Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 01 27 Regular Item A .- COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM A REGULAR X CONSENT INFORMATIONAL January 27. 1997 Meeting MAR. I? )I /J1 IDEPT Authorization REQUEST: City Manager requesting the City Commission to hold a public hearing on the issue of development alternatives provided by Jim Mikes of FCCI regarding Units 3 and 4 of the Arrowhead Tract of the Tuscawilla PUO and to provide direction to the staff and Planning and Zoning Board. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the City Commission to receive public input regarding three development alternatives relative to the development of Units 3 and 4 of the Arrowhead Tract of the Tuscawilla PUD as presented by the developer, Jim Mikes, to review the public record of this matter provided herein, and to provide subsequent direction to the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the disposition of the alternatives and the development of Arrowhead Units 3 and 4 proposed now before the Planning Commission. CONSIDERA TIONS: Note (1): The following information is paraphrased from the public record. Note (2): The City Attorney has opined that the City Commission is the only body that can approve any document amending the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. As such, the Planning and Zoning Board has no specific jurisdiction in this matter due to the fact that Mr. Mikes' proposals may have the affect of amending the Settlement Agreement. As such the Planning and Zoning Board is removed from this issue unless the City Commission should choose to ask the Planning and Zoning Board to render an advisory opinion on Mr. Mikes' proposal. On April 21 1994 the City of Winter Springs and Florida Country Clubs, Inc. Entered into a settlement agreement in the 18th Judicial Court of Seminole County incorporating the first amendment to the Settlement Agreement governing the development of FCCI parcel 1 through 8 therein defined as the "Development Property", and other property therein defined as "Golf Property." Page 1 On May 8, 1995 and July 24. 1995 the City Commission deliberated, and on July 24, 1995 subsequently approved the Second Amendment to the Tuscawilla Settlement Agreement. At these meetings FCCI agreed among other things to do the following: 1) The removal of the tennis courts and the reconstruction of these tennis courts as represented on the Conceptual Plan of Donald W. McIntosh and Associates dated February 15, 1995 entitled Arrowhead of Tuscawilla, Unit 3 (Tuscawilla Parcel 7), 2) The Cafe to be expanded and replaced in its present position, 3) Pool to have deck removed, remarcited and all new pool equipment. 4) Lighting on the tennis courts will be modern direct lights with no spillover to adjoining homes. As drafted by the City Attorney. the fifth Whereas Recital in the Amendment specifically incorporated the representations made to the City Commission at its May 8. 1995 and July 24, 1995 meetings into the agreement. including the above referenced removal, relocation and lighting of the tennis courts. improvements to the swimming pool and expansion of the Cafe. On July 26, 1996 FCCI submitted Final Development Plan and Preliminary Engineering for Arrowhead Units 3,4, and 5 to the City for development review. October 30. 1996 the Staff Development Review Board recommended forwarding the Final Development Plan and Preliminary Engineering for Arrowhead units 3 and 4 to the Planning and Zoning Board for review. The plan provided for 20 single family lots in Unit 3 and 46 single family lots in Unit 4. The Unit 3 plan called for the removal of the tennis courts, pool and maintenance building for the development of the 20 lots. On November 6, 1996 upon reviewing the Planning and Zoning Board's Agenda the City Manager became aware of FCCI's proposal being scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Board that evening and checked with the City Attorney to determine if he had reviewed the proposal to insure that it was consistent with the Settlement Agreement. He advised he was not aware of the matter being placed on the agenda nor had he had an opportunity to review the proposal. The City Manager and City Attorney decided to request the Planning and Zoning Page 2 i review it. Subsequent to this action the City Manager advised the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board of this request. On November 6, 1996 the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the matter deciding to delay action subject to a request for a legal review of FCCI' s plans by the City Attorney regarding the consistency of the proposal with the Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement. On November 11, 1996 The City Attorney advised the City Commission of the request of the Planning and Zoning Board for a legal review of FCCI's proposed plans. In his report the City Attorney reminded the Commission that he had incorporated specific language into the Second Amendment of the Settlement Agreement making FCCI's representations before the City Commission on May 8, 1995 and July 24, 1995 relative to reconstruction of the tennis courts. tennis court lighting and improvements to the pool and expansion of the Cafe conditions of the Agreement. On December 9, 1996 the City Attorney advised the City Commission that Mr. Mikes of FCCI desired to provide the City with alternative ways of settling the issue before the Planning and Zoning Board. He further advised that such a meeting with Mr. Mikes would be inappropriate without Commission approval and that if the Commission approved the meeting that the City Attorney and City Manger's participation should be limited to listening to Mr. Mikes proposals and reporting such back to the City Commission. Subsequent to this discussion the City Commission directed the City Attorney and the City Manager to meet with Mr. Mikes, listen to his proposals and report back to the Commission. On December 11. 1996 Mr, Mikes met with the City Manager and presented his alternatives to settling the issue. Mr. Mikes was advised that the City Manager would forward his information to the City Attorney and schedule a date for the three to meet. On December 31, 1996 the City Attorney and City Manager met with Mr. Mikes and reviewed three options provided by Mr. Mikes to settle the issue. The City Attorney asked Mr. Mikes to reduce the alternatives to writing, The alternatives provided by Mr. Mikes are as follows: 1) To provide the City $200,000 to develop recreational facilities of the City's choice. 2) To construct four lighted tennis courts in the current parking lot of the Tuscawilla Club and dedicate the tennis courts to the City to operate as a Page 3 ISSUES: public park and provide the City with $100,000, Provide recreational facilities of the City's choice, 3) To construct the tennis courts as set forth in the minutes of the City Commission meetings of May 8 and July 24, 1995, (Second Settlement Agreement), but accepting no obligation to operate the courts or to make them available for play. On January 13, 1997 The City Manager and City Attorney were provided copies of Mr. Mikes' proposal alternatives. Later that evening the City Attorney provided the Commission with a report of the meeting's with Mr. Mikes and provided the Commission with copies ofMr. Mikes' letter containing three alternatives for settling the issue. Subsequent to the report the City Commission voted to place the item on the January 27, 1997 Agenda in order to receive public input on Mr. Mikes' proposals; to set up an advisory committee to review the proposals on behalf of the residents of Tuscawilla, in order to provide the City Commission of its recommendations at the February 10, 1997 Commission Meeting; and directed the City Manger to communicate the Commission's directive to prospective committee members. On January 17, 1996 letters were sent to prospective members of the advisory committee as directed by the Commission, On January 20, 1997 the City Attorney transmitted a letter to the Mayor and Commission and City Manager advising the Commission of the following: 1) That none of the alternatives presented by Mr. Mikes were fully in compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related Second Amendment. 2) That he had taken precaution in crafting of the Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement to incorporate FCCI's representation before the Commission on May 8 and July 24, 1995 relative to relocation and reconstruction of the tennis courts. improvements to the pool. and expansion of the Cafe, and 3) An opinion that development of the golf course property would be inconsistent with the Tuscawilla PUD documents, Settlement Agreement, and Settlement Amendments, There are three basic issues for the Commission to decide as follows: 1) In consideration of the input gained at the public hearing, does the Commission desire to accept any of the three development alternatives provided by Mr. Mikes. 2) In consideration of the information gained at the public hearing, does the Commission desire to require full compliance of the Settlement Agreement and Page 4 .. Amendments thereto as set out in Option 4 of the City Attorney's memorandum of January 20, 1997. 3) In consideration of the input gained from the public hearing, does the Commission desire to have any or all of the four development alternatives transmitted to a citizen advisory committee for review and recommendations as contemplated in its meeting of January 13, 1997. If so, it is recommended that the Commission consider a committee structure in the alternative to that recommended in the January 13, 1997 meeting. An alternative structure could be smaller, more manageable, and possibly more representative of the residents of Tuscawilla who have complained that the current structure does not represent them, This could be accomplished by the Mayor and Commission each appointing one or possibly two persons from the various interest groups from within the P.U.D. FUNDING: None Required RECOMMENDATION: The Commission consider the following actions: 1) Decide ifit desires to provide further consideration to any of the three alternatives provided by Mr. Mikes. 2) Decide if it desires to pursue full compliance with the Settlement Agreement and Amendments thereto as set out in Alternative 4 provided by the City Attorney. 3) Decide if the Commission desires to utilize a citizen committee to review any or all of the alternatives and if so, Decide if it desires to modify the committee structure or continue the current structure, 4) Provide the staff and Planning Commission with any further direction it determines to be appropriate to this matter. IMPLEMENTATION: Dependent upon Commission Direction. ATTACHMENTS: 1) City Attorney memo of January 20, 1997 to Mayor, Commission and City Manager. 2) Sample Letter sent to perspective committee members by City Manager. Page 5 . . 3) Commission minutes of January 13, 1997. 4) Mikes' letter of January 13, 1997 to City Manager. 5) Mikes letter of December 11, 1997 to City Manager. 6) Commission minutes of December 9, 1996, 7) Commission minutes of November 11, 1996 8) Planning and Zoning Board minutes of November 6, 1996. 9) Second Amendment to Settlement Agreement 10) Commission minutes of July 24, 1995. 11) Commission minutes of May 8, 1995. 12) Settlement Agreement and 1st Amendment thereto of April 21, 1994. COMMISSION ACTION: Page 6