The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:34 a.m., on Tuesday, May 22, 2001, in Room 1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of the said Board.

Present:

Chairman Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)

Vice Chairman Randy Morris (District 2) (Late)

Commissioner Grant Maloy (District 1)

Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)

Commissioner Daryl McLain (District 5)

County Manager Kevin Grace

County Attorney Robert McMillan

Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen

The Invocation was given by Commissioner Daryl McLain.

Commissioner Maloy led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

Commissioner Henley presented the Resolution to Joan Thompson, Executive Director, Missing Children Center, Inc., who expressed her appreciation and requested one of the

Commissioners to come and read the Resolution on National Missing Children’s Day.

Commissioner Henley asked Ms. Thompson to check with his Aide to see if he can schedule to attend on that date.

Mr. Grace advised of corrections to Item #7, BCR #01-92, change amount of $8,162 to $6,500; and Item #41, Amendment No. 4 to Florida DEP Task Assignment for Petroleum Storage Tanks Compliance, change page 2 to remove from Section C "and 62-762" as this section does not apply to Seminole County.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to approve and authorize the following, with the noted corrections:

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

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

Amanda Smith, Planner, addressed the Board to present request for approval of Final PCD Site Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement for the Chuluota Plaza PCD; property located north of 7^th Street on the east side of CR 419, Zoheir Chehayeb.

Commissioner Morris entered the meeting at this time.

Ms. Smith advised that at the time the preliminary PCD was approved, the County had not yet approved the Chuluota non-residential design standards, but the applicant had agreed to specific façade treatments and those are attached as part of the development order. She said staff believes the Developer’s Commitment and Final PCD Site Plan are consistent with the Seminole County Land Development Code and the approved development order for this project. She also stated the applicant will provide recessed lighting within the canopy of the convenience store, and the applicant has worked very diligently with staff regarding preservation of the trees on site.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Smith stated the Trails staff has not completed the survey for the area and staff believes it is best to address moving the trail in Phases 2 and 3, as it will not affect Phase 1 of the project. She answered further questions by Commissioner Maloy regarding the access road to the north, the need to do any work on the north side of the property at this time, and the concerns about an old depot site on the property.

Ms. Smith stated she contacted the State Division of Historical Resources months ago and they have no record of any historic sites or artifacts on the subject site. She said the applicant is aware that the Historical Resources are looked at during site plan prior to construction and if something is found during development, the applicant would have to stop and call in an archaeologist to comply with State regulations.

David Martin, Trails staff, addressed the Board to answer questions by Commissioner Morris on the necessity for moving the trail. He showed on the map where staff is proposing to run the trail.

Mr. Martin also showed on the map where the historical site might be located on the property.

Zoheir Chehayeb, Consultant Civil Engineers, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to advise the ponds are not going to be fenced. He stated the recommendation from Ginger Hoke, Planning staff, was to keep the ponds landscaped heavily. He said they have a landscape architect that worked with the County and they have shifted some of the drainage structures to avoid the big trees on the site.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Chehayeb stated what he envisions would happen to the current trail corridor if the trail is moved to the north side of the property. He said it is State law that if any artifacts are found on the property, they have to look at that and follow the rules.

Shawn McCarthy addressed the Board to state he learned that there have been artifacts recovered on this site. He said he would like an opportunity, with Charlie Carson of the Seminole County Historical Society, to recover what they can off the site. He showed on the map the location of where the old depot site was located. He stressed the importance for the Chuluota Historical Society to retrieve the artifacts.

Commissioner McLain stated he thinks it would be important that the Society have an opportunity to place a marker designating the site of the depot. He said he doesn’t think that would have a negative impact on the project, and Mr. Chehayeb agreed. Commissioner Henley asked if this should be made part of the condition of approval.

Ms. Smith said since there is quite a bit of concern about the historical resource as part of the condition, the Board might want to consider having a preliminary Phase I study done on the site which involves having an archaeologist come in and do a review and listing of the site so that it is data banked in the research files.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. McCarthy named some of the things that were found on the property.

Commissioner Morris discussed if the archaeologist does find that further excavation needs to be done, it can cost $10,000 and up to do a full-blown survey of the site.

Commissioner McLain advised how the road project and Indian Mound was evaluated for archaeology findings. He said he would rather see a marker on the trail rather than in the parking lot.

Chairman Van Der Weide said with anything that can get this expensive, he thinks they need to justify it in steps before going any further.

Commissioner Morris suggested if the depot is that significant, instead of calling this the Chuluota Plaza, the applicant might want to call it Chuluota Depot.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated no one is against an archaeological review of the site and he thinks that can be taken as Phase 1.

Mr. Chehayeb advised Commissioner Maloy that he would not be opposed to working with the Historical Society and residents. He said the issue about the historical site needs to be addressed and if anything is found, they will have to stop the work within the project. He pointed out that this site is just one portion of the project and they would like to continue with their first phase. He said he likes the idea of calling the project the Chuluota Depot.

Commissioner Maloy complimented the applicant for his cooperation with the community.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to approve the Final PCD Site Plan and authorize the Chairman to execute the Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page _______; property located north of 7^th Street on the east side of CR 419, Zoheir Chehayeb; as described in the proof of publication, with additional conditions that the property owner work with the Seminole County Historical Society in reviewing the historical artifacts that could be on the property and work with the community as well on this endeavor.

Under discussion, Commissioner McLain said for clarification the applicant has agreed to allow the County to put a marker on the property to designate the depot. Commissioner Maloy agreed and said further that staff is to work with the property owner in placing a marker at the appropriate time to acknowledge the historical value of the property.

Commissioner Morris also complimented the applicant for his good work and Mr. McCarthy for his persistence in educating the Board members on the historical matters. He asked the Board to review the Chuluota CD as it is quite impressive.

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

-------

Ms. Smith presented the request for approval of the Final PCD Site Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement for the Felgenhauer PCD; property located north of Church Street on the east side of CR 15, Kevin Felgenhauer. She advised that prior to Seminole County issuing any construction permits for the project, a St. Johns River Water Management District permit will have to be obtained and submitted to the Planning Department.

Commissioner McLain stated staff needs to make sure this site plan will work with the intersection at Church Street as the road gets improved. Ms. Smith advised staff is aware of the intersection concerns. She said this property has right-of-way between it. She believes the applicant owns the middle section between Church Street and this site.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to approve the Final PCD Site Plan and authorize the Chairman to execute the Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page _______, for the Felgenhauer PCD; property located north of Church Street on the east side of CR 15; as described in the proof of publication, Kevin Felgenhauer.

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

-------

Matt West presented the request for appeal of denial of Arbor Permit for Oxford Outdoor Advertising; property located at the northeast corner of the railroad and C-15 in the Lake Monroe area; Lonnie Groot, representing the applicant.

Mr. West gave a summary history of the billboard permit. He stated Deputy County Attorney Stephen Lee in his memorandum has recommended that maybe the applicant should seek vested rights determination and then address issuing an arbor permit for the site.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. McMillan answered that this application is under the moratorium because the moratorium applies to all permits, and the Board did not vest anyone when they adopted the ordinance. He said there is always a certain point in a process where someone can be vested and the Code has a provision that permits a hearing officer to determine the issue of vesting.

Commissioner Morris stated the assertion of "bad faith" seems to be the main claim by the applicant. He said he doesn’t know how anyone can interpret "bad faith" in this case, because the issue of the wells not being capped has been admitted to by the applicant, and this was at the discovery of potential wetlands, which had a timeline delay on the application. He said he doesn’t know how anyone can favor this appeal.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. McMillan advised that this item is not a public hearing and the Board generally does not take public input but the appellant has the right to be heard and can make his presentation.

Attorney Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen, representing Oxford Outdoor Advertising, addressed the Board to state based upon some of the comments made so far, he will make a record to protect the rights of the applicant and the fee owner, and he hopes that will be persuasive to the Board. He introduced Sid Vihlen, Jr., representative for the fee owner.

Chairman Van Der Weide recessed the meeting at 10:28 a.m. for a break and reconvened at 10:45 a.m.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he consulted with Mr. McMillan and asked him for a recommendation.

Mr. McMillan advised the options the Board has if they do not wish to go through a long hearing.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to continue this Appeal of denial of Arbor Permit for Oxford Outdoor Advertising until the vested rights issue is resolved; property located at the northeast corner of the railroad and C-15 in the Lake Monroe area; as described in the proof of publication, Lonnie Groot.

Under discussion, Commissioner Henley asked who will resolve the vested rights issue, the Board or the County Attorney. Whereupon, Commissioner McLain stated Mr. McMillan indicated there would be an individual (a hearing officer) to deal with that.

Mr. West advised that the process begins with the Planning Director who makes the ruling and it can be appealed to a Hearing officer.

Mr. Groot objected and said this was a misstatement of the law.

Commissioner Maloy said he supports the District Commissioner. He said he doesn’t have a problem as far as vesting goes and determining that the moratorium did not apply. He thinks it is an issue of fairness where the application was made six months before the moratorium was put in place. He said some of the delays were the applicant’s fault and some were the County’s fault. He said it was not his intent to deny someone his property rights in a situation like this.

Commissioner Henley stated he has the same concerns with the time line as Commissioner Maloy just enumerated. He said after reviewing the time line, he is not as concerned as he was thinking that maybe the County staff was dragging their feet. He said, realizing that this was not the only application the staff had to deal with, there were delays first to receive the arbor permit, then the issues of the wetland and tree survey. He said a lot of the delays were waiting to receive appropriate information and from the time line, once staff received the information, they responded within one to two weeks. He thinks it is reasonable to think that staff did act in a reasonable amount of time. Then the Board assigned staff to draft the moratorium while they were dealing with these other issues. He said he supports having the applicant submit in writing his arguments because he wants to make sure he gets a fair hearing and the Board has before them in a tangible form all the data needed in order to make a fair decision.

Commissioner Morris stated the reason he seconded the motion is that he would be happy to look, on some future date, at the vested rights issue. He said the two issues of vested rights and the arbor permit need to be dealt with as best they can on separate bases. He thinks the Commissioner, with the County Attorney, has fashioned a good solution to deal with the arbor permit denial in writing so they can see what the arguments are and differentiate through the Code process the vested rights issue.

Attorney Groot stated his objection is that the memorandum cited Chapter 15 of the Land Development Code and that was the process Mr. West referred to. He said Chapter 15 has nothing to do with this process, but was drafted to deal with vested rights under the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. He said he objects going through that process. He said Chapter 5 deals with hearing officers, and they would not go back to the Planning Development Director but to the hearing officer. He also objected to that process, but said if the Board sends them there, the Code says the hearing officer shall be selected through a request for proposals in a manner authorized by the County Manager and consistent with the County’s purchasing procedures. He said there are no hearing officers at this time to send this matter to.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Grace said he would have to check to see if staff has done a specific report outlining what hearing officer has been used in the past.

Mr. McMillan said he thinks the Board has the authority to refer something to a hearing officer notwithstanding the provisions of the Code. He said if the stated provision does not apply, then they will not use that.

Commissioner McLain stated it is important to him to protect the rights of the property owners. The first thing they need to establish is if there are vested rights and he thinks the appropriate way to do that is through the hearing officer. He doesn’t see a need to go through the Planning Department, but directly to the hearing officer.

Upon further discussion, Mr. McMillan advised he would not have a problem with going directly to the hearing officer.

Commissioner Morris clarified that the hearing officer will deal only with the vested rights issue and the appeal will come back to the Board in three weeks. Whereupon, Mr. Grace stated the motion was that the appeal would come back after the vested rights issue is resolved.

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

Commissioner Morris and Mr. McMillan left the meeting at this time.

Alice Gilmartin, Planning Division, addressed the Board to give a briefing on transit funded issues and to give an update on the status of the transit studies. The written report was received and filed. She reviewed the transit funding for next year for operating expenses of buses for ADA for paratransit and membership to the Transportation Authority, which totals approximately $2.8 million. She said staff is concerned that there may be a reduction in the amount of the ninth cent gas tax that the Commissioners have pledged to cover the operating costs for Lynx. Staff thinks the possible deficit could be about $850,000 for operating expenses. That could be offset some if the cities give more money or if they trade out some capital for operating expenses.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide about the deficit with the gas tax, Cindy Hall, Fiscal Services Director, addressed the Board to state the gas tax revenue is coming in flat. She said the revenue is based on the gallons sold and not the price. Staff is holding that flat for next year to see if it doesn’t cover the increase being requested by Lynx. Mr. Grace said that is to keep the same service levels as now.

Ms. Gilmartin reviewed the current levels of service and the one enhancement to route 39.

Commissioner Morris reentered the meeting at this time.

Commissioner McLain stated he is very concerned about some of the recommendations the Technical Committee made. He said the Board is looking at plans and those the MPO is approving that will cost millions of dollars to the taxpayers of Seminole County, and he is very concerned about that. He is going to be looking for information about reevaluating their entire bus system before they get to the budget because these are some big decisions the Board is making. He said the Board needs to evaluate what they are going to do with the rail system as it approaches Seminole County. They can’t forget they have other communities (other than Altamonte Springs) that want to have service and the Orlando-Sanford Airport is going to have needs for fixed transportation. He said he doesn’t sense that there is a good consensus in the region of what they are going to do.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he has sent the message forward that there are basically two factors that have to be addressed in Seminole County—Altamonte Springs and the CSX and the Orlando-Sanford Airport.

Mr. McMillan reentered the meeting at this time.

Commissioner Morris congratulated Ms. Gilmartin on the excellent summary of all the current transit issues. He asked when would the overall study analysis be done.

Ms. Gilmartin said staff would be prepared to come back in mid-September with recommendations from the transit study. She said this is ongoing now. She is planning to come to the Board at the end of July to give a briefing of the preliminary costs of transit options.

Commissioner Morris said it is important to him that they come up with another policy statement because the conditions have changed dramatically since the last time they had a policy, and they are still carrying the one made four or five years ago.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he thinks it is worthwhile to send a clear message to everyone involved that the Board will be going through the budget process and they may or may not agree with some of their thought processes. He said he and Commissioner McLain sit on the MPO and they don’t want to tie their hands to be able to promote the Board’s position in Seminole County. He thinks they have the best working group on the MPO than ever, and he believes Seminole County is in an excellent position to have its issues heard and to prevail.

Commissioner Henley stated staff has done a good job in raising the issues that there is a severe problem maintaining the present service; and they are still questioning whether it is the appropriate service. He hopes the study will show what the impact of the circulator system in Lynx will have upon the County’s program. He thinks their main focus should be moving people within Seminole County to get where they need to be. He doesn’t think they have raised the fees often so that the riders contribute a major amount. These are issues they need to seriously look at and he hopes staff doesn’t wait till budget time and have all this thrust upon the Board to make a decision.

Commissioner Maloy said he doesn’t think it will fly to bring the $851,586 deficit to the budget. He suggested staff come back with the service remaining the same and the cost for the new bus route.

Dick Thomas, Planning, addressed the Board to describe Route 46 and the need to add another bus to maintain the one hour schedule.

Whereupon, Commissioner Maloy suggested reconfiguring the route to keep the one hour service. He said they should not be saying now that the County is going to add on another bus at that cost.

The Board discussed with Mr. Thomas the Route 46 schedule and if staff has looked at whether some stops could be eliminated. Whereupon, Ms. Gilmartin advised staff is waiting for Lynx to release their ridership information.

Chairman Van Der Weide said this is going to come down to a matter of priorities. He is hearing that the Commissioners need certain information and he thinks the Board needs a presentation by Mr. Brooks and Lynx to discuss these issues.

Mr. Grace said staff will be providing his recommended budget to the Board and he will be recommending solutions.

Commissioner Maloy suggested eliminating the extra bus; reconfiguring routes to shorten them and make them more efficient; an aggressive push to ask the Cities for more money and for those cities to contribute who now have service they are not paying for.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Ms. Chandler stated Lynx does report the ridership and collection monthly to the County by the entire route, but not by each stop. Mr. Thomas advised this information has not been given to the County the last few months because the employee who compiled the information is no longer with Lynx.

Commissioner Morris said he believes the Board needs these issues brought forward so they can stand united on where and what they are going to fund. They need to come up with a strong policy statement and need to send the proper signal to Lynx and the MPO.

During discussion, Commissioner McLain said he thinks they need to make it very clear to Metroplan that Seminole County might not be prepared to vote on the recommendation of the Technical Committee in June, and they want to continue it so they can fully evaluate their mass transit element. Whereupon, Commissioner Morris said he supports that. Further discussion continued.

Ms. Gilmartin clarified that the recommendation of the Technical Committee was accepting the recommendations, but to support only that part of the light rail program that was in the financial feasible plan, which is the route that would go to Central Parkway. She said the North Corridor Study makes recommendations beyond that point to SR 434. The recommendation from the Technical Committee was that this was an unfunded need.

-------

Commissioner Morris complimented the SHIP Program’s Home Ownership Assistance Program for the accomplishments evidenced by Items #21 - #34 of the Agenda for satisfactions of mortgages.

---

Commissioner Maloy reminded the Board that a request for continuance has been made for District 1 Item #63 for tonight. He advised his recommendation would be to continue the hearing.

The Board recessed the meeting at 11:30 a.m., reconvening at 1:32 p.m., this same date, with all Commissioners (with Commissioner Morris entering late) and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who were present at the Opening Session.

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

Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Morris entered the meeting at this time.

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to vacate and abandon a portion of a drainage and utility easement located at the southwest corner of SR 426 and Red Bug Lake Road, Tanya M. Hardy, representing Oviedo CrossRoads, Inc., received and filed.

Ian Ratliff, Principal Planner, addressed the Board to present the request, advising the vacate will accommodate the development of a McDonalds. He stated the applicant agrees to re-dedicate the utility easement prior to the recording of the vacate resolution. He added that staff recommends approval.

Howard Bradley, Vice President of Oviedo CrossRoads, Inc., addressed the Board to advise he will answer any questions.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-96, as shown on page ________, vacating and abandoning a portion of a drainage and utility easement located at the southwest corner of SR 426 and Red Bug Lake Road, as described in the proof of publication, Tanya M. Hardy, representing Oviedo CrossRoads, Inc.

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

Chairman Van Der Weide advised that he is recommending a 3% salary increase for County Attorney, Robert McMillan.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to award County Attorney, Robert McMillan, a 3% annual merit increase.

Under discussion, Commissioner Henley stated his only concern is what signal this sends to the other County employees. He further stated that he would like to, somewhere along the line, get into a posture of considering all raises at the same time rather than piece-meal.

Chairman Van Der Weide suggested the County Manager look into how the Board can combine all salary increases through the budget process.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Grace advised his annual merit will be due next month.

Commissioner Morris stated that is where there is a significant disparity.

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

-------

Chairman Van Der Weide requested the Board notify the Natural Lands Committee members that they should be pursuing property that is not already under the ownership of the local government and already protected.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner McLain to authorize the Chairman to send a letter to the members of the Natural Lands Committee advising them that they should not be wasting time reviewing properties already owned by the County.

Under discussion, the Chairman also requested the County Attorney and County Manager to review the rules of procedure (only items listed on the agenda should be discussed, unless there is an emergency) with the committee members.

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

Commissioner Morris stated there is a potential miscommunication with the City of Oviedo relating to the Winter Miles property and the equestrian element at the park.

Commissioner McLain stated it is clear an equestrian element was supposed to be part of the park. He stated the Board needs to reaffirm that to the City of Oviedo and City staff.

Commissioner Morris requested the Board direct Mr. Grace to communicate, both in writing and by telephone, to the City Manager that an equestrian element is to be included with the development of the park.

Commissioner Henley stated he believes it is appropriate for County staff to research the interlocal agreement with the City to determine exactly what is included in the agreement. Discussion ensued.

The Chairman stated the staff will research this issue along with the interlocal agreement and will bring same back to the Board at their next meeting for discussion.

-------

Commissioner Morris advised he, Mr. Wert, and Mr. Grace will draft a report on their recent trip to Wicklow, Ireland. He advised that Rob Nixon, Economic Development Manager, was unable to attend at the last minute.

Mr. Grace stated one of the things they worked on was taking this Sister County relationship to a new level; and they have identified a number of things from a tourism and economic development standpoint that they can work on.

-------

Commissioner Henley advised that Commissioner McLain did an excellent job in filling in for the Chairman at the MOIAC International Convention.

-------

Commissioner Henley advised he saw a small article in the newspaper relating to slot machines being located in racetracks.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated there are enough petition signatures to go to the Supreme Court in order to get a ruling to see if the issue can be put on the ballot.

-------

Commissioner Henley briefly discussed the letter from Sheriff Eslinger regarding Rave Clubs.

The Board was advised that the County Manager and County Attorney are researching this issue.

-------

Commissioner Henley briefly discussed Kewannee Park. Requests have been received for the installation of restrooms at the park. However, restrooms are not in the budget.

Commissioner Morris advised he received a phone call complaining about trees being cut down in the area. Commissioner Henley stated he has researched this and has found no evidence of same.

-------

The Chairman surrendered the gavel to the Vice Chairman and left the meeting at this time.

Commissioner McLain briefly discussed mass transit, stating he knows the Board wants to move slowly regarding mass transit, in order to be clear on the County's transit needs.

-------

Commissioner McLain requested Board clarification for staff direction on the Celery Avenue land use issues. Copy of Memo dated May 22, 2001, regarding same was received and filed. He advised the City of Sanford plans on annexing the property. He stated that the property cannot be developed with any higher density than Low Density Residential. He added that he would like to see staff work on protecting the low density land use designation for this entire corridor.

Planning & Development Director, Don Fisher, addressed the Board to recommend the Board direct staff to start the administrative land use amendment process in order to protect the land use.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to direct staff to start the administrative land use amendment process in conjunction with the 2001 Fall Cycle update of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan to change the future land use designation along Celery Avenue according to the presentation given by staff at the BCC meeting of April 24, 2001.

Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Commissioner McLain reminded the Board that the Seminole County Expressway Authority Meeting is scheduled for 4:00 p.m. this date.

-------

Commissioner Van Der Weide re-entered the meeting at this time and assumed the position of Chairman.

Commissioner Maloy advised he received a correspondence from Mr. Goode, father of Kathy Bowlin, who passed away. Mr. Goode requested that Commissioner Maloy express the family's appreciation to the Board, County Manager, Purchasing Department and County Commission Records, for their kind expressions of love and sympathy.

-------

Commissioner Morris stated on May 18, 2001 graduation was held for Leadership Seminole. The Community Leadership Award for lifetime achievement was given to Everett Huskey and the Education Award was given to Dr. Earl Weldon.

The Board offered condolences to the family of Dr. Earl Weldon, who passed away on May 19, 2001.

Commissioner Henley advised he has been attending the School Readiness Coalition Council meetings; and they are reviewing the actual cost to provide pre-school services.

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

1. E-mail dated May 5, 2001, from Aurora Jablonowski, expressing opposition to an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment in denying a Special Exception to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in the University Palms Shopping Center located at northeast corner of McCulloch Road and SR 434 - Public Hearing scheduled for May 22, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler)
2. Copy of letter dated May 11, 2001, from the Chairman to A. Lennon Moore, District Planning Manager, Florida Department of Transportation, Re: Development of the Florida Department of Transportation Five-year Work Program for Fiscal Years 2002/2003 through 2006/2007, in response to attached letter from Ms. Moore. (cc: J. Kevin Grace, County Manager, James N. Marino, D.C.M., Frances Chandler, D.C.M., W. Gary Johnson, Public Works Director, Jerry McCollum, County Engineer)
3. Facsimiles and E-mails from the following Re: Proposed Development of the Seventh Day Adventist Property Between SR 436 and Sand Lake Road: Mel Hamilton, Martin H. deAlminana, Suzanne Arwady, Ravi K. Bahl, Mr. and Mrs. Roger Amundsen.
4. Copy of letter dated May 14, 2001, from Jim Duby, Principal Coordinator/Natural Lands, to Mr. Darnell Kreuzer and Members of Democrats Unite, expressing appreciation for choosing the Lake Jesup Wilderness Area as the site for a community service volunteer event on Sunday, May 6, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, and Manager, Administration, Planning and Development)
5. Minutes of the Seminole County Historical Commission meeting of April 19, 2001, and attached Museum Report. (cc: Board)
6. Facsimile (letter and attachments) dated May 11, 2001, from Franklin Perez, Resident of Carrigan Woods Subdivision, in support of Riverwind Parking LLP/Riverwind at Alafaya Trail - Rezone from R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) and PUD preliminary master plan) (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning and Development Director, Planning)
7. Letter dated May 8, 2001, from D. Ray Eubanks, Community Program Administrator, Dept. of Community Affairs, acknowledging receipt of the County's Small Scale Development Plan Amendment adopted on April 10, 2001, and advising that the Department will not conduct a compliance review or issue a Notice of Intent. (cc: Board, DCM/Chandler, Executive Director, ECFRPC, Planning and Development Director)
8. Copy of letter dated May 10, 2001, from Daniel Shaw, Seminole County Plumbing Advisory Board to Larry Goldman, Building Official, Re: State Contractors Certification. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director)
9. Memorandum dated May 7, 2001, from J. Kevin Grace, County Manager, to the Board, Re: Audit of the Development Review Fund. (cc: DCM/Chandler, DCM/ Marino, Planing & Development Director)
10. Memorandum dated May 10, 2001, from J. Kevin Grace, County Manager, to the Board, Department Directors, and Division Managers, Re: Public Works - Roads/Stormwater Reorganization)
11. Memorandum from J. Kevin Grace, County Manager, to the Board advising that Deputy County Manager Frances Chandler will be serving as Acting County Manager during his absence from May 11 to May 17, 2001. (cc: DCM/Marino, DCM/Chandler)
12. Copy of Memorandum dated May 9, 2001, to Commissioner Daryl McLain, from Stephen P. Lee, Deputy County Attorney, Re: Vihlen Sign Site; CR 15. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Comp Planning Manager, Lonnie N. Groot, Esq.)
13. Letter dated May 10, 2001, from Sid Vihlen, Jr., President, Rand Yard Railway Development Corporation, to the Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, County Attorney, Planning & Development Director, Re: Oxford Outdoor Advertising Application for Outdoor Billboard/CR 15 at I-4/Property Owner: Rand Yard Railway Development Corp.
14. Copy of letter dated May 11, 2001, from Lou Musica, Real Estate Representative, Eller Media Company, to Stephen P. Lee, Deputy County Attorney, Re: Status of Building Permit application #0-321 for Billboard sign redevelopment required by Ordinance. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler)
15. Letter from Harold Webb, Project Manager, Florida Department of Transportation, advising of Public Information Meeting to be held Re: SR 434 Project Development and Environment Study from Montgomery/Wekiva Springs Road to US 17/92. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Marino, Public Works Director, County Engineer)
16. Copy of letter dated May 2, 2001, from Sumner Hutcheson, III, Chief Executive Officer, American Red Cross, to Commissioner Daryl G. McLain, providing summary of emergency services recently provided in County Commission District Five. (cc: County Manager)
17. Copy of letter dated May 3, 2001, from E. Ann McGee, President, Seminole Community College, to Congressman John L. Mica Re: Final design plans for connecting the new segment of the GreeneWay (SR 417) to Interstate 4. (cc: Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Public Works Director, County Engineer)
18. Copy of letter dated May 7, 2001, from Lonnie N. Groot, Shutts & Bowen, to Ginny Markley, Zoning Coordinator, Re: Nobel Learning Communities; Request for Continuance. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, BCC Records, Nobel Learning Communities, Frank Shelton, Tom Cloud, Esq., Pastor Bob Parker, Bob Picerne, Picerne Development Company, The Bywater Companies, Bowyer Singleton & Assoc., Dave Mulholland, P.E.)
19. Copy of Memorandum from Kathryn J. Brown, Senior Planner-One Stop Permitting to Sandy McCann, County Records, Re: Submissions into County Records)
20. Notice and Agenda for Seminole County Port Authority Meeting of May 16, 2001.
21. Copies of letter dated May 9, 2001, from J. Suzy Goldman, Library & Leisure Services Director, to Stacy Carden, President, GFWC Oviedo Woman's Club, and to The Arthur J. Gallagher Foundation, expressing appreciation for recent donations.

1. Letter dated May 14, 2001, from Ms. Faith G. Miller, MMC, City Clerk, City of Deltona, to the Chairman, transmitting a certified copy of Resolution No. 2001-12, supporting efforts by the Florida Department of Transportation to install highway lighting on Interstate 4 along the St. Johns River Bridge and U.S. 17/92 interchange. (cc: Board, County Managers, DCMs, County Engineer)
2. Letter dated May 14, 2001, from Raivo and Lilianne Raud to the Chairman, and attached correspondence to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Re: Florida Gas Transmission Company Phase V Expansion Project. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Comp. Planning)
3. Copy of letter dated May 15, 2001, from Bob Chorvat, Manager, Parks and Recreation, to Surplus Steel and Supply, expressing appreciation for recent donation of $75 in memory of Kaylee German. (cc: Suzy Goldman, Director, Library & Leisure Services)
4. Letter dated May 18, 2001, from Richard W. Wells, AICP, Community Development Director, to the County Manager, transmitting copies of Ordinance 01-1009 and Ordinance 01-1016, and attached legal descriptions and maps, redefining the corporate limits of the City of Casselberry as adopted by the Casselberry City Commission. (cc: Property Appraiser, Supervisor of Elections, Planning & Development)
5. Memorandum (facsimile) dated May 16, 2001, from Diane Crews, Commission Liaison, City of Sanford, to all Interested Parties, Re: Governor's Visit - Front Porch Florida Rally - Friday, May 18, 2001.
6. Letter and attachments dated May 18, 2001, to the Board from Lou Musica, Real Estate Representative, Eller Media, Re: Ordinance amending the Outdoor Advertising Sign provisions of the Land Development Code - Public Hearing May 22, 2001, Item #62. (cc: Board, Director of Planning and Development, Code Enforcement Officers)
7. E-mail dated May 14, 2001, from Albert J. and Judith A. Kruger Re: Florida Gas Transmission Company Phase V Expansion Project. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
8. Contract for Services, as shown on page _______, dated March 25, 2001, between Seminole County Parks and Recreation and Lindsey Funkhouser to keep score of Slow-Pitch Softball.
9. Memorandum dated May 14, 2001, from Frances E. Chandler, Deputy County Manager, to the Board and County Manager, Re: Conference Center/Hotel RFQ.
10. Newsletter from the School Board of Seminole County. (cc: Board)
11. Copy of Invoice in the amount of $50,000, dated May 15, 2001, from Sandra Glenn, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, to the County Manager, Re: Regional Development Program Invoice. (cc: Board, Director of Fiscal Services, Director of Planning & Development)
12. Memorandum dated May 21, 2001, from Doris-anne Freeman, City Clerk, City of Altamonte Springs, transmitting copy of Ordinance No. 1402-01 and 1403-01 - annexing Skip's Western Outfitters - 1207 E. Altamonte Drive (E. SR 436). (cc: Property Appraiser, Planning & Development Director, GIS, Bldg. & Fire Prevention)
13. E-mail dated May 16, 2001, from Jered W. Coakley Re: Billboard Ban. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director)
14. Copy of letter dated May 15, 2001, from Chairman to Ray Eubanks, Florida Dept. of Community Affairs, Re: Transmittal of Adopted Springs 2001 Large Scale Plan Amendments and Evaluation and Appraisal Report Based Amendments to the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. (cc: as noted)
15. Memorandum dated May 17, 2001, from Kathryn J. Brown, Senior Planner-One Stop Permitting, to Sandy McCann, County Records, Re: Submissions into County Records. (cc: Board, County Manager, Environmental Services Director)
16. Letter dated May 15, 2001, from Sandra S. Glenn, Executive Director, East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Re: St. Johns American Heritage River Initiative. (cc: Board)
17. Copy of e-mail dated May 12, 2001, from Jeffery E. Prescott to Stan Bessamer Re: Kewannee Trails Park - Bathroom Issue. (cc: Board, County Manager)
18. Letter dated May 18, 2001, from J. D. Stone, commending Seminole County Stormwater staff. (cc: County Manager, DCM/Marino, Public Works Director, Human Resources)
19. Memorandum dated May 17, 2001, from Jerry McCollum, County Engineer, to the Board and County Manager, Re: Trail Program Update. (cc: DCMs, Director of Public Works, Engineers, Ginger Hoke, Trails Coordinator)
20. Copy of Letter dated May 17, 2001, from Mrs. Dale Sullivan Re: Riverwinds parking. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
21. Letter dated April 17, 2001, from Alan Davis Re: Code Enforcement issues. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
22. E-mail dated May 17, 2001, from Garrett Digman RE: Proposed development for area on the southeast corner of SR 46 and Longwood/Markham Road. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
23. Letter from Teresa Stevens, President, Board of Directors, Creekwood Homeowners Association, RE: Special Exception for sale of alcohol for off-premises consumption. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Zoning)

Mr. Grace advised the budget transfers relating to the One Cent Sales Tax Referendum will be brought back at the public hearing scheduled on June 26, 2001.

-------

Mr. Grace advised the State-wide Hurricane Exercise will be held on Wednesday, May 23, 2001.

-------

The Board, thereupon, recessed at 2:35 p.m., reconvening at 7:05 p.m., this same date with all Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who were present at the Opening Session.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance amending the Outdoor Advertising Sign provisions of the Land Development Code, received and filed.

Don Fisher, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board to advise the first public hearing was held on May 8, 2001. He reviewed what the ordinance will provide relating to a cap of the number boards, limiting the number of signs as they exist in the County, and provisions for removal of vegetation. He distributed a copy of the revised ordinance and advised that this is basically the same ordinance that was presented during the May 8, 2001 meeting. He referred to Page 3, Section 1 (b) and advised that staff had a time identifying the number of signs that exist in unincorporated Seminole County. The following language will be added at the end of Section 1 (b): "The Planning Manager may administratively adjust the number of existing signs upon presentation of evidence sufficient to show that an outdoor advertising sign existed on the effective date of this ordinance and was not included in the inventory dated May 8, 2001, as amended."

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Fisher advised that all of the signs have come into compliance except for one. He stated if a nonconforming sign is found six months from now, there would be two types of violation. One is they did not bring their sign into compliance with the original provision and secondly, if they bring it into compliance with the original provision, it will be included in that cap. It will not be in the cap if another noncompliance sign is found.

Mr. Fisher discussed with the Board relating to the issue of the non-conforming sign that is located on Markham Woods/SR 434.

He submitted pictures of those signs (received and filed) that will be included in the inventory. He referred to Page 4, Section 2 (d) and advised that section clarifies two points that were brought up at the first meeting. He read the following that will be added: "The intent of subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4) above is to prohibit the replacement of any existing structure that is removed by the agreements, actions or requirements of parties other than Seminole County, except when the County deals with property owned or managed by the County". He submitted clarification (received and filed) of Section 5, Removal or Trimming of Trees and Vegetation and read same into the Record.

Commissioner Morris suggested inserting in the third line to the last the words "of similar size and material" after "to replant vegetation". Mr. Fisher stated staff concurs with that recommendation.

Mr. Fisher continued by reviewing the issues that were brought up at the first public hearing. He referred to the issue of removal of faces of signs to prepare for disasters for regular maintenance. He said that was cleared up at the first public hearing and staff concurs that is not a requirement of this ordinance. The revision clarified that redevelopment or site development does not reduce the cap and is not a situation caused by the County. That is directly associated with the site development or redevelopment and that is clarified in the ordinance.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Fisher advised there was discussion at the first meeting relating to 50% or more of the face of the sign and it is not necessary to change that language as this refers to removal of the sign due to damage or some type of destruction.

Mr. Fisher referred to the lease agreements and when they expire. He stated staff recommends that this language stay the same in the ordinance. They feel this is the most effective way to achieve the goal of reducing the number of signs. He stated Commissioner Maloy brought up the issue relating to faces of the signs and allowing cutouts to be the same size as those allowed in Orange County. He said Commissioner Morris recommended that the ordinance be adopted as being proposed. He added Commissioner Van Der Weide indicated that the vegetation removal language should be revised to allow for regular maintenance. Commissioner Henley had comments relative to the expiration of the lease and that a new lease agreement should be in place prior to expiration of the lease of an existing sign, and some time frame should be given for that new sign being erected. He stated Commissioner Henley also had no objections to minor pruning of an existing site. Commissioner McLain had concerns relating to leases dealing with monopoly. Staff had the opinion that although there are some advantages given to the billboard company, there is also an advantage to the property owner. The property owner also has leverage that no other sign can go up in the County because of the cap. It would behoove the billboard company to negotiate their compensation because both would stand to lose if the sign was removed. Staff feels that this is a good provision because it does further the objective of reducing the number of signs in the County.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Fisher advised the language that staff proposes is on Page 3 of the agenda memorandum. He read same into the Record.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Fisher advised the language would allow the billboard industry to sell their location to other companies, but it wouldn’t allow the property owner to negotiate with another company for a new sign. With an existing board, it would allow the property owner to negotiate with another company.

Commissioner Henley stated if an alternative is considered, he would like to see a new contract 30 days prior to expiration of the existing contract.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels there will be a problem in the future when the property owner is in the position of taking or leaving it with no alternatives.

Commissioner Maloy recommended striking the wording that it would be only a new outdoor advertising company. In the event of someone wanting to negotiate an existing sign company and in the end makes a better offer, he would hate to limit the property owner from sticking with the same company in the event that negotiations with the current sign company were better. He stated he would recommend striking the language relating to a new company and a different company.

Commissioner McLain stated when it is time to renew the lease, the company has two choices. One is they can negotiate a renewal of the lease and if they can’t do that, they will have to take the sign down. If another company wants to negotiate a lease, then that new company will have to negotiate an acquisition of their infrastructure of that sign. That makes it so that everyone is on a level playing ground.

Commissioner Morris stated he doesn’t want to get into the private business affairs between a billboard company and a property owner. He asked why doesn’t the Board wait to see if they are going to have a problem. If so, then they can amend the ordinance.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he feels there is consensus of the Board to leave this issue the way it is and if there is a problem, it can be addressed at that time.

Mr. Fisher stated there is nothing in the ordinance that prevents development agreements coming in at a future date. Staff is requesting authorization to do a research on tri-vision boards. Eller Media brought up an issue dealing with grandfathering and staff feels the Land Development Code adequately addresses this use and additional provisions are not necessary. He stated variance standards should be treated like any other use. He stated staff had discussions with the County Attorney’s office on whether cut-out provisions could be provided for in this ordinance. He submitted proposed language relating to 15% cut-outs with 5-ft. extensions and he stated this language is similar to Orange County’s language. He said the Planning & Development Director may approve alteration of an existing sign in relation to cut-outs. Language relating to cut-outs not exceeding 15% of the area and the cul-de-sac does not extend no more than 5 ft. was received and filed.

Commissioner Morris displayed a copy of two pictures (received and filed) of billboards with cutouts.

Commissioner Henley stated he has mixed feelings with regard to one sentence in Section 4, Reconstruction of Damaged or Destroyed Existing Structures. He stated the last sentence says that an existing structure may not be relocated to another area and he would like to see the Board dictate the right to do that, if they feel it is in the public interest to do so.

Commissioner Morris stated he feels staff should bring this issue back to the Board in 90 to 120 days.

Mr. Fisher stated if staff receives a request from the industry, they can apply the actual standards of that issue. That could be in 90 days or even a year from now.

Jay Jurie, 408 S. Virginia Ave., addressed the Board to commend staff for doing an excellent job in bringing forth an ordinance on billboards. He stated he believes there is a variety of benefits in passing this ordinance in terms of environment, economic opportunities, eco-tourism and maintaining an attractive viable community.

Susan Eberle, 652 W. Palm Valley Dr., addressed the Board to state she represents the Sierra Club and staff has done an excellent job with the billboard ordinance. She stated she would love to see more trees than billboards and she supports the request.

Ralph Ritter, 1810 Torrington Circle, addressed the Board to state he supports the ordinance. This ordinance recognizes that times are changing and there are up-scaled development trends throughout the County. He stated the tree-trimming portion of the ordinance is vital in maintaining the integrity of tree canopies.

Grey Wilson, 1468 Shadwell Circle, addressed the Board to submit a picture (received and filed) of a billboard in Pasco County. He stated he is on the Board of Directors of the Scenic America Florida Chapter. He said he feels that no billboards should be permitted in any residential, historic, agricultural, neighborhood shopping districts, scenic districts or within 1500 ft. of any residence, park, school, church, hospital, cemetery, convention center or government building.

Richard Dunkel, 2314 Hillside Dr., Mount Dora, addressed the Board to state he is pleased with the Board considering the billboard ordinance. He stated he has concerns relating to the quality of the trail experience and the aesthetics.

Robert King, 2211 Black Hammock, addressed the Board to state he feels the Board is looking out for the residents' interest, safety and public welfare.

Stan Bessmer, 1301 Glastonberry Rd., addressed the Board to state the one thing he likes about this ordinance is the interest of health, safety, and moral welfare of Seminole County. He stated he feels that the adult entertainment establishments and billboards are hard to get rid of once they are in place. He urged the Board to approve the ordinance.

James Coakley, 2740 W. Hwy. 46, addressed the Board to state he was originally against the ordinance but with the amendments made he has changed his mind. He stated he is here to represent the local contractor who work on these billboards.

Lou Musica, representing Eller Media, addressed the Board to state he would like to thank staff for coming up with an accurate inventory. He stated he supports the Board’s action in trying to stop the erection of additional signs in the County. He referred to Page 4, Section 2(c)(5) of the ordinance and stated that section relates to 50% of the sign facing. He said he would like a period inserted at the end of the words "50% or more of the support structure" and the rest of the sentence deleted. He added he feels that 50% of the face of the sign does not correspond with the intent of the provision. He supports the language relating to cut-outs. He said he would like to ask the Board to allow staff to work with his company to come up with some relocation language.

Mr. Musica discussed with the Board the issue relating to taking down the structure due to destruction or damage.

Franklin Perez, 598 Carrigan Woods Trail, addressed the Board to speak in opposition of the ordinance. He stated he feels this ordinance will infringe on freedom of expression and private property rights. This ordinance will hurt small businesses that cannot afford to advertise on billboards.

Rick Furman, representing Lamar Outdoor Advertising, addressed the Board to state with 17 structures in the County, he could recommend the ordinance as it is written now. He stated he would like to continue working with staff in the ability to relocate structures.

James Coakley, 1349 Via Villanova Way, addressed the Board to state he opposes the ordinance and what the Board is promoting is a monopolization of a business. If someone wanted to go into the advertising business, they cannot do so while the existing businesses can stay in business.

William Clifford, 941 Lake Charm Drive, addressed the Board to state this ordinance hurts legal business as it tries to curtail legitimate trade. This ordinance takes away an opportunity for small businesses to advertise on small inexpensive billboards.

John Pfeiffer, 257 Sandpiper Drive, addressed the Board to state he opposes the ordinance. He stated he has spent 50 years in the outdoor industry and he is shocked to hear that the other outdoor advertising business is endorsing this ordinance. He said he is not opposed to limiting the number of signs; but they do not need any more laws governing signs.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

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

Commissioner Morris stated he would like to thank the Board members in allowing him to work with staff and the billboard industry. He stated he feels that this is a very positive step and one that is long overdue. The one thing that the ordinance did not contemplate is relocation. He added he would be happy to work with staff and the industry in bringing that issue back. He said he feels that the cut-outs can lead to a better quality product and allow more creativity. The Orange County ordinance is probably one that would lead to a better solution. He said he feels the language relating to cut-outs not extending 5 ft. beyond the edges of the existing face should be inserted in the ordinance. He stated he feels that the cut-out language can be brought back to the Board as well as the development agreement concept of removing the signs and reducing the size.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt Ordinance #2001-22, as shown on page _________, amending the requirements of the Land Development Code pertaining to Outdoor Advertising Signage, with the comments included by staff.

Under discussion and upon inquiry by Stephen Lee, Commissioner Morris advised the language relating to replanting vegetation is included in the motion.

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

- - -

Chairman Van Der Weide Commissioner Morris will continue to work with staff and the billboard industry regarding the relocation of clustered signs and cut-outs.

Commissioner Morris stated he believes the inventory needs to be dealt with as well.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide, Mr. Fisher advised he would request a time frame of 180 days in working out these issues.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment (BOA) in denying a Special Exception to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (a package store) in the University Palms Shopping Center located on the northeast corner of McCulloch Road and SR 434, Meechal Patel and Ashok Patel, received and filed.

Mr. Grace stated staff has received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to June 12, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to continue to June 12, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, request to consider an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment (BOA) in denying a Special Exception to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (a package store) in the University Palms Shopping Center located on the northeast corner of McCulloch Road and SR 434, as described in the proof of publication, Meechal Patel and Ashok Patel.

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

Chairman Van Der Weide recessed the meeting at 8:28 p.m., reconvening at 8:45 p.m., with all Commissioners in attendance.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a Small Scale Plan Amendment from Commercial to Planned Development; and Rezone from C-2 (Retail Commercial) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District); and approve PCD Preliminary Site Plan and Rezoning Development Order for property described as approximately 1.7 acres, located at the northwest corner of Oak Lane and Ridge Street, approximately 20 feet east of the intersection of U.S. 17-92 and Oak Lane, extending approximately 335 feet north of Oak Lane, Mike Hattaway, received and filed.

Tony Matthews, Planning, addressed the Board to state the proposed use for this property is for general commercial/office/warehouse uses. Staff recommends approval of the Plan Amendment and Rezoning with conditions outlined in the proposed development order. He stated since this is a PCD, it will require a further step for a final PCD site plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement. That issue will come back to the Board at a later date. He referred to page 6 of the development conditions and advised there were concerns from residents relating to traffic circulation patterns. Staff has addressed that issue and has placed the following in the staff report: "Developer shall design and implement traffic access controls, including appropriate signage, pavement markings and other traffic control techniques, as appropriate, to discourage east bound left turn movements from this site onto Oak Lane. Developer shall coordinate this design with Seminole County." He added this property is within the City of Longwood water and sewer area and utilities will be provided by them with the condition that the property will be annexed in the city.

Mike Hattaway, applicant, addressed the Board to state he concurs with staff’s recommendations and he will be glad to answer any questions.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to adopt Ordinance #2001-23, as shown on page __________, adopting Planned Development; to adopt Ordinance #2001-24, as shown on page ________, granting rezoning from C-2 to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District); and to approve the PCD Preliminary Site Plan and Rezoning Development Order, as shown on page ________, for property described as 1.7 acres, more or less, located at the northwest corner of Oak Lane and Ridge Street, approximately 200 feet east of the intersection of U.S. 17-92 and Oak Lane, extending 335 feet north of Oak Lane, as described in the proof of publication, Mike Hattaway.

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

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request to Rezone from R-1AA (Single Family Dwelling District) and R-4 (Multiple-Family Dwelling District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); and approve Preliminary Master Plan and Rezoning Development Order, Riverwind Parking LLP/Riverwind at Alafaya Trail LP, received and filed.

Tony Matthews stated the applicant has identified that the proposed use for this property is a parking facility to serve the residents of the abutting Riverwind Apartments. The preliminary plan includes the right-of-way for Boland Drive, which must be vacated by the Board if the proposed PUD plan is to work. The Local Planning Agency (LPA) did not recommend the rezoning request for Lots 1-9 to allow for off-street parking as a special exception. He stated staff has no objections to the rezoning request, in light of the well-documented problems associated with the lack of parking for the Riverwind Apartment complex. Staff believes the applicant has attempted a reasonable, but not a completely satisfied, solution superior to the previous concept plan. If the PUD zoning is approved, staff recommends the following development order conditions: (1) Restripe the existing Riverwind Apartment complex parking area to create at least 12 additional parking spaces; (2) Install a chain link fence separating the apartment complex and proposed new parking area from the 60-ft. landscape buffer area and post no trespassing signage to discourage access by apartment residents into this buffer area; (3) Preserve as many on-site specimen trees as possible within the proposed buffer area. Developer to submit a tree removal plan for review by the County’s Planning Manager prior to PUD final master plan approval; and (4) Approval of the PUD final master plan is contingent upon the BCC vacating Boland Drive right-of-way. If Boland Drive is not vacated, then a new PUD preliminary master plan must be submitted by the applicant and be subject to new public hearings, notice requirements and approval process. The Local Planning Agency (LPA) recommended denial of the rezoning and the PUD preliminary master plan.

Attorney Dwight Saathoff, Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, addressed the Board to submit a booklet (received & filed) containing letters, affidavit, estimated cost breakdown, lease addendum, site plans and aerial photographs of the project and surrounding area. He displayed a aerial photograph (received & filed) of the proposed site and he reviewed the location of a commercial shopping center and a body repair shop in the area. He displayed a site plan (received & filed) and indicated the location of the subject property, Carrigan Woods Subdivision, Stillwater subdivision as well as Remington Subdivision. He also displayed photographs (received & filed) facing east at the intersection of SR 434 and Carrigan, their current temporary parking lot, facing south of Carrigan and Boland Drive, as well as photographs taken from the lot line facing west and the auto body shop. He reviewed the location of a wall being built behind the shopping center, the rear of the proposed property and the rear of the adjacent property. He continued by reviewing photographs (received and filed) of another center east of Boland Drive and a colored site plan. He displayed and reviewed the history of Riverwind Apartments; code requirements; and the possible alternatives for solving the parking problems at Riverwind (all received & filed). He stated the highest priority of government is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. He said the developer is trying to solve the problem in a reasonable manner and the only solution he has heard is the developer should condemn or close a building. That will be detrimental to the property owner as it could cause default of a loan or foreclosure.

Attorney Saathoff stated at the last meeting, Commissioner Maloy identified nine mitigation items that should be reviewed before any proposals came back to the Board. He displayed the proposed items (received & filed) and the applicant’s comments for each. He reviewed the proposed items relating to the retention pond, bike racks, rental discounts, privacy wall, compact spaces, participating in the Lynx laser bus service study, and installing sidewalks in an area that was missing to facilitate bicycle traffic. He stated the Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT) indicated that they would not permit the installation of sidewalks. With regard to mitigation, 15 spaces will be added within the 50-ft. buffer to the north and they will be re-striping 12 spaces. He stated it was suggested that they investigate the feasibility of removing the landscape islands and they have discovered that that is not feasible. He said the original plan is different from the current plan and their overall objective to the current plan was to limit the impact on the subject property. They were able to reduce the proposed parking stalls from 166 to 143, relocated the pond, and increased the open space from 51% to 63%.

Mr. McMillan left the meeting at this time.

Attorney Saathoff stated there is only 37% of the proposed parcel that is being constructed and it hugs the parcel immediately adjacent to the commercially zoned property. The remaining parcel is open space.

Mr. McMillan reentered the meeting at this time.

Attorney Saathoff stated the other parking lot features include low-profile lighting and security cameras. The developer is proposing speed bumps, speed limit signs, noise control, violation signs, bike racks, significant landscaping and one-story garages. The garage unit will be built in a residential style. He stated he can understand that the legitimate concern of the residents is the noise. He displayed information relating to noise. He said what they have done in trying to address the residents’ concerns is to deal with the buffering of the actual impact area by proposing a 6 ft. masonry wall at the boundary of the east property, planting 20 new oak trees as well as planting 30 ft. of new trees on the overall site, a 60.5 ft. buffer from the wall to the side of the garage. There will be another 20-ft. of buffer, totaling 80.5 feet of buffer.

Attorney Saathoff reviewed for Commissioner Maloy what their plans will be for the temporary parking lot.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Attorney Saathoff advised only one student has signed up for the incentive rent reduction program; and there are approximately 80 spaces on the temporary parking lot.

Colleen Thompson, 3072 Hazelton Place, addressed the Board to state she is the President of Stillwater Subdivision and they are opposed to the rezoning request. She stated the residents did not create this problem and she doesn’t want her neighbors to be impacted in trying to solve the problem. Cameo Development has stated that they thought that this would be adequate parking, but they were surprised that students might own a vehicle. Boardwalk Apartments does not have a parking problem and they have sidewalks, bus services and is closer to the college. She stated businesses along SR 434 are not allowed to enter and exit on Boland Drive as it is a residential street. If the County would vacate Boland Drive, then the commercial businesses would own 30 ft. of that street. She submitted a letter (not received and filed) from the County road division indicating that it would cost $14,129.93 to prepare and pave Boland Drive. She discussed the issue of vacating Boland Drive, and Lynx bus service. She referred to an Oviedo Update newsletter (not received and filed) that Commissioner Maloy sent out while campaigning and she read an excerpt from his article. She submitted and displayed photographs (received and filed) showing the temporary parking lot, view facing SR 434 from Carrigan Avenue, the oldest oak tree in Seminole County, the back of Mr. White’s property showing the mound of dirt that was left there, Mr. Wheeler’s house, a view showing what the neighborhood looked like before Cameo Development came in, Lowery Drive, what Boland Drive looks like now, and a view of Boland Drive showing the debris that was left when the house was removed.

John Matthews, 642 Carrigan Woods Trails, President of Carrigan Woods Homeowners Association, addressed the Board to state the site analysis states that the PUD Preliminary Plan as proposed would be compatible with the development. He would have to ask if it is consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan to allow the rezoning of ½ of an acre; and is the student housing parking considered compatible with private dwellings. He stated the simple way to solve the parking is to make one unit of each of the 110 units a vehicle free apartment and make it mandatory. The majority of residents in Seminole Terrace, Carrigan Woods, and Stillwater is requesting the Board to deny the applicant’s request and to direct the Code Enforcement to schedule and hear the zoning violation case for the temporary parking.

Franklin Perez, 598 Carrigan Woods Trail, addressed the Board to state he would like to speak in defense of the private property rights of Riverwind Parking to do what they wish with their property. He stated he has come across signs that says "Save Your Neighborhood", in the Carrigan Woods Subdivision for many months and one would think that they are being threatened by something serious. Some of the residents feel that the parking lot will decline their property values, will cause nuisance problems and even destroy some of the rare trees in the area. To stop progress just to save some rare trees does not make common sense. Crime is what really brings down property values, not a parking lot. Also, a parking lot does not cause a nuisance, the people parking in the lot are the ones that may cause a nuisance. Another nuisance is added traffic congestion and he has not encountered any traffic problems while driving along Carrigan Avenue. If government decides to stop a particular property owner’s use of his property because the majority of the people find it offensive, then everyone’s use of property is no longer by right but rather by permission. He submitted his comments (received and filed) into the Record.

Keith Wheeler, 3018 Lowery Dr., addressed the Board to state the businesses in the area did not want cars parking in their parking lot for 24 hours a day. He stated the developer made the adjacent residents look really bad because they tore down a house and left the debris there. The developer made a mistake in determining how many parking spaces they should have, therefore, why should the residents suffer for their mistake. He said the developer is giving them a 60-ft. buffer; and he has a problem with having a wall that is close to his property line where a person could climb the wall and get into his house undetected.

Antonio Garzon, Sr., 2992 Lowery Dr., addressed the Board to state he lives within 300 ft. of the project and his main concern is what will happen after this parking lot is built. The developer has broken the code and has lied to everyone. The temporary parking lot has 27-30 cars parking there everyday and there is not enough room to put more cars there.

Cheryl Berardi, 301 Carrigan Ave., addressed the Board to state on behalf of her son and herself, she urges the Board to deny the rezoning request. Everyone knows that the developer has ulterior motives and she doesn’t understand how anyone wants to go to this extent for parking, as it is a lot of money and time. There are a lot of different methods of resolving the parking.

John Crosby, 3011 Lowery Dr., addressed the Board to state he just purchased his property and upon purchasing it, he was given restrictions (received and filed) for the Seminole Terrace Subdivision. He read some of the restrictions as outlined in the handout.

Commissioner Morris advised the Board cannot enforce deed restrictions.

Mr. McMillan stated if there are deed restrictions on the property and a property owner violate those restrictions, the other property owners can enforce it through court action. That is not an issue that the County would be a party to.

Mr. Crosby stated a parking garage of two or three levels could be built between the buildings that have current parking.

Lynn Berger, 3030 Moore Dr., addressed the Board to state she lives within 300 ft. of Riverwind and she doesn’t want this rezoning. She submitted a Petition, as shown on page ________, from 174 residents on Carrigan Woods, Seminole Terrace and Stillwater opposing the rezoning request. The property that Riverwind has bought is causing a great deal of unattractiveness and danger to the area. She submitted photographs (received and filed) showing the old car batteries, hazardous material laying around, car parts, tires, and uprooted trees.

Jane Waterman, 3037 Moore Dr., addressed the Board to state the compact parking space is a good idea as a maximum of 50% can be compact parking. She submitted a letter (not received and filed) from Stan Mann, Florida Dept. of Transportation, suggesting that not only will there be sidewalks, but there will be bike paths as well. She discussed the issue of the Lynx laser bus service, relocation of the stormwater pond, and the rent discounts. She submitted crime analysis (received and filed) of the crime rates in student complexes at Riverwind Apartments, Jefferson’s Commons, Boardwalk, and Knight’s Krossing. She stated Riverwind had the second highest of the four areas. She also submitted a copy of the Seminole County Sheriff’s office event count at Riverwind Apartments and an offense summary from the Orange County Sheriff’s office (received and filed). She submitted a letter (not received and filed) from one of the students at Riverwind.

Cynthia Gundy, 2897 Joseph Circle, addressed the Board to state she is here to represent Remington Village and she is on the Board of Directors. She stated she has concerns relative to traffic turning north out of Riverwind and doing a U-turn at the light at Carrigan, and about crime bringing down the property values.

Mary Callahan, 3019 Lowery Dr., addressed the Board to state staff should have known how many parking spaces and students there would be in the apartments. She stated in order to solve part of the problem, a parking lot could be built over the drainage pond. She said this rezoning request is going to affect her a lot as she lives on Lowery Drive and she will be looking at the 6-ft wall. If the Board approves this request, the wall should be at least 8 ft high.

James Bradford, 3099 Lowery Dr., addressed the Board to state it is 147 ft. from his property to the fence of the proposed project and there is a 50-ft. buffer between the fence and the parking lot. He stated after working 45 years on jet engines for the airlines and the military, he has pretty severe hearing loss, but the boom boxes wake him up. He said he has a problem with students throwing bottles onto his property. He submitted pictures (received and filed) showing the front of his house and of the southwest corner. He said the way to eliminate the problem is to have one-bedroom units.

Kelly Melton, 3064 Lowery Dr., addressed the Board to state she has a family of six children and they are going to be college students. She stated she would like to make it clear that she has been wrongly misrepresented as being said, since they were not in attendance, they supported the project. They do not support the project. The Florida Supreme Court denied a property owner from constructing any type of structure that would bring noise into a residential area. She said she doesn’t believe that cars are compatible with people. Riverwind Apartments is their neighbor and their backyard looks like a glowing space craft at night as the car lights shine in their backyard. She stated she doesn’t think it is anyone’s dream to be able to look out their backyard and see a parking lot. The security cameras that are presently up are totally ineffective and if they were effective, they wouldn’t have to phone the police everyday and night.

Susan Eberle, 652 W. Palm Valley Drive, displayed and reviewed an application for tree removal and articles (both received and filed) dated 1-28-01 and 3-11-01 from the Orlando Sentinel of auto theft and burglaries in the Oviedo area. She submitted and read excerpts of a letter (received and filed) from a student living in Knight’s Krossing referring to incidents that have happened around the apartment complex. She also submitted a letter dated March 13, 2001, approximately 80 pages of crime statistics, two articles written by her for the Oviedo Voice, a memorandum from John Dwyer and an e-mail from Gil Backenstoss (all were received and filed). She read a portion of her March 13, 2001 letter into the Record.

Charlotte Carver, 3045 Lowery Drive, addressed the Board to state this is a self-imposed problem and not a community problem. She stated when Riverwind elected to build four-bedroom, four bath units they knew at that point what the population was going to be and at that point they should have elected to accommodate parking instead building a clubhouse or pool. On March 13, 2001, the Board denied a 5-ft. variance for a homeowner in the area to expand their living room because they did not want to set a precedent. If the Board approves this request, they will be setting a dangerous precedent for every neighborhood in Seminole County.

Dan Tharpe, 302 Carrigan Ave., addressed the Board to state the one thing he has not heard tonight is that Riverwind is in the business of constructing, developing and making a profit. He asked why not allow more R-1AA houses on the property they just bought.

Barbara Esquivel, 2950 Lowery Dr., addressed the Board to state the pictures of the Riverwind Apartment complex were very misleading. The students are not keeping the noise down as the boom boxes are loud and the opening of the garage doors is noisy as well.

Chairman Van Der Weide recessed the meeting at 10:40 p.m., reconvening at 10:50 p.m., with all Commissioners being present.

Jim White, 3034 Lowery Dr., addressed the Board to state if the Board approves this, they will be setting a precedent in the County and it will sweep throughout the County like wildfire. He stated he can’t visualize the compatibility of a college student parking lot in his backyard. He indicated on the map where his property is located. He stated he walked on Boland Drive and the natural drainage goes southward toward the Little Econ River. The developer is proposing a retention pond on the north end and a 6-ft. block wall and they will have to haul tons of fill dirt just to get the lay of the land to drain towards the north end retention pond. He read portions of a letter written for him by someone else indicating that he supports this project. He requested the Board to deny the request with prejudice.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Chairman Van Der Weide submitted approximately 13 Written Comments Forms (received and filed) opposing the request.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

A letter from Mr. & Mrs. Edward Sullivan opposing the request and a letter from a tenant at Riverwind were received and filed.

Attorney Saathoff stated he is seeking moderate level of parking that doesn’t go all the way up to the current code requirement, but in excess of the code requirements. He clarified that they will not be removing the large oak that the residents are concerned about.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Attorney Saathoff advised the plan includes the location of the trees that will be saved on the property.

Attorney Saathoff stated staff feels the project is compatible with the adjoining area. He stated he has a letter of intent to acquire the property that is going to be the western 30-ft. of the right-of-way once vacated. This is not an expansion to the student housing. He said he has tried to do everything he can in addressing the buffer of noise. A courtesy officer monitors the apartment complex 24 hours a day and it appears that this type of activity might be appropriate for this area as well.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Attorney Saathoff advised the current subdivision wall located to the north of the project does not allow water to pass there and based on the topographical survey, the water will drain to the north.

Upon further inquiry by Commissioner McLain, John Frith, Project Engineer, addressed the Board to advise the property slopes halfway through Boland Drive and Carrigan. He stated he doesn’t foresee any substantial grade deviations and they will try to keep it as natural grade as possible.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Attorney Saathoff advised nine trees were found dead or diseased within the portion of the existing site. Those were replaced with oak trees and at the staff’s request, 15 additional large trees were planted.

Bill Hanner, Cameo Development, addressed the Board to state the trees that were to be left in the 50-ft. buffer area were identified by a survey prior to the start of the construction. Those trees were monitored and verified by the Engineering Department and by Mr. Fisher. The trees that were removed were replaced by a 3-1 ratio, per County requirements.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Hanner advised he assured Mrs. Melton that the lighting will be adjusted to try to keep it from shining into her yard. The lighting he is proposing for the parking lot would be low-profile type lighting.

Commissioner McLain stated it sounds like the project is not effectively dealing with the complaints of noise and the behavior of the students.

Janeen Steel, Area Manager for Riverwind, addressed the Board to state she has informed the residents that they can contact her office directly if they have issues. There was an incident with a resident and her office found out where the problem was and took care of it. She stated she had the courtesy officer to monitor the area more closely.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated the public schools have police officers on campus and they have arrest power. When they see illegal activity, they can arrest that person and the word gets around real quick to those individuals they are dealing with.

Ms. Steel stated per Florida Statute, they can only do so much.

Attorney Saathoff discussed with Commissioner Morris how he is justifying this as an appropriate transitional use, how it is an appropriate zoning for this property, their intent of acquiring the four adjacent homes, how they will control the noise of cars going in and out of the complex, how they will regulate the vehicles with loud music, and the crime reports.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Attorney Saathoff advised there are no problems of parking at the other units that they manage.

Commissioner Maloy asked Attorney Saathoff if he would have a problem having an off-duty deputy patrolling each evening the parking lot and perimeter of the current complex between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.

Attorney Saathoff stated Mr. Hanner has agreed to that condition.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Attorney Saathoff advised he feels he has made it clear that they are flexible on the location of the wall. He stated he doesn’t think he would have a problem making that just a parking facility with no ability to have any recreational activity on that lot. He said he has some concern relative to the access to that parcel. Perhaps they could put up a chain-link fence along the boundary to prevent access to it.

Commissioner Maloy stated some of the adjoining property owners already have a fence along the property line.

Attorney Saathoff stated that would be acceptable to him.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Matt West, Planning Manager, addressed the Board to advise he believes Northgate is the only project where parking was added on existing residential projects.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Attorney Saathoff advised he is not proposing to purchase those other properties and leasing them. He stated their purpose is to sell them and he would make a commitment to that this evening.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Attorney Saathoff advised he has no problem working with the Traffic Engineer to discuss the issue of installing sidewalks on Carrigan Ave. He stated he would not be opposed to moving the wall back and connecting it to the buildings in a way that it doesn’t disturb the trees.

Chairman Van Der Weide recessed the meeting at 11:47 p.m. to give the District Commissioner an opportunity to address his concerns with Attorney Saathoff. The meeting was reconvened at 12:10 a.m.

District Commissioner Maloy stated he has received phone calls from residents relative to parking in the right-of-way and the temporary parking lot. He stated he feels there is a negative impact on the neighborhood with the temporary parking and he feels the conditions that he is going to spell out will minimize the effect there. He is proposing proper buffers, additional security measures, and deeding over 20 ft. of additional property for those adjacent residents on the east who will not be selling their property.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy to enact Ordinance #2001-25, as shown on page _________, rezoning to PUD (Planned Unit Development); approve Preliminary Master Plan and Rezoning Development Order, as shown on page _________, as described in the proof of publication, Riverwind Parking LLP/Riverwind at Alafaya, with the conditions that are spelled out in the development order packet with the additional conditions as indicated by Mr. Fisher.

Under discussion, Mr. Fisher advised the additional conditions are as follows: (1) Create an open space tract over the easterly buffer. The easterly 20 ft., lying south of Lot 2 may be dedicated to the adjacent property owners, upon their agreement; (2) Install a 7 ft. wall to interconnect to the buildings running parallel to the eastern property line lying south of Lot 2; (3) Install 12 canopy trees and 16 understory trees (per 100 ft.) lying west of the dedicated area; (4) Install a covered bus shelter on the property with the details to be worked out during the final master plan; (5) Secure services by providing an off-duty Deputy Sheriff, to be on site from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m., 7 days a week for 365 days a year.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels a commitment of 42 hours a week would be more appropriate. Commissioner Maloy stated he feels that is a good suggestion.

Mr. Fisher continued with the additional conditions: (6) Install signage indicating that there will be no loud noises and stereos should be turned off upon entering the project; (7) Install speed bumps throughout the existing and the proposed project; (8) Architecture shall be residential in nature with final details to be worked out during the final master plan; (9) Install additional canopy and understory trees in the northeast corner of the existing complex and where additional parking is proposed; (10) Readjust all of the lighting in the existing complex where required; (11) All lights to be low-profile as indicated on the plan; (12) Delete Item b of staff’s report indicating a chain-link fence, which is no longer necessary; and (13) Preserve all specimen trees as indicated on the plan as submitted.

Commissioner McLain seconded the motion.

Commissioner Morris stated he cannot support the motion as he feels the Board will be breaking into a precedent-setting issue with respect to the use of parking facilities like this contemplated under the original plan. He stated he doesn’t see where more intrusion into a neighborhood is something that the Board should support.

Commissioner Henley stated he will not be supporting the motion because this is a situation that was created by the developer and the Board is being asked to take unusual action in order to solve his problem. He stated the fact that the developer is willing to spend up to $700,000 on a parking garage and buy adjacent properties, that tells him that they could afford to reduce the number of renters and accomplish everything on-site without having to intrude further into a residential community. He said property rights are not the exclusive rights of the applicant and the Board must be sensitive to the rights of the residents who are already there. There is no doubt in his mind that this is intrusion and not compatible with the residential area.

Commissioner McLain stated he seconded the motion because he understands the problems the community is having. He stated he wants to make it clear that the Board has a positive recommendation from staff. The Board has an opportunity to fix many of the problems that have caused serious concerns for the community.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Fisher advised if the developer failed to meet the requirements, they would be found in violation of the approval and be subject to code enforcement action.

Commissioner McLain stated he would like to include in the motion that the applicant work with the community in resolving these issues and include them in the final design.

Commissioner Maloy recommended providing the cell phone number of the off-duty deputy to the abutting residents so that they can contact him with any problems.

Mr. Fisher explained for Commissioner McLain how the County would deal with a request from another commercial facility wanting to acquire more residential lots and build a parking lot there.

Mr. Fisher explained for Commissioner Henley what makes putting a parking garage next to a residential property compatible.

Commissioner Morris stated the code contemplates one site plan for one PUD and it doesn't contemplate an expansion of an existing use. He stated he feels that staff has taken the code one step further in terms of interpretation.

Districts 1, 3, and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioners Morris and Henley voted NAY.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider Land Development Code changes – Wekiva Global Compliance Agreement Implementation – creation of the SR 46 Scenic Corridor Overlay and the Longwood-Markham/Lake Markham/Markham Road Scenic Corridor Zoning Overlay, received and filed.

Matt West stated the Board is being presented with two ordinances relating to the SR 46 Overlay and Markham Road, Longwood-Markham Road and an Overlay affecting Lake Markham Road and the Board will only be hearing public input tonight. The draft ordinances in the packet had several changes and he submitted a revised copy of those ordinances. The major changes to the ordinances are as follows: Clarification of the applicability. The clarification to these ordinances apply to new development. The Markham Scenic Overlay Ordinance apply to all new residential subdivisions and in the case that new residential subdivisions abut one of the three Markham Roads and if those lots exceed one acre, a 40 ft. buffer would be required. If they are less than one acre, a planted vegetated 40-ft. buffer would be required. The significant changes to the SR 46 Overlay are: fences and walls to be installed along SR 46, the environmental groups had concerns with providing ways for wildlife to travel through the walls or fences. After review, staff doesn’t believe that is feasible. The area that staff had concerns with relative to wildlife traveling back and forth was in the Wekiva Park PUD. He stated staff met with Miranda Fitzgerald and Jeff Pearlman and they had concerns relative to the signage section of the SR 46 Overlay. He referred to Page 6 of the SR 46 Overlay and advised that Sections 5 & 6 deal with a limitation of one sign for the entire property. That wasn’t staff’s intent, therefore, they changed that language to reflect that one ground sign would be permitted within the SR 46 Overlay setback. Staff did not want all wall signs to be illuminated. He said a lot of the other changes that were made are clarifications and are not changing the intent of the ordinances. He stated staff is recommending approval of the ordinances based on the fact the County is obligated to provide some type of scenic overlay ordinance.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris relating to a gas transmission line, Craig Shadrix, Planning, addressed the Board to advise there were a lot of concerns relative to the lines fronting residential areas. There are three alignments being considered, one is south of SR 46, the other one is north and both would bear environmentally and safety issues. The north one would impact the Wekiva State Preserve. The primary proposal would stay within the primary right-of-way.

Commissioner Morris stated he would suggest that staff submit the Ordinance to Metroplan Lake County officials and have them work with the State in trying not to have this be another State project without limited access. He stated he doesn’t know why the County is only looking at the western portion of SR 46 when the eastern portion should be included as well. He added this agreement does not contemplate cross access agreements and this issue should be brought before private property owners.

Mr. West stated staff will be bringing a lighting ordinance back to the Board and the cross access easements with that issue. A Yankee Lake resolution transferring some of the water and sewer property to the natural lands will also be brought back to the Board.

Commissioner Henley stated Section 5 states that "if any part of any parcel abuts the right-of-way line of the designated roadway, the entire parcel shall be subject to this part as if the parcel were wholly within the stated corridor". He stated he doesn’t agree with this concept and he would like to see a certain distance be established so that it would be consistent through the entire corridor from the centerline of the right-of-way.

Mr. West stated he would ask the Board’s indulgence on leaving it the way it is because when staff brings back the lighting and sign restrictions, those would be universal for the whole property.

Commissioner Morris stated staff could consider the whole variance process between now and the next meeting.

Commissioner McLain suggested that staff come back at the second public hearing to address the impacts of that.

Nancy Prine, 655 Terrace Blvd., addressed the Board to state she is representing the Friends of the Wekiva and they have been participating with staff in developing these ordinances. She stated they are not entirely happy with everything, but have come up with ordinances that will lead to the protection of the rural character within this part of the Wekiva River Protection Area. She said she has concerns about the wildlife, but she understands that considerations must be taken along with the regulations that will protect the rural character. The area has changed from one use to another and they recognize that these are bona fide uses and the property owners have the prerogative to do the things they have done. Their main concern is that the area continues to be rural, continue to have wildlife and to continue to enjoy what they do.

Miranda Fitzgerald, 215 No. Eola Dr., Orlando, addressed the Board to display a map (received and filed) showing the Wekiva River Protection Area and she pointed out the 5.4-acre tract located at the corner of Lake Markham and SR 46, which she represents. She addressed her concerns relative to the language in Section 5, the signage issue, and the parking requirements.

Chairman Van Der Weide called for L. J. Kiernan to speak but he was not in the audience at this time.

Tom Vellonti, 6300 SR 46, addressed the Board to state he is the owner of 12 Oaks RV Resort and he would like to clarify a few things. He stated the main thing he would like to clarify is it says "the following standards apply to new development", and he is under the impression that this entire ordinance applies to new development only and his property would not be part of this ordinance.

Mr. West stated that is correct unless Mr. Vellonti came in and redeveloped it. If Mr. Vellonti had an existing situation, he would be grandfathered in.

Jeff Jenkins, 7120 W SR 46, addressed the Board to state he is opposed to the ordinances. He stated he has lived in the area for 35 years and the rural character went away when Vaughns and the Handway came in. He said a privacy fence is 2 ft. from his living room window now and he doesn’t want it moved anymore.

Charles Lee, Audubon of Florida, addressed the Board to state the real question of the rural character of this part of the Wekiva Protection is going to be resolved favorably or unfavorably by what is done with regard to the expansion of this highway. Regardless of the beneficial effects of this ordinance, if the County doesn’t oppose the conversion of this road to a 4-lane, it will have little effect. He stated he would hope that the Board would add a specific statement of County policy in the ordinance. If this road is 4-laned, there is only one way to protect the rural character area and that is by turning this into a limited access highway. It is going to take some very innovative efforts on behalf of Seminole County, Lake County, and the Department of Transportation to prevent a very bad situation that will extinguish many of the benefits that have been attained through acquisition of the Wekiva corridor. He suggested that the Board consider a new section to state, "Highway capacity to be consistent with the rural character of the scenic corridor. Seminole County shall recommend to all relative transportation agencies, including without limitation, Florida DOT and Metropolitan Planning Organization, that SR 46 be maintained as a two-lane highway within the Wekiva River Protection Area. The County further recommends that any future consideration of 4-lane capacity for this highway corridor be limited to a plan that incorporates strictly limited access only for existing uses and an elevated trussel design from the Wekiva Park Drive area to a point outside the public lands acquired by the State within the Wekiva Protection Area".

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide, Mr. Lee advised this is a complicated issue and the reality is there should be only one bridge crossing over the Wekiva and it should be where the bridge is now. Discussion ensued.

Keith Shue, Central Florida Sierra Club, addressed the Board to submit the Sierra Club’s comments and recommendations (received and filed). He reviewed the Sierra Club’s recommendation adding and deleting sections in Section 3(c) for the Markham Ordinance. He also reviewed their recommendation with regard to Sections 6.A.2.H., 6.A.2.J., 6.C.4 and 6.D.7 of the SR 46 Ordinance. He added that they are also recommending that the 40-foot buffer be changed to 50 feet.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

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

The second public hearing for this item is scheduled for June 12, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.

-------

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned on May 23, 2001 at 1:36 a.m.

ATTEST_____________________Clerk____________________Chairman

cc/slm/er