Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 10 23 City Commission Regular Minutes REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 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 October 9. 1995: Mayor Bush asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of October 9, 1995. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of October 9, 1995. Minutes stand approved as presented. PUBLIC INPUT Mr. Al Lockyer, 212 Morton Lane, spoke in favor of paving in the Ranchlands. Also the Ranchlands Homeowner Association represents approximately 30 property owners in the Ranchlands out of just under 300 property owners that live there. We want you to know that there is going to be a very large percentage of those property owners that are going to be in favor of paving the Ranchlands. There are petitions being circulated (you already have some of them and there are more coming) that we are quite sure are going to be very much in the majority in favor of paving. Mr. Martin Nold, 135 Panama Rd. East, wanted to verify with the Commission that they (the Commission) received the petition with 100% of the residents on Panama Rd. East from Hayes to Moss, stating they want paved roads using impact fee funds and wanted that fact put in the record. Valerie Wiltshire, 110 Panama Rd. West, stated that she also submitted a petition that consisted of the people living on Panama Rd. West and on Moss Rd. in connection with the proposed paving that was a topic of discussion previously. I understand since she drafted the petition that we (residents) have some further information that the City will go ahead with the restructuring of the bridge, which is great, but we also wanted to let you know that we are in favor of the paving on Moss and Panama that was proposed. Those who live further back choose to continue living on the dirt roads, that is fine, but it has been quite a problem where we are. I am aware that the other road that is under consideration has a really severe problem with water and drainage and the road actually being under water. We don't have as severe problem with that, we have more ofa problem with wash-out. James Gratzer, Jr., 216 Stoner Rd., said he agrees with everything that has been said. Judy Greene, 120 W. Panama Rd., said she goes along with everything that Ms. Wiltshire has said, Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 2 and wanted to make sure that the petition that they circulated is made part of the public record. Diane Walker, 330 Hayes Rd., said she represents the homeowners on Hayes Rd. from Sailfish to Bahama. Ms. Walker said they would like to follow up on this as Mr. Govoruhk was not present at that meeting, we also want to let you know what we had been doing to try to follow up on this. On October 10, 1995, the Homeowners Assoc. held a meeting and out of respect for them we sent two representatives from Hayes Rd. to discuss concerns about paving and inform them why we feel we need this road so badly. After much discussion the vote pertaining to paving the roads in the current budget was 25 for and 25 against, therefore according to the Assoc. Board they should be taking a neutral stand on this matter. One fact that we would like to point out, in the information that we had received is that out of the 293 parcels in the Ranchlands Assoc., the Assoc. only represents approximately 56 parcels, that is less than 20% of the Ranchlands. We are the ones being directly impacted from this proposed road, we need this road. Weare very frustrated with the fact that it seems that this project was studied and budgeted and that it should have gone forward without any public input, however, here we are. We are concerned that there may be a conflict of interest due to the fact that Bill Fernandez and Carl Stephens, President and Vice President of the Ranchlands Homeowners Assoc. perspectively, are also on the Planning and Zoning Board. We feel the budget has been passed, the funds have been allotted and we the homeowners greatly want this, therefore, we do not understand why there is a hold up on this, you yourselves are aware of this problem on our road, you have had two engineers look at the problem. It is our desire that the paving be approved and the project to go forward as soon as possible. We feel that an additional workshop or survey is a waste of the City and taxpayer money. Manager Govoruhk stated the spoke with Mr. Lockcutf, the UtilityIPublic Works Director, and we haven't done anything since I've been gone except looking at the petition we received. Hopefully, we will have something together by next meeting. William Fernandez, 250 Panama Rd., said he is the President of the Ranchlands, organized incorporated Homeowners Assoc., and we did in fact have a scheduled meeting on Oct. 10, 1995. We did have extensive discussion, it's unfortunate that some of those who are not members, who have property in the Ranchlands are not members of our Assoc., because we do attempt to represent those interests of those people who care enough to join and concerned about their community. I believe it is roughly 50-60 people who have joined this year and we did have a number present that evening, and you were already told the vote ended up being a tie. What you were not told was, the first vote that was taken (which was a written secret ballot) came out against paving in the Ranchlands; after the vote was announced, we then allowed additional members to join, those who apparently felt affected, and decided for whatever reason not to join in the beginning after the vote was announced, then joined and then cased their ballot in favor of the paving, such that it tied the vote. The Homeowners Assoc., as an incorporated organization has taken the position to remain neutral on this subject. I am now speaking as a property owner in the Ranchlands, I chose to work with this community on the B.O.W.S. Board and on Planning and Zoning, I'm not sure how I can possibly contemplate a conflict of interest nor did I intend to give up my right to participate as a citizen of this community by volunteering to serve this community on the Planning and Zoning Bd. I am against Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 3 paving, I own horses and miniature donkeys, I like the country lifestyle, I choose it because it had the roads. The issue here in my opinion is drainage, we've had consultants come to this City and tell us that we can go to a certain stage by adding enzymes and other things and swales and other drainage issues that would alleviate some of the these gutterslruts/wash-aways; it is my own opinion that if we did address the drainage problem, that it would not be necessary to asphalt and further change our country lifestyle. My personal, individual request, with the City Attorney and Government in the Sunshine, making it clearly known that I'm speaking for myself and my household, and my property individually and not as a member of the Planning and Zoning Bd. or former member of the B.O.W.S. Bd. that we address the drainage problem, stop further intrusion of paving into the neighborhood any further than necessary, bring it down to Hayes to Stoner, stop it there; there is no reason to go from Stoner up to Bahama, make the intrusion the least intrusive as possible and please leave us alone, speaking individually. Ms. Elizabeth Gregg, 215 E. Bahama Rd., said she wishes to assure the Commission that not everyone who lives on the roads that you are proposing to receive the free paving is for the free paving. I have a vacant lot on the comer of Hayes and Bahama and I do not want Hayes Rd. paved. I don't want the sidewalk, I don't want the intrusion of City life coming in to our country environment in the Ranchlands. I know you have heard this a dozen of times, but I don't think you really understand the lifestyle we have out there and how much we treasure it. I agree with Mr. Fernandez, the roads do not have to be paved if they are properly drained, if they are properly graded and graded more frequently during the rainy summer months. If you are going to consider this free paving coming into the Ranchlands on Hayes where I'm directly involved, it is no point in paving the road from Stoner to Bahama on Hayes Rd.; that part is level it's flat, there is no drainage problem there at all. I am telling you that I am not for paving the roads and I would stand to gain 200 feet of one of my lots to be paved free and I still don't want it. Rev. Neil Backus 110 E. Panama Rd. and 415 S. Moss Rd., I have 933 linear feet, one thing that hasn't been brought out is a compromise solution between those that want paving and don't want paving. On our petition, which goes from the comer of Moss and Panama to the comer of Panama and Hayes, we suggested a bridle, joggers, and bike paths instead of sidewalks, I promised one resident that we would ask for that, in all fairness you should provide for horses either on both sides or one side. You could have a four or five foot bridle path instead of a sidewalk in the Ranchlands. It would save money also, just to have a clay or dirt bridle path, and I would be willing to have it on my side of the road on the comer, 933 feet of bridle path. I firmly suggest that it would help both people that are pro pavers, this would be on the collector road, Moss and Panama going to Fisher which was designated a collector road in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Bush asked Manager Govoruhk if it would be possible to have something out on this before the next meeting in time for these citizens to review it before the next meeting. Manager Govoruhk said we will get it as soon as we can. Mayor Bush said he will give the Clerk the citizens names and addresses she could forward the information to them or call them so that they have a chance to see it before the next meeting. Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 4 GENERAL AGENDA Second Reading and Public Hearing Ord. 600 - Abandoning and Closing that portion ofN. Third Street Bounded on the West by the projected easterly R-O-W line ofN. Fairfax Ave. and Bounded on the east by the projected Westerly R-O-W line of Moss Road of North Orlando; providing for conflicts. severability and effective date: Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to read ordinances 600 and 601 by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 600 by title only. Mayor Bush closed the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing on Ord. 600 and asked if there was any member of the public who wishes to speak concerning this ordinance. There was no member of the public who wished to speak concerning this ordinance. Mayor Bush closed the Public Hearing and reconvened the regular meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve Ord. 600. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes. Second Reading and Public Hearing Ord. 601 - Rededicating that vacated R-O-W as a drainage and utility easement, that portion on N. Third Street bounded on the West by the projected easterly R-O- W line ofN. Fairfax Ave. and bounded on the East by the projected Westerly R-O-W line of Moss Road of North Orlando. providing for conflicts. severability and effective date: Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 601 by title only. Mayor Bush closed the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing on Ord. 601 and asked if there was any member of the public who wishes to speak concerning Ord. 601. There was no member of the public who wished to speak concerning this ordinance. Mayor Bush closed the Public Hearing and reconvened the regular meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to adopt Ord. 601. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes. Fox Glen at Chelsea Parc - Acceptance of water, sewer, and Winter Springs Boulevard median improvement for City maintenance (subdivision at northeast corner of Greenbriar Lane and Winter Springs Boulevard - Tabled from the Oct. 9. 1995 meeting): Attorney Kruppenbacher said following the last meeting Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Ketteringham, himself and the developers met and reviewed the issues that were presented and came up with what Mr. LeBlanc Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 5 has identified in his memo as certain stipulations that would have to occur and take place in order for us (the City) to not have an issue. We recommend approval subject to these memos and I would interpret that approval as authorization to consummate and draft the final agreement per the memo. One item I wanted to put out on the record is we were going to ask the Commission to approve this with the understanding that they (developer) would have 90 days to solve this problem, and clearly on the record, if within the 90 days the problem was not solved where it was not clearly identified as being near to be resolved (meaning they've worked very hard to get it done) we would reserve the right to revoke the approval and hold up any permits but at this point I think Mr. LeBlanc would agree, the developer has gotten with us and is working with us to deal with this issue. There are certain conditions that are going to have to occur to finally conclude it, but the bottom line here, I think to succinctly tell you is: if the developer can obtain the property owners having, signing off on fixing all these issues, there is really not an issue that we can't deal with from the City government side. Mr. LeBlanc said that is correct and the non-compliance items #3 - violation of the 1991 Standard Building Code, if you notice there is a letter from the Building Official stating that as long as they keep the six foot requirement of spacing between the buildings, it doesn't have to be between the property lines, three feet on each side of the property lines. The other non-compliance items are violations of the side yard setbacks which are three feet and this can be granted by variance~ the encroachment of the utility easements, we can have those abandoned by ordinance~ and causing the air conditioner on lot 23 - it is partially located on lot 24, having use of the property from the adjoining lot 24 because the Building Official stated that as long as the six foot separation is maintained, that involves one more lot that Mr. Bolin is aware of and that is lot 26. I also put in the package that you received today, a letter from Mr. Bolin to Ms. Kasper on her landscaping problem. If the Commission's desire is to accept Fox Glen at Chelsea Parc it has met all the Code requirements, the bonds, the Attorney has looked over the bonds, the company deals in the State. There will be two caveats that I would ask that you include in your approval motion the first is that there are six property owners who must change their address because the street name is changing and that the developer be responsible for any costs incurred by the property owner for these address changes, the house number remains the same, the street changes. The second thing is that the City Engineer gave me a memo today on additional asphalt on the median, one inch, they are unable to get a contractor at the present time because of the inclement weather we've had and it has back tracked them and everything else but he stated it should be done within 30 days from today and if it that extra inch is not put on the median that at that point we cease the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy until such time that it is done. Attorney Kruppenbacher said for the benefit of the Commission, what you are being asked to do on the agenda on this item is accept the water, sewer the Winter Springs Blvd. median improvements for City maintenance subdivision at northeast corner of Greenbriar Lane and Winter Springs Blvd., what I'd ask you to do, if you remember we used this as an opportunity to also address and solve the problem in Chelsea Parc Phase IT so your motion should be, if you deem it appropriate "to accept the improvements subject to the recommendations Mr. LeBlanc has given to you tonight in his memo of Oct. 23, 1995, as read to you and also subject to the memo of Oct. 13, 1995 regarding the Chelsea Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 6 Parc Phase II items being resolved and subject to the representations both from Mr. LeBlanc and myself tonight. Mr. LeBlanc mentioned that there are a couple of property owners from Chelsea Parc Phase II present in the audience if they wish to make a comment. Commissioner Langellotti asked who is the developer in Fox Glen. Mr. LeBlanc said it is Ted Bolin of Chelsea Parc in Tuscawilla. Discussion regarding DeMetree Builders. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the City has not been officially notified that Mr. DeMetree is not a party to any of the documents. Mr. LeBlanc said Mr. DeMetree has purchased some properties in the consent of mortgagee. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he is not a party to the representations being made to you tonight nor the approvals that you would be giving tonight; he is not making application for any of these things. Mr. LeBlanc said no, he is not. Commissioner Ferring said to Mr. LeBlanc, in a memo to you from the Building Official stating that the it is his understanding there is a discrepancy in the property lines of 23 and 24 and in this case there is a violation of the building codes since the exterior walls will have openings and is not fire rated. Mr. LeBlanc said is until he talked to--the other memo I gave you from the Building Official after our meeting dated Oct. 13, 1995, when he checked with the Senior Code Analysis of the Southern Building Code. Had his interpretation been correct that the setback had to be three feet from the each side of the property line for the six foot, then indeed that would have been correct, but he also stated that he is in agreement with Mr. Lindsay Carter who stated that as long as the six foot separation is maintained that you don't have to have the fire rated wall and you can have openings. Commissioner Ferring asked what happened to the situation where the plats were changed without a signature. Mr. LeBlanc said the plat had changes supposedly, I'm not a surveyor, an arc or a tangent that was wrong. Attorney Kruppenbacher said it is his understanding that the surveyor made an error and then they corrected per the Florida Statute by attaching an affidavit of correction which you have to do it per a technical light, and that is what they did. So the surveyors corrected it properly. Commissioner Ferring said the residents don't have it corrected. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that exactly, and that is why we came up with this plan where they all have to be corrected with the residents. Commissioner Ferring said why do we have to approve anything until we get this straightened out. Attorney Kruppenbacher said because they are two separate projects and technically, suffice to say we have used our leverage appropriately to garner compliance, we could be going beyond our legal position by holding the development of this project which is not the project where the problem developed. So we think we've got the best of both worlds because the developer has agreed that he understands that he is subjecting this project to getting this thing done within the time frame that we set up. It contemplates that the homeowners got to sign off on the whole problem when it's resolve and the mortgage company. Commissioner Gennell asked where does it contemplate that the homeowners have to sign off, in other words, what is their recourse, because I looked here and I don't see anything significant in here Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 7 on their behalf. Attorney Kruppenbacher said in a memo to me dated Oct. 13, 1995, it talks about that the developer, which represented to us the homeowners were working with him on this, would have to receive the permission of the property owners and the mortgage company because if the property owners and mortgage company sign off on it and we remove any objections that we have there is no issue. So what we've contemplated and Mr. LeBlanc has asked that we do up an agreement, that locks all this up, I don't want to take the time to do up an agreement unless you all contemplate fine that is an appropriate fix. We've spent a long time working through this with the bottom line goal being that when we were done the homeowners would be protected, it would be resolved, they wouldn't have any money out of their pocket and their mortgage companies would all agree that what's been done is acceptable. Commissioner Gennell said so that agreement would encompass this then. Attorney Kruppenbacher said yes, but again I want to write that in very detailed fashion and I want you all to give me the authority to proceed to do that before I take the time. But the Staff, I feel very comfortable we held the developers feet to the fire on this and said we are not doing anything other than when it's done the mortgage companies and property owners have been protected, it's as simple as that. At the same time and I think you can each appreciate this, we tried to send a message to the development community that when we do have problems we'll work with you to try and resolve the problems as long as our citizens are protected. So that we can't be accused of being unreceptive to quality development. Commissioner Gennell asked if these citizens are aware of the agreement that you've come to. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he does not know, all he did was attend the meeting where he laid out conditions and talked about an agreement. Commissioner Gennell asked if anyone can represent to her that the citizens involved here are aware of what is going on. Mr. LeBlanc stated that there are two in the audience, Mr. Adams and Mr. Bolin is here also. Mr. Ted Bolin, of Chelsea Parc of Tuscawilla Limited, said we tried to get through this plat for Fox Glen which is a separate project from the project with the three homeowners problems but as your Attorney has stated at that meeting he recommend that we use holding this plat at Fox Glen up for recording as leverage to get us to do something. I would like to first of all state that the problem arose from two surveyors, one that did the plat who had the tangent mistake; the other surveyor who did the house layouts who used that plat and was affected by the mistake, created a foot and a half problem on three lots and we had both surveyors at the meeting with your Attorney, Mr. LeBlanc and the rest of the Staff, and came up with a movement forward to come up with a solution. We've either have to replat those three lots and maybe one more or do some vacations and that kind of thing, that decision hasn't been made. I talked briefly to both of the homeowners that are here tonight, I didn't conclude anything I said here is what we are looking at doing, a memo had to go to your Attorney, your Attorney had to study it, it has to come back to Mr. LeBlanc so we are in a process of deciding what takes care of everybody's concerns and moving that forward. Frankly, the two surveyors has some liability, it trickles down to them since it was their mistakes and they are willing to jump in whether we do a replat or these vacations and all, they are going to do the work that is required and we arejust going to get it done with the help of Frank Kruppenbacher and Donald LeBlanc we will get it done, that is that issue. The other issue is we have a plat for Fox Glen, which is a 62 lot plat which is separate where these home are. DeMetree and Mercedes Homes are under contract to build Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 8 in there, Mercedes has build three models in there, one has been in the parade of homes. Mercedes is about halfway through with building their model and we need to get this plat recorded so they can roll on taking lots down which helps us financially to keep the thing flowing and take care of business. That is really where we are tonight, we've done everything we can do to focus on this problem and come up with a solution and get that moving forward but at the same time we will ask you to please don't hold up Fox Glen's plat approval, everything is there that needs to be there for the plat to be approved and if we could just do that, there are some caveats to the plat approval that keeps some accountability to us to make sure this platting issue is handled with these homeowners. Mayor Bush said in your first issue about the three lots when you had the meeting, why didn't you include the homeowners. Mr. Bolin said he did tell Ms. Edwards, it wasn't a meeting to conclude anything it was a meeting to say what should we do and to get the surveyors there and for all of us to discuss what we should do and I did tell Ms. Edwards about it and there was no desire to... we want to do the right thing, we want to correct the problem there is no question. Mayor Bush said he thinks what Commissioner Gennell was alluding to is it would have been nice for you to include the homeowners so the Commission would have known that they were in fact in agreement with you, we don't really know until we hear from them. Mr. Bolin said there is nothing to be in agreement with as of this moment, we don't know the best way to resolve this, your Attorney still have to determine a couple ofissues one of which I think was just determined a few days ago by the Building Official about the six foot separation. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he doesn't have anything to determine, at the meeting I asked the Building Official to contact the Southern Building Code to find out how do we interpret a section, he has done that and that is resolved now. I just need the authority to grant an agreement; what I was emphatic about at the meeting as was Mr. LeBlanc, is that the resolution to this issue of getting the replat we would require, the bottom line both the mortgage companies and the property owners to sign a document saying they are in agreement with the resolution of the issue. Because I wasn't about to have the homeowners say they agree and down the road they run into their mortgage company and vise versa. So we are ready to roll, what it contemplates is we believe we can deal with the setbacks, utility easements (which we don't need) and the Standard Building Code issues, it contemplates a replatting, that is an issue he is going to have to get with these homeowners on and work out, if he works it out, he works it out, if he doesn't he's back in our lap and he actually has a bigger problem with them, at lease with some of them in terms of what they bought and what they have. It is very convoluting because I think in fairness to him, this is not his fault, he hired professional surveyors and they are the ones that created the issue. Commissioner Conniff said he is concerned that the two surveyors, we have problems here and maybe their errors and omission insurance could pay for some of the mess up that they created and I'm concerned for the 62 lot plat that you have going now that that has been properly surveyed. Mr. Bolin said there can always be a mistake, that could happen but it has been reviewed, really the mistake that was on the plat that caused this problem was in the verbiage describing a tangent and it was a couple of degrees off where they made a scribbners error and it just so happens that it Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 9 affected those three lots. Those kind of things happen, you hate for it to happen like this but the problem is solvable, it's just a process that will probably take 60 to 90 days and we are ready to get that rolling. The two surveyors have committed to take care of what it is, they don't want a claim on their errors and omissions. Commissioner McLeod asked what choices do we have at the end of 90 days, where do we sit if we allow the other project to go forward. Discussion. Commissioner McLeod asked Mr. Bolin if he was in agreement to attach this particular project to that project. Mr. Bolin said in the subdivision where the problem is we have 15 lots that aren't built on yet so what would be the correct legal approach (I think) would be to say "until the issue, 1 can't say it should be resolved, but until the City Staff is satisfied that it is moving forward, in other words the process has been committed to, in any moment that the City Staffis not satisfied with that they hold up C.O.'s and building permits in Chelsea Parc Phase II, which is where these homes are, and there are 15 lots that aren't built on yet and one under construction that will definitely need a c.o. on. So, we want to satisfy the homeowners and keep the Staff satisfied and I'm on the surveyors to get this problem resolved and 1 know the homeowners have to agree on the Resolution. 1 talked to one of the ladies that was here and she wasn't clear if she agreed to what 1 was talking about but 1 haven't been clear, we really have been waiting to get with Mr. LeBlanc once he and the City Attorney had their last conversation. Commissioner McLeod said so what he is hearing is that within 90 days, it sounds like it could be resolved, be replatted and if that doesn't happen then future building permits or C.O.'s for existing houses then could come to a halt within this project. Attorney Kruppenbacher said first of all it will be resolved in 90 days or there better be a real viable reason why it can't be, because there is no reason the surveyors and lawyers and everybody can't get together and get this thing put to rest that I'm aware of. Now, I'm being reasonable, is somebody comes up with a reason you all can evaluate it, but 1 think 90 days is more than reasonable. Commissioner McLeod said Thanksgiving and Holidays aren't going to play affect, we are going to clear that right up front. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that is the best time to get things done, at least in my profession, Holidays you tend to get a lot more done than non holidays. Attorney Kruppenbacher said we are going to clearly hold up the project where the problem is if this problem is not resolved and if you approve this 1 want Don LeBlanc to file a notice on those empty lots so if they are sold, we are impacting who buys them. 1 am not willing to tell you right now that I'm going to for go legally advising you to stop everything on Fox Glen, I'm just telling you that issue is there whether or not it's related, all 1 will tell you is if this problem is not solved I'll do everything in my power to figure out how to tie Fox Glen up until the problem is solved. Commissioner McLeod said to Mr. Bolin what does he mean when he mentioned replat or vacation package. Mr. Bolin said in the meeting with the Staff there were two ways to tackle the problem, one is a replat offour lots there, 23 through 26, which is an involved process and the surveyors obviously don't want to do that but they will do it if that is the thing to do. The second is a combination of vacations and easements granted which is a simpler way to handle it, 1 believe the City Attorney thinks that is a viable way to handle it once the Building Official determined that the six foot separation matter was not a problem. Discussion. Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 10 Mr. Bolin said that is what we were waiting on, to make sure the Building Official didn't have a problem, to make sure these other areas weren't a problem, then sit down with the homeowners and discuss all the issues and see if we can draft up an agreement and then go forward complying to that agreement that everybody agrees to. Commissioner McLeod said long term the best thing is to plan out replat, five years, ten years from now there would be no question. Mr. LeBlanc said I think we all agreed that replatting was the simplest but it may be the most complicated method. Mr. Bill Edwards 1415 Creekside Drive, stated that he owns lot 23, and said that they are still waiting for something to be resolved on this, and this is our first time they heard anything. His question is after 90 days, they are not building homes in Phase II, these are vacant lots, so what recourse do we have after 90 days. Attorney Kruppenbacher said there are two separate recourse here, one is your individual recourse, regarding the people who sold you the property etc. Our recourse, I will not definitively go on record right now regarding Fox Glen other than to say ifI can figure out how to stop Fox Glen it will be stopped. Mr. Edwards stated that Fox Glen is part of their Homeowners Assoc. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he has not sat and read all the documents and figure out how to get there, I've all ready gone on record both in this meeting and at the last meeting that it is my view to shut a builder down across the whole City until he comes into compliance. Mr. Edwards said Ted Bolin is the developer of Chelsea Parc and Fox Glen, we are all in it together. Attorney Kruppenbacher said I can tell you we are going to attempt to put them in the position to exercise that kind of power. Ms. Jane Edwards, owner oflot 23, stated that she feels as Commissioner McLeod feels that it should be replatted, then there is no question on down the road when we want to sell our home we don't have to go through any legal hassle, so as long as it is replatted I will be happy. Ms. Gwen Serten, 1419 Creekside Circle, lot 25, I am getting caught in a way more than the other two, because I am now being told that I have 17 inches between my house and the boundary line. That is not enough to go out there and open a ladder and paint my house should I want to, I feel like I'm really getting caught and what recourse do I have here. Commissioner Ferring asked the City Attorney ifhe would articulate a motion that he wants to make regarding this particular situation. Attorney Kruppenbacher said his recommendation would be to move to approve the acceptance of water, sewer, and Winter Springs Blvd. median improvement for City maintenance subdivision at northeast comer of Greenbriar Lane and Winter Springs Blvd, Fox Glen at Chelsea Parc subject to the following: the conditions in the memo of October 23, 1995, from Mr. LeBlanc that relate to Fox Glen at Chelsea Parc; the resolution of the issues identified in the October 13, 1995 memo to me (City Attorney) regarding Chelsea Parc Phase II to be resolved within 90 days and that the mortgage company and property owners sign off on that and if it is not the direction being given that it is to be reported back to you (Commission) at the conclusion of those 90 days, and as of that 90th day we are to shut down any and all permits, development, etc., regarding the Chelsea Parc Phase II project and reports to be given to you (commission) as to what authority there is to shut down the Fox Glen Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 11 at Chelsea Parc project and that you (commission) want it replatted so there is no issue. Mr. LeBlanc said if you choice is for a replat for those four lots in Phase II, then the memo I sent to the Attorney is no longer valid because then you would have a property line that will give each property three feet on each side and all isSues will be...but they will have to resubmit new plats to the mortgage companies. Attorney Kruppenbacher said or alternatively not replatting but a resolution of the issues identified in the memo and the only reason I leave that back door open is there are so many complications to this while it may seem the easiest thing to replat, quite candidly in terms of taking care of the homeowners and their mortgage companies, we may have them telling us (the mortgage companies) we would prefer you didn't replat and just do it this way. I'm clearly getting your direction try and go for the replat, I just want the option if the mortgage company say this is easier and cleaner go this way, that we have the flexibility to do that. Commissioner Ferring asked if this is all part of the motion. Attorney Kruppenbacher said yes, your motion includes every representation and statement made at this meeting tonight (Attorney Kruppenbacher asked that the Clerk do this item verbatim on the minutes). Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the acceptance of water, sewer and Winter Springs Blvd. median improvement for City maintenance and subject to what the Attorney has stated. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Commissioner Gennell asked if the motion encompasses Ms. Kasper's concerns. Attorney Kruppenbacher said yes and for the homeowners benefit they ought to be pleased in that both the Commission and Staff the minute this issue came up took every action to protect the homeowners. Commissioner Gennell asked if the City is incurring any additional expense, that is the City as a result of the mistake made by these surveyors and if we are? Attorney Kruppenbacher said the developer will get billed for it. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye~ Commissioner McLeod: aye~ Commissioner Conniff: aye~ Commissioner Ferring: aye~ Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher said for the record that Mr. LeBlanc and he will get something filed on those lots so that people are on notice of this issue. Mayor Bush asked that the City Manager keep the homeowners informed of the progress incase they can't make some of these meetings so they will know what is going on. First Reading ofOrd. 602 - Changing the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from "Mixed Use" to "Commercial": Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to read Ord. 602 by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye~ Commissioner Conniff: aye~ Commissioner Ferring: aye~ Commissioner Langellotti: aye~ Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 602 by title only. Tom Grimms, Community Development Coordinator, mentioned that under small scale amendment Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 12 there is a maximum density of 10 units per acre, the applicant fully understands this and agrees to it. The higher density residential had a range higher than 10 acres and that clarified to him so he knows there is a maximum of 10 units per acre. Commissioner Gennell asked how large the property is. Mr. Grimms said it is just shy of one acre. First Reading of Ordinance 603 - Changing the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from "Recreation" to "Higher Density Residential": Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to read Ord. 603 by title only. Seconded by Commissioner ConnitT. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner ConnitT: aye; Commissioner Ferring; aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 603 by title only. Mayor Bush said in the information that was submitted Mr. Grimms talked about the road that actually is between the golf course and the Seville Apartments not meeting Code. Mr. Grimms stated that there is a substandard road (a pathway as you might call it) that runs along Seville on the Green apartment complex on the south side, and the developer fully understands that he would have to bring that up to City Code. Mayor Bush said he doesn't believe that is what Mr. Wood presented at our last meeting, that wasn't his understanding, he was asking for this road to get grandfathered in. Commissioner Ferring said that is what we did, when this issue came before us we accepted the material as proposed at that time. That particular road in question, we had requested that it be grandfathered in under the old Code. Discussion of procedures for the selection of the City Manager: Commissioner Ferring said at the last meeting we all decided that by Oct. 23, 1995, which is today, that we would all have our rankings of the ten finalist and I hope that we all have turned them into the City Manager. I submitted mine with the brief statement that in keeping with your time table for the selection of our new City Manager I am submitting the names in ranking order my selections so the final five can be looked at. The number one choice is rated the highest. Please set up the appropriate rating scoring system. Commissioner Langellotti said he would have his selection to the City Manager tomorrow but wanted to pass along some information in regards to the ten finalists. In discussing with City Managers in our area, a very strong point came out and that was if we were looking at out of State candidates to take a second look at them having to learn the Florida Laws which would take 2 to 3 years and they all suggested that we look at the Florida candidate seriously. Mayor Bush asked the Commissioners to turn in their selection to the City Manager by tomorrow and asked the Manager to compile it as soon as he can so it is available to the public. Commissioner Ferring said he thinks that any number that has been submitted for the final ten for consideration certainly the ICMA and Range Writers must have also thought about Commissioner Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 13 Langellotti's statement and I think: that anybody that has done their due diligence and has their educational background, I don't see where it will take them 2 to 3 years to learn the Florida Statutes. Discussion. City Attorney - Frank: Kruppenbacher - Reports: No Report. City Manager - John Govoruhk: No Report. Commission Seat IV - Cindy Gennell: Commissioner Gennell said a resident from the Ranchlands asked if she would read into the record a petition that was submitted a week or two ago and wasn't read into the record at that meeting, it has 22 signatures on it "To Honorable Mayor and City Commission, the City of Winter Springs FL, the following residents residing on East Panama Rd. between the intersections of Moss and Panama and Hayes and Panama Roads are in favor of Panama Rd. being paved between these two intersections providing transportation impact fee funds are available in the 1996-97 fiscal year budget or sooner if possible and there is no charge to the residents. A further suggestion is that instead of sidewalks a combination joggerslbicycle and horse bridle path be provided at least on one side of the paved road which would blend in with the nature of Rustic Residential RC-1." Commissioner Gennell mentioned that she received a nice comment from the Grove Counselling people this week about our Fire and Rescue and Police Department about how super top notched they are. Commissioner Gennell also said you all received in your boxes the private property rights packet, it came from CALNO. It was given to us by the City of Lake Mary and I think it is from the Lake Mary City Attorneys who gave it to their Commission to help them with private property rights, to help them to understand it and it is for your information. Commissioner Gennell said read a letter she received a letter from the School Board regarding project HOPE. Commissioner Gennell gave the letter to the City Manager to get with Staff and let them come up with the things we need to furnish and that ifthe Commission has any suggestions for things we don't already have, we could forward those to the City Manager and let him handle it. Mayor Bush said that should be given to the City Manager for him to follow up on it and report back to the Commission his responses. Commissioner Gennell asked about the VFW giving the City a new flag every September. Commissioner Ferring said he believes the Civic Assoc. spoke with the VFW and they are running into hard financial times. We have taken it upon ourselves as a Civic Assoc. where ever there is a need for a flag all that has to be done is brought to the attention of the Civic Assoc. and they will donate a flag to that particular building. Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 14 Commission Seat V - David McLeod: No report. Commission Seat I - Larry Conniff: Commissioner Conniff said a couple of meetings ago Commissioner Ferring brought up something about tluoride in the water. I did some homework on it and talked to Dr. Burke (a dentist in Winter Springs) and the Dental Assoc. is 100 percent behind tluoriding the water; they say one part per million, they would even go three parts per million; that is a small amount of tluoride and it tells me it is rather toxic or something. So I asked the medical area which is Dr. Webb and he is kind of a holistic Doctor and he was saying that it can cause cancer or kidney problems. So then I went to the scientific section and Dr. Stock, who is a micro biologist at Stetson University, informed what we would be putting in our water would not be bothering us. So I sit corrected. Commissioner Ferring said he brought that up because it was brought up to him by one of our constituents and brought it forward for consideration. We put it in the City Manager's hands and Staff and if they recommend if we can do it, why not. Weare waiting for a report on it. Commission Seat II - John Ferring: No report. Commission Seat III - John Langellotti: Commissioner Langellotti said he would like to bring to the attention of the Commission the ambulance service. Starting in January all the communities around here will be transporting people. I was disturbed last year when I brought this out at a meeting and for some reason it got on the ballot and it gave all the wrong information to the people, that it was going to be a taxable item and we tried to get the truth out to the people and some people capitalise on it in feeding false information. I have been talking to the surrounding communities, Altamonte Springs just voted 5-0 in favor of transporting to hospitals with their ambulance service. Longwood put it off for a week with a 4-1 vote that they want to do it but want their City Manager to look into more details on it. Commissioner Langellotti said he is not sure if any of the Commission or public have had any experience being transported by the company that is doing it right now, it gets to be a very costly thing. In looking at this, and know that our Fire Chief and Fire Dept. with our paramedics, do a wonderful job. It would be very wise to enter this program with no charge to the residents of this City the only person charged for this is a person transported to a hospital. Who ever was the person that got that on the ballot last year, and I was very disappointed when I heard the results of that everybody will be taxed for this, it is not so, it wasn't intended to be that way and I want to see the City Manager have this on the agenda for the next meeting and proceed with this. I know our Fire Chief has been involved with the other Fire Chiefs in the County and they all have a program ready to go. Discussion. It was the consensus of the Commission to have this on the agenda for a future meeting. There was much discussion on this subject. Regular Meeting City Commission October 23, 1995 94-95-32 Page 14 the finger at the City and the City is saying they can't handle it. We have a problem with the road that does have a great deal of standing water on it and I wonder if there is anything that the City can do to correct this problem or have it corrected by the property owners. Mayor Bush said he would like to remind everyone that the Civic Association's Holiday Parade is on Sunday, November 19, 1995. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~A~~ Margo M. Hopkins, City Clerk APPROVED: F. BUSH, MAYOR