, as shown on page ________, for Alaqua Lakes Community Association, Inc.
30. Work Orders #16, #17, #18, #19, #20 & #21, as shown on page ________, to CC-1741-07.
31. BOA Development Orders, as shown on page ________, for the following: Samuel & Abigail Rivera; Sandra Spessard; Barbara Johnson; Seminole County Board of County Commissioners; Mary Ann Lucas; John & Tana Sauls; Elaina Giarrusso; Richard & Esther Cohen; Thomas & Judy Smith; Jason & Jessica Kaiser; Michelle & Richard Hunt; and The Springs Community Association.
32. The Housing Authority of the city of Sanford Tenant-Based Rental Assistance Program Subrecipient Agreement, as shown on page ________, for the 2008-2009 One-Year Action Plan.
33. Bill of Sale and Utility Easement, as shown on page ________, for the project known as Bridgewater Commons.
34. Trustees’ Warranty Deed, as shown on page ________, for the acquisition of the Crockett property for Natural Lands.
35. Work Order #1, as shown on page _______, to PS-3065-08.
36. Change Order #1, as shown on page ________, to CC-2059-07.
37. Work Order #1, as shown on page ________, to PS-3166-08.
38. Work Order #2, as shown on page ________, to PS-0709-06.
39. Amendment #2, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #78 to PS-5165-04.
40. Change Order #1, as shown on page ________, to CC-3112-08.
41. Amendment #11, as shown on page ________, to PS-549-00.
42. Work Order #5, as shown on page ________, to PS-5186-05.
43. Amendment #8, as shown on page ________, to RFP-4188-03.
44. Flexible Spending Account Application and Medical Enrollment Summary, as shown on page ________, for Seminole County Board of County Commissioners.
45. Closeout, as shown on page ________, for Work Order #26 to CC-1075-06.
46. First Amendment, as shown on page ________, to RFP-600326-08.
47. Bids as follows: RFP-600555-08; CC-3954-08 and IFB-600530-08.
Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 11:01 p.m., reconvening it at 11:10 p.m., with Commissioner Van Der Weide in attendance, and with County Attorney, Robert McMillan, and Maryanne Morse, Clerk of Court, returning late.
Tina Williamson, Assistant Planning Manager, addressed the Board to present request for a reduction to a Code Enforcement Board Lien from $47,250 to $25,027.57, which represents a 50% reduction of the total lien plus administrative costs of $1,402.57 for Case #07-81-CEB on property located at 1620 Ridge Avenue, Longwood, Stacy Dudley (previous owner) and U.S. Bank (current owner); and require these costs to be paid within 60 days or the lien will revert to its original amount ($47,250).
Robert McMillan, County Attorney, reentered the meeting at this time.
Ms. Williamson reviewed the history of the violation as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She stated staff recommends that the Board reduce the amount of the lien and the amount of $25,027.57 be paid within 60 days or the lien will revert to its original amount ($47,250).
Commissioner Carey stated the Board had discussions about changing the codes regarding setting up a fund to immediately secure the pools, and she would like to know if that is in the process.
Ms. Coto advised it is not necessary to change the code, as the code allows the County to secure those properties to ensure that no harm is done to the neighborhood. She stated she does not recall the Board setting aside money for that purpose.
Commissioner Carey stated the Board had discussions with regard to a portion of the fees being placed in a separate account so that pools can be secured.
Commissioner Henley stated if the Board wants to use that approach, then it would be appropriate to take that action so the County Manager will have something to base this on.
Maryanne Morse, Clerk of Court, reentered the meeting at this time.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Ms. Williamson advised this house has already been foreclosed on.
Commissioner McLean stated his concern is they are giving better deals than they need to. If all parties are aware that this process is moving forward and there is no other entity than the bank, then he would think they would know what the challenges are and they can try to solve these issues sooner. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the violation and foreclosure process.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. Williamson advised the property is in compliance now.
Commissioner McLean asked where are they starting the clock and when can the bank legally do something about it.
Mr. McMillan stated in this case he is not sure what the specific situation is. The issue in the past is if the owner is the owner when the order took place, the statute provides that the order runs with the land and you don’t have to start over because of title change. The County’s position is the order survives and the new owner is under immediate order to bring it into compliance and that fine continues to accrue anew. Part of the issue is whether or not there is a procedure in place to make sure the bank knows about it.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner McLean to approve a reduction to the Code Enforcement Board lien from $47,250.00 to $25,027.57, which represents a 50% reduction of the total lien plus administrative costs of $1,402.57 for Case #07-81-CEB on the property located at 1620 Ridge Avenue, Longwood – Stacy Dudley (previous owner) and U.S. Bank (current owner), and require these costs to be paid within 60 days or the lien will revert to its original amount ($47,250.00), and upon payment in full, authorize the Chairman to execute the Satisfaction of Lien, as shown on page ________.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
- - -
Chairman Dallari asked what was the Board’s pleasure with regard to securing pools of homes that are under foreclosure.
Ms. Coto advised the County has a mechanism under the code to enter the property to secure the pools. She stated if the Board would like staff to take some of the monies they receive from paid Code Enforcement liens, they can put that money under a separate fund.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize the County Manager to take up to 50% of the fines collected from Code Enforcement liens to be used to bring pools into compliance.
Under discussion, Commissioner Carey stated she would like the County Attorney do an indepth research on how this is going to work.
Commissioner Henley stated he feels they are going to see a lot more of allowing the abandoned places that are in foreclosure to go into disrepair. He stated the Board may want to consider having the County Manager implement repairs on the abandoned homes and have it paid for out of those funds.
Chairman Dallari asked Ms. Coto to come back with a written policy for the Board’s review.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Bill McDermott, Economic Development Director, addressed the Board to present request to approve a Resolution recognizing Access Mediquip, LLC as a QTI; approve an Interlocal Agreement with the city of Lake Mary to provide 50% of the $116,000 local match requirement; and providing an appropriation of $58,000 as Seminole County’s participation in the QTI tax refund program. He stated Access Mediquip is considering relocating their corporate headquarters to Lake Mary and adding 145 new high-level jobs over a three-year period with an average annual salary of at least $57,000. He said the city of Lake Mary is scheduled to vote on the interlocal agreement on February 5, 2009. Staff recommends approval of the request contingent on the participation of the city of Lake Mary.
Commissioner Henley stated he will be supporting this but he wants to raise caution that when they got into the QTI business some time ago, the criteria was bricks and mortar. At this time, they are moving into things that don’t require bricks and mortar and the County could use up all of their monies if they are not cautious on projects that need renovations. He said he would like the Board to be sensitive to the fact that the original intent was bricks and mortar.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2009-R-22, as shown on page ________, recognizing Access Mediquip, LLC as a QTI; approve an Interlocal Agreement, as shown on page _________, with the city of Lake Mary to provide 50% of the $116,000 local match requirement; and approve providing an appropriation of $58,000 as Seminole County’s participation in the QTI tax refund program, contingent upon approval by the city of Lake Mary.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Dennis Westrick, PEI Manager for Environmental Services, addressed the Board to give an overview of the agenda memorandum regarding Item #29. Staff is requesting approval of the 2009 Revalidation of the Water & Sewer Capital Improvement Program (CIP); and authorization for staff to proceed with preparation for the 2nd Bond issue. He displayed and reviewed a PowerPoint presentation consisting of the CIP Funds Status. He stated despite a downturn in the economy, the program is still being executed in a favorable economic environment.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Drew Jeter, CH2M Hill, addressed the Board to advise they have about 30 projects that have been completed. He displayed and reviewed the CIP Funds Status and CIP Budget Status.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey regarding the appeal on the permit for Yankee Lake, Mr. McMillan advised an appeal period doesn’t begin until after the district issues a permit. The appeal period will run from that time forward. The next step is to obtain approval from St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and whenever that occurs the appeal period will begin. The Board will have to make a decision as to whether or not they want to go forward, assuming the permit is granted.
Commissioner Carey stated if the Board takes action to revalidate today, part of the revalidation is to move forward with this project.
Mr. Jeter stated that is correct. He said putting that project back out to bid has definitely not been undertaken and is waiting for the required permits to be in place.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. McMillan advised normally those kinds of appeals take about a year, assuming it is filed. The SJRWMD has to determine whether or not to accept the recommended order and the County can deal with what happens as a result of that.
Commissioner Henley stated he would like to know how many projects that are committed in the $219 million that are still ongoing or haven’t been completed yet. Discussion ensued.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Jeter advised of the $219 million, approximately $28 million is program management fees and probably about the same amount for the design fees.
Mr. Jeter continued his presentation by reviewing the 1st Bond Designs with 2nd Bond Construction and Projects in Design That Need 2nd Bond Funds to Go to Bid. Discussion ensued relative to the Greenwood Lakes upgrade and commitments.
Mr. Jeter reviewed the Revalidation/Reprioritization Overview; the 2007, 2008, and 2009 Validation; and the 2006-2011 CIP Variances Project Level Details.
Commissioner Carey stated she would like staff to take a closer look at how they may realign these projects. She stated for any monies spent on the second phase of a regional plant, while she feels they have to think in that direction, there are plants already online and in operation that needs immediate attention; and they haven’t gotten through the first phase of this project. She stated she feels that any monies spent on the second phase of Yankee Lake for a regional plant, when they don’t even have a permit for the first phase, should be suspended. She added she feels that they need to rally the troops and gather up the monies to see how they can redistribute it and look at their most immediate needs.
Mr. Jeter reviewed for Chairman Dallari what monies they are spending on projects that are contingent on phase one or phase two of the surface water plant.
Commissioner Carey stated with a new bond issue comes a rate increase for the consumer and she is not going to support that at this time. She further stated she feels the County needs to regroup and look at what they have to work with and what are the most critical needs.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Mr. Jeter advised they have budgeted about $58 million for phase one to cover all the capital requirements for Yankee Lake. He stated the projects that are in design associated with the surface plants are worth about $12 million and those will be online by 2010.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Jeter said there is not enough reclaimed water to support phases three and four.
Whereupon, Commissioner Carey suggested that staff look at this again to see if there is any way they can adjust this.
Mr. Jeter continued by reviewing the Revalidation 2009 Summary; 2006-2015 CIP ($407 million); and the CIP Budget Status (2006-2015).
Bob Briggs, Environmental Services, addressed the Board to display and review the 2009 Water & Sewer Utility CIP Financial/Rate Update, 2006 Rate Presentation, and Rate Comparison.
Gary Akers, First Southwest Company Financial Advisor, addressed the Board to submit a Municipal Market Conditions booklet (received and filed). He reviewed the Historical Interest Rates and Recent Florida Debt Issuances that have come to market lately.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Aker advised the true interest cost of the last bond issue was 4.30 or 4.34.
He continued by reviewing the Remarket Index, the Forecast of Interest Rates, Detail of the Bond Buyer Indexes, and an article, “Are Munis Still Cheap”, from bondbuyer.com.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLean, Mr. Aker advised bonds cannot be sold at this time. It takes about three to six months to put a bond issue together. If there is a bond issue, then they would have to go through the rating review and presentation. It is very important that the County keep an AA rating on the utility bonds.
Upon further inquiry by Commissioner McLean, Mr. Aker advised if the County moves in that direction, they could pivot to a bank financing alternative within 30 days.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Aker advised $50 million is probably the limit for a bank, but it is not out of the question that more than one bank can make a loan.
Commissioner Carey stated she doesn’t want the Board to think that it would be easy for them to flip over and do a bridge line on a $90 million deal. She stated with all the banks doing merges and all of their maneuvering, she doesn’t think that is a great plan for them to do.
Commissioner Carey requested that Mr. Akers provide the Board a 25-year history of the RBI bonds and treasury notes.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to authorize the consultant to look closely at the revalidation that they are proposing to see if some things can be moved to meet their immediate needs; and to wait on the bond issue or financing discussion until they know what will happen with the permit.
Under discussion, Commissioner McLean stated he feels they can move forward with the bond issue process. He stated if the market isn’t there, they can move in a different direction or shut it down completely.
Commissioner Carey stated it would cost money to do that and the numbers would change. She said the County would be suicidal in the market place if they have to go back to the rating agencies without a permit in hand.
Chairman Dallari stated his comment would be to ask the consultant to move forward and reshuffle the deck but try to find out when would be the right time to go to the market.
Districts 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioners Dallari and McLean voted NAY.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 12:50 p.m., reconvening at 2:15 p.m., this same date, with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Clerk of Circuit Court Maryanne Morse, and Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who were present at the Opening Session.
PROOFS OF PUBLICATION
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize the filing of the proofs of publication for this meeting’s scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
SMALL SCALE LAND USE AMENDMENT &
REZONE TO PUD, JUDY STEWART
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request for a Small Scale Land Use Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Planned Development (PD) and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture to PUD (Planned Unit Development) on approximately 4.7 acres, located on the south side of the intersection of Slavia Road and Red Bug Lake Road, Judy Stewart, received and filed.
County Manager, Cindy Coto, advised staff has received a request from the applicant to continue this item until March 10.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey to continue until March 10, 2009, consideration of a request for a Small Scale Land Use Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Planned Development (PD) and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) on approximately 4.7 acres, located on the south side of the intersection of Slavia Road and Red Bug Lake Road, as described in the proof of publication, Judy Stewart.
Under discussion and upon inquiry by the Chairman, no one spoke in support or in opposition to the continuance.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
REZONE FROM A-1 TO PCD,
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for approximately 9.47 acres, property located on the west side of Richmond Avenue, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of SR 46 and Richmond Avenue, Ellison Marsil, received and filed.
Planner, Austin Watkins, addressed the Board to present the request, advising the applicant is proposing a total of 106,200 square feet of manufacturing uses and 8,675 square feet of associated office uses. The proposed uses are those uses allowed within the M-1A zoning classification and outside storage with the following exclusions: laundry and dry cleaning, post offices, restaurants, out-patient medical clinics, public and private utility plants, and stations and distribution offices. The outside storage area must be screened from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. He further advised the P&Z Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning and the Preliminary Site Plan and Development Order, subject to the hours of operation not extending past 8:00 p.m. Staff also recommends approval of the rezoning, Preliminary Site Plan and Development Order.
Michael Cash, representing the developer, addressed the Board to advise they did meet with the area residents and have worked out a proposal to provide a wall that would block Mrs. Kaye’s entire view of the work areas on the subject property. He added that they also agree to provide native plants in front of the wall.
District Commissioner Carey advised she met with adjacent property owner, Treena Kaye, and discussed most of the issues.
Michael Bartz, 4421 Canyon Point, addressed the Board to speak in support of the request, stating he believes this will be good for the area. He expressed his concern about noise coming from the property in the future and asked if noise is a problem, how would that be handled.
Treena Kaye, 2700 Richmond Avenue, addressed the Board to state she has lived on her property since 1979 and it has been an agricultural area for years. She said she is not happy with the rezoning, but is happier with the promise of a wall and is appreciative of Mr. Cash’s efforts to make the site plan better for her. She added that it is very hard for the residents who have to live with the decision of the Board to make this area an industrial area.
Upon inquiry by District Commissioner Carey, Ellison Marsil, applicant, addressed the Board to advise the beginning hours of operation will be from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. However, from time to time and when it is demanded, they may have to work double shifts. He added that he would never expect the manufacturing noise to be an issue and he will respect whatever noise ordinance and regulations are in effect.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
Upon inquiry by County Attorney, Robert McMillan, Assistant Planning Manager, Tina Williamson, advised there are performance standards for Industrial uses in the Land Development Code; and if there is violation of those standards, it would be a code enforcement issue.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to adopt Ordinance #2009-3, as shown on page _______, granting rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for approximately 9.47 acres, property located on the west side of Richmond Avenue, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of SR 46 and Richmond Avenue, as described in the proof of publication, Ellison Marsil; and approve the revised Preliminary Site Plan and Development Order, as shown on page _______, based on staff findings and the developer’s commitment to erect a wall on the south property line adjacent to the Kaye property, with native vegetation planted.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey requested staff to contact the MGM Industrial Park owner (which was recently approved) and advise him that the subject property will be bringing water and sewer to the area and that there could be a shared opportunity for them.
REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD,
J. MICHAEL NIDIFFER
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone approximately 12.20 acres from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to PUD, property located north of the intersection of International Parkway and S. Metz Avenue, J. Michael Nidiffer, received and filed.
Planner, Austin Watkins, presented the request, advising the Gunter Village PUD, approved by the BCC on October 24, 2006, is a mixed-use PUD which allows for commercial, retail, office, multi-family and hotel uses. The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to increase intensities and allow for a more flexible development plan. Increases in retail and restaurant square footages indicate a 206% increase from the original approval. However, the applicant has agreed to limit the square footage of the non-target industry uses (retail & restaurant) to no more than 30% of the square footage of the target industry uses (office, hotel & bank). The applicant is also requesting a maximum building height of 110 feet for the site. To buffer this more intensive maximum building height, the applicant is committing to a 5-story or 60-foot maximum building height for the western portion of the development. The 5-story limitation would apply from the western property line to 200 feet eastward. A 110-foot maximum building height is consistent with the trend of development in the area, as the Lake Mary Westin and Rockefeller PUD’s are approved for a similar maximum building height. All other conditions of approval from the original D.O. remain the same. He further advised the P&Z Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning, Preliminary Master Plan and proposed Development Order. Staff also recommends approval.
Jonathan Martin, Kimbley Horn Engineering, addressed the Board to advise he represents the developer and will answer any questions.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
District Commissioner Carey recommended approval.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean, to adopt Ordinance #2009-4, as shown on page _______, granting rezoning of approximately 12.20 acres from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to PUD, property located north of the intersection of International Parkway and S. Metz Avenue, as described in the proof of publication, J. Michael Nidiffer; and approval of Preliminary Master Plan and Development Order, as shown on page _______, with staff findings.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
REZONING FROM A-1 TO R-1AA,
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) for approximately 1.50 acres located at 6259 Linneal Beach Drive, James Palmer, received and filed.
Planner, Austin Watkins, presented the request advising the subject property is Low Density Residential which allows the requested zoning district. The request is to rezone a small portion of the property to the R-1AA zoning classification in order to subdivide the property in the future. Staff conducted the Lot Size Compatibility Analysis, as required by the LDC, and determined that the analysis supports the requested R-1AA zoning classification. He further advised the P&Z Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and staff also recommends approval.
Aaron Mercer, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to advise they are seeking the rezoning in order to rectify a non-conforming issue on the lots situated on the lake.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
District Commissioner Van Der Weide recommended approval.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt Ordinance #2009-5 as shown on page _______, granting rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) for approximately 1.50 acres located at 6259 Linneal Beach Drive, as described in the proof of publication, James Palmer, based on staff findings.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
REQUEST FOR CARILLON PUD MAJOR AMENDMENT,
AHG GROUP LLC/UCF FOUNDATION, INC.
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider the Carillon PUD Major Amendment for Parcels 202, Lot 2, 401 and 201; and approval of the Final Master Plan and Addendum #4 to the Carillon PUD, on approximately 25 acre, located on the north side of the intersection of McCulloch Road and Lockwood Boulevard, AHG Group LLC and University of Central Florida Foundation, Inc., received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to continue until 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, this same date, consideration of the Carillon PUD Major Amendment for Parcels 202, Lot 2, 401 and 201; and approval of the Final Master Plan and Addendum #4 to the Carillon PUD, on approximately 25 acres located on the north side of the intersection of McCulloch Road and Lockwood Boulevard, as described in the proof of publication, AHG Group LLC and University of Central Florida Foundation, Inc.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
REGULAR AGENDA, CONTINUED
Chairman Dallari advised the Mayor of Oviedo has requested that the discussion on the Pedestrian Overpass (Item #30) at Red Bug Lake Road and the Red Bug Lake Elementary School be postponed at this time. He said the Mayor would like to see if they can partner with the County on this.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner McLean to continue for 30 days discussion on the Pedestrian Overpass (Item #30) at Red Bug Lake Road and the Red Bug Lake Elementary School.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Upon inquiry by Ms. Coto, Chairman Dallari directed staff, including the County Engineer, to contact the City of Oviedo with regard to same.
Assistant County Manager, Sabrina O’Bryan, addressed the Board to discuss the 2009 Federal Legislative Priorities and request BCC approval of same. She stated the three federal priorities are as follows: SR 46 Regional Evacuation Route - $8 million; Regional Surface Water Facility at Yankee Lake - $2 million; and Commuter Rail Stations - $2 million.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to approve the 2009 Federal Legislative Priorities as presented; and authorize the Chairman to execute a Letter, as shown on page _______, to the Legislative Delegation identifying same.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Ms. O’Bryan advised the Commuter Rail Cooperative Strategy Team will be meeting this week and she will report back to the Board on same.
A brief discussion ensued with regard to the immunity issue regarding the commuter rail.
COUNTY MANAGER’S BRIEFING
The Board noted, for information only, the Budget Amendment Status Report for FY 2008/09 for the three-month period ending December 31, 2008.
County Manager, Cindy Coto, referred to information (received & filed) that she sent to the Board with regard to the BCC Executive Assistants. She said the Commissioners have not had an opportunity to review that information so she will be bringing this back to the Board at their next meeting.
Ms. Coto advised she will be scheduling a work session in the month of February to start discussions on the upcoming budget.
Chairman Dallari stated the Board has annually honored all the County volunteers for the past 15 years; and for 10 years, it has been with a sit-down dinner. The cost of this dinner is approximately $10,000. He questioned if they want to spend that kind of money or at what level should the Board recognize their volunteers.
Commissioner Carey said that she believes they should scale this back.
Commissioner McLean suggested a buffet instead of a sit-down dinner.
The Board, by consensus, agreed to scale back the Volunteer Dinner to either a reception or buffet.
Chairman Dallari discussed the new laws and procedures dealing with the Value Adjustment Board. He said part of that State mandate is that the VAB no longer use the County Attorney, but have an outside attorney. To date, the cost of that attorney has been over $2,400. He stated that he believes this is growing government and he would ask if the Board would be willing to put this issue on the legislative agenda to change the law that the County Attorney can again advise the VAB instead of paying an outside attorney. He further stated that the process has grown and normally by this time of year the VAB has concluded their business, but they are still in the middle of it.
Commissioner Henley said he would like to ask the County Manager to pull out all the unfunded mandates that the State has imposed on the County and post them on SGTV before and after each BCC meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner McLean to direct staff to add to the County Legislative Initiative a request to eliminate the law requiring Value Adjustment Boards to hire outside attorneys.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman Dallari stated he attended the 2009 Central Florida Scottish Highland Games last weekend and received a plaque for the BCC in appreciation of their support of the event. He said the Mayor of Winter Springs indicated that this event was a success. He also spoke to the Mayor about Jetta Point’s stadium seating and he could not recall anything about that nor could the City Commission. He added that the Mayor will be sending a letter to the Board with regard to same.
The Chairman asked if the Board is still interested in paying annual membership dues of $1,000 to be a member of the Tri-County League of Cities.
The Board, by consensus, directed that membership to the Tri-County League of Cities be suspended.
Chairman Dallari nominated reappointment of Keylor Chan to the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study Citizens Advisory Committee.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner McLean to reappoint Keylor Chan to the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study Citizens Advisory Committee (OUATS) for a four-year term ending January 1, 2013.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Chairman advised he attended the Mayors & Managers meeting last week and Dr. Vogel, School Board Superintendent, discussed possibilities of different revenue sources.
Commissioner Carey stated she also met with Dr. Vogel yesterday and he brought up the possibility of partnering with the County and cities on lawn maintenance.
COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:
1. Report received 12/24/08 from Cathy Collins, FL Dept. of Revenue, to BCC re: Property Appraiser’s Budget Amendment/Transfer.
2. Copy of letter dated 1/7/09 from Cathy Galavis, FL Dept. of Revenue, to Ray Valdes, Seminole County Tax Collector, re: options to become a budget officer and/or a fee officer.
3. Letter dated 12/31/08 from (with attachment) from Sam Stark, Central FL Sports Commission President, Jonathan Mousseau, Marketing Manager, Tom Hagood, Board Member, and Bruce Skwarlo, Board Member, to Chairman Dallari re: sports update and November 2008 Activities Report.
4. Letter dated 1/9/09 from Robert B. Cadle, City of Orlando, to Chairman Dallari and BCC re: annual Orlando Wetlands Festival.
5. Letter dated 1/12/09 from John E. Tyler, FL Dept. of Transportation, to Chairman Dallari and BCC re: FDOT project of addition of ramps to and from SR 417 (Greeneway) and to and from International Parkway at I-4/SR 417 interchange.
6. Letter dated 1/14/09 from Cheryl Yates-Weiner, Logan Heights Apartments, to BCC re: lower rates to lower income individuals as a tax credit rental community.
7. Letter dated 1/9/09 from D. Ray Eubanks, FL Dept. of Community Affairs, to Chairman Dallari re: County’s Comp. Plan Amendment #08-2ER and Ordinance #2008-44.
8. Letter dated 1/14/09 from Diane Pickett Culpepper, Bright House Networks, to Chairman and BCC re: Feb. 15th changes to digital service.
9. Letter dated 1/14/09 from Diane Pickett Culpepper, Bright House Networks, to Chairman and BCC re: Feb. 17th changes to digital service.
10. Copy of letter dated 12/31/08 from Kelly Sullivan, Friends of Locally Owned Water (FLOW), to Governor Charlie Crist re: Aqua Utilities/Chuluota water/wastewater system.
11. Letter dated 1/12/09 from Susan D. Peppler, HUD, to Chairman Dallari re: approval of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funding of $7,019,514 for Seminole County.
12. Letter dated 1/14/09 from Dede Schaffner, School Board chairman, to Chairman Dallari re: her appointment as BCC Liaison for 2009.
13. Letter dated 1/16/09 from Janet Rufas, Seminole County Tax Collector’s Office, to Kensington Park, Altamonte Springs, re: unpaid property taxes on Parcel 01-21-29-5CK-490J-0080 and advertisement of property at public auction sale.
14. Notice received 1/22/09 re: 2/4/09 P&Z public hearing for Maitland-Bear Lake Plaza SSLUA and rezone, Bear Lake Rd./Maitland Blvd.
15. Copy of letter (with attachment) dated 1/16/09 from Mike McDaniel, FL Dept. of Community Affairs, to Chairman Dallari re: adopted Seminole Comp. Plan Amendment (DCA 08-CIEI), Ordinance #2008-48.
16. Copy of letter dated 1/21/09 from William L. Colbert, Colbert-Cameron Mitigation Bank, to Marie Huber, US Army Corps of Engineers, re: reservation of 1.9 mitigation credits for Chapman Rd. project.
17. Letter dated 1/21/09 from John E. Tyler, FL Dept. of Transportation, to Chairman Dallari and BCC re: FDOT project for I-4 from the Orange/Seminole County Line to east of Central Parkway.
18. Copy of letter dated 12/14/08 from Greg Pryor, Red Bug Residential Coalition Chairman, to Chairman Dallari re: opposition to the UCF/AHG Group project and major amendment to Carillon PUD at McCulloch Rd./Lockwood Blvd.
DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey to reappoint David Volper to the Disability Advisory Board for a term ending January 2011; and reappoint Lillian Griffin to the Historical Commission for a term ending January 2011.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Henley distributed a copy of the Minutes of the Florida’s Urban Transportation Coalition meeting (copy received & filed) held on January 13, 2009.
Commissioner Carey recognized Commissioner Henley and Harold Barley for their leadership as it relates to the Florida’s Urban Transportation Coalition, stating this group will go a long way to assist in getting needed legislation through for the area.
Commissioner Carey advised the St. Johns River Water Management District has modified their irrigation rules by limiting watering to only one time a week. She asked staff to bring this back for Board consideration if it is determined that they need to amend the County’s rules.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Henley to reappoint John Schwinsberg to the Disability Advisory Council and Patricia Southward to the Library Advisory Board.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey advised she dedicated the Martin Luther King Jr. historical markers and dedicated the new road in his name on January 17. She said the community thanked the Board for their leadership in getting this done.
Commissioner Carey briefly updated the Board on the Amtrak Working Group Coordination meeting that she attended with Congressman Mica on January 20.
Commissioner Carey advised she attended the myregion.org First Annual “Lines of Business” orientation meeting of Volunteer Leaders on January 21. She said Senator Constantine addressed the group.
Motion by Commissioner McLean, seconded by Commissioner Carey to reappoint and appoint the following:
Agricultural Board – Jim Hunter, term ending January 1, 2011
Examiner Board – Bill Miller, term ending January 1, 2010
Disability Advisory Board – Rose Davis, term ending January 1, 2011
Historical Commission – Robert Hughes & Etta Jane Koegh, terms ending January 1, 2011
Leisure Services Board – Bob Adolphe, term ending January 1, 2012
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner McLean advised he has been appointed by the Governor to serve on the Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations and will be glad to take the unfunded State mandates up as an issue with that committee. He further advised that all mileage and travel expenses will be paid for by the State.
Commissioner McLean reminded the Board that the State of the County Address by the Chairman is coming up on February 13 at the Lake Mary Hilton.
Commissioner Henley reported on his trip to Charlotte, North Carolina, and his experience with their new commuter rail (9.1 mile stretch), stating their ridership has surpassed expectations (upwards of 16,000 daily trips).
Commissioner Henley gave a brief status report on the Lake Mary High School pool, advising the Lake Mary High School Boosters cannot come up with their commitment of $400,000. He said the original agreement between the County, School Board and the city of Lake Mary is now null and void. He further said that Dr. Vogel has recommended that this be postponed indefinitely and they will probably be contacting the County to renegotiate an agreement. He added that the Board needs to decide if there is any reason for the staffs to meet in the first place.
Commissioner Carey stated it is clear in the original agreement that the $1.2 million from the County was tied to two pools being built and if that changed, there would not be $1.2 million available; and that it would have to come back to the Board for further consideration.
Commissioner Van Der Weide said that it is clear the deal is totally changed. He further said that if the School Board can’t afford to give teachers a salary increase, he is not sure they should move forward with the pool. He added that he is not in favor of moving forward with the pool at any cost.
Commissioner McLean commented that it is not up to him to make any decisions for the School Board.
Commissioner Carey stated she would expect this would come back to the Board before anything is done with the $1.2 million set aside. Whereupon, Ms. Coto stated she can put this on the agenda for Board direction.
The Chairman directed Ms. Coto to speak with Dr. Vogel to see when the appropriate time would be to put this on the agenda for consideration. He also asked that she provide individual briefings to the Commissioners.
Commissioner Carey stated she would like to know this answer before the Budget discussion.
The Chairman recessed the meeting at 3:26 p.m., reconvening at 6:01 p.m. with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who were present at the Opening Session.
PUBLIC HEARINGS, Continued
CARILLON PUD MAJOR AMENDMENT, Continued
Continuation of a public hearing to consider request for a Major Amendment to the Carillon Planned Unit Development (PUD) Parcels 202 Lot 2, 401 and 201 and approve the Final Master Plan and Addendum #4 to the Carillon PUD on 25+/- acres, located on the north side of the intersection of McCulloch Road and Lockwood Boulevard; as described in the proof of publication, AHG Group LLC and University of Central Florida Foundation, Inc., received and filed.
Tina Williamson, Assistant Planning Manger, addressed the Board to present the request, stating the applicants are requesting a Major Amendment to the Carillon PUD to allow for a mixed use development with rooming apartments, community center and retail uses with a maximum building height of 45 feet. She reviewed the uses requested and the intent of the community center. She also reviewed the first Carillon PUD Rezone, Preliminary Master Plan and associated Planned Development Future Land Use approved in 1987. She advised the staff reviewed the proposed PUD Major Amendment to determine if the land use amendment from PD to PD was also required and determined that it was not, based upon the staff findings identified in the staff report. The applicant performed a parking demand analysis demonstrating that the actual parking demand for this type of student housing is 0.76 parking spaces per bed. Based upon the results of the parking study, the applicant is proposing to provide 1.03 parking spaces per bedroom instead of the 1.25 required by the Code. Staff reviewed the parking demand analysis and determined that the results of the study are a valid representation of the demand for parking at the NorthView project if safeguards are put in place to minimize excess parking demands and ensure proper parking enforcement. She said the reduction in parking spaces, in conjunction with proposed pedestrian, bicycle and shuttle bus facilities depicted on the Final Master Plan, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies TRA 2.2.6, Promote Shared and Reduced Parking, and TRA 2.2.7, Require Multi-Modal Facilities in Site Planning and Design. Staff is recommending approval of the reduction in the required parking, subject to all of the conditions of approval in Addendum #4 to the Developer’s Commitment Agreement relating to limitations on permitted uses, parking controls including signage and enforcement, and the parking monitoring plan. Ms. Williamson stated the applicant is requesting to reduce the passive setback along the north side of Parcel 202 from 100 feet to 32 feet and to allow the wet retention pond to encroach into the active buffer along the north side of Parcel 401. Staff recommends approval of the wet retention pond encroachment into the active buffer on Parcel 401, subject to the conditions that all the planting requirements of the Land Development Code are met. Staff also recommends approval of the waiver request to the passive setback along the north side of Parcel 202 from 100 feet to 32 feet, due to the fact that Parcel 202 is separated from the nearest residential parcel by an existing retention area and the distance to the nearest residential parcel is approximately 250 feet. Staff has reviewed the requested Major Amendment for compliance with the requirements of Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and has the following findings: (1) The Seminole County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Transportation Elements contain policies relating to promoting mixed use developments in the urban area as a means of discouraging urban sprawl, maintaining short travel distances between commercial and residential areas, enabling creation of a range of housing opportunities, and providing transitional uses between low density residential and non-residential areas; (2) The subject property is in a transitional area between the higher intensity University of Central Florida campus south of McCulloch Road and the lower intensity single-family neighborhoods of the Carillon PUD to the north; (3) The Seminole County Comprehensive Plan Policy FLU 2.10 states that compatibility in a Planned Development may be achieved by application of performance standards such as, but not limited to, lot size, setbacks, buffering, landscaping, hours of operation, lighting and building heights; (4) The proposed development program provides appropriate transitional uses, densities and intensities between the higher intensity University of Central Florida campus south of McCulloch Road and the lower intensity single-family neighborhoods of the Carillon PUD to the north; (5) The proposed Final Master Plan provides sufficient buffering adjacent to the residential neighborhoods to the north through the distance between uses and the landscaping plan; (6) The proposed Final Master Plan provides sufficient design sensitivity adjacent to the residential neighborhoods to the north through lighting restrictions, building orientation and step-down of building heights facing adjacent residential; (7) The proposed Addendum #4 to the Developer’s Commitment Agreement contains adequate conditions of approval to mitigate the potential traffic and parking impacts of the development, including enforcement and monitoring plans; and (8) The proposed UCF Shuttle and Pedestrian Access Plan (sheet A-9 of the Final Master Plan) complies with Policy FLU 2.11, On-Site Mobility, and Policy TRA 2.2.7, Multi-Modal Facilities, by providing pedestrian connections, bicycle parking, and shuttle bus access between the University and the proposed development. She also said the requested PUD amendment supports the adopted regional vision, “How Shall We Grow”? by focusing a mix of residential and commercial development along the University of Central Florida, which is identified as an economic center in the regional vision. She advised that the proposed development will also be engineered to accommodate the cell tower site plan that was part of mediated settlement agreement approved by the BCC on November 18, 2008. Staff recommends approval of the request for the Major Amendment to the Carillon PUD, Parcels 202 Lot 2, 401 and 201 and recommends approval of the revised Final Master Plan and Addendum #4 to the Carillon PUD Developer’s Commitment Agreement, based on the staff findings. The Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z) met on January 7, 2009, and voted 4 to 1 to recommend approval, subject to the 10 conditions identified in the staff report.
Attorney David Theriaque, representing the Carillon Community Residential Association, addressed the Board to state, for the Record, that he had a brief discussion with the County Attorney before the meeting started about placing witnesses under oath and also allowing cross-examination, and he understands that the Board would not allow that to occur tonight. He said, with the permission of the Chairman and County Attorney, he wants to enter a continuing objection on that ground.
Chairman Dallari stated that for the past number of years, at least 20, the Board has not done that. He said the Board will be following their standard format.
Attorney Aaron Gorovitz, with Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor and Reed, 215 N. Eola Drive, representing the applicants AHG Group and the University of Central Florida Foundation, addressed the Board to state they submitted this application for zoning approximately 21 months ago and have been working with the staff since that time to ensure that the project in all respects is of great benefit to the community and is completely compatible with the surrounding uses. After 21 months, staff has recommended approval of the project. Their lengthy and detailed review and analysis indicated that the project is an appropriate transition between the UCF campus and the Carillon neighborhood and that the project has all the safeguards in place to ensure that there are no negative effects on the Carillon neighborhood. He said, in other words, NorthView is compatible with the existing neighborhoods. He stated with only one against, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the project, concluding that NorthView is compatible with the existing neighborhoods. The P&Z included in their motion some minor modifications to the site plan, which they think might enhance the project. The development team made minor adjustments to the site plan to implement the suggestions made by the P&Z. He said they will be more than willing to make those changes. He had four handouts (copies received and filed) distributed of a listing, “Changes to Developer’s Agreement,” and revised site plans showing the changes. He explained those changes and said the locations of the buildings are substantially the same as proposed; the location of the parking is substantially the same with the enhancements; the design of the project is substantially the same; and the uses are exactly the same.
Attorney Gorovitz advised that Bishop Thomas Wenski (phonetic) of the Catholic Church and Dr. John Hitt, UCF President, asked that he express their strong support for the project.
Attorney Theriaque noted his objection, stating as Attorney Gorovitz said, this project has been in the pipeline for 22 months and here they are at the eleventh hour and they are getting revised site plans that none of his experts have received, nor any of his witnesses. He said it is not fair to walk in at the eleventh hour with revised site plans. He said they will be prejudiced by proceeding tonight and he asked for this hearing to be moved to the next Commission meeting to allow their witnesses an opportunity to review what was just handed to the Board.
Chairman Dallari advised Attorney Theriaque’s objection is noted on the record. He asked County Attorney Robert McMillan if he saw any reason why the Board could not move forward.
Mr. McMillan stated the documents have been supplied and Attorney Theriaque and others can review them while the hearing is being conducted. He said if the Commission were to continue every hearing when somebody comes up with new information, they would never complete a hearing.
Whereupon, Attorney Gorovitz stated they are comfortable with their original submittal and should the Board choose not to approve the changes offered, that would be acceptable to them.
Jeff Smith, partner with Niles Bolton Associates, addressed the Board to state they provide architectural design services to Mr. Ginsburg and Place Properties, developer. He said this student housing will be of the highest order; it is first-class property. It is currently scheduled to be the most expensive brand of any of the competitive properties on or off campus. He said his firm specializes in student housing. This will be the most elaborate of communities that Place Properties has been involved in. He stated in a previous hearing at P&Z, someone asked about supplying a phasing diagram. He clarified that this is a single-phase development. Regarding building heights, he showed a slide presentation (received and filed) and said the buildings are limited in height to 35 feet above grade. He showed and described the buildings in the project and their heights. He showed a sketch of Building G (four-story student housing), their tallest building at 45 feet, comparing it with other properties along McCulloch Road; and he showed slides of different views from the subject property. He said they also tried to study how their proposed buildings would impact the surrounding neighborhood as you are moving south on Lockwood Boulevard. He explained that their civil engineer created a depiction of the ability to navigate the turns so that emergency equipment can be brought in the proper places, per Seminole County’s requirements. This was done for the entire property and specific interest was given at the north end of Building G with how a vehicle would make the turn coming off Lockwood. Mr. Smith discussed the buffers around the property. He explained that the area requiring a variance is a very small portion and it is up against the Carillon neighborhood retention area. He said the nearest homes are several hundred feet beyond that. He said the leaders of the Methodist Church suggested modifications to the proposed buffers and possible improvements. They have identified those on the revised site plan. The Church has agreed to consider allowing the applicant to enhance the landscaping on the Church’s property as a way to further help in the buffering from their playground areas. He said they will continue to work with the Church.
John Walls, landscape architect with Miller Legg, 631 S. Orlando Avenue, speaking as a member of the UCF Foundation Real Estate Committee as a consultant, addressed the Board to state in 1987, he was one of the original designers of this project and he is very familiar with it. He showed an aerial photograph of the UCF and Carillon properties and discussed the land use of the property, comparing it from 1987 to the present time. He showed the original Carillon Master Plan and discussed what was planned at that time. He said if this project were planned today, it would be zoned for mixed use development. This project is an excellent example of a mixed use project. He said there is a need in this area for housing, retail and faith-based services. This project is the answer to that. It is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, and they believe it is the highest and best use that will come to this property.
Judy Stewart, Manager of Planning for the Dave Schmitt Engineering firm, 13013 Founders Square Drive, addressed the Board to state NorthView is a smart growth project. She said the County staff spent countless hours analyzing this project and determined that it is consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Plan has policies that promote mixed use development in the urban area. She said, clearly, this is a mixed use development. NorthView discourages urban sprawl and maintains short travel distances between commercial and residential areas. It provides a variety of housing and transitional uses between residential and nonresidential areas. NorthView is in a transitional area between the higher intensity of UCF area to the south and the lower intensity of the Carillon residential area to the north. NorthView adheres to the Comprehensive Plan policies for land use compatibility by the sheer nature of its design and performance standards. She said the development program was created specifically to provide the appropriate transitional use at this location. They have maintained the consistency of the policies of the transportation element in the Comprehensive Plan. There is no development in the area of the Conservation Overlay designation and there are no endangered or threatened wildlife on the property; and the required open space is being provided.
Mohammed Abdallah, Traffic Planning and Design, 535 Versailles Drive, addressed the Board to state their firm conducted a traffic study for this project. Also, a national firm, PBS&J, was retained by the applicant because they wanted the extra surety and assurance to conduct a traffic study. Both firms conducted studies on the project and they were reviewed by staff extensively and the County’s consultant. They all came back with a similar or same recommendation that the traffic studies recommended improvements to the intersection of McCulloch Road and Lockwood Boulevard. The applicant has agreed to implement all improvements recommended in the traffic study. He described those recommendations. Mr. Abdallah advised his firm also conducted an extensive parking analysis and found that it takes about four beds of student housing to fill three parking spaces, about .76 ratio of parking to a bed. Their recommendation was to have one space per bed, and the project provided 1.03 spaces per bed. He advised the parking analysis methodology and study were reviewed and agreed to by staff. He advised that the results of the PBS&J’s study confirmed the findings by Traffic Planning and Design.
Suresh Gupta (phonetic), CEO and owner of Oxford Homes, addressed the Board to display some information provided by George Glance, CEO of KB Homes, comparing four neighborhoods around Pegasus Landing and the neighborhood around NorthView regarding closings in Carillon and Pegasus Landing areas; the median price of homes in those areas, the median square feet of the homes; average price per square foot for both areas; average age of homes for both areas; percentage of list price for sale of the homes; and average days in the market. He said from what he has seen in the presentation of NorthView, Oxford Homes would love to build in this area. He said he would have no hesitation in saying that this is a great area. The evidence is showing that there has not been any negative affects by Pegasus Landing.
Richard Beary, UCF Chief of Police, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, addressed the Board to state NorthView has planned and enhanced security features second to none with an active camera system that will be monitored real time at the University’s Police Department. He said the parking garages have bar codes with gates and only UCF students will be allowed to get in. He explained how parking works for the University. He said this project will be totally different with individual parking spaces per bed plus the retail element meets the County’s code. He feels comfortable the parking will not be what he deals with on a daily basis at the University. He said the UCF Police will be the first responders and the response time is incredible because of the number of people they have in close proximity. The UCF Police have a mutual aid agreement with Seminole County and that works very well. He said the University holds the students to a higher standard than the County’s code State statutes, and they have the ability to control any nuisance problems and those types of issues. This housing project will be run by UCF staff. He said he believes this project will generate less calls for service than commercial types he has dealt with in the past.
Dr. Maribeth Ehasz, Vice President for Student Development and Enrollment Services at UCF, addressed the Board to state she is responsible for student housing, student conduct and student neighbor relations and other areas that promote student learning and success. She discussed the role that UCF will have at NorthView in managing student housing; the need that exists for University-managed student housing; the expectations and responsibilities that UCF students are held accountable to; and the Student Neighborhood Relations Program. She reviewed the following slides: AY 2007-2008 Bed Deficits; UCF Rules of Conduct; and Community Living Standards. She had distributed copies (received and filed) of the booklets, “The Golden Rule 2008-2009 Student Handbook”; “Community Living Guide,” and “A Knight’s Guide Being Good Neighbors.” Dr. Ehasz reviewed additional slides on Student Conduct Review Process; Possible Sanctions for Violation(s) of UCF Rules of Conduct; and Partnership with Neighbors.
Dr. William DeJong, Professor of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health, addressed the Board to state he was asked by the UCF Foundation to address three issues: (1) The type of UCF students that would be attracted to living at NorthView and what the research literature tells about these students; (2) The advantage of having UCF hold jurisdiction over the residential facility; and (3) Recommendations for how constructive ties can be built between the residents of NorthView and the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Gorovitz readdressed the Board to give some additional details, stating their development team took a legal review of the project and he discussed same; he reviewed that there is substantial justification for all the waivers requested; he explained that all the components presented today need to work together; and he said if NorthView is not approved, Mr. Ginsburg will have no choice but to sell to the highest bidder and recover the $5,000,001 he has invested in the project. He asked the Board to remember how this process started more than two years ago with Mr. Ginsburg perceiving the possibility to enhance the lives of college students in Central Florida. Bishop Wensky and the Catholic Church, and Dr. Hitt and UCF became excited about this possibility and so did many others.
Mr. Gorovitz submitted a Book of Evidence (received and filed) to the Commissioners.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 7:36 p.m. and reconvened it at 7:38 p.m.
Vincent A. Cipollone, 6631 NW 99th Avenue, Parkland, UCF student, addressed the Board to speak about the RA’s on the NorthView area and how hard they work. He said the RA’s are very diligent with what they do and they are the first to respond if a student steps out of line.
Father Stephen Parkes, 540 Walesly Street, Oviedo, representing Bishop Thomas Wenski and the Catholic Diocese of Orlando on behalf of the Catholic Campus Ministry, addressed the Board to state the mission of their organization is to complement the academic and other community aspects of college life by providing a spiritual home for their students, and by doing so they are creating future leaders for tomorrow. They have found in their ministry a group of students who are really seeking to better themselves. He said the ability for them to be a part of the NorthView project is a privilege because it will enable them to continue to find complementary ministry they are able to do with the students at UCF. They will also be building bridges with the Jewish community. He is speaking in support of the project because it will provide for the students and faculty a place for prayer, for quiet reflection, and a place for them to be able to realize the great potential they have as citizens of their communities.
Rabbi Jonathan Siger, Executive Director of Central Florida Hillel Foundation, 12321 University Boulevard, Orlando, addressed the Board to state their mission is to help bridge their past, particularly Jewish people in America, to their future through programs, travel experiences, classes, celebrations of holidays, providing opportunities for their students and students in the larger community to engage in other communities to develop themselves personally, professionally as students and as whole, spiritual beings. They do this in a spirit of ancient values of family, community and mutual responsibility under and with the guidance of their saint ancestors. He said this project will allow them to rise to meet that challenge to make real connections to deliver a generation of leaders for their community, their faith and for the nation. He thinks they will all benefit from the NorthView project and he thinks it is a great blessing and opportunity that they have been presented with.
Nina Oppenheim, 2013 Wayhaven Court, Maitland, President of the Board of Central Florida Hillel, addressed the Board to state Hillel provides a home away from home for students. The Hillel staff emphasizes responsibility, accountability and good citizenship. Hillel students participate in a broad range of local community service projects, food drives, and public cleanups; and the students help tutor at the Boys and Girls Club. This housing will enable observing Jewish students to live in a setting that supports their religious growth. She said to succeed in growing their foundation, they need the three parts working together—living space, retail space and the student center.
Andrew Stein, 14722 Kristenright Lane, Orlando, addressed the Board to state where they seem to come into disagreement with the Carillon residents is with the student housing. At the last meeting, a lot of the residents came up and gave specific examples of misconduct they had seen by some students. They had Dr. Ehasz come up a moment ago and talk about how this is going to be regulated by UCF. He said he knows as a student at UCF, he is involved in several different religious organizations on campus and in the Student Government Association and they have a very firm grasp on the student body. He knows that the student body, as a whole, are scared to death of the University’s conduct rules and housing, and the students don’t mess with it. He said no one is moving into this facility with a mindset that he wants to be like the examples they heard of at the last meeting. He said a lot of the Carillon residents were concerned about this project coming into their space. He said this is a university of 50,000 that’s already here and a lot of the students who go to the University already live in this community.
Frannie Marmorstein, 2659 Laser Court, Orlando, past President of Hillel, the Jewish student organization on campus, addressed the Board to state her three years in college so far have been unforgettable. She has grown as a leader, developed her faith, excelled academically and built amazing friendships. All of this has been because of her experiences through Hillel. She shared her experience with keeping kosher, the strict Jewish dietary laws. She explained how this project will be of benefit to the students.
Michael Newman, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard, Orlando, addressed the Board to state even though he doesn’t practice the Jewish faith, Hillel has opened doors for him that otherwise would not be open. He said whether it be educational, moral, or spiritual, Hillel provides support for any individual who needs it. He stressed that Hillel fosters the environment for young college adults that many people do not see. He also stressed his position as a UCF housing student. He said he is the president of the Towers Area Council and it is similar to this project because it has a housing center and retail and is in a high traffic area. For the past five years, the Towers has been very successful and the retail has been very successful.
Dr. Alan Fickett, 700 Aberdeen Lane, Winter Springs, addressed the Board and had three maps and two notebooks (copies received and filed) distributed containing Petitions, as shown on page _______, signed by 2,709 citizens in support of this project. He said the maps are broken down by Commission districts and he advised the number of citizens from each district who signed the petitions. He stated he is a proud alumnus of UCF (then Florida Technological University) and a graduate of the first class in 1971. He said throughout his entire time at the University, a project of this scope, magnitude and benefit was hoped for, but was never able to be accomplished. He said there are 17,770 UCF alums that live in Seminole County, and the 2,709 who signed the petitions ask for the Board’s support.
Alex McGraw, 130 Lombardy Road, Winter Springs, addressed the Board to state how much the campus ministry has impacted his life. He said he believes it is necessary to build this project so the ministry can truly reach out to those seeking a home for those searching for more in life; a home for those in a new, unfamiliar place; and a home for those who need a loving community and want to build that community.
Dana Boyd, 3240 Curryville Road, Chuluota, addressed the Board to state four of her adult children are alumni of UCF and Catholic Campus Ministry. As a parent, she is very grateful that her children had the privilege to participate in Catholic Campus Ministry. What impressed her most about their involvement in this ministry was the sense of community, which was an integral part of their lives. All her adult children are now actively serving in their communities with the enthusiasm that took root from their involvement with Catholic Campus Ministry. She is hoping the NorthView project will become a reality so that so many more young people will be able to benefit and give that much more to their community.
Sister Elizabeth Worley, Chief Operating Officer with the Diocese of Orlando, 1009 Alfred Drive, Orlando, speaking on behalf of Bishop Thomas Wenski, addressed the Board to state she is acknowledging the full support of the Diocese for the Catholic Student Center and the project. She said the project has the support of over 20,000 Catholic families that reside in seven parishes of Seminole County.
Philip Laurien, Executive Director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC), 631 N. Wymore Road, addressed the Board to state he was asked if he would take a look at this project and comment. He said he does think the mixed use proposal is appropriate, and he thinks the intensity is probably appropriate, but he will not specifically comment on that. He agreed that all the uses proposed in the project are essential to its success. He thinks there are some valid concerns that the neighborhood to the north has raised, and some of these can be improved with some tweaks to the design as presented. Overall, he thinks this is an appropriate use, it comports with the regional vision and he would support the project.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Mr. Laurien advised that Commissioner Carey, current member of the ECFRPC Board, asked him to look at the project and comment.
Commissioner Carey clarified that she made a general statement at the Regional Planning Council about a number of these projects. Also at myRegion, they have discussed a number of times that as they change the way they do development and as the seven counties (86 cities) start to look at projects, they have all signed onto this compact and it is going to be important that the people who have helped them to understand this process also stay involved in the process. That was the level at which she asked Mr. Laurien to take a look at this project.
Alan Ginsburg, 1551 Sandspur Road, Maitland, representing several groups, addressed the Board to state that this is not a religious issue but a zoning issue. He said his position is strictly philanthropic. He is not involved in the development, construction or ownership. He is just trying to help the UCF Foundation get something done. He said UCF is a great engine for Seminole County. He said 17,000 of the alumni live in Seminole County. The University creates jobs, commerce and also problems, all of which they have tried to handle in the proposed development. He noted that dozens of houses in the Carillon community are rented to students with no controls and no laws. He said this housing will be totally different. To him, this is a perfect situation. He said they have tried to answer all the objections over the past two years and a $1.5 million. He asked the Board, for the common good of the County and everyone involved, to give this project and the sponsoring organization, their positive attention and approval.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened it at 8:29 p.m.
Attorney David Theriaque, Theriaque Vorbeck & Spain, Tallahassee, representing the Carillon Homeowners Association, stated he will submit a notebook (copy received and filed) and give a PowerPoint presentation (copy received and filed). He said while the project, as a whole, sounds like a wonderful project and some incredible people have worked and spent a lot of time on it, it’s in the wrong place. He said it is too much. He noted that his clients don’t have any objection to the religious uses or the commercial uses. The rest of the story is student housing. He said they already have a mixed-use community called Carillon and a single-family, stable neighborhood. The one aspect that has not been discussed today is the protection of the existing use. He asked the Board to listen to their presentation from the perspective of 833 homeowners who are already there, and the investment in your home, for most people, is the largest investment you will make in your life. He said they are looking at well in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested in the Carillon community by the homeowners who already live there. He stated this is not transition. This use, from a planning perspective, is not what you would place for a transitional use. This is an extension of the University into the community. He understands that, historically, the Board has put in a lot of time and effort to protect neighborhoods. When student housing was proposed, the Board made sure there was increased and not decreased protection. He thinks the Board will see from their presentation that each of the deviations the applicant has asked for decreased the protection of the neighborhood. He said the only way the applicants can do this project is to provide less protection because it is too much.
Carl Burgender (phonetic), 1565 Gemini Court, Carillon, addressed the Board to describe their single-family community. He asked the Board to help them recognize that the proposed use is not a compatible transitional use. He said the intensity in this project and the extreme proximity to Carillon is too much on that site. Students live the life of students and they are not working parents and don’t keep nine to five hours like most of them in Carillon. They come and go and do the kind of things you would expect students to do. He said he has talked to the neighbors extensively and he is very confident that he speaks for the neighborhood when he says they do not oppose the religious uses in any way, shape or form; and they welcome any type of commercial activity that is currently permitted; but they have never expected this kind of application and use.
Matt West, 3949 S. International Parkway, addressed the Board to discuss the Procedural Issues of the PowerPoint presentation. He said the County staff and their team of experts are in disagreement over what’s required, from a due process standpoint, before the Board can consider this application. They believe a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required based on a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that says a plan amendment is required if the proposal shows uses or land areas not previously approved. Garage parking is only identified as a permitted use in C-2. He said the original, approved PUD only approved C-1 uses. Now, a new use is being introduced into this PUD. Staff has taken the position that garage parking is ancillary. He discussed this issue. He further discussed that this is actually an extension of university campus facilities into this PUD that never anticipated having such facilities. UCF is going to manage and police the housing, and they talk about it as if it’s NorthView and don’t view it as being part of Carillon anymore. He said UCF has essentially annexed it and that’s another use that’s being introduced into this PUD that was never anticipated. Any or all of those three uses should necessitate a comprehensive plan with this application. Further, he said the residential density has increased on these three parcels. The original plan did have multi-family on the parcels, so that density has been transferred from one tract to several other tracts. That should necessitate a comprehensive plan amendment. He said that has impacts internally and externally when you start moving those densities around. Those four reasons should necessitate that a comprehensive plan amendment is required, and that has not been processed. Mr. West also discussed why this is not a rezoning from PUD to PUD. He said he thinks that’s another due process step that staff has skipped. Mr. West discussed the slide, Student Housing & Carillon Neighborhood, stating the fact is that Carillon is a mixed-use PUD. These are commercial tracts that were there to support Carillon and now they are being annexed by the University; and these uses aren’t being built in support of the Carillon homeowners. He continued with discussion of the following topics: History of the Carillon Neighborhood; Consistency & Compatibility Issues; Inconsistencies with Comp Plan (Pt 1 and Pt 2); Inconsistencies with Comp Plan (Pt 2 Illus.); Cell Tower Recommendation; Requested Waivers/Reductions; Application Deficiencies; Site Design Issues—Parking, Emergency Access and At-Grade Crosswalk; UCF Master Plan Issue; and Reasons for Denial.
Mr. West explained the reasons for denial are as follows: These tracts are being removed from the Carillon PUD, so this is really a new PUD and should be rezoned from PUD to PUD, if that’s what the Board wants to do and call it NorthView and then it will not be a part of Carillon anymore; Uses proposed are not in support of Carillon PUD; Student housing use is not consistent with the intent and design of Carillon PUD; UCF campus extended into this residential PUD; The application is deficient; The project violates previous County Commission policy; It is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; It is incompatible with Carillon PUD single-family design; and Due process was not followed for the Comp Plan Amendment or Rezoning.
Commissioner Carey commented in information she received a week ago, the cell tower is shown on the site plan, and she thinks it is very common for applicants to make changes between the P&Z meeting and the BCC meeting.
Commissioner Henley commented that he was trying to remember over the last two years how many times that Mr. West, along with the County staff, developers and the Board, have taken a break in the meeting in order for them to work out changes. Some of those changes were brought in as a result of requests from homeowners’ associations and Planning & Zoning. He noted that this is not an unusual process that the Board is going through tonight. He said Mr. West criticized the developer for turning in some information tonight and yet he handed information to the Board tonight to read while listening to him.
Randall Morris, Lake Mary, addressed the Board to state the applicant is held to a higher standard, as is the staff. All they can do is respond to whatever they see when the applicant and staff come to the meeting. He urged him that, as they consider all the things that Mr. West said, that he consider that a lot of this is preservation of legal rights. These are not all equal statements being made simultaneously, but some of these are really strong legal opinions. Mr. Morris said he served with two of the Commissioners when they went through innumerable student housing projects and spent many a long night doing that. When the Board starts to consider how they evolved in their policy to where they are now, they have to look at the history. He said what is being shown on the map are the eight student housing projects Mr. West discussed earlier. Of the eight, all are to the west of this project. There is no student housing to the east. There has been no creeping student housing within the last five or six years. He also pointed out in the discussion by staff, they mentioned that for a number of the student housing, the Board gave a lot of variances before. Mr. Morris said the Code changed. Staff has read the current Code and applied it to the Code prior to 2001 on a number of these projects. He said the staff made an error. They handed a sheet of paper to the Board, unsigned and untitled, that made the statement, “No, don’t you see we have variances here.” Mr. Morris said those variances did not exist. The projects were entirely different projects. He said those projects were different in that they did not include multiple elements, they didn’t include commercial, didn’t include meeting spaces that could be available to the public and to religious entities; and they didn’t include parking garages. He said all of them were that way. Further, he said the most important factor is that all of those projects are isolated, individual, lot properties. This project is not. The map shows on both sides of the road is an entrance to a PUD. It is not separate. The other projects were contiguous to PUD’s and housing. This is such that you drive through it to get to it. This is the biggest difference and it has a profound effect from a visual, psychological and buyer’s impact. Mr. Morris said he thinks it is important for the Board to weigh in their consideration that the Board, in its last denials, said student housing is not compatible to single-family housing. The Board also said they didn’t want rentals by the bed; it should be by the unit. Those two points are direct violations of what this applicant is attempting to do. For those reasons, he asked the Board to deny this application.
Attorney Theriaque stated they believe the Code requires a two mile radius and the documents in the Record indicate the applicant only did a one mile radius for their traffic study. He submitted to the Record the following (copies received and filed): Letter from him to Mr. McMillan dated January 26, 2009; agenda memorandum request by Mr. Gorovitz to rezone from PUD to PUD dated January 25, 2000; picture of Winn-Dixie you see when looking at the property; and memorandum from Assistant County Attorney Kathleen Furey-Tran to Mr. McMillan dated December 16, 2008. He said he believes this memorandum from Ms. Furey-Tran supports their position that a PUD amendment through an ordinance was required tonight. Attorney Theriaque said he is hopeful that the Board will vote to deny the project. He added that regarding the documents they provided tonight, all those have been in existence for quite some time and none of those are new. The concern they have for the site plan tonight was that it was new and they had no opportunity to sit down with the applicant and have him explain what he was doing.
Commissioner Henley stated what the applicant did tonight was explain the documents he submitted.
Attorney Theriaque concluded that he believes they have provided the Board with more than enough legal basis to say no. They think this application is technically and procedurally flawed. At the end of the day, it is about student housing. He reiterated that this isn’t property adjacent to Carillon but it is in Carillon. The property was planned to be part of Carillon and to function as a mixed-use project. It is where the commercial was to go to support Carillon. This application is changing fundamentally and drastically; it is an extension of university uses into the neighborhood. He said the County in its Comprehensive Plan stated clearly that the protection of single-family neighborhoods is one of their highest priorities. He said this encroachment does not protect Carillon.
Deborah Schafer, 1740 Brumley Road, speaking from the Chuluota Community Association, addressed the Board to state they all know UCF is going to grow and that’s a great and wonderful opportunity for all the students there, but it is affecting them as Seminole County residents. She said she sits in meeting after meeting of development talking about how they need to build the development because UCF needs the housing. She showed a map (copy received and filed) to which she referred. She said she just sat in a meeting in Orange County in reference to a development on the east side of town. She said Rybolt Reserve is going to be a massive DRI coming in. Her request is, for the Econ area, seeing what the affect UCF is going to have on the entire region of Orange County and Seminole County, and what UCF is doing. She thinks they really need to look at a small area study in this area. There is competent staff on both sides that can do that. She said the development in Orange County has a multi-modal corridor crossing the Econ, if it is approved. She said there is a lot of pressure in this area and it comes from the growth of UCF. Everything just keeps encroaching and the citizens are all paying the price for it. She thinks unless they really know what’s going on in this area and study and plan it, they are going to be standing at the podium, time after time, neighborhood after neighborhood as they have done in the past. She said let’s not do things as they have done in the past but look to the future and the positive part of UCF for what it can do for all of them. She said if this is approved, she would like to see a bridge over McCulloch. The other issue is that she saw no green space on this project. If they are going to be teaching the future youth what they need to do in this country, it is looking at all those options as they build. She hopes the developer will go back and see what he can do to make this green.
Ken Hofer, 3383 Foxcroft Circle, President of Carillon Homeowners’ Association, addressed the Board to state Carillon has never opposed the religious component of this application. He submitted copies of Petitions, as shown on page _______, from about 600 homeowners who asked the HOA to move forward and hire people to make a presentation. He said he is in his fifth year as President of the HOA, and he never thought he would be involved in something this big with the potential as life-changing to their community as this project. He explained that the residents spend a lot of money on the landscaping for the aesthetic value because they care about their community and want to preserve and protect it and their investment. He asked the Commissioners to preserve their entrance and keep the integrity of their community intact.
Karen Gisel, 1432 Hampstead Terrace, addressed the Board to state she fails to see how a 584-bed student housing and four-story parking garage, which is benefitting UCF, is compatible with an 800+ single-resident community in Seminole County. She said dorms are not multi-family housing. The density of this building is just too much. This is not smart growth, but UCF encroaching into Seminole County. She said her house is very close to the four-story student housing and garage. She asked the Commissioners if they would want that garage on the other side of the woods from their houses. She said look at all the front entrances to UCF and the side entrances. She said they have decided to take one of the prettier neighborhoods and build this, and it will be pretty if they build it. She said the buildings on Alafaya have been there since she was a teenager and are horrible. She asked why this is not being looked at as a more viable area; and why is this not being looked at in Orange County.
Kathleen Esselstein, 3504 Foxcroft Circle, addressed the Board to state it is her understanding that this venue is being undertaken by a charitable organization. She asked what revenue will Seminole County receive to offset the fire, water, sewer, Sheriff and ambulance cost. To her, that is very important. Regarding the kosher kitchen in the community center, she asked what impact that would have on the traffic and parking spaces. With this facility, many other people that were not able to come because there wasn’t a kosher kitchen might now decide that they would rather come to this university rather some of the other State universities. She said she believes if this plan is approved, it would be setting a dangerous precedent for the whole State. She asked the Board to vote against putting this high density development into a low density area that was never meant to accommodate such usage, especially one where Seminole County doesn’t receive a significant amount of tax revenue at a time when it could benefit the most.
Scott Wallin, 3492 Woodley Park Place, addressed the Board to ask the Commissioners to put themselves in their place. He said imagine if they faced the prospect of 600 college students becoming their next door neighbors. He imagines the Commissioners would emphatically say the same thing they are saying—no way. He said he is confident that Mr. Ginsburg and his team wouldn’t allow high density student housing in their neighborhoods. He said UCF’s deficit of on-campus housing is not Carillon’s problem. These students will offer nothing to enhance their Carillon experience. The students are transient by nature, but the residents are Seminole County taxpayers and voters. He said the applicants have said the residents will barely notice 600 students living in their corridor—traffic and parking will not be an issue. But, as they have seen tonight, the presentations are very biased with speakers either funded by Mr. Ginsburg or employed by UCF. He reported the findings from his own traffic study is that they already have way too many cars. He said the residents are not buying that their property values would not be impacted by the dorm. They chalk UCF assurances of exemplary student conduct and added police surveillance as nothing more than campaign promises that one day will fade away and they will then be left with the mess. He said college isn’t about bricks and mortar but it’s about the people you meet and the education you get. He asked Mr. Ginsburg to keep his students out of their neighborhood and for UCF to conduct its business in its own county.
Marylee Kraus, 3545 Foxcroft Circle, addressed the Board to state when she moved into the area, she was told that the subject property was zoned commercial and she thought that was great as it would support the area. She also liked the idea of being neighbors to UCF, however, she didn’t know they were going to be moving in. She said she supports the religious center and the retail. The mere density of the student housing, no matter how upscale and good or bad students, is just not compatible to that area along with the problems it brings with it.
Robert Byers, 3928 Carnaby Drive, addressed the Board to state he will be living literally in the back yard of this development. He said he thinks the Board should think very seriously about backing this plan when even the applicant has told them that it will probably fail. They have insisted if any one of the elements they propose does not succeed. He thinks it is very likely that the retail space will not succeed. That space has been zoned commercial for 17 years and it has not been successful as retail space for 17 years. He said you can go up and down Alafaya and all around this area and see multitudes of unused retail space. You can go on campus to the Towers area and find unused retail space. He thinks the Board should think very carefully about this before approving a project that even the applicant doesn’t think will succeed because it’s balanced on this razor’s edge.
Tom Boyko, 145 Thornhill Circle, speaking on behalf of the Red Bug Residential Coalition, addressed the Board to state the intensity and density of this project is much too intense for the area. It will compound what is already there as far as intensity. He asked why this particular project should be built outside of the University property. If the University has space, why not build it on its property. The Carillon development was set many years ago and now there is a trend to go away from this zoning. The present Carillon development has to be considered and upheld and supported. He said the religious center will generate more traffic and activity. At times, the attendance at these activities exceed what was expected and then parking becomes another issue. Another issue is the so-called controlled bed rental issue. He told of how students function by offering a place to stay to a friend without his own place to stay. He said almost all universities that rent by the bed encounter this issue. This development is a money-making endeavor for the university only. He discussed how the use of a bar code for parking will be handled. He asked if this development will open up a pandora’s box for future development. He asked if, in the time of budget cuts now, will this development be tax exempt.
Jennifer Gordon, 2335 Winding Cove, addressed the Board and stated, for the record, that she does not live in Carillon. She asked how does this benefit Carillon or Seminole County at all. It is fantastic for UCF, but this should be on the UCF campus and not in Seminole County and not in Carillon. She said she has been in property management for 15 years so she is very familiar with student housing. She said you have no way of knowing anything about a person until you have done a thorough screening and even then, once they have moved in, you don’t know what you’ve got until they are there and then you have to try to fix it. She said it’s not right for the homeowners of Carillon to be subjected to that process. Students need to live on campus. There is plenty of off-campus housing. She said there are plenty of rooms and beds available in the surrounding apartment communities. There is 20% vacancy, and that’s plenty of space for these students. Also, there is plenty of retail space available in Seminole and Orange counties. They don’t need additional retail space either. All they are doing is building more problems and asking for more problems that don’t benefit the tax rolls at all. She said all the Board is doing is running people out of Seminole County and that doesn’t do anything for the tax coffers. She stated this is not the time for this and Carillon is certainly not the place.
Chris Akers, Executive Pastor at University Carillon United Methodist Church, 1166 Lady Susan Drive, addressed the Board to read a statement (received and filed) approved by their Leadership Council on June 5, 2007, and amended on December 2, 2008, that concludes in this case, the church has chosen to neither officially support nor oppose this development. He reported that the church believes they have worked out a reasonable plan with the applicant on five issues brought to them relating to stormwater, buffering, fencing, the parking garage, the west aesthetic view and lighting. He encouraged the County to look at providing additional lighting down McCulloch.
Pete Alvarado, 3338 Sterling Lake Circle, addressed the Board to state one thing that concerns him is, and the question was asked tonight, if these dorms are going to be reserved for the religious students who are going to be using these religious places. It was stated that it was going to be a first-come, first-serve basis. That brings in the concern. It’s a wonderful thought, but this is not a good place for their community. He asked why aren’t the dorms being allocated and set aside for this specific group of people. Further, he said it was mentioned tonight about the 1400 bed shortfall to support UCF. Recently, he had the opportunity to review a set of plans for a new five-story apartment complex called University House of Central Florida on Alafaya, and that is an approximately 423-unit apartment complex with over 900 beds to support the University students. That is already out for bid and is going to be built.
Teresa Takac, 3521 Foxcroft Circle, addressed the Board to state when she and her husband looked at homes in Central Florida, Seminole County was the best. Since they have been here, they have seen UCF grow and that’s a good thing, but UCF belongs in Orange County, not Seminole County. Students need to be with students; they need that college experience. She feels that this project would be better off on the UCF campus. If this were located on campus, more students could walk there. She is personally against the dorms; and the reason is that this is monstrous. This building is four stories and there isn’t anything in Oviedo that tall. He said the Board is asking the residents to accept all this on a very small piece of property. She said the density is tremendous. They are talking about two-story homes and they don’t have big Redwood trees to hide this. It is really going to look quite odd. She said when the Board does this, they are going to be setting a precedent for the rest of Seminole County.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened it at 10:05 p.m.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
The Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
Written Comment Forms in opposition to the project were received and filed from Mary G. Boyd, Robert Byers, Karen Gisel, Marylee Kraus, Lola Pfeil, Kevin Richards, Rochelle Richards, and Justin Venezit.
Additional letters (received and filed) were submitted to the Record from concerned citizens.
A CD by Matt West of the Revised Carillon PUD Major Amendment was received and filed.
Attorney Gorovitz gave rebuttal comments stating that they have a sensational project with the right use, place, people and right time and the opposition knows this. They are combing the County codes and ordinances looking for some phraseology that will give rise to a technical deficiency, but it’s not there. Mr. McMillan has looked at this in detail and knows that the County has followed all of the procedures required to follow. He explained that the opposition did not do enough research to know that in 2000 the applicant did change the zoning because the Chevron station required a zoning change to add gas pumps. He said in this case, they are not adding gas pumps, and Mr. McMillan was right in saying the applicant is not rezoning from PD to PD. He clarified that this is an off-campus facility and the property will be owned in part by the UCF Foundation and not UCF. He responded to Ms. Schaffer’s comments that the development agreement says they will comply with the crime prevention through environmental design standards to the extent practicable. Regarding comments by Mr. West about encroachment into the conservation area, Attorney Gorovitz showed an aerial map (received and filed) to point out the conservation area and said the site is developed up to and adjacent to the conservation area. On compatibility, he emphasized that the County staff and their consultants used the County’s current code. He advised that in the documentation presented to the Board, Tab 12, is a memorandum of law that suggests that without any doubt, this project and application are completely compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated there is plenty of justification for the waivers requested. Regarding payment of taxes, Attorney Gorovitz stated they are proposing a $65 million construction project that will create jobs that are desperately needed at this time and that will throw off all kinds of taxes. When this is built, the ad valorem real property taxes on the new project will far exceed what is there today. This will be an additional source of revenue that is not available today and that will be sales tax from 53,000 square feet of retail. He advised that the kosher kitchen will not be a public kitchen and it is not a restaurant, but is for the students. He also clarified that what he thought he said in the presentation was if there is no retail, the project won’t be built. If the project as a whole is not approved, then it won’t be built. He asked today for a motion consistent with their application with minor changes in the development agreement and the master plan shown today. If approved, they will be good neighbors. He asked for approval of the project with 600 beds as submitted with the minor modifications discussed today.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Attorney Gorovitz advised there is a fire station directly across the street and he understands from Fire Chief Beck that there is capacity to service the project. Further, he said because this project is managed by UCF, UCF must open up the housing to everyone. They can be highly confident that when this housing opens up, the Hillel students and the Campus Christian Ministry students will jump on it, but as a matter of constitutional law, they cannot exclude others. Attorney Gorovitz answered other questions about the occupancy analysis and retail analysis. He said they are aware of other projects that are on the drawing board, but they are not financed yet. There is no doubt that there is a market and they will be fine. He advised Commissioner Carey that there is a conservation overlay and it won’t be touched. He advised Commissioner Henley that to the best of his knowledge, there will be zero impact to the Econ River.
Ms. DeBord stated in staff’s review of the plan, they did not see anything that would affect the current regulations with regard to the Econ Basin.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, County Engineer Jerry McCollum addressed the Board to speak about the intersection improvements.
Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Attorney Gorovitz advised they are more than willing to maintain at current standards or better all of the tracts at their cost if the Homeowners Association chooses to give them an easement to do that.
Chairman Dallari surrendered the gavel to Vice Chairman McLean for the purpose of offering a motion. He said UCF is a great neighbor. Seminole County has reaped the benefit of UCF in so many different aspects. They have been great partners. The growth of the college has also been one of the catalysts that helped Seminole County grow. His main issue is that this is an existing neighborhood and PUD and this is student housing. He said he is at issue with the student housing element.
Motion by Commissioner Dallari to deny the request for a Major Amendment to the Carillon Planned Unit Development (PUD) Parcels 202 Lot 2, 401 and 201 and deny the Final Master Plan and Addendum #4 to the Carillon PUD on 25+/- acres, located on the north side of the intersection of McCulloch Road and Lockwood Boulevard and authorize the Chairman to execute the Denial Development Order; as described in the proof of publication, AHG Group LLC and University of Central Florida Foundation, Inc.
Vice Chairman McLean called for a second to the motion two times without response, whereupon, the motion died for the lack of a second.
Vice Chairman McLean returned the gavel to Chairman Dallari.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he is prepared to make an alternate motion, but he would like to speak to the Planning & Development Director before doing so.
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at 10:33 p.m. to allow Commissioner Van Der Weide to meet briefly with Ms. DeBord. He reconvened the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Upon request by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. McMillan gave comments relative to some of the presentations.
Mr. McMillan commented about the memorandum from Deputy County Attorney Kathleen Furey-Tran regarding the need for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; the ordinance approved in 2000; and the due process issue.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the request for a Major Amendment to the Carillon Planned Unit Development (PUD) Parcels 202 Lot 2, 401 and 201 and approve the Final Master Plan, as revised, and Addendum #4 to the Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page _______, subject to the six changes as requested by the applicant, to the Carillon PUD on 25+/- acres, located on the north side of the intersection of McCulloch Road and Lockwood Boulevard, based on staff findings, and authorize the Chairman to execute the revised Addendum #4; as described in the proof of publication, AHG Group LLC and University of Central Florida Foundation, Inc.
Under discussion, Commissioner Dallari said he thinks student housing is inappropriate next to residential homes and he doesn’t think there is enough transition from the student housing planned to the residential area. He also doesn’t believe the setbacks are acceptable. He said the UCF Master Plan calls for a 200 foot buffer and there’s a reason why it calls for that. He said he will not support the motion.
Commissioner Henley stated he thinks a number of things were said tonight that were opinions and not necessarily evidence. He said he agrees with one of the spokesmen who said this is not part of the Carillon subdivision, and that is correct. It is part of the PUD, but it does not encroach into the subdivision. There would be no reason for a student to go into the subdivision. He asked if you don’t have student housing on the campus, where is the next best place to have it; and that’s right next to the university. He thinks the location of this will minimize rather than increase the traffic. He said most of the activities the students will be involved in will be taking place on the campus. He said the issue is not whether you have an incident or not, it’s how you deal with it. Based upon what he has heard tonight and seen in the information provided, he thinks UCF is well positioned to respond appropriately and quickly with the amount of supervision and regulations they have, and the controls they can exercise. He thinks, in spite of what they heard, it’s unrealistic to think they can locate residential housing next to a university that is growing and not think changes will take place. He noted that the University was there first and is about the seventh largest university in the United States now. He thinks Mr. Ginsburg and his group have gone beyond what is necessary to try to minimize the impact and work with the citizens. As said, UCF has been a good partner. He thinks it is important for them to realize the value that is there to Seminole County and the students and the fact the students don’t have to leave the area to get an education. He thinks Seminole County has significantly benefitted from UCF. He thinks this project will be done right and will prove the fact that it will have minimum impact. That’s one of the reasons he has decided to support the project.
Commissioner Van Der Weide said he thinks it’s very important to remember when they all signed off on the compact on “How Shall We Grow?,” and this project meets those requirements.
Commissioner Carey stated as they change what little is left in the County and try to protect those conservation areas and keep the green corridor, they have to go back to the 4 C’s of “How Shall We Grow?” compact, which centers on transportation corridors that already exist. She thinks this is applying those principles. That’s why she asked Mr. Laurien to look at the project and give her feedback. She stated, as a mother, a controlled student housing setting is more stable and more consistent to what the students are accustomed to while living at home. It’s much more difficult when they go to a location to go to school and there is no controlled student housing and peer pressure takes over at that point. She said she is glad to see student housing at the gateway to the University.
Commissioner McLean stated he agrees with Commissioner Van Der Weide and said if they are not going to use the compact of “How Shall We Grow?, ” in this case to educate, and be able to build that type of regional impact they know they have to do, because if they don’t they’re going to get run over. He said he is going to approve the application as well.
Chairman Dallari stated “How Shall We Grow?” also talks about following a plan for growth. He has read the UCF Master Plan and it says student housing will not be off campus, and it’s clear.
Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE
Chairman Dallari voted NAY.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m., this same date.