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