Present:

Chairman Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)

Vice Chairman Randy Morris (District 2)

Commissioner Grant Maloy (District 1)

Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)

Commissioner Daryl McLain (District 5)

County Manager Kevin Grace

County Attorney Robert McMillan

Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann

Pastor Jon Carnes, 1^st Church of the Nazarene, Sanford, gave the Invocation.

Commissioner Henley led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman Van Der Weide introduced Suzanne Walker, Assistant Director of the Office of Greenways & Trails, to make a special presentation.

Suzanne Walker addressed the Board to present the Board with a check in the amount of $100,000 from the Office of Greenways & Trails for furthering the development of the Cross Seminole Trail in Seminole County.

The Chairman recognized State Representatives David Simmons and David Mealor and requested them to be a part of the presentation. Members of the Trail Committee who were in attendance were also asked to be a part of the presentation.

Representative David Mealor addressed the Board to state as Chairman of the Seminole County Legislative Delegation, he believes Seminole County will be positioned very favorably in the next legislative session. He expressed his thanks for the opportunity to serve Seminole County.

Representative David Simmons, Vice Chairman of the Seminole County Legislative Delegation, addressed the Board to state the Legislative Delegation's goal was to go to Tallahassee this year and make sure Seminole County was adequately represented. He said there have been many things they have been able to bring home to Seminole County. He said they will continue to work for Seminole County.

Commissioner Morris stated there is a large freshman class in the House of Representatives and Rep. Mealor and Simmons are two of the leaders of that freshman class. He commended them for the work they have done this year.

-------

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-77, as shown on page _______, commending the Dazzler Dance Team of Seminole High School for their achievement at the Marching Auxiliary National Competition in San Antonio, Texas.

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

The Resolution was presented to the Dazzler Dance Team and their Director Maureen McGuire. Ms. McGuire addressed the Board to express her appreciation.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-78, as shown on page ________, proclaiming the week of May 19-25, 2001 as "Safe Boating Week in Seminole County".

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

The Resolution was presented to Louis Mariani, Seminole Power Squadron, and Bill Vincent, who expressed their appreciation.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-79, as shown on page _______, designating Thursday, May 10, 2001, as "Tourism Day" in Seminole County.

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

The Resolution was presented to Tourism Development Director, Jack Wert, who expressed his appreciation.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner McLain to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-80, as shown on page ________, proclaiming the week of May 20-27, 2001 as "National Public Works Week" in Seminole County.

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

The Resolution was presented to Public Works Director, Gary Johnson, who expressed his appreciation.

-------

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-81, as shown on page ________, commending Martin W. Herbenar for his services to Seminole County.

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

County Attorney, Robert McMillan, advised, because of a change, he will be bringing back the proposed Resolution approving the land exchange relating to Parcel #106A, Rinehart Road, and Parcel #170, Airport Boulevard, Tom Ball property, at this afternoon's meeting.

Commissioner Morris left the meeting at this time.

Assistant County Attorney, Stephen Lee, addressed the Board to give a brief Legislative update, advising the Pay Day Loan Bill was passed and is waiting for the Governor's signature. He also advised the Legislature passed on to counties two days of Medicaid In-hospital Services; and authorized the Kid Care program, which uses $13 million from the Tobacco funds to fund one year of health insurance. The Billboard Legislation was also passed and none of the amendments the County was hoping to get through were included.

Commissioner Morris re-entered the meeting at this time.

Commissioner Maloy expressed his appreciation to Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. and Harter-Adams, P.A. for donating their services for the improvements to the Historical Museum (Item #41).

Chairman Van Der Weide suggested the Board have resolutions of commendation prepared for those firms and brought back to the Board for presentation at the next Board meeting.

Commissioner Maloy stated he does not believe the Board should be voting on Items #19 and #20, BCR's dealing with the Sales Tax Referendum, until after the public hearing on same.

County Manager, Kevin Grace, stated holding Item #20 would not be a problem, but on Item #19, funds for the Supervisor of Elections, he would have to speak with Ms. Goard to determine her timeline.

Pam Hastings, Public Works, addressed the Board to advise there are certain preparatory activities for the Supervisor of Elections prior to the election such as preparing the ballot.

Commissioner Maloy stated he would like to get more details on these two items.

Commissioner McLain stated he does not have a problem with holding off on these two items, until Mr. Grace can report back to the Board.

Commissioner Morris suggested pulling these items until this afternoon's meeting. Mr. Grace stated staff will report back at the Board's next meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to continue until May 22, 2001, BCR #01-89 in the amount of $145,104 and BCR #01-90 in the amount of $161,600, funding for the September 4^th Sales Tax Referendum.

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

Commissioner Morris stated he is disappointed that it has taken so long for Items #12 - #15 to come back to the Board when they were approved on January 9, 2001. He also stated the meeting date listed in the back-up information needs to be corrected from May 13, 2001 to May 8, 2001. He added that staff does not seem to be moving very quickly.

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

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris stated the pilot program for homeless dogs and cats is an innovative program and one he hopes will last at least through this year.

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

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

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

-------

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

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute Amendment, as shown on page _______, to the current Civil Domestic Contract GZ804, as shown on page _______, reducing the dollar amount of the contract.

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

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to authorize the Chairman to execute Contract, as shown on page _______, between Seminole County Government and Seminole County Professional Fire Fighters, Local 3254.

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

-------

Discussion regarding request for an Amendment to the Development Order for the Sylvan Lake Park lighting of athletic fields.

District Commissioner McLain stated he does not believe it is appropriate to have ticket events and would like to have that removed from the proposed amendment. He said he has spoken to staff and would like to minimize the glare by putting in directional lighting; and if this works, he would like to retrofit the other fields. He stated traffic is bad when there are events and he would like the Traffic Division to review this. Also, when there are events, he would like to have off-duty police officers work them.

Director of Library and Leisure Services, Suzy Goldman, addressed the Board to advise in January, staff was authorized to pursue an amendment to the development order to allow for the lighting of more soccer fields. She discussed the community meeting held on May 3, 2001 and advised the concerns of the residents were: (1) Maintaining the 9:30 p.m. lights out requirement; (2) Parking problems; (3) Traffic entering and leaving the park on Lake Markham Road; (4) Traffic on Lake Markham Road; and (5) Need for a higher quality lighting system due to increased residential development in the area. They were also concerned with the ticketed sports events proposal and discussed the following: (1) Maximum capacity permitted at the park; (2) Traffic problems; (3) Parking problems within the park and on South Sylvan Lake Drive; (4) Noise; (5) More parameters in addition to the $10 price and six events per year limits; and (6) Further review of proposal by the National Park Service.

Commissioner Henley stated he will not be supporting this endeavor because two more lighted fields will draw much more traffic into the area for a longer period of time. He further stated he believes this is too much of an intrusion into the community and he believes it is matter of integrity.

Commissioner McLain stated this is a County park and the youth are the ones that brought this issue forward. He said that the Board needs to be considerate of the community and at the same time provide facilities for the youth.

Mark Snyder, 1601 Lake Markham Road, addressed the Board to state he is a direct neighbor of Sylvan Lake Park. He stated that originally he was very supportive of putting the lights up; however, he has just found out that Field C is only at 37% capacity.

Commissioner McLain stated he has no problem withdrawing this item and continuing it in order to make sure the residents are happy with it. Copies of pictures of parking during events were received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to continue request for approval of an Amendment to Development Order #92-356 to allow for lighting all multi-purpose soccer fields and ticketed sports events for Sylvan Lake Park, pending receipt of additional information.

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

-------

Planner, Cindy Matheny, addressed the Board to present the Final PUD Master Plan and Developer's Commitment Agreement for Tuskawilla Retirement Residence PUD, located south of Red Bug Lake Road and west of Mikler Road, Harling-Locklin & Associates. She advised the plan and proposed agreement are consistent with the approved Preliminary Plan and Development Order; therefore, the staff recommends approval.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner McLain to approve the Final PUD Master Plan and Developer's Commitment Agreement, as shown on page ________, for the Tuskawilla Retirement Residence PUD, for property located south of Red Bug Lake Road and west of Mikler Road, Harling-Locklin & Associates.

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

-------

The Chairman recessed the meeting at 10:45 a.m., reconvening at 11:00 a.m., this same date.

-------

Planner, Colleen Rotella, addressed the Board to discuss pursuing the County's acquisition of Katie's Wekiva River Landing. She stated staff is requesting direction with regard to entering into a joint partnership with the State of Florida for the acquisition of Katie's Wekiva Landing. She advised the State has indicated they would contribute $578,200 towards the $700,000 asking price, leaving the County to contribute $121,800 towards the purchase price. She introduced Clay Henderson, who is representing the Moncrief family.

Clay Henderson, Holland & Knight Consulting, addressed the Board to state he believes he has an "invisible" check in the amount of $578,200 from the State because it will disappear in approximately six weeks if an agreement cannot be reached with the County. He said he is impressed that so many people want to find a way to make this acquisition happen. He stated that they have found movement with the State and are in a better position today than last time. He advised the State is willing to undertake the management of the property. He further advised the State law has changed and now there is a mechanism of having a local advisory committee, which will give input into this process. He reiterated that they need to have an option agreement in place prior to May 18.

Commissioner Henley expressed his concern with the cost of this acquisition and with including the business damages in the price. He said he does not believe business damages should be included because it is not a taking by the County. He said, with clean-up of the property, the price tag could run up to $1 million. He stated the County does not have the urgency it once had when they needed access to the Wekiva River because of the Hutchison property acquisition. He added that he would be willing to move forward with the understanding that they will have to try to come to some better agreement on the purchase price.

Commissioner Maloy stated one of his concerns has always been the cost of clean-up.

Mr. Henderson advised the State has committed to have an environmental audit done on the property to identify any clean-up issues. He stated the property owners will be responsible for removing what is on the property and dealing with any environmental issues that come up with the audit.

Commissioner McLain stated he supports the County trying to find a way to acquire the property. He said if the State wants to manage the property, he has no objection to that as long as the County is an equal partner in establishing a management plan.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to support the joint County/State acquisition of Katie's Wekiva Landing property; and authorize staff to work with the State in acquiring the property, limiting the County's contribution to $121,800.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris stated this acquisition makes sense because there is an ongoing business on the property which has portions that are not desirable for the river. He said he would like the State to manage the property for a fixed period of time and to be involved in the clean-up.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Commissioner McLain stated his motion would allow the State to manage the property and stipulate that the County would be an equal partner of developing the management plan; also, that a local citizens advisory committee would be appointed to assist in the management of the property. Lastly, that the County would commit up to $121,800 towards the purchase price.

Commissioner Henley stated he has problems supporting the motion as it is - entering into an agreement and committing up to $121,800.

Commissioner McLain stated a settlement agreement will come back to the Board so that they know what the clean-up problems are and know what the State is prepared to do.

Commissioner Henley stated he would rather see the Board authorize staff to enter into negotiations on the purchase price and to clarify what the clean-up will be. He reiterated that he is not in complete agreement with the $700,000 purchase price.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, the Chairman clarified that the motion does not include any funds for clean-up.

Commissioner Maloy offered a "friendly" amendment to the motion that the purchase price is open for negotiations.

Commissioner McLain accepted Commissioner Maloy's "friendly" amendment to be included in his motion.

The motion, duly clarified and amended, was voted upon and carried unanimously with Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voting AYE.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

-------

Development Review Manager, Mahmoud Najda, addressed the Board to present request for approval of the Public Roads Privatization Process.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve the Public Roads Privatization Process, as presented.

Under discussion, Mr. Najda advised this process does not include condominiums.

Districts 1, 2, 3 and 4 voted AYE.

-------

Commissioner McLain re-entered the meeting at this time.

Pam Hastings requested direction with regard to setting a public hearing, proposed interlocal agreement, and ballot language dealing with the Next Generation One-Cent Local Option Infrastructure Sales Tax. She pointed out that the draft ballot language is on page 4 of the proposed ordinance.

Commissioner Maloy suggested including sidewalk projects in the ballot language. Discussion ensued.

Commissioner Morris stated 8 to 10 words could be removed from the ballot language and the words "sidewalk safety" could be inserted.

Mr. Grace suggested the Board move forward with the first two requests dealing with scheduling a public hearing and the interlocal agreement; and allow staff to work on the ballot language and come back to the Board with same at this afternoon's meeting.

Commissioner Maloy questioned why the public hearing is requested to be scheduled at 1:30 p.m., instead of at 7:00 p.m. Whereupon, Ms. Hasting advised there is no night meeting scheduled for June 26, 2001.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize scheduling a public hearing for consideration of the Next Generation One-Cent Local Option Infrastructure Sales Tax Ordinance on June 26, 2001, at 1:30 p.m.; and to authorize disseminating the proposed interlocal agreement to the School Board and seven cities for execution by May 29, 2001.

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

Approval of the ballot language for purposes of ordinance advertising and submittal to the Supervisor of Elections will be amended and brought back to the Board at this afternoon's meeting.

The Board continued, until this afternoon's meeting, discussion on the transit funding issues and status on transit initiatives.

-------

The Board, thereupon, recessed at 11:55 a.m., reconvening at 1:34 p.m., this same date with all Officials (with Commissioner Morris entering late), with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who were present at the Opening Session.

Mr. McMillan stated he submitted a copy of the corrected resolution (not received and filed) to the Board relative to Item #6, Resolutions approving land exchange (Parcel 106A) and discharging any and all liens (Parcel No. 170), Thomas Ball.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-82, as shown on page _________, approving the land exchange relating to Parcel No. 106A (Rinehart Road) owned by Seminole County and Parcel No. 170 (Airport Blvd. Phase III road improvement project); adopt Resolution #2001-R-83, as shown on page ________, relating to discharging any and all liens for 2001 pro-rata taxes on Parcel 170; and authorize Chairman to execute the Land Exchange Agreement, as shown on page ________.

Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Mr. Grace submitted a copy of the revised ballot language (received and filed) for purposes of Ordinance advertising and submittal to the Supervisor of Elections relating to the One-cent Local Option Infrastructure Sales Tax.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve the ballot language for purposes of Ordinance advertising and submittal to the Supervisor of Elections relating to the One-cent Local Option Infrastructure Sales Tax.

Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Morris entered the meeting at this time.

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

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

Continuation of a public hearing to consider request to Appeal decision of the Board of Adjustment (BOA) in approving for United Studios/USIg/Bob Lee, a sign height variance from 15’ to 21’5"; property located at the NE corner of Fernwood Blvd. and Highway 17-92, as described in the proof of publication, Board of County Commissioners.

Ginny Markley, Principal Zoning Coordinator, addressed the Board to advise the applicant has applied to replace the existing Jai Alai sign that was damaged in a windstorm. The existing sign was 35 ft. high and 480 sq. ft. in size. The applicant has indicated that the proposed sign will be 21 ft. 5" high, 105 sq. ft. in size with another 100 sq. ft. of architectural embellishments for a total sign size of 205 sq. ft. The current code allows a total sign size 620.5 sq. ft. for all point of sale and building signs and defines "sculptured matter, including forms shaped to resemble any human, animal, or product designed to convey information visually", as a sign. She stated it appears that the applicant miscalculated the size of the proposed sign and that the total size of signs allowed for the property would exceed the total signage permitted by the Land Development Code. Based on the dimension of the sign, a sign size variance is also necessary. She displayed and reviewed a chart (received and filed) relating to the existing and proposed sign size. The Board of Adjustment approved the sign height variance, subject to the sign not exceeding 100 sq. ft. in size and the sign to be in accordance with the size and design of the sign depicted in a drawing submitted by the applicant. Ms. Markley stated in order for the Board to approve the variance to the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board must make the following determinations: (1) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning classification; (2) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; (3) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the Zoning Ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning classification; (4) That literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning classification and would work unnecessary and undue hardships on the applicant; (5) That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; and (6) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30 and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.

Ms. Markley continued by stating that staff finds that: (1) There are no special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the C-2 zoning classification. All signs, nonconforming in size and height and located within the unincorporated area of Seminole County, which are destroyed or damaged to the extent of 50% or more of its value by an act of God, may be restored providing that the new construction is in compliance with the current regulations. In this case, the sign can be reconstructed to a maximum height of 15 ft. and a maximum size of 620.5 sq. ft.; (2) The special conditions and circumstances resulted from the actions of the applicant. The height and size of the proposed reader board/sign copy area do not exceed the maximum size and height code requirement. It is the architectural embellishments and design chosen by the property owner that exceed the maximum height requirement and necessitates the granting of a variance; (3) The granting of the variance requested will confer on the applicant special privileges that are denied by Chapter 30 to other lands or structures in the same C-2 zoning classification. Many businesses along Highway 17-92 are required to bring their signage into compliance with the current code when the business applied for a permit to reconstruct or replace a sign due to damage or a change of the business use; (4) A literal interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 30 would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same C-2 zoning classification and would not work an unnecessary or undue hardship on the applicant. The applicant is not being deprived of his right to adequately advertise his business. The sign copy area without the architectural embellishments meet the current 15 ft. maximum height requirement; (5) Should the variance be granted, it would not be the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; and (6) The granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of Chapter 30, it would be injurious to the neighborhood, and detrimental to the public welfare. The granting of the sign height variance would not be consistent with the objective of the Highway 17-92 CRA. The objective of the CRA is to promote uniform design standards along the Highway 17-92 corridor. Staff is recommending that the Board reverse, by means of the denial development order, the Board of Adjustment’s decision in approving the application for a sign height variance.

Commissioner Henley stated this is an unusual action as it has not been done before. He stated he felt that this item should be brought back to the Board as the BOA had erred in applying the rules. The Jai Alai has done an excellent job in cleaning up the area and has been very cooperative in solving this issue. He added he feels that the BOA was given misinformation.

Mr. McMillan explained for Commissioner Maloy how the Board can hear this issue fairly when they are the judge and appellant.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Markley advised the calculation is based on the frontage of the building facing Highway 17-92.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Debbi Leigh, Code Enforcement Interim Program Manager, addressed the Board to advise Orlando Jai Alai only has one sign on their building and it is 510 sq. ft. They do have exit and entrance signs, but they do not have other outdoor signs on the site.

Commissioner Henley stated several residents in the area have contacted him indicating that they object to the billboards that are directly across the street. He stated he may be willing to consider trading off one of those billboards in order give the owner a variance. The owner indicated that he would be willing to do that, but the billboard company informed him that he does not have that option. The BOA approved the request based on a specific design that has become part of the development order.

It was determined that neither the applicant nor his representative was in attendance.

Stan Bessmer, 1301 Glastonberry Rd., addressed the Board to speak in opposition to the request. He stated his main ambition is to clean up Fern Park, therefore, they do not need a sign like this in the area.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Bessmer advised the County needs to take every one of the billboards down and follow what is in the code.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Form was received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner McLain to reverse, by means of a Denial Development Order, as shown on page _________, the Board of Adjustment decision in approving United Studios Identity Group’s application for a sign height variance to 21 ft. 5 inches in lieu of 15 ft.; and deny the sign height variance, as described in the proof of publication, Board of County Commissioners.

Under discussion, Commissioner McLain stated he is surprised that the applicant is not here to plead his case as to why they do meet the standards for granting a variance. Staff has made it clear that it doesn’t meet the standards. He hasn’t heard any contradictory evidence to the opposite of that and that is why he is supporting the motion.

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

Continuation of a public hearing to consider request for a Notice of Proposed Change to Heathrow International Business Center (HIBC) Development of Regional Impact; property located on approximately 218.4 acres, generally located on the west side of I-4, immediately north of the I-4 and Lake Mary Blvd. interchange, on properties extending north along International Parkway to CR 46A portions (a.k.a. H.E. Thomas Jr. Parkway), as described in the proof of publication, Miranda Fitzgerald.

Nancy Roberts, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to state the applicant is requesting to amend the existing DRI development order for the HIBC to create a Third Amended and Restated Development Order that consolidates all previous development orders, and will govern conditions and requirements for development of the property. She stated the proposed development order will increase land uses from 868,205 sq. ft. to 1,165,250 sq. ft. to incorporate support retail/commercial and campus office uses and incorporate intersection improvements as directed by the Board. Staff feels that these proposed changes do not result in an automatic substantial deviation pursuant to the threshold criteria of the Florida Statutes, nor is it expected that the proposed changes will cause new or increased impacts to regional facilities if the development order is approved as submitted. Staff recommends approval of the request.

Miranda Fitzgerald, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to advise she will answer any questions.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve Third Amended and Restated Development Order, as shown on page _________, for Heathrow International Business Center (HIBC) Development of Regional Impact; property located on approximately 218.4 acres, generally located on the west side of I-4, immediately north of the I-4 and Lake Mary Blvd. interchange, on properties extending north along International Parkway to CR 46A portions (a.k.a. H.E. Thomas Jr. Parkway), as described in the proof of publication, Miranda Fitzgerald, with staff recommendations.

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

Continuation of a public hearing to consider request to Rezone from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the Heathrow International Business Center Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the PUD Final Master Plan and creation of the Third Amended and Restated Commitments, Classifications, and District Description (a.k.a. Developer’s Commitment Agreement); property located on approximately 218.4 acres, generally located on the west side of I-4, immediately north of the I-4 and Lake Mary Blvd. Interchange, on properties extending north along International Parkway to CR 46A portions (a.k.a. H.E. Thomas, Jr. Parkway), as described in the proof of publication, Miranda Fitzgerald.

Tony Matthews, Principal Planner, addressed the Board to state the applicant is proposing to increase the office square footage; increase building heights on certain tracts; and other miscellaneous changes to the PUD Final Master Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement. Staff recommends approval of the request with findings that the proposed uses are: (1) Compatible with surrounding development and development trends toward mixed use development; (2) Consistent with the adopted future land use designations of Industrial and Planned Development assigned to the property and does not alter the options or long range strategies for facility improvements or capacity additions included in the Support Documentation to the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan; and (3) Consistent with Plan policies identified at this time.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to approve rezoning by Ordinance #2001-19, as shown on page _________, to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for the Heathrow International Business Center Planned Unit Development; property located on approximately 218.4 acres, generally located on the west side of I-4, immediately north of the I-4 and Lake Mary Blvd. Interchange, on properties extending north along International Parkway to CR 46A portions (a.k.a. H.E. Thomas, Jr. Parkway), as described in the proof of publication, Miranda Fitzgerald, with staff findings.

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

- - -

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to approve Amendment, as shown on page _________, to the PUD Final Master Plan and creation of the Third Amended and Restated Commitments, Classifications, and District Description (a.k.a. Developer’s Commitment Agreement); property located on approximately 218.4 acres, generally located on the west side of I-4, immediately north of the I-4 and Lake Mary Blvd. Interchange, on properties extending north along International Parkway to CR 46A portions (a.k.a. H.E. Thomas, Jr. Parkway), as described in the proof of publication, Miranda Fitzgerald.

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

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request for an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment (BOA) in denying a Special Exception to permit a dog kennel for up to six dogs; property located at 1889 Ranchland Trail, Longwood, Bruce McMenemy, agent for Debra Garrambone McMenemy, received and filed.

Amanda Smith, Planner, addressed the Board to advise the appellant proposes to construct a facility for the breeding of the family’s six adult dogs and to sell the offspring. The facility is not intended for commercial boarding purposes. She stated the property is assigned Low Density Residential land use designation and A-1 zoning classification, which allows dog kennels upon obtaining a Special Exception. The area primarily consists of large acre tracts with single family residences and their associated outbuildings. Due to the number of residents with horses, staff believes that a dog kennel/run would not be out of character with the trends of development for the area. She stated staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions: (1) The kennel facility shall be for private use only, for the breeding of the family pets and the sale of their offspring, and not intended for the commercial boarding of animals; (2) The facility shall be limited to six adult family pets for breeding; (3) A 15 ft. wide natural buffer of trees and brush shall be maintained around the perimeter of the eastern portion of the subject property; (4) There shall be no amplification of sound; and (5) The adult dogs and puppies shall be housed in the primary residence in the evening. The BOA denied the request based on the request being too intense for the character of the area and that the Special Exception would run in perpetuity with the property.

Commissioner McLain stated he is surprised that in a rural area a man cannot have personal dogs without having to go through all of these hoops.

Ms. Smith explained for Commissioner Henley what the recourse would be if this is approved and the County starts receiving complaints.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to overturn the Board of Adjustment, thereby approving a Special Exception to permit a dog kennel for up to six dogs; property located at 1889 Ranchland Trail, Longwood, as described in the proof of publication, Bruce McMenemy, agent for Debra Garrambone McMenemy, with staff recommendations.

Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Bruce McMenemy addressed the Board to advise he agrees with the provisions in the development order.

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

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request to Vacate and Abandon a portion of a 50 ft. right-of-way located on Brantley Drive, lying east of Lot 36, Cutler Cove, Michael Morro, received and filed.

Mahmoud Najda, Development Review Manager, addressed the Board to advise the proposed request is to allow for a future subdivision of Lot 36 of the Cutler Cove Plat and subsequent platting of the new subdivision. There are two distinct areas proposed to be vacated. The first area is four feet wide and extends approximately 316 ft. along the west right-of-way line of Brantley Drive, south of Cutler Road and Brantley Drive intersection. The second area to be vacated is the west 30 ft. of Brantley Drive right-of-way and extending approximately 170 ft. north of the southern terminus of said right-of-way. The remnant 20-ft. right-of-way portion, extending 170 ft. north of the southern terminus of Brantley Drive, will remain since the adjacent property owner did request not to be part of this vacate. He stated the appropriate utility companies have no objections to the request. He displayed a map of the area and reviewed the area to be vacated.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Najda advised Mr. Morro and the adjacent property owner originally applied for a joint application, and now they are no longer joint applicants as there were a series of issues that were going on. He stated staff doesn’t believe there will be an impact from the vacate.

Dr. Michael Morro, applicant, addressed the Board to state he has owned the property since 1979 and he has built a home on it. He displayed an aerial view (received and filed) of the property and reviewed the dirt path that accesses a house. He stated he has removed 200 to 300 tires from his property as it has been a dumping site for trash for a long time. The dirt path does not exist as a road right now it’s just on paper.

Mike Saletro (phonetic), project surveyor, addressed the Board to state this road alignment was set by the neighbors on both sides to benefit the neighbor to the east. It wasn’t until the last few months that the neighboring property owner decided, with a few concessions, they would allow this vacate, but without concessions, they didn’t want to participate in it. The majority of the road right-of-way vacate doesn’t affect the neighbor’s residence. This became an issue when the neighbor reneged on the contract.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide, Mr. Najda advised that Mr. Adley does have an application to subdivide his property and it is pending at this time.

Jamie Adley, 880 Brantley Drive, addressed the Board to advise he is the property owner to the east of the proposed vacate request. He stated Mr. Morro’s developed subdivision will have twelve lots on approximately 8 acres. He added he and Mr. Morro did have an agreement but it is now null and void. He stated Mr. Morro has committed to installing a 6-ft. high retaining wall with a chain link fence on top of that wall and it will be 20 ft. from his property. If the request is not approved, the wall will be pushed back 30 ft. He said that would have a significant impact on his property. The Land Development Code does not obligate the Board to approve the vacation of the right-of-way. The Land Development Code is clear that the Board must consider the affects of individuals near the request.

Discussion ensued between the Board and Mr. Najda relating to the retaining wall and the chain link fence.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Adley advised he was told that the vacate could not be done unless both parties participated. He said he was surprised that the County will vacate half of the right-of-way.

Mr. Adley stated according to the Land Development Code, the Board must consider the impact as it relates to the neighbors.

Discussion ensued relating to the elevation of the houses and buffers.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Form was received and filed.

Chairman Van Der Weide surrendered the gavel to Vice Chairman Morris for the purpose of offering a motion.

Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-91, as shown on page ________, vacating and abandoning a portion of a 50 ft. right-of-way located on Brantley Drive, lying east of Lot 36, Cutler Cove, as described in the proof of publication, Michael Morro, with staff recommendations.

Under discussion, Commissioner McLain stated he feels uncomfortable that a 6-ft. retaining wall will be installed and a house will be built against that without any buffering. He stated he feels there needs to be some type of landscaping or something there as the only buffer is the additional 20-ft. right-of-way. He added that in all of the previous development agreements it is required that the property owner has to provide buffering on his property.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Najda advised he would recommend that the developer provide landscape buffering that would buffer the aesthetic of the wall and provide landscaping on the top of the wall on the other side.

Districts 1, 3, and 4 voted AYE.

Commissioners Morris and McLain voted NAY.

The gavel was returned to Commissioner Van Der Weide and he assumed the position as Chairman.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request to vacate and abandon two unnamed right-of-ways from the survey of the Moses E. Levy Grant, located south of SR 434 on Tuskawilla Road, CHC Development Company, received and filed.

Jean Abi-Aoun, Principal Engineer, addressed the Board to state the purpose of the request is to allow for a future mixed use development within the City of Winter Springs. Both right-of-ways are 30 feet wide and undeveloped. He said the rights-of-way are not currently in use and have never been used for access. The vacate will not have adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

Vice Chairman Morris stated the Board has a letter on file from the City Manager of Winter Springs supporting the request.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Written Comment Form from Sharon Tackaberry supporting the request was received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-88, as shown on page _________, vacating and abandoning two unnamed rights-of-way from the survey of the Moses E. Levy Grant, located south of SR 434 on Tuskawilla Road, as described in the proof of publication, CHC Development Company.

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

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request for a Budget Amendment to reconcile all fund balances from FY 99/00 to FY 00/01, received and filed.

Ginger Barrett, Fiscal Services, addressed the Board to advise this budget amendment totals $19,841,698 and establishes fund balances documented by the recently published 2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Other adjustments include: Reconcile rebudgets; Adjust grant revenue; adjust funding for the Trails Program from the General Fund to Transportation Trust Fund; Adjust Law Enforcement Trust funds to reflect actual dollars; and Adjust account lines in the Infrastructure Sales Tax Fund.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-89, as shown on page _________, reconciling all fund balances from FY 99/00 to FY 00/01, as described in the proof of publication.

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

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider Amendment to the Industrial Pretreatment Program, received and filed.

Bruce Paster, Utilities Manager, addressed the Board to advise the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is requiring that the following changes be made to the Industrial Pretreatment Program: (1) Revise local discharge limits for pollutants that may interfere with the Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The existing local limits are based on preventing interference with the Greenwood Lakes Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). The proposed local limits are based on meeting the requirements of both the Greenwood Lakes WWTF and the Northwest Area Regional WWTF. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has approved the revised local limits and has instructed staff to proceed with BCC approval; (2) The addition of language pertaining to periodic cleaning of grease traps. Users shall clean grease interceptors every 90 days and under-the-sink grease traps once a week. Users shall bi-annually submit grease interceptor pump-out reports to the County; and (3) The addition of language pertaining to the Iron Bridge WWTF service area. Industrial users are to conform to the City of Orlando Sewer Use Ordinance pertaining to pretreatment.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt Ordinance #2001-20, as shown on page _________, approving Amendment to the Industrial Pretreatment Program, as described in the proof of publication.

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

The Chairman recessed the meeting at 3:05 p.m., reconvening at 3:17 p.m.

Proofs of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider request 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 state the Board adopted a moratorium stopping issuance of development permits for all new outdoor advertising signs. This moratorium allowed sufficient time for staff and the Board to address remedies to cease the proliferation of outdoor advertising signs. A draft ordinance was presented to the Board on April 24, 2001. He stated there is a correction relative to the number of signs in unincorporated Seminole County. That number is 109 instead of 108. The limit of signs will reduce upon the occurrence of the following: (1) The property containing the existing structure is annexed; (2) An existing structure is removed incidental to a road widening of other public works project; (3) An existing structure is removed incidental to the development or redevelopment of a property upon which an existing structure is located; (4) An existing structure is removed incidental to the expiration of the lease or other agreement authorizing placement of the existing structure on the property; and (5) A non-conforming existing structure is removed due to destruction, damage, or other damage which resulted in a natural event. All sign faces are limited to the square footage, dimensions, number of vision panels, and the direction to which they face. No vegetation shall be removed from a site in which an outdoor advertising sign is to be located except to the extent that is necessary to install a sign. He referred to Page 5, Section 4 of the proposed Ordinance and advised the following wording will be inserted at the end of the next to last sentence, "Provided that the reconstruction is accomplished in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Land Development Code".

Stephen Lee, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board to advise the date of May 8, 2001 will be inserted on Page 3, Section 2(b).

Mr. Fisher stated staff has distributed the Private Property Rights Analysis and the Economic Impact Statement as well as the Billboard Inventory booklet. All were received and filed. A letter from Mr. Fisher to Lou Musica relating to Eller Media’s proposal was received and filed.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Fisher advised staff will have further recommendations relating to damages that are caused during natural events. Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Fisher advised tri-vision billboards are more intense than single face. He stated the ordinance is very clear and maintains the status quo.

Stan Bessmer stated he and his wife recently visited California and what they noticed was the absence of billboards. He stated while driving down 17-92, his wife indicated that the billboards are ugly.

Lou Musica, Eller Media, addressed the Board to submit a comparison of staff’s prepared ordinance and Eller Media’s proposed ordinance and a copy of the proposed ordinance revised by Eller Media. Both were received and filed.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Lee advised the Board cannot adopt any changes to the ordinance without it being properly advertised.

Mr. Musica reviewed the similarities and differences of staff’s prepared and Eller Media’s prepared ordinance as outlined in his handout. He stated he is requesting that the Board not adopt the vegetation language.

Bryan Parker, Eller Media, addressed the Board to submit a copy of Eller Media’s suggested changes to the sign ordinance. He reviewed the four additions and three deletions (located in Sections 2 and 5) as indicated in the handout.

Commissioner Henley stated he interpreted Item 3 that if a building is relocated and the sign is required to come down, it would not go back up. But, if the property is developed and the sign is not impacted, it doesn’t have to be removed, but it can’t be used as a condition to force them to get a permit. He said he doesn’t think that is staff’s intent to use that to force a sign to come down.

Commissioner McLain stated he would think that if the property owner is going to build a building where the sign is located, they would have to work out a contractual agreement with the sign company before they come forward with a building permit.

Commissioner Morris stated if this ordinance is adopted, the Board needs to instruct staff to come back with some type of formula for those nonconforming uses and agreements.

Mr. Parker stated the advertising sign businesses would like to go in and comply with the codes of the County’s arbor ordinance with regard to trimming or removal of trees. The proposed draft not only deals with the property where the sign is located, but the adjacent property as well. He stated his concern is the County is imposing a condition on an unrelated piece of property. He added he feels that it is inappropriate to add a condition that says they are going to treat billboard signs differently from everything else in the county. He said he would like that struck from the current ordinance. He discussed the issue of leases.

Mr. Fisher explained the intent of the provision of leases expiring.

Commissioner McLain stated his concern is if the lease expires the property owner does not renew the lease, will that property owner be held captive or will the infrastructure be sold to them.

Mr. Parker stated that is between the private property owner and the sign company.

Commissioner McLain stated the best thing to do is make the sign come down when the lease expires.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Lee advised if there is a possibility of creating a monopoly on existing billboards, the value of selling the spaces becomes higher, then the property owner may demand more rent.

Commissioner Henley stated he feels that Commissioner McLain raised a valid point. He stated it could be interpreted that the landowner has no right to change sign owners on a site that is permitted. He said he would like to know if it is possible that the landowner, prior to the expiration, can agree to a new company.

Mr. Parker stated the reality of the market place under the current inventory is that most of the signs are nonconforming and can’t be rebuilt.

Commissioner Maloy stated he would suggest putting a timeframe in and give the companies a window to be able to rebuild.

Commissioner Henley stated if the lease has expired and the landowner does not want to renew, then it is a dead duck.

Commissioner Morris stated the only people looking at leases are the landowner and the sign company. Discussion ensued.

Mr. Lee pointed out that about 70 or 80% of the signs cannot be replaced. If the sign company got into a dispute with the property owner and they were unable to work out an arrangement and the sign was taken down, then it cannot be replaced.

Brad Cooper, 1093 Aberdovey Pt., representing Exceptional Advertising addressed the Board to state if a new billboard company wanted to come in and reduce the size and height of the sign, they could make a deal. He stated he would like tri-vision billboards reconsidered.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Cooper advised if there was a window of time, if the location was conforming now, perhaps a new one could go up in the same location within 120 days if the location was available.

Sid Vihlen, Jr., 204 N. Park Ave., addressed the Board to state he is here to speak as a property owner and taxpayer. He stated he supports what the Board is doing, as it is good for Seminole County. He said he signed a lease with a sign company and an application was filed in July 2000 and the permit is just sitting there as this legal application was caught up in the moratorium. He requested the Board to take action by removing his application from the moratorium because it is illegal to have this pending application under the moratorium.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Lee advised he has Mr. Vihlen’s information and he will be reviewing it Thursday at the latest.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels that this application should have been issued unless the moratorium included existing applications. Discussion ensued.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

Chairman Van Der Weide announced that this is the first public hearing on this issue and the second meeting is scheduled for May 22, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.

Commissioner Maloy discussed Eller Media’s changes relative to deleting the sections indicated in their handout.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

Mr. Fisher stated it is too late to add anything to this ordinance and the intent is to maintain status quo. He stated staff would like to evaluate the deletions and add-ons. He said there is no reason why they cannot bring that back to the Board at a later date.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he would like staff to analyze these changes and present their requirements to the Board at the next meeting.

Commissioner McLain stated he would like the issues he raised researched as well.

Commissioner Morris stated he feels that Commissioners McLain and Henley have a point and their issues should be examined further.

Commissioner Henley stated the last sentence in Section 4 states that "an existing structure may not be relocated to another location". He stated he would like the Board’s reaction on adding the following language, "except the relocation would be for the public good as determined criteria established and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners". He stated there might be a situation where there is a proliferation of boards and may swap a board that is less intensive in order to correct past mistakes.

Commissioner Morris stated he would have to agree with Commissioner Henley. The County can go back to the industry and come up with a formula on how that would be addressed. Then the ordinance can be amended accordingly.

Chairman Van Der Weide closed the first public hearing and advised that the second public hearing is scheduled for May 22, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he will be unable to attend tonight’s meeting and he apologizes for the inconvenience. He said he will leave a recommendation on tonight’s issues with the County Manager.

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

1. Copy of letter dated April 26, 2001, from the Vice Chairman to State Representative David Simmons Re: HB 1053/SB 2056/Outdoor Advertising Signs (Billboards). (Same letter sent to all of the Seminole County Legislative Delegation) (cc: Board, County Manager)
2. Copy of letter dated April 26, 2001, from the Vice Chairman to State Senator Lee Constantine Re: HB 949/SB 2062/Utility Regulation - Eminent Domain. (cc: Board, County Manager)
3. Copy of minutes for the LYNX Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (CFRTA) Board of Directors meeting of March 22, 2001. (cc: Board)
4. Letters dated April 24, 2001, from Janet Snyder Matthews, Ph.D., State Historic Preservation Officer, Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, to the Chairman advising of the nomination for listing in the National Register of Historic Places of the Wheeler-Evans House, 340 South Lake Jesup Avenue, Oviedo, Florida and the Browne-King House. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Library & Leisure Services)
5. Letter dated April 18, 2001, from Sheriff Donald F. Eslinger to the Chairman Re: Rave Club Ordinance. (cc: Board, County Manager, County Attorney, Lieutenant Sam Gibson)
6. Copy of letter dated April 27, 2001, and attachments from Michael B. Twomey, Special Legislative Counsel to Collier County, to All County Commissioners, All County Attorneys, All County Administrators, and All County Utility Manager, Re: Impending loss of counties' power of eminent domain from HB 949 and SB 2062. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCMs)
7. Letter dated April 12, 2001, from Senator Anna P. Cowin, District 11, to the Chairman, Re: Funds for Preservation 2000 & Florida Forever, with attached memorandum from Elton Revell, Deputy Staff Director, Senate Appropriations Committee, to President John McKay, reporting on meeting with Kirby Green, Deputy Secretary Dept. of Environmental Protection, Re: Everglades Restoration Program for FY 2001-02. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCMs, County Attorney, Planning & Development Director)
8. Letter dated April 27, 2001, from Edward "Mack" McReynolds, Committee Member of the Seminole County/Lake Mary Regional Chamber of Commerce CRA, to the Board, Re: State Housing Initiatives Partnership (S.H.I.P.) Plan. (cc: Board, County Manager)
9. Minutes of the Cooperative Extension Services & BCC Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting of April 3, 2001, and March 9, 2001.
10. Copy of letter from J. Kevin Grace, County Manager, to Susan Eberle, Re: Update on Lake Econlockhatchee Basin Engineering Evaluation.
11. Copy of letter from Janet R. Dougherty, CMC, Sanford City Clerk, dated April 24, 2001, transmitting copy of Ordinance No. 3637, annexing 126 acres of property lying between Seminole Boulevard extended easterly and Celery Avenue and between Brisson Ave and May River Court. (cc: Property Appraiser, Planning & Development Director, GIS)
12. Copy of letter from Janet R. Dougherty, CMC, Sanford City Clerk, dated April 24, 2001, transmitting copy of Ordinance No. 3636, annexing .40 acres of property lying between Sarita Street and Briarcliffe Street and between Mohawk Avenue and Marshall Avenue. (cc: Property Appraiser, Planning & Development Director, GIS)
13. Copy of letter from Janet R. Dougherty, CMC, Sanford City Clerk, dated April 24, 2001, transmitting copy of Ordinance No. 3634, annexing 2.28+- acres of property lying between S.R. 46 and Northstar Court and between Creek Road and Upsala Road. (cc: Property Appraiser, Planning & Development Director, GIS)
14. Copy of letter dated April 25, 2001, from Janet R. Dougherty, CMC, Sanford City Clerk, transmitting a copy of Notice for Ordinance Nos. 3638, 3639, 3640, 3641, and 3642. (cc: Board, County Manager, Property Appraiser, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director)
15. Copy of letter dated April 24, 2001, from Roland D. Magyar, AICP, Planner, City of Casselberry, advising of Application to Change the Future Land Use and Zoning designation of Property at 2075, Semoran Boulevard, Casselberry. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director)
16. Faxed letter dated April 26, 2001, from Stephen MacKenzie, expressing opposition to proposed Seventh Day Adventist Sand Lake Development plan. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
17. Notice of Public Hearing to be held by the City of Lake Mary on May 17, 2001, to consider rezoning of property from PO Professional Office to C-1 General Commercial (2889 W. Lake Mary Boulevard). (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning Manager)
18. Copy of letter dated April 25, 2001, from Lonnie N. Groot, Shutts & Bowen LLP, to Matthew West and John Dwyer, Planning and Development, Re: Arbor Permit Denial; Vihlen Parcel. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning and Development Director, Development Review Manager, Todd Brown, Sid Vihlen)
19. E-mail dated April 25, 2001, from Wallace and Patricia Belcher to the Board, expressing opposition to proposed rezoning of property between Sand Lake Road and 436. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
20. Memorandum dated April 25, 2001, from Cindy Matheny, Senior Planner, Planning Division, to the Board, Re: Forest Lake PUD Large-Scale Amendment & Rezone.
21. Letter dated April 19, 2001, from Henry Dean, Executive Director, St. Johns River Water Management District, to the Chairman, transmitting a summary of the District's reduced water consumption campaign. (cc: Board, County Manager (w/summary), DCM/Marino)
22. Copy of letter dated April 20, 2001, from Commissioner Randall C. Morris to State Senator Lee Constantine Re: Payday loan industry. (cc: Seminole County Legislative Delegation, BCC)
23. Agenda for the Sanford Airport Authority Board meeting for Tuesday, May 1, 2001. (cc: Liaison Commissioner McLain)
24. Copy of letter dated April 23, 2001, from Robert G. Adolphe, P.E., Director, Environmental Services, to Mike Mullens, Professor, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Re: Senior Student Project. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM)
25. Faxed Transmission dated April 24, 2001, from Bobby Brantley & Eric Thorn, Re: Senate Amendment (CS for SB 2056) (cc: Board, County Manager, DCMs, County Attorney)
26. Copy of letter from Byron W. Brooks, Executive Director, Lynx, to Commissioner Grant Maloy, Re: LYNX Presentation Follow-up. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Alice Gilmartin, Transportation Planner, Randy Farwell, Director of Planning Department, LYNX, Frankie Callen, Executive Manager of Government Affairs, LYNX)
27. Copy of Memorandum 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)
28. Agenda for the Oviedo City Council Meeting of May 7, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCMs, County Attorney)
29. Copy of letter dated May 3, 2001, from Donald S. Fisher, Planning and Development Director, to Lou Musica, Eller Media Company, Re: Eller Media's Proposal for an Alternate Outdoor Advertising Ordinance. (cc: Board, County Manager, County Attorney, Deputy County Managers, Deputy County Attorney, Planning Manager, Chief Inspector/Code Enforcement)
30. E-mails from the following Re: Proposed development on Sand Lake Road. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
31. Minutes of the Community Meeting at Sylvan Lake Park of May 3, 2001 to solicit public comment on lighting fields at Sylvan Lake Park and allowing ticketed sports events at the park.
32. Local Government Monthly Mailer for May 2001, from the St. Johns River Water Management District.
33. Copy of letter dated May 3, 2001, from Mahmoud R. Najda, P.E., Development Review Manager, to Michael Towers, Fleet Financial Corporation, Re: Public Roads Privatization Process/E-Mail dated 4/30/01 to Don Fisher. (cc: Board, Planning & Development Director, Deputy County Manager)
34. Copy of Memorandum dated May 4, 2001, from Kathryn J. Brown, Senior Planner-One Stop Permitting, to Sandy McCann, County Records, Re: Submissions into Official Records. (cc: Board, County Manager, Environmental Services Director)
35. Copy of letter dated April 30, 2001, and attachments from Jennifer Bencie, M.D., M.S.A., Administrator, Seminole County Health Department, Re: Quarterly Report for FYTD First Quarter 2000-2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, Director of Community Services, Deputy County Manager/Chandler)
36. Copy of letter dated May 3, 2001, from Lonnie N. Groot, Shutts & Bowen LLP, to Robert A. McMillan, Esquire, Seminole County Attorney, Re: Vihlen Sign Site; CR 15. (cc: Board, County Manager, Deputy County Manager/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Todd Brown, Sid Vihlen)
37. Copy of letter dated May 3, 2001, from Thelma McPherson, CMC, City Clerk, City of Casselberry, transmitting Ordinance #01-1016, Annexation of Photochemical Systems property located at the Northwest corner of Melody Lane and Anchor Road Intersection. (cc: Board, Property Appraiser, Planning & Development Director, GIS, Casselberry City Manager and Community Development Director)
38. E-mail dated May 2, 2001, from Gail E. Brown, Re: Traffic Problem - City of Oviedo. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Marino, Public Works Director)
39. E-mails from the following Re: Proposed Seventh Day Adventist Development: Rita Deschambeau, Judy Kroker, James O. Ackerman. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
40. Memorandum dated May 3, 2001, from James P. Berko, MSW, ACSW, Executive Director, Seminole Community Mental Health Center, Re: SCMHC's Dual Diagnosis Project in Final Budget. (cc: Board, County Manager)
41. Letter dated May 4, 2001, from Sid Vihlen, Jr., President, Rand Yard Railway Development Corporation, Re: Oxford Outdoor Advertising Application for Outdoor Billboard/CR 15 at Interstate 4. (cc: Board, County Manager, Deputy County Manager/Chandler, County Attorney, Planning & Development Director)
42. Copy of E-mail dated May 3, 2001, from Bob Zaitooni, Traffic Engineer, to Doug Bishop, in response of letter of March 14, 2001, Re: Road Humps on Eastbrook Boulevard. (cc: Board, Public Works Director, DCM/Marino)
43. Letter dated May 2, 2001, from Jamie Allan Adley speaking in opposition to proposed vacate and abandonment portion of Brantley Drive (Michael Morro, applicant) to be heard in Board meeting of May 8, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning Manager, Development Review)
44. Letter dated April 30, 2001, from Sheldon B. Watson, Project Manager, Community/Media Relations, LYNX, transmitting application for appointment to the newly formed Citizen Advisory Committee. (cc: Board)
45. Copy of letter dated May 2, 2001, from Vice Chairman Randall Morris, to Governor Bush advising of support by the Board for the Community Mental Health Dual Diagnosis Services proposal. (cc: Board, County Manager)
46. Letter dated April 25, 2001, from Governor Jeb Bush to Vice Chairman Randall Morris, advising of receipt of letter regarding the proposal to shift $100 million of Preservation 2000 funds to pay for the state's share of FY 2002 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration plan costs. (cc: Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development Director, Colleen Rotella, Ginger Hoke, Steve Lee)
47. Letter dated April 26, 2001, from Governor Jeb Bush to Vice Chairman Randall Morris, advising of receipt of letter of April 11, in support of continued funding for the Preservation 2000 and Florida Forever programs. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Colleen Rotella, Ginger Hoke)
48. Newsletter from the School Board of Seminole County.
49. Minutes of the Library Advisory Board Meeting of April 9, 2001.
50. Minutes of the Seminole County Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Meeting of April 12, 2001.
51. Copy of memorandum dated April 30, 2001, from Henry Brown, Assistant County Attorney, to Maureen Landgraf, Engineering Accountant, Re: Payment of Direct Pay Request dated March 8, 2001, Seminole Co. v. Grace Properties, Parcels Nos. 106/706. (cc: Board, County Attorney, Purchasing Manager)
52. Copies of letter from J. Suzy Goldman, Library & Leisure Services Director to the following: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Jones, Kathy S. Krasnoff, and Tush Marku, expressing appreciation for recent donations to the Seminole County public library system.
53. Copy of the Central Florida Sports Commission monthly mailer for April 2001.
54. Contracts for Services, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County Parks and Recreation and Theresa Walburger, Michael Richards, Danielle Fernandez, and Christopher G. Brown.

Commissioner Morris stated he received a letter indicating what was happening with the County’s licensing.

Mr. Fisher stated staff has prepared a report and will be seeking the Board’s direction.

-------

Commissioner Morris stated he has read an article in the newspaper indicating that the County has changed their procedure for termite coverage for homes. He stated he would like a report back on what they are doing, why it is being done that way, and why the Board was not informed that this was changed.

-------

Commissioner Morris referred to an audit that was done by the Clerk relative to the 104 Fund.

Mr. Grace stated he is planning to bring this issue up during his report today.

-------

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated the Dairy Manor located on SR 436, Forest City area, has a large parking lot and he noticed that a fruit stand sits catty-cornered in that parking lot. The owner applied for a tent permit and apparently was approved for same. They paid $11,000 in impact fees. He stated they are using a port-a-let and electricity that is coming from the Dairy Manor, but he doesn’t see any running water to the tent.

Mr. Fisher stated staff is evaluating the site plan with the Development Review staff for compliance of code provisions. This property is under the same ownership as the Dairy Manor and they are sharing facilities.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he doesn’t know what can be done about this.

Mr. Fisher stated he feels it is appropriate to give the Board a full report by the end of next week.

Commissioner Morris stated the Board can direct staff to look at the whole issue. It is crazy to allow temporary structures to go up in a permanent fashion and impact fees are paid as well.

-------

Commissioner Henley stated he received a phone call from Larry Furlong complimenting the Kewannee Park project. He stated he feels that that was the best thing the Board has done.

-------

Commissioner Henley stated he was happy to see that the County Manager has responded to the discrepancies and errors that were pointed out in the 104 Fund audit. He stated he would like to know where they are on the recent issues of the shortages and overdrafts.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he was briefed on the response yesterday.

-------

Commissioner Henley stated in looking at a preliminary schedule to the next two-year budget, he has been briefed on the fact that the revenue projections are going down. Therefore, he would recommend the following motion.

Motion by Commissioner Henley to authorize the Chairman to draft a letter to the Port Authority requesting that the Port contribute $300,000 annually to the General Fund for the next three years and at the end of that time, the Board will reconsider.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels the motion is out of order as he feels that should be addressed during the budget process. He added he feels it is premature to pick a number without doing more research on the matter.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he sent the Board a copy of the letter he sent to the Port; and the Port indicated that they would take that under consideration.

Commissioner McLain stated he would have no problem with tabling this item until the next meeting.

Commissioner Maloy seconded the motion.

Commissioner Maloy stated the Port Authority has a substantial amount of money in their reserve funds.

Commissioner Morris stated it would seem logical that the County Manager speak to the Executive Director of the Port and they can address the Board on what their plan is. Discussion ensued.

Mr. Grace stated the Chairman had asked him and Cindy Hall to look at their funds and it appears that $300,000 can be taken out of their cash flow.

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

-------

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to appoint John Horan to the Natural Lands Committee, and adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-90, as shown on page ________, commending Kevin Spolski for his service to the Natural Lands Committee.

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

Chairman Van Der Weide surrendered the gavel to Vice Chairman Morris and left the meeting at this time.

Vice Chairman Morris recessed the meeting at 5:03 p.m., reconvening at 5:09 p.m., with Chairman Van Der Weide being absent.

Vice Chairman Morris reminded the Board that Chairman Van Der Weide will not be in attendance during this evening’s meeting.

Mr. Grace stated the County is trying to work out an agreement with regard to a land exchange involving the County’s retention pond near the corner of Howell Branch and Lake Howell Lane. He stated the private property owner is asking authorization to proceed with the City of Casselberry to do a rezoning on the County’s property while negotiations are being finalized.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Grace advised the rezoning application is with the City of Casselberry and the property to be swapped is County property.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. McMillan advised the private property owner is requesting authorization for them to apply for a rezone on County property.

Mr. McMillan stated he would think it would be prudent for the Board to authorize this rather than the County Manager.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen, addressed the Board to advise the urgency is the rezoning has to occur in a timely manner because HUD financing is involved and certain time lines are imposed by the Federal government. The rezoning process with the City of Casselberry takes about 60 days and all he wants to do is file the application. If something doesn’t work out in the agreement, there is nothing binding, just authorization to go through the process of rezoning.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to authorize the applicant to proceed with the rezoning, with the understanding that there is not a commitment from the Board at this time.

Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

Mr. Grace stated he appreciates the audit reports (104 Fund) that are being done, as it points out weaknesses. He stated he has prepared a memo going through those issues in detail.

Commissioner Morris stated he would like to thank the County Manager for getting this out in a short period of time.

Mr. Fisher stated staff has been keeping the Development Advisory Board up to date on the progress of the 104 Fund and he will provide them a copy of the report at the next meeting.

Commissioner Henley stated he would suggest doing some more spot-checking to see how serious the problems are.

-------

Mr. Grace reminded the Board of the Ireland trip coming up this Friday. He stated he, Commissioner Morris, Rob Nixon and Jack Wert will be going. He said Deputy County Manager Frances Chandler will be acting County Manager at that time.

-------

Mr. Grace stated there have been articles in the newspaper regarding arsenic in the playgrounds. He stated he would like to inform the Board that Seminole County does not have any problems of that in their parks at all.

-------

Mr. Grace asked if the Board would like to cancel the first meeting in July.

Vice Chairman Morris stated he believes Chairman Van Der Weide will be out during that time period.

Mr. Grace advised the Budget work sessions will be held in mid-July.

The consensus of the Board was to cancel the first meeting in July.

-------

The Board recessed the meeting at 5:25 p.m., reconvening at 7:00 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exceptions of Chairman Van Der Weide, who was absent; County Manager Kevin Grace, who was replaced by Deputy County Manager Frances Chandler; and Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who were present at the Opening Session.

Continuation of a public hearing from April 24, 2001, to consider Plan Amendment from Planned Development and Public/Quasi-Public to Planned Development and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture), C-2 (Retail Commercial), PUD (Planned Unit Development), R-1A (Residential), and R-1AA (Residential), to PUD (Planned Unit Development); property located north of SR 436, south of Sand Lake Road, and west of West Lake Brantley Drive, John Percy.

Senior Planner, Cindy Matheny, addressed the Board to state this request is for a 258-acre parcel and includes the existing Forest Lake PUD and adjoining lands. Development of the site would include commercial, office, residential, church, and school uses, and an Assisted Living Facility. She stated the comment from the Department of Community Affairs related to the level of service issues on SR 436. The Planning staff has responded to the comment with updated level of service data and staff feels the comment was adequately addressed.

Ms. Matheny stated the Planning Agency voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the rezoning to PUD, subject to: (1) The 80’ church tower must be constructed as an integral part of the church complex and not as a free-standing structure; (2) The church will not exceed three stories, but the peak of the roof may be up to 50 feet in height, and a church steeple may be up to 80 feet; and (3) The school will not exceed three stories, but the peak of the roof may be up to 50 feet.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Matheny reviewed the comparison (shown in the staff report) of what is currently allowed on the property and what this proposal would do. She also stated the current PUD has limited access to Sand Lake Road and does not have access to West Lake Brantley. She sad the previous approval would have permitted the single family, church, and school to go onto Sand Lake Road, but not the other uses in the PUD. The applicant is now requesting that all the PUD development areas be interconnected and all areas have access to Sand Lake Road, West Lake Brantley, and SR 436.

Matt West, Planning & Development Manager, discussed with Commissioner Henley that the schools are the attracters of vehicular traffic. Commissioner Henley asked the applicant to address the number of school age children from this PUD that is expected to impact the school system.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. West advised that it could be included in the development order that none of the multi-family would have access to Sand Lake Road. Commissioner McLain asked the applicant to address that also.

Mr. West reviewed for Commissioner McLain the uses for Parcels 11 and 12.

John Percy, applicant, addressed the Board to state the currently approved PUD allows single family traffic only. He doesn’t believe the Academy traffic and church traffic on 436 are allowed to go up to Sand Lake Road. They have tried to be consistent with that approval by putting the single family neighborhood frontage on Sand Lake Road with only one access. He said the inconsistency is where they show the internal connection with the intent that people who live in the single family residences could find a way to get through the multi-family and into the planned commercial village. He said they understand that people could also find their way up from SR 436 to the single family and beyond to Sand Lake Road. They think that would be a small amount of traffic and with the design, that would be discouraged, but they cannot guarantee it. He said if the internal connections were removed or reduced to just a bicycle and pedestrian connection, they could guarantee that only single family trips would go onto Sand Lake Road. He explained that the current approval is for 112 single-family homes and the new proposal is for 120. That would mean approximately 80 additional daily trips and 8 or 9 additional peak hour trips. He also explained that the density for the current plan is about 3.2 units per acre and with the proposed plan, the density is 2.7 units, a decrease for the single-family area. He estimated that the project should generate about 100 students, with 50% of elementary age, 26% for middle school and 24% in high school. If they add more multi-family units, these numbers would be increased proportionately. Mr. Percy advised with the Board’s previous approval in January, they put on the condition that only the Academy traffic would go onto West Lake Brantley Drive.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Percy discussed why they do not want to build a new road to the north and cut off access for the single family to Sand Lake Road due to marketing. He explained it would be an expensive road to build and they don’t think they could sell homes at the same value as they could with a Sand Lake Road address.

Luigi Damiani, 113 W. Wyndam Court, member of the Board of Directors of the Wekiva Homeowners Association, addressed the Board to state his concern for the alternate development scenarios proposed. He stated if the multi-family units increase, they have concerns about the traffic and school impacts. He said with the 120 single families, the additional capacity would be enough. If the plan is modified to have 437 multi-family units, some of those children will go to Wekiva Elementary School and that is a tremendous concern to them. He asked for approval of the first component but not the alternate.

John Gorins, 2450 Pleasant Drive, Civic Association of West Lake Brantley, addressed the Board to show a map (received and filed) of the subject site and streets of cul-de-sac communities that are burdened by Sand Lake Road. He showed a videotape (received and filed) taken two weeks ago of the impacted roads and the accompanying traffic. He said there is no lack of houses for sale in all price ranges in the West Lake Brantley area. The church attendees, therefore, do not need the development in question. He stated Sand Lake Road is gridlocked three times daily. He named the various neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs representing 1,000 residents and said Sand Lake Road is already burdened. He said there are five traffic lights in the space of one mile on Sand Lake Road from SR 434 to West Lake Brantley Road northbound, and there are four schools on this small road. This is the only eastbound route to work, shopping, to I-4, and for evacuation. The PUD will be marketed to non-church buyers and their children will add to the overcrowding at Forest City Elementary and Lake Brantley High School. He said the possible density of 4.3 units per acre is not acceptable and is not reflected by the surrounding area. They do not want zero lot lines, open apartment noise, increased crime, and crammed roads. He requested that there be no vehicular access on Sand Lake Road or West Lake Brantley Road; when this development occurs, that there be a wall at least six feet tall and a green zone along Sand Lake Road; and that there be a horseshoe layout on the streets.

Kent Foreman, 266 Lakay Place, representing Terra Oaks Subdivision, addressed the Board to state he thinks the request to change from 230 to 437 multi-family units is unreasonable at this point. He recommended that some specific lot sizes be recommended to the applicant to help protect the standards of the adjacent neighborhoods. He said they are against the Alternate A as they feel it is too much flexibility, and the impact on the residents could be significant. He believes the access on Sand Lake Road should be limited. He said it would be nice to see all the single-family traffic go onto SR 436. He said if the applicant were allowed to have multi-family on the south portion of the parcel, the fire department would probably require an interconnection and then there would be no choice but to allow access. He said he doesn’t think cutting through the wetlands with a roadway is a good idea. He is not sure of the church’s request for an 80’ height extension without any architectural plans to be done. This would be a precedence that he doesn’t think the Commission would like to set for this part of the County.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. West explained how the density is calculated and how it relates to the existing density across the street.

Judy Kroker, 1420 West Lake Brantley Road, addressed the Board to state no one has addressed the landfill issue. She distributed information (not received and filed) to the Board. She stated the landfill existed from the 1930’s to the 1970’s and she explained how it was used. Although the landfill is closed and is covered with trees and shrub, she said to her knowledge, it has never been cleaned up. She said extensive studies should be done on the site prior to any permits being issued, and the wetlands need to be fully evaluated. She said due to the present drought conditions, the flood areas are not visible, but she is aware of three large areas that were fished in before the drought. She discussed the drainage areas and said the County has not kept them cleared. She asked the Board to review the site and assure they will never have the flooding problems experienced in the past. She asked that all the traffic be routed to Bear Lake Road.

Upon inquiry by Vice Chairman Morris, Martin vanDuyvenbode said his comments have been covered and he did not wish to speak.

Mary Ann Campbell, 2431 Palmetto Drive, addressed the Board to state there are 13 residential areas on Sand Lake Road and their only access from their homes is Sand Lake Road. Eight of those are between the light at West Lake Brantley Road and Hunt Club and two schools are in that space. She explained how the traffic from Ruth Street and Pecan Cove has to cut across traffic when parents are dropping off children at the school. She also explained the same scenario at the other school affecting Terra Oaks, Forest Park Circle, Forest Park Estates, and Sandy Lane. She said this is a very tight area with a lot of traffic, and in between these two schools is where Mr. Percy is planning to put the exit onto Sand Lake Road. She said this would be a very bad location. To her, there is no purpose, other than the marketability of the houses, to have any kind of entrance on Sand Lake Road. They could be looking at an additional 2,000 cars and Sand Lake Road cannot now hold 2,000 more cars per day. She said she would not like to see the second proposal go into effect either.

Bobby Hill, 2871 Citron Drive, President of Brantley Point Homeowners Association, addressed the Board to state the residents in his neighborhood would say the same as the others about the traffic situation. He said they are against any other roads on Sand Lake Road because of all the traffic, and the development already there is not being handled the way they would like it and traffic is one of those reasons.

Carol Thompson, 1400 Suzanne Way, President of Jennifer Estates, addressed the Board to ask the Board to listen to them because the gridlock is huge.

Vice Chairman Morris read the written comment by Doris K. Beans in opposition, due to the traffic and flooding problems.

Mr. Percy responded to questions raised about the alignment of the access to Sand Lake Road, concerns about drainage issues, the landfill, and their commitment to have the multi-family and business traffic to only go on SR 436.

Upon inquiry by Vice Chairman Morris, Mr. West advised that before any approvals or permits are given, the applicant will have to submit wetland studies, wildlife study, and geotechnical studies if anything is proposed to go over the landfill. These are handled at the engineering phase; and the applicant has to go to the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Department of Environmental Protection also for approval.

Upon further inquiry by Vice Chairman Morris, Mr. Percy discussed the lot sizes and height of the church steeple.

Mr. West discussed how the wetlands are reviewed. Ms. Matheny discussed the level of service on Sand Lake Road.

Don Fisher, Planning and Development Director, addressed the Board to answer questions by Vice Chairman Morris about the basin study. Mr. Percy said the applicant would participate with the basin study.

Commissioner Henley suggested, if Sand Lake Road is the issue, the applicant may want to look at redoing the plan and put the assisted living facility further up and restrict that exit onto Sand Lake Road only and let the single family go down to the other area and exit on SR 436.

Alice Gilmartin, Transportation Specialist, addressed the Board to state Sand Lake Road improvement is one of the last ones to be done with the one-cent sales tax; and the construction is to be completed by Year 2005. Mr. McMillan clarified that this is the road from Hunt Club Boulevard to SR 434.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Percy said it is likely that the single family will be the first phase from the market response, and the construction could begin as early as 12 to 18 months.

Vice Chairman Morris read the written comments from others in opposition due to the traffic on Sand Lake Road, concern about accidents on the congested roads, and flooding in the area.

In response to a question by Robert Campbell regarding the Adventist laundry and where the water will go, Mr. Percy answered that the applicant is required to have central sewage.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

DCM Frances Chandler stated District Commissioner Van Der Weide advised, prior to any comments tonight, that: (1) he concurs that access to Sand Lake Road should be limited to single family residential only with no multi-family or other issues allowed the access; and (2) West Lake Brantley Road access should be limited to the Academy only.

Ms. Matheny advised Commissioner Henley that 15% of the site is wetlands. She reviewed the public hearing notification process for the public.

Vice Chairman Morris asked staff to verify the fire access to Sand Lake Road and inform the homeowners association of how that works.

Vice Chairman Morris asked if the number of multi-family units could be limited versus the number of single family residents. Mr. West stated this is a PUD, so everything is negotiable. Vice Chairman Morris said the current approval is now for 112 residential units and 247 multi-family. He said he understands the necessity for the schools not having access through the commercial area and going down to SR 436 and having access on the side. He believes the rest of the project needs to access SR 436 and not have access to Sand Lake Road. He thinks the burden is on the applicant to do that because the only reason they need access on Sand Lake Road is for economics and the Board is not here to do that. He said the issue is attractability and location for ultimately what is going to sell.

Commissioner Maloy stated the current PUD allows access on Sand Lake Road for 112 residences. This revision generates eight additional homes. He said the applicant already has access and he asked how would they take away an existing right. He asked if the applicant could withdraw this request and continue to keep that access. Mr. McMillan stated by coming in and asking for something new, the Board can renegotiate with the applicant.

Upon request by Commissioner McLain, Vice Chairman Morris recessed the meeting for a break at 8:32 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.

Vice Chairman Morris stated the applicant has had an opportunity to reflect on some of the comments by the Board and the applicant during the break.

Mr. Percy stated that based on everything discussed tonight, he would withdraw this application at this point and go back to the drawing board and take another look at it all.

Vice Chairman Morris thanked the applicant for working very closely with the residents and Board. He said he regrets that the applicant is withdrawing, but wishes they could make this work. He is looking forward to looking at what they bring back.

Commissioner McLain stated he understands the applicant’s decision. He pointed out to everyone that on this large a project it is important they do it right. He said he doesn’t have a problem with the applicant readdressing this and coming back with the plan that is going to work and that the community and the Board feel comfortable with.

Commissioner Henley said he concurs with the statements from Commissioners McLain and Morris. He thinks this does demonstrate that the applicant is sensitive to the concerns of the community and is honestly seeking to find something everybody could work with, and he appreciates that.

Vice Chairman Morris advised that the application is withdrawn and the development rights that existed previously are still in existence.

Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider Ordinance amending the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Vision 2020 Plan, received and filed.

Planner, Dick Boyer, addressed the Board to state the Department of Community Affairs had one objection to the Vision 2020 Plan.

Matt West explained the objection was regarding the Conservation Element goals directed at preserving wetlands.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

Mr. West said staff explained to DCA that those processes and policies are already in the County’s Codes and Comprehensive Plan. He discussed the three main ways the incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands.

Commissioner Henley said he appreciates the language that was incorporated in the Plan dealing with energy conservation and recharge areas. He thinks the Board needs to concentrate more on recharge areas in the future because some of these best areas are the most sought after for development.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

Vice Chairman Morris said that basically the Plan is being strengthened quite strongly.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt Ordinance #2001-21, as shown on page _______, amending the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Vision 2020 Plan; as described in the proof of publication, including all large scale text amendments and the Future Land Use map exhibit, with findings if any, and transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for issuance of a finding of compliance/noncompliance.

Under discussion, Mr. McMillan advised that apparently the ordinance contains the amendment just withdrawn by Mr. Percy. Ms. Chandler stated the ordinance included an amendment to the Future Land Use Map that was just withdrawn so Section 3 needs to be deleted from this ordinance.

Commissioner McLain amended the motion to delete Section 3 from the Ordinance, and Commissioner Henley concurred.

Upon inquiry by Vice Chairman Morris, Mr. West advised that there are updated policies in the ordinance directed at the current Billboard Ordinance.

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

Vice Chairman Morris thanked the staff for the very good work on the 2020 Plan.

Robert King, 2211 Black Hammock, Chairman of the Friends of Lake Jesup, addressed the Board to state they have a lot of good things going on and he wants to commend the staff and those attending the meetings. He advised that some of the berms are coming down and not all of them were permitted. He said if the Board has any questions, feel free to ask him or send the questions through the staff.

-------

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m., this same date.

ATTEST________________________Clerk_____________________Chairman

slm/er/cc