Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 04 24 City Commission Regular Minutes REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1995 The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs was called to order by Mayor John F. Bush at 7:30 p.m. For the invocation Mayor Bush asked for a moment of silent prayer. ROLL CALL: Mayor John F. Bush, present Deputy Mayor John Langellotti, present City Manager John Govoruhk, present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present COMMISSIONERS: Larry Conniff, present John Ferring, present Cindy Gennell, present David McLeod, present Approval of Minutes of AprillO. 1995: Mayor Bush asked ifthere were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 10, 1995. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of AprillO, 1995. Minutes stand approved as presented. PUBLIC INPUT Don Doer, Curator of the new Winter Park Historical Museum, spoke regarding the Winter Springs Historical Museum and recommended that the Commission give consideration for some place within the City for a Historical Museum. Mr. Doer invited the Mayor and Commission to the Winter Park Historical Museum. Mel Glickman, Aberdeen Court, spoke regarding the zoning that is going to be decided on for high schools in Seminole County. Mr. Glickman asked the Commission to individually and collectively support the Highlands' stand on the five zones that are being considered. Mr. Glickman stated that the Highland's homeowners have no objection to three of the plans that are being considered. Plan "E" they have an objection to which would split the Highlands, but their major objection is Plan "D", which would have all students of high school eligibility in the Highlands being forced to go to Seminole High School in Sanford. If Plan "D" is adopted, students in the Highlands will be bussed more than eight miles to Seminole High School. Mr. Glickman asked for the Commission's support in their drive to tell the School Board that Plan "D" is totally unacceptable and Plan "E" is somewhat unacceptable and to accept any of the three other plans (A, B or C). We are preparing petitions and we are going to attend the May 17th meeting in mass, whatever pressure we can put to bear on the School Board will be appreciated. Mr. Glickman gave Commissioner Ferring newspaper articles which explains the School Board's plan. Commissioner Ferring gave the articles to the City Manager to distribute copies to the Commission. Commissioner Ferring asked Mr. Glickman what does he want the Commission to do. Mr. Glickman said to put pressure on the Seminole County School Board as we are doing to tell them that the Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 2 citizens of Winter Springs and particularly the Highlands, are most opposed to Plan "0", opposed to Plan "E" and amenable to Plans "A, B or C". Commissioner Ferring asked if Mr. Doer was still present because he wanted to know if the Winter Park Historical Museum was a private Orgiznation, if the articles in the museum belong to the City of Winter Park or are they private. Mr. Keith Reeves, spoke for Mr. Doer and stated that the items were contributed from the citizens of Winter Park to the City of Winter Park. It is being funded by the City, they have their own Orgiznation the Historical Society and they collect dues and is in bulk funded by that. Commissioner Ferring asked if the Curator a paid individual or voluntary. Mr. John Baker said it is a voluntary position. Mayor Bush said to Mr. Glickman that several people has contacted him regarding the school issue from the Tuscawilla subdivision; they also have a point of view of what zoning would be best. The Commission has no authority as far as the School Board is concerned other than as citizens that we could speak. Mr. Glickman said the support that they would like is that all Winter Springs residents go to Winter Springs High School, that would be a major point is the Winter Springs Commission came out and said that all our residents should go to this High School. Commissioner Langellotti stated that he was one of the people on this Commission that really worked to name the high school Wmter Springs High School and he thinks we as a body to go to that meeting also, they already know about this, because he has had conversations with some Board members, because he doesn't like the plans either. One of the conditions with naming the school Winter Springs High School was not all of the students from Winter Springs would be going to that High School. That is why they hesitated naming it Winter Springs High School, but I think if we turn out as a body and speak to them, I think we can convince them. Mayor Bush asked the Commission needs to decide if they want to address this issue, then we need to contact the School Board and be briefed by the School Board on this issue. Mayor Bush asked the City Manager to get the official plans from the School Board that they have distributed at the public meetings. The Commission will need to find out more about it before we can take a stand as a group. Deborah Schelette spoke regarding the School issue and stated they would like to stop the bussing issue. Ms. Schelette also spoke regarding nets being placed at the Little League field. Ms. Schelette stated she has given Commissioner Conniff a petition with 300 signatures. I have been told that there is covering going over the bleachers for the parents but we need nets; at least five people get hit every Saturday with the ball. Ms. Schelette stated most of the people get hit while standing by the snack bar, she also stated that she has also been hit with a ball. We appreciate the covers over the bleachers but that won't be adequate. Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 3 Karen Seasee also addressed the problem with not having nets. Ms. Seasee stated if nets are placed now the City will be saving it self a lawsuit later on. Mayor Bush asked the City Manager what the City is doing about this problem. Manager Govoruhk said the Parks and Recreation Director Don Wilson has been getting proposals and ideas regarding this problem. Don Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director stated that he has four vendors coming in during the rest of this week and will have the estimates together within the next ten days. Susan Vickers also stated the problem with not having nets. Ms. Vickers suggested having netting such as is like at batting cages and suggested having the netting from the snack bar over to the back drops in the fields which would cover the radius around the snack bar. Commissioner Conniff stated that he has brought this up a few meetings ago and now we have three citizens complaining and a petition containing 300 signatures with people who would like to have something done. Commissioner Conniff said he will give the petition to the City Clerk to make a copy for the City Manager and stated that he is definitely interested in something happening regarding this problem. Mayor Bush remarked that since this has been brought up before and everybody recognizes it as a problem. I think we need to speed this up before the season is over, now is the time to do something about it. Mayor Bush asked the City Manager if there was any way to expedite this. Manager Govoruhk said the Parks and Recreation Director does have vendors coming in from all over the State of Florida and you can't get them in in one day. Mayor Bush said we should look for a vendor who could do the job quickly. Manager Govoruhk said the only thing he could suggest is if the Commission declared this as an emergency situation. Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff that we declare this an emergency situation and we expedite the fixing of this immediately. Seconded by Commissioner Ferrlng. Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that what that motion basically means is that you are declaring pursuant to your ordinance that requires bids for any purchase over $4,000, you are declaring that there is an emergency based upon the representations from the public that members of the public are or may be injured as a result of a lack of protection at these ball fields; you are authorizing the Manager to go forward and negotiate the best possible deal without retaining a bid. Commissioner Conniff stated that is correct. Commissioner Langellotti asked if anyone has approached the Little League if there is a donation that could be had to defray some of this cost. Manager Govoruhk said that was mentioned to the coaches and no comment has come back. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that you are not forgoing the opportunity to get bids, you are simply forgoing the opportunity to go through the legenthly mechanism for advertising for bids. Your people can get bids and make recommendations. Commissioner McLeod voiced his opinion about calling this an emergency. Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 4 Commissioner McLeod said for the Commission to call this an emergency, he has seen a lot bigger issues in front of this Commission that didn't become an emergency issue; he said he definitely believes we need to go out for bids and not necessarily believes that we have to go through our full process but he would like to put out to the Director of the Parks and Recreation that one of the things he may look at for a very quick fix would be to string cable from one pole to another in that area and then get netting that is used for the nurseries and pull the netting over and tie it down; this would collect the ball the same as anything else and you may save much more money then you are going to spend for the netting. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: nay. Motion passes. Commissioner McLeod mentioned that his no vote was because of an emergency being declared. There is ways for the City to fix that, it's just calling it an emergency. Commissioner McLeod said he does not have a problem with fixing it and fixing it quickly, it is just that this was called an emergency. GENERAL AGENDA Tusca Oaks (Tuscawilla Parcel 61) - Approval/Disapproval of acceptance of improvements (property located at the intersection of Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard): _Donald LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist, stated that this is for the acceptance of the improvements in Tuscawilla Parcel 61. I had one item outstanding and that is that the road base was going to be a four year maintenance bond for $21,000; that was received and sent to the City Attorney for his review. Everything else is in order as per the items from the City Engineer, the Utility Director, Police Chief and Fire Chief Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the acceptance of improvements for the property located at the intersection of Northern Way and Winter Springs Boulevard - Tusca Oaks, Tuscawilla Parcel 61. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes. Howell Creek Reserve (southern half of Tuscawilla ParcellS) - Approval/Disapproval of plat and covenants for Eagles Watch Phase One and Howell Creek Reserve Phase one (property located on both sides of Vista willa Drive): Mr. LeBlanc said this is the project on both sides of Vista willa Drive just north of the tracks. The City Attorney was sent the plat, the title opinions for both subdivisions and supplemental covenants for Howell Creek Reserve Phase I. The Commission approved the basic covenants on November 28, 1994. There is letters of credits for the proper amounts and a small portion of the Vistawilla Drive pond is being replatted and incorporated into the Howell Creek Reserve Phase I plat and there is a memo from the Utility Director stating that it is a better deal for the City. They have expanded the pond, they will maintain it and as Mr. Lockcuff stated in his memo, it is a win, win situation for the Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 5 City. Discussion. Commissioner Ferring asked if these two subdivisions have mandatory homeowners associations. Mr. LeBlanc stated yes they are and they are gated communities, they will be private. Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the plat and covenants for Eagles Watch Phase One and Howell Creek Reserve Phase One, property located on both sides of Vistawilla Drive. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes. Morrison Homes - Request to share space in the existing construction trailer as an Information Center until model homes are completed in Howell Creek Reserve until May 31. 1995: Mr. LeBlanc said as stated in his memo, a temporary permit may be granted by the Commission per Section 20-412 of the Code. Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to grant a temporary permit to share space in the existing construction trailer as an Information Center until model homes are completed in Howell Creek Reserve until May 31, 1995. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Commissioner McLeod mentioned that he didn't think we could do that, he thought model centers, sales offices had to have parking, had guidance in our Code, had to have shrubbery, they have to have a number of things; I am questioning what we are doing here. Mr. LeBlanc said this is not going to be a permanent information center, it is to share half of the construction trailer. Commissioner McLeod said we will have the general public coming in and out of this trailer for sales information, am I correct. Mr. Fred Schaub, developer, stated their model center, which is still active in Georgetowne, we get a number of people come by particularly on the week-end, we would like to have the building to pass out information and give them directions over to the model home where the sales people are. Commissioner McLeod asked if the trailer was set up with handicap and bathrooms and so forth. Mr. Schaub said it can be; Commissioner McLeod said it can be between now and May 31, 1995. Mr. Schaub said yes. Commissioner McLeod said to Mr. LeBlanc, that they have to meet all codes, to allow the public into the trailer as it is a construction trailer. Mr. Schaub stated that it is really not for the public to go into, it is for my employees to keep their things inside and to pass out when people come by. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the way this is phrased on the agenda is for Commission approval for an information center, that conitates to the Commission that the public would be using it to obtain information. The representation on the record just now is that it is not going to be an information center, it simply is going to be a storage facility. So is your request that the Commission simply approve that this trailer can also be used to store materials in conjunction with the development of Howell Creek Reserve and that the public will not be using it? Mr. Schaub said that is correct. Attorney Kruppenbacher said if the Commission has no objection with that, he is not sure that there should be a motion on that, if the people who have this trailer want to allow the storage boxes of Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 6 paper in there and that the public is not going to be using it; to have you make a motion is only going to open the door to somebody arguing what you voted on meant something more. Commissioner Ferring said Commissioner McLeod's point is well taken and he agrees whole heartily in what his comments are. Commissioner Langellotti withdrew his second. Commissioner Ferring withdrew his motion. Mr. Schaub asked if it is all right to use the trailer to do what he was talking about. Commissioner McLeod said what you are telling us is that you are going to store your own documents as storage in the trailer; which there will be no sales activity, no public in the trailer whatsoever other than your employees going in there to bring your own storage materials in and out of the trailer, is that correct? Mr. Schaub said yes. Attorney Kruppenbacher said for clarification as long as there is no sales office sign or information sign, as long as there is no sign; you just have your materials stored in there, this Commission is not taking a position on this. They are telling you that they are not going to have an issue with that. I'll tell you up front if people start showing up at the trailer, from members of the public or signs go up encouraging people to get in there; I will advise the Staff to pull all your permits until this Commission deals with the issue. Mr. Schaub said that is fine with him. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ordinance 574 - Joyce Rezoning: Mayor Bush directed the City Attorney to read Ord. 574 by title only. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 574 by title only. "Ord. 574, An Ordinance of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, rezoning lot 17 and that portion oflot 23, lying north of the CSX railroad r-o-w, Block D, D.R. Mitchell's Survey of the Levy Grant, on Lake Jesup, Plat Book 1, Page 5, Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, from the present zoning categories of R-U and C-2, respectively to R-3, pursuant to Chapter 166.041 of the Florida Statutes, providing for the amendment of the official zoning map, severability, conflicts and effective date. Mayor Bush opened the Public Hearing. Tom Grimms, Community Development Coordinator, gave his presentation. Mr. Grimms stated that this issue has been before you on various occasions. The applicant, Ms. Clara Joyce, has applied to change the zoning on the subject property from R-U and C-2 to R-3, multiple family dwelling districts, to permit the remodeling of an existing residence to a 25 bed adult congregate living facility. The Staff review committee held a meeting on April 12, 1995, and made recommendation of alternative B which is to approve an amendment to Section 20-267, uses permitted in the R-U district to add and 11 th permitted use, an ACLF. There was a revised proposal that the applicant made recently and the Staff comments are as follows: Staff observations on this new proposal should be noted that the mixed use classification on the future land use map of the City's Comprehensive Plan allows for only 75% of the land to be used as residential; therefore only 6 acres of the 8 acres can be used for residential. The new proposal states that one and a half acres will be used for the ACLF, therefore only 4 and a half acres are left for proposed single family residential. The adjacent area of Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 7 the County is designated low density residential which is four dwelling units per acre. Using this density with respect to the 4.5 acres for the purposes of compatibility, then 18 units should be the maximum allowed on the property not 26 units as the applicant proposes. The Staff Review Committee's recommendation prior to this is to approve an amendment to section 20-267 uses permitted in the R-U (rural urban dwelling district) to allow and ACLF. If the City Commission wishes to consider the latest proposal indicated in the April 20th letter from the applicant's representative, then the Community Development Coordinator and the Land Management Specialist recommend rezoning the property as planned unit development (PUD) which will allow an ACLF and also allow flexibility and control over density limits, buffering, set backs and other relating design criteria to foster compatibility with the surrounding development pattern; also, the Commission should consider setting a density limit for the ACLF of 6 residents per acre owned which was the recommendation oftheP&Z Board at their Jan. 18, 1995 meeting. Today at 5:30 p.m. we received a fax from Seminole County Comprehensive Planning Division, Francis Chanler, she indicates: Seminole County has been notified that the applicant proposes to modify the subject rezoning request as depicted on the attached conceptual site plan as follows: 1. Rezone 1.5 acres to R-3 for a future Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF); and 2. Rezone the remaining 6.5 acres to R-1 for a single family residential subdivision. The County does not object of the proposed uses. However to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses in unincorporated area, any development permit issued for that portion of the property zoned R-1 should include the condition that residential densities do not exceed 4 dwelling units per net buildable acre." Commissioner Ferring said what we are addressing now is Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ord. 574; how does this apply at this point to what we are doing. Commissioner Ferring also asked Attorney Bricklemeyer in respect to his memo that he sent to the City Commission if he would articulate on that and where we are going with this whole affair. Attorney Keith Bricklemeyer said that this petition has been amended several times since it was originally filed. The latest amendment being on the 20th, the Ord. that is before you is to zone the property R-3, that Ord. can be approved, denied, modified, tabled, the memo that I sent summarizes the findings that had been reflected in the Staff memos that have dealt with this issue and the Comp Plan policies and Code regulations that would apply to this particular situation, as well as the case law that governs the scenario. An earlier Staff report indicated that there were only a small number, four categories of zonings that would be appropriate under the mixed use plan category. The four related to the intended density that the applicant was seeking to achieve, that doesn't mean that there is an obligation to provide that density and in fact the current zoning on the property is consistent with what is allowed under the Comp Plan. It is a question of a judgement call that you have to make about what is the appropriate kind of development to occur on this property. The ACLF recommendation to modify the Code, I think that Ord. was brought to you once before as well, and I believe that matter was tabled. That would permit you to allow the use that has been requested and the P&Z Board's recommendation of 6 residents per acre owned is an attempt to define the density that would be permissible for that use because it is not other wise provided in the Code. In order to approve an amendment to the Code that establishes this as a permitted use, then you have to establish Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 8 some sort of density allowable for that use. The Ord. that is before you is for R-3 and to accommodate the latest proposed alternative would be to modifY it. Commissioner Ferring asked if in the Staff meetings, the recommendation is to disapprove. Mr. Grimms said we recommend disapproval of the request by the applicant. Bill Reichman, Attorney for Ms. Joyce, said we are here to rezone the property, the original request to rezone the property to R-3. We originally came in Sept. 1994 and was told by the City that in order to get an ACLF we needed to apply for R-3. All we are trying to do by the proposal that we have submitted is to take into consideration some of the concerns of the neighbors. In order to try to focus on the concerns of the neighbors, we worked with Ms. Randolph our planner, to think up a way that would create a staging process, a buffer, there is an existing home on the property, in order to allow that home to be used potentially as an ACLF the zoning would be R-3, consistent with City Staff. The remainder of the property we are asking the Commission to zone as R-1, that would be consistent with the future land use plan for all of the surrounding properties in Seminole County. This is a little different than we originally asked for, it is a lesser density, a lesser intensity to R-3. We are doing this to try and meet some of the concerns of the neighbors and Seminole County. The City's original Planner said that C-1, C-2, R-3 and PUD were the consistent zoning categories with the Comp Plan for MU (mixed use), which is the future land use designation for this property. Mr. Brickelmeyer gave us a memo last meeting which had R-U, PUD and a host of other residential uses, since that time there was a Staff report which again submits a list of consistent zoning designations with MU as a future land use zoning category. Then we get a third list of zoning districts that would be allegedly consistent with MU and the only thing that is common throughout the three different ideas of what a consistent zoning district is, is R-3, and PUD. Your Staff has recommended that PUD be the one appropriate for this property, even though your original Planner said that was not the best alternative, R-3 was the least intensive zoning category that was consistent with the Comp Plan. We would submit to you that we are entitled to R-3 based upon the case of Synder because R-3 is consistent with the Comp Plan. We have met out burden to prove that, the burden then passed to the City to show why some other zoning category would be more appropriate, why denial ofR-3 would be the best interest of the City. I haven't hear clear substantial evidence to show the City has met that burden. We have heard that several of the concerns have to do with getting water to the site and the roads, that was raised in Mr. Bricklemeyer's memo. In everything we read before that time, those were concerns that were to be dealt with at the site planning stage, not at the rezoning stage. They must be dealt with at that time before a building permit is issued. We would request that you disagree with your Staff as far as their recommendation for PUD and the reason for that is there is a case called Porpoise Point vs. St. John's county from the 5th Court of Appeals; it told St. John's county that their plan special development which the Court found to be a version of a PUD must be sought by the property owner and cannot be imposed over the land owners objection. "A PUD cannot be a tool to circumvent a land owners application for rezoning within the frame work of traditional zoning districts and regulations". WE would like to have a finality of this, we would like to have your approval for our proposal; a proposal that we submitted in good faith to meet some of the concerns of Seminole County, neighbors and hopefully to meet your concerns. We ask that you Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 9 look favorably upon our request to rezone the property to a portion ofR-3, an acre and a half; and a portion being R-1, we will have to deal with everybody on roads, sewer and water when we come back to this County when we want to develop this property consistent with zoning. Tonight we are asking for rezoning, rezoning that we believe we are legally entitled to under the law and based upon the substantial competent evidence that has come before this Board. Ms. Joan Randolph, land planner representing Ms. Joyce, stated what she has passed out is a plan in a larger size than the one you received already with my letter, dated April 20, 1995, which included some site data with it. Ms. Randolph stated that at her last presentation she addressed Mr. Bricklemeyer's memo and it came down to whether the water and sewer issues can be resolved and Mr. Reichman has addressed that. It is a site planning issue and ifit is in your Code, the owner or developer has to comply with that and the owner has no problem with agreeing to whatever Code requires, she is not asking to be relieved of those requirements. The reason we have come up with this lot design is because having Ms. Joyce going through a PUD application is not feasible. Ms. Joyce needs the maximum flexibility she can get so she can market the property. Mr. Joyce's original intent was to go with the ACLF that is why on the plan we recognized the fact that she wanted to convert the existing building into an ACLF and confine to the R-3 zoning centered around the building, 1.5 acres. The remainder of the land approx 6.5 acres, we went through and looked at zoning to see what we could do under the 4 dwelling units per acre and came up with the R-1 zoning classification. Mr. Grimms gave me a Staff memo that talks about only being able to use 75% of the property and therefore not all of the 8 acres is considered usable; I disagree with his interpretation, in the Comp Plan under mixed use, they talk about 75% being residential with the other 20% being open space and 5% minimum being utilities or wetland conservation easements. On our plan, if you take into account the retention ponds for both of the R-1 and R-3 sites, the green area around the ACLF utility easements will be around the lots, which is typical for platted lots, you are probably allocating a minimum of25% towards meeting the 25% the Comp Plan calls for. The primary reason we went with the R-1 zoning was because it gave us the amount of lots that did not exceed the four dwelling unit per acre, that is consistent with the Seminole County land use designation on north which is low density residential. We are at four units per acre for the northern part which allows us to provide the transition, protecting the Seminole County people to the north and the R-3, ACLF property to the south, which would be adjacent to the High School. Your City doesn't recognize any densities associated with ACLF's or group homes; Seminole County does, they have what they call an multi-family household factor which recognizes so many residents in an ACLF or group home equivalent to a dwelling unit and that is 2.1 residents equals one dwelling unit; that is how we arrived at our maximum residence within the R-3 property. We are consistent with a factor you don't have but I think you can benefit by utilizing the Seminole County has. Ms. Randolph stated that they believe this latest proposal is consistent with the town center goal, which your Planner very accurately put into the Staff comments, and is comparable with the adjacent uses. We would like to see Ms. Joyce converting the building to an ACLF, which is a much needed facility. On behalf of the land owner and Mr. Reichman request that you approve the R-3 and R-1 zoning as provided on the plan. Discussion. Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94095-19 Page 10 Commissioner McLeod stated his concern regarding drug rehabilitation personnel and work release programs near a High School. Much discussion on the age of the residents in the ACLF. Commissioner McLeod said he feels that anything criminal or anything that would be questionable of character not to be allowed in the ACLF. Ms. Randolph said they would strike all that from the plans. Discussion. Mr. Brickelmeyer stated that the Ord. in front of you does not establish any limitations, it says R-3, whatever is permitted in R-3 you would have to approve for that property. Mr. Bricklemeyer also stated that the Commission could make non-substantial changes to the Ord. without having to go back to first reading, if you make substantial changes then you would need to go back to first reading. Ifin fact you propose something that would substantially alter the language of the Ord., limitations of uses that are voluntary submitted by the applicant, you have the right to do that; if they are conditions that imposed by the Commission without the applicant volunteering to accept those conditions, that is contract zoning which is not legally permissible. Mr. Bricklemeyer said the problem with the ord. is that the Ord. does not carry with it the constraints that are being suggested. The Ord. says R-3; and ifit were changed to say R-3 and R-I, then you would need to provide legal descriptions for which part of the property will be governed by which zoning district. It does not say R-3 with a maximum density of four units per acre. Discussion. Mr. Greg Bocnik, President of the South Lake Jesup Homeowners Assoc., stated that R-3 is totally incompatible with what is in that area and needs to be denied. Mr. Reichman said what we are asking for is R-3 for 1.5 acres and the remaining property to be zone R-I, which is less dense than R-3. Ifwe had an understanding that our proposal was acceptable, certainly Ms. Joyce would come back with exactly what you request. I would ask you to consider this fact, Ms. Joyce does not have limitless deep pockets, we are looking for clear indication of what we are going to be entitled to get from this Commission, we are trying to make concessions, we are trying to accommodate the neighbors, trying to accommodate Seminole County, if the Commission can give us some clarification that we can go forward, we will come back and have and Ord. that has a survey attached and has this clarified; we would like some indication before Ms. Joyce spends additional money. Mayor Bush closed the Public Hearing. Attorney Bricklemeyer said there are two issues that need to be resolved in dealing with this application and one is a use control issue, which R-3 does not accomplish, the other is a density control issue, based on the recommendations of your Staff and the recommendations of the County, R-3 does not accomplish and that is why your Staff has recommended to the applicant they come back with PUD because you can accomplish both of those things with a PUD plan. Attorney Bricklemeyer quoted from the Snyder case. Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 11 Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring that based on the evidence and the record in this case, including the evidence from the P&Z Board meeting of Nov. 2, 1994, Staff testimony and Staff report memo from Carl Gosline dated Nov. 18, 1994, the letters of objection from Seminole County dated Dec. 12, 1994 and Feb. 23, 1995, and the memos from Attorney Bricklemeyer dated March 27, 1995, the subject 8 acre parcel is presently developed with a 4,400 sq.ft. single family home, the property to the north, east and west is in Seminole County and is designated Suburban Estates, one unit per acre and lower density residential up to 4 units per acre on the Seminole County future land use map; the property is designated mixed use on our future land use map allowing a density of up to 10 units per acre but no minimum density is required and the maximum density is in no way guaranteed. The present R-2 zoning district is consistent with the mixed use plan designation and permits the existing single family house as well as a variety of other uses including nursery and greenhouses, home occupations, public and private recreation areas, commercial riding stables, and dog kennels, adult congregate living facilities; as conditional uses churches, government service facilities, commercial amusement enterprises. The proposed R-3 zoning district would permit development of up to 10 units per acre, development at that density is inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding uses and zonings and with the future land use map designation for the surrounding Seminole County lands; there is no public water or sewer available or planned for this property making the proposed zoning inconsistent with our Comp Plan goal for objective A, policy 3. The access to the property is by Orange Ave. an unimproved County road which is inadequate for multi-family development; there are no plans to improve this road making the proposed zoning inconsistent with our Comp Plan goal 4, objective A, policy 1; although the R-3 zoning district is a district that can be consistent with the mixed use plan designation in general and it may be appropriate for this property at some point in the future, it is not consistent with the current status of this property. The applicant has failed to meet it's burden of proving that the proposed R-3 zoning on this property is consistent with our Comp Plan, the evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that it is not; therefore I move that we deny this application based upon the above findings and conclusions. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion passes. Glen Eagle Stormwater Agreement - Dedication of Drainage and Retention Easements: Mayor Bush said there was a substantial handout that was just distributed to the Commission, which they have not had time to review. Attorney Kruppenbacher said as you can see, we received this information this morning, and with keeping with your policy of not wanting to look at things at the Commission meeting for the first time, we are giving it to you tonight, it can be on the agenda for the next meeting. In it's current draft form the Glen Eagle Homeowners Assoc., has no objection to this document. Mr. Reichman, President of the Glen Eagle Homeowners Assoc., stated that he concurs with what the City Attorney says and thanks the efforts of City Staff and City Attorney to help bring about this resolution. Orange Avenue and Spring Avenue - Contract with Seminole County: Mayor Bush said this item will be pulled at this time as there is not sufficient information to address it. Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 12 Approval/Disapproval New Personnel Evaluation System: Manager Govoruhk said on March 10, 1995, the Mayor and Commission were given a memo stating that this is part of the Cody Study which we request your approval. Two Commissioner's got back to me and stated they had no problem with it, so I am requesting the Commission's approval. Commissioner Gennell said she has two concerns; one: she doesn't see public relations and interrelations between employees addressed in more than two of the forms, and said she would like to see more of that in some of these evaluations; two: Commissioner Gennell said she would like to see some professional development in more of these, it is in one or two, there are several that it doesn't need to be in, but she feels we could incorporate a little more of it into some of these evaluations to encourage these people to develop themselves more. Commissioner Gennell questioned the fact that ten points is given for attendance and punctuality except for Department Director's, they only get five points. John Ketteringham, General Services Director, stated that basically the Dept. Heads are the leadership of the City and they are expected to be in attendance and that is why it wasn't rated as high. Commissioner Ferring commented that he felt that this was a good document and that if anyone wants to add to this then they need to go through the City Manager's office. Commissioner Langellotti mentioned that he found that the evaluation was excellent and that the Commission should adopt it and get it going. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to table this item until the next meeting in order to identify the public relations more. Motion died for lack of a second. Discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the new personnel evaluation system. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Commissioner Conniff said he would like to see something address for the public relations aspect and if something could be done we would greatly appreciate it. Mayor Bush asked Mr. Ketteringham that the questions that Commissioners Conniff and Gennell has raised, can those be worked in without a major hardship on the committee reconvene etc. Mr. Ketteringham said we would have to reconvene and discuss the different criteria because the criteria was selected by the committee and would have to rediscuss the criteria. Mayor Bush asked if it were modified would it need to be brought back before the Commission if it is approved and this motion passes, and take into consideration what the Commission has said; does it have to come back before the Commission. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the modification would be brought back before the Commission. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 13 Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Winter Springs Utility Golf Course Eftluent Disposal Agreement: Kip Lockcuff, Utility Director, stated the Commission has before them a proposed agreement between the City and the Winter Springs Golf Course, Winter Springs Partners Limited, is the owners of the golf course and Mr. Dan Wood, a representative for them is present for any questions. What we tried to do is come up with an agreement that more accurately represents the utilization we get from the golf course for eftluent disposal. The original agreement was for 1979 and modified in 1981, we inherited this from North Orlando Water and Sewer and we've had a good relationship since 1984 with this. There was no expiration on the original agreement so we wanted to address that; what we propose is a 10 year agreement for the City to pay 100% of the electric cost for the pump station; the current agreement states that we pay half the electric cost and half the irrigation cost and also 50% of a full time irrigation person for the golf course which includes benefits and fringe etc. The current cost averages around $30,000, we expect that to go down to around $15,000. There is a rider on there that the second 10 years guarantees a source of irrigation water but does not guarantee the financial commitment of the City. Discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to approve the Winter Springs Utility Golf Course Eflluent Disposal Agreement. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes. Architects Design Group. Inc.. Proposal of Winter Springs Police Facility: Keith Reeves, President of Architects Design Group, went over the proposal of the Police Facility with the Commission. The plan has gone through refinement and variations, we are going to change door swings, look at mechanical systems, look at some detail, but gave a broad view perspective of what the complex will be in terms of it's functional layout and where it will be located on the site. We have made adequate provisions so that expansion could occur based on the potential of growth in the City. This facility should be a very user friendly a very public type of facility. Our plan is to bring back to you a final model and construction documents as a package sometime in September so that bids can be achieved in November and can start construction the later part of this year but before the Christmas holiday season. Based upon the size of the facility we are looking at about a 10 month construction period. Discussion. Commissioner McLeod mentioned maybe putting the air conditioner system on the roof to be able to utilize more floor space. Commissioner McLeod also mentioned the doors between the workout room and the bathrooms. Commissioner McLeod also mentioned moving things around in the employees lounge to save money by not moving the plumbing. There was also discussion on the dispatcher's lounge. Commissioner Conniff said he would like to see a water closet at the other end of the building by the sally port area. Discussion on expansion of a second floor. Commissioner McLeod stated that there are a lot of ways to grow on the building if we lay it out right and keep out as many moveable walls as we can. Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1994 94-95-19 Page 14 SUI:plus Property - Fairfax Avenue Office Building: Manager Govoruhk stated that the Commission has his memo with his recommendations and the Utility Director's memo and recommendation and it is up to the Commission to let him know what they propose. Sally McGinnis, Club Drive, spoke regarding the Building on Fairfax Avenue and asked the Commission to retain the property. John Baker, Ponce DeLeon Dr., said regarding Mr. Doer, he is the curator of the museum and is not paid. The Historical Association in Winter Park leases the space for a dollar a year. Donations of artifacts are made to the association, not to the City of Winter Park directly. Mr. Baker stated that Winter Springs will be 36 years old in June and the Commission's decision regarding the surplus property on Fairfax will affect the next 36 years in the history of Winter Springs. If the building is kept, in the year 2009 will be registered on the national register of historical places. At the current rate of secession the building will be filled with artifacts delineating Winter Springs history, it will be a learning, study enjoyment center for Winter Springs citizens. The City will have to pay, if the building is not sold, either $750.00 or $3,500 per year to maintain the building; by then the fully functioning Historical Society will easily be contributing $3,500 a year to the City to help defray the expenses. Mr. Baker asked the Commission to please keep the building. Commissioner Ferring said why is it so difficult for a Historical Society if they want to give the full value of what they have to offer to this City, what would be the difference if they were in that building, which has no historical significance at this point and will not have it for another 14 years, or if they were in another location, as long as they had a place to display the historical significance of this City. What difference would it make if you in that building or in this building at City Hall and we had a special section set aside for the museum which was centrally located throughout this entire City, would there be a problem with that? Commissioner Ferring said there has to be a certain amount of responsibility on the part of the people that are doing this; if we as a City thank you for all you have done, but feel that there might be a better location, why would you be opposed to that? Discussion. Commissioner Conniff said he can see the benefit with having the Historical Museum here because this is the meeting place, he likes the idea he heard before from Mr. Doer about having a society that was able to raise funds and he can also see Mr. Baker's point. Either way we go, I want the Historical Society in Winter Springs. Commissioner Gennell said the building has significance as being always held in the City's hands, as being the first City Hall. This happens to be the only building that we had that was in public hands, we don't need that little bit of money that bad that we have to get rid of that building, it is in the 434 corridor, it would be subject to the visioning process, it is eligible to be placed on the master site list in Tallahassee and receive an identifying number. It is the only historically publicly owned building in the City. Commissioner Gennell read from the appraisers report and Comp Plan under the land Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 15 use. This is the same neighborhood that I identified a few weeks ago as having serious deterioration, this is an area of town we need to look at. This building represents something we own, we can add to that area, we can help redevelop it, it is a historically significant building and she doesn't think we have the right to sell the City's history. Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to move ahead and sell this property to the highest bidder. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Mayor Bush said this building was appraised at approx $75,000 and the highest bid is $62,500, and the City paid $100,000 for it; with the development that is coming this way, are we being premature at even considering selling it at this time. Discussion. Commissioner Conniff mentioned does the City want to become a landlord, his main concern it that we maintain a historical society. Commissioner Gennell said when we discussed putting this out for bid, it was specifically stated by the City Attorney that we did not have to sell it, that we were testing the market. This appraisal also says that the density in that area once the construction of the road is finished is going vastly increase and hence the future property value will greatly increase. Richard Grogan, resident and business owner in Winter Springs, stated that no one has brought up the fact that in his proposal he proposed that the Historical Society stay there in the building. If the Historical Society wants to stay in the building he is willing to work with them. In closing Mr. Grogan said that he hopes the Commission moves forward and sells him the building. Mayor Bush said the Commission has to evaluate is the bid sufficiently high based on the assessed evaluation, regardless what is going on with the historical society. This should be one of the major concerns at this point, selling something quite a bit under the appraisal. Discussion. Commissioner McLeod said his personal feeling is that a $62,000 piece of property to this City, that he doesn't believe at this time sitting on S.R. 434 is a piece of property that should be gotten rid of. He thinks that for the few dollars it would cost the City to hold this property for the next few years and once the corridor comes then we are looking at something different, on a four lane highway you could be looking at twice the value and he thinks it becomes short sighted on our part to hurry up and get rid of the piece of property. Possibly the property could be used for the Society (one half of it) and the other half could be used to off set the cost of the operation of the building at present time. He thinks at the long term hold on to the property until the market moves back up and then look at the property to see if it is feasible to sell at that point. Discussion. Manager Govoruhk mentioned that ifwe rent out half the building we would no longer be tax exempt and we would be paying taxes on it. Mr. Grogan has stated that he would maintain the building to preserve it as a historical building so when it gets to be 50 years old it can go on the State register. Commissioner McLeod stated that the information that is put in the building that has been asked to keep, then it should be donated to the City so that the good intent from Mr. Baker's part is shown to the City for the City to hold onto the building. Mr. Baker said he would be happy to donate the Regular Meeting City Commission April 24, 1995 94-95-19 Page 16 material to the City. Commissioner Gennell said if this Commission is determined to sell the building then, why not hold onto it for a year and give the historical society an opportunity to raise the funds to buy the building while we still have it in our hands. Manager Govoruhk mentioned the cost of upgrading the building to ADA standards. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the Commission needs to make the fundamental decision does it want as policy sell the property or not. By making the motion to sell, you are accepting the offer tonight, there are procedures and steps we have to go through to bring that to you for presentation and action. Subject to the City going through the legal steps, you have to do an ordinance in order to convey land held by the City, you will have the right to refuse to pass the ordinance up through the second reading and public hearing and to do contract for sale; so by the vote tonight, I am interpreting it and City Manager will be interpreting it as you are giving us direction to take the steps to put you in the position to consummate the conveyance of the property. The Charter provides that the Commission is required by Ordinance to convey land of the City, you cannot do it, the way the motion was read said we are saying sell the land to the highest bidder, I am simply making it clear on the record so the highest bidder can't walk out and say he has a contract; the Commission will have to go through some procedural steps. If the maker of the motion and the seconder agree that the interpretation is that you are giving the Manager and Attorney direction to prepare the legal steps for you to go forward to consummate a deal. You have to go through the steps, I was told by the Finance Director that this property is owned by the utility in the enterprise fund, I don't know what the bond impacts are or anything, so I have to check all that to make sure you are safe. Mayor Bush asked if the maker of the motion and the seconder agree to the additions concerning the ordinance. The answer was yes. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: nay; Commissioner McLeod: nay; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Conniff: nay. Motion fails. Mayor Bush asked for a motion to extend the meeting past 11 :00 p.m. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to extend the meeting past 11 :00 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Ferring: nay; Commissioner Gennell: nay; Commissioner Langellotti: nay. Motion failed. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. ~~~~ Respectfully Submitted, APPROVED: Margo M. Hopkins, City Clerk