Present:

Chairman Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)

Vice Chairman Randy Morris (District 2)

Commissioner Grant Maloy (District 1)

Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)

Commissioner Daryl McLain (District 5)

County Manager Kevin Grace

County Attorney Robert McMillan

Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann

Pastor J. Earl Welch, Pinecrest Baptist Church, Sanford, gave the Invocation.

Commissioner Morris led the Pledge of Allegiance.

-------

The Chairman advised the BCC will now act as the U.S. Highway 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency; and he convened the meeting of the CRA at this time.

Senior Planner, John Jones, addressed the Board to present the U.S. 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency's FY 00/01 Activity Plan. He advised the budget includes the installation of mast arms for traffic signals at the 15^th Street, 25^th Street and 27^th Street intersections in Sanford. Also included are Aesthetic Design Guidelines, a market assessment of SR 419/427,

an enhancement to the Seminole Community College entry, and a CRA coordinator position.

Commissioner Maloy stated he believes the County should do a better job of taking care of the landscaping that is already in place before they put more in. He said he would rather see these funds go toward irrigation and taking care of landscaping that is already out there. He further stated he believes it is premature to commit a large amount of the budget to new staff.

Discussion ensued between Chairman Van Der Weide and Mr. Grace with regard to the use of the water truck for irrigation of the landscaping.

Commissioner Henley agreed with Commissioner Maloy with regard to the upkeep of the landscaping. He stated he also has a problem with the enhancement of the SCC sign. He added that he also agrees that new personnel is not needed at this time.

Commissioner McLain explained that the City of Lake Mary has only a small portion on the corridor and the SCC sign enhancement was their issue because they wanted to have an entranceway to notify people that they are coming into Lake Mary. He concurred that the County needs to take care of the landscaping. He said this issue needs to be brought up to the RPA.

Commissioner Morris stated he does support the SCC sign enhancement; but does not support the additional staff position. He said that he believes either Mr. Jones or his boss should assume the coordinator's duties full time.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he thinks Mr. Jones is hearing that he may have money (deletion of the coordinator position) available to pursue irrigation of the landscaping.

County Manager, Kevin Grace, stated he believes the Economic Development staff could assume the coordinator's duties if they direct resources away from some of their other activities.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to approve the U.S. 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency's FY 00/01 Activity Plan and Budget as submitted, subject to the following amendments: (1) Deletion of the Coordinator staff position; and (2) Sending back to the RPA the issue of irrigation for input which will be returned to the Board for a determination on how the money will be used.

Under discussion, Commissioner Maloy stated he would be interested in reviewing impact fees for redevelopment for this area.

Mr. Grace advised staff will be doing a presentation concerning that at the next BCC meeting.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Jones advised the first draft of the market assessment is being completed. The Board requested that copies of the assessment be made available to them.

-------

The Chairman adjourned the CRA meeting; and reconvened the BCC meeting at 9:55 a.m.

Harry Barley, Executive Director of MetroPlan, addressed the Board to present Commissioner Henley with a plaque of appreciation for his service on the MetroPlan Board. He stated Commissioner Henley has fostered a sense of regional cooperation.

Commissioner Henley expressed his appreciation, stating it has been a pleasure for him to work with the members of the MetroPlan.

-------

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-1, as shown on page ________, in recognition of Wiley Dykes Sr.'s long-standing efforts to preserve and provide trail access to natural areas, and for his outstanding contributions to the Seminole County Trails Program.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

The Resolution was presented to Mr. Dykes. Mrs. Dykes expressed her husband's appreciation to the Board for this recognition.

-------

Judge Gene Stephenson addressed the Board to explain the proposed Adult Drug Court, which is being formed in the 18^th Judicial Circuit. He stated the Adult Drug Court will supervise first-time felons. He said this will save money and relieve the overloaded criminal docket and jail. He advised that they have applied for a grant and they hope to receive $500,000 over three years to help implement the program. He requested the Board's support for this program.

Kim Farr, Deputy Drug Court Coordinator, addressed the Board to explain that if someone is transferred from the criminal court to the drug court, they are strictly monitored through urinalysis and appearance in court sometimes three times a week. She advised Seminole County Mental Health will provide outpatient services, detoxification and short-term residential stays.

Commissioner Henley stated he applauds the Judge and Ms. Farr for what they are attempting to do. He said this program seems to be worthwhile. However, he expressed his concern with where funding will come from when the three-year grant period is over.

Ms. Farr stated part of her job is to secure funding for this program from places such as the Law Enforcement Block Grants and Byrne Grants.

Commissioner Henley urged Ms. Farr to coordinate with other counties in the State to make sure the State picks up the funding for this program in the future rather than depending on funding locally.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Farr advised she anticipates accommodating 75 clients during the first year, 125 clients in the second year, and 150 in the third year.

Judge Stephenson stated he believes the Drug Court can handle 25 people a month, and he feels they need to plan to do that in order to make an impact.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to support the Seminole County Drug Court Program.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

The Chairman advised he will be sending a letter in support of the Drug Court.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve and authorize the following:

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Mr. McMillan advised that at the December 12, 2000 BCC meeting, the Board approved the land exchange between Louis Wolff and the County. The required resolution was inadvertently omitted from the agenda packet and not voted on by the Board. He requested adoption of the appropriate resolution.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-2, as shown on page ________, authorizing the land exchange between Louis Wolff, as Trustee, and Seminole County for Parcel #101, Lake Mary Boulevard Phase III.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Mr. McMillan advised both the Federal and State lawsuits relative to the Suber case have been resolved in the County's favor. He added the only things remaining are motions dealing with attorney fees and costs.

--------

Mr. McMillan introduced new Assistant County Attorney, Howard Bernstein.

The Chairman announced that Item #19, FC-1135-00/BJC, has been pulled from the agenda.

Discussion ensued between the Board, Betsy Cohen and Ray Hooper (Purchasing staff) with regard to Items #32, #33, and #34, Appraisal Services work orders, and the different fees charged for the same service.

Commissioner Henley stated the Board can move forward with these work orders; but in the future, he would like to see one rate for all firms.

Commissioner Morris pulled Item #15, BCR #01-30, Supervisor of Elections, for consideration at this afternoon's meeting pending additional information from the Supervisor of Elections.

Item #9, County Road Paving Program, was also pulled for a separate vote.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve and authorize the following:

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-11, as shown on page _______, for the reimbursement of costs and expenditures relating to the County's road paving program.

Districts 2, 3 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Maloy and Henley voted NAY.

Director of Administrative Services, Jamie Croteau, addressed the Board to present request to hire internal staff to support the Courthouse Expansion Program and an outside firm to provide construction inspection and oversight services. She said that four employees would be needed - a Senior Project Manager, a Junior Project Manager/Inspector, and two support clerical staff. She stated that in the agenda backup, she has outlined three options for consideration. They are: hire all positions as County employees; contract with a construction management firm to provide the four employees; and a combination of both previous options - hiring an internal project manager and clerical staff and retaining inspection services from an outside firm. She advised that staff recommends using the combination approach.

Commissioner Morris stated the issue of the two secretaries should not be part of this proposal.

Commissioner Henley stated he does not agree that they need all four employees are needed.

Commissioner Morris stated he believes the County does need an on-site inspector from the outside; and this issue should have been dealt with before at the front-end of the Courthouse discussion.

Commissioner McLain stated he would like to discuss this issue with the private sector who does this type of work and build substantial buildings in order to see what their recommendations would be.

Commissioner Henley stated he is not opposed to seeking advice from the private sector to see how the County should go on this issue. However, he said he believes the Board will have more control over an employee than an outside firm.

Commissioner Morris suggested continuing this discussion to the next meeting in order to obtain recommendations from the private sector.

Commissioner Henley also suggested staff contact the State because they have contract people that do this all the time.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to continue until January 23, 2001, consideration of request to create positions for the Courthouse Expansion Program, pending receipt of additional information.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

DCM, Frances Chandler, addressed the Board to present request for reduction of Code Enforcement Lien for CEB #95-71, 157 Overlook Drive, Oviedo, Stephen Winters. She gave a brief history of the case. She advised that Mr. Winters has requested the fine of $7,000 be reduced to between $300 and $400. She added that the administrative cost associated with this case is $276.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner McLain to grant request for a reduction of the Code Enforcement Lien for CEB #95-71, 157 Overlook Drive, Oviedo, Stephen Winters, from $7,000 to $276.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Ms. Chandler presented request to reduce Code Enforcement Lien for CEB #00-55, for 6400 S. Hwy. 17-92 Fern Park, Barbara & Richard Cornelia. She gave a history of the property, advising although the property owners appear to be victims of illegal dumping by other parties, they are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of their property. Compliance was only obtained after the Code Enforcement Board imposed an action and it occurred five months after the first notice was issued. Therefore, staff does not recommend a reduction of the lien.

District Commissioner Henley stated after visiting the site, he believes more work is needed on the property.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to deny request for a reduction of the Code Enforcement Lien in the amount of $3,900, for CEB #100-55, 6400 Hwy. 17-92, Fern Park, Barbara & Richard Cornelia.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Senior Planner, Kathy Fall, addressed the Board to present request for Board approval of the conceptual design for Hiley's property on Lake Jesup. She briefly reviewed the three concepts provided by consultant Herbert Halback, Inc. and advised that the majority of the community supports Concept #1, which provides a neighborhood park with fishing opportunities.

Commissioner Morris complimented staff on their work with the community. He recommended Concept #1.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to approve Conceptual Design Plan #1, a passive neighborhood park and lake overlook for the Hiley's Property (Lake Jesup).

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Morris left the meeting at this time.

--------

Ms. Fall presented request for Board approval of the conceptual design for the Hutchinson property (Wekiva River). She advised the proposed concept provides a passive recreation area with picnic tables, a pavilion, and enhancement of a degraded canal to provide canoe/kayak launch site and a boardwalk overlook. She said this is proposed as a stop-off point for paddlers on the river to picnic. She stated the existing residence will be used for a caretaker and storage.

District Commissioner McLain stated since the Natural Lands Referendum passed, he would like to pursue purchasing the two remaining properties along the Wekiva River. They are the Wekiva Marina and Katie's Landing. He said by removing both these commercial facilities, it will reduce the impact to the River.

Commissioner Henley stated he concurs with the stop-off only for the canoes and kayaks.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve the Conceptual Design for the Hutchinson property (Wekiva River), as submitted providing a passive recreation area for low intensive activities, withholding any launch facilities and only to have the site as a stop-off for paddlers already on the River; and to direct staff to move forward with considering acquisition of the Wekiva Marina and Katie's landing.

Under discussion, Commissioner McLain stated staff will work with the Natural Lands Committee on the additional two properties on the Wekiva River.

Commissioner Maloy stated he feels property countywide should also be reviewed for acquisition.

Commissioner Morris re-entered the meeting at this time and was advised of the motion.

Colleen Rotella, Planning & Development Department, addressed the Board to advise that staff was already given direction in August to complete an appraisal on the Wekiva Marina property.

Commissioner Morris clarified that the Wekiva Marina property will continue to proceed through the process and Katie's Landing will start through the process.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Cindy Matheny, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to present the Final PUD Master Plan and Developer's Commitment Agreement for Buckingham Estates, for property located south of South Sylvan Lake Drive, north of Markham Road and west of Orange Blvd. (f/k/a CFG/Markham Road PUD - CFG Real Estate Group, Inc.) She advised of a revision to the commitment agreement on page #5, A. Water, deleting the following sentence, "It shall be the Owner's responsibility to provide water from the County's line on Orange Blvd. to the subdivision." Also, revisions on page #6, D. Fire protection, changing 1,250 gpm to 600 gpm; and on page #7, adding a signature block for second property owner, Winston Swartz.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Matheny advised staff feels the project exceeds the requirements for buffers and open space. She added that the plan has undergone extensive review and it meets requirements.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to find that the Final PUD Master Plan and Developer's Commitment Agreement for Buckingham Estates are consistent with the criteria of the adopted Development Order, dated December 14, 1999, related to determination of net residential density; and to approve the Final PUD Master Plan and Developer's Commitment Agreement, as shown on page ________, as amended, for Buckingham Estates PUD, located south of South Sylvan Lake Drive, north of Markham Road and west of Orange Blvd., (f/k/a CFG/Markham Road PUD - CFG Real Estate Group, Inc.)

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve and authorize the following:

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

--------

The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk's "received and filed":

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to approve and authorize the following:

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Penny Fleming, Sheriff's Office, addressed the Board to advise they have been getting some indication that the State funding for the Sheriff to run the Child Protection Program may be reduced. She stated that the Sheriff has made the commitment that this program should be funded at the State level without an impact to local dollars and he stands by that commitment.

--------

The Board, thereupon, recessed at 12:05 p.m., reconvening at 1:35 p.m., this same date with all Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who were present at the Opening Session.

Mr. Grace stated Dennis Joyner from the Supervisor of Elections office is here to review the breakdown of Item #15, BCR 01-30 in the amount of $198,303 relating to the legal fees and costs for the Harry Jacobs vs. Seminole County Canvassing Board lawsuit and public record requests.

Dennis Joyner addressed the Board to submit and review the breakdown (received and filed) of the request. He stated his office has the invoices for payment, but he did not bring them with him.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Robert McMillan, County Attorney, advised the $177,000 line item has not been submitted to him for review.

Mr. Joyner explained for Commissioner Morris the $10,000 difference shown on the handout and the proposed budget change request.

Commissioner Morris stated the information this Board received this morning was not negated and it does not show what is being done. He stated when they talk about this kind of money, the Board needs to see a better breakdown.

Mr. Grace stated he feels that he and Mr. McMillan need to review this further with the Supervisor of Elections in order to get a better handle on it. He stated there might be more bills that will be submitted.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Joyner advised the Supervisor of Elections has reviewed all of the submittals.

Commissioner Henley stated he feels the County Attorney needs to review these bills to see if he agrees that these charges are reasonable.

Commissioner McLain stated he also agrees that when money is spent for outside counsel, the County Attorney should review them to make sure that he is comfortable with them.

Mr. McMillan advised he will be happy to review the bills, but he would like to remind the Board that Ms. Goard is a constitutional officer and she can hire any law firm that she chooses. That firm performed the services under the terms and conditions the Supervisor of Elections hired them to do. It is up to the Board to decide whether or not the funds are transferred.

Mr. Joyner stated initially Ms. Goard hired the law firm of Holland & Knight and a contract was drawn up immediately to use them.

Mr. McMillan stated Holland and Knight determined that they had a conflict of interest as a result of one of their members being a CNN elections law analyst, therefore, they withdrew and at that point Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor came on board.

Commissioner Morris recommended delaying this item until the County Attorney has had a chance to review the full billing.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels the Board has a responsibility to have the bills reviewed before they authorize the transfer. Therefore, he would recommend the County Attorney review the bills.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to continue to January 23, 2001, BCR #01-03 in the amount of $198,303, after the County Attorney has reviewed same.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to accept proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into the Record.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request to vacate and abandon a portion of a Drainage Easement and Utility Easement described as the most southerly five feet of a 15.00 foot wide drainage and utility easement located at 1932 Caladium Place, William J. and Beverly K. Romine, received and filed.

John Omana, Principal Planner, addressed the Board to state the purpose of the request is to allow for the construction of a swimming pool within the rear yard. He stated the utility companies have been notified and they have no objections to the vacate. The applicant has agreed to provide a cross-section for the drainage swale at the time of the building permit stage. He said staff recommends approval of the request.

At the request of Commissioner Henley, Mr. Omana indicated on the map where the pool will be located.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-8, as shown on page ________, vacating and abandoning a portion of a drainage easement and utility easement described as the most southerly five feet of a 15.00 foot wide drainage and utility easement located at 1932 Caladium Place, as described in the proof of publication, William J. and Beverly K. Romine, subject to final approval of the swale.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris advised the drainage issue will be resolved by staff at a later date.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request to Rezone from C-1 (Agriculture) to PCD (Planned Commercial District) and approval of Preliminary and Final PCD Master Plans and Developer’s Commitment Agreement; property located south of CR 427 approximately 100 feet east of County Home Road, Max Riddick, received and filed.

Cindy Matheny, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to state the original request was for C-2 and after discussion with the applicant, staff determined that PCD would be appropriate. The staff’s report indicated C-1 within the PCD, plus the contractor’s office with no outside storage, and staff would like to amend the Commitment Agreement to be more consistent with the applicant’s original request so that the approval would be for a PCD with C-2 uses, less billboard and to include the contractor’s office with no outside storage. She stated the applicant is requesting a waiver to the active/passive buffer requirements around the property because all of the activities will take place in an area that is enclosed within an existing wood fence. Staff does not object to the waiver because of the nature of the neighborhood and adjoining use. Staff is recommending approval of the PCD zoning classification and associated preliminary/final PCD master plan, per the commitment agreement. She informed the Board that there is a change to the commitment agreement under the landscaping section. She clarified that on page 3 the applicant may use existing vegetation where it would meet the code requirements and provide supplemental plantings.

Mike Hattaway, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to advise he agrees with staff comments and will be happy to answer any questions.

No one spoke in support or in opposition to the request.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt Ordinance #2001-1, as shown on page _________, rezoning to PCD (Planned Commercial District), approval of the Preliminary and Final PCD Master Plans and Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page _________, for property located south of CR 427 approximately 100 feet east of County Home Road, as described in the proof of publication, Max Riddick, with staff recommendations and findings and the proposed changes to the development order as stated.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request for a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to the Heathrow International Business Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI); property located south and west of Banana Lake Road and east of Island Lake, Kenneth Wright on behalf of Colonial Properties Trust and HIBC Development Co., received and filed.

John Omana stated the purpose of the request is to incorporate 268 multi-family dwelling units and reduce the office component for the overall DRI by 17,000 sq. ft. Rezoning and land use actions were approved in October 1998. He gave a brief historical overview of how they came to the point of modifying the DRI development order and the implication of pursuing the NOPC. After the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) reviewed the request, they felt that this could be changed to a NOPC. After the ECFRPC’s determination, staff and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) also felt that this request could be changed to NOPC.

Mr. Omana stated staff has reviewed the traffic study that addresses the additional intensity as well as the Monitoring and Modeling Study (M&M), and they came to the conclusion that the project meets the County’s traffic standards provided that the following conditions were met: (1) The apartment developer would have to pay Seminole County the amount of $24,693.85 for improvements identified for Lake Emma Road and Lake Mary Blvd. intersection; and (2) Construct an additional northbound lane on the south approach of the intersection of Lake Mary Blvd. and Longwood/Lake Mary Road. He said staff feels that the proposed changes, addition of 29 acres and 268 units, and decreasing 72,000 sq. ft. of office, would not result in an automatic substantial deviation determination pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 380.06(19), nor is it expected that the proposed changes will cause new or increased impacts if the development order is approved. The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of substantial deviation, and therefore, further DRI review is not required.

Mr. Omana stated staff felt that it would be in the best interest of the County to have the DCA and ECFRPC review it again. Staff has received letters from the ECFRPC, DCA and the Pizzuti Companies indicating that they have no objections to the proposed NOPC. The office component is being decreased in the Seminole County’s portion of the development regional impact and thus the City of Lake Mary continues to defer their reviewing rights to Seminole County. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following: (1) Find that the requested changes to the HIBC DRI are not substantial changes and do not require further review; (2) Approval of the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Order for the HIBC Development of Regional Impact subject to the revised joinder and consent for the Pizzuti Companies; and (3) Authorize Chairman to execute the development order as requested by Ken Wright on behalf of Colonial Properties Trust for the purposes of joining and consenting to the application filed by Colonial Properties Trust. He stated staff has received a letter (received and filed) from the Heathrow Homeowners Association opposing the NOPC along with signatures from representatives of the homeowners within the Heathrow Development.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Omana indicated on the map where the additional units will be going.

Commissioner Morris stated the only concern he has is that the residents are in opposition now and previously they were not. He stated he also has concerns about the 268 units being added and developer’s workout on what is going to become of the transportation system.

Co-Co Wu, Engineering Division, addressed the Board to advise two studies have been prepared for this DRI. He stated the first one was the M&M study done for the HIBC and last year the Colonial Properties monitored a study. Three intersection improvements were recommended as part of the condition to the HIBC study. One is the intersection of International Parkway and Lake Mary Blvd. and another is the Longwood/Lake Mary Road and Lake Mary Blvd. intersection. He explained the logic for the Longwood/Lake Mary Road and Lake Mary Blvd. intersection.

Attorney Ken Wright addressed the Board to explain the methodology of the traffic study and the way to change the development order.

Commissioner Morris stated the City of Lake Mary has requested that a left turn lane be added to the intersection of Rinehart Road and Lake Mary Blvd. because traffic backs up to Sun Drive. He stated he would like to know if the applicant could substitute the northbound lane at the intersection of Lake Mary Blvd. and Longwood/Lake Mary Road for a second turn lane at Rinehart Road.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Attorney Wright advised the units are a mix of two and three bedroom, upper scale residential apartments and about 10% are three bedroom. He stated his only concern is where the units are placed, the impact does not occur within 100 yards of them.

Mr. Omana stated with regard to whether the road improvement can be swapped for another improvement, conceptually that would require a new review since it is technically changing the context of the development order and staff would need to review it further.

Don Fisher, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board to state the Board doesn’t have much flexibility to putting that mitigation to another location because the traffic report identified certain intersections that were deficient. He stated if the applicant is willing to enter into a voluntary commitment, that would be in addition to the other mitigation that has been discussed.

Attorney Wright stated his client has spent a large amount of money to identify these impacts and he has no problem working with staff if there is a mechanism that can be worked out to substitute that intersection improvement.

Commissioner McLain stated there are all kinds of projects in the County that need improvements and the one turn lane that Commissioner Morris is talking about has a high priority. There are other methodologies in moving up the process.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Fisher advised the intersection that Commissioner Morris spoke of did not show up in the study.

Attorney Wright asked if the staff and the Board would accept language substitution stating they will pay their fair share on those two improvements.

Cindy Crain, 820 Banana Lake Road, addressed the Board to state she would have to agree with Commissioner Morris’ comments relative to the Rinehart Road intersection, as it is horrible. She stated two years ago she brought a proposal before this Board relative to a brick wall being placed on the north side, which would require the southern part of Banana Lake Road to be vacated.

Attorney Wright advised that the brick wall is not up yet but is still in the plan.

Ms. Crain stated her other concern is there is no fire hydrant at the end of Banana Lake Road. If a fire starts in that area and because of the canopy of trees, it will be a total disaster for that entire road.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels that is an amenity the developer should not have a problem doing.

Edwin Holt, representing the homeowners of Heathrow, addressed the Board to state his major concern is where will the traffic exit from these apartments. Will it go down Banana Lake or International Drive? He stated the traffic density is difficult to deal with after you exit the north gate along Banana Lake Road.

Mr. Omana advised the traffic would be routed through International Parkway. He stated the project would still have to come back for site plan review and staff will review the assessment of that circulation.

Mr. Holt stated the 17,000 sq. ft. of office space does not appear to be on the site they are going to put the extra 280 apartments.

Attorney Wright stated there is no way that the impact of having multi-family apartments across that lake can be mitigated by a reduction of 17,000 sq. ft. of office space north of there. He stated the reduction of office space against the unit count is a mathematical exchange referred to as a simultaneous increase/decrease to offset traffic impacts and it does. The impacts that Mr. Holt spoke of, if there are negative ones, would have been dealt with at the time this project was approved. The 17,000 sq. ft. of office reduction will occur in what is going to be in the general vicinity.

Mr. Holt stated with regard to the discussion of the offset of $44,000 to take care of traffic problems, he feels that is a drop in the bucket. The impact that he is going to get from all of these apartments is not going to help him.

Commissioner McLain stated the applicant is willing to contribute to the County and leave it to them to work out any arrangements with DCA and the ECFRPC as to whether they can transfer those funds to another project.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, a representative from Shutts & Bowen addressed the Board to advise he will be glad to look into seeing whether they can place a fire hydrant as an addition to the plan. He stated he will be glad to discuss that issue with the County to see if it can be worked out.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

District Commissioner McLain stated he is familiar with the area and it is nice to see nice homes going in and a quality development. He stated as far as staff’s recommendations, he doesn’t see any reason for not approving the project.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to find the requested changes to the HIBC DRI are non-substantial changes and do not require further review; approve First Amendment, as shown on page _________, to the Second Amended and Restated Development Order for the HIBC DRI; authorize Chairman to execute said development order as requested by Ken Wright on behalf of Colonial Properties Trust and HIBC Development Co., co-applicant, for purposes of joining and consenting to the application filed by Colonial Properties Trust, as described in the proof of publication, with the amendments mentioned by the applicant.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

The Chairman recessed the meeting at 3:00 p.m., reconvening at 3:13 p.m., with all Board members in attendance.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request to adopt a Resolution to ratify issuance of bonds by the Orange County Health Facilities Authority for Intermediate Care Facilities for Developmentally Disabled, received and filed.

Cindy Hall, Fiscal Services Director, addressed the Board to advise the bonds will be used to finance and refinance the costs of acquisition and renovation of intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled. She stated approval of the request enables the Orange County Health Facilities Authority to satisfy the public approval requirements of the Internal Revenue code in each jurisdiction where the proceeds of the bond issue will be expended. Granting its approval to the expenditure after holding a public hearing does not obligate the County to incur any financial liability. She stated Mike Watkins and Terry Banks, owner of the facility, are here to answer any questions.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-9, as shown on page ________, ratifying issuance of bonds by the Orange County Health Facilities Authority for Intermediate Care Facilities for Developmentally Disabled.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance imposing an Outdoor Advertising Sign Moratorium, received and filed.

Debbi Leigh, Code Enforcement, addressed the Board to advise the proposed ordinance does not prohibit bringing non-conforming outdoor advertising signs into compliance and does not extend the date for compliance of non-conforming boards beyond February 1, 2001 as required by Ordinance #99-5. Between 1995 and 1999, approximately 20 meetings were held with billboard companies and staff regarding billboard issues. These meetings resulted in the following changes of the ordinance: (1) Front setback requirements in M-1 zoning from 50 ft. to 25 ft.; (2) Administrative landscape alternatives; (3) Change in height from 30 ft. to 35 ft.; and (4) Changed compliance date for non-conforming signs from June 1, 1995 to February 1, 2001 for signs on roadways other than FAI’s and FAP’s. Since the adoption of Ordinance #99-5, 11 new outdoor signs have been erected in the unincorporated portions of Seminole County. In addition, there have been 10 properties rezoned C-2, C-3 or M-1, which could facilitate the placement of outdoor advertising signs if the following regulations could be met: (1) One of these sites has been issued a permit for an outdoor advertising sign; and (2) Permits have been applied on two other locations, with one application having been denied and under appeal, and the other is being processed through the development review process. She stated since the adoption of Ordinance #99-5, there have been four applications for voluntary reconstruction of a non-conforming outdoor advertising sign on roadways other than FAI’s and FAP’s. One does not require a permit. At the present time, eight applications have been denied and are under appeal or have other issues being addressed by staff. She distributed and reviewed changes to the billboard inventory (received and filed).

Bryan Parker, representing Eller Media, addressed the Board to state he is in support of the moratorium. He stated he is under the assumption that based on the adoption to the changes of the existing ordinance that two things will occur. The locations for non-conforming signs on a non-FAP road system will be brought into compliance with the code. Eller Media has or will bring them into compliance on or before February 1st. He said there has been no net gain in the total number of signs in the County since adoption of the ordinance and he would like to have the numbers kept to where they are at this time.

Ralph Ritter, 1810 Torrington Circle, addressed the Board to submit some proposed policy changes (received and filed) to the ordinance. He stated he would like to support the moratorium.

Stan Bessmer, 1301 Glastonberry Rd., addressed the Board to speak in favor of the ordinance. He stated as the County is looking into designing a new ordinance, they need to take another step into looking at how do they ban them. He said 22% of the billboards are located south of SR 434, 15 are located south of the County line on SR 436, and 10 are located in the area of Lake of the Woods Blvd. He requested the Board to respect the citizens of the County and not the billboard companies.

Frank Shelton, 14 Stone Gate North, addressed the Board to state he is not thrilled with what has happened to the billboard ordinance since it was adopted. He stated he hopes the County can spend the next six months coming up with a billboard ordinance that goes much further than just capping the number they have now.

Chairman Van Der Weide read written comments from Dee Speirs supporting the moratorium.

Rick Forman, representing Lamar Outdoor Advertising, addressed the Board to state he has no objections to the moratorium, but he would like to be a part of the process in putting together new language as far as the cap on future billboards.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker and Written Request Forms were received and filed.

Chairman Van Der Weide closed the public hearing and advised that the second public hearing for consideration of adoption is scheduled for January 23, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider request for an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision in upholding the Zoning Section Chief’s determination relative to the separation requirements for an outdoor advertising sign; property located at the northwest corner of SR 434 and Douglas Avenue, as described in the proof of publication, Eller Media/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen.

Ginny Markley, Principal Zoning Coordinator, addressed the Board to state the appellant applied for a permit to install an outdoor advertising sign on the Denny’s Restaurant site. The permit was reviewed by staff for compliance with the applicable land development regulations and found the sign was in violation of the 150-foot separation requirement from existing ground/pole signs located on the same side of the street. The proposed sign would be within 150-ft. of the Denny’s restaurant sign located on the same property. She stated John Dwyer, Zoning Section Chief, concurred with staff’s findings and determined that the sign permit application must be reviewed without regard to the proposed removal of the existing outdoor sign, and the proposed location of the new sign is in violation of the 150-foot separation requirement. The property is assigned Commercial land use designation and C-2, Retail Commercial zoning classification, which allows outdoor advertising signs as a permitted use providing that they meet the requirements. The one requirement it did not meet was that on all other State and County roads, such signs shall be no closer than 2,000 ft. from any outdoor advertising signs on the same side of the road, 2,000 ft. radial distance from any other outdoor advertising sign on the same road, nor closer than 150 ft. from any ground/pole sign on the same side of the road. She added staff recommends that the Board uphold the BOA’s decision and adopt the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision set forth in the Notice of Denial.

John Dwyer, Zoning Section Chief, addressed the Board to advise when he looked at this situation, an assertion was made that this was a relocation from an existing sign. He stated he reviewed it as a new site for a billboard because it was being taken off the existing site and placed on another piece of property.

Lou Musica, representing Eller Media, addressed the Board to ask the Board to overturn the Board of Adjustment’s decision. If the decision is overturned, it will save the taxpayers the cost of condemning an off-premise site and standing up for the consistent application of the County code to its regulated industry. He stated he agrees with staff’s recommendation of 150 ft.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Dwyer advised that the County owns the property and the sign will have to be removed due to construction of the trail.

Mr. Musica submitted a copy of Ordinance #99-5 (received and filed) and he briefly reviewed the three main issues that surround this particular appeal. He stated the County and FDOT are the landlords at this particular site and the sign was there before the County and FDOT had an interest in the property. He said he has been informed that the property, where the sign exists, will eventually be part of the Seminole/Wekiva Trail. The County and FDOT purchased the property for transportation purposes. With a sign in the way, the courts will decide if taxpayer’s money will be spent for its removal. The only way to comply with the non-conforming sign code is to move it next door, 83 ft. away.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Bryan Parker advised the property was originally owned by CSX and FDOT acquired it at some time and eventually FDOT deeded it to the County. Through that entire process there has been a license agreement between his company and their predecessors to have that location and it has been renewed on an annual basis far in excess of 10 years.

Upon further inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Parker advised the County is the landlord and he would certainly file for an eminent domain action.

Upon further inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. McMillan advised the legal argument is really irrelevant to the appeal. The County is the landlord and when the lease expires it will not be renewed.

Mr. Parker stated since the County bought the property for the purpose of public transportation, it is involved as a public transportation use and that in any case where the County acquires private property, his legal counsel has advised him that they do have a taking claim because the County has not exercised any cancellation in the lease.

Mr. McMillan stated when a piece of property is condemned for a road project and if a billboard lease is on the property, compensation is involved. However, this is not the issue in this case.

Commissioner Henley stated there has been a change of ownership and he is assuming that when the County bought that property, there was nothing in the agreement upon purchase that guarantees the right to continue the expectation of that billboard. The County has allowed the billboard industry to continue to use that for a period of nine years. Ten years is sufficient to reclaim their investments. He stated he doesn’t think they are dealing with apples and apples because he doesn’t believe that their rights will continue.

Mr. Parker stated the main motivating factor is that site had to be brought into compliance by 2/1/01. The appeal today is the determination of Mr. Dwyer that the 150 ft. separation requirement is applied. This requirement is not applied because this sign falls under the conforming category of height, size, and construction standards under the code.

Mr. Musica submitted pictures (received and filed) of signs on SR 46. He submitted and reviewed a copy of the 1999 revised site plan (received and filed) of the sign.

Frank Shelton stated he represents 1500 homeowners on that road and they want this billboard removed. He stated they have tried to figure out ways of getting that billboard out of their area. He requested the Board back up the County staff and BOA and deny this appeal.

Commissioner Morris stated there are a variety of ways of dealing with the outdoor sign industry. He reviewed the type of situations of road right-of-way taking and negotiating settlements.

Mr. Parker clarified that there is no where in the sign code that deals with the issue of allowing non-conforming signs to be traded in for rebuilding. He stated he has made some applications along those lines that were approved based on some negotiations of what they were going to do.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

District Commissioner McLain stated his understanding is that an application was never made to bring this sign into conformity.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to uphold the Board of Adjustment’s decision in its determination that the Zoning Section Chief did not err in his determination that a proposed outdoor advertising sign is not in conformance with the separation requirements set forth in Part 65, Land Development Code of Seminole County and adopt the Notice of Denial, as shown on page ________, for property located at the northwest corner of SR 434 and Douglas Avenue, as described in the proof of publication, Eller Media/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision in upholding the Zoning Section Chief’s determination relative to the separation requirements for an outdoor advertising sign; property located on the east side of SR 436, approximately ½ mile south of Howell Branch Road, as described in the proof of publication, Oxford Outdoor Advertising/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen.

Meredith Harper, Shutts & Bowen, addressed the Board to request the Board, per Lonnie Groot, to continue this item and the next item to 5:15 p.m., as he is in court at the present time and he has oral arguments he would like to present to the Board.

The Board briefly discussed when to continue this item.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to continue to January 23, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, request for an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision in upholding the Zoning Section Chief’s determination relative to the separation requirements for an outdoor advertising sign; property located on the east side of SR 436, approximately ½ mile south of Howell Branch Road, as described in the proof of publication, Oxford Outdoor Advertising/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen.

Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 voted AYE.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision in upholding the Zoning Section Chief’s determination relative to the separation requirements for an outdoor advertising sign; property located on the east side of Highway 17-92, approximately ¾ mile north of SR 434, as described in the proof of publication, Oxford Outdoor Advertising/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to continue to January 23, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, request for an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision in upholding the Zoning Section Chief’s determination relative to the separation requirements for an outdoor advertising sign; property located on the east side of Highway 17-92, approximately ¾ mile north of SR 434, as described in the proof of publication, Oxford Outdoor Advertising/Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen.

Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 voted AYE.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated the Boys and Girls Club has contacted him relative to requesting additional funding from the County. He stated he would like to know if all of the Board members are interested in reconsidering this issue.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

Commissioner Henley stated he would like to point out that a significant amount has been taken from the Contingency Fund and, in his opinion, they are going to be short in that area. He stated he would be reluctant to make an adjustment again.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he would have to agree and if they readdress this issue, they have a whole list of organizations that would like additional funding. The consensus of the Board was to deny the request.

-------

Chairman Van Der Weide recommended reappointing Thomas Speer to the Board of Trustees of the Fred R. Wilson Memorial Law Library.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to reappoint Thomas Speer to the Board of Trustees of the Fred R. Wilson Memorial Law Library.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he received an e-mail from Mr. Art Ackerman relative to a proposed resolution regarding pedestrian and bicycle routes being given precedence over automobiles.

Commissioner Maloy stated he has not reviewed Mr. Ackerman’s e-mail to date.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated the Board instructed staff some time ago to add bike lanes if there was enough right-of-way. He stated he will have Commissioner Maloy check into this further. He said Mr. Ackerman suggested that a Bike Advisory Committee be established.

Commissioner Morris stated a Bike Advisory Committee has been established and he will be happy to forward names for appointment.

-------

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he would like to appoint Charles A. Ashley and Bob Goff to the Natural Lands Committee.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to appoint Charles A. Ashley and Bob Goff to the Natural Lands Committee.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

- - -

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to appoint Sharon Keen and Barbara Whittier to the Natural Lands Committee.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

- - -

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to appoint Daryl Leidigh, Leigh McEachern and Kim Jennison to the Natural Lands Committee.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Chairman Van Der Weide recommended that these appointments be Seminole County residents. He stated if the Sierra Club would like to participate on this committee, he will be glad to make that appointment at the next meeting.

Commissioner Morris recommended that a meeting be scheduled as soon as possible.

Commissioner Henley stated the lights to the "Welcome to Seminole County" sign on 17-92 near Maitland have been out for several weeks now and he would like something done about that.

Mr. Grace stated he will have staff from the Roads Division check this out.

-------

Commissioner Morris stated the County needs to ask the Sheriff’s Office to do a trash patrol in his district and Commissioner Henley’s district on 17-92.

-------

Commissioner Henley requested staff to check into a code enforcement issue south of 17-92.

-------

Commissioner McLain informed the Board that his son left today for Paris Island, South Carolina where he was sworn into the U.S. Marines Corp.

-------

Commissioner Maloy wished everyone a Happy New Year.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to appoint Tom Hagood to the Code Enforcement Board; and to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-10, as shown on page _________, commending Tony Tizzio for his services on the Code Enforcement Board.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to reappoint James Gamble to the Building Contractors Trade Board.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to appoint Jack Vaughan to the Agriculture Advisory Committee.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Commissioner Morris stated Seminole County currently has no regulatory standards regarding safety of passenger vehicles for hire industry or for new business start-ups or expansion of existing businesses. He stated the Board is being asked to support the Florida Livery Act, which would establish a single statewide system for permitting, regulating and enforcement within the industry. Discussion ensued.

The Board directed the County Attorney to review this bill and to bring it back at the next meeting.

-------

Commissioner Morris submitted a map (received and filed) of the Longwood Post Office area and advised that the County acquired parcels on Jessup Ave. and Church Ave. during the widening of CR 427. He stated if the County deeded these over to the City of Longwood, negotiations need to be handled relative to reconstruction of the Post Office. He said he would like for him and Mr. Grace to continue discussions with the City of Longwood in trying to work up the principals of an agreement. The Board voiced no objections.

-------

Commissioner Morris stated the Code Enforcement Board ordinance calls for two appointments from Districts 1 and 3 and one appointment from Districts 2, 4 and 5. He stated appointments to this board should be rotated and have never been done.

Chairman Van Der Weide recommended that the County Attorney and County Manager come back with the appropriate information of what needs to be done.

-------

Commissioner Morris informed the Board that an application is going forward with the City of Longwood for the annexation of parcels of land off of Lake Emma Road that the County has turned down for rezoning.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide, Commissioner Morris advised the Board had sent a letter opposing the annexation. The Board unanimously consented to sending another letter.

No report.

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

1. Letter dated 12/15/00 to Chairman (with attachment) from Bob Cambric, Growth Mgmt. Administrator-Department of Community Affairs re: Notice of Intent to find comprehensive plan amendment in compliance. (cc: BCC, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development Director, Thomas Grimms-Director of Community Planning & Zoning, Sandra Glenn-Executive Director ECFRPC)
2. Letter dated 12/8/00 to Scott Kaylor, Chair-Seminole County Soil & Water Conservation District from Jack Gaskins, Special District Information Program-Department of Community Affairs re: Noncompliance with FY 98/99 Annual Financial Report requirement. (cc: BCC, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development Director, Local General Purpose Government, Otis Smith-Department of Banking & Finance)
3. Copy of identical letters dated 12/15/00 to all seven City Managers (with attachments) from Kevin Grace, County Manager re: 2^nd Generation 1 cent local option infrastructure sales tax. (cc: BCC, County Staff)
4. Letter dated 12/12/00 to Chairman from Gene Stephenson, Circuit Judge re: Drug Court Coordinator. (cc: BCC, Community Services Director)
5. Letter dated 12/8/00 to Patricia Nompleggi, Seminole County Industrial Development Authority from Jack Gaskins, Special District Information Program-Department of Community Affairs re: Noncompliance with FY 98/99 Annual Financial Report requirement. (cc: BCC, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development Director, Economic Development Coordinator/Seminole County, Local General Purpose Government, Otis Smith-Dept. of Banking & Finance)
6. Letter dated 12/13/00 to BCC (with attachment) from Shirley Hergert, Assistant Supervisor-Clerk of the Circuit Court re: List of lands available for taxes. (cc: Tax Collector, Property Appraiser, Co. Attorney, Assistant Co. Attorney, Certificate Holders of Record, Administrative Services [for action])
7. Copy of letter dated 12/13/00 to Sandra Glenn, Executive Director-ECFRPC (with attachment) from Chairman re: St. Johns River Eco-Heritage Corridor Planning Committee. (cc: County Manager, Deputy County Manager [Chandler], Planning & Development Director, Senior Planner-Comprehensive Planning)
8. Letter dated 12/14/00 to Kevin Grace, County Manager (with attachments) from Janet Dougherty, City Clerk-City of Sanford re: Annexation. (cc: Property Appraiser, Zoning, Planning & Development)
9. Notice and agenda for City of Oviedo Council meeting of 12/18/00.
10. Letter dated 11/23/00 to Chairman from Imogene Yarborough re: Renaming the Geneva Wilderness Area. (cc: BCC, County Manager, Deputy County Manager [Chandler], Comprehensive Planning, Planning & Development Director)
11. Copy of memorandums dated 12/13/00 to Cindy Hall, Fiscal Services Director (with attachments) from Bill Suber, Property Appraiser re: Final Certification of Taxable Value for Road Improvement District, Stormwater Management, Fire District, and BCC. (cc: BCC, County Manager)
12. Memorandum dated 12/14/00 to BCC and County Manager from Jerry McCollum, County Engineer re: State Roadway System. (cc: County Attorney, Deputy County Managers, Principal Planner-Planning & Development, Public Works Administrative Manager)
13. Copy of memorandums to the Mayors of Winter Springs, Sanford, Lake Mary, Casselberry, Altamonte Springs and BCC from Tyra Miller, Administrative Director-Property Appraiser re: 2000 Final Increment values. (cc: City Managers, City Clerks, City Financial Managers, Seminole County Fiscal Services)
14. Letter dated 12/13/00 to Chairman from Karen Ponder, Clerk to the Seminole County Public School Board re: Value Adjustment Board members. (cc: BCC, Records, Larry Furlong, Dede Schaffner)
15. Minutes from 10/26/00 LYNX Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority Board of Directors Meeting.
16. Letter dated 12/13/00 to Kevin Grace, County Manager (with attachment) from Janet Dougherty, City Clerk-City of Sanford re: Annexation. (cc: Property Appraiser, Zoning, Planning & Development Director, BCC)
17. Copy of letter dated 12/1/00 to Rey & Kathleen Sylvester from Chief Brian Tooley, City of Sanford Chief of Police re: Policing issues in Sanford. (cc: City Manager, City Mayor)
18. Notice of Public Hearing-City of Oviedo re: Buffer Yard Landscape Enhancement Plan on 12/18/00. (cc: BCC, County Manager, Deputy County Manager [Chandler], Planning & Development Director, County Attorney)
19. Notice and agenda for 12/20/00 Seminole County Port Authority Board Meeting.
20. Memorandum dated 12/14/00 to BCC (with attachment) from Chairman re: Liaison Appointments for FY 2001.
21. Memorandum dated 12/7/00 to County Commissioners and County Administrators from Mary Kay Cariseo, Executive Director-Fla. Association of Counties re: New Commissioners Workshops. (cc: BCC, County Manager, County Attorney)
22. Notice of City of Sanford Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearing on 12/21/00 re: Rezoning. (cc: BCC, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, County Attorney, Planning & Development Director)
23. Memorandum dated 12/8/00 to Sandy McCann, County Records, from Kathryn Brown, Sr. Planner-One Stop Permitting re: Submissions into Official Records. (cc: BCC, County Manager, Environmental Services Director)
24. Copy of letters dated 12/11/00 and 12/7/00 from Ken Roberts, Director re: Appreciation for recent donations to the following: Edda Baumgartner, William Leive, Carrie Matthews, Sylvia McCook, Dolores Deane, Ben & Suzanne Newman, Pam Smith, Kathy Furlong, Linda Radecki.

Mr. Grace stated he had planned bringing up the United Artists issue before the Board today, but he is still researching it further. He stated he will be submitting same to the Board at the next meeting.

-------

The Board recessed the meeting at 4:46 p.m., reconvening at 7:04 p.m., with all Commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Morris who entered late, and all other Officials, with the exception of County Attorney Robert McMillan, who was replaced by Assistant County Attorney Stephen Lee, and Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen.

Continuation of a public hearing from August 22, 2000, and October 10, 2000, to consider Appeal against the Board of Adjustment in denying a Special Exception for a 250-foot high telecommunication monopole tower on a 39.41 acre site located on the north side of SR 46, 1¼ mile east of CR 426, Nextel c/o Laura Belflower.

John Dwyer, Section Chief, addressed the Board to advise the applicant has withdrawn this request.

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Suburban Estates and Commercial to Industrial; and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) and C-1 (Retail Commercial) to M-1 (Industrial District) and C-3 (General Commercial and Wholesale); property located north of SR 46 and east of Beardall Avenue, Vince Leffler, received and filed.

Mr. Dwyer advised he has received a letter from Ronald Henson on behalf of the Leffler Company requesting a continuance for six months, and that would put Mr. Leffler in the next large scale plan amendment cycle. Mr. Dwyer provided the Commissioners with a copy (received and filed) of the letter from Mr. Henson. He said he is not privy to anything to take place in the City of Sanford as referred to in the letter. He stated if the continuance is for six months, the staff will have to readvertise the hearing.

Commissioner McLain stated he and Planning Director, Don Fisher, were in a meeting with Mr. Leffler who was looking for commercial zoning. He and Mr. Fisher did not think that would be compatible in the area. They agreed that when amendments are done again in the spring, that would be an appropriate time for Mr. Leffler to come back with PUD or something of that nature.

Don Fisher, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board to confirm the appropriate time would be in the next cycle within the next six months.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide, Mr. Grace said this hearing could be scheduled in the next cycle for the first hearing date.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to continue to the spring cycle for land use amendments the Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Suburban Estates and Commercial to Industrial; and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) and C-1 (Retail Commercial) to M-1 (Industrial District) and C-3 (General Commercial and Wholesale); property located north of SR 46 and east of Beardall Avenue; as described in the proof of publication, Vince Leffler.

Senior Planner, Cindy Matheny, addressed the Board to state the six months time period would push the hearing into the fall cycle.

Districts 1, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential and Industrial to Suburban Estates; property described as Site No. 1, north of Lake Mary Boulevard, east of Mellonville Avenue, south of Onora and west of Ohio Avenue, and Site No. 2, north of Lake Mary Boulevard, east of Ohio Avenue, south of Marquette Avenue, Seminole County, received and filed.

Planner, Amanda Smith, addressed the Board to state as a result of community input, the BCC directed Planning staff to effect an administrative land use amendment. She said at the P & Z Commission meeting, there was quite a bit of public input stating that perhaps the residents did not want to go to Suburban Estates but stay with the Low Density Residential. The P & Z denied the proposed request.

Art Wooodruff, 214 Summerlin Avenue, addressed the Board to state he thinks the residents saw Suburban Estates as a way of gaining protection for the neighborhood. However, after hearing more about what that land use would mean, they came to the conclusions that maybe a better thing would be to increase the zoning on these properties to as high as R-1AAAA so the City of Sanford would have to go through the rezoning process whenever zoning would occur. He said the residents asked the County and City to meet and execute a joint planning agreement; discuss this area and come to a public conclusion as to what the intent is on this area and to what extent it would be protected, because this is one of the best areas in north Seminole County.

Richard Fowler, 3400 Whitner Way, addressed the Board to state the residents proposed Suburban Estates to try to help them resist pressure for industrialization from the City of Sanford. He pointed out the area of concern located west of Ohio Avenue encroached by Ohio, Onora, Mellonville and Lake Mary Boulevard. He said for some reason, the staff took their request and applied it to the entire large area. At the P & Z meeting, a number of people south of Marquette and east of Ohio were very much opposed to the land use. Mr. Fowler said the nature of the other residents’ area and his area is substantially different and their interests are not congruent. He said many of the other residents seek industrial use, and now they have a situation where nobody can be satisfied.

Mr. Fowler said he doesn’t care what the land use is if it will keep the minimum lot size to something similar to an acre. At the P & Z meeting, staff said the zoning would be A-1 and that brought alarm to them. He said if staff is talking about changing the land use in his area and combining that with the zoning of RC-1, that would have substantial agreement in his neighborhood. The area south of Marquette could be considered separately because there are different concerns and interests in that area.

Stuart Buchanan, Swann & Hadley of Winter Park, representing Mr. Trautman, business owner, addressed the Board to state this area of 6.4 acres is clearly zoned industrial. He showed an aerial picture (received and filed) of Mr. Trautman’s nursery business close to the Airport runway. He said there is a distinct difference between what is compatible and consistent for this property and what is appropriate for the properties west of Ohio Avenue. Attorney Buchanan showed a map (received and filed) of the future expansion of the runway with the property in question identified. He discussed where the runway would be extended and noted that the property to the north is PUD and is going to be developed as a hotel.

Attorney Buchanan showed a Noise Overlay (received and filed) with Mr. Trautman’s property highlighted and explained this is the overlay prior to expansion of the runway. Further, he showed pictures (received and filed) of current uses along Lake Mary Boulevard including heavy commercial uses, and a picture (received and filed) of a parcel for sale zoned industrial.

Commissioner Morris entered the meeting at this time.

Attorney Buchanan referred to the letter from Jay Marder, City of Sanford, saying a major manufacturing development is appropriate for use in this area. Attorney Buchanan submitted a 1995 Future Land Use Map showing subareas around the Airport with findings that development along Silver Lake Drive is toward industrial uses. Attorney Buchanan said they object to the request to go to Suburban Estates as the change would be inconsistent and incompatible, and they feel it is a violation of State statutes and the Code regarding growth management.

Elise Cornell, S. Mellonville Avenue, addressed the Board to state she is asking the Board to do the best they can for the area. She said this area is such a little oasis and jewel, and they hope the Commissioners will do their very best to protect them.

Chairman Van Der Weide read the written comment from Aldo Acosta in support of Suburban Estates.

Philip Smith, 1215 E. Onora Street, addressed the Board to state he is opposed to Suburban Estates. He thinks past history will show that the area annexed by the City was agricultural at the time. He said he doesn’t see where going to Suburban Estates or Agricultural will affect the City annexing this lot. He said Suburban Estates would restrict the use of his property. He said he was not informed or invited to any of the community meetings. They brought up the opposition that a lot of people were not brought into this and their arguments were not heard. He said he doesn’t want to lower his property values or reduce the use of his property. He said they need to stand together and keep this property pristine. They want to leave the property the way it is.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition. Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

District Commissioner McLain stated this process was initially based on interest in the community for the Board to change the land use. He said East Lake Mary Boulevard will be four-laned and there will be a lot of changes. This is an historic neighborhood and he thinks the Board wants to try to help the residents protect their property rights. He said the Board has always opposed involuntary annexations. The property owners would have to agree to annexation for that to take place. In discussing SR-1A, the residents requested they maintain the single family dwelling character of the lake and they agreed to buffer the industrial on Lake Mary Boulevard, which is Medium Density Residential zoning. He advised of a conversation with Mr. Marder, City of Sanford, and said he was also in agreement with the proposal. Commissioner McLain asked Mr. Grace to contact Mr. Marder on this in order to protect the property owners. He said the most prudent thing for the Board to do is to leave the area like it is. If someone wants to make a change, they have that right to come in for a land use change and can go through the process.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to deny the administrative land use application for Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential and Industrial to Suburban Estates; property described as site No. 1, north of Lake Mary Boulevard, east of Mellonville Avenue, south of Onora and west of Ohio Avenue, and Site No. 2, north of Lake Mary Boulevard, east of Ohio Avenue, south of Marquette Avenue; as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 voted AYE.

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Planned Development and Public/Quasi-Public to Planned Development; and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture), C-2 (Retail Commercial), R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); property located north of SR 436, south of Sand Lake Road, and west of West Lake Brantley Drive, John Percy, received and filed.

Ms. Matheny stated this action concerns the Forest Lake Academy PUD and amounts to a revision to that project. She said staff has recommended approval of Planned Development and that the BCC transmit the Plan Amendment to the Dept. of Community Affairs for review. Staff is also recommending approval of the rezoning to Planned Unit Development subject to: (1) There shall be no vehicular access to West Lake Brantley Drive. The applicant shall, prior to Final PUD approval, meet with the applicable County staff to determine the feasibility of a bicycle/pedestrian connection to West Lake Brantley Drive; (2) The 80’ church tower must be constructed as an integral part of the church complex and not as a free-standing structure; (3) The church will not exceed three stories, but the peak of the roof may be up to 50 feet in height, and a church steeple may be up to 80 feet; and (4) The school will not exceed three stories, but the peak of the roof may be up to 50 feet.

Ms. Matheny reported that the P & Z recommended approval of the land use and rezoning, subject to the staff recommendations with the exception of Condition #1.

John Percy, Glatting Jackson, addressed the Board to state they accept the conditions of approval recommended by the P & Z Commission. Mr. Percy introduced Randy Reynolds, Florida Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, owner of the property. He asked for the Board’s approval as recommended by the P & Z.

Robert Morris, 652 West Cadillac Drive, addressed the Board to state he is not opposed to any of this, but is concerned about the fact they are going to be increasing traffic. He said they get a little traffic now during camp meetings, but this action will put the access road beside his house and he will look at 500 to 600 cars a day going beside his house. He said the dorms will be behind his house. Mr. Morris said he hopes the 8’ berm is put up between his property and the school as he was told. He stated his main concern is noise, lighting and access. His concern deals with security and safety of the residents, as well as himself, and the peace of the neighborhood. Mr. Morris said he is looking for something else besides the berm. He’s looking for a wall, fence or something to prevent movement through their subdivision and residential properties.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Ms. Matheny stated the PUD plan is very general, but when the Planned Development comes in with a new master plan, it will show where all the different activities are to be on the school ground, and it will require certain buffers to be in place. She explained the PD code requires certain buffers and walls adjacent to residential.

Mr. Percy advised that as part of the P & Z conditions of approval, it was agreed that the access road would have the minimum separation from the property lines of 100 feet and there would be a six-foot vegetative berm and the existing tree cover would be maintained.

Ms. Matheny stated the code does have stipulations for lighting.

O. L. Ramsey, 1030 Broadway Street, addressed the Board to state he is quite happy with the church the way it is. Chairman Van Der Weide explained what uplands are to Mr. Ramsey. Chairman Van Der Weide also said all these issues will be addressed.

Mr. Percy explained the upland restaurant area and the plan to restore the area to its original condition.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

Chairman Van Der Weide said he is hopeful that all the drainage issues in this area will be resolved, in cooperation with the County and the Sweetwater Basin.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

Jerry Clause, 531 W. Lake Brantley Road, addressed the Board to state he is fully in support of the project, but he has concerns about access and development of property on West Lake Brantley Road. He said this is the only road on the block that does not have a sidewalk, and there are still a lot of students from the high school walking the road and riding bikes. At the last planning meeting, there was talk of downscaling West Lake Brantley Road from a collector road to a residential street.

Chairman Van Der Weide advised that sidewalk issues are a priority with the County Commission and management. He said the Board is inserting a tremendous amount of money every budget year to address the sidewalks. He stated as this plan moves forward, the applicant will be putting in sidewalks. He said the entire area needs sidewalks, where people walk to the elementary and high schools and to the Forest City school, and the Board is working on this.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition. Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

District Commissioner Van Der Weide recommended a motion as recommended by staff incorporating the P & Z recommendations.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to approve the Plan Amendment from Planned Development and Public/Quasi-Public to Planned Development, and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture), C-2 (Retail Commercial), R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); property located north of SR 436, south of Sand Lake Road, and west of West Lake Brantley Drive; incorporating the P & Z recommendations that: (1) The 80’ church tower must be constructed as an integral part of the church complex and not as a free-standing structure; (2) The church will not exceed three stories, but the peak of the roof may be up to 50 feet in height, and a church steeple may be up to 80 feet; and (3) The school will not exceed three stories, but the peak of the roof may be up to 50 feet; with staff comments, as described in the proof of publication, John Percy.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris clarified that this is approval to transmit to the Dept. of Community Affairs.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Chairman Van Der Weide recessed the meeting at 7:59 p.m. and reconvened at 8:09 p.m.

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider Large Scale Text Amendments to the Elements of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan, received and filed.

Planner, Dick Thomas, addressed the Board to state this is the first update of the Comprehensive Plan since 1991. This Plan addresses the findings of the 1999 Evaluation and Appraisal Report and incorporates amendments to eight elements of the Comprehensive Plan for Capital Improvements, Conservation, Transportation, Design, Future Land Use, Housing, Library Services, and Recreation and Open Space. Eight other elements will be addressed in the next plan amendment cycle.

Mr. Thomas said there have been some minor changes to the Plan since the work session held on December 5, 2000, including dollar amounts put in and Policy DES 6.2, Design Policies, Section C1 was revised to read minimum lots of three acres rather than five acres, to bring into conformance with the existing Future Land Use element map of what’s allowed in rural areas. Mr. Thomas reviewed the recommendations of the LPA/P&Z Commission. He said staff has prepared the preliminary cost estimates and distributed these to the Board and LPA. He distributed a revised handout (copy received and filed) of cost estimates to the Board. He identified the four enhancement projects for Conservation, Design, Neighborhood Traffic Calming Devices, and Recreation and Open Space and reviewed them. He stated the capital costs for all four programs range from $1.4 million to $3.3 million, and additional operating costs would be from $600,000 to $1.4 million. He said staff will be refining these preliminary estimates in the future and will bring them back to the Board. Mr. Thomas explained that approval of the Plan does not establish or authorize funding for the enhancements. Prior to funding, staff will provide more details to the Board and other funding sources. The BCC will have procedures for setting the level of service and approving implementation of any of the enhancement projects.

Commissioner Henley expressed appreciation to staff for the effort that went into this 2020 Plan. He said he thinks there is one deficiency, which he already mentioned to staff and the County Manager. In addition to water problems in the future, other greater problems to be faced are those for energy, and he thinks it would be appropriate to address that. He reported that Sam Kendall visited with him and shared his concern about the same thing and left with him a copy of a document from Treasure Coast Planning Council’s Energy Task Force. Commissioner Henley said Seminole County might profit from incorporating some of these ideas and thoughts into the 2020 Plan. It is something they need to review in the future.

Chairman Van Der Weide said it makes sense to him for staff to pursue this.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy of the time frame to bring back the revisions, Mr. Thomas said this will be happening over the next two years.

Mr. Fisher advised follow-up meetings are planned. He said sometime within the next year, staff will bring back some type of priority list for selecting which projects the Board wants to work on first and the associated dollars with those.

Commissioner Morris stated the staff did a phenomenal job on this Plan and he complimented the P&Z on their meetings and comments. He said the funding aspect of this plan really tells the Board if they are going to build the quality of life they want. It gives any future Commission what they want to see or not. He said this is one of the few times he has seen a planning document with costs and he thinks this is a real model showing the costs on the front end and not later at the end.

Commissioner Morris asked when the Board will see the water issues come back to them. He said if there is a water crisis, that will shoot down the future growth and economic plan they have.

Craig Shadrix, Planner, addressed the Board to state that was addressed in the Plan and staff is currently serving on several committees with the St. Johns River Water Management District. Staff put the cost issue in the Conservation element. He advised there is a cost of this region switching to a surface water utility for approximately $450 million.

Keith Schue, Wekiva Issue Chair/Vice Chair of the Sierra Club Central Florida Group, addressed the Board to state he applauds the energy initiative which Commissioner Henley spoke of. He thinks that is an outstanding idea and he encouraged the Commissioners to move ahead with it. He addressed the wetland regulations as given in his letter (copy received and filed) dated January 9, 2001, to Chairman Van Der Weide. He said he had provided comments to staff and he understands those comments will appear in the final copy of the Vision 2020 document.

Mr. Schue discussed the settlement agreement between the Dept. of Community Affairs and Seminole County regarding the future land use and design standards for the Wekiva Protection Area. He said there was a commitment to proceed to develop regulations by December 31, 2000, in the Land Development Code for design standards, overlay development of 436, and provisions for Yankee Lake to go into the County’s natural lands program. He said he is very interested in seeing completion of the regulations and would like to see that happen as soon as possible. He said he now believes April 31, 2001, is the current agreement for that.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition. The Speaker Request Form for Mr. Schue was received and filed.

Commissioner Morris asked staff for the status on getting the cities involved in the Vision 2020 Plan. Mr. Thomas reported that Tony Matthews has met with the Cities and distributed copies of the plans and requested the latest copies of their plans. He also distributed copies to the School Board and others. He said staff is now trying to see if there are any conflicts between the County’s plans and the Cities’. Commissioner Morris said there should be some follow-up mechanism on this.

Commissioner Morris asked if staff would have, upon approval of the Vision 2020 Plan, a program on Seminole Government TV and the Internet to explain it to the public. Whereupon, Mr. Fisher said he has taken steps to make the Web site easier to use so people can comment on various sections of the Plan. He said the County Manager’s office staff is working with staff on Seminole Government TV to have an information contact. Commissioner Morris suggested doing a voice over and Power Point presentation as a program. He said he thinks the Plan is a superb map of the future.

Chairman Van Der Weide suggested to Ms. Chandler that staff might have five-minute sessions on segments of the Plan and rotate those segments on a regular basis.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to transmit the proposed text amendments to the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Vision 2020 Plan, with findings, to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment.

Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.

-------

There being no further discussion to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m., this same date.

ATTEST________________________Clerk_____________________Chairman

slm/er/cc