HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 05 27 Public Hearing 500 Aesthetic Review for Fence Modiciation JDC Buildings #4 and #17COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 500
May 27, 2008
Special Meeting
Consent _
Information
Public Hearin X
Re ular
.,,,~
MGR. /1'-' /De t.
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department -Planning Division requests the City Commission hold a
Public Hearing for the Aesthetic Review of the proposed fence modification between JDC buildings #4
and #17 and the adjacent Kingsbury residence, within the Town Center.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this agenda item is for the Commission to consider, provide comment on, and approve,
approve with conditions and/or modifications, or disapprove the Aesthetic Review modification.
The purpose of the Aesthetic Review process is to encourage creative, effective, and flexible
architectural standards and cohesive community development consistent with the intent and purpose of
Article XI -Minimum Community Appearance and Aesthetic Review Standards.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 9-601. Approval prerequisite for permits.
Section 9-605. Submittal requirements.
City of Winter Springs Code of Ordinances (Town Center District Code), Section 20-320 through
20-327.
Section 20-418. Residential wall buffers required.
Development Agreement.
CHRONOLOGY:
January 24, 2005 -City Commission approved final engineering plans for 2 acre portion at
the NW corner of the existing 14+ acre Doran site (Buildings 3, 4, & 16)
March 15, 2005 -Pre-construction meeting held for the 2 acre portion of the 14+ acre site
Apri125, 2005 -City Commission approved revised final engineering plans (removed big oak -
Building 17 not included)
August 22, 2005 -City Commission postponed Building 17 concept review
September 12, 2005 -City Commission approved the concept plan for Building 17
August 28, 2006 -City Commission approved final engineering and aesthetic review of Building 17
(including the wall between the Doran and Kingsbury properties)
May 27, 2008
Public Hearing Item 500
Page 2 of 4
CONSIDERATIONS:
Buildings 4, 16, and 17 of the Doran development abut the Kingsbury property. A wall/fence
combination was approved adjacent to the Kingsbury residence as part of the aesthetic review of
Building 17. It was understood that the wall/fence was a temporary measure -that it would be
unnecessary when the Kingsbury property is eventually transformed from asingle-family
residence to a more urban use and structure.
The approved decorative fence along the southern and western boundaries of the Kingsbury
property had been requested by Mr. Kingsbury. The brick columns have been designed to match
the brickwork on Building # 16 and are spaced twelve (12') feet on-center with decorative picket
fencing in between the columns. There is one section of this fence that is a solid wall, situated
adjacent to a planned outdoor activity area for building #17. Again, this solid wall section was
requested by Mr. Kingsbury. This fence was to attach to the white fencing installed by the City
for Mr. Kingsbury at the northwestern property corner.
The Kingsburys have recently requested to have the design of this decorative fence modified to
match the existing PVC fence that currently exists around the northern and eastern boundaries of
their property (see Attachment E).
The submittal requirements for aesthetic review are set forth in Section 9-605 and include the
following: (a) a site plan; (b) elevations illustrating all sides of structures facing public streets or
spaces; (c) illustrations of all walls, fences, and other accessory structures and the indication of
height and their associated materials; (d) elevation of proposed exterior permanent signs or other
constructed elements other than habitable space, if any; (e) illustrations of materials, texture, and
colors to be used on all buildings, accessory structures, exterior signs; and (f) other architectural
and engineering data as may be required. The procedures for review and approval are set forth
in Section 9-603.
The City Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application only
after consideration of whether the following criteria have been satisfied:
(1) The plans and specifications of the proposed project indicate that the setting, landscaping,
proportions, materials, colors, textures, scale, unity, balance, rhythm, contrast, and simplicity are
coordinated in a harmonious manner relevant to the particular proposal, surrounding area and
cultural character of the community.
The proposed fence design was requested by the Kingburys and said design matches the fencing
that currently exist around the northern and eastern boundaries of their property. As previously
stated, this fence is to be considered temporary.
(2) The plans for the proposed project are in harmony with any future development which has
been formally approved by the City within the surrounding area.
2
May 27, 2008
Public Hearing Item 500
Page 3 of 4
The proposed fence is in harmony with the existing fence and will be more easily removed
to conform to the Town Center Code when and if the Kingsbury property is redeveloped as
part of the Town Center.
(3) The plans for the proposed project are not excessively similar or dissimilar to any other
building, structure or sign which is either fully constructed, permitted but not fully constructed,
or included on the same permit application, and facing upon the same or intersecting street within
five hundred (500) feet of the proposed site, with respect to one or more of the following features
of exterior design and appearance:
(A) Front or side elevations,
(B) Size and arrangement of elevation facing the street, including reverse arrangement,
(C) Other significant features of design such as, but not limited to: materials, roof line,
hardscape improvements, and height or design elements.
The proposed fence design is consistent with the existing fence around a portion of the Kingsbury
property and is acceptable to both of the adjacent property owners (the Kingsburys and JDC).
(4) The plans for the proposed project are in harmony with, or significantly enhance, the
established character of other buildings, structures or signs in the surrounding area with respect
to architectural specifications and design features deemed significant based upon commonly
accepted architectural principles of the local community.
The proposed fence design is in harmony with the existing fencing in the area.
(5) The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the intent and purpose of this Article,
the Comprehensive Plan for Winter Springs, design criteria adopted by the city (e.g. Town Center
guidelines) and other applicable federal state or local laws.
The aesthetic package meets the requirements of this Article, the City's design criteria as specified
in the Code (especially the Town Center Code) and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Again, this
fence has always been considered a temporary element.
(6) The proposed project has incorporated significant architectural enhancements such as
concrete masonry units with stucco, marble, termite-resistant wood, wrought iron, brick, columns
and piers, porches, arches, fountains, planting areas, display windows, and other distinctive
design detailing and promoting the character of the community.
(Not Applicable)
FINDINGS:
• The proposed development is located within the City of Winter Springs Town Center.
• The subject fence was located/approved at the request of the adjacent property owner (the
Kingsburys).
• The proposed modification is being considered at the request of the adjacent property owners (the
Kingsburys).
3
May 27, 2008
Public Hearing Item 500
Page 4 of 4
• The subject fence has always been acknowledge as a temporary element.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff review found the applicant's request for a modification to the approved Aesthetic Review in
compliance and recommends that the City Commission approve this modification to the aesthetic review
package.
ATTACHMENTS:
A -Minutes of August 28, 2006 Commission meeting
B -Development Agreement
C -Previous Aesthetic Review Package
D -Proposed Aesthetic Review Package
E -Kingsbury Letter of March 13, 2008
COMMISSION ACTION:
4
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 28, 2006
PAGE l2 OF 29
VOTE:
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE: AYE
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE
COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
205.1 Community Development Department -Planning Division
Requests The City Commission Hold A Public Hearing For The Aesthetic Review
Of JDC Building Number 17, A 26 Unit Condominium Building Located On
Blumberg Boulevard In The Town Center.
Introducing this Agenda Item, Mr. Stevenson said, "Building 17 is located in the Town
Center, proposed along Blumberg Boulevard. Again, it is our first residential component
building located along Blumberg [Boulevard]. Additionally, Mr. Stevenson noted, "It is
almost a companion building to Building 4 that you have approved a number of months
ago when we were currently reviewing the plans on it. It's proposed as atwenty-six (26)
unit condominium building, and located again along Blumberg Boulevard -you have
seen this building a number of times. August the 22"d we postponed it; September the
12`I' they reviewed the Concept Plan for Building 17, and again, I need to amend my
chronology, it was October the 10`I' that the City Commission approved the Concept Plan
for Building 17 and the Development Agreement."
Mayor Bush opened the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
Mr. Edward Martinez, 205 Little Creek Lane, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on
nearby features.
Mr. David Mize, 1607 Little Sparrow Court, Winter Springs, Florida: commented on
delays and details related to this review process.
Commissioner Miller stated "Point of Clarification "and spoke of the review process.
Mayor Bush closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 28, 2006
PAGE 13 OF 29
In referring to a large tree noted on the proposed plans, Commissioner Miller said, "They
are actually going to put that tree in? That is amazing." Mr. Stevenson said, "I believe
that tree exists there, however, the health of that tree, unfortunately at this point, is in
question. Our Arborist has looked at that tree." Commissioner Miller pointed out, "It
really adds to the beauty of that building."
Mr. George D. Tullos, James Doran Company, 216 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 200,
Charleston, South Carolina: said, "What we'll do, if we do determine the tree can't stay,
we'll replace it with some other trees." Deputy Mayor Blake added, "Same height." Mr.
Tullos noted, "I didn't say that." Furthermore, Mr. Tullos remarked, "It is a fabulous
looking tree -we're trying to save it."
Manager McLemore asked, "Did you say there, the balconies on the first floor were 4.6
or a combination of 4.6?" Mr. Tullos said, "I actually think there are a couple of different
sizes there. Some are as big as 6.8." Manager McLemore said, "I thought the
Commission had stated that they had to be a minimum of six (6) on the first floor, first
floor only, and then there'd be acombination -the top of the first floor."
Reiterating his comments to Mr. Tullos, Manager McLemore asked, "The balcony depths
- between the first and second floor, Ithought -previously, the Commission had said it
was a minimum of six feet (6') there and then you could have combinations of fours (4's)
and twos (2's) the rest of the building. Am I wrong on that?" Mr. Tullos said, "I don't
recall a six foot (6') first floor. I recall just a simple combination of twos (2's), fours
(4's), sixes (6's), and eights (8's), or twos (2's), fours (4's), and sixes (6's) throughout the
project."
Commissioner Krebs said to Manager McLemore, "I think you need to go back to some
notes because I think you are right."
Mr. Tullos said, "We still have six foot (6') balconies on the second floor. Is that what
you're asking?" Manager McLemore commented, "That is what I am asking."
Discussion ensued on the roundabout area.
Mr. Rick Mazian, Project Coordinator, Randall Paulson Architects, 85-A Mill Street,
Suite 200, Roswell, Georgia: remarked, "That is correct. It is a combination of -you
have the benches in between and then you'll have the seat wall also where the seat is
steep enough for someone to sit on. So, it'll be a combination of the two (2)."
CrrY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 28.2006
PAGE 14 OF 29
Manager McLemore said, "My only question about that Rick (Maxian) was the seat walls
are permanent, the benches require a lot of maintenance." Mr. Maxian said, "Well, the
benches will be the metal benches like you guys have on Tuscawilla [Road] right now, so
the maintenance is almost nothing for that; maybe painting every five (5), six (6) years,
something like that, but it is a combination of the two (2)."
Furthermore, Manager McLemore said, "And I'm assuming that this will be actually like
brick veneer or azch stone type veneer on this and not just concrete?" Mr. Tullos said,
"More likely the second that you spoke of. Absolutely not just concrete. No." Mr.
Tullos continued, "It will likely be concrete block wall faced with an azchitectural stone."
Manager McLemore said, "Well, can we get a commitment on that so that we can get it
in the record?" Mr. Maxian said, "That's correct. And then the piers will be the brick to
match Building 17, and where the benches aze will be the arch stone backing. That's
correct."
Continuing, Manager McLemore said, "I'm trying to understand, how lazge is the brick
section here and that's a fairly large monument - on the Site Plan?" Mr. Tullos noted,
"Basically three (3) sections of feet."
With discussion, Manager McLemore said, "The point of it is, you can continue this,
maintain that open, more like an urban design instead of a wall and you can landscape,
fill that with landscape and still serve your privacy, and you wouldn't have that
monument there, that brick monument there."
Discussion.
Mr. Tullos said, "I'm in agreement that the entire wall is temporary. We don't want to do
it anyway."
Commissioner Gilmore said, "Where is your A/C (Air Conditioning) going?" Mr. Tullos
said, "The majority of the units aze going on the roof."
Further discussion ensued on balcony sizes.
Mr. Chuck Travis, AIA, Principal, The Housing Studio, 500 East Boulevard, Charlotte,
North Carolina: remarked, "If it is a six foot (6') requirement, if it is written in black and
white, we'll be happy to accommodate that, but I think the intent that we were wanting to
have a variation of balcony sizes. This is a very important unit on this corner and I think
the desire of that evening was talking about having the four foot (4') balconies so that you
could at least have a chair out. And we've tried to accommodate that and as you'll see if
you follow the building plans, it actually decreases to two feet (2') as you go up. But,
there are entry pedestals; there are variations throughout the building, such as a large
corner balcony, this one is particularly large, so you get different market units." Manager
McLemore said, "I think that was debated." Mr. Travis said, "It was. I recall."
CITY OF WRJTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 28, 2006
PAGE I S OF 29
Mr. McLemore continued, "About six feet (6') at the second floor level and then the
vaziation above that." Deputy Mayor Blake said, "And then there's a question about BS-
2 over here also." Deputy Mayor Blake continued, "Now this particular unit has two (2)
balconies. But, that one also looks to be something less than six feet (6')." Mr. Travis
said, "It is. You're correct." Manager McLemore asked, "That's on the side street?"
Mr. Travis said, "It is."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Well, we have our Ordinances and Codes hopefully written
down someplace. Mr. Baker, do you recall, or can you cite for us what the Code states
for balconies at different levels?" Mr. Baker said, "The second floor balconies have to be
six feet (6') deep according to Code." Deputy Mayor Blake asked, "Can you cite the
Section of Code that that is in?"
Mr. Baker said, "That is Section 20-326; six foot (6~ minimum for second floor
balconies." Deputy Mayor Blake asked, "What about unit BS-2? The problem is since
it's in the Code, we just can't ignore it. It doesn't mean it won't necessarily change, it
just means we can't just ignore it. There has to be a process that we have to comply
with.,'
Manager McLemore said, "We've have had extensive conversations with your
Consultant and we've -been down there with Developers and we've gone over and over
and over this, that the second lower level balconies was there to perform a function which
was to provide some relief to the street in terms of shade or rain; and he really wasn't
concerned what happened on the third, fourth, fifth floors, but on the -first floor they
needed to be not less than six feet (6'). Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Right." Manager
McLemore continued, "And then you could have combinations and changes as you went
forward or up the building vertically, in order to create the architectural balance."
Discussion.
Mr. Travis said, "The only point that I wanted to make is this is actually the sidewalk in
this area. And then you have the entry stoop that brings you up to the lower level unit.
This is actually the four foot (4') balcony that we're talking about, the extension on the
end which is adjacent to the residential home that is remaining.
So, this is the piece of the building, that's where the four foot (4') balcony would occur.
So, if you want to take this to six feet (6'), I think it works, the problem is it starts
pushing on the tree, which as I've learned tonight, may be going away anyway.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 28, 2006
PAGE l6 OF 29
The building right now, if you look at in plan, it's not symmetrical. The reason that we
had stepped this back in was to help to preserve that tree. The other balcony could also
be six feet (6~. It could also go away and become some type of bay window extension to
that unit. We just thought it was a nice break to the Elevation. That's why we introduced
it." Mr. Maxian added, "Yes, that's the point, it created the reveal. If you go to six feet
(6'), you come closer to matching that very next bump out. Structurally can we do it, yes.
Architecturally, do we like it, no? That's the honest answer."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Apparently on September 12~' 2005, almost a year ago, the
Commission had an extensive discussion on balconies. And it looks like we made a
decision that was never carried out in Code. So Ron (McLemore) -the discussion was to
have a mix of balcony widths, depths - I don't think it says anything in that discussion
about where different size balconies go. Does Section 20-326. say anything about levels
above the second story or can you tell when that Code Section was amended?"
Mr. Baker said, "I'm not awaze that there's any requirement on the levels above the
second floor." Mr. Baker added, "I don't believe it's been amended since I've been
here."
Regarding Section 20-326. of the Code, Deputy Mayor Blake said to Attorney
Gazganese, "It is talking about balconies, specifically the second story balcony must be
six feet (6') deep. Commission Meeting, September 12~' 2005, there's a lengthy
discussion on balconies, types of balconies, depths of balconies. And there were two (2)
separate Motions by the Commission that were passed, talking about a mix of the balcony
depths, but apaeently there's been no Code change, no text change in the Code since that
time.
And the discussion on September 12"', 2005, as I read it briefly, I don't believe has any
text that requires anything on one (1) floor versus another floor. And we have a plan here
that has a four foot (4') balcony on the second floor and a second, four foot (4') balcony
on the second floor. And while I think we want to approve it, it doesn't comply with law
as the Code book states."
Further discussion.
Deputy Mayor Blake asked, "We still come back to the question, `Where are we'?"
Manager McLemore said, "I think the answer is, `Where do you want to be'?" Manager
McLemore continued, "The function of the balconies is to provide, again, your
relationship to the street, provide for a degree of protection from sun, and weather, rain -
and obviously architectural variation as well. That was the main function and the reason
why they did not have to be six feet (6') as you vertically - go up the building, vertically."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MRVUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 28, 2006
PAGE l 7 OF 29
Tape 3/Side A
Discussion ensued on balconies.
"I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE -THAT WE APPROVE THE
AESTHETIC REVIEW WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE TWO (2) CHANGES
TO EXTEND THE FOUR FOOT (4') TO SIX FOOT (6') BALCONIES ON -
SECOND FLOOR." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DEPUTY
MAYOR BLAKE NOTED, "INCLUDING THE LIGHTS, THE ISSUE OF
LIGHTS AS WAS PRESENTED BY STAFF." COMMISSIONER MILLER
ADDED, "THE LIGHTING ISSUE TOO." MAYOR BUSH REMARKED,
"SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS." DISCUSSION
"I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND -THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SEAT WALL WHERE WE WANTED IT, TO
HAVE SOME TYPE OF FINISH ON IT..." MANAGER McLEMORE NOTED,
"...STONE VENEER, OR..." COMMISSIONER KREBS CONTINUED,
"...OKAY." FURTHERMORE, COMMISSIONER KREBS NOTED, "I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE -MORE OF THE RAIL -ALUMINUM SECTIONS ON THE
WALL, RATHER THAN THE BRICK, WITH HEAVY LANDSCAPING."
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KREBS. SECONDED
BY DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE. DISCUSSION.
VOTE: (ON THE AMENDMENT)
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE
DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE: AYE
COMMISSIONER MILLER: NAY
COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
VOTE: (ON THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED)
COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE: AYE
COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMM4SSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 28, 2006
PAGE 18 OF 29
Deputy Mayor Blake spoke of balconies and stated, "The Motion passed, ultimately that
was passed, approved everything except those balconies which means, as we stand right
now, the entire project has to come before us again."
Continuing, Deputy Mayor Blake remarked, "I would like to give Staff some direction to
be able to go forward on this so it doesn't have to come back before us and allow them to
get rolling on the project."
Attorney Garganese stated, "The Commission could direct that we finalize a
Development Agreement and have a variation to the Codes."
Mayor Bush called a Recess at 9: Sl p:m.
Mayor Bush called the Meeting back to Order at 10: 08 p. m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ....
205.2 Community Development Department -Planning Division
Requests The City Commission Consider And Approve The Final Engineering/Site
Plan For JDC Building Number 17, A 26 Unit Condominium Building Located On ,
Blumberg Boulevard In The Town Center.
Mr. Stevenson presented his opening remarks and noted, "The Findings are -the site is
approved by the St. Johns River Water Management District for eighty percent (80%)
impervious area under the Town Center's Master permit.
You will note, if you look at the impervious area noted on the plans that it says 80.2. I
have confirmed with the Engineer that that is incorrect. The actual impervious surface is
79.8, so it does meet the eighty percent (80%) impervious area requirement."
Attorney Garganese returned to the Meeting at 10:09 p.m.
Continuing, Mr. Stevenson commented that "All site lighting and signage must be
consistent with the Town Center Code Standards. We have reviewed the photometrics as
we mentioned earlier. The only issue that we have is that the light pole that's being
proposed, be changed from a flat black matte pole to one that matches the existing poles
out there."
Mr. Stevenson added, "The Wall between Building 17 site and the Kingsbury site should
be considered temporary, to be removed at such time as the Kingsbury site develops."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 28, 2006
PAGE 19 OF 29
Mayor Bush opened the "Public Input "portion ojthe Agenda Item.
No one spoke.
Mayor Bush closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
"MOTION TO APPROVE." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GILMORE.
MAYOR BUSH ADDED, "WITH THE ITEMS THAT RANDY (STEVENSON)
LISTED." SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
• • AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA
ITEM WAS DISCUSSED AGAIN, AS NOTED. • •
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
205.1 Community Development Department -Planning Division
Requests The City Commission Hold A Public Hearing For The Aesthetic Review
Of JDC Building Number 17, A 26 Unit Condominium Building Located On
Blumberg Boulevard In The Town Center.
Manager McLemore said, "The balconies would be amended to be six feet (6~; as far as
the wall is concerned, as long as it is noted in the Agreement that this is temporary, that
we could live with that for a while, was the compromise we struck on this and so that is
what I am suggesting." Manager McLemore added, "They agreed to a stone finish on the
- seat wall."
~~MOTION TO RECONSIDER" 205.1. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KREBS.
MAYOR BUSH REMARKED, "SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS."
DISCUSSION.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 28, 2006
PAGE 20 OF 29
VOTE:
COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
"I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO WITH THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FOR
THE THREE (3) OR FOUR (4) SECTIONS OF CONCRETE BRICK WALL,
WHATEVER IT WAS THAT WAS PROPOSED." MOTION BY
COMMISSIONER MILLER.
MAYOR BUSH NOTED, "AS PRESENTED..." COMMISSIONER MILLER
CONTINUED, "...AS PRESENTED BY THE DEVELOPER FOR THAT AREA
AROUND THE JACUZZI AND THE BARBEQUE AREA. THE REST OF THE
WALL WOULD BE ALUMINUM AS ALSO PRESENTED BY THEM -AND
TEMPORARY - NOTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS
TEMPORARY." SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GILMORE. DISCUSSION.
MR. STEVENSON INQUIRED ABOUT THE BALCONY EXTENSIONS AND
ASKED, "IS THAT TO BE WORKED OUT AT STAFF LEVEL OR..."
MANAGER McLEMORE STATED, "...NO. IT'S SIX FOOT (6') BALCONIES."
MR. STEVENSON THEN ASKED, "DO THEY HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMISSION?" MANAGER McLEMORE COMMENTED, "WE DON'T
HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION."
Deputy Mayor Blake returned to the Commission Chambers at approximately 10:19 p. m.
VOTE:
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE
COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE
DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
ATTACHMENT B
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS PREPARED BY
AND RETURN TO:
Anthony Garganese
City Attorney of Winter Springs
Brown Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta, P.A.
225 E. Robinson St., Suite 660
Orlando, FL 32801
(407)425-9566
MARYRNNE NORSE, CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
SENINOLE COUNTY
BK 05981 PGS 1497-1504
CLERK'S # x'005191578
RECORDED 11/0/2003 11t~0135 AN
RECORDING FEES 69. SO
RECORDED BY D Thous
FOR RECORDING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
BINDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS BINDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and
executed this 25th day of October, 2005, by and between the CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, a
Florida municipal corporation (the "City"), whose address is 1126 East S.R. 434, Winter Springs,
Florida 32708, and CAPITAL GREEN, LLC., a Georgia Limited Liability Company
("Developer"), whose address is 216 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 200, Charleston, S 29492.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer is the fee simple owner of certain real property generally located
within the City of Winter Springs Town Center west of Tuscawilla Road, north of State Road
434, and south of Blumberg Boulevard and currently subject to a binding development
agreement between JDC Calhoun, Inc. and the City, dated August 1, 2000, and on file at Winter
Springs City Hall (the "Phase I Property"); and
WHEREAS, Developer is currently completing Phase I of a development project on the
Phase I Property; and
WHEREAS, as part of Phase I, Developer desires to purchase an additional .43 acres of
real property from Mr. & Mrs. Kingsbury which lies adjacent to the Phase I Property along
Blumberg Boulevard as legally described in Exhibit "A" which is hereby fully incorporated
herein by this reference (the "Kingsbury Property"); and
WHEREAS, Developer desires to incorporate the Kingsbury Property into the phase I
project site for purposes of constructing atwenty-six (26) unit residential condominium project;
and
WHEREAS, if Developer acquires the Kingsbury Property, Developer will aggregate
that property with other adjacent property owned by Developer for purposes of creating a
buildable lot under the City Code; and
WHEREAS, Developer desires certain limited assurances from the City before they
finalize the closing on the Kingsbury Property as more specifically set forth under this
Ageement; and
WHEREAS, the City and Developer desire to set forth the following special terms and
conditions with respect to the development of the Property; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the parties mutually agee as follows:
1. Reci 1 . The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
herein by this reference. '
2. Autbori This Ageement is entered into pursuant to the Florida Municipal
Home Rule Powers Act.
Obligations and Commitments. The City and Developer hereby ages as
follows:
(a) Kingsbury Property Developer shall use its best efforts to purchase the
Kingsbury Property. If Developer acquires the Kingsbury Property, the Kingsbury Property shall
be aggegated and combined with a portion of adjacent property currently owned by the ~'-'"
Developer along Blumberg Boulevard (the "Building 17 Site"). The purposes of purchasing the
Kingsbury Property shall be to create a buildable lot as generally depicted on the Concept Plan.
Developer agees to create the Building 17 Site in accordance with the requirements of the City
Code and within sixty (60) days of closing on the Kingsbury Property.
(b) Auuroval of Concept Plan. The City agees that the Developer shall have the
right to design, permit and constcud a four story, twenty-six (26) unit, residential condominium
project on the Building 17 Site in accordance with the concept plan attached hereto and fully
incorporated herein as Eiltibit "B" (the "Concept Plan"); provided, however, Developer shall
have the obligation to further submit and obtain the City's approval of a final site plan and final
engineering plans. Developer shall also have the obligation to construct aesthetic enhancements
to the project as may be reasonably requested by the City in accordance with the City Code,
particularly the City's aesthetic review ordinance. Developer acknowledges and agees that the
Concept Plan was not prepared with specific final surveyed dimensions and that during the final
sits plan and final engineering process such dimensions shall be surveyed, duly engineered, and
provided to the City. As such, Developer and the City ages that the Concept Plan is intended to
be conceptual in nature and subject to reasonable adjustments at the final site plan and final
engineering phase in order to bring the project into compliance with the City Code. The
condominium project shall consist of four (4) three bedroom units and twenty-two (22) two
bedroom units unless otherwise mutually ageed to by the parties.
(c) Parking. The City hereby acknowledges and agees that a minimum of forty-one
(41) parking spaces, including handicapped spaces, shall be acceptable for the twenty-six unit
residential condominium project proposed in subparagraph (b) above.
Developer's Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Capital Green I, LLC
-2-
4. lEteuresentations of the Parties. The City and Developer hereby each represent
and warrant to the other that it has the power and authority to execute, deliver and perform the
terms and provisions of this Ageement and has taken all necessary action to authorize the
execution, delivery and performance of this Ageement. This Ageement will, when duly
executed and delivered by the City and Developer ,constitute a legal, valid and binding
obligation enforceable against the parties hereto and the Property in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this Ageement.
5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall automatically be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the City and Developer and their respective successors and
assigns. The terms and conditions of this Ageement similarly shall be binding upon the Property
and shall run with title to the same.
6. Auulicable Law. This Ageement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
7. Amendments. This Ageement shall not be modified or amended except by
written ageement duly executed by both parties hereto (or their successors or assigns) and
approved by the City Commission.
8. Entire Agreement. This Ageement supersedes any other ageement, oral or
written, and contains the entire ageement between the City and Developer as to the subject
matter hereof.
9. Severability. If any provision of this Ageement shall beheld to be invalid or .
unenforceable to any extent by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall not affect in anq
respect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this Ageement.
10. Effective Date: Termination. This Ageement shall become effective upon
approval by the City Commission and execution of this Ageement by both parties hereto.
However, the development rights set forth herein shall only become effective at such time that
the Developer closes on the Kingsbury Property. ff Developer fails to purchase the Kingsbury
Property within six (6) months of the City Commission approving this Ageement, this
Ageement shall automatically terminate and the parties shall no longer have any rights
hereunder.
11. Recordation. This Ageement shall be recorded in the Public Records of
Seminole County, Florida. For purposes of recording this Ageement, a legal description of the
Building 17 Site shall be provided by the Developer when said site is created pursuant to City
Code and attached to this Ageement in order to adequately represent the real property that is
subject to this Ageement.
12. Relationship of the Parties. The relationship of the parties to this Ageement is
contractual and Developer is an independent contractor and not an agent of the City. Nothing
herein shall be deemed to create a joint venture or principal-agent relationship between the
parties, and neither party is authorized to, nor shall either party act toward third persons or the
public in any manner, which would indicate any such relationship with the other.
Developer's Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Capital Green I, LLC
-3-
13. Sovereign Immunity. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be consttued as
a waiver of the City's right to sovereign immutity under Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, or any
other limitation on the City's potential liability under the state and federal law.
14. City's Police Power. Developer agrees and acknowledges that the City hereby
reserves all police powers granted to the City by law. In no way shall this Agreement be
construed as the City bargaining away or surrendering its police powers.
15. In]grpretation. The patties hereby agree and acknowledge that they have both
participated equally in the drafting of this Agreement and no party shall be favored or disfavored
regarding the interpretation to this Agreement in the event of a dispute between the parties.
16. Third-Party Rights. This Agreement is not athird-party beneficiary contract and
shall not in any way whatsoever create any rights on behalf of any third party.
17. Specific Performance. Strict compliance shall be required with each and every
provision of this Agreement. The parties agee that failure to perform the obligations provided
by this Agreement shall result in irreparable damage and that specific performance of these
obligations may be obtained by a suit in equity.
18. Attorney's Fees. In connection with any arbitration or litigation arising out of
this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and
costs through all appeals to the extent permitted by law.
19. Develonmen,~ Permits. Nothing herein shall limit the City's authority to grant or
deny any development permit applications or requests subsequent to the effective date of this
Agreement. The failure of this Agreement to address any particular City, County, State and/or
Federal permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve Developer or the City of the
necessity of complying with the law governing said permitting requirement, condition, term or
restriction. V~thout imposing any limitation on the City's police powers, the City reserves the
right to withhold, suspend, or terminate any and all certificates of occupancy for any building or
unit if Developer is in breach of any term and condition of this Ageement.
[SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE]
Developer's Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Capital Green I, LLC
-4-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seal on the
date first above written.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
ATTEST:
~, ,
• :-~
r ~
,. ,
; ~~ . ,•~
.
y
. ., _a ,,
,i
.,o, :; -
~~,; _ .:,
By: ~ -
J F. Bush, Mayor
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
For the use and reliance of the City of Wirrter
Springs, Florida, only. ``-
Dated: ~1 /~, ~~ S
By:
Anthony ese, City Attorney for
the City of Winter Springs, Florida
Developer's Agreement
City of Winter Springs a~ Capital Cmaen I, LLC
-5-
Signed, sealed and delivered in the
presence of the following witnesses:
~~
Sis~e of Witnesq
Kit f !tilt ~ v- G~ ~ar'~lr+~ Y'
Printed Name of Witness
Si lure o W itn ,~I' l an
Printed Name of Witness
STATE OF.~iOG~Tf~ G~/ZOL.~7Yi~
COUNTY OF P5E7L ~1~_
Capital Green I, LLC. a Georgia Limited
Liability Company .r
By:
E perties, nc.
o .Disher, Vice President
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~~ day of
b cob ~~ , 2005, by John H. Disher, Vice President of ESD Properties, Inc., managing
member of Capital Green I, LLC, A Georgia Limited Liability Company on behalf of said
developer. He is personally known to me or produced as
identification.
(NOTARY SEAL)
(N Public 3igoatuoe
~"vd t~-I ~ /~ - /~ N~ ~~s a ~/
(Print Name) ~O v~
Notary Public, State of ~i 4 ~« uA
Commission No.:
My Commission Expires: 4201 I
_, "--~ ~-
~. ".~,
__. -.
;_, -
;.
Developer's Agreement
City of Winter Springs and Capital Green I, LLC
-6-
EXHIBIT
~_
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
~v rHE ~sr sw~ of
..
...
COYYTA/N/NG O Ili ACAES. rre,7l5 sa~MrE fEEr~. ARE aR cESS.
ATTACHMENT C
Agenda Item 500
May 27, 2008 Special City Commission Meeting
Public Hearing for Aesthetic Review Modification
Wall between Building 17 and Kingsbury Property
Winter Springs Town Center
'' ~..
TI1 Randall •Paulsoa A~chi(ects. Incorporated 85~A dill Street Roswell, Georgia 30915 p. 1]0.6501558 . 110.6501559
Winter S rin s Town CenterJAMES DORAN COMPANY
~ J, fioridaflegis(rationNum6erAA-0993296 p ~ ~•~••~•~~~ ~••_
ADJA.CENi PROPERTY
&RtCK COLUMN
BRICK WALL
f
-.,~,~.~
~~~~
li j
BORAC Bfi'tCK-
MEDRIM BRC7~
iO ?AA':•::N BLC
6O4AC BRICK
BROJ!!HA'/rN
TO MA:rLi fi; G
CUMBIN vID
8CN?Al BRECK-
Iv>ED~A BRO'r'
TO sAATC4 BLS
~.,'-
,~r
~, .~ d
SIEEC FE'vCE PAINTED
SW-7069 - LRON ORE GRAY
=aRpv~ApE AND
A!AE'a!T!ES BV OTHERS
1'I.:~?`
STF.F!. FENCE PAIN?FD
Sti'y- 7064 - NZON ORf
GRAY
~. ;,.
Ti COk' . .
r.
(~iJ.{ T
ELEVATION
~j1 flandall •Paulsen Architects, Incorporated 95-A Bill Sireei flasrreN. 6eargia 38015 p.1 i 0.65g155B I i 10 650.139 ~Ni n t e r S ~~ r i n ~;s Tc>w n Cc~~ n t e r
~ ~ Florida Registration Number AA•0003196
~1
_a
~~ ;
\~ `~ ,` \,
-~ - ~,
-
\', ,
.mtll(j/r~~ .
/° e" s ~,~
` ~ ~ ~ • l
~: 1 ~ its
i i a~~ --gill
}:
YO . - . .____.. ~ 3.
SITE
sr~E~ =ENCe fl,
SYJ-7069 - gtpt
BCK2al BEM:+~-
htECrUh1 B?;7N
id MATCH BtDc
BOkAI. &`tECK
B?:JO!cHa'vcN
t0 MhSCN B.D(
CUh1Bit•JG nNE
I BOrtAI BRICK
Fr~p1UM Bfl<JYJ~ _
', IC MATCH B;.D6 16
EI.EVAi'lUN
NY
i/ ~ F!I::
~a ,~ t ~
~ ~ ~ a
P1.:1N
ATTACHMENT D
Agenda Item 5 00
May 27, 2008 Special City Commission Meeting
Public Hearing for Aesthetic Review Modification
Wall between Building 17 and Kingsbury Property
Winter Springs Town Center
V
.~
f.1
°~'w-.
_ t 1
is
.,
r
`~,
R
~~
r
aa ~
T
~~ c,, ."
_ L
:~ ~ i
~~~ ~~ ~ .^
.p+
~ g. ~ ~ - aL - S
~ : .y ~:,. ~ ~.^ c
~ V /~
•y'raL. s ham. ~` v~.. ~ a ~y~ ~ ~; ~„
L L
=:,
..._ ._
~'`
ATTACHMENT E
March 13, 2008
STATEMENT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT & AGREEMENT
This letter serves as an acknowledgement and agreement to the placement and installation
of retaining walls and fencing to be located along the Western and Southern most edges
adjacent to our property line.
In keeping with the city installed white fencing adjacent to our property lines along both
Blumberg Ave. and Tuskawilla Rd., we prefer that the continuation of a duplicate or
similar white vinyl picket fence be used for the remaining fencing adjacent to our
property lines.
Respe tfully, ~~ ~
~~ ~~~ ~
Mr. and Mrs. Laverne Kingsbury
150 Tuskawilla Rd.
Winter Springs, FI.32708