The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:35 a.m., on Tuesday, June 12, 2001, in the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.

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 Eva Roach

Pastor John Overcash, Sanford Church of Christ gave the Invocation.

Commissioner Henley led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner McLain expressed his appreciation to the professional firms who worked hard in putting in place the expansion of the Seminole County Historical Museum.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #2001-R-97, as shown on page ________, expressing appreciation to Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc., Harter-Adams, P.A., MacGregor-Smith Blueprinter, Inc., and Stillwater Technologies,

Inc., for their contributions to the expansion of the Seminole County Historical Museum.

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

Commissioner McLain presented a Resolution to each of the professional firms. Linda Bateman, Chairman of the Historical Association, addressed the Board to express her appreciation to the firms who helped in expanding the museum.

A gentleman from one of the firms addressed the Board to state on behalf of the consultant team, he would like to say that it is an honor for them to do the work and he would like to thank the County for recognizing the firms.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated this is something that the County appreciates the volunteer efforts of those firms and he would like to thank them for their services.

Commissioner Henley requested that Item #3, David M. Callin, Anna T. Callin and Myeong Choi v. Seminole County litigation be pulled for a separate vote.

Robert McMillan, County Attorney, addressed the Board to advise of an Add-on, Item #4A, Authorize County Attorney to proceed with lawsuit brought by Kurt W. Spath.

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

-------

Authorization to petition the Fifth District Court of Appeal for certiorari review of an order finding the County liable for inverse condemnation in David M. Callin, Anna T. Callin and Myeong Choi v. Seminole County, presented.

Commissioner Henley stated he would like to know what efforts have been made in trying to settle this case. He stated he doesn’t think this should have gone to trial, as it could have been settled earlier.

Mr. McMillan stated the original development order was approved by the Board in 1992 and it required that a conservation easement be given to the County over the flood plain. Apparently, there was a warranty deed filed rather than an easement and that did not come to the County’s attention until 1996 when the suit was filed. He stated as soon as he determined what happened, his office contacted the property owners and their attorney to see if this could be corrected with a corrective deed reserving the conservation easement. That was not acceptable to them and then the Board authorized an offer, which was rejected by them. His office then asked for Board authorization to issue the deed, but the property owner never accepted it. This issue went to trial and the court determined that there was a taking. After the trial, the complainant’s attorney requested $100,000 in damages for the property owner. He stated staff is requesting authorization to seek review of the order determining that there was County liability. He said the issue of liability will be scheduled for trial and be determined later.

Commissioner Henley stated the reason it was rejected is the County had retained mineral rights and took more land than expected. It did not revert back to the status that was there before a warranty deed was given. The property owner’s attorney indicated that staff had directed that it had to be a warranty deed. In view of the fact that the Board is frequently asked to settle because of the potential loss if they do not prevail, he stated he feels that staff should have informed the Board of the offer ($100,000) that was made. He said he feels that amount is excessive and he is reluctant to go to the next step in view of the fact that this has been going on for 10 years. He added the reason he wanted to pull this item was to make sure that the Board understood that there was an offer on the table. He stated he feels that mistakes were made on both sides, therefore, he feels the Board should direct staff to make a counteroffer.

Mr. McMillan stated his office received the $100,000 offer on May 25, 2001 (three weeks ago) and the appeal has to be filed within 30 days. He stated negotiations cannot be engaged without losing the issue on appeal. The County’s policy on negotiations is to get an offer and they counteroffer and if a resolution is obtained, it will go before the Board. If a resolution is not obtained, the attorney normally does not want it to go before the Board unless the County concurs with the settlement. He stated his office is willing to discuss a settlement. The legal issue is whether or not the County is liable for the actions of their employee acting out of the scope of his employment and the law indicates that they are not.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. McMillan advised his office may or may not have contacted the plaintiffs between now and May 25, but he is not sure at this point.

Stephen Lee, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board to state the order required the County to issue a deed within 30 days and the County’s choice is to either appeal that requirement or comply with it. He stated it would make more sense to get the matter under review and then negotiate a settlement.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide, Mr. McMillan advised that the appeal must be filed by Friday, June 15, 2001.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Lee advised the hearing will be held at the 5^th District Court of Appeals in Daytona Beach.

Commissioner Morris stated it appears to him that they are out of negotiation time and he would recommend that the Board authorize moving forward to preserve the legal rights, and at the same time authorize staff to submit a report to the Board on a counteroffer.

Commissioner Henley stated he doesn’t have a problem preserving the right as long as they will get a good faith effort in trying to settle this. He stated he would advise the County Attorney that if the Board is not made aware of these issues publicly or privately, then they have been denied an opportunity to exercise policy-making decisions.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize staff to petition the Fifth District Court of Appeals for certiorari review of an order finding the County liable for inverse condemnation relating to David M. Callin, Anna T. Callin and Myeong Choi v. Seminole County, with direction that the County Attorney’s office is to brief the Board on this issue with a counteroffer, and to report back to the Board at the second meeting in July.

Under discussion, Commissioner Henley stated this must go before the Board before the County accepts it.

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

Mr. Lee requested authorization to negotiate and execute an agreement with the selected person, firm or agency to act as a Hearing Officer in the vested rights appeal in the Oxford Outdoor Advertising case.

The Board voted for their choice from the following responses: Joyce Savage-Gaston; Carole Joy Barice; Cecelia Bonifay; Tallahassee Mediation Services; and State Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. McMillan announced that Commissioners Morris, Van Der Weide and McLain voted for Tallahassee Mediation Services. Commissioners Maloy and Henley voted for Division of Administrative Hearings. Voting sheets were not received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to authorize negotiation and execution of an Agreement with Tallahassee Mediation Services to act as a Hearing Officer in the vested rights appeal in the Oxford Outdoor Advertising case.

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

Mr. Lee stated the County has filed a motion for rehearing relative to a pending lawsuit involving the County’s Payday Loan Ordinance. He stated the Ordinance has a severability clause and the balance of the Ordinance may be enforced without regard to the interest rate limitations. He said the Legislature has passed Senate Bill 1526, which regulates "Deferred Presentment". The Board’s options are to abandon the attempt to regulate the industry or to pursue the pending motion for rehearing, appeal (or accept) the ruling regarding interest rates and enforce the valid provisions of the Ordinance.

Commissioner Morris stated the County’s passage of the ordinance has served its purpose as it brought the issue to a higher degree of attention statewide. He said he doesn’t feel the Board should appeal this any further as he doesn’t feel the County needs to protect the rights within this.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he doesn’t feel that the Board should appeal this issue either, as it was a major factor in turning up the heat.

Mr. Lee stated the County is not required to undo the ordinance and they can withdraw the motion for rehearing and allow the appeal time to run.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Lee advised the ordinance is on the books but has been declared unconstitutional.

Commissioner Maloy stated his concern is if an ordinance is on the books, it would make sense to repeal it to clear the record.

Mr. McMillan stated staff will be coming back for recodification of the Seminole County Code and since this is part of the code, they can repeal it at that time and clear the record of that ordinance.

Mr. Lee informed the Board of several large counties seeking the Governor’s veto of the Transportation Bill containing the billboard compensation language.

Commissioner Morris stated he feels the Board should take the position in adding the County’s voice in urging the Governor to veto the bill.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he feels now is the time for the County to participate in voicing their concerns.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to direct staff to contact the Governor’s office in urging the Governor to veto the bill.

Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Maloy voted NAY.

Mr. McMillan advised that he received an order relative to the Eller Media v. Seminole County appeal regarding the denial of the Amendment of the Aloma Mini Storage PCD. He stated the Circuit Court upheld the County’s denial of the PUD amendment.

Colleen Rotella, Planning & Development, addressed the Board to present request for Board approval of the Option Agreement for the purchase of Katie’s Wekiva Landing as a partnership with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida. She briefly reviewed the background of the acquisition as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She stated today is the deadline for the acquisition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to authorize the Chairman to execute the Option Agreement, as shown on page _________, for the purchase of Katie’s Wekiva Landing as a partnership with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida.

Under discussion, Commissioner Henley stated he wants to go on Record that this acquisition has not been finalized and the question of what is before the Board today does not bind them to the $700,000 price.

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

John Moore, Engineering, discussed with Commissioner Maloy school safety issues for Item #17, BCR 01-105.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

Mr. Moore also discussed the issue of redesigning the ponds as well as the size of the medians.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

Commissioner Henley stated he has received a phone call relative to sidewalks being right against the curbs.

Commissioner Morris stated the sidewalk on Longwood/Lake Mary Road sits one foot off from the road and he feels it is too close to the curb. He stated he appreciates the conservative nature of staff trying to save money, but he feels it should be done right by spending the money to widen these sidewalks.

Commissioner Maloy stated if the County needs to widen the sidewalks to compensate that, then it should be done.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he supports the issue of widening the sidewalks. He stated the sidewalk on Wekiva Springs Road came right up to the curb and it was moved back and it is working out very well.

Commissioner Morris requested that staff provide more backup information relative to Item #40, approve Agreement with the Central Florida Sports Commission for the 2001 Sunshine State Summer Games. He stated it is difficult to vote on issues when there is not enough information.

Jack Wert, Tourism Development Director, addressed the Board to state this is the first time they have done the Sunshine State Games. He stated from his calculations that the revenue from the sales tax, hotel tax, and gas tax will exceed $324,350. He stated he will forward that information to the Board.

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

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

CLERK’S REPORT

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., with all Commissioners being present.

Colleen Rotella, Planning & Development, presented request for Board consensus on the Natural Lands Committee recommendations. She stated the Natural Lands Committee adopted the following characteristics to evaluate properties: vulnerability to development; rarity of species; connectedness; completeness of habitat types; manageability; passive use potential and special considerations such as bargain purchase and joint funding availability.

Commissioner Henley stated the one major criteria that the Board asked the Committee to list is the potential for water recharge areas. He stated more of these areas need to be conserved as a lot of those recharge areas are being snapped up for development. He added he would like the Committee to look at that issue.

Ms. Rotella reviewed the three properties (Pineloch Management, VanHorn and Yeager) considered for acquisition and the Committee’s recommendations as outlined in the Natural Lands Committee Booklet (received and filed).

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Ms. Rotella advised the Committee will be looking at how they will make connectivity with the Chuluota Wilderness area and the Caruso property.

Commissioner Morris stated he would like to make the connectivity a priority.

Commissioner McLain stated he would like to know what portion of the VanHorn property is below the 100-year flood plain and how much is wetlands.

Ms. Rotella stated the majority is outside and what is shown in dark blue of the map is the 100-year flood plain.

Commissioner Henley stated he doesn’t feel that the VanHorn property should be ranked high on the priority list as there is no danger of commercial development in that area. There are other areas in the County that the Board may want to preserve for conservation purposes.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels that property along the Wekiva River should be a priority at this time as there are other properties with recharged areas.

Commissioner Morris stated he has walked the Yeager property and the thing that is interesting to him is this property has intense immediate access. The development scheme for the eastern portion of this property will be very intense commercial. The western portion of the trailhead will be a series of commercial convenience stores, gas stations, etc.

Commissioner Henley stated when this was first discussed he wondered why the County would want to buy property that is adjoining the GreeneWay and it is being developed as a highly intense area. He stated he would be willing to consider the Yeager property as long as the County can obtain joint participation and they can get a good price. He said he would be interested in knowing what the recharge potential is for that area.

Commissioner Maloy stated he would be interested in pursuing further exploration of this property. He stated he feels the key issue is to obtain joint participation. He added he would like to know if the City of Winter Springs is interested in pursuing this.

Paul Partyka, Mayor of Winter Springs, addressed the Board to state he cannot speak for the City Commission, but he feels the City would be happy to participate. He announced that the City of Winter Springs will be hosting the Scottish Highland Games scheduled for January 19, 2002.

The consensus of the Board was to authorize the Natural Lands Committee and staff to proceed with the acquisition process of the Pineloch Management and Yeager properties.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Ms. Rotella advised the connectivity area for the Chuluota Wilderness and Pineloch Management property will be included.

-------

Mr. Grace presented request for approval of the proposed Compensation Plan for FY 2001/2002 and 2002/2003.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to approve the Compensation Plan for FY 2001/2002 and 2002/2003.

Under discussion, Commissioner Henley stated he doesn’t agree with everything that is in the plan. He stated it bothers him that a cost of living raise is given and the Board has not determined that index is being used to determine it. He said he would like the Board to agree on an index that they are going to use to determine the cost of living.

Mr. Grace stated that issue will be done during the budget process.

Commissioner Henley stated the other thing that concerns him is normally the merit increase is based upon the performance of an individual in a particular period of time, whether it is a year or not. He said if it is added to the base salary, that individual would have the merit for the rest of their employment period in the County. He added he would much prefer seeing it as a bonus.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he feels that the consistency of the index is very important. There would be a problem if they start switching the index from year to year, therefore, he feels the Board needs to target an index they would be using.

Commissioner Henley stated he feels the Board should give their input and not leave it up to the department head or County Manager as to which employees are going to be considered. He stated the School Board uses the same procedure and they stipulate that those are the ones at that outset. He added he feels the County Manager or department heads need to inform the Board of what positions are being considered so that can be entered into the Record.

Chairman Van Der Weide recommended that the County Manager report back to the Board relative to the index issue.

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

-------

Cindy Hall, Fiscal Services Director, addressed the Board to present request for approval of the following two resolutions relating to the new telecommunications legislation which consolidates and simplifies the tax structure for telecommunication companies: Resolution which sets the new telecommunications tax rate at 5.4% for year 1 and 5.1% for year 2; and Resolution which opts to eliminate the County’s levy and collection of rights-of-way use permit fees for telecommunication companies, and instead elects to increase the telecommunication tax rate by .12% as permitted by the new legislation, as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She submitted and briefly reviewed a handout (not received and filed) relating to the current structure.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt Resolution #2001-R-104, as shown on page _________, which sets the new telecommunications tax rate at 5.4% for year 1 and 5.1% for year 2; and appropriate Resolution #2001-R-105, as shown on page _________, which opts to eliminate the County’s levy and collection of rights-of-way use permit fees for telecommunication companies, and instead elects to increase the telecommunication tax rate by .12% as permitted by the new legislation, with staff recommendations.

Under discussion, Ms. Hall discussed with Commissioner Morris the estimated revenue that will be generated from the expansion of the tax base.

Commissioner Maloy stated he would support a resolution that would freeze the tax at the harmless rates.

Commissioner Henley stated the Board had three options to consider and he feels that this is a stealth tax when this rate is established and then the agencies are being taxed. The County has a windfall of $2 million of projected increase of revenue. He said this is a new tax. He stated he could have supported one of the other options that was presented to him during briefing. Therefore, he cannot support this since it is an increase in taxes.

Districts 2, 3 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioners Maloy and Henley voted NAY.

Commissioner Morris stated he would like to see the balance of the impact. The Board needs to know how that balances out and where the revenue comes from.

Chairman Van Der Weide stated he feels that this can be adjusted later on and he feels comfortable that the County will make sure that they will not end up on the short end of this revenue.

Matt West, Planning Manager, addressed the Board to present request to amend the Comprehensive Plan regarding minimum area for building lots. He reviewed a brief history of the proposed change. A letter from Keith Schue, Sierra Club, requesting the Board to deny the request was received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to direct staff to initiate the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code as recommended by the DAB for the Fall 2001 Amendment Cycle.

Under discussion, Commissioner Maloy stated he doesn’t know exactly what the minimum lot size should be. He stated there have been situations where people have 5 acres with a pond and they were denied a building permit because they did not have enough property. He said he is not prepared to commit to ½ acre lots and he would like to have more analysis as to what impact that will have.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Don Fisher, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board to advise that the rule for calculating density has been on the books since 1991.

Commissioner Morris stated he would like to get a better analysis of what the potential density and impacts will be. Therefore, he is totally against the motion as he feels staff need to submit a better analysis and look at this as a development issue. He stated the Local Planning Agency (LPA) hasn’t even heard this process yet and he feels they are rushing this issue.

Commissioner Henley stated he is also against the motion as he feels the Board needs to obtain additional input of what the effects would be.

Commissioner McLain stated this has been a problem in his district for many years with property owners not being able to build a house because of these regulations and staff couldn’t come up with a solution. He stated he feels the process can be modified and staff will provide an analysis on the increase.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Fisher advised staff is recommending that they be given more time to do the analysis as this will give them time to do a good job. He stated he doesn’t feel that staff can get it done during the Fall Amendment Cycle, therefore, he would prefer waiting until the Spring Cycle.

Mike Hattaway, Development Advisory Board Chairman, addressed the Board to state the Committee felt that the study done in the past was flawed. He stated the Committee would like to proceed with the process, as they believe there is plenty of time for staff to provide information to the Board.

Larry Dale addressed the Board to state staff has studied this since 1991 and now they say they do not have the time to do the analysis. An analysis has been done and it may show a 50% increase. What is on the books now is really ridiculous and the County needs to find a way to change it.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. West advised the LPA meeting is scheduled for August 1, 2001 and he believes the BCC hearing is scheduled for August 28, 2001.

Districts 1, 3, and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioners Morris and Henley voted NAY.

-------

The Board recessed the meeting at 12:00 p.m., reconvening at 1:40 p.m., this same date with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who were present in the Opening Session.

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

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

Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone from C-1 (Retail Commercial District) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development); approve rezoning development order; approve PCD Preliminary/Final Site Plans; and approve Developers' Commitment Agreement for property located on the south side of Willa Springs Drive and west of Tuskawilla Road, EDX Electronics, received and filed.

Planner Nancy Roberts, addressed the Board to present the request, advising the project will consist of an office building with associated accessory storage and quality control/testing facilities. She further advised the staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning and site plan. She stated the Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on June 6 and recommended approval with the recommendation that the restriction on roll-up doors be removed. If approved, the staff recommends the following: (1) Parking spaces comply with Section 30.1221 of the Land Development Code - parking spaces may be reduced in size to 9' x 18' in order to preserve trees where possible - a total of 95 parking spaces are proposed on the site; (2) Permitted uses allowed in CN, CS, C-1 as per the Seminole County Land Development Code in effect as of the date of adoption of this agreement and the following indoor accessory uses: storage, quality control/testing, and shipping/receiving; (3) The accessory uses noted shall each use no more than 25% of the building square footage - the accessory uses noted shall in aggregate use no more than 50% of the building square footage; (4) Loading docks, roll-up doors shall be prohibited - Semi trucks shall not be permitted on site more than twice monthly; (5) A brick or masonry wall that is 6 feet in height is required within the buffer, per Section 30.1232 of the SCLDC - if the applicant is not proposing a masonry wall as required in the SCLDC, a concept plan shall be required to demonstrate compatibility - the County's Planning Manager shall review the concept plan to determine its acceptability; and (6) Parking area lighting shall be a maximum of 16' in height and shall be cut-off type fixtures that comply with the provisions of Section 30.1233(b) of the SCLDC - wall pack lighting shall be limited to two fixtures per side of the building - a photometric plan shall be provided to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Section 30.1233(b)(1) of the SCLDC.

District Commissioner Maloy stated he has never seen a condition limiting the number of times semi trucks can be permitted on site. He added that the property is currently zoned C-1. He questioned how this condition would be enforced. Whereupon, Ms. Roberts advised it would have to be on a complaint-driven basis.

Commissioner Maloy stated he does not see the reason for having the restriction on semi trucks.

Commissioner Henley stated he supports Commissioner Maloy on deleting the semi truck restriction.

Commissioner Morris questioned what kind of assurance is the County getting that the lighting will not spill over off the property. Whereupon, Planning Manager, Matt West, advised that can be included in the commitment agreement.

Attorney Lee Coduse (phonetic), representing the developer, addressed the Board to state it would be helpful for the Board not to impose a condition on his client that other developments do not have. He said he would support deleting the restriction dealing with semi trucks.

Commissioner Morris stated he would be in favor of "shoebox" lighting.

Greg Crawford, developer's engineer, addressed the Board to briefly discuss the lighting.

Director of Planning & Development, Don Fisher, addressed the Board to advise the Code does not talk about wall-mounted lighting; so if the Board wants that, they will have to include it as a condition of the approval.

Mr. West advised wall-mounted lighting to reduce spill over can be included as a condition of the approval.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt Ordinance #2001-26, as shown on page _______, approving request to rezone from C-1 (Retail Commercial District) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District); approve Development Order, as shown on page ________, deleting the restriction of loading docks, roll-up doors and semi trucks and including the condition of wall-mounted lights in order to reduce spill over; approve the PCD Preliminary/Final Site Plans, as proposed; and approve the Developer's Commitment Agreement, as shown on page ________, for property located on the south side of Willa Springs Drive and west of Tuskawilla Road, as described in the proof of publication, EDX Electronics.

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

Upon inquiry by Chairman Van Der Weide, Mr. Fisher updated the Board regarding the Rave Ordinance, advising he has obtained a copy of Orange County's ordinance. He said he has been in touch with the Sheriff's Office and will be doing a Briefing on the item on either June 26 or July 24, 2001.

Commissioner Maloy advised that Diane Eswine has been selected to be his new Executive Assistant, effective July 25, 2001.

-------

Commissioner Morris discussed the donation of the old Longwood Post Office property to the City of Longwood for the City's downtown gateway project. Mr. Grace advised staff is moving ahead with preparing the agreement for the donation and will be bringing this back to the Board for approval.

The Board, by unanimous consensus, directed staff to proceed with same.

-------

Commissioner Morris discussed a one-acre parcel of property that the County owns (per CR 427 construction) located at Woodfield Estates (Lake Mary Woods Ph. III & IV). He suggested this property be donated to the City of Lake Mary for a passive park. He said the homeowners association has said they would take over perpetual maintenance of the property. He requested consensus from the Board for the staff to draft the necessary documents for the donation to the City of Lake Mary.

The Board, by unanimous consensus, directed staff to prepare the necessary documents donating the parcel on CR 427 at Woodfield Estates to the City of Lake Mary; and to bring same back to the Board for final approval.

Commissioner Maloy advised that the Port Authority approved the County's request for $300,000 for the upcoming budget. He said at the Authority's meeting, there was also discussion about the Director's salary - combining the base salary with the bonus last year and the 3.5% added on top. He said that puts his salary at around $127,000 and he feels the salary is now maxed out.

-------

Commissioner Maloy updated the Board regarding the recent LYNX meeting, advising LYNX did not seem to support the position to study the Northern Corridor Alignment beyond Central Parkway.

-------

Commissioner Morris requested the Board direct staff to look into a parcel of property located on the western side of Hwy. 17-92, just south of SR 434 which has a potential for redevelopment.

Mr. Fisher advised staff has done a field visit and proposes an administrative land use amendment and rezoning.

-------

Commissioner Morris announced he has been elected to the Regional Planning Council's National Board of Directors for a two-year term. He also announced that he will be chairing the Florida Association of Counties Legislative Policy Committee next year.

-------

Commissioner McLain advised he attended the last CALNO meeting because Commissioner Maloy was unable to attend.

-------

Commissioner McLain advised former City of Sanford Mayor, Larry Dale, has been chosen as the Sanford Airport Authority's new Director/CEO. He added that he and the Authority members are looking forward to working with him.

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

1. Letter dated May 24, 2001, to the Chairman from David P. Lanier, Jr., C.P.A., Chairman, Seminole County Port Authority, advising of vote taken by the Seminole County Port Authority Board of Directors and subsequent unanimous approval of contribution of requested amount of $300,000 to the General Fund of Seminole County during the 2001-2002 fiscal year. (cc: SCOPA Board of Directors, BCC, County Manager, Fiscal Services)
2. Letter dated May 24, 2001, to the Board from Lou Musica, Real Estate Representative, Eller Media, Re: Approval of Ordinance amending the Outdoor Advertising Sign provisions of the Land Development Code -- Public Hearing May 22, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, Director of Planning and Development, Bryan Parker, President, Orlando Division, EMC, John Kruizenga, Real Estate Manager, Orlando Division, EMC)
3. Letter dated May 24, 2001, to the Chairman from Diane Pickett, Time Warner Communications, advising of changes in services by Music Choice. (cc: Board, County Manager, Cable Franchising Coordinator, Jerry Martin, Time Warner)
4. Copy of letter dated May 23, 2001, from the Chairman to the Members of the Natural Lands Committee clarifying the Committee's charge regarding the types of properties and/or recommendations to be made by the Committee.
5. Agenda for the Oviedo City Council meeting held May 21, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development)
6. Letter dated May 17, 2001, to the Board from Janet R. Dougherty, CMC, Sanford City Clerk, to the Board transmitting a copy of the Notice for Ordinances Nos. 3644, 3645, and 3646 (annexation items). (cc: Board, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
7. Letter dated May 18, 2001, to the Chairman from D. Ray Eubanks, Community Program Administrator, Department of Community Affairs, acknowledging receipt of copies of the County's Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 01-1ER, adopted by Ordinance No. 2001-21 on May 8, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning Manager, Executive Director, ECFRPC)
8. Letter dated May 22, 2001, from Albert J. and Judith A. Kruger to the Board expressing opposition to rezone request by Ryland Homes to rezone 46.9 acres bordering Longwood-Markham Road and SR 46 from A-1 to PUD. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Governor Bush, Senator Anna Cowin, Representative Cary Baker, Planning Manager, Dept. of Environmental Protection, Florida State Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Friends of the Wekiva River, Inc., Sierra Club, Media representatives).
9. E-mail dated May 23, 2001, to the Board from John Mathews, President, Carrigan Woods, Re: Riverwind Parking.
10. E-mail dated May 20, 2001, to the Board from Rosemary Hamm expressing opposition to the proposed Riverwind Parking LLP/Riverwind at Alafaya Trail LP. (CC: Board, County Manager, DCM/ Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Comp Planning Manager)
11. E-mail dated May 21, 2001, from Richard S. Casselberry to the Board, Re: Proposed Sign Ordinance. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director, Planning)
12. Copies of letters from John E. and Renee Olivero, Jane A. Madsen, and Frederick L. Madsen, to Chairman Richard Crotty and Orange County Commissioners expressing opposition proposal for the Quadrangle's Knights Krossing Phase IV proposed Apartments. (cc: Board)
13. Letter dated May 15, 2001, to the County Manager from Janet R. Dougherty, CMC, Sanford City Clerk, transmitting a copy of Ordinance No. 3638, as passed and adopted by the Sanford City Commission, annexing .15 acres (2805 South Park Avenue). (cc: Planning & Development, Property Appraiser)
14. Letter dated May 21, 2001, to the County Manager from Janet R. Dougherty, CMC, Sanford City Clerk, transmitting a copy of Ordinance No. 3639, as passed and adopted by the Sanford City Commission, annexing .24 acres (447 Palm Drive). (cc: Planning & Development, Property Appraiser)
15. Letter dated May 21, 2001, to the County Manager from Cynthia Porter, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a copy of Ordinance No. 3641, as passed and adopted by the Sanford City Commission, annexing 3.46 acres (4075 and 4085 S. Sanford Avenue). (cc: Planning & Development, Property Appraiser)
16. Letter dated May 21, 2001, to the County Manager from Janet R. Dougherty, CMC, Sanford City Clerk, transmitting a copy of Ordinance No. 3640, as passed and adopted by the Sanford City Commission, annexing 1.73 acres (4005 South Sanford Ave.). (cc: Planning & Development, Property Appraiser)
17. Letter dated May 21, 2001, to the County Manager from Cynthia Porter, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a copy of Ordinance No. 3642, as passed and adopted by the Sanford City Commission, annexing .55 acres (292 and 296 Rose Drive). (cc: Planning & Development, Property Appraiser)
18. Letters dated May 18, 2001, from Bob Chorvat, Manager, Parks and Recreation to Jane Peterson and Stan Zarinsky, expressing appreciation for recent donations to the Parks and Recreation Division. (cc: Suzy Goldman, Director, Library & Leisure Services)
19. Contract for Services, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County Parks and Recreation and Nicholas Lemos to keep score for slowpitch softball.

20. Letter dated June 1, 2001, to the Chairman from Tyra L. Miller, Administrative Director, Property Appraiser's Office, providing tentative figures constituting the 2001 Estimated Total Taxable Value and 2001 Taxable New Construction amounts which will be submitted for approval to the Department of Revenue prior to July 1, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, Fiscal Services Director)
21. Letter dated June 1, 2001, to the Chairman from Tyra L. Miller, Administrative Director, Property Appraiser's Office, providing tentative figures constituting the 2001 Estimated Total Taxable Value and 2001 Taxable New Construction amounts of the Seminole County Fire District which will be submitted for approval to the Department of Revenue prior to July 1, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, Public Safety Director, Fiscal Services Director)
22. Letter dated June 1, 2001, to the Chairman from Tyra L. Miller, Administrative Director, Property Appraiser's Office, providing tentative figures constituting the 2001 Estimated Total Taxable Value and 2001 Taxable New Construction amounts of the Seminole County Road Improvement District which will be submitted for approval to the Department of Revenue prior to July 1, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, Fiscal Services Director)
23. Letter dated June 1, 2001, to the Chairman from Tyra L. Miller, Administrative Director, Property Appraiser's Office, providing tentative figures constituting the 2001 Estimated Total Taxable Value and 2001 Taxable New Construction amounts of the Seminole County Stormwater Management which will be submitted for approval to the Department of Revenue prior to July 1, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, Fiscal Services Director)
24. Letter dated May 31, 2001, and attachments from Jennifer Bencie, M.D., M.S.A., Administrator, Seminole County Health Department, to the Chairman, submitting the Quarterly Report for FYTD Second Quarter 2000-2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, Deputy County Manager, Director of Community Services)
25. Letter dated May 31, 2001, and attachments from Jennifer Bencie, M.D., M.S.A., Administrator, Seminole County Health Department, to the Chairman, submitting Amendments to State and County Core Contract FYTD Second Quarter 2000-2001 Amendments - Special Project - Dental Clinic in Casselberry. (cc: Board, County Manager, Deputy County Manager, Director of Community Services)
26. Letter dated June 1, 2001, from Harold Webb, Project Manager, Florida Department of Transportation, advising of schedule for public hearings to be conducted for the I-4 Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study from SR 528 (Bee Line Expressway) in Orange County to SR 472 in Volusia County.
27. Copy of letter dated May 29, 2001, from H. W. "Bill" Suber, CFA, ASA, Seminole County Property Appraiser, to Darrell W. Smith, Director, Office of Budget Services, Department of Revenue, transmitting a copy of proposed budget for the Seminole County Property Appraiser's office for the period of October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2002. (cc: Board, County Manager)
28. Letter dated May 29, 2001, from H. W. "Bill" Suber, CFA, ASA, Seminole County Property Appraiser, to the Chairman advising of the total ad valorem tax levy on the 2000 Seminole County Tax Roll - BCC proportionate share. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM's, Fiscal Services Director, Finance Director)
29. Letter dated May 29, 2001, from H. W. "Bill" Suber, CFA, ASA, Seminole County Property Appraiser, to the Chairman advising of the total ad valorem tax levy on the 2000 Seminole County Tax Roll - Seminole Co. Road District's proportionate share. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM's, Fiscal Services Director, Finance Director)
30. Copy of letter dated May 29, 2001, to Kenneth Roberts, Public Safety Director, from H. W. "Bill" Suber, CFA, ASA, Seminole County Property Appraiser, Re: Seminole County Fire District's proportionate share of the total ad valorem tax levy. (Board, County Manager, DCM's, Fiscal Services Director, Finance Director)
31. Memorandum dated May 30, 2001, and attachments from Matt West, Planning Manager, to the Board, Re: Proposed Wal-Mart in Oviedo. (cc: County Manager, DCM's, Planning and Development Director, Planning)
32. Agenda for the Oviedo City Council meeting of June 4, 2001. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM's, County Attorney)
33. Minutes of the April 26, 2001, LYNX Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (CFRTA) Board of Directors meeting. (cc: Board)
34. Copy of letter dated May 31, 2001, from Bill E. Scally, Seminole County Veterans Service Officer, to Russell Roberts, Chief of Staff for John Mica, Member of Congress, Re: Jubilee of Liberty Medal. (cc: Board, County Manager, Director of Community Services, Orange County and Volusia County Veterans Services Office)
35. Memorandum dated May 10, 2001, and attachments from Larry Goldman, Building Official, to the Board, Re: Alternate Materials and Methods.

 

36. Copy of Memorandum dated May 25, 2001, from Jean Abi-Aoun, P.E., Principal Engineer, to Don Fisher, Director, Planning and Development, Re: Emergency access gate at Lake Brantley Isle Subdivision. (cc: Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Development Review Manager)
37. Letter dated May 22, 2001, from Byron W. Brooks, Executive Director, LYNX, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Re: Follow-up Audit of LYNX by the Office of the Comptroller, Orange County. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Alice Gilmartin and Dick Thomas, Planning, LYNX staff)
38. Agenda for the June 5, 2001, meeting of the Orlando Sanford Airport Authority Board meeting.
39. Copies of letters dated May 30, 2001, from Kenneth M. Roberts, Director, Department of Public Safety, to the following expressing appreciation for recent donations: Richard Martino, Sandy Peatross, Manager-Target #845, Mildred Long, Melissa Sheppard, Rolando Delgado, Cornelia Dietzel, Willard Kautter.

40. Letter dated June 1, 2001, to the County Manager from Cynthia Porter, Deputy City Clerk, City of Sanford, transmitting a copy of Ordinance No. 3644 passed and adopted by the Sanford City Commission on May 29, 2001, annexing .44 acres of property (200 West 27^th Street). (cc: Property Appraiser, Planning & Development, Supervisor of Elections)
41. Letter dated June 1, 2001, to the County Manager from Cynthia Porter, Deputy City Clerk, City of Sanford, transmitting a copy of Ordinance No. 3646 passed and adopted by the Sanford City Commission on May 29, 2001, annexing .88 acres of property (2605, 2655, and 2656 Grandview Avenue). (cc: Property Appraiser, Planning & Development, Supervisor of Elections)
42. Letter dated June 1, 2001, to the County Manager from Cynthia Porter, Deputy City Clerk, City of Sanford, transmitting a copy of Ordinance No. 3645 passed and adopted by the Sanford City Commission on May 29, 2001, annexing 2.08 acres of property (3545 and 3585 Ohio Avenue). (cc: Property Appraiser, Planning & Development, Supervisor of Elections)
43. Newsletter from the School Board of Seminole County. (cc: Board)
44. Copy of letter dated June 4, 2001, from the Chairman to William Richards, P.E., District Utility Engineer, Department of Transportation, Re: Signatory authorization as accorded within the "Utility Work by Highway Contractor Agreement" - S.R. 426 from the Eastern Beltway to Mitchell Hammock Road. (cc: Bob Adolphe, Environmental Services Director)
45. Letter dated June 4, 2001, from Mike Hattaway, Chairman, Development Advisory Board of Seminole County to the Chairman, Re: Minimum area for building lots.
46. Letters dated June 4 and June 1, 2001, from Janet Snyder Mathews, State Historic Preservation Officer, to the Chairman, advising that the following properties have been recommended for nomination for listing in the National Register of Historic Places: Browne-King House; Wheeler-Evans House; R.W. Estes Celery Co. and Precooler Historic District; Nelson and Company Historic District. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Library & Leisure Services)
47. Local Government Monthly Mailer from the St. Johns River Water Management District. (cc: Board)
48. Memorandum dated June 7, 2001, to the Board, from Frances E. Chandler, Deputy County Manager, Re: Florida Gas Transmission Line -- Status of Review. (cc: County Manager, Planning & Development Director, Administrative Services Director, Environmental Services Director, Asst. County Attorney, Support Services Manager, Development Review Manager, Administrative Manager, Planning & Development)
49. Letter dated June 5, 2001, with attached map, from Roland D. Magyar, AICP, Planner, City of Casselberry, Re: Notification of Rezoning request for property from PRD (Planned Residential Development) to RMF-13 (Residential Multi-Family - 13 dwelling units per acre). (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Planning & Development Director)
50. Contracts for Services, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County Parks and Recreation and Miguel Concepcion and Matthew McCallister.
51. Copy of memorandum dated June 5, 2001, from John M. Jones, Senior Planner, Seminole Co. Economic Development Dept., to Commissioner McLain, Re: May 25^th 2001, US 17-92 Bus Tour Follow-up Survey. (cc: Board, DCM/Chandler, Economic Development Manager)
52. Copy of letter dated June 8, 2001, from William Kienstra, English Estates resident, expressing appreciation for Kewanee Park. (cc: Board, County Manager, DCM/Chandler, Library & Leisure Services)
53. Notice of Public Hearing to be held by the City of Sanford Planning & Zoning Commission on Thursday, June 21, 2001, 7:00 PM to consider a rezone of property located at 3990 West First Street, Sanford, from PCD (County) to PD, Planned Development (City).
54. Letter dated June 11, 2001, from Clay Henderson, Holland and Knight Consulting, to the Chairman, Re: Katie's Landing with attached Summary of Appraisal. (cc: Board, County Manager)

Mr. Grace advised that there is a request for a continuance for Item #53, Appeal against the Board of Adjustment, Dan Wallace/Nobel Learning Communities, scheduled for tonight's meeting. The Board voiced no objections to staff contacting the citizens interested in this item to advise them the Board plans on continuing this item until July 24, 2001.

-------

The Board, thereupon, recessed at 2:23 p.m., reconvening at 7:07 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who were present at the Opening Session.

Continuation from March 13, and April 10, 2001 of the Appeal against the Board of Adjustment in denying a Special Exception for a private preschool with up to 150 students; property described as a five-acre tract, located on the west side of Markham Woods Road, approximately 1-2/5 mile north of Lake Mary Boulevard, Dan Wallace/Nobel Learning Communities.

Ginny Markley, Zoning Coordinator, addressed the Board to state the latest request for continuance was from the appellant. She said Mr. Wallace is not present this evening as his son is graduating so Mr. Wallace requested a continuance to July 24.

Frank Shelton, President of Markham Woods Association, 14 Stone Gate North, addressed the Board to state the first notice he had of the continuance to July 24 was a couple of days ago. He said he finds the whole process very irritating. He feels Attorney Groot and others are using a system of continuances to play games. He said the property was never posted for the March 13 meeting and that is an obligation of the client. He stated he submitted a letter to Attorney Groot on April 23 with receipts for the cost of mailings and he has heard no word from him. He said he thinks the Board should deny this request now because it is completely incompatible with their road.

Fred Schott, 2056 Hutton Point, addressed the Board to state they were here before trying to get this heard and at the last minute the appellant wanted a continuance, and now they’re here again and he wants another continuance. He said, on behalf of the people who live in Markham Woods, the next time something this important is set, they would like to have a time certain like in a regular courtroom. He said at the last P&Z meeting where this was heard, Attorney Groot started swearing in witnesses, which he knows is improper. If they are going to behave like he wants them to, there should be a time certain where they set this hearing for a certain day and time where everyone has to show up and present their case so that it’s fair to all parties.

Attorney Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen, addressed the Board to state he thought everything had been worked out. He said he copied Mr. Shelton on all his requests and he thought he had accommodated him on his summer vacation schedule. He said he is confused about the issue of going to the July 24 date. Regarding the mailings, he said he submitted the invoice and was told it was going to be processed. He said he would call tomorrow and make sure the payment comes within the next week. This is the first of his hearing that the payment was not made.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy, to continue to July 24, 2001, 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, as the first item on the agenda, the Appeal against the Board of Adjustment in denying a Special Exception for a private preschool with up to 150 students; property described as a five-acre tract, located on the west side of Markham Woods Road, approximately 1-2/5 mile north of Lake Mary Boulevard; as described in the proof of publication, Dan Wallace/Nobel Learning Communities.

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

Continuation of a public hearing to consider enacting the State Road 46 Scenic Corridor Overlay and the Longwood-Markham/Lake Markham/Markham Road Scenic Corridor Zoning Overlay as required by the Wekiva Global Compliance Agreement, as described in the proof of publication.

Planning Manager, Matt West, and Craig Shadrix, Planner, addressed the Board to present the request. Mr. Shadrix stated staff has taken comments from various groups and has coordinated many of the associated parties prior to tonight and has made changes that reflect an effort to address everyone’s comments. He reviewed the actions taken since the May 22, 2001, public hearing for the SR 46 Overlay as given in the staff report. He said staff has forwarded copies of the SR 46 Overlay to the Lake County Commission, has spoken with various other agencies regarding this, and has pledged to continue with a coordination effort.

Mr. West answered questions by Commissioner Maloy about the diameter of the trees and the signs permitted by the residences. He answered questions by Commissioner McLain on the size of the signs permitted and the setback regulations.

Commissioner McLain asked how the different setback requirements would stand the test in court. County Attorney Robert McMillan answered this could stand if the County could demonstrate a rational, governmental purpose in doing that. He said he understands that part of the reason for doing that was to avoid a taking on the smaller parcels. Commissioner McLain said he was not convinced that the setbacks required are equitable.

Thomas Vellanti, 6300 SR 46 West, owner of Twelve Oaks RV Resort, addressed the Board to state at the last meeting, Commissioner Henley’s suggestion was to limit the depth on the parcels instead of going on so many homes and frontage that don’t go back 3,000 and 4,000 feet. Also, he said the gentleman from the Audubon Society requested a trestle over the entire SR 46. Mr. Vellanti said he was raised in New York City and they have a lot of trestles. He said there is nothing rural about a trestle.

Attorney Miranda Fitzgerald, Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed, 215 N. Eola Drive, representing William R. Byrd as Trustee, addressed the Board to state she is concerned about the equities. She referred to the setback provisions (Section 6.A on page 4 of the proposed ordinance) and Section 6.D. (page 8) of the ordinance regarding landscape buffers and said that section varies also. She stated there are other provisions in the ordinance that restrict the number of signs and the location of signs so no signage can be put in the landscape buffer. She said that leads to the staggering of signs and no uniform pattern. She looked at the other scenic corridor setback requirements in the east part of the County and they don’t have the same discrepancy. She said those requirements run the core of the setback from the centerline. She thinks the equity issue affects not only the setback but the landscape buffer and signage issue as well. She said regarding the signage issue and setback, there is a provision about the amount of signage you get if you have access onto SR 46. She referred to page 10, Access Standards, of the proposed ordinance and discussed that there is no access on SR 46 if the parcel is big enough so that there is access to another road. She asked if a parcel has no access to SR 46, does that also take away the signage? She said she is concerned about the prohibition of signs unless they have muted colors. She said this is not in the other overlay ordinance. She also referred to page 11 of the proposed ordinance, Section H.1., and asked what does the "existing native vegetation" mean. She said it seems there should be a list of the native vegetation being talked about that would impact the stormwater facilities. She said page 5, Section B.1. states examples of appropriate signage are set out in Section 30.1060 of the Land Development Code. She said this is not an adopted section of the Code.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Attorney Fitzgerald said she had not reviewed these issues with the staff. She said she thinks there are enough issues that the ordinance should not be adopted tonight but should be looked at more closely.

Don Fisher, Planning and Development Director, addressed the Board to state he will check the Land Development Code for the section which Attorney Fitzgerald stated was not included.

Commissioner Maloy said reading from the staff report, it sounds like there was a meeting with Attorney Fitzgerald to go over these concerns. Attorney Fitzgerald clarified that she had met with staff prior to the last hearing, but there has been no discussion since the last hearing. She stated some of the comments made tonight, she did not make previously because she did not do as much cross-referencing between the two provisions before as she did for this hearing.

Mr. Fisher stated he met with Attorney Fitzgerald prior to the first public hearing and the staff thought they had resolved the issues with Attorney Fitzgerald also, except for the unpaved parking areas.

Keith Schue, Vice Chairman, Central Florida Sierra Club, Wekiva Issue Chair, addressed the Board to state he will submit documents (received and filed) to the Record. He thanked the staff for putting a great deal of work into this effort and the Commissioners for recognizing the importance of these ordinances as they relate to the Seminole County Global Compliance Agreement. He said the question is what is rural character as it pertains to a roadway and as it relates to the preservation of trees and the vegetation so when you drive along the roadway, you don’t see a lot of structures that are not rural in character. He distributed the documents to the Board which were submitted to the Record. He commented (letter received and filed) regarding the Markham Road, Longwood-Markham Road and Lake Markham Road Overlay and said the Sierra Club would object to the exception for one-acre lots to not have a buffer. He said they believe a buffer is important, whether it is a one-acre lot or not in order to maintain the rural look and feel. He commented (comments received and filed) regarding the SR 46 Ordinance that the signage regulations be applicable to the entire corridor and not just within the setback and that at least 10% of the walls and fences have openings in them to provide for wildlife movement. Discussion ensued by the Board. Mr. Schue stated he’s talking about wildlife movement for small mammals like rabbits, raccoons and foxes.

Commissioner Morris complimented Mr. Schue on his work with staff on this and said he is hearing his suggestions. He said he thinks the wildlife corridor needs to be addressed at the time the road is four-laned. He said regarding the 10% break, from a public safety aspect of children not being fenced in, this causes him great concern. He said he hopes Mr. Schue understands that some of them see this as a problem and the suggestion might be that they focus their attention on the design and access management plan for when this road ultimately gets improved.

Mr. Schue continued with the issue of one-acre lots. He said he does not believe an exception should be taken to not have a buffer for one-acre lots. He stated these buffer requirements pertain to new developments, as that is what will compromise the integrity of the corridor. Regarding parking, he proposed that the rules provided by the Sierra Club concerning asphalt parking apply only to those commercial land use designations and the other parking provisions apply to the rest not having a commercial land use.

Commissioner McLain stated what concerns him is what the Board is hearing now are the types of things he hoped would have been worked out with the staff so they could have presented them to the Board in a clear, logical fashion, and the Board could make the right judgment without all these new issues being added at the last minute. Discussion ensued by the Board.

Commissioner Morris stated in defense of Mr. Schue that most of what he has written to the Board is because of the changes the Board made at the first hearing, and he is still arguing that the Board should not do these things. He said Attorney Fitzgerald did bring up several new issues and admitted that they were new issues she had not considered. He thinks the Board can still go forward.

Nancy Prine, 655 Terrace Boulevard, Friends of the Wekiva River, addressed the Board to state she agrees with many of the comments Mr. Schue brought forward. She said they are concerned about the signage. She understands why there might be resistance to the muted colors, but this is not new. The muted tones are not new nationwide. This type ordinance on ground signs is consistent with other areas of the country that are recognizing the value of a scenic corridor. She said at the other meeting, they heard the neighbors say they moved to the Wekiva area because they wanted to be near the wildlife and they don’t mind driving several miles to go to the grocery store. She stated these are the things that are real important to the rural character and is what they hope the ordinance can offer to the people in this area so they can continue this particular lifestyle. She finds the landscaping of parking areas somewhat timid and thinks there would be more advantage to protecting the existing native vegetation such as canopy and understory trees. She asked that the restriction of landscaped areas of a minimum 10’ x 20’ be increased, as that is not sufficient in many codes to protect the trees of any size. She said the codes require a minimum setback from the trunk of the tree and she doesn’t think 10’ x 20’ will allow that. They should supply sufficient area for the trees, and significant trees should be allowed enough space to grow. She recommended the ordinance be approved and that staff make the adjustments necessary to bring both sides of the discussion to a common point.

Polly Miller, 121 Larkspur Drive, League of Women Voters, addressed the Board to state she would like to see the parking area left natural. She commended the Commission for bringing the ordinance forward. She urged the Board to pass the ordinance tonight and iron out the wrinkles as they develop.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Chairman Van Der Weide recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. to give staff the opportunity to bring back the issues brought up tonight for the Board to go over them one at a time. Chairman Van Der Weide reconvened the meeting at 8:35 p.m., with all Commissioners being present.

Deputy County Attorney Stephen Lee addressed the Board to state he will read the changes that everyone agreed to. He referred to the proposed SR 46 Scenic Corridor Overlay Ordinance, page 5, Section B.1., Signage, changed to read, "All signs within the corridor setback are to be constructed . . ."; also in the same paragraph, change Section 30.1060 of the Land Development Code to "Part 55 of the Land Development Code (LDC)"; in the same section, page 6, #2, change to read, "The faces of all signs within the corridor setback"; page 6, B.5., change to read, "Each non-residential use with frontage"; page 9, Section D.3.C., strike "vegetation" and insert "canopy and understory trees"; add on page 9 new paragraph as Section D.3.D. to read "One ground sign in accordance with Section 6.B.5 and 6.B.6. Attorney Lee said this would allow a ground sign within the landscape buffer. He advised on page 11, Item H.1., strike "vegetation" and insert "canopy and understory trees."

Chairman Van Der Weide stated the consensus is that all five Commissioners are comfortable with these changes, as read by Mr. Lee.

Mr. Shadrix stated the last remaining issue for which there was no agreement relates to the depth of the property. He stated one side agreed to increase the cut-off from 200 to 250 feet, which would be the trigger for qualifying for a 25’ buffer or 50’ setback or the greater restriction of a 50’ buffer and 75’ setback. He said there has to be a point for the cut-off and they would have to stick with that.

Commissioner McLain asked why does the ordinance affect property beyond the actual corridor, and why are they going all the way to the back of the property. He said it looks like staff would have 500’ on each side of the road as the corridor. Whereupon, Mr. West said that is a separate issue. The staff is now addressing the equity of having two different setbacks and buffers.

Commissioner Maloy stated the other overlay ordinances, particularly for Snowhill, are uniform from the centerline depth from the road. He thinks that’s more consistent. He suggested picking a number and making it uniform throughout the corridor. This would make it simpler and gets rid of the equity issue. Discussion ensued by the Board. Chairman Van Der Weide stated he thinks they need some flexibility on the setback, but he can’t understand why the buffer can’t be uniform.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to have a 25’ buffer and 50’setback consistent throughout the corridor.

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

Commissioner Morris voted NAY.

Mr. West suggested 200’ from the centerline for the applicability clause for the width of the corridor. Commissioners Morris and McLain said 200’ was not enough. Commissioner Henley suggested 350’ from the centerline. Following a brief discussion, Commissioners McLain, Henley, and Morris consented to 300 feet from the road right-of-way.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner McLain, that the width of the corridor is defined as 300’ from the edge of the road right-of-way.

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

On the issue of parking and impervious surfaces, Commissioner Morris discussed that what they could do in the ordinance to help guide development is encourage permeable surfaces for the drip line of specimen trees.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to include in the ordinance encouraging permeable surfaces for the drip line of specimen trees.

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

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to enact the State Road 46 Scenic Corridor Overlay Ordinance #2001-27, as amended, as shown on page _______, as required by the Wekiva Global Compliance Agreement, as described in the proof of publication.

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

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Grace stated he will send a copy of the final version of the ordinance to the Lake County Commission.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to enact the Longwood-Markham/Lake Markham/Markham Road Scenic Corridor Zoning Overlay Ordinance #2001-28, as shown on page _______, as required by the Wekiva Global Compliance Agreement, as described in the proof of publication.

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

Continuation from March 13, 2001, of a public hearing to consider the Consolidated Street Lighting Ordinance repealing Ordinance #2000-54 for the purpose of dissolving the Ridge High Street Lighting Subdistrict.

Lin Polk, Fiscal Services, advised that originally the request was to approve dissolving the Ridge High Subdistrict and this would amend the current ordinance. She said due to the favorable response of 56% of the property owners supporting implementation of the street lighting district, the staff is now modifying its current recommendation in order to recommend denial of the request to dissolve the district

Commissioner Henley stated that in view of the fact the district was originally approved with 67% of the property owners and hearing from the Sheriff on the value of lighting as a deterrent to crime and safety, and the fact that 56% have still maintained approval, he would be in favor of denying the repeal and instructing staff to work with the Power Company to minimize the problems.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Ms. Polk advised that additional petitions came in this week.

Ralph Bingham, 2176 Linden Road, addressed the Board to state he is opposed to the continuance of the lighting district. He said this is a very divisive issue with the neighbors. He reviewed the events from two years ago when the petition first came out. He said the lighting plan is different today than was proposed then. He won’t give his vote that the extra lighting is required or needed. As it appears now, the plan has lines running along the north side of Linden Road and will require a great amount of tree trimming for removal. When they called Florida Power, they were told that Florida Power would put the lines wherever they wanted and the neighbors didn’t have any voice in the matter. He questioned if the lights could be put on only one street and not the other. He said with the original petition, the people were told that it would be underground lighting. The original plan is not the one now and that is what most people on Linden Road are so concerned about.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Commissioner Henley stated Florida Power probably could bury the lines if the neighbors want to bear the cost. He said if this is approved, he wants to work with Florida Power to try to minimize the problems.

Allen Thatcher, 2177 Ridge Drive, addressed the Board to thank Commissioners Morris, McLain, and Henley who made sure this came back and the staff for helping out. He said he is for the lighting. He is very much interested in the safety of this lighting, and he is concerned about the neighborhood. He said the Ridge High district is on the verge of becoming urban and without street lights, he thinks that would be creating a dangerous situation.

Andrea Bell, 2172 Linden Road, addressed the Board to state she is opposed to the lights. She said one of the problems is that one of the places the lights will go is on her property and then the wiring goes across the street. She said she has children ages 8 to 15. She feels they were misled about what was going to happen with the street lighting. The people she spoke to when she did the original petition felt the extra lighting would encourage the residents in the apartments to walk down their streets. She stated they don’t have a problem in their neighborhood now, and they have a very good Neighborhood Watch program.

Bruce Wiley, 2264 High Street, addressed the Board to state Linden Road has always been a concern because it has a lot of children. He said he is the one who originally took around the petitions. He went to every house and never mentioned underground lighting. He said Florida Power could not get the right-of-way to get the dropping to every house. They were not able to get all the agreements on Linden and that is his understanding why they had to run across the streets. He stated theirs is not an upper class neighborhood and underground lighting would be exorbitant to the people. He thanked the Board and staff for taking on this project.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Chairman Van Der Weide advised two Written Comment Forms were received from Larri Thatcher and Georges Lacombe in opposition to dissolving the district.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner McLain, to deny repealing Ordinance #2000-54 for the purpose of dissolving the Ridge High Street Lighting Subdistrict, as described in the proof of publication.

Under discussion, Commissioner McLain stated staff went through the procedures for approval, so this is not only for the safety factor, but the majority of the people voted in favor of the district.

Commissioner Morris complimented the parties on both sides and said they made very good arguments pro and con. He said it would be nice if Commissioner Henley could get a better plan worked out.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Ms. Polk advised that because of the issue with this petition, staff is in the process of amending the procedures and the initiation of the district will be done by contact liaison, but any future changes after the initial petition is presented, will be coordinated by staff so this will not have to happen again.

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

Commissioner Henley stated he appreciated the attitude of the opposing views and the manner in which the people in the area have dealt with this. He pledged he will make every effort to make it as painless for the people as it can be. He asked Mr. Grace and staff to set up a meeting soon with the governmental relations person to see if they can make some changes to make this plan more palatable.

Continuation from May 22, 2001 of a public hearing to consider Appeal against the Board of Adjustment in denying a Special Exception to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (a package store) in the University Palms Shopping Center located on the northeast corner of McCulloch Road and SR 434, as described in the proof of publication Meechal Patel and Ashok Patel.

Amanda Smith, Planner, addressed the Board to present the Appeal. She identified certain retail and eating establishments within the shopping center that sell alcohol for on and off-premise consumption. She stated she checked with the State of Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco regarding any violations with packing stores in the vicinity and found no violations at one store and two violations at another store. Staff also checked with the Sheriff’s Department regarding any DUI’s or illegal alcohol possession and found the figures are some of the lowest in the area. She found that within the UCF area, out of 105 DUI’s committed in Year 2000, only 5% involved the UCF campus.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Smith advised that no other store in the University Palms Shopping Center can deliver alcoholic beverages.

Ms. Smith said staff is recommending approval of the special exception. Discussion ensued regarding the delivery service.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. McMillan advised if the applicant meets the three conditions in the Code for the Special Exception, at that point the presumption is that they are entitled to approval, absent contrary evidence that this would be contrary to public interest. He said there would have to be some prevailing evidentiary base to deny the request.

Attorney Lonnie Groot, Shutts & Bowen, 300 S. Orange Avenue, addressed the Board to introduce P. Davis Robbins of the Watkins Retail Group; Ashok Patel, Applicant; Mitch Patel, Applicant’s son; and Anthony diValentin, Vice President of the UCF Rugby Team. Attorney Groot thanked the staff for a good staff report and Ms. Smith for going beyond the call of duty in terms of the issues for a special exception. He said this is really a case that should not be before the Board. He said the criteria for a special exception were met at the Board of Adjustment meeting and the requirements of the Land Development Code were met, and at that point, the approval should have been granted. He referred to the 3B Beverage Special Exception in the shopping center near Lake Forest. He read from the minutes of this case before the BCC dated January 26 & 27, 1999 (received and filed with additional documentation/records). He said his client is in a similar type situation as 3B Beverage. He stated his client desires to operate a high quality, aesthetically-pleasing business in harmony with the University Palms Shopping Center. He said both issues to deny the request at the Board of Adjustment meeting are totally unfounded. Attorney Groot pointed out that UCF has the lowest crime rate of any of the 10 universities in the State university system. He said his client wants to have a fine liquor, wine and cigar store and they want to do it in compliance with the law and they will make that commitment to the Board tonight.

Dave Robbins, Watkins Retail Group, addressed the Board to state they have less than a 5% turnover in their properties. He said with this project being a fine wine and liquor store with the cigar component, he thinks that is going to add something to the area that is not available now. He said they have numerous liquor stores in a number of their centers and he does not recall Watkins having problems at any of the locations in eight years. He also said the safety of citizens is tantamount to their operations. They only develop with Publix and do their best to operate a good, clean, safe shopping center.

Susan Eberle, 652 W. Palm Valley Drive, addressed the Board to state her neighborhood has been hit several times and over $60,000 worth of damages have occurred. She said they are against this liquor store. She spoke with Mickey Mullin who lives in Kingston Oaks and she said they are against this also. She reported there have been over 80,000 calls for service a year and a half in Orange County just south of Seminole County and many of them are related to alcohol and drugs. She said to trade off what was previously a doctor’s office for a liquor store is not a very good trade-off. She stated there is a lot of crime just outside the UCF campus in the student housing.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Ms. Eberle said she does think having a package store in the plaza will result in a higher level of consumption by the UCF students as it is being made more easily available.

Ms. Eberle related how her neighbor complained about the local Publix advertising beer kegs. She said after sending a letter to the Publix President, the sign was removed. She asked the Board to uphold the Board of Adjustment in denial of this package store. She stated their neighborhood will be safer and better off with something else in this location. She submitted documents (not received and filed) to the Board for the public record including the letter to the Publix President and picture (not received and filed) of the beer keg advertising beer for sale.

Richard Byrd, Vice President of the Creekwood Homeowners Association, addressed the Board to state the letter submitted from their President, Teresa Stephens (received and filed) in opposition represents the policy of their Board. He said a liquor store would encourage and make more possible alcohol consumption by many underage drinkers who inhabit that immediate area. He said he finds it very hard to believe the statistics that have come out.

Attorney Groot advised there is an affidavit on file that he posted the property himself and he submitted a picture (received and filed) taken of the building with the sign posted. He also submitted the notice (received and filed) of the Special Exception hearing before the Board of Adjustment meeting on March 26, 2001, that he removed from the building. He stated there is no evidence of inordinate crime in this area and the store is not going to increase the drinking of the students; that is not what it is aimed at. He advised that in an effort to prove themselves to be responsible, caring business people, the applicant would agree to a development order that prohibits delivery from their store, if this request is approved.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

Commissioner McLain stated at first, he thought the delivery idea was bad, but now he is not convinced that it is a wrong thing to do as long as it is dealt with properly. He asked why would the Board want to restrict the delivery service.

Commissioner Henley stated he thinks it would be very difficult for the police as well as the owner to monitor the delivery service regularly.

Commissioner Maloy said he thinks it would be easier to enforce the drinking age laws if there were one source of location of the sales.

Commissioner Morris stated he thinks the Board of Adjustment has legally erred. The BCC has asked the attorneys to discuss with the BOA what the staff has been recommending relative to the Comprehensive Plan. If the Board is going to change their Comprehensive Plan, that is something they need to do on a large-scale basis but not on an individual basis. In terms of enforcement action, he said it’s a lot easier to be site specific.

District Commissioner Maloy stated he had supported a delay to have staff do additional research. He was curious about what the neighborhood stores would have and was surprised that the number of incidents was so low. He said his main concern was the sale to underage customers. He stated he does have a problem with the delivery service.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to approve, by Development Order, as shown on page _______, the appeal against the Board of Adjustment, thereby, granting a Special Exception to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (a package store) in the University Palms Shopping Center located on the northeast corner of McCulloch Road and SR 434, since the appellant has met the criteria spelled out and with the restriction to prohibit the delivery service, as described in the proof of publication, Meechal Patel and Ashok Patel.

Under discussion, Commissioner McLain stated he would support the motion but the Board would never have known about this issue if the applicant had not pointed it out. He said this is a voluntary restriction the applicant has put on himself.

Commissioner Henley stated he would vote against the motion because he believes it is detrimental to the character of the area. If the figures of low crime are correct, perhaps it is because they don’t have any more proliferation as it is. He said they all know what alcohol can do and he believes that adding another store in the area is detrimental.

Commissioner Morris thanked the Board of Directors of Creekwood for their letter because they pointed out the delivery on call service, which the Board did not know about.

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

Commissioner Henley voted NAY.

Susan Eberle stated she is very proud to be in Seminole County because of the natural lands that are preserved and she hopes that Orange and Lake Counties do the same thing.

Ms. Eberle advised Commissioner Maloy that if it is at all possible, the citizens would like to have flashing yellow lights at the corner of McCulloch and Rouse Road. She said she is afraid that some day someone will end up in the river or hurt.

Ms. Eberle read her letter (received and filed with additional documents) into the Record requesting an immediate peer review of the flood plan study completed in December 2000 by Singhofen & Associates.

Chairman Van Der Weide advised Ms. Eberle that the Board may not be moving as fast as she would like but they do have a plan. He said they are responding and moving forward very cautiously. He said they have all the citizens to take into consideration and there are some very different levels of opinion from professional people and the County from both sides.

Mr. Grace said he had discussed this with Mr. Dean, St. Johns River Water Management District, and he does not recall him saying the County needed to do a peer review. He thought what the County was doing was the prudent way to go as there was very little data. Mr. Grace said he is not against a peer review. Their point now is that there is a small amount of data backing up the study and they want to shore up the data. He said the St. Johns RWM District knows exactly what the County is doing.

-------

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m., this same date.

ATTEST _______________________Clerk____________________ Chairman

er/slm/cc