The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983 01 11 Regular To: vlinter Springs Ci ty Commission November 13, 1982 We, the undersigned, formally request a reconsideration of the decision made by the 'vJinter Springs City Commission on November 9, 1982, to allow the rezoning of the North Commercial area between Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard, to multi-family at 6/acre. This appeal is based on the fact that the above referenced rezontng devi- ates from the original PUD plan, to have isolated areas of multi-family separated by open space, and other lowtntensity development. Further- more, the \oJinter Springs Ci ty Commission chose to ignore the follawing. 1. The Winter Springs Town Planner, Jackie Koch, advised the City Coun- cil that the above change would be inconsistent with the original PUD concept of Tuscawilla, since it would group 137 acres of multi-family dwellings. 2. In October, 1982, the Winter Springs Zoning Board ~~animously rejec- ted a very similar proposal for multi-family at 12/acre. They were never given the opportunity to comment on the 6/acre proposal. ~ The Tuscawilla Homeowners Association and residents held a meeting on November 1+, 1982, where a straw vote was taken on the six/acre pro- posal. It was rejected by a nearly unanimous vote. u. A second straw vote was taken at the NO\rember 9, 1982, TOH'1 Coun- cil meeting, and the ~esults were the same. A nearly unanimous rejec- tion of the proposal was ignored. ~ One and a half years ago, Winter Springs Development Company was allowed to rezone a large single family area on the far east end of Winter Springs Boulevard, where it will join Rte. 426. At that time, the board would not allow the rezoning of the North Commercial area to multi-family, because they were displacing a single family area. It seems that this is still a valid argument. 6. It appears that at least one of the three board members who proposed and voted for multi-family in the previously zoned commercial area, may have had a conflict of interest. Burley Adkins, who is one of the fourteen Tuscawilla builders, should have abstained. Martine Trencher voted approval as a lame duck commissioner. The third vote came from Jim Hartman, also a builder. We respectfully request that the Winter Springs City Commission reconsider their vote, and do everything possible to reverse the damage done to the Tuscawilla homeowners. That area should be rezoned to sin- gle family. Without your help, the integrity;of the original PUD is compromised. We appreciate the time and effort that you have given this decision, and we hope that you will consider this plea favobably. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Wt:-fn~ tv tdl S1'u.h;l~ 6.I/tnJ ~ Me 6...cL of/)7e: ~tt4!~~.4~1 ,".vr;, 0-1. . Dt. Respect.ful~y, n ~ -??~~,..-{. /~Z7~OZ~1-t~~s~ < ~/,G WI+~~s5 1>- /11: tPW M2-1J /J. . r- ./ ~ t. Mr/~ 144~ ~t, L~.--1Y>--. a . ILI'-IfR /?'V6. /~ a. 70 -, 5(, .l~ }</.<{J'1fif,~ fJ'1 'PL/~ c;97 L~ U , YlJ'~ t;Cf7 ~cc ~~.~ fo~ 0J'3 C~Crt -\v(~ l:) ClQJb....- (, q? c~ U1'. Iii ltie IH~ 0> qr; C1z'1Ofl c+, / '1." ~ Ie' "".JL I 'f3 f> "1 T. (-?v'I<..'<. MitrE , J~ [. K~ /l/3'i Irtt--~ ~ ~~ /'(3(, '/Y17~9A., ~~~~~'C..~ \~'-\o ~."--~'<--~ ~ <<~cA. ~ /Uf. Uu"Il6L ..:\)'i'. _ 0 ~;/.' , Nlz3 tWT; L"fu..u:,,- fl/L ~ Ef.dv~ /132. I?tG ~~ ~ ~~ V~ 1'I3~ /YJ"T. L"",""UL DR, N~ re"""" 11 ho.. G, Ch Cu.Vl.O f' 'J Co ",..r . ~/1t; 1'fI/3 ~,tI~d-" I1l/. r ~~ 1Y'(fJ- /?7LT. ~ A. . . 7J1~~~ !#~ ~A~ 1~( ~ /1f'f]Ht'~[)A /20. / '/<rs<j Ai;l~ ~ {6?) ~ ." 'jJ .A- , 1k!1 &J ~ ~ ~ (l/3{ flU. ~M. ~ ~ ~~ ~f~ .~~,.. /~= ~? 1~~ c~ CV"r ~., i ~ ;- / 1/ / L (!.~.:::..,. ~ . . . r::~- Lf?'~ Io..J j~e.Q /4ta'7 M.L.L~' - "'__<"","'_....._..;"'''''..,.<>,......".,..v..~_.<'_...._....,..."..._.."._~.""~,,,.""'"'_~ To: Winter Springs City Commission November 13, 1982 VIe, the undersigned, formally request a reconsideration of the decision made by the Winter Springs City Commission on November 9, 1982, to allow the rezoning of the North Commercial area between Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard, to multi-family at 6/acre. This appeal is based on the fact that the above referenced rezontng devi- ates from the original PUD plan, to have isolated areas of multi-family separated by open space, and other lowi~ensity development. Further- more, the \Vinter Springs Ci ty Commission chose to ignorethe fo~lawing. 1. The Winter Springs Town Planner, Jackie Koch, advised the City Coun- cil that the above change would be inconsistent with the original PUD concept of Tuscawilla, since it would group 137 acres of multi-family dwellings. 2. In October, 1982, the Winter Springs Zoning Board ~~animously rejec- ted a very similar proposal for multi-family at 12/acre. They were never given the opportunity to comment on the 6/acre proposal. ~ The Tuscawilla Homeowners Association and residents held a meeting on November 4, 1982, where a straw vote was taken on the six/acre pro- posal. It was rejected by a nearly unanimous vote. u. A second straw vote was taken at the ~~ovember 9, 1982, Tow~ Coun- cil meeting, and the results were the same. A nearly 1Jnanimous rejec- tion of the proposal was ignored. ~ One and a half years ago, Winter Springs Development Company was allowed to rezone a large single family area on the far east end of Winter Springs Boulevard, where it will join Rte. 426. At that time, the board would not allow the rezoning of the North Commercial area to multi-family, because they were displacing a single family area. It seems that this is still a valid argument. ~ It appears that at least one of the three board members who proposed and voted for multi-family in the previously zoned commercial area, may have had a conflict of interest. Burley Adkins, who is one of the fourteen Tuscawilla builders, should have abstained. Martine Trencher voted approval as a lame duck commissioner. The third vote came from Jim Hartman, also a builder. We respectfully request that the Winter Springs City Commission reconsider their vote, and do everything possible to reverse the damage done to the Tuscawilla homeowners. That area should be rezoned to sin- gle family. Without your help, the integrit~ of the original PUD is compromised. We appreciate the time and effort that you have given this decision, and we hope that you will consider this plea favobably. ' Tha,rk you for your time and your consideration. ~-1/~ :. H '!l\-.i~;:,:{ ,/ -~" ~l /.. .~ \ Respectful~y, ./ -',. , (". cr. ,~. ././"--' -; Your Cons t l tuen t s ~ #' "/ .A ~ ..~-\ -./..~i ), "F-.}\ - ~-'-- ~k-~;;:. "- 1_ l--j..-t~.-/t > \. -~--r,-~ "4-" I.., :;. i r..j, .,:' L _ - _" -Ai \-' - - ~ '\ ""~\J ~...._....( ,,r .. /-, \ / . - /-~ (~,\-l-~.>'"k ..t: /~ '-)~~-:~,?~'~'<" ~.t-, /'''''_ / ..,,7 . '.;" ,("",;? . /_.- <'~~-__ 1,,- ~___,' /--1__ ~_ f~'--(t" ......T( _ ./1/ ..~/ ) ''';../ ... (",ire ,t iI" I.) /..:".. ( r( f . . 1 iI" i/ 1.... \_.",-..."q.,~ ~i'" 1."" I,--,dol' {I 7t.--(? ./ -" /_ /:1/') .:::) elli, to:< '. ,.....,/ C.i'~' )' 1'< '-.. L j{,~ ;/lC''T'rI'<'( , ('/ / / 1 / 1- /,/ \. . to . . L..( // I .. /'-{" r( I I..........~. - page 1 . .., Cffi:' i/'-" € SJiiYl ~ AlIA.,J u f.(t/YJ'SS 1~7L ~ ~-<..<~'t "~ --- ~ J(K~ I,>?) vi u'J.{l/Ufl5:S ~_v _ /'.2 ,4 J ~ . ,'\ r"- ,,~ I -__.___J~f..J;j?1 L :eUL'"J ~-\,i).u.<, "-- i~. d}...I.' ~ _4",,/-4- ~ fr/, 4<tf . ~ 7 7 d~ -< !Jq, ; --r:. 'S I ) /J t " \jl) .::t-=- k L~'l1-Q~ u/.{} /l.? I' ... ~v., "/," i- ,.. .,.. . .'. .. L JT,/1 _ . ~,v_.. /~ _<uc.........~>l LL_, o ~~-k----h b f). t/- ~ i c ,.' ~ ,q P.~. (Z () (J 0 (T '5 '2 ~--=> 1.3 t- c, M~~, S'~^--""'-" ct , ~ ~- 1'3 "Ie) eLf_ U (l /YV~ Mt.;t~ ~ i-f/ \ c,{){t1\,f /(' / '- ~A J/' . -:1) ~-e/l-L/"'~f "-./ page2 To: Winter Springs City Commission November 13, 1982 We, the undersigned, formally request a reconsideration of the decision made by the vJinter Springs City Commission on November 9, 1982, to allow the rezoning of the North Commercial area between Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard, to multi-family at 6/acre. This appeal is based on the fact that the above referenced rezontng devi- ates from the original PUD plan, to have isolated areas of multi-family separated by open space, and other 10wG*ensity development. Further- more, the \vinter Springs City Commission chose to ignorethe follawing. h The Hinter Springs TOvm Planner, Jackie Koch, advised the City Coun- cil that the above change would be inconsistent with the original PUD concept of Tuscawilla, since it would group 137 acres of multi-family dwellings. 2. In October, 1982, the Winter Springs Zoning Board unanimously rejec- ted a very similar proposal for multi-family at 12/acre. They were never given the opportunity to comment on the 6/acre proposal. ~ The Tuscawilla Homeowners Association and residents held a meeting on November 4, 1982, where a straw vote was taken on the six/acre pro- posal. It was rejected by a nearly unanimous vote. h. A second straw vote was taken at the 1'~ovember 9, 1982, TOH~ Coun- cil meeting, and the ~esults were the same. A nearly unanimous rejec- tion of the proposal was ignored. ~ One and a half years ago, Winter Springs Development Company was allowed to rezone a large single family area on the far east end of Winter Springs Boulevard, where it will join Rte. 426. At that time, the board would not allow the rezoning of the North Commercial area to multi-family, because they were displacing a single family area. It seems that this is still a valid argument. 6. It appears that at least one of the three board members who proposed and voted for multi-family in the previously zoned commercial area, may have had a conflict of interest. Burley Adkins, who is one of the fourteen Tuscawilla builders, should have abstained. Martine Trencher voted approval as a lame duck commissioner. The third vote came from Jim Hartman, also a builder. We respectfully request that the Winter Springs City Commission reconsider their vote, and do everything possible to reverse the damage done to the Tuscawilla homeowners. That area should be rezoned to sin- gle family. Without your help, the integrity" of the original PUD is compromised. We appreciate the time and effort that you have given this decision, and we hope that you will consider this plea favobably. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Respectfully, Your Constituents I' l~:e G\..("..A'"i.1'f.;,i.-, r:.... -r~~l.~ I v...." c," _ C7': ......#. c.= r. n '-"".... 7-''''- 'I _........~.. '" . '-' 'l i "') .>C: C..)> j-t .../~/ ., /,;;,c-L<;,J-I."",;;; .~;kV;".5-) _ . ~6'f:.:':;i;~'-:"'L/JY ~lc'J l~/ t.J .,.:2':>Lt1~>L.rJ ~~) i '. .,' /-'j) .,:1 {,/ 1/ ..\)1'" L-.,(-!/' J-", 'fI l .t-X:-.?'!--;' ". ~ /./ .~ n /. \y' " / i":'/r-~ . ~~ i USCbP!~ I 12 ."';' t- o : . \" A.\_ ,\.'" _ \ \r(l.. t \ 4 vif~~ ~ page 1