Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 04 19 Other COMMISSION AGENDA TOWN CENTER WORKSHOP CONSENT INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING April 19. 1999 Meeting REGULAR MGR De~ PURPOSE: The purpose of this workshop is to present an update on the Town Center and review the Development Agreement regarding the Schrimsher Properties. CONSIDERATION: Discussion with Developer Mr. Roshit Joshi regarding the current status and progress of the Winter Springs Town Center. Schrimsher Properties has expressed concerns regarding a Development Agreement. This workshop will serve as a response to their concerns. At the direction of the Commission, the City Manager and City Attorney have worked with representatives of Schrimsher Properties to consider alternatives for addressing Schrimsher Properties concerns. Attached is a letter from the City Manager to Schrimsher Properties providing a point by point response on the proposed Development Agreement and the issues involved. POLICY ISSUES: The City Commission needs to decide if the City Manager's response to the Schrimsher Properties proposed Development Agreement is acceptable 1. Does the Commission see a need to amend any provision of the City Manager's letter. WORKSHOP OUTLINE: The following outline is recommended for the Workshop: A. Convene Workshop B. Presentation by Mr. Joshi C. Comments by City Manager and City Attorney on proposed Schrimsher Development Agreement D. Comments by the property owners E. Commission questions F. Public comments G. Adjournment ATTACHMENTS: Letter from City Manager to Schrimsher Properties addressing the proposed Development Agreement and the issues involved. RECOMMENDATION: A. The Commission follow the recommended agenda B. The Commission hear from Mr. Joshi, Staff, property owners and the Public C. The Commission provide Staff with direction it deems appropriate CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA Ronald W. McLemore City Manager 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 April 15, 1999 Michael Schrimsher Schrimsher Land Fund 1986 - II, III, V & VI. Ltd. 600 East Colonial Drive, Suite 100 Orlando, FL 32803 SUBJECT: Winter Springs Issues - Town Center Regulations. Dear Michael: As you know. since you attended the City Commission meeting on April 12, 1999 the City Commission asked that I respond to you in writing concerning a potential agreement between your property interests and the City of Winter Springs relating to the proposed Town Center Regulations. A number of actions have transpired since your submission of a proposed "Agreement" and first reading of the Town Center Regulations (Ordinance No. 707) on March 8, 1999. These include: ~ Incorporation of language in the ordinance providing for conditions under which a developers agreement is warranted; and ~ Responses to date to your proposed agreement; and '~ A meeting and various comments between you and I, and your attorney Mickey Grindstaff; and ~ The emergence of an investor proposing to develop your property together with other properties, pursuant to the Town Center Concept; and ~ Execution of an "Exclusive Negotiating Agreement" between the City and Mr. Rohit Joshi, the investor referenced above; and ~ Private sector negotiations between Mr. Joshi and you, and other private property owners in the area; and ~ The existence of various offers and counter-offers on the table, and continuing private sector negotiations; and ~ The private sector agreements and the City's desire to avoid interfering with these private initiatives. I have responded to your proposed Agreement on a point by point basis in the attachment to this letter. I have done so based on the following preliminary issues. First, the City of Winter Springs remains interested in entering into an agreement relating to acquiring certain proposed public properties pursuant to the state grant. These environmentally sensitive lands are eligible for state funding in the near term. This acquisition could be mutually beneficial and the prospects for this acquisition in the near term are probable. However, we understand that these properties are included in those proposed to be acquired by Joshi and Associates. The City will stand aside until these negotiations are concluded. If however, your negotiations with Joshi and Associates are unsuccessful the City is interested in entering into an acquisition agreement with you to acquire these properties. Second, other matters raised in your proposed agreement of February 26, 1999 are not as easy to address and probably cannot be resolved now. The City views most of the issues as matters that must be addressed with developers of the entire Town Center property or portions of the property, as provided in Section 11-0 of the Town Center Code. The reason for this is that, if the City is to expend significant sums in providing or extending public seNices to the site the City wants and expects something in return. Frankly, it owes that to other taxpayers or ratepayers in the City. The "something in return" could best be negotiated with users of the property (ies) because the extent of need for public seNices for a particular property would then be defined; the extent of compliance with adopted Town Center Regulations would be clear; and, a payback to the City for resources expended would be more readily ascertainable. What the City desires and requires is a "nexus" between a significant public expenditure and proposed development. The present draft of the agreement does not have such a nexus. The City believes that such a nexus can only occur if a system of public expenditures, paybacks, and credits is directly related to the benefits derived from the development of the property. The City would have little or no desire to extend substantial public seNices to the property without reasonable assurance that desirable development is imminent. For example. without specific development in mind, how can a road system or stormwater management system be designed and/or built. Two issues are obvious in your proposed agreement. One is that the City is being asked to sign a blank check with regard to the amount and extent of public seNices required, and another is that the City is being asked to incur costs that are traditionally born by private sector development interests. The current draft compounds this problem by having untenable time frames incorporated into the agreement for certain events not fully in the pUNiew of the City (for example, annexation of properties, private investment, absorption of private development). Page 2 As City Manager, I do not contemplate a scenario where the City could embrace an agreement with a property owner relating to public expenditures, which are so far removed in time and relatedness to development on the properties benefited by the public services. In addition, I do not support an agreement that shifts all or a substantial portion of costs of infrastructure from private investors to the public sector with little or no assurance of public benefit. However, if Schrimsher Properties assumes a development role in the property, the City would be interested in negotiating a development agreement in the manner described above. Attached is a point by point response to issues proposed in your Agreement. respond by reference to the numbers in your Agreement. The meeting set for 5 P.M. Monday, April 19, 1999 will be a forum for discussing this letter and the status of Town Center negotiations. I look forward to seeing you at that meeting. Sincerely, %~y~ Ronald W. McLemore City Manager Ijp cc: Mayor and Commission City Attorney Michael Grindstaff, Esq. Attachment WordlLetter/Apr99/Schrimsher Agreement.doc Page 3 City Manager's Response to Schrimsher Land Funds (1986 -II,V,VI ), Ltd. Agreement 1. Recitals - Generally acceptable. 2. Inclusion of Property in Town Center District - Your property is included in the ordinance establishing the Town Center boundaries. Terms and conditions of an acquisition or development agreement are provided in Section 11-0 of the proposed Town Center Code and the attached letter. 3. Adoption of Town Center District DesiQn Code - The Code is set for adoption April 26, 1999. 4. Future Land Use Chanqes - The City is currently processing a plan amendment with the Florida Department of Community Affairs to designate the proposed Town Center which together with the Town Center District Regulations will allow greater densities than those proposed in this paragraph of the agreement, when adopted at final hearing by the City (expected to be in the Fall of 1999). 5. Trail Relocation - This is and should be the subject of an agreement with the property owner as stated in the attached letter. Maintenance standards are being negotiated with Seminole County at this time. Bridge design is not a City prerogative. 6. Utilities This issue is premature. The City will negotiate with a developer/land user on a "quid pro quo" basis, for City participation in the developer's obligation to provide utilities to the property, as provided in Section 11-0 of the Town Center Code. 7. 'Spine Road - See Response to Number 6. In an appropriate case this road may be eligible, in part, for road impact fee credits in accordance with City Code. . 8. Mainstreet Improvements/Extension of Tuscawilla Road - See responses to Numbers 6 & 7. 9. SinQle Loaded Roads/Road Impact Fee Credits - See response to Number 6 & 7. 10. East Market Plaza Parcel - Section II-C of the Town Center Regulations specifically provides a process for site approval. The regulations have been amended to respond to the requests of the Schrimsher interests to accommodate a variety of issues. We do not believe that additional measures are needed to regulate this process at this time. 11. Retention Ponds - Agreed. 12. Civic Sites/Public UseslWetland Park - See response 6, above, and the attached letter. The City will pursue these matters with the appropriate landowners and or developers after adoption of the Town Center ordinance. 13. Urban Boulevard Traffic SiQnal - Generally, no objections but some of these issues are premature. The scale, timing and phase of development in the Town Center will need to evolve, and could change. 14. Annexation of Enclave Properties - This is a shared objective. Since the City does not control significant factors driving the annexation of these properties, then the City cannot agree to a specific date. Do note that first reading on annexation of the 17.41 acre Kingsbury property occurred on April 12, 1999, and second reading is scheduled for April 26, 1999. Additionally, the City is requesting the County to adopt the City's Town Center Standards in the Ordinance. 15. Connection to Tuscawilla Road - This is agreed to subject to specific site plan submittals. 16. Master Stormwater ManaQement System - See response to Number 6, and the attached letter. 17. DiaQrams/lllustrative Purposes Only" - Agreed. 18. Future Municipal BuildinQs - We can not obligate future City Commissions in this way under Florida Law. However, the location of public buildings in the T own Center is recognized to be desirable. 19. Sunset Provisions - Disagree/Reject. 20. Cooperation - Agreed. 21. Authority - Agreed. 22. Notices - Agreed. Add phone # 407-327-5957; fax # 407-327-5743; with a copy to the City Clerk, Andrea Lorenzo Luaces, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708. 23, Defaults - Negotiable, some items could be construed strictly. Other defaults should allow either party to cure. 24. Successors and AssiQnees - Agreed. 25, Applicable Law - Agreed. 26. Amendments- Agreed. 27. Entire AQreement - Agreed. 28. Severability - Agreed. 29. Effective Date - Agreed. 30. Resolution - Negotiable. Why not record this agreement or a "memorandum" summary of it to put all on notice of the contract of this agreement.