Present:

Chairman Carlton Henley (District 4)

Vice Chairman Grant Maloy (District 1)

Commissioner Randy Morris (District 2)

Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide (District 3)

Commissioner Daryl McLain (District 5)

County Manager Kevin Grace

County Attorney Robert McMillan

Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann

Commissioner Grant Maloy gave the Invocation.

Commissioner Dick Van Der Weide led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Resolution proclaiming the week of September 4 – 10, 1999, as "Help the Unemployed Week in Central Florida", was presented for action.

Commissioner Maloy requested that the first two "Whereas" paragraphs be stricken from the resolution. The Board voiced no objections to same.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner McLain to adopt appropriate Resolution #99-R-108, as amended, as shown on page ________, proclaiming the week of September 4 – 10, 1999 as "Help the Unemployed Week in Central Florida".

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

The Resolution was presented to Mr. Frank Hutsell of Christian HELP, who expressed his appreciation.

Deputy County Attorney, Lonnie Groot, addressed the Board to advise County Lobbyists, Bobby Brantley and Eric Thorn are in attendance. He requested Board input with regard to the issues to be assigned to the Lobbyist for presentation to the Legislative Delegation. He advised that the Legislative Delegation will meet at the County Services Building on September 1, 1999; the Legislative Session will be March 7, 2000 - May 5, 2000; the Florida Association of Counties Legislative Week will be November 17-19, 1999; and Legislative Day is scheduled for March 29, 2000.

Mr. Groot briefly discussed the first issue, the Little Wekiva River Restoration.

Commissioner Morris stated this river is a State river, it is designated so by the Legislature, and it touches three counties. He said he believes this needs to be put into an administrative budget as one of the department’s line items and taken out of "special funding".

Bobby Brantley, Lobbyist, addressed the Board to suggest that the St. Johns River Water Management District’s budget is the appropriate place for this.

Commissioner Morris suggested continuing to exhaust all remedies for this item to be funded.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he does not believe it will hurt to go in many directions, but he would like to see this remain as a priority.

The Board, by unanimous consensus, agreed to keep the funding for the Little Wekiva River Restoration as a priority.

The Board, by unanimous consensus, agreed to keep the Drainage System for U.S. Highway 17/92 as a priority.

Discussion ensued with regard to the Orange County/Seminole County Drainage issue. Mr. Groot explained that this is for the Econ River, Howell Creek and other drainage basins.

Mark Flomerfelt, Stormwater, addressed the Board to state he believes there is a common need among Seminole, Orange, Lake and Volusia Counties and the problem can be addressed jointly.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he believes it is worth the County’s effort to pursue this, but would like staff to determine what the potential cost to the County taxpayers would be and how it dovetails with anything else the County is doing.

Chairman Henley suggested the Board support this and have Mr. Flomerfelt work on the scope of what is to be accomplished; but not to have the lobbyist initiate any action yet. The Board voiced no objections to the Chairman’s suggestion regarding this issue.

The Board voiced no objections to keeping the Cross Seminole Trail as a priority item.

After discussion on the Seminole County Eligibility for Funding/Equity Fund issue, the Board took no action on same.

Discussion ensued with regard to the School Sidewalks issue.

Commissioner Maloy stated he does not believe this should be a priority, but suggested staff contact Representative Brummer on this issue. The Board voiced no objections Commissioner Maloy’s suggestion.

The Board agreed to drop the Public Records/Government in the Sunshine as an issue.

Commissioner Maloy left the meeting at this time.

The Board agreed to keep the Attorney Client Privilege issue as a priority.

The Board agreed to support the Ex Parte Communications issue and directed the County Lobbyist to continue to monitor same.

Commissioner Maloy re-entered the meeting at this time.

The Board voiced no objections to just monitoring the Regional Planning Council's issue.

The Board agreed to support the Sovereign Immunity issue.

The Board directed staff to monitor the Water Resource Planning Organization's issue.

Commissioners Morris and McLain left the meeting at this time.

The Board voiced no objections to supporting the issues concerning Check Cashing Businesses and Pawn Shops.

Mr. Groot advised that the following issues will be monitored by the Florida Association of Counties (FAC): Eminent Domain Law Revisions, Implementation of CRC Revision 7/Article V, Consistency of Revenue Streams, Repeal of Service Charge on Gas Tax Collections, and Health Issues.

County Engineer, Jerry McCollum, addressed the Board to discuss the State Road Projects issue. He stated they have come up with a new priority list and, basically, all the State roads that the County needs done will be on the priority list.

The Board voiced no objections to having the State Road Projects issue a priority, and to having both Mr. Groot and Mr. Brantley to pursue Governor Bush with regard to the release of the freeze on the GARVEE Bonds.

Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to approve and authorize the following:

Districts 1, 3 and 4 voted AYE.

Commissioner Morris re-entered the meeting at this time.

Planner, Kevin Fall, addressed the Board to discuss the transit/bus shelter improvements programmed for U.S. 17-92. He distributed a chart (received & filed) of locations and cost estimates.

Commissioner Morris left the meeting and Commissioner McLain re-entered at this time.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Fall stated he contacted the cities with the CRA’s to determine if they will participate in the funding for the shelters.

Commissioner Morris re-entered the meeting at this time.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to instruct staff to issue an RFP for ideas of erecting bus shelters, including the LYNX proposal as well; and to direct staff to check with the various cities regarding CRA funding to assist in this effort.

Under discussion of the motion, Commissioner Maloy stated he will delete from the motion the instruction to staff regarding the CRA funding, and will deal with it as a separate item.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Fall advised that LYNX has already done an RFP and selected a vendor.

Commissioner McLain stated based on that, he believes the Board should get input from LYNX before the County issues another RFP.

Tony Walters, representing LYNX, addressed the Board to advise they have one year left on their three-year contract.

Chairman Henley stated he was unaware that LYNX was in a three-year program and believes an RFP might be premature at this time until discussions are held with LYNX with regard to their plans and timing.

Planner, Dick Thomas, addressed the Board to advise staff will be communicating with DOT to see if they can put in the pad at the same time that they are putting in the sidewalks.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Fall advised staff can have a report back to the Board by the next meeting.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he would not have a problem tabling this item until a report is brought back to the Board by staff.

Commissioner Maloy withdrew the motion and Commissioner Van Der Weide withdrew his second at this time.

Chairman Henley pointed out that during the committee meeting for the disabled transportation group, there were concerns voiced about some of the bus stops not being user-friendly to the handicapped. He added the staff and LYNX needs to be sensitive to this concern.

Commissioner McLain stated with regard to the discussion on the 17-92 CRA, at this point and time he believes it is inappropriate. He said this is a mass transit issue and the CRA is to improve a corridor. He said he does not believe the ad valorem taxes from the CRA district should be used for bus stops. He further said that if the city CRA’s want to contribute, that would be fine; but there are many higher priority items in the 17-92 CRA than bus stops.

-------

County Manager, Kevin Grace, presented his recommended FY 1999/2000 Budget Adjustments for the Board’s consideration. Copy of Memorandum from Mr. Grace regarding same was received and filed. He advised that the health insurance bids have come approximately 35-40% higher than anticipated and staff will not know the full impact on the budget for a few more weeks. The policy decision for same will then come back to the Board.

Commissioner Van Der Weide left the meeting at this time.

Mr. Grace advised the recommendations he is making today will eliminate the $300,000 deficit and includes the deletion of 12 of the proposed new staff positions.

Commissioner Van Der Weide re-entered the meeting at this time.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to approve the FY 1999/2000 Budget Adjustments as recommended by the County Manager.

Under discussion, Commissioner McLain stated he supports the proposed reductions and believes the Board might want to consider some additional cuts. He stated that one of his concerns is that this money is being put back into reserves and he will address that issue at the budget hearing.

Chairman Henley stated in the final analysis, he would not be surprised if there are more cuts.

Mr. Grace stated the worst-case scenario with regard to the insurance increase across all funds is $1.7 million and of that, $1 million will be under the General Fund.

Commissioner McLain stated one of his other concerns is the methodology of paying for the paving program for all the dirt roads. He expressed his concern about taking money from the General Fund to pay for this.

Commissioner Van Der Weide congratulated staff and Mr. Grace on these reductions, stating he believes this is a first step.

Commissioner Morris recommended having additional discussion about Commissioner McLain's concern regarding the paving program with a second issue regarding stormwater. He said the seven cities already have a stormwater fund that the citizens pay for and he would not want to see funding of stormwater to come from the General Fund and used in the unincorporated area. He suggested the Board schedule a briefing prior to the budget public hearing to discuss these issues along with the insurance increase.

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

The Board directed a briefing be scheduled prior to the first budget public hearing to discuss these issues.

Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris to approve and authorize the following:

Administration

Director of Fiscal Services, Cindy Hall, addressed the Board to present the proposed Library & Leisure Services Fee Resolution for action.

At the request of Commissioner Maloy, Director of Library & Leisure Services, Suzy Goldman, addressed the Board to advise staff will amend the fee resolution to include that Orange County users can use the libraries at no charge.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to adopt appropriate Resolution #99-R-115, as shown on page __________, as amended, for Library & Leisure Services Fees.

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

--------

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt appropriate Resolution #99-R-116, as shown on page ________, for Fire Rescue Fees.

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

-------

Proposed Health Department Fee Resolution presented for action.

Upon inquiry, Bob Vitto, Health Department, addressed the Board to advise some of the fee increases are because of State imposed increases.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt appropriate Resolution #99-R-117, as shown on page _______, Seminole County Health Department Fees.

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

Commissioner Morris questioned if the Septic Tank Dumping Fee is for the vendor or the homeowner. Whereupon, Mr. Vitto stated he will find out and follow up with Commissioner Morris.

Planner, Sylvia Smith, addressed the Board to present request to vacate portions of the Plat of Aloma Woods Phase 5, in Section 29, Township 21 South, Range 31 East, CFG Real Estate Group, Inc. She advised the request is in compliance with the Statutes for the purpose of clearing title to the underlying plat for replatting. Therefore, staff recommends approval.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt appropriate Resolution #99-R-119, as shown on page _______, vacating portions of the Plat of Aloma Woods Phase 5, in Section 29, Township 21 South, Range 31 East, CFG Real Estate Group, Inc.

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

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

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

-------

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

--------

The Board, thereupon, recessed at 11:40 a.m., reconvening at 1:34 p.m., this same date, with all Commissioners and all other Officials who were present at the Opening Session.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to accept the proofs of publication for this meeting’s scheduled public hearings into the Official Record.

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

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider the proposed Seminole County Port Authority Budget for FY 1999/2000, received and filed.

Fiscal Services Director, Cindy Hall, advised the total projected revenues for FY 99/00 is $2,150,917.

Commissioner Maloy asked about the status of the Board’s request for beautification along Orange Avenue.

Port Authority Director, Dennis Dolgner, addressed the Board to advise the issue of the beautification was brought up by Commissioner Morris at the last Port Authority meeting and discussion ensued with regard to how much should be expended. He said they will be working with staff to come up with an acceptable plan.

Motion by Commissioner Morris to approve the Seminole County Port Authority Budget for FY 1999/2000.

The Chairman surrendered the gavel to the Vice Chairman for the purpose of seconding the motion.

The motion, duly seconded, was then voted upon and carried unanimously.

The gavel was returned to the Chairman.

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone from A-1 (Agriculture) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) for property located on the west side of SR 426, 1,000’ north of Mikler Road, George Viele, received and filed.

Current Planning Manager, John Dwyer, addressed the Board to advise the applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to construct a self-storage warehouse development with outside storage of vehicles, boats and a caretaker residence. He advised that the property in question is a portion of a larger parcel of land. The applicant is in the process of subdividing the subject parcel from the larger parent tract. At this time the parent parcel has direct legal access to SR 426 from Mikler Road to the south and from Slavia Road to the north. Slavia Road is unimproved. The proposed preliminary site plan includes an access to SR 426 that crosses the future Cross Seminole Trail (former SAL railroad). The FDOT has indicated they are not inclined to grant any access to SR 426.

Mr. Dwyer advised staff recommends that access for the subject property be coordinated through the parent parcel prior to any subdivision of the property. Based upon staff’s concern regarding access across the future trail, staff does not recommend the rezoning to PCD at this time.

Copy of letter from George Lovett, FDOT, regarding access rights across the railroad corridor was received and filed.

Mr. Dwyer further advised that if the Board chooses to approve the rezoning, the staff would request the following: (1) Permitted uses to include only self-storage/mini warehouses, outside storage of motor vehicles and boats and one caretaker residence; (2) Amend the preliminary site plan to remove the proposed access to SR 426 across the future Cross Seminole Trail; (3) Construct a paved and improved access road a minimum of 24 feet in width across the property connecting the subject property to the adjacent properties located both north and south and dedicate a cross access easement across the road to the County; (4) Outside lighting shall have a maximum height of 20 feet with cut-off type fixtures and shall comply with the relevant provisions of the Land Development Code; and (5) Landscape material planted in the area designated for vehicle storage shall provide an opaque barrier between the subject property and SR 426.

Mr. Dwyer stated the applicant has indicated to staff that he does not wish to pave the cross access easement.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Dwyer advised staff would like to see a comprehensive plan for the entire property taken into consideration.

George Viele, applicant, addressed the Board to state the requested rezoning is consistent with the surrounding land uses. He stated the LPA recommended approval of the rezoning with the trail crossing. He said the trail crossing is the only reasonable access to the property. He advised that in discussions with FDOT’s project manager and driveway permit person, they did not see any reason why he could not receive a driveway permit for this site. He said he has not had any discussions with Mr. Lovett; but if he knew that the property was landlocked, maybe he would have a slightly different opinion than what was expressed in his letter. He said they understand that they need to work this out with FDOT. He suggested the County develop a management plan for trail crossings. Discussion ensued.

Mr. Viele stated that with regard to the opaque barrier, they are suggesting shrubs and trees as opposed to a six-foot wall. He further stated that initially he proposed lighting 25 feet in height, but has since agreed with staff and the 20-foot lighting. However, he would like to delete the reference to the Code as it is restrictive because its intent is to address commercial areas immediately adjacent to single family residential. This is industrial property in the middle of an industrial area. He requested the Board agree with the LPA’s recommendation to approve the project and cross the trail. He said they are willing to dedicate the cross access easement to the County as depicted on the site plan, but do not want to be obligated to pave it at this time. He added that depending on the land development to the south, they might not need the cross access easement. If it is needed, the benefited developer should be the one to construct the driveway and pave it. He submitted, for the Board’s review, the LPA’s recommendation (received & filed), which he requested the Board approve with two language revisions.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

District Commissioner Maloy stated he believes it makes sense to coordinate the trail crossings with FDOT. He also stated that this seems like a reasonable plan and he does not have any objections to it, especially since the parking and septic tank have been moved out of the access area.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt Ordinance #99-33, as shown on page ________, rezoning the property from A-1 Agriculture to PCD Planned Commercial for property located on the west side of SR 426, 1,000 feet north of Mikler Road, as described in the proof of publication, George Viele; and to approve the associated Preliminary Site Plan, with the septic and parking removed from the access, subject to the entering of a Development Order, as shown on page ________, placing the P&Z/LPA recommendations (as conditions upon the approval) as follows: (1) Permitted uses shall include self-storage/mini warehouse units, outside storage of vehicles and boats and all other uses permitted in the M-1A zoning classification with the provision that no business shall be located in or conducted from any individual storage unit; (2) The vehicle storage area shall be landscaped with an opaque barrier, to be 80% opaque after one year and 90% after two years, between the subject property and SR 426; (3) The owner shall dedicate a cross access easement to the County as depicted on the revised site plan; (4) Proposed driveway location to SR 426 to be the only access point between Chapman Road and Mikler Road; (5) Access to SR 426 across the future Cross Seminole Trail and Seminole County’s willingness to grant or support granting an access and utility easement, if necessary; and (6) Outside lighting to be 20 feet with cut-off style fixtures, with the lighting behind the building to not be subject to the Code.

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

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone from A-1 Agriculture to R-1AA Single Family Residential for property located on the north side of Bunnell Road, 440 feet east of Eden Park, Douglas Maise, Sanlando Land Inc., received and filed.

Planner, Gary Schindler, addressed the Board to give an overview of the request, advising the staff recommends approval.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris to adopt Ordinance #99-34, as shown on page ________, rezoning from A-1 Agriculture to R-1AA Single Family Residential property located on the north side of Bunnell Road, 440 feet east of Eden Park, as described in the proof of publication, Douglas Maise, Sanlando Land Inc., subject to staff recommendations.

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

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone from M-1 Industrial to PCD Planned Commercial Development for property located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of CR 427 and Longwood-Lake Mary Road, John Jennings, received and filed.

Mr. Schindler gave an overview of the request, advising staff recommends the rezoning subject to the same conditions as recommended by the LPA.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

District Commissioner Morris recommended approval.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt Ordinance #99-35, as shown on page _______, rezoning from M-1 Industrial to PCD Planned Commercial Development property located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of CR 427 and Longwood-Lake Mary Road, as described in the proof of publication, John Jennings; and to approve associated Preliminary Site Plan and Development Order, as shown on page _________, with the following conditions, as recommended by the staff and the LPA: (1) All outside lighting shall have a maximum height of sixteen feet, shall be cut-off type fixtures, and shall comply with the relevant provisions of Section 30.1233, Land Development Code; and (2) Prior to the approval of the final PCD Master Plan review, the site plan shall be revised to read that the stormwater retention facility shall be a dry facility, shall be unfenced (having side slopes of at least 6 to 1), and shall be landscaped.

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

Proof of publication, as shown on page _______, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone from R-1AA Single Family Residential to RP Residential Professional for property located on the west side of Maitland Avenue, 145 feet north of Lakeshore Drive, Lori Booker, received and filed.

Gary Schindler gave an overview of the request, advising at the time of the writing of the agenda, he had not received any letters from the adjacent property owners concerning the requirement for a six-foot wall along the western property line. Since that time, letters (copies were received & filed) have been received, all in support of waiving the wall requirement.

Lori Booker, applicant, addressed the Board to briefly discuss the request. She stated the neighborhood has asked to keep the parking as grass for as long as possible and she will do so.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Chairman Henley surrendered the gavel to the Vice Chairman for the purpose of offering a motion.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt Ordinance #99-36, as shown on page _______, rezoning from R-1AA Single Family Residential to RP Residential Professional property located on the west side of Maitland Avenue, 145 feet north of Lakeshore Drive, as described in the proof of publication, Lori Booker; approve the associated Site Plan and Development Order, as shown on page ________; and to authorize waiving requirement for a six-foot wall.

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

The gavel was returned to the Chairman.

Proof of publication, as shown on page ________, calling for a public hearing to consider a request to rezone from A-1 Agriculture to R-1AA Single Family Dwelling for property located on the north side of Northridge Drive, 175 feet west of Myrtle Lake Hills Drive, James & Kris Thompson, received and filed.

Mr. Schindler gave an overview of the request, advising staff recommends approval.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adopt Ordinance #99-37, as shown on page ________, rezoning from A-1 Agriculture to R-1AA Single Family Dwelling property located on the north side of Northridge Drive, 175 feet west of Myrtle Lake Hills Drive, as described in the proof of publication, James & Kris Thompson, with staff findings.

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

Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris to appoint Joannie Vincent, Executive V.P. Crown Bank to the Team Central Florida 2000 Board of Directors.

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

-------

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to recommend reappointment of Wes Pennington to the Orlando/Sanford Airport Authority.

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

--------

Memorandum from Tourism Director, Jack Wert, requesting TDC appointment was received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris to appoint Helen Stairs, President of the Ritz Theater Restoration project and President of the Sanford Chamber, to the Tourist Development Council.

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

-------

Chairman Henley questioned if there were any problems with appointments to the Charter Review Commission. He said there may need to be some swapping of categories between Commissioners. A brief discussion ensued.

At the request of Commissioner Maloy, County Attorney, Robert McMillan, advised he will update the Commissioner with regard to the Econ River and the situation in front of the sewer plant.

-------

Commissioner Henley advised he has been receiving a lot of communication from the residents on Charlotte Street and North Street with regard to traffic and trucks in the area. He said he will be meeting with the residents to discuss this problem. He added an agenda item might be coming soon before the Board regarding this.

--------

Commissioner McLain advised of request from the Disabled Veterans to conduct their annual hunt on the Yankee Lake property.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to approve the annual hunt for the Paralyzed Disabled Veterans on the Yankee Lake property; and to instruct staff to coordinate same with the veterans.

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

Chairman Henley distributed copies of the highlights from the last meeting of MetroPlan.

-------

Commissioner McLain advised the Central Florida Zoo is having their Black Tie Affair fund raiser this Saturday, August 28, 1999.

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

Commissioner Morris requested the Board consider removing the requirement of copper piping from the County Code due to problems with leaks.

The Board directed staff to review this and to report back.

--------

The Board recessed at 3:06 p.m., reconvening at 7:05 p.m., this same date with all Officials, including Deputy County Attorney Lonnie Groot, with the exception of Deputy Clerk Sandy McCann, who was replaced by Deputy Clerk Eva Roach, who were present at the Opening Session.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider Amendment 99F.ADM 9 from Suburban Estates to Low Density Residential; property located on the south side CR 427, east of U.S. 17-92, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County, CFG at Chapman, Inc.; and Amendment 99F.ADM 12 from Low Density Residential to Commercial; property located south of Paulinda Avenue, east of Bear Lake Road and west of the CSX Railroad, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page __________, Seminole County, Harling Locklin & Associates.

Chairman Henley advised that Item #B1, Amendment 99F.ADM 9 has been withdrawn. He stated that Item B4, Amendment #99F.ADM 12 has also been withdrawn per the applicant’s (Mr. Hattaway) request. He added that these two Amendments will not be heard regarding the Fall Cycle Amendments. Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

Commissioner Morris stated he has problems with six of the Text Amendments that are coming before the Board tomorrow night, 8/25/99. He stated he feels it would be appropriate to direct staff to withdraw these text amendments with the exception of two. Of those two, one of them relates to the Harling Locklin item that was approved at the last Board meeting and the other is the Capital Improvements Element.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Lonnie Groot, Deputy County Attorney, addressed the Board to advise the Comprehensive Planning process is a Legislative process and not a quasi-judicial process. He stated if the Board finds that there is inadequate public participation and that staff should be directed to withdraw these amendments, that were generated by staff, it would be appropriate to do so.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he is a little disappointed that these text amendments are before the Board because when these were discussed previously, they were going to be neutral relative to densities and now they are not going to be neutral relative to densities. Under those circumstances, he hopes the public understands that staff requested these text amendments and they are under different rules.

Frances Chandler, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board to state there are future land use map amendments that would require text amendments associated with them if the Board wishes to transmit.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Ms. Chandler advised the Board would need to leave in the following Text Amendments: Items 3A.1, 99F.TXT 3.7; 3A.3, 99F.TXT 3; and B1, Capital Improvements Element.

Commissioner Maloy stated he has heard support from the community on the Suburban Community Residential and he would be interested in hearing more about that item.

Commissioner Morris stated he feels there is some confusion on what that amendment means and that could lead to high density in the rural areas because of the way it is defined. He stated he would gladly include Text Amendment 99F.TXT 3.5.

Ms. Chandler stated that item has some associated amendments and those are Amendments 99F.TXT 3.6, 99F.TXT 3.7, 99F.TXT 3.8 and 99F.TXT 3.9.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to direct staff to withdraw all of the Amendments with the exception of 3A.1, 3A.3, B1 and B2 and associated amendments as clarified by staff.

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

Continuation of a public hearing to consider an Appeal against the Board of Adjustment in upholding the Current Planning Manager’s interpretation of a Special Exception for recreational purposes granted by the Board of Adjustment (BOA) in October 1987; property located on the north side of Brumley Road, 1¼ miles east of Snow Hill Road, as described in the proof of publication, Dr. Quentin L. Green/Big Oaks Ranch, appellant.

Ginny Markley, Zoning Coordinator, addressed the Board to review the background of the request as outlined in the Agenda Memorandum. She stated the BOA denied the appellant’s appeal of the Current Planning Manager’s interpretation and issued a notice of denial adopting the Current Planning Manager’s interpretation in full. Staff is recommending that the Board deny the appeal and to enter a notice of denial upholding the Current Planning Manager’s interpretation. Staff also recommends that the Board find that any additional requests made by the appellant relative to the Special Exception are matters that are not before the Board.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Ms. Markley advised the applicant has another application pending before the BOA for an expansion and to amend conditions of that Special Exception.

Chairman Henley stated he informed Ms. Green that the Board will be ruling on whether they will sustain the BOA and it does not impact her appeal unless the Board does not agree with the interpretation. He stated Ms. Green still has the option of following through on the appeal even if the Board agrees with the interpretation.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Groot advised the application cannot go forward because Ms. Green has not filed an application for concurrency review. He stated if the Board agrees with Mr. Dwyer’s decision, the property owner can seek an expanded Special Exception.

Commissioner McLain stated the issue is the applicant’s interpretation was overnight guests and the staff and BOA have ruled that also includes daytime activities. He asked if Ms. Green can have more than 12 people on her property at one time providing that they do not stay overnight.

Mr. Groot stated Mr. Dwyer’s interpretation of the 1987 Special Exception is allowing 12 paid guests for commercial purposes on 20 acres. Discussion ensued.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Groot advised under the Land Development Code, the property owner has the right to appeal Mr. Dwyer’s decision by going to the BOA and then the BCC.

Attorney Irby Pugh, representing the appellant, addressed the Board to state the reason he is here tonight is Dr. Green wants to protect the Big Oaks Ranch and the rural character of this property. He stated Big Oaks Ranch abuts the Big Econ River and is an environmentally sensitive land. The residents in Florida value rural property for holding their activities. The minutes of the BOA’s 1987 meeting are very unclear as to what actually transpired. He stated he feels that limiting 12 guests on the property at any one time is an outrageous restriction of anybody’s private property rights. The Board can consider lifting the condition for daytime guests so the property owner can continue to allow school groups and other groups in the community to use this property on a temporary basis. If these groups start to create problems, the Board can take action and prevent them from holding their activities there. A copy of Attorney Pugh’s comments were received and filed.

Chairman Henley stated this action was taken as a result of a letter from the Southeast Seminole County Voters’ Association of what would be the appropriate number. He stated the intent was that it dealt with commercial ventures and not family.

Attorney Pugh stated he would like the language to be changed to reflect that as Mr. Dwyer and the Code Enforcement Board were not clear on that. Discussion ensued.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated if the property owner had an event on his 700 acres, he would have to obtain a permit for each and every event.

Mr. Groot stated that is correct and the Greens were informed that they could obtain a special event permit three or four times a year.

Commissioner Maloy stated he has received lots of complaints and phone calls relative to alcohol and noise in that area. He stated the property owner knows that 12 guests is the number allowed at one time but they advertise for 1,000 guests per event. The residents in the area want to keep the ranch function rural in nature, but advertising for 1,000 guests causes people to be very frustrated.

Attorney Pugh stated the Board does not have to go by the 1987 BOA minutes. The fact is it was wrong and the Board can correct that wrong. He stated a workable solution needs to be worked out, as the Greens do not want to be accused of violating any laws.

Chairman Henley stated the Board is here to determine whether they are going to uphold the BOA’s decision. It is clear that the BOA’s intent was to limit the number for commercial purposes. He stated the BOA’s motion did stipulate the number of guests allowed. He added this Board can change it if they desire to do so. He said he feels the process of a special exception is that change process if the Board upholds the BOA decision.

Chairman Henley stated he has received a petition (not received and filed) of 45 signatures and letters with pictures (received and filed) opposing the special exception. He stated the Board has also been receiving E-mail from residents supporting and opposing the request. At the request of Chairman Henley, approximately 15 people raised their hands supporting Mr. Dwyer’s interpretation, and approximately 20 people raised their hands who felt that Mr. Dwyer’s interpretation was wrong.

Attorney Pugh stated he feels the language is still wrong and it needs to be clarified as to whether these are commercial guests or overnight guests. He stated he feels that Item 7c (modification of guests) of the Notice of Denial needs to be clarified. Also the words "does not prohibit the transfer of the special exception" in Item 7f should be changed to "allows the transfer".

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

A Written Comment Form from Elise Mammino was received and filed.

District Commissioner Maloy stated he spoke to both sides on this issue. He stated comments were made from the neighbors relative to the noise and traffic. He said he believes everyone would like to see it being used in its natural state and he doesn’t believe anyone would have a problem with them enjoying the property. He added if the property owner would like to have 100 or more people, they need to go through the proper process. The Southeast Seminole County Voters Association requested a limitation of 16 at any one time and this was the basis of that letter. He added he doesn’t believe that people would be opposed to a higher number, but the property owner needs to go through the process.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to uphold the BOA’s April 26, 1999 upholding Current Planning Manager, Mr. Dwyer’s interpretation of a special exception for recreational purposes granted by the BOA in October, 1987; authorize the Chairman to execute the Notice of Denial, as shown on page __________, for property located on the north side of Brumley Road, 1¼ mile east of Snow Hill Road, as described in the proof of publication, Dr. Quentin Green/Big Oaks Ranch, subject to clarification that the limitation is on paying guests only.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris stated he would like to make it clear that the Board is not authorizing the activity as defined by Attorney Pugh to occur; and that a commercial transaction is occurring, which means a number is limited to anyone per transaction as it occurs.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Groot advised if the Greens are engaging in commercial ventures, then the special exception plugs in.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Commissioner Maloy advised he would recommend that this go in effect tomorrow.

Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Morris relative to events already planned for this property, Robert McMillan, County Attorney, advised he doesn’t believe the Board can do anything relative to that issue. He stated it is an issue of interpretation and beyond that it is a code enforcement issue. If the Board does it any other way, they will be issuing a temporary special exception.

Commissioner Morris stated he believes the District Commissioner is interested in the property owner’s application coming back to this Board relative to allowing a commercial venture with higher numbers, set limits and certain controls.

Commissioner Maloy stated he would be willing to review any expansion and that should be done through the proper process.

Mr. McMillan stated the way to deal with any planned events is the property owner can obtain authorization for a special event permit.

Commissioner Van Der Weide recommended calling the question and the Board voted unanimously for same.

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

Commissioner Morris stated the community indicated that they were happy with events at this location, but they wanted it defined better.

Chairman Henley stated he explained to Ms. Green that should the Board not go in her favor, she could go through the process. He stated she could ask for special exceptions for those events that have been planned and still keep within the County’s procedures.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider Amendment 99F.ADM 10.1 from Low Density Residential to Industrial; property located at the southwest corner of Onora and Ohio, west of Golden Lake, containing approximately 4.5 acres, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page _________, Seminole County, Nancy Watkins and Robert Brooks.

Dick Boyer, Planner, addressed the Board to review the location of the proposed request and the existing and abutting uses. He stated in 1995, the County conducted an airport land use study wherein the HIP-Airport Land Use category was created to address specific land use compatibility issues associated with the development of the Airport. Substantial discussion revolved around the Golden Lake and Silver Lake areas and the residents stated a desire to maintain this area as a viable residential neighborhood. The Board, in support of the residents’ strong wishes, did not include this area within their overall Airport amendments at that time. Since that amendment, expansion of the Airport operations has affected the Golden Lake and Silver Lake neighborhoods and future expansion plans will likely continue to impact this area. While several of the property owners are now requesting a change in land use, the change may be premature and too intensive given the remaining number of adjacent single family residents still residing in the area. Based on expanding airport operations and planned airport expansion as well as and the changing nature of resident concerns, staff recommends an areawide analysis of the land use upon completion of the Airport’s FAR 150 noise study and further evaluation of the impacts of the Airport’s existing and proposed operations to be completed in FY 1999/2000 as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. He stated the Local Planning Agency (LPA) recommended denial per staff’s recommendation that a study be done.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Boyer advised staff feels the land use is premature at this time.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Commissioner McLain advised he feels that what staff is saying is this area is in transition and changes need to be made. The noise study needs to be implemented with this study so that a comprehensive decision can be made.

Robert Brooks, 3100 Ohio Ave., addressed the Board to state he feels that this area is changing as it is no longer suitable for residential. He stated he had hoped to build a home on this property, but it is not possible because he feels it is no longer a residential area. He said he doesn’t feel it is premature, but it is time to do something now. He added he has been dealing with staff for some time and he doesn’t want to be left out.

Commissioner McLain stated the community feels that this is an area of transition and what staff is recommending is not to stop the process, but to continue it by doing a comprehensive land use study on this small area to see how future land uses should be projected on the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he feels the County is doing what is required but it might not be done as quickly as everyone would like. He added he wants to make sure that the County is moving this in the proper manner.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Kevin Fall, Capital Programs Analyst, addressed the Board to advise staff would wait until the final completion of the study. He stated the Sanford Aviation Noise Abatement Committee is the only one that has seen the FAR 150 noise study and it has not been brought before the Orlando/Sanford Airport Authority or the City of Sanford. He said no official action has been considered on the noise study, therefore, he would hesitate in moving ahead and trying to determine the limits where the noise ends.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Fall advised a public meeting on the 150 noise study is scheduled for Sept. 14, 1999 at the Airport Authority in which they will accept public comment. Those comments and the original draft version of the study will be sent to the FAA for their review and comment. It is then sent back to the Sanford Airport Authority for approval in September or October. At that time, the noise study will be finalized. He stated staff could initiate actions relative to a small area study and land use compatibility issues with the Board’s direction.

Commissioner McLain stated this would be a study that the County would initiate and the property owners within that study area would not be required to pay fees to participate. Mr. Groot advised that is correct.

George Wilson, 3280 Ohio Ave., addressed the Board to state he is speaking in opposition to this amendment. He stated he spoke on behalf of most of the residents at the July 22, 1999 LPA meeting requesting that the Industrial land use change be denied and they were ignored. He urged the Board to reject the proposed amendment. He requested that the Board delay approval for an 18-month period, as according to staff this would be the estimated time to reevaluate the 10-year Comprehensive Plan. This would allow the property owners to make alternative plans and to allow time for reevaluating the area.

No one else spoke in support or opposition.

Speaker Request Form was received and filed.

District Commissioner McLain stated this has been a long process in the community and there are some of those that see a need for change. He stated he would agree with staff recommendations, therefore he feels that this Amendment should be denied and to move forward with the small area study. He said he would hope that would be completed and brought back during the spring cycle.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Morris not to transmit Industrial land use for property located at the southwest corner of Onora and Ohio, west of Golden Lake, containing approximately 4.5 acres, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County, Nancy Watkins and Robert Brooks.

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

Continuation of a public hearing to consider Amendment 99F.ADM 10.2 from Suburban Estates to Higher Intensity Planned Development-Airport; property located at the southwest corner of the Orlando Sanford Airport in the vicinity of Golden Lake, containing approximately 78.7 acres, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page _________,Seminole County, Multiple Owners.

Mr. Boyer reviewed the location and the existing and abutting uses of the proposed amendment. He stated the same comments relative to the 1995 Airport study apply to this amendment. Staff recommends an areawide analysis of the land use upon completion of the Airport’s FAR 150 noise study and further evaluation of the impacts of the Airport’s existing and proposed operations to be completed in FY 1999/2000 as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. The LPA recommended approval with staff recommendation that a study be done.

Sharon Sullivan, 2160 Marquette Ave., addressed the Board to state she fully supports the future land use change because of the new airport developments that have occurred since the Seminole County Study in 1995.

Kevin Grace, County Manager, left the meeting at this time.

Ms. Sullivan stated since 4/96 the Orlando Sanford Airport has expanded its operations, which has forever changed this area. A FLU change to HIP is justified and appropriate due to the British tourist business commencing; construction of the new touch-and-go training runway; and PAN AM moving its aircraft maintenance facilities to the airport. She stated large 727 planes test their engines at the end of the north/south runway about 1000 ft. from the residents’ properties and the noise is unbelievable.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

Ms. Sullivan stated proximity to the airport has blighted this area for residential uses and this area has not been a viable residential area and the real estate market does not support it. She stated she has reviewed the FAR 150 noise study and she believes that study affirms her position that any residential use for this property is non-compatible with the expanded airport operations.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

Ms. Sullivan said this request is an urban infill request and she would appeal to the Board to approve the HIP land use change as it is long overdue. She read two lines of an article (not received and filed) from the Seminole Herald. A copy of Ms. Sullivan’s comments, final draft of the Noise Study update and maps were received and filed.

Dan Houser, 2260 Marquette, addressed the Board to state he lives within the shaded area of the map and there are only two people that live in that area. He briefly reviewed the history of this area. He stated he is in a situation where there is noise and there is no remedy to this. He added he is not adverse to growth, but something needs to take place that will benefit everyone. He said he has a lot of money invested in his home and he cannot sell his home as residential any more.

Attorney James Shepherd, 280 W. Camden Ave., addressed the Board to state he represents the purchaser of these parcels of property. He stated the County can study this thing to death and it is not going to change certain facts about this property. This property has the airport to the north, industrial to the south, a small residential strip and the entrance to the Airport. He displayed and reviewed a land use compatibility chart (received and filed) showing the requested land use change in yellow and the noise level decibel lines in red. He also displayed and reviewed a copy of Table 7-1 (received and filed) of the 150 Noise Study update. He said Table 7-1 indicates that residential or any transient lodging is not recommended in this area. This property is high intensity use for airport-related services and it makes sense for this amendment to take place.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels this is an area that is in transition and some of these changes need to take place. He stated when this issue was brought up before the Board wanted to give everyone a chance to give input. He said he doesn’t think it is appropriate to make those changes now without having the actual study approved by the Airport.

Mr. Fall stated he has had a chance to briefly review the study and the consultant has a recommendation for certain improvements that will shift the noise contours east of Silver Lake and Golden Lake areas, if the recommended improvements are implemented.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels the remaining property owners need to have a fair hearing as far as the County doing a study and laying out how these land uses will transition. The County transitioned industrial use with suburban estates as that was what the residents wanted. Residential development was placed along Marquette Ave. He stated he would like to have this process moved forward quickly.

George Wilson stated it has been said that this is not a viable residential property. He stated if that is so, he is not sure how it will accommodate high density in terms of apartments or hotels.

A map showing the future runway was received and filed.

Mr. Grace reentered the meeting at this time.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request Forms were received and filed.

District Commissioner McLain stated he believes that this is an area in transition and it makes sense to consider some of these changes, but he realizes that there are other properties that would be in conflict as far as compatibility. He said he feels the noise study needs to be approved by the Airport and the City of Sanford and to have staff move forward with the Small Area Study so this area can be adequately addressed.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide not to transmit Higher Intensity Planned Development-Airport land use; property located at the southwest corner of the Orlando Sanford Airport in the vicinity of Golden Lake, containing approximately 78.7 acres, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County, Multiple Owners; and authorize staff to move forward quickly with the small area study.

Under discussion, Commissioner Morris stated he will be voting against the motion as he feels the process is going to lead to a long-term process and this property deserves the zoning category.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels that those properties along Marquette Ave. to the north and south need to be evaluated as to how this is going to affect them.

Districts 1, 3, 4 and 5 voted AYE.

Commissioner Morris voted NAY.

Commissioner Maloy left the meeting at this time.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider Amendment 99F.ADM13 from High Density Residential to Industrial; property located north of Hillview Drive and west of Mathews Road, containing approximately 14.5 acres, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page _________, Seminole County, Harling Locklin & Associates, Inc.

Commissioner Maloy reentered the meeting at this time.

Mr. Boyer reviewed the location and the existing and abutting uses of the proposed amendment.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

Commissioner Van Der Weide left the meeting at this time.

Mr. Boyer continued by stating the applicant desires that the property to the west and north might be considered for industrial. The properties south of Hillview Drive, adjacent to this site, were rezoned C-3 between 1985 and 1997. He stated staff recommends denial of the Industrial land use with findings that Industrial land use, as proposed would: (1) Not provide for an appropriate transitional use between Industrial land use to the south and Low Density Residential to the north; (2) Be inconsistent with the location criteria of the County’s Comprehensive Plan relating to Industrial land uses; (3) Be inconsistent with adjacent Low Density Residential land use designation, (4) Be inconsistent with Plan policies identified at this time and, therefore, is inconsistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan; and (5) That Industrial land use not be permitted north of Hillview Dr. He stated the LPA recommended approval of the proposed request. He said staff received a letter (received and filed) from the City of Altamonte Springs requesting that a joint planning effort be made between the County and City to identify issues and to determine implementation policies relative to land use, infrastructure and environmental questions in this area, so that the existing established residential areas can be protected. He stated staff concurs with that request at this time.

Hugh Harling, representing Bob Hattaway, addressed the Board to review the history relative to this property.

Commissioner Van Der Weide reentered the meeting at this time.

Mr. Harling stated Mr. Bill Miller expressed some concerns with what was going on with the City, with the applicant’s application, and with the lack of control of a straight Industrial land use application. He stated he received a copy of a letter from Mr. Bruce King and Mr. Miller requesting that a joint planning area be accomplished. He displayed and reviewed a map (received and filed) showing the Altamonte Springs joint planning area (microzone). The City of Altamonte Springs has submitted an RFP for property south of Arletta St. and the intent is to develop a business park that would be compatible with everything in the area. The City of Altamonte Springs is working on transportation issues in the area and they have been working with FDOT to have direct access from this property to Maitland Blvd. through a right-in and right-out. He said he discussed with Mr. King and Tim Wilson relative to expanding the area and he displayed and reviewed a map (received and filed) showing the expansion. The purpose of doing this is to take care of the concerns of two groups of residents who reside in this particular area. The Spring Valley residents are very concerned with transition, buffering, noise, lighting, and odors and they think that with this particular land use change, now is the time to accomplish a small area study. He stated he is requesting a PCD zoning with a site plan with site specifics and they would cooperate with the homeowners association, the City and County, and bring this request back to the Board in December with a small area study that would be supported by the entire community. Part of Mr. Hattaway’s plan is to extend the Discovery Court to the south and tie it into Arletta so that the amount of traffic on Hillview would be directed to the city property and onto Maitland Blvd. Mr. Hattaway has met with the residents of this area and their opinion is when this entire area is studied, they would like the opportunity for their property values to be increased. The best way to increase their property values is to include them in a business park-type land use. He requested the Board to consider this amendment with the understanding that they will submit a PCD zoning to staff on September 14 and the land use change would come back to the Board.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Harling advised the City of Altamonte Springs study area includes property that is now outside the City. The planning area that they have identified is a traffic planning area and their intent is to study that entire area. Discussion ensued.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Harling advised he is willing to drop Industrial zoning and come back with a Planned Commercial Development plan that will show the buffers, restrictions, setbacks, etc.

Mr. Harling clarified for Commissioner Maloy that he is committing to coming back with a PCD rezoning that would be compatible with the community, and he would have that back at the same time the land use is in place.

At the request of Commissioner Morris, Ms. Chandler explained how the PCD zoning works and how the Board reviews the process for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle.

Bob Hattaway addressed the Board to state his business has been on Hillview Drive for 30 years and his property is in a unique situation. He stated the City of Altamonte Springs is looking at a transition area and they are looking at an office park center that is similar to Maitland and Lake Mary. If something is going to happen with the City of Altamonte Springs’ property, he doesn’t want to lose his storage business. What he is planning to do is move his storage business to the property that he owns across the street on Hillview. He stated he believes that what is going to happen on the south side of Hillview will be a higher and better use than they see today. The residents on Hillview, McNorton and Mathews are very concerned, as they would like to be able to sell their property for a higher and better use. He said he would like the community to come together and try to come up with a compatible plan that will benefit the entire community and not impact the neighbors.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Hattaway advised it is not his intent to have heavy industrial-type uses there, but to continue on the north side with what he has on the south side.

He submitted a letter (not received and filed) in support of the proposed request.

Bill Miller, 147 Variety Tree Circle, addressed the Board to state he is representing the Spring Valley Farms Community Association. He stated Mr. Hattaway is fully aware of the community’s concerns. He said when the community met with Mr. Hattaway, they asked him if he would agree to PCD zoning and he indicated that he did not because he would have to submit a conceptual plan and he did not have one. The community asked to withdraw his application so that he can prepare PCD zoning or some other zoning that the community might be able to look at and agree with. He stated Mr. Hattaway indicated he did not wish to do that because he wanted to be a part of this administrative process. The community met the next night and unanimously opposed the industrial land use change.

Bruce King, 902 Spring Valley Road, addressed the Board to submit a letter (received and filed) explaining why the Spring Valley Farms Community Association is opposed to the request. He stated he feels that this issue relates to private development rights versus neighborhood preservation. He submitted pictures (received and filed) showing the existing development character of Spring Valley. The subject land use amendment places an integral role in trying to properly transition from the Spring Valley character to either industrial, heavy commercial or office development. Industrial or heavy commercial usually involves neighborhoods with a questionable economic value when it encroaches upon residential areas. He stated the Board’s decision tonight is a countywide issue because it is an issue of preserving residential units and economic development. The applicant is willing to restrict heavy commercial uses to certain existing allowable uses but that still allows very adverse land uses.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. King advised he does not believe that PCD zoning is appropriate and he would like the Board to deny the request.

Commissioner McLain left the meeting at this time.

Mr. King explained why he feels that PCD zoning is not a good idea. He stated the Spring Valley Association proposed that the City expand the study area to include all of this land area. Their response was they wanted the County to handle the area north of Hillview. The applicant is saying that the study effort is going to begin with his proposed C3 as the base. The community wants the County to look at the highest and best use of that area based upon the existing uses and the proposed uses associated with future development in the city. He stated the applicant wants to move his business to a new location and the community would like to see all potential uses be considered. He submitted a letter from Mary & Jeff Collins opposing the request and a Petition, as shown on page _________, consisting of 86 signatures opposing the amendment.

Commissioner Morris advised the Board has received 50 written comments and they are reading each one of them at this time.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

Rev. Terry Butler, 567 Hillview Dr., addressed the Board to state a wall is located at the back part of Spring Valley and it separates his neighborhood and Spring Valley. He stated he has been a resident in the area for almost 37 years. He added he would have to agree with the new proposal submitted tonight. The property owners in the area do not want their property values to go down and the applicants property value to go up, as they want all of it changed so that they can utilize their property to the highest value if they decide to sell it.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Henley, Mr. Butler advised he would like his property to be included in the Altamonte Springs study.

Mr. Butler stated if his property is included with what Mr. Hattaway is doing, he supports the proposal, but if it does not, he does not support it.

Andrew Zelman, 157 Spring Chase Circle, addressed the Board to state he lives across the wall of Spring Valley and it affects him and his neighborhood. He stated the applicant has about 95 vehicles a week going through his property and it is somewhat busy. Industrial use will increase traffic in this area and there is no need for Mr. Hattaway to move his business across the street. That property is a unique piece of property and it is very rural.

Commissioner Morris left the meeting at this time.

Harold Markovitz, 120 Variety Tree Circle, addressed the Board to state he will defer his comments at this time.

Rev. Shirley Williams, 685 Oaklando Dr., addressed the Board to state she represents the Mt. Tabor A.M.F. Church. She stated the community is going to be affected no matter what happens. The residents are concerned because by expanding and developing to industrial, they feel that the existing land use of the community will not be consistent. The church’s parking area will be affected also and that will create a hardship for them.

Tracy Harmon, 138 Deacon Jones, addressed the Board to state she would like to speak on behalf of her grandfather who resides on Mathews Road. She stated her grandfather and other neighbors, who live across the street, will be directly affected by the proposed land use change. She said she doesn’t think consideration has been given to these residents. Whatever development is built there, it will affect the traditional family life in that area.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Ms. Harmon advised she would like that area to remain High Density Residential and she would prefer apartments or duplexes in that area.

William Palmer, 125 Variety Tree Circle, addressed the Board to state he feels it is premature to do anything on this until they have a better handle of what Mr. Hattaway intends to do with this property.

Win Adams, 105 Springwood Place, addressed the Board to state he is the Vice President of the Spring Lake Hills Homeowners Association. He stated he has concerns relative to the buffering as it is critical to this area. He said he would never support industrial, but he feels that PCD zoning is something that needs to be discussed. He added he feels that drainage and lighting in that area is another issue that needs to be discussed.

Emanuel J. Elliott, 143 Variety Tree Circle, addressed the Board to state he has lived in the area for 43 years. He stated Spring Valley is only one of the areas that is being affected and most of the homes in that area are neat and well kept. The PCD zoning will not provide the buffering that the residents will need to protect the value of their homes. There are three homes between the subject property and Spring Valley and all of the residents who have the biggest investments in their homes would like to protect it.

Mr. Miller stated he would like to request the Board deny the proposed request. He stated no one had the knowledge of the proposed change, as they were unable to communicate with the applicant. Mr. Hattaway informed the residents that he has no immediate use of the property or any specific plans now or in the future. He stated he feels it is prudent that Mr. Hattaway withdraw any application and let the City and County work together with a joint plan to see if that plan is viable and then come back at the next cycle.

Mr. Harling stated the information that he received indicated that if the proper controls and planning were done, the community would support it. He stated he feels that residential should be a component of the overall plan in this area. The planning effort that would be put forth by the City and the County would identify those areas and uses that make an appropriate transition to residential. He added he sees this as a multiple use project and it would compliment the area. The proposed plan would provide the planning tool to protect all of the existing residential neighborhoods and it will provide the ability for the adjacent properties to be elevated at the same time as this property.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

Signed form letters from area residents opposing the land use change were submitted into the Record.

Chairman Henley passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman for the purpose of offering a motion.

At the request of Commissioner Morris, Ms. Chandler explained what would happen if the Board approved transmitting this amendment to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

District Commissioner Henley stated given the fact that a planning study is underway by the City of Altamonte Springs relative to various parcels south of Hillview Dr., he believes this Board has a timely opportunity to join the City in reviewing this area. He stated he also believes that this process would help to address the compatibility issues raised by the residents as well as creating a more satisfactory transition within a changing area. He said he would recommend transmitting the Board’s statement of intent to DCA indicating that a joint small area study will be completed by November 1999. This study would include an assessment of existing land use policies and applicable land development regulations; a survey of existing conditions; and a comprehensive analysis that would include joint recommendations for future land use, infrastructure development, environmental protection and land use policies to protect existing established residential areas. He stated he believes that the intergovernmental coordination element of the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the multi-party interlocal planning agreement with the cities will be consistent with this action. He said he would also recommend that the applicant prepare an associated PCD rezoning request with more descriptive and declarative specific uses. This will address the compatibility issues raised tonight. The revised land use amendment could be heard by the LPA in November and the BCC in December.

Motion by Commissioner Henley, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to transmit a statement of intent, as outlined by Commissioner Henley, to the DCA, for property located north of Hillview Drive and west of Mathews Road, containing approximately 14.5 acres, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County, Harling Locklin & Associates, Inc.; authorize staff to move forward with the Small Area Study, with the applicant to come back with the specifications as to what he is planning to do with the property.

Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Commissioner Henley advised the intent of the motion is not to transmit Industrial land use. It is the intent to transmit with the study with direction to the applicant that he is to come back with a PCD zoning request.

Commissioner McLain stated what he is hearing is the Board is not transmitting any land use change, but will be submitting a letter to DCA indicating that they are planning to study the area and to work with the property owner.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Ms. Chandler advised at adoption the Board could advertise for a land use of something else that is more consistent with the zoning. Discussion ensued.

Commissioner Henley clarified his motion is that the Board notify DCA indicating that the Board is asking the applicant to prepare an associated zoning for PCD for that site. He stated the applicant will then come forth with a descriptive plan as to what he is planning to do with that site. The applicant will go before the LPA with that request to approve or deny the recommended change. After that, the Board will determine in December whether to approve or deny the land use at that time.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Groot advised if the motion passes, the industrial land use would not be transmitted. What would be transmitted to DCA is a letter or statement stating the Board intends to consider the land use plan in December along with the packet relating to this parcel. The Board will also indicate that a study will be done.

Commissioner Morris stated the Board had this discussion two weeks ago and it should have been enunciated at that time that the same thing could have been done. He stated he feels that this Board needs to be informed better as to what their options are. This is new information that has not been passed on to this Board. He said he would like that process in writing so they know it and he would like staff to know the process also.

Commissioner Henley recommended that Mr. Groot provide a copy of the letter from DCA indicating that they support what he indicated. He stated he felt that the letter gave the Board an additional option that was not put into play in the past.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated this would give the area more protection as they can determine what will go in the PCD.

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

The gavel was returned to Commissioner Henley who assumed the position of Chairman.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to continue the Fall 1999 Administrative Amendments Public Hearing to August 25, 1999 at 7:00 p.m.

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

Chairman Henley announced that the Spring Hammock Preserve Management Plan public hearing will be held on September 14, 1999 at 1:30 p.m.

-------

The Board recessed the meeting at 11:30 p.m., reconvening at 7:07 p.m. on August 25, 1999, with all Officials, with the exception of County Manager Kevin Grace, who was replaced by Deputy County Manager Cindy Coto, who were present at the Opening Session.

Motion by Commissioner Van Der Weide, seconded by Commissioner Morris to accept proofs of publication for this meeting's scheduled public hearings.

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

Continuation of a public hearing to consider Amendment 09-99SS.3 from Suburban Estates to Commercial and Rezone from R-1 (Single Family Dwelling District) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District); property located at the southeast corner of CR 419 and Lake Mills Road, containing approximately 4.77 acres; and associated Text Amendment 99F-TXT 3.7 to amend the Urban/Rural Boundary, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page ________, Harling Locklin & Associates.

Cindy Matheny, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to advise the applicant has submitted a PCD plan indicating that development of the site would consist of approximately 37,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial uses, including a bank with drive-thru lanes. She stated requested uses within the PCD indicate the permitted uses in the CN zoning district and C-1 and C-2 permitted uses. She added the applicant previously submitted an amendment and rezoning request for the site and additional properties to the east, which included a portion of Old SR 13 right-of-way, which was deeded to the County by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for recreational purposes. The applicant withdrew that request in January. The current submittal removes the SR 13 right-of-way, which abuts the eastern edge of the site. She stated the site is not within the water and sewer service area. Florida Water Service (FWS) is the nearest potential provider. Currently, FWS has water lines west of CR 419; sewer lines are located approximately 3000 feet north of the site. This site is outside the urban/rural boundary and the County has adopted policies and must be met by the applicant in order to extend that boundary. The boundary is currently located approximately ¼ mile north of the site. She reviewed the following amendment criteria for urban/rural boundary: Demonstration of Need; Locational Analysis of Amendments; and Mandatory Consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Plan.

Ms. Matheny stated staff recommends denial of the land use with findings that: (1) The proposal would be inconsistent with the locational criteria of the County’s Comprehensive Plan relating to the Commercial land use; (2) The proposal would be incompatible with development trends in the surrounding area; (3) Commercial land use, as proposed, would be inconsistent with Plan policies regarding the rural area of the county and extension of the urban/rural boundary; (4) The proposal is not consistent with Plan policies which require a full range of basic urban services for Commercial land use; and (5) Commercial land use, as proposed, would be inconsistent with Plan policies identified at this time and, therefore, is inconsistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends denial of the text amendment to amend the urban/rural boundary to include the project. She stated staff recommends that the rezoning request: (1) Is not in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code related to Commercial land use and PCD zoning; and (2) The request would be incompatible with surrounding development. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the rezoning request. She stated the Local Planning Agency (LPA) recommended that the request be continued until the next large scale cycle (spring amendment). The LPA recommended that the 419 corridor study should be completed before this item is considered again.

Hugh Harling, Harling Locklin & Associates, addressed the Board to submit a booklet (received and filed) consisting of support documentation, aerial photographs, zoning map, vicinity map, existing commercial facilities, and the site plan. He submitted a Petition, as shown on page _________, of residents in support of the proposed amendment. He referred to Exhibit A under Tab 1 and reviewed the population estimates for primary and secondary service zones. He displayed an aerial photograph showing the existing commercial uses along CR 419. He also displayed and reviewed aerial photographs of the proposed site. He stated staff has indicated that Lake Mills Road is a connector road to CR 419. He displayed and reviewed a zoning map of the existing uses. He stated the Catholic Church owns property to the south and his intention is to locate a facility that will be church related. He said he is requesting that water and sewer service be extended to that area and the Catholic Church is requesting this also. He added he has analyzed the entire existing commercial along CR 419 and approximately 50% is unusable. He displayed and reviewed pictures of existing commercial facilities to the north and south of CR 419. The community has a certain level of needs for commercial that will be made by this as a first phase of commercial that would meet existing and future needs of this particular community. He displayed and reviewed a site plan and advised he intends to develop this project in a rural manner. He also displayed a picture (received and filed) showing the type of structure they are planning to build. He stated at the north end of this commercial center, access to bathrooms will be provided for the trail and trailhead.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Harling advised the adult living facility showing on the site plan is not part of the land use amendment. He stated he will come back to the Board for a Special Exception.

Mr. Harling discussed with Commissioner Maloy the net density, the square footage needed for commercial, the reason why a connector road is needed, and water and sewer service.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Harling advised the owner and his family live in Picket Downs and it is his desire to provide high quality commercial in the area.

Don King, 1651 Sultan Circle, addressed the Board to state he has lived in Picket Downs for about three years and it is an inconvenience to go to Oviedo to go to the store. He stated it would be nice to have somewhere close by to shop.

Eddie Herrell, 1800 Sultan Circle, addressed the Board to speak in support of the proposed commercial development.

Allann Seibel, 181 Riverwoods Drive, addressed the Board to state he lives directly across from the proposed shopping area. He stated he is in support of the amendment as the area has needs for services such as banks, stores, etc.

Scott Jumper, 420 E. 6^th St., addressed the Board to state he is excited about having convenience close to home, as it will be a great asset to the community.

Douglas Capps, 2780 Lake Pickett Place, addressed the Board to state he lives down the road from the project and the area is in need of a place to shop without having to go all the way to Oviedo.

Jeffrey Nelson, 1800 Quiet Forest Trail, addressed the Board to request protection from the residents from urban sprawl.

Chris Ganoudis, 2670 Mills Creek Road, addressed the Board to state he has lived in Lake Pickett Estates for 12 years and he passes CR 419 six to eight times per day. He stated he is in favor of the development and he is in favor of someone living in the community that has taken an active role for the community.

Connie Gilliam, 2921 Saddlebred Trail, addressed the Board to speak in favor of the proposed development. She stated she feels it will be an asset to the community and she is in favor of it.

Kathie Smith, 2476 Mills Creek Road, addressed the Board to state she is opposed to any uncontrolled or high density development. She stated she knows that it is eventually going commercial, therefore, she would like to have someone locally to develop it.

Robert King, 2211 Black Hammock, addressed the Board to state the main issue tonight is urban boundary. He stated there is no doubt that eventually the property owner is going to build something there. Too many changes have come to this area. Every commercial use cannot be provided without making adjustments to the rural urban boundaries.

Barbie Leniles, 2454 Mills Creek Road, addressed the Board to state she is a native Floridian and she moved to Chuluota about 8 years ago. She stated the area is in desperate need of some services. She said she welcomes this development and she would encourage the Board to come out and visit the area, as it will help with their decision.

Carl Rose, 1272 Galant Fox Way, addressed the Board to state he has been a Chuluota resident for 2½ years and he is here to stay. He stated he has been a building developer since 1957 and he has built all kinds of structures for the past 42 years and they are still standing. He said he has spoken to over 100 people and they all see the need for the Horseshoe Village Shops.

Marie Rose, 1272 Gallant Fox Way, addressed the Board to state she lives in Pickett Downs and she has concerns about their community. She stated they do not live in the dark ages and it is time to move forward.

Leigh McEachern, 2205 Snow Hill Road, addressed the Board to state over the last several months he has visited some of Mr. Rose’s condos and the commercial property is well maintained. Mr. Rose is a competent builder who builds a product that you can be comfortable with.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. McEachern advised he does not see this proposal leading to urban sprawl. He stated he was concerned with what Mr. Rose was going to do with the Diocese property. He added he found out that Mr. Rose is proposing an assisted living facility and a private Christian school and that will block any further development along 419. He stated he feels that this development is consistent with maintaining the quality of life.

James Cookley, 1349 Via Villanova Way, addressed the Board to display and review a map of Seminole County. He stated he lives in Winter Springs and when he looks at this map he is looking at all of the entire urban sprawl. He stated for a County that is supposed to be a natural choice, it seems like they are bending over backwards for development. The Board needs to consider the growth that happens everytime they change the zoning to commercial and if that is done, there won’t be a natural choice left.

Commissioner Morris informed Mr. Cookley that the County will be reconsidering an agreement with the City of Oviedo to stop urban boundary limits. He stated in time this would allow the City of Oviedo to set its borders to a limit they see as buildout.

Karen Witmer, 695 Riverwood Trail, addressed the Board to state she doesn’t think the Board should consider this proposal when the residents in that area can come within one mile of their homes to obtain service. She stated she is concerned with moving urban rural boundaries when it was done about two months ago.

Susan Eberle, 652 W. Palm Valley Drive, addressed the Board to speak in opposition to the rezoning request. She stated she attended several Chuluota small area studies and everyone there was opposed to the land use and leaving urban boundary. She read a letter from B.M. Gilton, called a Natural Choice.

Michael Rich, representing C-RED, addressed the Board to state the question he has is whether the land use change is appropriate. He stated the citizens want the Board to listen to the initial study that staff submitted to them. The County’s planning experts are telling the Board that this is an inappropriate use.

Mr. Rich advised nothing has changed in the last month and if DCA, staff and the residents do not approve it, then the Board shouldn’t do it either. He stated he doesn’t want the character of the community altered. The community does not need more commercial in the area, therefore, the community character and charm should be kept in the area.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Rich advised he lives on Lake Eva and it is about two miles from the project. He stated he uses the businesses in Chuluota as he supports using the community’s business.

Stanley Stevens, 377 Riverwoods Trail, addressed the Board to state there is plenty of commercial in the area. He reviewed the areas that have commercial uses. The site is very narrow and the buildings would be small. The Girl Scout camp is across the road and they are surrounded with commercial and the security for them is gone. The only access the Girl Scout camp has is down his road and they have an agreement with his development that they would not use that for anything except for access to their property.

Bob Witmer, 695 Riverwood Trail, addressed the Board to state he would have to disagree with some of the residents in the area saying that this will lead to urban sprawl. He said he feels the Board needs to be careful in moving the urban rural boundary as it will lead to urban sprawl. All of the recently approved developments in Oviedo and Chuluota have some commercial and those could serve the needs of that area.

Chairman Henley advised that he has received a Written Comment Form from Deborah Schafer opposing the request.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Harling advised he has not looked at the commercial property located in front of the Chuluota grocery. He stated Second Street is the only collector street that ties into this. The Board approved the Chuluota Bypass and that will take traffic off of Second Street. The Chuluota Bypass and Lake Mills will be two collector streets that tie into 419.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

A Petition, as shown on page _________, of 45 signatures from residents in the Chuluota area requesting approval of the proposed PCD zoning was submitted into the Record.

At the request of Commissioner Van Der Weide, Lonnie Groot, Deputy County Attorney, explained the process of addressing land amendments. Discussion ensued.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Harling advised he would commit to providing bathroom facilities for the trail and access from the trail into this center.

Upon further inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Harling advised he will bring the elevation request in December that will be rural in style if that is the desire of the Board. He stated he would elaborate more on the hours of operation in December as well as signage, noise, dumpster placement, etc.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Henley, Mr. Harling advised the depth of the property is 270 ft. and what they have laid out is the appropriate requirements for shallow depth buildings and parking. The closest building is one complete parking bay (64 ft.) plus a 10-ft. buffer against the building, which would be 84 ft.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Mr. Fall advised the LPA felt that a nonresidential study was needed in the area after the Chuluota Small Area Study came back from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA).

Frances Chandler, Planning & Development Director, addressed the Board to advise the LPA and staff have not reviewed the study that Mr. Harling has presented. That is new information that was not included at the time LPA made their recommendation.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Ms. Chandler advised if the Board desires, staff can review the study between now and at the time the proposed request comes back to the Board in December.

Mr. Groot stated that the document would also be transmitted to the DCA for their review.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Maloy, Mr. Groot advised if the Board approves the plan amendment in conjunction with approval of the rezoning, conditions on the property would be established and it will be placed in the development order and it would run with the land.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Morris to transmit Amendment 08-99SS.3 from Suburban Estates to Commercial and Rezone from R-1 (Single Family Dwelling District) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District); property located at the southeast corner of CR 419 and Lake Mills Road, containing approximately 4.77 acres; and associated Text Amendment 99F-TXT 3.7 to amend the Urban/Rural Boundary, as described in the proof of publication, Harling Locklin & Associates.

Under discussion and upon inquiry by Chairman Henley, Mr. Harling advised he can provide copies of their plans to the homeowners.

Commissioner Morris stated he thinks it is important to run the study through LPA to see if it meets their recommendations.

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

Continuation of a public hearing to consider Amendment 99F.ADM 1.1 from Suburban Estates to Low Density Residential; property located north and south of Orange Blvd. and east and west of Oregon Avenue, containing approximately 700 acres; Text Amendment 99F.TXT 1, Amendments to the Capital Improvements Element; Amendment 99F.AFDM 1.2 from Suburban Estates to Industrial; property located north of Orange Blvd., east of Missouri Ave. and approximately 45 acres; and Text Amendment 99F-TXT 3, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page _________, Seminole County.

District Commissioner McLain stated this is an application submitted by staff and this is one of the amendments that they have asked the Board to review in this process. He submitted a map (received and filed) showing in green those residents who spoke against this project. He said he read a letter (not received and filed) from Mr. Massey and he also submitted with a map (received and filed) showing the locations of his clients who are opposed to Low Density Residential north of Orange Blvd. He added Mr. Massey indicated that his clients are not opposed to Low Density Residential south of Orange Blvd. or Industrial Use east of this property as long as it is buffered from the residential surrounding properties.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to remove all properties in the proposed Amendment 99F.ADM 1.1 north of Orange Blvd.

Under discussion, Commissioner McLain stated he does not want to impose a land use change on those property owners who were against it.

Commissioner Van Der Weide pointed out that this is a staff issue and he feels the Board has been aware that this is not something that the residents are interested in. He said he is proud that the District Commissioner has worked with the people and their representative to get to this point.

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

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Commissioner McLain advised the letter indicates that the group does not oppose low density south of Orange Blvd. and the area east of Michigan.

Chairman Henley announced that the only portion of the Amendment that is for consideration is south of Orange Blvd. and east and west of Oregon Ave.

At the request of Mr. Groot, Tony Matthews, Senior Planner, addressed the Board to indicate on the map the properties that are not affected by the motion.

Gary Massey, 100 W. Citrus St., addressed the Board to state he represents 100 property owners and the group as a whole does not oppose the amendment south of Orange Blvd. A letter to Mr. Massey from Mr. Groot relative to requesting additional time was received and filed.

Upon inquiry by Frank Shelton, Chairman Henley advised the properties to the north will not be affected as the motion was approved to remove all of those properties.

Commissioner McLain stated this was an amendment from staff and no property owner requested the amendment. The Board has the authority to withdraw anything they choose.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Groot advised the Comp Plan process is a legislative process and the applicant before the legislative amendment is from County staff. The only obligation the Board has is to assure public participation.

Mr. Shelton, 14 Stone Gate North, addressed the Board to state he is in agreement with what is being done.

Upon inquiry by Chairman Henley, Mr. Groot advised the Board would be voting whether or not to transmit the proposed land use amendment on the property south of Orange Blvd.

Win Adams, 105 Springwood Place, stated he completely agrees with what the Board has just done.

Keith Schue, 30641 Edgewood St., addressed the Board to state he will defer his comments at this time.

Leonard Smith, 1304 N. Lake Dr., addressed the Board to submit a letter (received and filed) from him and Jacqueline Smith expressing their concerns.

Greg Beliveau, 2001 Old 441, addressed the Board to state he is a planner for Mr. Massey and he does not need to speak.

David Scott, Michigan Ave., addressed the Board to state he does not wish to speak.

Chairman Henley called Stanley Stevens to speak but he had left the meeting.

Susan Eberle stated she did not wish to speak.

Tom Stone, 5711 Deer Path Lane, addressed the Board to request the Board to give the residents to the south of Orange Blvd. the same consideration as the Board has done for the residents north of Orange Blvd.

Ransome Welborn, 4600 Canal Drive, addressed the Board to state he has lived in St. Johns River Estates for 25 years and during that time this property has been brought up numerous times and it has been turned down every time except for a Special Exception. The Comp Plan indicates that there should be some type of transitional land between commercial/industrial and residential zoning. He stated he feels that by putting commercial or industrial zoning between industrial and residential is not a transitional use.

Mike Schwartz, 4595 Nebraska Ave., addressed the Board to speak in opposition to this rezoning. He stated there is a saying that this area is only 2% flood prone. He said he doesn’t believe that, as most of his property is 10 ft. below sea level. He added he spent 3½ years building his home and his intention was to live in a rural residential area. He said he did not think at the time that industrial would come toward his area.

Commissioner Van Der Weide left the meeting at this time.

Faith Jones, 763 Mallard Dr., addressed the Board to thank the Board for their decision.

Polly Miller, 121 Larspur Drive, addressed the Board to state the League of Women Voters helped with updating the Comp Plan. The League would like the Board to consider naming a diverse segment of Seminole County business professionals, academic and scientific, residents to serve as an advisory force to explore in depth the report on Seminole County’s land use options. The emphasis of these two areas has put unnecessary pressure in two areas of the County and it seems like the Board is trying to fill all of the land growth into these two areas.

Chairman Henley read the following names who wrote on their comment forms opposing the request: Regina Welborn; Sue and C. J. Metzler; Kristine Bugnacki; Robert Bugnacki; and Alice MacDowell. He stated the remaining comment forms will go into the Record.

Commissioner Van Der Weide reentered the meeting at this time.

A letter from Marcy & Wilson Bryan was received and filed.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

Mr. Boyer stated the Land Use Amendments 1.1 and 1.2 have two associated text amendments, one is the Capital Improvements Element and the other is restricted access to Missouri and Nebraska Avenue.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner McLain, Jerry McCollum, County Engineer, addressed the Board to state he feels that the major traffic generator in the residential area has been eliminated. He stated he feels the large transportation study can be delayed.

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to deny and not to transmit Amendment 99F.AFDM1.2 from Suburban Estates to Industrial; property located north of Orange Blvd., east of Missouri Ave. and south of Nebraska Ave., containing approximately 45 acres, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County.

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

- - -

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to deny Text Amendment 99F-TXT 3 to create Policy 2.2.10, Prohibit Nonresidential Access to Missouri Avenue and Nebraska Avenue.

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

-------

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to transmit Amendment 1.1, Low Density Residential for property located south of Orange Blvd. and east and west of Oregon Ave., as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County.

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

- - -

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Maloy to postpone and delay the Text Amendment 99F.TXT 1 Study for the Orange Blvd. area to a later cycle.

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

-------

The Chairman recessed the meeting at 10:15 p.m., reconvening at 10:25 p.m., with Commissioner McLain entering late.

Continuation of a public hearing to consider Amendment 99F.ADM 15.1 from Medium Density Residential to Office; property located on the east side of SR 426, approximately ½ mile south of Chapman Road, containing approximately 0.8 acres; and Amendment 99F.ADM 15.2 from Medium Density Residential to Office; property located on the east side of SR 426, approximately ¼ mile south of Chapman Road, containing approximately 6.5 acres, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page __________, Seminole County, Stephen J. Ratcliff.

Mr. Boyer advised the northern most lot in this amendment request was rezoned to RP zoning in 1997. He stated staff recommends Office land use with findings that the land use, as proposed: (1) Would be consistent with Commercial and Medium Density Residential land uses in the immediate area; (2) Would be consistent with the locational criteria of the County’s Comprehensive Plan relating to Office land uses; (3) Would be consistent with Plan policies regarding transitional land uses; and (4) Would be consistent with Plan policies identified at this time and, therefore, is consistent with the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan. The LPA recommended approval.

Steve Ratcliff, applicant, addressed the Board to request approval.

No one spoke in support or in opposition.

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to transmit Amendment 99F.ADM 15.1 for Office Land Use; property located on the east side of SR 426, approximately ½ mile south of Chapman Road, containing approximately 0.8 acres, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County, Stephen J. Ratcliff.

Commissioner McLain reentered the meeting at this time.

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

- - -

Motion by Commissioner Maloy, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to transmit Amendment 99F.ADM 15.2 for Office Land Use; property located on the east side of SR 426, approximately ¼ mile south of Chapman Road, containing approximately 6.5 acres, as described in the proof of publication, Seminole County, Stephen J. Ratcliff.

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

Continuation of a public hearing to consider Text Amendment 99F.TXT 3.5, creation of the Suburban Community Residential Future Land Use designation; Text Amendment 99F.TXT 3.6, creation of a new (replacement) Table 2.3 Future Land Use Densities/Intensities Designation Requirements, Permitted Zoning Classifications; Amendment 99F.TXT 3.8, Amendment to Table 2.1 Appropriate Transitional Land Uses; and Amendment 99F.TXT 3.9, amending Table 2.5 Services and Facilities by Classification, as described in the proof of publication, as shown on page _________.

Frances Chandler advised this amendment is entitled Suburban Community Residential with associated amendments to the table of the Comprehensive Plan. She submitted Table 2.3 and advised that revisions were made in the original table. She said when the Board withdrew all of the other amendments, staff amended the table to include the needed changes for Suburban Residential.

Commissioner Morris stated for years the Board discussed the concept of coming up with some type of transition in Suburban Residential land use. He stated the problem he has is the definition of suburban residential land use and this appears that this will occur in rural categories. Ms. Chandler explained why it is not in the rural category. Discussion ensued.

Mr. Groot recommended adding the following words "urban land" in the first sentence of the definition. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Morris, Mr. Groot advised the word "exclusively" can be added before "as a transitional urban land use".

Commissioner McLain stated he would support adding those three words.

Commissioner Maloy stated he feels the words add some flexibility to the Land Development Code as some people were interested in having lower density land use in the traditional area.

Robert King stated he would like to speak in favor of the word changes, as they are substantial.

Keith Schue submitted a letter (received and filed) from the Sierra Club requesting consideration of some modifications to the new land use designation Suburban Community Residential. He stated he agrees with the concept of what has been suggested. He referred to the second page and began reviewing the new proposed language that the Sierra Club is recommending.

Commissioner McLain stated he would like to have staff review and discuss these changes with Mr. Schue. Whereupon, Mr. Schue, Ms. Chandler and Mr. Groot stepped to the back of the room to discuss the changes.

Robert Bugnacki stated he feels that 2 houses per acre for single detached family residence would be better than 2½ because 2 seems too much for a buffer between low density and suburban estates.

Monte Shoemaker, 5376 E. Ohio Ave., addressed the Board to state he feels the Board needs to table this because of some problem areas.

Chairman Henley called for Susan Kairys-Courech to speak but she was not in attendance.

Susan Eberle stated she concurs with what Mr. Schue has said and she feels the Board should table this and make a decision on this at another time.

Frank Shelton stated his concern is where do you do the 2 or 2½ houses. Do you do it on the suburban estates side or on the other side of the fence. He said he is afraid that it is going to end up on the suburban estates side. Two or 2½ houses per acre is a transitional land use between Suburban Estates and Low Density Residential.

Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Shelton advised he doesn’t believe a conference should be held while there is a public meeting.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he would have to agree and he feels that this item should be continued so they can have a reasonable and normal approach to these complicated issues.

Chairman Henley stated these items have not been decided as to whether the Board will be making a decision tonight or continue them.

Kathleen Clark, 5950 S. Sanford Ave., addressed the Board to state she is opposed to this because it is a way to encroach on rural properties. She displayed a map (not received and filed) showing the usage around the area. She indicated and reviewed the area that was just approved by the City of Sanford. She displayed and reviewed a map (received and filed) relating to development off South Sanford Ave.

A report from Seminole County League of Women Voters was received and filed.

Chairman Henley read the following names who oppose the request: Susan Phelp; Laverne Cox; Miriam Brahim; Leonard Christian; Kathy Vugrinic; John Thompson; Brian Van Dusen; and Marna Christian.

A notarized statement from Robert Bugnacki was received and filed.

No one else spoke in support or in opposition.

Speaker Request and Written Comment Forms were received and filed.

Motion by Commissioner Morris, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to not transmit Text Amendment 99F.TXT 3.5, creation of the Suburban Community Residential future land use designation; Text Amendment 99F.TXT 3.6, creation of a new (replacement) Table 2.3 Future Land Use Densities/Intensities Designation Requirements, Permitted Zoning Classifications; Amendment 99F.TXT 3.8, amendment to Table 2.1 Appropriate Transitional Land Uses; and Amendment 99F.TXT 3.9, amending Table 2.5 Services and Facilities by Classification, as described in the proof of publication.

Under discussion and upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Der Weide, Mr. Schue advised he did not speak to staff prior to the meeting.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he feels that Mr. Schue needs to submit any recommended changes to staff before it is brought before the Board.

Commissioner Morris stated he feels it might be better to take the time to do this during the Spring Cycle.

Commissioner McLain stated he feels the Board agrees that this is the direction they want to go in, but he wants to make sure there are no loopholes that will come back and hurt them at a later date.

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

Monte Shoemaker stated he would like to make a few proposals to the Board for consideration. He stated he hopes that each of the proposals he is making will help attain the ideal of a government of, by and for the people in Seminole County. Since discussing various matters with two commissioners recently, he has been left with the impression that there is a level of frustration in allowing meaningful citizen involvement in the process of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. He said he is convinced that the citizens do not understand the Board’s motives or reasoning in approving certain proposals in the past. He stated he is hoping to find a way to improve the system in handling proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and providing a meaningful way for the public to participate. Therefore, he is recommending the following: (1) Creation of a Citizen’s Advisory Board; (2) Provide a Manual for Citizens Opposing Development; (3) Designate a Member of the Planning Staff to Assist the Public in Gathering Documents and Facts; (4) Create a Public Advocate Position; (5) Imposing a Requirement that County Planning Staff Maintain Objectivity, and Bar Advocacy of Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendments, even during the DCA Review Process; and (6) Creation of Coordinated Cities and County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He stated he is convinced that with the proposed changes or improvements to the system, the Board would find less public perception that the Board is pro-development and that a sincere effort is being made to involve the public in the process. He said he feels that if these issues are not addressed, then the Board will further weaken the public’s trust. He added he will commit to devoting as much of his time and energy in helping to bring these improvements to the system. He submitted a copy of his proposal into the Record.

Commissioner Morris stated staff is working on a manual and that will be presented to the Board within the next few months. He stated he feels the County should prepare as many of the implications that are legal relative to State Law, how the Comprehensive Plan is operated, and how the County operates with the Cities in a response. The County can obtain a legal response as well as a response from the Planning Director and then get together with the citizens.

Chairman Henley stated the Board has already discussed some of the issues that Mr. Shoemaker has mentioned. He stated he doesn’t think that any of the Board members are happy with the situation they find themselves in meeting after meeting. He added he would like to direct staff to prepare a response to these issues for the Board to review. The Board voiced no objections.

Commissioner Van Der Weide stated he has suggested to Ms. Chandler and Mr. Groot that there should be a package indicating to the public how the issues of the day progressed to the point where they are. Then staff should provide a summation indicating what is next after whatever action the Board takes and where does it go after that point.

Commissioner Maloy stated he feels the Board should obtain staff’s comments and assessments relative to these issues. He stated he feels it is important that when the Board review these land uses and zonings, they try to have a nonbiased view of these issues. It is hard to try to get a view of what the public thinks and the public has a hard time trying to figure out what the Board thinks. Anytime the Board can clarify issues and improve communication, and try to get as much nonbiased input as possible, it is always a good idea.

-------

Motion by Commissioner McLain, seconded by Commissioner Van Der Weide to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. this same date.

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

-------

Cindy Coto, Deputy County Manager, addressed the Board to remind Commissioners Van Der Weide, Maloy and Henley of a Risk Management meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

ATTEST_____________________Clerk____________________Chairman

slm/er