BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

JULY 23, 2002

 

 

 

     The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, in the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.

     Present:

     Chairman Daryl McLain (District 5)

     Vice Chairman Grant Maloy (District 1)(late)

     Commissioner Randy Morris (District 2)

     Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)

     County Manager Kevin Grace

     County Attorney Robert McMillan

     Deputy Clerk Eva Roach

 

     Absent:  Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)

 

     Larry Dale, President/CEO Orlando Sanford Airport, gave the Invocation.

     Mary Mantzaris, Executive Assistant, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

     Commissioner Maloy entered the meeting at this time.

U.S. 17-92 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY

     Chairman McLain convened the U.S. 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) meeting.

     Robert McMillan, County Attorney, addressed the Board to state for the Record, the Board is acting as the governing board for the CRA.

     Kevin Fall, Economic Development, addressed the Board to request Board authorization to accept the CRA’s recommendation


to approve the FY 2001/2002 revised project list, including required budget transfers to place funds in the appropriate accounts for project implementation.

     Commissioner Morris stated this has been a long process and because of Mr. Fall’s assistance, there has been more documentation than in the past as he has been working more closely with the Cities of Casselberry, Lake Mary, Winter Springs and Sanford.  The division of resources among those entities is the difficult part and the whole idea of the CRA is all for one and one for all.  He stated staff has handled these negotiations with the cities very delicately and professionally.  He said he will be glad to answer any questions.

     Maryanne Morse, Clerk of the Circuit Court, entered the meeting at this time.

     Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Commissioner Morris advised the biggest thing that has happened is, the 5 years prior to the CRA, the property values went up 3%.  The last year has been a tenfold increase in values and that was never anticipated.  There has been a good corporate commitment, but there will be a number of businesses (car dealerships) leaving the area.  This economic relocation is something they cannot control.

     Chairman McLain stated he feels their original investment of the CRA in the Fern Park area is an important part in showing the County and CRA Board are serious about this corridor.  He stated he is happy to hear that there are new prospects of redevelopment in the K-Mart plaza as it has been an eyesore for years. 

     Commissioner Henley raised questions regarding the $25,000 for small business technical assistance grants.  He stated he feels from the standpoint of the technical assistance, the County should encourage the community college to provide technical assistance rather than the County get into the business at this time.  He said he would not be in support of this at this time, and he would like to see the $25,000 moved into the undesignated line item.

     Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to accept the recommendation from the U.S. 17-92 CRA to approve the FY 2001/2002 revised project list, including required budget transfers to place funds in the appropriate accounts for project implementation; with the $25,000 for the small business technical assistance grant fund to be placed in the undesignated line item.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

     Mr. Fall stated State law requires a special district to designate a registered agent and office.  He stated he would like Board action relative to approving a registered agent of the CRA who can be served as the fiscal officer of the CRA.

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to designate the Fiscal Services Director as the registered agent and the Fiscal Services Office of the CRA.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

REConvene Board of County Commissioners Meeting

 

AWARDS & PRESENTATIONS

ORLANDO SANFORD AIRPORT MASTER PLAN PRESENTATION    

     Larry Dale, President/CEO Orlando Sanford Airport, addressed the Board to state the Orlando Sanford Airport is the 95th busiest airport in the United States and for a total number of movements and operations they are the 23rd busiest airport in the world.  He stated the master plan shows that the airport contributes $1.5 billion annually to a five-county Central Florida region.  Over 21,000 jobs are attributable to the spin off of Orlando/Sanford International Airport and that growth does not occur haphazardly.  He stated Jim McGraff will give the Board an overview of the master plan and it will be brought back to the Board in the fall for approval. 

     Jim McGraff, Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan, addressed the Board to display the Airport Master Plan (received and filed) that will be submitted to the FAA and FDOT for review.  He informed Chairman McLain that they have submitted a copy to the offices of the County Engineering and Planning & Development.  He stated the Airport is rapidly growing and because of the growth the Airport is experiencing, what Ft. Lauderdale is to Miami, Orlando/Sanford will be to Orlando International Airport.  He displayed a PowerPoint presentation (received and filed) and reviewed the following:  Master Plan Elements; Breakdown of Historical Operations; Socio-Economic Data; What the Forecast of Commercial Passengers Will Be; Forecast of Commercial Operations; Other Aviation Activity Forecasts; Comparison of Future Air Carrier to General Aviation Operations; and the Air Fair Capacity.  He stated the airport is about 85% at capacity.    Mr. McGraff continued by reviewing several issues relating to the Demand/Capacity Summary.  He reviewed Facility Requirements Highlights relating to Runways and Taxiways.  He displayed and reviewed a site plan showing the runway and taxiway extensions.  He discussed the Statistics of the Terminal Buildings, Automobile Parking and General Aviation.  He displayed and reviewed site plans of Alternatives #1, #2 and #3.  He reviewed the overall development plan as outlined in Figure 7-4. 

     Chairman McLain stated the overlay on the north end shows why it is important that the County continue to lobby to get SR 46 East four laned from Sanford to 415.  He stated as this develops along that corridor it is obvious that the two-lane typical section is not going to cut it.

     Mr. McGraff reviewed FAA Order Categories of Environmental Impacts; Future Noise Contours and Land Use; and the Cost of the Total Development Program.  He stated the question is how will they pay for this.  He said the airport will receive grants throughout the 20-year period.  He reviewed the State and local contributions.  The key document out of this process is the Airport Layout Plan and it will be sent to the FAA for review.  He displayed and reviewed the Current Airport Economic Impacts as presented on Table 11-6 and the final numbers outlined on Table 11-5.  He stated they will receive the Final Draft Document within 60 days (September 16, 2002), submit the Final Documents and Plans on October 15, 2002 and then begin implementation on October 16, 2002.

     Mr. McGraff explained for Commissioner Morris why the international terminal will be two times the size of the domestic terminal in 2010.

     Commissioner Morris and Mr. Dale discussed cargo growth. 

     Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Dale advised the Airport prefers Alternative 1. 

     Chairman McLain stated the Orlando/Sanford Airport has been identified as the number one economic engine for the County and the road network being built will be a great asset to the Airport.  He stated the land use change for light industrial for the 5,000 acres is not seen in the master plan.

     Mr. Dale stated one of the problems that they have had in marketing the Airport is they are located in no man’s land and the new entrance to the airport will make a tremendous difference. 

     Chairman McLain stated the new access road from I-95 will be another important asset for the transportation mobility around that airport.

     Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Dale advised he has briefed every city on the activities and planning process that the airport is going through.

SEMINOLE COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESENTATION

     Dr. David Harrison, Vice President Educational Programs, addressed the Board to thank them for giving them an opportunity to give an overview of Seminole Community College (SCC) and its role in partnership with the County.  He stated Dr. Ann McGee is out of town and was unable to attend today and she would like to thank the Board for supporting their small business services.  He said he would like to do an overview of the college and the growth that they have experienced in recent years.  He displayed a PowerPoint presentation (received and filed) and reviewed the first slide as to Where They Have Come From.  He stated the college has increased the square footage over 30% over the last 5 years.  He reviewed the campus at Sanford/Lake Mary, Hunt Club Center and Oviedo.  He stated the enrollment of the college has exploded and they now serve almost 32,000 students.  He said SCC is the 10th largest of Florida’s 28 community colleges and over 30% of the graduating high school seniors in Seminole County are enrolling at SCC.  SCC is the fastest growing community college in the State of Florida over the last 5 years and with that growth, the college has tried to help the students financially.  SCC has a unique mission characterized by Comprehensive Programs, Strategic Partnerships and Community Responsiveness.  SCC has an open door for everyone who has a lifelong learning for emergent, incumbent and transitional workforce.  SCC will have five technical programs in partnership with University of Central Florida on their campus starting this fall and those are Elementary Education; Criminal Justice; Legal Studies; Psychology; and Liberal Studies/Business.  The Public Works Academy of Seminole County has been a real success and they have a strong program for small business services.  He submitted a booklet (received and filed) relating to Small Business Assistance in Seminole County.  He continued by reviewing the following:  Law Enforcement/Public Safety Program; Partnering with three hospitals to expand the Nursing Program; Adult Education Program; and Center for Building Construction.  He stated the automotive dealers have generated $2.5 million of their money to be matched by the State for a new automotive facility on the campus.  SCC has the number one automotive training program in the country, and SCC has a number of partnerships with the Information Technology Program.  He said SCC has received funding and a donation of land from Pizzuti for a new facility at Heathrow and he reviewed the partners for this facility.  Funding is available for the purchase of land in the Altamonte Springs area as well.  The specific challenge that faces SCC is the growth trend.  He reviewed the total funding per FTE and stated SCC is the second lowest state funded per FTE.  He concluded by reviewing the enrollment mix, workforce programs and the 2002/2003 agenda. 

     Mr. McMillan left the meeting at this time.

     Dr. Harrison stated that Dr. McGee has taken the leadership role among the 28 community colleges to engage business leaders in understanding the contribution these colleges are making and she has requested the Board to support this role.

     Mr. McMillan reentered the meeting at this time.

     Wayne Hardy addressed the Board to introduce members of business community and the companies they represent.

-------

     Chairman McLain recessed the meeting at 10:30 a.m., reconvening at 10:45 a.m., with all Officials present, with the exception of Clerk of Court Maryanne Morse.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT

CONSENT AGENDA

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

Property Acquisition

 4.  Approve and execute Purchase Agreement, as shown on page _________, relating to Parcel Number 114 of the Airport Boulevard Phase III road improvement project, located at 2706 Country Club Drive, in the amount of $92,500.00 inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs, Rebecca Seymour property.

Litigation

 5.  Approve proposed settlement relating to Parcel Number 173 of the Lake Mary Boulevard Phase II road improvement project, located at 490 East Lake Mary Boulevard, in the amount of $88,314.05 inclusive of all land value, severance damage/cure costs, improvements taken, statutory interest, attorney’s fees and costs, Star Enterprise Property.

 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S BRIEFING

     Mr. McMillan requested that his Briefing item be continued prior to the County Manager’s Briefing.  The Board voiced no objections.

COUNTY MANAGER’S REPORT

CONSENT AGENDA

     Chairman McLain advised that Item #8, Release of Water & Sewer Capacity Agreement for Realty South Land Holdings, has been withdrawn from the agenda.

     Commissioner Maloy stated he has a question on Item #20, scheduling of the Port Authority budget hearing.  He stated he was told by one of the Port Authority members that five votes are required for an affirmative to pass an item.  He said he understand that item was passed with a four vote.  He added if it wasn’t passed properly, he would like to know if it is alright to schedule a hearing if they haven’t passed their budget.  Mr. Grace stated he would assume that the meeting can be scheduled at the end of August as the Port Authority will have their budget properly approved before then.

     Mr. McMillan stated he feels that would be the appropriate procedure.

     Commissioner Morris stated a Port Authority member did discover that a quorum must be present and any action taken by them requires a five-member vote.  Their attorney is going to review this and at the next Board meeting, they will make a recommendation as to the regulatory authority of that law and how it will affect any pertinent items.

     Maryanne Morse, Clerk of Court, reentered the meeting at this time.

     Commissioner Henley stated under Item #23, Award CC-1186-02, he was under the impression that the practice of non-staff members serving on review committees was going to cease and it hasn’t. 

     Mr. Grace informed Commissioner Henley that they are non-voting members of the committee.

     Commissioner Morris stated he would urge staff to address the policies that consultants can sit in during the committee reviews, but cannot be on the committee.

     Commissioner Morris referred to Item #21, Approve Resolution recording assessment level changes for districts included in the Consolidated Street Lighting.  He stated the assessments are being increased and his understanding is that any charges to the public must be cleared through the Public Service Commission; but this must be an exception.  He said he would ask the Board to consider drafting a letter to the Public Service Commission relating to this issue. 

     Chairman McLain stated he has instructed staff to prepare a letter addressing these concerns.

     Mr. Grace stated this could be a legislative issue and it may be something that needs to be discussed during the Legislative session.

     The Board, by consensus, authorized sending a letter to the Public Service Commission addressing the Board’s concerns.

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

Community Services

Community Assistance

6.         Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the Community Services Block Grant Agreement, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County and Florida Department of Community Affairs; and approve $4,488.00 cash match.

 

Economic Development

 7.  Approve the revised US 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency FY 2001/2002 Project List and associated BCR #02-107 in the amount of $274,168.

Environmental Services

Administration

 8.  Withdrawal of request to approve Release of Water (29,747 gpd) and Sewer (31,000 gpd) Capacity Agreement for the Realty South Land Holdings project.

 9.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the Conditional Utility Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Water Service between Seminole County and the City of Orlando.

Planning, Engineering & Inspections

10.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Purchase Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Utility Easement and Utility and Access Easement, as shown on page ________, from HIBC Development Company, c/o Pizzuti Development, to serve the new Markham Regional Water Treatment Plant.

11.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the Purchase Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Permanent Utility Easement, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County and Mrs. Dorothy Maxwell; accept and record the Utility Easement granted to Seminole County by Mrs. Dorothy Maxwell, relating to the Consumers/Lake Hayes Transmission Main Project.

12.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the Purchase Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Permanent  Utility Easement, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County and Dr. Zhi Liang Huo; accept and record the Utility Easement granted to Seminole County by Dr. Zhi Liang Huo, relating to the Consumers/Lake Hayes Transmission Main Project.

 

Fiscal Services

Budget

13.  BCR #02-91 – $21,000 – Public Works – Traffic Engineering – Fund: 11500 – 1991 Sales Tax fund.   The safety project at the intersection of Red Bug Lake Road and Eagle Circle will require that the existing traffic light poles be relocated. It would be cost effective to do the mast arm conversion, initially scheduled for next fiscal year, in conjunction with the safety project.

14.  BCR #02-101 – $115,000 – Fiscal Services – MSBU – Fund: 15000 – Street Lighting MSBU fund.   Florida Power Corporation obtained approval from the Florida Public Service Commission to increase their rental and maintenance charges for street lighting equipment. Additional funds are needed in the utility expenditure account line. This transfer supports the resolution to approve the increased assessment levels on this consent agenda.

15.  BCR #02-106 – $125,000 – Environmental Services – Water & Wastewater – Fund: 40100 – Water & Sewer fund.   Accounting adjustment only to put funding in proper account line for the Greenwood Lakes Filter Refurbishment.

16.  BCR #02-108 – $18,354 – Public Works – Engineering – Fund: 10101 – Transportation Trust fund.   Revenue has been received in the current fiscal year from the Loma Vista Developers Commitment agreement to be used towards construction of the Cross Seminole Trail. This transfer allocates these funds to the appropriate expense account in the project.

17.  BCR #02-109 – $58,737 – Planning and Development – Community Resources – Fund: 11902 – Home Program Grant fund. Accounting adjustment only to adjust budget to reflect grant totals for appropriate year.

18.  BCR #02-111 – $989,770 – Environmental Services – Water & Wastewater – Fund: 40104 – 21M Debt Proceeds fund. To provide additional funds needed for the Markham Regional Water Plant project to fund the two well pumps and motors, well pipelines, electrical and instrumentation, ground storage tank aerator, water quality testing and ground water modeling for consumptive use permit.

19.  Request authorization to schedule and advertise two public hearings for the adoption of the tentative and final operating and capital budget for FY 2002/2003. Advertisement of the first public hearing will be by mail out of the “Notice of Proposed Property Taxes”. Advertisement of the second public hearing will be by newspaper. Dates requested are September 11, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. and September 24, 2002 at 7:00 p.m., respectively.

20.  Request authorization to advertise and schedule a public hearing for presentation of the proposed Port Authority budget for FY 2002/03.  Date requested for the public hearing is August 27, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. at which time the FY 2002/2003 Seminole County Port Authority budget will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for public comment.

MSBU

21.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2002-R-113, as shown on page ________, recording assessment level changes for districts included in the Consolidated Street Lighting District Ordinance.

22.  Adopt appropriate Resolution #2002-R-114, as shown on page _________, establishing annual maintenance assessments for Lake Pickett Aquatic Weed Control, Howell Creek Aquatic Weed Control and Cedar Ridge Landscape Maintenance Municipal Services Benefits Units.

Purchasing

23.  Award CC-1186-02/BJC, as shown on page ________, Hickman Drive Water Distribution System Improvements, to Superior Asphalt of Central Florida, Mt. Dora ($271,551.85).

24.  Approve Change Order #2, as shown on page ________, to FC-1169-02/BJC - Museum of Seminole County, Agriculture Exhibit Building, with Pooley Enterprises, Inc., Orlando ($10,482.25).

25.  Approve Change Order #1, as shown on page ________, to FC-1166-01/BJC – Markham Water Transmission Main Construction Project, with Masci Corporation, Port Orange ($45,318.00 (Time Extension).

26.  Approve ranking list for PS-5117-02/BJC – Professional Services for Preliminary Engineering and Final Design Services for East Lake Brantley Road Improvements (from Wekiva Springs Road to S.R. 434) and award a Master Agreement, as shown on page ________, to Avcon, Inc. Engineers & Planners, Orlando (Not-to-Exceed $250,000.00).

27.  Approve Amendment #9, as shown on page ________, to PS-505-97/BJC – Consultant Design Services for Seminole Wekiva Trail, Sections 2 and 3, with Harding ESE, Inc., Orlando (Time Extension).

28.  Approve Second (Final) Renewal for PS-559-00/BJC – Master Agreements for Engineering and Professional Services for Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements and Operations; with Camp Dresser & McKee, Maitland; CPH Engineers, Sanford; Parsons Engineering Science, Tampa and PBS&J, Orlando (September 29, 2002 through September 28, 2003) (Not-to-Exceed $200,000.00 per year).

29.  Approve Second (Final) Renewal for PS-560-00/BJC – Master Agreements for Engineering and Professional Services for Water Treatment Plant Improvements and Operations, with CPH Engineers, Sanford; Malcolm Pirnie, Maitland; Parsons Engineering Science, Tampa and PBS&J, Orlando (September 29, 2002 through September 28, 2003) (Not-to-Exceed $200,000.00 per year).

30.  Approve Second (Final) Renewal and Amendment #3, as shown on page ________, to PS-572-00/BJC – Engineering Services for the Markham (fka Paola) Regional Water Treatment Plant, with PBS&J, Orlando (Not-to-Exceed $1,650,000.00) (October 4, 2002 through October 3, 2003).

31.  Approve the First Renewal for PS-593-01/BJC - Master Agreements for Professional Services for Comprehensive Planning, Socio-Economic Data Estimates and Projections, with Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc., Orlando, and Urban Dynamics Corporation, Neptune Beach (September 7, 2002 through September 6, 2003) (Not-to-Exceed $100,000.00 per year).

32.  Approve First Renewal and Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to RFP-486-00/BJC – Fleet Maintenance Agreement, with Serco Management Services, Inc., Gibbsboro, NJ (Fixed Fee $7,036,583.04 for a period of 24 months) (October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2004).

33.  Approve the Second (Final) Renewal to RFP-488-00/BJC – Marketing Consulting Services for Seminole County, with Bennett & Company, Orlando (October 25, 2002 through October 24, 2003) (Not-to-Exceed $190,000.00).

34.  Approve Amendment #2, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #5 to RFP-489-00/BJC – Appraisal Services for Airport Boulevard – Phase III, with Diversified Property Specialists, Inc., DeBary ($16,125.00).

35.  Approve Amendment #1 to AB-3009-01/GG – Demolition and Boarding Up of Structures with Global Demolition & Recycling, Inc., Orlando (Primary) and H.B. Walker, Inc., Orlando (Secondary) (Increase the Not-To-Exceed amount to $612,660.00).

 

Planning & Development

Community Resources

36.  Approve and authorize Chairman to sign and submit the County’s 2002-2003 One-Year Action Plan of the 2000-2005 Consolidated Plan, as shown on page ________, to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) via the Volusia/Seminole HOME Consortium.

37.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute two Satisfaction of Mortgage, as shown on page ________, for households assisted under the SHIP Program’s Home Ownership Assistance Program, Curtistine Peterson and Elsalee Ohumukini.

38.  Approve the proposed changes to the Local Housing Assistance Plan; authorize the Chairman to execute the changes, and authorize staff to submit the proposed changes to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for approval.

39.  Adopt appropriate Resolution #2002-R-115, as shown on page _________, that names an unnamed street to Unity Court; property located within Deer Run Unit 5.

40.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute a Partial Satisfaction and Forgiveness of Second Mortgage, as shown on page ________, for a household assisted under the SHIP Program’s Home Ownership Assistance Program, Mary Trego.

Planning/Code Enforcement

41.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Satisfaction of Lien, as shown on page ________, in the amount of $1,000 for Code Enforcement violations on Lots 31 and 32, Trinity Bay, owners M.C.D., Inc. and Laura P. Barker.

 

Public Works

Administration

42.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Second Amendment, as shown on page ________, to the Interlocal Agreement between Seminole County and the City of Oviedo relating to the 1991 One-Cent Local Option Sales Tax; and authorize Chairman to execute upon receipt of an executed original from the City.

Traffic Engineering

43.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the Signage Agreement, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County and Lafayette Forest Homeowners Association.

 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS REPORTS

CLERK’S CONSENT AGENDA

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

A.   Approval of Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page ________, dated July 2 and 9, 2002; and Payroll Approval List, as shown on page ________, dated July 3, 2002.

 

B.   Chairman to execute the following Satisfactions of Judgment/$40 Public Defender Application Fees:

 

James Phillip Brewer, III, Case #99-4702-CFA

Ryan Colgate, Case #96-9965-MMA

Terry Lee Perkins, Case #99-276-MMA

Richard Cooke Shuler, Case #00-112-CFA

 

C.   Chairman to execute the following Satisfactions of Judgment/Court Costs:

 

Eric Todd McIntosh, Case #01-3502-CFB - $328

Carmen Beatrice Ortiz, Case #01-4558-CFA - $198 Court Costs and Public Defender Application Fee

 

D.   Chairman to execute the following Satisfactions of Judgment/Application Of Indigency Fees:

 

Charles Louis Martin, Case #01-13753-MMA - $40

Robert Scott McCown, Case #00-12364-MMA - $40

 

E.              Chairman to execute the following Satisfactions of Judgment/Bail Bond Liens:

 

Teddy Germaine Cooper & Capitol Preferred Ins. Co. - $2,038

Angel Josue Garcia & Accredited Surety & Casualty - $3,038

Dale Douglas Perkins & Bankers Ins. Co. - $538

Dale Douglas Perkins & Bankers Ins. Co. - $538

Daniel J. Rolland & American Bankers Ins. - $288

 

F.              Chairman to execute the following Satisfactions of Judgment/Public Defender Liens:

 

Craig P. Adirim, Case #01012131MM - $250

Janet L. Bartels, Case #00001383MM - $200

Ivan (K.B.) Beckford, Case #95003259CJA - $150

Jorden Carmicchael, Case #01013123MM - $250

Charles P. Carter, Case #99001681CFA - $200

Karen D. Clarke, Case #01000427CFC - $200

Marcell P. Coke, Case #02003158MM - $200

Eric Dunham, Case #01002114MM - $250

Shawn E. Feldt, Case #00003382MM - $200

Rodnet Mitchell Gaquette, Case #01001220MM - $200

Stanley F. Gumerlock, Case #00000589CFA - $200

Jesse T. Hannon, Case #00004023CFA - $100

Shelia Hutchison, Case #84001255CFA VOP - $100

Shiela Hutchison, Case #841255CFA - $200

Dexter Jones, Case #01011030MM - $200

Shauna S. Kuhn, Case #98010470MM - $225

Ricardo A. Loayza, Case #00000002CFA - $300

Michael McAnn, Case #00000012MM - $200

Dorothy L. Mitchell, Case #00000831CFA - $200

Joe Larry Nutter, Case #01014195MM - $297

Nathaniel Orosco, Case #01002539CFA - $200

John A. Papineau, Jr., Case #02002735MM - $250

Stephen Perez, Case #02001479MM - $250

Michael P. Riley, Case #00012724MM - $200

Juan Santiago, Case #94005288MM - $200

Scott Allen Stevens, Case #01008113MM - $250

Lawrence Swanson, Case #01012106MM - $250

Robert J. Varner, Case #94002611CFD - $200

 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

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

1.        Development Orders, as shown on page _______, as follows:  #02-32000009 Darlene Court/Bet Chaim/House of Worship Special Exception; #2002-38000001 Larry & Alice Dorcik Waiver; #02-32000003 St. Mary & Archangel Michael Coptic Orthodox, Inc. Special Exception; and #02-30000058 John & Lisa McDonald Variance.

 

 2.  Memoranda to the Board of County Commissioners from Kevin Grace re:  Capital Project Fund Transfers for the Historical Museum Agriculture Exhibit Building and Lake Way Road Sidewalk.

 

 3.  Amendment #2, as shown on page ________, to Letter of Credit #SDLSTR17854 for MI Schottenstein Homes, Inc.

 

 4.  Acceptance of Maintenance Bonds, as shown on page ________, #3SM 046 373 00 in the amount of $75,461.68 for the project known as Buckingham Estates Ph I; #929197762 in the amount of $9,163.82 for the project known as Northampton; and #929197763 in the amount of $3,299.63 for the project known as Northampton.

 

5.        Change Order #3, as shown on page ________, to FC-1125-00/BJC.

 

6.        Change Order #3, as shown on page ________, to FC-1173-01/BJC.

 

7.        Change Order #5, as shown on page ________, to FC-1123-00/BJC.

 

8.        M-322-02 Roof Repair Services Agreement, as shown on page _________, Tom Tanenbaum, Inc.

 

9.        RFP-4142-01/JVP, as shown on page _________, Transport Capable Units (Ambulances), Medtec Ambulance Corp.

 

10.         Work Order #21, as shown on page ________, to PS-590-01/BJC.

 

11.         First Amendment, as shown on page ________, to M-150-00/BJC.

 

12.         IFB-3048-02/GMG Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Fuel Island Inspection Service, Petroleum Equipment Construction.

 

13.         First Amendment, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #9 to PS-586-01/BJC.

 

14.         Work Order #10, as shown on page ________, to PS-586-01/BJC.

 

15.         M-320-02 Engineering Services Agreement, as shown on page _________, KLG Orlando, Inc.

 

16.         IFB-3045-02 Term Contract, as shown on page _________, for Safety Shoes, Iron Age Corporation.

 

17.         Work Order #45, as shown on page ________, to PS-543-99.

 

18.         IFB-3050-02 Term Contract, as shown on page ________, for Purchase of Herbicide Chemicals, Helena Chemical.

 

19.         Work Order #34, as shown on page ________, to PS-556-00.

 

20.         Second Amendment, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #2 to PS-556-00.

 

21.         Second Amendments, as shown on page ________, to Work Orders #6, #7, #8 & #9 to PS-534-98.

 

22.         M-323-02, as shown on page ________, Construction Engineering and Inspection Services Agreement, Reiss Environmental, Inc.

 

23.         M-324-02, as shown on page ________, Construction Engineering and Inspection Services Agreement, Reiss Environmental, Inc.

 

24.         Change Order #9, as shown on page ________, to FC-1135-00/BJC.

 

25.         Change Order #1, as shown on page ________, to FC-1180-02/BJC.

 

26.         RFP-4149-02/JVP, as shown on page ________, Gravity Sewer TV Inspection System Purchase Agreement, Elxsi d/b/a Cues.

 

27.         Letter to Tony VanDerworp, Sanford City Manager, from Kevin Grace, County Manager, relating to updates to Exhibits A and B, as shown on page _________, of the 2002 County/City Local Sales Surtax Administration Agreement.

 

28.         Seminole County Homeowner/Rehabilitation Program Assistance Agreements, as shown on page ________, with Paul & Norma Lundy; Jimmie & Linda Roberts; Billy Fisher; Donald Homer Carder; Victoria Stone; and Walter Lee.

 

29.         Satisfactions of Connection Fees, as shown on page _________, for the projects known as Academy of Learning and McKee Construction Ph 2.

 

30.         Conditional Utility Agreements, as shown on page ________, for water and sewer service with Richard Rubinstein, P.A., for the project known as Tuskawilla Oaks Veterinary Clinic.

 

31.         Conditional Utility Agreement, as shown on page ________, for water service for the project known as Sturbridge Oaks Subdivision.

 

32.         Bill of Sale and Warranty Deed, as shown on page ________, accepting water and sewer system and lift station within the project known as Buckingham Estates Ph 1.

 

33.         Bill of Sale, as shown on page ________, accepting water system and road improvements within the project known as Northampton Subdivision.

 

34.         Bids for RFP-4158-02. 

SHERIFF’S CONSENT AGENDA

     Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize and approve the following, and to increase one part-time position to a full-time position (BAR #02-27:

51.  BCR #02-110 – $160,000 – Fund: 00100 – General fund. It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transfer of $160,000 budgeted in the Sheriff’s Office contingency account into the Sheriff’s Office operating expense account in accordance with Section 30.49 (7), Florida Statutes.

52.  Budget Amendment Resolution #2002-R-116, as shown on page ________, $17,813 – Fund: 00100 – General fund. The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office has been awarded a grant in the amount of $17,813 from the Florida Department of Health.  An advance payment for this amount has been received by the Sheriff’s Office.  These funds will provide basic first response equipment that is essential for the safe response to a biological or chemical hazard. The specialized equipment will allow deputies to respond effectively and safely to this type of incident. There are no new personnel positions in this grant.

53.  Budget Amendment Resolution #2002-R-117, as shown on page ________, $19,372 – Fund: 00100 – General fund. The Sheriff’s Office has now accrued $19,372 in unclaimed evidence funds, which in accordance with Section 705.105, Florida Statutes become the property of the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s Office does not budget for unclaimed evidence funds in its annual budget since receipt of these funds is totally dependant upon the disposition of cases and therefore may fluctuate significantly from year to year. At such time during the year that these revenues do accrue in a sufficient amount to warrant appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners, an agenda item is prepared. These funds will be utilized within the Sheriff’s budget for operating needs within the agency.

54.  Budget Amendment Resolution #2002-R-118, as shown on page ________, $33,608 – Fund: 00100 – General fund.  The Sheriff’s Office entered into a two-year agreement with Justice Benefits Inc., a nationwide consulting firm, which specializes in researching and applying for Federal revenues on behalf of governmental entities. Currently, Justice Benefits Inc., works on behalf of numerous Sheriff’s Offices and Counties within the State of Florida including Hillsborough, Alachua, and Pinellas.  For the third consecutive year, Justice Benefits Inc. on behalf of the Sheriff’s Office applied for a Federal revenue source entitled “Alien Assistance Program”. This program provides Federal funds to local jails for the housing of individuals who are not U.S. citizens, including residents of Canada, Mexico, and European Countries. Previous Fiscal Year awards were for $29,855 (FY 2000) and $61,825 (FY 2001). Based upon the FY 2002 submitted claim, the U.S. Department of Justice has awarded the Sheriff’s Office $33,608. Awarded funds have already been electronically deposited with the County. The Sheriff’s Office would like to appropriate these funds to be utilized for matching funds for several Sheriff’s Office grants.

55.  Budget Amendment Resolution #2002-R-119, as shown on page ________, $31,250 – Fund: 00100 – General fund. The Seminole County Sheriff’s Office has been approved for $31,250 from the Department of Juvenile Justice and the grant period is 7/1/02 – 6/30/03.  This grant includes one new full-time position and a full year of grant revenue and expenditures that are already included in the Sheriff’s FY 02-03 budget request.  No additional cash match is required.  This program will provide funds for the STAY program provided through the School Board and also provide a six-week follow-up program for youth that complete the Operation Right Track Program.  The attached Budget Amendment Request in the amount of $31,250 will provide the Sheriff’s budget with the necessary program funds to operate through 9/30/02.  The award information is attached.

56.  Authorization to utilize $1,000 in the Law Enforcement Trust Funds for a contribution to the Salvation Army in Sanford in support of their Family Focus Program.

57.  Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the grant application and associated grant documents, as shown on page _______, for the Law Enforcement Block Grant; and authorization to process all associated grant documents.

58.  Approve increasing the Sheriff’s authorized position count for three (3) positions necessary for continuation of the Child Protective Services Investigations program.

 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS

     Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt Resolution #2002-R-120, as shown on page _______, creating the new precinct boundaries.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

REGULAR AGENDA

60.  Mr. Grace requested Board consideration of an Interlocal Agreement addressing the use of annual revenues formerly known as pari-mutuel funds.  He said this will redirect that money to support the School Board Pre-K Program.

     Commissioner Morris stated this is a one-year issue and the County will try to lobby the appropriate people to try to get this critical funding back.  He stated he has met with the County Manager and County Engineer regarding this and he would like to see this funding continued by a transfer of funds from the 1-cent sales tax to cover the two construction projects (Dyson and Citrus). 

     Mr. Grace stated staff’s recommendation was to use the sales tax money to fund Dyson Drive and then delay Citrus until next year.  However, he said if the Board chooses, they can proceed with Citrus also.

     Commissioner Henley stated he feels it is important to know that those projects have never been approved by the Board but are recommendations from the staff and committee.  He stated he is pleased that they will not have to delay them if the Board chooses. 

     Commissioner Morris stated the community is expecting this project so that their school children will be safe.

     Commissioner Henley stated the one thing he wants to point out is there were meetings with the School Board and the Coalition and the School Board will be using a sliding scale to make it part of the operation.

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to authorize Chairman to execute Interlocal Agreement, as shown on page _______, with the School Board addressing the use of annual revenues formerly known as pari-mutuel funds for the Pre-K Program.

     Under discussion, Commissioner Maloy stated he is not crazy about changing this money and not doing it through the regular budget process, but he would support it if it is clear that the County keep Citrus Road on the project list and with the understanding that this is for only one year.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

     Commissioner Henley stated this was brought on because of Legislative action and he wants to remind the Board that Mr. Harris pointed out how much of that is not funded by the Legislature and that is a real mystery to him that they have to eliminate some of the most needy children in the community.  That shows him that the County needs to talk more to the people who are representing them to get a fair share of their dollars here to meet their needs.

     Chairman McLain stated he feels it is important that the School Board and the Board join hands in working with their delegation.

     Commissioner Morris stated Dyson Drive is a $400,000 project and Citrus is a $100,000 project and the County Manager can put that in the September budget hearings for approval.

     Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to include the two sidewalk projects (Dyson & Citrus) in the budget.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

61.  Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to approve and authorize the proposed millage rates to be included on the TRIM notification in accordance with the County Manager’s proposed budget.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

62.  Ray Hooper, Purchasing Manager, addressed the Board to present request for Board direction concerning RFP-496-01/FJC with KPMG LLP, Orlando, and Harris, Cotherman, O’Keefe & Associates, Winter Park, for auditing services. 

     Chairman McLain expressed his concern with doing a new RFP and making sure that the next year’s audit will be started in a timely fashion.

     Mr. Hooper stated they can do an accelerated process and try to bring it to the Board by September 23, 2002.

     Commissioner Henley stated he has noticed that nearly every operation (all Constitutional Offices, Enterprise Funds, Bonds, etc.) will be audited except for the Legal Department.

     Mr. Grace stated the Legal Department is covered under the Board’s operation. 

     Cindy Hall, Fiscal Services Director, addressed the Board to advise all of the departments are included in the Board’s audit.  They are included in the General Fund portion and it is not separated out by department. 

     Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to terminate RFP-496-01/BJC with KPMG LLP, Orlando and continue performance with the partnering firm of Harris, Cotherman, O’Keefe & Associates, Winter Park, for auditing services.

     Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Maryanne Morse, Clerk of the Circuit Court, addressed the Board to advise if she were a voting member of this Board, she would vote to go out with an RFP.  She stated she feels the Board could potentially be opening themselves up for criticism because the contract indicates that it is a partnership between KPMG and Harris, Cotherman & O’Keefe.  She added that this is not in any to reflect that Dan O’Keefe and his company would not be competent to do it.

     Commissioner Morris stated he wants to make sure that they establish a two-year continuation of the contract with one-year extensions.  He stated he feels that Harris, Cotherman is an excellent firm and they can do the job, but he has concerns that they now have a changed applicant, and they are going with the automatic 2+1+1.  If they have to do an RFP, it would have to be done rapidly. 

     Mr. McMillan stated the Board can terminate the contract and go out in six months to obtain a new contract on board.

     Commissioner Morris asked the motion maker to consider doing a performance review for 2003/2004.

     Commissioner Maloy stated he feels that this will fill in the window, but if the performance is not up to par, then they need to terminate the contract.

     Chairman McLain stated he feels Commissioner Morris is suggesting that an RFP be done after the first of the year and have the time to move forward with the selection process.

     Commissioner Morris stated he agrees with the motion maker to move forward with this, but to do a full review that may lead to an RFP.

     Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Commissioner Maloy accepted that as a friendly amendment.

     Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Hooper advised the contract stands as it is and the rates are included up to 2005. 

     Chairman McLain stated he feels the Board is trying to make it clear that if they go with option one, they will inform the partners that the Board wants a performance review done after the first of the year to make sure that they do not have to do another RFP.

     Commissioner Henley stated he doesn’t know if that would be an appropriate time to do that.

     Mr. Grace stated he feels a review should be done after the audit is completed.

     Commissioner Morris asked if the motion maker would concur that the County Manager and the Clerk would jointly do the review. 

     Chairman McLain reiterated that the motion is to terminate the contract with KPMG and to continue with Harris, Cotherman, O’Keefe & Associates, with staff to evaluate the contract and performance after the audit and to come back with a recommendation as to whether they should continue or go back out for an RFP.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

63.  Linda Eiland, Risk Management, addressed the Board to present request to award RFP-4158-02/BJC Employee Benefits as follows; and authorization for Chairman’s signature as necessary:  (1) Health Insurance to United Healthcare effective 1/1/03-12/31/03; (2) Life/AD&D and Optional Life/AD&D to Jefferson Pilot effective 1/1/03 – 12/31/05; (3) LTD to Reliance Standard effective 1/1/03 –12/31/04; (4) Dental to CompBenefits effective 1/1/03 – 12/31/05; (5) STD and Cancer/Dread to GE/Professional Insurance Corporation effective 1/1/03 – 12/31/03; and (6) 5500, Cobra and Flexible Spending Account Administration to Employee Benefits Corp. effective 1/1/03 – 12/31/03.

     Chairman McLain stated he has been involved in the insurance business for 22 years, and when he first met with staff to review this he was in support of the benefit package, but was a little reluctant on the LTD.  Since the meeting of the committee, some inconsistencies have come up that concerns him.  He stated he would recommend approving Items 1, 2, and 4 but to continue 3, 5 & 6. 

     Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Chairman McLain advised the way it is currently designed, there will be 150 to 200 employees that could end with over 115% of their compensation and disability income.  He stated this is a conflict and the County would never want to have employees in a position where they can make more money with disability than they would at work.  He said Item 3 will be a 50% benefit and the current short-term benefit (Item 5) has a two-year benefit period and other options.

     Andria Herr, Allied Group Insurance Services, Inc., addressed the Board to explain for Commissioner Henley if there is a significant difference when the insurance kicks in and what the impact would be on that.

     Chairman McLain stated he feels it is important that they be provided with a list of what benefits the employees have.  He stated his concern is there are at least 150 employees already on the two-year benefit and that will put many of the employees over 100% of their salaries.

     Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms. Herr advised what the Board can do to prevent that situation from happening but yet still make the long-term available.

     Chairman McLain asked the Board to give him time to review this further.  He stated there are some existing problems that need to be evaluated.  He said he is prepared to move forward with Options 1, 2 & 4, but would have to vote against Options 3, 5 & 6, as he is not comfortable that the plans are in place as they should be.

     Commissioner Henley stated he would hope the Board would not want to deny coverage to all the other employees as a result of the 180.  He stated if more information is needed, then the delay may be appropriate.

     Chairman McLain stated staff will obtain a report from the vendor to see exactly how many employees have the $2000 maximum two-year benefit.

     Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Commissioner Maloy advised his understanding of long-term disability is that many government agencies around the community provide it and it was a benefit that pretty much became standard, and he is not opposed to that concept.

     Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve RFP-4158-02/BJC Options 1, 2 & 4 and hold Options 3, 5 & 6 for the next meeting for a full Board.

     Under discussion, Commissioner Morris stated rather than just a direct discussion, he would like staff to enunciate this information to all of the Board members.

     Commissioner Henley asked if the two-week delay would impact the enrollment period.  Ms. Herr advised it should not. 

     Chairman McLain stated there was a limitation of $2000 a month for LTD coverage and that meant any employee making over $48,000 a year would not be up to the same 50% as the rest of the employees.  He said he recommended that that limit be increased to $3000 so that some of the management employees would have the same 50% coverage as the rest of the employees. 

     Chairman McLain advised he had a conversation with Jefferson Pilot and there might be some fine-tuning with some different options with the Life insurance.  This issue can be addressed in two weeks.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S BRIEFING (Continued)

     Mr. McMillan stated the Court has issued a ruling in the appeal of the Board’s judgment and it was determined that the code indicates that a billboard has to be within a certain number of feet from another billboard, even billboards in other counties and cities.  He stated he would need Board authorization to appeal the determination of the Court ruling.

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to authorize the County Attorney to appeal the determination of the Court ruling relating to billboards being within a certain number of feet from another billboard.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

     Mr. McMillan submitted a copy of an Ordinance (not received and filed) and he stated the opinion does not deal with billboard because there is a cap on billboards in unincorporated areas.  The only thing that it would deal with is the two permit applications subject to the appeal and whether or not they were vested.  What creates an impact is that there are any number of places in the code where you measure the distance from other structures.  The Board adopted one ordinance that says this includes those within municipal areas.  He requested authorization to advertise an ordinance, which will clarify that provision to indicate the Board’s intent.

     Commissioner Morris stated he would say affirm rather than clarify.

     Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize scheduling a public hearing relating to adopting an Ordinance clarifying the distance of billboards from other structures.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

     Mr. McMillan submitted a copy of an Emergency Ordinance relating to amending Seminole County Code Ordinances and Land Development Code regarding billboard sign separation.

     Chairman McLain recommended that this item be continued during the 1:30 p.m. hearing to give the Board a chance to review the ordinance.

COUNTY MANAGER’S BRIEFING

WATER SUPPLY

     Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize staff to proceed with the draft Reclaimed Water Ordinance.

     Under discussion, Commissioner Maloy stated he has not seen the presentation on this issue and the question he has relates to piping of new developments for reclaimed water and if the County is required to put pipes in subdivisions where there are no plans for future reuse.

     Chairman McLain informed the Board that Items #65, Billboard Permits, and #66, Summary of Florida SB 1906, will be dealt with during the 1:30 p.m. hearing.

     Maryanne Morse left the meeting at this time.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

     Bob Adolphe, Environmental Services Director, addressed the Board to briefly review the water supply study.

     Commissioner Morris left the meeting at this time.

     Jerry Hartman, Hartman & Associates, addressed the Board to display and review a PowerPoint Presentation relating to the Alternative Water Supply Study.  He reviewed slides of the following:  What the Water Alternative Supply Means; Program Objectives; and Alternative Water Supply Overview.  He stated there is over $11 million in the reclaimed water expansion program.  He reviewed the three Developing Initiatives, the Context of Activities, the Three Stages of Development; Population Growth; and Current Alternative Water Supply Programs.

     Mr. McMillan left the meeting at this time.

     Liz Block addressed the Board to review slides relating to Reclaimed Water Disposal Method or Valuable Resource.  She displayed and reviewed a graph showing all of the Greenwood Lakes reclaimed customers.  She concluded by reviewing the purpose of a Reclaimed Water Ordinance.

     Mr. Hartman continued by reviewing the Studies Ongoing Alternative Water Supply Programs and the Conceptual Proposals.  He concluded by reviewing the issues that will be brought back to the Board.

     Commissioner Maloy stated he would like to know more about whether or not the water will be put back in the aquifer instead of the traditional sewer system and who would regulate the rates.

     Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Grace advised that he and Mr. Adolphe spoke to the PBAS Issues Committee about the emphasis of the pipelines and they were supportive of this.  He stated he feels the Board will find some support in the development industry to do that.

-------

     Chairman McLain advised that Item #65, Billboard Permits Affected by January 23, 2001 Moratorium, will be continued to the next Board meeting, as Mr. Kirchhoff cannot be in attendance this afternoon and he would like a full Board present.

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to continue to August 13, 2002 briefing Item #65, Billboard Permits Affected by January 23, 2001 Moratorium, in order to have a full Board present.

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

-------

     The Board recessed the meeting at 12:10 p.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk, Eva Roach, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk, Sandy McCann. 

PROOFS OF PUBLICATION

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to authorize filing of the Proofs of Publication for this meeting’s scheduled public hearings into the Official Record. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

AMENDMENT & REZONING FROM

A-1 TO PUD, Thomas Daly

 

     Continuation from July 9, 2002, a request of a public hearing to consider a Small Scale Land Use Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential); and Rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); for property located on the west side of Tuskawilla Road, ¼ mile north of Dike Road, Thomas Daly, received and filed. 

     Planner, Jeff Hopper, addressed the Board to advise the applicant is proposing a townhouse development on the subject property, with a site plan indicating 8 units on 6.7 acres, at a density of 7.7 units per acre.  The units would be designed for fee-simple ownership with each home on a separate, privately owned lot.  He further advised the site consists of three parcels with several existing land uses, including a plant nursery, a cell tower, two residences and vacant land.  He reviewed the surrounding land uses.  He stated that development along this section of Tuskawilla Road is primarily low-density single family residential, with churches and day care facilities permitted by Special Exception.  The designated future land use of all surrounding properties is LDR.  He added that staff finds that the proposal is out of character with the low intensity nature of surrounding development and could establish a precedent for higher intensities which could, over time, significantly change the area.  Therefore, staff recommends denial of the request. 

     Chairman McLain stated he is trying to see how this rezoning would create a precedent. 

     Planning Manager, Matt West, addressed the Board to explain that when the property to the north was approved for an apartment complex at about 12 to 15 units per acre, the Board affirmed a verbal policy that only single family would be allowed south of Howell Creek. 

     Thomas Daly, representing Centex Homes, addressed the Board to display a map (received & filed) of the property and the surrounding area depicting the surrounding land uses.  He also displayed photographs (received & filed) of the proposed townhouses that will be built, advising they will be fee simple units, not rentals. 

     Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Daly advised the townhouses will be a minimum 1,600 square feet and will be three bedrooms.  He further advised Commissioner Henley that he has not calculated the impact to the surrounding schools; however, the size of the project is only 48 units and will have little impact. 

     Mr. Daly stated they have spoken to the adjacent property owners and they want help in repaving or fixing Sunset Trail.  He added that they will commit to a stone veneer three-foot wall with three-foot wrought iron work on top. 

     Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Daly advised the elevation of the property falls off from Tuskawilla and drains backward.  He further advised that the property to the north has been put under contract by Centex Homes for a housing development.  He said they are willing to commit to dedicate a fifty-foot right-of-way along the northern property boundary to provide joint access to the Beasley property and the 19-acre residential site to the north.  He added that it is their intention to tie the retention back into the single-family subdivision to the north.  Additional conditions of approval, including that the rear of the units will not face Tuskawilla Road were submitted into the Record.  Copy of proposed lot layout was received and filed. 

     No one else spoke in support or in opposition. 

     Upon inquiry by District Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Daly advised they would participate in a traffic signal if it is warranted. 

     Commissioner Morris stated the wall gives him some concern.  Discussion ensued.  Planning & Development Director, Don Fisher, advised the wall can be addressed at the Final Master Plan review. 

     Commissioner Maloy stated that in looking at the area, he does not think this proposed development will create future problems and does not believe it will be precedent setting. 

     Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt Ordinance #2002-29 as shown on page ________, approving request for a Small Scale Land Use Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR); and to adopt Ordinance #2002-30, as shown on page _______, approving rezoning from A-1 to PUD, for approximately 6.7 acres located on the west side of Tuskawilla Road, ¼ mile north of Dike Road, as described in the proof of publication, Thomas Daly; and to approve the Development Order, as shown on page _______, subject to staff conditions and including the following:  (1) Dedication of a 50-foot right-of-way along the northern property boundary to provide joint access to the Beasley property and the 19-acre residential site to the north, with the closing of the other access on Tuskawilla Road; (2) Wall to be addressed during Final Master Plan approval; (3) The developer to pay a pro rata share toward the traffic signal if warranted; (4) The rear of the units will not face Tuskawilla Road; and (5) The buildings appearances to be as presented at this hearing. 

     Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Commissioner Maloy agreed to include in the motion the condition that fill will not be above the level of Tuskawilla Road and that the building elevation will be reviewed at the Final Master Plan approval. 

     Mr. Daly stated that because they are also developing the property to the north, he would request that the access removal be considered when the Preliminary Subdivision Plan comes in.  The Board voiced no objections to same. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

REQUEST TO VACATE & ABANDON,

GREGG ZUCKERMAN OF ROCK PROPERTIES, INC.

 

     Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to vacate and abandon an exclusive access easement which encompasses the entire property located at 5450 Lake Howell Road, and Howell Branch Road, Casselberry, Gregg Zuckerman of Rock Properties, Inc., received and filed. 

     Planner, Shannon Suffron, addressed the Board to present the request, advising the applicant is requesting the vacate because he is redeveloping the site.  She stated the redevelopment will close off two existing access points and create one new access point to be shared and be located farther away from the intersection, providing for better ingress and egress.  She said that a reciprocal easement agreement has been drafted between Parcel A and Parcel B owners that will be executed prior to any development.  The staff recommends approval of the request. 

     Thomas Skelton, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to briefly discuss the request. 

     No one else spoke in support or in opposition. 

     District Commissioner Henley recommended approval. 

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to adopt appropriate Resolution #2002-R-121, as shown on page _______, vacating and abandoning an exclusive access easement which encompasses the entire property located at 5450 Lake Howell Road, and Howell Branch Road, Casselberry, as described in the proof of publication, Gregg Zuckerman of Rock

properties, Inc. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

REQUEST TO VACATE & ABANDON,

KENNETH WRIGHT/COLONIAL REALTY LTD. PARTNERSHIP

 

     Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to vacate and abandon the southerly 550 feet of public right-of-way of Banana Lake Road to the north of AAA Drive, located on the east side of Phase II of the Colonial Grande Apartments, approximately half-way between Lake Mary Boulevard and CR 46A on the west side of the Heathrow International Business Center, Kenneth Wright, representing the Colonial Realty Limited Partnership, received and filed. 

     Planner, Shannon Suffron, presented the request, advising the vacate is intended to meet the commitment made by the applicant as part of the approval of the future land use plan amendment and PUD rezoning for Phase II of Colonial Grande Apartments.  These commitments provide for a 200-foot buffer and wall along the north property line of the PUD and no access for the residents of the apartments onto Banana Lake Road to the north.  This portion of Banana Lake Road right-of-way will no longer be needed by the public because access for the apartment complex is provided from AAA Drive within the Heathrow International Business Center.  She further advised that a utility easement will be required for the easterly 22 feet of the vacated right-of-way for an existing 16-inch force main and water main and access to the lift station adjacent to AAA Drive.  A gate will be provided within the wall to provide access to this easement from Banana Lake Road to the north.  She stated staff recommends approval of the vacate with the condition that a utility easement be provided. 

     Attorney Meredith Harper, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to discuss the request, advising they will construct a brick wall and put in a 22-foot gate to allow the County to get into the lift station site.  She stated they are in the process of providing the utility easement and have no problem with that requirement.  She added that this vacate was a condition of their plan amendment so that there would not be traffic going down Banana Lake Road. 

     Cindy Crain, 820 Banana Lake Road, addressed the Board to submit for the Record a copy of a letter dated January 7, 1998 from her, requesting the vacate be done so that there will be no access on Banana Lake Drive.  She said she does not support the gate because she does not want any more traffic on the road and would prefer the wall to be solid. 

     Wendell Springfield, 770 Banana Lake Road, addressed the Board to speak in support of the vacate and in support of Ms. Crain’s comments.  He requested the County put up a barrier (similar to the one of AAA Drive) for traffic going past that area prior to starting construction. 

     Ms. Harper advised they plan on installing a steel-bar gate. 

     John Abi-Aoun, Development Review, addressed the Board to advise Public Safety did look at this and they did not have an issue with access.  He said they have several other access points and this will not affect any emergency access to the lift station and well site. 

     No one else spoke in support or in opposition. 

Upon inquiry by District Commissioner McLain, Ms. Harper advised the applicant does not care whether there is a gate or not. 

District Commissioner McLain recommended approval of the request to vacate and abandon and directed staff to come back with a more concise reason for the need of the gate during Final Site Plan review, with a decision to be made at that time.   

     Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #2002-R-122, as shown on page _______, vacating and abandoning the southerly 550 feet of public right-of-way of Banana Lake Road to the north of AAA Drive, located on the east side of Phase II of the Colonial Grande Apartments, approximately half-way between Lake Mary Boulevard and CR 46A on the west side of the Heathrow International Business Center, as described in the proof of publication, Kenneth Wright representing the Colonial Realty Limited Partnership, subject to a utility easement being provided for the easterly 22 feet of the vacated right-of-way, with the decision on the gate to be made during Final Site Plan Review. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

REQUEST FOR LAND USE AMENDMENT & REZONING FROM

A-1, R-1A, R-1AA TO PUD, GLATTING JACKSON/JOHN PERCY

 

     Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a Large Scale Land Use Amendment from PUD (Public/Quasi-Public) to PD (Planned Development) and rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture), R-1A and R-1AA (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for property located in southwest Seminole County, north of SR 436 and west of West Lake Brantley Road, Glatting Jackson/John Percy, received and filed. 

     Planner, Jeff Hopper, presented the request, advising the applicant is proposing a mixed-use development to include retail uses and an assisted living facility in addition to an expanded school and church.  The development will include an academy facility, church, 189,000 square feet of retail floor area, and a 120-bed assisted living facility.  He further advised that the Board authorized transmitting this to DCA for review in March and the DCA had no objections to the project.  Staff, therefore, recommends approval.  He added that if this item is approved, it will be combined with all approved Spring 2002 Amendment Cycle Comprehensive Plan hearing items in an ordinance, which will be adopted at the last Spring Cycle hearing tentatively scheduled for August 13. 

     John Percy, representing the applicant, addressed the Board to advise they agree with the staff recommendations and will answer any questions. 

     Jerry Cosnell (phonetic), 531 W. Lake Brantley Road, addressed the Board to state he is in support of the plan.  However, he stated West Lake Brantley Road is in need of sidewalks and he hopes they will be constructed.  He also stated that he believes there should be a better means of access onto SR 436 from Virginia Drive.  He added that traffic backs up on West Lake Brantley Road during peak times. 

     No one else spoke in support or in opposition. 

     Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve Large Scale Land Use Amendment from PUD (Public/Quasi-Public) to PD (Planned Development); and approve rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture), R-1A and R-1AA (Single Family Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); and approve Development Order, as shown on page _______, for property located in southwest Seminole County, north of SR 436 and west of West Lake Brantley Road, as described in the proof of publication, Glatting Jackson/John Percy. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

FINAL ADOPTION OF YANKEE LAKE PROPERTY

WEKIVA ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT, Seminole County

 

     Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider the Final Adoption of the Yankee Lake Property-Wekiva Administrative Large Scale Comprehensive Amendment from Public-Quasi Public to Recreation for property located one mile east of the County line, north of SR 46, abutting the Lower Wekiva State Preserve, Seminole County, received and filed. 

     Planner, Craig Shadrix, addressed the Board to present the request, advising this map amendment for a portion of the Yankee Lake property is required by the Wekiva Global Compliance Agreement with the DCA and the Seminole County Vision 2020 Plan.  Staff recommends approval. 

     Keith Schue, Central Florida Sierra Club, addressed the Board to submit into the Record a letter dated July 23, 2002 in support of the amendment. 

     No one else spoke in support or in opposition. 

     District Commissioner McLain recommended approval with staff findings. 

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to adopt the proposed map amendment to the Future Land Use Map from Public-Quasi Public to Recreation for property located one mile east of the County line, north of SR 46, abutting the lower Wekiva State Preserve, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County, with staff findings. 

     Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Shadrix advised staff will come back to the Board with ideas on how to use the property. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE RECREATION &

OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF VISION 2020

 

     Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider the Text Amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of Vision 2020 to add a policy to allow use of particular recreation lands for possible future water-related utilities and services, received and filed. 

     Planner, Dick Boyer, addressed the Board to present the item, advising the new policy is REC 7.8 - Preservation of Future Water Supply Options.  He said this policy is intended to allow facilities and services expansion of previously existing public water-related utilities.  He added that the DCA has no objections to the policy. 

     No one spoke in support or in opposition. 

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to adopt the proposed Text Amendment to the Recreation and Open Space Element of Vision 2020, to add a policy to allow use of particular recreation lands for possible future water-related utilities and services, as described in the proof of publication, with staff findings. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION

ELEMENT OF VISION 2020

 

     Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider the Text Amendment to the Transportation Element of Vision 2020, to add a policy to aid in preventing cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets, received and filed. 

     Planner, Dick Boyer, presented the item and distributed a revision to the proposed policy - TRA 10.10 - Access Control to Protect Residential Areas.  He stated DCA has completed their review and have no objections. 

     No one spoke in support or in opposition. 

     Commissioner Henley stated he would like to see the word “only” removed from the policy.  The Board voiced no objections to the deletion. 

     Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt the proposed Text Amendment to the Transportation Element of Vision 2020, as amended, to add a policy to aid in preventing cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets, as described in the proof of publication. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

VISION 2020 - SPRING CYCLE AMENDMENTS

 

     Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider Vision 2020 - Guide to the Journey Ahead, Spring Cycle Amendments, received and filed. 

     Planner, Dick Boyer, addressed the Board to give a PowerPoint presentation (copy was received and filed), advising the Board adopted the first set of updated elements on May 8, 2001 which included Capital Improvements, Conservation, Design, Future Land Use, Housing, Library Services, Recreation and open Space, and Transportation.  He said that before the Board at this time are the following:  Capital Improvements Annual Update, Drainage, Implementation, Intergovernmental, Potable Water, Public Safety, Sanitary Sewer, and Solid Waste. 

     No one spoke in support or in opposition. 

     Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt Vision 2020 - Guide to the Journey Ahead, Spring Cycle Amendments, as described in the proof of publication. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

EMERGENCY ORDINANCE

 

     An Emergency Ordinance amending the Seminole County Code of Ordinances and Land Development Code regarding billboard sign separation requirements was presented for action. 

     No one spoke in support or in opposition. 

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to adopt Ordinance #2002-28, as shown on page _______, amending the Seminole County Code of Ordinance and the Land Development Code regarding billboard sign separation requirements/Oxford Outdoor Advertising. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

COUNTY MANAGER’S BRIEFING, CONTINUED

     Planner, Tony Matthews, addressed the Board to briefly present a summary of the Florida Senate Bill 1906 dealing with growth management and the required actions of local government.  He stated staff is not asking for any direction at this time, but just wanted the Board to be aware of the upcoming changes. 

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

 

     Chairman McLain reviewed with the Board the County Manager’s annual evaluation.  He recommended a 3% merit increase and that the County contribute 2% of his salary to his Deferred Compensation Plan. 

     Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve a 3% merit increase and contribution of 2% of salary to the Deferred Compensation Plan for Kevin Grace, County Manager, and approval of First Amendment to County Manager’s Employment Agreement as shown on page ________. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

-------

     The Chairman briefly discussed the packet of information he received from Assistant Tax Collector, Paul Warsicki, regarding Occupational Licenses. 

     Commissioner Maloy stated he would just as soon reduce the fees or get rid of them all together. 

     Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to direct staff to proceed with the review of the information on Occupational Licenses received from the Assistant Tax Collector and report back to the Board with their findings. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS

 

     Commissioner Morris advised of a letter dated June 17 from the Executive Director of ECFRPC regarding costs associated with the Regional Economics Models, Inc. (REMI). 

     Mr. Grace advised that the Board, during their Budget Work Session, directed staff to include this in the budget. 

-------

     Commissioner Morris advised he was elected Chairman of the Florida Association of Regional Councils (FRCA) for the next year. 

-------

     Commissioner Morris advised that the ECFRPC won a national award for their Four-County Study. 

-------

     Commissioner Morris advised the Board that they are invited to attend the International Trail Symposium reception today from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at TEI, 300 Primera Boulevard, Lake Mary. 

-------

     Commissioner Henley advised he attended the EDC Retreat held at Mission Inn at no expense to the County. 

-------

     Commissioner Henley stated Don Nicholas has resigned from the Planning & Zoning Commission and he would like to appoint Dudley Bates in his place. 

     Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #2002-R-123, as shown on page ______, commending Don Nicholas for his services on the Planning & Zoning Commission; and to appoint Dudley Bates to the Planning & Zoning Commission to fill the unexpired term ending January 1, 2005. 

     Districts 1, 2, 4 and 5 voted AYE. 

-------

     Commissioner Maloy advised there is a site distance problem with the power poles on Chapman Road at Woodpecker Lane.  He said he will be meeting with staff regarding same. 

-------

     Commissioner McLain stated there are five homeowners associations along Rinehart Road raising money to enhance the trail.  He acknowledged the Community National Bank and Florida Power for joining in this fund-raising and advised eight more sponsors are needed. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

     No report. 

COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR REPORTS

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

1.              Copy of letter dated July 12, 2002 from Joe Gasparini, Parks & Recreation Manager, to Mary and Joey Jannota in appreciation for recent contribution.

 

2.              Letter dated July 11, 2002 from Rachel Carnicelli, Deputy City Clerk, City of Sanford, to local and state agency representatives regarding the annexation of property at 3401 and 3403 Palmway Drive.  (cc:  Board, Planning & Development, Planning, Supervisor of Elections)

 

3.              Letter dated July 9, 2002 from Cynthia Porter, Deputy City Clerk, City of Sanford, to local and state agency representatives regarding the annexation of property at 1750 E. Lake Mary Blvd. (cc:  Board, Planning & Development, Planning, Supervisor of Elections)

 

4.              Copy of Memorandum dated July 12, 2002 from Becky Noggle, Environmental Services, to Sandy McCann, County Commission Records RE:  submissions into County records. 

 

5.              Copy of letter dated July 7, 2002 from Tom and Tammi Little to Commissioner Henley RE:  opposition to Time Warner Special Exception.  (cc:   Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning)

 

6.              Copy of letter dated July 10, 2002 from Robert Bendick, Jr., Florida State Director of the Nature Conservancy, to the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority Chairman, Executive Directors and Members RE:  Concern over environmental impacts of SR 429 Expressway System proposals.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Public Works, MetroPlan Chair and Committee, FDOT, Turnpike Enterprise, Orange, Seminole and Lake County Commissioners, Orange, Seminole and Lake County Legislative Delegation Members, Congressmen Ric Keller, Cliff Tearns and Corrine Brown)

 

7.              Letter dated July 11, 2002 from Rachel Carnicelli, Deputy Clerk, City of Sanford, to local and state representatives RE:  annexation of property at 2782 Narcissus Avenue.  (cc:  Board, Planning & Development, Planning, Supervisor of Elections)

 

8.              Copy of letter dated July 12, 2002 from Terry Schenk, Fire Chief, to Alex Greenspoon RE: Mr. Greenspoon’s appreciation of paramedics’ assistance. (cc:  Board, Public Safety Director)

 

9.              Memorandum dated July 12, 2002 from Fran Sullivan, Tourism Development, to Annette Hatch, Executive Assistant RE:  submittal of Official Tourism Development Council Meeting Minutes. 

 

10.         Notice of Board of Adjustment Public Hearing on July 24, 2002 from the City of Longwood.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning)

 

11.         Facsimile dated July 11, 2002 from Lee Voorhees, President, Geneva Citizens Association, to Chairman RE:  Village of Geneva support of the Gene Gregory Law Enforcement Memorial Park.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Library & Leisure Services Director, Sheriff’s Office)

 

12.         Copy of letter dated July 9, 2002 from Terry L. Schenk to May Jo Marshall RE:  her letter of appreciation for the extraordinary service she recently received from paramedics.  (cc:  Board)

 

13.         Copy of letter dated July 8, 2002 to Jerry McCollum from Michael Snyder, FDOT, RE:  draft priority project list.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning)

 

14.         Copy of letter dated July 8, 2002 to Diane Ledford, SHIP Program administrator, from Karen Marone, Seltzer Management Group RE:  SHIP follow-up review.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development)

 

15.         Letter dated July 10, 2002 from Representative Irving Slosberg to Chairman RE:  passage of the Dori Slosberg Driver Education Safety Act.  (cc: Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Public Safety, Sheriff’s Office)

 

16.         Letter from Sharon & Daniel Bott RE:  opposition to rezoning property north of Heathrow Elementary School for use as a middle school.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development, Planning)

 

17.         Copy of Memorandum from Becky Noggle, Environmental Services, to Sandy McCann, County Commission Records RE:  Submission into County Records. (cc: Board, County Manager, Environmental Services Director)

 

18.         Email dated July 3, 2002 from James E. L. Seay, Holland Knight, to United Arts Board of Trustees, Board of Directors, Executive Directors and Chairman RE:  United Arts of Central Florida records request and Sunshine Law demand.  (cc:   Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, County Attorney)

 

19.         Letter dated June 28, 2002 from Jeff Kielbasa, Florida Department of Revenue, to Board RE:  change in Levy of Local Option and Ninth-cent Fuel Taxes.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Fiscal Services)

 

20.         Notice of Public Hearing on July 18, 2002 from the City of Sanford for a rezoning request at 901 Town Center Blvd.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development, Planning)

 

21.         Copy of letter dated July 3, 2002 from Toni D. Taylor, City of Longwood RE:  Community Meeting Notice regarding upcoming street paving projects.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Manager, Public Works)

 

22.         Notice of Public Hearing on July 18, 2002 for rezone request for Airport runway expansion.  (cc:   Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development, Planning)

 

23.         Memorandum dated July 8, 2002 from Denny Gibbs, Development Review, to Chairman RE:  correspondence from concerned residents regarding Fieldwood Blvd. ROW Vacate.  (cc:   Board)

 

24.         Notice of public meeting of the Florida Water Conservation Initiative on August 21, 2002.  (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Public Works, Stormwater)

 

25.         Letter dated July 18, 2002 from Brad Cooper, Exceptional Advertising, to Chairman RE: Billboard Permit Application, Kirchhoff Property.  (cc:   Board, County Manager, Deputy County Manager, Planning & Development, Planning)

 

26.         Copy of Memorandum dated July 19, 2002 to Sandy McCann, County Commission Records, from Becky Noggle, Environmental Services RE:  Submissions into County Records.  (cc: Board, County Manager, Environmental Services Director)

 

27.         Correspondence dated July 12, 2002 from Bill Suber, Property Appraiser, to Chairman RE:  Property Appraiser’s tentatively approved budget.  (cc:   Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Fiscal Services Director)

 

28.         Contract for services, as shown on page _______, between Seminole County and Todd Rudland to instruct tennis, with John Steven Mitchell to umpire slow pitch softball, with Matthew Hill to be scorekeeper for slow pitch softball and with Hugh P. Collins to be scorekeeper for slow pitch softball.

 

29.         Letters of appreciation from Kenneth M. Roberts, Public Safety Director, to Henrietta Shuminsky, Mildred Long, Florida K9 Services, Shirley Miller and Debby Sundstrom for their recent donations.

 

30.         Copy of letter to Kevin Grace, County Manager, dated July 17, 2002 from Barbara J. Barbour, City of Oviedo City Clerk RE:  annexation of property.  (cc:  Submissions, Planning & Development, Planning, Supervisor of Elections, Property Appraiser)

 

31.         Copy of Letter dated July 16, 2002 from Gregory A. Reynolds, Tanglewood Area Civic Association, to Mike Hattaway, Board of Adjustment RE:  Time Warner Special Exception opposition. (cc:  Board, County Manager, Deputy County Managers, Planning & Development, Planning, Board of Adjustment)

 

COUNTY MANAGER’S REPORT

 

     Mr. Grace distributed a list of items added to the FY 2002/03 Budget, per Board direction.  Copy of list was received and filed.  He asked for any further Board direction on the budget either at this time or at a future Board meeting. 

-------

     The Board, thereupon, recessed at 3:30 p.m., reconvening at 7:05 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.

PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE

JEWISH SENIOR HOUSING COUNCIL

     Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Suburban Estates to Planned Development; and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development); property located west of I-4, east of Seminole-Wekiva Trail, and 3000 feet south of Lake Mary Boulevard, Jewish Senior Housing Council, received and filed.

     Cindy Matheny, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to state this hearing continues the adoption hearings for the Spring 2002 Large Scale Plan Amendments.  She said the applicant is requesting the amendment and rezoning in order to develop an elder housing complex on a 20-acre parcel abutting I-4, the Oakmonte PUD, and vacant Suburban Estates properties.  She advised the Department of Community Affairs issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments report on June 28, 2002, and there were no comments related to this amendment.  Staff is recommending approval of the amendment to Planned Development and the rezoning to PUD, with staff findings and subject to the development order, which includes the requirements for a wall along the south and west sides of the project.  The wall will preclude further development to the south with no further access to this site to the properties to the south.  That area will remain designated as Suburban Estates for residential development at one unit per net buildable acre.  Additional vacant Suburban Estates property to the west of the site is bounded by the Seminole Wekiva Trail and also remains designated for one unit per acre for residential uses.  The development order also includes standards related to buffering, lighting, and design standards.  If the Board adopts the amendment, it will be included in an amendment ordinance for the Spring Large Scale Cycle and the ordinance will be adopted by the Board by the final amendment hearing.

     Aaron Gorowitz, applicant, Lowndes, Drosdisk, Dostor, Kantor & Reed, 250 N. Eola, addressed the Board to state they agree with the staff.  He requested Board approval consistent with the staff recommendations. 

     Frank Shelton, Vice President, representing the Markham Woods Homeowners Association, 14 Stone Gate North, addressed the Board to state the homeowners feel double-crossed by County government.  He said some of the citizens served on the Citizens Advisory Committee when the 1987 Comprehensive Plan was drafted where they spent hundreds of hours participating in the public input and approval meetings.  The Plan produced was considered by everyone to be the County’s long-range master plan to protect everyone’s future property rights with a geographical outline of future land uses.  They reached an agreement between surrounding homeowners, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and the BCC, through the adoption of the Comp Plan to maintain an agreed to boundary line between the newly included PUD area and minimum one-acre lot future residential area, between the PUD and existing one-acre lot subdivisions to the west and south.  He displayed a colored map (not received and filed) of the areas being pointed out.  He said the compromise reached allowed for reasonable, higher intensity development while protecting the surrounding residential area.  Transitional uses were expected to occur within the perimeter of the PUD.  He said nothing has occurred since 1987 or altered the factors considered at that time, and neither the County staff or Board should be a party to throwing out the Comp Plan land use designations that received such great scrutiny by County government and its citizens.  Otherwise, property owners have no way to protect the future of their neighborhoods.  He said the area proposed for Oakmonte Senior Villages would decrease the minimum distance between current residential areas and the PUD boundary from an agreed to minimum 850 to 900 feet to about 300 feet.  The proposed development would set a precedence for more intense development, specifically multi-family housing, in the entire suburban estates band between the PUD on the south side of Lake Mary Boulevard to Markham Woods Road.  This area was intended for minimum one-acre home sites to protect the aesthetics, quality of life, and property values of existing homeowners and to ensure compatibility.  He said the proposed development is far too intense and incompatible with surrounding, existing one-acre developments and future one-acre residential developments.  The applicant is proposing 250 housing units in an area currently zoned for a total of 16 one-acre homes.  He feels it is unfair to ask homeowners to compromise over and over again to wear them down to the point they cease to care.  He stated the PUD in Oakmonte has already been drastically intensified through four amendments.  He asked when is enough, enough.  He clarified that their opposition is based only on its incompatible land use close to their surrounding residential area and the precedence it sets for future land use changes in their area.  The Board’s decision should be based on the impact on property owners in the immediate area and past promises.  He asked the Board to either deny the request or require the rearrangement they propose to be implemented. 

     Mr. Gorowitz stated Mr. Shelton’s comments were essentially the same as the last time.  He said they have a petition that was submitted (copy in the staff report) with more than 2,000 signatures with hundreds from the Markham Woods Corridor.  They have significant restrictions on what they can do.  He said 100% of the traffic goes through Oakmonte and no cars go onto Markham Woods Road, which was a huge concession.  He stated the Catholic Church has told them that this is the only property they will sell.  This is a very high-end project and will service the Markham Woods area and enhance and serve Seminole County with no detrimental impacts.

     Commissioner Morris asked why couldn’t the project be more oriented towards I-4; why there could not be more parking or green space to the west side.  He said while this a minority view, it is still valid when they go back to 1987 and the debates that occurred on this land. 

     Mr. Gorowitz stated when the meetings were held in 1987, there were sets of circumstances that are very different now.  This area has developed to a considerable degree in the last 15 years.  They looked not to maximize the intensity of the land, but to do a project that would be a good transitional one between the office commercial parcels and the one-acre home sites.  They are adjacent to I-4, commercial, and apartments, and the idea was to provide a legitimate, non-intrusive buffer and transitional project between those high intensity uses and the one acre homes that would likely be built on the balance of the property. 

     Harold Lefkowitz, representing the Jewish Senior Housing Council, addressed the Board to state they felt three practical reasons were appropriate:  (1) I-4 is not the same as it was in 1987.  The impact it creates on the property is significantly more than it would have been.  He said Oakmonte recognized that and held all their residential away from I-4 and they have commercial adjacent.  This property does not have commercial between it and I-4.  They are trying to produce a higher-grade type product that is residential and is subject to the negative detrimental impacts of I-4.  They did provide for an area of intensity adjacent to the interstate so that the area directly impacted is minimized.  (2) When they acquired the property, the Catholic Church had a perception of how they wanted to sell the property.  They came up with basically what the Catholic Church wanted to do.  (3) They discussed the property on the west side and how to minimize what the impact adjoining would be on the residential areas.  That’s why they held the height limitation to 20 feet, single story high maximum; pitched roof type facilities; and built in significant setbacks; and determined not to have roads directly against the western boundary and keep residential backyards, and they also would have a wall around it; additionally, the closest their property is to anything is in excess of 400 to 500 feet.  He said when you take the intense portion of the project, even if they were to move more southerly adjacent to the interstate, that intense building would not be any further away than what is currently planned. 

     Mr. Gorowitz advised that the nearest house is 550 feet from the 20-foot units and probably 850 to 900 feet to the other 35-foot units. 

     No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

     Speaker Request Form for Mr. Shelton was received and filed.

     Commissioner Morris stated that his initial assumption when he looked at the project was that it is a violation of the 1987 bond that was made.  He understands what Mr. Lefkowitz said with respect to it’s now 2002.  He asked why, in staff’s opinion, they do not find this a breaking of that 1987 commitment that occurred in this corridor.  He clarified that he thinks in 1987 there were “lines in the sand” drawn, and he is trying to understand the southern and western boundary.  There was a lot of discussion about one acre zoning and one house per acre zoning, and there have been a lot of changes that have occurred that in some cases were less intense.  He asked staff why they recommended this project to DCA.

     Matt West, Development Review Manager, addressed the Board to state this project is of a less intense nature than apartments and townhomes.  It won’t be 2.5 people per unit, but typically retirees, and a lot of the units will be single occupants.  The building heights are not those that are not allowed in A-1.  This project is no larger or more intense from a height, traffic, or use standpoint and it is still residential in nature.  Mr. West said he heard the term “lines in the sand” before that apparently there was some kind of understanding with Oakmonte and previous projects that development was not allowed to cross some certain line.  He said he is not aware what that line is.

     Don Fisher, Planning and Development Director, addressed the Board to state there were architectural considerations in making this recommendation.  He said he was not involved in the process in 1987, but when the plan was done, the considerations were for traffic on Markham Woods Road, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and in keeping with the lifestyle compatibility of the area.  He said the things that led staff to breaking that “line in the sand” were:  (1) The project was not getting access to Markham Woods Road; but going internal through Oakmonte and getting access out to Lake Mary Boulevard by I-4 and the commercial development.  They were also considering architectural standards and internal buffers to the development.  The internal transition was with buffers, setbacks, trees, walls, etc. running from the west to the east with the east being most intense towards I-4.  The site plan considers that with the lower buildings on the west and more intense and higher buildings on the east side.  The more intense buildings at 35 feet height are not out of character for many of the much larger homes being built along Markham Woods Road now.

     Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Fisher explained the “line in the sand” in 1987 was established by the BCC, based on the circumstances at that time, having to do with traffic.  He affirmed Chairman’s McLain statement that in 1987, in approving additional land use in this area, the Board commented that they were no longer going to allow any densities other than single family residential.  The Board made a commitment in 1987 based on future land use from their perspective. 

     County Attorney Robert McMillan stated a Board can never commit that a future Board will not make changes, or that situations won’t change, and factors change.  The Board cannot sit today and say they will never approve something beyond this point.  This just can’t be done. 

     Chairman McLain said especially over the last three decades, land use and property rights have been examined and rules put in place where now the County is required to have a Comp land use plan, and the County is accountable to state agencies for their review.  This Board has always had a very open forum for public comment and always tried to protect the quality of life and the impacts any development would have over the existing residential, commercial, or industrial properties.  This is another case where the Board has to make a decision whether it is compatible and the buffers are correct.  He reiterated that the Department of Community Affairs have reviewed this and have no objection to the project.

     Commissioner Morris stated he is still concerned with the additional land left on the property.  He said there has been a casual reference made that this would probably be single family.  He asked what is the staff’s understanding and how do they see that proceeding.  Whereupon, Chairman McLain said the current land use is Suburban Estates, one unit to the net buildable acre.  The property owner would have to come before the Board to request a land use change, and the Board is the only authority that can change that.  He said staff has stated they believe the property should remain Suburban Estates, one unit to the net buildable acre. 

     Commissioner Morris asked if the Board could approve this with findings that the compatibility of single family on one unit to the acre is the transition for any future application.  He is speaking of the remainder portion of the property owned by the Catholic Church.  Whereupon, Mr. Fisher said staff would be recommending that this property be one development unit per net buildable acre.

     Chairman McLain stated he agrees with the assessment that’s probably what it should be, but he doesn’t know if the Board has the ability or right to sit and dictate what the future land use would be on someone’s property who is not present to represent themselves or made application for the property on what use they choose.  Discussion ensued.  Commissioner McLain stated, as the District Commissioner, he is not prepared to make any commitments on someone else’s property and commit them to what they can or cannot do as findings in this hearing.  He said they have a right to come before the Board.  He suggested continuing the hearing and asking the Catholic Diocese if they wish to come before the Board to discuss their future plans and make commitments prior to the Board approving the project.

     Commissioner Henley stated he thinks they are all concerned and trying to do what is best for all concerned.  He commended Mr. Shelton for coming before the Board on many occasions to try to defend this area.  He said at the last meeting, based on the information provided, the Board felt this was a viable use for the property without the intensity being out of character for the area.  He has not seen anything tonight that would cause him to think the reason this was sent to DCA has changed.  The information and facts are still present, and he agrees with the County Attorney’s assessment that they can’t bind future Boards.  He believes Commissioner Morris was attempting to give some thought to what the future use might be, based upon what the Board has been saying would be acceptable and compatible.  If this project is approved, the developers and citizens who live there will be just as concerned as Markham Woods is about what would go on the rest of the property.  They would want something that would be totally compatible with what they are trying to set up.  He thinks this project would be a valuable asset to the County and has a less impact than other type developments proposed.  He asked if staff had any different information than presented at the last meeting that would cause the Board to think differently and consider denying the project.

     Mr. Fisher advised there have been no changes since the first presentation and tonight’s meeting.  Whereupon, Commissioner Henley stated he had a phone call earlier tonight from a resident whose only concern was to ensure there was no entrance on exit onto Long Pond Road.  Without hearing of any changes, he still feels this is a good use of the property, as well as providing an excellent service in a community that is aging.  He said he would like to hear good reasons why, if the Board does consider denying the project.

     Commissioner Maloy stated he spoke with Mr. Shelton about the western border idea and thinks it would be nice to put the project next to I-4.  He also spoke with the Catholic Diocese and they said they were not interested in that.  He said overall, with the assisted living facility, there is next to no impact.  There would be very little traffic and with it going onto Lake Mary Boulevard, there won’t be any negative impacts to Markham Woods Road other than how close is the project.  He summarized the project is 550 feet away, there are buffers, and a trail, so overall he does not see any negative impact at all and he is prepared to support the project. 

     Mr. McMillan stated Commissioner Morris could make any findings he wishes to give as a means for him to make his decision.  That would not bind any future Board as to what findings they make or whether they disagree.  He said it was clear in the developer’s presentation that this was a buffer and they are selling it as a transition between the commercial on one side and residential on the other side. 

     Commissioner Morris said that was what he was trying to get an answer to and was not trying to be argumentative.  He was trying to get findings that would give direction to some future Board if the Diocese Church comes back in 10 to 15 years.  He said time is on the side of the developer and they may come back.  At least, there would be some record where there was not a record.  He was trying to get to the point that there was never a “line in the sand” conversation made in the public record, but the Board knows there was an intent.  Mr. Shelton was probably right on the intent at the time.  One way to memorialize this would be by having a finding that says this project was found to be good, lawful, and permissible based upon its proposed transition of future land use next to it being one unit to the acre.  This does not bind anyone, but it says what the Commissioners have been saying.  Further discussion ensued by the Board.

     Commissioner Maloy said the property to the south is going to be limited on its own because it does not have access through the subject property and the only way to intensify it would be to have access other than Markham Woods Road.  He is a little uncomfortable trying to put in words that would affect the property next door.

     Chairman McLain stated during the last 10 years, the property south of the subject property has had many attempts to come forth for development other than single family residential.  The Board of County Commissioners has always resisted and denied that opportunity.  He thinks Commissioner Maloy made a good point that the parcel to the south only has access to Markham Woods Road.  He said the Board does want to maintain their protection of the one unit to the acre development along Markham Woods Road.  This is a premiere corridor and, other than some properties on E.E. Williamson Road, and along the inner sections at the Interstate, the corridor has been protected.  He feels it is inappropriate as a County Commissioner to put any kind of limitations on another person’s property without them present to make comment on what they think their personal property rights and intentions are.  He feels all the protections are in place, from DCA to the planning process and Comprehensive Plan, and he doesn’t think it’s appropriate to try to dictate what a future land use might be 10 to 15 years from now.

     Commissioner Morris stated he was trying to show a road map to show this Board’s opinion of this future property.

Upon request by Commissioner Morris, Chairman McLain recessed the meeting at 7:51 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 p.m.

Chairman McLain referred to staff recommendations and actions for the Jewish Senior Housing Council rezoning, Item #1, and asked staff if they would amend the wording to read “the request, as proposed, would be compatible with surrounding Suburban Estates.”  Whereupon, Mr. West stated staff would not object to that amendment.  Chairman McLain said he thinks that would memorialize the Board’s position very clearly.  He thinks it is clear that the Board members’ feelings are that they think this project is compatible with Suburban Estates and that is the current land use.  The Board have all expressed the desire that the remaining property be developed as single family residential, one unit to the net buildable acre.

Chairman McLain recommended supporting the staff’s recommendation and findings from the Department of Community Affairs.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt the Chairman’s recommendations to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment from Suburban Estates to Planned Development, and rezoning from A-1 to PUD, for a 20-acre site located west of I-4, east of the Seminole-Wekiva Trail, and 3000 feet south of Lake Mary Boulevard, based on the amended staff findings and findings from the Department of Community Affairs; and approval of Development Order, as shown on page _______, as described in the proof of publication, Jewish Senior Housing Council.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris said he will vote in favor of the motion based on what District Commissioner McLain just said relative to the findings of staff and the intent as to why this project is being approved.  He stated his findings for the Record is that this is a compatible use because the surrounding uses would be single family, one unit to the acre.  Hopefully, that will be a road map to future Commissions when they review any future land use on the surrounding properties.

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

PUBLIC COMMENT

     Susan Eberle, 652 W. Palm Valley Drive, addressed the Board to thank them for the traffic light at the corner of McCulloch and Rouse Road.  She discussed the issue of the University of Central Florida master plan and her concerns for traffic, infrastructure, and the environment.  She said she would like to see a small area study be done and asked the Board to consider that and notify her in writing of their decision.  She also discussed the Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market that has been proposed for Alafaya Trail at the northwest corner of McCulloch Road.  She stated there are a number of concerns (traffic, crime, noise, lighting, and compatibility with existing neighborhoods) the residents would like to bring before the Board to resolve before the store is built.  She submitted her letter (received and filed) to Chairman McLain for the Record setting forth the issues and also submitted copies of the letters (received and filed) to her from Commissioner Maloy and Matt West.  Ms. Eberle requested that the Board hold a public hearing. 

     Chairman McLain advised that Commissioner Maloy is the District Commissioner and he’s sure he will meet with staff and report his recommendations to the Board.

     Commissioner Maloy stated he is familiar with these issues and staff is making changes where they can, but the County cannot change some of the things.  He reported on his recent meeting with the residents and Planner Ian Ratliff.  For those things that can be addressed at site plan, the County will be making changes.  He explained there would not be a public hearing on the zoning because the property is already zoned. 

     Mr. West discussed some of the commitments to be made.

     Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain regarding a small area study, Commissioner Maloy explained that in this particular situation, there’s really nothing to study as there are not too many parcels left undeveloped that are not already zoned.

     Chairman McLain advised Ms. Eberle of how the Board has worked with UCF on different occasions.  He stated there are some things the County cannot physically or legally do. 

     The Speaker Request Form for Ms. Eberle was received and filed.

-------

     There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m., this same date.

 

ATTEST________________________Clerk_____________________Chairman

er/slm/cc