Official Minutes of MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS November 7, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: The Marion County Board of County Commissioners met in a special session in Commission Chambers at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at the Marion County Governmental Complex located in Ocala, Florida. INTRODUCTION OF PUBLIC HEARING BY CHAIRMAN CARL ZALAK, III Chairman Bryant advised that the public hearing was scheduled this evening to consider an Ordinance amending the Land Development Code (LDC) to add Division 5.9 Silver Springs Community Redevelopment Area (SSCRA). PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our Country. ROLL CALL Upon roll call the following members were present: Vice-Chairman Kathy Bryant, District 2; Commissioner Jeff Gold, District 3; and Commissioner Michelle Stone, District 5. Chairman Carl Zalak, District 4; and Commissioner David Moore, District 1; were absent due to prior commitments. Also present were County Attorney Matthew G. Minter and County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes. PROOF OF PUBLICATION Deputy Clerk Bonvissuto, presented Proof of Publication of a display ad entitled, "Notice of Public Hearing" published in the Star Banner newspaper on October 31, 2017. The Deputy Clerk received a 57 page Agenda packet; a 28 page document entitled, "Exhibit "A" Marion County Land Development Code Amendments Article 5, Division 9 Silver Springs Community Redevelopment Area (SSCRA) Architectural and Site Design Standards"; and a 14 page PowerPoint handout entitled, "Silver Springs Community Redevelopment Area Overlay Land Development Code Amendments". OPENING REMARKS Christopher Rison, Senior Planner Senior Planner Chris Rison, AICP, Growth Services, advised that these are LDC amendments for the proposed SSCRA overlay area, which is focused on Highway 40, also known as (a/k/a) Silver Springs Boulevard. The materials that were provided uses Silver Springs Boulevard as the official title to reflect back to Silver Springs. Amendments were made as discussed at the prior hearing, merging both of the two separate documents into a single section of LDC provisions. This will then be a single section that can be accessed and printed by design and development professionals as they are looking at the system thereby negating the need to reference different and separate manuals. Mr. Rison advised of a couple of questions for the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) that were raised in prior discussions and some things to quickly point out to the Board. He noted that both James Bailey and Joe Rispoli, consultants, are present. Mr. Rison advised that components of lighting have been added, providing other options Book X, Page 361
and looking at private properties to have a round fixture approach separating it from a public realm area, which will be the street lighting, etc. A couple of different options relating to street lighting have been provided. Because this will also be coordinated with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) it may be best to bring up some options rather than fix in an absolute type for discussion with FDOT. One thing that comes up with the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) activities and redevelopment on roadways like this is that FDOT typically budgets a certain amount for these type of features and if what the BCC desires for the community exceeds their budgeted amount they will look to the Board to support the cost and potentially even take over maintenance, which is something the county and CRA will need to weigh in on once those details are being worked out with FDOT. What is provided for in the provision of the LDC is noted that it is a square, rectangular, or what is called Acorn style lighting, as potential lighting in either a green, black or bronze finish. From a staff level, it is recommended leaving it in as a general reference and note that the finalized materials will be detailed out with FDOT when those activities and movements are made. Chairman Bryant opined that would be the better way to go, especially since FDOT is still going through their process and when it comes to cost sharing the Board will want to know exactly what it is committing to spending. It was the general consensus of the Board to concur. Mr. Rison advised that it did come up at the prior discussion, noting he attended the Florida Redevelopment Associations annual conference and spoke to folks from the Kissimmee CRA and they noted their purple street lights are going to be removed in the coming years and will be replaced with more conventional street lights. In response to question, Mr. Rison stated the purple fades over time and maintenance has been an issue so they are going to more standard colors. Mr. Rison commented on the discussion for wayfinding of public rights-of-way (ROW). He referred to the slide (shown on the overhead screens) provided by the consultant as the proposed type; a frame type sign that will then have directions to the different features that could be integrated. Mr. Rison referred to page 23 of 28 of the Exhibit "A" handout, depicting a light pole mounted form, a free standing pole mounted form, and a dual mounted pole form. He stated whichever becomes more useful to the CRA can be used as it comes along and looks to develop those activities. The color palette (Blue Plate, Kirsch Red, and Lucky Green) reflects the colors that have been selected for the overall CRA for this portion to match and blend in. It is anticipated that these colors will then be able to work uniformly throughout the CRA as other areas are brought in line in the coming months with the next round of studies. In response to Chairman Bryant, Mr. Rison advised that the Kirsch Red color is a combination between browns and reds. James Bailey, SE 16th Avenue, Tillman & Associates, LLC, opined that it is the media you are looking at it on that changes it from one to the other, noting Kirsch Red is more of a reddish-brown color to give some contrast to the blue background. Mr. Rison commented on the materials provided for this meeting includes some underlines and strike through (Exhibit "A" handout) of changes made from documents that were published in advance, which were developed after speaking to the County Attorney trying to rectify some questions brought up and pointed out by him. At this point staff is recommending approval of the materials, with the notation that we would note that the final finishes and colors for public street lighting will be worked out at the time FDOT starts to make commitments, as does the CRA. Page 362, Book X
Commissioner Stone referred to page 25 of 26 of the Agenda handout, noting number 3 says, "No posters, sales announcements or any kind of temporary signs shall be permitted". She suggested allowing 1 sign in their storefront if it were of temporary nature or perhaps they need to close for inventory so they could post something there for their patrons; or should they have a season clearance coming, etc. Mr. Rison clarified that additional pages were added with the underline and strike through handout (Exhibit "A"), noting (e) Prohibited Signs: can be found on page 27 of 28. Mr. Bailey stated on a store window, to a certain degree or some percentage, something of that nature should be allowed. He agreed that sales occur all the time, as well as closures for a holiday, or what not. Commissioner Gold out at 5:39 p.m. Commissioner Stone commented on vacancy signage. General discussion ensued. Mr. Bailey suggested adding text that talks about limiting signs or window paintings or however it is specified, it then needs to be approved by the CRA. Commissioner Gold returned at 5:41 p.m. Chairman Bryant noted she is not sure she would want them to come back to the CRA Board because of how intermittently it meets. Mr. Bailey opined that staff can approve that signage. Chairman Bryant agreed, noting her preference for staff approval rather than the CRA. Mr. Bailey clarified that is for signage that is proposed for longer than a month. Commissioner Stone noted she does not want to limit economic development. Mr. Rison stated number 3 will add: however, temporary signs for sales or intermittent activities can be provided for 30 day duration through a temporary sign permit. Commissioner Stone stated without approval or something similar should be added. Mr. Rison agreed. Chairman Bryant cautioned that they need to be careful when saying temporary sign permit so as not to require paying any kind of fee in order to put a sign up in their window. Mr. Rison clarified that it can be allowed on a temporary basis then. Chairman Bryant concurred, noting it is with staff approval. She opined that it could be solved just by saying, "Posters, sales announcements, or any kind of temporary signs shall be permitted for 30 or 45 days", noting the need to pick a duration. In response to Commissioner Stone, Chairman Bryant suggested giving them 45 days. She noted with the holiday season retailers are already getting ready for Christmas. County Attorney Matthew G. Minter opined that is better than simply saying go to staff for approval because there is a doctrine of delegation of authority to administrative officials and the idea is that a delegation of authority without standard to guide their discretion is an invalid delegation. Chairman Bryant agreed, noting she would make it 60 days instead of 45 days. It was the general consensus of the Board to concur. Mr. Rison asked if they ran it for 60 days would there be a 30 day delay before they could start again or would it be contiguous? Chairman Bryant stated it could be contiguous. Mr. Rison opined that in that respect a time limit would not necessarily be required. Growth Services Director Sam Martsolf advised that there is already a section in the Code that allows those. Chairman Bryant opined that the entire line (number 3) can be stricken. Mr. Martsolf advised that the Code holds signs to a maximum of 50 percent (%) coverage. Chairman Bryant stated number 3 will be eliminated. Mr. Rison stated that concludes staffs presentation at this point. James Bailey, PLA, ASLA, LEED, AP, Tillman & Associates, LLC/JBLA Design, Inc. Book X, Page 363
James Bailey, SE 16th Avenue, Tillman & Associates, LLC, stated they have worked hand-in-hand to try and get this to where it is at, with BCC recommendations. To Mr. Rison's point about some of the FDOT conflicts, once you get into creating an actual set of construction documents for this to be implemented there will be a lot to go through with FDOT, whether it is the signage, lighting, etc. He opined that they have some good direction for where they want FDOT to have their mind going as they come in to do some things in this area. The consultant, at that time, can work through those details to make the final selection on the materials, light fixture style, how much light is being put out, etc. A lot of safety goes along with the public ROW and there is good direction now so when going to FDOT they have an idea of what the BCC is thinking in terms of design and implementation. Joseph Rispoli, AIA, Rispoli & Associates, Inc. Joseph Rispoli, S. Magnolia Avenue, Rispoli & Associates Architecture, Inc. noted he has nothing to add. Consideration of Ordinance Amending Land Development. Code Articles 1 and 5 to Add Division 5.9 Silver Springs Community Redevelopment Area The BCC considered an Ordinance amending the LDC to add the Silver Springs Community Redevelopment Area (SS CRA). Mr. Minter noted there is a whole lot of detail in this, but it is a good starting place for the CRA. He pointed out that there are some provisions about utilities and in the case of any utility company that had an easement in the public ROW predating this then by virtue of this Ordinance the county cannot impose additional requirements on an easement holder, since they already have rights to do whatever they need to do within that easement. Mr. Minter clarified that the county cannot impose a new requirement on a utility company without some kind of compensation. Chairman Bryant agreed that the county cannot make a utility company change its existing infrastructure, but if they were looking to update their infrastructure would they then have to go by new requirements adopted by this Ordinance. Mr. Minter stated it depends on the exact language of whatever easements they may already have. If their easement gives them an absolute right to put their line in a certain way, but if it is real general then maybe this does apply. Mr. Rison noted that some CRA's work mutually with utilities to accommodate both regulatory requirements, but also provide some compensation to get additional adjustments in those different designs. Mr. Minter commented on a proposed Bill that might totally eliminate CRA's. He noted there is an ongoing major assault on local government. Mr. Minter stated he has an additional comment to make at the end of this meeting, which has nothing to do with the CRA. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Bryant opened the floor for public comment. There being none, Chairman Bryant advised that public comment is closed. BOARD DISCUSSION A motion was made by Commissioner Stone, seconded by Commissioner Gold, to adopt Ordinance 17-30 relating to the LDC with all the stricken through and underlined portions, Page 364, Book X
as well as the discussion had today. The motion was unanimously approved by the Board (3-0). Ordinance 17-30 is entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO MARION COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLES 1 (ADMINISTRATION) AND 5 (OVERLAY ZONES AND SPECIAL AREAS) ADDING DIVISION 5.9, SILVER SPRINGS COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA, INCLUDING SETTING FORTH STATE ROAD 40/SILVER SPRINGS BOULEVARD ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE AREA WITHIN MARION COUNTY; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. UPDATE: Mr. Minter referred to a vote from this morning's BCC meeting in regard to appointment of the Chairman and Vice-Chair. He noted that Commissioner Gold indicated a no vote on the ballot that was submitted; however, he did vote on the motion to appoint the Chair and Vice-Chair. Mr. Minter advised that he conducted a little research on this and noted the voting conflict statute actually provides that no commissioner can vote on a matter in which he has a conflict of interest. In case of a conflict of interest a commissioner would have to abstain and file the form for a voting conflict. The statute does not actually say just the opposite and does not say that you have to vote on something for which you do not have a conflict. He opined that is the general expectation; as long as there is no voting conflict you should vote. In this case, it is his opinion that Commissioner Gold's vote on the motion approving the Chair and Vice-Chair was sufficient for what he was supposed to do today. In response to Chairman Bryant, Commissioner Gold advised that he did not cast a ballot today, but was going to make the motion to approve; however, the motion and second were made by other commissioners and he voted in favor of the motion. UPDATE: County Administrator Mounir Bouyounes noted Commissioner Zalak is at Leadership Florida and on his way over he had arranged for a meeting with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which has been a good meeting. A meeting will be arranged with DEP, FDOT and the county to work on the Boulevard and Silver Springs, relating to that intersection, as well as try to facilitate communication between DEP and FDOT on the exchange of the land to be able to build the roundabout in that area. He noted it was mentioned to DEP about the swimming pool and waterpark so more updates will be forthcoming in the future. Commissioner Gold questioned whether there is anything that keeps the county from using that property in Silver Springs or the county or state properties for the swimming pool project. Mr. Bouyounes stated the county property adjacent to the park on Highway 314 is conservation property. He noted the Selden property, on the west side of Baseline, that the county has a lease on is also conservation property. Anything the county wants to do in that area or on the park property itself will need approval from DEP and some kind of an agreement between the county and DEP. Chairman Bryant commented on discussions with others and opined that the county should work with the state on actually trying to figure out how to make Baseline that Book X, Page 365
corridor coming in, as well as revitalizing what they can on Highway 40 to make the rest of that a true destination. She noted there is a lot of work that can be done with the state in the coming years. General discussion ensued. Mr. Bouyounes commented on a topic that will most likely need to be discussed at the next BCC meeting to try and give some answers so they can delay and extend their lease at the college. He noted they may need to meet with the College of Central Florida (CF) President to help extend that lease to give enough time to vet this project in detail. Chairman Bryant stated it will be an awesome project; they just need to find the ideal location. CLOSING COMMENTS There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting thereupon adjourned at 5:59 p.m. Attest: Carl Zalak, Ill, Chairman David R. Ellspermann, Clerk Page 366, Book X