Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_1997 04 14 City Commission Regular Minutes REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION APRIL 14, 1997 The Regular Meeting of the City Commission was called to order by Mayor Paul P. Partyka at 6:30p.m. ROLLCALL: Mayor Paul P. Partyka, present Deputy Mayor David McLeod, present City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present Special Attorney Donna McIntosh, present COMMISSIONERS: Larry Conniff, present Michael Blake, present John Langellotti, present Cindy Gennell, present Mayor Partyka announced that the Attorney's Report will be moved to the beginning of the meeting. Commissioner Gennell asked that Agenda Item "I" be moved up and be heard after the Attorney's Report. It was the consensus of the Commission to move Agenda Item "I" up and be heard after the Attorney's Report. Approval of Minutes of March 24. 1997: Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve the minutes of March 24, 1997. Seconded by Commissioner Gennell. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes. Mayor Partyka presented Russ Robbins with Resolution No. 816 for his service on the Beautification of Winter Springs Board. Mayor Partyka read Resolution No. 813 expressing appreciation to Jackie Gieseler for her service on the Commerce & Industry Development Board. PUBLIC INPUT Harold Scott, Augusta National Blvd., spoke in opposition to the City's record disposition request submitted to the State. Mr. Scott also asked about the City Manager and a Commissioner discussing litigation matters at the Rotary Club meeting. Mr. Scott then asked why the City is spending so much money on consulting fees. Doug Atkins, Cheoy Lee Circle, thanked the City Manager and Commissioner McLeod for their hard work with the County regarding the Oak Forest Wall. Joanne Krebs, Taproot Drive, asked for help regarding trash pick-up on her street and requested that the residents receive instructions on how to prepare trash for pick-up. Mayor Partyka asked the City Manager to look into this. Philip Kulbes, Glasgow Court, asked that the Senior Center not be named after him as he worked together with a lot of people on the Senior Center. Ree:ular Meetine: City Commission Aoril14. 1997 96-97-12 Pae:e 2 CONSENT AGENDA Parks and Recreation Department A. Request the Commission set the date of October 12, 1997 for the dedication and presentation of a plaque in honor of former Mayor Philip Kulbes' contributions to the construction of the Winter Springs Senior Center. PURPOSE: to establish a date certain to present Philip Kulbes former Mayor, a plaque of appreciation for his efforts and contributions to the Senior Center. City Manager - ADD-ON B. The Commerce and Industry Development Board supporting the annexation of the Lake Irene Investors' 9.58 acre parcel and recommending the Commission to authorize the City manager to enter into a contract with Transportation Consulting Group of Orlando to conduct a transportation access management study along S.R. 434 between 17/92 to Belle Avenue. PURPOSE: to (1) make the Commission aware of the Commerce and Industry Development Board's support for annexation of the Lake Irene Investors' property and (2) their support for funding of a transportation access a management study with Transpiration consulting Group involving traffic signalization and points of access for the area along S.R. 434 between U.S. 17/92 to Belle Avenue, and (3) to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Transportation Consulting Group to perform the access management plan. City Manager - ADD-ON C. Requesting the Commission to authorize the expenditure of 1 % Infrastructure sales Tax Funds to fund improvements to Tuakawilla Road to facilitate the construction of proposed non-ad valorem assessment district and to authorize Commissioner McLeod to present the request to the County Commission at its April 22, 1997 Commission meeting. PURPOSE: to have the Commission (1) approve the expenditure of $292,000 of the City's portion of the local Option Infrastructure Transportation Improvements Sales Tax for modifications to the Tuskawilla Road Improvement Project needed to facilitate the construction of the Oak Forest wall in the road right-of-way, and (2) to authorize Commissioner McLeod and the City Manager to appeal before the April 22, 1997 County Commission to request formal approval of the County Commission to construct the wall in the road right-of-way and to allocate sales tax revenues to finance the modifications to the road right- of-way needed to facilitate the wall construction in the right-of-way. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion passes. K. City Attornev - Frank Kruooenbacher: Mayor Partyka said the Attorney and Special Council will give the report and at that time Mr. Mikes and his Attorney may get a chance to speak; after that we may have comments from the Commissioners and them public input. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that several weeks ago the Commission requested that a complete analysis be done relative to the issues that were arising from Units 3 & 4 in the Tuscawilla PUD, specifically arising out of issues associated with the proposed development of those parcels relating Rel!ular Meetinl! City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Pal!e 3 to a proposed plan that had come into P&Z. P&Z had questions regarding it and they wanted an interpretation legally before they proceeded forward. That formed the foundation for a careful review of all of the issues associated with Units 3 & 4, which in the process of looking at the issues associated with Units 3 & 4, as you will have explained to you - opened certain issues that dealt with other Units within the Tuscawilla PUD. Ms. McIntosh will review with the Commission the results of the work we have done and the findings and upon a conclusion, (Kruppenbacher stated) he will provide to the Commission a list of recommendations that they have come up with that they think the Commission should authorize tonight. Attorney McIntosh, Special Council, stated as the Commission is aware she was engaged by the City in February of this year to review the legal status of the proposed development Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Units 3 & 4. A review of the City's current Compo Plan revealed that the residential development that was proposed in Units 3 & 4 was inconsistent with the Future Land Use designation of the City's Compo Plan - those properties being designated recreational on the City's current Compo Plan. Both City Code and State Law requires that the City grant no land use approvals that are inconsistent with it's Compo Plan (so this issue is a very important issue in this particular matter). We then, the City Attorney and herself, then reviewed the parties settlement agreement to see if the settlement agreement or any of the amendments thereto vested this particular proposed development against the City's Compo Plan. In fact the parties settlement agreement, dated June 16, 1993 stated in part that further approvals will be required in implementation of this agreement in the form of amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the Tuscawilla PUD map, as well as approvals pursuant to other local, State and Federal Laws. Paragraph 4 of the parties settlement agreement states that Florida Country Clubs Inc., acknowledges that it shall be required to secure further approvals. A review of the Court order that approved this particular settlement agreement reveals that the settlement agreement was not vested against the Compo Plan by the Court. The Court did not declare that the proposed plan was vested against the Compo Plan and the PUD Master Plan. The settlement agreement, therefore, did not vest the proposed development against the Compo Plan, it specifically required a Compo Plan and PUD Plan amendment. After entering into the settlement agreement and after the Court approved the settlement agreement, the City Attorney recommended the steps necessary to effectuate this particular settlement agreement. The first step started off that the Compo Plan needed to be amended. In 1993, the City Staff transmitted a proposed amendment to the Department of Community Affairs to request a change in the Future Land Use Map from the recreational designation to a low density residential designation for the property that is not proposed for development as Units 3 & 4. The DCA OCR. report that the City received back, recommended that if implementation of the settlement agreement is the sole purpose for that amendment, the amendment should be withdrawn. Based upon your professional land consultant's review and opinion and the DCA opinion, the City followed the DCA's recommendation and withdrew that particular Compo Plan amendment. Ms. McIntosh stated that as we sit here this evening, the Future Land Use designation of the properties that are currently proposed for development as Units 3 & 4, single family residential development, the Future Land Use designation on the City's Compo Plan is currently recreational. This is an inconsistent designation, it makes the proposed development inconsistent with the City's Compo Plan. Since that point in time, since the OCR Report was withdrawn, the Future Land Use proposed change was changes was withdrawn in 1993. The City Attorney and her have received Reeular Meetine City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 4 recently, two letters from the DCA clarifying the DCA's position on it's 1993 OCR report to the City. Both of the letters confirm: (1) the proposed development that is not vested against the Compo Plan must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (2) That proposed development that is not vested against the Compo Plan or that was vested but now proposed for an additional change, must be consistent with the Compo Plan. (3) and that proposed development that is vested against the Compo Plan does not have to comply with the Compo Plan. The DCA's recommendation to the City that a Compo Plan amendment was not required if the sole reason for the amendment was to effectuate a settlement agreement was legally incorrect. Ms. McIntosh stated that as ofthis evening, the Future Land Use designation for the parcels proposed for Units 3 & 4 is recreational; the requested use is single family residential, which on the City's Future Land Use Plan would require low density residential designation; so the proposed development currently is inconsistent with the Compo Plan. Ms. McIntosh said additionally the City Attorney's and her review of the public records reveals that a PUD Master Plan amendment has not to date been requested by Florida Country Clubs Inc., which amendment was also required by the parties settlement agreement. Finally, in talking with DCA, it has become apparent that the land owner will also need to request and obtain a binding letter from DCA that the proposed development does not divest a previously vested rights against Chapter 380 - DCA calls that a blim, a binding letter of interpretation on modifications, and they require it when there is a request for modification of a project that has previously been vested against the DR! Laws. Ms. McIntosh related that the facts were sent to the Florida Country Club's Attorneys on March 21, 1997 for their review with a request for a response. To date we have not received a written response, but on April 4, 1997, the City Attorney, the City Manager and herself, Mr. Mikes and both of his Attorneys, Mr. Tatich and Mr. Solomon had an opportunity to meet and discuss the situation; they are present this evening (we look forward to hearing from them) but generally their response to our preliminary letter dated 3-21-97, can be characterized as follows: their position was that Units 3 & 4 were vested against the Compo Plan by the settlement agreement and that the City should be equitably estopped from now requiring a Compo Plan amendment on Units 3 & 4 because of past conduct by the City. That basically concludes her summary of what she and Attorney Kruppenbacher has been doing for the past 6 to 7 week~. Attorney Kruppenbacher said as explained by Attorney McIntosh, they have reviewed a significant amount of data and legal issues and based upon same the following positions are stated and recommended action is requested by Ms. McIntosh and himself: (1) it is recommended that the City Commission authorize the filing of a declaratory judgement action in the Circuit Court of Seminole County Florida; the purpose of this action is to ask the Court to declare and/or construe the rights of all of the persons involved in this situation; more specifically the request would include but not be limited to the following: as to Unit 1- a declaration or declaratory judgement for that property which is not yet been issued a C.O. (Certificate of Occupancy), Unit 2 would not be included within the declaratory judgement because we have been advised by Mr. Grimms that it is currently in compliance with the Compo Plan as it regards to it's residential use; Units 3 & 4 would be included in the declaratory judgement. The purpose of the declaratory judgement would specifically be to ask the Court whether or not the Compo Plan, PUD Master Plan amendment and/or blim are required to be Reeular Meetine City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 5 filed by the owners of these properties before proceeding forward with any further development or prior to the City being authorized to issue any further development orders (in the manner in which was stated to the Commission). As to the other properties in the Tuscawilla PUD, (Kruppenbacher said he wants the Commission to understand that Units 1, 3 & 4 pertain to a particular settlement agreement so they will be grouped in one declaratory judgement action) (2) the City Attorney and Attorney McIntosh ask for the Commission's authority as they identify other properties in the Tuscawilla PUD that are either currently undeveloped or in the process of being developed, that they identify with the City's planning staff as somehow inconsistent with the City's Compo Plan because of the prior reliance on the DCA situation that was explained by Ms. McIntosh. They would file a declaratory judgement action seeking guidance regarding those parcels and properties also. There are parcels of properties out there under a different settlement situations where there were different things done and we would seek (if they deemed it appropriate) to pursue a declaratory judgement, with the Commission's authority in those also. Attorney Kruppenbacher said why they are recommending a declaratory judgement action is because it has been raised with the City the issue of equitable estoppel; equitable estoppel is a fact intensive driven doctrine that says where one party relies in good faith upon the conduct of another party; the party that they are relying upon is estopped or precluded from making them do it differently. That's ajudgement call and the problem we have in the current situation (in his and McIntosh's opinion) is they as lawyers are not prepared to tell the Commission that they are estopped from requiring compliance with the law. If the Commission exercises the authority and said the City is rejecting an estoppel argument, and the City is required to go forward with a Compo Plan process, and if you are wrong in that judgement, the City opens the door to damages to the extent there are damages; if the Commission says they think there is an estoppel argument and we are not going to require compliance with the Compo Plan - you would open the door to anyone who wants to challenge the City and say the City is in violation of the law. Therefore, they (Kruppenbacher & McIntosh) feel the prudent way to do this is to say to the Court that no one imagined DCA creating a document that says "you don't' have to do a Compo Plan amendment under these circumstances"; these issues are unclear now because of that, there has been a lot of time thathas passed, a lot has happened, and give the Judge the facts and the law and ask the judge to construe what the rights of everybody is so we can get on with it. We would ask for an expedited ruling from the Court so that this matter can be dealt with immediately. If the Commission asks how much time that would be, on the good side we would hope we could be done anywhere in 30 to 90 days on that ruling and find out what the answer is. Attorney Kruppenbacher defined declaratory judgement as: is a claim that can be filed in Court, pursuant to Florida Law where a party is unclear as to what their rights are and you ask the Judge to give legal guidance. Attorney Kruppenbacher defined equitable estoppel as: one party relies upon someone else. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the City received a letter today, regarding on the part of a property owner and their Attorney is present tonight, not Florida Country Clubs, they said that their client relied upon the fact that the City approved the final development plans, the preliminary, the plat, they have signed contracts to preceded forward to commence building, and that was in reliance with the City saying that everything was in order and they could move forward. This particular developer asserts that their concepts of equitable estoppel is that they bought the property in good faith and they Re2ular Meetiue City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 6 own the property and their client had the City approve plats, and approved preliminary plans, engineering and final plans and engineering associated with it. The City has approved everything and the developer has embarked upon getting customers etc. Their position is that they have done everything the City has asked them to do and gave all the approvals and estopped equitably and to come back and tell them there is a glitch. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he and Attorney McIntosh are recommending, with regard to all property currently having been approved by the City, be it the final plat and final development plan approval, that they be continued to be issued permits for those parcels. We are requesting authorization from the Commission to allow the City Staff to identifY on those permits that they are being issued, that people are preceding at their own risk pending the outcome of the Court's declaratory judgement and they mayor may not be impacted by that declaratory judgement. That is for those that have gone through the platting and the final development plan stages; for those properti~s on Unit 1. Attorney Kruppenbacher said on the issues of Units 3 & 4, the City has a pending application for development of those two units, we are recommending, if the applicant decides, that the application be permitted to proceed to Planning and Zoning and ultimately with the Commission; we will advise you that based upon all the current facts that we are aware of that we will be recommending to P&Z and the Commission that those (based upon the current status) applications be denied as being inconsistent with and in violation with the City's Compo Plan as not having a Master Plan/PUD Plan amendment, as not having a blim, and as being inconsistent with the Attorneys interpretation as they understand it the City's prior support of the position that the settlement agreement regarding Units 3 & 4 required certain things regarding the pool and tennis courts and unless those are included as represented at this time, we would recommend denial of those; so the authorization would be the applicant decides they want to go forward with the application that is currently on file, we will take it to P&Z with the Staff and we have advised you how we will be recommending to them. Attorney Kruppenbacher reiterated the recommendations: the declaratory judgement action to determine whether or not the Compo Plan is required to be amended; whether a Master PUD Plan amendment is required and whether a blim is required and those would be on Units 1, 3 and 4 in one declaratory judgement action with authority to file a second to the extent we identifY other properties where it is necessary within the Tuscawilla PUD or such other action as we come back to the Commission and talk about. (2) authorization to allow the permits to be continued to be issued on Units 1 with our putting a disclaimer on them that there is a pending declaratory judgement action that they are preceding at their own risk and they would be subject to whatever that Court ruled (3) authorization that we legally advise Staff that if the applicant wants to preceded forward with the current application for development of Units 3 & 4, that we would recommend legally that it proceed forward through the process; we advise that as of today there has been no change in their legal position regarding what they previously told the Commission; and they recommend denial for the reasons they have stated. Discussion. Sandy Solomon, Attorney representing Mr. Mikes, said he would like to bring to the Commission's attention for their consideration: (1) Mr. Kruppenbacher has filed a voluntary appearance in a pending law suit now in Hillsborough County, the law suit named the City as a defendant based upon Reeular Meetine City Commission Aoril14. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 7 whatever rights or claims the City may have under the settlement agreement. Mr. Kruppenbacher had an opportunity to object to the venue of that dispute; on a voluntary basis Mr. Kruppenbacher subjected the City to the jurisdiction of the Hillsborough County Circuit Court for the judication of matters relating to the settlement agreement. We intend to take advantage of that forum of that venue already determined to be appropriate for the adjudication of whatever claims may be asserted. (2) we believe this is a simple contract issue, the question is, is the City prepared to live by the agreements that it has executed not once but three times. The settlement agreement was originally executed in 1993, to highlight our concerns - in 4-94, there was an amendment to the settlement agreement and the amendment specifically validated, ratified the agreements that had been reached in the original settlement agreement in 1993; on 9-30-95 there was a second amendment to that settlement agreement and that amendment similarly revalidated and re-upped the agreements that had been reached in 1993. The agreement in 1993 contemplated certain actions that would take place, the agreement itself provides that both the City and Florida Country Clubs contemplate preceding with the development as had been originally approved by DCA in 1986 and had been approved by the City pursuant to that settlement agreement. The development was a joint agreement, paragraph 6 of the settlement agreement specifically provides that it is the intent of the City and F.C.C.I., jointly to encourage and promote the development of this property, which includes Units 3 & 4, in accordance with the specific terms ofthe agreement. The City and F.C.C.1. agreed that FC.C.1. shall be authorized to develop FC.C. I. Property in accordance with the agreement. The agreement preceded to specify exactly that type of development which FC.C.1. now contemplates. In paragraph 7 of the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that the owners and developers of the Tuscawilla PUD have relied in good faith on the annexation of the property to the City and the approval of the plans that are at issue now and that everyone has incurred substantial expense and obligations in reliance upon those approvals and submissions. The City further acknowledged that the facts stated in paragraph meets the standards for granting a vested rights, special use permit for the proposed plan, subject to the compliance with the procedural requirements of City Ordinance 543 and the approval of the proposed by a court order. By execution of the settlement agreement and the approval of the proposed final order, the City requests approval by the Court of the proposed plan as a vested plan of development as defined by Ord. 534. In the event of any dispute between the agreement and' any other provision oflaw, or any other resolution, the parties specifically agreed in paragraph 8, that the agreement shall control. Mr. Solomon said that in Ms. McIntosh's presentation, in paragraph 4, that she believed that it was an undertaking, a commitment on the part ofFC.C.I. to secure the further approvals, any Compo Plan amendment or the like - to the contrary. It says in paragraph 4, that F.C.C.1. acknowledges that it must obtain those approvals but the obligation to obtain those approvals is stated - the City shall take all steps required to effectuate this agreement and to promptly review all applications for development of the development property in accordance with this agreement, which specifically provides that the rights are vested. Discussion. Mr. Solomon stated that he, Mr. Mikes and Mr. Tatich will be available for any questions. Jesse Graham Jr., representative of Morrison and Olympia Homes, distributed a letter to the Commission from Graham, Clark, Jones, Builder, Pratt and Miars, Attorney at Law, dated 4-14-97; concerning building permits and C.O's. Reeular Meetinl! City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 8 Dan Dyche, Bentley Green Circle, expressed his concerns of records destruction in the City. R.W. Nelson, Winged Foot Circle, distributed and read a letter he wrote to Manager McLemore dated 04-14-97. Mr. Nelson spoke about the Tuscawilla Country Club's delinquent water bills. Moti Khemlani, Morgan Street, requested that the City not destroy records until Tuscawilla is advised. Ed Martinez, Leopard Trail, spoke in opposition of the City issuing permits and C.O.'s Barbara Wilkins, Andover Circle, spoke about the Florida Country Club settlement agreement and the process of meeting notification. Susan Folsom, Huron Court, displayed visual representation of the golf course construction. Commissioner Gennell asked that the City Attorney frame the motions for the Commission and they will make them. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that he and Ms. McIntosh are recommending the following (and this could be made in one motion): It would be a motion to approve and authorize the filing of an appropriate legal action requesting a declaration of our right and responsibilities in the Circuit Court of Seminole County, Florida; regarding Unit 1 for all of that property not yet issued certificates of occupancy; regarding Unit 2, that would not be included within it; regarding Unit 3 & 4, they would be in the request, we would be asking the Court whether or not there is a requirement that the Compo Plan be amended, that ere be a PUD Unit development Master Plan amendment and/or whether there be a requirement for a blim. For those properties beyond Units 1, 2 3, and 4, that are within the Tuscawilla PUD, that either are to be developed or under development, where there is an issue of reliance upon the DCA opinion, we would ask for authority to file a Compo Plan to seek the same kind of determination, authority for the Staff to continue issuing permits for the properties in Unit 1, disclosing to the Unit 1 persons who are receiving the permits that there is this pending legal matter and they could be subject to the outcome of that and be bound by that decision; confirmation that the City understands that they (Kruppenbacher and McIntosh) are advising the StatTthat with regard to the pending application for developments in Units 3 & 4, that if the applicant so decides the StatT should process it to Planning and Zoning and the City Commission to act as they deem appropriate. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to approve what Attorney Kruppenbacher just stated. Seconded by Commissioner Blake. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher then stated he and Attorney McIntosh are asking for authority that in the event the City Manager cannot reach an appropriate resolution with the party (F.C.C.I.) that owes the money on the bills, that he so advises us this week that we be authorized to file Reeular Medine City Commission Aoril14. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 9 a suit in Seminole county to collect any funds that we deem should be due and payable to the City. We also ask that I we identify any other property owners, now or in the future, who incur bills and don't pay them, that if an evaluation is made from a business stand point, that we have the standing authority to take the legal action to collect it. Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve what Attorney Kruppenbacher just stated. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes. Mayor Partyka called a recess at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Partyka reconvened the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Regular Agenda Item City Manager I. The Council 6fLocal Governments (CALNO) requesting the Commission consider adopting a Resolution supporting CALNO's efforts to develop a Local Government access television channel for governmental entities in Seminole County. PURPOSE: to demonstrate support for CALNO's efforts to develop a local government television access channel for local governments in Seminole County: Seminole County School Board Member, Larry Ferlong, gave his presentation. Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve Resolution 817 supporting CALNO's efforts to develop a Local Government access television channel for governmental entities. Seconded by Commissioner Gennell. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion passes. INFORMATIONAL AGENDA Police Department A. Providing the Commission with information regarding the attempt to acquire a vehicle through forfeiture procedures. PURPOSE: to inform the Commission regarding the Police Department's attempts to secure a 1988, Mercury Marquis automobile through the process of asset forfeiture as a vehicle involved in a felony. Public Works Department B. Updating the Commission on the enforcement of the Arbor Ordinance. PURPOSE: to update the Commission ;as to the Public Works Department standard procedure in the implementation and enforcement of the Arbor Ordinance. Public Works Department C. Informing the Commission of a Pilot Program to test a new street resurfacing product. PURPOSE: to update the Commission on the implementation of a pilot program for a street resurfacing product new to Winter Springs called Micro-Surfacing. Reeular Meetine City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Pal!e 10 ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve the Informational Agenda and to have the City Manager research Item B. Seconded by Commissioner Blake. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes. REGULAR AGENDA Police Department A. Requesting the Commission hold a Public Hearing in relation to the question of raising the posted speed limit on sections of North Edgemon Avenue from 20 mph to 25 mph. PURPOSE: to provide the Commission with information and recommendations regarding a request by the Owners Association of Winter Springs Industrial Park, S.R. 419 to raise the posted speed limit on the northernmost section of Edgemon Avenue North, roughly in the area between S.R. 419 and Senior Center: Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve raising the speed limit on sections of North Edgemon Avenue from 20 mph to 25 mph. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Commissioner McLeod withdrew his second. Commissioner Langellotti withdrew his motion. Mike Goodall, 200 N. Edgemon Avenue, spoke in opposition of raising the speed limit and suggested a four way stop sign at First Street and Edgemon Avenue; and a three way stop sign at Second Street and Edgemon Avenue. Steve Simpkins, 181 N. Edgemon Avenue agreed with Mr. Goodall. Commissioner Langellotti asked if the Commission could request stop signs as the resident suggested. Manager McLemore said the same independent study would have to be done on the stop signs as was done with the speed limit as we have to meet the traffic warrants of the State. Discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to delay implementing any speed increase until a study is done (at least at the intersection of Third Street) until the optional stop sign is looked into. Motion fails due to lack of a second. Discussion. Mayor Partyka stated this item dies for lack of a motion. Community Development Department B. Request the Commission hold a Public Hearing to approve the Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance 651 to change the zoning designation of the 8 acre Joyce parcel. PURPOSE: to request the Commission approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 651 to change the zoning designation of the 8 acre Joyce parcel from R-U Rural UrbariDwelling District to R-1A Single Family Dwelling District: Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ordinance 651 by title only on second reading. Mayor Partyka closed the Regular Meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Mayor Partyka asked if anyone wished to speak pro or con regarding this ordinance. No one wished to speak. Mayor Partyka closed the Public Hearing and reconvened the Regular Meeting. Reeular Meetine City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 11 Motion was made by Commissioner Blake to adopt Ordinance 651 which changes the zoning designation from R-U Rural Urban District to RI-A One Family Dwelling District on the Joyce property, subject to Staff's findings and recommendations. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Community Development Department C. Requests the Commission hold a Public Hearing to approve the Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 654 to annex a 9.58 acre parcel located on the south side of State Road 434 approximately 2.500 feet east of U.S. 17/92. PURPOSE: to request the Commission approve the Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 654 to annex a 9.58 acre parcel: Manager McLemore stated that Judge Leffier spoke with his just before the meeting and asked that this item be tabled. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ordinance No. 564 by title only. Mayor Partyka closed the Regular Meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Mayor Partyka asked if anyone wished to speak pro or con regarding this ordinance. No one wished to speak. Mayor Partyka closed the Public Hearing and reconvened the Regular Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Blake to tabled this item until the June 23,1997 Regular Meeting of the City Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes. Community Development Department D. Requests the Commission hold a Public Hearing to approve the Second Reading for adoption of Ordinance No. 645 regulating the siting and construction of Telecommunication Towers within the City. PURPOSE: to request the Commission approve the Second Reading for adoption of Ordinance NO. 645 regulating the location, construction, and impacts of Telecommunications Towers in the City that will protect the health. safety. and welfare of the residents and businesses in the City: Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ordinance 645 by title only. Mayor Partyka closed the Regular Meeting and opened the Public Hearing. William Geisler, 4025 W. Danby Court, Seminole County, spoke regarding concerns he had with this ordinance. Discussion. The Commission decided collectively they will not adopt this ordinance and it will be reworked. Motion was made by Commissioner Blake to add First Reading of Ordinance No. 645-B addressing a cellular tower moratorium to the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Reeular Meetinl! City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 12 McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye. Motion passes. Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to read Ord. 645-B by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 645-B by title only. "Ord. 645-B. This is an ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, establishing a moratorium on the construction and/or erection of telecommunication towers within the City limits of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, for a period up to and including June 23, 1997 providing for severability, conflicts, and effective date. Community Development Department E. Requests the Commission approve the First Reading for adoption of Ordinance No. 658 to change the Future Land Use designation of a eight (8) acre parcel located on the south side of Orange Avenue West of Tuskawilla Road bordering the north property line of the Winter Springs High School land. PURPOSE: to request the Commission approve the first reading of Ordinance NO. 658 to change the Future Land Use designation of an eight (8) acre parcel, that would be developed along with the Button property adiacent to the east into single family residential subdivision from Mixed Motion was made by Commissioner Blake to read Ordinance 658 by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ordinance No. 658 by title only. General Services Department F. Recommending the Commission award the Public Safety Complex Structured Cabling Systems, (Bid No. 970008) to the lowest bidder, Network Integration, Inc. in the amount of$18,358 and to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Construction Supervision Contract with Omnicom, Inc., in the amount of $960.00 to perform technical evaluation of design submittals in accordance with Bid Specification 97-008. PURPOSE: request to award Bid No. 97-008, Public Safety Complex Structured Cabling System to Network Integration, Inc., for $18,358 and to authorize the City Manger to enter into a Construction Supervision Contract with Omnicom, Inc., in the amount of $960.00: Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to take the recommendations of the Staff to award the bid to the low bidder, to allow the City Manager to have a 10% contingency and authorize the City Manager to go into contract with the Network Integration to complete the project according to the bid requirements and also authorize the City Manger to enter into a construction supervision contract with Omnicom. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioll1er Gennell: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye. Motion passes. Reeular Medine Citv Commission Aoril14. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 13 General Services Department G. Requests that the Commission reject all bids received on Bid no. 97-007, and authorize the City Manager to purchase the Telecommunications System for the Public Safety Complex off State or U.S. Government (GSA) contracts, in accordance with Omnicom, Inc.'s recommendations on page 25 of their report. PURPOSE: to request the Commission reject all bids received on Bid No. 97-007 as they are higher than State contract prices and to authorize the City Manager to purchase the Telecommunications System for the Public Safety Complex off State or U.S. Government contracts: Motion was made by Commissioner Blake to reject all buds received on No. 97-007 and authorize the City Manager to purchase the telecommunications system for the Public Safety Complex off the State or U.S. Government GSA contract in accordance with Omnicom recommendations. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes. Utility Department H Request authorization to waive the bidding procedures for a sewer and water main extension and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement to recoup the construction costs. PURPOSE: to request the Commission declare an emergency and waive the bidding procedures for a water and sewer main extension across Tuakawilla Road with Joe K. Mathews, Inc., at a cost of$17,964.00 plus 10% contingency. Request is also being made to authorize the City Manger to enter into an agreement to recover the expenditure from the benefiting propelty: Commission discussed this item. Utility Department - ADD-ON HI. Requesting Commission approval of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 659 providing for an increased water and sewer capacity charge for the Button/Joyce property. PURPOSE: to request Commission approval of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 659 which ensures the City will be reimbursed the costs associated with extending water and sewer mains to serve the Button/Joyce property: Douglas Maise, President of Sanlando Land, Inc., developer for this project, spoke regarding this Issue. Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve the expenditure requested in Item H subject to execution of an agreement that is running with the land and binding on the owners for repayment of the monies with interest at the time development approvals are granted. Seconded by Commissioner Gennell. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes. Fire Department - ADD-ON 1. The City Manger and Fire Chief request the Commission ;authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Seminole county Board of County Commissioners expressing our concerns of the privatization of First Responder Services. PURPOSE: to assure that the City Commission is informed of the content of the letter and to authorize the Mayor to send the letter on behalf of the City of Winter Springs: Reeular Meetine City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 14 Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to authorize the Mayor to send a letter, on behalf of the City of Winter Springs, to the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners expressing concerns of the privatization of the First Response Services, including Option C of the Staff recommendations. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. L. City Manager - Ronald W. McLemore: No Report. M. Commission Seat III - John Langellotti: No Report. N. Commission Seat IV - Cindy Gennell: Commissioner Gennell stated that she was reappointed to the Seminole County Trails Task Force and also fe-elected as Chairman of the Trails Task Force. O. Commission Seat V - David McLeod: Commissioner McLeod asked about the time allotment for individuals speaking at public input. Discussion. It was the Consensus of the Commission to allow individuals to speak for three (3) minutes and for a group leader speaks for five (5) minutes. Commissioner McLeod requested that records of the City not be destroyed. Manager McLemore will report back to the Commission at the next meeting and a workshop will be scheduled so soon as possible. Commissioner McLeod reported on the Oak Forest Wall Committee issues. P. Commission Seat I - Larry Conniff: a) Appointment to the C.I.D.B.: Commissioner Conniff stated he would like to appoint Bill Hatfield to the C.I.D.B. Motion was made by Commissioner Blake to appoint Bill Hatfield to the C.I.D.B. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes. Commissioner Conniff thanked Mr. Atkins for his earlier comments. O. Commission Seat II - Michael Blake: Commissioner Blake asked about scheduling a workshop on the S.R. 434 Visioning. Motion was made by Commissioner Blake to schedule a workshop for the S.R. 434 Visioning on Monday, April 21, 1997 at 6:30 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Reeular Meetine City Commission Aorill4. 1997 96-97-12 Paee 15 Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Conniff; nay; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Commissioner Blake asked about the refined set of rules of operation. Manager McLemore stated he has not had time to deal with it recently. R. Mayor's Office - Paul P. Partyka: Mayor Partyka stated that the City will have a recognition of service in memory of Bill "Buddha" Schaeffer. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~A~~~'~ ;1:i.. Hopkins, City Clerk PAULP. PARTYKA; ....... - .. ... .. :;. :- >, '/