October 4, 2001

The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, meet in regular session on October 4, 2001, at 5:35 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Susan Carlson, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Nancy Higgs, and Jackie Colon, Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca, and Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley.

ANNOUNCEMENT, RE: OVERFLOW ROOMS

Chairman Carlson advised it is great to have such a huge crowd participating in the public process; however, the Commission Room cannot accommodate everyone, but there are two rooms upstairs, the Space Coast Room on the second floor and the Atlantic Room on the third floor, set up with televisions, so people will be able to watch the meeting live. She stated if people filled out speaker cards, she will announce who will speak and the person who will follow the speaker, so those who are upstairs will have sufficient time to come down and be ready to speak. She requested the people lined up on the walls to move in the direction of those rooms because there are Fire Codes for the building, and the Fire Marshall would not approve of exceeding the capacity of the Commission Room. Chairman Carlson advised many people are responding to a flyer that was sent out by a member of the community; if she was in their position she would be alarmed by it if she did not know much about the issues; however, it is considerably an over exaggeration of the facts. She stated there are no facts saying the County is going to widen St. Andrews Boulevard; and if people think it is going to happen in the future, they are wrong at this point.

The Invocation was given by Reverend Walter Schilling of Hope Episcopal Church in Suntree.

Commissioner Truman Scarborough led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: FUNDS TO REPAIR SR 3

Commissioner O'Brien recommended the County Manager check into FEMA and State emergency funds to make safety repairs to a portion of SR 3. He stated there was a recent accident that closed the road for some time; however, it is less consequential than the condition of the road. He stated a seven-mile strip needs to be repaved and safety markers installed; it is beyond the County's budget to do that; and the closing of SR A1A at Patrick Air Force Base has put an extreme stress on that stretch of SR 3.

REPORT, RE: CLOSING OF SR A1A

Commissioner Colon advised the partial closing of SR A1A has affected a lot of restaurants and shops in the area; and encouraged people to help one another in the community by having lunch and dinner at the restaurants in the area of Patrick Air Force Base and go shopping in that area. She stated that is a way people can help out to make sure things get back to normal.

REPORT, RE: FUNDS FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS

Chairman Carlson advised each Commissioner received a copy of a letter prepared by Virginia Barker; there is a significant chance that the Economic Stimulus Program being considered in Washington, D.C. could include funding for the beach projects; and the letter is to support whatever efforts they can make to find money for the beach renourishment projects.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to authorize the Chairman to execute a letter requesting funds for beach renourishment projects under the Economic Stimulus Program. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: TABLED ITEMS FROM MARCH 5, APRIL 9, JULY 9, AND
AUGUST 6, 2001 P&Z MEETINGS, AND MAY 10 AND JULY 26, 2001 NORTH
MERRITT ISLAND DEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT BOARD MEETINGS

Chairman Carlson requested the Assistant County Attorney advise the public of the process and how the Board can view the issues.

Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley advised zoning issues put the Board in a quasi-judicial capacity; the Board has to look at the requests for rezoning and apply existing rules to the facts provided; and those rules are in the County Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan Policies, and Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated speakers should be aware that saying they do not like an item is not sufficient basis for the Board to deny a rezoning request; it is important to provide competent substantial evidence on the record, so if an item is appealed, the judges can see the real evidence tied to the Code and not just objections without explanations; and that is important no matter what side the persons are on. She stated their job is to provide the Board with facts or expert witness testimony showing how a rezoning request meets the Code and Comprehensive Plan criteria if they are seeking approval of the item, and how it does not meet the Code criteria if they are opposed to the item; and suggested speakers tailor their presentations to the Code and Comprehensive Plan Policies.

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider recommendations on Items tabled from the March 5, April 9, July 9, and August 6, 2001 Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board meetings, and the May 10 and July 26, 2001 North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board meetings, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0103410) A. Duda and Sons, Inc.'s request for change from PUD to RU-1-13 with BDP limiting density to 3.1 units per acre on 84.348± acres located east of St. Andrews Isle Subdivision and south of Waterford Place, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP as offered by the applicant.

Chairman Carlson advised the item was tabled from April 5, May 24, and August 2, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meetings; and it would be nice if it was a simple issue with simple solutions, but it is not. She stated there are those who believe it is solely a transportation issue, but it is not; there are those who believe it is a quality of life issue, and it is not that either; there are those who believe it is strictly a school capacity issue; and it is all those things with environmental considerations thrown in. She stated the developer would like to have the zoning for his project as many of the projects surrounding his property have been zoned; and the process is further complicated because occasionally the facts bearing on the matter change, such as the developer offering Sawgrass, Phase II as a school site. Chairman Carlson advised some Suntree residents do not want any connection to St. Andrews Boulevard, or St. Andrews to Pineda Causeway extension or anywhere else; some are willing to accept and even support connection of St. Andrews to the Pineda Causeway extension, but not before an interchange with I-95 exists; and then there are those who would like the connection made as soon as possible to allow a southern exit from Suntree into North Melbourne or the beaches and allow construction traffic to enter without driving through all of Suntree to the north. She stated the meeting tonight is constrained by the Board's agreement on August 2, 2001 to receive evidence pertaining to school overcrowding only; the Board has heard a lot of public testimony at this point; many have taken the position that a school built on the Sawgrass Phase II site would create traffic issues that would open the door to discussion on transportation; but because the Board is acting in a quasi-judicial mode, it must be careful to follow the precise rules that are laid out pertaining to evidence and testimony brought before it. She stated many citizens already know the applicant is going to request tabling once again; before the Board decides upon what course of action it needs to take, she would like the County Attorney to detail what type of information may be brought before the Board at this meeting; and requested Ms. Bentley go over what is allowable in testimony today.

Ms. Bentley advised depending on what the Board wants to do, it could proceed with only the school capacity issues; however, there is a problem because some information has been provided to various Commissioners, which arguably goes beyond school capacity, so the applicant would need an opportunity to respond to that; and the Board would have to table the item to allow the applicant that opportunity. She stated the Board could table the item to another date without accepting comments, and advertise it to broaden discussions because of the presentation of traffic information that is beyond school capacity; and another alternative is to receive comments then without discussion continue the item for another day and re-advertise the public hearing.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Ms. Bentley feels there is a transportation connection to the discussion tonight, can the Board listen to the residents who want to be heard, and can they discuss transportation as it applies to the school overcrowding because the donation of property and the caveat to that donation acceptance have been thrown in. Ms. Bentley advised she does not think the school capacity limitation necessarily allows for discussion of traffic; it is at best a gray issue; and to ensure the Board has due process accommodated, it needs to allow the applicant to respond at a later date because this meeting was only to be about school capacity. Ms. Bentley advised there may be people who did not come to the meeting because it was to be only about school capacity and they cared about traffic and compatibility; and the Board also needs to allow those people an opportunity to speak to those issues. She stated if the Board takes any information beyond school capacity, it must let the applicant respond; and there is a concern because there is already some documentation in the record.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca announced that the Florida Room is now open on the third floor and has a television.

Attorney Jack Kirschenbaum, representing the applicant, advised they are happy to request the matter be tabled again; and he submitted a formal request of that in writing addressed to the Chair, and provided copies to all Commissioners. He stated he agrees with Ms. Bentley that the sole issue to be addressed this evening is school capacity and overcrowding; after reviewing the files in Mr. Enos' office, it appeared to him that it was the sole issue; and they anticipated being here to speak only to that issue. He stated over the last several weeks, they took actions to resolve the issue of school overcrowding; his client made an offer to the Brevard County School Board to enter into negotiations to donate an 11-acre site adjacent to the subject property for the purpose of building an elementary school; he understands the School Board is interested in that process; and it will be meeting on October 9, 2001 to further discuss that issue. He requested the Board allow them to complete those discussions with the School Board and begin negotiations to fully realize that possibility. Mr. Kirschenbaum advised that is not the only evidence they would present if they went forward tonight, but they request the matter be tabled; there are a lot of people here tonight who want to talk about school overcrowding, but they also want to talk about other things; the applicant would have no objection to the Board accepting comments, evidence, and documents in writing, and allow the public to discuss whatever issues they believe are appropriate; but the applicant would request the right to rebut and respond and asks that the Board re-advertise the matter for a tabled date where they could do that. He stated that would accomplish several things; it would meet Ms. Bentley's legal concerns about proceeding tonight on issues outside of school overcrowding; it would allow all the people here who have comments and concerns to express them; and it would allow the applicant due process, and anyone else in the community who wants to speak on other issues and were not aware they would be addressed this evening. He stated it accomplishes what the Board wants, primarily to receive all the important information that it can before making an important decision; he is not sure if he can waive his right to have a sole issue hearing tonight; but if he can he will, and will allow all the discussion that needs to occur.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there are any issues with Mr. Kirschenbaum's offer, or can the Board proceed; with Ms. Bentley responding if Mr. Kirschenbaum agrees with that, it meets the description she laid out. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board is amenable to listening to the audience and seeing what they have to say then table the item to a future date, so if there is anything to rebut, the applicant can come back and do that.

Commissioner Colon inquired if a motion to allow that process to take place would be appropriate, or should the Board go forward based on Mr. Kirschenbaum's comments. Ms. Bentley advised the Board can do it either way as long as it proceeds in the fashion it sets out. She noted it could take comments and explain that it will move to table at the end of the public comments.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to proceed to hear public comments tonight and anticipate continuing the hearing to allow the applicant to fully respond to issues that are raised. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Kirschenbaum has any objections to that procedure; with Mr. Kirschenbaum responding absolutely not, and recommends it.

Chairman Carlson advised she will call the person who will speak and the next two speakers to give them plenty of time to come down if they are upstairs in one of the rooms and prepare to come to the podium.

Commissioner Higgs advised a lot of people want to speak; and requested people hold their applause, cheers, and jeers to move the process along and give everyone the opportunity to speak. She stated the Board is aware of why most of the people are here; and requested they allow the process to go through without interruptions of applause.

Commissioner O'Brien advised a court case was lost because the audience applauded their speakers; this is a quasi-judicial hearing, unlike the Board's regular meetings; if the other side decides to go to court and appeal the decision the Board makes, the actions, boos, hisses, applause, etc. will end up on the record; and the judge will hear it and may say it is not right because it may have swayed the decision of the Board. He stated that may hurt the people more than help them; and the best thing to do is remain silent and let the speakers speak.

Scott Price, Attorney representing a group of Suntree residents, advised many Suntree residents have submitted oral and written comments to the Board listing a variety of issues, which they believe warrant denial of the applicant's rezoning request; and he is here to speak about the school overcrowding issue. He stated at the August 2, 2001 hearing on the rezoning request, the Board made a motion to rezone the property GU and not RU-1-13 because, among other things, the School Board's data showed that the two elementary schools currently serving the general area were already over capacity. He stated the School Board's projections also indicated that regardless of whether this rezoning is approved, the overcrowding situation at those schools will get progressively worse because of approved but not yet constructed homes. He stated the applicant has now offered ten acres of land to the School Board for construction of an elementary school; however, the applicant did not simply make the donation to the School Board, and tied a condition to the donation that makes it unacceptable to his clients, as the condition would forever change the character of the Suntree neighborhood and the quality of life of Suntree residents. He stated the condition is that St. Andrews Boulevard be extended to connect to the Pineda Causeway extension; the donation of land for construction of an elementary school is not before the Board for consideration tonight; and his clients intend to take their concerns regarding the conditions placed on the applicant's donation to the School Board to request that it be refused if the conditions cannot be modified to preserve the character and quality of their neighborhood. Mr. Price advised evidence of the donation is being offered by the applicant to assuage the Board's concerns about elementary school overcrowding in the area so that the Board will approve the rezoning request and allow the increased density and increased number of school-age children that will follow. He stated because of that reason, his clients feel it is imperative that the Board consider the affects of the proposed donation when determining whether or not the donation will in fact solve the school overcrowding issues so that the applicant's rezoning request can be approved. He stated his clients have hired two professional engineering firms to conduct a traffic study regarding the current level of traffic on St. Andrews Boulevard and the projected level of traffic in the event this rezoning is approved, the proposed elementary school is constructed, and St Andrews Boulevard is connected to the Pineda Causeway extension. He presented an Exhibit to the Clerk for the record, and provided copies for each Commissioner and the applicant. Mr. Price advised a copy of the traffic studies he referenced are in Tabs 1 and 3 of the binder; also enclosed are the resumes¢ of the engineers who performed the studies; and he will summarize the findings. He stated the traffic study indicates that presently there are approximately 3,700 vehicle trips per day on St. Andrews Boulevard south of Interlachen Avenue, and that the number will rise to just under 7,000 vehicle trips per day once the approved by not yet constructed homes located south of Interlachen Avenue are completed. He stated the study shows that approval of the rezoning will result in over 2,000 vehicle trips per day on St. Andrews Boulevard; and that the construction of the school and the connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Causeway extension would result in almost 14,000 vehicle trips per day on St. Andrews Boulevard than what presently exists. Mr. Price advised the relevance of the 14,000 vehicle trips figure becomes very clear when it is viewed in the context of a memo dated March 13, 2000 prepared by Bob Kamm, Director of Transportation Planning for Brevard County; a copy of that memo is attached to the back of Tab 3 in the binder, and was in response to a proposal that the Grand Haven Subdivision located just south of the subject properties only access the public road network via connection to the south end of St. Andrews Boulevard; however, Mr. Kamm's observations regarding St. Andrews Boulevard are still extremely relevant. He stated Mr. Kamm estimated that connecting Grand Haven only via St. Andrews Boulevard would generate approximately 7,700 additional vehicle trips per day on St. Andrews Boulevard; he wrote, "St. Andrews Boulevard was not designed to accommodate an additional 7,700 vehicles a day," and that "higher traffic volume on St. Andrews Boulevard would raise concerns about increased noise, higher travel speed, increased delays at intersections, degradation of safety for motorists and pedestrians, which would include school children, and golf carts"; and also that, "there will be conflicts between through traffic and residents turning into their driveways and residential site streets."

Chairman Carlson requested Mr. Price complete his presentation, as his time is about the expire; and asked how much longer is his presentation; with Mr. Price responding two minutes.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to grant an additional two minutes to Scott Price to complete his presentation. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Price advised as the Board can see, its Director of Transportation Planning clearly indicates that an increase in vehicle trips per day on St. Andrews Boulevard by 7,700 would be disastrous to the quality of life for Suntree residents; and an increase in the traffic on St. Andrews Boulevard of l4,000 vehicle trips per day will be exponentially worse. He stated the Board has heard many testimonials from Suntree residents regarding the impacts to the Suntree neighborhood if St. Andrews Boulevard is connected to the Pineda Causeway extension; and the Board has two traffic studies performed by professional traffic engineers for its review to substantiate those testimonials. He stated at the prior hearing on this matter, the Board heard testimony from the residents of Suntree that presently in Sawgrass, St. Andrews Isles, and Suntree developments the ratio of children to homes is greater than one-to-one; the Board also heard testimony from Dr. Melissa Hoaglund that the Board has already approved construction of over 2,000 new homes in the service area of the Suntree and Long Leaf Elementary Schools that are yet to be constructed; if the ratio remains in tact, there will be over 2,000 new children in that school district and over 1,000 new elementary school-age children; and one new elementary school will not be enough to solve the capacity problems the area will face from the developments that are already approved. Mr. Price advised the Board heard from the County Attorney that it has the power to deny this request due to school overcrowding; the Board is aware that Orange County has denied rezoning requests on those grounds and defended its actions successfully in court; the Board is aware that the School Board has said the elementary schools are over capacity and that the situation is going to get worse; and the Board has received testimony from its own consultant, Planning Partnership, that the schools are over capacity. He stated the Board has also received testimony from Planning Partnership of other inconsistencies of the proposed rezoning with the Comprehensive Plan; and as such it has heard competent substantial evidence to support the denial of this rezoning. Mr. Price advised presently there does not appear to be competent substantial evidence to indicate that the school overcrowding issue will be resolved; the School Board acceptance of this donation of land is still an open question; and the School Board's ability to find the funding to construct an eleme school on this site is also an open question. He stated the construction of only one new elementary school will not create enough capacity to accommodate this rezoning; consequently, the rezoning should be denied.

Anne Salemmo, resident of Suntree and member of Citizens for Responsible Growth, advised the applicant has recognized that his proposed Sawgrass development will put an unsupportable strain on the capacity of the existing schools in the area, and has offered to the School Board the donation of property immediately south of St Andrews Isles for an elementary school site. She stated the donation comes with the condition of connecting St. Andrews Boulevard, from its current terminus, to the Pineda Causeway extension; and they applaud the acknowledgment of the impact the proposed development will have on the schools, but feel the site that has been offered is not adequate for an elementary school. She stated they also have significant concerns about the impact of the contingency of the donation that St Andrews Boulevard be connected to the Pineda Causeway extension; and while the offer may initially seem to be a solution to the school capacity problem, it is not. She stated they recognize that the final decision of acceptance or declination of the proposed donation rests with the Brevard County School Board and not with the Board of County Commissioners; they realize that the citizens need to make their objections known to the School Board members individually and at its 5:30 p.m. meeting on October 9, 2001; however, so that the Board may understand the community's concerns as it meets with the School Board on the afternoon of October 9, 2001, she would like to summarize them for the Board. Ms. Salemmo advised their concerns are outlined in the four-page report behind Tab 2 in the folder; the proposed school parcel is 10.17 acres with a 2.12-acre high-quality wetland, netting a buildable area of only 8.05 acres; Department of Education's recommendations require a minimum of 9 to 10 acres for a 740- student school as suggested in the applicant's donation letter, and 11 to 12 acres for a 940-student school as proposed by the School District. She stated the prototype proposed for the site is the same as Ralph Williams Elementary School, which is situated on 15 acres; and according to the principal, it has significant ongoing problems with traffic congestion and parking. She stated other recent elementary school construction in Brevard County includes Lewis Carroll on 15 acres, Suntree on 28 acres, Long Leaf on 20 acres, and Meadowlane on 29 acres; proposed sites for new construction in the current School Facilities Plan include the Krasner site in Palm Bay of 24.22 acres and Viera West of 15 acres; and simply put 8 or 10 acres is not big enough for an elementary school. Ms. Salemmo stated the site in question is not located central to the population to be served as the Comprehensive Plan guidelines suggests; according to the School Board Facilities Plan presented on September 24, 2001, the school would serve Grand Haven, Deer Lakes, Pineda Crossing, and parts of Sawgrass; 80% of the homes in the developments proposed to be served by the new elementary school are located south of the Pineda Causeway extension; and the proposed donation of land is made conditional on the connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda extension. She stated Mr. Price has presented expert testimony and reports to document the devastating effects the traffic impact will have on the existing neighborhood; this issue will also be addressed by Mr. Grimms, a certified land planner; such negative impacts are directly addressed and countermanded by numerous portions of the Comprehensive Plan as cited on pages 3 and 4 of the report behind Tab 2; and they are included in the supporting documents Attachments A and B at the rear of the folder. She stated because a feasible solution to school capacity problems has not be offered at this point, they will provide expert testimony regarding the impact on students, teachers, and administrators of over-capacity schools with reports from Dr. Dan Scheuerer, former Deputy Superintendent of Brevard District Schools, Raymon Rogers, former principal of Suntree Elementary School, and Sharon Chenoy, a certified human factors engineer. Ms. Salemmo stated there seems to be some movement at the County level toward recognition of the need to provide adequate school facilities as part of a thoughtful, proactive, and responsible growth plan; such a plan is not yet in place; therefore, they ask again that the property be zoned GU as an appropriate holding pattern until the school capacity issue is resolved and the Board declines connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Causeway extension for reasons stated and which it will hear more from their speakers.

Jim Bennett advised an interoffice memo from the Office of Transportation Planning Director Bob Kamm and Director of Traffic Engineering R. W. Thompson is an attachment under Tab 3; and he will touch on a few points and paraphrase what was said. He stated paragraph 2 of the memo says, "First, the proposed connection will create unacceptable impacts on existing residential areas. St. Andrews Boulevard is the major collector roadway for Suntree, a planned residential development; as such the roadway in Suntree has been designated to accommodate the residential traffic levels the development will generate upon buildout. There is generally limited ability to accommodate substantial new traffic generators in such circumstances because of the resulting negative impact the additional traffic will have on the surrounding residential development. St. Andrews Boulevard is a two-lane road with sidewalks, golf cart crossings, limited shoulders, sight lines, and a geometry that encourages slow travel speed. These features are characteristic and typical of a residential collector street. Grand Haven Subdivision will generate approximately 7,700 trips a day." Mr. Bennett stated his traffic study will show that Grand Haven, using County factors, will generate approximately 8,261 traffic movements a day; and continued to read portions of the memo, which said, "The higher volume will raise concerns about increased noise, higher travel speeds, increased delays at intersections, degradation of safety of motorists, pedestrians, and golf carts etc. St. Andrews Boulevard is not designed to accommodate 7,700 vehicles a day. The possibility should not be ruled out that St. Andrews Boulevard would need to be widened in response to the additional traffic." He stated a great number of people are here this evening because if the door to the connection is opened, the potential for what the County has already said is too much for that roadway to handle will happen; and the road would have to be widened. He stated once the door of the connection is opened, it is not something that the County would easily be able to reverse.

Thomas Grimms, with Planning Research Associates, representing Citizens for Responsible Growth, advised he will speak about schools, traffic, and property values in terms of compatibility. He stated typically compatibility is assumed when residential densities and house sizes are similar in a proposed development as found in surrounding Subdivisions; the proposed development appears to be compatible with surrounding development upon first examination of the concept plan and the proposed binding development agreement; but the applicant does not fully address traffic, access impacts, and impacts to property values and schools. He stated the proposed density for Sawgrass South, Phase II appears to be too great; St. Andrews Isles development located to the west of Sawgrass South, Phase II has approval of RU-1-13 zoning; but it has a cap of 67 dwelling units on 45 acres of land as specified in the binding development agreement, which is a development of approximately 1.49 units per acre. He stated applying the same limitation to Sawgrass South, Phase II would limit that development to a maximum of 125 dwelling units; the additional homes beyond compatible density levels will increase traffic on St. Andrews Boulevard and add to traffic problems. Mr. Grimms stated in terms of schools, there is no doubt that schools are affected by new development; as population increases, so does the need for more schools; and using the figure of 1.3 children per home for the proposed Sawgrass South, Phase II, based on adjacent similar communities, the number of children generated by Sawgrass South, Phase II would be 185, if the current version of the binding development agreement is used. He stated current enrollment already exceeds the permanent capacity of existing schools, which will service Sawgrass South and Suntree; the developer proposes to address the school capacity deficit by donation of a parcel of land immediately south of St. Andrews isles; that parcel is 10.17 acres and contains a 2.12-acre high-quality wetland; and the school site proposed by the developer does not appear to be in a location central to the residential population that it will serve as required by the County's Future Land Use Element Policy 12.7A in that the bulk of the homes to be served by this site are located on the other side of Pineda Causeway extension in Grand Haven and Deer Lakes. Mr. Grimms advised pedestrian and vehicle access is also not adequate as required in Policy 12.7B; and it also appears that the proposed site may be too small or tight for an elementary facility based on Department of Education's school site standards. He stated in terms of traffic, the two submitted traffic reports, which address traffic volumes and traffic demands on that segment of St. Andrews Boulevard, from Interlachen Avenue south to the proposed development, reveal that the additional traffic created by the proposed development will be significant. He stated the total estimated daily traffic, including existing trips, trips attributed to approved lots, and proposed Sawgrass South development will be 9,452 vehicle trips per day per Table 10 in the report; and that is a significant impact for any limited access collector road or local road. He noted typically this type of limited access road safely handles a vehicle capacity of 5,000 vehicles per day per Traffic Circulation Planning for Communities by H. Marks, Gruen and Associates; the projected traffic will exceed that by two to three times; therefore, additional traffic onto St. Andrews Boulevard should be strictly limited or not allowed. Mr. Grimms advised another report made by Mr. Jim Bennett estimated how the traffic split between Wickham Road and Pineda Causeway, when St. Andrews Boulevard is connected to the Pineda Causeway extension, per contingency 2 of the developer's donation letter of September 19, 2001, would affect the traffic on St. Andrews Boulevard. He stated the traffic studies show that connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Causeway extension as proposed will generate 13,874 total additional trips per day, a figure exceeding 7,700 figure by 6,174 trips per day; and that would be a significant impact to St. Andrews Boulevard and to the residents of Suntree. He stated St. Andrews Boulevard's ability to handle traffic has been degraded because of recent rezonings for higher density developments within the Suntree PUD; this trend will continue as more dwelling units are built in the area; and if St. Andrews Boulevard is upgraded and widened, there will be further delays and degradation to its capability to handle traffic until such time that construction is completed. He noted it will certainly need sidewalks for additional pedestrian safety, especially if a public school is build at Sawgrass South.

Chairman Carlson advised Mr. Grimms he had 30 seconds to complete his presentation.

Mr. Grimms stated the proposed development of Sawgrass South will create additional impacts on the already overburdened road and to the residents of the Suntree community; and based on the impacts of the developer's proposed means of addressing the school capacity problem, as well as other concerns such as environmental, school, and drainage issues, it is evident the proposed development plan would not warrant a rezoning as requested. He inquired what is the compelling public need or interest to rezone to a higher density than the surrounding developments, which would exacerbate the schools' over-capacity issue and increase traffic congestion beyond that which was originally designed and approved; and stated the Citizens for Responsible Growth request that the application for rezoning be denied by the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Grimms explain his professional credentials and experience. Mr. Grimms advised he is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners of the American Planning Association, has a Masters Degree in Urban Planning from Cleveland State University and an MBA from Lake Erie College, and he did private consultant work and is currently with Planning Research Associates. He stated his fellow associate, Mr. Don Murray, was unable to come tonight. Commissioner Higgs inquired if Mr. Grimms has been involved professionally in comprehensive plans and zoning; with Mr. Grimms responding the bulk of his professional work has been comprehensive planning and rezoning. Commissioner Higgs requested Mr. Grimms summarize the effect on property values; with Mr. Grimms responding generally considered in the real estate industry is that increase traffic, congestion, and potential for accidents affect property values.

Commissioner Colon requested Mr. Grimms advise the Board of his experience; with Mr. Grimms responding he previously worked for the City of Winter Springs in the Orlando area; the bulk of my work has been with comprehensive planning and zoning; he helped to write comprehensive plans and amendments, large scale and small scale in Ohio and in Florida; and he worked on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) amendments to comprehensive plans. He stated he worked with City of Cocoa as a Senior Planner then as a Director; he worked with Lake County to the northwest of Orlando as Project Manager and Planner III, coordinating nine municipal comprehensive plans in the late 1980's; and previous to that, he was with Jensen Property Management in Ohio and moved to their California Office in Los Angeles. He noted he has written articles that were published.

Commissioner Higgs advised Mr. Grimms referenced the Comprehensive Plan Policies 12.7A and 12.7B regarding the rezoning; and requested he explain his professional estimation of how the Comprehensive Plan should be applied in the zoning area and what relevance it has. Mr. Grimms advised it is basically established in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Growth Management Program, that comprehensive plans should drive zoning, and zoning must be supportive and further the Comprehensive Plan and not be a variance to it.

Dr. Daniel Scheuerer advised he was asked by the Citizens for Responsible Growth to be an expert witness on the issue of overcrowding in schools in the area to be impacted by the proposed plan. He stated his resume¢ of academic preparation and professional experience is in the master packet, which has been given to the Board; for the benefit of the audience and the legal record, he has a Doctorate from the University of Florida in school administration; and before retiring in January, he was the Deputy Superintendent for School Operations for the Brevard County Schools. He stated he was a member of the Superintendent's Cabinet for the past 20 years dealing with the policy, financial, instructional, and facilities issues of the School District; and is presently a consultant for the State's School District Superintendents Association. Dr. Scheuerer advised he also teaches graduate administrative courses in research, finance, and tests measurements for the University of Central Florida and Nova Southeastern University. He stated he attended the Board's July 27, 2001 Workshop on school facilities and studied the materials distributed at that meeting; he conducted a national literature search on the topic of school overcrowding and reviewed applicable Florida Statutes particularly the sharpen your pencil legislation; and he scrutinized the material submitted to the Board by the Superintendent's Office of the Brevard County School System and analyzed the School Board's proposed 2000, 2001, and 2002 budget and financial condition. He stated it is a dismal situation; Brevard County School Board is facing a difficult if not challenging situation; the problem is threefold; one, a large number of Brevard schools, which were built during the peak Cape expansion period in the l950's and 1960's were in need of remodeling and major renovation; and major preventive maintenance projects, such as new roofs and air conditioner replacements were annually postponed to provide daily operating funds. He stated the student population increased from 44,386 in 1982 to the present district enrollment of 71,352 students; the huge student increase of approximately 27,000 students in 18 years has resulted in extreme pressure on the School Board to build additional schools while at the same time renovating numerous older facilities; and because of limitations of State funding and local defeat of a referendum bond issue, the School Board has exhausted its capital resources and has resorted to the use of certificates of participation or bonded indebtedness. Dr. Scheuerer advised presently the District has gone considerably into debt to address its facility needs; analysis of the 2001-02 School Board adopted budget can only bring one to the conclusion that the District simply does not have sufficient operating and/or capital budget funding to address its facility needs; and limited available funds have already been committed to major projects. He stated the School Board budget materials, which the Board has been provided, substantiate this reality. He stated as recently as this past Tuesday, the School Board, at a workshop affirmed during discussion, the need to comply with the State direction to remove portable classrooms at a cost of approximately $50 million, and to construct a high school and two new additional elementary schools in the Suntree and Viera area; several School Board members expressed troubled concern about finding the funding for the additional construction; and it appears that only additional indebtedness will be available. He noted the majority of the Board has serious concerns about putting the citizens of Brevard County into yet further debt. Dr. Scheuerer advised even though the developer has now offered to donate the land, the issue of the School Board being able to find construction funding is very much open to question and yet to be determined. He stated he provided highlighted statements and data from the School Board materials in the packet presented to you at its July 27, 2001 Workshop; and he calls those statements and student enrollment figures to the Board's attention to make them a matter of the record. He stated the data should convince the Board there is a major overcrowding in the schools serving Suntree, Viera, and Lake Washington area, mainly Suntree elementary, Long Leaf Elementary, Ralph Williams Elementary and Satellite and Rockledge High Schools. He stated each of those schools have been overcrowded and continues to be so; and the District simply cannot keep warehousing children in overcrowded too large schools.

Commissioner Higgs advised in the package Dr. Scheuerer referenced Florida Statutes 235.2157, small school requirement; and requested he explain what that does; with Dr. Scheuerer responding that Statute was enacted by the Florida Legislature to address the issue of the huge size of Florida schools; it has been identified as a national problem; and in the legislation, the Legislature established a standard of what ought to be the desirable appropriate size of a school in Florida; so beginning July 1, 2003, any proposals for new schools in the State must conform to the new mandatory limitations on school enrollments, which set a standard of an elementary school having a maximum enrollment of 500 students, a junior high or middle school having a maximum enrollment of 700 students, and a high school having a maximum enrollment of 900 students. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that is because research showed smaller schools produce higher level of education; with Dr. Scheuerer responding yes, the National research is consistent on that issue and the advantages of a smaller school as it relates to increased parent involvement, student achievement, attendance, and less discipline problems. Commissioner Higgs inquired if the research is clear in outlining overcrowded schools produce a less quality educational experience; with Dr. Scheuerer responding yes, particularly in terms of attendance, discipline problems, and particularly lower achieving students and lower economic students achievement levels. Commissioner Higgs inquired if there is an effect on students being in a school that is overcrowded that is measurable; with Dr. Scheuerer responding yes, there appears to be a correlation of factors and variables involving the size of the school, particularly in overcrowding and a less quality educational environment and result. Commissioner Higgs stated overcrowding is not just in terms of the actual number of seats per student, it is also in terms of the availability of the overall facilities. Dr. Scheuerer advised the issue of overcrowding is not necessarily individual classrooms, but the total school environment and enrollment, which are going to affect the basic infrastructure and services available to the school, whether it is the clinic, media center, cafeteria, and other support services. Commissioner Higgs stated they can put in portable classrooms and student stations, but the infrastructure would not be added to the school site. Dr. Scheuerer advised typically that becomes the issue and the problem, because they would have to do major renovations to the infrastructure support service units; and adding portables or permanent facilities exacerbates, perpetuates, and compounds the problem.

Marc Sawyer advised he lives in Suntree Estates Subdivision; and Raymon Rogers could not be here this evening due to a prior commitment, so he was asked to present his report to the Board. He stated Mr. Rogers is an expert in elementary education with 30 years experience in Brevard County School System, including 11 years as the Elementary Program Director and 6-1/2 years as principal of Suntree Elementary. He stated his tenure included that period of time when Suntree's enrollment soared to over 1,500 students; his entire report is in the folder under Tab 6; and he will read into the record excerpts from that report. He read, "Major problems relating to overcrowding at Suntree are as follows: Problem (1) Traffic Congestion and Safety. Suntree at one point was served by as many as 25 school buses that had difficulty exiting the campus to merge with a large volume of parent vehicular traffic. Traffic moved so slowly and tediously that we once stationed a school employee to direct bus traffic into the street. Many school personnel are required daily to supervise large numbers of students as they find their ride, walk home, or ride their bikes. Many students are dispersed to cars, walkways, bikepaths, and buses in the midst of extensive vehicular traffic. Problem (2) Scheduling. Schedules become significantly impacted in the schools where membership exceeds capacity. Lunch is served very early and the long lunch period extends for an extreme period of time. Scheduling programs and activities on a regular basis requires a great deal of resourcefulness and creativity. Outdoor physical activity is also a challenge to schedule. There are only so many hours in a day when students and classes can visit the library on a scheduled or unscheduled basis and avoid overcrowded conditions. Problem (3) Space Constraints. Suntree was not able to operate a computer lab for several years due to the need to use all available space for permanent student stations. The before and after school program operated out of the cafeteria and this created conflicts when the cafeteria was needed for students to practice for a program or large number of students needed to wait inside after school for a bus. Physical and occupational therapists work with students in a room off the stage. Physical education classes met on the stage in periods of inclement weather. Problem (4) Use and Management of Portables. At a maximum enrollment, Suntree had over 20 portable classrooms. When every effort is made to have equitability with other classrooms, resources have to be diligently sought to provide the portables with capacity and equipment for computers, phones, and educational television. Plans must be in place to evacuate students from portables to the main building in severe weather. This evacuation occurs fairly often during periods of frequent bad weather warnings. Alternate locations for students in the portables during inclement weather are limited due to space constraints. Proper accommodations also have to be made for handicapped students. Problem (5) Additional Class Formation. Problems arise when new students come in throughout the year and there is insufficient space in-house for additional classes required. Problem (6) Additional Administrative and Support Personnel Responsibilities. Administrators and other service units are allocated based on student enrollment ranges, so larger schools do have more personnel; however, people in these schoolwide positions do have more responsibility for more students, staff, and things than their colleagues in smaller schools. The long lunch periods also necessitate long periods of time to be on lunch supervisory duty for administration and support staff. The large number of school buses require assembly of a large number of students in the cafeteria waiting periods with obvious need for supervision after hours. In my view, potentially serious and pervasive problems and mediocrity were only avoided due to the extraordinary effort of a lot of people. I doubt that any one can accurately assess how much farther we could have gone and how much more we could have achieved if Suntree had been a smaller school with less growth. I'm convinced however that management burdens created by overcrowded conditions usurp valuable time that could have been devoted to further refining and enriching programs for services and students. As responsible parties consider various alternatives and make decisions on issues relating to school overcrowding, it is critical to maintain students as the top priority. In my view, efforts to provide and maintain schools that are of a more manageable size will produce positive results in providing maximum educational benefits to young people."

Sharon Chinoy advised she is a certified human factors engineer and has approximately 16 years of experience, as provided in the handout under Tab 7. She stated she prepared a report that documents the effects of crowding on human behavior and performance based on research from the field of social psychology, environmental psychology, and education. She stated she will answer two questions; the first is "is crowding bad," and the second, "is it too late." She stated the answer to the first question is yes, crowding causes negative effects; and similar negative effects occur within community and school environments as school is a micro-environment of the society at large. She stated crowding is the perception that there are too many people in one's surroundings; density is an objective measure of the number of people within a specified space; crowding caused by increases in density can result in negative physiological, sociological, and cognitive effects; and a person's first reaction to environmental effects that threaten his or her wellbeing is stress. Ms. Chinoy stated stressful events include daily hassles, such as overcrowding, noise, and traffic, and the build environment, such as schools, houses, sidewalks, and cities designed in a manner that it does not fit the needs of the population. She stated high-density physiological effects caused by arousal, such as increased heart rate, higher blood pressure, and elevated cordial levels are indicators of stress; and higher density also leads to illness due to stress. She advised crowded conditions can cause negative social reactions such as social tension, anxiety, negative emotions, and withdrawal, as shown by the maintenance of greater interpersonal distances or less interaction with others; it can also decrease cooperation and altruism; individuals may also demonstrate competitive behaviors; and there is a diffusion of responsibility. Ms. Chinoy stated for some people, especially males, the presence of many people can cause one to feel anonymous and weaken restraints against negative behavior, such as crime, vandalism, and violence; test performances are also affected negatively by density increases, especially for more complex tasks and activities that require interaction among individuals; so how does this relate to schools. She stated Florida is one of the fastest growing states in the nation, including in student enrollment; school overcrowding causes more students to be assigned to a classroom, distributed into portables, or placed in rooms not intended for classes; they also have to share resources such as a cafeteria; and they must implement unusual schedules. She stated evacuation for fire emergency takes longer; there is also congestive parking lots that can create safety concerns. Ms. Chinoy advised the National PTA suggested effective facilities have the following characteristics: They provided barrier-free access for individuals with disabilities; are free of health and environmental hazards; have adequate space and size for low pupil teacher ratios; provide appropriate space for education-related services; and are equipped with appropriate technology for classroom and instructional use. She stated to remedy overcrowding they can increase school size or build new buildings; however, the research indicates that large schools have also been shown to result in negative effects, such as lower involvement in school activities, higher drop-out rates, and more problems with violence, security, and drug abuse. She stated educators believe the best solution to minimize density effects is small schools or small classes, based on extensive research findings, which she provided some of in her report. She stated small schools and classes lead to higher achievement shown by higher assessment test scores, higher reading and mathematics levels, and higher rating standards; they promote safe schools; and a safe school is one where students can receive a quality education without the threat of violence. She stated with small schools and small classes teachers and students have more opportunity to bond; teachers can more effectively manage the class, track the students progress, easily identify troubled children who may need counseling, and have more time to interact with parents; and students get more attention from the teacher. She stated students act more like a team, expect more out each other, are more involved in classroom and extra curricular activities, and are less likely to be retained in grade; and there are fewer disciplinary problems with a positive classroom and school atmosphere. Ms. Chinoy advised another factor that negatively affects student performance is noise; increased density directly or indirectly can cause increased noise levels; and noise is also linked with the negative effect demonstrated with crowding. She stated the second question is, is it too late; and the answer is no. She stated several programs have been initiated to reduce density in schools both at the federal and State level; there are various mitigation strategies where large schools already exists; several districts around the country are trying to create small schools within the large school building similar to neighbors being closed off from other neighborhoods; and the goal is to provide defensible space, promote social interaction and sense of community, and reduce anomaly. She stated where school capacity has been reached and urban sprawl necessitates it, the best solution is to build new schools in appropriate locations to enhance student learning and safety; as documented in the Brevard County Comprehensive Plan, many of the policies and criteria support the prevention of crowding and its negative effects; and she provided those in the executive summary, but will call out a few. Ms. Chinoy advised Policy 12.7 says, "Brevard County should encourage the School Board to locate public schools in accordance with the following criteria: School facilities should be entirely located within residential areas to be served and should be of sufficient size to accommodate the projected enrollment. Locations on major roadways and commercial/industrial areas should be avoided to limit the hazards of vehicular traffic and to minimize disturbances from noise, odors or fumes." She stated Policy 1.3 and subcriteria say, "Brevard County should encourage the Brevard County School Board to mutually agree on promoting support high-quality community and neighborhood development by coordinating site searches, planning and design public educational facilities as well as assuring the consistency of those facilities with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations." and she would like to add Policy 1.3.f of the Comprehensive Plan, that provides the criteria for the size of schools, to say "the County and School Board look at the whole picture and provides adequate situations to minimize the effects of crowding."

Melissa Hoagland advised she lives in Suntree Estates and is a member of Citizens for Responsible Growth; and thanked the Board for taking the time to hear the public's voice on this issue this evening.; it is no small task to notify and coordinate a large public turnout such as occurred this evening; and we appreciate your acknowledging the efforts of all those who have come by allowing us to speak. She stated at each prior meeting on this rezoning request, we have had a progressively increasing attendance by Suntree residents united in their opposition to this proposed development, and now to the threat of the impact to our roadways by the contingencies of the proposed land donation. She stated the room is full of residents, which shows their opposition to this development; and she was advised there are 300 additional people in various overflow areas outside the chambers. She stated the Board has heard from their expert witnesses about the difficulties that schools functioning over capacity face and the negative effects for the school children who attend them; Dr. Scheuerer has masterfully reviewed the status of Brevard County schools and the problems of over capacity; Ray Rogers' report documents problems with traffic congestion and safety, scheduling, space constraints, and use of portables; Sharon Chinoy outlined behavior problems and other effects of overcrowding conditions; and those are the conditions their children face daily in their school experience, conditions that will be exacerbated by the continued unchecked development in areas already strained beyond capacity in providing school services. Ms. Hoaglund advised the developer's proposal for addressing the school capacity problem creates an even greater problem for their community; their expert witnesses have presented information about the devastating impact the proposed school donation with its contingency of St. Andrews Boulevard connection will have on traffic with over 17,000 trips a day on a neighborhood roadway with pedestrians, bicycles, and children traveling to and from school; and Mr. Kamm's March 13, 2000 memo has accurately described the roadways in Suntree. She stated the memo says, "Suntree is designed to accommodate the residential traffic levels that the development will generate upon buildout. There's generally limited ability to accommodate substantial new traffic generators and such circumstances because of the resulting negative impact the additional traffic will have on the surrounding residential development." She stated that is Mr. Kamm's opinion that St. Andrews Boulevard cannot handle 7,700 additional trips a day above traffic levels as of March 13, 2000; the source of the 7,700 trips per day he referenced in his memo is different than that contemplated in this matter; but the analysis of traffic volume impact is equally applicable to the current situation. She stated his words have been reviewed by Mr. Price and Mr. Bennett; and quoted from the memo that says, "St. Andrews Boulevard was not designed to accommodate an additional 7,700 vehicles each day. The possibility should not be ruled out that St. Andrews boulevard would need to be widened in response to the added traffic. Such a widening project would be very disruptive and expensive." Ms. Hoagland stated that is the devastating impact facing their community if the roadway is made a through connection; and while the County may have no plans to widen St. Andrews Boulevard at this time, there would be no option in the face of the traffic volumes. She stated at Tuesday's Commission Meeting, there were discussions about a request for access to Claire's Cove; Commissioner Scarborough stated, "the residents of the existing community had a right to expect that if they buy into a neighborhood, its character would not change." She noted Commissioner O'Brien characterized the requested roadway access as, "a profound change to the complexion and safety of the neighborhood." She stated the Board unanimously denied the access request because of the impact on 30 to 40 homes; but the development proposed here and the site and conditions of the proposed land donation to address school capacity will unexpectedly, fundamentally, and permanently change the character of their neighborhood of over 2,000 homes in the Suntree community west of Wickham Road, the same effect on a much larger scale. Ms. Hoagland stated a feasible solution to the capacity problem of the schools serving the area have not been provided at this point; and somewhere a commitment needs to be made to begin logical, intelligent, and a proactive approach to growth, which guarantees adequate services and the preservation of the quality of life that was the initial draw to Brevard County for so many of its residents. She requested the Board provide GU zoning for the property until a workable Comprehensive Plan has been funded, implemented, and completed to address school capacity difficulties, and that it decline to consider an extension and connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Causeway extension. She requested the Board take the first step here to enact a growth management plan.

Steve McGeary, Vice President of Suntree Master Homeowners Association, presented a statement prepared by their board to the Board but not to the Clerk; and read the statement as follows: "As President of the Suntree Master Homeowners Association, representing over 4,000 homeowners of Suntree, I have been authorized by our board to voice our objection to new developments regarding the zoning approval for Sawgrass South Phase III. Our board has been informed of the developer's intent to donate property to the Brevard County School District for construction of a new elementary school. The subject property previously designated as Sawgrass South Phase II will require that St. Andrews Boulevard be connected to the Pineda Extension in order to permit access to the school. On the surface this may seem like a positive step in solving the school overcrowding issue, but after further consideration, our board and residents feel that this proposal is an unacceptable solution. Our primary concern is the immediate connection of St. Andrews Boulevard to the Pineda Extension. This proposed connection has been a highly controversial issue that has dominated our community for the past two years. Although some have expressed approval, the overwhelming sentiment heard from our residents has been opposition to a St. Andrews/Pineda connection. The only common thread between the two opposing sides is the insistence that this issue should be decided only after the completion of the I-95 interchange. Our board was also informed that the proposed school will be a community school where there will be no busing and limited to only 740 students. At Suntree Elementary School, which is built on thirty plus acres, and only a small percentage of students are bused, we presently deal with a severe traffic congestion problem. Our board is concerned that the limited acreage of the proposed property would see an even more severe traffic problem that would spill off onto St. Andrews Boulevard and create an unsafe condition. Furthermore, our board and our residents, as well as others living outside of Suntree, are also aware of the wetlands located on the subject property and the negative environmental impact this development would cause. Finally, our board is concerned about the proposed school location being directly adjacent to a lake owned by St. Andrews Isles, a sub-association of Suntree. The lake represents an attractive nuisance for students and poses a substantial liability risk to our community. In summary, although we are in favor of a new school designed to accommodate the growth surrounding our community as well as alleviate Suntree Elementary's current overcrowded condition, the position of the Suntree Master Homeowners Association is that we are very much against this proposed school location. The traffic impact of the 240 plus homes from the Sawgrass South development, as well as the additional traffic from those south of the Pineda Extension, would be devastating to our community. The current terminus of St. Andrews Boulevard should remain intact until the completion of the I-95 interchange."

Mary Artz, President of Quail Ridge Association in Suntree, stated they are concerned because their property not only abuts St. Andrews Boulevard but Interlachen Avenue as well; if the traffic increases, there will be no option other than to widen St. Andrews Boulevard and Interlachen Avenue; the residents of Quail Ridge and Suntree are opposed to destroying the character of Suntree aside from the dangers to golf carts, bicycles, etc.; so they are requesting the Board to deny this rezoning request and try to come up with a progressive growth management plan, otherwise the County will have a terrible problem.

Roland Dexter stated he is here to plead for the children who have to cross St. Andrews Boulevard and Jordan Blass Boulevard. He stated even though two lanes have been shifted to one lane, over half the people drive at excessive speeds that is a danger to youngsters going from the area; requested the Board consider that as a specific fact for the record. He stated he has seen lots of speeders on that road, and any change to it would create more problems.

Alan Frisher advised he is a financial advisor and works with numbers all day long; the Board heard a lot of numbers and statistics; he is not here to talk about numbers but is here to discuss feelings and emotions. He stated he is currently building a house right off St. Andrews Boulevard in Suntree Estates; he has three children, ten, eight, and four years of age; and what happened to Suntree in the past whose namesake is now Jordan Blass Boulevard, he would not allow to happen to his children. He stated he is concerned about the traffic implications of St. Andrews Boulevard being extended and the roadway being full of traffic; and as a concerned father, the Board has to listen and take notice of the effect it will have on his children and the community, not to mention the homeowners in Suntree Estates and surrounding communities. He stated the main reason they chose to live in Suntree is the quality of life; and requested the Board not allow their children to be affected and not allow their lives to be adversely affected.

Herb Greeley stated he lived and worked in New York City all his life and came to Suntree where he found his Shangri-La and safety; he can walk on the streets any time of day or evening; the streets were intended to be small and that is why they came there; and expressed concern about 17,000 cars moving along their small streets. He stated the Board needs to think about the potential of cars swerving off the road and hitting children, many more children than they have in the schools now; and if the population increases the way the people said, people like him who like to walk may be afraid to do that. He stated cars are dangerous; they go out of control; he has seen a lot of that in the city; and he does not expect to see that in Suntree. He stated the Commissioners may be parents and also have grandparents; and they would like to see them safe; and that is the reason he came here.

Gregory Dufour stated he cannot address school overcrowding or traffic issues; but he can tell the Board every morning when he leaves the house he sees people speeding consistently on those roads; and he has seen a policeman twice in two years in the area. He stated it is a problem because a lot of school children are in the streets before dark; and it will make it very dangerous with the volume of traffic they are talking about. He stated he spoke to Peggy Busacca regarding consistency of home developments and how it should be in relation to other developments in the area; currently there is a development that connects to the back side of Waterford Place which is Grand Haven; and Item 12 of that binding development agreement says there will be a minimum of 100-foot buffer between any lot of that development and Waterford Place. He stated he would hope that any other development that comes in behind Waterford Place would have to be consistent with the other development that is connecting with Waterford Place; and he would look for at least a minimum of 100-foot buffer if the development gets approved or if it goes to GU. He stated he expects the people who are going to move into Grand Haven that is going to back up to Sawgrass would also request a 100-foot buffer and any of the other developments along that back side, and that they be consistent and flow along the back. He stated if the wetlands, eagle's nest and the 100-foot buffer is added in, and the main road across the other side of it in Grand Haven, it does not leave a whole lot of development are left; and that is the point he wanted to make.

Jackie Dunkel advised she is mainly concerned with the wetlands; she has visited Brevard County over the years because her sister lives here; and has seen the County grow and grow and grow, which is lovely except that it is frightening to see all the wetlands going under cement. She stated South Florida has tremendous water problems because they cemented over all their wetlands; and she does not want to see residents having to boil water to drink it. She stated another concern is the school children; she mentors at Anderson Elementary School and has seen the problems in classrooms with overcrowding; 28 to 30 students in a classroom is an uncontrollable number for teachers; and inquired how does the Board expect the children to get a quality education when the teachers have a tremendous problem controlling the children. She stated she has seen it because she has been there mentoring; and it is a problem.

Chairman Carlson advised that concludes the public comments; and inquired if Commissioners had any comments.

Commissioner Higgs advised several people mentioned the consequences of overcrowding in schools; one speaker mentioned a multiple effect on minority children in overcrowded schools; and requested the County Attorney provide the Board information prior to the next deliberation on this issue on the legal issues regarding equal protection if the Board approved a zoning that allowed or contributed to overcrowding, would it put itself in some sort of legal liability situation, and if there are cases on that point. Ms. Bentley advised she will look into that.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board needs to make a motion to table the item, or is there anything the Board can discuss at this point; with Ms. Bentley responding she would recommend the Board table the item and re-advertise the public hearing then discuss it after the applicant has presented his rebuttal. Chairman Carlson stated she asked the question because of the Board's action on October 2, 2001 regarding reviewing thresholds and capacity; there were a number of items that had to do with capacity in those issues; and if it followed the guidelines of the decision made on October 2, 2001, it would probably have to deny those. Commissioner Higgs stated those would be acted on as they go through the Agenda. Chairman Carlson inquired if that has no implication on this issue tonight; with Ms. Bentley responding it could, but it is a topic for discussion at the next meeting. She stated staff will re-advertise it; and inquired if the Board wants to discuss the issues raised tonight and the applicant's proposal at the next meeting.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board abandoned the concept of limited discussion; somehow that discussion led into other discussions that probably they had to get into; but nevertheless, the Board told people they have a right to come in and address other issues. He stated he does not think the Board can close the door again like it did the last time; it has to go back to the original concept of a full public hearing on all relevant items; and to do anything else would do more harm. Ms. Bentley noted she agrees.

Commissioner Colon inquired if it would be proper, because the Board will be meeting with the School Board next week, to make copies of the folder and video for the School Board members so they have the information that the Board has because they have become a part of the issues. She stated the Board will be discussing school capacity with the School Board next week. Ms. Bentley stated it would be preferable if the citizens presented their case to the School Board; and the documents are public record, so if the School Board requested them, staff would have to provide them.

Chairman Carlson stated the Board has to table the item so the applicant has due time to process all the information and the Board has time to process the information; the Citizens for Responsible Growth made a thorough representation of their concerns tonight; and expert testimony does a good job when it comes to proving a point in a court of law; so she appreciates everyone coming out tonight. Commissioner O'Brien also expressed his appreciation for the competent and substantial evidence presented by the community.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to continue the public hearing on Item 1 until November 1, 2001, and direct staff to re-advertise the public hearing. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 2. (Z0104101) Roger Vaughn, Jr.'s request for change from GU to ARR on 1.17 acres located on the east side of Satellite Boulevard, south of Cherven Avenue, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 2.

Item 3. (NMI10502) Colin Steer's request for change from AU to RR-1 on 120 acres located on the north side of Chase Hammock Road, east of Winding Way, which was recommended for approval by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board with a BDP for maximum of 62 units and minimum 2000-suqare foot houses.

The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 3.

Item 4. (Z0107109) Stephen V. and Cheryl D. Pramuk's request for Mixed Use District boundary expansion and change from AU and RU-1-13 to BU-1 on 2.10 acres located on the north side of SR 46, west of Pine Avenue. The LPA denied the MUD expansion and recommended approval of community commercial on south 300 feet only; and the P&Z Board recommended approval of BU-1 on the south 300 feet only.

Cheryl Pramuk advised she owns the subject property and adjacent property; the property is under contract with the Millennium Group, which is developing Walkabout; and explained a drawing showing the 2.1 acres, area of MUD expansion request, Walkabout Community; and her property. She stated the request is to change the zoning classification from AU and RU-1-13 to BU-1; and she is in the process of building a 2,500-square foot home and fully support the change in zoning even though 250 feet of the Mixed Use District will affect their property. She stated they have letters from each adjacent property owner highly supporting the rezoning and Mixed Use change; they feel the rezoning will have a positive impact on the community; and most I-95 corridors are highly commercial. She stated Mims lacks commercial development; they would like to see massive growth come into the area so residents do not have to travel so far to commercial establishments; and as a future resident of Mims, she hopes the Board will consider the request favorably.

Tom McGillicuddy with Millennium Corporation advised he represents the company that is developing Walkabout Golf and Country Club of over 1,000 acres with a world-class golf course and residential development probably in excess of 700 homes. He stated they are interested in the property that fronts on SR 46; the intersection of SR 46 and I-95 is a natural intersection for commercial use; and because of the type of development they are doing, they will do a first-class development on any commercial lands also. He stated Ms. Pramuk's property is adjacent to the entranceway to Walkabout; they are requesting to expand neighborhood commercial to general commercial, which is another 175 feet; and that would give them the flexibility to do additional commercial development if it is required. He stated they do not know at this point what will be on the property, but would like to have the flexibility to do that; and they have contacted the adjacent homeowners and have letters from them which he will submit to the Board. Mr. McGillicuddy gave the Chairman letters from adjacent landowners.

Alan Slaman, Vice President of Millennium Development, advised the reason they entered into the contract to purchase the property is to make the entrance on SR 46 more attractive; at one time there was an abandoned gas station which turned into a garage; and the garage was later abandoned. He stated they were asked by some of the neighbors and County staff if they could speed up demolition of the gas station and remove contaminated soils; they have done that and tried to make the front entrance as attractive as possible within the permits they were issued; and they plan to do further work in there when they get a permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District to do additional cleaning, which should be in a week or so.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the LPA unanimously denied a portion of the request; and requested staff review what occurred at the LPA and P&Z meetings.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the LPA took two different actions; since they completed the transition of the Comprehensive Plan, the expanded MUD is no longer appropriate; so the LPA approved community commercial on the south 300 feet only; and the P&Z approved BU-1 to the same 300-foot depth. Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Enos depict the action on the aerial map; and Mr. Enos explained the location of the parcels that were affected. Mr. Enos stated the LPA was concerned about the additional depth since the remainder of the parcel is adjacent to residential lots to the east.

Commissioner Higgs requested clarification of the use on the back portion of the property beyond 300 feet; with Mr. Slaman responding they are not sure at this point what they are going to do with that; they may expand the entranceway or do a commercial establishment, and want the flexibility to do that; and they were concerned about Ms. Pramuk selling the property to somebody else who may put in something less desirable than what they want to build.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired about adjacent property owners; and Mr. Enos advised Helen Hainesworth, Patrick Conner and Terry Stevens own adjacent lots. Commissioner Scarborough suggested excluding the east 100 feet from the action and extend further back than the LPA and P&Z recommended.

Chairman Carlson stated she does not feel comfortable extending pass the 300-foot line. Commissioner Higgs inquired if it is an amendment to the PUD; with Mr. McGillicuddy responding he believes it will be. Commissioner Higgs inquired why are they not amending the PUD and wrapping everything except the 100 feet into it and leave the 100 feet as a buffer. Mr. Enos advised it was an option suggested to the applicants, but they chose to go this way instead. Mr. Slaman explained a drawing of the area, and noted all contiguous property owners recommended approval of the rezoning without a buffer. Mr. Slaman stated they have not purchased the land yet and are looking for rezoning; they discussed whether to do the PUD amendment or recommend the owners apply for rezoning; and the decision was made to have the property owner rezone the property to keep it simple. He stated if the rezoning is approved, they plan to purchase the property; and the owners of the PUD do not own the land and the owners of the land do not have ownership in the PUD.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the Board and zone it PUD or does it have to be advertised as an amendment; with Mr. Enos responding it would have to be advertised and they would have to do substantial design work to redesign the preliminary development plan. Commissioner Higgs stated Commissioner O'Brien suggested a BDP to take care of Commissioner Scarborough's concerns; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that would work, but they would need to bring it back to the Board. Commissioner Scarborough stated Chairman Carlson has a problem with going beyond 300 feet; with Chairman Carlson responding if they have the consent of all the homeowners in the area, it may be okay, but usually the Board does not approve commercial intruding into residential areas. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to look at the integrity of the Pine Street property; and expressed concern about keeping the integrity of the lines. Commissioner Higgs stated that is why she likes the PUD amendment because it would not redraw the MUD. Commissioner O'Brien stated the 100 feet to the east could be used as a buffer to resolve the concerns of the single-family homes that need to be buffered from further construction.

Mr. Slaman stated they would be amenable to some kind of buffer there; they do not know what is going in there, but assured the residents they are sensitive to their homes and to Ms. Pramuk who is planning to build a home to the north; so they would be amenable to some type of buffer if the Board wants to do that now. He stated if the property is consolidated into the PUD, it would require a 25-foot buffer around the perimeter of the PUD; and if the Board wants to have it included in its approval, they would agree to a 25-foot landscaped buffer. He stated there are a lot of attractive trees within the whole site; they worked with Reba Floyd and had tree surveys done; and they are sensitive about protecting the environment. He stated they will ensure that whatever they do on the property will be positive and attractive; and they will be happy to commit to that if the Board wants to make it part of the rezoning approval.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if it intrudes and encroaches further to the east, it would create a precedent that it moved closer to those properties; he does not know what happens, when it happens, or how it happens, but have seen things happen of the nature which becomes an inroad that if it worked here why not move it further; therefore, he does not mind a BDP and not rezoning the property this evening. He stated he is concerned about accepting the request as proposed, and is willing to compromise; the P&Z Board unanimously recommended approval, and he is trying to be flexible; but he still has concerns. Commissioner Higgs stated that portion could be left as AU for a buffer. Commissioner Scarborough suggested a lesser zoning. Commissioner Higgs stated it is an amendment to the PUD and should be denied and re-advertised to amend the PUD; and inquired why was it not done that way; with Mr. Slaman responding Mr. and Mrs. Pramuk would have to wait longer; and they were being sensitive to her and what she wanted to do. Chairman Carlson stated she supports the recommendation of the LPA. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is going to be more liberal than the LPA and make a recommendation to proceed but exclude the 100 feet to the east.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 4 as a change of zoning classification from AU and RU-1-13 to BU-1 on the south 300 feet only. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if there is a problem with the motion; with Mr. Enos responding he would suggest rezoning the remnant 100 feet to something other than AU because it is undersized.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board needs another motion for the expansion of the MUD or community commercial; with Ms. Bentley responding it would be best.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to adopt Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 62, of the Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, entitled "The 1988 Comprehensive Plan," setting forth the Tenth Small Scale Plan Amendment of 2001 (01S.10) to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan; amending Section 62-501 entitled Contents of the Plan; specifically amending Section 62-501, Part XVI(E), entitled The Future Land Use Map Appendix; and provisions which require amendment to maintain internal consistency with these amendments; providing legal status; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Pramuk inquired if the back section of her property is now unusable; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the P&Z Board cut the line east/west; what the Board has done is cut it north/south; and that is more than half as much as the P&Z Board gave Ms. Pramuk.

Item 5. (MNI10701) George A. and Barbara H. Ogle's request for change from AU to SR on 0.597± acre located on the east side of North Tropical Trailer, north of Church Road, which had no recommendation due to split vote.

The Board accepted withdrawal of Item 5.

Item 6. (MNI 10501) Bud and Mary Carol Crisafulli's request for CUP for towers and antennas in AU zoning classification, removing the existing VCUP for temporary security trailer on 42.31± acres located immediately southwest of East Crisafulli Road, which was recommended for denial by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board.

Mr. Enos advised there is a request to table Item 6 until November 1, 2001. Commissioner O'Brien inquired how many times can the Board table the item.

Sheryl Denan, representing Verizon, advised the P&Z Board wanted only one tower in that area; Verizon is actively pursuing a co-location on the AT&T tower; there are title issues that have to be resolved before they can sign a lease with AT&T; and they are working as fast as possible. She stated as soon as the lease is complete, they will withdraw their application; but if the lease cannot be secured, they will move forward with the application for the CUP.

Commissioner O'Brien stated AT&T offered more than once for Verizon to co-locate; it had a five-year extension with Mr. Crisafulli, plus a 20-year extension; and that is a major reason to deny the request. He stated the Board has continued this item five or six times, and no one has come to the Board with any evidence saying why they cannot co-locate; and he has not met with Verizon representatives in his office as well. He stated his demand was to co-locate; and Verizon was told by the North Merritt Island Board to co-locate.

Ms. Denan advised there are two issues involved; first is AT&T had to do an amendment with Bud Crisafulli to extend its lease; the second is Verizon Wireless had to secure a lease with AT&T; and that is the process they are going through now. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not see a problem with Verizon securing a lease with AT&T, and read a portion of Kevin Becker's letter saying, "Verizon dropped their request to lease tower space from us at that tower. AWS remains committed to promoting the sharing of towers known as co-location, and has formed a national co-location group to concentrate on that commitment." Ms. Denan stated at that time AT&T only had five years remaining on its lease for the tower and had to secure an amendment for a longer period of time before Verizon would secure a lease to co-locate on that tower. Commissioner O'Brien stated Mr. Crisafulli offered them 20 years, so he cannot find a problem why Verizon cannot move forward. Ms. Denan stated that was after the P&Z Board made its recommendation; and it takes time to do that. She stated they are requesting additional time to secure the lease before withdrawing their application. Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not see any problem with a lease so will move to deny the item.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to deny Item 6 as recommended by the North Merritt Island Dependent Special District Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0108404) George H. and Nihla H. Trosset and Robert F. (Sr.) and Patricia Ann Trosset's request for change from AU to EU on 1.96 acres located on both sides of Rockledge Drive, north of Coquina Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Carlson advised this item was tabled due to school overcrowding; and requested staff comment on what the Board's action on October 2, 2001 did to the Board's ability to take action today on some of the requests that may cause overcrowding in local schools.

Mr. Enos advised the Board's action on October 2, 2001 directed that all applications for residential use that would generate one or more additional units should undergo school capacity review; staff has done it on this item, as well as four items on the Agenda; and suggested the Board may want to take the same action as it did with the Sawgrass item. Chairman Carlson inquired why would the Board want to table the item; with Mr. Enos responding for the same reason it tabled the Sawgrass item. Commissioner Higgs advised Sawgrass was tabled because additional information was put into the record and the applicant needed the opportunity to respond.

George Trosset advised they want to build a home in their back yard for their parents, and want to change the zoning so it would be consistent with the single-family home they want to build.

Chairman Carlson instructed staff to explain what the October 2, 2001 action was in terms of what the Board is now expected to do with requests that have any impact on schools in the area.

Mr. Enos advised on October 2, 2001, the Board directed that a school capacity analysis be required for all residential applications where one or more additional residence would be created by the application; and that is what the Board has here. He stated staff did the analysis; it indicated both Williams Elementary and Rockledge High School are currently without additional capacity; and the application would further burden those two overcrowded schools.

Commissioner Colon stated the fact is the house is for his parents who have no school children; one thing the Board was trying to be careful about was scrutinizing each application to give the opportunity to make decisions; and she would like to go forward and approve this item because it dos not have an impact on the schools. She stated she knows the Board wants to be consistent, but it should not punish everyone based on school capacity; and it would be unfair to do that since this request is compatible with existing EU zoning in the area.

Mr. Trosset stated they need a decision.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded for discussion by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 7 as recommended by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has a problem voting against a policy; and inquired if they can individually elect to ignore the policy it voted on two days ago; with Ms. Bentley responding the Board cannot ignore the policy; it has limited ability to distinguish situations; and the only problem she sees with this owner who does not have school-age children, is there is nothing prohibiting them from selling the house to people who have school-age children. She stated the Board cannot limit the use of the property in that manner and say no school children in that house; so that is not a feasible approach. Commissioner Scarborough stated once the Board adopts a policy, if it is ambiguous, it tries to interpret it; but he does not think the policy is ambiguous and what was discussed was very clear. He inquired if the Board can now distinguish it and vote to the contrary; with Ms. Bentley responding she does not see grounds to distinguish this application; there may be others where there are unusual capacity issues that may be distinguishable; but with just a house, it is hard to get around that issue. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board may be going back to revisit the issue and give it more discretion, because while he agrees with Commissioner Colon, he cannot vote contrary to the rules.

Chairman Carlson stated if the Board wants to remain consistent with its action of October 2, 2001, it could deny the application and leave it in AU until the schools that are affected are no longer affect, which may mean the School Board did something in a positive fashion to alleviate the overcrowding. She stated in that case there would be no problem of overcrowding and the applicant could be a house; but she does not know if that is two months, six months, or a year from now. Mr. Trosset stated they are going to build on that lot.

Bob Trosset stated he raised three sons in Rockledge over the past 50 years; they attended Rockledge High School; and they are going to build on that lot or in Suntree take it or leave it.

George Trosset stated they want a decision on what to do; the Board has dragged them along and tabled this item and messed around; their lives are in turmoil on what to do; and requested a decision be made today. Chairman Carlson inquired if they have an option to build on the lot or in Suntree; with Mr. Trosset responding they do not have any options.

Commissioner Colon stated she was under the impression the Board wanted to have each case come before it to review and have the discretion to decide; but to say from now on it will deny everyone that comes in is unfair. She stated she supported going with one unit, but being able to have the discretion; if that was not added to the motion, then it was her mistake not to include that; and she feels it is important to scrutinize every request that comes before the Board. She stated it is unfair because the Board does not know how long the school overcrowding process will take; it could be quite lengthy; and it is not fair to the applicants when the Board knows all they want to do is build a home for their parents. She stated that is why the Board needs the discretion to decide what it wants to do on each case; it is positive to scrutinize each case to be sure it is not contributing to overcrowding in schools; but it should have the discretion to figure out whether it is going to cause that impact or not. She stated this case is not going to cause an impact to schools; and inquired if it is possible for the applicants to take the Board to court for the fact that it keeps talking about school capacity and how it fits with this item.

Commissioner Higgs stated everyone has the ability to take the Board to court; that is their right; but she thought the discussion was pretty clear the other day on the school capacity issue and at what point the Board would apply the criteria in the Comprehensive Plan. She stated the Board was given several choices in terms of thresholds at which it would apply the policy; three of the Commissioners voted for one option; and that threshold was one unit. She stated if Commissioners did not understand that was what the Board was doing, then the proper step is to table this item and go back and revisit that policy and establish a policy they all understand, because it would do great harm to proceed and trash the policy it just passed two days ago. Commissioner Colon stated she is willing to do that because it is unfair to these applicants. Commissioner Higgs stated then the Board should not have voted the way it did on Tuesday because the item was clear. Commissioner Colon stated people make mistakes; it is quite complex; she is big enough to say she is only human; but when it affects human beings, then the Board needs to go back and analyze it. Commissioner Higgs stated it will have a cumulative effect of one and one and then adding up to a thousand; and that is why she supported drawing the line at one unit. She stated the Board would be remiss to take action to can the policy it just adopted, so she will move to table the item again.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, to table Item 7.

George Trosset stated Commissioner O'Brien did not want tabling an item again and again; with Commissioner Scarborough responding if it is tabled, the applicants may get what they want. Mr. Trosset stated their lives are in turmoil about what to do. Commissioner Scarborough stated even though he did not vote for the policy, he is compelled to follow the law and would have to vote against the motion to approve the request and Mr. Trosset would not get what he wants. He stated if it is tabled, he may get what he wants; and inquired if Mr. Trosset wants a denial tonight or a possible approval next month, and asked Mr. Trosset to tell him how to vote. Chairman Carlson stated the Board cannot guarantee the applicant will get approval. Commissioner Scarborough stated he is just saying if the Board proceeds tonight he cannot vote for approval and go against the rules; if it comes back, he may vote against the rules; and inquired if Mr. Trosset wants it to die tonight or have the possibility of approval next month. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca advised the item could be tabled to October 16, 2001 meeting so the school capacity issue and zoning can be heard at the same time.

Motion by Commissioner Higgs, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 7 until October 16, 2001, and call for a point of order to vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING, RE: PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATOINS OF
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001

Chairman Carlson called for the public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Board, made at its public hearing on September 10 ,2001, as follows:

Item 1. (Z0109201) Cape Canaveral Hospital Foundation, Inc.'s request for change from GU to EU on 1.53± acres located on the east side of South Courtenay Parkway, north of its intersection with South Tropical Trail, which was recommended for approval as SEU by the P&Z Board.

Zoning Official Rick Enos advised the original request was for EU; that would have generated three units on the lot which right now has no building permit rights; however, the P&Z Board recommended SEU, which would generate one lot.

Greg Bosek, representing Cape Canaveral Hospital, requested consideration of approval to change the zoning to SEU; and presented a picture to the Board of the lot zoned GU. He stated the change meets all compatibility, land use density, and level of service requirements; it is located on South Courtenay Parkway just north of the intersection of Tropical Trail; and explained a map of the area and zoning of the lots as SEU and EU except for the subject property. He stated it is 175 feet by 500 feet; and it is defined as nonconforming because GU requires a minimum of 300 feet on each side.

Commissioner Scarborough stated if there are no cards in opposition, perhaps the Board could go to questions from the Commissioners if that is okay; with Mr. Bosek responding it is okay with him.

Chairman Carlson advised this item is like the previous one and has to do with the overcrowding issue at three schools--Tropical Elementary, Jefferson Middle and Merritt Island High Schools; the P&Z Board recommended approval of SEU; and since the Board will be re-discussing the policy on October 16, 2001, it would be consistent to table this item to the same day.

Commissioner O'Brien advised Tropical Elementary was designed for 809 students and presently has 912 students; it has eight portable classrooms due to overcrowding; and until the School Board can solve its problems, the Board has to solve further growth problems rather than keep jamming the schools with children. He stated the property is so wet that they can only put one house on it anyhow; and there are a lot of wetlands on it.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if the property is vested for one unit; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding they are taking a lot that is currently too small and assigning a zoning to it; but she is not sure that necessarily increases the density. Commissioner Higgs inquired if they can put one house on the property today; with Mr. Enos responding staff does not believe they can, and they have not been able to show nonconforming status of the parcel. He stated staff believes the parcel was cut out of a larger tract; so they do not believe it has vested rights at this time.

Mr. Bosek stated it was part of a larger parcel; and explained an exhibit. He stated in 1987 it was rezoned by the Board; the Board rezoned everything to EU and left this one section as GU; and nobody addressed it, so it is nonconforming. He presented a copy of the resolution to the Board. Commissioner Higgs inquired if that changes staff's interpretation, and if they are putting density in there, should it be treated the same way as the other request. She stated if the Board is not going to apply the policy, it should be treated the same way as the Trossets request. Mr. Bosek stated nobody brought that up at the P&Z Board meeting; with Chairman Carlson responding it was passed by the Board on Tuesday, October 2, 2001. Mr. Bosek stated he applied for the permit before that date; with Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley responding the provisions have been in the Comprehensive Plan for years. Mr. Bosek stated it was not approved until Tuesday, which is after the time he made the application. Ms. Bentley stated the policy the Board is talking about interpreting has been in the Code for years and years. Mr. Bosek inquired if it should have been brought up at the initial zoning hearing; with Commissioner Higgs responding a lot of things come up at this hearing that is not brought up at the initial hearing.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to continue the public hearing on Item 1 until October 16, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Colon stated the Board needs to make sure that on October 16, 2001, it makes a decision on the school capacity before beginning the rezoning issues.

Item 2. (Z0109202) Robert A. and Nancy L. Ferro's request for change from GU to EU-2 on 0.92 acre located on the northwest corner of Monday Court and Fenner Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Mr. Enos advised staff did review this item, and all three schools--Saturn Elementary, Clearlake Middle, and Cocoa High Schools do have additional capacity available.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 2 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the Superintendent's recommendations is where staff got the data to make the evaluations from or has that information come since the Board received the recommendations. Robin Sobrino advised the information came from the School Board and the current enrollment levels were based on their six days of school at the time; therefore, there is capacity at all three schools at this time. Chairman Carlson if the information in the book is the same; with Ms. Sobrino responding it should be.

Item 3. (Z0109401) The Viera Company's request for change from PUD to PUD on 13± acres located east of I-95 and adjacent to Murrell Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Chairman Carlson advised the Viera Company is requesting an amendment to the PUD; The Viera Company gave copies to the Commissioners on the open space versus development status to ensure Commissioners understood it; and she has no problem with the request.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if someone wanted to speak. Chairman Carlson stated Amy Mosher and Hassan Kamal submitted speaker cards.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to reconsider Item 3. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Amy Mosher inquired if anything changed since it was last provided; with Chairman Carlson responding there was a question about active and passive open space and the changes that occurred in the PUD. Chairman Carlson inquired if Ms. Mosher has seen the explanation of how the open space active versus passive has not changed, and that the request is just to do some housekeeping; with Ms. Mosher responding she spoke on the subject at the LPA meeting and it had mixed emotions, but approved it by a 5 to 4 vote; so it was narrowly approved. Ms. Mosher stated she visited the site, went to see the P&Z staff, and found some reports from Natural Resources Management stating the area contained aquifer recharge soils and no wetlands, but possibly contained gopher tortoises; however, she found the site to be under water, so it is funny that they are calling it an aquifer recharge area with no wetlands. She presented pictures of the property to the Board; stated there are major flaws; the first photograph is the clearing; and what was provided to the Board was an outdated aerial photograph showing the property on the east, which is no longer vegetated and has been completely cleared and filled, leading to problems of runoff going onto a 13-acre parcel. She advised when she was at the property, a woodstork landed in her frame; she went out there again to see if there was still a problem with flooding; and she heard sandhill cranes, so she walked the southern boundary and came to the cleared area of Grand Isles, where there were so many sandhill cranes that she was flabbergasted. She stated she counted 71 sandhill cranes and four woodstorks in the cleared area; she had never seen a gathering of that many birds; and when she counted them again, there were three more sandhill cranes and three more woodstorks that flew in, which was amazing. Ms. Mosher advised they are pumping on the southeast corner of the 13-acre parcel; it appears to be water from Grand Isles onto the 13 acres; there is a motor pump running out there and shooting water onto the 13 acres; so that may be why there is a problem with it being flooded. She stated they brought in so much fill at Grand Isles; with the 13 acres being at a lower elevation, it possibly could have been aquifer recharge, but is now under water; and about two-thirds of the property has standing water on it. She stated she does not know much about what the request is, but knows the County needs to keep its open space; she wants to keep this property in the DRI; there is a large sports complex going in now at Viera that is going to have a community center and sports facilities; so she does not know why the property needs to be used for active recreation. She stated it is an isolated piece of property; the County could probably have them trade it and let them develop the 13 acres and set aside the 12.7 acres on Barnes Boulevard; and that would be a fair compromise, because they need open space and that 12.7 acres need to be protected. She stated she is concerned about the parcel; and inquired where are the birds going to go that are listed and endangered species, and where are the woodstorks and sandhill cranes going once homes start to appear out there. She stated staff needs to go out to the property; it is only a five-minute drive from the Government Center; and they need to look at it, and maybe the Commissioners should go also, because it is not how it has been reported in the staff reports.

Chairman Carlson advised a large community of sandhill cranes are seen periodically walking through Duda's sod farms from one end to the other; and the wetter the better because the critters come up from the ground, which is what they eat. She stated it is too wet for the cranes to use it as a nesting site; and requested Mr. Kamal explain the charts so Ms. Mosher will understand there is no actual impact based on what they have set aside as open space. She stated it sounds like a lot more than it is; and requested Mr. Kamal explain it so Ms. Mosher can understand what is going on there.

Hassan Kamal with BSE Consultants, Inc., advised there is actually no change in the land use of the parcel as originally approved; and it was originally approved as an open space development, which, under the PUD and DRI was an active open space that allows ballparks, community facilities, tennis courts, and things of that nature. He stated it is still going to be developed in the same manner; but what they are requesting to do is take it out of the tabulation of open space under the PUD and develop it as a recreational amenity. He noted it sounds difficult to follow, but when one sees it on the ground, it is going to be the same as it was. He stated it is a timing issue, but it will still be developed as open space. Mr. Kamal advised he provided a table of where they are in the development of open space versus residential development; and that is the chart he provided to the Commissioners. He stated within the PUD, they are required to develop their open space concurrent with residential development; the chart shows the Viera PUD has developed 63% of the maximum number of units; they also developed 89% of the active open space which are the big ticket items such as the gold course, pedway facilities, and community park; and the other chart shows the passive open space, which are the preserved areas, nature areas, etc., but they can only take credit for developing them once they are physically platted and recorded in the Official Books of the County. He advised taking the weighted average of those, they have developed 64% of the required open space versus 63% of residential areas, so they are on track; they are concurrent; and they are doing exactly what the Code requires of them.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Ms. Mosher's concern is about preserving the property; everyone is using the words "open space", but talking about active use; and inquired what will it look like when it is done; with Mr. Kamal responding it will look like a park facility, which could consist of ballfields, community center, and those kinds of things, as well as a parking lot. Commissioner Scarborough stated Mr. Kamal is saying one thing, and Ms. Mosher is asking for something less; Mr. Kamal is saying they are going to develop the property, and Ms. Mosher is saying they do not want it developed; and inquired if there is a way to design it for less intensive development. He stated the trend seems to be switching from a very active world ten years ago to nature trails, bird watching, and passive activities; maybe what Ms. Mosher is saying is that the whole concept of the plan is outdated and more people want less active recreation; and inquired if that is something that can be accomplished. Mr. Kamal stated it is a little bit of semantics in that the PUD description uses the terminology open space and a lot of times people think of open space as preserved areas; but that is not versed in the PUD language; and that is not what open space means in the context of that discussion. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is the problem; and inquired who is to define open space, and can open space also include undeveloped areas, or does it have to be developed. Mr. Kamal advised they committed in the PUD to have active and passive open space; they have 543 acres of open space just defined as open space; 350 acres of that is the type Ms. Mosher is talking about, the preserved areas that will include passive features where they can observe wildlife and natural vegetation; and the balance of approximately 200 acres will be more of an active nature; and that meets the balance. Commissioner Scarborough stated something is locked in with old criteria when people may have wanted something different than they do today; and inquired if there is a way to strike a new balance where more of it is untouched except for raised walkways and opportunities to enjoy nature in a more pristine state; with Mr. Kamal responding the problem is they have a Development Order and PUD Plan that require them to develop the parcel in an active nature; and they have met the passive requirements elsewhere within the community. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what is compelling the developer to develop the property other than a document; with Mr. Kamal responding The Viera Company has represented to the people who bought in the community that it was going to be an active facility; and that representation has been there since the DRI was originally approved and modified through the years. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if people are calling and asking when it is going to be done; with Mr. Kamal responding there is a lot of interest in the community about the development of that park.

Chairman Carlson inquired if there is a description of how much active and passive open space is required in the PUD; with Mr. Enos responding yes, under the current PUD. Chairman Carlson inquired if the Board can alter those percentages; with Mr. Enos responding that is what is being requested today, as they wish to reduce the amount of active open space. Chairman Carlson stated she meant in general, can the Board bring the PUD in for review; with Mr. Enos responding the Board can amend the Ordinance any time it wishes.

Mr. Enos advised prior to 1995, there was a 25% of the entire site required to be common open space, but at least half of that had to be active, which was unrealistic; and in 1995, the Board amended that and reduced the open space amount to between 10 and 25% of the site depending on the type of development and whether it was multifamily or single-family, and eliminated entirely the active component as a requirement. He stated under today's regulations, they are not required to provide any active open space; this PUD has 216 acres of active open space; they are proposing to reduce that to 192 acres; but that is just according to the technical definition of open space. He stated they are trying to remove this parcel Y-1 from the mix because of the needs of the potential users without slowing down the rest of the development; they have so much extra open space that they feel comfortable doing that; and staff has no problem with it.

Chairman Carlson stated there is a new Open Space Ordinance that will hopefully provide incentives for developers to use it to promote more passive open space.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve Item 3 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 4. (Z0109501) Marlene Jo Saliba's request for change from RU-1-9 to RR-1 on 1.03 acres located north of Milwaukee Avenue, west of Minton Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to approve Item 4 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 5. (Z0109502) Vistar Realty, Inc.'s request for change from BU-1-A to RU-2-10 and removing existing BSP on 0.269 acre located on the northeast corner of Coconut Drive and Neptune Road, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with access limited to Coconut Drive.

Chairman Carlson advised the school capacity issue affects this item, so it should be tabled.

Motion by Commissioner Colon, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to continue the public hearing on Item 5 until October 16, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 6. (Z0109101) John S. Porter's request for change from GU to RRMH-1 on 1.23 acres located on the south side of Eureka Avenue, east of Satellite Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 6 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 7. (Z0109102) Sharon K. Speer's request for change from AU to RRMH-1 on 1.25 acres located south of SR 46, east of the southern terminus of Timothy Court, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to continue the public hearing on Item 7 until October 16, 2001. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 8. (Z0109103) T.K.C.B., Inc. and Thad Terry, Trustee's request for change from GU and TRC-1 to all TRC-1 with BDP and removing two existing CUP's for cluster development of modular coaches and two BSP's on 108.69± acres located west and east of Sharpes Lake Avenue, south of Canaveral Groves Boulevard, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board with a BDP limiting development to 163 units.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 8 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 9. (Z0109104) Charles T. and Jennifer H. Owens' request for change from GU to AU on 2.23 acres located on the east side of Florida Palm Avenue, north of Cabbage Palm Street, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 9 as recommended by the P&Z Board. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Item 10. (Z0109105) New Life Christian Fellowship, Inc.'s request for change from TU-1 to BU-1 and removal of existing BSP on 5.82± acres located south of North Avenue, between U.S. 1 and Riveredge Drive, which was recommended for approval by the P Board with access to Riveredge Drive as far south as possible.

Commissioner Higgs put on the record that she met with the attorney representing some of the residents about their concerns. Commissioner Scarborough stated he met with the representatives of the Church and two groups of residents; and Commissioner Colon advised she met with the residents' attorney.

Attorney John Evans, representing the applicant New Life Christian Fellowship Church, advised the Pastor wants to move the Church from its current location in South Titusville to a facility that will hold about 1,900 members; and explained the location off U.S. 1 in the vicinity of Tico Road, Riveredge Drive, a public park donated to the County when Vectorspace Project was initiated, and Vectorspace to the north. He stated they have met with the neighbors on two occasions and believe they are not opposed to the church per se, but two issues involving access and buffering. He stated in an attempt to be a good neighbor, they have come up with a binding development plan (BDP) that adequately addresses those two issues; and presented copies of the BDP to the Board. Mr. Evans stated the residents have made it clear they do not want access on Riveredge Drive; his client is willing to comply with that if at all possible; and the BDP says if they are able to get a full median cut on U.S. 1 they would have no access onto Riveredge Drive. He stated the issue is a Department of Transportation (DOT) rule that says they can only have a median cut every 2,600 feet; there is presently a median cut at Vectorspace and Space Coast Executive Airport; so under the DOT rule, they are not entitled to a full median cut at this time. He stated they were told if they applied along the chances of getting that are very slim; but they were also told if the County applies for the median cut, there is a reasonable probability the median cut would be granted. He stated they have been assured by some residents that they have some influence in that area and would work with them to obtain the full median cut; so the first position of the BDP is that they will immediately apply for a median cut; and if they get it, they would have no access onto Riveredge Drive. He stated the second part is if the median cut is not granted by DOT, they would be allowed to have one access to Riveredge Drive facing the bar so they can go south on U.S. 1. Mr. Evans stated the reason it is significant to have that access to Riveredge Drive is that presently if they only have a half cut on U.S. 1, people who want to go south would have to go north to the median cut, make a U-turn, and head south; when the church lets out it could have traffic stacked up in the passing lane on U.S. 1; and that is a dangerous situation. He stated there was mention of delaying the item; they request the Board not delay it; the Church has a bond issue pending; somebody suggested they wait until the full median cut is approved; that would be 90 to 120 days; that is a lot of money for the Church to sit on the expensive piece of property until it knows whether or not it gets a permit; and requested the Board take some formal action tonight on the matter. Mr. Evans advised the BDP addresses the residents' concerns as much as they can; if they get a full median cut, it would alleviate some safety issues; the BDP will provide a 50-foot natural buffer along the east side of the property; and he was advised there is one utility cut that has to be made, but that is the only cut. He called Steve Jones as an expert witness. Mr. Evans asked Mr. Jones to state his name, address and occupation.

Steven F. Jones, 3985 Pine Cone Road, Melbourne, stated he is a registered civil engineer in the State of Florida. A question and answer scenario took place, whereby Mr. Jones advised he is the civil engineer for the project; and ingress and egress for the church, if the full median cut is granted, would be from the south and north through the median cut into the church property; egress would be back out through that same cut to go south and north; and one more driveway, which is a right turn only out in the northbound direction on U.S. 1. Mr. Jones responded to Mr. Evans questions that access onto Riveredge Drive would not be necessary if DOT grants a full median cut; cars would have to come out the main drive, turn north, cross two lanes of traffic come to Vectorspace median cut, make a U-turn to go south if the full median cut is not granted by DOT and there is no access on Riveredge Drive; and that would be an unsafe situation because people will be stacked up in the northbound passing lane which will also restrict traffic; and cars will be crossing both lanes to go north. Mr. Evans inquired if access onto Riveredge Drive resolve that traffic situation; with Mr. Jones responding it would allow traffic to stack up on the site then access U.S. 1 in a southbound direction at Golden Knights Boulevard which is currently a full median cut. Mr. Evans inquired if Mr. Jones feels a full median cut would be an adverse traffic situation; with Mr. Jones responding no. Mr. Evans inquired if Mr. Jones is aware if the County did studies on the number of accidents at that intersection in the past four years; with Mr. Jones responding his understanding is the County staff determined t here were two accidents in the last four years.

Mr. Evans stated he would like to introduce into evidence the first picture of the bar across the street where patrons park on his client's property, where they propose the access onto Riveredge Drive if DOT does not grant the full median cut; the second picture looking south from the north end of his client's property towards U.S. 1, and a circle indicating where the access road would be across the street from the bar so the traffic can travel south from there. He noted the vast majority of Riveredge Drive would not have church traffic; and it would be a relatively short section of the road that would have the traffic. He stated the proposed compromise should benefit the residents; they will do their best to keep traffic off Riveredge Drive; but in the event DOT denies the full median cut, it would be essential to have some access onto Riveredge Drive so they have people exiting the property safely. He noted they would appreciate the Board's consideration of the rezoning.

Chairman Carlson inquired if the applicant talked to DOT; with Mr. Evans responding Ken Walsh has. Mr. Walsh stated he has spoken to DOT staff on two occasions; one of them being today. Chairman Carlson inquired if DOT gave any input on the likelihood of providing a full median cut; with Mr. Walsh responding the best likelihood they are going to have is a directional median cut, which is left turn in and no full median cut; however, that is the staff's comment, and the decision is not made on the local level and is made in Tallahassee. Mr. Evans stated it is his understanding if the County supported the full median cut, they would have a greater chance of obtaining it; with Mr. Walsh responding that is correct. Mr. Evans stated if the County would join them, they would appreciate that and would work on getting the full median cut.

Kim Rezanka, Attorney with Dean Mead, representing residents of Riveredge Drive, advised the Commissioners were presented with a package of photographs and letters from residents and have been inundated with calls, faxes, and letters from them, so they should be aware of the concerns. She stated the issues are safety issues and unintended consequences if the rezoning is granted; the safety concern is Golden Knights Boulevard and Riveredge Drive; Mr. Thompson did look at the area for traffic accidents in the last five years and found ten; and that is based on 24 houses and one business coming out one-by-one and no stacking issues caused by numerous different services coming in and out at the same time. Ms. Rezanka advised the P&Z comments said the current zoning of TU-1, which is only on the center parcel of the 20 plus acre lot owned by the Church, has a developer's agreement with a binding site plan; the binding site plan (BSP) allows a 69-unit hotel; and a church with potentially have thousands of cars coming out at the same time is more intrusive than a hotel. She stated the P&Z comments also said the TU-1 has potential trips of 540 per day onto U.S. 1; and the rezoning would allow an additional 2,436 trips onto U.S. 1. She stated Riveredge Drive is a dead end road; it is unmarked, has no sidewalks, no markings or overhead lights, is not a safe road, and cannot handle any additional traffic; concurrency does not evaluate the impact on Riveredge Drive because it is a dead end road; and all that Zoning looked at was going onto U.S. 1, which is consistent. She stated it is not a safe situation; it has been recognized by the Pastor that it is not a safe situation at the Zoning meeting of September 17, 2001; there will be converging traffic patterns and substantial periods of traffic on Sunday mornings with three services, as well as Wednesday evenings; and they have events on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays also. She stated the complex will have a youth center, senior center, restaurant, card shop, huge fellowship mall, which will draw additional traffic; so there will be a substantial increase in traffic at the intersection of Riveredge Drive and Golden Knights Boulevard. Ms. Rezanka advised currently their site plan has two access roads onto Riveredge Drive; it is interesting that they have not applied for any permits from FDOT; and she would think they would have done that before coming to the Board with the rezoning request and before getting a site plan review. She stated the site plan review is halfway through the process; five or six Departments have approved it and four or five have not; and that information is in the package given to the Board. She stated they are not looking at the issues; there is a gap in what they are looking at; they are not looking at the intersection of Golden Knights Boulevard and Riveredge Drive; they are only looking at U.S. 1; and Planning and Zoning even addressed it saying they are aware of the concerns of the residents on Riveredge Drive that if there is an access, they only wish there be one. She stated there is going to be stacking, impatience, and risk taking on a highway of 55 mph where people go 70 mph or higher; there is poor visibility because of the curve and sloping road; and it will become a death trap. She stated it will disperse traffic into an area that cannot take additional traffic; Riveredge Drive cannot take additional traffic; there will be six potential vectors coming into Golden Knights Boulevard; and it is already a dangerous intersection.

Chairman Carlson advised Ms. Rezanka to conclude her presentation. Ms. Rezanka requested additional time.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to grant two more minutes to Kim Rezanka. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Ms. Rezanka advised the parishioners are going to use the access road because it is there; they are going to have backup in the parking lot; they are going to backup onto Riveredge Drive; and there is not doubt there will be stacking come in and stacking going out, which will create a difficult situation. She stated the Riverside Drive residents will be impacted; they will not be able to get out and will not have access for emergency vehicles; eventually there will be a need for a traffic light which has not been planned at this level; and there is no one looking at what will happen if the rezoning is granted, which is a substantial problem. Ms. Rezanka advised the church has failed to identify, evaluate, and address those issues; they are trying to move forward because they have a bond issue; that is not the Board's problem; and their poor planning is not the County's problem. She stated in 1990, the Board of County Commissioners recognized that it was a problem and had the developer's agreement, which provided for a 60-foot buffer, six-foot wall, and no access onto Riveredge Drive; the residents are better off with TU-1 and the BSP than with the rezoning; and there are alternatives, as there are four cuts north of the church where they can make U-turns. She stated they made no application to DOT for permits or approval; they are merely looking for the easiest and less expensive route; they can try to get to Horizon Drive, which is less than half a mile north of the property; and requested the Board not rush to judgment, make them comply with all the requirements, and apply to DOT. She stated their engineer Jim Lee with HDR Engineering, Inc. will testify as to what he has evaluated and give his expert opinion. She requested the Board deny the rezoning, force the proper evaluation of the safety and consequences issues, and require them to get a DOT permit. She stated they do not need the through cut because they have other options; and again requested denial of the rezoning.

Chairman Carlson inquired if it is normal practice to have site plan review without rezoning; with Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca responding it is not unusual for someone to come in, provide an application, and pay the fee for site plan review; but it is placed on hold until the rezoning is resolved. She noted the applicant who does that, does so at his or her own risk.

Jim Lee, Vice President of HDR Engineering, Inc. in Winter Park, advised he was retained by the residents of Riveredge Drive to address traffic and safety issues with regard to the proposed rezoning; and gave his credentials, qualifications, and experiences, including corridor studies, DRI work, traffic work, and civil engineering for eminent domain. He stated he reviewed the staff report of September 10, 2001, the report on accidents prepared by the County Traffic Engineering of September 17, 2001, the LPA report and P&Z report of September 10, 2001, excerpts from the County's Comprehensive Plan, and the Church's website information identifying size of membership, etc., as well as the applicant's site plan and FDOT roadway design plans for U.S. 1. He stated he talked to the Boland family who are residents on Riveredge, to Jack West, maintenance engineer with FDOT, Richard Thompson, County Traffic Engineer, and Attorney Kim Rezanka; and he evaluated in the field the proposed site and roadway. He stated a previous Board of County Commissioners made a determination in 1990 not to allow access on Riveredge Drive for a 69-unit hotel and required a 60-foot buffer and block wall to protect the residential character of Riveredge Drive; traffic from the proposed church, according to the staff report, will be five times the amount of a hotel; there was zero impact on Riveredge Drive with the hotel approval; and that is only part of what is planned for the church development. Mr. Lee advised he heard a number of 1,900 members and saw numbers from 1,500 to 2,000; he is not sure exactly what the number is, but should there be a traffic study required as a result of tonight's decision, he hopes it would address exactly how many members are going to come to the site and show the traffic accordingly. He stated County staff indicated the level of service on U.S. 1 is very good; it is level of service B with or without the project; and the report added all the traffic from the project onto U.S. 1 to come to that conclusion. He stated the accident report said seven accidents in the past five years; two were right-hand collisions at the intersection, which may be attributable to side traffic; and others were due to potentially speed factors. Mr. Lee stated having evaluated many churches and churches with schools, the potential for a successful congregation is not only to have Sunday services and Wednesday night services, but daily services as well, whether they are Bible studies, home work function kids after school, etc.; so there will be vehicles not only on Sundays and Wednesday nights, but during the week. He stated the more activities that occur in the mornings and peak hours in the afternoons, the worst the traffic could be. He noted the current request was modified by the applicant; the original request was for two access points on Riveredge Drive; and in his opinion, that is excessive and not necessary. He stated the neighbors feel any decision to provide access to Riveredge Drive will compromise the previous decision; a member from Space Coast Executive Airport stated concern about noise at the LPA hearing; he is not a noise expert, but just wanted to reiterate that and a need for a navigation easement on the site. Chairman Carlson advised Mr. Lee to conclude his comments; and Commissioner Scarborough recommended Mr. Lee get to the traffic issues.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve two additional minutes for Mr. Lee. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Lee advised his highway engineer evaluated the intersection of Golden Knights Boulevard, Riveredge Drive, and U.S. 1 and the roadway plans; and their conclusion was that everything in those plans met the design standards; so from a highway engineering standpoint, which he has been qualified as an expert witness on, the intersection by itself is not unsafe. He stated the speed limit is 55 mph, and travelers go beyond that speed limit; the intersection is not a typical T intersection at right angles with a straight away section of the road, it is a curve section with super elevations on the north and south bound lanes; and it is a complicated intersection. He stated the access management rule criteria have already been mentioned; phone calls to DOT will tell the County it cannot have a median opening unless the spacing is a half a mile apart; he did a lot of work with DOT in requesting median spacing; and provided an Exhibit to the Board showing the data on median opening spacing on U.S. 1. He stated all the spacings on U.S. 1 which run north and south are well below the half-mile spacing; the site is located in between Horizon Drive access to Vectorspace and Golden Knights Boulevard; that is approximately 2,800 feet; and in his opinion and in dialogue with the County Traffic Engineer, they both feel there could be a very strong argument made for a median opening given the distances north and south of the site that already exist on U.S. 1. Mr. Lee stated his recommendation and opinion is for the church to seek a conceptual approval from DOT for the median opening; there is a good likelihood that can be approved; it would have to be associated with a traffic study that would indicate how much of the traffic would come from the site and how much is coming from the north; he heard that would be 90%, which would imply there would be very few left turns to go south; and he does not know what that is, but they would have to determine that number. He stated once the application is made and the determination goes through the access management committee in Deland, and a decision is rendered, then there would be a site plan that they could follow. Mr. Lee recommended the Board direct County staff to assist the Church as mentioned, and that it table the decision until the access plan has been approved by DOT with the proposed traffic study.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the residents are concerned about stacking on Riveredge Drive and using a turn there; and if 90% of the membership will come from the north, they would not have an entrance to the church except by accessing off Riveredge Drive. Mr. Lee stated if 90% of the members will come from the north, the southbound left-turn lane on the site plan would have to be designed accordingly. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what would happen if they do not have a full curb cut anywhere on the site where somebody coming from the north can go into the site; with Mr. Lee responding DOT has already told them they could have a directional left turn into the site. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that would not require members to access via Riveredge Drive; with Mr. Lee responding no, but the other 10% would have to use Riveredge Drive to come out.

Commissioner Colon inquired how many cards does the Chairman have; with Chairman Carlson responding a lot. Commissioner Colon inquired if they are for or against the rezoning; with Bill Fuhr responding he is against. Commissioner Colon stated she does not know how Commissioner Scarborough feels, but she is not comfortable about the Riveredge Drive issue; the Board has allowed the opportunity to residents to come back to the Board and get their comments on the record; and she has not heard anything tonight, unless there is something Commissioner Scarborough feels could be compromised. Commissioner Higgs stated the Board has never voted until it heard all the testimony.

Chairman Carlson requested an opinion from Assistant County Attorney Eden Bentley; with Ms. Bentley responding she does not recall cutting off testimony; and would recommend the Board accept the testimony unless it plans to table the item for resolution of the DOT issue before proceeding any further. Chairman Carlson stated perhaps Commissioner Colon is referring to something that goes on at a regular meeting, but zoning matters require testimony. Commissioner Colon stated she was just asking, so it is not a problem.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board can approve, deny, or table; but if it denies and it is appealed and the testimony did not get on the record, it could create a problem because the court would not have the record. He stated there is a lot of information of a technical nature; the more technical the data, the more likely it is going to be tabled to work through the technical problems; he is hearing different things in different ways; so he would like to hear it all for several reasons. Chairman Carlson indicated Commissioner Colon could request that speakers not duplicate the same issues and provide new information, which is usually helpful to reduce the time. Commissioner Higgs stated she wants to make it absolutely clear that she wants to hear all the testimony before she makes a decision on this case including a rebuttal from the applicant. Commissioner Colon stated the Board needs to make sure it is based on technical data and not emotions so it can focus on the issues and have a better case.

The meeting recessed at 9:33 p.m., and reconvened at 9:47 p.m.

Bill Fuhr voiced his opposition to the request; stated Riveredge Drive is a quiet dead end street less than a half-mile long; there are little over 20 residents and one small business on the street; and it is the only access in and out of the neighborhood onto U.S. 1. He stated Tab 6 in the package states, "The applicant seeks rezoning with the intent of constructing a church for 1,500 members with a fellowship hall"; and Tab 2 says, in the Church's own words, "Membership is now nearing 2,000. The fellowship is destined to become a multi-thousand member regional church to include an enlarged sanctuary, nursery, toddler facility, youth home work room, plus a mall to include a food court, restaurant, coffee shop, and book and card shop." He stated all those activities are scheduled every day of the week; the traffic impact to U.S. 1 and Riveredge Drive will be far more than a Sunday morning occurrence; the pastor is obviously growing a successful business and wishes to expand; and they have no qualms with that, but it should be done right and require traffic solutions that may have costs associated with them. Mr. Fuhr stated common sense says Riveredge Drive should not be considered a driveway for the church merely because it is a cheaper option; however, it is an option that does nothing to mitigate the traffic burden onto U.S. 1 and aggravates the conditions at the Riveredge Drive intersection. He stated the Board acted wisely to protect the interest of the residents of Riveredge Drive 11 years ago when the TU-1 zoning was granted with a BSP; conditions have not changed; and they request the Board once again consider the residents' interest and safety, and the safety of the church members. He quoted from the Church's website, "New Life has become a major impact in East Central Florida"; and the residents appeal to the Board that it not let New Life become a major impact to Riveredge Drive.

Cynthia Slater stated she is a proposed resident of Riveredge Drive but has put her construction plans on hold for the last three months because of the proposed project going in across the street from the property she plans to develop for her dream home. She stated for the past 20 years she has visited her parents on Riveredge Drive, and walked down the quiet, beautiful, and tranquil street; and she is concerned about the traffic. She stated she goes through the intersection in the morning and afternoon to drop off and pick up her son for a carpool to and from school; that intersection is extremely dangerous; over the last five years she has witnessed two accidents; and they are not a pretty sight. She stated she is concerned about everyone's safety that use Riveredge Drive. Ms. Slater stated if she builds a home next door to her parents, she wants peace and quiet and the natural vegetation left in place; the project is going to be disruptive to the beautiful birds, wildlife on the river, ospreys and eagles, and to their peace and quiet; and the lighting from the church is a concern. She stated if there is no natural buffer left, the wildlife will leave the area; so she hopes the Board does not rezone the property so she can build her home and everybody's safety is kept in mind.

Donald Boland stated he has lived on Riveredge Drive for 20 years and opposes the proposed project funneling traffic onto Riveredge Drive; the only way out is through the intersection at U.S. 1; Golden Knights Boulevard and Riveredge Drive is a difficult and dangerous intersection for traffic going south; and with a couple of hundred cars trying to exit at one time, there are bound to be accidents and maybe even fatalities. He stated there will be noise and pollution from cars stacking up waiting to get out to U.S. 1, and lights shining into their windows; and the value of their properties and the quality of their lives will diminish. Mr. Boland advised in the 20 years he has lived there, there has been no maintenance of the road in any way; the asphalt has cracks wider than one inch with weeds growing in the cracks; there are no middle and edge lines, no shoulders, and no sidewalks; and it is a very quiet dead end street used for walking, jogging, and bike riding. He stated what is left of their road will fall apart quickly with a five-fold increase in traffic.

Charles Warren advised he represents Erma Herman and James Bautti, two property owners who live on Riveredge Drive; and they welcome the New Life Church into their community, but object to the plan to use Riveredge Drive not only for the church people, but also the service people required to maintain the project. He stated when the State built U.S. 1, it abandoned Riveredge Drive; it has not been maintained; and it would be very dangerous for many people to try and get out onto U.S. 1 whether they are going north or south because it is hard to get across the highway with traffic going in all directions. He stated they suggest another traffic plan for access to the church property.

Christine Boland presented the petition to the Board signed by all residents except one who lives in Orlando, but owns a lot on Riveredge Drive. She stated she is not an expert, just a person who has lived there 20 years and love the area; she walks every day and with her grandson on his bike several times a week; she works in Cocoa and often go south at different times of the day; and she had two very close calls on U.S. 1, trying to cross and go south. She stated if the traffic is increased for parishioners they are expecting it is going to be very dangerous; it will be a deadly intersection; and she is concerned not only for the residents, but the people who will attend the church. She stated they will be stacked up trying to get out of Riveredge Drive; and like her, they will look for a way to get out and race across the highway not being careful because that is human nature. She stated she knows it is not right but after waiting for 20 minutes, she becomes careless. She stated the traffic goes very fast on U.S. 1; it is 55 mph, but people drive 60, 65 and 70; and that is how accidents happen. She begged the Board to reconsider the situation and get more data because even one life saved is worth more than the extra expense for the church to have its exit on U.S. 1.

Theresa Jackiewicz advised her driveway faces the infamous intersection, and she is concerned about traffic safety; maneuvering onto U.S. 2 is very difficult and dangerous because of the number of vehicles traveling at high speeds on the major roadway; and to add hundreds of vehicles into that mix will not help and will make a bad situation worse. She stated she is concerned for the people and the safety of those using that intersection, not only the residents but the members of the church also; and requested the Board give high priority to the traffic safety issue at the intersection.

May Boutilier advised her concern is not the change in zoning but the use of well water, as most of the neighbors use wells; and she is concerned about the adverse impact the runoff will have on their water.

Susan Christmas advised she lives three driveways from the intersection with U.S. 1 and is opposed to the change from TU-1 to BU-1 and removal of the existing BSP. She stated four conditions of the BSP are important to the integrity of their neighborhood; and advised of experiences living on a dead end street that was eventually cut through causing a lot of traffic and problems on a once quiet street. She stated they moved to Riveredge Drive in 1995 to enjoy the river and because it was a dead end street with limited traffic; and they are not against having a church for a neighbor, but are strongly opposed to a church/business that will create significant increase in traffic in a peaceful residential neighborhood. Ms. Christmas advised there will be strong potential for accidents and injury, not to mention toxic air pollution from exhaust expelled from streams of cars stacked up trying to cross over to U.S. 1. She stated they have concerns of runoff from the street to their yards then to the river; and adding thousands of cars each week with leaky gas, oil, antifreeze, etc. would be poisoning their precious river wildlife and vegetation. She stated they welcome the church if the current BSP is retained and the integrity and property values of their neighborhood is not impacted.

Chris Polasek inquired if any Commissioner is familiar with the neighborhood and dead end street in question; with Commissioners Scarborough and Carlson responding they have been there. Ms. Polasek stated before making a decision which will affect their quality of life and jeopardize their safety and that of the church members, the Commissioners should take a drive down Riveredge Drive to see the conditions of which they speak; and stated she hopes the Board will not make a decision without personally seeing the area and street in question because to do so would be an injustice to all concerned.

Ronald Goigel stated he understands there will be 300 parking spots on the church property; and what will happen when they have more cars than 300 is they will park on Riveredge Drive. He stated there is no traffic light at Golden Knights Boulevard and U.S. 1; and according to DOT, there is not going to be a traffic light there because the car count is insufficient. He stated a large parking lot will reduce water recharge; they all live on well water and that is a major concern; the parking of cars could cause ground water pollution; and there is no published data of traffic impact studies they could find. Mr. Goigel stated law enforcement cannot insure safety without traffic lights and median cuts; he and the community would prefer retaining TU-1 zoning because they would be better off with a hotel that would have minimum traffic, and would not have to worry about thousands of parishioners.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the Board only allows driveways from U.S. 1 and not from Riveredge Drive, would Mr. Goigel have a different opinion; with Mr. Goigel responding a buffer zone is currently required in the BSP and a retaining wall; but the minimum would be no ingress/egress on Riveredge Drive and a sufficient natural buffer zone. Commissioner O'Brien stated what he has been hearing is the neighbors do not want the church's driveway on their street; with Mr. Goigel responding that road is not geared to handle that kind of traffic.

Carol Stanton requested the Board deny the rezoning on Riveredge Drive because of the chaotic traffic situation that will occur if it is approved. She explained the pictures in Tab 2 showing Riveredge Drive, Golden Knights Boulevard intersecting with U.S. 1 north and south, how confusing the intersection is, and how many directions of cars can be involved at any one time. She stated as a mother of two teenagers, one who drives south across U.S. 1 daily and one who will drive in less than a year, she is fearful for their safety in trying to cross U.S. 1 with cars traveling at 60 or 70 mph. She described an incident while driving with her daughter and turning south; and noted that it made her realize the chances teenagers take when driving. Ms. Stanton stated there will also be a problem with stacking on U.S. 1 for people coming from the north to get into the church property and having to cross over the southbound lane; and if it is stacked up at the turn lane, they will go to the next one in front of a trailer park where mostly retired people live; there have been more accidents there; and they did not study that. She stated as an experienced driver, she second guesses herself on whether she has enough time to get across the highway; sometimes she cannot tell which lanes the cars are in; and it will not only affect people from Titusville because the traffic reports of the seven accidents listed people from Merritt Island, Cocoa, and Mims. Ms. Stanton stated Reverend Linkous has built a dynamic church and it will continue to grow; he will draw people from the south end of the County because he has a radio program every morning which she enjoys listening to; and allowing access to Riveredge Drive will create a bottleneck of traffic which will test everybody's patience and create liability for the County. She advised the Church should have its exit from its property only on U.S. 1 and apply for a southbound crossover; Riveredge Drive is not maintained to carry all that traffic; when they built their home, they thought they would have a place where they could get out of their driveway; they do not want what happened in Hickory Hills to happen on Riveredge; and requested the Board deny the rezoning.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if Ms. Stanton's main concern is access onto Riveredge Drive; with Ms. Stanton responding no, the BSP is important to all the neighbors, including the wall, no exit on Riveredge Drive, and a buffer zone; and the safety issue involves their neighbors, church members, and everyone using the roadways. She stated they want all the things in the BSP to stay as they are; and explained pictures of cars going south on U.S. 1, the curves on each end of the highway, the speed limit, and Riveredge Drive with a yield sign; stated if they cannot get into the turn lane they will stack up at the next one; and reiterated her request for denial.

John Stanton advised he has the same fears and concerns that his neighbors have; they are concerned about safety on their road, quality of their lives, and property values; and requested the Board resolve the problem in such a manner that they can get a consistent buffer and no access onto Riveredge Drive.

David Boland advised he has been a resident of Riveredge Drive since 1981; the subject property was originally zoned GU-1; in 1965, it was rezoned to BU-1; at that time a buffer, transitional zoning should have been provided for the existing residential area along Riveredge Drive; however, it was not and it was a mistake. He stated in 1990, a request was made to rezone it from BU-1 to TU-1; the residents presented the same objections and concerns relating to the rezoning heard tonight; and after giving proper consideration of the residents' objections and concerns, the Board approved the rezoning subject to a BSP which provided in part no vehicular access to Riveredge Drive, no structure exceeding three stories in height, a natural buffer 60 feet in width with its easterly boundary being the westerly boundary of Riveredge Drive, and a six-foot high decorative concrete block wall adjacent to the west side of the natural buffer. Mr. Boland stated the owners of the property are now requesting a change and removal of the existing BSP; the concerns of the residents are no less important now as it was 11 years ago; and based on the objections and concerns presented tonight, he would request the Board deny the change in zoning and removal of the existing BSP, or in the alternative, change the zoning with restrictions of the existing BSP applied to the entire development.

Larry Linkous, Senior Pastor and Founder of New Life Christian Fellowship, advised when they found the 19 acres zoned for the kind of building they intended to put on the property, they felt they had done a good thing; and they understand there needs to be consideration at the intersection. He stated the definition of an expert is someone from out of town with a briefcase; the residents had one of those from Orlando; and he understood him to say it was not an unsafe intersection, it is a difficult intersection. He stated every intersection is difficult; they have to be very careful and bring a lot of attention to those kinds of things; and they would see to it that it happens. He stated another vital issue concerning the property is that it is zoned for commercial use; Riveredge Drive has two sides to it, one is residential although there is a bar on that side, and the other is commercial; and it is zoned that way. Pastor Linkous stated the property on the river where they is beautiful; but everyone who lives there or built there or moved there had to realize that on the other side of the street is commercial property that one day may possibly be developed; the property has been empty for a long time; but one day someone would take up the commercial idea and build what is allowed to be there, a hotel, church, or a facility that would impact, in a sense, their community and street. He stated it is not their street; it is a public street that has two sides; and inherently, if a person buys a piece of property, access comes along with it. He stated they did that when they built their home next door to someone who had arranged their beautiful home to look towards the clubhouse; he was concerned they would block the neighbor's view; but the neighbors did not raise a voice because they knew one day that property, which was empty, would sell and have someone build a house on it that would impact their view. Pastor Linkous reiterated when a person buys a piece of property, he can inherently assume he will have access; stated his neighbors did not tell him he could move in next door but could not use the street; and that has been the offer they have received from the Riveredge community. He stated there is a $1.7 million property north of the Church's property; and they would like to have three acres of it but it is not available in three- acre parcels. He stated the deal is there are two sides to the street; they realize they will use it and it will bring a difference to the area; they will not abuse it; they will prove to be good neighbors; and they would like the access that should be an inherent understanding that comes with a piece of property.

Attorney Evans advised the issue of a buffer that has been raised they have offered in the BDP so it is not an issue; they have resolved all their issues with Space Coast Executive Airport; and someone mentioned wells, but they will have City water and sewer and substantial retention so they will not impact the wells. He stated their expert testified that the intersection is not unsafe; the residents' expert testified the intersection is not unsafe; the residents' expert did not address the issue if there is not a full median cut and people having to go north and make a U-turn on U.S. 1, and perhaps being staked up on U.S. 1; and that is a significant aspect of the problem. He stated another thing everyone seemed to have missed is the property requested for rezoning is one-third of the entire parcel; the BSP is one-third of the parcel; it is not the entire parcel; and even though it is only a third of the property, they will spend all the funds to get a full median cut first. He stated they will agree that if they do not have to go on Riveredge Drive they will not; but if for some reason DOT says no to a full median cut, then they are willing to take the entire two-thirds of the parcel which is not even the subject of rezoning, and limit it to one access as far south as they can on Riveredge Drive to minimize the impact on the residents. Mr. Evans stated they hope, through efforts of the County Engineer and staff they can get the full median cut and that issue will go away; but they need to address the issue of what happens if DOT does not give them the full median cut; and that is all they are talking about. He stated mini-warehouses were planned on the BU-1 property that were going to access on Riveredge Drive; it would have required a site plan and the Board would not have seen it; another BU-1 parcel could have commercial and access on Riveredge Drive with no zoning requirement, just a site plan; so his clients have gone way beyond what is necessary to be good neighbors. He stated they want to have no access on Riveredge Drive if possible; but they must address the issue of what if DOT does not give them the full median cut; and that is where they are coming from. He stated they believe they have been reasonable with their request; they believe most likely they will not impact the neighbors; but they still need to address what would happen if the full median cut is denied by DOT.

Commissioner Scarborough stated staff has taken the time to go out and visit the site; and requested they give the Board their thoughts.

Public Works Director Henry Minneboo advised he is not receptive to joining in on a median cut with anybody until staff looks at a traffic impact analysis, which includes a trip generation buildout; it is easy to say let the County join in; but if his signature is going to be on it, he is not excited about doing that without the data that needs to be collected and put the Board on a limb. He stated median cuts are not simple; the liabilities associated with them can be devastating; so until staff gets the data and makes a professional decision, he cannot tell the Board they want to join in the application for a full median cut. He stated they need to get a traffic engineer who staff can approve and who will provide the analysis needed.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has driven from Golden Knights Boulevard to Riveredge Drive, and coming out on U.S. 1 has some problems. He stated the traffic is very fast in that area; there is a curve at that point; the roads have a dip in the middle; and a residential area producing a number of cars is different than a church letting out or a school letting out a lot of traffic at one time at a particular point. He stated the neighbors told him they would like to work with the Church if it can be worked out, but he would feel more comfortable having what staff is recommended as a product the Board could work with and know how to handle the traffic correctly. He stated it is a difficult intersection; to put several hundred cars at a difficult intersection at that great speed is probably not the way to go; and he would like to proceed to what and how it will be done. Mr. Minneboo stated a traffic impact analysis can be put on the site; it is not out of the ordinance and does not require an Ordinance change; sometimes staff requires the analysis on a site of this magnitude; and he would not feel comfortable joining in the application to DOT without that data that has to be acceptable to staff. He stated DOT should be receptive if the County's signature is on the request. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board is at the zoning level tonight; people are saying there is great risk; engineers have come to testify; and he does not want to take action at the zoning level until that report is received so all the people can look at it and the BDP be in accordance with that type of information. Mr. Minneboo stated staff needs the data before they can render an opinion; and the Church will not get the full median cut on its own. Commissioner Scarborough stated some of it looks favorable; one engineer said it is 2,800 feet and another shows the cuts at 800 and 500 feet; and the only thing they are consistent with is being inconsistent with following their policy. He stated if the Board is going to save lives by directing traffic in an intelligent manner, it has to have the right data.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, to table Item 10.

Commissioner Higgs advised if the objections and concerns are about traffic and the buffer, and those are resolved, it would accommodate the serious concerns; the TU-1 parcel has a BSP; and if the Board goes forward and approve the BU-1 with a BDP permitting access only on U.S. 1 and the buffer along Riveredge Drive, then the Church can proceed with its plans and work with DOT and the neighbors would be assured access would not happen on their street. He stated if they need to come back at a later date to amend the BDP, they could do that; but this will allow them to go forward with access on U.S. 1. She stated Mr. Evans agrees that the entrance on a residential street would not be wise and potentially unsafe; so if the applicant agrees to a BDP with those stipulations of access only on U.S. 1 and a buffer along the entire length of the property, then they can move forward and would not be burdened with coming back to the Board.

Chairman Carlson stated there were eight items in the original BSP. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board received a BDP from Mr. Evans this evening; there is a difference in the buffer, but it has extended the full length of the parcel; they were tied down making a point on the traffic and did not address the alteration to the buffer; so he does not know if that is acceptable or not. He stated there are things both sides need to talk about; and recommended they go out and talk about the elements of the existing BSP. Chairman Carlson stated some wants to keep all the restrictions in the BSP, some want just a couple of them; but they were not touched on extensively because of the traffic issue. Commissioner Higgs stated she is willing to work on the BDP to allow them to go forward.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the homeowners have a spokesperson who can speak to the BDP. He stated the Church agreed to a natural 50-foot buffer, but it will be for the full length of the property; and inquired if there is something the homeowners have a problem with. Mr. Boland stated that would be acceptable to them provided there will be no access to Riveredge Drive and there is no condition, if they do not get the full median cut, that they could come back for the access. He stated their traffic engineer advised them if that condition is made part of the approval, it would allow DOT a way out, so it would be less likely to approve the full median cut. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the buffer is not going to be an issue; with Mr. Boland responding they agree with a 50-foot buffer without the other conditions as long as it is the full length of the property, and no access to Riveredge Drive even through an adjoining property.

Commissioner Colon advised some of the items in the BSP included no vehicles, not to exceed three stories, a natural 60-foot buffer, and a six-foot high wall; those are things she does not think one person can decide, and all of them need to decide; so they may need a few minutes to discuss it. Commissioner Scarborough inquired how long would the traffic analysis take; with Mr. Minneboo responding approximately 60 days. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the County should purchase those services; with Mr. Minneboo responding no, it is the normal process that the applicant do it, but staff will work with them. Mr. Evans stated they believe they can get the report in 30 days; and requested the table be for 30 days.

Chairman Carlson inquired if Mr. Evans will work with the residents on the eight items; with Mr. Evans responding yes, they have met with the residents twice already and will meet with them again. He stated Reverend Linkous said they would accept Commissioner Higgs' idea at this time and agree to the buffer and no access to Riveredge Drive for the zoning; and they will work with the County on the traffic studies, etc. to get the full median cut. Chairman Carlson stated she does not think that is what the residents reflected in their comments. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it can be settled tonight, the people would not have to come back again.

Commissioner Higgs inquired if they need time to consult; with Attorney Rezanka responding she would need to consult with the residents because there are different stories going around. Commissioner Higgs stated the Church is willing to agree to a 50-foot buffer and access only on U.S. 1. Ms. Rezanka stated she is concerned about ambiguities in the BDP.

The Board postponed Item 10 to allow the residents to discuss the issues.

Item 11. (Z0107201) Publix Supermarkets, Inc.'s request for CUP to permit light fixtures which exceed 32 feet in height and exceed 400 watts per bulb in BU-2 zoning classification, retaining an existing CUP for sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, and removing an existing CUP for sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption on 10.72 acres located on the south side of SR 520, east of SR 3, which was recommended for approval by the P&Z Board.

Commissioner Scarborough stated MIRA recommended denial; and inquired what are Commissioner O'Brien's thoughts on it; with Commissioner O'Brien responding the same.

Dave Robbins, representing Publix and Watkins Associated Developers, stated Mr. Peck is out of town and asked him to attend the meeting; the item was tabled in order to complete additional research to have 40-foot poles instead of 32-foot poles; and on September 10, 2001, it was demonstrated to Zoning there would be no light pollution into the residential area. He stated the closest residential home is 350 feet away, and a buffer of foliage exists. He stated everything was demonstrated as requested; and requested approval of the CUP.

Commissioner Colon advised according to the information she has, the Lighting Ordinance limits maximum height of poles at 32 feet and candle power to 400 watts; they are requesting 40 feet and over 450 watts; the Ordinance requires they show the necessity to exceed the maximum limits; and she sees a dilemma of exceeding those limits. Mr. Robbins stated it would limit the number of poles that have to be installed from 36 to 19 which would create the same amount of light and no more.

Chairman Carlson inquired if staff has seen the difference between the light poles and is it higher technology for less poles and more directed light. She inquired if it fits into the performance standards; with Mr. Enos responding they are asking for fewer taller poles with more light per pole; overall it would be the same amount of light; but they are still subject to the same standards on the perimeter. He stated the Board can approve the CUP if it can be ensured there will be no adverse impact on surrounding uses.

Commissioner Higgs inquired about the other standards; with Ms. Bentley responding there is a series of criteria the applicant has to provide information on regarding impacts; page 2 of 4 talks about impact on adjacent properties, compatibility, property values, adequacy of ingress and egress, noise, particulate, impact on solid waste, potable water, wastewater, screening buffering, signage, and glare from lighting; and the most important of those criteria is the lighting impacting neighbors.

Chairman Carlson advised Merritt Island Redevelopment Agency said, "This item was represented by the applicant at the MIRA Board meeting; however, no examples of other shopping centers with 40-foot poles and 1,000 wattage lighting were provided to satisfy the Board's concerns." She inquired if MIRA's primary concern is that it was never done before and there are no other Publix Stores that do it.

Commissioner O'Brien stated that was not the only concern; the concern was the wattage of the bulbs being much brighter and there are lighting problems on Merritt Island that were grandfathered in; and he is prepared to move that whatever lights they put in is shielded from flooding beyond their property lines. He stated an example of bad lighting is the gas station on Courtenay Parkway at SR 528; its lights are so bright it shines on the street, backyards, sky and half of SR 528 sometimes; their objective was personal security for their customers; but that can be obtained with standard light bulbs. He stated he does not vision 40-foot poles that can be seen from the street for a building of not more than 28 feet tall; MIRA wants to retain lighting on the premise; it is a great project and they are happy to have it because it will vitalize the entire area; but he cannot approve the lighting requested. He stated the CUP for alcoholic beverages on-premises consumption under Resolution Z-9243 can be removed and the Z-7607 CUP retained. He stated extending lighting 40 feet will open Pandora's box Countywide.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Scarborough, to deny Item 11, request for CUP to permit light fixtures which exceed 32 feet in height and exceed 400 watts per bulb. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to retain existing CUP for sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption under Resolution Z-7607, and remove existing CUP for sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption under Resolution Z-9243. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Carlson stated 32 feet seems high; with Mr. Enos responding that is the maximum included in the Code and was a recommendation of the consultant. Mr. Minneboo stated wattage is not how light is measured; it is lumens; traffic signals they are installing are bringing down the wattage from 130 watts to 19 watts with LED's; so wattage is not a good representation of lighting. Chairman Carlson requested staff bring back recommendations for discussion on height of light poles and lumens.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Higgs, to direct staff to bring back a report on lumens and height of light poles. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Mr. Robbins inquired what happened; with Chairman Carlson responding the 40-foot poles and more than 400 watts were denied; one CUP for alcoholic beverages was removed; and one CUP for alcoholic beverages was retained.

Attorney Evans advised they have reached an agreement to request change from TU-1 to BU-1 and replace the old BSP with a new BDP. He stated Counsel Rezanka and he agreed on the language that provides no access to Riveredge Drive without further Board of County Commissioners permission, and a 50-foot natural buffer along the entire east side of his client's property, even that which is not included in the rezoning application. He stated the access issue also applies to the entire property. He stated the will apply for the full median cut, and if they cannot get it, they will be back to tell the Board their problems.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to approve Item 10 with change from TU to BU-1 and removal of existing BSP, with BDP providing for no access to Riveredge Drive from the entire property and 50-foot natural buffer along the east side of the entire property even that which is not included in the rezoning application. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

PERMISSION TO ADVERTISE AND SCHEDULE EXECUTIVE SESSION, RE: BIPPA,
ET AL v. BREVARD COUNTY, ET AL

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize the County Attorney to advertise and schedule an executive session on October 9, 2001, at 1:15 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, to discuss strategy related to litigation of BIPPA v. Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

CONTINUATION OF OCTOBER 9, 2001 WORKSHOP IN BOARD ROOM, RE:
BIPPA, ET AL v. BREVARD COUNTY ET AL

Motion by Commissioner O'Brien, seconded by Commissioner Colon, to authorize continuing the October 9, 2001 workshop in the Board Room to publicly discuss the case of BIPPA v. Brevard County. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 10:58 p.m.

ATTEST: ___________________________________
SUSAN CARLSON, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK

(S E A L)