BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JULY 27, 2010
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 27, 2010, in Room #1028 of the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of
meeting of said Board.
Present:
Chairman Bob Dallari (District 1)
Vice Chairman Brenda Carey (District 5)
Commissioner Mike McLean (District 2)
Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide (District
3)
Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)
Clerk of Circuit Court Maryanne Morse
(late)
Acting County Manager Joe Forte
County Attorney Robert McMillan
Deputy Clerk Eva Roach
Pastor
Jimmy Jones, First United Methodist Church, Sanford, gave the Invocation.
Mayor John
Bush, city of Winter Springs, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Clerk of
Circuit Court Maryanne Morse entered the meeting at this time.
AWARDS AND
PRESENTATIONS
Motion by Commissioner Carey,
seconded by Commissioner McLean to adopt appropriate Resolution #2010-R-144, as
shown on page _________, commending the Seminole County Fiscal Services
Department for receiving the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board
presented the Resolution to Lisa Spriggs, Fiscal Services Director, who
addressed the Board to express her appreciation and to recognize the Fiscal
Services staff.
-------
Motion by Commissioner Henley,
seconded by Commissioner Carey to adopt appropriate Resolution #2010-R-145, as
shown on page _________, recognizing Sandy McCann for
32+ years of service and dedication to Seminole County Clerk of Circuit Court
and its citizens, upon her retirement on August 6, 2010.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The
Board presented the Resolution to Ms. McCann, who addressed the Board to
express her appreciation.
Chairman
Dallari expressed appreciation on the level of services Ms. McCann has given to
the Board, the Constitutional Officers, and the citizens through the years.
Maryanne
Morse, Clerk of Circuit Court, stated the one individual that stood out in
aiding her when she became the Clerk was Ms. McCann as she has been very
professional and very dedicated and she is going to be missed.
-------
Chairman
Dallari recessed the BCC meeting at 9:44 a.m., in order to convene the meeting
of the U.S. Hwy. 17-92 Community Redevelopment Agency.
U.S. HWY
17-92 CRA
John
Metsopoulous, U.S. 17-92 CRA Program Manager, addressed the Board to request
approval of an Appeal Process for the U.S. 17-92 CRA Grant Program. He reviewed the way the appeal process will
work.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to approve the Grant Appeal
Process for the U.S. 17-92 CRA Grant Program.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Mr.
Metsopoulous presented request to approve the U.S. 17-92 CRA Mini-Grant
Application for property located at 2531 French Ave., Maryann Bailey, property
owner; and authorize the Chairman to execute Budget Change Request (BCR) #10-18
in the amount of $4,952.
Mr.
Metsopoulous explained for Commissioner McLean how they determine the funding and
the specific criteria leading up to the sign cost.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to approve the U.S.
17-92 CRA Mini-Grant Application for property located at 2531 French Ave.,
Maryann Bailey, property owner; and authorize the Chairman to execute Budget
Change Request (BCR) #10-18, as shown on page ________, in the amount of
$4,952.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Mr.
Metsopoulos requested approval of the U.S. 17-92 Development Grant Application
in the amount of $8,178, Adcock Construction, located at 800 French Ave. He stated staff recommends denial as the
contractor began work prior to submission of the grant application. Adcock Construction is requesting that his
recommendation be overturned based on a medical hardship.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Metsopoulos advised the TAC and RPA
recommended overturning staff’s recommendation of denial.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Metsopoulous advised the applicant has
completed the application except for the three bids.
Chairman
Dallari recommended overturning staff’s recommendations as he feels a medical
hardship is adequate to ask for this overturn.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to overturn staff’s
recommendation of denial, thereby, approving the U.S. 17-92 Development Grant
Application in the amount of $8,178, Adcock Construction, located at 800 French
Ave.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Mr.
Metsopoulos requested approval of the U.S. 17-92 Mini-Grant for Lafontana Grill
at 2921 South Orlando Dr.; and authorize the Chairman to execute a Budget
Change Request (BCR) #10-17 in the amount of $1,442.50.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Metsopoulos advised that this mini-grant
meets the city of Sanford’s code. He
stated no grant application comes before the RPA or CRA for approval unless it has
met code requirements from the city of Sanford.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to approve the U.S. 17-92
Mini-Grant for Lafontana Grill located at 2921 South Orlando Dr.; and authorize
the Chairman to execute a Budget Change Request (BCR) #10-17, as shown on page
_________, in the amount of $1,442.50.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman
Dallari adjourned the meeting of the U.S. 17-92 CRA at 9:55 a.m., reconvening
the BCC meeting at 9:55 a.m., this same date.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S CONSENT AGENDA
Joe Forte,
Acting County Manager, addressed the Board to advise that the following items
have been included in the packet: #41A,
Adoption of Resolution accepting a Revised Exhibit B for the LAP Agreement with
FDOT for replacement of Orange Blvd. bridge; 41B, Adoption of Resolution
accepting Revised Exhibit B for the LAP Agreement with FDOT for reconstruction
and resurfacing of Longwood-Lake Mary Road; and 41C, Adoption of Resolution
accepting revised Exhibit B for the LAP Agreement with FDOT for the design and
construction of the Cross Seminole Trail Red Bug Lake Road Pedestrian
Overpass.
Ray
Hooper, Purchasing Manager, addressed the Board to explain to Commissioner Van
Der Weide who the contractor is for Item #6, Award RFP-600906-10, what are they
gaining from this, and how they are accomplishing it.
Mr. Hooper
explained to Commissioners Carey and Dallari that the basic fee for the pet
licenses will not change and there will be no additional costs to the citizens.
Lisa
Spriggs, Fiscal Services Director, addressed the Board to clarify where they
are on the funding for the TMDL’s of Item #35, Approve BCR #10-19.
Andrew
Neff, Environmental Services Director, addressed the Board to discuss with
Commissioner McLean if there is a way to do Item #17, Award RFP-600909-10,
internally and how staff can justify their choices.
Mr. Hooper
advised the price analysis is done in accordance with the Administrative
Code. He explained the evaluation
process.
Commissioner
Henley stated they just did an extensive review when the Board adopted the
present rates and the assumption on which that is based hasn’t changed. He said it concerns him that they are expending
this kind of money in order to study for rerating.
Commissioner
Carey stated she feels it is important that they keep up with the consumptive
use. If these services are not needed,
then they can terminate them.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Mr. Neff advised this is somewhat time sensitive,
and one of his key recommendations will be to move towards a work session early
next year so that staff can give the Board a good review on their position of
solid waste and water and sewer issues.
Chairman
Dallari stated he doesn’t see enough justification to move forward on this at
this time.
Mr. Neff
stated the Board adopted the rates in November and staff has to constantly
monitor physical changes so they can be sure they can adhere to the plan that
was adopted. Discussion ensued.
Chairman Dallari recommended pulling Item #17 for a separate vote. The Board voiced no objections.
Motion by Commissioner Carey,
seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize and approve the following:
County Manager’s
Office
Purchasing &
Contracts Division
6. Award
RFP-600906-10/TLR, as shown on page _________, Seminole County Pet License Program
to PetData, Inc., Irving, TX; and authorize the Purchasing and Contracts
Division to execute the Agreement.
7. Approve the negotiated rates and
award PS-5116-10/JVP, as shown on page ________, Construction, Engineering and
Inspection Services for SR 436 & Red Bug Lake Road Interchange to Wilbur
Smith Associates of Orlando (Estimated Usage Amount of $2,950,000.00 over the
term of the Agreement).
8. Award
RFP-600897-10/TLR, as shown on page _______, Term Contract for Physical and Electronic
Security and Access Control Hardware, Maintenance and Repair to SiteSecure,
Inc., Sanford.
9. Award
RFP-600878-10/BJC, as shown on page ________, Travel Time and Delay Study to
Metric Engineering, Inc., Lake Mary.
10. Award IFB-600891-10/GMG, as shown
on page ________, Term Contract for
Landfill Mulch Hauling and Recycling/Beneficial Reuse Services to Consolidated
Resource Recovery, Inc., Sarasota.
11. Award IFB-600907-10/GMG,
as shown on page _________, Term
Contract for Short Term Rental Equipment to Ring Power Corporation, Riverview (Lots
1 through 27); Great Southern Construction Equipment Co., Orlando (Lot 28); and
Thompson Pump and Manufacturing Company, Inc., Port Orange. (Lots 30 and 31)
12. Approve Change
Order #1, as shown on page _________, to CC-4533-09/VFT – Markham Regional WTP
Well 4 Equip and Connect with Sawcross Incorporated of Jacksonville, Florida,
in the amount of $36,386.77, and add an additional sixty (60) calendar days to final
completion.
13. Award
CC-5631-10/DRR, as shown on page _________, Fox Hollow Force Main Improvements
in the amount of $165,403.00 to Sitek Corporation of Orlando.
14. Award
CC-5627-10/VFT, as shown on page _________, Indian Hills Water Treatment Plant Improvements,
in the amount of $1,617,500.00 to WPC Industrial Contractors LLC of
Jacksonville.
15. Approve Amendment #3, as shown on
page _________, to Work Order #11 (Construction Materials Testing Services at
Yankee Lake) under PS-1074-06/TRJ with Nodarse & Associates, Inc.
16. Mutual
Termination, as shown on page _________, of Agreement for IFB-600463-08/GMG - Term
Contract for Patching and Repair of Streets, Driveways, Curbs and Gutters with
Barracuda Building Corp., Apopka. (Secondary Contractor)
Central Services
Support Services
Division
18. Approve and
authorize Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2010-R-146, as shown on
page _________, and Corrective Deed, as shown on page _________, for a portion
of Parcel #01-20-30-504-0900-0010 owned by Sloan W. Carr and Dennis M. Woodson,
II, Successor Co-Trustees of Trust B
under Last Will and Testament of Wesley S. Woodson.
Community
Services
Community
Assistance Division
19. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Contract
Modification, as shown on page _________, with an additional award amount of
$19,582 to the original award of $231,805 for a total amended contract award of
$251,387 granted by the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs; and approval
of the reallocation of $1,407 for the required cash match.
20. Approve and
authorize staff to submit to Florida Housing Finance Corporation the underline
and strikethrough revisions to the 2010/2011; 2011/2012; 2012/2013 LHAP.
Environmental
Services
Business Office
21. Approve the
Release of the original Cash Maintenance Bond with Escrow Agreement for the
project known as Heathrow Enclave in the amount of $1,709.00. (Silver Sea Homes)
22. Approve the
Amendments to the Conditional Utility Agreements, as shown on page _________,
for Water and Sewer Service for the project known as Greenway South PUD,
Continental 170 Fund, LLC.
23. Approve the
Release of the original Cash Maintenance Bond with Escrow Agreement CK #20162
for the project known as Monroe Road Development in the amount of $1,469.93. (Harkins
Development)
Planning,
Engineering & Inspections
24. Approve and accept
the Utility Easement and the Joinder and Consent of Mortgagee, as shown on page
_________, Barrington Apartments, LLC.
Fiscal Services
Business Office
25. Approve staff to
proceed with bank financing bids for the refunding of the County’s Series 1998,
Sales Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds.
Budget Division
26. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2010-R-147, as shown
on page _________, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #10-75 through
the Boating Improvement Fund in the amount of $484,210 to appropriate funds for
Cameron Wight Park, C.S. Lee Park and Mullet Lake Park boating improvement
projects.
27. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2010-R-148, as shown
on page _________, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #10-78 through
the Environmental Services Grant Fund in the amount of $2,165,068 to increase
funding for the ARRA-Energy Efficiency and Conservation Grant.
28. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2010-R-149, as shown
on page _________, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #10-82 through
the Workers Compensation Fund in the amount of $400,000 to increase funding for
worker’s compensation claims.
29. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2010-R-150, as shown
on page _________, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #10-83 through
the Community Services Block Grant Fund in the amount of $20,989 to increase
funding for the Community Services Block Grant.
30. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2010-R-151, as shown
on page _________, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #10-84 through
the Tank Inspections and Petroleum Cleanup Funds in the amount of $166,999 to
reduce fund balance to correct the FY 09/10 Task Assignment carryforward.
31. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2010-R-152, as shown
on page _________, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #10-85 through
the E-911 Fund in the amount of $234,626 to appropriate funds for an
uninterrupted power supply system (UPS) to support the Emergency Communications
Center.
32. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2010-R-153, as shown
on page _________, implementing Budget Amendment Request (BAR) #10-89 through
the Fire Protection Fund in the amount of $89,600 to appropriate funds to
install a lift station at Fire Station 36.
33. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute a Budget Change Request (BCR) #10-15, as
shown on page _________, through the Solid Waste Operating Fund in the amount
of $537,500 to realign the funding for Capital Improvement Projects.
34. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute a Budget Change Request (BCR) #10-16, as shown on page
_________, through the Community Development Block Grant and the ARRA Community
Services Grant Funds in the amount of $160,000 to appropriate the Winwood Park
Improvements project.
35. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute a Budget Change Request (BCR) #10-19, as
shown on page _________, through the Stormwater Fund in the amount of $134,000
to provide professional services for the Total Maximum Daily Load Project
(TMDL) in the greater Middle St. Johns River Basin and East Crystal Chain of
Lakes sub-basin.
36. Authorize staff
to schedule and advertise a public hearing for the presentation of the proposed
Port Authority budget for Fiscal Year 2010/11.
Growth
Management
Economic
Development Division
37. Authorize the
Chairman to execute appropriate Resolution #2010-R-160, as shown on page
_________, approving the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for
the Choices in Learning Charter School in the amount not to exceed $9,500,000
principal.
Planning &
Development Division
38. Authorize the
release of the Cash Maintenance Bond and Maintenance and Escrow Agreement for
paving and drainage improvements for the Central Florida Educators Federal Credit
Union. (Kevin Miller/Central Florida Educators Federal Credit Union)
Leisure Services
Tourism-CVB Division
39. Approve and
authorize the Chairman to execute Renewal Statement, as shown on page ________,
renewing the County slogan "Seminole County Florida's Natural
Choice".
Public Works
Engineering
Division
40. Approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute a Reaffirmation and First Amendment, as shown on page
_________, to the Agreement between St. Johns River Water Management District
and Seminole County for the Howell Creek Basin Master Plan.
41. Acceptance of a
Revised Exhibit "B", as shown on page _________, (Schedule of
Funding) to the Local Agency Program Agreement with the State of Florida
Department of Transportation for a Project Development and Environment
(PD&E) Study for the widening of State Road 46 from State Road 415 to
County Road 426. (FDOT - FPN Number 240216-4-28-01)
41A. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2010-R-154, as shown
on page _________, accepting a Revised Exhibit "B", as shown on page
_________, (Schedule of Funding) for the Local Agency Program Agreement with
the State of Florida Department of Transportation for replacement of Orange
Boulevard Bridge at Lockhart Smith Canal. (Bridge Number 774003) (FDOT FPN:
428405-1-58-01)
41B. Adopt appropriate
Resolution #2010-R-155, as shown on page _________, accepting a Revised Exhibit
"B", as shown on page _________, (Schedule of Funding) for the Local
Agency Program Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Transportation
for Reconstruction and Resurfacing of Longwood-Lake Mary Road from County Road
427 to Lake Mary Boulevard. (FDOT FPN: 428091-1-58-01)
41C. Adopt appropriate
Resolution #2010-R-156, as shown on page _________, accepting a Revised Exhibit
"B", as shown on page __________, (Schedule of Funding) for the Local
Agency Program Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Transportation
for the Design and Construction of the Cross Seminole Trail Red Bug Lake Road
Pedestrian Overpass. (FDOT FPN: 428527-1-58-01)
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Award RFP-600909-10/GMG- Term Contract for Utility
Rate Studies for Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Divisions to Burton &
Associates, St. Augustine, presented.
Commissioner Carey stated she feels it is
important that they understand where they are at financially. The economy has accounted for the decline of
the amount of garbage coming into the landfill.
Chairman Dallari stated he understood that
the County wouldn’t be going for a bond in the near future. He said he would like to finish the projects
they have first. He added he would like
to hear more from staff about what the issues are from the work session that is
coming up as he has concerns moving forward with this kind of money.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr.
Neff advised the projections for the future consumption are not what staff thought
they would be. Staff is seeing decreased
demands and there are a number of different pressures within the fund that they
need to constantly evaluate. The Board can
then see what their options are with the data once staff gets enough
information.
Commissioner Carey stated in order for the
Board to know that they can stick to the rates they have adopted,
they need to know what they can do with the projects and how the money is
coming in. The Board cannot make these
types of decisions without the financial analysis.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Neff advised staff
needs assistance in working through a long-term financial evaluation of both
Enterprise Funds. The pressure is also
on the solid waste side. Staff needs to
discuss their financial condition and status and lay out some options to see
how that will work. The Board also needs
to explore what options they want to consider.
Commissioner Henley stated he would prefer that recommendation be
tabled for the time being until they have some discussions with staff at the
work session.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari, Mr. Hooper suggested that this
item be tabled and he will make sure that the contractors extend the terms
conditions. He said he will bring it
back during the first meeting in October.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Commissioner Henley advised
he was referring to tabling this item until after Thursday’s budget work
sessions.
Mr. Hooper advised staff can bring this back during the first
meeting in September.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to continue to the first
meeting in September,
request to Award
RFP-600909-10/GMG - Term Contract for Utility Rate Studies for Water,
Wastewater and Solid Waste Divisions to Burton & Associates, St. Augustine.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
CONSTITUTIONAL
OFFICERS’ CONSENT AGENDA
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize and
approve the following:
Clerk's Office
42. Approval of
Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page _________, dated June 7, 14, 21, &
28, 2010 and July 6, 2010; approval of Payroll Approval Lists, as shown on page
_________, dated June 10 & 24, 2010; approval of BCC Official Minutes dated
June 8 & 22, 2010; authorization to destroy records as identified; and
noting, for information only, the following Clerk's Received and Filed:
1. Development Orders, as shown on page ________,
for Charles B. & Antoinette Caudle, and Timothy G. & Melony A. Newton.
2. Certificate of Costs of Abatement, as shown on
page _________, for Edward & Catherine Brooks.
3. Work Order #6, as shown on page ________, to
PS-2051-07.
4. Work Order #10, as shown on page ________, to
PS-4388-09.
5. Work Order #61, as shown on page ________, to
PS-1529-06.
6. Sixth Amendment, as shown on page ________, to
Term Contract IFB-600404-08 with Bound Tree Medical.
7. Tennis Developmental Instructor Agreements, as
shown on page _________, with Hien Nguyen, Jackson Tresnan, Blaze Schwartz, and
Kevin Runda.
8. Fiscal Year 2010/2011 Budget, as shown on page
________, for the Seminole County Port Authority for review and ratification by
the BCC.
9. Development Orders, as shown on page
_________, approved by the BOA for the following: Furio Gennari Heirs; Horton H. & Shirley
J. Emory; G. William, Jr. & Marion Pollock; Alfred S. & Sandra C.
Jolson; Chong Ae Sheafer; Julie Murch & Angelo Defrancesco; Sam’s East,
Inc.; Brian & Lisa Price; Angel & Rachel Alberty; and Vanessa Skinner.
10. Parks Contracts, as shown on page ________,
with Kenneth Rowland; Joseph Scarsdale; Virginia Rohrborn; and Rene Lebron.
11. Limited Review and Audit of the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program, Community Assistance Division, from Clerk Maryanne Morse.
12. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to
Work Order #36 for PS-1529-06.
13. Performance Bond, as shown on page ________,
in the amount of $63,000 for St. Johns Parkway/Bevier Road aka Sanford Auto
Dealers Exchange.
14. Second Amendment, as shown on page _________,
to IFB-600463-08 Term Contract with Site Solutions of Central Florida, Inc.
15. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to
Work Order #35 for RFP-4277-09.
16. Amendment #4, as shown on page _________, to
RFP-600223-07 Term Contract with Badger Meter, Inc.
17. Training Provider Agreements, as shown on page
_________, with Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Seminole State College of
Florida, as approved by the BCC on December 8, 2009.
18. PS-5438-10 Master Services Agreement, as shown
on page _________, with Reiss Engineering, Inc.
19. Amendment #3, as shown on page _________, to
Work Order #109 for PS-5165-04.
20. Work Orders #39, #40 and #42, as shown on page
_________, to RFP-4277-09.
21. Work Order #76, as shown on page ________, to
PS-1074-06.
22. IFB-600882-10 Term Contracts, as shown on page
_________, with Delta Pioneer, Inc. and Shelley’s Septic Tank, Inc., d/b/a
Shelley’s Environmental Systems.
23. Closeout, as shown on page ________, of CC-4270-09.
24. Amendment #2, as shown on page ________, to
Work Order #71 for RFP-4214-04.
25. Customer Agreement, as shown on page ________,
for Reclaimed Water Rates and Reclaimed Water Flow, Distribution, Delivery and
Spray Easement for B & D Long, Inc. – Shell Station.
26. IFB-600824-10 Term Contracts, as shown on page
_________, with Fastenal Company; Ferguson Waterworks; Lawson Products, Inc.;
MSC Industrial Supply; Municipal Water Works, Inc.; and Sunstate Meter &
Supply, Inc.
27. Change Orders #17 and #18, as shown on page
________, to RFP-0613-06.
28. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to
Work Order #33 for PS-0381-06.
29. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to
Work Order #7 for PS-5173-04.
30. Closeout, as shown on page _________, for Work
Order #34 to CC-1284-04.
31. Work Order #37, as shown on page ________, to
PS-1501-06.
32. Amendment #4, as shown on page ________, to
Work Order #25 to PS-0381-06.
33. Work Order #2, as shown on page _________, to
PS-2108-07.
34. Closeout, as shown on page _________, for
CC-3458-08.
35. Second Revised and Restated Hillview North PCD
Development Order #10-20500001, Hattaway Holdings, as shown on page _________.
36. Work Order #26, as shown on page ________, to
PS-5182-05.
37. Work Order #5, as shown on page ________, to
CC-0023-05.
38. Legal Services Agreement, as shown on page
_________, with Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A.
39. Order Approving Stipulation and Settlement
before the Florida Public Service Commission relating to Petitions for rate
increase by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.; limited proceeding to include Bartow
repowering project in base rate by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.; expedited
approval of the deferral of pension expenses, authorization to charge storm
hardening expenses to the storm damage reserve and variance from or waiver of
Rule 25-6.0143(1)©, (d), and (f), F.A.C. by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.; and
approval of an accounting order to record a depreciation expense credit by
Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
40. Restrictive Use Covenant, as shown on page
__________, with Ruby Builders, Inc. for 106 Kelly Circle.
41. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to
Work Order #69 to RFP-4214-04.
42. Amendment #3, as shown on page ________, to
Work Order #71 to RFP-4214-04.
43. Closeout, as shown on page ________, for
CC-1055-06.
44. Maintenance Agreement with Letter of Credit,
as shown on page ________, in the amount of $2,967.50 for the project known as
Orange 46 Plaza.
45. Work Order #45, as shown on page ________, to
RFP-4277-09.
46. Amendment #3, as shown on page ________, to
IFB-600101-06.
47. Amendment #12, as shown on page _________, to
PS-549-00.
48. Utility Easement, as shown on page _________,
for Lakeview at Heathrow/Pure Living Heathrow PUD Amendment as approved by the
BCC on June 8, 2010.
49. Work Order #37, as shown on page ________, to
CC-1284-06.
50. Work Orders #41 & #42, as shown on page
_________, to CC-1284-06.
51. Work Order #63, as shown on page ________, to
PS-1529-06.
52. Training Provider Agreement, as shown on page
_________, with Matrix Educational Center, Inc.
53. Tennis Developmental Instructor Agreement, as
shown on page _________, with Blaze Schwartz.
54. Parks Contracts, as shown on page _________,
for James R. Stiles and Nancy F. Palmer.
55. Notice from the Public Service Commission
regarding Docket No. 090381-SU, Order approving an increase in wastewater rates
and order requiring four-year rate reduction and proof of adjustment of books
and records.
56. Letter of acceptance and Bill of Sale, as
shown on page _________, for Orange 46 Plaza.
57. Work Order #60, as shown on page ________, to
PS-1529-06.
58. First Amendment, as shown on page ________, to
IFB-600855-10, Cypress Supply, Inc.
59. Amendment #2, as shown on page _________, to
M-4617-09, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. d/b/a VHB Millersellen.
60. Amendments #2, as shown on page _________, to
CC-2184-07, Corinthian Builders, Inc. and R.L.H. Consulting & Management,
Inc. d/b/a R.L.H. Construction.
61. Parks Contracts, as shown on page _________,
for Deborah Coreil, James Peters, Donald Childs, Tom Dallinga, and Ruth King.
62. Work Order #8, as shown on page _________, to
PS-4388-09.
63. Proof of publication, as shown on page
_________, for the Value Adjustment Board Organizational Meeting held on June
24, 2010.
64. Work Order #14, as shown on page _________, to
PS-1020-05.
65. Certified copy of Restrictive Use Covenant, as
shown on page_________, for Clarkson Concepts, Inc.
66. Development Order, as shown on page
__________, for Shoppes of Sweetwater, Inc. (Camouflage Tower).
67. Work Order #65, as shown on page _________, to
PS-1529-06.
68. Work Order #29, as shown on page _________, to
PS-5190-05.
69. Amendment #2, as shown on page _________, to
Work Order #11 for PS-1074-06.
70. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to
Work Order #75 for PS-1074-06.
71. Amendment #2, as shown on page _________, to
Work Order #35 for RFP-4277-09.
72. Work Order #44, as shown on page _________, to
RFP-4277-09.
73. Work Order #47, as shown on page _________, to
CC-1075-06.
74. Certificates of Costs of Abatement, as shown
on page __________, for Alan & Carla C. Andrews and Mark & Jennifer
Harmon.
75. Change Order #4, as shown on page _________,
to CC-4847-09.
76. Work Order #43, as shown on page __________,
to RFP-4277-09.
77. Amendment #6, as shown on page _________, to
Work Order #26 for PS-1074-06.
78. RFP-600880-10 and RFP-600881-10 Agreements, as
shown on page _________, with EarthBalance Corporation.
79. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to
Work Order #68 to PS-1074-06.
80. Amendment #4, as shown on page _________, to
Work Order #71 to RFP-4214-04.
81. Memorandum to Sandra McCann, Deputy Clerk,
from Arnold Schneider, Assistant County Attorney, re: Nextel South Inc. Frequency Reconfiguration
Agreement, Exhibit A, as shown on page _______.
82. Motorola Inc. Reconfiguration Implementation
Phase Agreement, as shown on page _________.
83. Change Order #3, as shown on page _________,
to CC-3631-08.
84. Cash Maintenance Bond w/Escrow Agreement, as
shown on page _________, in the amount of $9,415.20 for the project known as
Terracina at Lake Forest Ph. 4.
85. Bids as follows: CC-5527-10; IFB-600883-10; RFQ-600915-10; RFP-600916-10;
CD of Solicitation for CC-5094-09; IFB-600857-10; IFB-600934-10; IFB-600926-10;
CC-5750-10; CC-5631-10; CC-5627-10; IFB-600895-10; and IFB-600931-10.
Sheriff’s Office
43. Approval by the
Board of County Commissioners to expend $1,000 from the Law Enforcement Trust
Fund to provide for a contribution to Brethren Reaching Out in support of its
youth programs and activities.
44. Approval by the Board of County
Commissioners for the Chairman to execute Budget Amendment Resolution
#2010-R-157, as shown on page ________, (BAR) #10-87 in the amount of $848,032
for the Sheriff’s Office budget.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
REGULAR AGENDA
Bill McDermott, Economic Development
Manager, addressed the Board to present request to approve the letter of
support for the SEMATECH Economic Development partnership project. He introduced Dr. M.J. Soileau, UCF, and
other members in attendance.
Dr. M.J. Soileau, UCF, addressed the Board
to request the Board’s support to help them build a solar cell and research
incubation facility in Seminole County.
He stated this project is a highly competitive one and the proposal will
probably be ready to submit during the middle of September. One of the things that is unique about this
request is they will not cash in the commitment unless they win the
proposal. He reviewed what this venture will
provide and how many jobs will be created.
Motion by Commissioner Henley,
seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize the Chairman to execute the Letter
of Support, as shown on page ________, and approve
the funding commitment of $7.5 million for the SEMATECH Economic Development
partnership project.
Under discussion, Commissioner Henley
stated he feels the Board needs to move quickly to support this project as he
feels the return line investment will be astronomical in terms of jobs.
Commissioner McLean stated the Board is
trying to right size their government from an expense standpoint and is looking
for opportunities from a revenue standpoint.
He stated he sees this as a catalyst and as a game changer, and the
return on the investment for this would be massive.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he
supports this project and if it works, it is going to be a great deal.
Dr. Halsenbach, UCF, addressed the Board to
state this is a national competition with competitors at the state level. He expressed appreciation that the Board is
supporting this project.
Chairman Dallari thanked Dr. Hitt for bringing this
project to the Board. He introduced
Maureen Brockman, EDC, who will be the PR point person.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman Dallari recessed the meeting at
10:30 a.m., reconvening it at 10:40 a.m., with Clerk of Circuit Court Maryanne
Morse entering late.
-------
Ray Hooper, Purchasing Manager, requested
approval of a resolution to change “Purchasing Policies” (previously Section
8.15) of the Seminole County Administrative Code, which reflect changes in
procurement policies.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to adopt appropriate
Resolution #2010-R-158, as shown on page ________, changing the “Purchasing
Policies” (previously Section 8.15) of the Seminole County Administrative Code.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Tina Williamson, Planning Manager,
addressed the Board to present request to approve Code Enforcement Board lien reduction
($22,000) for Case #08-99-CEB on property located at 500 Raymond Avenue,
Longwood, Jevon and Annette Stumo (previous owners), Federal National Mortgage
Association (current owners). She
reviewed the background timeline of the request. She stated staff received an extension
(received and filed) of the contract and Fannie Mae has agreed to reduce the
purchase price by $8,000. Therefore,
staff is recommending reducing the lien to $1,544.30 for administrative costs.
Maryanne Morse, Clerk of Circuit Court,
entered the meeting at this time.
Robert Sabrkhani, Real Estate Broker representing
Fannie Mae, addressed the Board to explain the purchase price reduction amount.
Mr. Sabrkhanir explained for Commissioner
Henley what the justification is for the reduction of the fine.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Ms.
Williamson advised staff is now recommending reducing the fine to $1,544.03 in
light of the contract extension.
Commissioner Carey stated the only concern
she has is Fannie Mae hired a local realtor to try to sell it. She said she feels the County has to make the
banks and large government agencies accountable for making sure the properties
are maintained while they are on the market.
She said she feels the County needs to keep a close eye on that as it
can get out of control.
Commissioner Henley stated he agrees to the
extent of what Commissioner Carey is saying.
He stated he feels that Fannie Mae could have had this property cleaned
up the property prior to the 148 days.
Motion
by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve reducing the
Code Enforcement Board lien to $15,000 for Case #08-99-CEB on property located
at 500 Raymond Avenue, Longwood, Jevon and Annette Stumo (previous owners),
Federal National Mortgage Association (current owners); and authorize the
Chairman to execute the Release of Lien.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Ms. Williamson presented request to reduce
the Code Enforcement Lien, totaling $24,750 to the administrative cost of
$1,292.54 for Case #08-71-CEB on property located at 111 Tedworth Court,
Longwood, Hector Arteaga (previous owner) and U.S. Bank National Association
(current owner). She reviewed the code
violations as outlined in the agenda memorandum. She stated staff is recommending reducing the
lien to the administrative cost of $1,292.54 due to fact that there is a
pending contract for sale on the property with a closing date of August 16,
2010.
Commissioner Carey stated she feels the
County needs some policies or direction on how staff should proceed if the
banks let the properties go.
Chairman Dallari stated he has asked the
County Attorney to speak to the head judge on this issue and bring back
information at a later date.
Mr. McMillan stated he will follow up on
this.
Commissioner Henley stated the person who
is buying this property was trying to get the $8,000 tax credit and they lost
that opportunity, but President Obama now has extended it and that is why it is
before the Board now.
Motion
by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley to approve a
reduction to the Code Enforcement Lien, totaling $24,750 to the administrative
cost of $1,292.54 for Case #08-71-CEB on property located at 111 Tedworth
Court, Longwood, Hector Arteaga (previous owner) and U.S. Bank National
Association (current owner); and require this reduced amount to be paid within
60 days or the lien will revert to its original amount ($24,750); and upon
payment in full, authorize the Chairman to execute the Release of Lien.
Under discussion, Commissioner Carey stated
she is not going to support the motion as she feels strongly about not letting
these banks get off the hook just for the administrative cost. She added that she really thinks they have to
hold these banks more accountable.
Districts 1, 2, 3 and 4 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey voted NAY.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr.
McMillan advised he will contact the Judge’s office to follow up on this. He stated his sense was they were going to try
to do something through the Administrative Order of the Court so that the
judges would be part of the order. He
stated staff will bring this back to the Board.
It has been the practice of notifying the banks as these things occur.
Commissioner Carey stated most of the banks
hire a real estate broker to put the property on the market and most of them
have some type of property management agreements to maintain these properties,
and they need to tighten up on that.
-------
Lisa Spriggs, Fiscal Services Director,
addressed the Board to request approval of the millage rates for Trim
notification; and authorize staff to schedule the first public hearing for the
adoption of the tentative budget for FY 2010/11 on September 15, 2010 at 7:00
p.m.; and the second public hearing to adopt the millage levy and budget for FY
2010/11 on September 28, 2010. She
reviewed the Countywide and Special Districts rates and the Natural Lands
Trails rates.
Ms. Spriggs informed Commissioner Henley
that there is no increase in the total millage rate because of the debt service
millage.
Commissioner McLean stated in April, he
discussed the concept of moving the property millage rate down to 4.4 mills. He requested that staff provide that
information for the Board to consider as they move through this process just so
they can see what impact the millage reduction would have on the revenues over
the next few years in order to see if it is viable.
Commissioner Carey stated she feels that
throwing out a millage rate without a plan in place is dangerous. She said she is looking forward to getting
all the information and recommendations from staff.
Motion
by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean to approve the millage
rates for Trim notification; and authorize staff to schedule the first public
hearing for the adoption of the tentative budget for FY 2010/11 on September
15, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., and the second public hearing to adopt the millage levy
and budget for FY 2010/11 on September 28, 2010.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S
BRIEFING
Mr. McMillan stated he wants the Board to
be aware that the Fifth D.C.A. ruled in the County’s favor on the Carillon case
regarding the issue of cross examination.
He stated since that ruling, there are now 10 motions from assorted
groups around the State that want to file mecus briefs with the 5th
on rehearing. He listed the names of the
groups that have filed motions. Those
cases are pending on rehearings and the decisions are not final. He said he will keep the Board up to date on
that issue.
Commissioner Carey asked if this is
something the State is looking at statewide from various counties. She stated the cities and counties should be
concerned with this.
Mr. McMillan stated a lot of cities and
counties already permit cross examinations and very involved procedures. There is no legislation pending to mandate
them.
-------
Mr. McMillan stated the Board authorized
staff to file a lawsuit against David Hendrick on May 11 relating to
retrofitting the SGTV van. Staff has
determined that they need to include CFAVS, LLC and Central Florida Audio Video
Systems, Inc. in the lawsuit as both of them are corporations created by Mr. Hendrick.
He is requesting the Board to authorize
him to include them in this case.
Motion by Commissioner Carey,
seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize the County Attorney to
file civil lawsuit against CFAVS, LLC and Central Florida Audio Video Systems,
Inc., which coincides with the civil lawsuit against David Hedrick for the
retrofitting of the SGTV van.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
voted AYE.
-------
Mr. McMillan advised staff is
working on an ordinance addressing gambling establishments. He stated some of the cities passed
resolutions urging the statewide Prosecutor and State Attorney to deal with
this as a legislative matter. He submitted
a resolution (received and filed) similar to the one that the city of Casselberry
adopted. He said the Board can review
same and bring it back this afternoon for adoption.
COUNTY
MANAGER’S REPORT
Mr. Forte stated the Board
requested that staff bring back information relating to the Midway School sewer
line. He stated it will cost $245,000
for the construction and design to run a sewer line to the school. He confirmed that the Health Dept. and 4C’s
no longer have a use for the school as they have moved to Hamilton School. The School Board cannot contribute toward the
extension of that sewer line and he is asking direction from the Board.
Commissioner Carey requested
that Mr. Forte further discuss this with her.
Mr. Forte stated he can prepare
a full report and submit it to the Board.
-------
The Board noted the Informational
Budget Amendment Status Report FY 2009/10 for the period ending
June 30, 2010; and Project Fiscal Summary FY 2009/10 through June 30, 2010.
-------
Chairman Dallari recessed the
meeting at 11:15 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., this same date with all
Commissioners and all other Officials (with Clerk of Court Maryanne Morse being
absent), with the exception of Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who was replaced by
Deputy Clerks Jane Spencer and Sandy McCann, who were present at the Opening
Session.
PROOFS OF
PUBLICATION
Motion by Commissioner
McLean, seconded by Commissioner Carey to authorize the filing of the proofs of
publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings into the Official
Record.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
AWARDS AND
PRESENTATIONS
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded
by Commissioner Carey to adopt appropriate Resolution #2010-R-143, as shown on
page _______, recognizing Linda Watson, Chief Executive Officer of LYNX-Central
Florida Regional Transportation Authority, for her commitment to improving the
transportation needs of the citizens of Seminole County and Central Florida;
and wishing her the best as her career leads her to Austin, Texas as new
President/CEO of Capital Metro.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted
AYE.
Commissioner Henley stated that it
has been a joy to work with Ms. Watson as she has done an outstanding job. Commissioner Carey thanked Ms. Watson for her
being a leader to women in the transportation industry.
The Resolution was presented to Ms.
Watson who expressed her appreciation for the resolution and kind remarks.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
RECLAIMED
WATER ORDINANCE
Proof of
publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to
consider amending Chapter 53, Part 2, Section 53.32(a) (32); amending Chapter
270, Part 4, Article III, Section 270.226; amending Section 270.227; creating
Section 270.230 and amending Chapter 270, Part 5, Section 270.256 of the Seminole
County Code, received and filed.
Gary Rudolph, Utilities Manager,
addressed the Board to request an Ordinance be adopted amending the Seminole
County Code pertaining to the use of reclaimed water for irrigation to two days
a week year-round. He added that the
Ordinance provides for exceptions, codifications, severability and an effective
date.
Nancy Christman, St. Johns River Water Management District,
addressed the Board to express her support for the Ordinance.
Speaker Request Form was received
and filed.
No one else
spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by
Commissioner McLean, seconded by Commissioner Carey, to adopt Ordinance
#2010-11, as shown on page _______, amending Chapter 53, Part 2, Section
53.32(a) (32), Seminole County Code, providing a schedule for violations and
penalties; amending Chapter 270, Part 4, Article III, Section 270.226, Seminole
County Code, providing for promulgation and enforcement; amending Section
270.227, pertaining to the use of reclaimed water; creating Section 270.230,
providing for enforcement; amending Chapter 270, Part 5, Section 270.256,
Seminole County Code, providing for exceptions, providing for codifications;
providing for severability; and providing for an effective date, as described
in the proof of publication.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
ADMINISTRATIVE LARGE SCALE
FLU MAP AMENDMENT/Seminole
County
Proof of
publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to
consider transmitting to the DCA an Administrative Large Scale Future Land Use
Map Amendment from Planned Development (PD), Public, Quasi-Public (PQP),
Rural-10 (R10), Rural-5 (R5), Recreation (REC), and Suburban Estates (SE) to
Preservation/Managed Lands (PML) on 11,019 acres located Countywide, Seminole
County, received and filed.
Tony
Matthews, Planning and Development Division, addressed
the Board to advise that the 11,019 acres included in this amendment are spread
across unincorporated Seminole County and are owned by Seminole County, St.
Johns River Water Management District, U.S. Government and the Florida Audubon
Society. He added that included in the
amendment is a scrub jay easement over a portion of the Yankee Lake Wastewater
Treatment facility which was required by an agreement between the County and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Matthews stated that the
Seminole County Land Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
transmittal of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Matthews explained the purpose
and intent of the amendment and advised that staff recommends transmittal of
this Large Scale amendment. Mr. Matthews
stated that should the Board decide to transmit the item, a public hearing
would be scheduled for adoption on October 26, 2010.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley
as to whether or not the additional controls and measures would interfere or
restrict the action that the Board took a meeting or two ago in regards to the
request from the Fish and Wildlife Commission to enter into a program with them
to encourage youth and others to come back to the woods, Mr. Matthews advised
that it would depend on the management plan for each of these properties. He added that while they were working on
management plans, at this time none were completed. Mr. Matthews further explained that when the
voters approve the penny sales tax to purchase the lands, the ordinance can be
amended.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey,
Alison Stettner, Planning and Development Manager, advised that only the very
small portion of Yankee Lake that is the scrub jay habitat will have the PML
land use and no other portion of that property would be impacted.
Commissioner Carey asked Ms.
Stettner to further clarify the forest program and management guidelines that
are being created. Ms. Stettner advised
that her department will work closely with Leisure Services on the development
of any management plan and verified that none of those activities would be
impacted. Ms. Stettner added that the
ability to utilize the lands would still be there; they would just be preserved
with the Preservation Managed Lands land use.
Commissioner McLean confirmed with
Mr. Matthews that while protecting the environmentally-sensitive land, appropriate
passive recreational activities will be unaffected.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Carey,
seconded by Commissioner McLean to authorize transmittal to the DCA of an
Administrative Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from Planned
Development (PD), Public, Quasi-Public (PQP), Rural-10 (R10), Rural-5 (R5),
Recreation (REC), and Suburban Estates (SE) to Preservation/Managed Lands (PML)
on 11,019 acres located Countywide, based on staff findings and clarifications
received, as described in proof of publication, Seminole County.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
NORTH OREGON STREET LARGE
SCALE
FLU AMENDMENT/Olan D. Hill
Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a
public hearing to consider transmitting to the DCA a Large Scale Future Land
Use Amendment from HIP-TI (High Intensity Planned Development-Target Industry)
to COM (Commercial) on 13.76 acres, located at the northeast intersection of
North Oregon Street and SR 46, received and filed.
Jeff
Hopper, Planning and Development Division, addressed the Board to state the
applicant, Olan D. Hill with VHB MillerSellen, was requesting a change in use
from HIP-TI to Commercial on approximately 13.8 acres on the north side of
State Road 46 between I-4 and North Oregon Street with the intent of providing
greater development flexibility on the property.
Mr. Hopper
advised that since no specific development was being proposed and no rezoning
application had been received, the site would remain in its existing PCD zoning
for the time being. He added that by extending
the commercial designation to the full extent of the property, the applicant
expects to maximize the range of potential uses for the site. Despite being designated by the Comprehensive
Plan for use as a target industry site, this property has developed as commercial
use with other standard retail uses on neighboring properties. Industrial uses in the area have remained
east of I-4 and have not brought an industrial character to the immediately
surrounding properties.
Mr. Hopper stated that the Seminole
County Local Planning Agency voted to recommend transmittal of the item to the
Florida DCA for State review. He further
stated that staff is requesting that the item be transmitted.
Commissioner Carey declared a
conflict on this item stating she represents a group that had this property
under contract.
Olan Hill, applicant, addressed the
Board and stated that he is representing the property owner, GE Capital Finance
Business Property Corporation. Mr. Hill
stated that he felt this was a very straightforward land use request to amend
the designation of the site to commercial without increasing the allowable
density or intensity currently offered by the HIP-TI land use designation. Mr. Hill advised that he did have a PowerPoint
presentation prepared but would simply ask for the Board's support in lieu of
the recommendation from staff and the recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Henley stated that he
will be making a motion to transmit but believes HIP-TI's were set up for
target industries and the Board needs to be cautious and maintain some of those
designations up there.
No one
spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Henley,
seconded by Commissioner McLean, to authorize transmittal to DCA of a Large
Scale Future Land Use Amendment from HIP-TI (High Intensity Planned
Development-Target Industry) to COM (Commercial) on 13.76 acres, located at the
northeast intersection of North Oregon Street and SR 46, as described in the
proof of publication, Olan Hill, with staff findings.
Districts 1, 2, 3 and 4 voted AYE.
Commissioner Carey abstained from
voting. A Memorandum of Voting Conflict
for Commissioner Carey, as shown on page _______, was received and filed.
TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE
SEMINOLE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a
public hearing to consider transmitting
to the DCA the text amendments to the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan,
received and filed.
Sheryl
Stolzenberg, Growth Management Department, addressed the Board to present the
proposed amendments to the text of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Stolzenberg explained that most of the
amendments are in response to two laws, House Bill 697 and Senate Bill 360,
which were enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2008 and 2009. She advised that the Transportation
Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) law requires that a mobility strategy be in
place on or before July 9, 2011 or that designation will be lost.
Ms.
Stolzenberg stated that the recommended policy changes show up mostly in
Objective 2.1 and Policy 2.1.1 in the Transportation Element and they reflect
ongoing joint planning with the cities that recognizes different areas of the
County at different stages and their ability to use a variety of mobility
options. She further reviewed the four
mobility strategy areas that the County was divided into and their mobility
strategies. Ms. Stolzenberg stated that
there was also a recommended change to an existing policy in the Transportation
Element, 3.4.26.8.
Ms.
Stolzenberg stated that the policy would not be used for approving or denying
developments, but for the County’s planning purposes in deciding how to move
onward and improve mobility in a particular area in the future.
Ms.
Stolzenberg stated that the second set of recommended amendments deal with
energy conservation (HB697); and while there is no time certain given, the
Department of Community Affairs has indicated that they expect to see amendments
as soon as possible. She then explained
the amendments.
Commissioner Carey asked if these
amendments will add an extra criterion so that someone coming in to redevelop
will have to develop to a higher standard or will it just give them more flexibility
if they do things in an energy saving manner.
Ms. Stolzenberg responded that
there is no mandatory requirement, that it will just give more flexibility and
options to be able to develop in a way that is of greater density and
intensity. She stated it would allow
someone whose underlying future land use category might be commercial to do a
mixture of commercial and educational and residential; but if they decide they
don't want to do that, they can proceed with their existing future land use.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey,
Ms. Stolzenberg stated that each case would need to be analyzed on a case-by-case
basis; but the idea is to try to reduce the distance between home and a
destination so that if there was residential nearby and someone was proposing
all commercial, that could still be possible.
They would not have to meet all of the criteria but would need to
achieve a minimal score. If they can
achieve the minimal score and still be all commercial, they could be all
commercial.
Ms. Stolzenberg added that the Land
Development Code would be implementing the idea of phasing which is important
so that someone who may come in with something today that would occupy only one
small part of their lot could design it in such a way that over time they could
develop additional things or sell to somebody who could develop. She added this is really a long-range
approach.
Ms. Stolzenberg stated that House
Bill 697 will also require some new policies in the housing elements regarding
using energy efficient material for new construction and redevelopment and some
new policies in the conservation element.
Ms. Stolzenberg informed the Board
that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended transmittal and advised
that staff was also recommending transmittal.
Commissioner Carey discussed the
Metropolitan Strategical Area (MSA) and how it is
used, stating the Census Bureau had eliminated that particular section. Commission Carey asked how that would affect
the policies in other departments like the SHIP grants and the money that the
County receives from HUD. Ms.
Stolzenberg explained that whatever the Census Bureau decides to do, to be
consistent with the changing Federal rules, the County will use whatever
language the Federal government wants.
Commissioner Carey asked ACM Joe Forte
if current policies would need to be looked at that refer
to the MSA as the guideline for funding.
Alison Stettner, Manager for Planning and Development, advised that
there was conflicting information coming from the Census and believes that more
will be learned as the 2010 Census unfolds.
Ms. Stettner stated the MSA definition and acronym in the Comp Plan in
the mobility area will be changed to a different acronym in order to avoid
confusion.
No one spoke in support or in
opposition.
Motion by
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner McLean, to authorize transmittal
to the DCA the text amendments to the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, as
described in the proof of publication.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
RICHMOND COMMERCE PARK LARGE
SCALE FLU MAP
AMENDMENT AND REZONE/Hugh
Harling
Proof of
publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to
consider adopting the requested Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment for
22.99 acres, from IND (Industrial) to HIP-AP (Higher Intensity Planned
Development - Airport), and Rezone 32.62 acres from A-1 (Agriculture) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development), located southwest of the intersection of SR 46 and
Richmond Avenue, Hugh Harling, received and filed.
Ian
Sikonia, Senior Planner with the Planning and Development Division,
addressed the Board to advise that the request would make Higher Intensity
Planned Development-Airport the future land use designation on the entire
development site of approximately 33 acres.
Mr.
Sikonia stated that the future land use amendment is limited to the north and
middle parcels, while the south parcel is already designated HIP-Airport, and
would create the potential for airport-related commercial/industrial
development located on all three parcels of the subject property. He then discussed the permitted uses the
applicant intended on utilizing on the site.
He explained the transitioning that has been occurring over the past
several years.
Mr.
Sikonia advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval
and that the Board of County Commissioners voted to recommend transmittal.
Mr.
Sikonia stated that staff recommends adoption of the amendment based on staff’s
findings.
Hugh
Harling, applicant, addressed the Board to advise he concurs with the staff’s
comments.
No one spoke in support or in
opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner McLean, to adopt Ordinance 2010-12, as shown on page _______,
approving Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment for 22.99 acres, from IND
(Industrial) to HIP-AP (Higher Intensity Planned Development - Airport), and adopt
Ordinance 2010-13, as shown on page _______, rezoning 32.62 acres from A-1
(Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), located southwest of the
intersection of SR 46 and Richmond Avenue, as described in the proof of
publication, Hugh Harling.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted
AYE.
Chairman Dallari recessed the
meeting at 2:53 p.m., reconvening it at 2:57 p.m.
SAN PEDRO CENTER LARGE SCALE
FLU MAP
AMENDMENT AND REZONE/Diocese
of Orlando
Proof of
publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to
consider adopting the requested Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from
Low Density Residential to Planned Development and Rezone from A-1
(Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) and the associated Preliminary
Master Plan on approximately 470 acres, located on the west side of Dike Road,
between Howell Branch Road and Red Bug Lake Road, Diocese of Orlando, received
and filed.
Brian
Walker, Planning and Development Division, addressed the Board and entered
citizens’ comments into the record (received and filed).
Mr. Walker
stated that the applicant is planning to develop a mixed-use development with
commercial, age-restricted and spiritual center/cemetery components.
Mr. Walker
advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended transmittal of the
amendment and rezone for the 480 acres located on the west side of Dike Road
between Howell Branch Road and Red Bug Lake Road with some conditions. The conditions were additional buffers as
provided in the handout entered by the applicant at the meeting, maximum
building height of 65 feet and the hotel would be located within 200 feet of
the spine road.
Mr. Walker advised that the Board
of County Commissioners voted to transmit the amendment to the Department of
Community Affairs on February 23 of this year.
After the DCA issued their Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) report, the applicant provided additional data and analysis to address
the DCA’s concerns. Mr. Walker stated
that staff believes the applicant addressed all of the DCA’s concerns and,
therefore, staff is recommending adoption of the amendment and rezone.
Commissioner Carey asked for
clarification concerning the additional three items that the P&Z Board
recommended and whether or not the applicant made commitments which differ from
the ones contained in the Board's package.
Mr. Walker advised that the applicant has agreed to the 200-foot
requirement for the hotel. He added the
buffers have been widened and the building heights have been modified but
stated that those have not changed since the February BCC meeting for
transmittal.
Albert Bustamante, with the law
firm of Baker Hostetler, addressed the Board to advise he is representing the
applicant, Diocese of Orlando, in their request for the adoption of the Future
Land Use Map amendment. Attorney
Bustamante advised the Board that his comments today would be consistent with
the presentation made at the February 23 hearing which is part of the Board's
package.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Attorney Bustamante advised he still agrees with the concessions made at the
February 23 meeting, Attorney Bustamante agreed and nothing has changed since
that date. Attorney Bustamante informed
Commissioner Carey that none of the commitments have changed since the P&Z's
recommendations and the last time he was before the BCC.
Javier Omana, CPH Engineers,
addressed the Board to state he has been working with staff in responding to
the DCA’s ORC report and believes that the DCA's comments have been successfully
addressed, and he is now anticipating an affirmative vote for adoption.
When asked by Commissioner Carey to
address the three conditions that were placed by the P&Z Commission, Mr.
Omana advised that the depth of the buffers have been increased, stipulations
have been made with respect to opacity as related to the vegetative buffers and
adjustments have been made to the building heights. He added that the changes were reflected in
the Development Order before the Board today on page 5.
Commissioner Carey stated that some
of the questions she has received in her office concern what has been proposed
and what has been changed and added that a lot of people present today are
interested in understanding same.
Mr. Omana presented graphics
(received and filed) of the property and buffers and explained the changes in Buffers
A-1, A-2, B, C, D and E.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari as
to whether or not Mr. Omana's client was committing to adding additional
landscaping in the areas with sparse vegetation, Mr. Omana stated that his client
was making that commitment and that was contained in the Development Order.
Commissioner Carey clarified with Mr.
Omana that the Buffer A-1 will go all along the western side of the property, not
just along the van den Berg property.
Chairman Dallari clarified with Mr. Omana that landscaping will be added
to several areas of sparse vegetation along those two tracts and buffers.
Buffer A-2, adjacent to Lake Ann
Estates, was described.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Mr. Omana verified that the two roads, Lake Howell Lane and Ranch Road, on the
western side of the property will not be used either during construction or
after construction for egress or ingress and added that was contained in the
Development Order.
Buffer B, adjacent to Howell Branch
Road, was described.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Mr. Omana verified that the two stories will not exceed 35 feet.
Buffer C, adjacent to Cedar Ridge, was
described.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Mr. Omana verified that a caveat concerning opacity which allowed flexibility
of 20% had been removed from the Development Order concerning this buffer.
Buffer D, adjacent to Cedar Ridge,
was described.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Mr. Omana verified that the cell tower would be limited to a maximum height of
100 feet and is reflected in the Development Order.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey
as to when the vegetation which does not meet 100% opacity will be supplemented
with native vegetation, Mr. Omana stated it would be when individual pods come
in for site plan review. Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Omana
verified that a buffer would be planted as each phase goes forward and that a
split rail fence would be put around the property line in Buffers A-1, A-2, C
and D. Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Mr. Omana verified that the applicant would be maintaining the buffers and
fence.
Mr. Omana presented a Preliminary
Master Plan (received and filed) and indicated where, within Village 2, the
hotel will be located.
When asked by Chairman Dallari to
discuss drainage, Mr. Omana stated that retention and detention will be
designed based on and adhering to local, state and federal regulations that are
current at the time the first pods come in for approval.
Beverly Myers, 1404 Westdale
Avenue, addressed the Board to state she is the spokesperson for the Cedar
Ridge Residents Association and the United San Pedro Neighbors, a coalition of
eight surrounding neighborhoods. She
stated that since San Pedro is privately owned by the Diocese of Orlando, she
realizes it would be unrealistic to expect the property to remain exactly as it
is today.
Ms. Myers stated the people she
represents are not anti-development or anti-church and, in fact, are the people
who support the Diocese financially. Ms.
Myers gave a brief history of her relationship with the Diocese and this
property.
Ms. Myers explained that even
though her group had attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to
oppose the building of a 110-room hotel, the project was approved by that
Board. She stated the people she
represents are opposed to a 12-story building and have traffic, lighting and
density concerns.
Ms. Myers stated that of the 170
petitions sent to occupied homes, 60 petitions, as shown on page _______, were
received back in 24 hours; and she submitted those to the Board. Ms. Myers read the additional comments
section of Melquida Mill's petition, which addressed
traffic concerns, and the additional comments section of Cindy Burrows'
petition, which asked that the property remain as it now is.
Ms. Myers further commented that
she believes the traffic study is inadequate and believes the impact will be
greater than implied. She requested this
item be tabled.
Kathleen Frankenberger, 205 Ranch
Road, addressed the Board to state she was opposed to the proposed convention
center sized halls in the hotel; the 225,000 square feet of additional retail
space and the proposed density of the homes, especially the homes on the west
side of the development. Ms.
Frankenberger also objected to the Diocese's contention that it will be
providing affordable housing stating that it would only be affordable if one
was over 55 and Catholic.
Ms. Frankenberger listed her traffic
concerns and added that Howell Branch Road, State Road 434 and Red Bug Road
already suffer from traffic congestion.
She also discussed the economic and environmental concerns related to
this project. Ms. Frankenberger urged
the Board to deny the request.
Egerton van den Berg, 1245 Howell
Point, addressed the Board to voice his concerns regarding vehicular traffic
generated by the project and when it would be physically barred from using
Ranch Road or Lake Howell Lane -- before, during or after construction. He requested that the developer install a
5-foot masonry wall before permits for infrastructure are issued.
Mr. van den Berg voiced his
concerns that the age restriction might not be binding on the applicant or its
purchasers or legally enforceable by neighbors, and stated that a covenant
running with the land should be required before any building permits are
issued. Mr. van den Berg stated that he
believes the proposed buffer, A-1, is inadequate and suggested that the buffer
will be used as the backyard of the new dwellings, which he feels should not be
permitted.
Mr. van den Berg also advised that
no phasing plan has yet been provided which he believes cripples the County's
ability to monitor or provide for future growth and public service
requirements. He asked that a
preliminary plan subject to future revisions, as needs become evident, be filed
with the County within six months of the approval of the Development
Order. He stated that he is asking that
the project not be approved but asked that these matters be addressed for implementation
if it is approved. A letter from Mr. van
den Berg was received and filed.
Cynthia Hasenau, 111 Longbranch
Road, addressed the Board to state she is representing many of the residents of
Lake Ann Estates. Ms. Hasenau stated
that the key concerns continue to be preserving the unique character of the neighborhood. She stated that she believes the development
plan, as written (which permits commercial, assisted living and skilled nursing
facilities on the west side of Village 1) will cause a tremendous amount of mechanical
services. A copy of her concerns was
received and filed.
Ms. Hasenau presented photographs
of the Mayflower Retirement Center and Winter Park Towers (received and filed)
to demonstrate her concerns such as dumpsters, chilling towers and numerous
trips by service vehicles. She asked the
Board to reconsider the impact of placing these items right against the buffer
line since there are 438 acres to work with.
Ms. Hasenau also discussed opaque vegetation and who will maintain it
and what happens after storms.
Ms. Hasenau suggested that the
Board move forward with the development with the following restrictions (copy
received and filed): (1) Prohibit
commercial structures along the western perimeter of Buffer A-1; (2) Require that
the service area be placed facing the interior of the 438 acres; and (3) Restrict
the western perimeter of Buffer A-1 to detached or attached residential
units.
Shirley Haynes, 2764 Lake Howell
Lane, addressed the Board to give a brief history of the property. Ms. Haynes discussed the problems with stormwater
drainage in the area. She stated that
she had a fear that construction vehicles would be using Lake Howell Lane. Chairman Dallari advised that no construction
vehicles would be using that road. When
Ms. Haynes asked for that in writing, she was advised that it was in the
Development Order. Ms. Haynes stated
that she would like to see the project downsized due to the traffic issues and
suggested further studies before moving forward.
Claire Brown, 1500 Westdale Avenue,
addressed the Board to voice concerns as to whether there will be enough
parking spaces for golf carts. She also
stated that she was concerned with the phasing of the project and believes the
residences should be done before Cemetery 2.
She requested clarification as to what would be in Cemetery 2, whether it
would be a cemetery or buildings for retail.
Attorney
Bustamante addressed the concerns stating that while the Diocese would like to
leave the property as it is, it would not be feasible for the church to do
that. Regarding specific questions about
the buffers, he stated the buffers have only been enlarged since the first
meeting with the homeowners and every effort has been made to accommodate as
many of the requests as possible. He
further stated that while the hotel was included in the original application as
an approved use, it doesn't mean there will be a hotel, only that it is one of
the uses the property could potentially have.
Regarding the density issue, Attorney
Bustamante stated he believes the height concessions made by his client are clear
in the Development Order. Upon inquiry
by Chairman Dallari, Attorney Bustamante stated the maximum height is 65 feet
on the inside once you get past the buffers.
With regard to the impact on the
environment, Attorney Bustamante stated that his client has made every effort
to maintain this property as undisturbed and he believes that over 50% of the
project will be left undisturbed and maintained in its natural condition along
with the robust buffers that will be all around the project. Attorney Bustamante stated Lake Howell Lane
and Ranch Road will not be used for any purpose. He added that the Development Order
specifically provides the development will be age restricted.
Regarding the issue of what will be
built when, Attorney Bustamante stated
those are things that will be answered as they move forward with the specific
phasing and specific site plan approval process and they will have to come back
before this Board for that.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari
regarding the timing of the phasing, Attorney Bustamante said a phasing plan
was included in the package which states Phase 1 will be the cemetery, Phase 2
will involve the expansion and continuation of operations at the Spiritual
Center, Phase 3 will be the commercial component and Phase 4 will be the
residential. He added that while they
don't know exactly how it will happen, it will happen within the time frame
that is provided under the Code.
Mr. Omana advised that the phasing
plan was Sheet 7 of the plans that accompany the Development Order.
Attorney Bustamante addressed Ms.
Hasenau's concerns stating her renderings don't take into consideration any of
the landscape buffers, the setbacks or the modern architectural and
construction elements that would be incorporated into a project like this, not
to mention the fact that the Board will have an opportunity to review the site
plan when it comes back for their approval.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey
regarding the setback question and whether or not building could occur at the
75-foot line, Ms. Stettner verified that everything would have to be set back
from the buffer. Upon further inquiry by
Commissioner Carey concerning the distance of the setbacks, Ms. Stettner stated
it would depend on the unit type but everything would have to meet the building
setbacks per the site plan. Ms. Stettner
added that building would not occur at the 75-foot buffer line, but would occur
as the site plan developed depending on the type of structure and how each pod
is developed.
Attorney Bustamante stated that it
will be site plan specific and as the site plans come to the Board, there might
be another buffer that is triggered as a result of the use that is happening on
that immediate piece.
Mr. McMillian left the meeting at
this time.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Ms. Stettner verified that in addition to the understood 75-foot buffer, there
will be an additional setback from the 75-foot line, depending upon the use.
Commissioner
Carey asked Attorney Bustamante since this is only the beginning of the process
if his client would be willing to volunteer to plant that undisturbed buffer to
100% opacity at the time that Phase 1 starts.
Attorney Bustamante responded that the plantings will be natural
vegetation that will have a growth pattern that allows for opacity within one
year of planting, and as each phase or pod of the development gets developed,
the landscape would go in for that phase.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey
as to whether or not the applicant would be willing to plant all of the buffers
at the time Phase 1 is started so they have time to mature before getting to
the next phase, Attorney Bustamante responded that he would not be in a
position to commit to that at this time and added he didn't know the phasing
schedule except that the cemetery will be the first phase. He stated that he anticipated the planting would
happen quickly. Attorney Bustamante
stated that other than at the end of the street, where Lake Howell Lane is,
there is natural opacity as it sits.
Mr. McMillian reentered the meeting
at this time.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey,
Mr. McMillian advised there are issues with the County making an age
restriction on anything. He added there
are provisions in the statutes and state and federal law about age restricting
to over 55 and that you have to go through some kind of process. He stated he was not familiar with the
process but added as a general rule, the County can't put restrictions on age
of residents in established communities.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari
regarding the applicant putting a restriction on themselves for age limitation,
as this applicant is suggesting, of 55 years old or greater and what would be
the best way to insure that takes place, Mr. McMillan advised the applicant
should do it through deed restrictions or whatever process in the federal
statutes that permits it.
Attorney Bustamante stated as the
property owner, they can create those types of restrictions on the property and
can do a declaration with each residential pod which would include the
appropriate restriction since that generally is how that works. Attorney Bustamante advised he would not mind
putting in a specific section that would create a declaration for those
residential elements within Village 1 and Village 2 that would reference the 55
and over age restriction.
Speaker and Written Request Forms
were received and filed.
No one else
spoke in support or in opposition.
Chairman Dallari recommended
approval of the item with the corrections that have been stated by the applicant.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide,
seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt Ordinance 2010-14, as shown on page
_______, approving the requested Large Scale Future Land Use Map Amendment from
Low Density Residential to Planned Development, and adopt Ordinance 2010-15, as
shown on page _______, rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) and the associated Preliminary Master Plan with applicant’s
corrections, on approximately 470 acres, located on the west side of Dike Road,
between Howell Branch Road and Red Bug Lake Road, as described in the proof of
publication, Diocese of Orlando.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted
AYE.
Chairman Dallari recessed the
meeting at 3:30 p.m., reconvening it at 3:35 p.m.
SAVANNAH PARK AT HEATHROW
PUD MAJOR AMENDMENT/
Savannah Meridian
Acquisition Group
Proof of
publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to
consider approving the request for a Major Amendment to the Savannah Park at
Heathrow Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 9.85 acres, located on the west side
of International Parkway, between Wilson
Road and Wayside Drive, Savannah Meridian Acquisition Group, received and
filed.
Kathy
Fall, Principal Planner, addressed the Board to present a major amendment to a
PUD known as Savannah Park at Heathrow which consists of three parcels. She stated the parcel requesting the major
amendment is the mixed-use parcel known as the Exchange which consists of
retail, office and residential uses. The
other two parcels that are located within the PUD is a townhome development
known as Ashton Woods.
Ms. Fall gave a brief history of the
two prior amendments and advised that this would be the third major amendment
to the PUD. She stated the applicant is
requesting an increase in the residential dwelling units from 60 multifamily
dwelling units to 114 age-restricted dwelling units. The request also includes the reduction of
retail uses from 43,534 square feet to 32,814 square feet and the reduction of
office space from 49,168 to 44,898 square feet.
Due to the decrease of retail and commercial square footage by 14,990
square feet, the site will not require additional parking to accommodate the
increase of residential dwelling units.
Ms. Fall advised the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the amendment and added that staff was recommending approval.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley
regarding what findings the Planning and Zoning Commission relied on to deny the
amendment, Ms. Fall stated that no findings were stated.
John DiGiovanni, representative of
the Savannah Meridian Acquisition Group, addressed the Board to present a
modification to Amendment 3 based on comments received from the residents of
Ashton Woods and residents who attended the Planning and Zoning meeting. Mr. DiGiovanni discussed the previous
amendments to the PUD.
Mr. DiGiovanni discussed the
effects of the economy and market conditions that have occurred in the past two
years. He stated that his company has
identified a new trend towards a 55-and-over luxury rental market. He clarified that this type of housing was
not an independent living facility or a nursing home or low income housing of
any type.
Mr. DiGiovanni then presented a
PowerPoint presentation on the Savannah Park Multifamily Residences (received
and filed) covering the topic of Concerns (expressed by residents). Mr. DiGiovanni advised that they were not
asking for any variances in setbacks or heights and added that the currently
approved plan has residential on the second and third floors anyway. He continued the presentation on the topics
of Use, Building and Circulation, Comparison (of square footage), Unit Mix and
Building Renderings.
When discussing Parking, Mr.
DiGiovanni stated that by restriping certain areas of the parking lot to 9
feet, which is allowed under the current PUD, they would actually have 481
spaces, 13 more spaces than needed. He showed
a parking diagram, stating that a complete parking analysis has been done and he
described where he believed people would park.
Site Plan, Conceptual Elevation, Units Floor Plans and Comparison Site
Plans were received and filed.
Mr. DiGiovanni continued his
presentation covering the following topics:
On Site Population, Advantages of Proposed Plan (amenities package and
catalyst for economic benefits) and Local Ownership. He then summarized his presentation.
When asked by Commissioner McLean
to explain the relationship between Savannah and Inland, Mr. DiGiovanni stated
he has a personal involvement in the partnership group but was not an official
partner in this project until last November when a decision was made that he
should be more involved. He stated he
does work for Inland, which he believes is one of the largest real estate
enterprises in the Country with a $20 billion valuation. He clarified that the two entities are not
connected in any way other than his relationship in both camps. Upon inquiry by
Commissioner McLean, Mr. DiGiovanni verified that there is no agreement with
Inland with a direct relationship at this time but added that he has a high
level of confidence that there is a transaction to be had.
When asked by Commissioner McLean
for clarification regarding the units increasing by 88% but the on-site
population only increasing by 41%, Mr. DiGiovanni stated for each additional
unit there will be one and a half more people which was
balanced by reducing the commercial which is one person per 200 square
feet.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van
Der Weide, Mr. DiGiovanni explained that in restriping some of the parking
spaces (which were initially striped to be 10 feet wide) to be 9 feet wide, the
number of parking spaces will increase.
Commissioner Carey said knowing the
critical nature of parking next to retail and offices and that people like to
park as close as possible and not have to walk, how would the parking issue
regarding Savannah Market Lane and Byron Anthony Place be managed to be sure
there are spaces available for retail and office. Mr. DiGiovanni referred to the parking plan (received
and filed) and indicated the residential parking spaces (exactly the number of
space required by Code) on that plan. He
added that the remaining spaces would be commercial. Mr. DiGiovanni stated that the number of
residential units and commercial spaces has to be balanced and there needs to
be adequate parking for all in close proximity.
Commissioner Carey stated that she
would not like to see signs on every parking space and asked if the plan was to
paint “commercial and retail only” on the spaces. Mr. DiGiovanni stated they had not planned to
do that but believes the spots could be labeled. He added since the residents will be 55 and
older and still working, a good portion of them will be parking at night, not
during the day. Commissioner Carey added
that since the only office building out there and presumably all of the other
buildings to be built are intended to be oriented toward the frontage of this
building, she believes that is a critical issue. Mr. DiGiovanni stated he would be happy to
address the parking concerns and label the spaces in the front of the building
as commercial parking only.
Commissioner Carey asked for
clarification as to how people will access these buildings based on the
proposal that is available now. Mr.
DiGiovanni explained the renderings were generic and the areas were not fully
designed yet. He gave some suggestions
but advised that everything had not yet been figured out. He added there would definitely be an entrance
at the rear of those buildings.
When asked by Commissioner Carey if
a lot of square footage had been added to the footprint or if only the mixture
had changed, Mr. DiGiovanni stated the building was essentially in the same
place as it was before, the same footprint, and that there was no height or
setback variance from the original approval.
He explained that the square footage has increased because commercial is
being traded for residential. Mr.
DiGiovanni further explained that in PUD Amendment 2 there was no design of the
units and no understanding of where they would be and what square footage they
would fit into. He explained the process
of designing the current units.
When asked by Chairman Dallari if
he had obtained the apartment, retail and commercial inventory numbers, Mr.
DiGiovanni stated the research team found most of the apartment complexes were
occupied at 95% or better. In response
to Mr. DiGiovanni’s statement that he did not have the commercial numbers,
Chairman Dallari stated that since there was limited commercial in Seminole
County, he would have a hard time giving up commercial and retail and advised
those were the inventory numbers that he had asked for.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Mr. DiGiovanni stated they would be willing to add more buffers along the wall and
more screening to either side of the Ashton Woods development. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide,
Mr. DiGiovanni stated they had read the Federal guideline with regard to 55 and
older and presumes they would adhere to the guideline. He stated they would be willing to put it in
the Development Agreement or even make it a deed restriction.
In response to Chairman Dallari's
previous request for commercial inventory numbers, Mr. DiGiovanni stated that
he had developed the HH Gregg store on Rinehart for Inland which was supposed
to be in an 85,000 square-foot retail center.
At this time the only tenant was HH Gregg. He stated since there is so much inventory in
the market, as far as vacant retail space, you can't get anyone interested if
they have to wait a year to get space.
Commissioner Carey stated that it
sounded like there was still a bit of work that needed to be done. Commissioner Carey suggested hearing the
public testimony and then to have everyone go back and try to figure out the
details on this.
Chairman Dallari recessed the
meeting at 4:25 p.m., reconvening it at 4:30 p.m.
William Turner, 125 Sterling Pine,
addressed the Board to state that he represents Cotter Ryan Construction and is
in opposition. Mr. Turner reviewed the
history of his company's building, which is located on the property.
Mr. Turner presented a Savannah
Park North graphic presentation (received and filed) which demonstrated the
building's orientation towards what he calls Main Street. He stated that Amendment 3 will cause this
Main Street to be become overcrowded, non-pedestrian friendly and throw the
entire Main Street into chaos.
Mr. Turner submitted 170 petitions,
as shown on page _______, opposing the amendment from residents at Ashton
Woods, Tall Trees and Wilson Place. He
also submitted a list (received and filed) of professionals who will speak in
opposition. He asked the Board to reject
this amendment.
Claire Ashington-Pickett, 1307
Montcalm Street, addressed the Board to advise she is counsel for Savannah Park
North, LLC and its legal claim against the applicant, Savannah Meridian
Acquisition Group. Ms. Ashington-Pickett
reviewed past meetings between her client and the applicant and began to discuss
issues in the litigation.
Chairman Dallari advised that this
hearing is about changes to the PUD, not about litigation.
Doug Kelly, GAI Consultants,
addressed the Board to state he believes it is premature for this project to be
at this stage and to not yet have been submitted to County staff, particularly
the engineering staff, because of the parking issues.
Mr. Kelly said he believes this
project is the wrong design and is being rushed through. He reviewed the parking design and pointed
out the problems in the parking configuration.
He reviewed the area around the dumpsters and the areas around the retail
portion of the project. Mr. Kelly stated
while this project may meet the requirements of the Code, he does not believe
it meets the purpose and intent because it does not work.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey,
Mr. Kelly stated he was not part of the project team but does know Mr. Scott
Ryan from a previous involvement in the city of DeBary. He explained that he had been asked to look
at this site plan and found significant open space issues. He spoke about the amenities package and
commitment agreement which says all of the open space will be open to all
members of the PUD.
Harry Brumley, 377 Maitland Avenue,
addressed the Board to advise he is with HB Associates, LLC. Mr. Brumley discussed some of the parking
issues related to the project. Mr. Brumley
stated that when parking, it is human nature to pull into the first available
space. He reviewed other projects that
have similar parking issues and stated that this design will cause traffic to
back up.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner
Henley, Mr. Brumley stated the parking problems were not solvable with the
current footprint and believes the parking would need to be substantially
reengineered to make it work.
Dale Parsons, architect with the
firm of Charles H. Parsons Architects, LLC, addressed the Board and advised
that he was the architect on the office building that was built within the
property. He stated that the concept of
the town center that was developed and the vision (as previously shown on an
earlier rendering) is what enticed Mr. Ryan to purchase the property and was
the basis of the design of the project.
Mr. Parsons stated that the
success of the building itself will in large part be determined by the success
of the street-scape and the whole Main Street street-scape type image which has
retail/offices on both sides and would attract professional offices and ground
floor storefront offices with office and retail on the other side. He further stated with age-restricted
housing, instead of office/retail on the opposite side, there will be a
significant negative impact on the ability for all the remaining parcels to be
successful as either retail or professional offices in that there won't be
enough critical mass of synergy amongst the businesses to support any one of
them.
Neal Ungar,
141 Stoney Ridge Drive, addressed the Board to state
that he is opposed to this amendment.
Mr. Ungar presented graphics (received and filed) depicting the details
of the amendment that was submitted by the applicant and added that he had not
seen the new ones. Mr. Ungar pointed out
inconsistencies in the way the buildings are described in the legend,
discrepancies in the square footage and math errors used in calculating the
parking spaces. Commissioner Carey
clarified with staff that in the plan before the Board today the three-story
buildings (E & L) are now two-story buildings. Mr. Ungar further reviewed the calculations
used to determine the parking spaces, which he believes are incorrect, and
asked that the calculations be reviewed by staff.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey, Ms.
Stettner stated that in the last amendment, a parking waiver was granted which
reduced the parking to one-and-a-half spaces per dwelling unit which was a
reduction from the County's 2.33 that is typical in a PUD amendment. Ms. Stettner added there was a required
shared parking study within a mixed-use development done which was approved by
the Board as part of the major amendment.
Ms. Stettner stated that due to the reduction of the entitlements during
this major amendment, staff does believe the shared parking within the
mixed-use development will continue to work with one-and-a-half parking spaces
for the residential units and that it is code compliant.
Commissioner Carey stated that in
mixed use, the one-and-a-half seems to be the standard.
Jim Thomas, 627 Country Club Drive,
addressed the Board and stated that he was deferring his time to others.
Attorney Christopher Challis, 351 East
New York Avenue, addressed that Board to state he is here representing Savannah
Park North, the owner of 90% percent of the office use entitlements in the
development. He presented a July 15,
2010 letter (received and filed) from his office to the County Attorney. He reviewed the concerns stated in the
letter.
Attorney Challis stated the proposed
amendment is poor planning and contrary to the public’s interest and to Savannah
Park North's significant investment in this project. He requested the Board deny it since a PUD
amendment may not be imposed over an owner's objection.
Commissioner Carey asked Attorney Challis
to clarify his statement that his client's interest represented 90% of the
office entitlements in the development since the site plan shows it is almost like
a twin of the building on the opposite side.
Attorney Challis advised this relates to the contract and is probably
part of the legal dispute. Upon inquiry
by Commissioner Carey, Mr. Challis verified that his client does not own the
other building and only has 50%, not 90%.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey,
Mr. McMillian stated the letter from Cobb Cole had been received and
reviewed. He stated he was comfortable
proceeding as is normally done with PUD amendments.
David Bridgeman, 719 Briarcliff
Drive, addressed the Board to state that his bank (Pinnacle Bank) was the
financier for the building that is now in existence and also one of largest SBA
lenders in the state. Mr. Bridgeman
stated that the dramatic changes to the original plan of the project (which was
live, work and shop) may cause SBA to pull the financing on the project because
of the radical changes. He added when
you look at other commercial and retail buildings that will need to be
financed, it will be difficult to get institutions willing to provide
financing. He stated that after the
change, he would not be interested in doing additional financing in the
project. He also noted that Mr. Ryan's
commercial building is the only building on the property.
Mr. Bridgeman recommended that the
Board reject the amendment. Upon inquiry
by Commissioner Carey regarding mixed-use financing, Mr. Bridgeman stated when
using SBA as a format for lending, it is not as difficult to get mixed-use
financing and that the troubled part of the financing here appears to be the
apartment complex.
Commissioner Carey asked that if
all of the residential was in one building, would it be problematic to lend on
the retail building in the front. Mr.
Bridgeman stated that it would because of the parking issue since the original
concept of a main street type corridor, which allowed for a flow of people to
go into the commercial and retail areas, has been changed and will have a
congestion problem and a parking problem.
He also stated commercial and retail need a certain threshold that
typically works to make it attractive to people for them to go in. He stated his personal opinion is that with
gridlock and an apartment complex behind it, the project has been taken from a
Class A building down to a B-type property.
Paul Partyka, 2200 Lucien Way,
addressed the Board to review some of the projects that he has been involved
with in the past. Mr. Partyka discussed
the value of a main street in a project such as this and the need for office development
on both sides of the street. He stated
when you don't have that, the synergy is gone.
Mr. Partyka stated even though the office and retail markets will not
improve quickly, they will improve and he believes it is important to keep the
vision of the project. He added that the
amendment will take away from the vision of the project which was supposed to
be a mixed-use, mixed-aged, diverse project, not a limiting factor,
age-restricted project.
When asked by Commissioner Carey if
having a non-age-restricted residential component in the mix would make it
better, Mr. Partyka responded no and added that the whole idea of the main
street concept is to mirror both sides of the street in making a corridor, with
a mixture of retail on both sides with office and some residential up top,
which is typical of main street planning for these various town centers.
Commissioner Carey stated that in
cities that she has been following with DOI, they are learning there is more
success in taking the residential component and making it a one-unit,
stand-alone, which is actually more functional, than trying to mix it up in
three different levels with three different things. She gave the examples of Colonial Town Center
and Winter Park Village.
Mr. Partyka stated that both
Colonial Town Center and Winter Park Village have a main street with retail on
both sides. If you eliminate one side of
that and have residential on one side and then retail on the other side, you
have effectively made it into an outlying area rather than a main street.
Scott Ryan, 1220 Commerce Park
Drive, addressed the Board to state that he and his wife Kelly are the owners
of Savannah Park North, LLC. Mr. Ryan
stated that he is an owner in interest and owns three different companies that
will occupy the top floor of this building.
Mr. Ryan reviewed the Savannah Park
North graphic presentation and illustrated what was promised to him when he
contracted with the applicant. He then
reviewed the Main Street Rendering opposing the Office and the Orientation
Disaster graphics. Mr. Ryan stated he
never would have purchased the pad and never would have oriented the building
towards Main Street if he had known a switch would occur. He discussed the harmony of the traffic flow
in the original promise.
Mr. Ryan stated that the amendment
should be rejected since the square footage is substantially more and the
orientation is substantially more. He
added that he believes the proposed plan contains a disintegrated residential
component separated by a privacy fence and has its own pool and clubhouse and
is more like a Baldwin Park with vertical orientation. Mr. Ryan reviewed the designs of Colonial Town
Center and Uptown Altamonte which have a disintegrated or separated residential
component that is not on Main Street and not directly opposing commercial and
retail uses and has private restricted parking.
He again requested the Board to reject the amendment
Mark Roberts, 472 Still Forest
Terrace, addressed the Board to state that he has lived in Tall Trees for eight
years. He is objecting to the new plan
based on the increased density and lack of green space. He also questioned whether or not these would
be high-end apartments.
Cynthia Goodrich, 845 Belles Ferry
Loop, addressed the Board to state she had purchased her home in December with
a vision of a town center with shops and restaurants. She wonders who will live in these rental
apartments and believes (based on a study that she conducted) that most of the
people who live in apartment rentals are 75 plus. She stated that she feels that this will ruin
her community. She discussed the
differences in flow of pedestrian traffic between the current plan and the
proposed plan.
Ed Foley, 308 Still Forest Terrace,
addressed the Board to list his concerns regarding who will rent the
apartments. He stated that it can become
a tenement house or turned over to HUD to be filled. He listed his concerns regarding the dead
trees and blowing dirt in the 200-foot setback buffer.
Joe Russo, 5065 Greylock Court,
addressed the Board to state that he does not like the project since the 24/7
traffic (the real density of the project) is now being moved right up against
Tall Trees. Mr. Russo presented
photographs (received and filed) that depicted the lack of green space. He stated that he believes moving the pool
area closer to his neighborhood will be a change in the setbacks; and due to
the noise, will be a nuisance to the residents.
Mr. Russo stated that going from 60
units to 113 units and going from condominium to apartments will make it a
cheaper product and not the transitional product that his neighborhood
wants. He advised the Planning and
Zoning Commission rejected the project for lack of green space and the parking
issue with 100% of the Board denying it and he asked this Board to do the same.
Darrell Ealey, 447 Still Forest
Terrace, addressed the Board to oppose the project. Mr. Ealey stated that while the last
amendment was an “okay” transition project, this is not. He added the project will be highly transient
and will decrease the surrounding property values.
Tim Broadhurst's
name was announced and it was determined that he was not in attendance.
Don Beyner, 5420 Factors Walk
Drive, addressed the Board to strongly urge the Board to vote no. Mr. Beyner questioned if the Board approves
the project, will the developer be forced to put in the amenities and will he
be barred from converting to assisted living if no
renters show up.
Anne McNamara's name was announced and
it was determined that she was not in attendance.
Rebecca Morehead, 5101 Blacknell Lane, addressed the Board to state she is opposed
to the project. She stated she likes the
retail and they do not want it to change.
Brad Plummer's name was announced and
it was determined that he was not in attendance.
Carol Beyner, 5420 Factors Walk
Drive, addressed the Board to explain why she moved into this
neighborhood. She stated she was not
expecting a large-sized apartment complex with hotel-sized living units that
could possibly be turned into assisted living.
Ms. Beyner encouraged the Board to vote no and to help save her
community.
Milagros Barrios, 463 Ellis Square
Court, addressed the Board to state she is opposed to the project since it is
not near the town center vision that she bought into.
Ruth Weeks, 435 Still Forest Terrace,
addressed the Board to state she does not see a problem with this change since
it is already approved for apartments.
She stated the increase in density is necessary for this project to be
completed and she believes the developer has worked to bring compromises that
will accommodate the communities around it.
Speaker and Written Request Forms
were received and filed.
No one else spoke in support or in
opposition.
Mr. DiGiovanni addressed the
parking concerns by comparing the proposed parking with the parking which has
already been approved in PUD Amendment 2 and stated that they are identical in
location, in footprint, in buildings and parking fields which already exist.
In response to Mr. Russo’s
photographs depicting green space, Mr. DiGiovanni indicated on one of the
exhibits the buffers between Tall Trees and the project and added that the
project has been designed to either meet or exceed the codes. He said Mr. Russo addressed the premise that
the residents want to keep the retail, keep the circulation and keep the
ability to walk here and there as if it already exists; but it does not exist,
there is nothing there. He stated if the
project can't be moved along to get critical mass that will attract retailers, it will never exist since there is not enough
traffic on International Parkway to support it.
Mr. DiGiovanni stated that the
street they are calling Main Street is a feeder street to Ashton Woods and was
never intended to be Main Street. He
added that if Mr. Ryan wanted a building on Main Street, he should have bought
another building. Mr. DiGiovanni stated
that they have met with the citizens, took their concerns seriously and
modified the plan to meet those concerns.
He also addressed the concerns regarding the access point to the
buildings and indicated them on the diagram.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey,
Mr. DiGiovanni stated that there will be access points from the sides and the
rear subject to whatever the fire code requires. He added that there will be no access points
on the front of the building so that people will have to park in the back to
access the residential units.
Chairman Dallari stated his biggest
concern is in giving up as much commercial and retail as is being asked for.
Commissioner Carey stated that she
believes Main Street is Savannah Market Lane coming into the project and that
the plan still mirror images retail at the street level, office and retail as
you are entering into the project and the two anchor office buildings.
Commissioner Carey asked that the
matter be continued until the next meeting to give the applicant time to
address some of the concerns raised today such as parking and the additional
buffers that were talked about but are not in the plan.
Regarding parking, Commissioner
Carey stated if the footprint remains the same, she would not have a problem
supporting the number of units and parking oriented to the back. Commissioner Carey stated that the buffers
were the same. She advised that she had
been to the property yesterday and observed the noise from the pool area at
Ashton Woods and believes it does not bother the people at Tall Trees.
Commissioner Henley advised that he
would not have any problem continuing the matter if the situations can be
worked out.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated
that for him, the concern is that condos are being changed to rentals and that
the parking spaces will be smaller.
Mr. DiGiovanni stated that they are
already approved for apartments.
Commissioner McLean stated he finds
a 90% increase in the apartment units with no offer to make any changes in
buffers or setbacks disappointing and believes what they are looking at today
violates the spirit and intent of what was originally brought before the
Board.
Commissioner Carey advised that the
Board has approved mixed-use developments where someone had a vision to build a
three-story building with retail on the bottom, offices on the second floor and
residential on top and then came back for a major amendment because they can't
sell it and can't lease it and therefore they don't want to build it.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Henley, to continue to August 10, 2010 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as possible, Request to approve a Major Amendment to the Savannah
Park at Heathrow Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 9.85 acres, located on the
west side of International Parkway, between Wilson Road and Wayside Drive, as
described in the proof of publication, Savannah Meridian Acquisition Group.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted
AYE.
Chairman Dallari recessed the
meeting at 6:05 p.m., reconvening it at 6:10 p.m., with the exception of Deputy
Clerk Sandy McCann.
LAKE FOREST DRI/Integra Land
Company
Proof of
publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to
consider approval of the requested Fifth Amended and Restated DRI Development
Order and PUD Major Amendment containing a revised Final Master Plan and
Addendum #2 to the First Amended Commitments, Classification, and District
Description to the Lake Forest DRI/PUD on 540.30 acres, located 600 feet east
of the intersection of Henderson Lane and SR 46, Integra Land Company, received
and filed.
Ian
Sikonia, Senior Planner, stated the Lake Forest PUD
consists of a total of 540.30 acres and contains a mixture of single-family and
commercial uses. This Development
Regional Impact Notice of Proposed Change and Major Amendment is being brought
to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the use of Parcel A-2 of the
PUD and the allocation of unused entitlements within the Lake Forest DRI to
that tract. Mr. Sikonia stated the
applicant is requesting that Parcel A-2 containing 11.15 acres receive a total
of 209 multifamily units from the maximum allowable residential unit total of
1,016 units.
Mr. Sikonia advised that the development
of this tract includes five buildings with an overall net buildable density of
18.74 units per acre with the last addendum to the PUD being approved in 2004
which included a total of 1,016 maximum residential units for the entire
PUD. He further stated that according to
the January 2009 Lake Forest DRI annual report, 737 residential units have been
built; and therefore, the proposed 209 residential units are not an increase
over the 1,016 but included in the total figure so there is no increase in
residential density for the entire PUD.
Mr. Sikonia advised the Development
Order is not being changed and that residential uses were permitted in the
original Development Order under the C-1 zoning district. The C-1 zoning district allows 10% of the
acreage of Tract A-2 to be used as multifamily, and the amendment to the Developer’s
Commitment Agreement allows for the multifamily to be used over all of the
11.15 acres of Tract A-2 for multifamily.
Mr. Sikonia explained this is not an increase in residential intensity
for the entire PUD because the number of residential units is not exceeding the
total maximum allowable.
Mr. Sikonia explained that the
development is proposing one access point on SR 46 and another that utilizes
the cross access easement to the east. The on-site amenities proposed for the
residents of the community include a tot lot, mulched walking path, swimming
pool and clubhouse area along with proposed pedestrian interconnectivity
through the use of sidewalk connections to SR 46 and to the Publix shopping
center to the east.
Mr. Sikonia stated the maximum
allowable building height for this proposed development is 35 feet. He added that a multifamily development is
compatible and consistent with the existing trend of development in the area
and focuses density near major corridors within Seminole County, consistent
with the Regional Growth Vision, "How Shall We Grow." A memo from Mr. Sikonia relative to an
adjustment in the motion was received and filed.
Mr. Sikonia advised that the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval with an additional
condition of incorporating Slides 1 and 2 from the applicant’s presentation
into the Commitment Agreement. He added
that staff is recommending approval.
Land Use and Rezone Map, Final Master Plan and a map showing the site
were received and filed.
Attorney Miranda Fitzgerald,
Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor and Reed, addressed the Board to state that
she represents the applicant, Integra Land Company.
Attorney Fitzgerald presented her
resume along with the resumes (received and filed) of David McDaniel, Karl
Krichbaum and Gregg Logan (Exhibits 1 through 4). She asked to be recognized as an expert in
several areas including Land Use, Zoning Comprehensive Planning and DRI issues.
Attorney Fitzgerald presented the
Lake Forest Final Master Plan (Exhibit 6) and several text amendments (received
and filed) which are not contained in the BCC’s package and explained that a
restricted covenant had been placed on the property as a matter of private
contract with Publix and with the Community Association when Publix came in to
develop its site. She added that the particular
restrictive covenant had provisions in it that allowed it to be amended and an
amendment to that covenant was recorded on July 16. When it was in effect, it basically said that
the commercial area would be developed as a commercial site but it allowed the
owner of each site within the commercial area to change that use as a matter of
contract as long as the other parcel owners were not materially or adversely
affected.
Attorney Fitzgerald advised that as
a result of that amendment, some language has been added to the text to make it
clear that they are asking to add 209 residential units into this area rather
than completely eliminate the commercial because they want the ability to have
commercial if the zoning isn't approved.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley,
Robert McMillian, County Attorney, advised the County does not have any formal
procedure for qualifying experts.
Mr. McMillian further stated, for
the record, that Attorney Theriaque has requested cross-examination, which the
County is not permitting, and therefore wishes to have a continuing objection
on the record.
Attorney Fitzgerald pointed out
that on the Final Master Plan the uses for Parcel A-2 are multifamily or
retail, and not only multifamily as the current package indicates. She explained the changes (changes in the
number of housing units and the number of square feet of retail space) in the
Fifth Amended and Restated Development Order (Exhibit 7). Attorney Fitzgerald explained the changes to
the PUD Commitment Agreement (Exhibit 8) that adds multifamily residential to
the list of permitted uses on Parcel A-2.
Attorney Fitzgerald gave a history
of the project and explained that the first iteration of the project had 251
single-family residential units, 300 patio homes, 352 cluster units, 427
townhouses and 450 multifamily units for a total of 780 units plus 200,000
square feet of retail. In 1988 due to
changes in the market, the project was changed to 1,016 single-family
residential units and 200,000 square feet of retail. In 2004, the master developer added two acres
into the commercial parcel on the frontage but didn't increase the retail
square footage. Attorney Fitzgerald
advised that in 2004, townhouses were added as a potential use; therefore, the
mechanism for converting to multifamily product has been in the plans since
2004.
David McDaniel, President of
Integra Land Company, addressed the Board and gave a history of his
company.
Mr. McDaniel presented a PowerPoint
presentation (Exhibit 5)(received and filed) and discussed the following: (1)
Parking and amenities on the site plan; (2) An aerial photograph
depicting the site plan along with photographs of a conservation area; (3) An
aerial photograph depicting distances from the project to several Lake Forest
neighborhoods; (4) Photographs depicting the building (the Heritage) across
from the project; (5) Entrances and Traffic Pattern; (6) Project Exits and
Traffic Pattern; (7) Closer Look at Henderson Intersection; (8) Current Retail
Locations; (9) Lake Forest DRI Area - Wide Variety of Current Land Uses; (10)
Economic Impact; (11) Rendering of the First Building; and (12) Recent Integra
Projects in Orange City, Daytona Beach and Championsgate.
Attorney Fitzgerald explained that
the 209-unit project will have separate gates so that anyone that lives in the
residential complex would not have access through the gates into Lake Forest
since there is a huge, forested wetlands swamp separating the two
projects.
Karl Krichbaum, Senior
Transportation Planner with GMB Engineers and Planners,
addressed the Board and reviewed the Traffic portion of the PowerPoint
presentation. He discussed the topic,
Integra at Lake Forest - Project Trip Distribution, which illustrated traffic
at the three entrance points into the project.
He compared the amount of traffic created by a commercial development
versus a residential development. Mr.
Krichbaum stated that since the Wekiva Parkway will swing southerly from SR 46
with no ramps where the project is located, the projection is for decreased
traffic on SR 46.
Gregg Logan, Market Consultant with
RCLCO, addressed Board to review the Market portion of the PowerPoint
presentation. He stated that his company
was retained to determine if there is a market demand for apartment units and
whether or not the apartment development would impair nearby single-family home
values. He gave a brief history of his
company and explained the methodology used for this analysis.
Mr. Logan concluded that the
multifamily residential market is recovering sooner than commercial and that
the presence of apartments does not have a negative impact on home values. Mr. Logan stated that the subject site is
well-buffered from other surrounding land uses.
He then discussed supply and demand and advised that there is a limited
supply of apartments, most of which are on the opposite side of I-4 or to the
south. He stated that demand for the
newer Class A apartments has been resilient when compared to other property
classes.
Mr. Logan continued the PowerPoint
presentation and discussed the following topics: (1) Lake Forest DRI Site is a Strong Location
for Rental Apartments; (2) Lake Forest DRI Area - Wide Variety of Current Land
Uses - Site Well-Buffered; (3) More Apartment Units Converted to Condominiums
Than Added to Inventory During the Last Four Years; (4) More Apartments Near the
Site 16-30 Years in Age - Creating an Opportunity for New Units; (5) Baldwin
Park SFD Values Have Performed Better Than Metro Overall Despite 75% of
Surrounding Units Being Multifamily; (6) Post Lake at Baldwin Park Surrounds
the Town Center and is Adjacent to Townhomes and Close to SFD; (7) The Village
at Baldwin Park Adjacent to SFD Neighborhoods Both In and Out of Baldwin Park;
(8) Baldwin Park Analysis Indicates that Homes Adjacent to Apartments are not
Negatively Impacted; (9) Homes Values in Baldwin Park Adjacent to Apartments
Are Not Negatively Impacted; (10) Location Map for Pricing Analysis; (11)
Winter Springs Analysis Indicates Homes Adjacent to Apartments Not Impacted
Relative to Value; (12) In Fact Homes Nearest to Apartments Have Higher Values
Than Homes Close By; (13) Already Abundant Retail near the Subject Site - Both
Local and Regional Serving; and (14) Summary (Overall Conclusions).
Concerning a PUD, Attorney
Fitzgerald stated it is inaccurate to say a certain thing was promised and it
can never change since zoning, as everyone knows, is based on what is
appropriate and what is a reasonable use.
When you have a change in circumstances, it is appropriate to change a
use from a zoning standpoint.
Attorney Fitzgerald addressed some
of the concerns that were raised in the e-mails that have been received. Regarding the concern of don't change
anything and just leave it the way it is, even though it is a failed site, she
advised that after 24 years of trying to develop the site as commercial, the
only things there are the Publix and some adjacent ancillary shops. She discussed the dramatic change in circumstances
since all of the new retail, including the Seminole Town Center Mall, has been
developed.
Attorney Fitzgerald addressed
another e-mail concern of we don't want apartments in our neighborhood. She stated from a land use perspective and
legal perspective, focus needs to be placed on the use, which is multifamily,
and advised that you can't restrict against renters. If multifamily is an appropriate use, then
apartments are appropriate as condos or anything else.
Attorney Fitzgerald addressed the
low priced or low income concern raised in the e-mails and advised that the
pictures that were shown earlier, which will be part of the PUD commitment,
illustrate that the units will be very nice, upscale units.
Attorney David Theriaque, representing
the Lake Forest Master Community Association, addressed the Board to submit a
book of exhibits (received and filed) on behalf of the Lake Forest Master
Community Association.
Dr. Ira Schwartzberg, 5336 Lake
Bluff Terrace, addressed the Board to state the Lake Forest Master Community
Association is against the Board of County Commissioners permitting Integra
Land Company and NTS the right to build 209 multistory apartments on the site
in question. He stated that he has the total
support of the over 700 homes in the community as backing for his
position.
Dr. Schwartzberg listed some
representations which have been made by both County officials and the
developer: First, compatibility would
always be maintained and accomplished by providing for suitable transitions
between the community's single-family homes and other construction; and second,
the PUD on which Lake Forest was being built was planned, zoned and approved by
the County for single-family homes with stores, restaurants and other services
meant to serve the residents of Lake Forest and the immediate area. He stated that he believes, with the developers
having sold all but 1 of the 732 lots in Lake Forest, they are proceeding to break
the faith with the single-family home residents and undermine and change the
concept and character of what the Lake Forest community was planned and
proposed to be.
Harry Ellis, 855 Edge Forest
Terrace, addressed the Board to state that he is the representative for 700
homes. He presented a PowerPoint
Presentation (not received and filed) and stated his community supports
commercial property, that every homeowner knew about commercial before
purchasing and, in fact, expected commercial, not multifamily homes.
Mr. Ellis stated he believes the
current traffic analysis is incorrect.
Using a group of pictures depicting typical backups to SR 46, he
described the entrance into his community and discussed the idea of a U-turn
versus cutting through the shopping center.
Regarding the applicant's statement of not being able to sell the
property, Mr. Ellis stated he has never seen a “for sale” sign on this property
and maybe they haven't advertised it correctly.
A picture showing traffic flowing on SR 46 was received and filed.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey
concerning the pictures that were presented, Mr. Ellis stated the traffic
coming in goes to Lady Bird Academy and Publix as well as guests coming into
the community.
Attorney Theriaque directed the
Board to a document at Tab 16 in his book of exhibits and advised that the
document demonstrates that the Lake Forest Master Community Association is an
affected party as the term is defined by the Supreme Court in Renard. He further
stated he believes the application is deficient because there was no threatened
endangered species study on the property.
Attorney Theriaque stated typically
when he appears before Boards, he will hear did you do your due diligence, did
you check out what you were supposed to check out when you bought. When this project was first approved, there
was a multifamily component that was changed in 1988 to 100% single
family. Attorney Theriaque stated his
clients compromised and allowed townhomes, not apartments. He further stated under the Code, the maximum
percentage of this property available to be townhomes is 2.4% but the applicant
is asking for the entire property to be apartments. When his clients bought, they relied on a PUD
that said 100% single family.
Attorney Theriaque addressed the
declaration that the applicant's attorney amended approximately two weeks
ago. He stated the declaration had been
in effect for many years and precluded anything but commercial.
Attorney Theriaque stated his
clients relied on a PUD that said 100% percent single family for almost 20
years, relied on a condition that said townhomes on a minimal percentage of the
property and relied upon on a declaration that was in the public record that
limits this property to commercial only.
He added the plan for this property was to provide neighborhood commercial
for 700 single-family homes, that there has not been a change of condition
because the property is still ripe for neighborhood commercial in the near
future. He asked the Board to deny the
application.
Christopher Puccio, President of
the Homeowners Association, addressed the Board to review his Presentation
(received and filed). He stated while
the applicant did meet with 50 homeowners, there are still questions that have
not been answered. Mr. Puccio stated the
Planning and Zoning Board had traffic concerns.
He discussed egress and ingress issues and the dangers associated with
U-turns stating that someone had died 12 weeks ago doing a U-turn. He added at present, there are 125 cars
making a U-turn to go to the Heritage.
Mr. Puccio asked the Board to help Holy Cross Lutheran Academy, with 220
children that get dropped off, and help the Heritage Retirement Community, with
125 visitors that make U-turns, and help the communities he represents to fix
this problem. Mr. Puccio stated he
believes the people from these apartments will be cutting through the shopping
center.
Mr. Puccio reviewed the research
done on apartment availability and stated there are 787 empty available
apartments. He stated his communities
are in favor of commerce and believe additional businesses should and would
survive on this property. Mr. Puccio
requested the Board to keep the property commercial.
Rex Driscoll's name was announced and it was determined that he was not in attendance.
Margaret Anthony, 123 Majestic Forest
Run, addressed the Board to state that she does not want subsidized, low-income
people living in her neighborhood for fear of crime and property values
falling. She stated she believes this
project will cause a drop in home values and she will be paying less in taxes.
Chris Carter, 178 Majestic Forest
Run, addressed the Board to advise that all of things that he was going to
discuss will be discussed by someone else.
Jose Garcia, 135 Majestic Forest
Run, addressed the Board to state he had not heard the applicant say anything
about having a wildlife study done. He
reviewed a map from his Presentation (received and filed) that depicted bear
sightings throughout his development.
Mr. Garcia then addressed another Integra project and reviewed screen prints
(received and filed) from their Internet blog dealing with the following
topics: (1) Safe Driving; (2) Recycle
Area Issues; (3) Cigarettes Left on the Ground; (4) How Smoking Causes Land and
Water Pollution; (5) Be Responsible - or Train your pet to be; and (6)
Parking.
Donald Grippo's
name was announced and it was
determined that he was not in attendance.
Loretta Talley, 5495 Glen Oak
Place, addressed the Board to state that she hoped the Commissioners had opened
her e-mail and viewed the attached pictures of a baby bear in a birdbath. She expressed concerns in allowing 10- to
15-year-old boys loose out there since they will want to play with the
bears. Ms. Talley stated she does want
commercial property, like a Pizza Hut, and believes more business is needed,
not more apartment complexes. She
expressed concerns over the transient nature of an apartment complex, a
decrease in her property value and the traffic issues.
Paula Fry's name was announced and it was determined that she was not in attendance.
Kevin Downs, 118 Majestic Forest
Run, addressed the Board to state he agreed with the traffic concerns. He further stated he is opposed to this
project and would like to see commercial, that the people have been waiting for
years for commercial. Mr. Downs advised
that the shopping center at the entrance to his community has lost only one
business, State Farm.
Mr. Downs questioned the math used
in calculating the number of cars that would be exiting out of Lake Forest in
the applicant's traffic study. He
further stated that no one but the applicant has stated that there is a need
for more apartments. He then displayed a
video (not received and filed) depicting U-turns on Henderson and discussed the
danger. Mr. Downs stated that while
there will be traffic with a commercial development,
he believes it will not be all of the time during the morning. He discussed the dangers at this intersection
and advised of several deaths that have occurred. A picture showing the traffic in the area was
received and filed.
Wendy Brandon, 5005 Maple Glen
Place, addressed the Board to state she had moved to Lake Forest because it was
thoughtfully developed with walking access to grocery, banking and restaurants,
and she had anticipated these conveniences would expand in the future to the land
that we are discussing today. Ms. Brandon
stated she believes this project is incompatible with the existing
community. She stated with the
additional construction of 700 apartments near Lake Forest already approved by
the County, the need for apartment living has already been met.
Ms. Brandon expressed concerns
regarding traffic at the community's front entrance, a decrease in property
value and safety within the shopping center due to the increase in traffic and
urged the Board to oppose the purposed change.
Mary Carol Holbert, 661 Broadoak
Loop, addressed the Board to state when she purchased she relied on the
developer who assured her that the property in question was to be developed
over time to include shops and restaurants that would service the
community. Multifamily dwellings were not
anticipated.
Ms. Holbert stated she believes the
developer should not be permitted to profit by going back on his word at this
late date when that word was part of the very thing that enticed her to become
a member of the Lake Forest community.
She also addressed concerns about increased traffic using the Lake
Forest entrance and exit lanes, lack of proper traffic lights, inadequate
parking, noise and population density. She asked the Board to say no.
Michelle Lundquist, 112 Majestic
Forest Run, addressed the Board. In
response to comments made by Attorney Fitzgerald at previous meetings that her
community is being discriminatory in not wanting lower income class people in
the area, Ms. Lindquist stated this was not the case. She further stated if you go west of Publix,
you are not dealing with upper socioeconomic families but rather middle income
families and some low income families.
Ms. Lundquist stated that Mr. Puccio's figure of 787 currently available apartments does
not include houses in the area that are for rent. She stated that along with her family, she is
strongly opposed to the amendment.
Susan Downs, 118 Majestic Forest
Run, addressed the Board to discuss an aerial photograph (received and filed)
of the proposed site. Ms. Downs stated
that Integra's original plan included the Robinson property which borders
Henderson Street. She further stated
after fierce opposition from Forest Glen residents, Integra came back with a
plan that had removed the Robertson property.
She expressed concerns that Integra will come back later and purchase
the Robertson property and use it for their apartment complex which will cause
traffic issues and bear habitat issues. A
sheet relative to the impact of wildlife was received and filed. Ms. Downs asked the Board to vote against
this project.
Susan Logan, 5315 Shoreline Circle,
addressed the Board to state as a real estate broker and owner of her own real
estate company, she has been showing homes in Lake Forest for about 20 years
and moved there 10 years ago. She stated
since the developer in all that time has never said there would be patio homes,
townhomes or apartments in the community, he has broken a promise.
Ms. Logan stated the apartment
availability study that was done does not include additional homes in the
area. She expressed concerns regarding
crime in the area and declining property values. She discussed some reasons why she believes
the developer, NTS, has not been able to sell the land. Ms. Logan stated she was concerned about
pedestrian traffic that would be able to walk into the community and cause
vandalism to the community areas and cars.
Gib Lundquist,
112 Majestic Forest Run, addressed the Board to express concerns regarding the
U-turns at Henderson. He objected to his
community being compared to Baldwin Park.
With 8 out of 40 properties already in distress, he believes increasing
multifamily to this area will only decrease home values and therefore the tax
revenue.
Frank Palik, 741 Broadoak Loop,
addressed the Board to state he believes there has been trust broken in what
the residents believe they are due, what they have been promised and what the
County has put in place with regard to the statutes and the PUD in place. Mr. Palik addressed concerns with traffic and
property values.
Fred Tepper, 4985 Fawn Ridge Place,
addressed the Board to discuss how a sense of ownership in terms of maintaining
property is different from renters.
Ellen Paladino, 160 River Oaks
Circle, addressed the Board to state the land west of I-4 has been traditionally
rural low density. She added within a
mile radius there are five-acre horse farms and within a mile, the Wekiva River
Basin. Ms. Paladino stated the proposed
project is a high density type of planned community that doesn't fit with the
flavor of what is now in the area west of I-4 and asked the Board to reject the
project.
Joseph Ben Smith, 190 Majestic
Forest Run, addressed the Board to express concerns regarding the traffic
problems and the property values.
E-mails from residents opposing the
request were received and filed.
No one else spoke in support or in
opposition.
Speaker and Written Request Forms
were received and filed.
Attorney Fitzgerald addressed the
traffic concerns and advised that while almost every person that spoke said we
want commercial but we really hate the traffic, the traffic engineer
demonstrated if this is not developed as multifamily as proposed and is left as
commercial, there will be four times the number of trips associated with
additional retail on that site. She
stated that the entrances won't change, it will just
be substantially less traffic with her proposal.
Attorney Fitzgerald addressed Dr.
Schwartzberg's comments regarding how compatibility would always be
maintained. She stated that even though
they are proposing to change the use, she believes they are maintaining
compatibility. She discussed the buffers
and advised homes would be completely invisible with the buffers being 450 feet
from Henderson Lane, 650 feet from the nearest residential unit to the north
and 850 feet to the northeast.
Attorney Fitzgerald stated the
remaining concerns would be traffic and issues about potential crime. She stated this is not Section 8 housing, not
low-income housing but high-end housing.
Attorney Fitzgerald explained that the property owner has owned this
land for 25 years and it has been zoned as commercial for 25 years and has not
developed as commercial. There has to be
a reason for that. She stated they have
marketed the property and she has been involved in contract negotiations and dealing
with potential buyers, but they could not get a tenant on this site and the
prospect of getting local tenants is going to be less.
Attorney Fitzgerald stated that an
environmental study was done and submitted to the County. She stated according to the State’s
documented sighting of black bears, probably because this is a cleared site,
there is no black bear cover on this site.
The Regional Planning Council made the recommendation, which will be
incorporated into the PUD plan, that any dumpsters on
this site have to be bear proof recognizing the idea that black bears may
wander onto the site.
Attorney Fitzgerald stated that due
to the amount of wetlands on the Robertson site and the price required to
mitigate those wetlands, Integra was not interested in obtaining the
property.
Attorney Fitzgerald stated that the
traffic study that was submitted was presented and approved by the County's
traffic people.
Mr. Logan addressed the issue of
demand for apartments and reviewed the Bureau of Economic and Business Research
UCF forecast for Seminole County. He
stated that, according to the forecast, the 209 apartments would satisfy a
little less than 1% to 1.25% of the demand for apartments.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey,
Jerry McCollum, County Engineer, stated that the County had received some
correspondence from FDOT concerning the traffic issues in this area. He stated in looking at the access out there,
moving the access a little bit to the east might relieve people coming across
quickly to get in the turn lane but that would be subject to final
engineering. DOT has the final say on
access requirements on SR 46 but they have asked the County to look at access
and safety before approving anything on a final site plan.
Commissioner Carey discussed a
chart (received and filed) she received from Engineering that shows a reduction
in trips by going to multifamily versus commercial. Mr. McCollum explained the chart and
discussed the difference in a.m. peak trips and p.m. peak trips.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey,
Mr. McCollum stated there had been no in-depth discussions with DOT regarding a
light at Henderson Lane but he believes the proposed traffic increase (whether
commercial or multifamily) would not warrant a signal at this stage.
Upon further inquiry by
Commissioner Carey, Alison Stettner, Manager of Planning and Development,
explained that under the County's Code, multifamily is an allowable use in
Commercial Land Use. Upon inquiry by Commissioner
Carey, Ms. Stettner stated Integra would not need to come in for multifamily
but could have commercial and multifamily as part of the Commercial Land
Use. She added it is also in the
equivalency table as part of their DRI.
Commissioner Carey clarified that
when the County looks at multifamily, it does not distinguish between
condominiums and apartments.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner
McLean, David McDaniel advised that he has been an apartment developer for 24
years and currently owns and operates four local apartment projects in Central
Florida. He explained his company is the
owner of the apartment complex and takes pride in that ownership as anyone can
see by the manicured landscaping, the breezeways, the parking lots and
everything else that is out at the projects.
He stated his company's pride and integrity in their ownership is as
important as someone owning a house.
Upon further inquiry by
Commissioner McLean, Mr. McDaniel explained if the 700 units up the street and
his 200 units got built in the next year, that would not necessarily be a good
thing and spreading it out over a three-year period is probably more
ideal. If the market is very strong,
everything leases up and gets occupied quickly; and if the market is a little
softer, everything does lease up and gets occupied but it takes a little bit
longer.
Mr. McDaniel stated he believed the
site over by I-4 behind Bill Heard where the other 700 units will be is an
inferior site. He further explained why
he would rather build a smaller complex.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner
McLean, Mr. McDaniel talked about the benefit for the community in having a
good mix of uses that will be able to utilize the Publix shopping center; and he
believes the commercial owners there will enjoy having 200 additional retail
shoppers that will use their stores.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner
McLean, Mr. McDaniel stated as a developer for 24 years, he has recognized
throughout his career that things change, reasons change and opportunities change. Businesses that don't change and developers
that don't change are not going anywhere.
He added that as far as the different opportunities for this property,
right now that parcel will stay vacant for the foreseeable future because of
the retail that is on SR 46 and the Seminole Town Mall that is out there. He believes it would be more advantageous to
have a completed, viable community as opposed to a vacant parcel for the years
to come.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Ms. Stettner advised the applicant is adding additional buffering standards throughout
most of the area and is meeting the County's standards.
Chairman Dallari explained his
biggest issue is losing more commercial.
Commissioner Carey stated that any commercially-zoned property has the
opportunity to build multifamily on it. Chairman Dallari stated commercial
zoning in Seminole County is at a premium; and he believes the Board,
especially with a PUD which is subjective, needs to
hold on to as much of the County's commercial zoning as possible even through
bad times, since it is in looking to the future that will decide how this
County will continue.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Carey,
Ms. Stettner advised the next step would be the site plan stage where the
project goes back through the site plan at the next level, such as final
engineering.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated
he had concerns with chipping away at the commercial zoning which, for years,
the County has been talking about preserving.
He added he doesn't think it is the County's job to solve some of these
land owners' economic issues but rather to see the vision of where the County
should be going.
Commissioner Carey acknowledged
that Lake Forest residents have an issue with their master developer which has
been going on for years. She remembers
when the Lake Forest DRI first came through and how everybody that lived out in
that area on the rural five and 10 acres were upset when this development came
through back in '80's. Commissioner
Carey stated that things change from time to time because of economics or
requests by the landowners and she tries to take emotions out of it and make a
recommendation based on compatibility.
She believes this is probably a better use for the traffic situation than
if it were commercial based on what the County Engineer has said.
Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded
by Commissioner Henley, to approve the requested Fifth Amended and Restated DRI
Development Order and PUD Major Amendment containing a revised Final Master
Plan and Addendum #2 to the First Amended Commitments, Classification, and
District Description to the Lake Forest DRI/PUD on 540.30 acres, located 600
feet east of the intersection of Henderson Lane and SR 46, and authorize the
Chairman to execute the aforementioned documents, as described in the proof of
publication, Integra Land Company.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner
Henley, Ms. Stettner advised that up to a certain percentage of what they are
requesting is allowable in the land use.
In Commercial Land Use you are allowed to have up to 10% of your
commercial entitlements to be multifamily.
As to whether or not this request fits that requirement, Ms. Stettner
stated that it would depend on what their commercial entitlements are. She added that they would have to come in
with a certain percentage and that is why it fits the major amendment. With the DRI associated with it, they are
switching their entitlements and with the Equivalency Matrix it fits within the
DRI and the major amendment.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Dallari,
Ms. Stettner advised it is allowable and that is why they are going through
this process.
Commissioner Henley stated if the
applicant has a right and meets the County's requirements and Codes, he is not
sure that it is a defensible position to say I am going to deny it because I
don't want to lose any commercial. Ms.
Stettner advised it meets all of the County's codes.
Districts 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioners Dallari, McLean and
Van Der Weide voted NAY; whereupon the motion
failed for the lack of a majority vote.
Motion by
Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner McLean, to deny the
requested Fifth Amended and Restated DRI Development Order and PUD Major
Amendment containing a revised Final Master Plan and Addendum #2 to the First
Amended Commitments, Classification, and District Description to the Lake
Forest DRI/PUD on 540.30 acres, located 600 feet east of the intersection of
Henderson Lane and SR 46, as described in the proof of publication, Integra
Land Company, Denial Development Order, as shown on page _______.
Under discussion, Commissioner Henley
discussed a situation on Aloma where the Board turned something down that was
allowable and met the Code and it was reversed in court. He believes this is a similar situation. He stated the Board needs to make sure its
decisions are defensible positions.
Mr. McMillan clarified his original
understanding that the reason the PUD amendment was needed was because they
needed to move entitlements to this parcel.
He further advised the applicant needs the PUD amendment to use the
Commercial Land Use and zoning on this property for multifamily, that they
can't use it for multifamily right now, and it is the Board's discretion as to
whether or not it will move the multifamily from one track to another for some
of the entitlements.
Commissioner Carey clarified that
the DRI has 1,016 entitlements and there are 279 of them that have not been
used.
Districts 1, 2 and 3 voted AYE.
Commissioners Henley and Carey
voted NAY.
Chairman Dallari recessed the
meeting at 8:35 p.m., reconvening at 8:40 p.m., with Commissioner Henley
entering late.
COMMUNICATIONS
AND/OR REPORTS
The following Communications and/or
Reports were received and filed:
1. Copy
of letter dated June 17, 2010, from Beth Norton, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, to Mayor Patricia Bates, City of Altamonte Springs, re:
FEMA comments on proposed Adventist Health System Corporate Headquarters
Project. (cc: BCC, County Manager, Growth
Management, Stormwater)
2. Copy
of letter dated June 22, 2010, from Chairman Dallari
to Glen Casel, Community Based Care of Seminole,
Inc., re: Letter of support for bid to become the lead child welfare agency for
Orange and Osceola County. (cc: BCC,
County Manager, Community Assistance)
3. Copy
of letter dated June 22, 2010, from Chairman Dallari to Clayton Wilder, Office
of Criminal Justice Grants, re: Approving distribution
of total allocation available of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant Program for FY 2010. cc: BCC,
County Manager, Community Assistance
4. Copy
of letter dated June 22, 2010, from Chairman Dallari to Mayor John Bush, City
of Winter Springs, re: Jetta Point Park Large Scale
Future Land Use Map Amendment.
5. Letter
dated May 6, 2010, from Diane Pickett Culpepper, Bright House Networks, to
Chairman Dallari re: Programming changes coming on or after July 29, 2010.
6. Notice
of Public Hearing received June 29, 2010, to be held on July 22 and August 12,
2010, from City of Lake Mary re: To consider Small-Scale Land Use Amendments to
the City of Lake Mary Comprehensive Plan for 14 properties. cc: BCC, County
Manager, Growth Management
7. Notice
of Public Hearing dated June 23, 2010, to be held on July 7, 2010, from City of
Longwood re: To hear public comment regarding the annexation of 370 North
Street from County to City in order to fulfill an Interlocal Annexation
Agreement between the City of Longwood and Seminole County. cc: BCC, County Manager, Growth Management
8. Notice
of Public Hearing dated June 27, 2010, to be held on July 7, 2010, from City of
Longwood re: To receive public input on requested Amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (Small Scale) and Longwood Design
Guidebook Map Change for Ordinance No. 10-1924. cc: BCC, County Manager, Growth
Management
9. Letter
(w/attachment) dated June 30, 2010, from Don Martin, City of Casselberry, to
Chairman Dallari re: Annexation of properties: Parcel ID:
07-21-30-515-0000-003D. 07-21-30-515-0000-003B,
07-21-30-515-0000-003C, 07-21-30-515-0000-0030, 07-21-30-515-0000-003A. cc: BCC, County Manager, Growth Management
10. Copy of letter (w/attachment) dated June 30,
2010, from Chairman Dallari to Honorable Carl T. Langford, Mayor Emeritus of
Orlando, re: Congratulations on being presented the “Lighthouse Central Florida
Community Visionary Award”. cc: BCC
11. Letter dated July 1, 2010, from Faith Jones,
Seminole Audubon Society, to Chairman Dallari re: Wekiva Island Future Land use
Amendment and PUD rezoning. cc: BCC,
County Manager
12. Letter dated July 5, 2010, from James Petrella, Lake Forest, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re:
Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
13. Copy of letter (w/attachment) dated July 6,
2010, from Cynthia Porter, City of Sanford, to Board of County Commissioners
re: Notice of Ordinance No. 4217. cc: BCC, County Manager, Growth Management
14. Copy of letter (w/attachment) dated July 12,
2010, from Cathy Galavis, Florida Department of
Revenue, to David Johnson, Seminole County Property Appraiser, re: Budget request for the operation of the Property
Appraiser’s office for the period of October 1, 2010 through September 30,
2011. cc: BCC, County Manager, Fiscal Services
15. Letter dated July 13, 2010, from Louis &
Berta Fitzpatrick, Mandarin Subdivision, Longwood to Commissioners re:
Objection to Proposed Assessments cc: BCC, County Manager, Environmental
Services, MSBU
16. Letter dated July 16, 2010, from David
Johnson, Seminole County Property Appraiser, re:
2010-2011 Proportionate budget share approved by the Department of Revenue to
the Seminole County Commissioner’s based on the Final Budget amount is
$4,255,795.10 cc: BCC, County Manager, Fiscal Services
17. Letter dated July 16, 2010, from David
Johnson, Seminole County Property Appraiser, re:
2010-2011 Proportionate budget share approved by the Department of Revenue to
the Seminole County Unincorporated Road District based on the Final Budget
amount is $15,391.66 cc: BCC, County Manager, Fiscal Services
18. Letter dated July 16, 2010, from David
Johnson, Seminole County Property Appraiser, re:
2010-2011 Proportionate budget share approved by the Department of Revenue to
the Seminole County/Municipal Fire District based on the Final Budget amount is
$424,713.73 cc: BCC, County Manager, Fiscal Services
19. Notice of Public Hearing from the City of
Altamonte Springs re: To consider a request by ATC Lakeside Development, LLC,
ATC Lakeside Development II, LLC and Altamonte Town Center Retail, LLC on
behalf of RP Altamonte III, LLC Transfer for the transfer of development rights
within the Uptown Altamonte cc: BCC, County Manager, Planning Division
20. Notice of Public Hearing from the City of
Longwood re: To Consider Adoption of Proposed Voluntary Annexation Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 10-1932 (ANX 03-10) cc: BCC, County Manager, Planning Division
21. Notice of Public Hearing from the City of
Longwood re: To Consider Adoption of Proposed Voluntary Annexation Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 10-1930 (ANX 02-10) cc: BCC, County Manager, Planning Division
22. Letter not dated, from Curtis Nash, 795 Summer
Palm Court, Sanford, Florida to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes
and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: BCC, County Manager,
Growth Management
23. Letter dated July 19, 2010, from Christine H.
Martindale, 5208 Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re:
Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: BCC, County Manager,
Growth Management
24. Letter dated July 15, 2010, from Tess Reece,
4888 Red Brick Run, Sanford, Florida to Chairman
Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to
allow 209 Multifamily Apartments. cc:
BCC, County Manager, Growth Management
25. Letter not dated from Duke Daviduke,
5316 Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning
Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
26. Letter not dated from Donna Daviduke, 5316 Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida to
Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest
PUD to allow 209 Multifamily Apartments.
cc: Growth Management
27. Letter not dated from Jason Daviduke, 5316 Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida to
Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest
PUD to allow 209 Multifamily Apartments.
cc: Growth Management
28. Letter not dated from Michael Wallace, 5285
Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning
Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
29. Letter not dated from Gail Wallace, 5285
Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning
Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
30. Letter not dated from Robert Freiwald, 464 Fawn Hill Place, Sanford, Florida to Chairman
Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to
allow 209 Multifamily Apartments. cc:
Growth Management
31. Letter not dated from Donna Freiwald, 464 Fawn Hill Place, Sanford, Florida to Chairman
Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to
allow 209 Multifamily Apartments. cc:
Growth Management
32. Letter not dated from Cora Broskowitz,
5360 Fawn Woods Court, Sanford, Florida to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning
Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
33. Letter dated July 19, 2010 from Patricia
Brackett, 5295 Vista Club Run, Sanford, Florida to
Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest
PUD to allow 209 Multifamily Apartments.
cc: Growth Management
34. Letter dated July 19, 2010 from Leonard
Silver, 4965 Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida to Chairman Dallari re:
Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
35. Letter dated July 19, 2010 from Debra Silver,
4965 Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning
Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
36. Letter dated July 19, 2010 from George &
Marie Peach, 5025 Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida to Chairman Dallari re:
Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
37. Letter not dated from Barry Broskowitz, 5360 Fawn Woods Court, Sanford, Florida to
Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest
PUD to allow 209 Multifamily Apartments.
cc: Growth Management
38. Letter dated July 14, 2010, from Arthur
Stephen Martindale, 5208 Shoreline Circle, Sanford, Florida, to Chairman
Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to
allow 209 Multifamily Apartments. cc:
BCC, Growth Management
39. Letter dated July 17, 2010, from Mildred Zilka, 5224 W SR46 #132, Sanford, Florida, to Chairman
Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to
allow 209 Multifamily Apartments. cc:
Growth Management
40. Letter not dated from Diane Bonheim, 775 Broadoak Loop, Sanford,
Florida, to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in
Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily Apartments. cc: Growth Management
41. Letter not dated from Frank Bonheim, 775 Broadoak Loop,
Sanford, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major
Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily Apartments. cc: Growth Management
42. Letter dated July 17, 2010, from Cheryl
Murphy, 5537 Forest Oak Point, Lake Forest, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re:
Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
43. Letter not dated from Maria Larsen, 622
Broadoak Loop, Sanford, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning
Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: BCC, Growth Management
44. Letter dated July 13, 2010, from Gwinn Murray
4888 Red Brick Run, Sanford, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning
Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
45. Letter not dated from Vandana
Rao, 573 Bent Pine Court, Sanford, Florida, to
Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest
PUD to allow 209 Multifamily Apartments.
cc: Growth Management
46. Letter not dated from Tyler C. Brown, 683 Treeline Place, Sanford, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re:
Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
47. Letter not dated from Charles A. Brown, 683 Treeline Place, Sanford, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re:
Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
48. Letter not dated from Karen E. Brown, 683 Treeline Place, Sanford, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re:
Proposed Zoning Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. cc: Growth Management
49. Letter not dated from Costanzo Manes, 4859
Shoreline Circle, Lake Forest, Florida, to Chairman Dallari re: Proposed Zoning
Changes and Major Amendment in Lake Forest PUD to allow 209 Multifamily
Apartments. (cc: BCC, Growth Management)
DISTRICT
COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS
Motion by
Commissioner McLean, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt
appropriate Resolution #2010-R-159, as shown on page _______, to express appreciation
to Melanie Chase for her service on the Planning and Zoning Commission and appoint
Alex Setzer to finish Ms. Chase’s term ending January
1, 2010.
Districts
1, 2, 3 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Commissioner
Henley re-entered the meeting at this time.
-------
Commissioner Carey advised the East
Central Florida Regional Planning Council reduced their per capita rate for
memberships from 18 cents to 16 cents so the annual dues will go down to a
little under $70,000.
Commissioner Carey advised the
Florida Association of Counties determined to freeze their dues for the fourth
consecutive year. That number will
remain at $46,372.
Chairman Dallari asked about the
bonuses or raises that had been discussed at the last Regional Council
meeting. Commissioner Carey stated she
had voted against the budget while Commissioner McLean voted for the
budget. Commissioner McLean stated he
did not vote for the bonuses.
Chairman Dallari stated his inquiry
is to provide the information at the work session.
Commissioner Carey explained the
discussion about the bonuses got tabled until after the year-end to see where
they were. She added it was clear there
was no support for that concept.
-------
Chairman Dallari discussed the
amended version of the document (not received and filed) that the Orange County
Expressway Authority sent back.
Commissioner Carey stated that she
thought this document was actually the clean document of the action this Board
took at the last board meeting to make the modifications after the Expressway
Authority had met and voted on a different document.
Mr. Forte advised they had
submitted some minor modifications which are represented in this document.
Commissioner Carey clarified this
document did not contain the comments back from the Expressway Authority. Chairman Dallari clarified the Expressway's
staff made some minor changes and sent the document back.
Guy Minter, Deputy County Attorney,
explained the document in the green packet for the Seminole County Expressway
Authority is the document that the County sent to them and received back with
minor changes.
Jerry McCollum, Engineering,
advised that under the SCEA agenda this would be informational so the Board
would have an opportunity to look at it and then bring it to the Board at the
first meeting in August and then have an expressway meeting that afternoon.
-------
There
being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the
meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m., this same date.
ATTEST:______________________Clerk_____________________Chairman
er/js