Official Minutes of MARION COUNTY

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

July 16 2013

The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session in Commission Chambers at 905 am on Tuesday July 16 2013 at the Marion County Governmental Complex located in Ocala Florida

The meeting opened with invocation by Commissioner McClain and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our Country

Upon roll call the following members were present Chairman Kathy Bryant District 2 Vice-Chairman Carl Zalak District 4 Commissioner David Moore District 1 Commissioner Stan McClain District 3 and Commissioner Earl Arnett District 5 Also present were Clerk David R Ellspermann County Attorney Matthew G Minter and County Administrator Lee A Niblock

Commissioners - Chairman Bryant addressed upcoming scheduled meetings as listed on the Commission Calendar (Item 12C)

Projects amp Programs - (1A and 8) - Upon motion of Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak the Board approved the following

A Presentation by Parks Department regarding Park and Recreation Month 2013 poster and birdhouse contest winners

B Presentation by Kevin Sheilley regarding the OcalaMarion County Chamber amp Economic Partnership (CEP)

Parks amp RecreationProjects amp Programs - (1A) - Parks and Recreation Director Gina Peebles presented the following recommendation regarding the 2013 poster and birdhouse contest winners

DescriptionBackground In celebration of Parks and Recreation Month the Parks and Recreation Department hosted a youth poster contest and birdhouse designbuild contest The poster contest was open to 5-8 year olds and 9-14 year olds The Parks and Recreation Advisory Council scored the posters on their emphasis of the It Starts in Parks Messages which are Coaching Connecting Community Two winners were chosen from each age group who are being recognized at our meeting this morning The posters are on display in the Commission Chambers and the Forest Community Center at Sandhill Park The Its for the Birds Birdhouse Contest was open to residents ages 10+ Three winners were chosen in the youth adult and professional categories with one Peoples Choice winner The birdhouses will be on display for one year at the new Coehadjoe Park Wild Cat Play Area BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Presentation and recognition of the poster and birdhouse contest winners Ms Peebles along with the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) presented

poster winners from the 5-8 year old group Victoria Eagan and the 9-14 year old

Book S Page 257

July 16 2013

group Sarah Walker and birdhouse building winners Trey Cuppey (1 st Place - Youth) Andre Adams and Jonathan Berecz (2nd Place - Youth) Daniel Harvey (3 rd Place shyYouth) Michael and Dianne Traphagen (1 st Place - Adult) Brett Ellis (2nd Place shy

(1 stAdult) Todd Crosby (3rd Place - Adult) and Kay and Day Low Place shyProfessional) She recognized honorable mention contestants Freddy Perez Andrew Russ Jesse Burnett Devyn Lucy Joshua Lackey Nathan Wagner Scott Batisti and Lowell Workman

Projects amp Programs - (1B) - President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Kevin Sheilley OcalaMarion County Chamber and Economicmiddot Partnership (CEP) provided a brief update on local economic development activities He stated the CEP now utilized an online tracking system with projects in order to share information internally as well as with the County City of Ocala and Workforce Connection partners Mr Sheilley noted Chris Edwards Economic Development Liaison Office of Economic and Small Business Development (OESBD) also had access to the system He advised that the CEP currently had 13 active projects and was seeing an increase in the number of Request for Information (RFI) Mr Sheilley stated there were 8 companies in the lead pipeline which were opportunities that were identified but not quite qualified as a project He advised that staff was participating in upcoming marketing events with Enterprise Florida which would soon begin a direct marketing campaign that would target companies in specific metro areas in order to recruit targeted industry sectors (ie food manufacturing logistics and back office) Mr Sheilley addressed efforts to ramp up the CEP business retention efforts by working with existing companies noting approximately 70 of all jobs being created in a community came from existing businesses He noted the CEP was currently working with several businesses regarding significant expansions to help retain and add to their investment

Mr Sheilley provided a brief update regarding the Chamber of Commerce Business IncubatorlThe Power Plant noting there were currently 11 resident clients and 8 more potential businesses on the waiting list He commented on the revised Business Advisory Committee which would be holding its first meeting within the next couple of weeks

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Sheilley advised that when a new company came into town they were very intense in regard to following through and taking advantage of available opportunities however many times established businesses were so focused on running the business they tended to forget there were opportunities and resources within the community to help them He commented on barriers that existed that could keep a business from growing and noted the need to resolve those issues (Le connections to Workforce)

County Emplovees - Chairman Bryant recognized that today was Public Information Manager Christy Jergens last day with the County She expressed gratitude on behalf of the BCC to Ms Jergens for her hard work noting Ms Jergens would be leaving to become a stay-at-home mom

Budgets - (2A) - Carl Crabtree NW 115th Avenue commented on government budgeting He advised that he served as a member of the Blue Ribbon Consolidation Work Group which was formed in 2010 and tasked to review the possible consolidation of services within the FireRescue Department and the Marion County Sheriffs Office

Page 258 Book S

July 16 2013

(MCSO) Mr Crabtree presented a 2 page handout regarding the Public Safety Consolidation Workgroup and a 4 page document dated December 20 2010 and entitled Marion County Public Safety Consolidation Study Group Position Paper

Mr Crabtree referred to the 2 page handout which contained a summary of final talking points he put together after the last Blue Ribbon Consolidation Work Group meeting in January 2011 He stated the second handout was a more in-depth analysis depicting the atmosphere and situations the County was engaged in at that time Mr Crabtree noted many of those situations were still germane today He advised that althoL1gh he did not always agree with former Sheriff Dean he still respected him and did not believe he was incompetent or would have allowed the MCSO to deteriorate nor was he callous enough to allow the community or bis deputies to be put in needless danger due to budget restraints Mr Crabtree advised that the current Sheriff stated he was limited in what could be done with MSCO regarding high rankingoverpaid Officers on staff due to a special law that protected those employees and limited what the Sheriff could do However it was pointed out by themiddot County Attorney that all government employees had the same civil service protection He stated if it was a redundant law than it needed to be repealed Mr Crabtree recommended that high ranking officers be utilized as backup to protect road deputies He commented on other Constitutional Officers as well as the Marion County School System that were able to reduce staff under that same civil service law Mr Crabtree requested the BCC stand firm and not fold in its request to lower department budgets

Parks amp Recreation - (2B) - Mitch Jamerson NW 60th Avenue Orange Lake member of the Orange Lake Community Club did not appear when called upon to address the Board

Parks amp Recreation - (2E) - Reverend Joe McFadden Sr SW 55th Avenue member of the Orange Lake Community Club noted the Club was a 501 c3 not-for profit organization He questioned what the BCC was going to do in regard to improvements for Orallge Lake Community Park Reverend McFadden stated he lived across the street from Liberty Community Park which had been closed down for renovations however no funds were being spent to improve Orange Lake Community Park He presented a 1 page handout entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Adopted Capital Improvement Program - Project Detail - Orange Blossom Park noting millions were being spent to renovate that park as well as Wrigley Field Reverend McFadden commended the County for building a Fire Department in Orange Lake but stated there were other needs in that community that were not being addressed He advised that Mr Niblock told them 10 years ago there were no funds available for improvements and questioned when monies would become available Reverend McFadden requested the Board consider the needs of citizens residing in northern Marion County

Chairman Bryant advised that the BCC was facing a $12000000 shortfall in regard to budget requests for fiscal year (FY) 2013-14 and was unsure how or where monies would be available this budget year to fund the project requests for Orange Lake Community Park She suggested residents consider a community fund raiser Chairman Bryant referred to the handout regarding Orange Blossom Park and stated that just because projects were placed in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) did not mean those improvements would be made

Book S Page 259

July 16 2013

Parks amp Recreation - (2C) - Larry Jamerson NW 43rd Court Orange Lake member of the Orange Lake Community Club advised that he had the same concerns as Reverend McFadden with regard to the lack of funding for Orange Lake Community Park He advised that members of the Orange Lake Community Club had no problem with scheduling fundraisers for the park however every time an event was planned there was controversy Mr Jamerson addressed a request to hold a Homecoming event and commented on the [special event] permitting process noting the Club had yet to receive a permit He expressed concern with regard to the animosity between County staff and Orange Lake residents

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Jamerson advised of an upcoming barshyb-que event scheduled August 1 through 3 2013

Chairman Bryant requested Assistant County Administrator of Public and Administrative Services Bill Kauffman work with Mr Jamerson regarding the special event permit

Parks amp Recreation - (20) - Pastor Luther Miller NE 55 th Court Silver Springs member of the Orange Lake Community Club did not appear when called upon to address the Board

BudgetsSheriff - (2F1) - Tina Mineo SE 5th Lane addressed the Board regarding the MCSO FY 2013-14 budget noting she was married to a MCSO Deputy She noted in the 7 years her husband worked for MCSO there had only been 1 raise Ms Mineo expressed concern with the grave financial needs of the department as well as the safety of all officers due to the lack of backup deputies She requested the BCC work with Sheriff Blair and support the MCSO budget

Parks amp Recreation - (2F2) - Cynthia Carr Post Office Box 830271 spoke on behalf of the Orange Lake Community Club regarding the Orange Lake Communitymiddot Park She addressed the Special Events Permit (Homecoming event) noting the application was submitted to the County on June 4 2013 and to date no information had been received as to whether or not it was approved Ms Carr advised of a meeting held on July 12 2013 with Assistant County Administrator of Public and Administrative Services Kauffman County Administrator Niblock and Commissioner Arnett noting at that time Orange Lake Community Club members were told there was an issue with the insurance She stated the Club had been providing the same insurance for the park ov~r the last 13 years and did not understand why it was now an issue Ms Carr advised that there was now a request for the Club to provide a Performance Bond which had never been requested for any other event held at the park She referred to a 3 page letter dated April 24 2013 to Mitch Jamerson Orange Lake Community Club from Mr Niblock Ms Carr requested the BCC find monies in the budget to help support the park

Chairman Bryant requested Ms Carr meet with Mr Kauffman noting she would follow up with him later this afternoon

(Ed Note The Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a copy of the letter referenced above)

Utilities - (2F3) - Roger Knechtel SE 9th Terrace Road Summerfield addressed the Board in regard to the City of Belleviews extension of public utilities

Page 260 Book S

July 16 2013

south along US Highway 441 to SE 135th Street as discussed at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting and questioned the type of utilities being extended Commissioner McClain stated it would be a new sewer line which would be a separate line and would not connect to the Marion County Utilities system

Minutes - (3A through D) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt the meeting minutes of June 6 7 and 18 (2 sets) 2013 The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsGrantsSheriff - (4A) - The Board considered the following recommendation from the MCSO regarding the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program

DescriptionBackground The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program provides states and units of local governments with critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas including law enforcement prosecution and court programs prevention and education programs corrections and community corrections drug treatment and enforcement crime victim and witness initiatives and planning evaluation and technology improvement programs The State of Florida elects annually to pass through a portion of their federal allocation to each county As such the Marion County Sheriffs Office requests that the Board delegate application authority to the Sheriffs Office to prepare and submit the JAG application as it has in previous years The application will be submitted electronically and is due August 2 2013 The grant funds will be requested to support the following programs Marion County Ocala Police Department- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County Sheriffs Office- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County DUI Court $ 12000 Marion County Marion County JuvenileDependency Drug Court $23163 Marion County Dunnellon Police Department- DUI Program $ 7938 Budget Impact Grant revenue of $113427 (No local match required) Recommended Action 1) Motion to delegate application authority for the Edward Byrne Memorial

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program as described to the Sheriffs Office

2) Motion to authorize the Board Chair to sign the subsequent funding agreements

Commissioner Zalak stated it was his understanding that the Sheriffs Office disbanded its DARE Program Grants Coordinator Ashley Clark MCSO advised that was correct noting the funding would now be utilized for the MCSO Street Crimes Unit Program

Commissioner Zalak questioned whether the request should be pulled and brought back in order to reflect the correct program

In response to Commissioner McClain Clerk Ellspermann stated the item could be pulled for discussion later this afternoon during the Zoning portion of the meeting It was the general consensus of the Board to concur In response to Commissioner McClain Ms Clark stated she would provide an amended agenda item this afternoon that would reflect the correct program Chairman Bryant requested Ms Clark also bring

Book S Page 261

July 16 2013

back information as to whether the discontinuation of the Sheriffs DARE Program would have an effect on the matching funds allocated for the Ocala Police Departments (OPD) DARE Program Ms Clark stated she would bring back that information

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

BudgetsResolutions - (5A1 through 8) - Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain the Board adopted the following Buqget Amendment Resolutions presented by Clerk Ellspermann

1 13-R-226 transferring $4500 within the General Fund for the County Attorney

2 13-R-227 transferring $600 within the Ocala Waterway Estates MSBU for Road Maintenance

3 13-R-228 transferring $40000 within the Rainbow Park Units 1 amp 2 MSBU for Road Maintenance

4 13-R-229 transferring $90732 within the Kingsland EstatesOcala Waterway MSBU Road Improvements

5 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A1

6 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A2

7 13-R-230 transferring $2933 within the CIP Capital Project Fund for Capital Improvement Projects

8 13-R-231 transferring $7336 within the IVISTU for Law Enforcement for the Sheriffs Department - Patrol amp CID

(Ed Note MSBU is the acronym for Municipal Service Benefit Unit MSTU is the acronym for Municipal Service Taxing Unit CIP is the acronym for Capital Improvement Plan and CID is the acronym for Criminal Investigation Division)

BudgetsRainbow Lakes Estates - (5B) - Clerk Ellspermann presented the following recommendation from Budget Director Tomich dated July 16 2013 regarding the proposed (maximum) millage rates and scheduling of public hearings for fiscal year (FY) 2013-2014 related to the budgets of both the Marion County BCC and the Rainbow Lakes Estates Municipal Service District (RLE MSD)

DescriptionBackground On or before August 4 of each year the Board of County Commissioners shall advise the Property Appraiser of the proposed millage rates the rolled-back rates and the date time and place at which the public hearings will be held to consider the proposed millage rates and the tentative budget Florida Statues Section 200065(2)(b) The Board may set the proposed millage rates at this meeting or otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking action on setting the proposed millage rates at a time prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Budget Impact Ad valorem millage rates to fund the fiscal year 2013-14 tentative budget Recommended Action Consider approval of the proposed millage rates and the date time and place for the first public hearings related to the budgets of both the Marion County Board of County Commissioners and the Rainbow Lakes Estates

Page 262 Book S

July 16 2013

Municipal Service District and authorize the Chairman to execute the related documents The Board may otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking these actions at a later time but prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Clerk Ellspermann noted the request was for consideration of the proposed

maximum millage rates as well as proposed dates and times to schedule the required public hearings He noted the millage rate proposed would reflect the MSCO new request for budget revisions

Clerk Ellspermann addressed previous discussion at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting regarding his request to review and possibly amend the pre-audit and audit after the expenditure language in the draft Marion County Supplemental Transportation Funding Agreement with Marion County Municipalities He advised that he forwarded proposed changes to the County Attorneys Office however due to unforeseen circumstances the County Attorney had not yet had the chance to review those changes

Budget Director Michael Tomich presented a 7 page document entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Budget Workshop Adjustments Tentative Budget Fiscal Year 2013-14 He stated the first public hearing related to the budgets was tentatively scheduled for Thursday September 5 2013 Mr Tomich advised that the proposed millage rates for Board consideration of the General Fund was 368 mills which was an increase over the current 319 mills The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was proposed at 072 mill which was an increase over the current 053 mill The County Transportation Maintenance Fund was proposed at 0 mills which was the same as the previous FY The Marion County Health Department was proposed at 013 mill which was an increase over the current 012 mill The Parks amp Land Acquisition Debt Service Fund was proposed at 006 mill which was an increase over the current 005 mill

Mr Tomich addressed the millage rates for Special Districts for the County The MSTU for Law Enforcement was proposed at 367 mills which was below the maximum for that Ordinance but was an increase over the current 281 mills He advised that the remaining MSTU rates for Special Districts were at the same level as last year with the Marion Oaks MSTU at 102 mills Silver Springs Shores Special Tax District at 30 mills Rainbow Lakes Estates - Community Resource Facility MSTU at 04700 mill Hills of Ocala MSTU for Recreation at 01800 mill MSTU for Fire Protection and Rescue Services at 07700 mill and Rainbow Lakes Estates at 225 mills

Mr Tomich stated the BCC had the opportunity to make further adjustments to components of their budgets as well as other Constitutional Officers with the exception of the MCSO which would need to be made by either another amended budget presented by the Sheriff or at the final budget public hearing

Mr Tomich advised of the budget workshop scheduled tomorrow July 17 2013 at 1 00 pm for the BCC to consider budget requests from outside agencies which would be the earliest opportunity for the BCC to contemplate setting the maximum millage rates or at a date and time on or before the August 2 2013 deadline He stated todays meeting would need to be continued to a date and time certain

Board discussion ensued It was the general consensus of the Board to tentatively continue todays meeting

to Thursday July 25 2013 at 900 am Commissioner McClain questioned what date would be the absolute latest the

Board could schedule the final budget public hearing Mr Minter advised that the Property Appraisers Office already printed envelopes for the Truth in Millage (TRIM)

Book S Page 263

July 16 2013

notices and the County provided additional information to insert into those envelopes Mr Tomich stated he would bring back an alternate date for the final public

hearing for Board consideration Commissioner Zalak out at 1011 am and returned at 1012 am

Upon motion of Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak the Board acted on the Consent Agenda for Economic and Small Business Development items 7A1 and 2 FireRescue item 7B1 MSTU item 7C1 Procurement Services items 7D1through 6 Risk and Benefit Services item 7E1 and Transportation shyCounty Engineer items 7F1 through 3 as follows

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutions - (7A1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development to adopt Resolution 13-R-232 acknowledging Intellon Corporation doing business as (dba) Qualcomm Atheros Inc was not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an agreement with the State of Floridas Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program repealing Resolution 09-R-290 and the Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) award

DescriptionBackground In June 2009 the Board approved Resolution 09-Rshy290 awarding Intelon Corporation $15000 as a local financial match requirement for the companys participation in Floridas Qualified Target Industry Tax (QTt) Refund Program Since the award date the Board has also approved two amendments to the Resolution reflecting corporation name changes The company is currently operating as Qualcomm Atheros Inc Based upon the latest performance review by the County the company has met and exceeded all performance measures established by the Board in 2009 However the company has failed to provide timely reports to the State Therefore on June 7 2012 Floridas Department of Economic Opportunity notified the Qualcomm Atheros Inc that steps were being initiated by the State to decertify the companys eligibility for participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program This decertification voids the States QTI Grant Agreement OT1 0-032 and subsequently voids the required local financial match obligation approved by Marion County in 2009 This Resolution recornmends approval to rep~al the Boards original Resolution 09-R-290 and authorizes staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Request (BAR) for the $15000 Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) that was awarded by the Board on behalf of Intelon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc BudgeUlmpact $105000 in previously obligated funds returned to ED FIG Grant account Recommended Action Motion for Board approval to repeal of Resolution 09-Rshy290 dated July 21 2009 on behalf of the Intellon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc

BudgetsResolutions - (5A5) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-233 transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 264 Book S

July 16 2013

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutionsUtilities - (7A2) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development regarding a proposed Resolution relating to an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) for $53690 payable to Marion County Utilities to fund a 50 percent () share of utility capacity fees to encourage the transfer and acquisition of wastewater improvements for the Jasmine Shopping Plaza commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County

DescriptionBackground Marion County Utilities is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Jasmine Properties a Florida general partnership located in Hobe Florida for the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system located in the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County As part of the agreement the Developer will decommission an existing wastewater plant upgrade the remaining system and pay to connect to Marion Countys utility system prior to transfer of the system to the County The acquisition cost to the County is $10 Once executed this agreement between Marion County Utilities and Jasmine Properties will increase the number of commercial customers for the Countys utility services improve system efficiencies while removing a failing privately operated wastewater package plant As part of the Marion County Utilities Jasmine Plaza Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Agreement Article I Section 14-15 proposes that the Developer pay a 50-percent share of the $107380 Capacity Fee required for connecting to the Countys utility system A 50-pecent share of $53690 is being proposed to be paid equally by Jasmine Properties and by the Marion County Office of Economic and Small Business Development Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) Fund Staff is recommending the Boards consideration for approving this $53690 EDIG grant to support Marion County Utilities acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of an EDIG grant in the amount of $53690 to Marion County Utilities to support the acquisition of the Jasmine Properties wastewater utility Commissioner Moore advised of previous Board discussions regarding

guidelines for EDIGs and questioned whethermiddot that process had been completed Commissioner McClain stated he and staff was still working on that and would bring the matter back at a later date for BCC review

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-234 approving an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) in the amount of $53690690 payable to Marion County Utilities relating to the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

In response to Commissioner McClain Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that the County would acquire approximately 105 current customers plus any additional growth and would decommission an existing wastewater plant

Book S Page 265

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

group Sarah Walker and birdhouse building winners Trey Cuppey (1 st Place - Youth) Andre Adams and Jonathan Berecz (2nd Place - Youth) Daniel Harvey (3 rd Place shyYouth) Michael and Dianne Traphagen (1 st Place - Adult) Brett Ellis (2nd Place shy

(1 stAdult) Todd Crosby (3rd Place - Adult) and Kay and Day Low Place shyProfessional) She recognized honorable mention contestants Freddy Perez Andrew Russ Jesse Burnett Devyn Lucy Joshua Lackey Nathan Wagner Scott Batisti and Lowell Workman

Projects amp Programs - (1B) - President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Kevin Sheilley OcalaMarion County Chamber and Economicmiddot Partnership (CEP) provided a brief update on local economic development activities He stated the CEP now utilized an online tracking system with projects in order to share information internally as well as with the County City of Ocala and Workforce Connection partners Mr Sheilley noted Chris Edwards Economic Development Liaison Office of Economic and Small Business Development (OESBD) also had access to the system He advised that the CEP currently had 13 active projects and was seeing an increase in the number of Request for Information (RFI) Mr Sheilley stated there were 8 companies in the lead pipeline which were opportunities that were identified but not quite qualified as a project He advised that staff was participating in upcoming marketing events with Enterprise Florida which would soon begin a direct marketing campaign that would target companies in specific metro areas in order to recruit targeted industry sectors (ie food manufacturing logistics and back office) Mr Sheilley addressed efforts to ramp up the CEP business retention efforts by working with existing companies noting approximately 70 of all jobs being created in a community came from existing businesses He noted the CEP was currently working with several businesses regarding significant expansions to help retain and add to their investment

Mr Sheilley provided a brief update regarding the Chamber of Commerce Business IncubatorlThe Power Plant noting there were currently 11 resident clients and 8 more potential businesses on the waiting list He commented on the revised Business Advisory Committee which would be holding its first meeting within the next couple of weeks

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Sheilley advised that when a new company came into town they were very intense in regard to following through and taking advantage of available opportunities however many times established businesses were so focused on running the business they tended to forget there were opportunities and resources within the community to help them He commented on barriers that existed that could keep a business from growing and noted the need to resolve those issues (Le connections to Workforce)

County Emplovees - Chairman Bryant recognized that today was Public Information Manager Christy Jergens last day with the County She expressed gratitude on behalf of the BCC to Ms Jergens for her hard work noting Ms Jergens would be leaving to become a stay-at-home mom

Budgets - (2A) - Carl Crabtree NW 115th Avenue commented on government budgeting He advised that he served as a member of the Blue Ribbon Consolidation Work Group which was formed in 2010 and tasked to review the possible consolidation of services within the FireRescue Department and the Marion County Sheriffs Office

Page 258 Book S

July 16 2013

(MCSO) Mr Crabtree presented a 2 page handout regarding the Public Safety Consolidation Workgroup and a 4 page document dated December 20 2010 and entitled Marion County Public Safety Consolidation Study Group Position Paper

Mr Crabtree referred to the 2 page handout which contained a summary of final talking points he put together after the last Blue Ribbon Consolidation Work Group meeting in January 2011 He stated the second handout was a more in-depth analysis depicting the atmosphere and situations the County was engaged in at that time Mr Crabtree noted many of those situations were still germane today He advised that althoL1gh he did not always agree with former Sheriff Dean he still respected him and did not believe he was incompetent or would have allowed the MCSO to deteriorate nor was he callous enough to allow the community or bis deputies to be put in needless danger due to budget restraints Mr Crabtree advised that the current Sheriff stated he was limited in what could be done with MSCO regarding high rankingoverpaid Officers on staff due to a special law that protected those employees and limited what the Sheriff could do However it was pointed out by themiddot County Attorney that all government employees had the same civil service protection He stated if it was a redundant law than it needed to be repealed Mr Crabtree recommended that high ranking officers be utilized as backup to protect road deputies He commented on other Constitutional Officers as well as the Marion County School System that were able to reduce staff under that same civil service law Mr Crabtree requested the BCC stand firm and not fold in its request to lower department budgets

Parks amp Recreation - (2B) - Mitch Jamerson NW 60th Avenue Orange Lake member of the Orange Lake Community Club did not appear when called upon to address the Board

Parks amp Recreation - (2E) - Reverend Joe McFadden Sr SW 55th Avenue member of the Orange Lake Community Club noted the Club was a 501 c3 not-for profit organization He questioned what the BCC was going to do in regard to improvements for Orallge Lake Community Park Reverend McFadden stated he lived across the street from Liberty Community Park which had been closed down for renovations however no funds were being spent to improve Orange Lake Community Park He presented a 1 page handout entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Adopted Capital Improvement Program - Project Detail - Orange Blossom Park noting millions were being spent to renovate that park as well as Wrigley Field Reverend McFadden commended the County for building a Fire Department in Orange Lake but stated there were other needs in that community that were not being addressed He advised that Mr Niblock told them 10 years ago there were no funds available for improvements and questioned when monies would become available Reverend McFadden requested the Board consider the needs of citizens residing in northern Marion County

Chairman Bryant advised that the BCC was facing a $12000000 shortfall in regard to budget requests for fiscal year (FY) 2013-14 and was unsure how or where monies would be available this budget year to fund the project requests for Orange Lake Community Park She suggested residents consider a community fund raiser Chairman Bryant referred to the handout regarding Orange Blossom Park and stated that just because projects were placed in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) did not mean those improvements would be made

Book S Page 259

July 16 2013

Parks amp Recreation - (2C) - Larry Jamerson NW 43rd Court Orange Lake member of the Orange Lake Community Club advised that he had the same concerns as Reverend McFadden with regard to the lack of funding for Orange Lake Community Park He advised that members of the Orange Lake Community Club had no problem with scheduling fundraisers for the park however every time an event was planned there was controversy Mr Jamerson addressed a request to hold a Homecoming event and commented on the [special event] permitting process noting the Club had yet to receive a permit He expressed concern with regard to the animosity between County staff and Orange Lake residents

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Jamerson advised of an upcoming barshyb-que event scheduled August 1 through 3 2013

Chairman Bryant requested Assistant County Administrator of Public and Administrative Services Bill Kauffman work with Mr Jamerson regarding the special event permit

Parks amp Recreation - (20) - Pastor Luther Miller NE 55 th Court Silver Springs member of the Orange Lake Community Club did not appear when called upon to address the Board

BudgetsSheriff - (2F1) - Tina Mineo SE 5th Lane addressed the Board regarding the MCSO FY 2013-14 budget noting she was married to a MCSO Deputy She noted in the 7 years her husband worked for MCSO there had only been 1 raise Ms Mineo expressed concern with the grave financial needs of the department as well as the safety of all officers due to the lack of backup deputies She requested the BCC work with Sheriff Blair and support the MCSO budget

Parks amp Recreation - (2F2) - Cynthia Carr Post Office Box 830271 spoke on behalf of the Orange Lake Community Club regarding the Orange Lake Communitymiddot Park She addressed the Special Events Permit (Homecoming event) noting the application was submitted to the County on June 4 2013 and to date no information had been received as to whether or not it was approved Ms Carr advised of a meeting held on July 12 2013 with Assistant County Administrator of Public and Administrative Services Kauffman County Administrator Niblock and Commissioner Arnett noting at that time Orange Lake Community Club members were told there was an issue with the insurance She stated the Club had been providing the same insurance for the park ov~r the last 13 years and did not understand why it was now an issue Ms Carr advised that there was now a request for the Club to provide a Performance Bond which had never been requested for any other event held at the park She referred to a 3 page letter dated April 24 2013 to Mitch Jamerson Orange Lake Community Club from Mr Niblock Ms Carr requested the BCC find monies in the budget to help support the park

Chairman Bryant requested Ms Carr meet with Mr Kauffman noting she would follow up with him later this afternoon

(Ed Note The Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a copy of the letter referenced above)

Utilities - (2F3) - Roger Knechtel SE 9th Terrace Road Summerfield addressed the Board in regard to the City of Belleviews extension of public utilities

Page 260 Book S

July 16 2013

south along US Highway 441 to SE 135th Street as discussed at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting and questioned the type of utilities being extended Commissioner McClain stated it would be a new sewer line which would be a separate line and would not connect to the Marion County Utilities system

Minutes - (3A through D) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt the meeting minutes of June 6 7 and 18 (2 sets) 2013 The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsGrantsSheriff - (4A) - The Board considered the following recommendation from the MCSO regarding the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program

DescriptionBackground The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program provides states and units of local governments with critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas including law enforcement prosecution and court programs prevention and education programs corrections and community corrections drug treatment and enforcement crime victim and witness initiatives and planning evaluation and technology improvement programs The State of Florida elects annually to pass through a portion of their federal allocation to each county As such the Marion County Sheriffs Office requests that the Board delegate application authority to the Sheriffs Office to prepare and submit the JAG application as it has in previous years The application will be submitted electronically and is due August 2 2013 The grant funds will be requested to support the following programs Marion County Ocala Police Department- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County Sheriffs Office- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County DUI Court $ 12000 Marion County Marion County JuvenileDependency Drug Court $23163 Marion County Dunnellon Police Department- DUI Program $ 7938 Budget Impact Grant revenue of $113427 (No local match required) Recommended Action 1) Motion to delegate application authority for the Edward Byrne Memorial

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program as described to the Sheriffs Office

2) Motion to authorize the Board Chair to sign the subsequent funding agreements

Commissioner Zalak stated it was his understanding that the Sheriffs Office disbanded its DARE Program Grants Coordinator Ashley Clark MCSO advised that was correct noting the funding would now be utilized for the MCSO Street Crimes Unit Program

Commissioner Zalak questioned whether the request should be pulled and brought back in order to reflect the correct program

In response to Commissioner McClain Clerk Ellspermann stated the item could be pulled for discussion later this afternoon during the Zoning portion of the meeting It was the general consensus of the Board to concur In response to Commissioner McClain Ms Clark stated she would provide an amended agenda item this afternoon that would reflect the correct program Chairman Bryant requested Ms Clark also bring

Book S Page 261

July 16 2013

back information as to whether the discontinuation of the Sheriffs DARE Program would have an effect on the matching funds allocated for the Ocala Police Departments (OPD) DARE Program Ms Clark stated she would bring back that information

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

BudgetsResolutions - (5A1 through 8) - Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain the Board adopted the following Buqget Amendment Resolutions presented by Clerk Ellspermann

1 13-R-226 transferring $4500 within the General Fund for the County Attorney

2 13-R-227 transferring $600 within the Ocala Waterway Estates MSBU for Road Maintenance

3 13-R-228 transferring $40000 within the Rainbow Park Units 1 amp 2 MSBU for Road Maintenance

4 13-R-229 transferring $90732 within the Kingsland EstatesOcala Waterway MSBU Road Improvements

5 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A1

6 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A2

7 13-R-230 transferring $2933 within the CIP Capital Project Fund for Capital Improvement Projects

8 13-R-231 transferring $7336 within the IVISTU for Law Enforcement for the Sheriffs Department - Patrol amp CID

(Ed Note MSBU is the acronym for Municipal Service Benefit Unit MSTU is the acronym for Municipal Service Taxing Unit CIP is the acronym for Capital Improvement Plan and CID is the acronym for Criminal Investigation Division)

BudgetsRainbow Lakes Estates - (5B) - Clerk Ellspermann presented the following recommendation from Budget Director Tomich dated July 16 2013 regarding the proposed (maximum) millage rates and scheduling of public hearings for fiscal year (FY) 2013-2014 related to the budgets of both the Marion County BCC and the Rainbow Lakes Estates Municipal Service District (RLE MSD)

DescriptionBackground On or before August 4 of each year the Board of County Commissioners shall advise the Property Appraiser of the proposed millage rates the rolled-back rates and the date time and place at which the public hearings will be held to consider the proposed millage rates and the tentative budget Florida Statues Section 200065(2)(b) The Board may set the proposed millage rates at this meeting or otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking action on setting the proposed millage rates at a time prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Budget Impact Ad valorem millage rates to fund the fiscal year 2013-14 tentative budget Recommended Action Consider approval of the proposed millage rates and the date time and place for the first public hearings related to the budgets of both the Marion County Board of County Commissioners and the Rainbow Lakes Estates

Page 262 Book S

July 16 2013

Municipal Service District and authorize the Chairman to execute the related documents The Board may otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking these actions at a later time but prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Clerk Ellspermann noted the request was for consideration of the proposed

maximum millage rates as well as proposed dates and times to schedule the required public hearings He noted the millage rate proposed would reflect the MSCO new request for budget revisions

Clerk Ellspermann addressed previous discussion at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting regarding his request to review and possibly amend the pre-audit and audit after the expenditure language in the draft Marion County Supplemental Transportation Funding Agreement with Marion County Municipalities He advised that he forwarded proposed changes to the County Attorneys Office however due to unforeseen circumstances the County Attorney had not yet had the chance to review those changes

Budget Director Michael Tomich presented a 7 page document entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Budget Workshop Adjustments Tentative Budget Fiscal Year 2013-14 He stated the first public hearing related to the budgets was tentatively scheduled for Thursday September 5 2013 Mr Tomich advised that the proposed millage rates for Board consideration of the General Fund was 368 mills which was an increase over the current 319 mills The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was proposed at 072 mill which was an increase over the current 053 mill The County Transportation Maintenance Fund was proposed at 0 mills which was the same as the previous FY The Marion County Health Department was proposed at 013 mill which was an increase over the current 012 mill The Parks amp Land Acquisition Debt Service Fund was proposed at 006 mill which was an increase over the current 005 mill

Mr Tomich addressed the millage rates for Special Districts for the County The MSTU for Law Enforcement was proposed at 367 mills which was below the maximum for that Ordinance but was an increase over the current 281 mills He advised that the remaining MSTU rates for Special Districts were at the same level as last year with the Marion Oaks MSTU at 102 mills Silver Springs Shores Special Tax District at 30 mills Rainbow Lakes Estates - Community Resource Facility MSTU at 04700 mill Hills of Ocala MSTU for Recreation at 01800 mill MSTU for Fire Protection and Rescue Services at 07700 mill and Rainbow Lakes Estates at 225 mills

Mr Tomich stated the BCC had the opportunity to make further adjustments to components of their budgets as well as other Constitutional Officers with the exception of the MCSO which would need to be made by either another amended budget presented by the Sheriff or at the final budget public hearing

Mr Tomich advised of the budget workshop scheduled tomorrow July 17 2013 at 1 00 pm for the BCC to consider budget requests from outside agencies which would be the earliest opportunity for the BCC to contemplate setting the maximum millage rates or at a date and time on or before the August 2 2013 deadline He stated todays meeting would need to be continued to a date and time certain

Board discussion ensued It was the general consensus of the Board to tentatively continue todays meeting

to Thursday July 25 2013 at 900 am Commissioner McClain questioned what date would be the absolute latest the

Board could schedule the final budget public hearing Mr Minter advised that the Property Appraisers Office already printed envelopes for the Truth in Millage (TRIM)

Book S Page 263

July 16 2013

notices and the County provided additional information to insert into those envelopes Mr Tomich stated he would bring back an alternate date for the final public

hearing for Board consideration Commissioner Zalak out at 1011 am and returned at 1012 am

Upon motion of Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak the Board acted on the Consent Agenda for Economic and Small Business Development items 7A1 and 2 FireRescue item 7B1 MSTU item 7C1 Procurement Services items 7D1through 6 Risk and Benefit Services item 7E1 and Transportation shyCounty Engineer items 7F1 through 3 as follows

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutions - (7A1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development to adopt Resolution 13-R-232 acknowledging Intellon Corporation doing business as (dba) Qualcomm Atheros Inc was not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an agreement with the State of Floridas Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program repealing Resolution 09-R-290 and the Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) award

DescriptionBackground In June 2009 the Board approved Resolution 09-Rshy290 awarding Intelon Corporation $15000 as a local financial match requirement for the companys participation in Floridas Qualified Target Industry Tax (QTt) Refund Program Since the award date the Board has also approved two amendments to the Resolution reflecting corporation name changes The company is currently operating as Qualcomm Atheros Inc Based upon the latest performance review by the County the company has met and exceeded all performance measures established by the Board in 2009 However the company has failed to provide timely reports to the State Therefore on June 7 2012 Floridas Department of Economic Opportunity notified the Qualcomm Atheros Inc that steps were being initiated by the State to decertify the companys eligibility for participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program This decertification voids the States QTI Grant Agreement OT1 0-032 and subsequently voids the required local financial match obligation approved by Marion County in 2009 This Resolution recornmends approval to rep~al the Boards original Resolution 09-R-290 and authorizes staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Request (BAR) for the $15000 Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) that was awarded by the Board on behalf of Intelon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc BudgeUlmpact $105000 in previously obligated funds returned to ED FIG Grant account Recommended Action Motion for Board approval to repeal of Resolution 09-Rshy290 dated July 21 2009 on behalf of the Intellon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc

BudgetsResolutions - (5A5) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-233 transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 264 Book S

July 16 2013

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutionsUtilities - (7A2) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development regarding a proposed Resolution relating to an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) for $53690 payable to Marion County Utilities to fund a 50 percent () share of utility capacity fees to encourage the transfer and acquisition of wastewater improvements for the Jasmine Shopping Plaza commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County

DescriptionBackground Marion County Utilities is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Jasmine Properties a Florida general partnership located in Hobe Florida for the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system located in the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County As part of the agreement the Developer will decommission an existing wastewater plant upgrade the remaining system and pay to connect to Marion Countys utility system prior to transfer of the system to the County The acquisition cost to the County is $10 Once executed this agreement between Marion County Utilities and Jasmine Properties will increase the number of commercial customers for the Countys utility services improve system efficiencies while removing a failing privately operated wastewater package plant As part of the Marion County Utilities Jasmine Plaza Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Agreement Article I Section 14-15 proposes that the Developer pay a 50-percent share of the $107380 Capacity Fee required for connecting to the Countys utility system A 50-pecent share of $53690 is being proposed to be paid equally by Jasmine Properties and by the Marion County Office of Economic and Small Business Development Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) Fund Staff is recommending the Boards consideration for approving this $53690 EDIG grant to support Marion County Utilities acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of an EDIG grant in the amount of $53690 to Marion County Utilities to support the acquisition of the Jasmine Properties wastewater utility Commissioner Moore advised of previous Board discussions regarding

guidelines for EDIGs and questioned whethermiddot that process had been completed Commissioner McClain stated he and staff was still working on that and would bring the matter back at a later date for BCC review

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-234 approving an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) in the amount of $53690690 payable to Marion County Utilities relating to the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

In response to Commissioner McClain Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that the County would acquire approximately 105 current customers plus any additional growth and would decommission an existing wastewater plant

Book S Page 265

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

(MCSO) Mr Crabtree presented a 2 page handout regarding the Public Safety Consolidation Workgroup and a 4 page document dated December 20 2010 and entitled Marion County Public Safety Consolidation Study Group Position Paper

Mr Crabtree referred to the 2 page handout which contained a summary of final talking points he put together after the last Blue Ribbon Consolidation Work Group meeting in January 2011 He stated the second handout was a more in-depth analysis depicting the atmosphere and situations the County was engaged in at that time Mr Crabtree noted many of those situations were still germane today He advised that althoL1gh he did not always agree with former Sheriff Dean he still respected him and did not believe he was incompetent or would have allowed the MCSO to deteriorate nor was he callous enough to allow the community or bis deputies to be put in needless danger due to budget restraints Mr Crabtree advised that the current Sheriff stated he was limited in what could be done with MSCO regarding high rankingoverpaid Officers on staff due to a special law that protected those employees and limited what the Sheriff could do However it was pointed out by themiddot County Attorney that all government employees had the same civil service protection He stated if it was a redundant law than it needed to be repealed Mr Crabtree recommended that high ranking officers be utilized as backup to protect road deputies He commented on other Constitutional Officers as well as the Marion County School System that were able to reduce staff under that same civil service law Mr Crabtree requested the BCC stand firm and not fold in its request to lower department budgets

Parks amp Recreation - (2B) - Mitch Jamerson NW 60th Avenue Orange Lake member of the Orange Lake Community Club did not appear when called upon to address the Board

Parks amp Recreation - (2E) - Reverend Joe McFadden Sr SW 55th Avenue member of the Orange Lake Community Club noted the Club was a 501 c3 not-for profit organization He questioned what the BCC was going to do in regard to improvements for Orallge Lake Community Park Reverend McFadden stated he lived across the street from Liberty Community Park which had been closed down for renovations however no funds were being spent to improve Orange Lake Community Park He presented a 1 page handout entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Adopted Capital Improvement Program - Project Detail - Orange Blossom Park noting millions were being spent to renovate that park as well as Wrigley Field Reverend McFadden commended the County for building a Fire Department in Orange Lake but stated there were other needs in that community that were not being addressed He advised that Mr Niblock told them 10 years ago there were no funds available for improvements and questioned when monies would become available Reverend McFadden requested the Board consider the needs of citizens residing in northern Marion County

Chairman Bryant advised that the BCC was facing a $12000000 shortfall in regard to budget requests for fiscal year (FY) 2013-14 and was unsure how or where monies would be available this budget year to fund the project requests for Orange Lake Community Park She suggested residents consider a community fund raiser Chairman Bryant referred to the handout regarding Orange Blossom Park and stated that just because projects were placed in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) did not mean those improvements would be made

Book S Page 259

July 16 2013

Parks amp Recreation - (2C) - Larry Jamerson NW 43rd Court Orange Lake member of the Orange Lake Community Club advised that he had the same concerns as Reverend McFadden with regard to the lack of funding for Orange Lake Community Park He advised that members of the Orange Lake Community Club had no problem with scheduling fundraisers for the park however every time an event was planned there was controversy Mr Jamerson addressed a request to hold a Homecoming event and commented on the [special event] permitting process noting the Club had yet to receive a permit He expressed concern with regard to the animosity between County staff and Orange Lake residents

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Jamerson advised of an upcoming barshyb-que event scheduled August 1 through 3 2013

Chairman Bryant requested Assistant County Administrator of Public and Administrative Services Bill Kauffman work with Mr Jamerson regarding the special event permit

Parks amp Recreation - (20) - Pastor Luther Miller NE 55 th Court Silver Springs member of the Orange Lake Community Club did not appear when called upon to address the Board

BudgetsSheriff - (2F1) - Tina Mineo SE 5th Lane addressed the Board regarding the MCSO FY 2013-14 budget noting she was married to a MCSO Deputy She noted in the 7 years her husband worked for MCSO there had only been 1 raise Ms Mineo expressed concern with the grave financial needs of the department as well as the safety of all officers due to the lack of backup deputies She requested the BCC work with Sheriff Blair and support the MCSO budget

Parks amp Recreation - (2F2) - Cynthia Carr Post Office Box 830271 spoke on behalf of the Orange Lake Community Club regarding the Orange Lake Communitymiddot Park She addressed the Special Events Permit (Homecoming event) noting the application was submitted to the County on June 4 2013 and to date no information had been received as to whether or not it was approved Ms Carr advised of a meeting held on July 12 2013 with Assistant County Administrator of Public and Administrative Services Kauffman County Administrator Niblock and Commissioner Arnett noting at that time Orange Lake Community Club members were told there was an issue with the insurance She stated the Club had been providing the same insurance for the park ov~r the last 13 years and did not understand why it was now an issue Ms Carr advised that there was now a request for the Club to provide a Performance Bond which had never been requested for any other event held at the park She referred to a 3 page letter dated April 24 2013 to Mitch Jamerson Orange Lake Community Club from Mr Niblock Ms Carr requested the BCC find monies in the budget to help support the park

Chairman Bryant requested Ms Carr meet with Mr Kauffman noting she would follow up with him later this afternoon

(Ed Note The Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a copy of the letter referenced above)

Utilities - (2F3) - Roger Knechtel SE 9th Terrace Road Summerfield addressed the Board in regard to the City of Belleviews extension of public utilities

Page 260 Book S

July 16 2013

south along US Highway 441 to SE 135th Street as discussed at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting and questioned the type of utilities being extended Commissioner McClain stated it would be a new sewer line which would be a separate line and would not connect to the Marion County Utilities system

Minutes - (3A through D) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt the meeting minutes of June 6 7 and 18 (2 sets) 2013 The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsGrantsSheriff - (4A) - The Board considered the following recommendation from the MCSO regarding the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program

DescriptionBackground The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program provides states and units of local governments with critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas including law enforcement prosecution and court programs prevention and education programs corrections and community corrections drug treatment and enforcement crime victim and witness initiatives and planning evaluation and technology improvement programs The State of Florida elects annually to pass through a portion of their federal allocation to each county As such the Marion County Sheriffs Office requests that the Board delegate application authority to the Sheriffs Office to prepare and submit the JAG application as it has in previous years The application will be submitted electronically and is due August 2 2013 The grant funds will be requested to support the following programs Marion County Ocala Police Department- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County Sheriffs Office- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County DUI Court $ 12000 Marion County Marion County JuvenileDependency Drug Court $23163 Marion County Dunnellon Police Department- DUI Program $ 7938 Budget Impact Grant revenue of $113427 (No local match required) Recommended Action 1) Motion to delegate application authority for the Edward Byrne Memorial

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program as described to the Sheriffs Office

2) Motion to authorize the Board Chair to sign the subsequent funding agreements

Commissioner Zalak stated it was his understanding that the Sheriffs Office disbanded its DARE Program Grants Coordinator Ashley Clark MCSO advised that was correct noting the funding would now be utilized for the MCSO Street Crimes Unit Program

Commissioner Zalak questioned whether the request should be pulled and brought back in order to reflect the correct program

In response to Commissioner McClain Clerk Ellspermann stated the item could be pulled for discussion later this afternoon during the Zoning portion of the meeting It was the general consensus of the Board to concur In response to Commissioner McClain Ms Clark stated she would provide an amended agenda item this afternoon that would reflect the correct program Chairman Bryant requested Ms Clark also bring

Book S Page 261

July 16 2013

back information as to whether the discontinuation of the Sheriffs DARE Program would have an effect on the matching funds allocated for the Ocala Police Departments (OPD) DARE Program Ms Clark stated she would bring back that information

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

BudgetsResolutions - (5A1 through 8) - Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain the Board adopted the following Buqget Amendment Resolutions presented by Clerk Ellspermann

1 13-R-226 transferring $4500 within the General Fund for the County Attorney

2 13-R-227 transferring $600 within the Ocala Waterway Estates MSBU for Road Maintenance

3 13-R-228 transferring $40000 within the Rainbow Park Units 1 amp 2 MSBU for Road Maintenance

4 13-R-229 transferring $90732 within the Kingsland EstatesOcala Waterway MSBU Road Improvements

5 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A1

6 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A2

7 13-R-230 transferring $2933 within the CIP Capital Project Fund for Capital Improvement Projects

8 13-R-231 transferring $7336 within the IVISTU for Law Enforcement for the Sheriffs Department - Patrol amp CID

(Ed Note MSBU is the acronym for Municipal Service Benefit Unit MSTU is the acronym for Municipal Service Taxing Unit CIP is the acronym for Capital Improvement Plan and CID is the acronym for Criminal Investigation Division)

BudgetsRainbow Lakes Estates - (5B) - Clerk Ellspermann presented the following recommendation from Budget Director Tomich dated July 16 2013 regarding the proposed (maximum) millage rates and scheduling of public hearings for fiscal year (FY) 2013-2014 related to the budgets of both the Marion County BCC and the Rainbow Lakes Estates Municipal Service District (RLE MSD)

DescriptionBackground On or before August 4 of each year the Board of County Commissioners shall advise the Property Appraiser of the proposed millage rates the rolled-back rates and the date time and place at which the public hearings will be held to consider the proposed millage rates and the tentative budget Florida Statues Section 200065(2)(b) The Board may set the proposed millage rates at this meeting or otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking action on setting the proposed millage rates at a time prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Budget Impact Ad valorem millage rates to fund the fiscal year 2013-14 tentative budget Recommended Action Consider approval of the proposed millage rates and the date time and place for the first public hearings related to the budgets of both the Marion County Board of County Commissioners and the Rainbow Lakes Estates

Page 262 Book S

July 16 2013

Municipal Service District and authorize the Chairman to execute the related documents The Board may otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking these actions at a later time but prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Clerk Ellspermann noted the request was for consideration of the proposed

maximum millage rates as well as proposed dates and times to schedule the required public hearings He noted the millage rate proposed would reflect the MSCO new request for budget revisions

Clerk Ellspermann addressed previous discussion at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting regarding his request to review and possibly amend the pre-audit and audit after the expenditure language in the draft Marion County Supplemental Transportation Funding Agreement with Marion County Municipalities He advised that he forwarded proposed changes to the County Attorneys Office however due to unforeseen circumstances the County Attorney had not yet had the chance to review those changes

Budget Director Michael Tomich presented a 7 page document entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Budget Workshop Adjustments Tentative Budget Fiscal Year 2013-14 He stated the first public hearing related to the budgets was tentatively scheduled for Thursday September 5 2013 Mr Tomich advised that the proposed millage rates for Board consideration of the General Fund was 368 mills which was an increase over the current 319 mills The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was proposed at 072 mill which was an increase over the current 053 mill The County Transportation Maintenance Fund was proposed at 0 mills which was the same as the previous FY The Marion County Health Department was proposed at 013 mill which was an increase over the current 012 mill The Parks amp Land Acquisition Debt Service Fund was proposed at 006 mill which was an increase over the current 005 mill

Mr Tomich addressed the millage rates for Special Districts for the County The MSTU for Law Enforcement was proposed at 367 mills which was below the maximum for that Ordinance but was an increase over the current 281 mills He advised that the remaining MSTU rates for Special Districts were at the same level as last year with the Marion Oaks MSTU at 102 mills Silver Springs Shores Special Tax District at 30 mills Rainbow Lakes Estates - Community Resource Facility MSTU at 04700 mill Hills of Ocala MSTU for Recreation at 01800 mill MSTU for Fire Protection and Rescue Services at 07700 mill and Rainbow Lakes Estates at 225 mills

Mr Tomich stated the BCC had the opportunity to make further adjustments to components of their budgets as well as other Constitutional Officers with the exception of the MCSO which would need to be made by either another amended budget presented by the Sheriff or at the final budget public hearing

Mr Tomich advised of the budget workshop scheduled tomorrow July 17 2013 at 1 00 pm for the BCC to consider budget requests from outside agencies which would be the earliest opportunity for the BCC to contemplate setting the maximum millage rates or at a date and time on or before the August 2 2013 deadline He stated todays meeting would need to be continued to a date and time certain

Board discussion ensued It was the general consensus of the Board to tentatively continue todays meeting

to Thursday July 25 2013 at 900 am Commissioner McClain questioned what date would be the absolute latest the

Board could schedule the final budget public hearing Mr Minter advised that the Property Appraisers Office already printed envelopes for the Truth in Millage (TRIM)

Book S Page 263

July 16 2013

notices and the County provided additional information to insert into those envelopes Mr Tomich stated he would bring back an alternate date for the final public

hearing for Board consideration Commissioner Zalak out at 1011 am and returned at 1012 am

Upon motion of Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak the Board acted on the Consent Agenda for Economic and Small Business Development items 7A1 and 2 FireRescue item 7B1 MSTU item 7C1 Procurement Services items 7D1through 6 Risk and Benefit Services item 7E1 and Transportation shyCounty Engineer items 7F1 through 3 as follows

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutions - (7A1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development to adopt Resolution 13-R-232 acknowledging Intellon Corporation doing business as (dba) Qualcomm Atheros Inc was not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an agreement with the State of Floridas Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program repealing Resolution 09-R-290 and the Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) award

DescriptionBackground In June 2009 the Board approved Resolution 09-Rshy290 awarding Intelon Corporation $15000 as a local financial match requirement for the companys participation in Floridas Qualified Target Industry Tax (QTt) Refund Program Since the award date the Board has also approved two amendments to the Resolution reflecting corporation name changes The company is currently operating as Qualcomm Atheros Inc Based upon the latest performance review by the County the company has met and exceeded all performance measures established by the Board in 2009 However the company has failed to provide timely reports to the State Therefore on June 7 2012 Floridas Department of Economic Opportunity notified the Qualcomm Atheros Inc that steps were being initiated by the State to decertify the companys eligibility for participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program This decertification voids the States QTI Grant Agreement OT1 0-032 and subsequently voids the required local financial match obligation approved by Marion County in 2009 This Resolution recornmends approval to rep~al the Boards original Resolution 09-R-290 and authorizes staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Request (BAR) for the $15000 Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) that was awarded by the Board on behalf of Intelon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc BudgeUlmpact $105000 in previously obligated funds returned to ED FIG Grant account Recommended Action Motion for Board approval to repeal of Resolution 09-Rshy290 dated July 21 2009 on behalf of the Intellon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc

BudgetsResolutions - (5A5) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-233 transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 264 Book S

July 16 2013

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutionsUtilities - (7A2) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development regarding a proposed Resolution relating to an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) for $53690 payable to Marion County Utilities to fund a 50 percent () share of utility capacity fees to encourage the transfer and acquisition of wastewater improvements for the Jasmine Shopping Plaza commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County

DescriptionBackground Marion County Utilities is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Jasmine Properties a Florida general partnership located in Hobe Florida for the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system located in the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County As part of the agreement the Developer will decommission an existing wastewater plant upgrade the remaining system and pay to connect to Marion Countys utility system prior to transfer of the system to the County The acquisition cost to the County is $10 Once executed this agreement between Marion County Utilities and Jasmine Properties will increase the number of commercial customers for the Countys utility services improve system efficiencies while removing a failing privately operated wastewater package plant As part of the Marion County Utilities Jasmine Plaza Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Agreement Article I Section 14-15 proposes that the Developer pay a 50-percent share of the $107380 Capacity Fee required for connecting to the Countys utility system A 50-pecent share of $53690 is being proposed to be paid equally by Jasmine Properties and by the Marion County Office of Economic and Small Business Development Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) Fund Staff is recommending the Boards consideration for approving this $53690 EDIG grant to support Marion County Utilities acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of an EDIG grant in the amount of $53690 to Marion County Utilities to support the acquisition of the Jasmine Properties wastewater utility Commissioner Moore advised of previous Board discussions regarding

guidelines for EDIGs and questioned whethermiddot that process had been completed Commissioner McClain stated he and staff was still working on that and would bring the matter back at a later date for BCC review

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-234 approving an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) in the amount of $53690690 payable to Marion County Utilities relating to the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

In response to Commissioner McClain Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that the County would acquire approximately 105 current customers plus any additional growth and would decommission an existing wastewater plant

Book S Page 265

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

Parks amp Recreation - (2C) - Larry Jamerson NW 43rd Court Orange Lake member of the Orange Lake Community Club advised that he had the same concerns as Reverend McFadden with regard to the lack of funding for Orange Lake Community Park He advised that members of the Orange Lake Community Club had no problem with scheduling fundraisers for the park however every time an event was planned there was controversy Mr Jamerson addressed a request to hold a Homecoming event and commented on the [special event] permitting process noting the Club had yet to receive a permit He expressed concern with regard to the animosity between County staff and Orange Lake residents

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Jamerson advised of an upcoming barshyb-que event scheduled August 1 through 3 2013

Chairman Bryant requested Assistant County Administrator of Public and Administrative Services Bill Kauffman work with Mr Jamerson regarding the special event permit

Parks amp Recreation - (20) - Pastor Luther Miller NE 55 th Court Silver Springs member of the Orange Lake Community Club did not appear when called upon to address the Board

BudgetsSheriff - (2F1) - Tina Mineo SE 5th Lane addressed the Board regarding the MCSO FY 2013-14 budget noting she was married to a MCSO Deputy She noted in the 7 years her husband worked for MCSO there had only been 1 raise Ms Mineo expressed concern with the grave financial needs of the department as well as the safety of all officers due to the lack of backup deputies She requested the BCC work with Sheriff Blair and support the MCSO budget

Parks amp Recreation - (2F2) - Cynthia Carr Post Office Box 830271 spoke on behalf of the Orange Lake Community Club regarding the Orange Lake Communitymiddot Park She addressed the Special Events Permit (Homecoming event) noting the application was submitted to the County on June 4 2013 and to date no information had been received as to whether or not it was approved Ms Carr advised of a meeting held on July 12 2013 with Assistant County Administrator of Public and Administrative Services Kauffman County Administrator Niblock and Commissioner Arnett noting at that time Orange Lake Community Club members were told there was an issue with the insurance She stated the Club had been providing the same insurance for the park ov~r the last 13 years and did not understand why it was now an issue Ms Carr advised that there was now a request for the Club to provide a Performance Bond which had never been requested for any other event held at the park She referred to a 3 page letter dated April 24 2013 to Mitch Jamerson Orange Lake Community Club from Mr Niblock Ms Carr requested the BCC find monies in the budget to help support the park

Chairman Bryant requested Ms Carr meet with Mr Kauffman noting she would follow up with him later this afternoon

(Ed Note The Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a copy of the letter referenced above)

Utilities - (2F3) - Roger Knechtel SE 9th Terrace Road Summerfield addressed the Board in regard to the City of Belleviews extension of public utilities

Page 260 Book S

July 16 2013

south along US Highway 441 to SE 135th Street as discussed at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting and questioned the type of utilities being extended Commissioner McClain stated it would be a new sewer line which would be a separate line and would not connect to the Marion County Utilities system

Minutes - (3A through D) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt the meeting minutes of June 6 7 and 18 (2 sets) 2013 The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsGrantsSheriff - (4A) - The Board considered the following recommendation from the MCSO regarding the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program

DescriptionBackground The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program provides states and units of local governments with critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas including law enforcement prosecution and court programs prevention and education programs corrections and community corrections drug treatment and enforcement crime victim and witness initiatives and planning evaluation and technology improvement programs The State of Florida elects annually to pass through a portion of their federal allocation to each county As such the Marion County Sheriffs Office requests that the Board delegate application authority to the Sheriffs Office to prepare and submit the JAG application as it has in previous years The application will be submitted electronically and is due August 2 2013 The grant funds will be requested to support the following programs Marion County Ocala Police Department- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County Sheriffs Office- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County DUI Court $ 12000 Marion County Marion County JuvenileDependency Drug Court $23163 Marion County Dunnellon Police Department- DUI Program $ 7938 Budget Impact Grant revenue of $113427 (No local match required) Recommended Action 1) Motion to delegate application authority for the Edward Byrne Memorial

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program as described to the Sheriffs Office

2) Motion to authorize the Board Chair to sign the subsequent funding agreements

Commissioner Zalak stated it was his understanding that the Sheriffs Office disbanded its DARE Program Grants Coordinator Ashley Clark MCSO advised that was correct noting the funding would now be utilized for the MCSO Street Crimes Unit Program

Commissioner Zalak questioned whether the request should be pulled and brought back in order to reflect the correct program

In response to Commissioner McClain Clerk Ellspermann stated the item could be pulled for discussion later this afternoon during the Zoning portion of the meeting It was the general consensus of the Board to concur In response to Commissioner McClain Ms Clark stated she would provide an amended agenda item this afternoon that would reflect the correct program Chairman Bryant requested Ms Clark also bring

Book S Page 261

July 16 2013

back information as to whether the discontinuation of the Sheriffs DARE Program would have an effect on the matching funds allocated for the Ocala Police Departments (OPD) DARE Program Ms Clark stated she would bring back that information

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

BudgetsResolutions - (5A1 through 8) - Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain the Board adopted the following Buqget Amendment Resolutions presented by Clerk Ellspermann

1 13-R-226 transferring $4500 within the General Fund for the County Attorney

2 13-R-227 transferring $600 within the Ocala Waterway Estates MSBU for Road Maintenance

3 13-R-228 transferring $40000 within the Rainbow Park Units 1 amp 2 MSBU for Road Maintenance

4 13-R-229 transferring $90732 within the Kingsland EstatesOcala Waterway MSBU Road Improvements

5 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A1

6 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A2

7 13-R-230 transferring $2933 within the CIP Capital Project Fund for Capital Improvement Projects

8 13-R-231 transferring $7336 within the IVISTU for Law Enforcement for the Sheriffs Department - Patrol amp CID

(Ed Note MSBU is the acronym for Municipal Service Benefit Unit MSTU is the acronym for Municipal Service Taxing Unit CIP is the acronym for Capital Improvement Plan and CID is the acronym for Criminal Investigation Division)

BudgetsRainbow Lakes Estates - (5B) - Clerk Ellspermann presented the following recommendation from Budget Director Tomich dated July 16 2013 regarding the proposed (maximum) millage rates and scheduling of public hearings for fiscal year (FY) 2013-2014 related to the budgets of both the Marion County BCC and the Rainbow Lakes Estates Municipal Service District (RLE MSD)

DescriptionBackground On or before August 4 of each year the Board of County Commissioners shall advise the Property Appraiser of the proposed millage rates the rolled-back rates and the date time and place at which the public hearings will be held to consider the proposed millage rates and the tentative budget Florida Statues Section 200065(2)(b) The Board may set the proposed millage rates at this meeting or otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking action on setting the proposed millage rates at a time prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Budget Impact Ad valorem millage rates to fund the fiscal year 2013-14 tentative budget Recommended Action Consider approval of the proposed millage rates and the date time and place for the first public hearings related to the budgets of both the Marion County Board of County Commissioners and the Rainbow Lakes Estates

Page 262 Book S

July 16 2013

Municipal Service District and authorize the Chairman to execute the related documents The Board may otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking these actions at a later time but prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Clerk Ellspermann noted the request was for consideration of the proposed

maximum millage rates as well as proposed dates and times to schedule the required public hearings He noted the millage rate proposed would reflect the MSCO new request for budget revisions

Clerk Ellspermann addressed previous discussion at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting regarding his request to review and possibly amend the pre-audit and audit after the expenditure language in the draft Marion County Supplemental Transportation Funding Agreement with Marion County Municipalities He advised that he forwarded proposed changes to the County Attorneys Office however due to unforeseen circumstances the County Attorney had not yet had the chance to review those changes

Budget Director Michael Tomich presented a 7 page document entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Budget Workshop Adjustments Tentative Budget Fiscal Year 2013-14 He stated the first public hearing related to the budgets was tentatively scheduled for Thursday September 5 2013 Mr Tomich advised that the proposed millage rates for Board consideration of the General Fund was 368 mills which was an increase over the current 319 mills The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was proposed at 072 mill which was an increase over the current 053 mill The County Transportation Maintenance Fund was proposed at 0 mills which was the same as the previous FY The Marion County Health Department was proposed at 013 mill which was an increase over the current 012 mill The Parks amp Land Acquisition Debt Service Fund was proposed at 006 mill which was an increase over the current 005 mill

Mr Tomich addressed the millage rates for Special Districts for the County The MSTU for Law Enforcement was proposed at 367 mills which was below the maximum for that Ordinance but was an increase over the current 281 mills He advised that the remaining MSTU rates for Special Districts were at the same level as last year with the Marion Oaks MSTU at 102 mills Silver Springs Shores Special Tax District at 30 mills Rainbow Lakes Estates - Community Resource Facility MSTU at 04700 mill Hills of Ocala MSTU for Recreation at 01800 mill MSTU for Fire Protection and Rescue Services at 07700 mill and Rainbow Lakes Estates at 225 mills

Mr Tomich stated the BCC had the opportunity to make further adjustments to components of their budgets as well as other Constitutional Officers with the exception of the MCSO which would need to be made by either another amended budget presented by the Sheriff or at the final budget public hearing

Mr Tomich advised of the budget workshop scheduled tomorrow July 17 2013 at 1 00 pm for the BCC to consider budget requests from outside agencies which would be the earliest opportunity for the BCC to contemplate setting the maximum millage rates or at a date and time on or before the August 2 2013 deadline He stated todays meeting would need to be continued to a date and time certain

Board discussion ensued It was the general consensus of the Board to tentatively continue todays meeting

to Thursday July 25 2013 at 900 am Commissioner McClain questioned what date would be the absolute latest the

Board could schedule the final budget public hearing Mr Minter advised that the Property Appraisers Office already printed envelopes for the Truth in Millage (TRIM)

Book S Page 263

July 16 2013

notices and the County provided additional information to insert into those envelopes Mr Tomich stated he would bring back an alternate date for the final public

hearing for Board consideration Commissioner Zalak out at 1011 am and returned at 1012 am

Upon motion of Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak the Board acted on the Consent Agenda for Economic and Small Business Development items 7A1 and 2 FireRescue item 7B1 MSTU item 7C1 Procurement Services items 7D1through 6 Risk and Benefit Services item 7E1 and Transportation shyCounty Engineer items 7F1 through 3 as follows

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutions - (7A1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development to adopt Resolution 13-R-232 acknowledging Intellon Corporation doing business as (dba) Qualcomm Atheros Inc was not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an agreement with the State of Floridas Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program repealing Resolution 09-R-290 and the Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) award

DescriptionBackground In June 2009 the Board approved Resolution 09-Rshy290 awarding Intelon Corporation $15000 as a local financial match requirement for the companys participation in Floridas Qualified Target Industry Tax (QTt) Refund Program Since the award date the Board has also approved two amendments to the Resolution reflecting corporation name changes The company is currently operating as Qualcomm Atheros Inc Based upon the latest performance review by the County the company has met and exceeded all performance measures established by the Board in 2009 However the company has failed to provide timely reports to the State Therefore on June 7 2012 Floridas Department of Economic Opportunity notified the Qualcomm Atheros Inc that steps were being initiated by the State to decertify the companys eligibility for participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program This decertification voids the States QTI Grant Agreement OT1 0-032 and subsequently voids the required local financial match obligation approved by Marion County in 2009 This Resolution recornmends approval to rep~al the Boards original Resolution 09-R-290 and authorizes staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Request (BAR) for the $15000 Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) that was awarded by the Board on behalf of Intelon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc BudgeUlmpact $105000 in previously obligated funds returned to ED FIG Grant account Recommended Action Motion for Board approval to repeal of Resolution 09-Rshy290 dated July 21 2009 on behalf of the Intellon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc

BudgetsResolutions - (5A5) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-233 transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 264 Book S

July 16 2013

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutionsUtilities - (7A2) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development regarding a proposed Resolution relating to an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) for $53690 payable to Marion County Utilities to fund a 50 percent () share of utility capacity fees to encourage the transfer and acquisition of wastewater improvements for the Jasmine Shopping Plaza commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County

DescriptionBackground Marion County Utilities is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Jasmine Properties a Florida general partnership located in Hobe Florida for the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system located in the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County As part of the agreement the Developer will decommission an existing wastewater plant upgrade the remaining system and pay to connect to Marion Countys utility system prior to transfer of the system to the County The acquisition cost to the County is $10 Once executed this agreement between Marion County Utilities and Jasmine Properties will increase the number of commercial customers for the Countys utility services improve system efficiencies while removing a failing privately operated wastewater package plant As part of the Marion County Utilities Jasmine Plaza Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Agreement Article I Section 14-15 proposes that the Developer pay a 50-percent share of the $107380 Capacity Fee required for connecting to the Countys utility system A 50-pecent share of $53690 is being proposed to be paid equally by Jasmine Properties and by the Marion County Office of Economic and Small Business Development Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) Fund Staff is recommending the Boards consideration for approving this $53690 EDIG grant to support Marion County Utilities acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of an EDIG grant in the amount of $53690 to Marion County Utilities to support the acquisition of the Jasmine Properties wastewater utility Commissioner Moore advised of previous Board discussions regarding

guidelines for EDIGs and questioned whethermiddot that process had been completed Commissioner McClain stated he and staff was still working on that and would bring the matter back at a later date for BCC review

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-234 approving an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) in the amount of $53690690 payable to Marion County Utilities relating to the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

In response to Commissioner McClain Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that the County would acquire approximately 105 current customers plus any additional growth and would decommission an existing wastewater plant

Book S Page 265

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

south along US Highway 441 to SE 135th Street as discussed at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting and questioned the type of utilities being extended Commissioner McClain stated it would be a new sewer line which would be a separate line and would not connect to the Marion County Utilities system

Minutes - (3A through D) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt the meeting minutes of June 6 7 and 18 (2 sets) 2013 The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsGrantsSheriff - (4A) - The Board considered the following recommendation from the MCSO regarding the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program

DescriptionBackground The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program provides states and units of local governments with critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas including law enforcement prosecution and court programs prevention and education programs corrections and community corrections drug treatment and enforcement crime victim and witness initiatives and planning evaluation and technology improvement programs The State of Florida elects annually to pass through a portion of their federal allocation to each county As such the Marion County Sheriffs Office requests that the Board delegate application authority to the Sheriffs Office to prepare and submit the JAG application as it has in previous years The application will be submitted electronically and is due August 2 2013 The grant funds will be requested to support the following programs Marion County Ocala Police Department- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County Sheriffs Office- DARE Program $ 35163 Marion County Marion County DUI Court $ 12000 Marion County Marion County JuvenileDependency Drug Court $23163 Marion County Dunnellon Police Department- DUI Program $ 7938 Budget Impact Grant revenue of $113427 (No local match required) Recommended Action 1) Motion to delegate application authority for the Edward Byrne Memorial

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program as described to the Sheriffs Office

2) Motion to authorize the Board Chair to sign the subsequent funding agreements

Commissioner Zalak stated it was his understanding that the Sheriffs Office disbanded its DARE Program Grants Coordinator Ashley Clark MCSO advised that was correct noting the funding would now be utilized for the MCSO Street Crimes Unit Program

Commissioner Zalak questioned whether the request should be pulled and brought back in order to reflect the correct program

In response to Commissioner McClain Clerk Ellspermann stated the item could be pulled for discussion later this afternoon during the Zoning portion of the meeting It was the general consensus of the Board to concur In response to Commissioner McClain Ms Clark stated she would provide an amended agenda item this afternoon that would reflect the correct program Chairman Bryant requested Ms Clark also bring

Book S Page 261

July 16 2013

back information as to whether the discontinuation of the Sheriffs DARE Program would have an effect on the matching funds allocated for the Ocala Police Departments (OPD) DARE Program Ms Clark stated she would bring back that information

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

BudgetsResolutions - (5A1 through 8) - Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain the Board adopted the following Buqget Amendment Resolutions presented by Clerk Ellspermann

1 13-R-226 transferring $4500 within the General Fund for the County Attorney

2 13-R-227 transferring $600 within the Ocala Waterway Estates MSBU for Road Maintenance

3 13-R-228 transferring $40000 within the Rainbow Park Units 1 amp 2 MSBU for Road Maintenance

4 13-R-229 transferring $90732 within the Kingsland EstatesOcala Waterway MSBU Road Improvements

5 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A1

6 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A2

7 13-R-230 transferring $2933 within the CIP Capital Project Fund for Capital Improvement Projects

8 13-R-231 transferring $7336 within the IVISTU for Law Enforcement for the Sheriffs Department - Patrol amp CID

(Ed Note MSBU is the acronym for Municipal Service Benefit Unit MSTU is the acronym for Municipal Service Taxing Unit CIP is the acronym for Capital Improvement Plan and CID is the acronym for Criminal Investigation Division)

BudgetsRainbow Lakes Estates - (5B) - Clerk Ellspermann presented the following recommendation from Budget Director Tomich dated July 16 2013 regarding the proposed (maximum) millage rates and scheduling of public hearings for fiscal year (FY) 2013-2014 related to the budgets of both the Marion County BCC and the Rainbow Lakes Estates Municipal Service District (RLE MSD)

DescriptionBackground On or before August 4 of each year the Board of County Commissioners shall advise the Property Appraiser of the proposed millage rates the rolled-back rates and the date time and place at which the public hearings will be held to consider the proposed millage rates and the tentative budget Florida Statues Section 200065(2)(b) The Board may set the proposed millage rates at this meeting or otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking action on setting the proposed millage rates at a time prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Budget Impact Ad valorem millage rates to fund the fiscal year 2013-14 tentative budget Recommended Action Consider approval of the proposed millage rates and the date time and place for the first public hearings related to the budgets of both the Marion County Board of County Commissioners and the Rainbow Lakes Estates

Page 262 Book S

July 16 2013

Municipal Service District and authorize the Chairman to execute the related documents The Board may otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking these actions at a later time but prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Clerk Ellspermann noted the request was for consideration of the proposed

maximum millage rates as well as proposed dates and times to schedule the required public hearings He noted the millage rate proposed would reflect the MSCO new request for budget revisions

Clerk Ellspermann addressed previous discussion at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting regarding his request to review and possibly amend the pre-audit and audit after the expenditure language in the draft Marion County Supplemental Transportation Funding Agreement with Marion County Municipalities He advised that he forwarded proposed changes to the County Attorneys Office however due to unforeseen circumstances the County Attorney had not yet had the chance to review those changes

Budget Director Michael Tomich presented a 7 page document entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Budget Workshop Adjustments Tentative Budget Fiscal Year 2013-14 He stated the first public hearing related to the budgets was tentatively scheduled for Thursday September 5 2013 Mr Tomich advised that the proposed millage rates for Board consideration of the General Fund was 368 mills which was an increase over the current 319 mills The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was proposed at 072 mill which was an increase over the current 053 mill The County Transportation Maintenance Fund was proposed at 0 mills which was the same as the previous FY The Marion County Health Department was proposed at 013 mill which was an increase over the current 012 mill The Parks amp Land Acquisition Debt Service Fund was proposed at 006 mill which was an increase over the current 005 mill

Mr Tomich addressed the millage rates for Special Districts for the County The MSTU for Law Enforcement was proposed at 367 mills which was below the maximum for that Ordinance but was an increase over the current 281 mills He advised that the remaining MSTU rates for Special Districts were at the same level as last year with the Marion Oaks MSTU at 102 mills Silver Springs Shores Special Tax District at 30 mills Rainbow Lakes Estates - Community Resource Facility MSTU at 04700 mill Hills of Ocala MSTU for Recreation at 01800 mill MSTU for Fire Protection and Rescue Services at 07700 mill and Rainbow Lakes Estates at 225 mills

Mr Tomich stated the BCC had the opportunity to make further adjustments to components of their budgets as well as other Constitutional Officers with the exception of the MCSO which would need to be made by either another amended budget presented by the Sheriff or at the final budget public hearing

Mr Tomich advised of the budget workshop scheduled tomorrow July 17 2013 at 1 00 pm for the BCC to consider budget requests from outside agencies which would be the earliest opportunity for the BCC to contemplate setting the maximum millage rates or at a date and time on or before the August 2 2013 deadline He stated todays meeting would need to be continued to a date and time certain

Board discussion ensued It was the general consensus of the Board to tentatively continue todays meeting

to Thursday July 25 2013 at 900 am Commissioner McClain questioned what date would be the absolute latest the

Board could schedule the final budget public hearing Mr Minter advised that the Property Appraisers Office already printed envelopes for the Truth in Millage (TRIM)

Book S Page 263

July 16 2013

notices and the County provided additional information to insert into those envelopes Mr Tomich stated he would bring back an alternate date for the final public

hearing for Board consideration Commissioner Zalak out at 1011 am and returned at 1012 am

Upon motion of Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak the Board acted on the Consent Agenda for Economic and Small Business Development items 7A1 and 2 FireRescue item 7B1 MSTU item 7C1 Procurement Services items 7D1through 6 Risk and Benefit Services item 7E1 and Transportation shyCounty Engineer items 7F1 through 3 as follows

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutions - (7A1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development to adopt Resolution 13-R-232 acknowledging Intellon Corporation doing business as (dba) Qualcomm Atheros Inc was not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an agreement with the State of Floridas Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program repealing Resolution 09-R-290 and the Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) award

DescriptionBackground In June 2009 the Board approved Resolution 09-Rshy290 awarding Intelon Corporation $15000 as a local financial match requirement for the companys participation in Floridas Qualified Target Industry Tax (QTt) Refund Program Since the award date the Board has also approved two amendments to the Resolution reflecting corporation name changes The company is currently operating as Qualcomm Atheros Inc Based upon the latest performance review by the County the company has met and exceeded all performance measures established by the Board in 2009 However the company has failed to provide timely reports to the State Therefore on June 7 2012 Floridas Department of Economic Opportunity notified the Qualcomm Atheros Inc that steps were being initiated by the State to decertify the companys eligibility for participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program This decertification voids the States QTI Grant Agreement OT1 0-032 and subsequently voids the required local financial match obligation approved by Marion County in 2009 This Resolution recornmends approval to rep~al the Boards original Resolution 09-R-290 and authorizes staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Request (BAR) for the $15000 Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) that was awarded by the Board on behalf of Intelon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc BudgeUlmpact $105000 in previously obligated funds returned to ED FIG Grant account Recommended Action Motion for Board approval to repeal of Resolution 09-Rshy290 dated July 21 2009 on behalf of the Intellon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc

BudgetsResolutions - (5A5) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-233 transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 264 Book S

July 16 2013

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutionsUtilities - (7A2) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development regarding a proposed Resolution relating to an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) for $53690 payable to Marion County Utilities to fund a 50 percent () share of utility capacity fees to encourage the transfer and acquisition of wastewater improvements for the Jasmine Shopping Plaza commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County

DescriptionBackground Marion County Utilities is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Jasmine Properties a Florida general partnership located in Hobe Florida for the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system located in the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County As part of the agreement the Developer will decommission an existing wastewater plant upgrade the remaining system and pay to connect to Marion Countys utility system prior to transfer of the system to the County The acquisition cost to the County is $10 Once executed this agreement between Marion County Utilities and Jasmine Properties will increase the number of commercial customers for the Countys utility services improve system efficiencies while removing a failing privately operated wastewater package plant As part of the Marion County Utilities Jasmine Plaza Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Agreement Article I Section 14-15 proposes that the Developer pay a 50-percent share of the $107380 Capacity Fee required for connecting to the Countys utility system A 50-pecent share of $53690 is being proposed to be paid equally by Jasmine Properties and by the Marion County Office of Economic and Small Business Development Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) Fund Staff is recommending the Boards consideration for approving this $53690 EDIG grant to support Marion County Utilities acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of an EDIG grant in the amount of $53690 to Marion County Utilities to support the acquisition of the Jasmine Properties wastewater utility Commissioner Moore advised of previous Board discussions regarding

guidelines for EDIGs and questioned whethermiddot that process had been completed Commissioner McClain stated he and staff was still working on that and would bring the matter back at a later date for BCC review

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-234 approving an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) in the amount of $53690690 payable to Marion County Utilities relating to the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

In response to Commissioner McClain Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that the County would acquire approximately 105 current customers plus any additional growth and would decommission an existing wastewater plant

Book S Page 265

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

back information as to whether the discontinuation of the Sheriffs DARE Program would have an effect on the matching funds allocated for the Ocala Police Departments (OPD) DARE Program Ms Clark stated she would bring back that information

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

BudgetsResolutions - (5A1 through 8) - Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain the Board adopted the following Buqget Amendment Resolutions presented by Clerk Ellspermann

1 13-R-226 transferring $4500 within the General Fund for the County Attorney

2 13-R-227 transferring $600 within the Ocala Waterway Estates MSBU for Road Maintenance

3 13-R-228 transferring $40000 within the Rainbow Park Units 1 amp 2 MSBU for Road Maintenance

4 13-R-229 transferring $90732 within the Kingsland EstatesOcala Waterway MSBU Road Improvements

5 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A1

6 The Budget Amendment Resolution transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development was pulled for discussion along with agenda item 7A2

7 13-R-230 transferring $2933 within the CIP Capital Project Fund for Capital Improvement Projects

8 13-R-231 transferring $7336 within the IVISTU for Law Enforcement for the Sheriffs Department - Patrol amp CID

(Ed Note MSBU is the acronym for Municipal Service Benefit Unit MSTU is the acronym for Municipal Service Taxing Unit CIP is the acronym for Capital Improvement Plan and CID is the acronym for Criminal Investigation Division)

BudgetsRainbow Lakes Estates - (5B) - Clerk Ellspermann presented the following recommendation from Budget Director Tomich dated July 16 2013 regarding the proposed (maximum) millage rates and scheduling of public hearings for fiscal year (FY) 2013-2014 related to the budgets of both the Marion County BCC and the Rainbow Lakes Estates Municipal Service District (RLE MSD)

DescriptionBackground On or before August 4 of each year the Board of County Commissioners shall advise the Property Appraiser of the proposed millage rates the rolled-back rates and the date time and place at which the public hearings will be held to consider the proposed millage rates and the tentative budget Florida Statues Section 200065(2)(b) The Board may set the proposed millage rates at this meeting or otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking action on setting the proposed millage rates at a time prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Budget Impact Ad valorem millage rates to fund the fiscal year 2013-14 tentative budget Recommended Action Consider approval of the proposed millage rates and the date time and place for the first public hearings related to the budgets of both the Marion County Board of County Commissioners and the Rainbow Lakes Estates

Page 262 Book S

July 16 2013

Municipal Service District and authorize the Chairman to execute the related documents The Board may otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking these actions at a later time but prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Clerk Ellspermann noted the request was for consideration of the proposed

maximum millage rates as well as proposed dates and times to schedule the required public hearings He noted the millage rate proposed would reflect the MSCO new request for budget revisions

Clerk Ellspermann addressed previous discussion at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting regarding his request to review and possibly amend the pre-audit and audit after the expenditure language in the draft Marion County Supplemental Transportation Funding Agreement with Marion County Municipalities He advised that he forwarded proposed changes to the County Attorneys Office however due to unforeseen circumstances the County Attorney had not yet had the chance to review those changes

Budget Director Michael Tomich presented a 7 page document entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Budget Workshop Adjustments Tentative Budget Fiscal Year 2013-14 He stated the first public hearing related to the budgets was tentatively scheduled for Thursday September 5 2013 Mr Tomich advised that the proposed millage rates for Board consideration of the General Fund was 368 mills which was an increase over the current 319 mills The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was proposed at 072 mill which was an increase over the current 053 mill The County Transportation Maintenance Fund was proposed at 0 mills which was the same as the previous FY The Marion County Health Department was proposed at 013 mill which was an increase over the current 012 mill The Parks amp Land Acquisition Debt Service Fund was proposed at 006 mill which was an increase over the current 005 mill

Mr Tomich addressed the millage rates for Special Districts for the County The MSTU for Law Enforcement was proposed at 367 mills which was below the maximum for that Ordinance but was an increase over the current 281 mills He advised that the remaining MSTU rates for Special Districts were at the same level as last year with the Marion Oaks MSTU at 102 mills Silver Springs Shores Special Tax District at 30 mills Rainbow Lakes Estates - Community Resource Facility MSTU at 04700 mill Hills of Ocala MSTU for Recreation at 01800 mill MSTU for Fire Protection and Rescue Services at 07700 mill and Rainbow Lakes Estates at 225 mills

Mr Tomich stated the BCC had the opportunity to make further adjustments to components of their budgets as well as other Constitutional Officers with the exception of the MCSO which would need to be made by either another amended budget presented by the Sheriff or at the final budget public hearing

Mr Tomich advised of the budget workshop scheduled tomorrow July 17 2013 at 1 00 pm for the BCC to consider budget requests from outside agencies which would be the earliest opportunity for the BCC to contemplate setting the maximum millage rates or at a date and time on or before the August 2 2013 deadline He stated todays meeting would need to be continued to a date and time certain

Board discussion ensued It was the general consensus of the Board to tentatively continue todays meeting

to Thursday July 25 2013 at 900 am Commissioner McClain questioned what date would be the absolute latest the

Board could schedule the final budget public hearing Mr Minter advised that the Property Appraisers Office already printed envelopes for the Truth in Millage (TRIM)

Book S Page 263

July 16 2013

notices and the County provided additional information to insert into those envelopes Mr Tomich stated he would bring back an alternate date for the final public

hearing for Board consideration Commissioner Zalak out at 1011 am and returned at 1012 am

Upon motion of Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak the Board acted on the Consent Agenda for Economic and Small Business Development items 7A1 and 2 FireRescue item 7B1 MSTU item 7C1 Procurement Services items 7D1through 6 Risk and Benefit Services item 7E1 and Transportation shyCounty Engineer items 7F1 through 3 as follows

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutions - (7A1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development to adopt Resolution 13-R-232 acknowledging Intellon Corporation doing business as (dba) Qualcomm Atheros Inc was not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an agreement with the State of Floridas Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program repealing Resolution 09-R-290 and the Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) award

DescriptionBackground In June 2009 the Board approved Resolution 09-Rshy290 awarding Intelon Corporation $15000 as a local financial match requirement for the companys participation in Floridas Qualified Target Industry Tax (QTt) Refund Program Since the award date the Board has also approved two amendments to the Resolution reflecting corporation name changes The company is currently operating as Qualcomm Atheros Inc Based upon the latest performance review by the County the company has met and exceeded all performance measures established by the Board in 2009 However the company has failed to provide timely reports to the State Therefore on June 7 2012 Floridas Department of Economic Opportunity notified the Qualcomm Atheros Inc that steps were being initiated by the State to decertify the companys eligibility for participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program This decertification voids the States QTI Grant Agreement OT1 0-032 and subsequently voids the required local financial match obligation approved by Marion County in 2009 This Resolution recornmends approval to rep~al the Boards original Resolution 09-R-290 and authorizes staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Request (BAR) for the $15000 Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) that was awarded by the Board on behalf of Intelon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc BudgeUlmpact $105000 in previously obligated funds returned to ED FIG Grant account Recommended Action Motion for Board approval to repeal of Resolution 09-Rshy290 dated July 21 2009 on behalf of the Intellon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc

BudgetsResolutions - (5A5) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-233 transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 264 Book S

July 16 2013

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutionsUtilities - (7A2) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development regarding a proposed Resolution relating to an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) for $53690 payable to Marion County Utilities to fund a 50 percent () share of utility capacity fees to encourage the transfer and acquisition of wastewater improvements for the Jasmine Shopping Plaza commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County

DescriptionBackground Marion County Utilities is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Jasmine Properties a Florida general partnership located in Hobe Florida for the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system located in the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County As part of the agreement the Developer will decommission an existing wastewater plant upgrade the remaining system and pay to connect to Marion Countys utility system prior to transfer of the system to the County The acquisition cost to the County is $10 Once executed this agreement between Marion County Utilities and Jasmine Properties will increase the number of commercial customers for the Countys utility services improve system efficiencies while removing a failing privately operated wastewater package plant As part of the Marion County Utilities Jasmine Plaza Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Agreement Article I Section 14-15 proposes that the Developer pay a 50-percent share of the $107380 Capacity Fee required for connecting to the Countys utility system A 50-pecent share of $53690 is being proposed to be paid equally by Jasmine Properties and by the Marion County Office of Economic and Small Business Development Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) Fund Staff is recommending the Boards consideration for approving this $53690 EDIG grant to support Marion County Utilities acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of an EDIG grant in the amount of $53690 to Marion County Utilities to support the acquisition of the Jasmine Properties wastewater utility Commissioner Moore advised of previous Board discussions regarding

guidelines for EDIGs and questioned whethermiddot that process had been completed Commissioner McClain stated he and staff was still working on that and would bring the matter back at a later date for BCC review

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-234 approving an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) in the amount of $53690690 payable to Marion County Utilities relating to the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

In response to Commissioner McClain Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that the County would acquire approximately 105 current customers plus any additional growth and would decommission an existing wastewater plant

Book S Page 265

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

Municipal Service District and authorize the Chairman to execute the related documents The Board may otherwise continue this meeting for the purpose of taking these actions at a later time but prior to the August 4 2013 deadline Clerk Ellspermann noted the request was for consideration of the proposed

maximum millage rates as well as proposed dates and times to schedule the required public hearings He noted the millage rate proposed would reflect the MSCO new request for budget revisions

Clerk Ellspermann addressed previous discussion at the July 2 2013 BCC meeting regarding his request to review and possibly amend the pre-audit and audit after the expenditure language in the draft Marion County Supplemental Transportation Funding Agreement with Marion County Municipalities He advised that he forwarded proposed changes to the County Attorneys Office however due to unforeseen circumstances the County Attorney had not yet had the chance to review those changes

Budget Director Michael Tomich presented a 7 page document entitled Marion County Board of County Commissioners Budget Workshop Adjustments Tentative Budget Fiscal Year 2013-14 He stated the first public hearing related to the budgets was tentatively scheduled for Thursday September 5 2013 Mr Tomich advised that the proposed millage rates for Board consideration of the General Fund was 368 mills which was an increase over the current 319 mills The Fine amp Forfeiture Fund was proposed at 072 mill which was an increase over the current 053 mill The County Transportation Maintenance Fund was proposed at 0 mills which was the same as the previous FY The Marion County Health Department was proposed at 013 mill which was an increase over the current 012 mill The Parks amp Land Acquisition Debt Service Fund was proposed at 006 mill which was an increase over the current 005 mill

Mr Tomich addressed the millage rates for Special Districts for the County The MSTU for Law Enforcement was proposed at 367 mills which was below the maximum for that Ordinance but was an increase over the current 281 mills He advised that the remaining MSTU rates for Special Districts were at the same level as last year with the Marion Oaks MSTU at 102 mills Silver Springs Shores Special Tax District at 30 mills Rainbow Lakes Estates - Community Resource Facility MSTU at 04700 mill Hills of Ocala MSTU for Recreation at 01800 mill MSTU for Fire Protection and Rescue Services at 07700 mill and Rainbow Lakes Estates at 225 mills

Mr Tomich stated the BCC had the opportunity to make further adjustments to components of their budgets as well as other Constitutional Officers with the exception of the MCSO which would need to be made by either another amended budget presented by the Sheriff or at the final budget public hearing

Mr Tomich advised of the budget workshop scheduled tomorrow July 17 2013 at 1 00 pm for the BCC to consider budget requests from outside agencies which would be the earliest opportunity for the BCC to contemplate setting the maximum millage rates or at a date and time on or before the August 2 2013 deadline He stated todays meeting would need to be continued to a date and time certain

Board discussion ensued It was the general consensus of the Board to tentatively continue todays meeting

to Thursday July 25 2013 at 900 am Commissioner McClain questioned what date would be the absolute latest the

Board could schedule the final budget public hearing Mr Minter advised that the Property Appraisers Office already printed envelopes for the Truth in Millage (TRIM)

Book S Page 263

July 16 2013

notices and the County provided additional information to insert into those envelopes Mr Tomich stated he would bring back an alternate date for the final public

hearing for Board consideration Commissioner Zalak out at 1011 am and returned at 1012 am

Upon motion of Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak the Board acted on the Consent Agenda for Economic and Small Business Development items 7A1 and 2 FireRescue item 7B1 MSTU item 7C1 Procurement Services items 7D1through 6 Risk and Benefit Services item 7E1 and Transportation shyCounty Engineer items 7F1 through 3 as follows

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutions - (7A1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development to adopt Resolution 13-R-232 acknowledging Intellon Corporation doing business as (dba) Qualcomm Atheros Inc was not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an agreement with the State of Floridas Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program repealing Resolution 09-R-290 and the Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) award

DescriptionBackground In June 2009 the Board approved Resolution 09-Rshy290 awarding Intelon Corporation $15000 as a local financial match requirement for the companys participation in Floridas Qualified Target Industry Tax (QTt) Refund Program Since the award date the Board has also approved two amendments to the Resolution reflecting corporation name changes The company is currently operating as Qualcomm Atheros Inc Based upon the latest performance review by the County the company has met and exceeded all performance measures established by the Board in 2009 However the company has failed to provide timely reports to the State Therefore on June 7 2012 Floridas Department of Economic Opportunity notified the Qualcomm Atheros Inc that steps were being initiated by the State to decertify the companys eligibility for participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program This decertification voids the States QTI Grant Agreement OT1 0-032 and subsequently voids the required local financial match obligation approved by Marion County in 2009 This Resolution recornmends approval to rep~al the Boards original Resolution 09-R-290 and authorizes staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Request (BAR) for the $15000 Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) that was awarded by the Board on behalf of Intelon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc BudgeUlmpact $105000 in previously obligated funds returned to ED FIG Grant account Recommended Action Motion for Board approval to repeal of Resolution 09-Rshy290 dated July 21 2009 on behalf of the Intellon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc

BudgetsResolutions - (5A5) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-233 transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 264 Book S

July 16 2013

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutionsUtilities - (7A2) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development regarding a proposed Resolution relating to an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) for $53690 payable to Marion County Utilities to fund a 50 percent () share of utility capacity fees to encourage the transfer and acquisition of wastewater improvements for the Jasmine Shopping Plaza commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County

DescriptionBackground Marion County Utilities is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Jasmine Properties a Florida general partnership located in Hobe Florida for the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system located in the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County As part of the agreement the Developer will decommission an existing wastewater plant upgrade the remaining system and pay to connect to Marion Countys utility system prior to transfer of the system to the County The acquisition cost to the County is $10 Once executed this agreement between Marion County Utilities and Jasmine Properties will increase the number of commercial customers for the Countys utility services improve system efficiencies while removing a failing privately operated wastewater package plant As part of the Marion County Utilities Jasmine Plaza Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Agreement Article I Section 14-15 proposes that the Developer pay a 50-percent share of the $107380 Capacity Fee required for connecting to the Countys utility system A 50-pecent share of $53690 is being proposed to be paid equally by Jasmine Properties and by the Marion County Office of Economic and Small Business Development Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) Fund Staff is recommending the Boards consideration for approving this $53690 EDIG grant to support Marion County Utilities acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of an EDIG grant in the amount of $53690 to Marion County Utilities to support the acquisition of the Jasmine Properties wastewater utility Commissioner Moore advised of previous Board discussions regarding

guidelines for EDIGs and questioned whethermiddot that process had been completed Commissioner McClain stated he and staff was still working on that and would bring the matter back at a later date for BCC review

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-234 approving an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) in the amount of $53690690 payable to Marion County Utilities relating to the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

In response to Commissioner McClain Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that the County would acquire approximately 105 current customers plus any additional growth and would decommission an existing wastewater plant

Book S Page 265

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

notices and the County provided additional information to insert into those envelopes Mr Tomich stated he would bring back an alternate date for the final public

hearing for Board consideration Commissioner Zalak out at 1011 am and returned at 1012 am

Upon motion of Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak the Board acted on the Consent Agenda for Economic and Small Business Development items 7A1 and 2 FireRescue item 7B1 MSTU item 7C1 Procurement Services items 7D1through 6 Risk and Benefit Services item 7E1 and Transportation shyCounty Engineer items 7F1 through 3 as follows

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutions - (7A1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development to adopt Resolution 13-R-232 acknowledging Intellon Corporation doing business as (dba) Qualcomm Atheros Inc was not in compliance with the terms and conditions of an agreement with the State of Floridas Qualified Target Industry (QTI) Tax Refund Program repealing Resolution 09-R-290 and the Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) award

DescriptionBackground In June 2009 the Board approved Resolution 09-Rshy290 awarding Intelon Corporation $15000 as a local financial match requirement for the companys participation in Floridas Qualified Target Industry Tax (QTt) Refund Program Since the award date the Board has also approved two amendments to the Resolution reflecting corporation name changes The company is currently operating as Qualcomm Atheros Inc Based upon the latest performance review by the County the company has met and exceeded all performance measures established by the Board in 2009 However the company has failed to provide timely reports to the State Therefore on June 7 2012 Floridas Department of Economic Opportunity notified the Qualcomm Atheros Inc that steps were being initiated by the State to decertify the companys eligibility for participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program This decertification voids the States QTI Grant Agreement OT1 0-032 and subsequently voids the required local financial match obligation approved by Marion County in 2009 This Resolution recornmends approval to rep~al the Boards original Resolution 09-R-290 and authorizes staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Request (BAR) for the $15000 Economic Development Financial Incentive Grant (EDFIG) that was awarded by the Board on behalf of Intelon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc BudgeUlmpact $105000 in previously obligated funds returned to ED FIG Grant account Recommended Action Motion for Board approval to repeal of Resolution 09-Rshy290 dated July 21 2009 on behalf of the Intellon Corporation dba Qualcomm Atheros Inc

BudgetsResolutions - (5A5) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-233 transferring $15000 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 264 Book S

July 16 2013

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutionsUtilities - (7A2) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development regarding a proposed Resolution relating to an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) for $53690 payable to Marion County Utilities to fund a 50 percent () share of utility capacity fees to encourage the transfer and acquisition of wastewater improvements for the Jasmine Shopping Plaza commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County

DescriptionBackground Marion County Utilities is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Jasmine Properties a Florida general partnership located in Hobe Florida for the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system located in the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County As part of the agreement the Developer will decommission an existing wastewater plant upgrade the remaining system and pay to connect to Marion Countys utility system prior to transfer of the system to the County The acquisition cost to the County is $10 Once executed this agreement between Marion County Utilities and Jasmine Properties will increase the number of commercial customers for the Countys utility services improve system efficiencies while removing a failing privately operated wastewater package plant As part of the Marion County Utilities Jasmine Plaza Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Agreement Article I Section 14-15 proposes that the Developer pay a 50-percent share of the $107380 Capacity Fee required for connecting to the Countys utility system A 50-pecent share of $53690 is being proposed to be paid equally by Jasmine Properties and by the Marion County Office of Economic and Small Business Development Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) Fund Staff is recommending the Boards consideration for approving this $53690 EDIG grant to support Marion County Utilities acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of an EDIG grant in the amount of $53690 to Marion County Utilities to support the acquisition of the Jasmine Properties wastewater utility Commissioner Moore advised of previous Board discussions regarding

guidelines for EDIGs and questioned whethermiddot that process had been completed Commissioner McClain stated he and staff was still working on that and would bring the matter back at a later date for BCC review

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-234 approving an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) in the amount of $53690690 payable to Marion County Utilities relating to the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

In response to Commissioner McClain Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that the County would acquire approximately 105 current customers plus any additional growth and would decommission an existing wastewater plant

Book S Page 265

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

GrantsProjects amp ProgramsResolutionsUtilities - (7A2) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Economic Development Liaison Chris Edwards Economic and Small Business Development regarding a proposed Resolution relating to an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) for $53690 payable to Marion County Utilities to fund a 50 percent () share of utility capacity fees to encourage the transfer and acquisition of wastewater improvements for the Jasmine Shopping Plaza commercial development located on the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County

DescriptionBackground Marion County Utilities is in the process of finalizing an agreement with Jasmine Properties a Florida general partnership located in Hobe Florida for the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system located in the southwest quadrant of SW 60th Avenue and SR 200 in Marion County As part of the agreement the Developer will decommission an existing wastewater plant upgrade the remaining system and pay to connect to Marion Countys utility system prior to transfer of the system to the County The acquisition cost to the County is $10 Once executed this agreement between Marion County Utilities and Jasmine Properties will increase the number of commercial customers for the Countys utility services improve system efficiencies while removing a failing privately operated wastewater package plant As part of the Marion County Utilities Jasmine Plaza Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Agreement Article I Section 14-15 proposes that the Developer pay a 50-percent share of the $107380 Capacity Fee required for connecting to the Countys utility system A 50-pecent share of $53690 is being proposed to be paid equally by Jasmine Properties and by the Marion County Office of Economic and Small Business Development Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) Fund Staff is recommending the Boards consideration for approving this $53690 EDIG grant to support Marion County Utilities acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to recommend approval of an EDIG grant in the amount of $53690 to Marion County Utilities to support the acquisition of the Jasmine Properties wastewater utility Commissioner Moore advised of previous Board discussions regarding

guidelines for EDIGs and questioned whethermiddot that process had been completed Commissioner McClain stated he and staff was still working on that and would bring the matter back at a later date for BCC review

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-234 approving an Economic Development Infrastructure Grant (EDIG) in the amount of $53690690 payable to Marion County Utilities relating to the acquisition of the Jasmine Shopping Plaza wastewater utility system The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

In response to Commissioner McClain Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that the County would acquire approximately 105 current customers plus any additional growth and would decommission an existing wastewater plant

Book S Page 265

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

BudgetsResolutions - (5A6) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-235 transferring $53690 within the General Fund for Industry Development The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

AmbulancesRefunds - (7B1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Safety Stuart McElhaney Marion County Fire Rescue (MCFR) to approve and execute the Refund Application to Linda Wolters for ambulance service charges for Rachel Dubay in the amount of $205448

DescriptionBackground Patient required a prearranged transport and prepaid for services The primary insurance company determined the patients condition met coverage requirements and submitted payment to Marion County BudgetImpact $205448 refunded from 001-3355-549112 Recommended Action Request motion to approve attached Refund Application and authorize Chair and Clerk to execute same

RefundsRoadsSubdivisions (7C1) Accepted the following recommendation from MSTU Director Myra Tedder to authorize the Clerks Office to issue refunds to property owners in Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate road assessment areas

DescriptionBackground The following road assessment projects have been completed on time and under budget and therefore the Board of County Commission is being requested to amend the assessment rolls so refunds can be forwarded to all affected property owners The improvement areas affected are as follows

PROPOSED PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FINAL AMENDED ADJUSTMENTRE

RATE RATE FUND PER PARCEL

Ocala Waterway Estates Series 1860000 $657254 $58862116 $6863284 Florida Orange Groves Series 1920000 $635293 $6049504amp ~3034255

Kingsland Country Est Unit 1 Series 1950000 $176233 $16025410 $1597890 Rolling Hills Phase II Series 1970000 $624349 $~~618425 bull $2816475 Doublegate Series 1990000 $226227 $21310661 $1312039

BudgetImpact $6918138 to be refunded to affected property owners Recommended Action Motion to amend the assessment roll for Ocala Waterway Estates Florida Orange Groves Kingsland Country Estates Unit 1 Rolling Hills Phase II and Doublegate and authorize Clerks Office to prepare checks to be mailed to the affected property owners

Page 266 Book S

July 16 2013

Contracts amp AgreementsRoadsSubdivisions - (701) - Accepted the recommendation of Procurement Services Director Susan Olsen on behalf of the MSTUAssessment Department to approve and execute the Agreement Between County and Contractor upon approval by legal with John L Finch Contracting Corp for the Rainbow Park Units 1 and 2 Road Maintenance and Improvements project at an estimated cost of $200000 (up to a 10 contingency may be added to the Purchase Order) pursuant to Bid No 13B-160

Contracts amp AgreementsRoadsSubdivisions - (702) - Accepted the recommendation of Procurement Services Director Olsen to approve and execute the First Amendment to the Agreement with Rainey Construction Company for the Silver Springs Shores Annual Roads Maintenance project to include the Woods and Lakes portion at a cost expected to cost $325000 however the actual expense would be based on assessments collected pursuant to Bid No 13B-058

Contracts amp AgreementsProjects amp Programs - (703) - The Board considered the recommendation of Procurement Services Director Olsen on behalf of those firms requiring temporary office staff for various reasons regarding a proposed Agreement Between County and Contractor with Spherion Staffing LLC to provide temporary labor pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP) No 13P-155 It was noted that the actual expense would be dependent upon each departments needs with funding required to be established in the appropriate account(s)

Commissioner Zalak referred to the contract and requested that the language regarding 4 automatic renewals be removed It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to approve and execute the Agreement Between County and Contractor upon approval by Legal with Spherion Staffing LLC for a 1 year term and amend the contract to delete language regarding 4 automatic renewals The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Buildings amp GroundsPurchasing - (704) - Accepted recommendation of Procurement Services Director Olsen on behalf of Facilities Management to approve standardization and authorize the department to purchase components as needed from Computrols Equipment under Purchase Order No 131077 to control all heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting systems to conserve energy at a cost not to exceed $1690475 pursuant to Standardization (ST) No 13ST-182 It was noted that future purchases exceeding $50000 would be brought back before the Board for approval

CommunicationsContracts amp Agreements - (705) - The Board considered the recommendation of Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding a proposed Agreement Between County and Contractor with Expert Construction Managers Inc for the Baseline Tower Modifications Phase 1 at a cost that shall not exceed $134000 (up to a 10 contingency may be added to the Purchase Order) pursuant to Bid No 13Bshy159

Chairman Bryant expressed concern that no local firms bid on this contract and stated she would like to see the contract rebid

Book S Page 267

July 16 2013

Public Safety Communications Director Karl Oltz advised that the project was advertized locally however there were no bids submitted by a local company

General discussion ensued A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner

McClain to table the matter and directed staff to contact local vendors regarding the p~ect

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsProjects amp Programs - (706) - The Board considered the recommendation of Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding a proposed Agreement Between County and Agency with CRI Realty Corporation dba ReMax AIiStars Realty to provide Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP 3) property acquisition services pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No 13P-117 It was noted that the budget impact was neutral as expenditure of funds were budgeted

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak to deny staffs recommendation The motion died for lack of a second

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner Arnett to approve and execute the Agreement Between County and Agency with CRI Realty Corporation dba ReMax AIiStars Realty upon approval by Legal to provide NSP 3 property acquisition services The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 3-2 with Commissioners McClain and Zalak voting nay

Contracts amp AgreementsCounty Employeesllnsurance - (7E1) - The Board considered the following recommendation from Human Resources Director Drew Adams Risk and Benefit Services regarding the Medical Care Provider Agreement with US HealthWorks Medical Group of Florida Inc for Workers Compensation medical care provider services at a cost of $229809 to be paid from the Self-Insurance Fund effective October 1 2013

DescriptionBackground A Request for Proposals (RFP) was advertised for a qualified firm to provide Workers Compensation Medical Care Provider services There was only one response which was from US HealthWorks Medical Group of Florida Inc The response was reviewed and evaluated by the Selection Committee consisting of John Garri-Finance Director Dana Taylor-Attorney and Sheri Wiley-BCCRisk US HealthWorks Medical Group of Florida Inc is the Countys current Medical Provider for Workers Compensation and Non-Workers Compensation medical services and has provided good service It is important to have continuity and history with the Medical Provider for long-term cost-effective management of Workers Compensation Risk and Benefit Services works closely with US Healthworks the Employee Health Clinic and County Attorneys office to review claims monitor care and develop strategies that produce aggressive management of our claims The proposed fee of $229809 has been included in the FY2014 proposed budget The Agreement has been reviewed and approved as to form and legality by the County Attorneys office Budget Impact Budget impact is $229809 and is included in the Self-Insurance Budget

Page 268 Book S

July 16 2013

Recommended Action Board Motion to approve RFP 13P-118 Selection Committees recommendation to accept the proposal with US HealthWorks Medical Group of Florida Inc for Workers Compensation Medical Care Provider services in the amount of $229809 to be pakJ from the Self-Insurance Fund and to be effective October 2013 Commissioner Zalak addressed his concerns with this contract in regard to

automatic renewals and opined the contract should go out to bid every 2 or 3 years In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Olsen advised that staff reviewed contracts each year even if the contractagreement included language for automatic renewals Commissioner Zalak stated his preference would be for contracts and agreements to go out for rebid every 2 years It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to approve and execute the Agreement with US HealthWorks Medical Group of Florida Inc upon approval by Legal for Workers Compensation medical care provider services for a 2 year term and eliminate language regarding automatic renewals The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsDistrictsGrants - (7F1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Mounir Bouyounes on behalf of the Office of tile County Engineer to approve and execute the letter to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Governing Board requesting the District continue its efforts to ensure projects continue to be equitably funded based on the revenues generated from each local jurisdiction

DescriptionBackground With the disbandment of the basin boards in 2011 a letter was signed by Commissioner Charlie Stone on November 29 2011 expressing concern that the disbandment would affect financial backing for projects and programs implemented at the local level Funding under the Districts Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) for FY12 and FY13 seemed to continue seamlessly However changes implemented in the ranking process of FY14 cooperative funding projects has Marion County staff concerned again about how projects will be represented While in the past Marion County has worked with the District on many successful projects it appears that the implementation of the new ranking system is shifting cooperative funding towards large regional projects and highly urbanized areas This would essentially penalize Marion County for having small closed basin systems In addition Marion County has long partnered with the District to complete watershed management plans The watershed management program (WMP) incorporates a maintenance portion to ensure data and databases are maintained and useful These updates are part of the WMP process a SWFWMD-defined process yet District staff are indicating that they are not a high priority to the District and for now Marion County should reconsider applying for such projects This letter is a request for the District to continue their efforts in ensuring that projects continue to be equitably funded based on the revenues generated from each local jurisdiction Budgetlrnpact None

Book S Page 269

July 16 2013

Recommended Action Motion to approve and authorize Chair to sign the proposed letter

Contracts amp AgreementsDrainageRoads (7F2) - Accepted the recommendation of Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer to approve and execute the Purchase Agreement with Monique deGroen also known as (aka) deGroen Cooreman Trustee in the amount of $591138 which included closing costs of $3150 for the acquisition of Parcel No 3752-001-000 (a portion of) for approximately 9 acres necessary for right of way and water retention area associated with the SE 92 nd Loop Road Project

Contracts amp AgreementsRoads - (7F3) - Accepted the recommendation of Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer to approve and execute the Pumiddotrchase Agreement with Lisa M Janowiak in the amount of $38555 which included closing costs of $555 for the acquisition of Parcel No 37892-000-00 (a portion of) for necessary right of way associated with the SE 92nd Loop Road Project

Contracts amp AgreementsCounty Attorney - (8A) - County Attorney Matthew G Minter presented the following recommendation relating to the First Amendment to Employment Agreement with Matthew Guy Minter

DescriptionBackground The County Attorney is currently working under an Employment Agreement with a three year term that will expire on August 1 2013 The attached FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT covers the following main points 1 Extends the Term of the Agreement for ten years from August 2 2013 2 Provides for relatively minor enhancement of benefits that only take effect

in the event that the Board terminates the Agreement 3 Continues the County Attorneys salary at the current salary 4 Allows for an increase in the maximum number of hours of annual leave

that can be carried over from 300 hours to 450 hours BudgetImpact Potential that there could be some increase in annual leave balance upon employees separation from County compared to the current agreement Relatively minor contingent increase in benefit to employee in the event of decision by BCC to terminate the Agreement Recommended Action If these terms are acceptable to the Board recommend approval of a motion to approve the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Mr Minter advised that the County Attorney served at the pleasure of the Board

noting the contract could be terminated at anytime during the 10 year term A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to approve and execute the 1 sl Amendment to the County Attorney Employment Agreement with Matthew Guy Minter

Commissioner McClain stated the BCC appreciated the work Mr Minter had performed as the County Attorney and commented on the improvements made by legal staff

Mr Minter noted it was his pleasure to work for the BCC and the citizens of Marion County

Page 270 Book S

July 16 2013

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 1029 am

ResolutionsRoad ImprovementsSubdivisions - (Walk-On) - County Attorney Minter presented the following recommendation regarding the Initial Assessment Resolution relating to the New Haven Improvement Area

DescriptionBackground Attached is the Initial Resolution to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on July 16 2013 which was received from Nabors Giblin amp Nickerson PA bond counsel for Marion County The resolution is related to financing the road improvements in the New Haven Improvement Area Upon approval of the resolution a public hearing will be held on August 13 2013 at 200 pm BudgetImpact None Recommended Action The Board is requested to adopt the attached Resolution and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same A motion was made by Commissioner Arnett seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-236 approving the New Haven Improvement Area The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0) Resolution 12-R-472 was entitled

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED NEW HAVEN IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESING THE COSTS OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR COLLECTION DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

ResolutionsRoad ImprovementsSubdivisions - (Walk-On) - County Attorney Minter presented the following recommendation regarding the Initial Assessment Resolutions relating to the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th Street Improvement Area

DescriptionBackground Attached is the Initial Resolution to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on July 16 2013 which was received from Nabors Giblin amp Nickerson PA bond counsel for Marion County The resolution is related to financing the road improvements in the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th Street Improvement Area Upon approval of the resolution a public hearing will be held on August 13 2013 at 200 pm BudgetImpact None Recommended Action The Board is requested to adopt the attached Resolution and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same

Book S Page 271

July 16 2013

A motion was made by Commissioner Arnett seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-237 approving the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th

Street Improvement Area The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0) Resolution 13-R-237 was entitled

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED SILVER

88THSPRINGS ESTATESSE STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESING THE COSTS OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR COLLECTION DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Contracts amp AgreementsSuitsZoning - (Walk-On) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Arnett to schedule a closed meeting pursuant to Florida Statute (FS) 286011 (8) on Tuesday August 6 2013 at 200 pm to discuss settlement negotiations andor litigation strategy in the case of Compost USA versus (vs) Marion County The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0)

County PlanningOrdinancesParks amp Recreation - (9A) - County Administrator Lee A Niblock presented the following recommendation from Parks and Recreation Director Gina Peebles regarding the Carney Island Site Plan

DescriptionBackground At the April 29 Carney Island Workshop the Board directed staff to present a revised plan for the park within 60 days which is attached A sub-committee was appointed who made the following recommendations 1 The creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the

lower 400 acres of the Park which would include language allowing the creation of bike trails interpretive boardwalks trail shelters and other minor park amenities needed to enhance the visitors experience Budget Impact - $13321 for professional services to survey the northem boundary write the legal description and record the legal documents

2 The repair and perpetual maintenance of the boat ramp system and revision of the existing idle speed zone to include the natural basin just off shore from the ramp area for boater safety Budget Impact - $56230 to extend the end of one boat ramp into the power load hole and continue to backfill dredge the power loading holes at all ramps and relocate day-markers for idle-speed no wake zone to the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir

3 The construction of an accessible fishing pier located north of the existing floating dock system

Page 272 Book S

July 16 2013

Budget Impact - $73250 4 The provision of areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain

biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

The DRAFT plan and sub-committee recommendations were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Council (PRAC) at their June 19 meeting The Council supported the sub-committees recommendations with the addition that the third party listed in item 1 be a Marion County based group such as Save Lake Weir Inc a non-for profit group who has a vested interest in the future of the property and Lake Weir itself Subsequent to those meetings staff conferred with the County Attorney regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement who advised that the Commission could designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area through an Ordinance This Ordinance would achieve the goals of the subshycommittee protecting the environmentally sensitive areas of the park from commercialization and development while still providing passive recreational access to park visitors Any future proposed changes that are inconsistent with the language of the proposed Conservation Area would require at least one Public Hearing Staff Recommendations 1 Designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area by Ordinance

using staff time Budget Impact - None

2 Modify the end of one boat ramp and continue low water maintenance of the boat ramps as allowed by the permitting agency Additionally staff would recommend installing low water signs to delineate the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir in lieu of relocating the ide-speedno wake buoys to allow boaters to cross the ridge at a safe speed Budget Impact - $56230

3 Construct an accessible fisrling pier located north of the existing floating dock system Budget Impact - $73250

4 Provide areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

BudgetImpact $129480 $128105 (boat ramp extension and fishing pier) funded through Pennies for Parks and $1375 (turbidity barriers) funded through Parks and Recreation - General Fund Recommended Action Motion to direct the County Attorneys Office to draft and advertise the Carney Island Conservation Area Ordinance and direct the Parks and Recreation Department to present a budget amendment on the next available agenda to extend one boat ramp and install a fishing pier Commissioner Bryant returned at 1032 am Chairman Zalak returned the gavel

to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair Mr Niblock provided a brief overview of the project Commissioner McClain commented on a product presented at a recent Florida

Association of Counties (FAC) meeting which was made out of the same material as a

Book S Page 273

July 16 2013

truck bed liner and utilized for drainagespillway uses He advised of 2 main issues on the lake that would always need to be addressed 1) turbulence from boat props and 2) water level Commissioner McClain stated the BCC may want to have a discussion with the manufacturer to determine whether or not the product could help resolve some of those issues He addressed the need for Board discussion regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the lower 400 acres of the Park Commissioner McClain requested the Board allow him time to work on addressing any issues he had in regard to the project Chairman Bryant concurred

Board discussion ensued Landscape Architect Jim Couillard Parks and Recreation Department clarified it

was staffs recommendation to declare a Conservation Area in an Ordinance not a Conservation Easement with a third party

County Attorney Minter advised that a Conservation Easement was a conveyance noting once the BCC granted that it divested itself of control A Conservation Area created by an Ordinance would provide the Board flexibility in the future by allowing the option of modifying that Ordinance

Jane Sands Highway 25 Ocklawaha member of the Save Lake Weir Board and appointed member of the sub-committee thanked the BCC for allowing public input into the matter She requested the BCC consider including the rest of the park in the Conservation Area with the necessary exceptions for utilities etc

Board discussion resumed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to table the matter until a later date to allow Commissioner McClain time to review partnership options and recommendations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Communications - (9B) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Susan Olsen regarding options relating to legal advertising in the Ocala Star-Banner and Voice of Marion newspapers

DescriptionBackground A previous RFP was advertised for Legal Ad Services and contracts awarded to the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion as the only two (2) respondents to the solicitation The contracts are nearing expiration and with no other Marion County print publications which meet the statutory requirements for publishing legal ads Procurement recommends that the previous two (2) agencies be declared a sole source for this type of service and the bidding of Legal Ad Services be exempt until such time Procurement becomes aware of other options to meet the statutory requirement or as directed by Administration or the Board BudgetImpact This exemption carries no impact Legal ad funding is unique by department depending on specific projects funding will be required in the appropriate line items Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners exempt Legal Advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion the sole sources for local print news media which complies with statutory requirements for said services Mr Niblock advised that the statutory requirements for legal advertisements

could only be met by those 2 papers

Page 274 Book S

July 16 2013

In response to Commissioner Moore Mr Minter stated Chapter 50 Florida Statutes which governed legal advertisements did not allow for electronic (on-line) public notices at this time

Clerk Ellspermann advised that Senator Dean filed a Bill to allow for electronic publications on the Internet for the last 2 years however it did not pass

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to exempt legal advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala StarshyBanner and the Voice of South lVIarion newspapers as sole source providers for local print news media which complied with statutory requirements The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsUtilities - (9C) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer Interconnect

DescriptionBackground At its June 21 2011 meeting the Board approved contracts with nine (9) Ocala contractors for various projects involving underground utility work as needed by the Utilities Department Contractors can be selected based on lowest quote area of specialty or on a rotating basis For this project all firms were proposed a detailed scope of work to include all labor equipment and materials necessary to interconnect the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer systems to Silver Springs Shores with a 12 water main and a 10 force mains This project will allow the Silver Springs Regional sewer flow to be rerouted to the Silver Springs Shores wastewater plant and it will also provide a backup water supply to the Silver Springs Regional water system To support the contract a transfer of previously allocated funds within the Utilities CIP is required and outlined in the included Reappropriation Table The tabulation below summarizes the offers receivedmiddot

Company Name Amount GWP Construction $ 180127230 Commercial Industrial Corp $ 200818102 Salser Construction Inc $ 234770080

Utilities Director Flip Mellinger requests award of this project to GWP Attached for review is the draft project amendment including complete scope of work as Exhibit A and detailed fee schedule as Exhibit B Substantial completion of the project will be within 185 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed Pending approval at todays meeting the contract will be sent to the contractor for execution as written and upon return will be forwarded for the County Attorney Clerk and Chairmans signatures BudgetImpact The total cost for these services shall not exceed $180127230 up to ten percent (10) of the project cost may be added to the purchase order for contingency and is allowed per the Procurement Ordinance Per Department provided information sufficient funding exists in account 7160-563102 projects 7130059 and 7130116 pending approval of the reappropriation requested under this agenda item Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners to (1) approve project reappropriation and transfer project budget to the appropriate project code and (2) approve recommendation and allow staff to issue contract

Book S Page 275

July 16 2013

Recommended Action Board Motion to approve RFP 13P-118 Selection Committees recommendation to accept the proposal with US HealthWorks Medical Group of Florida Inc for Workers Compensation Medical Care Provider services in the amount of $229809 to be pakJ from the Self-Insurance Fund and to be effective October 2013 Commissioner Zalak addressed his concerns with this contract in regard to

automatic renewals and opined the contract should go out to bid every 2 or 3 years In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Olsen advised that staff reviewed contracts each year even if the contractagreement included language for automatic renewals Commissioner Zalak stated his preference would be for contracts and agreements to go out for rebid every 2 years It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to approve and execute the Agreement with US HealthWorks Medical Group of Florida Inc upon approval by Legal for Workers Compensation medical care provider services for a 2 year term and eliminate language regarding automatic renewals The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsDistrictsGrants - (7F1) - Accepted the following recommendation from Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Mounir Bouyounes on behalf of the Office of tile County Engineer to approve and execute the letter to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Governing Board requesting the District continue its efforts to ensure projects continue to be equitably funded based on the revenues generated from each local jurisdiction

DescriptionBackground With the disbandment of the basin boards in 2011 a letter was signed by Commissioner Charlie Stone on November 29 2011 expressing concern that the disbandment would affect financial backing for projects and programs implemented at the local level Funding under the Districts Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) for FY12 and FY13 seemed to continue seamlessly However changes implemented in the ranking process of FY14 cooperative funding projects has Marion County staff concerned again about how projects will be represented While in the past Marion County has worked with the District on many successful projects it appears that the implementation of the new ranking system is shifting cooperative funding towards large regional projects and highly urbanized areas This would essentially penalize Marion County for having small closed basin systems In addition Marion County has long partnered with the District to complete watershed management plans The watershed management program (WMP) incorporates a maintenance portion to ensure data and databases are maintained and useful These updates are part of the WMP process a SWFWMD-defined process yet District staff are indicating that they are not a high priority to the District and for now Marion County should reconsider applying for such projects This letter is a request for the District to continue their efforts in ensuring that projects continue to be equitably funded based on the revenues generated from each local jurisdiction Budgetlrnpact None

Book S Page 269

July 16 2013

Recommended Action Motion to approve and authorize Chair to sign the proposed letter

Contracts amp AgreementsDrainageRoads (7F2) - Accepted the recommendation of Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer to approve and execute the Purchase Agreement with Monique deGroen also known as (aka) deGroen Cooreman Trustee in the amount of $591138 which included closing costs of $3150 for the acquisition of Parcel No 3752-001-000 (a portion of) for approximately 9 acres necessary for right of way and water retention area associated with the SE 92 nd Loop Road Project

Contracts amp AgreementsRoads - (7F3) - Accepted the recommendation of Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer to approve and execute the Pumiddotrchase Agreement with Lisa M Janowiak in the amount of $38555 which included closing costs of $555 for the acquisition of Parcel No 37892-000-00 (a portion of) for necessary right of way associated with the SE 92nd Loop Road Project

Contracts amp AgreementsCounty Attorney - (8A) - County Attorney Matthew G Minter presented the following recommendation relating to the First Amendment to Employment Agreement with Matthew Guy Minter

DescriptionBackground The County Attorney is currently working under an Employment Agreement with a three year term that will expire on August 1 2013 The attached FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT covers the following main points 1 Extends the Term of the Agreement for ten years from August 2 2013 2 Provides for relatively minor enhancement of benefits that only take effect

in the event that the Board terminates the Agreement 3 Continues the County Attorneys salary at the current salary 4 Allows for an increase in the maximum number of hours of annual leave

that can be carried over from 300 hours to 450 hours BudgetImpact Potential that there could be some increase in annual leave balance upon employees separation from County compared to the current agreement Relatively minor contingent increase in benefit to employee in the event of decision by BCC to terminate the Agreement Recommended Action If these terms are acceptable to the Board recommend approval of a motion to approve the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Mr Minter advised that the County Attorney served at the pleasure of the Board

noting the contract could be terminated at anytime during the 10 year term A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to approve and execute the 1 sl Amendment to the County Attorney Employment Agreement with Matthew Guy Minter

Commissioner McClain stated the BCC appreciated the work Mr Minter had performed as the County Attorney and commented on the improvements made by legal staff

Mr Minter noted it was his pleasure to work for the BCC and the citizens of Marion County

Page 270 Book S

July 16 2013

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 1029 am

ResolutionsRoad ImprovementsSubdivisions - (Walk-On) - County Attorney Minter presented the following recommendation regarding the Initial Assessment Resolution relating to the New Haven Improvement Area

DescriptionBackground Attached is the Initial Resolution to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on July 16 2013 which was received from Nabors Giblin amp Nickerson PA bond counsel for Marion County The resolution is related to financing the road improvements in the New Haven Improvement Area Upon approval of the resolution a public hearing will be held on August 13 2013 at 200 pm BudgetImpact None Recommended Action The Board is requested to adopt the attached Resolution and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same A motion was made by Commissioner Arnett seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-236 approving the New Haven Improvement Area The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0) Resolution 12-R-472 was entitled

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED NEW HAVEN IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESING THE COSTS OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR COLLECTION DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

ResolutionsRoad ImprovementsSubdivisions - (Walk-On) - County Attorney Minter presented the following recommendation regarding the Initial Assessment Resolutions relating to the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th Street Improvement Area

DescriptionBackground Attached is the Initial Resolution to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on July 16 2013 which was received from Nabors Giblin amp Nickerson PA bond counsel for Marion County The resolution is related to financing the road improvements in the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th Street Improvement Area Upon approval of the resolution a public hearing will be held on August 13 2013 at 200 pm BudgetImpact None Recommended Action The Board is requested to adopt the attached Resolution and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same

Book S Page 271

July 16 2013

A motion was made by Commissioner Arnett seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-237 approving the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th

Street Improvement Area The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0) Resolution 13-R-237 was entitled

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED SILVER

88THSPRINGS ESTATESSE STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESING THE COSTS OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR COLLECTION DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Contracts amp AgreementsSuitsZoning - (Walk-On) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Arnett to schedule a closed meeting pursuant to Florida Statute (FS) 286011 (8) on Tuesday August 6 2013 at 200 pm to discuss settlement negotiations andor litigation strategy in the case of Compost USA versus (vs) Marion County The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0)

County PlanningOrdinancesParks amp Recreation - (9A) - County Administrator Lee A Niblock presented the following recommendation from Parks and Recreation Director Gina Peebles regarding the Carney Island Site Plan

DescriptionBackground At the April 29 Carney Island Workshop the Board directed staff to present a revised plan for the park within 60 days which is attached A sub-committee was appointed who made the following recommendations 1 The creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the

lower 400 acres of the Park which would include language allowing the creation of bike trails interpretive boardwalks trail shelters and other minor park amenities needed to enhance the visitors experience Budget Impact - $13321 for professional services to survey the northem boundary write the legal description and record the legal documents

2 The repair and perpetual maintenance of the boat ramp system and revision of the existing idle speed zone to include the natural basin just off shore from the ramp area for boater safety Budget Impact - $56230 to extend the end of one boat ramp into the power load hole and continue to backfill dredge the power loading holes at all ramps and relocate day-markers for idle-speed no wake zone to the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir

3 The construction of an accessible fishing pier located north of the existing floating dock system

Page 272 Book S

July 16 2013

Budget Impact - $73250 4 The provision of areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain

biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

The DRAFT plan and sub-committee recommendations were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Council (PRAC) at their June 19 meeting The Council supported the sub-committees recommendations with the addition that the third party listed in item 1 be a Marion County based group such as Save Lake Weir Inc a non-for profit group who has a vested interest in the future of the property and Lake Weir itself Subsequent to those meetings staff conferred with the County Attorney regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement who advised that the Commission could designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area through an Ordinance This Ordinance would achieve the goals of the subshycommittee protecting the environmentally sensitive areas of the park from commercialization and development while still providing passive recreational access to park visitors Any future proposed changes that are inconsistent with the language of the proposed Conservation Area would require at least one Public Hearing Staff Recommendations 1 Designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area by Ordinance

using staff time Budget Impact - None

2 Modify the end of one boat ramp and continue low water maintenance of the boat ramps as allowed by the permitting agency Additionally staff would recommend installing low water signs to delineate the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir in lieu of relocating the ide-speedno wake buoys to allow boaters to cross the ridge at a safe speed Budget Impact - $56230

3 Construct an accessible fisrling pier located north of the existing floating dock system Budget Impact - $73250

4 Provide areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

BudgetImpact $129480 $128105 (boat ramp extension and fishing pier) funded through Pennies for Parks and $1375 (turbidity barriers) funded through Parks and Recreation - General Fund Recommended Action Motion to direct the County Attorneys Office to draft and advertise the Carney Island Conservation Area Ordinance and direct the Parks and Recreation Department to present a budget amendment on the next available agenda to extend one boat ramp and install a fishing pier Commissioner Bryant returned at 1032 am Chairman Zalak returned the gavel

to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair Mr Niblock provided a brief overview of the project Commissioner McClain commented on a product presented at a recent Florida

Association of Counties (FAC) meeting which was made out of the same material as a

Book S Page 273

July 16 2013

truck bed liner and utilized for drainagespillway uses He advised of 2 main issues on the lake that would always need to be addressed 1) turbulence from boat props and 2) water level Commissioner McClain stated the BCC may want to have a discussion with the manufacturer to determine whether or not the product could help resolve some of those issues He addressed the need for Board discussion regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the lower 400 acres of the Park Commissioner McClain requested the Board allow him time to work on addressing any issues he had in regard to the project Chairman Bryant concurred

Board discussion ensued Landscape Architect Jim Couillard Parks and Recreation Department clarified it

was staffs recommendation to declare a Conservation Area in an Ordinance not a Conservation Easement with a third party

County Attorney Minter advised that a Conservation Easement was a conveyance noting once the BCC granted that it divested itself of control A Conservation Area created by an Ordinance would provide the Board flexibility in the future by allowing the option of modifying that Ordinance

Jane Sands Highway 25 Ocklawaha member of the Save Lake Weir Board and appointed member of the sub-committee thanked the BCC for allowing public input into the matter She requested the BCC consider including the rest of the park in the Conservation Area with the necessary exceptions for utilities etc

Board discussion resumed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to table the matter until a later date to allow Commissioner McClain time to review partnership options and recommendations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Communications - (9B) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Susan Olsen regarding options relating to legal advertising in the Ocala Star-Banner and Voice of Marion newspapers

DescriptionBackground A previous RFP was advertised for Legal Ad Services and contracts awarded to the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion as the only two (2) respondents to the solicitation The contracts are nearing expiration and with no other Marion County print publications which meet the statutory requirements for publishing legal ads Procurement recommends that the previous two (2) agencies be declared a sole source for this type of service and the bidding of Legal Ad Services be exempt until such time Procurement becomes aware of other options to meet the statutory requirement or as directed by Administration or the Board BudgetImpact This exemption carries no impact Legal ad funding is unique by department depending on specific projects funding will be required in the appropriate line items Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners exempt Legal Advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion the sole sources for local print news media which complies with statutory requirements for said services Mr Niblock advised that the statutory requirements for legal advertisements

could only be met by those 2 papers

Page 274 Book S

July 16 2013

In response to Commissioner Moore Mr Minter stated Chapter 50 Florida Statutes which governed legal advertisements did not allow for electronic (on-line) public notices at this time

Clerk Ellspermann advised that Senator Dean filed a Bill to allow for electronic publications on the Internet for the last 2 years however it did not pass

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to exempt legal advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala StarshyBanner and the Voice of South lVIarion newspapers as sole source providers for local print news media which complied with statutory requirements The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsUtilities - (9C) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer Interconnect

DescriptionBackground At its June 21 2011 meeting the Board approved contracts with nine (9) Ocala contractors for various projects involving underground utility work as needed by the Utilities Department Contractors can be selected based on lowest quote area of specialty or on a rotating basis For this project all firms were proposed a detailed scope of work to include all labor equipment and materials necessary to interconnect the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer systems to Silver Springs Shores with a 12 water main and a 10 force mains This project will allow the Silver Springs Regional sewer flow to be rerouted to the Silver Springs Shores wastewater plant and it will also provide a backup water supply to the Silver Springs Regional water system To support the contract a transfer of previously allocated funds within the Utilities CIP is required and outlined in the included Reappropriation Table The tabulation below summarizes the offers receivedmiddot

Company Name Amount GWP Construction $ 180127230 Commercial Industrial Corp $ 200818102 Salser Construction Inc $ 234770080

Utilities Director Flip Mellinger requests award of this project to GWP Attached for review is the draft project amendment including complete scope of work as Exhibit A and detailed fee schedule as Exhibit B Substantial completion of the project will be within 185 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed Pending approval at todays meeting the contract will be sent to the contractor for execution as written and upon return will be forwarded for the County Attorney Clerk and Chairmans signatures BudgetImpact The total cost for these services shall not exceed $180127230 up to ten percent (10) of the project cost may be added to the purchase order for contingency and is allowed per the Procurement Ordinance Per Department provided information sufficient funding exists in account 7160-563102 projects 7130059 and 7130116 pending approval of the reappropriation requested under this agenda item Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners to (1) approve project reappropriation and transfer project budget to the appropriate project code and (2) approve recommendation and allow staff to issue contract

Book S Page 275

July 16 2013

Recommended Action Motion to approve and authorize Chair to sign the proposed letter

Contracts amp AgreementsDrainageRoads (7F2) - Accepted the recommendation of Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer to approve and execute the Purchase Agreement with Monique deGroen also known as (aka) deGroen Cooreman Trustee in the amount of $591138 which included closing costs of $3150 for the acquisition of Parcel No 3752-001-000 (a portion of) for approximately 9 acres necessary for right of way and water retention area associated with the SE 92 nd Loop Road Project

Contracts amp AgreementsRoads - (7F3) - Accepted the recommendation of Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer to approve and execute the Pumiddotrchase Agreement with Lisa M Janowiak in the amount of $38555 which included closing costs of $555 for the acquisition of Parcel No 37892-000-00 (a portion of) for necessary right of way associated with the SE 92nd Loop Road Project

Contracts amp AgreementsCounty Attorney - (8A) - County Attorney Matthew G Minter presented the following recommendation relating to the First Amendment to Employment Agreement with Matthew Guy Minter

DescriptionBackground The County Attorney is currently working under an Employment Agreement with a three year term that will expire on August 1 2013 The attached FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT covers the following main points 1 Extends the Term of the Agreement for ten years from August 2 2013 2 Provides for relatively minor enhancement of benefits that only take effect

in the event that the Board terminates the Agreement 3 Continues the County Attorneys salary at the current salary 4 Allows for an increase in the maximum number of hours of annual leave

that can be carried over from 300 hours to 450 hours BudgetImpact Potential that there could be some increase in annual leave balance upon employees separation from County compared to the current agreement Relatively minor contingent increase in benefit to employee in the event of decision by BCC to terminate the Agreement Recommended Action If these terms are acceptable to the Board recommend approval of a motion to approve the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT Mr Minter advised that the County Attorney served at the pleasure of the Board

noting the contract could be terminated at anytime during the 10 year term A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to approve and execute the 1 sl Amendment to the County Attorney Employment Agreement with Matthew Guy Minter

Commissioner McClain stated the BCC appreciated the work Mr Minter had performed as the County Attorney and commented on the improvements made by legal staff

Mr Minter noted it was his pleasure to work for the BCC and the citizens of Marion County

Page 270 Book S

July 16 2013

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 1029 am

ResolutionsRoad ImprovementsSubdivisions - (Walk-On) - County Attorney Minter presented the following recommendation regarding the Initial Assessment Resolution relating to the New Haven Improvement Area

DescriptionBackground Attached is the Initial Resolution to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on July 16 2013 which was received from Nabors Giblin amp Nickerson PA bond counsel for Marion County The resolution is related to financing the road improvements in the New Haven Improvement Area Upon approval of the resolution a public hearing will be held on August 13 2013 at 200 pm BudgetImpact None Recommended Action The Board is requested to adopt the attached Resolution and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same A motion was made by Commissioner Arnett seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-236 approving the New Haven Improvement Area The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0) Resolution 12-R-472 was entitled

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED NEW HAVEN IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESING THE COSTS OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR COLLECTION DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

ResolutionsRoad ImprovementsSubdivisions - (Walk-On) - County Attorney Minter presented the following recommendation regarding the Initial Assessment Resolutions relating to the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th Street Improvement Area

DescriptionBackground Attached is the Initial Resolution to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on July 16 2013 which was received from Nabors Giblin amp Nickerson PA bond counsel for Marion County The resolution is related to financing the road improvements in the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th Street Improvement Area Upon approval of the resolution a public hearing will be held on August 13 2013 at 200 pm BudgetImpact None Recommended Action The Board is requested to adopt the attached Resolution and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same

Book S Page 271

July 16 2013

A motion was made by Commissioner Arnett seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-237 approving the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th

Street Improvement Area The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0) Resolution 13-R-237 was entitled

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED SILVER

88THSPRINGS ESTATESSE STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESING THE COSTS OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR COLLECTION DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Contracts amp AgreementsSuitsZoning - (Walk-On) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Arnett to schedule a closed meeting pursuant to Florida Statute (FS) 286011 (8) on Tuesday August 6 2013 at 200 pm to discuss settlement negotiations andor litigation strategy in the case of Compost USA versus (vs) Marion County The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0)

County PlanningOrdinancesParks amp Recreation - (9A) - County Administrator Lee A Niblock presented the following recommendation from Parks and Recreation Director Gina Peebles regarding the Carney Island Site Plan

DescriptionBackground At the April 29 Carney Island Workshop the Board directed staff to present a revised plan for the park within 60 days which is attached A sub-committee was appointed who made the following recommendations 1 The creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the

lower 400 acres of the Park which would include language allowing the creation of bike trails interpretive boardwalks trail shelters and other minor park amenities needed to enhance the visitors experience Budget Impact - $13321 for professional services to survey the northem boundary write the legal description and record the legal documents

2 The repair and perpetual maintenance of the boat ramp system and revision of the existing idle speed zone to include the natural basin just off shore from the ramp area for boater safety Budget Impact - $56230 to extend the end of one boat ramp into the power load hole and continue to backfill dredge the power loading holes at all ramps and relocate day-markers for idle-speed no wake zone to the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir

3 The construction of an accessible fishing pier located north of the existing floating dock system

Page 272 Book S

July 16 2013

Budget Impact - $73250 4 The provision of areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain

biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

The DRAFT plan and sub-committee recommendations were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Council (PRAC) at their June 19 meeting The Council supported the sub-committees recommendations with the addition that the third party listed in item 1 be a Marion County based group such as Save Lake Weir Inc a non-for profit group who has a vested interest in the future of the property and Lake Weir itself Subsequent to those meetings staff conferred with the County Attorney regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement who advised that the Commission could designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area through an Ordinance This Ordinance would achieve the goals of the subshycommittee protecting the environmentally sensitive areas of the park from commercialization and development while still providing passive recreational access to park visitors Any future proposed changes that are inconsistent with the language of the proposed Conservation Area would require at least one Public Hearing Staff Recommendations 1 Designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area by Ordinance

using staff time Budget Impact - None

2 Modify the end of one boat ramp and continue low water maintenance of the boat ramps as allowed by the permitting agency Additionally staff would recommend installing low water signs to delineate the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir in lieu of relocating the ide-speedno wake buoys to allow boaters to cross the ridge at a safe speed Budget Impact - $56230

3 Construct an accessible fisrling pier located north of the existing floating dock system Budget Impact - $73250

4 Provide areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

BudgetImpact $129480 $128105 (boat ramp extension and fishing pier) funded through Pennies for Parks and $1375 (turbidity barriers) funded through Parks and Recreation - General Fund Recommended Action Motion to direct the County Attorneys Office to draft and advertise the Carney Island Conservation Area Ordinance and direct the Parks and Recreation Department to present a budget amendment on the next available agenda to extend one boat ramp and install a fishing pier Commissioner Bryant returned at 1032 am Chairman Zalak returned the gavel

to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair Mr Niblock provided a brief overview of the project Commissioner McClain commented on a product presented at a recent Florida

Association of Counties (FAC) meeting which was made out of the same material as a

Book S Page 273

July 16 2013

truck bed liner and utilized for drainagespillway uses He advised of 2 main issues on the lake that would always need to be addressed 1) turbulence from boat props and 2) water level Commissioner McClain stated the BCC may want to have a discussion with the manufacturer to determine whether or not the product could help resolve some of those issues He addressed the need for Board discussion regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the lower 400 acres of the Park Commissioner McClain requested the Board allow him time to work on addressing any issues he had in regard to the project Chairman Bryant concurred

Board discussion ensued Landscape Architect Jim Couillard Parks and Recreation Department clarified it

was staffs recommendation to declare a Conservation Area in an Ordinance not a Conservation Easement with a third party

County Attorney Minter advised that a Conservation Easement was a conveyance noting once the BCC granted that it divested itself of control A Conservation Area created by an Ordinance would provide the Board flexibility in the future by allowing the option of modifying that Ordinance

Jane Sands Highway 25 Ocklawaha member of the Save Lake Weir Board and appointed member of the sub-committee thanked the BCC for allowing public input into the matter She requested the BCC consider including the rest of the park in the Conservation Area with the necessary exceptions for utilities etc

Board discussion resumed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to table the matter until a later date to allow Commissioner McClain time to review partnership options and recommendations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Communications - (9B) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Susan Olsen regarding options relating to legal advertising in the Ocala Star-Banner and Voice of Marion newspapers

DescriptionBackground A previous RFP was advertised for Legal Ad Services and contracts awarded to the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion as the only two (2) respondents to the solicitation The contracts are nearing expiration and with no other Marion County print publications which meet the statutory requirements for publishing legal ads Procurement recommends that the previous two (2) agencies be declared a sole source for this type of service and the bidding of Legal Ad Services be exempt until such time Procurement becomes aware of other options to meet the statutory requirement or as directed by Administration or the Board BudgetImpact This exemption carries no impact Legal ad funding is unique by department depending on specific projects funding will be required in the appropriate line items Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners exempt Legal Advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion the sole sources for local print news media which complies with statutory requirements for said services Mr Niblock advised that the statutory requirements for legal advertisements

could only be met by those 2 papers

Page 274 Book S

July 16 2013

In response to Commissioner Moore Mr Minter stated Chapter 50 Florida Statutes which governed legal advertisements did not allow for electronic (on-line) public notices at this time

Clerk Ellspermann advised that Senator Dean filed a Bill to allow for electronic publications on the Internet for the last 2 years however it did not pass

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to exempt legal advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala StarshyBanner and the Voice of South lVIarion newspapers as sole source providers for local print news media which complied with statutory requirements The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsUtilities - (9C) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer Interconnect

DescriptionBackground At its June 21 2011 meeting the Board approved contracts with nine (9) Ocala contractors for various projects involving underground utility work as needed by the Utilities Department Contractors can be selected based on lowest quote area of specialty or on a rotating basis For this project all firms were proposed a detailed scope of work to include all labor equipment and materials necessary to interconnect the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer systems to Silver Springs Shores with a 12 water main and a 10 force mains This project will allow the Silver Springs Regional sewer flow to be rerouted to the Silver Springs Shores wastewater plant and it will also provide a backup water supply to the Silver Springs Regional water system To support the contract a transfer of previously allocated funds within the Utilities CIP is required and outlined in the included Reappropriation Table The tabulation below summarizes the offers receivedmiddot

Company Name Amount GWP Construction $ 180127230 Commercial Industrial Corp $ 200818102 Salser Construction Inc $ 234770080

Utilities Director Flip Mellinger requests award of this project to GWP Attached for review is the draft project amendment including complete scope of work as Exhibit A and detailed fee schedule as Exhibit B Substantial completion of the project will be within 185 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed Pending approval at todays meeting the contract will be sent to the contractor for execution as written and upon return will be forwarded for the County Attorney Clerk and Chairmans signatures BudgetImpact The total cost for these services shall not exceed $180127230 up to ten percent (10) of the project cost may be added to the purchase order for contingency and is allowed per the Procurement Ordinance Per Department provided information sufficient funding exists in account 7160-563102 projects 7130059 and 7130116 pending approval of the reappropriation requested under this agenda item Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners to (1) approve project reappropriation and transfer project budget to the appropriate project code and (2) approve recommendation and allow staff to issue contract

Book S Page 275

July 16 2013

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 1029 am

ResolutionsRoad ImprovementsSubdivisions - (Walk-On) - County Attorney Minter presented the following recommendation regarding the Initial Assessment Resolution relating to the New Haven Improvement Area

DescriptionBackground Attached is the Initial Resolution to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on July 16 2013 which was received from Nabors Giblin amp Nickerson PA bond counsel for Marion County The resolution is related to financing the road improvements in the New Haven Improvement Area Upon approval of the resolution a public hearing will be held on August 13 2013 at 200 pm BudgetImpact None Recommended Action The Board is requested to adopt the attached Resolution and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same A motion was made by Commissioner Arnett seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-236 approving the New Haven Improvement Area The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0) Resolution 12-R-472 was entitled

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED NEW HAVEN IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESING THE COSTS OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR COLLECTION DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

ResolutionsRoad ImprovementsSubdivisions - (Walk-On) - County Attorney Minter presented the following recommendation regarding the Initial Assessment Resolutions relating to the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th Street Improvement Area

DescriptionBackground Attached is the Initial Resolution to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting on July 16 2013 which was received from Nabors Giblin amp Nickerson PA bond counsel for Marion County The resolution is related to financing the road improvements in the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th Street Improvement Area Upon approval of the resolution a public hearing will be held on August 13 2013 at 200 pm BudgetImpact None Recommended Action The Board is requested to adopt the attached Resolution and authorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute same

Book S Page 271

July 16 2013

A motion was made by Commissioner Arnett seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-237 approving the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th

Street Improvement Area The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0) Resolution 13-R-237 was entitled

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED SILVER

88THSPRINGS ESTATESSE STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESING THE COSTS OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR COLLECTION DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Contracts amp AgreementsSuitsZoning - (Walk-On) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Arnett to schedule a closed meeting pursuant to Florida Statute (FS) 286011 (8) on Tuesday August 6 2013 at 200 pm to discuss settlement negotiations andor litigation strategy in the case of Compost USA versus (vs) Marion County The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0)

County PlanningOrdinancesParks amp Recreation - (9A) - County Administrator Lee A Niblock presented the following recommendation from Parks and Recreation Director Gina Peebles regarding the Carney Island Site Plan

DescriptionBackground At the April 29 Carney Island Workshop the Board directed staff to present a revised plan for the park within 60 days which is attached A sub-committee was appointed who made the following recommendations 1 The creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the

lower 400 acres of the Park which would include language allowing the creation of bike trails interpretive boardwalks trail shelters and other minor park amenities needed to enhance the visitors experience Budget Impact - $13321 for professional services to survey the northem boundary write the legal description and record the legal documents

2 The repair and perpetual maintenance of the boat ramp system and revision of the existing idle speed zone to include the natural basin just off shore from the ramp area for boater safety Budget Impact - $56230 to extend the end of one boat ramp into the power load hole and continue to backfill dredge the power loading holes at all ramps and relocate day-markers for idle-speed no wake zone to the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir

3 The construction of an accessible fishing pier located north of the existing floating dock system

Page 272 Book S

July 16 2013

Budget Impact - $73250 4 The provision of areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain

biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

The DRAFT plan and sub-committee recommendations were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Council (PRAC) at their June 19 meeting The Council supported the sub-committees recommendations with the addition that the third party listed in item 1 be a Marion County based group such as Save Lake Weir Inc a non-for profit group who has a vested interest in the future of the property and Lake Weir itself Subsequent to those meetings staff conferred with the County Attorney regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement who advised that the Commission could designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area through an Ordinance This Ordinance would achieve the goals of the subshycommittee protecting the environmentally sensitive areas of the park from commercialization and development while still providing passive recreational access to park visitors Any future proposed changes that are inconsistent with the language of the proposed Conservation Area would require at least one Public Hearing Staff Recommendations 1 Designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area by Ordinance

using staff time Budget Impact - None

2 Modify the end of one boat ramp and continue low water maintenance of the boat ramps as allowed by the permitting agency Additionally staff would recommend installing low water signs to delineate the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir in lieu of relocating the ide-speedno wake buoys to allow boaters to cross the ridge at a safe speed Budget Impact - $56230

3 Construct an accessible fisrling pier located north of the existing floating dock system Budget Impact - $73250

4 Provide areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

BudgetImpact $129480 $128105 (boat ramp extension and fishing pier) funded through Pennies for Parks and $1375 (turbidity barriers) funded through Parks and Recreation - General Fund Recommended Action Motion to direct the County Attorneys Office to draft and advertise the Carney Island Conservation Area Ordinance and direct the Parks and Recreation Department to present a budget amendment on the next available agenda to extend one boat ramp and install a fishing pier Commissioner Bryant returned at 1032 am Chairman Zalak returned the gavel

to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair Mr Niblock provided a brief overview of the project Commissioner McClain commented on a product presented at a recent Florida

Association of Counties (FAC) meeting which was made out of the same material as a

Book S Page 273

July 16 2013

truck bed liner and utilized for drainagespillway uses He advised of 2 main issues on the lake that would always need to be addressed 1) turbulence from boat props and 2) water level Commissioner McClain stated the BCC may want to have a discussion with the manufacturer to determine whether or not the product could help resolve some of those issues He addressed the need for Board discussion regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the lower 400 acres of the Park Commissioner McClain requested the Board allow him time to work on addressing any issues he had in regard to the project Chairman Bryant concurred

Board discussion ensued Landscape Architect Jim Couillard Parks and Recreation Department clarified it

was staffs recommendation to declare a Conservation Area in an Ordinance not a Conservation Easement with a third party

County Attorney Minter advised that a Conservation Easement was a conveyance noting once the BCC granted that it divested itself of control A Conservation Area created by an Ordinance would provide the Board flexibility in the future by allowing the option of modifying that Ordinance

Jane Sands Highway 25 Ocklawaha member of the Save Lake Weir Board and appointed member of the sub-committee thanked the BCC for allowing public input into the matter She requested the BCC consider including the rest of the park in the Conservation Area with the necessary exceptions for utilities etc

Board discussion resumed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to table the matter until a later date to allow Commissioner McClain time to review partnership options and recommendations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Communications - (9B) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Susan Olsen regarding options relating to legal advertising in the Ocala Star-Banner and Voice of Marion newspapers

DescriptionBackground A previous RFP was advertised for Legal Ad Services and contracts awarded to the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion as the only two (2) respondents to the solicitation The contracts are nearing expiration and with no other Marion County print publications which meet the statutory requirements for publishing legal ads Procurement recommends that the previous two (2) agencies be declared a sole source for this type of service and the bidding of Legal Ad Services be exempt until such time Procurement becomes aware of other options to meet the statutory requirement or as directed by Administration or the Board BudgetImpact This exemption carries no impact Legal ad funding is unique by department depending on specific projects funding will be required in the appropriate line items Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners exempt Legal Advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion the sole sources for local print news media which complies with statutory requirements for said services Mr Niblock advised that the statutory requirements for legal advertisements

could only be met by those 2 papers

Page 274 Book S

July 16 2013

In response to Commissioner Moore Mr Minter stated Chapter 50 Florida Statutes which governed legal advertisements did not allow for electronic (on-line) public notices at this time

Clerk Ellspermann advised that Senator Dean filed a Bill to allow for electronic publications on the Internet for the last 2 years however it did not pass

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to exempt legal advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala StarshyBanner and the Voice of South lVIarion newspapers as sole source providers for local print news media which complied with statutory requirements The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsUtilities - (9C) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer Interconnect

DescriptionBackground At its June 21 2011 meeting the Board approved contracts with nine (9) Ocala contractors for various projects involving underground utility work as needed by the Utilities Department Contractors can be selected based on lowest quote area of specialty or on a rotating basis For this project all firms were proposed a detailed scope of work to include all labor equipment and materials necessary to interconnect the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer systems to Silver Springs Shores with a 12 water main and a 10 force mains This project will allow the Silver Springs Regional sewer flow to be rerouted to the Silver Springs Shores wastewater plant and it will also provide a backup water supply to the Silver Springs Regional water system To support the contract a transfer of previously allocated funds within the Utilities CIP is required and outlined in the included Reappropriation Table The tabulation below summarizes the offers receivedmiddot

Company Name Amount GWP Construction $ 180127230 Commercial Industrial Corp $ 200818102 Salser Construction Inc $ 234770080

Utilities Director Flip Mellinger requests award of this project to GWP Attached for review is the draft project amendment including complete scope of work as Exhibit A and detailed fee schedule as Exhibit B Substantial completion of the project will be within 185 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed Pending approval at todays meeting the contract will be sent to the contractor for execution as written and upon return will be forwarded for the County Attorney Clerk and Chairmans signatures BudgetImpact The total cost for these services shall not exceed $180127230 up to ten percent (10) of the project cost may be added to the purchase order for contingency and is allowed per the Procurement Ordinance Per Department provided information sufficient funding exists in account 7160-563102 projects 7130059 and 7130116 pending approval of the reappropriation requested under this agenda item Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners to (1) approve project reappropriation and transfer project budget to the appropriate project code and (2) approve recommendation and allow staff to issue contract

Book S Page 275

July 16 2013

A motion was made by Commissioner Arnett seconded by Commissioner McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-237 approving the Silver Springs EstatesSE 88th

Street Improvement Area The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0) Resolution 13-R-237 was entitled

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBING THE REAL PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED SILVER

88THSPRINGS ESTATESSE STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED THEREIN ESTABLISHING THE METHOD OF ASSESING THE COSTS OF THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY THAT WILL BE SPECIALLY BENEFITED THEREBY ESTABLISHING OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND THE METHOD OF THEIR COLLECTION DIRECTING THE PROVISION OF NOTICE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Contracts amp AgreementsSuitsZoning - (Walk-On) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Arnett to schedule a closed meeting pursuant to Florida Statute (FS) 286011 (8) on Tuesday August 6 2013 at 200 pm to discuss settlement negotiations andor litigation strategy in the case of Compost USA versus (vs) Marion County The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (4-0)

County PlanningOrdinancesParks amp Recreation - (9A) - County Administrator Lee A Niblock presented the following recommendation from Parks and Recreation Director Gina Peebles regarding the Carney Island Site Plan

DescriptionBackground At the April 29 Carney Island Workshop the Board directed staff to present a revised plan for the park within 60 days which is attached A sub-committee was appointed who made the following recommendations 1 The creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the

lower 400 acres of the Park which would include language allowing the creation of bike trails interpretive boardwalks trail shelters and other minor park amenities needed to enhance the visitors experience Budget Impact - $13321 for professional services to survey the northem boundary write the legal description and record the legal documents

2 The repair and perpetual maintenance of the boat ramp system and revision of the existing idle speed zone to include the natural basin just off shore from the ramp area for boater safety Budget Impact - $56230 to extend the end of one boat ramp into the power load hole and continue to backfill dredge the power loading holes at all ramps and relocate day-markers for idle-speed no wake zone to the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir

3 The construction of an accessible fishing pier located north of the existing floating dock system

Page 272 Book S

July 16 2013

Budget Impact - $73250 4 The provision of areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain

biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

The DRAFT plan and sub-committee recommendations were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Council (PRAC) at their June 19 meeting The Council supported the sub-committees recommendations with the addition that the third party listed in item 1 be a Marion County based group such as Save Lake Weir Inc a non-for profit group who has a vested interest in the future of the property and Lake Weir itself Subsequent to those meetings staff conferred with the County Attorney regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement who advised that the Commission could designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area through an Ordinance This Ordinance would achieve the goals of the subshycommittee protecting the environmentally sensitive areas of the park from commercialization and development while still providing passive recreational access to park visitors Any future proposed changes that are inconsistent with the language of the proposed Conservation Area would require at least one Public Hearing Staff Recommendations 1 Designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area by Ordinance

using staff time Budget Impact - None

2 Modify the end of one boat ramp and continue low water maintenance of the boat ramps as allowed by the permitting agency Additionally staff would recommend installing low water signs to delineate the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir in lieu of relocating the ide-speedno wake buoys to allow boaters to cross the ridge at a safe speed Budget Impact - $56230

3 Construct an accessible fisrling pier located north of the existing floating dock system Budget Impact - $73250

4 Provide areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

BudgetImpact $129480 $128105 (boat ramp extension and fishing pier) funded through Pennies for Parks and $1375 (turbidity barriers) funded through Parks and Recreation - General Fund Recommended Action Motion to direct the County Attorneys Office to draft and advertise the Carney Island Conservation Area Ordinance and direct the Parks and Recreation Department to present a budget amendment on the next available agenda to extend one boat ramp and install a fishing pier Commissioner Bryant returned at 1032 am Chairman Zalak returned the gavel

to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair Mr Niblock provided a brief overview of the project Commissioner McClain commented on a product presented at a recent Florida

Association of Counties (FAC) meeting which was made out of the same material as a

Book S Page 273

July 16 2013

truck bed liner and utilized for drainagespillway uses He advised of 2 main issues on the lake that would always need to be addressed 1) turbulence from boat props and 2) water level Commissioner McClain stated the BCC may want to have a discussion with the manufacturer to determine whether or not the product could help resolve some of those issues He addressed the need for Board discussion regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the lower 400 acres of the Park Commissioner McClain requested the Board allow him time to work on addressing any issues he had in regard to the project Chairman Bryant concurred

Board discussion ensued Landscape Architect Jim Couillard Parks and Recreation Department clarified it

was staffs recommendation to declare a Conservation Area in an Ordinance not a Conservation Easement with a third party

County Attorney Minter advised that a Conservation Easement was a conveyance noting once the BCC granted that it divested itself of control A Conservation Area created by an Ordinance would provide the Board flexibility in the future by allowing the option of modifying that Ordinance

Jane Sands Highway 25 Ocklawaha member of the Save Lake Weir Board and appointed member of the sub-committee thanked the BCC for allowing public input into the matter She requested the BCC consider including the rest of the park in the Conservation Area with the necessary exceptions for utilities etc

Board discussion resumed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to table the matter until a later date to allow Commissioner McClain time to review partnership options and recommendations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Communications - (9B) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Susan Olsen regarding options relating to legal advertising in the Ocala Star-Banner and Voice of Marion newspapers

DescriptionBackground A previous RFP was advertised for Legal Ad Services and contracts awarded to the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion as the only two (2) respondents to the solicitation The contracts are nearing expiration and with no other Marion County print publications which meet the statutory requirements for publishing legal ads Procurement recommends that the previous two (2) agencies be declared a sole source for this type of service and the bidding of Legal Ad Services be exempt until such time Procurement becomes aware of other options to meet the statutory requirement or as directed by Administration or the Board BudgetImpact This exemption carries no impact Legal ad funding is unique by department depending on specific projects funding will be required in the appropriate line items Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners exempt Legal Advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion the sole sources for local print news media which complies with statutory requirements for said services Mr Niblock advised that the statutory requirements for legal advertisements

could only be met by those 2 papers

Page 274 Book S

July 16 2013

In response to Commissioner Moore Mr Minter stated Chapter 50 Florida Statutes which governed legal advertisements did not allow for electronic (on-line) public notices at this time

Clerk Ellspermann advised that Senator Dean filed a Bill to allow for electronic publications on the Internet for the last 2 years however it did not pass

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to exempt legal advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala StarshyBanner and the Voice of South lVIarion newspapers as sole source providers for local print news media which complied with statutory requirements The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsUtilities - (9C) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer Interconnect

DescriptionBackground At its June 21 2011 meeting the Board approved contracts with nine (9) Ocala contractors for various projects involving underground utility work as needed by the Utilities Department Contractors can be selected based on lowest quote area of specialty or on a rotating basis For this project all firms were proposed a detailed scope of work to include all labor equipment and materials necessary to interconnect the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer systems to Silver Springs Shores with a 12 water main and a 10 force mains This project will allow the Silver Springs Regional sewer flow to be rerouted to the Silver Springs Shores wastewater plant and it will also provide a backup water supply to the Silver Springs Regional water system To support the contract a transfer of previously allocated funds within the Utilities CIP is required and outlined in the included Reappropriation Table The tabulation below summarizes the offers receivedmiddot

Company Name Amount GWP Construction $ 180127230 Commercial Industrial Corp $ 200818102 Salser Construction Inc $ 234770080

Utilities Director Flip Mellinger requests award of this project to GWP Attached for review is the draft project amendment including complete scope of work as Exhibit A and detailed fee schedule as Exhibit B Substantial completion of the project will be within 185 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed Pending approval at todays meeting the contract will be sent to the contractor for execution as written and upon return will be forwarded for the County Attorney Clerk and Chairmans signatures BudgetImpact The total cost for these services shall not exceed $180127230 up to ten percent (10) of the project cost may be added to the purchase order for contingency and is allowed per the Procurement Ordinance Per Department provided information sufficient funding exists in account 7160-563102 projects 7130059 and 7130116 pending approval of the reappropriation requested under this agenda item Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners to (1) approve project reappropriation and transfer project budget to the appropriate project code and (2) approve recommendation and allow staff to issue contract

Book S Page 275

July 16 2013

Budget Impact - $73250 4 The provision of areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain

biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

The DRAFT plan and sub-committee recommendations were presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Council (PRAC) at their June 19 meeting The Council supported the sub-committees recommendations with the addition that the third party listed in item 1 be a Marion County based group such as Save Lake Weir Inc a non-for profit group who has a vested interest in the future of the property and Lake Weir itself Subsequent to those meetings staff conferred with the County Attorney regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement who advised that the Commission could designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area through an Ordinance This Ordinance would achieve the goals of the subshycommittee protecting the environmentally sensitive areas of the park from commercialization and development while still providing passive recreational access to park visitors Any future proposed changes that are inconsistent with the language of the proposed Conservation Area would require at least one Public Hearing Staff Recommendations 1 Designate the lower 400 acres as a Conservation Area by Ordinance

using staff time Budget Impact - None

2 Modify the end of one boat ramp and continue low water maintenance of the boat ramps as allowed by the permitting agency Additionally staff would recommend installing low water signs to delineate the underwater ridge between the boat ramp basin and Lake Weir in lieu of relocating the ide-speedno wake buoys to allow boaters to cross the ridge at a safe speed Budget Impact - $56230

3 Construct an accessible fisrling pier located north of the existing floating dock system Budget Impact - $73250

4 Provide areas for the creation and maintenance of mountain biking facilities by volunteers Budget Impact - None

BudgetImpact $129480 $128105 (boat ramp extension and fishing pier) funded through Pennies for Parks and $1375 (turbidity barriers) funded through Parks and Recreation - General Fund Recommended Action Motion to direct the County Attorneys Office to draft and advertise the Carney Island Conservation Area Ordinance and direct the Parks and Recreation Department to present a budget amendment on the next available agenda to extend one boat ramp and install a fishing pier Commissioner Bryant returned at 1032 am Chairman Zalak returned the gavel

to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair Mr Niblock provided a brief overview of the project Commissioner McClain commented on a product presented at a recent Florida

Association of Counties (FAC) meeting which was made out of the same material as a

Book S Page 273

July 16 2013

truck bed liner and utilized for drainagespillway uses He advised of 2 main issues on the lake that would always need to be addressed 1) turbulence from boat props and 2) water level Commissioner McClain stated the BCC may want to have a discussion with the manufacturer to determine whether or not the product could help resolve some of those issues He addressed the need for Board discussion regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the lower 400 acres of the Park Commissioner McClain requested the Board allow him time to work on addressing any issues he had in regard to the project Chairman Bryant concurred

Board discussion ensued Landscape Architect Jim Couillard Parks and Recreation Department clarified it

was staffs recommendation to declare a Conservation Area in an Ordinance not a Conservation Easement with a third party

County Attorney Minter advised that a Conservation Easement was a conveyance noting once the BCC granted that it divested itself of control A Conservation Area created by an Ordinance would provide the Board flexibility in the future by allowing the option of modifying that Ordinance

Jane Sands Highway 25 Ocklawaha member of the Save Lake Weir Board and appointed member of the sub-committee thanked the BCC for allowing public input into the matter She requested the BCC consider including the rest of the park in the Conservation Area with the necessary exceptions for utilities etc

Board discussion resumed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to table the matter until a later date to allow Commissioner McClain time to review partnership options and recommendations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Communications - (9B) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Susan Olsen regarding options relating to legal advertising in the Ocala Star-Banner and Voice of Marion newspapers

DescriptionBackground A previous RFP was advertised for Legal Ad Services and contracts awarded to the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion as the only two (2) respondents to the solicitation The contracts are nearing expiration and with no other Marion County print publications which meet the statutory requirements for publishing legal ads Procurement recommends that the previous two (2) agencies be declared a sole source for this type of service and the bidding of Legal Ad Services be exempt until such time Procurement becomes aware of other options to meet the statutory requirement or as directed by Administration or the Board BudgetImpact This exemption carries no impact Legal ad funding is unique by department depending on specific projects funding will be required in the appropriate line items Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners exempt Legal Advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion the sole sources for local print news media which complies with statutory requirements for said services Mr Niblock advised that the statutory requirements for legal advertisements

could only be met by those 2 papers

Page 274 Book S

July 16 2013

In response to Commissioner Moore Mr Minter stated Chapter 50 Florida Statutes which governed legal advertisements did not allow for electronic (on-line) public notices at this time

Clerk Ellspermann advised that Senator Dean filed a Bill to allow for electronic publications on the Internet for the last 2 years however it did not pass

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to exempt legal advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala StarshyBanner and the Voice of South lVIarion newspapers as sole source providers for local print news media which complied with statutory requirements The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsUtilities - (9C) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer Interconnect

DescriptionBackground At its June 21 2011 meeting the Board approved contracts with nine (9) Ocala contractors for various projects involving underground utility work as needed by the Utilities Department Contractors can be selected based on lowest quote area of specialty or on a rotating basis For this project all firms were proposed a detailed scope of work to include all labor equipment and materials necessary to interconnect the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer systems to Silver Springs Shores with a 12 water main and a 10 force mains This project will allow the Silver Springs Regional sewer flow to be rerouted to the Silver Springs Shores wastewater plant and it will also provide a backup water supply to the Silver Springs Regional water system To support the contract a transfer of previously allocated funds within the Utilities CIP is required and outlined in the included Reappropriation Table The tabulation below summarizes the offers receivedmiddot

Company Name Amount GWP Construction $ 180127230 Commercial Industrial Corp $ 200818102 Salser Construction Inc $ 234770080

Utilities Director Flip Mellinger requests award of this project to GWP Attached for review is the draft project amendment including complete scope of work as Exhibit A and detailed fee schedule as Exhibit B Substantial completion of the project will be within 185 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed Pending approval at todays meeting the contract will be sent to the contractor for execution as written and upon return will be forwarded for the County Attorney Clerk and Chairmans signatures BudgetImpact The total cost for these services shall not exceed $180127230 up to ten percent (10) of the project cost may be added to the purchase order for contingency and is allowed per the Procurement Ordinance Per Department provided information sufficient funding exists in account 7160-563102 projects 7130059 and 7130116 pending approval of the reappropriation requested under this agenda item Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners to (1) approve project reappropriation and transfer project budget to the appropriate project code and (2) approve recommendation and allow staff to issue contract

Book S Page 275

July 16 2013

truck bed liner and utilized for drainagespillway uses He advised of 2 main issues on the lake that would always need to be addressed 1) turbulence from boat props and 2) water level Commissioner McClain stated the BCC may want to have a discussion with the manufacturer to determine whether or not the product could help resolve some of those issues He addressed the need for Board discussion regarding the creation of a Conservation Easement through a third party on the lower 400 acres of the Park Commissioner McClain requested the Board allow him time to work on addressing any issues he had in regard to the project Chairman Bryant concurred

Board discussion ensued Landscape Architect Jim Couillard Parks and Recreation Department clarified it

was staffs recommendation to declare a Conservation Area in an Ordinance not a Conservation Easement with a third party

County Attorney Minter advised that a Conservation Easement was a conveyance noting once the BCC granted that it divested itself of control A Conservation Area created by an Ordinance would provide the Board flexibility in the future by allowing the option of modifying that Ordinance

Jane Sands Highway 25 Ocklawaha member of the Save Lake Weir Board and appointed member of the sub-committee thanked the BCC for allowing public input into the matter She requested the BCC consider including the rest of the park in the Conservation Area with the necessary exceptions for utilities etc

Board discussion resumed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to table the matter until a later date to allow Commissioner McClain time to review partnership options and recommendations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Communications - (9B) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Susan Olsen regarding options relating to legal advertising in the Ocala Star-Banner and Voice of Marion newspapers

DescriptionBackground A previous RFP was advertised for Legal Ad Services and contracts awarded to the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion as the only two (2) respondents to the solicitation The contracts are nearing expiration and with no other Marion County print publications which meet the statutory requirements for publishing legal ads Procurement recommends that the previous two (2) agencies be declared a sole source for this type of service and the bidding of Legal Ad Services be exempt until such time Procurement becomes aware of other options to meet the statutory requirement or as directed by Administration or the Board BudgetImpact This exemption carries no impact Legal ad funding is unique by department depending on specific projects funding will be required in the appropriate line items Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners exempt Legal Advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala Star-Banner and the Voice of Marion the sole sources for local print news media which complies with statutory requirements for said services Mr Niblock advised that the statutory requirements for legal advertisements

could only be met by those 2 papers

Page 274 Book S

July 16 2013

In response to Commissioner Moore Mr Minter stated Chapter 50 Florida Statutes which governed legal advertisements did not allow for electronic (on-line) public notices at this time

Clerk Ellspermann advised that Senator Dean filed a Bill to allow for electronic publications on the Internet for the last 2 years however it did not pass

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to exempt legal advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala StarshyBanner and the Voice of South lVIarion newspapers as sole source providers for local print news media which complied with statutory requirements The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsUtilities - (9C) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer Interconnect

DescriptionBackground At its June 21 2011 meeting the Board approved contracts with nine (9) Ocala contractors for various projects involving underground utility work as needed by the Utilities Department Contractors can be selected based on lowest quote area of specialty or on a rotating basis For this project all firms were proposed a detailed scope of work to include all labor equipment and materials necessary to interconnect the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer systems to Silver Springs Shores with a 12 water main and a 10 force mains This project will allow the Silver Springs Regional sewer flow to be rerouted to the Silver Springs Shores wastewater plant and it will also provide a backup water supply to the Silver Springs Regional water system To support the contract a transfer of previously allocated funds within the Utilities CIP is required and outlined in the included Reappropriation Table The tabulation below summarizes the offers receivedmiddot

Company Name Amount GWP Construction $ 180127230 Commercial Industrial Corp $ 200818102 Salser Construction Inc $ 234770080

Utilities Director Flip Mellinger requests award of this project to GWP Attached for review is the draft project amendment including complete scope of work as Exhibit A and detailed fee schedule as Exhibit B Substantial completion of the project will be within 185 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed Pending approval at todays meeting the contract will be sent to the contractor for execution as written and upon return will be forwarded for the County Attorney Clerk and Chairmans signatures BudgetImpact The total cost for these services shall not exceed $180127230 up to ten percent (10) of the project cost may be added to the purchase order for contingency and is allowed per the Procurement Ordinance Per Department provided information sufficient funding exists in account 7160-563102 projects 7130059 and 7130116 pending approval of the reappropriation requested under this agenda item Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners to (1) approve project reappropriation and transfer project budget to the appropriate project code and (2) approve recommendation and allow staff to issue contract

Book S Page 275

July 16 2013

In response to Commissioner Moore Mr Minter stated Chapter 50 Florida Statutes which governed legal advertisements did not allow for electronic (on-line) public notices at this time

Clerk Ellspermann advised that Senator Dean filed a Bill to allow for electronic publications on the Internet for the last 2 years however it did not pass

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to exempt legal advertising services from bidding and declare the Ocala StarshyBanner and the Voice of South lVIarion newspapers as sole source providers for local print news media which complied with statutory requirements The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsUtilities - (9C) - County Administrator Niblock presented the following recommendation from Procurement Services Director Olsen regarding the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer Interconnect

DescriptionBackground At its June 21 2011 meeting the Board approved contracts with nine (9) Ocala contractors for various projects involving underground utility work as needed by the Utilities Department Contractors can be selected based on lowest quote area of specialty or on a rotating basis For this project all firms were proposed a detailed scope of work to include all labor equipment and materials necessary to interconnect the Silver Springs Regional Water and Sewer systems to Silver Springs Shores with a 12 water main and a 10 force mains This project will allow the Silver Springs Regional sewer flow to be rerouted to the Silver Springs Shores wastewater plant and it will also provide a backup water supply to the Silver Springs Regional water system To support the contract a transfer of previously allocated funds within the Utilities CIP is required and outlined in the included Reappropriation Table The tabulation below summarizes the offers receivedmiddot

Company Name Amount GWP Construction $ 180127230 Commercial Industrial Corp $ 200818102 Salser Construction Inc $ 234770080

Utilities Director Flip Mellinger requests award of this project to GWP Attached for review is the draft project amendment including complete scope of work as Exhibit A and detailed fee schedule as Exhibit B Substantial completion of the project will be within 185 days from the date of the Notice to Proceed Pending approval at todays meeting the contract will be sent to the contractor for execution as written and upon return will be forwarded for the County Attorney Clerk and Chairmans signatures BudgetImpact The total cost for these services shall not exceed $180127230 up to ten percent (10) of the project cost may be added to the purchase order for contingency and is allowed per the Procurement Ordinance Per Department provided information sufficient funding exists in account 7160-563102 projects 7130059 and 7130116 pending approval of the reappropriation requested under this agenda item Recommended Action Motion for the Board of County Commissioners to (1) approve project reappropriation and transfer project budget to the appropriate project code and (2) approve recommendation and allow staff to issue contract

Book S Page 275

July 16 2013

and upon approval by Legal authorize the Chairman to execute project amendment with GWP Construction Inc for the Silver Springs Shores Regional Water and Sewer Interconnect project under RFO 110-141 Utilities Director Flip Mellinger advised that in 2009 the BCC in cooperation with

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) sponsored a study to determine the cause of nutrient loading in Silver Springs noting the Silver Springs Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility was identified as one of the contributors He stated staff worked with FDEP to secure $463000 to help pay for this project as well as another $100000 from the St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Mr Mellinger provided a brief overview of the project noting it would provide for better water quality in the future

A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner McClain to approve the project re-appropriation and transfer project budget to the appropriate project code and authorize execution of the Project Amendment to the Agreement with GWP Construction Inc The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Advisory CommitteesHospitals - (11A) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to ratify appointment of George Kirkland to fill an unexpired term through June of 2016 as a member of the Munroe Regional Health System Inc Board of Directors The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Advisory CommitteesResolutions - (118) - County Attorney Minter presented the following recommendation regarding the Regulatory Review Advisory Board (RRAB)

DescriptionBackground During the July 2 2013 meeting of the Regulatory Review Advisory Board discussion was held regarding the board members concerns about the lack of regulations to review coming to the RRAB either from the Board of County Commissioners or the public Concern was also expressed about whether the RRAB was meeting their objective as outlined in the Resolution establishing the RRAB and the cost to the County to run the RRAB meetings Therefore the following motion was made and was passed unanimously by all RRAB members who were present Motion to ask the Board of County Commissioners to re-evaluate the purpose and objective of the Regulatory Review Advisory Board and make recommendations or decisions regarding the future of the Regulatory Review Advisory Board See attached Resolution 11-R-407 Section 2 A amp B BudgetImpact None Recommended Action The Regulatory Review Advisory Board recommends that the Board re-evaluate the purpose and objective of the Regulatory Review Advisory Board and make recommendations or decisions regarding the future of the Regulatory Review Advisory Board A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to direct staff to schedule a workshop with members of the RRAB The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

Page 276 Book S

July 16 2013

Projects amp ProgramsSolid Waste - (11C) - A motion was made by 2ndCommissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to schedule a Task

Force meeting with interested agencies for the development of a Regional Solid Waste Authority on Wednesday August 7 2013 at 900 am at the Growth Services Training Room The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Utilities - (110) - A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Arnett to schedule a workshop to discuss Utility items on Wednesday August 14 2013 to immediately follow the Solid Waste Workshop scheduled for 900 am The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Solid Waste - (11E) - A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner Zalak to schedule a workshop on Wednesday August 14 2013 at 900 am to discuss several Solid Waste issues The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

DistrictsProjects amp ProgramsTransportation - (11F) - A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to schedule a workshop on Wednesday August 14 2013 at 1 30 pm to discuss the 5 Year Stormwater Implementation Program and Capital Project Prioritization Report The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsRoads - (11G) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-238 scheduling a public hearing on Tuesday August 20 2013 at 1000 am to consider closing a certain portion of NE 124th Place located in the Ker South Subdivision as petitioned by Timothy Thompson The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Comprehensive PlanOrdinances - (11H) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to schedule a public hearing on Tuesday August 20 2013 immediately following the above road closing (Item 11 G) at 1000 am for the 2013 2nd Cycle Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Commissioners - (12A) - A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to approve out of County travel and reimbursement of expenses for Commissioners to attend the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) 2013-14 Board Retreat at the Sheraton Sand Key in Pinellas County on August 22 and 23 2013 It was noted that there was no registration fee required however hotel rooms have been made available at the cost of $129 per night The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

BudgetsSheriff - (12B1) - Commissioner Moore clarified previous comments he made during recent budget workshops in regard to proposed consolidations with the MCSO noting it would be more advantageous for taxpayers to combine the Information Technology (IT) Department Procurement etc and place those departments under the Countys purview

Book S Page 277

July 16 2013

CommissionersLegislative - (12B2) - Commissioner McClain addressed recent articles from the National Association of Counties (NACo) and other organizations regarding the taxation of bonds He commented on requests to contact Senators Nelson and Rubio regarding the matter Commissioner McClain opined it would be prudent for the Board to draft a letter to all Congressional and State Legislative Delegations addressing the challenges faced by local governments with regard to bond issues

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to authorize Chairman Bryant to craft a letter advising of the BCCs concerns to be sent to the appropriate Delegations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsGrantsSheriff - (4A) - Commissioner Zalak advised that the Board was in receipt of the updated distribution list regarding the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Program He stated the amended funding agreement removed MCSO - DAR Program and added the MCSO Crime Suppression Program in the amount of $35163

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to delegate application authority for the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Program as amended above to the Sheriffs Office and authorized the Board Chairman to sign subsequent funding agreements It was noted that no local match was required The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Commissioner Zalak addressed some of the issues discussed at the Sheriffs budget workshop and questioned whether it would a appropriate to have the County Attorney prepare a memo to the Board advising of the legalities regarding the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) etc Commissioner McClain advised that the information was currently being researched noting an update would be presented in the near future

CommissionersLegislative - (1283) - Commissioner McClain commented on the upcoming Legislative schedule noting Committee meetings would begin in early September He requested Chairman Bryant work with staff to schedule a few workshops in order for the BCC to review its Legislative priorities It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Advisory CommitteesHospitals - (12B4) - Chairman Bryant advised that she was the Liaison to the Hospital Board of Trustees noting she attended their meeting last night and opined there were issues discussed that would be prudent for BCC consideration She noted Munroe Regional Medical Center (MRMC) President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Steve Purves and Pete Lawson Executive Vice President and Development Officer Health Management Associates (HMA) were present this morning to provide an update

Mr Purves thanked Chairman Bryant for work as the BCC liaison to the Hospital Board of Trustees He commented on the changes in healthcare especially regarding Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements Mr Purves stated the Trustees considered all options to find the best suitor for the hospital He noted the process that was under way was designed to protect the interest of Marion County citizens

Page 278 Book S

July 16 2013

Mr Lawson provided a brief overview on the transition of IIRMC to HIVIA He advised that HMA agreed to lease MRMC long-term (40 years) with an upfront payment of $200000000 Mr Lawson stated HMA agreed to spend another $75000000 over the first 5 years in capital improvements as well as another $150000000 to continue the hospitals Phase 1 projects that were in place for many years but never funded He noted HMA would continue the hospitals traditional charity care policy Mr Lawson stated current MRMC personnel would remain employed at the same rate He advised that as a public company HIVIA would pay ad valorem taxes to local governments Mr Lawson commented on the partnership between HMA and the University of Florida (UF) Shands Healthcare and provided a brief history of HMA as medical facility and publicly traded company

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Lawson advised that the next documents to be executed after the Letter of Intent would be the Asset Purchase Agreement the long-term lease and then the schedules that supported those terms noting the Master Plan was part of the final schedule document

Chairman Bryant advised that she requested Marion County Hospital ~istrict

Board of Trustees Chairman Jon Kurtz to craft a letter to the BCC with the time line and procedures that would need to be completed prior to and after the transaction

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner IVIcClain Mr Lawson advised that the HMA Board

recently passed a cap on the level of total ownership by an individual or institution General discussion resumed Chairman Bryant advised that she also requested Chairman Kurtz provide copies

of the MRMCHMA updated work product (Letter of Intent Lease etc) to County Attorney Minter for review She noted a meeting would be scheduled in September with the Hospital Board of Trustees

Commissioners - (12C) - The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the July 2013 Commission calendar

Advisory CommitteesResolutions - (1201) - Chuck Pardee NE 32nd Place member of the RRAB addressed the Board in regard to meeting with members of the RRAB noting the RRAB Advisory Board would be meeting on Tuesday August 6 2013 and questioned whether that would be a good time for a joint workshop It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

Hospitals - (1202) - Roger Knechtel SE 9ih Terrace Road Summerfield addressed the Board in regard to the failure of the Citrus County hospital even though citizens were paying taxes to support that hospital

Advisory CommitteesResolutions - (11B) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to schedule a joint workshop with members of the RRAB on Tuesday August 6 2013 at 1 00 pm at the Growth Services Training Room to discuss and re-evaluate the purpose and objective of the RRAB The motion was unanimously approved by the Board

Cornmunications - (13) - For information and record the Chairman

Book S Page 279

July 16 2013

acknowledged receipt of the following Notation for Record correspondence item A County Administrator Niblock and items Band C from Clerk Ellspermann

County Administrator General Informational Items

1 Present Marion County Health Department - For the latest edition of Marion Scripts visit the website at httpwwwdohstatefIusclld Marionservicesnewsletters htrnl

2 Present notification from Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources of proposed property for listing in the National Register of Historic Places - June 21 2013

3 Present Alcalde amp Fay Grant Alert for Local Governments - July 8 2013

4 Present letter from United States Department of Agriculture proposing designation of management areas for acquired land on Osceola National Forest

A Clerk Ellspermann 1 Present letters received from Secretary of States Office advising

that Ordinances 13-16 (Comprehensive Plan) 13-17 (Revocation) and 13-18 (Zoning) were filed

2 Present regular report of utilization for Reserve for Contingencies 3 For the month ended June 30 2013 a list of checks drawn on

Commission accounts pursuant to Chapter 13606 Florida Statutes are located at the following website address httpwwwmarioncountyclerkorgpublicindexcfmPg=boardcheck registers

4 Present the Acquisition or Disposition of Property Forms authorizing changes in status as follows 1445400 20900 24857 26630276923094030945309483095130960 30967 32242 32403338103407134118342253422634227 35062 37702 37831384643846539030397943965639894 39932 39970 39971402064015740158410634106841071 41135 41142 41198412414124641263413504249942517 42535 42542 4256242567425704257742579 425824258443285 43724 4258842589431404316443285 439314394844362 44755 an attached list of assets from the Marion County Utilities Department an attached list of previously disposed items to correct inventory and an attached list of assets from the Marion County Property Appraisers Office

5 Present monthly report for the Building Department Budget and Actual

B Present for information and record minutes and notices received from the following committees and agencies 1 Board of Adjustment (BOA) - June 3 2013 2 Development Review Committee (DRC) - May 13 20 June 3 10

17 and 24 2013 3 Marion County Hospital District Board of Trustees (MCHD) - March

1819 amp 21 April 18 and May 202013

Page 280 Book S

July 16 2013

Projects amp ProgramsSolid Waste - (11C) - A motion was made by 2ndCommissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to schedule a Task

Force meeting with interested agencies for the development of a Regional Solid Waste Authority on Wednesday August 7 2013 at 900 am at the Growth Services Training Room The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Utilities - (110) - A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Arnett to schedule a workshop to discuss Utility items on Wednesday August 14 2013 to immediately follow the Solid Waste Workshop scheduled for 900 am The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Solid Waste - (11E) - A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner Zalak to schedule a workshop on Wednesday August 14 2013 at 900 am to discuss several Solid Waste issues The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

DistrictsProjects amp ProgramsTransportation - (11F) - A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to schedule a workshop on Wednesday August 14 2013 at 1 30 pm to discuss the 5 Year Stormwater Implementation Program and Capital Project Prioritization Report The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsRoads - (11G) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-238 scheduling a public hearing on Tuesday August 20 2013 at 1000 am to consider closing a certain portion of NE 124th Place located in the Ker South Subdivision as petitioned by Timothy Thompson The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Comprehensive PlanOrdinances - (11H) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to schedule a public hearing on Tuesday August 20 2013 immediately following the above road closing (Item 11 G) at 1000 am for the 2013 2nd Cycle Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Commissioners - (12A) - A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to approve out of County travel and reimbursement of expenses for Commissioners to attend the Florida Association of Counties (FAC) 2013-14 Board Retreat at the Sheraton Sand Key in Pinellas County on August 22 and 23 2013 It was noted that there was no registration fee required however hotel rooms have been made available at the cost of $129 per night The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

BudgetsSheriff - (12B1) - Commissioner Moore clarified previous comments he made during recent budget workshops in regard to proposed consolidations with the MCSO noting it would be more advantageous for taxpayers to combine the Information Technology (IT) Department Procurement etc and place those departments under the Countys purview

Book S Page 277

July 16 2013

CommissionersLegislative - (12B2) - Commissioner McClain addressed recent articles from the National Association of Counties (NACo) and other organizations regarding the taxation of bonds He commented on requests to contact Senators Nelson and Rubio regarding the matter Commissioner McClain opined it would be prudent for the Board to draft a letter to all Congressional and State Legislative Delegations addressing the challenges faced by local governments with regard to bond issues

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to authorize Chairman Bryant to craft a letter advising of the BCCs concerns to be sent to the appropriate Delegations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsGrantsSheriff - (4A) - Commissioner Zalak advised that the Board was in receipt of the updated distribution list regarding the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Program He stated the amended funding agreement removed MCSO - DAR Program and added the MCSO Crime Suppression Program in the amount of $35163

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to delegate application authority for the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Program as amended above to the Sheriffs Office and authorized the Board Chairman to sign subsequent funding agreements It was noted that no local match was required The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Commissioner Zalak addressed some of the issues discussed at the Sheriffs budget workshop and questioned whether it would a appropriate to have the County Attorney prepare a memo to the Board advising of the legalities regarding the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) etc Commissioner McClain advised that the information was currently being researched noting an update would be presented in the near future

CommissionersLegislative - (1283) - Commissioner McClain commented on the upcoming Legislative schedule noting Committee meetings would begin in early September He requested Chairman Bryant work with staff to schedule a few workshops in order for the BCC to review its Legislative priorities It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Advisory CommitteesHospitals - (12B4) - Chairman Bryant advised that she was the Liaison to the Hospital Board of Trustees noting she attended their meeting last night and opined there were issues discussed that would be prudent for BCC consideration She noted Munroe Regional Medical Center (MRMC) President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Steve Purves and Pete Lawson Executive Vice President and Development Officer Health Management Associates (HMA) were present this morning to provide an update

Mr Purves thanked Chairman Bryant for work as the BCC liaison to the Hospital Board of Trustees He commented on the changes in healthcare especially regarding Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements Mr Purves stated the Trustees considered all options to find the best suitor for the hospital He noted the process that was under way was designed to protect the interest of Marion County citizens

Page 278 Book S

July 16 2013

Mr Lawson provided a brief overview on the transition of IIRMC to HIVIA He advised that HMA agreed to lease MRMC long-term (40 years) with an upfront payment of $200000000 Mr Lawson stated HMA agreed to spend another $75000000 over the first 5 years in capital improvements as well as another $150000000 to continue the hospitals Phase 1 projects that were in place for many years but never funded He noted HMA would continue the hospitals traditional charity care policy Mr Lawson stated current MRMC personnel would remain employed at the same rate He advised that as a public company HIVIA would pay ad valorem taxes to local governments Mr Lawson commented on the partnership between HMA and the University of Florida (UF) Shands Healthcare and provided a brief history of HMA as medical facility and publicly traded company

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Lawson advised that the next documents to be executed after the Letter of Intent would be the Asset Purchase Agreement the long-term lease and then the schedules that supported those terms noting the Master Plan was part of the final schedule document

Chairman Bryant advised that she requested Marion County Hospital ~istrict

Board of Trustees Chairman Jon Kurtz to craft a letter to the BCC with the time line and procedures that would need to be completed prior to and after the transaction

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner IVIcClain Mr Lawson advised that the HMA Board

recently passed a cap on the level of total ownership by an individual or institution General discussion resumed Chairman Bryant advised that she also requested Chairman Kurtz provide copies

of the MRMCHMA updated work product (Letter of Intent Lease etc) to County Attorney Minter for review She noted a meeting would be scheduled in September with the Hospital Board of Trustees

Commissioners - (12C) - The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the July 2013 Commission calendar

Advisory CommitteesResolutions - (1201) - Chuck Pardee NE 32nd Place member of the RRAB addressed the Board in regard to meeting with members of the RRAB noting the RRAB Advisory Board would be meeting on Tuesday August 6 2013 and questioned whether that would be a good time for a joint workshop It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

Hospitals - (1202) - Roger Knechtel SE 9ih Terrace Road Summerfield addressed the Board in regard to the failure of the Citrus County hospital even though citizens were paying taxes to support that hospital

Advisory CommitteesResolutions - (11B) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to schedule a joint workshop with members of the RRAB on Tuesday August 6 2013 at 1 00 pm at the Growth Services Training Room to discuss and re-evaluate the purpose and objective of the RRAB The motion was unanimously approved by the Board

Cornmunications - (13) - For information and record the Chairman

Book S Page 279

July 16 2013

acknowledged receipt of the following Notation for Record correspondence item A County Administrator Niblock and items Band C from Clerk Ellspermann

County Administrator General Informational Items

1 Present Marion County Health Department - For the latest edition of Marion Scripts visit the website at httpwwwdohstatefIusclld Marionservicesnewsletters htrnl

2 Present notification from Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources of proposed property for listing in the National Register of Historic Places - June 21 2013

3 Present Alcalde amp Fay Grant Alert for Local Governments - July 8 2013

4 Present letter from United States Department of Agriculture proposing designation of management areas for acquired land on Osceola National Forest

A Clerk Ellspermann 1 Present letters received from Secretary of States Office advising

that Ordinances 13-16 (Comprehensive Plan) 13-17 (Revocation) and 13-18 (Zoning) were filed

2 Present regular report of utilization for Reserve for Contingencies 3 For the month ended June 30 2013 a list of checks drawn on

Commission accounts pursuant to Chapter 13606 Florida Statutes are located at the following website address httpwwwmarioncountyclerkorgpublicindexcfmPg=boardcheck registers

4 Present the Acquisition or Disposition of Property Forms authorizing changes in status as follows 1445400 20900 24857 26630276923094030945309483095130960 30967 32242 32403338103407134118342253422634227 35062 37702 37831384643846539030397943965639894 39932 39970 39971402064015740158410634106841071 41135 41142 41198412414124641263413504249942517 42535 42542 4256242567425704257742579 425824258443285 43724 4258842589431404316443285 439314394844362 44755 an attached list of assets from the Marion County Utilities Department an attached list of previously disposed items to correct inventory and an attached list of assets from the Marion County Property Appraisers Office

5 Present monthly report for the Building Department Budget and Actual

B Present for information and record minutes and notices received from the following committees and agencies 1 Board of Adjustment (BOA) - June 3 2013 2 Development Review Committee (DRC) - May 13 20 June 3 10

17 and 24 2013 3 Marion County Hospital District Board of Trustees (MCHD) - March

1819 amp 21 April 18 and May 202013

Page 280 Book S

July 16 2013

CommissionersLegislative - (12B2) - Commissioner McClain addressed recent articles from the National Association of Counties (NACo) and other organizations regarding the taxation of bonds He commented on requests to contact Senators Nelson and Rubio regarding the matter Commissioner McClain opined it would be prudent for the Board to draft a letter to all Congressional and State Legislative Delegations addressing the challenges faced by local governments with regard to bond issues

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to authorize Chairman Bryant to craft a letter advising of the BCCs concerns to be sent to the appropriate Delegations The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Contracts amp AgreementsGrantsSheriff - (4A) - Commissioner Zalak advised that the Board was in receipt of the updated distribution list regarding the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Program He stated the amended funding agreement removed MCSO - DAR Program and added the MCSO Crime Suppression Program in the amount of $35163

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner McClain to delegate application authority for the 2013-2014 Edward Byrne Memorial JAG Program as amended above to the Sheriffs Office and authorized the Board Chairman to sign subsequent funding agreements It was noted that no local match was required The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Commissioner Zalak addressed some of the issues discussed at the Sheriffs budget workshop and questioned whether it would a appropriate to have the County Attorney prepare a memo to the Board advising of the legalities regarding the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) etc Commissioner McClain advised that the information was currently being researched noting an update would be presented in the near future

CommissionersLegislative - (1283) - Commissioner McClain commented on the upcoming Legislative schedule noting Committee meetings would begin in early September He requested Chairman Bryant work with staff to schedule a few workshops in order for the BCC to review its Legislative priorities It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Advisory CommitteesHospitals - (12B4) - Chairman Bryant advised that she was the Liaison to the Hospital Board of Trustees noting she attended their meeting last night and opined there were issues discussed that would be prudent for BCC consideration She noted Munroe Regional Medical Center (MRMC) President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Steve Purves and Pete Lawson Executive Vice President and Development Officer Health Management Associates (HMA) were present this morning to provide an update

Mr Purves thanked Chairman Bryant for work as the BCC liaison to the Hospital Board of Trustees He commented on the changes in healthcare especially regarding Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements Mr Purves stated the Trustees considered all options to find the best suitor for the hospital He noted the process that was under way was designed to protect the interest of Marion County citizens

Page 278 Book S

July 16 2013

Mr Lawson provided a brief overview on the transition of IIRMC to HIVIA He advised that HMA agreed to lease MRMC long-term (40 years) with an upfront payment of $200000000 Mr Lawson stated HMA agreed to spend another $75000000 over the first 5 years in capital improvements as well as another $150000000 to continue the hospitals Phase 1 projects that were in place for many years but never funded He noted HMA would continue the hospitals traditional charity care policy Mr Lawson stated current MRMC personnel would remain employed at the same rate He advised that as a public company HIVIA would pay ad valorem taxes to local governments Mr Lawson commented on the partnership between HMA and the University of Florida (UF) Shands Healthcare and provided a brief history of HMA as medical facility and publicly traded company

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Lawson advised that the next documents to be executed after the Letter of Intent would be the Asset Purchase Agreement the long-term lease and then the schedules that supported those terms noting the Master Plan was part of the final schedule document

Chairman Bryant advised that she requested Marion County Hospital ~istrict

Board of Trustees Chairman Jon Kurtz to craft a letter to the BCC with the time line and procedures that would need to be completed prior to and after the transaction

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner IVIcClain Mr Lawson advised that the HMA Board

recently passed a cap on the level of total ownership by an individual or institution General discussion resumed Chairman Bryant advised that she also requested Chairman Kurtz provide copies

of the MRMCHMA updated work product (Letter of Intent Lease etc) to County Attorney Minter for review She noted a meeting would be scheduled in September with the Hospital Board of Trustees

Commissioners - (12C) - The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the July 2013 Commission calendar

Advisory CommitteesResolutions - (1201) - Chuck Pardee NE 32nd Place member of the RRAB addressed the Board in regard to meeting with members of the RRAB noting the RRAB Advisory Board would be meeting on Tuesday August 6 2013 and questioned whether that would be a good time for a joint workshop It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

Hospitals - (1202) - Roger Knechtel SE 9ih Terrace Road Summerfield addressed the Board in regard to the failure of the Citrus County hospital even though citizens were paying taxes to support that hospital

Advisory CommitteesResolutions - (11B) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to schedule a joint workshop with members of the RRAB on Tuesday August 6 2013 at 1 00 pm at the Growth Services Training Room to discuss and re-evaluate the purpose and objective of the RRAB The motion was unanimously approved by the Board

Cornmunications - (13) - For information and record the Chairman

Book S Page 279

July 16 2013

acknowledged receipt of the following Notation for Record correspondence item A County Administrator Niblock and items Band C from Clerk Ellspermann

County Administrator General Informational Items

1 Present Marion County Health Department - For the latest edition of Marion Scripts visit the website at httpwwwdohstatefIusclld Marionservicesnewsletters htrnl

2 Present notification from Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources of proposed property for listing in the National Register of Historic Places - June 21 2013

3 Present Alcalde amp Fay Grant Alert for Local Governments - July 8 2013

4 Present letter from United States Department of Agriculture proposing designation of management areas for acquired land on Osceola National Forest

A Clerk Ellspermann 1 Present letters received from Secretary of States Office advising

that Ordinances 13-16 (Comprehensive Plan) 13-17 (Revocation) and 13-18 (Zoning) were filed

2 Present regular report of utilization for Reserve for Contingencies 3 For the month ended June 30 2013 a list of checks drawn on

Commission accounts pursuant to Chapter 13606 Florida Statutes are located at the following website address httpwwwmarioncountyclerkorgpublicindexcfmPg=boardcheck registers

4 Present the Acquisition or Disposition of Property Forms authorizing changes in status as follows 1445400 20900 24857 26630276923094030945309483095130960 30967 32242 32403338103407134118342253422634227 35062 37702 37831384643846539030397943965639894 39932 39970 39971402064015740158410634106841071 41135 41142 41198412414124641263413504249942517 42535 42542 4256242567425704257742579 425824258443285 43724 4258842589431404316443285 439314394844362 44755 an attached list of assets from the Marion County Utilities Department an attached list of previously disposed items to correct inventory and an attached list of assets from the Marion County Property Appraisers Office

5 Present monthly report for the Building Department Budget and Actual

B Present for information and record minutes and notices received from the following committees and agencies 1 Board of Adjustment (BOA) - June 3 2013 2 Development Review Committee (DRC) - May 13 20 June 3 10

17 and 24 2013 3 Marion County Hospital District Board of Trustees (MCHD) - March

1819 amp 21 April 18 and May 202013

Page 280 Book S

July 16 2013

Mr Lawson provided a brief overview on the transition of IIRMC to HIVIA He advised that HMA agreed to lease MRMC long-term (40 years) with an upfront payment of $200000000 Mr Lawson stated HMA agreed to spend another $75000000 over the first 5 years in capital improvements as well as another $150000000 to continue the hospitals Phase 1 projects that were in place for many years but never funded He noted HMA would continue the hospitals traditional charity care policy Mr Lawson stated current MRMC personnel would remain employed at the same rate He advised that as a public company HIVIA would pay ad valorem taxes to local governments Mr Lawson commented on the partnership between HMA and the University of Florida (UF) Shands Healthcare and provided a brief history of HMA as medical facility and publicly traded company

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Lawson advised that the next documents to be executed after the Letter of Intent would be the Asset Purchase Agreement the long-term lease and then the schedules that supported those terms noting the Master Plan was part of the final schedule document

Chairman Bryant advised that she requested Marion County Hospital ~istrict

Board of Trustees Chairman Jon Kurtz to craft a letter to the BCC with the time line and procedures that would need to be completed prior to and after the transaction

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner IVIcClain Mr Lawson advised that the HMA Board

recently passed a cap on the level of total ownership by an individual or institution General discussion resumed Chairman Bryant advised that she also requested Chairman Kurtz provide copies

of the MRMCHMA updated work product (Letter of Intent Lease etc) to County Attorney Minter for review She noted a meeting would be scheduled in September with the Hospital Board of Trustees

Commissioners - (12C) - The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the July 2013 Commission calendar

Advisory CommitteesResolutions - (1201) - Chuck Pardee NE 32nd Place member of the RRAB addressed the Board in regard to meeting with members of the RRAB noting the RRAB Advisory Board would be meeting on Tuesday August 6 2013 and questioned whether that would be a good time for a joint workshop It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

(Ed Note This matter was again discussed later in the meeting)

Hospitals - (1202) - Roger Knechtel SE 9ih Terrace Road Summerfield addressed the Board in regard to the failure of the Citrus County hospital even though citizens were paying taxes to support that hospital

Advisory CommitteesResolutions - (11B) - A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to schedule a joint workshop with members of the RRAB on Tuesday August 6 2013 at 1 00 pm at the Growth Services Training Room to discuss and re-evaluate the purpose and objective of the RRAB The motion was unanimously approved by the Board

Cornmunications - (13) - For information and record the Chairman

Book S Page 279

July 16 2013

acknowledged receipt of the following Notation for Record correspondence item A County Administrator Niblock and items Band C from Clerk Ellspermann

County Administrator General Informational Items

1 Present Marion County Health Department - For the latest edition of Marion Scripts visit the website at httpwwwdohstatefIusclld Marionservicesnewsletters htrnl

2 Present notification from Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources of proposed property for listing in the National Register of Historic Places - June 21 2013

3 Present Alcalde amp Fay Grant Alert for Local Governments - July 8 2013

4 Present letter from United States Department of Agriculture proposing designation of management areas for acquired land on Osceola National Forest

A Clerk Ellspermann 1 Present letters received from Secretary of States Office advising

that Ordinances 13-16 (Comprehensive Plan) 13-17 (Revocation) and 13-18 (Zoning) were filed

2 Present regular report of utilization for Reserve for Contingencies 3 For the month ended June 30 2013 a list of checks drawn on

Commission accounts pursuant to Chapter 13606 Florida Statutes are located at the following website address httpwwwmarioncountyclerkorgpublicindexcfmPg=boardcheck registers

4 Present the Acquisition or Disposition of Property Forms authorizing changes in status as follows 1445400 20900 24857 26630276923094030945309483095130960 30967 32242 32403338103407134118342253422634227 35062 37702 37831384643846539030397943965639894 39932 39970 39971402064015740158410634106841071 41135 41142 41198412414124641263413504249942517 42535 42542 4256242567425704257742579 425824258443285 43724 4258842589431404316443285 439314394844362 44755 an attached list of assets from the Marion County Utilities Department an attached list of previously disposed items to correct inventory and an attached list of assets from the Marion County Property Appraisers Office

5 Present monthly report for the Building Department Budget and Actual

B Present for information and record minutes and notices received from the following committees and agencies 1 Board of Adjustment (BOA) - June 3 2013 2 Development Review Committee (DRC) - May 13 20 June 3 10

17 and 24 2013 3 Marion County Hospital District Board of Trustees (MCHD) - March

1819 amp 21 April 18 and May 202013

Page 280 Book S

July 16 2013

acknowledged receipt of the following Notation for Record correspondence item A County Administrator Niblock and items Band C from Clerk Ellspermann

County Administrator General Informational Items

1 Present Marion County Health Department - For the latest edition of Marion Scripts visit the website at httpwwwdohstatefIusclld Marionservicesnewsletters htrnl

2 Present notification from Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources of proposed property for listing in the National Register of Historic Places - June 21 2013

3 Present Alcalde amp Fay Grant Alert for Local Governments - July 8 2013

4 Present letter from United States Department of Agriculture proposing designation of management areas for acquired land on Osceola National Forest

A Clerk Ellspermann 1 Present letters received from Secretary of States Office advising

that Ordinances 13-16 (Comprehensive Plan) 13-17 (Revocation) and 13-18 (Zoning) were filed

2 Present regular report of utilization for Reserve for Contingencies 3 For the month ended June 30 2013 a list of checks drawn on

Commission accounts pursuant to Chapter 13606 Florida Statutes are located at the following website address httpwwwmarioncountyclerkorgpublicindexcfmPg=boardcheck registers

4 Present the Acquisition or Disposition of Property Forms authorizing changes in status as follows 1445400 20900 24857 26630276923094030945309483095130960 30967 32242 32403338103407134118342253422634227 35062 37702 37831384643846539030397943965639894 39932 39970 39971402064015740158410634106841071 41135 41142 41198412414124641263413504249942517 42535 42542 4256242567425704257742579 425824258443285 43724 4258842589431404316443285 439314394844362 44755 an attached list of assets from the Marion County Utilities Department an attached list of previously disposed items to correct inventory and an attached list of assets from the Marion County Property Appraisers Office

5 Present monthly report for the Building Department Budget and Actual

B Present for information and record minutes and notices received from the following committees and agencies 1 Board of Adjustment (BOA) - June 3 2013 2 Development Review Committee (DRC) - May 13 20 June 3 10

17 and 24 2013 3 Marion County Hospital District Board of Trustees (MCHD) - March

1819 amp 21 April 18 and May 202013

Page 280 Book S

July 16 2013

4 Marion County Hospital District Board of Trustees (MCHD) shyInterview Minutes from June 24 2013

5 Planning Commission - September 262012 6 Regulatory Review Advisory Board (RRAB) - March 5 May 7 and

June 4 2013 7 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) - For

minutes and agendas visit the website at httpwwwWaterMattersorg

8 St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) - For minutes and agendas visit the website at httpwwwfloridaswatercom

9 Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) - For minutes and agendas visit the website at httpwwwocalaflorgtpo

10 With lacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (WRWSA) - For minutes and agendas visit the website at httpwwwwrwsaorg

11 Zoning Commission - May 29 2013

There was a recess at 11 51 am The meeting reconvened at 203 pm with all members present

OrdinancesZoning - (14) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792364 entitled Notice of Intention to Consider Adoption of an Ordinance published in the Star Banner newspaper on July 1 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting an ordinance approving zoning changes and Special Use Permits

Also present were Growth Services Director Gregory Stubbs PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf Senior Planners Chris Rison Michael Kokosky and Brian Portz Planner Natalia Cox Transportation Planner Justin Ryan Administrative Staff Assistant Stephanie Soucey Staff Assistant Patricia Marino and County Attorney Matthew G Minter

OrdinancesZoning - (14A) - Senior Planner Chris Rison Growth Services advised that the four (4) petitions listed on the consent agenda were recommended for approval by both the Planning Division and Zoning Commission He stated the consent agenda item would be acted on in one motion as follows

ITEM NO OWNERS NAME FROM-TO ACREAGE 1 130703SU United Southern Bank as Special Use Permit in R-1 598

Custodian for Richard Fitch and ESOZ IRA

2 130706SU Shree Swaminarayan Modification of Special 775 Siddhant Sajivan Mandai Use in A-1 Ocala FL Inc

3 130707SU VFW Ft McCoy Veterans Special Use Permit in A-1 425 Home and R-3

4 130708SU Shirley amp Robert Yeargan Special Use Permit in B-2 057 Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval of the Consent Agenda items (130703SU 130706SU 130707SU and 130708SU) based on the following findings of fact

Book S Page 281

July 16 2013

1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Are consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Are compatible with the surrounding land uses Motion passed 5 to O Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on behalf of the Consent

Items (14A1 thru 14A4) She opened the floor for public comment Seeing none the public comment portion was closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Moore to approve consent agenda items 14A1 through 4 based on Planning Division staff and Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed uses were compatible with the surrounding land uses were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

The motion approved the consent agenda items as follows

ResolutionsZoning - (14A) - 1 - (Zoning Commission 130703 SU - Consent) - The Board adopted Resolution 13-R-239 granting a petition by United Southern Bank as Custodian for Richard Fitch IRA PO Box 648 Weirsdale FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for 2 horses on approximately 598 acres in a R-1 and Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Zone on Parcel Account Nos 4943-000-001 4943-000-002 and 4943-000-003 Resolution 13-Rshy239 contained the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 A maximum of two (2) horses may be kept on the property Foals may be kept on-site until weaned

3 For the keeping of horses the minimum square footage of pasture area shall be 22000 square feet for the first horse and 20000 square feet for each additional horse

4 Animal waste shall be removed from the property on a bi-weekly basis 5 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (United Southern Bank

as Custodian for Richard J Fritch) and the applicant (James amp Theresa Goodreau) and not the property

6 The Special Use Permit is effective for the total 598 acre site and shall terminate if there is a division or subdivision of the property

ResolutionsZoning - (14A) - 2 - (Z C 130706 SU - Consent)- The Board adopted Resolution 13-R-240 granting a petition by Shree Swaminarayan Siddhant Sajivan Mandal- Vishal Patel 14245 SW 16th Ave Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for Modification of 090507SU for worship center and related facilities to include additional acreage on approximately 775 acres in a A-1 zone on Parcel Account No 44638-000-00 Resolution 13-R-240 contained the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 Use of the site shall be limited to house of worship and related activities andor those uses consistent with the sites zoning and the Land Development Code

Page 282 Book S

July 16 2013

3 Access to the site shall be limited to SW 16th Avenue (Hwy 475A) using paved driveway aprons suitably approved and permitted through the Office of the County Engineer

4 A Transportation Impact Analysis shall be submitted to and approved by Marion County in conjunction with the development review application The analysis shall identify needed improvements and the appropriate timeframe for construction of such improvements subject to approval by the Marion County Engineer No site plan approval (Minor or Major) may be obtained for any site development unless and until the Traffic Impact Analysis is completed and approved by Marion County Transportation

5 A Modified Type E Buffer (minimum 15 wide 5 trees per 100 LF and a continuous double-staggered hedgerow to reach 60 in two years) shall be provided along the north south and east perimeter boundaries of the site For the Buffer landscape berms andor opaque fencing or a combination of such may be provided in lieu of or in conjunction with the continuous hedgerow provided the minimum 60 height is attained by the materials used and provided

6 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is a division or subdivision of the property

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (Shree Swaminarayan Siddhant Sajivan Mandai Ocala FL Inc) and not with the property

8 Special Use Permit 090507SUResolution No 2009-R-208 is hereby repealed and replaced by this Special Use Permit

ResolutionsZoning - (14A) - 3 - (Z C 130707SU - Consent) - The Board adopted Resolution 13-R-241 granting a petition by the VFW Ft McCoy Veterans Home 12801 NE 139th Place Ft McCoy FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for 20 R-V spaces for short term visitors and relatives of VFW Retirement Home Residents on approximately 425 acres in an A-1 and R-3 zone on Parcel Account No 09727-012-00 Resolution 13-R-241 contained the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 The Special Use Permit shall only be issued for the development of twenty (20) RV spaces consistent with the submitted conceptual plan

3 RV spaces shall function as an accessory use to the VFW Ft McCoy Veterans Home and occupancy shall be limited to visitors and relatives of the VFW Retirement Home residents

4 Access to the site shall be via an existillg paved ingress and egress easement to NE 135th Street During the development review process the Office of the County Engineer will determine any driveway improvements needed which shall be completed prior to commencing the RVoperation authorized by this Special Use Permit

5 NE 139th Place shall only be used as an emergency access to the site 6 No park models or other recreational vehicles requiring building permits

shall be allowed on site 7 The Special Use Permit runs with the owner (VFW Ft McCoy Veterans

Home) and not with the property

Book S Page 283

July 16 2013

8 The Special Use Permit shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the property to another person or entity not controlled by the owner

9 This Special Use Pemlit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the scope of operations from the submitted conceptual plan or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs

10 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2018 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

ResolutionsZoning - (14A) - 4 - (Z C 130708SU - Consent) - The Board adopted Resolution 13-R-242 granting a petition by Shirley and Robert Yeargan 9159 NE 22nd Court Anthony FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a cabinet shop on approximately 057 acres in a B-2 zone on Parcel Account No 14204-002-00 Resolution 13-R-242 contained the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 All cabinet making activities shall be within the enclosed structure on-site except for loading of final products for delivery to customers

3 No outdoor storage shall be permitted 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (Shirley Yeargan) 5 Prior to commencing the cabinet making shop the owner shall complete a

Change of UseOccupancy Review for the project including obtaining necessary permits and applicable reviews (eg building zoning impact fee right-of-way etc)

6 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

SubdivisionsZoning - (14B1) - Senior Planner Rison presented the following recommendation from Development Review Committee (DRC) Chairman Mounir Bouyounes regarding the family division waiver as requested by T Dean Johnson relating to Parcel Nos 05789-006-06 and 05789-006-07

DescriptionBackground The owner requests the family division as these two tracts were aggregated under Policy 115 of the original Comprehensive Plan In order to develop or sell the individual tracts the owner requests County recognition by way of the family division exception The owner will deed one of the tracts to his daughter The property is located in the northwest area of the County and is 602 acres in size DRC action on June 24 2013 by a vote of 5-0 was to approve the waiver request subject to a 20 foot access easement to each property owner to the north and south and that there be only one driveway curb cut onto the paved surface that would serve both properties BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to approve the requested family division as recommended by DRC Mr Rison commented on the request and DRC recommendation for approval He

noted the applicant was present should the Board have any questions

Page 284 Book S

July 16 2013

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Mclain to agree with DRC and approve the family division subject to a 20 foot access easement to each property owner to the north and south and that there be only one driveway curb cut onto the paved surface that would serve both properties The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 1 - (Z C 130701Z) - The Board considered a petition by J O Townley Jr and Pamela S Townley PO Box 173 Candler FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from A-1 to M-2 on approximately 90 acres on Parcel Account Nos 37665-000-00 and 37665-001-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 0 of 9 =0 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr Kesselring to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses Motion passed 5 to O Transportation Planner Justin Ryan noted a small scale comprehensive plan

amendment was approved on subject site earlier this summer He advised that a surrounding land owner spoke in regard to buffer requirements at the Zoning Commission hearing noting the subject property would be required to provide a Type B buffer Mr Ryan stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Change

Randy Klein NW 3rd Avenue attorney representing the applicant (Townley Manufacturing) was present He commented on the Townley Manufacturing facility in Candler which was founded in 1963 and employed 200 people in Marion County as well as a number of individuals outside of Florida The property was purchased 5 years ago for expansion The first phase was for storage of pump molds which were currently located off-site creating inefficiencies The second phase was for another foundry which was the neighbors concern however they did not object to the zoning change but wanted to ensure that the buffer requirements would be met which Mr Klein advised that the applicant would comply He noted Mr J O Townley President of Townley Manufacturing was present to answer any questions

Mr Townley stated his father started the business with very humble beginnings in a small garage in East Lake Weir 50 years ago He stated the family had been blessed to be a part of Marion County for the last 50 years noting the business had grown and the product from the Marion County facility had a worldwide impact Mr Townley commented on the upcoming Labor Day celebration and invited everyone to attend as there would be a lot of food wonderful speakers music and a good day of encouragement

Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner

McClain to approve the Zoning Change from A-1 to M-2 based on Planning Division staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the

Book S Page 285

July 16 2013

surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) 2 - (Z C 130704SSU) - The Board considered a petition by John Alvarez Investment Group LLC PO Box 771269 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for an Agriculture Transportation Dispatch Business Office on approximately 11936 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account No 41437-001-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 1 of 18 = 6 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Thompson to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes in conditions bull Condition 5 was change from a limit of nine (9) employees to a limit of

twenty (20) employees bull Condition 6 was changed to This Special Use Permit may be used (a)

only on the subject property and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered State of Florida corporation (lD F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

The motion passed 5 to O Transportation Planner Ryan addressed specific facts about this request The

applicant would utilize an existing 3681 square foot (SF) office building located on the subject site The applicant verbally indicated to staff that the proposed dispatch office was intended to function as a telephone and web based brokerage operation with a total of 20 employees with no business or commercial traffic and no commercial vehicles would enter or leave the site excluding delivery vehicles (eg UPS FedEx etc) He noted changes in conditions were addressed at the Zoning Commission hearing and stated the applicant would request additional changes Mr Ryan advised that both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 Ingress and egress to the subject property shall be via a gated entrance from S Highway 475

3 The agriculture transportation dispatch business shall be located in the office building (19843681 SFLA) consistent with the submitted conceptual plan

4 No commercial vehicles shall be parked on-site 5 The Special Use Permit Shall be limited to twenty (20) employees 6 This Special Use Permit may be used (a) only on the subject property

and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered

Page 286 Book S

July 16 2013

State of Florida corporation (10 F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

7 The Special Use Permit shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the property to another person or entity not controlled by the owner

8 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs

9 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2018 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

Van Akin East Silver Springs Boulevard Agent representing the applicant John Alvarez was present He noted the reason for the request was that Mr Alvarez was bringing his sons transportation brokerage operation from California to Florida The applicant had an office building on SR 200 and subsequently purchased the farm directly north of his homestead which had an existing office of approximately 3700 SF that would be appropriate for expansion of the transportation operation however there was no provision in the A-1 zoning classification for an office In speaking with staff it was recommended that the applicant apply for a Special Use Permit Mr Akin commented on the applicants age and stated the key to Mr Alvarezs move was that the Special Use Permit stay with his son and son-in-law noting this was an expensive move due to satellite cabling and phones for the dispatch office He referred to Condition Nos 6 7 8 and 9 as recommended by staff

Mr Akin referenced Condition No 6 noting Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida would be a tenant of the office which was owned by the Alvarez Family TrustAlvarez Investment Group had ownership of the property He addressed the provision in reference to and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval) and stated should the applicant pass away his estate would go to his heirs who would inherit the property however the business needed to continue and requested that be struck

Mr Akin referred to Condition No 7 in regard to terminating the Special Use Permit in the event the property was sold or transferred to a person or entity not controlled by the owner He noted the applicant did not want the Special Use Permit to go away as the result of his death

Mr Akin addressed Condition NO8 in relation to or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs He noted the property consisted of 120 acres and the applicants son was moving to Florida and the possibility existed that the son may want 50 acres where there was an existing home Mr Akin stated it did not seem reasonable to restrict the applicant from subdividing the 120 acres but was appropriate to restrict a division around where the office was located

Mr Akin commented on Condition 9 and requested the expiration date be extended to 10 years (2023) if there were no complaints regarding the operation

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Minter advised that as he mentioned periodically generally speaking land use decisions were supposed to be made based upon the impact of the land use itself and not based on who owned the property If a particular land use was a valid land use that was compatible with the surrounding area in the case of a Special Use Permit it really made no difference who owned the

Book S Page 287

July 16 2013

property In particular circumstances if the County was relying on someone who had special expertise or specific background where the County relied on that expertise to continue an operation as there were certainly occasions when it was worthwhile to tie a Special Use Permit to a particular owner More than any other county he had been in the Board in Marion County had tied Special Use Permits to specific owners however there was no legal requirement to do so and opined that the Board had the flexibility to allow the Special Use Permit to pass to the heirs in order to continue the operation The remedy the County may be looking for was in regard to Condition No9 relative to the expiration date rather than who owned the parcel

Commissioner McClain stated the County could eliminate Condition Nos 6 7 and 8 and place a time restriction on the Special Use Permit which would serve the same purpose Mr Minter stated it was appropriate as long as the Board was satisfied with those changes

Commissioner Zalak questioned the subdivision requirements PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf stated it was rural land therefore it would be 10 acre minimum requirement for subdividing one time without platting He advised that there was no problem with subdividing as long as the office was not subdivided separately on its own 10 acres site to become a standalone office as it needed to be in conjunction with the farm and perhaps sometime in the future revert back to that agricultural use if it was still agriculturally zoned

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment noting no one had signed

up to speak on this matter There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-243 granting the Special Use Permit with the deletion of Condition Nos 6 and 7 (Ed Note Condition Nos 8 and 9 to be renumbered to 6 and 7) along with changes as noted below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

CONDITION NO6 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc CONDITION NO7 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2023 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant commended the applicant noting he did a great deal of work

and quietly contributed to the community

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 3 - (Z C 130702SU) - The Board considered a petition by Ramoo and Angela Sammy 5251 E Hwy 316 Citra FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a trucking office and parking a maximum of 8 trucks and trailers and a flea market occurring twice a month on approximately 775 acres in a B-2 and B-5 zone on Parcel Account No 03721-001-00

Page 288 Book S

July 16 2013

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 3 of 16 =19 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion passed 5 to O Planner Natalia Cox stated the subject property was located on the west side of

Highway 301 approximately 4 miles from the Highway 441US Highway 301 split also known as (aka) Sammys Plaza The truck parking was proposed on the northwestern and eastern border along US Highway 301 and the flea market would be conducted on Saturdays and Sundays twice a month from 800 am to 600 pm in the northeast corner area She stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

Truck Parking 2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys

existing driveway 3 There will be two (2) designated commercial vehicles parking areas

1) Along the subject propertys eastern boundary (parallel to US Hwy 301) in a stabilized limerock area and

2) Within the northnorthwestern portion of the subject property north of the existing commercial Building B

4 No mechanical repairsmaintenance on the commercial vehicle shall take place on-site

5 The parkingstorage of a refrigerated trailer unit(s) or refer unit(s) is prohibited

6 Existing tree line buffers shall be maintained on the subject propertys northern and western boundaries

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the lessee (James Hatcher) and not with the property

8 This Special Use Permit applies to the entire 775 acres In the event of a division of this property this Special Use Permit shall expireterminate

9 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 20 18 however a new Special Use Permit application may be submitted to request a renewalextension of the Permit

Flea Market 10 The flea market shall be limited to the northeastern portion of Parcel No

03721-001-00 as depicted in the submitted conceptual plan No flea market activities parking or supporting accessory activities shall occur elsewhere on the subject property

11 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway

12 The flea market shall be limited to the outdoor sales of fresh produce and the retail items permitted in the B-2 (Community Business) zoning

Book S Page 289

July 16 2013

category The sale of any other nonlisted merchandise or services is not permitted

13 The flea market shall be limited to weekends (Saturday amp Sunday) with operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm a maximum of two weekends per a month and shall comply with Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements regarding restroom facilities

14 No new permanent structures shall be erected or established on the subject property to conduct the flea market (eg vendor booths etc) All vendor booths and materials shall be cleared and removed from the site and not stored or maintained on the property at any time other than the authorized days and hours of operation established consistent with Condition 13

15 The existing tree line located along the northern boundary of the overall site shall be maintained

16 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (s) (Ramoo amp Angela Sammy) and not the property

17 The Special Use Permit shall expire July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit application for consideration to renewmiddot and extend this permit in the future

Commissioner McClain inquired if the truck parking was for personal vehicles or if it would be leased for others to park Ms Cox stated the applicant was present but noted staff understood there were currently 2 buildings on the property known as Sammys Plaza and a tenant going into Building B was a trucking company who was requesting the parking

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Cox described the location of the limerock parking area

Mr Minter questioned if the flea market area was clearly delineated in the concept plan Commissioner Zalak inquired if trucks would be parking on pavement dirt limerock etc

Ramoo Sammy applicant was present and advised that the trucks would be parking on limerock noting if approved limerock would be placed on the side of the north side of the building as there was already limerock on the front

Commissioner Zalak asked if the applicant could define the area to be limrocked (in size) as well as where the flea market would be located Mr Sammy advised that he would like to remove the flea market portion from the Special Use Permit request He stated limerock would be placed on the north side of the building in an area approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long (50x100) Commissioner Zalak directed staff to note the parking area

Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on this matter and opened the floor for public comment

There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-244 granting the Special Use Permit with Conditions 1 through 9 as amended below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

Page 290 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

3 Access to the site shall be limited to SW 16th Avenue (Hwy 475A) using paved driveway aprons suitably approved and permitted through the Office of the County Engineer

4 A Transportation Impact Analysis shall be submitted to and approved by Marion County in conjunction with the development review application The analysis shall identify needed improvements and the appropriate timeframe for construction of such improvements subject to approval by the Marion County Engineer No site plan approval (Minor or Major) may be obtained for any site development unless and until the Traffic Impact Analysis is completed and approved by Marion County Transportation

5 A Modified Type E Buffer (minimum 15 wide 5 trees per 100 LF and a continuous double-staggered hedgerow to reach 60 in two years) shall be provided along the north south and east perimeter boundaries of the site For the Buffer landscape berms andor opaque fencing or a combination of such may be provided in lieu of or in conjunction with the continuous hedgerow provided the minimum 60 height is attained by the materials used and provided

6 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is a division or subdivision of the property

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (Shree Swaminarayan Siddhant Sajivan Mandai Ocala FL Inc) and not with the property

8 Special Use Permit 090507SUResolution No 2009-R-208 is hereby repealed and replaced by this Special Use Permit

ResolutionsZoning - (14A) - 3 - (Z C 130707SU - Consent) - The Board adopted Resolution 13-R-241 granting a petition by the VFW Ft McCoy Veterans Home 12801 NE 139th Place Ft McCoy FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for 20 R-V spaces for short term visitors and relatives of VFW Retirement Home Residents on approximately 425 acres in an A-1 and R-3 zone on Parcel Account No 09727-012-00 Resolution 13-R-241 contained the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 The Special Use Permit shall only be issued for the development of twenty (20) RV spaces consistent with the submitted conceptual plan

3 RV spaces shall function as an accessory use to the VFW Ft McCoy Veterans Home and occupancy shall be limited to visitors and relatives of the VFW Retirement Home residents

4 Access to the site shall be via an existillg paved ingress and egress easement to NE 135th Street During the development review process the Office of the County Engineer will determine any driveway improvements needed which shall be completed prior to commencing the RVoperation authorized by this Special Use Permit

5 NE 139th Place shall only be used as an emergency access to the site 6 No park models or other recreational vehicles requiring building permits

shall be allowed on site 7 The Special Use Permit runs with the owner (VFW Ft McCoy Veterans

Home) and not with the property

Book S Page 283

July 16 2013

8 The Special Use Permit shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the property to another person or entity not controlled by the owner

9 This Special Use Pemlit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the scope of operations from the submitted conceptual plan or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs

10 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2018 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

ResolutionsZoning - (14A) - 4 - (Z C 130708SU - Consent) - The Board adopted Resolution 13-R-242 granting a petition by Shirley and Robert Yeargan 9159 NE 22nd Court Anthony FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a cabinet shop on approximately 057 acres in a B-2 zone on Parcel Account No 14204-002-00 Resolution 13-R-242 contained the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 All cabinet making activities shall be within the enclosed structure on-site except for loading of final products for delivery to customers

3 No outdoor storage shall be permitted 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (Shirley Yeargan) 5 Prior to commencing the cabinet making shop the owner shall complete a

Change of UseOccupancy Review for the project including obtaining necessary permits and applicable reviews (eg building zoning impact fee right-of-way etc)

6 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

SubdivisionsZoning - (14B1) - Senior Planner Rison presented the following recommendation from Development Review Committee (DRC) Chairman Mounir Bouyounes regarding the family division waiver as requested by T Dean Johnson relating to Parcel Nos 05789-006-06 and 05789-006-07

DescriptionBackground The owner requests the family division as these two tracts were aggregated under Policy 115 of the original Comprehensive Plan In order to develop or sell the individual tracts the owner requests County recognition by way of the family division exception The owner will deed one of the tracts to his daughter The property is located in the northwest area of the County and is 602 acres in size DRC action on June 24 2013 by a vote of 5-0 was to approve the waiver request subject to a 20 foot access easement to each property owner to the north and south and that there be only one driveway curb cut onto the paved surface that would serve both properties BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to approve the requested family division as recommended by DRC Mr Rison commented on the request and DRC recommendation for approval He

noted the applicant was present should the Board have any questions

Page 284 Book S

July 16 2013

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Mclain to agree with DRC and approve the family division subject to a 20 foot access easement to each property owner to the north and south and that there be only one driveway curb cut onto the paved surface that would serve both properties The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 1 - (Z C 130701Z) - The Board considered a petition by J O Townley Jr and Pamela S Townley PO Box 173 Candler FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from A-1 to M-2 on approximately 90 acres on Parcel Account Nos 37665-000-00 and 37665-001-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 0 of 9 =0 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr Kesselring to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses Motion passed 5 to O Transportation Planner Justin Ryan noted a small scale comprehensive plan

amendment was approved on subject site earlier this summer He advised that a surrounding land owner spoke in regard to buffer requirements at the Zoning Commission hearing noting the subject property would be required to provide a Type B buffer Mr Ryan stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Change

Randy Klein NW 3rd Avenue attorney representing the applicant (Townley Manufacturing) was present He commented on the Townley Manufacturing facility in Candler which was founded in 1963 and employed 200 people in Marion County as well as a number of individuals outside of Florida The property was purchased 5 years ago for expansion The first phase was for storage of pump molds which were currently located off-site creating inefficiencies The second phase was for another foundry which was the neighbors concern however they did not object to the zoning change but wanted to ensure that the buffer requirements would be met which Mr Klein advised that the applicant would comply He noted Mr J O Townley President of Townley Manufacturing was present to answer any questions

Mr Townley stated his father started the business with very humble beginnings in a small garage in East Lake Weir 50 years ago He stated the family had been blessed to be a part of Marion County for the last 50 years noting the business had grown and the product from the Marion County facility had a worldwide impact Mr Townley commented on the upcoming Labor Day celebration and invited everyone to attend as there would be a lot of food wonderful speakers music and a good day of encouragement

Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner

McClain to approve the Zoning Change from A-1 to M-2 based on Planning Division staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the

Book S Page 285

July 16 2013

surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) 2 - (Z C 130704SSU) - The Board considered a petition by John Alvarez Investment Group LLC PO Box 771269 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for an Agriculture Transportation Dispatch Business Office on approximately 11936 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account No 41437-001-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 1 of 18 = 6 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Thompson to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes in conditions bull Condition 5 was change from a limit of nine (9) employees to a limit of

twenty (20) employees bull Condition 6 was changed to This Special Use Permit may be used (a)

only on the subject property and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered State of Florida corporation (lD F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

The motion passed 5 to O Transportation Planner Ryan addressed specific facts about this request The

applicant would utilize an existing 3681 square foot (SF) office building located on the subject site The applicant verbally indicated to staff that the proposed dispatch office was intended to function as a telephone and web based brokerage operation with a total of 20 employees with no business or commercial traffic and no commercial vehicles would enter or leave the site excluding delivery vehicles (eg UPS FedEx etc) He noted changes in conditions were addressed at the Zoning Commission hearing and stated the applicant would request additional changes Mr Ryan advised that both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 Ingress and egress to the subject property shall be via a gated entrance from S Highway 475

3 The agriculture transportation dispatch business shall be located in the office building (19843681 SFLA) consistent with the submitted conceptual plan

4 No commercial vehicles shall be parked on-site 5 The Special Use Permit Shall be limited to twenty (20) employees 6 This Special Use Permit may be used (a) only on the subject property

and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered

Page 286 Book S

July 16 2013

State of Florida corporation (10 F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

7 The Special Use Permit shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the property to another person or entity not controlled by the owner

8 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs

9 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2018 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

Van Akin East Silver Springs Boulevard Agent representing the applicant John Alvarez was present He noted the reason for the request was that Mr Alvarez was bringing his sons transportation brokerage operation from California to Florida The applicant had an office building on SR 200 and subsequently purchased the farm directly north of his homestead which had an existing office of approximately 3700 SF that would be appropriate for expansion of the transportation operation however there was no provision in the A-1 zoning classification for an office In speaking with staff it was recommended that the applicant apply for a Special Use Permit Mr Akin commented on the applicants age and stated the key to Mr Alvarezs move was that the Special Use Permit stay with his son and son-in-law noting this was an expensive move due to satellite cabling and phones for the dispatch office He referred to Condition Nos 6 7 8 and 9 as recommended by staff

Mr Akin referenced Condition No 6 noting Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida would be a tenant of the office which was owned by the Alvarez Family TrustAlvarez Investment Group had ownership of the property He addressed the provision in reference to and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval) and stated should the applicant pass away his estate would go to his heirs who would inherit the property however the business needed to continue and requested that be struck

Mr Akin referred to Condition No 7 in regard to terminating the Special Use Permit in the event the property was sold or transferred to a person or entity not controlled by the owner He noted the applicant did not want the Special Use Permit to go away as the result of his death

Mr Akin addressed Condition NO8 in relation to or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs He noted the property consisted of 120 acres and the applicants son was moving to Florida and the possibility existed that the son may want 50 acres where there was an existing home Mr Akin stated it did not seem reasonable to restrict the applicant from subdividing the 120 acres but was appropriate to restrict a division around where the office was located

Mr Akin commented on Condition 9 and requested the expiration date be extended to 10 years (2023) if there were no complaints regarding the operation

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Minter advised that as he mentioned periodically generally speaking land use decisions were supposed to be made based upon the impact of the land use itself and not based on who owned the property If a particular land use was a valid land use that was compatible with the surrounding area in the case of a Special Use Permit it really made no difference who owned the

Book S Page 287

July 16 2013

property In particular circumstances if the County was relying on someone who had special expertise or specific background where the County relied on that expertise to continue an operation as there were certainly occasions when it was worthwhile to tie a Special Use Permit to a particular owner More than any other county he had been in the Board in Marion County had tied Special Use Permits to specific owners however there was no legal requirement to do so and opined that the Board had the flexibility to allow the Special Use Permit to pass to the heirs in order to continue the operation The remedy the County may be looking for was in regard to Condition No9 relative to the expiration date rather than who owned the parcel

Commissioner McClain stated the County could eliminate Condition Nos 6 7 and 8 and place a time restriction on the Special Use Permit which would serve the same purpose Mr Minter stated it was appropriate as long as the Board was satisfied with those changes

Commissioner Zalak questioned the subdivision requirements PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf stated it was rural land therefore it would be 10 acre minimum requirement for subdividing one time without platting He advised that there was no problem with subdividing as long as the office was not subdivided separately on its own 10 acres site to become a standalone office as it needed to be in conjunction with the farm and perhaps sometime in the future revert back to that agricultural use if it was still agriculturally zoned

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment noting no one had signed

up to speak on this matter There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-243 granting the Special Use Permit with the deletion of Condition Nos 6 and 7 (Ed Note Condition Nos 8 and 9 to be renumbered to 6 and 7) along with changes as noted below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

CONDITION NO6 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc CONDITION NO7 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2023 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant commended the applicant noting he did a great deal of work

and quietly contributed to the community

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 3 - (Z C 130702SU) - The Board considered a petition by Ramoo and Angela Sammy 5251 E Hwy 316 Citra FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a trucking office and parking a maximum of 8 trucks and trailers and a flea market occurring twice a month on approximately 775 acres in a B-2 and B-5 zone on Parcel Account No 03721-001-00

Page 288 Book S

July 16 2013

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 3 of 16 =19 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion passed 5 to O Planner Natalia Cox stated the subject property was located on the west side of

Highway 301 approximately 4 miles from the Highway 441US Highway 301 split also known as (aka) Sammys Plaza The truck parking was proposed on the northwestern and eastern border along US Highway 301 and the flea market would be conducted on Saturdays and Sundays twice a month from 800 am to 600 pm in the northeast corner area She stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

Truck Parking 2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys

existing driveway 3 There will be two (2) designated commercial vehicles parking areas

1) Along the subject propertys eastern boundary (parallel to US Hwy 301) in a stabilized limerock area and

2) Within the northnorthwestern portion of the subject property north of the existing commercial Building B

4 No mechanical repairsmaintenance on the commercial vehicle shall take place on-site

5 The parkingstorage of a refrigerated trailer unit(s) or refer unit(s) is prohibited

6 Existing tree line buffers shall be maintained on the subject propertys northern and western boundaries

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the lessee (James Hatcher) and not with the property

8 This Special Use Permit applies to the entire 775 acres In the event of a division of this property this Special Use Permit shall expireterminate

9 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 20 18 however a new Special Use Permit application may be submitted to request a renewalextension of the Permit

Flea Market 10 The flea market shall be limited to the northeastern portion of Parcel No

03721-001-00 as depicted in the submitted conceptual plan No flea market activities parking or supporting accessory activities shall occur elsewhere on the subject property

11 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway

12 The flea market shall be limited to the outdoor sales of fresh produce and the retail items permitted in the B-2 (Community Business) zoning

Book S Page 289

July 16 2013

category The sale of any other nonlisted merchandise or services is not permitted

13 The flea market shall be limited to weekends (Saturday amp Sunday) with operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm a maximum of two weekends per a month and shall comply with Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements regarding restroom facilities

14 No new permanent structures shall be erected or established on the subject property to conduct the flea market (eg vendor booths etc) All vendor booths and materials shall be cleared and removed from the site and not stored or maintained on the property at any time other than the authorized days and hours of operation established consistent with Condition 13

15 The existing tree line located along the northern boundary of the overall site shall be maintained

16 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (s) (Ramoo amp Angela Sammy) and not the property

17 The Special Use Permit shall expire July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit application for consideration to renewmiddot and extend this permit in the future

Commissioner McClain inquired if the truck parking was for personal vehicles or if it would be leased for others to park Ms Cox stated the applicant was present but noted staff understood there were currently 2 buildings on the property known as Sammys Plaza and a tenant going into Building B was a trucking company who was requesting the parking

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Cox described the location of the limerock parking area

Mr Minter questioned if the flea market area was clearly delineated in the concept plan Commissioner Zalak inquired if trucks would be parking on pavement dirt limerock etc

Ramoo Sammy applicant was present and advised that the trucks would be parking on limerock noting if approved limerock would be placed on the side of the north side of the building as there was already limerock on the front

Commissioner Zalak asked if the applicant could define the area to be limrocked (in size) as well as where the flea market would be located Mr Sammy advised that he would like to remove the flea market portion from the Special Use Permit request He stated limerock would be placed on the north side of the building in an area approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long (50x100) Commissioner Zalak directed staff to note the parking area

Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on this matter and opened the floor for public comment

There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-244 granting the Special Use Permit with Conditions 1 through 9 as amended below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

Page 290 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

8 The Special Use Permit shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the property to another person or entity not controlled by the owner

9 This Special Use Pemlit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the scope of operations from the submitted conceptual plan or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs

10 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2018 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

ResolutionsZoning - (14A) - 4 - (Z C 130708SU - Consent) - The Board adopted Resolution 13-R-242 granting a petition by Shirley and Robert Yeargan 9159 NE 22nd Court Anthony FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a cabinet shop on approximately 057 acres in a B-2 zone on Parcel Account No 14204-002-00 Resolution 13-R-242 contained the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 All cabinet making activities shall be within the enclosed structure on-site except for loading of final products for delivery to customers

3 No outdoor storage shall be permitted 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (Shirley Yeargan) 5 Prior to commencing the cabinet making shop the owner shall complete a

Change of UseOccupancy Review for the project including obtaining necessary permits and applicable reviews (eg building zoning impact fee right-of-way etc)

6 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

SubdivisionsZoning - (14B1) - Senior Planner Rison presented the following recommendation from Development Review Committee (DRC) Chairman Mounir Bouyounes regarding the family division waiver as requested by T Dean Johnson relating to Parcel Nos 05789-006-06 and 05789-006-07

DescriptionBackground The owner requests the family division as these two tracts were aggregated under Policy 115 of the original Comprehensive Plan In order to develop or sell the individual tracts the owner requests County recognition by way of the family division exception The owner will deed one of the tracts to his daughter The property is located in the northwest area of the County and is 602 acres in size DRC action on June 24 2013 by a vote of 5-0 was to approve the waiver request subject to a 20 foot access easement to each property owner to the north and south and that there be only one driveway curb cut onto the paved surface that would serve both properties BudgetImpact None Recommended Action Motion to approve the requested family division as recommended by DRC Mr Rison commented on the request and DRC recommendation for approval He

noted the applicant was present should the Board have any questions

Page 284 Book S

July 16 2013

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Mclain to agree with DRC and approve the family division subject to a 20 foot access easement to each property owner to the north and south and that there be only one driveway curb cut onto the paved surface that would serve both properties The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 1 - (Z C 130701Z) - The Board considered a petition by J O Townley Jr and Pamela S Townley PO Box 173 Candler FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from A-1 to M-2 on approximately 90 acres on Parcel Account Nos 37665-000-00 and 37665-001-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 0 of 9 =0 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr Kesselring to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses Motion passed 5 to O Transportation Planner Justin Ryan noted a small scale comprehensive plan

amendment was approved on subject site earlier this summer He advised that a surrounding land owner spoke in regard to buffer requirements at the Zoning Commission hearing noting the subject property would be required to provide a Type B buffer Mr Ryan stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Change

Randy Klein NW 3rd Avenue attorney representing the applicant (Townley Manufacturing) was present He commented on the Townley Manufacturing facility in Candler which was founded in 1963 and employed 200 people in Marion County as well as a number of individuals outside of Florida The property was purchased 5 years ago for expansion The first phase was for storage of pump molds which were currently located off-site creating inefficiencies The second phase was for another foundry which was the neighbors concern however they did not object to the zoning change but wanted to ensure that the buffer requirements would be met which Mr Klein advised that the applicant would comply He noted Mr J O Townley President of Townley Manufacturing was present to answer any questions

Mr Townley stated his father started the business with very humble beginnings in a small garage in East Lake Weir 50 years ago He stated the family had been blessed to be a part of Marion County for the last 50 years noting the business had grown and the product from the Marion County facility had a worldwide impact Mr Townley commented on the upcoming Labor Day celebration and invited everyone to attend as there would be a lot of food wonderful speakers music and a good day of encouragement

Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner

McClain to approve the Zoning Change from A-1 to M-2 based on Planning Division staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the

Book S Page 285

July 16 2013

surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) 2 - (Z C 130704SSU) - The Board considered a petition by John Alvarez Investment Group LLC PO Box 771269 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for an Agriculture Transportation Dispatch Business Office on approximately 11936 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account No 41437-001-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 1 of 18 = 6 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Thompson to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes in conditions bull Condition 5 was change from a limit of nine (9) employees to a limit of

twenty (20) employees bull Condition 6 was changed to This Special Use Permit may be used (a)

only on the subject property and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered State of Florida corporation (lD F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

The motion passed 5 to O Transportation Planner Ryan addressed specific facts about this request The

applicant would utilize an existing 3681 square foot (SF) office building located on the subject site The applicant verbally indicated to staff that the proposed dispatch office was intended to function as a telephone and web based brokerage operation with a total of 20 employees with no business or commercial traffic and no commercial vehicles would enter or leave the site excluding delivery vehicles (eg UPS FedEx etc) He noted changes in conditions were addressed at the Zoning Commission hearing and stated the applicant would request additional changes Mr Ryan advised that both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 Ingress and egress to the subject property shall be via a gated entrance from S Highway 475

3 The agriculture transportation dispatch business shall be located in the office building (19843681 SFLA) consistent with the submitted conceptual plan

4 No commercial vehicles shall be parked on-site 5 The Special Use Permit Shall be limited to twenty (20) employees 6 This Special Use Permit may be used (a) only on the subject property

and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered

Page 286 Book S

July 16 2013

State of Florida corporation (10 F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

7 The Special Use Permit shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the property to another person or entity not controlled by the owner

8 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs

9 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2018 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

Van Akin East Silver Springs Boulevard Agent representing the applicant John Alvarez was present He noted the reason for the request was that Mr Alvarez was bringing his sons transportation brokerage operation from California to Florida The applicant had an office building on SR 200 and subsequently purchased the farm directly north of his homestead which had an existing office of approximately 3700 SF that would be appropriate for expansion of the transportation operation however there was no provision in the A-1 zoning classification for an office In speaking with staff it was recommended that the applicant apply for a Special Use Permit Mr Akin commented on the applicants age and stated the key to Mr Alvarezs move was that the Special Use Permit stay with his son and son-in-law noting this was an expensive move due to satellite cabling and phones for the dispatch office He referred to Condition Nos 6 7 8 and 9 as recommended by staff

Mr Akin referenced Condition No 6 noting Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida would be a tenant of the office which was owned by the Alvarez Family TrustAlvarez Investment Group had ownership of the property He addressed the provision in reference to and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval) and stated should the applicant pass away his estate would go to his heirs who would inherit the property however the business needed to continue and requested that be struck

Mr Akin referred to Condition No 7 in regard to terminating the Special Use Permit in the event the property was sold or transferred to a person or entity not controlled by the owner He noted the applicant did not want the Special Use Permit to go away as the result of his death

Mr Akin addressed Condition NO8 in relation to or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs He noted the property consisted of 120 acres and the applicants son was moving to Florida and the possibility existed that the son may want 50 acres where there was an existing home Mr Akin stated it did not seem reasonable to restrict the applicant from subdividing the 120 acres but was appropriate to restrict a division around where the office was located

Mr Akin commented on Condition 9 and requested the expiration date be extended to 10 years (2023) if there were no complaints regarding the operation

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Minter advised that as he mentioned periodically generally speaking land use decisions were supposed to be made based upon the impact of the land use itself and not based on who owned the property If a particular land use was a valid land use that was compatible with the surrounding area in the case of a Special Use Permit it really made no difference who owned the

Book S Page 287

July 16 2013

property In particular circumstances if the County was relying on someone who had special expertise or specific background where the County relied on that expertise to continue an operation as there were certainly occasions when it was worthwhile to tie a Special Use Permit to a particular owner More than any other county he had been in the Board in Marion County had tied Special Use Permits to specific owners however there was no legal requirement to do so and opined that the Board had the flexibility to allow the Special Use Permit to pass to the heirs in order to continue the operation The remedy the County may be looking for was in regard to Condition No9 relative to the expiration date rather than who owned the parcel

Commissioner McClain stated the County could eliminate Condition Nos 6 7 and 8 and place a time restriction on the Special Use Permit which would serve the same purpose Mr Minter stated it was appropriate as long as the Board was satisfied with those changes

Commissioner Zalak questioned the subdivision requirements PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf stated it was rural land therefore it would be 10 acre minimum requirement for subdividing one time without platting He advised that there was no problem with subdividing as long as the office was not subdivided separately on its own 10 acres site to become a standalone office as it needed to be in conjunction with the farm and perhaps sometime in the future revert back to that agricultural use if it was still agriculturally zoned

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment noting no one had signed

up to speak on this matter There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-243 granting the Special Use Permit with the deletion of Condition Nos 6 and 7 (Ed Note Condition Nos 8 and 9 to be renumbered to 6 and 7) along with changes as noted below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

CONDITION NO6 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc CONDITION NO7 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2023 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant commended the applicant noting he did a great deal of work

and quietly contributed to the community

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 3 - (Z C 130702SU) - The Board considered a petition by Ramoo and Angela Sammy 5251 E Hwy 316 Citra FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a trucking office and parking a maximum of 8 trucks and trailers and a flea market occurring twice a month on approximately 775 acres in a B-2 and B-5 zone on Parcel Account No 03721-001-00

Page 288 Book S

July 16 2013

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 3 of 16 =19 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion passed 5 to O Planner Natalia Cox stated the subject property was located on the west side of

Highway 301 approximately 4 miles from the Highway 441US Highway 301 split also known as (aka) Sammys Plaza The truck parking was proposed on the northwestern and eastern border along US Highway 301 and the flea market would be conducted on Saturdays and Sundays twice a month from 800 am to 600 pm in the northeast corner area She stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

Truck Parking 2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys

existing driveway 3 There will be two (2) designated commercial vehicles parking areas

1) Along the subject propertys eastern boundary (parallel to US Hwy 301) in a stabilized limerock area and

2) Within the northnorthwestern portion of the subject property north of the existing commercial Building B

4 No mechanical repairsmaintenance on the commercial vehicle shall take place on-site

5 The parkingstorage of a refrigerated trailer unit(s) or refer unit(s) is prohibited

6 Existing tree line buffers shall be maintained on the subject propertys northern and western boundaries

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the lessee (James Hatcher) and not with the property

8 This Special Use Permit applies to the entire 775 acres In the event of a division of this property this Special Use Permit shall expireterminate

9 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 20 18 however a new Special Use Permit application may be submitted to request a renewalextension of the Permit

Flea Market 10 The flea market shall be limited to the northeastern portion of Parcel No

03721-001-00 as depicted in the submitted conceptual plan No flea market activities parking or supporting accessory activities shall occur elsewhere on the subject property

11 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway

12 The flea market shall be limited to the outdoor sales of fresh produce and the retail items permitted in the B-2 (Community Business) zoning

Book S Page 289

July 16 2013

category The sale of any other nonlisted merchandise or services is not permitted

13 The flea market shall be limited to weekends (Saturday amp Sunday) with operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm a maximum of two weekends per a month and shall comply with Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements regarding restroom facilities

14 No new permanent structures shall be erected or established on the subject property to conduct the flea market (eg vendor booths etc) All vendor booths and materials shall be cleared and removed from the site and not stored or maintained on the property at any time other than the authorized days and hours of operation established consistent with Condition 13

15 The existing tree line located along the northern boundary of the overall site shall be maintained

16 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (s) (Ramoo amp Angela Sammy) and not the property

17 The Special Use Permit shall expire July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit application for consideration to renewmiddot and extend this permit in the future

Commissioner McClain inquired if the truck parking was for personal vehicles or if it would be leased for others to park Ms Cox stated the applicant was present but noted staff understood there were currently 2 buildings on the property known as Sammys Plaza and a tenant going into Building B was a trucking company who was requesting the parking

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Cox described the location of the limerock parking area

Mr Minter questioned if the flea market area was clearly delineated in the concept plan Commissioner Zalak inquired if trucks would be parking on pavement dirt limerock etc

Ramoo Sammy applicant was present and advised that the trucks would be parking on limerock noting if approved limerock would be placed on the side of the north side of the building as there was already limerock on the front

Commissioner Zalak asked if the applicant could define the area to be limrocked (in size) as well as where the flea market would be located Mr Sammy advised that he would like to remove the flea market portion from the Special Use Permit request He stated limerock would be placed on the north side of the building in an area approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long (50x100) Commissioner Zalak directed staff to note the parking area

Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on this matter and opened the floor for public comment

There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-244 granting the Special Use Permit with Conditions 1 through 9 as amended below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

Page 290 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Mclain to agree with DRC and approve the family division subject to a 20 foot access easement to each property owner to the north and south and that there be only one driveway curb cut onto the paved surface that would serve both properties The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 1 - (Z C 130701Z) - The Board considered a petition by J O Townley Jr and Pamela S Townley PO Box 173 Candler FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from A-1 to M-2 on approximately 90 acres on Parcel Account Nos 37665-000-00 and 37665-001-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 0 of 9 =0 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr Kesselring to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses Motion passed 5 to O Transportation Planner Justin Ryan noted a small scale comprehensive plan

amendment was approved on subject site earlier this summer He advised that a surrounding land owner spoke in regard to buffer requirements at the Zoning Commission hearing noting the subject property would be required to provide a Type B buffer Mr Ryan stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Change

Randy Klein NW 3rd Avenue attorney representing the applicant (Townley Manufacturing) was present He commented on the Townley Manufacturing facility in Candler which was founded in 1963 and employed 200 people in Marion County as well as a number of individuals outside of Florida The property was purchased 5 years ago for expansion The first phase was for storage of pump molds which were currently located off-site creating inefficiencies The second phase was for another foundry which was the neighbors concern however they did not object to the zoning change but wanted to ensure that the buffer requirements would be met which Mr Klein advised that the applicant would comply He noted Mr J O Townley President of Townley Manufacturing was present to answer any questions

Mr Townley stated his father started the business with very humble beginnings in a small garage in East Lake Weir 50 years ago He stated the family had been blessed to be a part of Marion County for the last 50 years noting the business had grown and the product from the Marion County facility had a worldwide impact Mr Townley commented on the upcoming Labor Day celebration and invited everyone to attend as there would be a lot of food wonderful speakers music and a good day of encouragement

Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Moore seconded by Commissioner

McClain to approve the Zoning Change from A-1 to M-2 based on Planning Division staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the

Book S Page 285

July 16 2013

surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) 2 - (Z C 130704SSU) - The Board considered a petition by John Alvarez Investment Group LLC PO Box 771269 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for an Agriculture Transportation Dispatch Business Office on approximately 11936 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account No 41437-001-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 1 of 18 = 6 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Thompson to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes in conditions bull Condition 5 was change from a limit of nine (9) employees to a limit of

twenty (20) employees bull Condition 6 was changed to This Special Use Permit may be used (a)

only on the subject property and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered State of Florida corporation (lD F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

The motion passed 5 to O Transportation Planner Ryan addressed specific facts about this request The

applicant would utilize an existing 3681 square foot (SF) office building located on the subject site The applicant verbally indicated to staff that the proposed dispatch office was intended to function as a telephone and web based brokerage operation with a total of 20 employees with no business or commercial traffic and no commercial vehicles would enter or leave the site excluding delivery vehicles (eg UPS FedEx etc) He noted changes in conditions were addressed at the Zoning Commission hearing and stated the applicant would request additional changes Mr Ryan advised that both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 Ingress and egress to the subject property shall be via a gated entrance from S Highway 475

3 The agriculture transportation dispatch business shall be located in the office building (19843681 SFLA) consistent with the submitted conceptual plan

4 No commercial vehicles shall be parked on-site 5 The Special Use Permit Shall be limited to twenty (20) employees 6 This Special Use Permit may be used (a) only on the subject property

and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered

Page 286 Book S

July 16 2013

State of Florida corporation (10 F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

7 The Special Use Permit shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the property to another person or entity not controlled by the owner

8 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs

9 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2018 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

Van Akin East Silver Springs Boulevard Agent representing the applicant John Alvarez was present He noted the reason for the request was that Mr Alvarez was bringing his sons transportation brokerage operation from California to Florida The applicant had an office building on SR 200 and subsequently purchased the farm directly north of his homestead which had an existing office of approximately 3700 SF that would be appropriate for expansion of the transportation operation however there was no provision in the A-1 zoning classification for an office In speaking with staff it was recommended that the applicant apply for a Special Use Permit Mr Akin commented on the applicants age and stated the key to Mr Alvarezs move was that the Special Use Permit stay with his son and son-in-law noting this was an expensive move due to satellite cabling and phones for the dispatch office He referred to Condition Nos 6 7 8 and 9 as recommended by staff

Mr Akin referenced Condition No 6 noting Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida would be a tenant of the office which was owned by the Alvarez Family TrustAlvarez Investment Group had ownership of the property He addressed the provision in reference to and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval) and stated should the applicant pass away his estate would go to his heirs who would inherit the property however the business needed to continue and requested that be struck

Mr Akin referred to Condition No 7 in regard to terminating the Special Use Permit in the event the property was sold or transferred to a person or entity not controlled by the owner He noted the applicant did not want the Special Use Permit to go away as the result of his death

Mr Akin addressed Condition NO8 in relation to or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs He noted the property consisted of 120 acres and the applicants son was moving to Florida and the possibility existed that the son may want 50 acres where there was an existing home Mr Akin stated it did not seem reasonable to restrict the applicant from subdividing the 120 acres but was appropriate to restrict a division around where the office was located

Mr Akin commented on Condition 9 and requested the expiration date be extended to 10 years (2023) if there were no complaints regarding the operation

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Minter advised that as he mentioned periodically generally speaking land use decisions were supposed to be made based upon the impact of the land use itself and not based on who owned the property If a particular land use was a valid land use that was compatible with the surrounding area in the case of a Special Use Permit it really made no difference who owned the

Book S Page 287

July 16 2013

property In particular circumstances if the County was relying on someone who had special expertise or specific background where the County relied on that expertise to continue an operation as there were certainly occasions when it was worthwhile to tie a Special Use Permit to a particular owner More than any other county he had been in the Board in Marion County had tied Special Use Permits to specific owners however there was no legal requirement to do so and opined that the Board had the flexibility to allow the Special Use Permit to pass to the heirs in order to continue the operation The remedy the County may be looking for was in regard to Condition No9 relative to the expiration date rather than who owned the parcel

Commissioner McClain stated the County could eliminate Condition Nos 6 7 and 8 and place a time restriction on the Special Use Permit which would serve the same purpose Mr Minter stated it was appropriate as long as the Board was satisfied with those changes

Commissioner Zalak questioned the subdivision requirements PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf stated it was rural land therefore it would be 10 acre minimum requirement for subdividing one time without platting He advised that there was no problem with subdividing as long as the office was not subdivided separately on its own 10 acres site to become a standalone office as it needed to be in conjunction with the farm and perhaps sometime in the future revert back to that agricultural use if it was still agriculturally zoned

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment noting no one had signed

up to speak on this matter There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-243 granting the Special Use Permit with the deletion of Condition Nos 6 and 7 (Ed Note Condition Nos 8 and 9 to be renumbered to 6 and 7) along with changes as noted below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

CONDITION NO6 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc CONDITION NO7 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2023 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant commended the applicant noting he did a great deal of work

and quietly contributed to the community

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 3 - (Z C 130702SU) - The Board considered a petition by Ramoo and Angela Sammy 5251 E Hwy 316 Citra FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a trucking office and parking a maximum of 8 trucks and trailers and a flea market occurring twice a month on approximately 775 acres in a B-2 and B-5 zone on Parcel Account No 03721-001-00

Page 288 Book S

July 16 2013

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 3 of 16 =19 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion passed 5 to O Planner Natalia Cox stated the subject property was located on the west side of

Highway 301 approximately 4 miles from the Highway 441US Highway 301 split also known as (aka) Sammys Plaza The truck parking was proposed on the northwestern and eastern border along US Highway 301 and the flea market would be conducted on Saturdays and Sundays twice a month from 800 am to 600 pm in the northeast corner area She stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

Truck Parking 2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys

existing driveway 3 There will be two (2) designated commercial vehicles parking areas

1) Along the subject propertys eastern boundary (parallel to US Hwy 301) in a stabilized limerock area and

2) Within the northnorthwestern portion of the subject property north of the existing commercial Building B

4 No mechanical repairsmaintenance on the commercial vehicle shall take place on-site

5 The parkingstorage of a refrigerated trailer unit(s) or refer unit(s) is prohibited

6 Existing tree line buffers shall be maintained on the subject propertys northern and western boundaries

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the lessee (James Hatcher) and not with the property

8 This Special Use Permit applies to the entire 775 acres In the event of a division of this property this Special Use Permit shall expireterminate

9 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 20 18 however a new Special Use Permit application may be submitted to request a renewalextension of the Permit

Flea Market 10 The flea market shall be limited to the northeastern portion of Parcel No

03721-001-00 as depicted in the submitted conceptual plan No flea market activities parking or supporting accessory activities shall occur elsewhere on the subject property

11 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway

12 The flea market shall be limited to the outdoor sales of fresh produce and the retail items permitted in the B-2 (Community Business) zoning

Book S Page 289

July 16 2013

category The sale of any other nonlisted merchandise or services is not permitted

13 The flea market shall be limited to weekends (Saturday amp Sunday) with operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm a maximum of two weekends per a month and shall comply with Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements regarding restroom facilities

14 No new permanent structures shall be erected or established on the subject property to conduct the flea market (eg vendor booths etc) All vendor booths and materials shall be cleared and removed from the site and not stored or maintained on the property at any time other than the authorized days and hours of operation established consistent with Condition 13

15 The existing tree line located along the northern boundary of the overall site shall be maintained

16 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (s) (Ramoo amp Angela Sammy) and not the property

17 The Special Use Permit shall expire July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit application for consideration to renewmiddot and extend this permit in the future

Commissioner McClain inquired if the truck parking was for personal vehicles or if it would be leased for others to park Ms Cox stated the applicant was present but noted staff understood there were currently 2 buildings on the property known as Sammys Plaza and a tenant going into Building B was a trucking company who was requesting the parking

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Cox described the location of the limerock parking area

Mr Minter questioned if the flea market area was clearly delineated in the concept plan Commissioner Zalak inquired if trucks would be parking on pavement dirt limerock etc

Ramoo Sammy applicant was present and advised that the trucks would be parking on limerock noting if approved limerock would be placed on the side of the north side of the building as there was already limerock on the front

Commissioner Zalak asked if the applicant could define the area to be limrocked (in size) as well as where the flea market would be located Mr Sammy advised that he would like to remove the flea market portion from the Special Use Permit request He stated limerock would be placed on the north side of the building in an area approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long (50x100) Commissioner Zalak directed staff to note the parking area

Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on this matter and opened the floor for public comment

There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-244 granting the Special Use Permit with Conditions 1 through 9 as amended below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

Page 290 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) 2 - (Z C 130704SSU) - The Board considered a petition by John Alvarez Investment Group LLC PO Box 771269 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for an Agriculture Transportation Dispatch Business Office on approximately 11936 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account No 41437-001-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 1 of 18 = 6 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Thompson to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes in conditions bull Condition 5 was change from a limit of nine (9) employees to a limit of

twenty (20) employees bull Condition 6 was changed to This Special Use Permit may be used (a)

only on the subject property and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered State of Florida corporation (lD F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

The motion passed 5 to O Transportation Planner Ryan addressed specific facts about this request The

applicant would utilize an existing 3681 square foot (SF) office building located on the subject site The applicant verbally indicated to staff that the proposed dispatch office was intended to function as a telephone and web based brokerage operation with a total of 20 employees with no business or commercial traffic and no commercial vehicles would enter or leave the site excluding delivery vehicles (eg UPS FedEx etc) He noted changes in conditions were addressed at the Zoning Commission hearing and stated the applicant would request additional changes Mr Ryan advised that both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

2 Ingress and egress to the subject property shall be via a gated entrance from S Highway 475

3 The agriculture transportation dispatch business shall be located in the office building (19843681 SFLA) consistent with the submitted conceptual plan

4 No commercial vehicles shall be parked on-site 5 The Special Use Permit Shall be limited to twenty (20) employees 6 This Special Use Permit may be used (a) only on the subject property

and (b) only by the Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida Inc a registered

Page 286 Book S

July 16 2013

State of Florida corporation (10 F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

7 The Special Use Permit shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the property to another person or entity not controlled by the owner

8 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs

9 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2018 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

Van Akin East Silver Springs Boulevard Agent representing the applicant John Alvarez was present He noted the reason for the request was that Mr Alvarez was bringing his sons transportation brokerage operation from California to Florida The applicant had an office building on SR 200 and subsequently purchased the farm directly north of his homestead which had an existing office of approximately 3700 SF that would be appropriate for expansion of the transportation operation however there was no provision in the A-1 zoning classification for an office In speaking with staff it was recommended that the applicant apply for a Special Use Permit Mr Akin commented on the applicants age and stated the key to Mr Alvarezs move was that the Special Use Permit stay with his son and son-in-law noting this was an expensive move due to satellite cabling and phones for the dispatch office He referred to Condition Nos 6 7 8 and 9 as recommended by staff

Mr Akin referenced Condition No 6 noting Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida would be a tenant of the office which was owned by the Alvarez Family TrustAlvarez Investment Group had ownership of the property He addressed the provision in reference to and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval) and stated should the applicant pass away his estate would go to his heirs who would inherit the property however the business needed to continue and requested that be struck

Mr Akin referred to Condition No 7 in regard to terminating the Special Use Permit in the event the property was sold or transferred to a person or entity not controlled by the owner He noted the applicant did not want the Special Use Permit to go away as the result of his death

Mr Akin addressed Condition NO8 in relation to or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs He noted the property consisted of 120 acres and the applicants son was moving to Florida and the possibility existed that the son may want 50 acres where there was an existing home Mr Akin stated it did not seem reasonable to restrict the applicant from subdividing the 120 acres but was appropriate to restrict a division around where the office was located

Mr Akin commented on Condition 9 and requested the expiration date be extended to 10 years (2023) if there were no complaints regarding the operation

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Minter advised that as he mentioned periodically generally speaking land use decisions were supposed to be made based upon the impact of the land use itself and not based on who owned the property If a particular land use was a valid land use that was compatible with the surrounding area in the case of a Special Use Permit it really made no difference who owned the

Book S Page 287

July 16 2013

property In particular circumstances if the County was relying on someone who had special expertise or specific background where the County relied on that expertise to continue an operation as there were certainly occasions when it was worthwhile to tie a Special Use Permit to a particular owner More than any other county he had been in the Board in Marion County had tied Special Use Permits to specific owners however there was no legal requirement to do so and opined that the Board had the flexibility to allow the Special Use Permit to pass to the heirs in order to continue the operation The remedy the County may be looking for was in regard to Condition No9 relative to the expiration date rather than who owned the parcel

Commissioner McClain stated the County could eliminate Condition Nos 6 7 and 8 and place a time restriction on the Special Use Permit which would serve the same purpose Mr Minter stated it was appropriate as long as the Board was satisfied with those changes

Commissioner Zalak questioned the subdivision requirements PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf stated it was rural land therefore it would be 10 acre minimum requirement for subdividing one time without platting He advised that there was no problem with subdividing as long as the office was not subdivided separately on its own 10 acres site to become a standalone office as it needed to be in conjunction with the farm and perhaps sometime in the future revert back to that agricultural use if it was still agriculturally zoned

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment noting no one had signed

up to speak on this matter There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-243 granting the Special Use Permit with the deletion of Condition Nos 6 and 7 (Ed Note Condition Nos 8 and 9 to be renumbered to 6 and 7) along with changes as noted below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

CONDITION NO6 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc CONDITION NO7 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2023 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant commended the applicant noting he did a great deal of work

and quietly contributed to the community

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 3 - (Z C 130702SU) - The Board considered a petition by Ramoo and Angela Sammy 5251 E Hwy 316 Citra FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a trucking office and parking a maximum of 8 trucks and trailers and a flea market occurring twice a month on approximately 775 acres in a B-2 and B-5 zone on Parcel Account No 03721-001-00

Page 288 Book S

July 16 2013

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 3 of 16 =19 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion passed 5 to O Planner Natalia Cox stated the subject property was located on the west side of

Highway 301 approximately 4 miles from the Highway 441US Highway 301 split also known as (aka) Sammys Plaza The truck parking was proposed on the northwestern and eastern border along US Highway 301 and the flea market would be conducted on Saturdays and Sundays twice a month from 800 am to 600 pm in the northeast corner area She stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

Truck Parking 2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys

existing driveway 3 There will be two (2) designated commercial vehicles parking areas

1) Along the subject propertys eastern boundary (parallel to US Hwy 301) in a stabilized limerock area and

2) Within the northnorthwestern portion of the subject property north of the existing commercial Building B

4 No mechanical repairsmaintenance on the commercial vehicle shall take place on-site

5 The parkingstorage of a refrigerated trailer unit(s) or refer unit(s) is prohibited

6 Existing tree line buffers shall be maintained on the subject propertys northern and western boundaries

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the lessee (James Hatcher) and not with the property

8 This Special Use Permit applies to the entire 775 acres In the event of a division of this property this Special Use Permit shall expireterminate

9 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 20 18 however a new Special Use Permit application may be submitted to request a renewalextension of the Permit

Flea Market 10 The flea market shall be limited to the northeastern portion of Parcel No

03721-001-00 as depicted in the submitted conceptual plan No flea market activities parking or supporting accessory activities shall occur elsewhere on the subject property

11 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway

12 The flea market shall be limited to the outdoor sales of fresh produce and the retail items permitted in the B-2 (Community Business) zoning

Book S Page 289

July 16 2013

category The sale of any other nonlisted merchandise or services is not permitted

13 The flea market shall be limited to weekends (Saturday amp Sunday) with operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm a maximum of two weekends per a month and shall comply with Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements regarding restroom facilities

14 No new permanent structures shall be erected or established on the subject property to conduct the flea market (eg vendor booths etc) All vendor booths and materials shall be cleared and removed from the site and not stored or maintained on the property at any time other than the authorized days and hours of operation established consistent with Condition 13

15 The existing tree line located along the northern boundary of the overall site shall be maintained

16 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (s) (Ramoo amp Angela Sammy) and not the property

17 The Special Use Permit shall expire July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit application for consideration to renewmiddot and extend this permit in the future

Commissioner McClain inquired if the truck parking was for personal vehicles or if it would be leased for others to park Ms Cox stated the applicant was present but noted staff understood there were currently 2 buildings on the property known as Sammys Plaza and a tenant going into Building B was a trucking company who was requesting the parking

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Cox described the location of the limerock parking area

Mr Minter questioned if the flea market area was clearly delineated in the concept plan Commissioner Zalak inquired if trucks would be parking on pavement dirt limerock etc

Ramoo Sammy applicant was present and advised that the trucks would be parking on limerock noting if approved limerock would be placed on the side of the north side of the building as there was already limerock on the front

Commissioner Zalak asked if the applicant could define the area to be limrocked (in size) as well as where the flea market would be located Mr Sammy advised that he would like to remove the flea market portion from the Special Use Permit request He stated limerock would be placed on the north side of the building in an area approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long (50x100) Commissioner Zalak directed staff to note the parking area

Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on this matter and opened the floor for public comment

There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-244 granting the Special Use Permit with Conditions 1 through 9 as amended below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

Page 290 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

State of Florida corporation (10 F02869) and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval of a new Special Use Permit or an amendment to this Permit so providing)

7 The Special Use Permit shall terminate upon the sale or transfer of the property to another person or entity not controlled by the owner

8 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs

9 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2018 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

Van Akin East Silver Springs Boulevard Agent representing the applicant John Alvarez was present He noted the reason for the request was that Mr Alvarez was bringing his sons transportation brokerage operation from California to Florida The applicant had an office building on SR 200 and subsequently purchased the farm directly north of his homestead which had an existing office of approximately 3700 SF that would be appropriate for expansion of the transportation operation however there was no provision in the A-1 zoning classification for an office In speaking with staff it was recommended that the applicant apply for a Special Use Permit Mr Akin commented on the applicants age and stated the key to Mr Alvarezs move was that the Special Use Permit stay with his son and son-in-law noting this was an expensive move due to satellite cabling and phones for the dispatch office He referred to Condition Nos 6 7 8 and 9 as recommended by staff

Mr Akin referenced Condition No 6 noting Alvarez Truck Brokers of Florida would be a tenant of the office which was owned by the Alvarez Family TrustAlvarez Investment Group had ownership of the property He addressed the provision in reference to and not their successors in title (except upon the County Commissions approval) and stated should the applicant pass away his estate would go to his heirs who would inherit the property however the business needed to continue and requested that be struck

Mr Akin referred to Condition No 7 in regard to terminating the Special Use Permit in the event the property was sold or transferred to a person or entity not controlled by the owner He noted the applicant did not want the Special Use Permit to go away as the result of his death

Mr Akin addressed Condition NO8 in relation to or a divisionsubdivision of the property occurs He noted the property consisted of 120 acres and the applicants son was moving to Florida and the possibility existed that the son may want 50 acres where there was an existing home Mr Akin stated it did not seem reasonable to restrict the applicant from subdividing the 120 acres but was appropriate to restrict a division around where the office was located

Mr Akin commented on Condition 9 and requested the expiration date be extended to 10 years (2023) if there were no complaints regarding the operation

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Minter advised that as he mentioned periodically generally speaking land use decisions were supposed to be made based upon the impact of the land use itself and not based on who owned the property If a particular land use was a valid land use that was compatible with the surrounding area in the case of a Special Use Permit it really made no difference who owned the

Book S Page 287

July 16 2013

property In particular circumstances if the County was relying on someone who had special expertise or specific background where the County relied on that expertise to continue an operation as there were certainly occasions when it was worthwhile to tie a Special Use Permit to a particular owner More than any other county he had been in the Board in Marion County had tied Special Use Permits to specific owners however there was no legal requirement to do so and opined that the Board had the flexibility to allow the Special Use Permit to pass to the heirs in order to continue the operation The remedy the County may be looking for was in regard to Condition No9 relative to the expiration date rather than who owned the parcel

Commissioner McClain stated the County could eliminate Condition Nos 6 7 and 8 and place a time restriction on the Special Use Permit which would serve the same purpose Mr Minter stated it was appropriate as long as the Board was satisfied with those changes

Commissioner Zalak questioned the subdivision requirements PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf stated it was rural land therefore it would be 10 acre minimum requirement for subdividing one time without platting He advised that there was no problem with subdividing as long as the office was not subdivided separately on its own 10 acres site to become a standalone office as it needed to be in conjunction with the farm and perhaps sometime in the future revert back to that agricultural use if it was still agriculturally zoned

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment noting no one had signed

up to speak on this matter There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-243 granting the Special Use Permit with the deletion of Condition Nos 6 and 7 (Ed Note Condition Nos 8 and 9 to be renumbered to 6 and 7) along with changes as noted below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

CONDITION NO6 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc CONDITION NO7 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2023 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant commended the applicant noting he did a great deal of work

and quietly contributed to the community

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 3 - (Z C 130702SU) - The Board considered a petition by Ramoo and Angela Sammy 5251 E Hwy 316 Citra FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a trucking office and parking a maximum of 8 trucks and trailers and a flea market occurring twice a month on approximately 775 acres in a B-2 and B-5 zone on Parcel Account No 03721-001-00

Page 288 Book S

July 16 2013

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 3 of 16 =19 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion passed 5 to O Planner Natalia Cox stated the subject property was located on the west side of

Highway 301 approximately 4 miles from the Highway 441US Highway 301 split also known as (aka) Sammys Plaza The truck parking was proposed on the northwestern and eastern border along US Highway 301 and the flea market would be conducted on Saturdays and Sundays twice a month from 800 am to 600 pm in the northeast corner area She stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

Truck Parking 2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys

existing driveway 3 There will be two (2) designated commercial vehicles parking areas

1) Along the subject propertys eastern boundary (parallel to US Hwy 301) in a stabilized limerock area and

2) Within the northnorthwestern portion of the subject property north of the existing commercial Building B

4 No mechanical repairsmaintenance on the commercial vehicle shall take place on-site

5 The parkingstorage of a refrigerated trailer unit(s) or refer unit(s) is prohibited

6 Existing tree line buffers shall be maintained on the subject propertys northern and western boundaries

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the lessee (James Hatcher) and not with the property

8 This Special Use Permit applies to the entire 775 acres In the event of a division of this property this Special Use Permit shall expireterminate

9 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 20 18 however a new Special Use Permit application may be submitted to request a renewalextension of the Permit

Flea Market 10 The flea market shall be limited to the northeastern portion of Parcel No

03721-001-00 as depicted in the submitted conceptual plan No flea market activities parking or supporting accessory activities shall occur elsewhere on the subject property

11 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway

12 The flea market shall be limited to the outdoor sales of fresh produce and the retail items permitted in the B-2 (Community Business) zoning

Book S Page 289

July 16 2013

category The sale of any other nonlisted merchandise or services is not permitted

13 The flea market shall be limited to weekends (Saturday amp Sunday) with operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm a maximum of two weekends per a month and shall comply with Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements regarding restroom facilities

14 No new permanent structures shall be erected or established on the subject property to conduct the flea market (eg vendor booths etc) All vendor booths and materials shall be cleared and removed from the site and not stored or maintained on the property at any time other than the authorized days and hours of operation established consistent with Condition 13

15 The existing tree line located along the northern boundary of the overall site shall be maintained

16 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (s) (Ramoo amp Angela Sammy) and not the property

17 The Special Use Permit shall expire July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit application for consideration to renewmiddot and extend this permit in the future

Commissioner McClain inquired if the truck parking was for personal vehicles or if it would be leased for others to park Ms Cox stated the applicant was present but noted staff understood there were currently 2 buildings on the property known as Sammys Plaza and a tenant going into Building B was a trucking company who was requesting the parking

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Cox described the location of the limerock parking area

Mr Minter questioned if the flea market area was clearly delineated in the concept plan Commissioner Zalak inquired if trucks would be parking on pavement dirt limerock etc

Ramoo Sammy applicant was present and advised that the trucks would be parking on limerock noting if approved limerock would be placed on the side of the north side of the building as there was already limerock on the front

Commissioner Zalak asked if the applicant could define the area to be limrocked (in size) as well as where the flea market would be located Mr Sammy advised that he would like to remove the flea market portion from the Special Use Permit request He stated limerock would be placed on the north side of the building in an area approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long (50x100) Commissioner Zalak directed staff to note the parking area

Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on this matter and opened the floor for public comment

There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-244 granting the Special Use Permit with Conditions 1 through 9 as amended below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

Page 290 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

property In particular circumstances if the County was relying on someone who had special expertise or specific background where the County relied on that expertise to continue an operation as there were certainly occasions when it was worthwhile to tie a Special Use Permit to a particular owner More than any other county he had been in the Board in Marion County had tied Special Use Permits to specific owners however there was no legal requirement to do so and opined that the Board had the flexibility to allow the Special Use Permit to pass to the heirs in order to continue the operation The remedy the County may be looking for was in regard to Condition No9 relative to the expiration date rather than who owned the parcel

Commissioner McClain stated the County could eliminate Condition Nos 6 7 and 8 and place a time restriction on the Special Use Permit which would serve the same purpose Mr Minter stated it was appropriate as long as the Board was satisfied with those changes

Commissioner Zalak questioned the subdivision requirements PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf stated it was rural land therefore it would be 10 acre minimum requirement for subdividing one time without platting He advised that there was no problem with subdividing as long as the office was not subdivided separately on its own 10 acres site to become a standalone office as it needed to be in conjunction with the farm and perhaps sometime in the future revert back to that agricultural use if it was still agriculturally zoned

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment noting no one had signed

up to speak on this matter There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner

McClain to adopt Resolution 13-R-243 granting the Special Use Permit with the deletion of Condition Nos 6 and 7 (Ed Note Condition Nos 8 and 9 to be renumbered to 6 and 7) along with changes as noted below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

CONDITION NO6 This Special Use Permit will terminate in the event there is an expansion of the agriculture transportation dispatch business operation ie structural of employees etc CONDITION NO7 This Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 2023 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit Application for consideration to renew and extend this permit in the future

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0) Chairman Bryant commended the applicant noting he did a great deal of work

and quietly contributed to the community

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 3 - (Z C 130702SU) - The Board considered a petition by Ramoo and Angela Sammy 5251 E Hwy 316 Citra FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 of the Marion County Land Development Code for a trucking office and parking a maximum of 8 trucks and trailers and a flea market occurring twice a month on approximately 775 acres in a B-2 and B-5 zone on Parcel Account No 03721-001-00

Page 288 Book S

July 16 2013

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 3 of 16 =19 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion passed 5 to O Planner Natalia Cox stated the subject property was located on the west side of

Highway 301 approximately 4 miles from the Highway 441US Highway 301 split also known as (aka) Sammys Plaza The truck parking was proposed on the northwestern and eastern border along US Highway 301 and the flea market would be conducted on Saturdays and Sundays twice a month from 800 am to 600 pm in the northeast corner area She stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

Truck Parking 2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys

existing driveway 3 There will be two (2) designated commercial vehicles parking areas

1) Along the subject propertys eastern boundary (parallel to US Hwy 301) in a stabilized limerock area and

2) Within the northnorthwestern portion of the subject property north of the existing commercial Building B

4 No mechanical repairsmaintenance on the commercial vehicle shall take place on-site

5 The parkingstorage of a refrigerated trailer unit(s) or refer unit(s) is prohibited

6 Existing tree line buffers shall be maintained on the subject propertys northern and western boundaries

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the lessee (James Hatcher) and not with the property

8 This Special Use Permit applies to the entire 775 acres In the event of a division of this property this Special Use Permit shall expireterminate

9 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 20 18 however a new Special Use Permit application may be submitted to request a renewalextension of the Permit

Flea Market 10 The flea market shall be limited to the northeastern portion of Parcel No

03721-001-00 as depicted in the submitted conceptual plan No flea market activities parking or supporting accessory activities shall occur elsewhere on the subject property

11 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway

12 The flea market shall be limited to the outdoor sales of fresh produce and the retail items permitted in the B-2 (Community Business) zoning

Book S Page 289

July 16 2013

category The sale of any other nonlisted merchandise or services is not permitted

13 The flea market shall be limited to weekends (Saturday amp Sunday) with operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm a maximum of two weekends per a month and shall comply with Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements regarding restroom facilities

14 No new permanent structures shall be erected or established on the subject property to conduct the flea market (eg vendor booths etc) All vendor booths and materials shall be cleared and removed from the site and not stored or maintained on the property at any time other than the authorized days and hours of operation established consistent with Condition 13

15 The existing tree line located along the northern boundary of the overall site shall be maintained

16 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (s) (Ramoo amp Angela Sammy) and not the property

17 The Special Use Permit shall expire July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit application for consideration to renewmiddot and extend this permit in the future

Commissioner McClain inquired if the truck parking was for personal vehicles or if it would be leased for others to park Ms Cox stated the applicant was present but noted staff understood there were currently 2 buildings on the property known as Sammys Plaza and a tenant going into Building B was a trucking company who was requesting the parking

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Cox described the location of the limerock parking area

Mr Minter questioned if the flea market area was clearly delineated in the concept plan Commissioner Zalak inquired if trucks would be parking on pavement dirt limerock etc

Ramoo Sammy applicant was present and advised that the trucks would be parking on limerock noting if approved limerock would be placed on the side of the north side of the building as there was already limerock on the front

Commissioner Zalak asked if the applicant could define the area to be limrocked (in size) as well as where the flea market would be located Mr Sammy advised that he would like to remove the flea market portion from the Special Use Permit request He stated limerock would be placed on the north side of the building in an area approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long (50x100) Commissioner Zalak directed staff to note the parking area

Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on this matter and opened the floor for public comment

There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-244 granting the Special Use Permit with Conditions 1 through 9 as amended below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

Page 290 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 3 of 16 =19 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendations and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion passed 5 to O Planner Natalia Cox stated the subject property was located on the west side of

Highway 301 approximately 4 miles from the Highway 441US Highway 301 split also known as (aka) Sammys Plaza The truck parking was proposed on the northwestern and eastern border along US Highway 301 and the flea market would be conducted on Saturdays and Sundays twice a month from 800 am to 600 pm in the northeast corner area She stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval

Truck Parking 2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys

existing driveway 3 There will be two (2) designated commercial vehicles parking areas

1) Along the subject propertys eastern boundary (parallel to US Hwy 301) in a stabilized limerock area and

2) Within the northnorthwestern portion of the subject property north of the existing commercial Building B

4 No mechanical repairsmaintenance on the commercial vehicle shall take place on-site

5 The parkingstorage of a refrigerated trailer unit(s) or refer unit(s) is prohibited

6 Existing tree line buffers shall be maintained on the subject propertys northern and western boundaries

7 The Special Use Permit shall run with the lessee (James Hatcher) and not with the property

8 This Special Use Permit applies to the entire 775 acres In the event of a division of this property this Special Use Permit shall expireterminate

9 The Special Use Permit shall expire on July 16 20 18 however a new Special Use Permit application may be submitted to request a renewalextension of the Permit

Flea Market 10 The flea market shall be limited to the northeastern portion of Parcel No

03721-001-00 as depicted in the submitted conceptual plan No flea market activities parking or supporting accessory activities shall occur elsewhere on the subject property

11 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway

12 The flea market shall be limited to the outdoor sales of fresh produce and the retail items permitted in the B-2 (Community Business) zoning

Book S Page 289

July 16 2013

category The sale of any other nonlisted merchandise or services is not permitted

13 The flea market shall be limited to weekends (Saturday amp Sunday) with operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm a maximum of two weekends per a month and shall comply with Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements regarding restroom facilities

14 No new permanent structures shall be erected or established on the subject property to conduct the flea market (eg vendor booths etc) All vendor booths and materials shall be cleared and removed from the site and not stored or maintained on the property at any time other than the authorized days and hours of operation established consistent with Condition 13

15 The existing tree line located along the northern boundary of the overall site shall be maintained

16 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (s) (Ramoo amp Angela Sammy) and not the property

17 The Special Use Permit shall expire July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit application for consideration to renewmiddot and extend this permit in the future

Commissioner McClain inquired if the truck parking was for personal vehicles or if it would be leased for others to park Ms Cox stated the applicant was present but noted staff understood there were currently 2 buildings on the property known as Sammys Plaza and a tenant going into Building B was a trucking company who was requesting the parking

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Cox described the location of the limerock parking area

Mr Minter questioned if the flea market area was clearly delineated in the concept plan Commissioner Zalak inquired if trucks would be parking on pavement dirt limerock etc

Ramoo Sammy applicant was present and advised that the trucks would be parking on limerock noting if approved limerock would be placed on the side of the north side of the building as there was already limerock on the front

Commissioner Zalak asked if the applicant could define the area to be limrocked (in size) as well as where the flea market would be located Mr Sammy advised that he would like to remove the flea market portion from the Special Use Permit request He stated limerock would be placed on the north side of the building in an area approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long (50x100) Commissioner Zalak directed staff to note the parking area

Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on this matter and opened the floor for public comment

There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-244 granting the Special Use Permit with Conditions 1 through 9 as amended below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

Page 290 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

category The sale of any other nonlisted merchandise or services is not permitted

13 The flea market shall be limited to weekends (Saturday amp Sunday) with operating hours of 8 am to 6 pm a maximum of two weekends per a month and shall comply with Florida Department of Health (DOH) requirements regarding restroom facilities

14 No new permanent structures shall be erected or established on the subject property to conduct the flea market (eg vendor booths etc) All vendor booths and materials shall be cleared and removed from the site and not stored or maintained on the property at any time other than the authorized days and hours of operation established consistent with Condition 13

15 The existing tree line located along the northern boundary of the overall site shall be maintained

16 The Special Use Permit shall run with the owner (s) (Ramoo amp Angela Sammy) and not the property

17 The Special Use Permit shall expire July 16 2016 The applicant may submit a new Special Use Permit application for consideration to renewmiddot and extend this permit in the future

Commissioner McClain inquired if the truck parking was for personal vehicles or if it would be leased for others to park Ms Cox stated the applicant was present but noted staff understood there were currently 2 buildings on the property known as Sammys Plaza and a tenant going into Building B was a trucking company who was requesting the parking

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Cox described the location of the limerock parking area

Mr Minter questioned if the flea market area was clearly delineated in the concept plan Commissioner Zalak inquired if trucks would be parking on pavement dirt limerock etc

Ramoo Sammy applicant was present and advised that the trucks would be parking on limerock noting if approved limerock would be placed on the side of the north side of the building as there was already limerock on the front

Commissioner Zalak asked if the applicant could define the area to be limrocked (in size) as well as where the flea market would be located Mr Sammy advised that he would like to remove the flea market portion from the Special Use Permit request He stated limerock would be placed on the north side of the building in an area approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet long (50x100) Commissioner Zalak directed staff to note the parking area

Chairman Bryant noted no one had signed up to speak on this matter and opened the floor for public comment

There was no public comment Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner

Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-244 granting the Special Use Permit with Conditions 1 through 9 as amended below based on Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest

Page 290 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant advised that Condition Nos 10 through 17 were removed in regard to the flea market as they would no longer apply

CONDITION NO1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan except for the depicted Flea Market area which applicant verbally withdrew from the request at the public hearing before the Board The conditions as provided with this approval CONDITION NO2 Ingress and egress shall be via N US Hwy 301 via the subject propertys existing driveway and adding a 50x100 limerock stabilized truck parking area north of the cornmercial building

The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

ResolutionsZoning - (14C) - 4 - (Z C 130705SU) - The Board considered a petition by Summur LLC 1740 E Silver Springs Blvd Ocala FL - Marion County Public Schools PO Box 670 Ocala FL requesting a Special Use Permit Section 53 and 46 of the Marion County Land Development Code for public school(s) on approximately 160 acres in an A-1 zone on Parcel Account Nos 44844-000-00 44849-000-00 44854-000-00 and 44855-000-00

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 2 of 131 =2 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Thompson seconded by Mr McBride to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The motion was made with the following changes to the conditions bull Condition 3 C be modified to have a type A buffer along both the North

and West side of the property bull A condition be added that the Homeowners Association of Summer Glen

be notified of any public meeting having to do with the forward movement of this project

The motion passed 5 to O Senior Planner Brian Portz stated the subject property was located just east of

Marion Oaks and south of the SummerGlen development He noted future need for the high school was projected to be 10 to 14 years from now (2023 - 2027) Mr Portz advised that whenever the project moved forward it would go through the review process He noted the Zoning Commission recommended changesadditions to the Conditions Mr Portz stated both Planning Division staff and the Zoning Commission recommended approval with the following Conditions

1 The site shall be developed and operated consistent with the submitted conceptual plan and the conditions as provided with this approval Any changes made to the conceptual plan will require amending the Special Use Permit

2 Access to the site shall be via Marion Oaks Manor 3 Prior to construction on this site the Marion County School Board shall

submit an offsite interlocal agreement to be approved by Marion County and the Marion County School Board The agreement shall include but not be limited to the following

Book S Page 291

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

a Engineering plans showing utilities sidewalks stormwater detention etc on the site

b A traffic impact analysis of the proposed development shall be submitted identifying any improvements needed

c A minimum Type A buffer along the west side of the property d A photometric plan showing that exterior lighting will be contained

on the site such that it is shielded from adjacent properties 4 The Special Use Permit shall run with the Marion County School Board

not with the property Chairman Bryant questioned the ingressegress Mr Portz advised that ingress

egress would align with Marion Oaks Manor as well as SW 15th Court but would not go through SummerGlen which was a gated community Chairman Bryant commented on the 30 foot buffer which would run all along the northern boundary Mr Portz concurred noting the buffer would also run along the west side He further noted that the exact location of the northern buffer would be dependent upon when or if SW 165th

Street was constructed In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Portz stated 75 feet of rights-of-way

(ROW) was donated by SummerGlen (treed area) noting a one lane dirt road meandered through the treed area Commissioner Zalak noted approximately 120 feet was needed for the roadway Mr Portz concurred noting the school district would have to dedicate some ROW to align the roadway

General discussion ensued Mr lIIartsolf advised that the School Board would improve the road as far as they

needed to access the property safely David Herlihy American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Planning and

Governmental Relations Manager Marion County Public SCll00ls stated this was a long-range planning effort on behalf of the School Board that was 10 to 15 years out at least The Special Use Permit was part of the School Boards due diligence efforts the same as performing any type of soil analysis prior to or while considering purchase of a property He stated before reaching that access point the School Board agreed with the Conditions however Condition 3c would be addressed later in the meeting

Mr Herlihy stated the School Board anticipated that access or access points would be worked out along with the ROW situation and build enough of the roadway to get to where there would be ingressegress The requirement for schools was to have separation between students or parent pickup and school bus loops A portion of the Interlocal Agreement addressed roads andor sidewalks immediately adjacent to school board property where they would be responsible He anticipated this would occur in an off-site Interlocal Agreement which also addressed drainage off-site roads sidewalks etc Mr Herlihy advised that State Statute required the Interlocal Agreement he was referring to as well as requiring the School Board have local government and School Board School Planning and Concurrency Interlocal Agreement which also addressed the same requirement in advance of constructing a school

Commissioner Zalak questioned utilities noting both the County and School Board had long-range plans Mr Herlihy stated he understood from research he conducted as well as conversations with County staff was that water and sewer was available in the vicinity He noted the specifics in regard to sizes pressures etc was unknown as to what would be available in 10 to 15 years

Page 292 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

Upon call for public comment Ruth Kraan SW 14th Avenue Road SurnmerGlen advised that she lived immediately adjacent to the road and backed up to the subject property She stated she was not sure she was either for or against the proposal but noted it should be done correctly and with some thought Ms Kraan stated she moved to this area rather than on a major roadway because of the rural area and addressed her concern with the removal of the old oak trees to grade the road She presented a page containing 4 photographs of the area which she briefly described Ms Kraan addressed concern with additional traffic loss of wildlife emergency vehicle access road construction and dust She noted SummerGlen was a 55 Plus community

In response to Commissioner Zalak Ms Kraan stated she was not opposed to the school as long as the integrity of the area remained but was opposed to the school utilizing the northern section of the road as a main access into the school area or having a football field in that area however 10 acre home sites was best for the community She reiterated that the major concerns were with losing the older trees the access road and noise from the school property Ms Kraan noted SW 16ih Place was already paved up to the edge of the subject property

Ronda Kesling SW 14th Avenue Road SummerGlen stated she too was unsure if she was for or against the proposal but noted a large number of individuals in the community were opposed to the Special Use Permit She suggested that someone within the SummerGlen community be privy to the entranceexists for the proposed school Ms Kesling asked if there was not another area where an entrance could be made without being in their backyard

Commissioner McClain out at 259 pm James Kazmierski SW 161 st Street SummerGlen voiced his concern with a

large high school and the tremendous amount of activity that would be brought into the area that would change the environment and atmosphere He noted he signed a petition in opposition to the Special Use Permit which was part of the agenda packet

Commissioner McClain retuned at 300 pm Commissioner McClain out at 302 pm and returned at 303 pm John Plunkett East Silver Springs Boulevard managing member of Summer

LLC current owner of the property who would like to sell to the School Board He noted when SummerGlen was originally planned as a Master Plan communit~ the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1999 included an access point at SW 1651 Street which was labeled for future emergency connection In 2005 the developer amended the plat and moved the emergency vehicle access to its current location at SW 15th Court which was labeled on the plat In 2008 the developer once again amended the plat at which time a Developers Agreement was executed with the County that put the entrance as a secondary entrance and access point to the community Mr Plunkett stated the SummerGlen community was originally designed (from the beginning up to 2008) with access only off SW 20th Avenue and not off SW 165th Street He requested the Board to approve the Special Use Permit

In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Plunkett stated the strip was not maintained noting he drove down there and picked up trash all the time

Chairman Bryant read a letter from Jan Lemon SW 158th Lane SummerGlen into the record which addressed her questions regarding the proposed Special Use Permit

Commissioner Moore out at 308 pm and returned at 309 pm Chairman Bryant stated the public comment portion was now closed

Book S Page 293

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

Chairman Bryant inquired if there was a way to work with the SummerGlen community to ensure they were involved in the planning process Mr Herlihy stated that could be accomplished but noted his hesitation was in committing to notifying SummerGlen that far out Chairman Bryant stated it would be easiest to make it a Condition for the School Board to notify the SummerGlen Homeowners Association (HOA) when it started planning so they could notify their residents She noted the County had to be notified when going into the planning process and the County would ensure that whoever was present at that point in time would follow through with that Condition Mr Herlihy stated the Interlocal Agreement required the School Board to notify the County that it was about to commence construction of the school and questioned if it would be possible for the County to provide the notification at that time

Commissioner McClain noted construction was further down the road and the residents of SummerGlen wanted to be involved earlier during planning Mr Hurlihy stated he would accept it as a Condition

Commissioner McClain questioned at what point the County would be involved in this process from this point Mr Herlihy stated the DRC would review the plans Mr Portz stated the County would not be involved until the School Board provided plans Mr Martsolf advised that it would show up on their 5-Year Plan long before the Interlocal Agreement with the County He stated staff would make sure that it was advertised and included as part of the Conditions

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated he may not be here in 14 years but whoever was would know to contact the SummerGlen HOA

Growth Services Director Greg Stubbs stated the County would update all of its maps and data files for this property and future school construction would require extra notifications as a Condition

Chairman Bryant commented on the entrance noting the community had valid concerns and questioned if there was any way to design on the other side of the tree line Mr Stubbs suggested that Mr Herlihy commit to preserve those trees and dedicate the additional ROW for the 120 feet needed for the road Mr Herlihy noted the School Board would have surplus property but he understood that a 75 foot ROW currently existed and he could not commit to dedicating the additional 120 feet of ROW Chairman Bryant stated with that said they were probably at an impasse and was something that Mr Herlihy would have to take back to his board

Commissioner McClain inquired if others were dependent on SW 165th Street for ingressegress which was a dedicated ROW He noted SW 165th Street would have to be abrogated up to the subject property and the school would be the only one using whatever was built at that point except for those who were using the back entrance Commissioner Zalak stated there could not only be one entranceexit through Marion Oaks Mr Herlihy commented on the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) longshyrange plans for an interchange Mr Ryan advised that it would be an overpass not an interchange

Mr Rison addressed the extension of Highway 42 that would line up with the extension of Marion Oaks Manor SW 165th Street which he described He advised that staff noted the overpass would then provide an area where the school could also served this region however this was probably longer term and the school would be constructed first

In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Rison advised that Marion Oaks had vested rights for 28000 residential units which was the size of the City of Ocala today

Page 294 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

He noted after SW 49th Avenue was added Marion Oaks Manor only had 3 ways in and out which would not cut it for moving traffic in Marion Oaks and was an ideal location for an additional route to get traffic in and out of Marion Oaks Another long-term expectation was that SW 20th Avenue Road would extend further south and tie down into the future Interchange at CR 466 in Sumter County

General discussion ensued In response to Commissioner McClain Mr Herlihy stated 80 acres was the

typical size for a high school Chairman Bryant questioned the number of students projected to attend that high school Mr Herlihy advised that the School Board liked to use prototypes they had built therefore he projected 2500 students He commented on the number of Marion Oak students being bused to Dunnellon High School and guesstimated that to be about a 1600 student school Commissioner McClain inquired as to how the 1600 number was reached out of 28000 residential units Mr Herlihy stated the (high school) student multiplier for single family residences was 0092 (resulting from the Impact Fee analysis) multiplied by 28000 which equated to 2576

Commissioner McClain noted they were looking at the bigger picture from the road perspective and stated more conversation was needed Chairman Bryant concurred noting this was not only about the school but included long range transportation plans which would need further conversation Commissioner Zalak commented on building a 4-lane road in front of a high school

Commissioner McClain questioned where a good site was to place a school noting he was in favor of this property but there were issues that needed to be addressed particularly with the road situation

General discussion ensued Commissioner Zalak stated he was not sure the Board could move something

forward with the understanding of the Condition to retain that buffer Chairman Bryant noted Mr Herlihy stated he did not have the authority to approve that as he would first have to speak with the School Board

Mr Herlihy commented on the difficulty of sighting schools particularly high schools noting his concern was with the price remaining the same on this parcel during the interim Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Herlihy speak with the School Board and then come back at next months zoning meeting Mr Stubbs asked if this could wait 3 months as staff had a lot of analysis to perform as he did not know how it could be performed by the next meeting

Mr Plunkett stated he was unsure he could wait 3 months noting his understanding was once the Zoning approval was received the School Board had its due diligence to perform which would push this out another 6 months In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Plunkett stated 60 days was appropriate noting many of the trees were within the dedicated 75 foot ROW

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Stubbs stated the matter would be brought back in 60 days at the September zoning meeting

Commissioner McClain advised that someone probably needed to be the liaison on this issue and suggested the BCC Chairman and School Board Chair work on the matter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the matter would be continued to the September zoning meeting and during the interim there was much work to perform Mr Herlihy stated he was clear on this issue and questioned if there were other items Chairman Bryant stated the planning was discussed and settled Mr Herlihy opined that one

Book S Page 295

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

request was for a buffer along the north side and pending working out the alignment that matter would probably take care of itself another item was in regard to Condition 3c for a Type A buffer along the west side of the property He noted Condition 3c would be an onsiteissue versus an off-site issue and would be bundled with the Off-Site Interlocal Agreement Chairman Bryant directed staff to make a note of that issue

Mr Herlihy advised that he had a work session with the School Board and should have an opportunity to address this on Thursday July 18 2013 He noted the School Board had this matter scheduled for a vote to purchase the property on Tuesday July 232013

Chairman Bryant noted the Boards appreciation to Mr Plunkett to work with the County on this matter

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to continue this matter to the September 17 2013 zoning meeting The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Zoning - (14C) - 5 (Z C 130407Z) - Mr Martsolf advised that this matter was previously considered on May 21 2013 at which time a continuance was granted for 2 months due to unanswered questions and issues were raised by surrounding neighbors The applicant was to re-evaluate the subdivision layout apply any necessary surveying and engineering design principals to present a more realistic layout and meet with the subdivision homeowners group before todays meeting The applicant met with the homeowners group on July 12 2013 at the Liberty Library which was well attended He advised that he and Mr Stubbs attended the meeting where it was apparent that the applicant had no new plan to be presented

The Board considered a petition by Enrique Suarez (owner)Angela Bernal (applicant) 12359 SW 132nd Court Miami FL requesting a Zoning Change Article 5 of the Marion County Land Development Code from R-1 to PUD on approximately 557 acres on Parcel Account No 35695-011-01

PERCENT WRITTEN OPPOSITION WITHIN 300 FEET 51 of 136 =38 ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Motion was made by Mr Kesselring seconded by Mr Jinks to agree with staffs findings and recommendation and recommend approval based on the following findings of fact 1 Will not adversely affect the public interest 2 Is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan 3 Is compatible with the surrounding land uses The vote was 3 to 3 with Mr Lord Mr Thompson and Mr Colen dissenting Mr Martsolf provided background information noting the first application by Mr

Suarez included 220 units which was the exact number of acres multiplied by 4 with the intent of going to PUD from an R-1 zoning was to reduce the lot size from 10000 square feet (SF) to 6000 SF in order to get as close as possible to the maximum number of units Staff had concerns with the noncommittal connection with the original application on SW 100th Street 2 additional connections east and south were proposed with no provisions for stormwater and compatibility of lot sizes particularly on the east and south He advised that Mr Suarez came back with a second plan that minimally addressed staffs concerns as far as providing a 600 to 800 foot wide buffer area against the acre lots (to the south) showing 2 single connections with the major road improvement being SW 100th Street to the north the size of the lots were increased

Page 296 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

from 6000 SF to 13000 SF along the eastern boundary Mr Martsolf advised that staff was conflicted and somewhat frustrated throughout this time trying to obtain more detail In addition Mr Suarez provided 12 acres on the low side of the property for stormwater to address some of those comments At the latest DRC meeting regarding this issue DRC recommended approval to include addressing the drainage easement widths and overall addressing the radii geometry of all of the streets The concept plan showed everything coming to a square Staff understood the applicant would lose a considerable number of lots when the radiuses were provided as well as when the topography of the site was addressed

It was noted that Planning Department staff recommended approval of the Zoning Change and the Zoning Commission vote resulted in a tie therefore no recommendation was received

Commissioner Zalak questioned the estimated lots Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant was still requesting 222 lots which was the same amount of lots as in May He commented on a similar subdivision that resulted in 154 lots Chairman Bryant noted that subdivision was not developed as a PUD Mr Martsolf concurred noting it was developed with R-1 zoning In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated an example showed the applicant would get 154 lots if the PUD was denied

General discussion ensued Enrique Suarez SW 132nd Court Miami applicant presented a 12 page handout

that included a transcript of the DRC meeting regarding the Suarez property and information from Guerra Development Corp along with the site plan (plat sized) He advised that an application was submitted to go from R-1 to PUD noting the northwest property (Cherrywood) was also a PUD Mr Suarez noted changes were made to the plans after the DRC meeting based on that committees recommendation Engineer Juan Guerra provided advice on this project after which DRC recommended approval He commented on the zoning meeting in May and subsequent homeowners meeting to address concerns Mr Suarez requested the BCC to allow ingressegress for emergency vehicles to the south end of the property and provided the required buffer to the east He requested permission for a privacy fence to provide separation to the neighbors to the east and emergency ingressegress to the south which would allow for the majority of traffic flow at the north end of the community Mr Suarez noted DRC recommended approval by a vote of 5-0 He noted the west side of the property had some slope but was perfect for stormwater Mr Suarez requested the Board allow him to provide privacy fencing along SW 100th Street so as not to affect Cherrywood from dust caused during road construction for ingressegress into the property He addressed the lot sizes which were anywhere from 6000 SF up to 14000 SF

Commissioner Zalak clarified that the applicant was providing emergency access only at the south end privacy fencing on the east side and temporary fencing for Cherrywood Mr Suarez stated that was correct but noted the temporary fencing could be made permanent

Upon call for public comment Kathleen Belculfine SW 104th Street presented a 3 page handout addressing concerns which she read into the record along with an email addressed to Mr Suarez regarding the scheduling of a meeting with residents to address issues and concerns with the proposed PUD She advised that she was opposed to the zoning change

Charles Wallin SW 100th Lane advised that he attended the meeting held by Mr Suarez and noted his main concern was with being about 15 feet away from the street

Book S Page 297

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

noting the applicant indicated that he would install a privacy fence as a requirement by the County In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison advised that it was a dedicated County owned ROWand the applicant could not do anything to that property prior to County approval He noted Off-Site Improvement Plans would be required in order to construct a roadway on that property which would go through the Engineering Office Review Mr Rison stated the applicant could potentially install a fence should the Board want to make it an action of the PUD for instance Chairman Bryant noted the fencing would not be on anyones property as it would run along the property line of the dedicated ROW Mr Rison concurred noting frontage buffer easements were on lots within Cherrywood Estates and Meadow Glen that backed up to this property

In response to Mr Wallin Chairman Bryant advised that the Board would likely require the applicant to install some type of construction fencing noting Mr Suarez offered to install a permanent fence to buffer residents from the road construction to access the property Mr Wallin advised that he wanted the fencing to be part of the record as being discussed Commissioner Zalak noted guard rails were not put along residential streets Commissioner McClain stated a wall would be installed Chairman Bryant stated the County may ask that a concrete wall be constructed if the PUD was approved She noted the only way the County could mitigate the impact to surrounding communities from development of this property was to approve the PUD as that was the only way conditions could be added otherwise the property was zoned R-1 and the applicant had the right to develop Chairman Bryant advised that the wall would be discussed later in the meeting

Eugene Otto SW 103rd Street noted his main concern was with the safety of school children and traffic He voiced his opposition to the smaller densities

Leonard Caldwell SW 54th Court addressed his concern with the road within Cherrywood which was owned by Cherrywood and questioned how it could be built upon or considered a County road He noted another concern was with the road located in Alejandria Estates (SW 56th Avenue and SW 5ih Terrace Road) that was not accepted by the County as the construction of that road did not conform Mr Caldwell asked several questions in regard to the roads such as if the County did not accept the roads and had not maintained them for 25 years did the County still have control if it was given but refused was it still the Countys and whether the law of adverse possession transfer control back to the property owners He commented on public records regarding the applicant and questioned his intentions

Sandra Brown SW 100th Lane stated if the property was rezoned to PUD the water retention pond would be directly behind her home and questioned whether it and the road by Cherrywood would be fenced

Jack Kreutchic SW 56th Avenue questioned the limitations to help residents as part of the PUD such as fences walls etc Mr Martsolf advised that a PUD allowed the County to set the parameters as far as the design standards setbacks fencing buffering type of housing and ultimately the number of houses (densities)

Commissioner Moore out at 439 pm Chairman Bryant questioned the difference in a PUD and R-1 zoning

classification as the property now stood Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant only had to comply with land development code (LDC) requirements and design requirements in the R-1 zoning which was a minimum 10000 SF lots minimum 85 foot tract widths 25 foot front and rear setbacks 8 foot side setbacks and no minimum

Page 298 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

housing criteria other than the Ordinance requiring a minimum 1000 SF and 5 12 pitch roof with a garage or carport there was also no minimum buffering requirements

Commissioner Moore returned at 441 pm Mr Martsolf addressed buffering requirements noting the County could not

require a concrete wall under the R-1 development He noted under the R-1 zoning the County would look for a minimum of 2 access points as well as central water and sewer which was similar to the PLIO Chairman Bryant noted the County could have input into access design and require construction of a wall with a PUO and other than that there was no major change in regard to access She questioned the effect of an Rshy1 zoning classification versus a PUO in regard to interior design Mr Martsolf stated the PUO allowed the Board to approve the design down to as small as 5000 SF for lots attached or detached units as opposed to the standalone with R-1 zoning to determine the type of housing and any setback requirements which differed from residential setbacks In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf defined setbacks

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant passed the gavel to Commissioner Zalak who assumed the

Chair Commissioner Bryant out at 455 pm Gale Caldwell SW 54th Court presented a letter dated July 11 2013 from

Raymond W and Wanda J Fox opposing the zoning change as well as a single page entitled Sun Sentinel February 17 2011 - PUO a way to get around zoning both of which she read into the record

Commissioner Bryant returned at 457 pm Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Chairman Bryant questioned comments by the applicant to bring SW 56th Avenue

up to County specifications with a prorated share of costs to be paid by residents on that road Mr Stubbs stated he and Mr Martsolf attended that meeting for about 15 to 20 minutes but left after hearing there was no new plan and nothing had been rearranged on the subject site however he did hear the word prorate Chairman Bryant stated the applicant had no authority to upgrade a road and prorate those charges to residents Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant noted the only people who had the authority to prorate similar charges were those who were elected to sit on the BCC

Chairman Bryant questioned the 290 units Messrs Stubbs and Martsolf advised that the applicant did state he planned to develop 290 units Mr Martsolf noted it was not possible to get 290 units Chairman Bryant advised that the application was for 222 units and there was no way the applicant could develop 290 residential units Mr Martsolf stated that was correct Chairman Bryant opined that the Board had no concerns with the proposal to use Alejandria Estates entrance as an emergency only entrance She stated the County had no authority over where the School Board placed a bus stop and questioned if there were any safety concerns with students walking to the intersection of Alejandria Estates was located on SW 56th Avenue noting her assumption was that the School Board would send a bus into the community Mr Martsolf concurred Chairman Bryant advised that there were no safety concerns in this respect Mr Martsolf stated there did not appear to be any safety concerns

Chairman Byant addressed an earlier comment as to the road owned by Cherrywood Mr Martsolf noted it was Tract A which was dedicated for ROW on the Plat and would remain in perpetuity until abrogated or returned to an adjacent owner In

Book S Page 299

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated the road was dedicated to Marion County through the Plat Mr Minter clarified that a dedication was similar to an offer to buy and sell noting someone had to accept it the fact that a developer offered to dedicate something to the public did not mean that it was accepted He noted there were 2 parts to the acceptance issue 1) accepting for the benefit of the public with no obligation on the part of the County to maintain it or 2) if the subdivision improvements have been made to the dedicated area then the County would accept the road for maintenance responsibilities Mr Minter stated it was possible that the road could have been accepted on the Plat but the County had not accepted any kind of maintenance responsibility because the road was never built Mr Martsolf advised that the County would have had the developer build the road to County specifications based on plans approved by the County Chairman Bryant stated it was not an issue as it was dedicated to the County Mr Stubbs concurred Chairman Bryant inquired if the County had to worry about any laws of adverse possession transfer rights etc noting Cherrywood could not come to the County and advise they were going to keep the dedication Mr Martsolf stated that was correct as the dedication was part of tl1eir approval

Chairman Bryant inquired if the retention area would be fenced Mr Martsolf advised that based on recent changes in the Code it would depend on what the retention area looked like He noted the applicant would need to use a tremendous amount of that retention area to meet the Marion-Friendly Landscaping Area (MFLA) credits therefore it would be shallow given the sandy soil 1VIr Martsolf stated a certain slope was needed before fencing was required He stated in order to be a danger to children the retention area would have to have a certain slope and perhaps be a wet retention WIlicl1 would require fencing however if it met the MFLA requirements a fence may not be needed as it would be a dry retention with a very low slope

Chairman McClain inquired what would occur if the County approved the PUD today since the revised LDC would not begin until October 2013 and what requirements would have to be met Mr Martsolf suggested that the applicant be required to meet the current Code and return with a Master Plan that met all of the conditions laid out within 120 days which was similar to the Marco Polo PUD

Chairman Bryant referred to the barrier fence on SW 103rd Loop which could be addressed with the applicant as well as the barrier between the recreational area

Commissioner Zalak questioned wl1at the Board asked the developer to accomplish when he came back before the Board Mr Martsolf stated the Board asked the applicant to apply some engineering to the project and surveying to provide a realistic nlJmber as possible and to address the access and compatibility issues from neighboring properties In response to Commissioner Zalak Mr Martsolf advised that the applicant had not provided new plans Commissioner Zalak questioned why the Board was entertaining this matter He noted the applicant needed to come back with what was asked with the access engineering Commissioner Zalak advised that his preference was for the property to be developed as a PUD Chairman Bryant addressed the problem with the property being developed as R-1 rather than a PUD Commissioner McClain stated if the applicant was granted a PUD then he had to submit a Plat to the BCC for approval which could be rejected or changed at that point

General discussion ensued In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf stated if the BCC approved the

PUD today staff would need to have the Conditions worked out which would be enough

Page 300 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

of a change that the Code would force this to come back in front of the Board for review and final Master Plan approval before going through the platting process

Commissioner Moore commented on compatibility Commissioner Zalak opined that this was compatible with the surrounding area Commissioner Moore disagreed and noted if a happy medium was not reached he would not be able to support the PUO

Chairman Bryant inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to building a concrete wall on SW 100th Street where access (ingressegress) to the property would occur Mr Suarez advised that he was agreeable to the request Chairman Bryant directed staff to take notes

Chairman Bryant addressed the recreational area and asked if the applicant would be amenable to installing a privacy fence Mr Suarez agreed In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez noted some homes did not have fencing but stated he would install a chain link fence to ensure that the area (on the west side) was fenced and had no direct access to the retention area Chairman Bryant pointed out the areas that would have privacy fencing to which the applicant agreed

Commissioner McClain addressed the retention pond noting if it was a dry retention pond there was a possibility that it would not be very deep at all Chairman Bryant noted if this was a dry retention pond residents may not want a chain link fence as it would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the natural scope Mr Suarez stated the fencing was important as they were looking at the issue of separating the private property from Cherrywood neighbors to the west for liability purposes Commissioner Zalak stated the Board could look at the retention pond when this was brought back for Board review and approval

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Martsolf advised that a 12 foot wide maintenance berm was required around retention areas Mr Suarez stated the retention area would create the buffer

Mr Suarez clarified a misunderstanding noting the original plat included 222 residential units and the latest proposal was for 219 units not 290 units He stated he may have pronounced it incorrectly with his accent

Chairman Bryant stated the Alejandria Estates access would be for emergency access only Mr Suarez concurred and noted the ORC minutes reflected approval by a vote of 5 to O

Chairman Bryant commented on the naming of the subdivision and appropriate signage Mr Suarez stated he had no problem with giving the subdivision a new name He advised that he spoke at the meeting with residents in regard to SW 56th Avenue noting he had no problem with resurfacing the road on a prorated share Chairman Bryant questioned if the applicant was trying to say that when the time came for SW 56th

Avenue to be resurfaced that he did not object to participating in that prorated share Mr Suarez concurred He noted the signage in Alejandria Estates was in need of repair and he was willing to contribute for that signage as a gesture of goodwill

Commissioner Zalak inquired as to the one access point which he opined was bad design

Commissioner McClain questioned how the County would ensure developer participation in a future road assessment project Mr Minter stated it would be similar to some of the discussions had during the LOC revisions noting the County woUld have to set it up as a placeholder Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) now so that it would appear on the property records of everyone wit~lin the subdivision to be activated when

Book S Page 301

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

it came time to fund the improvements Mr Suarez stated his intention was to participate on an original basis not on a continual basis

Chairman Bryant noted residents would benefit as it would be used as an emergency access Commissioner Zalak disagreed noting if residents could not drive on the road they should not have to pay for the improvements Mr Martsolf noted part of the revised LOC required entering into an MSTU Agreement Chairman Bryant stated the applicant was not being asked to pay for the entire road but rather a prorated share

General discussion ensued Chairman Bryant noted the only ingressegress to the property was SW 100th

Street and stated traffic study may be required as well as traffic signal Commissioner Zalak stated it was part of the PUD process Mr Martsolf advised that it could be part of the approval when the Master Plan came before the Board

Mr Martsolf advised that he had 4 items for staff to follow up on 1) ensure the maximum number of lots was 219 2) the minimum lot size was 6000 SF 3) make sure the new Master Plan and any subsequent platting would be under the new LOC effective October 13 2013 and 4) set a date for the Master Plan to be brought back with the engineering applied

Chairman Bryant questioned whether the applicant had reviewed the new LOC Mr Suarez advised that he had the Code as provided by Building and Zoning at the time he requested the application Chairman Bryant advised that was the old Code noting the LOC was recently revised and adopted She stated the applicant would need to familiarize himself with the new Code

Chairman Bryant inquired as to how long it would take for the applicant to provide a new Master Plan with thorough engineering being applied Mr Suarez stated he contracted with an engineer who provided a 2 part proposal noting he would have to speak with the engineer He stated his architect coordinated with the engineer and was present to answer that question

Angela Bernal Palmetto Club Lane East Miami stated it would take about 4 to 6 months to have all of the engineering completed Mr Martsolf advised that was a reasonable timeframe Chairman Bryant suggested establishing the date at 6 months for the Master Plan with engineering Mr Martsolf agreed to the 180 day timeframe

Commissioner Arnett questioned the 6000 SF and road ROW allocation Mr Martsolf stated the ROW allocation was outside the 6000 SF He noted the 75 feet on each side for setback may not be sufficient for drainage due to the slope of the land which may knock some lots out Another issue was the geometry of the entire subdivision all streets were currently at right angles and once the radiuses were included and worked out the development would lose additional lots which was not to say the developer could not engineer around that and get extra lots somewhere else Chairman Bryant opined that it would probably not be 219 residential lots once the engineering was included

Mr Martsolf commented on the emergency access noting pedestrian access would be permitted as there was a bus stop to the south as well as a County park It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Commissioner Moore questioned if it was possible to go from 6000 SF to 8000 SF Commissioner Zalak suggested waiting until the Master Plan was brought back for Board review and final approval Commissioner McClain stated the topography of the land would greatly reduce the amount of lots one could get on the property as well as the radiuses and other issues Mr Martsolf advised that staff had not yet looked at the

Page 302 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

gopher tortoise issue or anything else Chairman Bryant noted there were many issues that would have to be resolved

Commissioner McClain inquired if the applicant could be required to put up a bond at whatever amount the road (SW 56th Avenue) was estimated to cost Mr Martsolf estimated SW 56th Avenue through Alejandria Estates was about 25 of a mile or 1200 feet Chairman Bryant suggested Mr Suarezs prorata share should be determined and then figure out the logistics as to how that would occur from that point Mr Minter suggested the applicant be given a onetime estimate and get him 10 pay his proportionate share upfront noting the applicant was not contemplating an annual maintenance fee in perpetuity but was willing to help upgrade the road at one time Commissioner McClain stated if the Board approved the PUD today without that portion (prorated share) would there be an opportunity when the applicant platted to add it at that time or if it should be made a part of the agreement today Mr Minter stated it should be specified today however it did not need to be in great detail

General discussion resumed Mr Suarez commented on the 1 acre site adjacent to Alejandria Estates which

was labeled as Lot No1 He suggested that lot be made to provide the prorated share with residents along SW 56th Avenue and SW 104th Street In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Suarez advised that he currently owned that property and whoever purchased that lot would include that prorated share for SW 56th Avenue Mr Minter stated the potential problem when dealing with an MSTU and an assessment was if someone who lived in Alejandria Estates challenged the formula which could not be based on some ad hoc negotiation Commissioner McClain opined that it would be best to look for a onetime payment It was the general consensus of the Board to concur

Mr Martsolf commented on condition to provide a traffic study that would include the question about intersection of SW 100th Street and SW 62nd Avenue Road as well as the necessary share relating to Alejandria Estates 1200 foot emergency access Commissioner Zalak opined that only one study at the main entrance was needed Commissioner McClain stated the other issue was to determine a prorata share on SW 56th Avenue Chairman Bryant suggested MSTU Director Myra Tedder review the matter

Chairman Bryant advised the applicant of the impact from the proposed development with regard to only one entrance noting a traffic study would be required Mr Suarez agreed

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to approve the Zoning Change from R-1 to PUD based on Planning Department staff findings and recommendations that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding land uses was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would not adversely affect the public interest to include the conditions as discussed and be returned in 180 days or on a regular Board Agenda shortly thereafter

Chairman Bryant clarified that the motion was to approve the PUD based on all conditions spelled out today along with those already in place that remained intact

Commissioner McClain addressed the applicant noting there was some concern on the Boards part that he had not lived up to some of the things he said he would complete up to this point He encouraged the applicant to make sure the work was performed within 180 days as there would be no extensions Commissioner McClain stated the applicant needed to work with staff and if those things did not occur it would likely not bode well further down the road

Book S Page 303

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Moore voting nay

OrdinancesZoning - (140) - The Deputy Clerk presented Affidavits of Mailing and Posting of Notices received from PlanningZoning Manager Sam Martsolf and Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto regarding petitions for rezoning and Special Use Permits heard earlier in the meeting

Upon motion of Commissioner Zalak seconded by Commissioner Moore the Board adopted Ordinance 13-21 amending the Marion County Zoning Map pursuant to individual decisions made by the Board on each application heard in the public hearing and entitled

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY FLORIDA APPROVING REZONING AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITIONS AND AUTHORIZING IDENTIFICATION ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE

There was a recess at 549 pm The meeting reconvened at 558 pm with all members present except

Chairman Bryant Commissioner Zalak assumed the Chair

ResolutionsRoads - (14E) - Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto presented Proof of Publication No A000792048 entitled Notice of Public Hearing to Close and Abandon Road(s) published in the Star Banner newspaper on June 25 2013 The Notice stated the Board would consider adopting a Resolution to close certain portions of NE 14ih Street (aka C~ljcago Avenue) and NE 1131h Avenue (aka Main Street) located in the Old Ft McCoy Subdivision as petitioned by the First Baptist Church of Ft McCoy

Assistant County Administrator of Public Works Bouyounes presented the following recommendation on behalf of the Office of the County Engineer

DescriptionBackground This is a request to consider approval of a Resolution to close and abandon certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 113th Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Property Owners adjacent to the proposed abrogation were notified and our office received one (1) objection to the proposed closing and abandonment of NE 14ih Street The Development Review Committee considered this request on June 3 2013 and it was the committees recommendation that the petition be denied Budget Impact None Recommended Action Motion to 1 - Den~ the attached Petition to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131 Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision Or 2 - Approve the attached Resolution to closing certain portions of NE 14ih Street and NE 1131h Avenue located in Old Fort McCoy Subdivision and to authorize the Chair and Clerk to execute the same Mr Rison addressed the petition for a road closing noting DRC recommended

denial of the request He noted one of the concerns was regarding the vacation that was requested as it would essentially cut off access to a property that was not owned by the church which would leave it with a 30 foot connection pOint to what would be a dead

Page 304 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

end ROW There were also concerns about use of the ROW by the church where the property owner (not associated with the church) expressed their unease regarding the ability to access other streets as well

In response to Chairman Zalak Mr Rison clarified that this was the only means of access for the property not owned by the church and vacating it would eliminate the available access Mr Minter stated the property would be land locked

Mr Rison noted this was not church property but platted ROW which was where that property owner currently accessed Chairman Zalak noted the property owner could use NE 113th Avenue and CR 316 or go all the way to CR 315 and cross behind the Kangaroo by the Park Mr Rison concurred

Commissioner Bryant returned at 559 pm Right of Way Manager Shawn Hubbuck Office of the County Engineer advised

that the application was to abrogate sections (outlined in red on the Location Map) while leaving other sections open He noted when the road was abrogated half of the ROW would go to the church and the other half would go to the 2 property owners which would leave access to that property from this ROW therefore it would not actually be landlocked By abrogating the property owner would have access by virtue of obtaining half of the ROW and would then have frontage along the ROW

Mr Minter asked if the property owner had half of a ROW to exit out to NE 14yth Street did that mean they would be exiting out on the wrong side of the road on NE 14yth Street Mr Rison noted that was correct Chairman Zalak stated the property owner would have to exit on NE 113th Avenue to East Highway 316

Chairman Zalak returned the gavel to Commissioner Bryant who resumed the Chair

General discussion ensued Mr Rison advised that the parcel that would potentially become landlocked

except for the 30 foot connection to the ROW was actually 2 lots that were eligible for development however if the ROW was vacated then that property would remain as a single parcel and the second lot could not be recognized

Paul Melin NE 142nd Place Ft McCoy representing the First Baptist Church of Fort McCoy presented a 26 page handout regarding the abrogation He stated the map did not delineate the portion that was asked to be abrogated Mr Melin advised that the handout included a survey by a surveyor showing the areas (on NE 14yth Street and a portion of NE 113th Avenue) to be abrogated He noted NE 147th Street showed the 10 foot ROW coming in off of NE 113th Avenue and continued over to NE 11 ih Court) Mr Melin referred to page 3 of the handout showing the dirt road and survey stake with a power pole in the middle of the ROW He stated there was 22 feet between that survey corner (corner of the church property) and the power pole noting the power line ran down that road (middle of NE 14yth Street)

Chairman Bryant questioned if the power company would have access if the road was closed Mr Melin advised that letters of consent were received from Clay Electric Bright House and CenturyLink Chairman Bryant noted the letter from Clay Electric stated an easement would be required after the County vacated the property and went on to address relocation and charges associated with moving the existing electric lines Mr Melin stated he did not intend to ask Clay Electric to relocate from that ROW Mr Hubbuck clarified that when the County abrogated roadways it reserved the rights for existing utilities to remain inside the ROW

Book S Page 305

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

Mr Melin referred to the handout noting page 3 showed the 10 foot dirt road the property owner used off CR 315 He addressed the survey on page 2 noting the parcels outlined in blue red and yellow provided affidavits in support of the road closing If granted the property in orange would be a 60 ROW coming off of East Highway 316 to intersect with NE 14ih Street which was 75 wide The property outlined in pink (Ms Summerville) would receive 375 which would leave plenty of room to access her property He deferred further comments to Pastor May

Reverend Jeff May NE 150th Terrace Ft McCoy referred to the survey noting the portions in green were church properties He commented on the childrens ministry noting the church was looking to add some recreational in Block 3 Lot 6 area and would like for them to be able to go to and fro without worrying about traffic flow The church was also looking to provide additional parking in Lots 2 and 3 Reverend May referred to the photograph on page 8 and stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider removing those trees located within the ROW to provide an unobstructed roadway from East Highway 316 to that last roadway where vehicles could enter and exit without worrying about obstructions He noted letters from utility providers were included (pages 10 through 12) along with affidavits of support (pages 13 through 18) and the last 8 pages (pages 19 through 26) was the petition signed by church members in support of the abrogation

Mr Melin stated if there was objection to granting the abrogation in relation to the Summerville property (outlined in pink) he proposed that the abrogation be moved back to the corner of Ms Riveras property (outlined in yellow)

In response to Chairman Bryant Mr Rison briefly addressed staffs presentation noting DRC recommended denial

Upon call for public comment Robin Summerville NE 147 Street Ft McCoy presented a 7 page handout along with 68 photographs and a 5 page history of the church She noted that on July 1 2013 she presented a packet of information and photographs to Property Management Agent Stephanie Galarza Office of the County Engineer Ms Summerville advised that she received notification from the church that they wanted to file application with the Office of the County Engineer to close portions of the road sometime in April of 2013 She noted that she owned one lot and her mother owned the 2nd lot Ms Summerville stated her family was opposed to the road closing noting she rarely exited onto East Highway 316 and it would be a disadvantage to her to have to go up and around to reach CR 315 She commented on emergency access to her residence should the portion behind the church be closed Ms Summerville advised that she had used the dirt road for over 25 closer to 28 years She requested the Board to deny the road closing

It was noted for the record that the Deputy Clerk was in receipt of a packet containing a 2 page letter dated June 30 2013 from Ms Summerville along with 9 photographs dated June 16 2013 18 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (am) and 9 photographs dated Sunday June 23 2013 (pm) 13 photographs dated Monday June 24 2013 12 photographs dated Tuesday June 25 2013 23 photographs dated Wednesday June 26 2013 and 20 photographs dated Sunday June 30 2013

Commissioner McClain questioned where her driveway was located Ms Summerville described the location of her gate noting she went out and accessed CR 315

Carol Laxton NE 160th Avenue Road Ft McCoy stated she wanted to be a good neighbor and did not want to cause Ms Summerville problems She noted the

Page 306 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

major concern was the road blocked access from property purchased Ms Laxton stated many of the activities for children occurred in the evenings noting in the winter time it was dark She noted her concern with liability issues which was the reason that property was not being used so much Ms Laxton commented on property owned by the church and stated it was reasonable to abrogate

Marvin Corbin East CR 316 Citra advised that he supported the road closing He clarified that he had been clearing much of the property and provided maintenance as time allowed Mr Corbin stated if a log was blocking part of the road it was something that he put tllere but not with the intention to cause any problems noting he would be glad to remove the log He commented on 2 huge concrete piers sitting in the middle of the ROW which would require major work to remove those concrete piers Mr Corbin opined that even if the log was removed no one would still be able to access that portion due to the piers

Chairman Bryant advised that the public comment portion was now closed Reverend May addressed an issue that was brought up at the ORC meeting

regarding a bus blocking the roadway He advised that a music group arrived by bus and he led them to a vacant lot to park but it was not blocking the roadway Reverend May commented on parking noting page 7 (of the handout) reflected church parking He stated NE 113th Avenue from CR 316 was the most direct path with the least amount of obstructions for emergency access Reverend May stated if the abrogation was approved the church would consider applying for a permit to clear the trees to provide a complete open roadway for access as well as clear additional property for parking He noted this was never brought up as an issue or problem and was unaware of the concerns with parking along the roadway until the church petitioned to abrogate those sections

In response to Reverend May Chairman Bryant directed the Deputy Clerk to provide him with an extra copy of the handout presented by IIIs Summerville noting it was public record Reverend May noted he was unaware of what photographs were taken

Commissioner McClain noted the photographs were a fair representation of a typical Sunday

Reverend May requested the Board to consider closure of the roadway Commissioner Zalak noted it appeared that parking was occurring in the ROW

and inquired if the abrogation was approved if the ROW would remain clear on that church side Reverend May agreed noting from where the awning was extended (photo on page 7) would be about where parking could occur but there would be no parking beyond that point

Chairman Bryant inquired as to conversations with FireRescue in relation to access Mr Hubbuck stated as part of the application and going before the ORC a Fire Services representative was present however there was no negative comment made or reference to any hindrance Reverend May advised that if the application was approved he would make an announcement on Sunday advising parishioners not to park in that section

Commissioner Zalak questioned how property boundaries would be defined if abrogated Reverend May referred to the survey (page 2) noting the plan was to install some type of chain at the east end of the property to show that the roadway was blocked

Book S Page 307

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

Commissioner Arnett noted Ms Summerville had lived there for over 25 years and had access and questioned whether she would now have to go out to East Highway 316 turn east and then go south onto CR 315 Reverend May stated he understood the concern noting the church was prepared to clear the road on the west end and leave it open for easy access to emergency vehicles and Ms Summerville

Commissioner McClain stated if the County did not abrogate the road then everyone should remove items from the middle of the ROWand make it a real road He opined that the church had made a bit of a concession and it did not seem to be an unreasonable request

Commissioner Zalak noted a practical use for the church was to abrogate so they could use their property more effectively but questioned whether a chain would be appropriate He commented on the concrete pillars in the middle of the road from an old mill

Board discussion ensued Commissioner Arnett advised that he could support closing the area west of NE

113th Avenue as well as the south part and continuing to provide Ms Summerville her access He expressed concern with taking someone elses rights away

Board discussion resumed Chairman Bryant questioned issues with 9-1-1 addressing Mr Rison advised

that segment could remain NE 14ih Street but 9-1-1 would then need to alert fire crews that NE 113th Avenue from Highway 315 to NE 14ih Street was technically the access

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Zalak to adopt Resolution 13-R-246 closing a portion of NE 14ih Street from NE 113th

Terrace to NE 113th Avenue and a portion of NE 113th Avenue south of NE 14ih Street The motion was approved by the Board by a vote of 4-1 with Commissioner Arnett voting nay

BudgetsParks amp Recreation - Commissioner McClain noted the septic tank at the Kiwanis Park Beach which the County owned had gone bad and would cost $5000 to repair It was his understanding that an extra tank would have to be installed along with approximately 1000 feet of drain field Commissioner McClain advised that Facilities Management Director Andy Race had already obtained the permit but noted $5000 would have to be taken from contingency He noted Mr Race had money for the project noting he was remodeling there already and opined that $30000 was moved into an account Mr Race advised him yesterday that he was at about $20000 noting the County may get some of that money back but recommended the Board remember that it owed itself $5000

Chairman Bryant inquired if a motion was needed to move a $5000 from contingency to cover the cost Commissioner McClain believed that Mr Race advised him of the situation so that they would be aware of an upcoming transfer (Budget Amendment Resolution) on a future agenda

A motion was made by Commissioner McClain seconded by Commissioner Moore to direct staff to fix the septic tank at Kiwanis Beach with a $5000 budget transfer from the Contingency Fund to the Maintenance Fund which would appear on the next BCC Agenda The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (5-0)

Page 308 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting thereupon recessed at 700 pm to Thursday July 25 2013 at 200 pm

Attest

Book S Page 309

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S

July 16 2013

~ gt

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 310 Book S