Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 03 28 City Commission Regular Minutes . . . 93-94-12 REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MARCH 28, 1994 The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, was called to order by Mayor John F. Bush at 7:30 p.m. The invocation was given by Commissioner Cindy Genne11. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner John Ferring. Roll Call: Mayor John F. Bush, present Deputy Mayor John V. Torcaso, present City Manager John Govoruhk, present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present Commissioners: John Ferring, present John Lange110tti, absent Cindy Genne11, present David McLeod, present Approval of minutes of March 14, 1994: there were no additions or corrections; the minutes stand approved as presented. Public Comment: Dick Denny, Pebble Beach Circle West, spoke about the BOWS Master Plan. He explained the Master Plan was presented to the Commission in 1992. He said the comment was made that the B.O.W.S. Board, having drawn up the Master Plan, had fulfilled their job so to speak. Mr. Denny said if you look at the bylaws of the B.O.W.S. Board their purpose is to come up with a Master Plan and they are to work with other civic groups and governmental agencies regarding the approach of the City surrounding areas which affect the impression of visitors and citizens of the area with regard to the City and the B.O.W.S. Board shall submit to the City Commission such recommendations as seem warranted, etc. Mr. Denny explained there is more then just drawing up a Master Plan, albeit the Master Plan was drawn up and is pretty thorough and offered some avenues to make our City a more pleasurable place to look at. Back in Feb. 8, 1993, the then acting City Commission designated the arbor permit fees to be used by the B.O.W.S. Board. At that time they had accumulated $3,825. Mr. Denny said it is his understanding that the money was subsequently turned over to the Public Works Department, and when the B.O.W.S. Board was in the process of preparing a proposal to spend some money, they were informed they had no money. Mr. Denny went on to explain he feels the Commission should give some consideration as to what the B.O.W.S. Board is intending to do and to give them some assistance in getting it done. Manager Govoruhk explained the auditors said the money was to be put into a line code. Manager Govoruhk explained the staff had never seen any of the plans. He said the staff is to get involved and when it comes to approval it will be in the budget for beautification, but it also will be an on-going project throughout the City. Gladys Zahand, Murphy Road, also spoke about the Master Plan. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 2 93-94-12 General Agenda Public Hearing and second reading of Ord. No. 553-A, amending the effective date of Ord. No. 553,etc. First Reading of Ord. No. 559, amending the 1993-1994 Fiscal Year Budget, etc. First Reading of Ord. No. 553-B, amending Ord. No. 553, etc. Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to read all three ordinances by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Gennell, aye; Commissioner McLeod, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Ferring, aye; motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. No. 553-A by title only. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. No. 553-B by title only, including the words, "amending Policy F-4 of the Traffic Circulation Element of Ord. No. 553. on first reading. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. No. 559 by title only on first reading. Mayor Bush recessed the Commission Meeting and opened the public hearing for Ord. No. 553-A. No one spoke for or against the ordinance. Mayor Bush closed the public hearing and reconvened the Commission Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve Ord. No. 553-A amending the effective date of Ord. No. 553. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner McLeod, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Ferring, aye; Commissioner Gennell, aye; motion passes. . Preliminary Engineering - Tuscawilla Parcel 61: Spencer Cowan said the Commission has the preliminary engineering on Tuscawilla Parcel 61. (Attorney Kruppenbacher asked this portion be verbatim) Commissioner Ferring-question, and going through the P&Z minutes this was recommended to us subject to certain conditions, was it not Spencer? Spencer-yes it was sir; Commissioner Ferring-what were they? Spencer-the motion was made approving the preliminary plan and subject to consideration of screening or walls adjacent to properties Northern Way, Winter Springs Boulevard and also adequate buffers and retention ponds and also consideration of the second egress on Northern Way. Commissioner Ferring-on the screening, Mr. Culp, as you are aware, I think the City usually when they are going to go to final engineering, and approval, we would like to know what your intention is as far as putting a wall up on this particular develop- ment because it is contiguous with Georgetowne on each side and we would like to see some type of compatibility with the Georgetowne units as far as the aesthetic values are concerned. That is one. . Mr. Culp-with regard to the planting screen easement in the preliminary engineering stage we have shown the planting screen easement at the perimeter as required by the Code. We do intend to provide a compatible type of planting screen easement to Georgetowne. We do not at this point have a final design for that. We would like to leave that open to be able to be a combination of brick wall and landscaping berms and landscaping. The code requirement at this stage is for the 10 foot . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 3 93-94- 12 planting screen buffer along all those lots that front both the interior streets and Winter Springs Boulevard and Northern Way and that's what we've proposed for the preliminary engineering. At final engineering we'll actually have the full design of that planting screen easement with all the walls, and berms and landscaping shown at that point and it will be compatible with but not identical to Georgetowne. Commissioner Ferring-and what you are telling me is there will be a wall? Mr. Cu1p-there will be a brick wall; I'm not committing to 100% brick wall at this point because I think we'd like the opportunity to present some landscaping and berms and combination with brick walls. The code requirement is for a planting/screen easement. I don't think we have that in a lot of places in the City. We have a brick wall. We'd like to do a combination as the Code seems to allow is this planting screen easement so we do want to do something complimentary in the terms of brick but also use berming and landscaping in coordination with that brick. . Commissioner Ferring-so you want to make it prettier? Mr. Cu1p-yes. Commissioner Ferring-what about the retention ponds? What are you proposing for the retention ponds as far as buffering is concerned? Mr. Cu1p-a10ng the retention ponds on the preliminary plan that we had submitted earlier on and reviewed with the Staff we did not show the planting screen easement because that wasn't a code requirement, but we will commit to continuing a 10 foot planting screen easement along the ponds. We are not committing at this point to brick walls along the ponds but will commit to the planting screen easement which would mean we would do berm and landscaping in those areas and some brick wall but we wouldn't do a continuous wall there. That would be our proposal at this point. Commissioner Ferring-as far as the maintenance of these ponds are concerned, how is that going to be handled? Mr. Cu1p-its all maintained by the homeowners association. Commissioner Ferring-do you have the deed restrictions in here? Mr. Cu1p-yes. We submitted them with our initial submittal. The Staff has reviewed them. Commissioner Ferring-the deed restrictions have been submitted? Mr. Cu1p-yes they have been. Covenants and restrictions were submitted with the initial submittal. We submitted and as far as I know they've been reviewed. We have not had any comments on those. I'm sure as we get to final engineering and normally in our final platting process they are reviewed in detail. and we'll have the opportunity to go over that again in the final platting. Commissioner Ferring-have you filed for an arbor permit for the removal of trees and how many trees do you intend to remove in that area? Mr. Cu1p-we only intend to remove those that are necessary for the road construction. We've not done any type of tree surveyor aerial survey at this point. We're going to limit it only to those that are necessary for the raod construction and then we're going to keep whatever trees we can on the lots as we develop each lot and build homes on each lot. . . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 4 93-94-12 Commissioner Ferring-have you discussed this with the Staff? Mr. Culp-the Staff has not requested anything with regard to arbor permits at this point. At final engineering they will require us to have an aerial survey which locates the trees and those that are being removed, but they have not requested and not required at the preliminary engineering to be done at this point. Mayor-he didn't answer one of the questions about have you applied for an arbor permit? Mr. Culp-no we have not. Its not required at this point. We will apply at our final engineering. Commissioner Ferring-I took it that you would be doing that at final engineering. Mr. Culp-that's correct. Commissioner Ferring-on Sec. 9-49 approval of this preliminary engineering is to be construed only as a go ahead to submit the final engineering. You are aware of that? Mr. Culp-that's correct. Commissioner Torcaso-at the present time I don't think we'll have any problem with the preliminary engineering but I think our concerns will be the same as Commissioner Ferring about the brick wall, etc. I'm glad he brought it up so you are aware of what our feelings are. Mr. Culp-we intend to bring in fully engineered plans and details of the entire planting screen buffer with the final engineering so you can see everywhere that we'll have the brick, the type of brick, the size the type of landscaping and berms the elevations all of that with our final engineering. Commissioner Gennell-what property in the subdivision beside the retention pond is going to be private property common area? Mr. Culp-other than the retention ponds I don't see any area that would be common area in this parcel. Now of course there would be common property, the subdivision the planting screen easements, although they are not common areas, those would be common property and will be maintained by the homeowners association. The entry walls, landscaping and signage and the entire planting screen easements will be. Commissioner Gennell-the streets are gonna be turned over to the City? Mr. Culp-that's correct. Mayor-when you say compatible, who determines what is compatible? Mr. Culp-I think that's a process that we go through with the Staff and Commission. Mayor-so the Commission will have the final say on what's compatible at final engineering? Mr. Culp-I think that's a process that we go through together. Myor-do you have a date in which you expect this to be before the Commission? Mr. Culp-I don't have the date worked out on my schedule. We plan to submit our final engineering within the next two weeks and proceed through the Staff Review which takes 4-6 weeks sometimes, then come back to the Commission at that point. Mayor-so the Commission may not necessarily see it even though you are gonna present it to the Staff within 2 weeks? Mr. Culp-it does come back before the Commission for final engineering approval. Mayor-but I mean within 2 weeks you are gonna show it to the Staff? Mr. Culp-I'll show it to the city of Winter Springs whoever they want to look at it. Attorney-Mr. Spencer, Sec. 9-46 filing and contents of preliminary map and plan per our Code have been eomplied with, am I correct? Spencer-inaudible. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 5 93-94-12 Attorney-Mr. Ferring brought out a very good point. What this is when you go to 9-72 it specifically contemplates that if there is a substantial change between the final engineering plans and the preliminary plans that it then goes back to P&Z before it comes back to you. I am concerned in light of our learning from our past issues, that if in the next 2 weeks the Staff is gonna obtain a final plan that is going to contain more detailed things such as the concerns raised by Commissioner Ferring, that we not show back up here on the doorstep with a final plan that is more detailed for you for the first night because I think it puts you in the awkward position of basically looking at a developer saying well if we don't approve it tonight what do we do to your project? No. 2 I don't care who the developer is and this is no slight on you, they will always argue all of these issues were covered and now I'm at the final plan and now you want to change things, etc. So I think we ought to address that issue now given the fact that it was significant enough for Commissioner Ferring raised it that one, if the final plan is coming in in two weeks that's gonna contain all of these issues, you ought to be given a copy of it immediately in 2 weeks and then you ought to agenda looking at it from a preliminary standpoint and then going to another final, because its not going to do us any good having him go to the Staff, get to the final and be sitting here telling him he's gotta go back because there were issues. Mr. Culp-could I request then that we have a workshop on the final engineering as opposed to a preliminary review of the final engineering and then a final? Attorney-I don't care, all I'm saying I don't want this Commission to be in a position at the last night they are looking at it given the fact there was a concern Commissioner McLeod-this does go back to P&Z for final? Mr. Culp-final engineering does not go back to P&Z. Attorney-it can go back. Commissioner McLeod-I would suggest this one does for the simple reason, the other night there was an awful lot of confusion at the P&Z Board regarding this project. Nothing to do with the developers but more of an internal with our own City through some changes we've had. Some of those concerns was the fact there was not enough input as far as our P&Z felt from the Fire Department, Police Department, which now I see in front of us as the City Manager had promised the P&Z in the future they would have. We the Commission have comments from each one of the departments that would have probably made it a lot smoother the other night in the P&Z meeting. The poor developer got caught in the middle of it but I think in lieu of that I would recommend that we do instead of us having a preliminary with the developer, I think it should go back to P&Z because they had concerns of these walls, also and the landscape, a lot of things. Attorney-Commissioner, Sec. 9-72 contemplates that when the final plans are submitted for processing only if significant changes, alterations or modifications have been made to the final plans which would cause to be construed at the time of Staff Review that a substantial difference between the final and preliminary plans now exist must the plans then go back to P&Z, so one could argue that the Staff has to make that judgement. I think that puts the Staff in an incredible position of being Monday morning quarterback on why did you not make that judgement. I think that I am going to construe that this Commission has the inherent authority to always send some- thing back to one of its boards for further input. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 6 93-94-12 Commissioner McLeod-the reason I mentioned that was because in the P&Z's outcome of what we are reading here in our minutes was due to they were going to see the final and I don't believe the developer has a problem necessarily with that. Maybe its a workshop with the P&Z rather than a regular P&Z meeting prior to the final coming to the Commission. From what I heard of that meeting and the confusion the other evening both from your side and also the Commissioner, they were kind of guaranteed they would have another shot at it and I know the ordinance is different. Mayor-sounds to me like the Commission can decide to send it back to the P&Z if they want to but they don't have to unless someone said this is a significant change and the Commission would say what is significant and what isn't. Attorney-until advised by a higher authority it is my position you have the inherent authority to send something back to your boards in this case. Mr. Culp-we have no objection to it going back before the P&Z on a timely basis. As you know it took us quite a while to get to the P&Z Board and through Staff Review because of the transition that is going on so if we could get it on a fairly timely basis and also I request we address those items that were items of concern by the P&Z and not open it up for a new P&Z hearing on the preliminary plan where we addressed the wall issue and the details of those and the details that may need to be more quantified for them. Mayor-it appears to me from what Frank has said, if the Commission wants to send it back to the P&Z they can. At this point the Commission has not spoken. Commissioner Ferring-just want to get back to one more thing. I have no problem coming back on a workshop if there is a substantial change and I'll rely on Staff and especially in lieu of the fact we've got some people that I think are really going to be able to do a job for us, I think that I would allow them to make that decision. One of the questions I want to ask you, when were the covenants given to the City? Mr. Culp-I have to look back to my original submittal. We had several submittals on this parcel and they are required when we submit the initial documentation to be included as part of the package. I have a memorandum from the Land Development Coordinator dated Jan. 19 on the proposed covenants of Parcel 61. Commissioner Ferring-in the covenants cause I haven't had a chance to look at them, what is the percentage of occupancy that will be required and will you be keeping maintenance up until what point of occupancy? Mr. Culp-we will be keeping control of the association and maintenance until we sell the last lot. Commissioner Ferring-in other words you will do the maintenance until 100% is occupied? Mr. Culp-the homeowners association will do the maintenance, the developer will maintain control of the association and will find any deficiencies until the last lot is occupied. Commissioner Ferring-what is the developer's responsibility until the homeowners take over as far as maintenance is concerned? You have no financial input into that at all? Mr. Culp-yes we do. We have the requirements through the documents, covenants and restrictions to fund any deficiencies, the homeowners as they come in to fund the homeowners association initial assessments as well as prorated portions of their dues. Commissioner Ferring-that will not be put into an escrow fund? Mr. Culp- that will be handled as all funds for homeowners associations are reqqired. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 7 93-94-12 Commissioner Ferring-and they will be taking money out of those funds before they take over? Mr. Culp-that is correct. Commissioner Ferring-I think that needs to be addressed, o.k. I don't think that is proper that you will be taking money out of the homeowners contributions until they actually take over control and that should be your responsibility on the part of the developer. Mr. Culp-I'd be happy for your legal counsel to review that. We've used these covenants and restrictions for a number of years and have never had any question in that regard. Commissioner Ferring-I'm giving you one now. Mr. Culp-o.k. I'd be happy for legal counsel to review that. Attorney-how do you want it to work? Commissioner Ferring-at least to my best judgement that the developer should be taking care of the maintenance of that development until at least 75% of occupancy has been attained at their expense and the monies that are contributed in the interim period of time go into an escrow fund to be used for the homeowners association for future maintenance projects and whatever else would be required. Mr. Culp-we obviously are not committing to that this evening. Commissioner Ferring-that might be a substantial change. Mr. Culp-not to what we've submitted. Commissioner McLeod-I would like to remind the City Manager and also the City Attorney that there's many homeowner associations in Tuscawilla that has had problems over the past and once they've gotten into development that the homeowners ended up with problems which then ended up here in the Council Chambers. I would like not to see any of those problems end up as being a problem for the City Commission at this time or any time in the future. I would ask the Council to read through the covenants very closely, go back and think about some of the other areas of Tuscawilla that's had problems, maintenance problems or whatever and address those issues at this time. I also agree with Commissioner regarding the fact of waiting until 100% occupancy before the homeowners end up having a say is basically what you end up with. I do not believe in that. I believe when you are sold out 75% the homeowners should have some say as to what's happening in their community even though you are the developer. That's very tough line to put on somebody buying into a place and I know that's been done in the past, but we're trying to make things here a little different in the future. Mr. Culp-we are committing to fund the maintenance and any improvements that are necessary and committing to fund any deficiency until the point that the community is turned over to the association. We at no point said that we were going to stop funding or not maintain the community, so whether its 75% or 100% we are committed to fund that and any deficiencies there are in the homeowners association would be funded by the developer. Commissioner McLeod-I just believe the homeowners association should have it 75% occupancy some say so as to what the final development ends up being with you people. Mr. Culp-obviously we could work with that. Commissioner Gennell-Frank, I know this isn't in a lot of these documents, but having had experience with community associations I'm going to suggest that they need to have wording in there that requires them to set up reserve funds because historically a develoepr will come in and for one thing sometimes they will under fund. That's why its important that the homeowners get control of that association before the developer leaves and if they see those funds are way too low they can get the funds up where they belong but in the meantime if a developer is in there four or five years and . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 8 93-94-12 has not set up reserve funds there may be something that wears out after ten years, a developer doesn't turn it over until its five years old. If he hasn't provided for a reserve fund the homeowners are stuck holding the bag. So I'd like to see something in there for reserve funds and I'd like to also see something in there authorizing not requiring but authorizing the late fee for delinquent assessments because that's absent in most of these documents and again the association gets stuck holding the bag. Commissioner McLeod-one other thing, question I had on the homeowners association of this, is it 100% mandatory? Mr. Culp-yes it is. Commissioner Torcaso-in the next two weeks I do not want to see the final engineering. I want to wait for comments from the Staff. I go along with Commissioner McLeod saying it should go to P&Z before it comes back to us. We won't know any more in two weeks. then we know tonight. We are agreeing on the preliminary engineering but I'm not ready for the final engineering until I get more information. Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve preliminary engineering of Tuscawilla Parcel 61 subject to all of the discussions that have been going on here tonight regarding what this Commission is expecting from the developer. Mr. Culp-could I ask for a clarification because we had a recommendation from the P&Z Board that we haven't addressed and I want to make sure that wasn't one of the items that we are looking to. Commissioner Ferring-I have no problem with that. Attorney-what did that mean? Commissioner Ferring-what we're talking about was the walls, the screening the covenants, all Attorney-no his question to you about Commissioner Ferring-he was talking about the P&Z Board had some discussion regarding another road coming in off Northern Way and I don't have a problem with the way the plan is laid out and the way Staff has recommended it. Attorney-does the Commission agree with that? Commissioner McLeod-I think its kind of a shotgun effect Commissioner. I mean if I was standing in their shoes I'm not sure I'd totally understand the length of my barrel. Mr. Culp-if I could maybe clarify that. What I understand my responsibility is to come back with. Attorney-P&Z has recommended a road; sending it back to the P&Z for input or we're not sending it back we're going to have a workshop with the Commission. You are going to have to have one of those. Commissioner McLeod-I don't think that's been determined. Commissioner Ferring-I don't think that's been determined by P&Z that they recommended a road. They just wanted a further study on it and talking to Staff I can see the way this is laid out there's ample ingress and egress from the positions that are now under their plan. Mayor-so this road is not in the preliminary? All talking-no Mayor-but it very well could end up in the final? All talking-no Mayor-why are we talking about it then? . . . Regular Meeting City Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 9 93-94-12 Attorney-because it was mentioned in the P&Z report and we're simply and I think he brought it up to make sure the record was clean so that down the road somebody says who forgot about the road. This Commission if it agrees with what is being said is taking the position that no additional road is necessary. Mayor-think we need to nail it down exactly what it is that the developer needs to comply with. Attorney-I think he gave he made a motion which I heard legally he has truly given a preliminary approval of a plan subject to the resolution of each and every concern that was identified tonight and that is subject to the Commission's satisfactory concluding those matters have been resolved and I am understanding in my left ear from the developer that he is in agreement to abide in accordance with that. Mayor-you understand the motion then? Mr. Culp-it is my understanding that we need to submit final engineering along with that final engineering that is required by the Code we will submit additional details with regard to the planting screen easement so that can be determined that it is compatible in compliance with your wishes and that we also be submitting and reviewing the covenants and restrictions for the issues that were raised by Commissioner McLeod and Commissioner Gennell and Commissioner Ferring. Am I accurate in that? Motion was seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Ferring, aye; Commissioner Gennell, aye; Commissioner McLeod, aye; motion passes. Commissioner McLeod-we will receive a copy of the covenants to the homeowners association prior to final engineering, right? Attorney-you will receive a copy that has been submitted to the City along with recommendations so you can see the original ones and you can see the second ones. I don't have the original one yet myself, but you'll get both. Commissioner Ferring-just gotta tell you Mr. Culp, I implore you to really look at those covenants because I can't see those homeowners footing that bill until you are out of there. Mr. Culp-like to have your counsel's comments on those and then we will work with him on that and submit a revised document. Attorney-now I need you to decide and clarify are we going to a work session of this Commission when this final is brought back or are we going to P&Z Board to look at the revised issues and then bring it back to you and I think - I would ask you to clarify it. Mayor-the recommendation is to go back to P&Z? Commissioner McLeod-I would like to make a motion that it goes back to P&Z Board for final approval and that the P&Z Board get a copy of the covenants and all Staff comments along with a copy of the minutes of this meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Mr. Culp-I was asking for clarification with regard to what is going back before the P&Z. Its my understanding you want final engineering as opposed to preliminary; you want a final engineering which addresses the issues that you brought up tonight that we just agreed to to go before the P&Z. and that hopefully I can ask the Staff to work with us to bring it back before P&Z in a timely manner not to hold up the process. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 93-94-12 Page 10 Commissioner McLeod-perhaps that should be a workshop with the P&Z and somewhat along with Staff. Attorney-no, the confusion will be they don't have the authority to vote. Then they'll want to have another one. Mayor-is the motion o.k.? Attorney-I would ask that a verbatim set of these minutes be transmitted back to the P&Z, this Commission and to me, not a summary version because there are a lot of new issues with these discussions. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Ferring, aye; Commissioner Gennell, aye; Commissioner McLeod, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; motion carried. Stormwater Master Plan approval: Bill Holmes, Tom Mammoth and Terry Zaudtke of Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineers, Inc. were present to speak to the Commission. Mr. Holmes said on January 17th they presented the Stormwater Master Plan to the City and there were some questions, primarily to do in the Summary Report on the annual budget and the funding of the report. Mr. Holmes said they have provided the Commission with revised pages XVI and XVII to clarify the funding and detailing some more options. Mr. Holmes explained Table G which was page XVI had an annual budget based on a ten year program and it was the items in that budget were to pay as you go. He said what they added to that pay as you go program as a way of a footnote was where the recommended improvements are distributed over a ten year planning period and an estimated number of improvements are accomplished each year funding by annual revenue. He said to determine where the annual revenue was coming from on Page XVII they indicated there are two sources, two alternatives, one was to increase the revenues from the existing stormwater management utility and the second one was to introduce and continue one or more additional funding sources such as revenue bonds and their local agreement, in addition to revenue collected under the existing stormwater utility and as described in the section. Mr. Holmes said that was the only change made in that report. Commissioner Torcaso's recommendation was to increase from 2.04 to 2.60; he would consider 2.50 as a maximum. Commissioner Ferring said at their original meeting it was indicated the Commission was not willing to start putting an increase in the user fees at this time, and he said he would like the wording put down that only as a last resort would there have to be an increase in the user fees. Commissioner Ferring asked Mr. Holmes about the conversation they had regarding the St. John's Water Management District for a possible source of funding. Commissioner Ferring asked Mr. Holmes to put something together that could be sent to them. Terry Zaudtke explained this is a Master Plan. He said it is not set up as an absolute budget item; it is a plan to give the Commission a range of things that should be done that have been identified as problem areas within the City. It is given a range in terms of monetary very probable opinions of cost based on the planning basis, not on preliminary engineering and not on final engineering, so . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 93-94-12 Page 11 the numbers that are in front of the Commission are very gross estimates. Any changes to the fees would have to be on the basis of a budgeted item or a change by resolution or ordinance to the City Code. Mr. Zaudtke said he would caution the Commission against tying their hands at this point with a master plan whereby you lock yourself into something that two or three years from now may be unrealistic. He said you may find that regulations as they increase for stormwater due to EPA Stormwater and NPDS requirements may cause you to have to spend more or get more than that fee and he said he would caution you not to tie your hands at this point and allow yourself that flexibility in your budget. Manager Govoruhk explained that when we talked about it the last time we were going to leave it as it is now at $2.04. As we get into the 1994-95 budget if there are changes that would have to be recommended, they would be recommended at that time. Mr. Zaudtke said the Commission needs to be aware there are some deficiencies in the existing system that we cannot get a developer to do that will have to be addressed as part of this master plan. Attorney Kruppenbacher said as he understands the recommendation of Conklin, Porter & Holmes as the engineers for the City is the recommendation for a motion to adopt the plan as presented tonight with the representation as to how future funding takes place the Commission will make those decisions in the future. The Commission will have to make some decision for future funding. Commissioner Ferring so moved. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Gennell, aye; Commissioner McLeod, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Ferring, aye; motion passes. Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to remove the tabling on the final engineering for Tuscawilla Country Club. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Vote on the motion: Commissioner McLeod, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Ferring, aye; Commissioner Gennell, aye; motion passes. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to place Mr. Mikes' seven lots on the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring for discussion. Commissioner Ferring said we need the Roberts Rules of Parliamentary procedure; under those rules the item that was tabled when it is removed from the table automatically becomes the item of issue. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Ferring, aye; Commissioner Gennell, aye; Commissioner McLeod, aye; motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher said legally the following is his advice; this Commission in order to avoid liability and in dealing with this issue has one of two options before it. That is either an option to approve the final engineering for 7 lots based upon the fact that the previous Commission had approved and signed off on the Settlement Agreement with those 7 lots or alternatively authorize him to immediately file with the Circuit Court Judge in Seminole County who would be assigned to this case a motion to either determine that the Settlement Agreement of 1993 is the effective and binding settlement document and the final engineering is approved pursuant to that or alternatively to determine that the issue that was raised regarding whether or not there was something that occurred between 1992 and 1993 that undermined the 1993 document was such as to make the 1993 Settlement Agreement not valid. I premise that on the understanding or the thought that there were no objections to the proposed final engineering other than the issue that was raised over the 7 lots. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 12 93-94-12 Attorney Kruppenbacher said it is his strong recommendation that under no circum- stances do you deny this request for approval because he said he does not think that is a proper way of dealing with this particular property owner given the situation and the development that took place. He said he thinks we either abide by what the prior Commission of 1993 adopted or we go to the Circuit Judge immediately and say Judge here are the verbatim minutes of the 93 meeting, here the verbatim minutesof the 92 meeting; here is what has occurred, you make a legal decision, as the Judge sitting, which is the binding document, or what are the binding terms of the settlement. Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod recommended by the counsel that we file with the Circuit Court in Seminole County to determine if the seven lots are binding through the previous Commission or was something overlooked by the presentation to the Commission by our own staff which would not make that binding. Also, the persons present would be the City Manager, the City Attorney and also the Mayor for the City at that hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Gennell. Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he did confer with Mr. Mikes in lieu of the alternatives and options. this was acceptable to Mr. Mikes, he would prefer to have it approved tonight, he is not waiving those rights. Additionally Attorney Kruppenbacher said he contacted Attorney Jones who advised he had no objection to this, this being the appropriate way to deal with the matter and Attorney Kruppenbacher said he wanted that on the record that he has spoken to the parties. Mayor Bush asked the record to reflect that Mr. Mikes was present this evening and . did agree. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Ferring, aye; Commissioner Gennell, aye; Commissioner McLeod, aye; motion passes. City Manager John Govoruhk: Manager Govoruhk introduced Mr. Bruce Behrens who will be in charge of General Services and will be the assistant to the City Manager. Manager Govoruhk reported that Vistawilla was checked over the weekend; there were five lights that had been out; Florida Power has been notified and we are still on schedule to open on April 1. Manager Govoruhk talked with George Pappas in Deland of the FDOT, and he said they would be happy to go over the plans for SR 434. Manager Govoruhk is to work with DOT to set a Workshop meeting. Commission Seat II - John Ferring: Commissioner Ferring spoke about the letter from Congressman MIca regarding the Greenway Beltway and the five and one half miles and its connecting interchange with 1-4. Commission was in agreement to send a letter in support of their efforts. Commission Seat IV - Cindy Gennell: Commissioner Gennell reported that she went to Tallahassee to the Legislative Conference. She said she spoke to a couple 6th grade classes at Indian:Trails Middle School about their relationship with government. She said she has a committee working on the 35th anniversary of the City celebration. . . . . Regular Meeting, Ctiy Commission, March 28, 1994 Page 13 93-94-12 Commission Seat V - David McLeod: Commissioner McLeod asked about the timeframe of agendas. Commission Seat I - John V. Torcaso: Commissioner Torcaso reported the Chamber of Commerce has changed their meeting days from Mondays to Wednesday. Mayor's Office - John F. Bush: Mayor Bush reported the County Commissioners have agreed to meet with us on April 28, 1994 at 4:30 p.m. here at City Hall. Mayor Bush also reported the groundbreaking for the fire station would be March 30th at 10:00 a.m. Mayor Bush said Mr. Jim McShea has resigned so an appointment from any Commissioner can be considered to fill this appointment. Mayor Bush recommended Mr. William Fernandez at 250 E. Panama Road has agreed to serve on the B.O.W.S. Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the appointment of William Fernandez to the B.O.W.S. Board. Seconded by Commissioner Genne11. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner McLeod, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Ferring, aye; Commissioner Genne11, aye; motion passes. Mayor Bush asked the City Manager to report back to the Commission on the proposed shopping center in Oviedo with any further information. Mayor Bush said he would like to make an honorary proclamation naming John Baker as the honorary historian for the City. Motion by Commissioner Ferring to make an honorary proclamation naming Jbhn Baker as the honorary historian for the City of Winter Springs. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Ferring, aye; Commissioner Genne11, aye; motion carried. Mayor Bush read the letter from Mr. Jonathan Cox, 639 Marlin Road supporting Resolution No. 738,supporting the efforts of 1000 Friends of FL, Florida National Scenic Trails ADvisory Council, USDA Forest Service and Florida Trail Association for the protection and acquisition of the Lake Jessup Greenway by the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, etc. Commissioner Genne11 reported we will be hosting the Council of Local Governments meeting on April 6th at 7 p.m. in the Conference Room. The YMCA is going to give a presentation and the other presentation will be by Seminole County Recreation on their long range plans. Meeting was adjourned 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Approved: ~1~ ,MAYOR JOH . BUSH ~-r~ Mary T. Norton, City Clerk