HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 07 22 Regular Item D
-.
.. - J
/
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM D
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
July 22. 1996
Meeting
MGR. If hM IDEPT
y
Authorization
REQUEST: City Manager requesting direction from the Commission regarding the financing
of a proposed wall for a buffer between Tuskawilla Road and Oak Forest
neighborhood.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is for the Commission to respond to the request
of the Oak Forest Home Owner's Association request to participate in the
financing of a brick wall to serve as a buffer between the neighborhood and
Tuskawilla Road.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
The four laning of Tuskawilla Road will result in the loss of the current tree and
vegetative buffer between Oak Forest Country Club and Tuskawilla Road.
The homeowner's desire to replace the tree and vegetative buffer with a brick
wall estimated to cost approximately $350,000 or about $58 per linear foot.
The City Manager was asked to work with Mr. Ken Haines of the homeowner's
association to discover alternative measures for financing the wall. In response to
this direction the City Manager has discussed this matter with the City Attorney,
the City's Financial Advisor and the Bond Attorney from Holland and Knight
Supporting the City's Financial Advisor.
Page 1
"
~
ISSUE ANALYSIS:
Issue 1.
Can the City lawfully participate in the financing of the wall if it is to be
the private property of the homeowners or homeowner's association?
Answer:
As determined in the attached letter from the City Attorney, the answer to
this question is clearly, no.
Issue 2.
What other lawful options exist for financing the wall?
Answer:
As demonstrated in the letter from the City's Financial Advisor, Jim Lentz
there are two alternatives as follows:
1)
The City "build" and "maintain" the wall on public property through a
construction and maintenance assessment district made up of the benefited
property owner's of Oak Forest.
The advantages of this approach are as follows:
a) It is lawful.
b) It does not raise the equal protection issue since tax payers not
benefiting from the wall are not being taxed to pay for it.
c) The construction cost can be spread over several years making the
annual payment for construction very small (on average, less that $100
per year).
d) The maintenance district would provide for the perpetual care of the
wall again isolating this cost only to the benefitting property owner's.
The disadvantages of this approach are as follows:
a) The legal and administrative cost involved in putting the district
together.
b) The complexity involved in apportioning the cost in accordance with
the benefit in a defensible manner.
2) The second alternative is for the wall to remain on private property and the City's
financial advisor assisting the property owner's association in arranging its own
independent private financing with a lender.
The advantages of this alternative is that it would not have to meet the legal
requirements of a public benefit districts making it far less complex to organize
and administer.
Page 2
.i' '<!
Issue 3
Answer:
The disadvantage of this approach is that the property owner's association from
our understanding is a volunteer association and as such may not have legal
standing to enter into a debt instrument on behalf of the property owner's.
Could the City make a cash contribution to the public assessment district to
reduce the amount of the assessments to the property owner's?
Yes, however considering the small amount of payments involved on the part of
the homeowner, the question is whether such a contribution would be worth the
political and legal risk that could be raised. If the Commission were to do this for
the Oak Forest residents, it should be prepared to provide any other groups
desiring to build a wall constructed as a buffer to a road in like manner.
Another approach the Commission may want to consider is establishing a
beautification program incentive that would apply equally to all existing
neighborhood's on thoroughfares.
This incentive program would establish a common design theme and
specifications for the entire City, and provide for a % incentive contribution to
neighborhood's that were willing to create an assessment district for roadway
related enhancements that meet City design standards.
There are several advantages to this approach as follows:
1) Everyone is treated the same way as a result of the establishment of a
unilateral policy.
2) The incentive would hopefully result in beautification projects throughout
the City that realize a common design theme throughout the City and
uniform standards.
3) The utilization of general fund revenues for the incentive would be based
upon the premise that, to a certain degree, everyone benefits from the
beautification of our major thoroughfares, while in tandem, assessments
from assessment districts recognizes that these improvements have
specific benefit to certain property.
The disadvantages of this approach are as follows:
1) The City would have to commit to raising general fund revenues to
provide the incentive contribution to all neighborhoods on thoroughfares.
2) The City would have to bare the initial expense of developing common
design theme and specifications, and administering the program.
Page 3
i
Issue 4
Do all of the other neighborhood's along Tuskawilla Road have brick walls
similar to the wall proposed by the homeowner's association?
Answer:
No, some neighborhoods have nothing. Others have only wood slatted fences.
Others have brick and block wall representing various degrees of architectural
quality.
Issue 5
What would the annual cost of the "maintenance" assessment district be to the
homeowner's?
Answer:
This would be difficult to determine at this time. It would be based upon the
renewal and replacement cost calculated by the designer of the wall and the
desired level of maintenance.
A reasonable guess would probably be in the range of $15 per year per property
owner.
In conclusion, it appears that the best alternative is the creation of an improvements and
maintenance public assessment district 100% paid by the homeowner's, of Oak Forest.
FUNDING:
The City would not have out of pocket expenses in the project unless it should choose to
make a cash contribution to the project, or unless it should desire to develop a City wide
program as discussed herein.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) If financing can be arranged through the property owner's association it is recommended
that the Commission direct the City Manager and City Financial Advisor to work with
the property owner's association in structuring a private financial instrument to construct
the wall.
2-A) If financing cannot be arranged through the property owner's association it is
recommended that the Commission authorize the creation of an improvement and
perpetual maintenance assessment district to construct and maintain the wall paid for by
the property owner's of Oak Forest contingent upon the following conditions:
a) That 51% or more of the property owner's agree to the assessment district as
evidenced through an informal mail ballot, and
b) that all property owner's abutting the road will agree to convey the necessary
right of way to construct and maintain the wall.
2-B) If the assessment district is chosen, it is recommended that the Commission not make a
cash contribution to the project unless it is willing to establish a unilateral policy that
would apply equally to every neighborhood in like manner.
Page 4
~
IMPLEMENTA nON SCHEDULE:
"
The district could be put together and validated in four to six month's.
Construction would probably take approximately 30 days.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) July 5, 1996 Memo from City Financial Director, Jim Lentz
2) July 15, 1996 Letter from City Attorney, Frank Kruppenbacher
COMMISSION ACTION:
Page 5
. JUu.15.1996 12: 17PM
NO. 542 P.2/4
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 5, 1996
TO:
Ron McLemore
FROM:
Jim Lentz
SUBJECT:
Wall at Tuscawilla (Project)
Thank you for showing me the site of the proposed project You
requested I examine the financial impact of this project, ways to imance
it, and provide a recommendation of the best alternative. I have listed
the three options YOD have in order of least favorable to most favorable.
Option A: City finances project with general funds of the City.
Ontion B: City creates assessment district to f"mance project and issue
tax-exempt bonds.
Option C: Homeowners finance, construct, and own !project.
Option A: City finances project with general funds of the City.
1. The Don-ad valorem financial resources of the City are limited,
thereby an increase in ad valorem taxes would be necessary to offset
the cost of the project. If an increase in taxes are necessary, then the
question is, would this, project be approved by a City wide
referendum? In view of voters current predisposition to vote down
requests for tax increases, we think passage is unlikely. Also,
referendums are not cheap.
,.
'JUL~15.1996 12:18PM
NO. 542 P.3/4
2. Moving in this direction sets a precedent in which the City puts itself
in a position of having to mitigate' the impact of all such road
additions, extensions, or improvements at the City's eIpense.
3. City would have to acquire right of way for wall.
4. City would be responsible for maintenance of the wall.
Conclusion: Least favorable, for reasons outlined in above. H you
attempted this option and the referendum failed, City Council members
may find they have paid a significant political price for the failure on
both sides of the issue.
Option B: City creates assessment district to finance project and issue
tax-exempt bonds.
1. City would have to acquire right of way for wall.
2. City would independently assess the impact to each homeowner.
The reasons for the project is two-fold, aesthetic and noise
abatement. Homes that are further away from the project would be
impacted less than those closer to the project. I would think the City
would be in the uncomfortable position of making such
determinations.
3. City would be responsible for maintenance of the wall.
4. Project cost would be increased for independent assessment impact,
bond counsel and my fee's. Since the issue would be smaIJ, those
expenses would be very high, thereby eliminating most of the tax-
exempt financing benefit.
Conclusion: This option is doable and eliminates most of the financial
burden on the City, however, adds cost to the project and requires city
participation in all phases. Again, however, the project may extract a
heavy political price.
'lliL,15.1996 12:18PM
NO. 542 P.4/4
Option C: Homeowners finance, construct, and own project.
Homeowners in affected area decide the following items:
· Do they want the project?
. Size and scope of project.
· Cost allocations within effected area, if any.
. Type of Homeowners Association Assessment they would prefer -
one to five year assessment.
Conclusion and Recommendations:
This option provides the homeowners with the most control over the
project and City involvement is limited to providing cooperation to the
Homeowners Association.
The project cost approximately $300~OOO and assuming all homeowners
are affected equally, the one time assessment for each homeowner is
$300 or $25 per month for one year. Should the homeowners elect to
pay over a fIVe year period, then the annual cost would be $80 per year
or less than $7 per month. It is my opinion banles would be very
interested in providing the financing to the Homeowners Association. I
would be pleased to provide contracts at those banks if the homeowners
would like.
Should you have any questions, please let me I(BOW.
JUL 15 · 95 04: 04PM KRUPPENBACHER & ASSC
P.2/2
Law Offices
KRUPPENBACHER & ASSOCIATES
A Professional Association
Frank Kroppenbacber
340 North Orange Avenue
P.o. Box 3471
Orlando, Florida 32802~3471
Telephone (407) 246-0200
Facsimile (401) 426.7767
July 15, 1996
VIA~aCSlMILE
Ronald W. McLemore
City Manager
City of Winter Springs
1126 East S.R 434
Wmter Springs, FL 32708
Dear Ron:
Per your request, the following opinion is rendered:
Based upon the facts you presented, I do think: it legally inappropriate for the City to expend
public dollars for the erection of a wall on private property_
Should you have any other questions, please let me know.
~
Fr?:!16
Signed in Mr. Kruppenbllcher's absence
to avoid delay in mailing
FCK:lmc
Oak Forest Homeowner's Association, Inc.
Of Winter Springs
P.O. Box 3574
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
July 15, 1996
Dear Mayor and Commission:
As you are aware the Oak Forest Homeowners Association is seeking support from
the City Commission in forming a partnership with the homeowners of Oak Forest
to construct a brick wall along our subdivision. This is necessary due to the
scheduled destruction of the natural buffer currently protecting the community and
residents along the road.
The Association has worked hard over the past six months at the direction of the
Commission to gain community support for this project. We feel the homeowners are
willing and eager to do our share in seeing this project move forward. But we need
your help.
Enclosed for your consideration are three estimates at today's prices to construct a
brick wall in front of the Oak Forest subdivision, along with results of preliminary
discussions with the County to vacate their right-of-way to make room for the wall. I
also included a letter which was sent to all the property owners in Oak Forest back
in early February of this year.
Thank you in advance. I will see you on Monday night.
7~~
.,
Oak Forest ~omeowner's Association, Inc.
of Winter Springs
P.O. Box 3574
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
February 8, 1996
Dear Oak Forest Property Owner:
As you may already know, the County has begun the widening of Tuskawilla Road
south of Red Bug Road and within the next few years will be widening in front of
our own community. As a property owner whose back yard borders the road, you
need to be concerned as this project approaches for a couple of reasons. First of all,
the existing natural barrier protecting the rear of your homes will be destroyed to
make room for the two south bound lanes. This will leave the rear of your property
virtually just a few feet away from the road. Picture for a moment, a four lane
highway with cars traveling at speeds between 45 and 55 mph that close to your
property line. For those with young children playing innocently in the backyard,
their safety could be at risk from veering automobiles.
Secondly, the Board has contacted numerous property appraisers and Realtors in
the area who have conceded that property values may fall as much as 10 percent
when the natural barrier is removed, leaving the rears of homes exposed to the
roadway. Eventually we will see an assortment of fences and other barriers
constructed by homeowners to protect their property. This will not be a pretty
picture.
Don't misunderstand, this letter is not intended as a scare tactic by the Oak Forest
Homeowners Association. These concerns are real. As property owners whose homes
abut Tuskawilla Road, you stand to lose the most. I haye been fighting this
widening project since its inception four years ago. I plan to continue until we find
an amicable solution for all Oak Forest residents.
Other OFHA Board members and I have been communicating with our City
Commission regarding this dilemma and have looked to them for help and support.
A solution to our problem would be to construct a brick wall along Oak Forest
boundaries protecting you from motor vehicles and decreasing property values.
This, if it was to happen would be an enormous undertaking to accomplish. We have
already looked to Seminole County for help for which we were denied, and are now
looking to the City and Oak Forest residents for their support.
Page 1
/~
~
.,;
You, as a property owner along the road, hold the key to getting this project ofT and
running. You see, if this wall is to be built, you would be required to grant an
easement along your rear property line for the construction and maintenance of the
wall. This would be necessary mainly because the wall could not be constructed on
County property.
If all homeowners along the road were to approve, the next step would be to try for
joint funding between the City of Winter Springs and all property owners in Oak
Forest. Of course, all of this would need approval from the City Commission and
property owners via a referendum vote to tax ourselves for a specified period of time
to raise the funds necessary to build the wall. These are just a couple of many
hurdles to overcome if we are to move forward.
I am confident that the majority of property owners in Oak Forest will realize the
need for the wall, and the benefits it would bring for all property owners in Oak
Forest. The Association's goals and responsibilities are to look out for it's residents,
keep our community safe, enjoyable, and an attractive place to live.
This letter is intended to alert you on this impending crisis. Please call or write me,
or any other OFHA board member regarding this issue. I can be reached at home in
the evenings at 695-7907. My address is 1115 Aloha CT. You can also reach me on
the internet - (k haines@ aoI.com ). Please, we need to know your thoughts, opinions
and where you stand on this issue. The clock is ticking and time is running out. We
must get moving now.
7[el~
Ken Haines
O.F.H.A Director
cc: O.F.H.A Board of Directors
Mayor Bush
City Commission
City Manager
Page 2 of2
PROPOSAUCONTRACTAGAEEMENT
MARTIN BRICK COMPANY
325 NORTH STREET
LONGWOOO,FLORIDA 32707
(407) e31-1 050
To: RUSS ROBBINS Do\~: 6/26/96
OAK FORREST
TUSKAWlLLA RD, Job N o.rn4: OAK FORREST
699-5916
LOCMion: TUSKAWlLLA
AlIn: TOM PnOM.: FAX 695-0607
Wo hU4by 5ubmit llpocifit(ltj()n~ o.nd e"irnCltu fo,:
o.u ontity
U/M
Dt~crjp1io,.
Unit Prico
e.xtQI'\~jo~
6130
L. FT.
BID ON 6 FT. HIGH WALL WITH FOOTER
$385,220.00
COLUMNS EVERY 20 FT.
INCLUDES TWO eNTRANCE WALLS DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED.
FOOTER SIZE 36" BY 10" WITH 3 # 5 REBAR
LABOR AND MATRERIAlS
totol
$385,220.00
Ail rnotHlo.l i~ guotdntood to boll 0., ,pecif!od. ..II work to bo .:omplatld ill CI wo;>,k/l'lc"lik~ m~tlnU "r;'c>'ding 10 ,"or.do,cI p'Clctic"~,
A'lY <l/tuoticl'l!! 0, at.vio.tion f,om above 'pf.citicotion, will b4 tUtuto d cnly UpOI'l w,itttn 0,du5 Md will boc~mo 0.1'1 utro. d<:lrgq.
Ollt r Md I1bollt tho utimolt. All Oog,umllnU cI:>ntigtnt upon 5tril;u, olccidlln\5, or Otlo.y: b~yond our tootlol, Ownu to co.rry fi".
tornado o.nd 011111 n.oclI~l1ry In~UrQl"lc.o, Our WQ,ku~ o.r. iu!:')' ~Qvlflld byWark""5 Corr,plln~Ootlo" tnsu,o.nc<I,
Tnj~ PropMol i:!l contigtfll upOll o.cc4pto.blt o.l'Id YlI.rifio.blt ~tQj4ct fi 110.11 eillg. ~
NOTE: Thi, prOJ='05o.1 mo.y be wjt~,dto.wn by U5 if
n01 6CCII~II.s within Hli,ty(30) dOo')", Suilmilud by: .
RUSS PICAFlC
PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN ORIGINAL UPON ACCEPTANCE.
uPON EXECUTION OF THS PROPOSAL THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES A CONTRACT.
The Qbcwll!l,icu',5Plldfito.tio,.~ o.nd conditio"" 0.,'11. ,c,lisacto"j o."d a.'\1 hU<lby acr.opt<ld, You 0.'\1 tlulllo.i:uclto dl) tile
wcwk 'pAdfilld, MQPlthly progru5 po.ymonl5 ,hall bll dUll on the until fo.l 0.11 WClrk occompli,h~d in tile "roviou5 month, including
0.11 ~Olt<ll r1'\a'triClI5. r:ino.l poymlln1 dLlIl Llpon complotion, In tht tvtfll tilt Clmount hUt,i" ,,!I~r, ;:!l:'lot po.id
when dUll, il'ltelu' o.t the nighut Clt till. highut logol rOoIO PI( o.l'Inum 5ho.II accumulo.te 01'1 'n.o toul :lUI..
All co:=u of collcctioll 5ho.II bl paid by tn. cu5tomtr including rlo.,cl'Io.blt 0."0,1\41.)1 loOn.
AC<:tp1td by Cli I 1'\1
A'Jtho.rizod Si9flo.t'.lrt: Da.tt:
ACClpttd by Mo.r1in B,ick Compo.r.y
Auiholiud Signo.tu,l1.: DMII:
R(;'botr~ D. ~~.~!1! CHM/CEQ
51:60 96. 9c Nnf
c0d [08
'0) >Dld13 HI1CJl:lW 0St9tZZW!7
JUH-20-1996 09:29
699 2181 P.02
,JUNE 20, 1996
PROPOSAL
GHJ CONSTRUCTION, INC.
P.O. BOX 62105~1
OVIEDO, FL 32762-1055
(407) 699-2181
:TO: OAK FOREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
C/O TOM PETRONIO
PROJECT: OAK FOREST/
RECONSTRUCTION OF
PER~METER SUBDIVISION
WALL
THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR ~1ATERIAL AND LABOR TO CONSTRUCT
A BRICK WALL ~.ND FOQTEF AS PER SPECIFICATIONS BELOW:
WALL DETAIL:
-7' HIGH ABOVE FOOTER
-1 COURSE/6" BLOCK, 21 COURSES/6" BRICK, 1 COURSE/ROWLOCK
-~5 VERTICAL REa~/4' a.c. IN WALL
'-PILASTERS/I' SQ.-60'O.C.-WITH 1/#5 REBAR, ON THE BACK OF
WALL
-1'6" SQUARE COLUMNS 60' O.C., WITH 1/#5, AND A ST~~DARD
BRICK CAP
-2'SQU~RE COL~~S WITH STANDAP.D CAP 250' O.C. +/-
,-DURAL WIRE EVERY OTH~R COURSE
-BUFF MORTAR Te BE USED
'-FOOTER/2'6" WIDE-I' DEEP, WITH 3/#') REBAR
MATERIAL AND LAEOR/WF~L,FOOTER & ENTRANCEWAY..$ 57.99 L.F
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN ABOVE LINEAR FOOT
PRICE. (FIGURED ON APPROX. 6000 L.F. T/-)
TRASH REMOVAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ',' . . . . .. $ 4,500.00
.Z\C! D WA.SH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .. $ 7 , 200. 00
,CONCRETE p~~p / COLt~S .............. ... $1,900.00
PERMI T S ................................. $1, 800 . 00
,THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PROPOSAL.
COMPACTION TESTS IF NEEDED, SURVEYS, PLANS, SIDEWALK,
LANDSC~PING, SIGNS, WATER METER, ELECTRICAL WQRK, SOD,
CONCRETE PlmF FOR FOOTER, TRACTOR WORK TO BACKFILL FOOTER
AFT~R WALL I~ COMPLETED OR TP~ING DOWN OF ~XIST!NG FENCE.
1P 3 ~~JOO 0
,
~'frAA- s J ~ 0 0 0
(J 37D,ooo
~
.
LEMIEUX.: INCORPORATED
1'10' 'lradewinds Rd.
Winte.r Springsj n. 32708
Phone: 695-2307
JOB Wall DATE May 20, 1996
LOCATION Oak Forest
FIRM Oak Forest Homeowner Assoc. ~ ATl'N. Russell Robins - Phone 699-5816
ADDRESS 1009 Sapling Drive, Winter Springs, Fl. 32'708
CLASS
OF WORK
- c - -- -._~-
TYPE OF WORK AMOUNT OF BID
Labor and materials to complete approximately 6,130 ft x 50.89 per
foot of a 6' wall according to plans and. s pecifica. tions per at ta.chlllents $311,965.'71
**THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE AN ENTRANCE WALL FFATURE, SURVEY AND LAND**
**CLEARING AND PERMITS**PRICES GOOD ONLY THROUGH
MATERIALS AMOUNT OF BID
--
- -
BID AMOUNT
DATE SUBMITTED: May 20, 1996 TAXES
SUBMITTED BY: Lemieux, Inc. TOTAL BID
RECEIPT OF PAYMENT
MEMO A1'1N 'T REC' D BALANCE DUE
RECEIVED BY: DATE:
-
.!='ROI'1 ! ~
PHOt ~E t lCi.
Jun. 14 1996 0.2: .27P!'1 ~3
.p. '
KEKORANDUM
1'"::"\ r-"" jr;;) r.::rn n n r? f":\
I n Ii r 1....1 rut: H :1 J-LO I
Il~r-- ill.
I 1)1 III i
1 nl MAY 3118gb 1111
h. JJUn ; ;.
LJOC:!o L.:J!.l U t.:l L:/
Hay 30. 1996
SUBJECT:
Commissioner Pat. Warren, District 1
Jerry M~Collum, P.E., Coun~y Enginee~
Tuskawilla Road Project - Phase IV ~
Oak Forest Subdivisi.l:)n - Wall ~11th1n County R1ght..of.~;ay
~-----------_.-~~----_.
TO:
FROl-i:
------.--.--.--.--.................--.-
.......__._0'-'-"--
The following information is being provide~ in writ.ing indicating what
act.i.ons could. occur wi thin the County' S r1~ht-of-way in relationship t.o the
res1den'ts of oak Forest Subdivision using this area for the eonstruetion of a
wall. Pursuant to our discussions. the followinq are highliqh~ of our
discussionsl
1. From the Grand Reserve $ubdi vision that was recently constructed
northward through the Oak Forest Subdivision, . the wall eould be
located within 'the County's right-of-way. A small exception would be
in ~e area of the first five housas no~ of Trotwood Boulevard due
to the tight.ne~s of the right.-of..way at this point. the reason \~e
ean do this is that: (A) an old d~dioation of right-af-way existS
from Oak ForelSt Subdivision to the County; dnd (2) at. the Public
Hearing for the 'l'Uska\-1illa Road Projee~ - phase IV. we vzere
instructed to retain as many trees a$ po~~1ble; therefCI~. there is
a lar~e area that will not be dis-r.urbed by the County. Also. wi thin
this section, there is an appro5fimat.e eight to ten foot cleared a!:ea
with power poles looat.ed adjac:ent to the right-of-way line. It
should be noted that the right-af-way south of the Grand Reserve
Subdivision is too narro'\-t to have the \'1all placed on the Count.y
right.-of-way.
2. In order t.o allow the wall tQ be located \Yi.thin our ri9ht-of-~Y. the
wall design would have to accormnodate the power poles. As we
discussed, the wall could be constructed on tha Coun~Y right-af-wav
adjacent to the property line (wj.thin a. distance of approxima1:.ely two
feet) . There would have t.o be appt'O~i.matelY 3 foot cut-outs in the
wall on each side of the util~tY poles. Atta~hed is a rough sket.ch
showing the concept of the location of t.'1e wall and the cut..outs
necessary for th~ poles.
I . ~ __" .
.~
?P.
Commissioner Pat Wa~ren. District 1
Tuskaw111a Road Project - Phase IV
Oak Forest Subdivision - Wall within county Righ~-of.WaY
May 30. 1996
Page 2
I wouldsuqgest that Eng1neering Division staff contact representatives from
the city of Winter Springs and find ou~ exactly what plans (type of design) they
are consid~ring for the wall in this area. By coordinating this item. ~.,e will be
able to aseertain .the actual amount of area needed for const.rUction of the wall.
Once this has been aCC:Otllplished. I would recommend we consider vacatinq a small 11.Ift?
portion (approximatelY two feet) of the County's right...of-way to the pP'~' .1Y P '"', I
owners adjacent to the wall so the wall woulci lie upon pr1vaee property as opposed
to public propart.y. Also, as '(ole ciiscussed. cooperating with the residents and
.epresentat.i ves from the City of Winter Springs would in no way imply that the
County would assume any maintenance for the wall.
I trust this information refl~c~s the overall con~ent of our conversations
and I oelieve we CGl.n 'ifork with the residQnts and representa:t:.ives of the Cit.y of
Winter Springs to successfully accomplish this project. If you have any
qu~6tions. please feel free to con~ac~ me.
J1-11 dr
Attachment (sketch)
cc: Ron H. Rabun. County Manaqer
Lonnie N. Groot. Deputy County At.t.orney
John C. Moore. Jr.. Production Manager (Major FrojectS)
Jerry Matthews. project Manager
I')
U.
E
[L
(\J
c.)
..
'f
\Sl
W
m
1J1
<-l
'f
<-l
C
::l
.,
(\J
0J
'f
W
W
I,D
1'1
r-
\Sl
'f
o
z
w
6
I
[L
z
W
llC
llC
([
:3
f-
'I
[L
llC
\!J
o
(I)
CO ,
~
U
E It
[! .
LL
C0
G)
'\
y......c
""
o
o
J
... u.... I 'o~htJ: ~
- . iP
~.., ~-~ 0 '
I...., ~- ......:.\\ ~
,
"
I
i
;
,
1
-
:~
r \' .~..' c:; \.., "'" ~(' )
'<1
""
r.
" z
c oe::. - ...... .. T v' )c.'
.t-C>o '" "'''''''<JoJV
P.uv0 ~<: "._-.6'-
"--
P \ C-
V \' C vJ
-----
H .. ~ ,.c .. (lO~
:'R () VJ
<)
N
A
R()vJ
h.~~
L.....~ ____-
r..> ~))J i \O?) i,) f)
J") _ ..
C"..&- ''''-<'~J
<:: ..-'
R .).. .
'-.:,,-. I
\ ' .--/
"\ t!(0
2 {oo1' \' \.. ! \/':
ro# v....\1 :( l'
. ; .
i : i
: !
(f~ ~:
-j
s~c,,':v-
A-A
~_=.l
\: ~ d . _. _ \ \<
l~--k :-:-j ...h /
~
(
A
~..\r)
f t>..."..J (' 'i'
~()'-.J ,-,--.....t
o U)l i 'ii tOJ llU.!.!J '
w..II '( ,
()) {\ fC' v '....".. .. , (' ".,
3 '1 '< e ~ t:.. c l..
').~~ 0+ fU'~
~~~".c, \.N..I'
c:..,- he..:),,,,
r II \... ~ v...J C. \ ,
~ -- ~ c,.... -\