APRIL 8, 2003
The following is a non-verbatim transcript
of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, April
8, 2003, in the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES
Chairman Daryl McLain (District 5)
Vice Chairman Grant Maloy (District 1)
Commissioner Randy Morris (District 2)(late)
Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)
County Manager Kevin Grace
Deputy Clerk Eva Roach
Commissioner Henley gave the Invocation.
Commissioner Morris entered the meeting at this time.
Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt appropriate Resolution #2003-R-77, as shown on page ________, in support of the U.S. Armed Forces and President George W. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board presented the Resolution to Lt.
Colonel James Wartski, U.S. Army.
Colonel Wartski addressed the Board to state he appreciates the support
Commissioner Maloy stated that Mike Salena, Representative Feeney’s office, is in attendance and he helped organize this morning’s award.
by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt
appropriate Resolution #2003-R-78, as shown on page _________, commending Nancy
Baillargeon, Senior Staff Assistant, Planning Division, Planning &
Development Department for her twelve years of service to
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board presented the Resolution to Ms. Baillargeon.
Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt appropriate Resolution #2003-R-76, as shown on page ________, proclaiming April 24, 2003 as “Seminole County Farm Tour Day”.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board presented the Resolution to
Emogene Yarborough, who expressed her appreciation. Ms. Yarborough addressed the Board to invite
the public as well as the Board members to attend the Seminole County Farm Tour
and to attend a luncheon at the Ed Yarborough ranch on
Commissioner Morris recommended that the tour information be placed on the County’s website so that it is easily accessible.
by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt
appropriate Resolution #2003-R-75, as shown on page _________, proclaiming the
week of April 7 – 11, 2003, as “Public Health Week” in
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board presented the Resolution to Dr. Jennifer Bencie, Director of Health & Human Services. Ms. Bencie addressed the Board to state on behalf of the Seminole County Health Department and the Florida Department of Health, she would like to thank everyone for their continued support.
Chairman McLain advised that the Presentation – Pre-K Program has been withdrawn from the agenda.
Chairman McLain recessed the BCC meeting at this time.
Chairman McLain convened the meeting of the
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Fall advised the amount of the contract has been revised to $171,640.
Mr. Fall explained for Commissioner Maloy why there was a difference in the price than what was on the agenda.
Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to award M-368-03/BJC, as shown on page _______, portion of the construction of pre-engineered retail Sanford Farmers Market steel building, to AAGAARD-McNary Construction, Inc., Orlando ($171,640), as revised.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Morris stated he has had
discussions with the owner’s representatives of the K-Mart site in
Chairman McLain stated staff did a study on
Mr. Grace stated he believes the location was the main factor.
Commissioner Morris stated the difference
between this project and the old
Chairman McLain stated he doesn’t believe the Board has any objections evaluating the circumstances surrounding this facility and the potential use of providing services throughout the County.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he is not against a space study, but he believes in due diligence wherever they go.
Chairman McLain stated the Supervisor of
Elections will be required to remain in the City of
Commissioner Henley stated he has been
interested for some time as to what can be done to help that situation in that
area. He stated the County does have
space need problems and the Sheriff is running into problems for space in
Commissioner Van Der Weide state he feels it is a good idea if they can separate this from the Supervisor of Elections issue. He said he thinks due diligence is important because they are involved with Constitutional Officers and they may have needs they want to go into in more detail.
Commissioner Morris stated the only issue this property could be used for relative to the Elections Office is storage of equipment, etc.
Chairman McLain closed the CRA meeting, and reconvened the BCC meeting at this time.
Chairman McLain informed the Board of an Add-On for the Consent Agenda, #32A, Confirmation of Appointment of Tourism Development Director.
Chairman McLain informed the Board that the
applicant, Shutts & Bowen for Item #49, Rezone on the north side of
District Commissioner Maloy stated he supports continuing this item at the request of the applicant. Chairman McLain requested staff to notify all the residents of the continuance.
Mr. Grace advised that Item #29, Acceptance of Warranty Deed from Commercial Realty Group, needs to be pulled from the agenda.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize and approve the following:
7. Approve and execute Subordination of Utility Interest Agreements, as
shown on page ________, between the County and
8. Approve and execute Purchase Agreement, as shown
on page _________, relating to Parcel Number 205 of the E. Lake Mary Boulevard
Phase 11B road improvement project, located just north of
9. Approve and execute Purchase Agreement, as shown on page _________, relating to Parcel Number 125 of the Lake Drive road improvement project, located on the east side of Mary Drive, approximately 142 feet south of Lake Drive, in the amount of the County’s appraised value of $17,400.00 with no fees or expenses incurred, Mary Dorothy Siler Property.
10. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2003-R-79, as shown on page _________, rescinding previous resolutions relating to the Airport Boulevard II road improvement project. Before acquiring property, authority is obtained from the Board by resolutions. All property needed for this project was acquired through donations, purchase agreements or litigation. This Resolution is necessary to clear title for all property not needed by the County that was listed in previously adopted resolutions.
Steve Lee, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board to review Legislative issues relating to Wireless 911, Health Care, Right to Farm, Lynx, Annexation and Wekiva River Protection Area bills.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Lee advised a meeting is scheduled tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. with Senator Constantine and all the people who are objecting to the Wekiva River Protection Area bill to hash this out.
Chairman McLain stated the County’s position would be based on the fact that if changes are made on the agreement with DCA and the Global Compliance Agreement on the Spring Shed area, the County’s rules are suitable and they have the final say on the alignment within Seminole County as long as it follows the basic recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force.
Commissioner Morris stated he doesn’t know if the Board would want to support this bill for the County or oppose it.
Chairman McLain stated the Board needs to send a clear message that they want those two amendments included in the bill.
Commissioner Morris stated he wants staff to make sure that Representative Brummer receive a copy of this as well.
Mr. Lee stated he has received a draft bill on the proposed annexation process but he has not distributed it to the Board because he has not reviewed it. He said this issue will be heard by the House of Representatives this week and the Senate will hear it next week. The League of Cities and the Florida Association of Counties have agreed to this draft bill. Staff will review it and report back to FAC if there are any problems. He understands that there are no objections to this draft bill. He stated Representative Gardiner’s bill has been amended to reflect the agreement that was reached with regard to the governing board of Lynx. He said in relation to the UCF master plan, there are two bills pending that deal with the State University Concurrency Trust Fund. One extends the existing trust fund because it is scheduled to sunset, and the other creates a new concurrency trust fund. He said staff had some concerns relating to the language and education part of Statute 101.369, which deals with the concurrency impact of state university systems. It is not totally clear that the concurrency trust fund would be available to fund offsite improvements in the effective government systems. He stated staff is suggesting getting an amendment to either of those two bills to clarify 101.3 to take out the host government and make it clear that the concurrency money is available for all local governments.
Chairman McLain stated he feels it is very clear that when the property of a major university borders a separate governmental body, they have a substantial impact on the quality of life of that community and they have responsibilities to deal with the problems they cause.
Mr. Grace advised a bill has been filed relating
to taking revenue sharing money and redistributing it away from urbanized
counties and giving it to rural counties.
This will impact
The Board had no objections opposing that bill. Copy of the letter to Senator Constantine opposing SB 1956/HB 133 was received and filed.
CONSENT AGENDA (Continued)
Mr. McCollum explained for Commissioner Henley how the selection is made on the evaluation process.
Commissioner Morris questioned Item #23, Notice of Results, RFQ-0110-03/GMG, regarding fill dirt.
Mr. Grace advised these are done on a project-by-project basis. Some may be available on a project that they have a taker for the fill.
Mark Flomerfelt, Stormwater, addressed the Board to state this is for surplus material they have for various operations. It is offered for sale instead of taking it to the landfill to use it for cover.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Flomerfelt advised he doesn’t have the exact amount of the commercial rate for the sale of material.
Commissioner Morris recommended pulling this item until the next meeting so that the Board can be briefed on the commercial rate versus higher rates.
Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize and approve the following:
and authorize Chairman to execute Modification of Agreement, as shown on page
14. BCR #03-43 – $627,074 – Environmental Services – Solid Waste Management – Fund: 40201 – Solid Waste fund. Additional funds are needed for Phase II – Cell 2A (current project) of the Landfill Gas Management System Expansion project. Recently revised FDEP rules require a landfill gas system to have a redundant flare system. To comply with this rule, additional funds are needed primarily because of costs of additional header line, the additional blower-flare station and increased engineering costs. Also, remaining funds for Phase II – Cell 1B (last year’s project) of the landfill gas project budget were not re-budgeted into the FY 2002-03 budget. Certain invoices for the Phase II – Cell 1B (last year’s project) project has been paid out of the Phase II – Cell 2A (current project). Additional funds are needed to address these payments.
15. BCR #03-45 – $25,000 – Environmental Services – PEI – Fund: 40104 – Debt Series 1999 fund. Additional funds are needed for the design, CEI and construction costs for Airport Boulevard Phase II Utility Relocates that were more than was budgeted. The bids for this job came in higher than expected.
16. BCR #03-46 – $565,000 – Environmental Services – PEI – Fund: 40100 – Water and Sewer fund. Additional funds are needed for the Markham Regional Water Treatment Plant for permitting and construction of 1) supply well number 3 needed to maintain plant design capacity; 2) three saltwater intrusion monitoring wells as required by St. Johns River Water Management District as part of the new Consumptive Use Permit.
17. Award CC-1198-02/BJC, as shown on page ________, Miscellaneous Bridge Rehabilitation Project, to CEM Enterprises, Inc., Apopka ($338,500.00 per year).
18. Award CC-1202-03/BJC, as shown on page ________, Bookertown, Midway and Winwood Sidewalk Construction Projects, to Brown Brothers Concrete, Inc., Jacksonville ($424,255.53).
19. Award CC-1206-03/BJC, as shown on page ________, Phase II – Cell 2A – Landfill Gas Management System Expansion, to Shaw Constructors, Inc., Ohio ($489,098.50).
20. Accept and
authorize the Chairman to execute the Certificate of Completion, as shown on
page ________, for FC-1172-01/BJC – Consumers Water Treatment Plant Well #7,
with Jaffer Associates, Ltd,
21. Accept and authorize
the Chairman to execute the Certificate of Completion, as shown on page
________, for FC-1176-02/BJC – Central Transfer Station HVAC Renovations, to
Air Mechanical & Service Corporation,
22. Approve ranking list for PS-5134-02/BJC – Master Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Preliminary Engineering and Final Design for Celery Avenue (from Mellonville Avenue to Chickasaw Drive) Assessment and award an Agreement to CPH Engineers, Inc., Sanford (Not-to-Exceed $400,000.00).
23. Pulled from the agenda Notice of Results, RFQ-0110-03/GMG –Sale of Surplus Fill Dirt Material (Approximately $72,500.00 paid to the County per year).
25. Approve Amendment to the 200-2001 One-Year Action Plan of the 2000-2005 Five-Year Consolidated Plan to change the funding source from the HUD HOME program to the Florida SHIP Program for the J.U.T.E., Inc. transitional rental housing activity.
26. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute two Satisfactions of Second Mortgage – Early Release, as shown on page _________, for Cesarina Caraballo and Walter & Flor Echanique, for households assisted under the SHIP Program’s Home Ownership Assistance Program.
27. Approve and authorize Chairman to
execute three Satisfactions of Second Mortgage, as shown on page _________, for
Patrick A. & Regina Lennox; Carmello & Raquel
32A. Confirm appointment of Suzan K. Bunn as the Tourism Director at a salary of $73,000, effective April 21, 2003.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize and approve the following:
A. Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page ________, dated March 18 & 25, 2003; and Payroll Approval List, as shown on page ________, dated March 8, 2003.
B. Chairman to execute the following Satisfactions of Judgment for Court Costs/Public Defender Application Fees & Application of Indigency Fee:
Veronica Burch, Case #92-7694-MMA - $315
Isidore R. Colon, Case #02-2723-MMA - $40
Sherry Darlene Green, Case #95-2796-CFA - $253.99
Joseph H. Hyust, Case #01-2788-CFA - $193
Olegario Lorenzo, Case #02-5889-MMA - $40
Kenneth Edward Ludholtz, Case #90-5958-MMA - $715
Tiffany Potts, Case #99-6587-MMA - $40
Raymundo Reza, Case #91-7975-MMA - $40
D. Approval of BCC Official Minutes dated March 11, 2003.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board noted, for information only, the following Clerk’s “received and filed”:
1. StarPort (Cambata) JGI Agreement, as shown on page ________, as approved by the BCC on September 10, 2002.
2. Butler Ridge/Kenmure PUD Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page _________, as approved by the BCC on 11/12/02.
3. Colonial Grand at Heathrow Reserve Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page _________, as approved by the BCC on 1/22/02.
4. Notice from the Florida Public Service
Commission relating to application for rate increase in
5. Work Order #2, as shown on page ________, to PS-5130-02.
6. Work Order #2, as shown on page ________, to RFP-4173-02.
7. Work Order #40, as shown on page ________, to PS-590-01.
8. Mutual Termination of Construction Administration Agreement M-330-02, as shown on page _________, Archistructure.
9. First Amendment, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #1 to PS-528-98.
10. M-350-02 Technical Service Support Agreement, as shown on page ________, Medtronic Physio-Control Corp.
11. Work Order #6, as shown on page _________, to PS-5116-02.
12. Work Order #9, as shown on page _________, to PS-566-00.
13. Work Order #39, as shown on page ________, to PS-556-00.
14. First Amendment, as shown on page ________, to RFP-4111-01, Choose Life License Plates Annual Use Fee Proceeds Agreement.
15. Work Orders #3 & #4, as shown on page _________, to PS-5130-02.
16. First Amendment, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #27 to PS-532-98.
17. Third Amendment, as shown on page ________, to PS-549-00.
18. IFB-3059-02 Term Contract, as shown on page ________, for Purchase of FDOT 913 Shell Material, Hevco II, Inc.
19. First Amendment, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #4 to PS-5116-02.
20. Work Order #7, as shown on page ________, to PS-5116-02.
21. IFB-3059-02 Term Contract, as shown on page ________, for Purchase of Lot III Items 4-5 #57 Pipe Rock Material, Conrad Yelvington Distributors, Inc.
22. M-361-03 Code Publishing Services Agreement, as shown on page _________, Municipal Code Corp.
23. Change Order #2, as shown on page _________, to FC-1175-02.
24. Private Road Maintenance Bond #B21868139, as shown on page ________, in the amount of $21,836.07 for the project known as Lake Forest Section 19.
Warranty Deed, as shown on page _________, by
26. Letter from William Monroe, Auditor General, submitting Operational Audit Report #03-148 of the Florida Department of Education Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program.
27. Memorandum to Dixie Haller, Planning & Development, from Sandy McCann, Commission Records, regarding P&D outstanding documents.
28. Memorandum to Sandy McCann, Commission Records, from Matthew West, Planning Manager, regarding P&D outstanding documents.
29. Letter from Gloria Sheffield, St. Johns River Water Management District, to Clerk of Circuit Court, submitting a copy of the Annual Financial Report for 2001-02.
30. Development Orders, as shown on page ________, as follows: #02-30000156, Kopak Variance; #02-30000162, Bair Variance; #02-30000178, Baird Variance; #02-30000191 Stokes Variance; #02-30000155 Berlant Variance; #02-30000182 Walton Variance; #02-30000190; Berlant Variance; #02-20500006 JZ Riders (Zebrowski) Rezone; #02-30000141 Martin Variance; #02-30000181 Patel Variances; #02-30000168 Mann Variances; #02-30000167 Mann Variances; #02-30000189 Donato Variance; #02-30000165 Focarino Variances; #02-31000024 Severance Special Exception; #02-30000157 Struble Variances; #02-30000192 Sessions Variance; and #02-31000023 Sparks Special Exception.
31. Satisfactions of Connection Fees, as shown on page _________, for the projects known as Willa Springs Shopping Center Addition and Colonial Town Park Building B2.
32. Utility Agreements, as shown on page ________, for water and sewer service with Washington Mutual Corp. for the project known as Westlake Super Center Outparcel-Washington Mutual.
Utility Agreements, as shown on page ________,
for water and sewer service with 1st National Bank of
34. Satisfactions of Connections Fees, as shown on page _________, for the projects known as Royal Oaks, Tuck’s Knoll and Lake Forest Sect. 8.
35. Utility Agreement, as shown on page _________, for water service with Steven & Michelle Benson for the project known as Reflections Hair Salon.
36. Bids as follows: CC-1202-03; CC-1204-03; CC-1205-03; CC-1206-03; IFB-3068-03; RFP-4181-03; CC-1201-03; RFP-4183-03; IFB-3070-03; IFB-3067-03; IFB-3069-03 and RFP-4182-03.
Chairman McLain recessed the meeting at 10:30 a.m., reconvening at 10:47 a.m.
Meloney Lung, Administrative Services, addressed the Board to request direction on a space option for the Supervisor of Elections and authorization to negotiate, if applicable. She stated staff was informed that the Reflections office cannot meet the April 2004 availability date. It won’t be available until July or August.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Lung advised the Supervisor of Elections presently has 6,500 sq. ft. of space and 2,500 sq. ft. for storage.
Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Jamie Croteau, Administrative Services, addressed the Board to advise staff still supports the 15,000 sq. ft. option. She stated if the Board is willing, staff would suggest sitting down with the Supervisor of Elections and the Airport in making changes to the floor plan and see what the actual space would be.
Goard, Supervisor of Elections, addressed the Board to state she has met with
staff on numerous occasions and she has looked at several possibilities. She stated there are two alternatives; one is
to build a building at the Orlando/Sanford Airport and the other is renting
space at the Reflections office in
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Lung advised the current lease is $68,000 annually and $7,000 for storage. It is roughly $75,000 a year for both.
Commissioner Morris stated there is some question as to the availability date with the Reflections building.
Ms. Lung advised staff thought that Excel would be leaving in December and they have renewed their lease until May 2004. It would take two to three months to do renovations and it would not be available until July or August.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Grace advised the County’s responsibility is to provide space for the Constitutional Officers, but it is the County’s right to make sure that it is the right amount of space.
Upon further inquiry by Chairman McLain, Ms. Goard advised the original plan was for 25,000 sq. ft. and she reviewed the plan further and due to the early voting situation, they were able to reduce that to 20,000 sq. ft. In order to properly prepare an election, 20,000 sq. ft. is needed, but she will work with staff to see if they can work it out with the 15,000 or 20,000 sq. ft.
Chairman McLain stated Mr. Larry Dale, Orlando/Sanford Airport President, made a commitment to a 10-year lease and since the rate is very competitive, he would prefer locking this rate in for a 20-year lease. He stated he would like to ask Mr. Dale how he would see the County extracting themselves from the lease if they are going to build a facility in 10 years.
Larry Dale addressed the Board to state he would recommend to the Orlando/Sanford Airport Board of Directors that the ten-year lease could be canceled at the County’s option. He stated if the County went with a 20-year lease and they decide not to continue with the lease after 10 years, the Airport Authority would have the ability to sublease the property as long as there is a qualified tenant. The Airport Authority would have the responsibility of approving the subtenant and they would want to know that the tenant is financially capable of assuming that lease.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he feels the value of the lease diminishes if they go with too long of a lease. He stated an exit clause should be included in the contract to be able to sublease it.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Dale advised he can live with a 10-year lease with two 5-year options. He stated the option to be used is to keep the first 5 years flat and then the rent will increase no more than 3%.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Lung advised the Airport has agreed to pay for ground maintenance, janitorial and garbage. The County will take on the charges for water and sewer and electricity.
Lung stated the County will probably have to purchase a telephone system for
the Supervisor of Elections, should she leave prior to the Public Defender
leaving. They are currently using the
same switch box and the Public Defender will not be leaving the
Mr. Dale stated the Airport Authority has a fiber optic telephone system, which they will be happy to provide to the Supervisor of Elections.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Ms. Croteau advised she has spoken to Greg Holcomb, Telecommunications Division, and he indicated that he is certain that the Airport’s fiber optic system will work with the County’s system.
Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Grace advised the funding will come from the General Fund.
Ms. Lung informed Commissioner Morris that the Supervisor of Elections will not need any additional office equipment.
Ms. Goard stated she believes any additional office equipment will be minimal as they received new equipment during the last move.
Mr. Grace stated staff feels the Airport location is the best solution from a financial standpoint.
Ms. Goard stated her office needs to be relocated no later than the second week of April 2004.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to authorize staff to proceed with the Orlando/Sanford Airport site; staff to come back with a final site plan and any expenses to be incurred; and a 10-year lease agreement with two five-year options to be brought back to the Board.
Under discussion, Commissioner Maloy stated he prefers keeping the lease under 20 years and to keep the costs well under control. He stated he would like to see everyone working together before it comes back. He said he also feels the offsite storage needs to be looked into strongly to see if it can be done at a lower cost.
Mr. Dale stated if the Airport Authority does not build the project, they would normally work with their clientele on a reimbursement of expenses. He stated that is normally the Authority’s policy and he would have to come before them in order to change it.
Chairman McLain stated if this motion passes and if the County, for some reason backed out of the commitment with the Airport, they would be both morally and legally responsible for the expenses they directed the Airport to incur.
Commissioner Morris stated it would be more appropriate for the County to do the space need study.
Chairman McLain stated the final floor plan and design will be considered during the design of the space needs. He stated he has confidence with staff in working with the Supervisor of Elections and the Airport in coming up with a suitable plan. Discussion ensued.
Mr. McMillan stated there would be no obligation to pay for what would be the negotiations of the final details of the contract unless the Board enters into a preliminary contract and agreed to pay for those pending approval of the secondary contract. Generally, that is not something the County would pay for in negotiating leases.
Mr. Dale stated he would agree with Mr. McMillan if the Board is interested in just leasing it and designing it to the custom of the clientele. He stated he has no problem trusting the Board saying there is consensus that they would pay up to $4,000 or $5,000 if they do not proceed with the lease.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Grace advised the difference is the County is not building the facility, but will be leasing it. He stated he feels this is something that is unlikely to occur and he would suggest moving forward as he cannot recall the Board making a decision and not moving forward with it.
Commissioner Henley stated he will not be supporting the motion as he feels the Board is more or less considering this in isolation of all the other space needs and other budget needs. He stated the 5-year financial projections show several million dollars deficit each year over the next five years and he feels this is piece-meal work. He added he doesn’t think they have done the due diligence and the County won’t know until that is done. The County doesn’t know that this is the best deal for the County until they have done due diligence on all of their needs. He said he is not willing to enter into a 20-year agreement without knowing what they are giving up.
Chairman McLain stated the needs of the Supervisor of Elections and the voters having an appropriate facility to cast their constitutional right to vote is important to him. The Supervisor of Elections has worked with the County for 90 days and expressed her concerns regarding space needs. He stated he feels staff has gone through a substantial evaluation of all the properties available for lease and this is the most reasonably priced project for them to use. He said he has no problem moving forward with this.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated this is an unusual circumstance and he feels the Board needs to support the Supervisor of Elections in getting what she needs. He stated he feels this is a very good project and he doesn’t know why they wouldn’t go with this facility.
Commissioner Morris stated he doesn’t think that this is the best location but that reason is because of the way the County seat is set up. He stated he will be voting for the motion, but two things concern him. He said he does think the Board has taken formal disagreement with the proposition of storage and where it is stored. He added he feels the County needs to look at other secure storage areas. He stated he is curious as to what will the other Constitutional Officers want.
Commissioner Maloy stated he is curious to
know if the City of
Mr. Grace stated the County owns the State Attorney’s building and that should be factored into the space study. He stated he will be requesting the Board to authorize him to proceed with seeking proposals from a professional firm to undertake space studies. He added he feels a space study should be done including where the State Attorney’s building might fit into that equation.
Commissioner Maloy stated he would like the County to take a proactive approach in helping to market that area.
Chairman McLain stated the City of
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Henley voted NAY.
Upon inquiry by Mr. Grace, Chairman McLain
advised he feels it would be appropriate for the
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Grace advised if he targets the areas of need and narrows it down to the alternatives that are considered and what they can afford, he feels he can come up with a very usable study.
The consensus of the Board was to
Mr. Grace stated the firm that is hired
will look at the space needs for the
Debbie Leigh, Code Enforcement, addressed the Board to present request to reduce CEB lien for Case #97-55-CEB and #02-33-CEB in the amounts of $61,200 and $3,575 respectively to $6,572.12, which is the amount received from the surplus proceeds in the foreclosure on the property located at 1500 Florida Ave., east ½ of Lot 234 (less N 10 ft.) Black Hammock; and authorize Chairman to execute the Satisfaction of Lien.
Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to reduce CEB lien for Case #97-55-CEB and #02-33-CEB in the amounts of $61,200 and $3,575 respectively to $6,572.12, which is the amount received from the surplus proceeds in the foreclosure on the property located at 1500 Florida Ave., east ½ of Lot 234 (less N 10 ft.) Black Hammock; and authorize Chairman to execute the Satisfaction of Lien, as shown on page _________.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Tony Matthews, Planning, addressed the
Board to request approval of an Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility
Planning with a finding of consistency with the requirements of Florida
Statutes for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for
issuance of a Notice of Intent finding the Agreement consistent with State
law. He stated CALNO adopted a
resolution (received and filed) on April 2, 2003 recommending adoption of same. He said the Cities of Oviedo,
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt Interlocal Agreement, as shown on page _________, for Public School Facility Planning with a finding of consistency with the requirements of Florida Statutes for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for issuance of a Notice of Intent finding the Agreement consistent with State law.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Jeff Hopper, Planning, addressed the Board to present request to approve Final Master Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement for East Lake Brantley Drive PUD; property located on the west side of Wekiva Springs Road, ½ mile north of SR 434, including approximately 10 acres, Thomas Daly. He stated staff recommends approval of the request.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Thomas Daly addressed the Board to state the lake is not part of the property for Comprehensive Plan and Small Scale Amendment sizing. The landowner has agreed to not only allow for drainage but for recreation and it will be part of the residential portion of the project. An agreement has been verbally approved as the owners are from the Middle East and will be sending the signed agreement. He stated he can commit, prior to engineering plan approval, that the document will be signed and reviewed by staff.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris to approve Final Master Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page ________, for East Lake Brantley Drive PUD; property located on the west side of Wekiva Springs Road, ½ mile north of SR 434, including approximately 10 acres, Thomas Daly.
Under discussion, Commissioner Henley stated he feels the contingency on the space should be part of the motion, contingent upon the agreements being submitted and the cost for the building around the retention pond.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he has no problem including that in the motion.
Don Fisher, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board to state staff recommends that when the final plat comes back to the Board for review, the applicant submits all the documents and that he shows that the recreational amenities are in place.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Cathleen Consoli, Planning, addressed the Board to request approval of an Amendment to the Carillon PUD Final Master Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement, Tracts 201 and 401, Lockwood-McCulloch Retail; property located at the northwest corner of Lockwood Blvd. and McCulloch Road, Kim Hall, Avid Engineering, Inc. She stated the applicant is proposing to develop these two tracts as a commercial subdivision consisting of seven lots and a 1.42 acre retention area. Although the subdivision will consist of individually platted lots, the project concept is to develop the property as a multiple building site with shared access and infrastructure. The proposed project will need to vary from requirements of C-1 District and three waivers are needed. She stated the applicant has indicted that they do not want to share parking based on needs to market the site. The requested waivers are as follows: (1) Waiver of the internal property line landscape buffer standards requiring that parking areas on each lot have a 5 ft. landscaped buffer on each side of the property line. The applicant is proposing to provide the external landscape buffer as required on Lockwood Blvd. and McCulloch Road as well as along the adjacent properties; (2) Open space calculation to be calculated in aggregate for the entire project rather than for each parcel. The applicant is requesting that the pond be included in the calculation by meeting criteria for open space ratios. This rule is required to design with amenities providing enhanced aesthetic and pedestrian friendly features. The conceptual site plan incorporated a loop pedestrian trail that connects to the building and parking areas. A landscaping plan will need to be submitted with the final engineering plans; and (3) Waiver to the prohibition of off-premise ground signs for Lots 5, 6, and 7 of the Commercial Subdivision. The applicant is proposing an off-premise signs located on McCulloch Road and Lockwood Blvd. to identify the tenants in the buildings on Lots 5, 6, and 7. The applicant is requesting a total of 6 ground signs. A sign package has been submitted with architectural renderings of the proposed master sign, which will be consistent among all the signs. No pole signs will be permitted.
Ms. Consoli stated the LPA recommended approval of the amendment. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the conceptual site plan with the following conditions: (1) The plat for the project shall incorporate appropriate provisions for shared access and parking between all parcels; (2) The plans submitted for final engineering approval shall provide the appropriate landscaping and pedestrian amenities for the stormwater retention pond as required by the Land Development Code (LDC); (3) Each lot of the commercial subdivision shall provide a minimum of 8.2% open space based on the stormwater retention pond meeting the open space criteria; (4) A property owner’s association shall be established at the time of platting to provide for the maintenance of the landscaping, buffers, and parking areas and shared infrastructure; and (5) Signage must comply with the design of the rendering submitted in the sign package, the design must be consistent on all signs, pole signs are prohibited, there are to be a maximum of 6 signs, and the maximum height of the signs shall be 15 ft.
Eddie Entreken, Olympia Development Group, addressed the Board to state he concurs with staff’s recommendation.
Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve an Amendment, as shown on page _________, to the Carillon PUD Final Master Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement, Tracts 201 and 401, Lockwood-McCulloch Retail; property located at the northwest corner of Lockwood Blvd. and McCulloch Road, Kim Hall, Avid Engineering, Inc.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY MANAGER’S BRIEFING
Tony Walter, Planning, addressed the Board to state the purpose of this presentation is to brief the Board on the status of the bus bench advertising and seek the Board’s direction on how they would like to proceed with that program. He gave a brief history of what has happened over the past ten years. The staff would like to address some issues and concerns they have with the bus bench advertising. He stated the following companies have provided bus benches advertising in Seminole County in the past: KB Enterprises; Aesch-Chitwood Int.; Metropolitan Systems, Inc. and Public Seating Displays. Of the four, only two have provided benches over the last four years. In 1996 all four of these contracts have expired and the intent is to look at an all-encompassing contract with any of the transit providers at that time or with one company rather than deal with four companies. The Board issued an RFP for design and installation of advertising shelters within the County. As part of that RFP, advertising benches were considered and at that time the Board determined to treat advertising benches separately. He reviewed the seven bus bench issues that were addressed.
Commissioner Maloy stated he is excited to see the bus shelter program has been moved forward. He stated he feels limiting the benches to stops where there are no shelters is the way he would like to see the County go to.
Mr. Walter informed Commissioner Maloy the shelters will be placed on concrete pads and accessible to ADA requirements to the nearest sidewalk.
Commissioner Morris stated he believes the ADA requirements will be almost impossible to perform and the concrete pads impossible because of the amount of income. He stated some of the bus shelters are located where there are no bus stops. He said if the Board entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Systems, Inc., the County should inform them that those shelters that are not at an appropriate bus stop will be removed. Those shelters must be cleared within a fixed period of time from all sites of where a shelter will go.
Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to approve Option #1 to execute a sole source exclusive contract with the vendor currently providing benches, Metropolitan Systems, Inc.
Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Walter advised the bus shelter vendor had expressed interest in providing advertising benches as well.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he feels that the ADA accessible and concrete pads should be considered and if they make it mandatory, the County may not end up where they want the benches.
Mr. Walter advised staff can address each site individually, but staff’s primary concern is safety.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Cindy Hall, Fiscal Services Director, addressed the Board to discuss the Five-Year Budget Projections. She submitted a booklet (received and filed) of the Five-Year Financial Projections. She stated the projections are based on the adopted budget and are projected as status quo for the next four years. They include the approved five-year CIP. No new revenue sources or rate changes are included. She briefly reviewed the Revenue Assumptions; Expenditure Projections; Expenditure Assumptions; and the results of the Primary Operating Funds. The deficits in the General Fund are largely due to Legislative actions and the budget process has eliminated most of the deficits for 2003/2004 and 2004/2005. The County is about $2 million short in each of those years, but staff will be working on balancing the budget by the time it is presented to the Board.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Ms. Hall advised the impact of the Governor’s budget is about $5 million, three quarters in the General Fund.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated the issue is obvious and somehow the County needs to get the message out to the public. If the County has to pass the cost onto the public, they need to know the reason for this.
Commissioner Morris stated staff may want to check into what Palm Beach County and Lake County’s programs have and report back to the Board. The County may be able to show what the problems are on SGTV. He suggested the Board consider increasing the 4% service tax to 10% and roll back the property taxes appropriately.
Mr. Grace stated he would caution the Board against doing that because they are shifting from countywide source of revenue to an unincorporated source of revenue to pay for countywide services.
Chairman McLain stated this is something that needs to be addressed during the budget session.
Chairman McLain stated the last briefing item, Regulation of News Racks, will be continued to the afternoon meeting.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
SMALL SCALE LAND USE AMENDMENT AND
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a Small Scale Land Use Amendment from SE (Suburban Estates) to MDR (Medium Density Residential); and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-2 (One and Two-Family Dwelling District); property located on the south side of Hughey Street, 400 feet east of Sipes Avenue, Alexander and Pearlie Trotter, received and filed.
Jeff Hopper, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to state the applicant proposes to construct a duplex dwelling on this site; however, the Suburban Estates future land use designation permits only single-family residential uses. Any form of duplex or multi-family development requires a land use amendment to Medium Density Residential, which permits up to 10 units per acre. He advised that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval with the condition of a voluntary commitment by the applicant to limit development on the property to one duplex structure. Mr. Hopper said staff does not recommend approval of the request. He stated the Trotters have returned to their home in New York State and have authorized Mr. Emory Green to represent them at this hearing.
Emory Green, 2181 Brisson Avenue, addressed the Board to state he is representing the Trotters. He said he would love to have this development, and any improvement, in Midway to help the area.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Green said the Trotters have agreed to have only one duplex.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Green pointed out on the map where the duplex would be located in the middle of the property facing Hughey Street.
Mr. Hopper showed a preliminary drawing submitted by Mr. Trotter of the plans for the duplex to be in the middle of the north property and the south property would remain vacant.
Mr. Green stated there are other duplexes in the area, and he identified the locations of duplexes he owns in the area. He responded to Commissioner Henley that 95% of the roads have been paved in the area, and the residents have been told that that this road will be paved this year or shortly after that. He doesn’t think the Trotters will try to build for another year and a half from now.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Hopper said he assumes that building permits would have to wait until the infrastructure is available. He said he knows the County has plans to pave the road in the near future and water is available now, but sewer has not been scheduled at all.
Commissioner Maloy asked the County Attorney if the applicant could be limited to one unit if the zoning is R-2. Whereupon, Deputy County Attorney Steve Lee answered that the Land Development Code sets the density per acre, so a PUD is needed to limit the amount of units.
Planning Manager Matt West addressed the Board to state there could be more than one unit on this property unless there is some type of restriction, and he understands that the Board can’t make those restrictions with a straight zoning.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
The Speaker Request Form for Mr. Green was received and filed.
District Commissioner McLain said it seems to him that a different land use would be more appropriate to put in the restrictions necessary. He said he thinks the community can benefit from additional duplexes and new construction for housing opportunities. He said many of the homes in the community need to be replaced and he thinks the Board needs to work diligently in that direction to provide this type housing.
Under discussion, Mr. West said the Board could rezone the property and approve the MDR land use and he doesn’t think the restriction on the number of units would be necessary because the development potential of the property is restricted at this point to just one duplex unit. After that, the applicant would have to bring the road up to code and work out the issues on the septic for future development.
Chairman McLain said he thinks the applicant has a reasonable plan, but the Board needs to make sure in any approval they grant that they don’t get in a position where they find out more development is capable on the property than what the Board approves.
Mr. West stated it is his opinion that if the applicant wants to build more than one duplex on the property, he would have to go to a subdivision process and bring all the infrastructure up to code. At this point, because the applicant has two lots, he could get two units and that would not necessitate him having to pave the road, etc.
Chairman McLain questioned Mr. West on what would prevent the applicant from building another house on the second parcel once the duplex is built. Whereupon, Mr. West said the development order could be recorded with the permit that the applicant could have two units on the one lot and do a unity of title for the entire property.
Chairman McLain explained to Mr. Green that typically the Board would not approve this request. The Board is trying to work with the community because they know the needs of the community. Mr. Green affirmed that the applicant agreed to one unit on the entire parcel of property.
Commissioner Henley stated he is concerned that this might be considered setting precedent. If the Board gives approval, they are overlooking several requirements that normally must be met like the paving and water and sewer.
Mr. West said, in the effort of the Board to help the community, he would like to determine if the two lots are parcels of record. If they are, they are entitled to a free lot split for each one without having to go through the subdivision process, and that means there could be four lots with eight duplexes (two on each lot).
Chairman McLain stated it sounds like they need to look at a different land use so there could be a contract. Since nothing is going to happen on the property for a long time until the road is built, he thinks the Board has enough time to do this correctly.
District Commissioner McLain asked for a motion to continue the request and ask staff to work with the property owners’ representative to come back with a planned unit development concept that would not set a precedent for future development and as the Board is making this request to change, the staff will work with the representative as far as fees are concerned.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy, to continue the request for a Small Scale Land Use Amendment from SE (Suburban Estates) to MDR (Medium Density Residential); and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-2 (One and Two-Family Dwelling District); property located on the south side of Hughey Street, 40 feet east of Sipes Avenue; as described in the proof of publication, Alexander and Pearlie Trotter; and staff will work with the property owners’ representative as far as the fees are concerned, considering that the Board requested this change.
Under discussion, Commissioner Morris stated this item would have to be completely readvertised to become a PUD, as this would become a completely separate application. Therefore, the Board would have to dispense with this item and at some future meeting bring back an advertised PUD for consideration. He said he doesn’t think the Board has ever waived fees up front, but they can do so later.
Mr. Fisher said he concurs the Board needs to dispense with this request, and can then direct staff to work with the applicant on the PUD application. At that time, staff can bring a request for waiver of the fees. Thereupon, Chairman McLain recommended the motion as stated by Mr. Fisher.
Commissioner Van Der Weide recognized the substitute motion as recommended by Chairman McLain. Commissioner Maloy seconded the substitute motion.
Chairman McLain suggested refunding the cost of the application for this request, and the property owner will have the money to reapply and the Board can consider any adjustments at a later date. Commissioners Van Der Weide and Maloy concurred.
Commissioner Morris clarified that the Board is denying this application, instructing staff to bring back a PUD application, and is refunding the applicant’s money less advertising for this request.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
SMALL SCALE LAND USE AMENDMENT
AND REZONE/SANLANDO PARTNERS/
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a Small Scale Land Use Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and Rezone from RM-1 (Single Family Mobile Home District) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development); and Final Site Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement; property located 300 feet south of SR 434 on the west side of Manor Avenue, Sanlando Partners/James L. Brockman, received and filed.
Mr. Hopper stated the applicant has an existing animal hospital on the south side of SR 434 between Manor and Lakeshore Drive. The purpose of this application is to provide additional parking for the facility. He reported the Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request. Staff also recommends approval subject to the conditions identified in the staff report including as follows: (1) Limitation of the use of the property to parking and landscape buffers; (2) Access would be provided through an existing entrance on Manor Avenue with no new curb cuts to be permitted; (3) The property shall be subject to the active buffer requirements of the Land Development Code, including a 25 foot buffer and a six foot brick or masonry wall; and (4) No outdoor lighting fixtures would be installed within 50 feet of the south property line.
Dr. James L. Brockman, applicant, addressed the Board to state he is more than willing to agree with Planning’s idea to develop the property to make the best of the environment and to restrict the property for staff parking.
District Commissioner Van Der Weide stated this is a major improvement in the area.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
The Speaker Request Form for Dr. Brockman was received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy, to enact Ordinance #2003-15, as shown on page _______, approving the Small Scale Land Use Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to PD (Planned Development) and enact Ordinance #2003-16, as shown on page _______, approving the rezoning from RM-1 (Single Family Mobile Home District) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development), subject to the conditions set forth in the Development Order, as shown on page _______; and approve the Final Site Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page _______; property located 300 feet south of SR 434 on the west side of Manor Avenue; as described in the proof of publication, Sanlando Partners/James L. Brockman.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
SMALL SCALE LAND USE AMENDMENT
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a Small Scale Land Use Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) and PUB (Public) to Industrial; and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to C-3 (General Commercial and Wholesale District); property located on the east side of CR 427, 0.2 mile south of Longwood-Lake Mary Road, James Hattaway, received and filed.
Mr. Hopper stated the applicant has not specified any particular development proposal at this time; however the requested rezoning will allow heavy commercial uses, including wholesale and storage on the site. He said the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval, and the staff is recommending approval.
Commissioner Maloy inquired about the property below that staff said should be considered for a change in land use designation. He asked if staff would be looking comprehensively around the County for other such properties to adjust.
Mr. West said staff would begin the next evaluation on appraisal reports cycle for the next update of the Comprehensive Plan and these are the kind of things being tabbed for review so when they do the next update, staff will clean up the Future Land Use Map. Commissioner Maloy said he would be curious to know how many parcels like this there are around the County.
James M. Hattaway, applicant, 840 Waterway Place, addressed the Board to state he agrees with the staff recommendation.
No on spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to enact Ordinance #2003-17, as shown on page _______, approving the Small Scale Land Use Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) and PUB (Public) to Industrial, and Ordinance #2003-18, as shown on page _______, rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture) to C-3 (General Commercial and Wholesale District) on 1.12 acres located on the east side of CR 427, 0.2 mile south of Longwood-Lake Mary Road; as described in the proof of publication, James Hattaway.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
Cathleen Consoli, Planner, addressed the Board to give a PowerPoint presentation on the regulation of news racks, providing information on the need to regulate news racks and to receive specific direction relative to its implementation. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation was received and filed.
Ms. Consoli reviewed that the topics of discussion for more direction cover location, grouping, design, distances, and a permitting process.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Consoli said the person proposing to put in a news rack would be the one responsible for the cost of installation of the concrete pad.
Commissioner Maloy stated he was not as concerned with private property as he is with public rights-of-way.
Alice Gilmartin, Planning Office, addressed the Board to advise Commissioner Maloy that the City of Winter Park owns the news racks located on Park Avenue and there is a hierarchy on who they allow to use those.
During discussion of the risk factor of having concrete pads in the right-of-way, Mr. McMillan advised the Board they could not ban the news racks from the rights-of-way due to the first amendment issue. Discussion ensued.
Commissioner Maloy stated his direction would be for staff to go forward on drafting regulations and meet with the industry.
Chairman McLain directed staff to ask the industry to come up with regulations instead of the Board trying to come up with something. During additional discussion, Commissioner Van Der Weide said he thinks staff needs to get input from the industry up front. He can see some real problems with some of the things they might come up with.
Chairman McLain suggested staff take the Sanford model and meet with the industry people and then report back to the Board.
Commissioner Maloy reiterated his direction is to stick with the public rights-of-way instead of private property, because they are being abused with the clutter.
Upon direction by Chairman McLain, Ms. Gilmartin stated staff will draft from the Sanford regulations for review by the industry.
Commissioner Maloy also suggested staff check with the bus shelter providers to see what type units they could provide.
The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:
1. E-mail dated 3/25/03 to BCC from Glen Davis, MD, re: ORHS Trauma Center.
2. Copy of letter dated 3/21/03 to Ed Quinn, Excavated Products, from Tonya Haley, Development Review, re: borrow pit permit Stop Work Order.
3. Memorandum dated 2/6/03 (with attachment) to BCC from Roger Desjartais, Broward County Administrator, re: Broward County 2002 Annual Report.
4. Letter dated 3/21/03 to Chairman McLain from Gale Bass, Legislative Assistant to FL Representative Carey Baker, re: FL State Library.
5. E-mail dated 3/24/03 to BCC from Brenda Barlett re: Lake Hayes Rd. rezone request.
6. Letter dated 3/20/03 to BCC from Diane Pickett Culpepper, Time Warner Cable, re: renewal of Time Warner Cable television franchise. (cc: Fiscal Services Director, County Attorney)
7. Copy of letter dated 3/21/03 to Harris, Cotherman, O’Keefe & Associates from Ken Wright, Shutts & Bowen LLP, re: Seminole County audit issues for Special Counsel. (cc: County Manager, County Attorney)
8. Letter dated 3/20/03 (with attachment) to BCC from Phil Leary, FL Farm Bureau Federation, re: SB 1660 & HB 1075-Agricultural Lands & Protection Act. (cc: BCC, County Managers, Deputy County Attorney, Cooperative Extension Service Director)
9. E-mail dated 3/25/03 to BCC from Michael Davis re: House Appropriations Bill on Affordable Housing.
10. Letter dated 3/24/03 (with attachment) to County Manager Grace from Sarah Mijares, Longwood City Clerk, re: Longwood Ordinance #03-1633-annexation of property at 1004 S. US Hwy. 17-92. (cc: Planning & Development Director, Planning Manager, Property Appraiser, Elections Supervisor)
11. Copies of letters dated 3/24/03 from Ken Roberts, Public Safety Director, re: Donations to Animal Services from Lisa Trapane; Pamela Davis; Karen Cannavino; Nadine Davis; and Cornelia Dietzel.
12. Parks & Recreation Contracts for Services, as shown on page _______, with the following: Stephan B. Dodd (Slow-pitch Softball Umpire); Susan Dodd (Slow-pitch Softball Scorekeeper); Lenon Anderson (Slow-pitch Softball Umpire); and Gregory P. Putnam (Slow-pitch Softball Scorekeeper).
13. Copy of letter dated 3/26/03 to FL Dept. of Community Affairs from Stanley E. Stevens re: Chuluota land uses and Oviedo/Seminole County Joint Planning Agreement. (cc: BCC, County Managers, Planning & Development Director, Planning Manager, County Attorney, Development Review Manager)
14. Notice and Agenda of 4/1/03 meeting of Sanford Airport Authority.
15. Public Notice of meetings: 4/1/03 Sanford Airport Authority; 4/8/03 Sanford Airport Noise Abatement Committee (SANAC); 4/8/03 Airport User Group; and 4/16/03 Design Review Committee (DRC).
16. Minutes of 3/20/03 Seminole County Public Safety Coordinating Council.
17. Copy of memorandum dated 3/28/03 to Sandy McCann, Commission Records, from Becky Noggle, Environmental Services, re: Submission into County Records.
18. Letter dated 3/19/03 (with attachment) to BCC from Ray Gilley, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (EDC) re: Silver Anniversary Edition of EDC Annual Report.
19. Copy of letter dated 3/26/03 to County Manager Grace from Jerry Wood, Clifton Springs Corp., re: County purchase of Clifton Springs parcels. (cc: BCC)
20. Letter dated 3/24/03 (with attachment) to Chairman McLain from Linda Burnette, SJRWMD, re: 2003 edition of the SJRWMD Water Resource Atlas on CD-ROM.
21. Copy of letter dated 3/28/03 to H. W. “Bill” Suber, Property Appraiser, from Darrell W. Smith, FL Dept. of Revenue, re: Property Appraiser annual budget for FY 2003/04.
22. Letter dated 3/21/03 to Chairman McLain from Governor Jeb Bush, re: Department of Homeland Security FY 2003 Assistance to Firefighters Grants. (cc: BCC, County Managers, Public Safety Director, Fiscal Services Director, Grants Coordinator)
23. Notice of 4/7/03 City of Oviedo Final Plat public hearing re: Sanctuary Ph II Village 9. (cc: County Manager, Planning & Development Director, Planning Manager, Property Appraiser, Elections Supervisor).
24. Notice of 4/2/03 Sanford Community Redevelopment Agency meeting.
25. Notice of 4/15/03 Seminole County Healthy Start Coalition Board meeting.
26. Notice of 4/17/03 Tri-County League of Cities meeting.
27. Letter dated 3/31/03 to Chairman McLain from Sam C. Loper, Sanford Lakeside Lions Club, re: Public Seating Program/Bus Shelter Benches.
28. Letter dated 4/2/03 to Chairman McLain from Mike Snyder, FL DOT, re: LYNX transit contracts. (cc: BCC, County Managers, Public Works Director, County Attorney, County Engineer, Planning & Development Director, Transportation Planner)
29. Letter dated 3/31/03 to Chairman McLain from William R. Vickroy & Blaine Darrah, Heathrow Government Affairs Committee, re: proposed rezone of property on west side of Banana Lake Rd. (cc: BCC, County Manager, Deputy County Manager [SS], Planning & Development Director, Development Review Manager, response by Planning Manager)
30. E-mail dated 4/3/03 to Commissioner Maloy from Bill & Linda Sloan re: proposed rezone on Old Lockwood Rd.
31. Memorandum dated 4/2/03 to BCC from Mary Kay Cariseo, FL Assoc. of Counties, re: CS/SB 390, Medicaid Cost Shift bills.
32. Letter dated 3/31/03 (with attachment) to Chairman McLain from John P. Saboor & Doug Barclay, Central FL Sports Commission, re: March activity report.
33. Letter dated 4/1/03 to Chairman McLain from Brandy Kamm, Sanford-Seminole Jaycees, re: Public Seating Project/Bus Shelter benches.
34. Letter dated 4/2/03 to Chairman McLain from Melinda Tooley, Woman’s Club of Sanford, re: Public Seating Project/Bus Shelter Benches.
35. Letter dated 3/26/03 (with attachment) to Chairman McLain from Charles K. Smith, P.E., City of Oviedo, re: public information workshop for SR 426/CR 419 (Broadway St.) from Pine Ave. to Lockwood Blvd.
36. Memorandum dated 4/3/03 to BCC from Mary Kay Cariseo, FL Assoc. of Counties, re: Budget Amendment to Redirect County Revenue Sharing.
37. Copy of memorandum dated 4/4/03 to Sandy McCann, Commission Records, from Becky Noggle, Environmental Services, re: Submission into County Records.
38. Parks/Recreation Contracts for Services, as shown on page _______, with the following: Edward J. Wayman (Slow-pitch Softball Umpire); Carolyn M. Deeb (Slow-pitch Softball Scorekeeper); Carlos Rivera (Slow-pitch Softball Scorekeeper); John H. Hurst (Slow-pitch Softball Umpire); Joy McGratty (Tennis Instructor); Barbara Persinger (Slow-Pitch Softball Scorekeeper); and Angie Valderrama (Slow-pitch Softball Scorekeeper).
39. Copy of letter dated 4/3/03 (with attachment) to William Schenk, National Park Service, from County Manager Grace re: appointment of Francisco J. Torregrosa and Tony Walter (Alternate) to the Wekiva River System Advisory Committee for the Wekiva Wild and Scenic River.
Chairman McLain advised that he and Commissioner Morris attended the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) meeting in Tallahassee last month. There was a lot of discussion about FAC and the impact the State of Florida is having on County budgets. The President of the Association gave a news conference. He told the State to fix their problems and not just ship them over to the counties. Chairman McLain said he thinks it is important to provide the taxpayers, voters and citizens the opportunity to know who to call, and let them know the counties are living within their means and expect to provide services the taxpayers expect with the taxes they give them to do the job. He agrees that the people in Tallahassee need to hear from the local people. He is sure Mr. Grace will be moving forward to make the information available to people who call to contact the legislators in Tallahassee.
Commissioner Morris commented that the reality is they have a Legislature that is now transferring the burden to the counties.
Chairman McLain said he has had an opportunity to meet and speak with Mr. McMillan regarding his annual review. He said he has seen some great progress in the County’s Road Program and he is satisfied with Mr. McMillan’s performance and thinks he has done a good job. He recommended a 3% increase in base pay for Mr. McMillan. He said Mr. McMillan does not currently have Deferred Compensation coming from the County, and he is recommending 2% of his salary for Deferred Compensation. This is the same package offered to the County Manager.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to approve the Chairman’s recommendation for a 3% increase in base pay for the County Attorney, Robert McMillan, and a 2% increase in salary to go to Deferred Compensation.
Under discussion, Commissioner Henley said he thinks a lot of Mr. McMillan and what he has done. He said Deferred Compensation is available to all employees if they want to set it up. He asked how far does the Board want to go with these things.
Chairman McLain stated the reason he did that is because sometimes a person may want to set more money aside for retirement.
Commissioner Henley clarified with Chairman McLain that he is proposing a 5% increase and 2% of that is going to Deferred Compensation rather than the full package.
Districts 1, 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Henley voted NAY.
Chairman McLain said he thought it would be appropriate for staff to brief the Board on the status of the current UCF (University of Central Florida) Master Plan and how they can continue to work with the University.
Karen Consalo, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board to state UCF adopted their master plan in January of this year and two parties challenged it. The Court dismissed both petitions, but the Sierra Club has refiled its petition. Because of these petitions, there have been a couple of issues to come up regarding the County’s development agreement with UCF. Ms. Consalo reviewed the three issues and ideas staff has for correction. She said because the Master Plan has been challenged, UCF’s position is that it is not prudent at this time to go through the whole process of the development agreement because it will require at least two public hearings and, if the final master plan is not approved, those two public hearings will have to be held again, and the development agreement will be null and void. Ms. Consalo said the problem she sees is with the Statutes which read that the development agreement needs to be drafted within 270 days of the adoption of the campus master plan. Secondly, at this point, UCF does not have funding for some of the concurrency issues in the development agreement. The Statutes are not clear if the State Trust Fund can be used to fund a local government’s development agreement. Thirdly, if the State Trust Fund cannot be used, there is the question whether UCF will still be able to enter a development agreement with the County and, if not, what will the County do at that point.
Ms. Consalo said staff’s ideas are to continue working on the development agreement at a staff level to get some traffic impact studies and go from there, but make the development agreement contingent on funding from the State and that the campus Master Plan is not “shot down.” Another idea staff has is to get a letter of intent from UCF stating they do intend to enter a development agreement with the County and what is holding that up is the challenge to the campus Master Plan. Also, staff is proposing to work with the Legislature to try to get some of the vague language in the Statutes clarified to find out if a development agreement is required in Seminole County; find out if it would be funded by the Concurrency Trust Fund; and figure out what to do about the 270-day time period to have a development agreement approved once the campus master plan is adopted.
Scott Holt, UCF Attorney, and Margaret Nixon, UCF Planner, addressed the Board. Attorney Holt stated he is here for the same goals--to get a campus development agreement, submit it to the Concurrency Trust Fund, and get some money for Seminole County. He said he would work to make that happen to the extent he is allowed by law to do so. He said they would love to have the Statutes clearer as it is vague, but he is willing to move forward with Seminole County to see if they can get the money.
He stated they are hopeful they can resolve the appeal process. A mediation is scheduled in two weeks. If resolved, they can move forward with the campus development agreement. If not, there are two other processes to go through with the Department of Community Affairs and with the Governor and Cabinet. He said the question is what to do in the meantime. He is wondering should they attempt to do an agreement now, even though the law says it has to be consistent with the master plan and they don’t know what that is going to be. He suggested they continue to work with each other at the staff level and take this one step at a time. Regardless of what happens, he sees no reason why the UCF and County staffs cannot continue to work together to reach agreement on what areas are needed in the campus development agreement. He said they would be happy to do a letter of intent to express their desire to do the campus development agreement.
Under discussion with Chairman McLain, Mr. Holt said if the Concurrency Trust Fund is not available, the law states that the University would have to have a specific appropriation from the Legislature to address the interlocal agreement mitigations for impacts to the community. He said he could ask their lobbyist to look into this and see if it is possible.
Chairman McLain said the Board does not want to hear the Seminole County constituents in the Oviedo area complaining that the University is saying there is no money to fix the problems and they have to live with them.
Commissioner Maloy said part of the problem is trying to figure out what the impacts are to qualify those. He would like to see the delay in developing the agreement ended and then go ahead and start working towards it assuming that it would be approved as it stands. If it fails, it could always be modified. He would support the staff’s recommendation in moving forward with the development agreement.
Mr. Fisher advised that two public hearings would be required as part of the development agreement. He said staff feels it would be prudent to continue to work with the UCF staff in developing the agreement; and when that time comes, they will know the status of the lawsuit and can make a choice whether to hold the public hearings. If the lawsuit were resolved, that would be a moot point to the agreement. He said the staff’s recommendation is to move quickly on negotiating the development agreement.
Deputy County Attorney Steve Lee asked the Board if they wish staff to pursue clarifying the legislation. He said Lobbyist Bobby Brantley thinks it is probably late to get something done by this legislative session. Chairman McLain stated he thinks the Board would want to move forward with UCF to get some clarifying language done. If not now, they can work on that the next time. Discussion ensued with Commissioner Maloy.
The Board had no objections to following Mr. Fisher’s recommendation to continue moving forward on the development agreement and work with the University.
DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy, to appoint Mike Kramer to the Natural Lands Committee, and send a letter of appreciation to Michael Boswell, who moved out of the County, and will not be able to serve.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4,and 5 voted AYE.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Grace stated he asked Mr. Fisher to brief the Board on discussions held with the City of Oviedo on the proposed annexation and rezoning. A copy of the letter to Oviedo City Manager Eugene Williford was received and filed.
Mr. Fisher stated several meetings have been held with the Oviedo staff and they have come to a joint consensus of what the recommendation should be to a request for annexation of approximately 25 acres and assignment of the Commercial land use in a C-2 zoning category. He said the two jurisdictions are not recommending the Commercial land use or the C-2 zoning category proposed by the applicant. They would recommend PUD land use and PUD zoning that limits the neighborhood commercial uses to a neighborhood scale. The subject request would be reviewed jointly by Seminole County and the City of Oviedo. The City and County would begin a joint review of the transition area identified in the interlocal agreement with the City.
Mr. Grace said he wants to make sure the Board is in agreement with what the staff has concluded, because staff is planning to go to the City’s P&Z meeting and represent a County position.
District Commissioner Maloy said he feels comfortable with the recommendation, as the C-2 zoning would be an enormous impact at that location. He clarified with Mr. Fisher that the PUD concept would come back for a full review. Whereupon, Commissioner Maloy stated he would support the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Morris extended congratulations to Mr. Fisher for his award to be received from the Private Business Association for outstanding service to the public at large. This is the first-ever governmental award to an individual.
Attorney Lee stated the County’s Lobbyist is still not certain on the Board’s position regarding the Constantine Bill regarding the Wekiva Parkway. He wants the Board to understand that the Bill is saying where the Wekiva Parkway is going, and the Expressway Authority can make the final decision on the routing and interchanges. Chairman McLain restated the County’s position is that SR 46 is the priority (the alignment); however if it is recommended by FDOT, the Turnpike Authority, or anyone else to put it anywhere else within the corridor that Seminole County does not agree with, the Board wants to have final say and final veto power.
Attorney Lee stated the others want to be sure that Seminole County will locate the Wekiva Parkway within that “cross-hatched” area and not try to put it somewhere else.
Commissioner Morris said it is a fantasy marketing term to call this a parkway. This is a toll facility and is not free. He said the Board has never agreed to a toll facility on SR 46, but have talked about a connector from 46. The Board asked that a legitimate study be done, and it sounds like they’ll have an argument with the State going on in two or three years.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Attorney Lee advised the Bill says the Orange/Orlando Expressway Authority, DOT, the Seminole County Expressway Authority, and the Turnpike Enterprise will be involved in the decision.
Chairman McLain stated the Board wants in the bill that Seminole County will have the final say on any alignment in Seminole County. He said Attorney Lee needs to tell the Lobbyist that Mr. Constantine’s bill needs to have the language in Item #2 of the Governor’s Task Force recommendation included, or Seminole County will not be in favor of the bill and will actively oppose the bill.
The Board had no objections to a letter being drafted for Chairman McLain’s signature at tonight’s meeting making it very clear to Mr. Constantine (with a copy to Mr. Brantley) exactly what the Commissioners expect to have in the bill or they will actively oppose it.
Commissioner Morris discussed that the legislators are drafting a law before the Governor has made public comment on the Task Force’s recommendations.
Chairman McLain asked Mr. Grace to draft the letter and the Board will move a motion tonight to send it to the appropriate parties.
Chairman McLain recessed the meeting at 3:05 p.m., reconvening at 7:00 p.m., this same date, with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who were present at the Opening Session.
At the request of Chairman McLain, Mr. McMillan advised Items 50-53 are basically identical appeals, having to do with the same issues on four different situations. He stated Mr. Rosen has indicated that he has no objections to the Board taking all four appeals as one public hearing.
District Commissioner Henley stated it would be helpful to remind the residents wanting to speak not to repeat the same thing the previous person has stated.
REZONE/Shutts & Bowen
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider request to Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling District); property described as approximately 7.98 acres located on the north side of Lake Hayes Road, approximately ½ mile east of Alafaya Trail, Shutts & Bowen, received and filed.
Chairman McLain indicated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to April 22, 2003.
No one spoke in support or in opposition of the continuance.
Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to continue to April 22, 2003 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, request to Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling District); property described as approximately 7.98 acres located on the north side of Lake Hayes Road, approximately ½ mile east of Alafaya Trail, as described in the proof of publication, Shutts & Bowen.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEALS/Atlantic Development Corp.
Continuation of a public hearing to consider Appeal against the Board of Adjustment’s decision to grant for Atlantic Development Corp./Frances Santa Donato and James C. Parsons (1) a minimum lot size variance from 8,400 sq. ft. to 7,150 sq. ft.; and (2) a minimum lot width at the building line variance from 70 ft. to 65 ft. on Lots 15, 16, 19 & 20 (Howard Blvd.) of Longwood Park, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page ________.
Earnest McDonald, Planning, addressed the Board to state the applicant, Atlantic Development Corp. is requesting variances from minimum lot size 8,400 sq. ft. to 7,150 sq. ft. and variances minimum lot width at the building line from 70 ft. to 65 ft. on Lots 15, 16, 19 & 20. The Board of Adjustment (BOA) granted the variances on January 27, 2003. The lots were created prior to the 1960 adoption of the countywide zoning and comprise part of an antiquated plat. He stated the County has applied Policy FLU 3.2 in cases where the opportunity existed to combine 2 or more properties in order to create a conforming lot in the applicable zoning district, thereby eliminating the need for a variance. Because the property owner is the same for all four properties, the opportunity exists to combine Lots 15 and 16 as well as Lots 19 and 20 to create conforming lots. Staff is recommending the Board reverse the BOA’s decision. A letter from Maria Ribas opposing the requests was received and filed.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. McDonald advised Lot 6 was approved at the BOA and that was not appealed. He displayed and reviewed a lot schematic as well as an aerial map.
Attorney Robert Rosen, representing Atlantic Development Corp., addressed the Board to state it seems there was a long delay in rendering the development order (D.O.) after the January 27 approval. It was not rendered until March and he would like to know why it took so long after the actual findings.
Robert McMillan, County Attorney, stated the same appeal period applies to the public and the Board. The BOA appeal has to be made within 15 days after the filing of a decision in the BOA office.
Matt West, Planning Manager, addressed the Board to state his understanding is based on the D.O. being issued and the approval is not effective until it is executed and recorded. In this case, there was a delay in issuing several D.Os. (not just for this applicant) relating to other variances at that BOA meeting. He said this was a staff error and was not done deliberately.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. McMillan advised the BOA granted the variances on January 27, 2003 and the Board authorized the appeals on February 25, so that was less than a month from the BOA hearing and it wasn’t a two-month delay.
Mr. Rosen stated he concurs with most of staff’s report. There are six criteria that must be met in order to grant variances and staff supported five of those conditions and they opposed one of them. No one attended the BOA hearing to contest the items. He submitted a copy of the BOA and staff’s findings (received and filed). He noted that Items A, B, C, D and E are almost identical and the only change relates to staff referencing to a single lot. The last Item F indicates that the findings of the adjoining properties are similar in size and character. For some reason, the finding changed and it is completely contrary to the essential finding by staff. The other issue deals with the Comp Plan and antiquated plats. He stated Mr. Lance is going to show that the variance request is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and by combining lots in enforcing this; it would be completely outside the overall character of the neighborhood.
Jeff Lance, 335 Spruce Wood Road, addressed the Board to submit information (received and filed) relating to Longwood Park Lots 15, 16, 19, & 20. He stated he is the owner of all four lots and two other lots in the same subdivision. He explained how he got here and how the residents had concerns that they were not able to speak at the BOA hearing. He addressed some of the issues that were raised since the BOA hearing. He stated he found 300 records for Longwood Park Subdivision from the Property Appraiser’s web site and he reviewed that 13 lots are extremely low and inaccessible. He stated when there are two side-by-side lots that are already established, there is no opportunity to do anything with them nor could he combine them into three because a variance is required as well. He said he doesn’t want to come before the Board one at a time with lots with four different owners and four different hearings because there is no opportunity to combine them. He continued by reviewing the handout relating to the lakefront lots; lots that front Longwood-Lake Mary Road; vacant lots; lots that have been built on; a breakdown of developed lots by size; and the average living area of the homes. He stated 1200 sq. ft. of living area is the maximum allowed by the code for a well of their size and with septic system. He added that valuation is another important thing and he reviewed the valuation of the properties in the neighborhood by lot size as outlined in the handout. He reviewed the average sale price of the large and small lots outlined on page 2 of the handout.
Mr. Lance answered questions for Commissioner Henley relating to the square footage of the nonconforming lots; variances granted in the past; and property ownerships.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. McDonald advised staff’s recommendations did not change, and that is to deny every one of the requests. He stated staff’s ultimate recommendation has been articulated very clearly that the request is inconsistent with Policy 3.2 of the Comp Plan. Staff’s position has always been to recommend denial of the variances.
Steve Hithersay, 5061 Graylock Ct., addressed the Board to state he has been in the real estate business since 1970 and he is speaking as a new member of the Board of Realtors of Orlando. He commends Atlantic Development for finding a nitch of a very badly needed market. After the January 27 approval, he placed two lots of this subdivision in the multiple listing and 55 serious candidates came forth to buy these properties. He stated there is a dire need to be able to handle the medium price income for new homeowners.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Hithersay advised there is an existing structure on Lot 19 and that house will come down.
Tom Robinett, 316 Howard Blvd., addressed the Board to state he lives across the street from Lots 15 and 16. He stated he is speaking on behalf of the homeowners who live on Howard Street. He read and submitted a Petition, as shown on page ________, from residents of Howard Blvd. opposing the variances. He submitted an e-mail (received and filed) from Thomas & Linda Robinett dated January 22, 2003 to express their disapproval of the variances. He addressed the average lot size and the average house size on Howard Avenue; R-1A zoning; and the variances. He stated the 130 ft. lot would not be out of character with what is currently in this section of Howard Blvd.
Lise’ Ruby, 301 Marjorie Blvd., addressed the Board to state she lives across from Lots 19 and 20 and she is representing all the residents on Marjorie Blvd. She submitted and read a Petition, as shown on page ________, from the residents of Marjorie Blvd. opposing the variances. The issues that were raised in the petition relate to the width of the homes on Marjorie Blvd., Longwood Park not being a zero-lot line community; Longwood Park not being on the City of Longwood’s water and sewage; the construction of new homes would put more strain on the aquifer; the increased density of four homes on this land would be detrimental to the neighborhood; the project would devalue the price and quality of existing homes; and a list of the homeowners opposing the variances.
At the request of Mr. Robinett, over 20 people from Howard Blvd. stood up opposing the variances.
Mr. Rosen reiterated his comments relating to the low lots, Comp Plan dealing with the character of the neighborhood, 38% of the lots are nonconforming lots, staff’s findings, and no extension was submitted that deals with the character of the neighborhood.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
At the request of Commissioner Maloy, Mr. McDonald clarified the difference of Finding F between the BOA report and tonight’s report.
Chairman McLain recessed the meeting at 7:56 p.m., reconvening at 8:00 p.m.
At the request of Chairman McLain, Matt West, Planning Manager, addressed the Board to clarify the difference that was presented to the Board on the findings and reviewed the process the Board needs to make a decision.
Commissioner Maloy stated it is very frustrating to him to see these criteria changing as they go along.
District Commissioner Henley stated he would have to agree that there is some confusion as a result of the wording. The one issue under consideration is the substandard lots and the availability of the owner of the lots to bring them into compliance. Section 30.43 requires that all the criteria listed must be met. He stated he would recommend reversing the BOA’s decision as he believes the applicant has not complied with two of the criteria.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to reverse the BOA’s decision, thereby denying (1) a minimum lot size variance from 8,400 sq. ft. to 7,150 sq. ft.; and (2) a minimum lot width at the building line variance from 70 ft. to 65 ft. on Lots 15, 16, 19 & 20 (Howard Blvd.) of Longwood Park, as described in the proof of publication, for Atlantic Development Corp./Frances Santa Donato and James C. Parsons.
Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Commissioner Henley advised the character changes as you move along the interior of the lots. He stated he has seen the area and the County needs to be aware of the fact that since those lots were platted many years ago that many of these lots were not 65 ft. He said he feels that this is being inconsistent with the action the Board took previously with regard to substandard lots. The owner had an opportunity to combine those lots. He said the point was made that they would be oversized lots, but the County’s policies deal with minimum sized lots.
Commissioner Maloy requested, in the future, staff to provide better visuals in order to get a better picture.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Morris stated due to a prior engagement, he will have to leave now. He stated with regard to Item #56, Ordinance amending Billboard regulations, he supports both of the recommended changes to the ordinance, one is tri-vision language and the other is on the 15% cutout.
Chairman McLain recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m., reconvening at 8:18 p.m.
Continuation of a public hearing to consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Suburban Estates to Planned Development; and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); property described as 25.05 acres located on the west side of Banana Lake Road, approximately 3,400 feet south of CR 46A, as described in the proof of publication, Carmen and Fred Edwards/James H. Fant.
Kent Cichon, Planning, addressed the Board to review the size and location of the property as well as the preliminary PUD plan, surrounding land uses, and access to the site. He stated a new proposal has been presented regarding access to the site. He submitted a letter (received and filed) from Colonial Properties Trust relating to the proposed development. He said staff recommends transmitting the plan amendment to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) subject to the following commitments: (a) The developer shall be required to obtain access from either Business Center Drive or Triple A Drive; (b) The developer shall be required to construct a turn around on Banana Lake Road at the point at which the subject property begins from the north and in addition to construct a masonry wall or brick wall across Banana Lake Road and the south of the cul de sac to the south of the turn around to prevent access from Banana Lake Road to the subject property. (c) The Banana Lake Road is part of a planned County extension of a reclaimed water main. This water main would be available in the future for connection from the development subject to this agreement. The developer shall construct a reuse line to serve this development and connect to the County’s reclaim water main when it becomes available and pay any applicable fees for such connection; (c) The maximum number of dwelling units shall not exceed 43 units; (d) The net density shall not exceed 6.05 du/ac.; (e) Following minimum building setbacks for each home: 20 ft. front, 20 ft. rear, 5 ft. side yard and 20 ft. side street (corner lots); (f) Following minimum setbacks for accessory structures of a size of 200 sq. ft. or less: 5 ft. rear, 5 ft. side yard, and 20 ft. side street (corner lots); (g) Following minimum setbacks for accessory structures in excess 200 sq. ft.: 20 ft. rear; 5 ft. side yard, and 20 ft. side street (corner lots); (h) All accessory structures in front yard shall be located behind the front building line of the dwelling unit; (i) Minimum lot sizes and widths shall be 5,000 sq. ft. with a minimum 50 ft. width at building line. Corner lots shall be 15% larger and 15% wider; (j) Maximum building height shall be 35 ft.; (k) Minimum pool and pool screen setbacks shall be 5 ft. rear and 5 ft. side; (l) Five ft. wide sidewalks shall be constructed on both sides of all roadways constructed within this development; and (m) Open space and recreational amenities shall be determined during the review of the Final Master Plan.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. West advised the buffer is not part of this request as the overriding agreement is that the buffer would not be rezoned for a minimum of 5 years.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Cichon advised the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission recommended denial by a 7-0 vote.
Meredith Harper, Shutts & Bowen, addressed the Board to state a portion of the buffer was deeded to Mr. Edwards so he can ensure that that buffer would be in place. It is not part of this application but it would remain intact to separate the multi-family from the single family.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Harper advised 1.6 acres of that buffer along the northern boundary was deeded.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Ms. Harper advised that buffer will remain in place to buffer the apartments from this new development. She stated this request is for a transitional use between the apartments to the south. She said 313 units of Phase I of the project have already been built and Phase II has been approved for 268 units, but it is vacant. The PUD request would allow for some creative, flexible site plan design to be sure that it is compatible with the Banana Lake residents.
Upon further inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Cichon advised the entire buffer is 200 ft. in width.
Mr. West stated it appears the landowner owns about 50 ft. and the developer is not requesting any development on that 50 ft. section. He stated he believes there is a prohibition for rezoning that property for 5 years. He added there is a substantial portion of wetlands between the nearest lots and suburban estates to the north. There are a couple of areas that directly abut the suburban estates lots where the buildable lots may be. The applicant could go back if everyone agree to amend the tri-party agreement and allow that 1.6 acres be rezoned and added in the PUD.
Ms. Harper stated she doesn’t know if Colonial Properties would have any objections to that. She stated she doesn’t believe they will have any objections to development of single-family homes on the other side of that wall.
Chairman McLain stated he would like to see more buffer being provided between suburban estates and the 6 units to the acre.
Ms. Harper addressed the issue of the developer connecting to the future reclaimed waterline and the buffering. She stated after the P&Z meeting, the main objection was the ability to improve Banana Lake Road to a condition that would allow additional traffic. The request is whether the right-of-way was adequate and after hearing the concerns of the Banana Lake Road residents, Mr. Edwards’ representative has spoken to Colonial Properties numerous times about a possible access through HIBC. She stated possible alignments have been prepared and Colonial Properties are reviewing them. She displayed an aerial map (received and filed) indicating with a blue line of a possible future access to Mr. Edwards’ site. The other option is to take Business Center Drive west bound, but she is not sure if that alignment works with a turning radius. She stated a couple of concerns came up with the neighbors within the Heathrow Subdivision and she has a copy of a letter that lists some of their concerns should this request be approved. One request was to restrict to single story homes along the northern boundary, a 6 ft. brick wall separating the Heathrow development along the northern boundary with a 50 ft. buffer to the south of the wall. The applicant could agree to saving as many trees as possible and the applicant could agree to prohibit motorized boats on Banana Lake and Island Lake.
John Simes, 642 Lakeworth Circle, addressed the Board to state he represents 2000 plus homeowners in Heathrow. He read into the Record his comments relating to the area consisting largely of wetlands; the ten acres capable of limited development comprising of scrub and forest; numerous species of wildlife; the current greenbelt/wetland area to be preserved in its current state so future homeowners might have a chance to view the natural heritage; impact of further development on Banana and Island Lakes; and the increased potential for flooding of the lower elevation. He stated if the Board approves the rezoning request, the Heathrow residents are requesting the following: (1) Limit the house to single story for the lots behind Lakeside; (2) Negotiate an agreement with Heathrow and the developer regarding the proposed 50 ft. buffer area; (3) Limit the size of boats allowed on Island Lake; and (4) A restricted gated community of individual detached homes. He stated Heathrow views the existing proposal as superior to the previous proposal. He displayed and reviewed photographs (received and filed) showing the west portion of the applicant’s property showing a large amount of wetlands and gopher tortoises’ nesting area.
Wendell Springfield, 770 Banana Lake Road, addressed the Board to display and review a map (received and filed) showing his, Arnold Baker, Mark Brewer and Cindy Crain’s lots as well as Banana Lake and various lot numbers. He said the Heathrow neighbors on the west side of the lake have been completely separated from his area and he doesn’t think the Heathrow area should be used as a basis to allow 43 homes. He stated he also doesn’t believe the apartment complex should be used as part of that determination. The wetland area on the northeast side of the project has been a natural retention area over the years. He stated he feels the water runoff could cause overflow into his property. The number of houses should be reduced and provide a means to prevent additional water from overflowing into his property. There is a natural ditch that acts as a relief valve from Banana Lake to Island Lake. A 100 ft. setback is on the west side of Banana Lake and he would like to have that extended around the project’s property line. He suggested reducing the maximum of 25 houses to 25 houses on buildable acres. He also suggested providing for water retention to prevent water runoff going into wetlands, and to provide a 100 ft. setback on the water’s edge. Banana Lake Road will not stand up to increased traffic and this will cause many problems for property owners. If an agreement between Colonial Properties and Mr. Edwards is finalized, the only requirement is to move the wall across Banana Lake Road up to his property line. He recommended that this project be delayed until these issues are resolved by the applicant.
Janice Springfield, 770 Banana Lake Road, addressed the Board to state her house sits 20 ft. from the lakefront and they have the only beach on their property. She displayed and reviewed a graph (received and filed) showing the daily average water levels for Banana Lake. She stated the average is 46 ft. above sea level and today it is at 48 ft. She displayed photographs (received and filed) showing flooded yards of surrounding properties and the water level of other properties as well as gopher tortoises in the area. She stated all of the homeowners on Banana Lake on the east side have one acre or more. She requested a 100 ft. buffer be extended around Mr. Edwards’ property and there would be no access to the lake unless that resident has one acre. The density should be much less than the developer has proposed. She stated she would like to maintain the quality of life on Banana Lake.
Elissa Mackintosh, 864 Banana Lake Road, addressed the Board to state in the four years she has lived in this area, she has experienced the problems with the water rising. She stated she feels that 43 units seems to be excessive on such a small piece of property. She asked the Board to look at the density as it is something that has not been looked at.
Cindy Crain, 820 Banana Lake Road, addressed the Board to state the residents of Banana Lake Road agree that access to Mr. Edwards’ development should be either from the east or south through Heathrow International Business Center. In addition, they would recommend a solid brick wall be installed from east to west across Banana Lake Road in line with the southern property line of Mr. Springfield’s property. The Banana Lake Road residences are classified as Suburban Estates or no more than one house per acre. She stated the residents are recommending that the entire project contain no more than 25 dwelling units and they should be no more than two stories high. A copy of Ms. Crain’s comments was received and filed.
Tyrone Wilson, 910 Banana Lake Road, addressed the Board to state he agrees with what everyone has said. He stated his main concern is the water problems in the area. Altamonte Springs has had water restrictions for the last 5 years because of the shortage of water.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
Ms. Harper stated appropriate buffers would have to be placed around the wetlands to protect them. The drainage issues would have to be approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District and the County. SJRWMD will also review any threatened endangered species and a full study of gopher tortoises will be done as well. She stated she can commit to having two-story homes within the proposed development and they have agreed to one-story along the boundary on the northwest end. She advised soil tests will be done before any structures are placed on that property.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Ms. Harper advised a 50 ft. buffer will be to the south and if the residents of Heathrow prefer not having a 6 ft. brick wall, she can do away with that. She stated she doesn’t believe that staff would recommend an 8 ft. wall, but she could agree to it.
District Commissioner McLain stated he wouldn’t want this property developed at more than one unit per acre if any access is available on Banana Lake Road. If an agreement can be reached with Colonial Properties to access to this property and it not impact Banana Lake Road, he feels the Board can move forward with the transmittal. The applicant has committed to many of the neighbor’s concerns and those issues needs to be addressed when it comes back. He stated 43 units with a density of 6.05 would work out to about 7.1 acres. He said he would recommend limiting that to 29 units, which is approximately 4 units per buildable acre, and if an agreement can be reached to eliminate the 50 ft. buffer among all parties, add the number of units that would equal to 4 units per net buildable acre. He stated he thinks that is adequate density for this property and Suburban Estates to the north needs to have Low Density Residential adjoining it.
Commissioner Henley stated he has trouble with the 35 units as he feels that is a little too dense.
Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to transmit the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Suburban Estates to Planned Development; and rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for 25.05 acres located on the west side of Banana Lake Road, approximately 3,400 ft. south of CR 46A, to the Department of Community Affairs, subject to capping the development to 4 units per acre.
Under discussion, Commissioner Henley stated there was a suggestion about a wall.
Chairman McLain stated included in the D.O., was that Banana Lake Road would be blocked off with no access to the south from Suburban Estates.
Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman McLain recessed the meeting at 9:10 p.m., reconvening at 9:17 p.m.
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to R-1AA (Single Family); property described as approximately 13 acres located on the east side of Old Lockwood Rd.,½ mile north of McCulloch Rd., Shutts & Bowen, received & filed.
Kathy Fall, Planning, addressed the Board to review the property designation and stated the requested zoning of the property depends on a number of factors. Staff believes that R-1AAA zoning is the most appropriate transitional density from the more intense development to the west and less intense development to the east. As development occurs from west to east, the lot size could transition from smaller to larger. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of R-1AAA zoning. She added that the P&Z recommended approval of R-1AA zoning with a minimum 2100 sq. ft. house.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Fall advised she believes the size of the lots down the Carillon community are 60 ft.
Attorney Meredith Harper stated she has met with a number of the residents and they agree to certain commitments. The homes will range between $280,000 and $300,000 and the size of the homes will be a minimum 2100 sq. ft. She stated she has committed to a brick wall along the northern property boundary where it joins Fawn Run. A site plan has not been done to date as they are not at that stage yet. Beyond the retention pond to the east is a wetland tract, which is a heavily wooded area. The wall will be a 6-ft. red brick wall and the homeowner’s association would maintain it. The neighbors did not want a fence within that brick wall and she has committed to that request. She stated issues, such as landscaping, can be addressed when they get to the site plan stage.
Mike Kolb, 2516 Fawn Run, addressed the Board to state he is concerned about their community and the quality of life. He submitted a Petition, as shown on page ________, from residents of Fawn Run opposing the request. He submitted and read into the Record a Notice of a Neighborhood Information Strategy Meeting located at Mr. Sloan’s residence. He stated if the property is rezoned, it should be rezoned to A-5. The area surrounding the property is made up of wilderness, agriculture and wetlands. He requested the Board to deny the rezoning request.
William Sloan, 3535 Old Lockwood Road, addressed the Board to state he agrees with Mr. Kolb’s statements. He stated the main issue he wants to address is specific to his common property line with this parcel. He said he would like to see a commitment to a landscape buffer of native species, such as wax myrtles, and the developer committing to restricting wooden fences.
Linda Rossel, Fawn Run resident, addressed the Board to state she sent an e-mail to the Board this morning. She stated if this property is rezoned R-1AA or R-1AAA, the only stipulation she would like is what she has indicated in her e-mail. She said she doesn’t feel that this property should be rezoned, but if it is, then those stipulations should be included in the development order. If not, then she is opposed to the rezone.
Larry Tanney, 2471 Fawn Run, addressed the Board to state he indicated in his e-mail that he would prefer to see the land zoned the way it is. Everyone living in the area wants to keep the type of life they have. If the Board decides to change the zoning, he cannot think of a safer way to work within the community and to bring about a change to the community that isn’t going to impact it adversely. He stated he would support R-1AA with the stipulations that were stated by the developer’s representative. He added he would prefer keeping it as 5 acres or one house per 5 acres.
Tristan Chitty, Scrub Oak resident, addressed the Board to state he concurs with the homeowners who spoke before him and the stipulation of leaving it the way it is. He stated his main concern is that everyone focus as a group to developing this land responsively so that animals and wetlands are preserved as best as possible.
Susan Tzareff, 3201 Old Lockwood Road, addressed the Board to submit and read her comments (received and filed) relating to justification for rezoning denial, the history of this site; the justification to maintain A-1 zoning; the proposed zoning being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and the impacts to a significant wetland that is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. She requested the Board to deny the rezoning request.
Robin Carey, 2212 Red Ember Road, addressed the Board to state she believes that R-1AA zoning is incompatible with the area and it will set a precedent to the rest of the properties on Old Lockwood Road. She discussed the issues of drainage and traffic. She stated she is not concerned about the property but the future precedent it will set.
Diana Fraser, 2416 Fawn Run, addressed the Board to state she lives across from the proposed property. The BOA minutes indicated that she gave up 1.11 acres for wetlands and easements to Roy’s property. She said she actually gave up 1.11 acres to protect the wetlands. She stated she is concerned about the property values as far as her taxes and what is it going to do to the schools, fire, and roads. She added she would like to know whether or not the traffic will increase and are they going to have traffic lights and sidewalks. She said she is concerned about the flood prone areas as well. Since Old Lockwood Road has been paved, she had to replace her driveway. She opposes the proposed development.
James Grosse, 2296 Red Amber Road, addressed the Board to state he just bought his house in December and he is concerned about the appropriateness of this development and having a subdivision in the middle of a community that has a wilderness area. He displayed photographs (received and filed) showing the rural and countryness of the area. He stated he is opposed to this request.
Felicia Kolb, 2516 Fawn Run, addressed the Board to state she is concerned about the patchwork nature of this rezoning. This area has been developed as a 5-acre residential area as a type of country estate. Two six-acre lots currently have two homes and a little subdivision is going to be constructed there. If this happens, how will it stop other subdivisions from coming in? What is proposed is not in keeping with the compatibility or appropriateness with the current area.
Avian Carey, 2212 Red Ember Road, addressed the Board to state he is a high school student and his school bus is already over crowded. If this rezone is approved, the property owner behind him wants to build 4 houses per acre on that property. That property owner is probably waiting to see what happens to this request. He stated Old Lockwood Road will not be able to handle any more cars on it.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.
Ms. Harper stated Mr. Sloan mentioned increasing the landscaping on the south side and she can address that during the site plan process. She stated she believes the subdivision would probably like to have fences along the southern boundary for privacy issues and that can be addressed during the site plan process as well. This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as LDR allows R-1AA. The wetlands will be preserved by going through the permitting process. She stated the applicant would be required to show concurrency for both the roadway and public utilities before final approvals are met. She added she is not proposing access to Fawn Run nor any development within the flood prone area. The two lots (which is the difference between R-1AA and R-1AAA) would be made up internally within the subdivision so there would be no impact on the residents to the north or south.
Commissioner Maloy referred to Susan Eberle’s letter (not received and filed) referring to the flood plain in that area.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mahmoud Najda, Development Review, addressed the Board to state there would be no requirement for a left turn lane. The right-of-way is only 50 ft. wide and the existing traffic on Old Lockwood Road does require a left turn lane. There will be a sidewalk requirement along the western boundary line and there is no flood plain on this property except for wetlands on the east side. The development has to meet Land Development Code requirements for stormwater prior to discharge into the wetlands.
Commissioner Henley stated the County just entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the School Board and the municipalities concerning future impact of development on the County’s infrastructure, and he would like to know if the School Board had any input regarding this development.
Ms. Fall stated the School Board submitted an e-mail (received and filed) at the P&Z Commission meeting relating to the school capacity this development will produce.
Chairman McLain requested that the school information be included in the agenda packets in the future.
Don Fisher, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board to state the School Board participates in the DRC meetings and they provide staff with the projected number of students. He stated he would hope the School Board will provide this information by e-mail.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he would like to see the formula based on the type of development coming and what the impact will be to local schools.
District Commissioner Maloy stated he met with some of the residents and they referred to the natural lands to the south. The development trends in the area have changed over the last several years and Low Density Residential development of this type does not seem uncharacteristic for the neighborhood especially since it doesn’t access private roads.
Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt Ordinance #2003-19, as shown on page ________, rezoning to R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling) for property described as approximately 13 acres located on the east side of Old Lockwood Rd., ½ mile north of McCulloch Road, as described in the proof of publication, Shutts & Bowen, subject to a minimum of 2,100 sq. ft. minimum homes, a 6 ft. red brick wall along Fawn Run with the homeowner’s association to maintain the wall, noting a deed restriction would be entered against a fence inside that brick wall, and the commitment at the final master plan that there would be, along the south side, an opaque vegetative buffer incorporating native plants; and approval of Development Order, as shown on page _______.
Under discussion, Commissioner Van Der Weide asked what would be wrong going with R-1AAA and still get those additional commitments that are favorable to surrounding citizens.
Chairman McLain stated he believes the District Commissioner is happy with the applicant’s commitments for the additional two lots.
Ms. Harper stated she would not accept those commitments if they rezoned to R-1AAA.
Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider an Ordinance amending Billboard regulations relative to cut-outs and provisions for agreements permitting reconstruction or relocation of billboards, Seminole County, received and filed.
Matt West, Planning Manager, addressed the Board to refer to page 3 of the Ordinance and stated a definition of multi-vision signs was added. He stated the following language concerning multi-vision signs was changed on page 6 to: “For the purpose of this section, multi-vision signs may be counted as one sign per each advertising face displayed per vision cycle”. He stated Mr. Musica has requested that 15% on the cut-out as well as allowing the cutout to extend 2 ft. below the face and staff does not object to that. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request with the allowance of 20% for cutouts and the tri-vision billboards should be treated as one face.
Lou Musica, Clear Channel Outdoor, addressed the Board to state he supports the ordinance as drafted. He referred to Section 30.1253 that deals with the written waiver and release clause. He stated the issue he has with the waiver is who will be signing it. To protect the County from frivolous litigation, the County Attorney has required that all parties provide a waiver and a release. He feels that since these applications are voluntary, it shouldn’t be necessary for properties, not involved in redevelopment, to be signing this waiver. The advertising companies have their own contractual rights and leases that allow them to surrender what they own. Any disputes would be between the sign company and the property owner. He submitted a booklet (received and filed), Clear Channel’s recommendations to change the draft ordinance and showing the changes of signs.
Don Fisher stated the basic issue of the ordinance is this would take away the ability of any property owner that has a sign on their site to have any say-so whether it is removed. If it is removed, then they should be restricted to have a sign placed back on the site unless another agreement has been entered into. He stated staff does not recommend this change at this point.
Robert McMillan, County Attorney stated that this amount of change would probably require readvertising the ordinance. If it is not in the ordinance and it were advertised, property owners may have opposed the ordinance tonight. The proposed ordinance requires a waiver to be signed by the property owner. If that is taken out, that is a subjective change to the ordinance and that cannot be done without readvertising it.
Commissioner Maloy stated if any billboard company wants to terminate a lease of an existing sign, they would have to get their permission in writing. Discussion ensued.
Mr. McMillan recommended that the Board adopt the ordinance as presented and readvertise what is requested by Mr. Musica.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
Motion by Commissioner May, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt Ordinance #2003-20, as shown on page ________, amending Billboard regulations relative to cut-outs and provisions for agreements permitting reconstruction or relocation of billboards, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County, as submitted and with the two changes as noted by Mr. West.
Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m., this same date.