BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
The following is a non-verbatim transcript of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, held at 9:32 a.m., on Tuesday, August 10, 2004, in the SEMINOLE COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING at SANFORD, FLORIDA, the usual place of meeting of said Board.
Present:
Chairman Daryl McLain (District 5)
Vice Chairman Grant Maloy (District 1)
Commissioner Randy Morris (District 2)
Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)
Commissioner Carlton Henley (District 4)
County Manager Kevin Grace
County Attorney Robert McMillan
Deputy Clerk Eva Roach
Pastor Jim Bradshaw, First United Methodist Church of Sanford gave the Invocation.
Don Fisher, Deputy County Manager, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-143, as shown on page ________, honoring Fire Chief Joseph Jackson, Sr., for his dedication and service to the residents of Seminole County.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
The Board presented the Resolution to Mr. Jackson’s son Charles, his nieces Keisha and Kasandra, and his cousin Cynthia Oliver. Charles Jackson addressed the Board to express his appreciation for receiving this Resolution.
Chairman McLain announced that Item #50, Rezone, Orange Mall Partners, scheduled for tonight has been withdrawn by the applicant. Therefore this item will not be heard this evening. He requested staff notify everyone of the withdrawal. He stated the applicant for Item #51, Large Scale Land Use Amendment, Pelloni, has requested that this item be continued to September 14, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. He recommended that everyone be notified of the applicant’s request.
Chairman McLain stated staff has pulled Item #4, request to approve Black Hammock Wholesale Water Service Capacity Agreement.
Kevin Grace, County Manager, addressed the Board to state staff felt there might be some inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and that is the reason they wanted it pulled.
Commissioner Maloy requested that Item #3, Extending term for 17-92 CRA Redevelopment Plan, be pulled for a separate vote.
Pam Hastings, Public Works, answered questions for Commissioners Henley and Morris with regard to how much additional money the County would be getting for Item #10, BCR 04-47, Seminole Wekiva Trail Underpass Project, and when construction will begin.
David Martin, Engineering, explained for Commissioner Henley why the County only received one bid for Item #12, Award CC-1233-04, Construction of Florida National Scenic Trail Bridges.
Discussion ensued between the Board and staff why submittals were requested from only three consultants for Item #16, Work Order #6 to PS-597-01, Planning Consultant Services Agreement.
Alice Gilmartin, Planning, addressed the Board to state those will be going out to bid for additional consultants in the future.
Commissioner Morris stated the Board has had concerns relating to a lot of continuing contracts going to one or two vendors. He stated he feels that it would be helpful if they have a chart showing what awards were done under general contracts.
Commissioner Henley recommended increasing the number of contractors being awarded. He also requested that staff provide a comparison sheet of other bidders relating to Item #18, Award RFP-4221-04 for Acquisition Services.
Mr. Grace stated staff can provide that in future agenda items.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize and approve the following:
5. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute
Exhibit “G”, as shown on page ________, for the project known as Lake Jesup
Woods for over sizing of off-site sewer facilities.
7. BCR #04-43 – $873,918 – Public Works – Engineering – Fund: 10101 – Transportation Trust Fund. To facilitate fiscal monitoring, an adjustment is needed to distinguish between the two distinct funding sources being used to fund the design activities for the SR 434 (Maitland Blvd to SR 436) six-lane improvement. All budget monies for this project are currently consolidated into a single project number. An accounting adjustment is requested to create two separate project numbers for this project; one number to represent the developer contribution portion of the project and another number to represent the County Incentive Grant Program portion of costs.
8. BCR #04-45 – $43,000 – Planning & Development – Building – Fund: 10400 – Development Review Fund. This budget change is necessary to place additional funds in the overtime account line. The overtime has been higher than budgeted due to several operational factors, including inspector vacancies and after hour inspections. Funds are available in the Contracted Services; Operating Supplies; and Books, Dues & Publications account lines. It is estimated that $43,000 will be sufficient to carry the overtime account through the end of the fiscal year.
9. BCR #04-46 – $8,700 – Environmental Services – Solid Waste Management/Contract Operations – Fund: 40201 – Solid Waste Fund. This budget change is necessary to designate as well as move to the proper account line equipment needed to outfit the landfill maintenance shop. The Solid Waste Contract budget for FY 03/04 includes an undesignated equipment account (560642) of $405,277 for the purchase of equipment for Contract Operations. This action identifies items that are needed to outfit the landfill equipment maintenance shop. These items have been developed in conjunction with Fleet Services and Serco (the fleet maintenance contractor). The equipment listed will allow the contractor to efficiently provide maintenance services for the tractor-trailers and the landfill rolling stock. The amount indicated below reflects only an operational adjustment to transfer funds from account 560642 to 560641 totaling $8,700 (A/C Reclaim/Recovery Unit $3,000, Vat 45 Battery/charging/starting system tester $3,500, Heavy Truck Transmission Jack $2,200). Items being designated include Bulk Oil Tanks with Overhead Reel System $12,500; Bulk Air Compressor $10,500. The total value of the fleet maintenance equipment is $31,700. There are sufficient funds in the budget to accommodate these changes.
10. BCR #04-47 – $593,158 – Public Works – Engineering/Special Projects – Fund: 32100 – Natural Land/Trails 2001 Bond Fund. Funds are needed in the Construction account line for the Seminole Wekiva Trail Underpass Project @ SR434 and Markham Woods Road. This transfer realigns funds within the Trails Bond Fund to place monies in the appropriate account to allow certain pre-construction activities to proceed on this project. (The project is now in the final design stage and right-of way acquisition is underway.) Based upon updated cost estimates and status evaluations, funds are available in the Markham Trailhead and Flagler Wilderness Trail Construction account lines. These construction funds for the Seminole Wekiva Underpass will supplement $997,838 in construction funding which is budgeted in FY 04/05.
MSBU
11. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the following Satisfaction of Lien, as shown on page _________, for Chandrnarine and Anjani Mohabir for the Chula Vista Road Paving and Drainage Municipal Service Benefit Unit (Ordinance No. 97-94).
12. Award CC-1233-04/DRS, as shown on page ________, Construction of
Three (3) Florida National Scenic Trail Bridges to Cathcart Contracting
Company, Oviedo ($244,729.21).
13. Award CC-1237-04/TLR, as shown on page
________, Cross Seminole Trail North to Schuller Contractors of Orlando
($1,589,000).
14. Award CC-1239-04/TLR, as shown on page _______, Yankee Lake Regional WRF Boundary Fence to Price Construction, Inc., Orlando ($242,279.80).
15. Approve Ranking List, Authorize Negotiations, and Award a Master Agreement for PS-5163-04/AJR, as shown on page ________, St. Johns and Lake Harney Basin Engineering Evaluation and Drainage Inventory.
16. Award Work Order #6, as shown on page _______, Assistance with Rural Land Study under PS-597-01/BJC – Planning Consultants Services Agreement for Comprehensive Planning to Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc., Orlando ($124,283.00).
17. Approve Amendment #1, as shown on page _______, to Work Order #9 - SR 46/Orange Blvd. Intersection Improvements, PS-5116-02/BJC, with Keith & Schnars, P.A., Altamonte Springs ($16,518.71).
18. Award RFP-4221-04/AJP Master Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Acquisition Services for Bunnell Road/Eden Park Avenue, to The Triece Company, Debary ($170,000.00).
19. Approve Corrected Amendment #2, as shown on page ________, to RFP-4188-03/BJC – Security Services for Seminole County, to Allied Protection Services, Inc. of Fort Myers ($213,499.52 per year).
20. Approve
and Award Bid #2001-04/GMG, as shown on page ________, Sale of County Owned
Surplus Property – Office Building and Lot located at 997 East SR 436,
Altamonte Springs to Arnold P. Stein of Maitland for $125,464.00.
21. Approve Fifth (Final) Renewal of M-138-00/BJC – Radio Maintenance and Service Agreement, with Motorola, Inc. of Altamonte Springs ($331,008.72) (October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005).
22. Approve Sole Source Procurement and authorize the issuance of Purchase Orders for the purchase of Field and Laboratory Calibration, repair, maintenance and chemicals, with Hach Company, Ames, IA.
23. Adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-144, as shown on page _________, renaming Whippoorwill Lane to Whippoorwill Drive and authorize Chairman to execute.
27. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the Agreement, as shown on page ________, between American Towers, Inc. (ATC) and the Seminole County EMS/Fire Rescue Division for use of the ATC tower located on Longwood Hills Road for the purpose of training in fire and rescue operations.
29. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute the 2004 ISA Law Enforcement Championship Agreement, as shown on page ________, between Seminole County and Orlando-Cocoa ISA in the amount of $1,500.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Authorize scheduling a public hearing to consider an amendment to County Ordinance #97-54 extending the term for the implementation of the U.S. 17-92 CRA Redevelopment Plan was presented.
Commissioner Maloy stated he would like to know what the impact would be on the General Fund if this were extended for another 10 years.
Kevin Fall, Economic Development, addressed the Board to address Commissioner Maloy’s concerns.
Commissioner Maloy stated he feels a lot of this can be done through the General Fund if they see a project that needs to be done. He stated he feels uncomfortable tying up that much money from the General Fund. If there is a downturn of the economy, they might want to have those available for fire or public safety.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Fall advised the CRA funds could be used for public safety needs but in certain partnership opportunities.
Commissioner Henley stated he is not opposed to the CRA, but they have had approximately seven years and it concerns him that they are adjusting this for two more years and then ten after that. He stated he would rather see this approved for five years. That would allow staff time to speak to the communities in trying to get something done. If they go to ten years, they might be as lax in this time period as they were in the first five or six years in trying to move forward on this.
Chairman McLain stated the Board has identified the 17-92 corridor as the number one economic development project. The Board also knows the importance of that as a good transportation network for them to build quality housing and commercial opportunities along that corridor. He stated he would be more concerned that they are not committing a long period of time to this project. A long-time commitment to the project shows that they do have a revenue stream that can be committed to major projects that need to be accomplished. He said ten years is not a long time when it comes to a CRA. Revenue will not be generated for the first five or six years because it has to grow. He added he feels the important groundwork has been laid of getting everyone on board in developing a plan. He said he is comfortable with the CRA and he feels that the businesses and everyone living along that corridor understand that for them to develop their properties to fullest potential, they will need assistance from the CRA.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he would like to know what effect this will have on the long-term plan that they are trying to implement.
Mr. Grace stated the Board directed staff to come back with a financial plan to implement the Fern Park study. He stated before staff can prepare a financial plan, he needs to know if the CRA is going to continue to exist. He said he can determine whether that is a financial mechanism they can use to implement.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated the start up time can be extensive and in this case they are starting to see the results.
Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to authorize scheduling a public hearing to consider an amendment to County Ordinance #97-54 extending the term for the implementation of the U.S. 17-92 CRA Redevelopment Plan, with staff recommendations.
Districts 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Commissioner Maloy voted NAY.
Commissioner Henley asked if staff had any indication as to when they expect to see a plan.
Mr. Fall stated the preliminary plan can give them a ballpark estimate as revenues.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Henley, Mr. Fall advised all of the projects in the Fern Park implementation require a combination of funding sources and funding partners. He said he needs to know what they have before they can come before the table. He stated he can prepare hypothetical figures if the CRA is extended, and based on Property Appraiser projections that gives them that part of the equation. He stated he will need to work with the other funding sources. Staff actually looks at, with all the requirements, talking about potentially amending some boundary to the CRA and that is another public hearing.
Commissioner Henley stated one of the vital parts of that plan was the extension of Oxford Road and he doesn’t believe that is in the CRA. He stated he believes it would help the County to move that project forward if they consider amending that into the CRA.
Commissioner Morris stated most of the CRAs are successful. The delicate balance of having four cities in the County as partners in this makes it more interesting. The County took as much time debating and weighing the issues in putting the CRA in place as they have since its been in place. The extension was drawn to the fact that the citizens from Fern Park were in favor of the plan that they helped draft. He stated he would recommend that staff do twenty years, then they can do a ten-year compromise so the finances can be planned appropriately.
Commissioner Henley reminded the Board that he does not oppose the CRA, he was only looking for a mechanism to hold someone’s feet to the fire.
Chairman McLain stated the one thing they need to focus on is the CRA needs to have a big role in working with FDOT over the next five or six years. He stated there are some partnership opportunities during that period for retention and other things.
Mr. McMillan stated the proposed motion is to advertise a public hearing to extend the term for 10 years. The Board can advertise a public hearing for extending the term for 20 years and then pull it back to 10 years.
Commissioner Morris amended the motion to extend the term for 20 years, with Commissioner Van Der Weide agreeing to same.
Commissioner Maloy stated he would caution the Board that there are commercial properties along this corridor that they are tying up. That additional tax revenue, due to increase appraisals, will be going into separate funds and it will be removed from the General Fund. That would give them a lot of flexibility on future spending items. He stated he would really question that long of a commitment and tying up $40 million or so.
Districts 2, 3, and 5 voted AYE and agreed to extend the time period to 20 years.
Commissioners Maloy and Henley voted NAY.
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to authorize and approve the following:
30. Approve proposed settlement of cost
reimbursements relating to Parcel Numbers 174 and 175 of the Airport Boulevard,
Phase III, located at 2701 W. 25th Street, Sanford and Parcel Number
119 of the County Road 46A, Phase III, road improvement projects, located on
the southwest corner of County Road 46A and Old Lake Mary Road, in the amount
of $80,416.71, Shoemaker Construction
Co., Inc. and A.K. Shoemaker Family Limited Partnerships.
31. Approve and execute Purchase Agreement, as
shown on page ________, relating to Parcel Number 140 of the Lake Drive road
improvement project, located at the southwest corner of Lake Drive and Sunset
Road in unincorporated Seminole County, in the amount of $8,000.00, no fees,
costs or expenses incurred, Austin N. and Virginia Malcomb.
32. Authorize Binding Written Offer for Parcel
Number 103 in The Crossings Master Community Association, Inc., of the Lake
Emma Road road improvement project.
Under discussion, staff discussed with Commissioner Maloy the traffic light on Country Club and Airport Blvd. (Item #30).
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Mr. McMillan stated at the last meeting the Board approved an agreement with the State Attorney to represent the County in Code Enforcement actions. He stated there was a provision in the agreement that required “any negotiated settlement the State Attorney might reach, or any fine imposed that would be reduced, he would have to come to the Board to get authorization for same.” He said the State Attorney has struck that provision out and his office has agreed to eliminating that. He submitted a copy of the revised agreement (received and filed).
Chairman McLain recommended the Board review the revised agreement and Mr. McMillan can bring it up during the County Attorney’s briefing.
-------
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. McMillan advised the County has completed acquisition on Phase One of Lake Drive (Item #31), and the acquisition of Phase Two will be completed by the end of the year. It should go out to bid at that time. He stated he is expecting the award of the bid will be done sometime in January or February.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley to authorize and approve the following:
33. Approval of Expenditure Approval Lists, as shown on page _________, dated July 19 and 26, 2004; and Payroll Approval List, as shown on page _________, dated July 15, 2004.
34. Chairman to execute
the following Satisfactions of Judgment/Court Costs and Applications of
Indigency Fee:
Leon David Morgan,
#03-4753-CFA - $328
Kenneth Joyner,
#91-2574-CFA - $225
Kenneth Joyner,
#92-2882-CFA - $225
Wendy Sue Bergst,
#99-3164-CFB - $368, Court Costs and Application of Indigency Fee
Eric Rivera, #04-866-CFA
- $368, Court Costs and Application of Indigency Fee
35. Chairman to execute
the following Satisfactions of Judgment/Bail Bond Liens:
Hugh Christopher
Jackson and Accredited Surety & Casualty, #03-113MMA - $538
Daniel J. Barton and
Evergreen National Indemnity Co., #03-4960CFA - $1,038
36. Chairman to execute
the following Satisfactions of Judgment/Public Defender Liens:
Matthew Armstrong,
#98002273CFA - $200
Kathleen Hastie Baker,
#93000384CFA - $200
Kathleen Hastie Baker,
#93008852MM - $100
Michael L. Beil,
#00006618MM - $200
Hendricks Charles
Briggs, #04001813MMA - $50
Julia Brisbane,
#97001027CFA - $350
Mark Bryan Conley,
#04001119MMA - $100
Jessica Kopasz,
#04003580MM - $100
Jodie Laughlin,
#03004205MMA - $100
Carlos Lugo,
#98007379MM - $200
Carlos F. Lugo,
#98008147MM - $200
Martin (T.M.) Marrero,
#96001333CJA - $200
Jeff Alan Martin,
#97000294CFA - $350
Brenden J. McEvoy,
#00003089MM - $200
Joseph Ogden,
#87005872MM - $100
Glen George Peacock,
Jr., #P831081CFA - $350
Bradley M. Robertson,
#00000188MM - $225
Nicholas R. Rust,
#00014919MM - $100
Sean Scott,
#03002465CFA - $100
Donald Shuler,
#93000461CJA - $50
Michal A. Slechat,
#01009520MM - $250
Michal A. Slechta,
#01008516MM - $200
Vorchandra Stephens,
#03004037MMA - $260
Micheal Palmer Storm,
Jr., #03007389MMA - $100
Joshua Charles Warren,
#02001866CFA - $350
37. Approval of BCC Minutes dated July 13, 2004.
38. Authorize
each Commissioner to execute the List of Errors, Insolvencies, Double
Assessments & Discounts.
39. Noting, for information only, the following Clerk’s “received and filed”:
1. Memorandum to Sandy McCann, Commission Records, from Jean Abi-Aoun, Planning & Development, regarding P&D outstanding documents.
2. Memoranda to Jerry McCollum, County Engineer, from Henry Brown, Assistant County Attorney, regarding Direct Pay Request for the following cases: Seminole County v. Silver Lake Realty Company, et al and Seminole County V. Rybolt, et al.
3. Memoranda to Sandy McCann, Supervisor, and Marie McDuff, Senior Staff Assistant, from Debra Edge, Legal Assistant, regarding case of Kupiszewski v. Seminole County and case of Seminole County v. Centrex Corporation, et al.
4. Letter to Sandy McCann, Supervisor, from Gregory T. Stewart, Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., regarding case of Seminole County and City of Casselberry vs. Pinter Enterprises, Inc.
5. Satisfaction of Connection Fees, as shown on page _________, for the following projects: The Marketplace @ Seminole Towne Center; Midway Commerce Center Lot 26/Meals on Wheels; Lake Forest Section 17; and Oakhurst Reserve.
6. Conditional Utility Agreements, as shown on page _________, for sewer and water and sewer services for the following: Lake Jesup Woods Partnership; Chris Cor. LLC; DBM Puddles; Commercial Contractors Enterprises, Inc.; and Tradition Alafaya Ltd.
7. Customer Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Reclaimed Water Rates, and Reclaimed Water Flow, Distribution, Delivery and Spray Easement for The A. G. Mauro Company of Florida.
8. Development Orders, as shown on page ________, for the following: Paul Algeri; Michael Musarra; Barbara F. Ray & Jane F. Barbour; Roy A. Rogers; Jered W. & Cheryl L. Coakley; Kenneth A. & Sandra R. Lance; William & Dorothy Norman; Marchel Digiacomo; Richard Fields; John Michaud; Vimal Desai; Alfred Santiago; William Newton; Scott Bevis; William Cornaz; Michael DeLoach; Ruth Carrazana; James Giuliani; Fertakis International; Joann Schrum; Florida Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists; Dan & Michelle Carey; Eric & Lisa Torenviled; Dale & Jody Lightner; Jose & Staci Fragosa; and Valerie Blanchard.
9. Second Amendment, as shown on page _________, to IFB-3059-02, Bedrock Resources.
10. Memorandum to Sandy McCann, Commission Records Supervisor, from Sharon D. Peters, County Manager’s Office, regarding outstanding BCC documents.
11. Memorandum to Florida Hospital Board of Trustees, President’s Advisory Board Members, Foundation & Advisory Board Members, and Community Leaders from President Donald L. Jernigan regarding Florida Hospital Health Issues Brief.
12. First Amendment, as shown on page ________, to M-374A-04, Randall G. Tedder Construction.
13. Work Order #18, as shown on page _________, to RFP-4173-02, American Acquisition Title, Inc.
14. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to Work Order #12 for RFP-4173-02, American Acquisition Title, Inc.
15. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #64 for PS-590-01, Transportation Engineering Inc. dba TEI.
16. Work Order #3, as shown on page ________, to PS-599-01, GMB Engineers & Planners.
17. Purchase Agreement, as shown on page ________, for Lake Drive, Parcel #715, John T. Cathcart, per Binding Written Offer approved on June 8, 2004.
18. Fifth Amendment, as shown on page ________, to PS-333-96, Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc.
19. Memorandum to Mark Flomerfelt, Manager, from Assistant County Attorney Henry M. Brown regarding Direct Pay Request concerning the Lockhart Smith Canal.
20. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #6 for RFP-4173-02, American Acquisition Title, Inc.
21. Work Order #4, as shown on page ________, to PS-5134-02, CPH Engineers, Inc.
22. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to Work Order #12 for PS-594-01, Waste Energy Technology, LLC.
23. Work Order #7, as shown on page ________, to PS-5150-03, EMS Scientists, Engineers, Planners, Inc.
24. Work Order #9, as shown on page ________, to PS-373-97, Singhofen & Associates, Inc.
25. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to M-388-03, Rocket and Associates, Inc.
26. Amendment #1, as shown on page ________, to Work Order #77 for PS-590-01, Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc.
27. Amendment #1, as shown on page _________, to Work Order #4 for PS-576-00, Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc.
28. Work Order #15, as shown on page _________, to PS-5120-02, PBS&J.
29. Modification Number Two, as shown on page _________, to the Flood Mitigation Assistance Project Agreement, as approved by the BCC on June 24, 2003.
30. Letter to Seminole County from Dana Cole, FDOT, regarding improvements to SR 400 (I-4).
31. Memorandum to Sandra McCann from Kendra R. Curry, Legal Secretary, submitting the following documents, as shown on page _________, for Lake Drive: General Warranty Deed between the County and Gay L. Rotunno; Lawyers Title Policy Nos. A81-81-0142860 and A81-0142861; and Temporary Construction Easement between the County and Primera Iglesia Pentecostal De Casselberry, Inc.
32. Notice of hearing from Bankruptcy Services LLC regarding Century Communications Corporation.
33. Bids as follows: IFB-3092-04; CC-1240-04; CC-1242-04; and #2002-04.
40. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Budget Amendment Resolution #2004-R-145, as shown on page ________, recognizing $102,497 in additional FY 2003/04 SCAAP revenues and correspondingly increasing the Sheriff’s budget by an equivalent amount.
41. Approve expenditure of $1,000 from the Law
Enforcement Trust Fund to contribute to Women of Renewing Minds, Inc.
42. Approve and authorize Chairman to execute Budget Amendment Resolution #2004-R-147, as shown on page ________, in accordance with the provision of section 30.49(7), Florida Statutes, to transfer $160,000 in reserve for contingency funds allocated in the Sheriff’s FY 2003/04 adopted budget to the Sheriff’s Office operating account.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Matt West, Planning Manager, addressed the Board to present a request to reduce the lien on property located at 2951 5th Street, W. Sanford, James F. Sills, owner, deceased, to the administrative costs of $548.66 as calculated for Case #95-93-CEB; and to require the payment be made within 30 days and upon payment in full, authorize Chairman to execute Satisfaction of Lien. He stated representatives of Mr. Sills’ estate are in attendance. Staff is recommended that the lien be reduced and if payment is not made within 30 days, it will be reverted back to its original amount of $70,200.
At the request of Commissioner Morris, Mr. West explained why staff feels it should be reduced.
Commissioner Morris stated he feels that precedence is being set. He stated he is sure there are some good reasons as why it should be reduced.
Mr. West stated the lien is so high, it is almost the value of the property. If someone wanted to purchase the property, it would probably inhibit the property from being further improved or sold with that kind of burden on it.
Commissioner Henley stated he feels the Board has adopted guidelines for reducing liens. In this case, it doesn’t fit that guideline.
Mr. West stated the other option is to direct the attorney’s office to look at instituting foreclosure on the lien.
Mr. Grace stated another option is not to reduce it down to the bear minimum of the administrative cost. Hopefully, this will be incentive for people not to do that again.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Attorney Randy Bryan addressed the Board to state he is the attorney for Mr. Sills’ son and he is the heir of the estate. Over that time his son expended his own personal funds to clean this property.
Commissioner Morris stated there is a transfer of title from the prior owner through the estate.
Attorney Bryan stated it has not been done because of this lien. His son cannot determine the homestead status until this lien is resolved.
Chairman McLain stated what they have here is a case of a citizen, due to health or lack of funds, was unable to keep the property in a condition that the County felt it should be kept. The property owner has passed and his son has cleaned up the property and he will be taking over that property. He stated he feels it would be appropriate to accommodate staff’s recommendations.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated the problem was vegetation had grown over 24” as well as the owner’s vehicle. He stated he would have no problem going along with staff recommendations.
Commissioner Maloy stated he feels that a $70,000 fine for not mowing grass is excessive. He stated it has been a practice of this Board to seek compliance, therefore, he would be comfortable with the staff’s recommendations. He added the main thing now is that the property is cleaned up.
Chairman McLain recommended approving the request with staff’s recommendation based on the fact that the prior owner is deceased and it is an estate with a transfer to a new family member that has cleaned up the property.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to approve reducing the lien on property located at 2951 5th Street, W. Sanford, James F. Sills, owner, deceased, to the administrative costs of $548.66 as calculated for Case #95-93-CEB; and to require the payment be made within 30 days and upon payment in full, authorize Chairman to execute Satisfaction of Lien, as shown on page ________.
Under discussion, Commissioner Morris recommended amending the motion to contingent upon transfer of ownership of the property.
Commissioner Van Der Weide agreed to include that in the motion. Commissioner Maloy agreed to the amendment.
Attorney Bryson stated this is just a procedure with the Court and as long as the lien is in place it will provide a barrier in transferring the property over to the son. He stated he would prefer that upon payment of the $500 indicated in the option that the lien be removed so that they can proceed with transferring of the property to the son.
Mr. McMillan stated in this case the property will have to be transferred. It is in the estate and it will have to be transferred to someone. It is impossible that the current owner can maintain ownership, therefore, by law it will have to be transferred.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he will go back to his original motion.
Commissioner Morris stated as long as the intent is on the Record.
Chairman McLain stated this is based on the fact that the prior owner is deceased and property has to be transferred to the new owner and it is now cleaned up.
Commissioner Henley asked staff to revisit these types of situations. What they presently have in the guidelines is that the property must be bought in order to transfer the title.
Mr. Grace stated those broad guidelines don’t occur in every situation.
Chairman McLain stated this is an issue that should be dealt with.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman McLain stated the motion eliminates the requirement that the transfer take place prior to the lien being satisfied.
-------
Tony Walter, Planning, addressed the Board to present request to approve Final Master Plan for the Lake Jesup Woods PUD; located on the south side of Myrtle Street, 650’ east of Hester Avenue, and authorize Chairman to execute the Developer’s Commitment Agreement, Greg Duggan. He stated the Board approved the Preliminary Master Plan on August 12, 2003. The Plan and Developer’s Commitment Agreement comply with the conditions of the approved Development Order. There will be a 100 ft. natural buffer along Myrtle Street and a 50 ft. buffer along the western property line. The applicant will improve Myrtle Street from Hester Avenue east along the project property fronting Myrtle St. He stated 15.91 acres will be provided and a trail system will be incorporated. The applicant has agreed to work with staff during the site development process in identifying trees that need to be saved between adjacent lots.
District Commissioner McLain recommended approval.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to approve Final Master Plan for the Lake Jesup Woods PUD; located on the south side of Myrtle Street, 650’ east of Hester Avenue, and authorize Chairman to execute the Developer’s Commitment Agreement, as shown on page ________, Greg Duggan.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
No Report.
Mr. McMillan reviewed the last paragraph of Page 3, Section 4 of the Agreement with the State Attorney that the Board approved at their last meeting. He stated his office has agreed to eliminating the following: “provided, however, that the resolution or settlement agreements involving monetary restitution, payment of fines or forgiveness shall be subject to approval by the County.” He said it should read as follows: “the State Attorney shall have full authority to resolve all such cases as the State Attorney deems appropriate.”
Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to accept the change to the Agreement, as shown on page ________, with the State Attorney’s office relating to code enforcement cases.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
-------
The Chairman recessed the meeting at 10:30 a.m., reconvening at 1:30 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk, Eva Roach, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk, Sandy McCann, who were present in the Opening Session.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris 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.
REQUEST TO VACATE &
ABANDON,
Continuation of a public hearing to consider a request to vacate and abandon a portion of the unimproved right-of-way of Lanark Street, in Section 23, Township 20S, Range 30E, as described in the proof of publication, Brad Hester/Lowndes Drosdick, P.A.
Planner, Michael Rumer, addressed the Board to request a continuance of this item until August 24, 2004 because the required easements for the trail are still being worked on.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley to continue until August 24, 2004 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, consideration of a request to vacate and abandon a portion of the unimproved right-of-way of Lanark Street, in Section 23, Township 20S, Range 30E, as described in the proof of publication, Brad Hester/Lowndes Drosdick, P.A.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone approximately 5 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Dike Road and Bee Jay Cove from A-1 (Agriculture District) to R-1 (Single-Family Residential District), Norberto Arias, received and filed.
Planner, Tina Deater, addressed the Board to present the request, advising the property is zoned LDR and is programmed for a maximum of 4 units per net buildable acre. However, the application is subject to the lot size compatibility analysis. The analysis supports an R-1A classification. She further advised staff subsequently reviewed the numbers used in the analysis and determined that the property is predominantly surrounded by R-1 zoning. Staff believes that the results of the analysis are skewed by the fact that the entire 20.08 acres to the north of the property have a future land use of Public and are excluded from the analysis; and that some of the A-1 parcels at the southern edge of the 660 foot analysis area boundary are lacking water and sewer infrastructure and do not have direct access to a paved road. The lot size compatibility analysis is only one tool used by staff to determine the appropriateness of a zoning classification, and in this situation the requested R-1 zoning is appropriate for this area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. She added that the P&Z Commission also recommended approval.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt Ordinance #2004-29, as shown on page _______, approving rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture District) to R-1 (Single-Family Residential District), for approximately 5 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Dike Road and Bee Jay Cove, as described in the proof of publication, Norberto Arias.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
FOR
FOXWOOD PUD, UNICORP NATIONAL DEV.
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a major amendment to the Foxwood PUD, consisting of approximately 139.9 acres bounded by SR 436, Sand Lake Road, North Line Drive and Hunt Club Boulevard; a rezone from PUD to PUD; and an amendment to the Developer’s Commitment Agreement, Unicorp National Developments, received and filed.
Planner, Tina Deater, presented the request, advising the amendment consists of converting 1.44 acres of a tract approved for office use to commercial use, and reducing the required buffer on the east side of the 1.44 acres from 40 feet to 20 feet. She stated staff supports the buffer reduction and the approval of the amendment.
District Commissioner Van Der Weide advised he met with the applicant and he has no problem with the request. He added that the neighborhood also does not have a problem with it.
Jack Smith, Abbott Engineering representing the developer, addressed the Board to advise they will maintain a 20-foot natural, undisturbed buffer along the southeast portion of the site and on the northeast portion of the site, there will be a stormwater retention area and they are proposing to heavily landscape the area and provide for a buffer wall between that and the neighborhood.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to approve a major amendment to the Foxwood PUD; adopt Ordinance #2004-30, as shown on page _______, granting rezoning from PUD to PUD for approximately 139.9 acres bounded by SR 436, Sand Lake Road, North Line Drive and Hunt Club Boulevard, as described in the proof of publication, subject to Addendum #3, as shown on page _______, to the Developer’s Commitment Agreement, Unicorp National Developments.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
REQUEST TO VACATE &
ABANDON, ARGATE PROPERTIES, INC./
SEMINOLE FARMS TRUST IV/HAROLD HARTSTOCK
Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to vacate and abandon a 15’ x 850’ portion of the unimproved Wilson Avenue right-of-way running directly north of the Expressway entrance for Rinehart Road, in Section 28, Township 19S, Range 30E, Argate Properties, Inc./Seminole Farms Trust IV/Harold Hartstock, received and filed.
Planner, Denny Gibbs, addressed the Board to present the request, advising staff recommends approval of the vacate and acceptance of a 12’ wide right-of-way easement running north/south along Rinehart Road.
Jim McMullen, Engineer representing the applicant, addressed the Board to advise they concur with staff’s recommendation.
No one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley to adopt appropriate Resolution #2004-R-146, as shown on page _______, vacating and abandoning a 15’ x 850’ portion of the unimproved Wilson Avenue right-of-way running directly north of the Expressway entrance for Rinehart Road, in Section 28, Township 19S, Range 30E; and to accept a 12’ right-of-way easement running north/south along Rinehart Road, Argate Properties, Inc./Seminole Farms Trust IV/Harold Hartstock.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
REQUEST TO REZONE A-1 TO C-1,
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture District) to C-1 (Retail Commercial District) for approximately 7.92 acres, located northeast of the intersection of west SR 46 and Orange Boulevard, C&C Plaza LLC, received and filed.
Planner, Tina Deater, presented the request, advising the property is under the SR 46 Gateway Corridor Overlay Standards. She further advised staff recommends approval of the request.
No one spoke in support or in opposition.
Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt Ordinance #2004-31, as shown on page _______, approving rezoning from A-1 (Agriculture District) to C-1 (Retail Commercial District) for approximately 7.92 acres, located northeast of the intersection of west SR 46 and Orange Boulevard, as described in the proof of publication, C&C Plaza LLC.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.
Chairman McLain advised of the Winter Springs Tree Lighting Ceremony and the Orlando Philharmonic Concert at Central Winds Park to be held in November. He said the Executive Director of the Philharmonic asked that the County contribute $5,000 toward the cost of the ceremony. He stated that he believes this is a good thing to participate in with the City.
District Commissioner Morris stated he has not heard of this request, but will be happy to work with the City and the County Manager and then bring the request back to the Board for consideration.
-------
Chairman McLain advised he will be completing the County Manager’s 2004 Progress Review and will bring it back to the Board at their August 24 meeting.
-------
The Chairman advised that the groundbreaking ceremony for the City of Oviedo’s Shane Kelly Park Soccer Facility will be held this Saturday on August 14 at 9:00 a.m. at the corner of Lockwood Boulevard and SR 426.
Commissioner Morris advised that Governor Bush will be attending the Lincoln Day dinner on August 14, 2004 at the Lake Mary Marriott.
-------
Commissioner Henley expressed his thanks to the Board and the County Manager’s Office for the flowers sent to his brother’s funeral.
Commissioner Henley gave a brief update on LYNX, advising they are heavily involved in trying to get the money restored that has been cut.
The following Communications and/or Reports were received and filed:
1. Copy of letter dated 7/22/04 to Mr. & Mrs. Jones from Jane Peterson, Library Services Manager, re: appreciation of donation in memory of Marty.
2. Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (EDC) 2003-04 Business Development Sales, Marketing & Outreach Summary.
3. Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (EDC) June 2004 Activity Report.
4. Fax form letters dated 7/27/04 to BCC re: proposed land use change for Mikler Rd./Red Bug Rd. PCD from Elizabeth Tricker and Michele Metcalfe.
5.
Memorandum dated 7/16/04 to Chairman McLain from Dennis Joyner,
Supervisor of Elections, re: appointment of his replacement to serve on the
County Canvassing Board.
6. Copy of letter dated 7/28/04 to Ted Aulin from Joe Gasparini, Parks & Recreation Manager, re: appreciation of donation in memory of Novella & Pete Aulin.
7. Copy of memorandum dated 7/30/04 to Sandy McCann, Commission Records Manager, from Becky Noggle, Environmental Services Senior Coordinator, re: Submission into County Records.
8. Letter dated 7/26/04 (with attachment) to BCC from W.D. Morris, Orange County Housing Finance Authority, re: Authority’s 2003 Annual Report.
9. Copy of letter dated 7/28/04 (with attachment) to Frank Clifton, Casselberry City Manager, from Kevin Grace, County Manager, re: request for Animal Control Officers.
10. Copy of letter dated 7/27/04 to James E.C. Perry, Chief Judge, from Chairman McLain re: appointment of replacement for Dennis Joyner, Supervisor of Elections, to serve on the County Canvassing Board.
11. Notice of 8/12/04 City of Lake Mary public hearing-rezone re: property between US 17-92 and Weldon Blvd. (cc: County Manager, Planning & Development Director, Planning Manager, Elections Supervisor, Property Appraiser)
12. Notice of 8/4/04 Sanford Community Redevelopment Agency meeting.
13. Minutes of 7/20/04 Seminole County Parks & Recreation Advisory Board meeting.
14. Notice of 8/12/04 Wekiva Springs Road improvements (Wekiva Springs Ln. to Cutler Rd./Sabal Palm Dr.) Project Information Meeting.
15. Letter dated 7/29/04 to Chairman McLain from Chief Judge James E.C. Perry re: appointment to replace Dennis Joyner, Supervisor of Elections, on the Seminole County Canvassing Board (for the 8/31/04 primary and 11/2/04 general election) as Mr. Joyner is himself a candidate.
16. Copy of letter dated 7/28/04 to George Gilhooley, FL Dept. of Transportation, from Harry Barley, MetroPlan Orlando (MPO), re: MPO Plans & Programs Subcommittee discussions on the Regionally Significant Roadways list. (cc: BCC, County Managers, Public Works Director, County Engineer)
17. Copy of letter dated 7/29/04 to BCC from Bridgette Ross, Presidential Group South, Inc., re: installation of Presidential Group South, Inc. as the new property management firm for Magnolia Plantation HOA. (cc: BCC, Deputy County Manager [SS], Senior Planner-Transportation, Senior Planner-Data Programmer)
18.
Copy of letter dated 7/27/04 to BCC from FL Representative
John Quinones re: creation of a Central Florida Day at the Capitol in
Tallahassee. (cc: BCC, County Managers)
19. Parks & Recreation Contract for Services, as shown on page ______, with Peter Muller (Slow-pitch Softball Scorekeeper).
20. Seminole County Convention & Visitors Bureau July 2004 Hotel Occupancy Report.
21. Letter dated 7/28/04 to Chairman McLain from Michael Snyder, Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority, re: mail-back roadside survey card distributions on 8/3, 8/4 and 8/5/04 in Seminole and Orange Counties. (cc: BCC, County Managers, County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Senior Planner-Transportation)
22. Notice of 8/26/04 City of Lake Mary public hearing-conditional use re: 2894 W Lake Mary Blvd. (cc: County Manager, Planning & Development Director, Planning Manager, Elections Supervisor, Property Appraiser)
23. Letter dated 7/30/04 (with attachment) to Chairman McLain from Tricia Johnson, Orlando Regional Healthcare, re: M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Orlando and recent skin cancer statistics.
24. Elementary School Highlights from School Board of Seminole County for 8/10/04 Board meeting.
25. Copy of letter dated 7/30/04 (with attachment) to Kevin Grace, County Manager, from Frank Clifton, Casselberry City Manager, re: proposed use of County-owned parcel (enclave) on Seminola Blvd.
26. Copy of letter dated 7/29/04 to Glenda Hood, FL Secretary of State, from Mary Elizabeth McIlvane re: relocation of Seminole County Elections Precinct 59.
27. Copy of letter dated 8/2/04 (with attachment) to Gary Siegel, Esq., from Kevin Grace, County Manager, re: Contract FC 1125-00/BJC for Markham Woods Rd./Douglas Ave.
28. Copy of letter dated 7/28/04 to Editor, The Orlando Sentinel, from E. Everette Huskey, Huskey Development Co., re: funding crisis in public schools and impact fees.
29. Letter dated 7/30/04 (with attachment) to BCC from Ray Valdes, Tax Collector, re: FL Dept. of Revenue Summary of 2004/05 Budget from Seminole County Tax Collector’s Office.
30. Letter dated 7/30/04 (with attachment) to Chairman McLain from Charles Gautier, FL Dept. of Community Affairs, re: Comp Plan Amendment Ordinance #2004-025; DCA #04-1. (cc: Planning & Development Director, Planning Manager)
31. Copy of letter dated 7/30/04 to Larry Dale, Orlando Sanford International Airport, from Valerie Hubbard, FL Dept. of Community Affairs, re: Orlando Sanford International Airport Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement. (cc: BCC)
32. Letter dated 8/2/04 to Chairman McLain from Robert Dallari, Oviedo City Council Chairman, re: Commercial Development adjacent to the City of Oviedo near Slavia Rd. (cc: BCC)
33. Memorandum dated 8/4/04 to BCC from Jerry McCollum, County Engineer, and Pam Hastings, Public Works Administration Manager, re: evaluation of funding strategy for Orange Blvd. roadway and drainage improvements.
34. Fax dated 8/6/04 to Chairman McLain from Betsy Cushman re: noise complaint against property at 3511 Markham Woods Rd. housing a motocross track.
35. Letter dated 8/3/04 to BCC from Susan Doerner, City of Casselberry Commissioner, re: county parcel abutting the Casselberry CRA district. (cc: County Managers, County Attorney)
36. Notice of 8/17/04 Seminole County Public Information Workshop re: proposed sidewalk improvements for North Street (from I-4 to Palm Springs Dr.).
37. Copy of letter dated 8/6/04 (with attachment) to Frank Clifton, Casselberry City Manager, from Kevin Grace, County Manager, re: Executive Settlement Conference Report for San Pedro Annexation.
38. Copy of letter dated 8/4/04 (with attachment) to Valerie Hubbard, FL Dept. of Community Affairs, from Larry Dale, Orlando Sanford International Airport, re: Joint Planning Agreement with Seminole County, City of Sanford and the Sanford Airport Authority.
39. Copy of letter dated 8/5/04 to Commissioner Maloy from Gerald Seeber, Oviedo City Manager, re: Urban/Rural Boundary Charter Amendment.
Chairman McLain advised the Board is in receipt of a resolution from the City of Winter Springs concerning the proposed Home Rule Charter Amendment dealing with the Urban/Rural Boundary annexations scheduled for consideration at tonight’s meeting.
Mr. Grace stated he is in the process of reviewing the resolution. Discussion ensued.
-------
The Chairman recessed the meeting at 2:00 p.m., reconvening at 7:00 p.m., with all Commissioners and all other Officials, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Carylon Cohen, who were present at the Opening Session.
REZONE/ORANGE MALL PARTNERS LLC
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing (continued from May 11, 2004) to consider request to rezone from C-2 (Commercial) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District) on approximately 12.9 acres located in the Fern Park Shopping Center abutting U.S. 17-92 south of Fernwood Boulevard, Orange Mall Partners LLC, received and filed.
Chairman
McLain advised that the applicant has requested this request be withdrawn from
the agenda, so it will not be heard.
The staff was asked to notify any citizens who might attend the meeting
that this item would be withdrawn.
LARGE SCALE LAND USE
Proof
of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing
(continued from July 13, 2004) to consider transmittal of a Large Scale Land
Use Amendment from Office to PD (Planned Development) to the Florida Department
of Community Affairs, on approximately 27.2 acres, located on the northeast
corner of Orange Boulevard and CR 46A, Justin Pelloni, received and filed.
Chairman
McLain advised the applicant has requested a continuance to September 14, 2004.
Motion
by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to continue to
September 14, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the request
for transmittal of a Large Scale Land Use Amendment from Office to PD (Planned
Development) to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, on approximately
27.2 acres, located on the northeast corner of Orange Boulevard and CR 46A; as
described in the proof of publication, Justin Pelloni.
Under
discussion, Mr. West clarified that staff did not initiate the continuance but
discussed with the applicant that September 14 was the latest date to be
continued to in order to remain in this cycle.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
Continuation
of a public hearing from July 27, 2004, to consider Appeal against the Board of
Adjustment’s decision to deny a minimum lot size variance from 43,560 square
feet to 17,845 square feet, a front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 10
feet and a rear yard setback variance from 30 feet to 10 feet for Lot 14, Lee
Avenue; as described in the proof of publication, Scott Ryan.
Tony
Walter, Planning, addressed the Board to advise staff found that the applicant
also owns an adjacent piece of property (4.58 acres) that is abutting the
property in question, and if the properties were combined, that would negate
the need for the requested variances.
He quoted Policy FLU 3.2 which states the County shall continue to
resolve land use compatibility, environmental and infrastructure issues related
to antiquated plats by way of, but not limited to, the techniques of requiring
the combining of lots and allowing for replatting and vacating and abandonment
procedures. Based on this finding,
staff recommended that the Board of Adjustment deny the applicant’s
request. He said staff is recommending
the Commission uphold the Board of Adjustment’s decision.
Chairman
McLain determined that the appellant was not in attendance.
No
one spoke in support or in opposition.
Mr. Walter said the appellant
assured him he would be present tonight.
Whereupon, Chairman McLain suggested the Board continue this hearing to
the end of the meeting tonight.
Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by
Commissioner Morris, to continue this public hearing to the end of the meeting
tonight to see if the appellant might be in attendance at that time.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted
AYE.
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance amending the Seminole County Land Development Code which includes creating the Urban Conservation Village Overlay Zoning Classification, received and filed.
Mr.
Walter stated this is the second reading of the Urban Conservation Village
Ordinance. The first reading was July
27, 2004. He reviewed the responses and
recommendations (copy in the staff report) by staff for amendments to the draft
ordinance. He explained staff had put
in language that tennis, basketball, and pool amenities may not be more than
one acre or twenty percent whichever is less.
Staff has since struck that language, as they feel one acre is more than
adequate and anything less would probably not be feasible as a conservation
village.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Walter stated the staff did not address
lighting in the recreation area. That
could be an amendment if the Board wishes.
Danny
DeCiryan, 1581 Silk Tree Circle, President of the North Lake Jesup Community,
addressed the Board to state he is very concerned that this last minute change
of what can be put into the conservation area severely negates a lot of the
purpose and thoughts that have gone behind this. He stated all along in the discussions, it was decided that
passive uses in the greenway would be fine but active uses would not be
permitted. To now say an active use can
be done up to some point defeats the purpose, in his opinion. He said two and a half years ago, this was
called the Myrtle Creek Study and it was designed to protect the rural
character of the area. He said this is
an urban service area but that does not detract from the fact that the
residents were concerned because of the density, soils, transportation issues,
and all these other things were issues the residents were concerned about. Increasing densities have been an item of
concern for all the residents. If they
now try to start taking away from the greenway and conservation areas, the
local groups that had previously supported this would not be in support.
Chairman
McLain discussed that when you have a community of 100 homes and have children,
if you can have a basketball court for the children to play in their own neighborhood,
he thinks that’s an asset. He said the
Board is trying to make these communities friendly to the youth and
families. Discussion ensued.
Chairman
McLain stated he thinks as these projects go through the site plan review, the
neighborhood should be involved and have the role to give comments other than
in a public hearing. During further
discussion, he said he thinks the staff is going to notify the presidents of
each homeowner association involved, or any homeowner association or organized
group, of a meeting of the different neighborhoods to review new site plans on
new development in the area.
Bill
Holmes, 210 E. Highway 46, representing CPH Engineering and Acorn Dev.,
addressed the Board to state as they go through the process, to his knowledge,
everyone is noticed of the things that are going on and has a chance to give
input, particularly in the local community.
They are always welcomed at the DRC meetings. For this project, they already have a layout to see how they will
provide some of the features such as recreation areas. This is more detail that the Board probably
doesn’t wish to go through in this hearing.
Whereas, Chairman McLain said he doesn’t think the Board wants to look
at a particular site plan at this time, but get the ordinance in place so Mr.
Holmes can move forward with the application for the conservation village
process.
Mr.
Holmes said along Myrtle Street, most everyone has to give additional
right-of-way. This right-of-way is then
taken out of the calculation for additional density. He said they are going to provide the right-of-way, but as
compensation for that, they would like to be able to count that right-of-way
area for the initial 50% calculation.
Taking credit before the calculation will make the difference on this
project of probably one lot. Also, the
calculation will decrease the common area.
Regarding the trail system, he said when you get into private
subdivisions, this becomes a problem because of security. They don’t want to have public access going
into a private or gated community from a trails system. He explained to Commissioner Morris that as
you get into the project, you can see how the details are affecting the
project.
Commissioner
Van Der Weide advised that none of the Commissioners want to come up with a
project that is not viable. Mr. Holmes
said it’s not they can’t do the project, but he is asking for clarification on
some things.
Mr.
Holmes referred to page 8 of the ordinance, Sec. 30.484, and pointed out there
are a lot of things that are going to restrict the land usage and these will
have to be dealt with in the future with other projects, but not necessarily
with the subject project.
Mr.
Walter responded to Mr. Holmes that anything not covered specifically in this
ordinance is governed by the existing Land Development Code. Anything the State or Wildlife Commission
would deem to be preserved, or the rules and guidelines they require, would be
what staff would follow. That could be
included in the 50% open space.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Walter said nothing is in this ordinance
with regard to what happens to right-of-way that is dedicated. Chairman McLain explained that the developer
would no longer own the land as part of the County’s right-of-way, so it would
not be appropriate for them to use it as open space if it is not part of the
development itself.
Sandy
Bierly, 126 Hamlin T Lane, representing Acorn Dev., addressed the Board to
state how much the interconnecting will hurt the project. She said as long as it is external, that
would be great, but not the internal connectivity.
Chairman
McLain stated he thinks they want interconnectivity to the back of the
development and not just on the roadway.
Mr.
Walter answered Ms. Bierly that staff anticipates on the trail that as each
property develops, the developer would provide the trail through connection to
adjacent properties and through the property.
So, the developments would be building the trail. These would not be paved trails.
Ms.
Bierly discussed the costs for maintenance of the green areas. Chairman McLain explained to her that the
property being talked about already has development rights to build one unit to
the acre in traditional development. He
said this is not something being forced on her, and she does not have to abide
by the ordinance. He advised she can go
ahead and develop the property for the current land use and get the zoning for
one unit to the acre. The Board is
providing her the opportunity, if she wishes to take advantage of it, to get an
extra density credit. He explained the
ordinance is laying out the responsibilities to be met to get the extra credit,
but this is voluntary. She is not obligated
to do it.
Ann
Esterson, 1235 Myrtle Street, addressed the Board to state she has major
concerns because she owns almost half the property that could be developed in
this area. She reviewed her objections
as previously entered into the record as follows: there are too many restrictions in the ordinance that limit the
flexibility of design; they oppose the internal trails that force connectivity
between parcels; by allowing the community pool, you are allowing people to
have swimming access without having to build individual pools and use a lot
more chemicals, water, and so forth.
She said she also thinks a lot of the development should be allowed to
be designed by the developer and staff and not have everybody involved. She asked the Board to consider the personal
property rights of everyone, including herself as a property owner, the new
people who will be moving in, and those who are living in the area.
Upon
inquiry by Ms. Esterson, Chairman McLain advised that staff is working on the
plan to get the trails system from Hester to Sanford Avenue. He said in his opinion, there will be no
condemnations, but they will use existing right-of-ways. He explained the Commissioners don’t want to
have one project “skuttle” the entire trail program through the back of the
properties. He thinks connectivity is
needed around the back and front of the properties. Discussion ensued.
Commissioner
Morris stated to Ms. Esterson that the Board is changing the density to give
her (and others) incentive to do this type project, or she doesn’t have to do
it.
Robert
Jasmin, 1153 Myrtle Street, addressed the Board to state every time they draw
the line in the sand and think they have this done, up pops six more things the
developers want. He said he doesn’t
know how much more can be given on this project that has not already been
given. He said he appreciates the Board
taking a hard look at this and keeping it as they had it written last
week. It was workable and doable.
Mr.
Walter stated on putting language in the ordinance that they would have
notification to organizations to come in and meet with staff on a plan design
and to give comments, his suggestions would be that this be a policy and staff
would conduct a community meeting prior to any plan going to the P&Z and
they would take that input to the P&Z and to the BCC. He said they have a task force in place they
have been using for 2½ years. Chairman
McLain stated he thinks that’s a good plan.
Commissioner
Morris said he feels there are going to be some real issues. (1) One is the issue of lighting on the
tennis or basketball courts. He said it
would seem there would have to be limitations on reasonable times. Most homeowners associations put limits on
their activities, usually about one to two hours after dark. (2) The other issue is broadcast
lighting. He said shoebox lighting is
not done on tennis courts. That becomes
an issue because you can’t do what is normally done in a commercial
development.
Chairman
McLain said they can’t legislate lighting in the ordinance, but they can
anticipate how they will address that in the ordinance.
Mr.
Walter said currently in the ordinance the requirement that no light can be
bleeding off the property more than half a foot candle. With that, they could control the location
of where the lighting is. He said all
these things will come in a developer’s commitment agreement and on an
individual basis, they can set time limits and make that a part of the
homeowners association rules.
Chairman
McLain said on deleting the 20% from the ordinance, they must remember that if
the project is such a size that one acre could be more than 20% of the 50% open
space, they want to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Commissioner
Morris complimented Chairman McLain for his work the past two years on
this. He expressed appreciation to the
citizens, developers, and land owners for the civility they have had for each
other during this process. He said this
is one of the better, most innovative works the Board has done.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Walter explained the terminology for view
shed, scenic view shed and prominent view shed in the ordinance.
No
one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker
Request Forms were received and filed.
Written
Comment Form from Deborah Schafer was received and filed.
Under
discussion, Chairman McLain said regarding the limitation on active recreation,
he thinks they need to make sure it is restricted to a point that they are not
overburdening the passive areas in the open space. He thinks staff has come up with a good plan of no more than one
acre, and he has suggested this be limited to basketball, tennis courts, and
community pools.
Commissioner
Van Der Weide stated he did not have a problem with the staff
recommendation. He is wondering if this
product is going to be a viable one in the future. He thinks staff gave reasonable recommendations for some of the
issues brought back for a change.
District
Commissioner McLain asked for a motion to approve the staff recommendations
with the two changes discussed--limitation of no more than one acre for active
recreation to include basketball courts, tennis courts, and community pools,
and the clarification that staff is directed, as a policy, to have a community
meeting on projects as they come forward.
Motion
by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to adopt Ordinance
#2004-32, as shown on page _______, amending the Seminole County Land
Development Code with the changes listed by the District Commissioner and
reflected by the staff comments and recommendations as follows: including two definitions for active and
passive recreation; exclude privacy fences from the 140’ setback and clarified
that the privacy fences could be within 120’ of the center line; delete the two
words “up to” in referring to the density; the issue of active uses is limited
to one acre; and remove the language that says “20%, whichever is less” (it’s
just one acre); lighting concerns will be brought up during the site plan
review.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman
McLain recessed the meeting at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened it at 8:30 p.m.
Chairman
McLain stated during the last public hearing, he failed to show a sign that he
would like the Board to see. He
displayed the sign for the Board’s perusal.
He said the sign was developed by staff and, if there are no objections,
he will ask the Road Department to put up the signs at the entrance to each
side of the Eureka Hammock Urban Conservation Village.
The
Board had no objections.
Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider approval of an Ordinance proposing amendments to the Seminole County Home Rule Charter, through referendum vote, that will designate an Urban/Rural boundary, establish a Rural Area and provide that the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan shall control land use within said rural area, received and filed.
Chairman
McLain thanked and welcomed all members (Mayors, Commissioners, and
Administrators) of the different cities in attendance tonight.
April
Boswell, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to state staff has provided a new
ordinance package (copy received and filed) with revised language clarifying
what the ordinance entails. She gave
details of what was included in the package and what is different. She explained that two different maps with
the corresponding legal descriptions are included. One map shows the rural boundary around the entire rural
area. The line next to Lake Jesup is
drawn to incorporate properties that have already been annexed into the cities
of Winter Springs and Oviedo. The
second map and legal description takes out those annexed properties so they are
outside the rural area. The two maps
are presented for the Board to make the decision which map and legal
description best meets the objective and which one is to be forwarded with the
ordinance. Ms. Boswell advised the
memorandum (copy received and filed) in the package from the County Surveyor,
Gary Leise, is a short list of scrivener’s errors that need to be corrected
regarding the rural boundary legal description so this can be included in the
ordinance.
Ms.
Boswell reviewed the changes in the ordinance as follows: Page 3, Item (g); Page 4, Section 3a.; Page
5, Section 3b.; Page 6, Section 4(a).
She also reviewed the background of this item and how the proposed
charter amendments will work to coincide with the goal of the establishment of
the rural area boundary, as listed in the staff report. Ms. Boswell also reviewed the charter amendment
process given in the staff report. She
stated staff recommends the Board approve this ordinance.
Commissioner
Henley discussed with Ms. Boswell his concern regarding the change on Page 3
Section (g) of the ordinance. Ms.
Boswell stated the intent is not to imply staff is seeking to amend the
boundary, but there may be unforeseen reasons to modify the line.
Matt
West, Planning Manager, addressed the Board to state the Comprehensive Plan has
a set of policies and tests to move the line.
He said these are very rigid policies and requirements, and the need to
move the line must be demonstrated.
DCM
Don Fisher addressed the Board to state the intent is to provide an extra layer
of protection, an extra check on any application for an amendment that may be
made and is not meant to be the static line to prevent anything from happening
in the future. He explained there is
some flexibility.
Chairman
McLain stated he understands the ordinance was designed so that the County
would have some say in land use changes if cities annexed into the rural area;
and the County would be able to make sure they protect the integrity of the
rural area and make anything compatible the city might wish to develop in the
rural area.
Mayor
Russ Hauck, City of Altamonte Springs, addressed the Board to state he is withholding
judgment on the ordinance. He
understands it might be more preferable to have more time to consider this, but
he is confident they can work this out either way. If the ordinance were not passed, he believes the City and County
have a strong enough relationship and track record that they could work out the
appropriate agreements.
Mayor
Bruce Pronovost, City of Casselberry, representing the City and the
Mayors/Managers Group, addressed the Board to state he echoes Mayor Hauck’s
comments about the County. He said it
is in the spirit of cooperation that they are here tonight. He stated they have a number of different
concerns about the potential negative impacts this proposal has. He said home rule is very important to the
municipalities. He submitted a
Resolution (not received and filed) that the Casselberry City Commission
adopted last night for the Board’s review.
He said the Mayors/Managers have met and know there are issues and
conflict points regarding urban and rural boundaries and there are impacts on
the school system as well. The charter
amendment is akin to one party taking action that negatively impacts
another. The end result may be more
conflict. The Mayors/Managers Group
believes they need to sit down with the County and work harder and develop
mutual solutions. The City of
Casselberry supports the solution as proposed by the Mayors/Managers. He referred to page 2 of the City Resolution
stating the City desires to commence a joint planning exercise on a county-wide
basis which will allow the County, Cities, and affected property owners an
ample and adequate opportunity to formally study and review the issues related
to the protection and development of rural areas and the orderly growth of
urban areas located within Seminole County.
The City Commission also desires to implement solutions that are well
planned and mutually beneficial to all parties. The intricate stakeholder is the school system. He asked the Board to use time as their
ally. He asked that the County use the Charter
Review Commission as the forum to look at this issue. At the Mayors/Managers meeting they viewed, what he considers a
good step forward by the City of Winter Springs, having a moratorium to make
the County Commission feel more comfortable in delaying this. He said in the spirit of cooperation,
working together, and partnership they request the Board to reject the charter
amendment and join the cities and the School Board in analyzing the issue and
developing solutions that will be beneficial to all the stakeholders involved
and one that is long-term that they can all be proud of.
Chairman
McLain stated the Board feels there is not an equal playing field. When cities annex property within the
county’s rural boundaries, the County doesn’t have the mechanism in place to
protect the quality of life or the compatibility of the rural homeowners and
residents. The County wants to have an
equal playing field to sit down and work together to come up with the solutions.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Fisher stated there is nothing in the ordinance
that would prohibit the Cities and County from negotiating joint planning
agreements on any aspect of planning.
Mr. McMillan added if the charter
amendment were passed, it would essentially mandate cooperation between the
County and Cities because the County would retain comprehensive land use
authority and the Cities would retain zoning authority. The two entities would have to work together
with whatever happens on the property.
Now, if the property gets annexed, the County has no say and will not be
able to do anything independently if this were to pass and neither could the
Cities.
Mr. McMillan said it is basically
true that the Cities cannot contract away their legislative authority to annex
or any other legislative authority.
Commissioner
Morris advised that a rural study is being done now under the County’s EAR
study where the County is doing an outreach to the entire community in the
buffering areas, including Oviedo and Winter Springs, to the extent those
cities want to participate.
Additionally, everything that is done at the County Commission level in
the public hearing process includes any interested party in the County.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. McMillan advised the ultimate definition of
home rule, as far as the referendum vote, would be the citizens of the County
voting on how they want the County to operate.
Whereupon, Commissioner Morris said this is the ultimate form of democracy,
which the charter contemplates. He
noted that it was the County Commission that asked for the second map to
exclude the areas that have already been annexed as a point of fairness.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman McLain, the Board had no objections to using the
second map discussed with all incorporated areas outside the rural boundary as
they are currently annexed into a city.
Upon
inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mayor Hauck said he understands the state of
intent is that with this ordinance, the rural area cannot expand and the
zonings and rezonings cannot affect the City of Casselberry; however, he said
with the speed this is moving and the nature of it changing, this is a moving
target. He said they have not had the
opportunity to properly analyze and understand this. Responding to Chairman McLain’s comments, Mayor Hauck stated the
charter amendment creates an uneven playing field. Both these arguments are the ample reason for the County to join
hands with the cities and study this.
John
Litton, City Manager of Lake Mary, addressed the Board to state his City
Commission has not had the opportunity to discuss this, that’s how fast this is
moving; and he is concerned about that from a public policy perspective. They have not even had the opportunity to
look at the final document until tonight.
It looks like this is an issue that really started a long time ago and
it probably involved one of their sister cities more than anyone else. This just didn’t happen in July and now all
of a sudden, they are being forced to deal with it. He has a real concern without knowing what the overall intent of
the document is or what the County is trying to do. As he understands, there is going to be a lot of power given to
three county commissioners at some time to play with the line--not to expand
it, but reduce it if they want to and for whatever reason they want to. He just thinks it’s important the Cities and
County work together and they can do that.
He thinks Winter Springs extended that opportunity in the
Mayors/Managers’ meeting.
Mayor
Thom Greene, City of Lake Mary, addressed the Board to state personally he
supports the Board’s concept of the rural preservation zone in eastern Seminole
County. However, they do have a
question about the method the Board is going to use to do it. He explained the City of Lake Mary has a
long, standing support for preservation.
They do have a problem with Section 3c., which gives the County the
final authority in approving all changes to the future land use, regardless whether
those lands are located within the County or City. They don’t think this needs to be done in such a drastic
manner. There are other opportunities
for resolution using the Mayors/Managers Group or any other organizations that
are willing to step forward. He asked
the Board to consider what Mayor Pronovost said as an alternative way to
resolve the issues and deny or table this ordinance until this can be worked
out.
Mayor
Butch Bundy, City of Longwood, addressed the Board to state he thinks the
changes the Board has made so far go a long way to alleviating the concerns he
has as they directly impact the City of Longwood. However, if this impacts one city, it does have an impact on all
cities. If this amendment passes, it
does take away some home rule authority from the cities. The City of Longwood residents voted to
establish a city charter. This
amendment will allow the residents in the unincorporated Seminole County to
supercede the city charter. He said
this is not home rule. Even if the
residents of Longwood voted against the amendment, they would still be bound by
it. He said quality leadership involves
an absolute compulsion for making intelligent decisions, based upon facts
rather than impulse and impatience.
They need the cities and county to rededicate themselves to intelligent
decision-making. He described the CAP
(Citizens Awareness and Participation) Program used in the City of
Longwood. He said he is fully in
support of delaying this action and he pledged all the cooperation the Board
asks for from the City of Longwood. He
advised he was speaking on behalf of the City, and although the City Commission
was unable to act on a resolution before the Board acted, they did discuss this
fully. He thinks with more time, they
can develop a more comprehensive process that will involve all the affected
parties.
Commissioner
Morris clarified that the County Charter does supercede all the cities and that
has nothing to do with the proposed amendment.
He explained the voters voted in 1989 to make Seminole a charter county.
Commissioner
Henley stated they all need to also recognize that what a city does impacts
people and situations outside the boundary from the standpoint of schools,
roads, water, transportation, and such.
Commissioner
Van Der Weide expressed that the Board is not here to argue with every mayor
and manager, but to get their input and they appreciate their opinions and what
they are doing.
Gerald
Seeber, City Manager of Oviedo, addressed the Board to state the Oviedo City
Council had the opportunity to discuss the proposed charter change eight days
ago. He believes the majority of the
Council share the County’s concerns with regard to the impact on rural
areas. The loss of home rule authority
did trouble the Council members. They
expressed thoughts that strong cities make for a strong county. The Council feels that though they have
abided by the terms of the joint planning agreement, it seems to not be
recognized at this point. The Council
has not had the opportunity to review this and they would like more time to do
so and have input. He asked the Board
to postpone consideration of the ordinance.
They just received the new ordinance tonight with some of the language
and have not had the chance to digest it.
He provided a map (copy received and filed) for the Board, and said he
thinks the Board addressed it with their policy decision made tonight to
incorporate all of the areas within the city within the urbanized area. He asked why the boundary in the ordinance tonight
doesn’t match up well with the joint planning agreement the County entered into
with the City five years ago. He said
if they move forward with the ordinance, the City of Oviedo would rather see
the County use the JPA boundary. He
submitted a copy of his letter (received and filed) to Mr. Grace with attached
suggested changes to the ordinance. He
said they look forward to working with the County in a collaborative rather
than confrontational mode, and the City stands ready to participate in that process.
Mayor
Walters, City of Oviedo, addressed the Board to state he thinks Mr. Seeber
reflected the tone and spirit of what the City of Oviedo is thinking and he did
represent the views and ideas the Council transmitted.
Attorney
Anthony Garganese, City of Winter Springs, addressed the Board to state the
City’s objection to the ordinance. He
requested the County Commission defer this matter. He said the Winter Springs Commission held its meeting last night
and adopted a Resolution (not received and filed) that was forwarded previously
to the Board. The City shares the
County Commission’s concerns regarding the rural areas of the County and that
they need to have orderly, urban growth.
In their resolution, the City is asking the County Commission to defer
this matter and engage in a joint planning approach regarding the issues the
County Commission has raised. The City
Commission is willing to consider a status quo moratorium regarding land use
changes in the affected areas in the eastern boundaries of the City. He asked why would the County make a
decision to put the ordinance on the ballot without getting the report on the
rural study so they could make well-informed policy decisions.
Chairman
McLain asked Mr. Garganese what guarantees could he give that the County could
have that status quo and no movement in annexations or land use changes until
they can have the time the City is requesting.
Whereas, Mr. Garganese said he understands the County can enter into an
interlocal agreement with municipalities regarding comprehensive planning, and
he thinks that would be one approach they could consider. Chairman McLain said he thinks one of the
problems is that the County has not been able to get a joint planning agreement
with the City of Winter Springs.
Commissioner
Morris discussed the failed attempt of the County to enter a tri-party
agreement with the Cities of Winter Springs and Oviedo that occurred five years
ago when Winter Springs left the negotiation table. He advised the County has still not been able to enter into an
agreement with Winter Springs.
Regarding the rural study, he explained this is an update required by
the Comprehensive Planning process and the County asks for citizen
participation on it. But this is not
some new study.
Mayor
John Bush, City of Winter Springs, addressed the Board to state he wasn’t Mayor
when the issue came up that Commissioner Morris just mentioned. He said it is a new Commission in Winter
Springs now. No one from the County
Commission has ever asked him if they could get together and do an
agreement. He said he would be willing
to do so and feels Deputy Mayor Miller and the other Commissioners would be
willing as well. He said they were
shocked by what has happened because they received the notice the day of the
meeting. They have now seen the third
change in the ordinance and have not had the time to look at it. He thinks it is going to be hard for the
County to educate the public. What the
County is doing is really affecting only two cities, but they are asking the
entire County to vote on it. He asked
the Board to delay this and they have his pledge that Winter Springs will work
with them on this. He thinks they are
using an awfully heavy hammer to punish all the cities because the County
appears to have a problem with Winter Springs, and he doesn’t think that’s fair
to the other cities.
Commissioner
Morris advised what brought this matter up was a request by the City of Winter
Springs to the St. Johns River Water Management District in June because the
time was expended with the St. Johns District to expand the urban services
district to provide urban services (water and sewer) to Black Hammock. The County found out because of the
notification process. He said that
would have completely changed the Black Hammock area. This matter was brought before the Board on July 13 and that’s
when they understood the serious nature of what was occurring. He explained the expansion period is one
year before you have to respond to St. Johns.
The election period under the Charter requires any action being taken
must be taken in a General Election. He
said the next General Election is two years away. He apologized to Mayor Bush for not personally giving him this
explanation.
Mayor
Bush said he learned at the Mayors/Managers’ meeting about the utility
department’s request. He said if, at
that point, Commissioner Morris would have contacted one of the elected
officials, he thinks the City Commission would have addressed it. He said he can’t speak for the previous
Commissioners, but he knows this Commission is different; they have a better
congeniality for working together and wanting to cooperate. He thinks they could have avoided all this
and still accomplished what everybody wants to accomplish.
Attorney
Garganese stated with respect to the water map, that is part of the 10-year
plan, which the Dept. of Community Affairs and St. Johns Water Management
District is requiring municipalities to engage in. He said there are no capital improvement projects pending in the
City of Winter Springs regarding water expansion in that area. It was a plan that was supposed to do
hypothetical projections for a period of time.
Commissioner
Morris said he would not call it hypothetical; it says this is where the
district is going to go. Whether the
plan is funded or not, it goes to the intent of what the municipality was going
to do.
Win
Adams, 105 Springwood Place, addressed the Board to state he personally thinks
it is a mistake to usurp the authority of other elected officials in the
Cities. His concern is that any
conflicts with the Cities or the School Board will hamper the ability to
attract new business and capital investment to Seminole County. He asked the County and City Commissioners
if they were living up to the spirit of the Intergovernmental Planning
Coordination Agreement of 1997, which was to be a spirit of cooperation between
the Cities and County with communication among all. With regard to the charter amendment, he asked what would happen
if they run into situations regarding stormwater and water rights.
JoAnne
Rebello, 301 Loch Lomond Avenue, addressed the Board to state she is opposed to
placing this amendment on the November ballot.
She said it appears the County Commission is in a rush to put before the
voters this amendment that will adversely affect the municipalities. She believes there are those who see this as
a tool to apply leverage to the Cities to abide by where a select few think
development is needed or warranted. She
said the Wekiva area is not addressed and she asked is that now considered
urban. She asked what about those who
have purchased property west of the imaginary line; must they move to the
eastern side to be considered rural.
Joe
Hurley, 2290 Orange Street, addressed the Board to state he has property in
Black Hammock and he doesn’t support this charter amendment because of the
private property rights. He told of his
benefits of being incorporated into the city.
Jim
Logue, President of Black Hammock Association, 3205 Elm Street, addressed the
Board to state he appreciates the Board initiating this proposal. He said he supports the charter
amendment.
Mr. Logue submitted a Written
Comment Form for Jody Wolf in support of the ordinance.
Upon inquiry by Mr. Logue, several
people in the audience raised their hands in support of the amendment. Mr. Logue said some cities have come ripping
through their rural areas and for the most part, they have been defenseless to
do anything about this. He doesn’t
think this will negatively impact the citizens of the cities, and he thinks the
voters can figure that out. He doesn’t
think any delay is necessary.
Roberto Gaier, 2220 Orange Street,
addressed the Board to state they must have a higher authority such as the
County and State government to oversee lower governments. He said Black Hammock is the livelihood for
wild animals and such. If they do
expansion of development, they will push all the animals away. He said bigger does not mean better and
there has to be a more orderly way than cities expanding their territory, and
changes in property or zoning. He said
Black Hammock should not be changed.
Stanley Stevens, representing the
Southeast Seminole County Voters Association, 377 River Woods Trail, addressed
the Board to state he is all in favor of anything to protect the rural
area.
Bill Daniel, 2075 Palm Avenue,
addressed the Board to state he believes it is in the best interest of
everybody if they support putting this issue on the ballot and let the people
make the decision.
Jay Jurie, Sanford resident, addressed
the Board to state he thinks this proposal does not go far enough and should
encompass the entire County. He said
something needs to be done and the Board is stepping up to the plate to do it.
Richard Creedon, President of the
Geneva Citizens Association, 1172 Apache Drive, addressed the Board to state
the policies of the adjacent cities, with the potential to impact the integrity
of rural areas, are set by city residents only. They, in the rural areas, do not have a vote on this process
except by the County Commission; therefore, the proposed amendment empowers all
users--of the cities and county. He
said they would prefer that the boundary line be on the west side of the SR 46
Lake Jesup Bridge. He stated the
citizens of Geneva urge the County Commission to place the amendment on the
November 2004 ballot. Mr. Creedon’s
written comments were received and filed.
Rocky Harrelson, 225 Carolina Way,
addressed the Board to state he fully supports what the Board is doing and he
appreciates they are trying to protect the rural area to the east. He responded to comments by the mayors. He reminded them that this is still
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
No one else spoke in support or in
opposition.
Speaker Request and Written Comment
Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner Henley stated he
understands the concern the cities have from the standpoint of not having
adequate notification, etc., but this Board has worked long and hard to try to
get agreements to protect the area and this proposal is the result of their
inability to reach an agreement. He
supports this proposal because it is an effort to get a long-term
agreement. This proposal does not
prohibit annexation and it does not prohibit joint planning agreements to
implement the ordinance; and it is not taking away any authority of the
cities. It is asking the citizens to
decide who will make the final decision when there cannot be agreement between
the city and county over that land use.
He really doesn’t see this as a threat.
He added that from the standpoint of the time table, the cities do have
a legitimate complaint.
Chairman McLain said the second
meeting in August is the deadline for the Board to put this on the ballot. They want to consider that if they want more
input or want to make a decision tonight.
Commissioner Van Der Weide stated
there is no doubt they have to protect the rural area and it has not been
protected. He thinks it is going to
take the vote of the citizens to do that.
He feels bad that the cities weren’t notified in writing but he feels
the Board has every right to be doing what they are doing and feel they were
forced into doing it to protect the rural area. He has no problem with wanting to wait till the next meeting and
giving staff more time to work out the boundary issues
Commissioner
Morris stated he would be happy if the Board wanted to take action in two weeks
or if they do so tonight. He asked if
they would close the public hearing.
Whereupon, Mr. McMillan advised the Board could still ask questions of
anybody they wish to. Commissioner
Morris said he would prefer to give any opportunity for any additional comments
or any additional review.
Chairman
McLain said he supports the Board moving forward with this. He just wants to make sure they all have the
information.
Commissioner
Morris continued the discussion in favor of the ordinance.
Motion
by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to continue to August
24, 2004, 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, the public hearing to
consider an Ordinance proposing amendments to the Seminole County Home Rule
Charter, through referendum vote, that will designate an Urban/Rural Boundary,
establish a Rural Area and provide that the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan
shall control land use within said rural area; as described in the proof of
publication.
Under
discussion, Chairman McLain said at the meeting, the Board will address the
issue on the legal descriptions. He
said the Board is in unison in moving this ordinance forward.
Commissioner
Maloy stated this is giving everyone the proper time to take a look at the
ordinance. He said he would feel a lot
more comfortable with the wording of it with the changes that have been made.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
-------
Chairman McLain recessed the meeting at 10:28 p.m. and reconvened it at 10:43 p.m.
Proof
of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to
consider a Small Scale Land Use Amendment from SE (Suburban Estates) to PD
(Planned Development) and Rezone from A-1 (Agriculture District) and PCD
(Planned Commercial Development) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) on
approximately 4.92 acres located on the northeast corner of the intersection of
Orange Boulevard and Missouri Avenue; and Major Amendment to the 4.72 acre
Fossitt Business Park Planned Commercial Development Preliminary Site Plan;
Jamela Russell, received and file.
Tina
Deater, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to state if the amendment to the
PCD is approved, the entire project will total approximately 9.64 acres. Staff is recommending the conditions
approved on January 27, 2004, remain the same except for four changes
identified in the staff report as Development Conditions C-1, C-2, C-5 and
C-7. The Orange Boulevard Special Study
recently updated by the Planning Division recommends that the corner of
Missouri Avenue/Orange Boulevard should be the demarcation between residential
and non-residential uses along Orange Boulevard. The subject property is the major transition point between the
residential and non-residential uses; therefore, appropriate buffers and
transitional uses are imperative. The
building sides oriented toward Missouri should be compatible with potential
residential uses on the west side of Missouri.
Therefore, in addition to the original conditions approved in January,
staff is also recommending approval of the rezone, Small Scale Land Use
Amendment, and PCD amendment with four additional conditions that are included
in the Development Order, included in the staff report as A1-25, B, and
C1-20. Ms. Deater read all the
conditions into the Record as listed in the Development Order. Discussing Condition C5, Ms. Deater advised
that the District Commissioner suggested that an additional four feet of wall
be extended to where the proposed end of the retention pond is, across the end
of the parking lot. Staff does not
object to this condition, but it is not part of the proposed development
order. This will have to be made a part
of the motion if the Board wishes to make that an additional condition of
approval. She also advised for
Condition C11, that the property to the east referred to is not going to be
included in the PCD as part of this proposed rezone, land use and PCD
amendments, so if this item is approved, this condition can be stricken.
Chairman
McLain clarified that Condition C13 means 0.5 foot candles of spillover off the
property.
Ms.
Deater reviewed the P&Z recommendation for approval with three
changes.
Commissioner
Morris questioned why not run the wall the entire length of the property to
have continuity and not have a view into the property. Chairman McLain answered that is why he
suggested the turn-back wall of 12 feet and the landscaping would be around the
pond rather than the wall at the pond area.
He said they could put in the wall and not have the landscaping around
the pond.
Mr.
West stated it was staff’s suggestion to have landscaping around the pond
rather than the extension of the wall.
He said the property owner to the north objected to having the wall
along the property line, and that was another reason for the staff
recommendation. During discussion with
the Board, Commissioner Morris suggested curving the wall, bringing it short to
the northern edge of the pond and then have a return. Whereupon, Chairman McLain agreed that is an option.
Jamela
Russell, applicant, 1555 Missouri Avenue, addressed the Board to show a picture
(received and filed) of the 105 year-old home they are trying to preserve. She said it is a very short street and if
they were to put the wall up, they would wall in the other property
owners. That was the reason to go to
the landscaping. She discussed the idea
by Chairman McLain to go to the north side behind the building and said she has
no problem with a 12-foot return there.
She said the wall that goes along Missouri has a height of trees of 14
to 16 feet with an 8 to 10-foot spread, so this is not just a six-foot wall but
is a high screen. They like the idea of
a return wall with the continued landscaping to the north end. They have no objection to the site distance. She showed an exhibit (received and filed)
of the sight line from Missouri and said they are interpreting the meaning as
an average car going down the road will not be seen. She said they came up with some good ideas about limiting the
size of the doors for ventilation purposes.
They do not have a confirmed tenant in the building. This is flex space and they will be building
a shell as they are not sure yet what the use will be. She showed picture (received and filed) of
the 105-year old home and said although they have drawn up a plan that shows
them holding the 100 year flood, that is because they did not have an
opportunity for an easement for piping.
She said she doesn’t want a
development order that says they must rip all that out and put up a
buffer. She suggested the language on
the buffer read that if they must go to the larger retention pond, it would
exclude the house as a buffer. If they
can preserve the house and it remains the natural screen, she believes that’s
what everyone wants to do.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. West said the simplest language is if the
applicant obtains a St. Johns stormwater permit that allows a smaller retention
pond and allows the home to remain, it could remain as long as it met the
single family requirements of A-1 zoning.
Bruce
Andersen, 1730 Perch Lane, addressed the Board to state the June 3 letter in
the agenda packets summarizes what they have been going through for the last
year and a half with this project and the continuous support by the BCC, staff,
and the P&Z for the things the residents have been asking for. Tonight would be a reversal of that if the
Board approves this request. They are
asking for an extension of the wall and buffer and to keep this an
office/warehouse. The conditions
proposed by staff turns this into a warehouse.
He said they worked on this to not have the truck side on Missouri. He stated he designed the wall and buffer to
hide car activity with the office building, but not to hide trucks. He explained that on the other side of the street
will be homes looking at this development.
It makes sense for the Board to be sensitive that this be the
office/warehouse side facing them and let the wall extension block the view of
the back of the warehouse and the retention pond. He asked the Board to keep the requirements they had before that
the car side of the building will face them; and extend the wall and buffer as
before so they are not looking into a chain link fence and two-foot high
hedge.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. West reviewed the landscaping requirements
around the pond.
John
Ray, 1751 Perch Lane, addressed the Board to state St. Johns Estates is a
unique gem in Seminole County. They
recognize the value of their property and asked the Board’s help to protect
that value. His problem is that all of
a sudden there are changes. He asked
the Board to consider what was previously agreed to by all the parties.
John
Thompson, 4575 Canal Drive, addressed the Board to state the community outcry
seems not to have mattered. He said Mr.
Fossitt’s group keeps comimg up with new changes to an already agreed upon
proposal. The Fossitt group seems to
get their changes without compromise, and it seems the only groups that get
consideration are the ones with legal representation. He said his attorney contends that the constant changing from the
original agreement has a legal basis, which is an option for their group. In his opinion, they just want what was
originally agreed upon.
Lise
Templin, 1761 Beacon Drive, addressed the Board to state they have to remember
that all of them were against the project from the start. They made major concessions and the decision
that were made on January 27, 2004, should be kept that way. They do not want roll-up doors and do want
the building the way it was decided in January. She believes they have been lied to by the applicant.
Ransome
Welborn, 4600 Canal Drive, addressed the Board to state they need a buffer for
the subdivision. He said he has been
against this project from the beginning and he objects to the way it was
presented to the residents. He advised
that the owner of all this property is Nikki Clayton.
Chairman
McLain explained that it is typical for people who don’t actually own the
property to come and request changes.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. McMillan stated he doesn’t recall that requests
made concerning property have been limited to the property owner. He said the County has always accepted
applications from someone who had the authorization of the property owner to go
ahead and make the application.
Mr.
Welborn said his point is, is Mr. Fossitt developing this property or Nikki
Clayton. Chairman McLain explained it
doesn’t matter, and it’s her business to apply or not. He said anyone and everyone will be required
to live up to the development order. He
explained to Mr. Welborn that he lives in an urban development in a residential
community.
Margaret
Haworth, 1740 Beacon Drive, addressed the Board to state she feels they have
compromised quite a bit and they would like to continue with the previous
agreements that have been made for them with the developer.
Marc
Houghton, 1750 Beacon Drive, addressed the Board to state they were against
this to begin with and gave considerations and said they would do it. There were to be walls around the whole
project to begin with. At the last
meeting, Commissioner Henley said they don’t need to take everything away,
because he stated if you take all the concessions away, then the homeowners can
be left without a lot of things. This
is what is happening now. The applicant
is trying to incorporate more land into the original property that was
settled. He said they can’t just keep
giving in.
Chairman
McLain advised Mr. Houghton that there is quite a bit of protection in the
development order. He said this is a
different project because the applicant has added additional property and she
is within her rights to come back before the Board.
Joanne
Ritter, 1751 Perch Lane, addressed the Board to state her home is very
important to her. She would prefer when
she drives to the entrance to her home that she doesn’t look at warehouse
doors. She doesn’t think that is too
much to ask. She asked the Board to
honor the two small things they have asked.
She doesn’t want to see the storage area, but wants the wall to go all
the way down. She is asking for the
wall and the office warehouse to face Missouri.
Tim
Templin, 1761 Beacon Drive, addressed the Board to state he doesn’t understand
why the applicant can’t stick with their original agreement with the homeowners
and St. Johns River Estates. He asked
the Board to make them live up to that agreement.
Patrick
Moore, 1760 Perch Lane, addressed the Board to state he questions the financial
ability of this developer and thinks a $10 million bond should be imposed to
make sure they adequately develop the property. He said they value their homes on the river. Most of them cost a half million to over $1
million.
George
Hendricks, 1561 Missouri Avenue, addressed the Board to state he is requesting
not to put the wall up across from the old house. He has a problem now pulling out of the fence and, with a wall
and shrubbery, that will make it even worse.
There would be no way he could see over it.
Chairman
McLain advised he would think the wall would not be allowed to be close enough
to the road where he could not pull his car up and see.
Mr.
West discussed how far back off the right-of-way the wall would be set.
John
Klein, 1700 Perch Lane, addressed the Board to state he was opposed to the
project from the beginning and is still opposed. He asked why would they put up a wall in the first place. He asked could it be they are trying to hide
something because it doesn’t belong there in the first place.
No
one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker
Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
Commissioner
Henley asked what caused staff to recommend these changes in view of the past
agreements related to Missouri Avenue.
Mr.
West showed pictures (not received and filed) when Mr. Hugh Harling appeared
before the Board in January, 2003, with the original proposal for the smaller
piece of property. At that time, he
presented pictures of what the buildings would probably look like. These were not incorporated into the signed
development order because from January 2003 to January 2004, staff did not get
a signed development order. Instead,
they were renegotiating some of the issues with the applicant. In January this year, the Board had a
revised development order presented to them.
Ms. Russell presented pictures at that time of what the buildings might
look like. There was not a commitment,
but the pictures were just entered into the Record as examples. There has always been the question about what
did the Board approve. Staff has tried
to negotiate something that would make both parties satisfied.
Commissioner
Morris said he remembers Mr. Harling’s presentation and the pictures. They need to really do the right thing and
get this so the proper driveway is in and the wall and retail side faces
properly.
Commissioner
Van Der Weide stated this has been around an unbelievably long time and he
remembers Mr. Harling coming before the Board and he thought they had it all
worked out. He said this is a major
change, but he thinks the big issue is the overhead doors, the buffer and the
wall. They are looking to District
Commissioner McLain for a recommendation because he knows better than
anybody. He thinks the people can
rightfully expect the Board to address the issues, which they thought they had
solved the last time.
Commissioner
Maloy said he recalls the Board was presented with the photos and the project
was supposed to look more like office in the front and more like warehouse in
the back and fronting along the roadways, it was to look nicer. He doesn’t see any reason to change the
project along the borders.
District
Commissioner McLain stated his recommendation is to follow the staff
recommendations and the idea by Commissioner Morris of curving the end of the
wall is a good one. He supports
continuing the wall as originally agreed to with the first project. He does not support the roll-up doors, but
supports, other than the opening for the office section, allowing each section
to have a 6’ x 8’ opening for ventilation or to move objects (furniture and
things of that nature) in and out of the building.
Commissioner
Henley said he doesn’t have a problem having openings on the wall, but he
doesn’t think what the citizens are asking is unreasonable. He remembers the pictures and this is not
what he expected. He thought the
Planning & Zoning’s recommendation was a good one. He said the openings could be dressed up a
bit more to make it look more like office or store front. Chairman McLain agreed with this suggestion.
Upon
inquiry by Chairman McLain, Ms. Russell stated they don’t have any objection to
continuing the wall and cutting it back.
They would like to alleviate the additional, heavy landscaping on the
building already approved without it.
She showed pictures (received and filed) of the potential both sides of
the building. She explained they want
to have the storefront that leases 25,000 feet, and has a 250 square foot
office, to be able to ventilate the rest of the building. She explained the ventilation is for the
warehouse portion.
Chairman
McLain advised the Board is going to be very critical of the building facing
Missouri. They want a quality
storefront roof and can allow a 6’ x 8’ opening along with the front door of an
office nature, glass door or something attractive. Whereupon, Ms. Russell said they do not have a problem with
that. Discussion continued with the
Board.
Chairman
McLain stated the Board needs to have a commitment in the agreement that the
architectural design of the front of the building facing Missouri will have to
be approved by staff and must complement an office, store front flex building;
and this all has to be shared. He
reiterated this is Condition C17 in the Development Order.
Motion
by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris, to adopt
Ordinance #2004-33, as shown on page _______, approving a Small Scale Land Use
Amendment from SE (Suburban Estates) to PD (Planned Development); and adopt
Ordinance #2004-34, as shown on page _______, approving rezoning from A-1
(Agriculture District) and PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to PCD (Planned
Commercial Development District), on approximately 4.92 acres located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Orange Boulevard and Missouri Avenue;
and Major Amendment to the 4.72 acre Fossitt Business Park Planned Commercial
Development Preliminary Site Plan, to incorporate the additional 4.92 acres,
subject to the Development Order, as shown on page _______; as described in the
proof of publication, Jamela Russell, with the staff recommendations and the following
conditions, including the wall to the end of the property line with a curve at
the end as discussed by Commissioner Morris; no roll-up doors on the front of
the building; the building to maintain an office type frontage and with the
commitment that this is reviewed by Mr. Bruce Andersen and Ms. Kathy Brown;
site plan review by staff, and the BCC will make the final decision on the
final site plan elevations.
Under
discussion, Chairman McLain clarified for Ms. Deater that it is the wall and
buffer shown in Exhibit B that is being referred to that is to be extended to
the north property line. Commissioner
Morris noted that the Board is specifically referring to the diagram of the
wall (copy received and filed) provided by Mr. Bruce Andersen.
Chairman
McLain stated he would have no problem with a sliding glass door on the front,
but no roll-up doors.
Commissioner
Morris said the understanding is if the design in front has a sidewalk, there
will not be a loading dock in front.
What the Board will be looking for in the form of elevation is an
elevated sidewalk.
Chairman
McLain further clarified for Mr. West that it could be modified that if the
applicant obtains a St. Johns permit to reduce the size of the pond and can
save the house, the Board would not object to that. If that is the case, the wall would not be in front of the house,
but instead put in some landscaping there.
Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted
AYE.
APPEAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Continuation of a public hearing to consider Appeal of the Board of Adjustment’s decision to deny a minimum lot size variance from 43,560 square feet to 17,845 square feet, a front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 10 feet and a rear yard setback variance from 30 feet to 10 feet for Lot 14, Lee Avenue, Scott Ryan.
Upon inquiry by Chairman McLain, Mr. Walter advised the appellant is not present, but several people did appear to speak regarding the item.
Mr.
Walter advised Commissioner Maloy that the appellant was notified of the meeting
tonight.
Chairman
McLain read the written comments from Shelley Patterson in opposition to the
variances.
Howard
Helms, 984 Woodcrest Way, addressed the Board to state he is opposed to
granting the variances. He said there
is no room to put a point of egress into that property.
Matt
Rust, 964 Woodcrest Way, addressed the Board to state there is a lack of
hardship. The property owner does not
live on the nearby residence, and he has three other rental, investment
properties in the Oviedo area. He bought
the property ten months ago, and if he is a homebuilder, he had to know it
wasn’t a buildable lot.
No
one else spoke in support or in opposition.
Speaker
Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.
Motion
by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Henley, to uphold the Board of
Adjustment’s decision to deny a minimum lot size variance from 43,560 square
feet to 17,845 square feet, a front yard setback variance from 50 feet to 10
feet and a rear yard setback variance from 30 feet to 10 feet for Lot 14, Lee
Avenue; as described in the proof of publication, Scott Ryan, Decision on
Appeal, as shown on page _________.
Districts
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 voted AYE.
-------
There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at 12:09 a.m., August 11, 2004.
ATTEST: ______________________Clerk ____________________Chairman
er/slm/cc