Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 04 05 City Response to Schrimsher Letter Re: Agreement dated June 26, 2000 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA �� ,l�orynrat�d 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS,FLORIDA 32708-2799 OR1DP TELEPHONE:(407)327-1800 FACSIMILE:(407)327-4753 WEBSITE:www.winterspringsfl.org April 5, 2021 Michael Schrimsher 600 East Colonial Drive, Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32803 Re: Response to your February 26, 2021 Letter Agreement dated June 26, 2000 Dear Mr. Schrimsher: I am responding to your letter dated February 26, 2021 ('Letter'), which addresses the agreement dated June 26, 2000 between the City and several Schrimsher land fund entities ("Schrimsher"). That agreement is referenced in a short form memorandum which was recorded on January 8, 2001, in the Official Records Book 3988, Page 1063, Public Records of Seminole County, Florida. ("Agreement"), In the Letter, Schrimsher asserts that the City is in default of the Agreement and that some action plan is required by the City to cure the City's default. For the reasons explained below, the City respectfully disagrees with that assertion. In short,the City is not in default. Notwithstanding, I invite you to meet with me, the Community Development Director, and the City Attorney to discuss your concerns at a mutually convenient time. Before explaining why the City is not in default, it is worth noting that since the time that the Agreement was executed by the parties, Schrimsher sold and transferred much of the Schrimsher Property covered by the Agreement("Property')_ After the transfers occurred, third parties "stood in the shoes" of Schrimsher to effectuate the terms and conditions of the Agreement. These third parties obtained various development permits from the City and successfully developed projects on the transferred properties,such as the Winter Springs Village, Blake Apartments, Starbucks, Chase Bank, Dreamfinders Townhomes, Wendys,and Hawthorn Senior Living. The City recognizes that as of March 2021, however, Schrimsher still retains ownership of several undeveloped parcels of Property subject to the Agreement which are located north and south of State Road 434 and east of Tuskawilla Road ("Remaining Property"). With respect to the Remaining Property,the City intends to continue to honor the Agreement to the extent still applicable, and will process any development permit applications in a manner similar to the applications that have previously been submitted by the third parties for the above mentioned projects. In response to the statements and assertions contained in the Letter regarding the City's purported default, the City asserts as follows: M. Schrimsher April 5, 2021 Page 2 1, Article IV(e) of the Agreement provides that except for the conveyances described in Article IV, "Schrimsher shall have no further obligation to convey to the City any property for park, open space or green space purposes." In accordance with that requirement, the City has neither required nor requested that Schrimsher convey any of the Remaining Property for park, open space, or green space purposes. You claim that the City's tree ordinance renders wooded lots in the Town Center undevelopable and constitutes an administrative taking of private property. This claim, however, is not based on any relevant development permit application affecting the Remaining Property and is pure speculation unsupported by any facts or legal authority. In fact, based on recent tree removal activities on other properties within and outside the Town Center, which have been permitted by the City, the facts would lead one to the opposite conclusion that the City's tree ordinance has not rendered wooded lots undevelopable. 2. Your Letter quotes Article V, which generally provides that the City would extend and connect (i.e., "stub in") City "water distribution and sewer collection facilities" to the boundaries of the Property, but does not indicate that the City has failed to perform this obligation. By highlighting in bold existing language about"sufficient capacity"to accommodate and guarantee level of service,Schrimsher seems to be suggesting that"comments made by City staff and elected officials calls into question whether the City intends to honor these commitments." Schrimsher does not, however, reference any specific comments or provide any facts that call into question whether "water distribution and sewer collection facilities" do not have sufficient capacity to service the Property These facilities do have sufficient capacity despite your suggestion to the contrary. Further, as you aware,the City diligently pursued the installation of a water main and gravity sewer main with stub-outs along the eastern side of Tuskawilla Road north of SR 434 in 2002. During that time period, the City also installed a sewer force main beginning at the southeast corner of the Property (currently near the Cross-Seminole Bridge), These water and sewer stub-ins satisfied the City's commitment under the Agreement and have already been utilized by the City to provide water and sewer service to developed portions of the Property that Schrimsher transferred to third parties. These facilities have additional capacity to service the Remaining Property. Therefore, the City is not in default of Article V of the Agreement. 3. Schrimsher also asserts that a Master Stormwater Permit for the Town Center"never occurred." To the contrary, the SJRWMD permit file does contain a narrative related to the Winter Springs Town Center Master Storm System which was designed to maximize the use of existing facilities which would allow commercial development to occur in the west basin. Furthermore, as the Schrimsher Property has been transferred and developed by third parties,the City worked with these third parties to require a series of master ponds to accommodate stormwater, including the eastern most ponds near the Cross Seminole Trail. 4. The Agreement addresses the City,at its expense,designing, permitting and constructing Spine Road (now known as "Michael Blake Boulevard") and Spine Road Utilities. Your Letter infers that this City commitment also applies to Spine Road constructed by Schrimsher and Hawthorn south of State Road 434. However, as you should be aware, the City's Spine Road commitment only applies to the portion of the road constructed north of State Road 434based on the definition of Spine Road and the Exhibit "A" M. Schrimsher April 5, 2021 Page 3 Map contained in the Agreement. When you raised this point over five (5) years ago, the City's position on this point was expressed by the City Attorney in an email dated November 2, 2015, to your attorney, Mickey Grindstaff. Notwithstanding,the City will consider at the appropriate time granting transportation impact fee credits for Spine Road south of State Road 434 under existing City general policy applicable to collector roads. 5. Your Letter indicates that periodic review under Article XIX has never occurred, but the City has pursued amendments to the Town Center District Code and that this does not reflect cooperation by the City with Schrimsher. Despite this assertion, I believe it would suffice to say that over the past twenty years,the record will support that numerous City representatives have discussed with you, both in-person and by phone, the Town Center and your property holdings located within the City of Winter Springs. Additionally, you have personally attended numerous City Commission meetings during this time period and have had many opportunities to express your views about the Town Center and other issues as well. The City remains willing to cooperate and meet with you in good faith to discuss the progress made under the Agreement at a mutually convenient time. As stated at the beginning of this letter, I invite you to attend a meeting with me, the Community Development Director, and the City Attorney to discuss the concerns expressed in your Letter. Much of the remaining statements contained in your Letter do not seem to declare a default of any kind. Rather, these statements contain references to other sections or exhibits of the Agreement, and seem to be more akin to personal commentary about how the Town Center has developed during the past 20 years. The statements do not specifically articulate a default of the Agreement by the City, and therefore, I do not believe it is necessary to address them in this letter. With that said, again, I would be happy to discuss your concerns with you at a mutually convenient time. I look forward to meeting with you in the near future to discuss your concerns about the Agreement and the Town Center. At your earliest convenience, please provide me with several proposed dates for the meeting so it can be coordinated and scheduled at a time that will be convenient for you, the Community Development Director, the City Attorney, and me. Sincerely, Shawn Boy e City Manager cc: City Commission Anthony Garganese, City Attorney Christopher Schmidt, Community Development Director