The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999 01 13 Other COMMISSION AGENDA TOWN CENTER WORKSHOP Consent Informational Public Hearing Regular X January 13. 1999 Meeting MGR ~VDEPT Authorization PURPOSE: The purpose of this workshop is to allow the property owner/owners the opportunity to present their concerns with the proposed Town Center District code. CONSIDERATION: The City proposes to adopt the Winter Springs Town Center District Code and Town Center District Boundary to implement the City's desire to have a Town Center as defined in the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Volume 2 of 2, Goal 1, Objective A, Policy 3C of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The property owner has expressed concerns that the staff and consultants have not been responsive to their concerns and objections related to the provisions of the proposed plan and code, that the Commission is not adequately informed of the property owners concerns and objections to the code, and that the code as written will, in fact, decrease the value of their property compensable under the Bert Harris Property Rights Act of 1995, Chapter 70 Florida Statutes. Relatedly, Schrimsher Properties has employed the services of Shutts and Bowen L.L.P. to represent their interest. Michael Grindstaff Jr. of the Shutts and Bower Firm represents Schrimsher Properties. Mr. Grindstaff and Schrimsher have acknowledged their intent to pursue their rights under the Bert Harris Act if the concerns are not resolved to their satisfaction. At the direction of the Commission, staff and the City's consultants have met with representatives of Schrimsher Properties to consider alternatives for addressing Schrimsher Properties concerns. Based upon staffs assessment of the information to date, staff believes that the code as proposed is flexible enough to address the concerns of the property owners as specific projects are proposed. The Commission will need to address the final boundaries of the district. February 3, 1999 is the deadline for submitting our application for Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the summer cycle. The next cycle begins August 1999. In order for the Commission to be able to meet the February 3, 1999 deadline the Commission will need to formally authorize staff to prepare a Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment for transmittal to the D.C.A. at the January 25, 1999 meeting. Adoption of the code is not required for submittal of the plan amendment. POLICY ISSUES: Staff intends to request the Commission to proceed with first reading of the code at the January 25, 1999 and to authorize the staff to initiate a Large Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate the provisions of the Town Center Code and Map. There are two issues the Commission needs to decide relative to that proposed Commission action recommended by staff. 1. Does the Commission find a need to amend any provision of the code, if so what? 2. Does the Commission find a need to amend the Town Center boundary, if so what? WORKSHOP OUTLINE: The following outline is recommended for the Workshop: A. Convene Workshop. B. Overview by staff. C. Presentation by property owner. D. Presentation by staff. 1. Response to property owner issues with the code. 2. Common area acquisition. a) Wetlands b) Other 3. Trail realignment. 4. Development Agreement. E. Commission Questions. F. Public Comments. G. Adjournment. RECOMMENDA liON: 1. The Commission follow the recommended agenda. 2. The Commission hear from property owners, staff, public. 3. The Commission provide staff with any direction it deems appropriate. ,I '- CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 WORKSHOP AGENDA CITY COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1999 - 6:30 P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS I. Call to Order Roll Call II. Discussion on Town Center District Code III. Adjournment. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact the Employee Relations Department ADA Coordinator, 48 hours in advance of the meeting at (407) 327-1800. Persons are advised that if they decide to appeal any decision made at these meetingslhearings they will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose, they may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Section 286.0105 Florida Statutes. Ronald W. McLemore City Manager To: From: Date: Re: CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Memorandmn Mayor and Commission Ron McLemore, City Manager /~ 01/11/99 Schrimsher Town Center Workshop Attached are copies of two memorandums from Victor Dover relative to the scheduled workshop with Town Center landowners. It is important that you read these documents very closely to prior to the workshop. I think you will find they address many of the concerns that are going to be presented to you by Schrimsher and his attorney. I think by the time the workshop is complete you will be quite comfortable with the proposed Town Center Code. ~p Attachment , i ".\ 1 DOVER. KOHL & PARTNERS l " oN n P':.l" n i n J(. ~JEiCEllWlE1I] DEe l 9 \996 Memorandum CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS City Manager From: Ron McLemore, City Manager Charles Carrington, AICP, Planning Director Bob Guthrie, City Attorney ~ Victor Dover AICP To: . , Date: December 28, 1998 Subject: Fact Sheet, Winter Springs Town Center Code Via Fax: 7 pages original by mail Attached please find a fact sheet, per yourrequest, regarding the Town Center Code. I have also attached some thoughts regarding prevailing myths that seem to continually crop up regarding the Plan and Code. Perhaps you will find this useful. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. I am looking forward to seeing you next on January 13th. . . Fact Sheet Winter Springs Town Center District Code December 28, L 998 Proposed ordinance creates a new zoning district. the Town Center District. controlled by Town Center District Design Code Implements concepts in the Winter Springs Town Center Master Plan Master Plan was generated with extensive public involvement in winter 1998 Master Plan was adopted by City Council in spring 1998 Affects an area radiating out from the intersection of Tuskawilla Road and SR 434 Increased emphasis on building design and placement of buildings upon their lots Dccreased cmphasis on land use controls; liberalizcs permitted dcnsities and intensities as compared to current zon ing Objectives include creating a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, "the Heart of Winter Springs" Devised so as to permit orderly annexation of county enclaves when appropriate Master Plan features interconnected serics of public parks, preserves and open spaces and realigned Trail Master Plan features interconnected network of streets, of varied type and character Proposed Code establishes design standards for the various streets and parks. and requirements for developmcnt of buildings along those various streets and parks Proposed ordinance delegates authority for approval of most projects to the Development Review Committee (DRC), a staff committee charged with expediting permits for compliant projects Proposed Code creates clear "pre-approved" standards for architects and developers to follow, but also provides broad latitude to ORe to either waive standards or make stricter standards. as it deems appropriate on a case-by-case, site-by-site basis Proposed Code creates mechanism for Special Exceptions, for projects which are denied by the DRC or determined to be noncompliant. and for certain rare cases, sllch as larger-footprint buildings Proposed Codt: directs Special Exception applications to the City Council for review at public hearing , ,. Myths and Realities about the Winter Springs Town Center Master Plan and Code Myth I: Reality: !'vlytll 2: R~ality: M"th 3: Reality: "This is a hig experiment." To he sure, the Master Plan does not advocate more conventional suburban sprawl for this area. However, the traditional town planning concepts the underlay the Plan and Code have been field-tested for more than 5000 years, (By contrast, conventional strip shopping center sprawl is a relatively new invention, with a poor track record and few fans among the Winter Springs homeowners associations' leaders who spoke to us.) The basic design principles in the ma.c;;ter plan match hundreds of settlements in Florida alone, including all old and new downtowns cherished by their citizens. Older examples include Winter Park, Key West and Mount Dora. New examples include Celebration and Mizner Park. More examples are on the way, including the Orlando Naval Training Center. "The DRC will have too much power, and they'll Tell everyhody what colnr their doorknoh has to he. " The ORe will be comprised of reasonable professional people who will be quite aware that they will be held accountable for their decisions. The ORC staff will expedite approvals and will be technically savvy, as compared to a citizen- appointee board that would meet only occasionally and would tend to be less sophisticated and more political. "TI,e frontop,e road is an unreasonable, wide laking of privute prope rl y for a purely puhlic !nupase." Assuming there will be buildings built up to the front of their lots along SR434 as depicted in the Master Plan and required by the Code. the frontage road would accomplish both private and public goals. For the private property owner the frontage road would create some onstreet parking at the front door of these buildings, which in Ollr experience is important to tenants even when the rest of the parking is behind. The frontage road can also be interrupted by more frequent intersections. and more driveway curb cuts, than are allowed on a conventional state high\vay. The improved access and upfront parking are enhancements to the de.velopable property. not hindrances. t'vlvfh 4: Reality: Remember that the frontage road will be sized and will act in much the same way as the drive aisles and fire lanes in a conventional parking lot, which the dcvelopers would have to create on their own under any current code scenario. Remember also that the width of the median between the through-lanes and the frontage road has not been determined, so it could be quite small, provided there is room to plant a row of shade trees. Taken together the frontage road lane (12'), wide sidewalk (12'), onstreet parking (16'), and median (say, 20' wide) could total as little as sixty feet, maybe less. But the proposed ordinance eliminates the current tifty foot setback requirement, and the frontage road creates a needed drive aisle to boot. This more than offsets all of the land cost associated with the frontage road. Therefore to call this circulation element a "taking" is absurd on its face. The public objectives of good traffic circulation and regional mobility are furthered by a frontage road, to be sure. Frontage roads allow some local trips to circulate slowly on the side, out of the way of longer distance travellers or those making regional"through-trips." This is one way to direct development into a less mHo-oriented, downtown-type environment without compromising SR 434's regional purpose. The frontage road is one piece of a larger system. the boulevard. Examples worldwide (all the way up to the sixteen-lane Champs-Elysees in Paris) illustrate how this kind of boulevard can support sustained high property values and crcate signature business addresses within a walkable, pedestrian-oriented community. Note that in these examples the buildings are almost always multi-use, multi-story buildings set forward on their lots. Also note that an exception can be made for a grocery store to have its parking in front, as is discussed in some detail in both the Plan and Code. The objection to the frontage road is therefore a smokescreen, masking the real obje.ction to the build-to-line. "Tfle fronwge road will harm visibility for businesses along SR 434." If the build-to-line concept is followed, the multi-story buildings along the frontage road parallel to SR 434 will have outstanding exposure, far better than a strip center. Signs and storefronts here would lose their prominent visibility only if they are detached from the street and set behind parking fields and scaled down to single-story buildings in a strip shopping center format. (Note again that an exception can be made, under the code, for a supermarket to have its parking in front, under certain design conditions.) Keep in mind that the ingrained need for exposure has been widely discredited in recent years, now that the extensive landscaping required in virtually all municipalities anclthe proliferation of outparcel buildings have combined to .' , Myth 5: Reality: /I.ht/1 0: Reality: largely obscure the typical anchor tenant. Also note that the trees planted in the median between the frontage road and SR434 would have a clear trunk height high enough to permit clear lines of sight to storefronts. "This [Main Street] wiLL never work because o.f the county enclaves." Parts of the plan can be implemented in the near term, and other parts can be added over time. The City offers crucial utilities, offers a potentially lucrative upzoning, and may even offer incentives for property owners in the core of the Town Center when they elect to annex. A decision not to be annexed would probably be a poor business decision in both the near and long term and is therefore unlikely. ''The wetland park is dumb because that land could be mitigated. filled & used." It is our understanding that the City, with state grants in hand, is ready to purchase all of the green network of parks, preserves and open spaces, as well as the realigned trail. With this comes a promise from the government to build, and maintain in perpetuity, the Trail and related facilities. Presumably with the master plan also comes a pledge from the City to obtain permits for, implement, and maintain an extensive area-wide water management system. Realigning the Trail creates an efficient parceL wrapping around the current McDonalds restaurant at the corner of SR 434 and Tuskawilla Road. Without this sale to the City, on the other hand, the property owners might conceivably be able to persuade water management officials and other authorities that the wetland area could be developed. In exchange, they would probably have to: purchase. donate or restore a massive ratio of preserve lands elsewhere; undertake the enormous expense of filling the \vettand or subtract that expense from any sale price; use the remainder of their land in a piecemeal, inefficient way for ponds and ditches. due to the lack of an overall master drainage approach; and live with the resulting parcel still compromised in its shape and size by the Trail (not realigned) on one hand and the eagles' nest on the other. .' .. Myth 7: Reality: Mvth 8: Reality: "The Town Center cannot have (l grocery store under this Plan and Code." That's false. The City's planning team recognizes that a grocery store will be a good anchor for the new Town Center and that to attract a grocery store will require compromises between the notorious supermarket "formula" and the traditional town design approach. For example, we recognize that the grocery store, while it conceivably could be a multi-story building, is far more likely to be a one-story structure. For another example, we recognize that a substantial customer parking field is usually located at the front of contemporary supermarket chain stores (although there is no rea<;on why overflow parking and employee parking cannot be located to the side or rear). We have also provided numerous illustrations of how grocery stores can be made to fit within these requirements on either the Schrimsher or Kingsbury properties. However, we are also keenly aware of the unwavering instructions from citizen and Winter Springs leaders: "No strip shopping centers." There is a concern that once one project is approved with its parking in front, similar strip projects will proliferate. zippering up and down SR434, destroying all hope for the creation of a real town center. The City must therefore retain the flexibility to permit a development that has the compromised features necessary for the grocery store. However, the City must also retain the right to say "no" to a project without enough offsetting merits, and retain the right to refuse permits later to more of the same. Therefore the Code has a carefully constructed provision to allow for the development of a fairly standard supermarket within the network of blocks and streets, through a carefully monitored process, via Special Exceptions. Note that it truly would be difficult to develop a supermarket at the northeast corner of SR434 and Tuskawilla Road unless the Trail is realigned. That, of course, is just the unfortunate reality of the property, and has nothing to do with the plan. "The plan is ((n example of government obstructing priv(/((! hLlsine.l's." All development is some form of public-privatc partncrship: First, government in this case has already cxtended roads. and will provide water, sewer, public safety, and many other serviccs-- facilitating development. Second. the City's proactive plan for the Town Ccnter facilitates private development by pointing the way to a painless developmcnt permit-- quitc the opposite of the "Mother May I" reactionary system that prevails in many Florida jurisdictions. Third, the proposed role for the DRC is that of expediter (for good development). Fourth, the City has taken entirely upon itself the complex, expensive task of realigning the Trail. Fifth, the proposed Code generously loosens restrictions on development, allowing for much greater densities, greater intensities, lesser setbacks, greater floor-area-ratios, and a broad mix of permitted land uses. Sixth, to the extent that the unforeseeable future brings about the need to flexibly refine or change the conceptual road network or other design features that are depicted, the Code allows provides for these adjustments to be made by the DRC a<; needed. Lastly, the City administration has expressed willingness to provide a number of financially valuable incentives, at least in the core area. For doing its part, then, the government can reasonably seek assurance that the private development will be the kind of growth that pays for itself over time, and the kind of growth that the citizens will be proud of. DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS town planning T~ ~,.~ <~:"if~"T:::' .71)) i."'. JAN 0 7 \999 Memorandum CITY or- IN:NTER SPRINGS City lVlanagef To: Charles Carrington AICP, Planning Director CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS Victor Dover AICP ~ December 29, 1998 From: Date: Subject: Grocery Store in the Town Center: Background The Winter Springs Town Center District Code has robust provisions for allowing flexible site plan designs in order to accommodate a grocery store or other "big box" anchor store. It is understood that the building type and site layout necessary to attract a chain store will be exceptional, that is, outside the norms for traditional buildings established (as pre- approved) in the Code. Therefore the Code includes a Special Exception mechanism, to allow a highly customized design solution to be created for such a store. Under this provision an unlimited spectrum of creative flexibility is available to the applicant, but they must present a compelling case as to why their deviations from the pre-approved Plan are appropriate. A number of workable alternatives therefore exist for accommodating a supermarket in the Town Center, despite what you may have been told. The following are augmented excerpts from recent correspondence, the Plan, and other writings, related to this issue. From my corre~pondence to Bill Owen, the City's retail consultant: We sent a whole series of sketch site plan layouts to which that elevation could be applicable, but here is the one that was most discussed. [See one of several diagrams from the Plan at right.] . . . This "vestibule" model [elevation below] would allow the grocery to share the block with a Main Street (although it faces the other way) and would allow the Publix building to be positioned parallel to SR434, facing east, without a blank wall along the SR434 side. '!t- . .-----.-.Qd~ 12M1CIIr:C..... t:Min1~IloOOOUIlrl ":';",.:':..:" . ."'''. . ~'. -:.<'~ t :",.-;- ". '~'. . ~ ., ", ::,:"?:~};~;~~~*~\f.;:~: , -'- \.~ i" :i~:':--~~:..::~ ,-',/ /,,/:;~~~,/i : -..;'. >::: . t) / :' -.!::l _' ::...::~.~~~; ,_:~;::~:.., ,.' " \. -';'. ) ..' / __gins II akl'tl ,...... _._-+ acc...'lt txCII~______ This elevation [above] describes a Kroger supermarket that is under development in Michigan. It was drawn up by Gibbs Planning Group (who worked with us on the Winter Springs Town Center plan)... The "vestibule" format lets the big box store site behind a "wrap" of smaller storefronts. Entrance to the supermarket is from one or two less-wide storefronts with their big sign. The end result is a full-size supermarket building without the blank-wall syndrome. This type can sit comfortably along a Main Street sidewalk. From email to Bill Owen, regarding the alternative supermarket chains that may prove more flexible: These are a few of the chains I have run across, but, obviously, this list of chains does not include the occasional one-of-a-kind stores locally owned: Wild Oats Community Markets Alfafa's Goodings Hyde Park Market FreshFields Fresh Markets Woolworths Express (Australia) specialty is organic foods / whole foods (same parent company as Wild Oats) (see Celebration town center) urban storefront; specializes in home meal replacements Some of the "mainstream" grocery store tenants also have smaller formats, urban formats, and specialty designs. Examples: Safeway, Old Town Alexandria Winn-Dixie, 73rd Street, South Miami Publix, Brickell Avenue, Miami Publix, South Beach, Miami Beach approx. 15,000 SF; fronts along a street approx. 25,000 SF; bldg & parking fit within the block system approx. 20,000 SF; small parking lot up along the street; innovative architecture Also: The Harris-Teeter supermarket chain, which has done some very unusual design things (backflips practically) to fit into design-sensitive neighborhoods, in the Carolinas. I don't know if they are expanding into our region yet or not. From memo regarding "Myths and Realities about the Town Center District Code": Myth 7: "The Town Center cannot have a grocery store under this Plan and Code." Reality: That's false. The City's planning team recognizes that a grocery store will be a good anchor for the new Town Center and that to attract a grocery store will require compromises between the notorious supermarket "formula" and the traditional town design approach. For example, we recognize that the grocery store, while it conceivably could be a multi- story building, is far more likely to be a one-story structure. For another example, we recognize that a substantial customer parking field is usually located at the front of contemporary supermarket chain stores (although there is no reason why overflow parking and employee parking cannot be located to the side or rear). We have also provided numerous illustrations of how grocery stores can be made to fit within these requirements on either the Schrimsher or Kingsbury properties. However, we are also keenly aware of the unwavering instructions from citizen and Winter Springs leaders: "No strip shopping centers." There is a concern that once one project is approved with its parking in front, similar strip projects will proliferate, zippering up and down SR434, destroying all hope for the creation of a real town center. The City must therefore retain the flexibility to permit a development that has the compromised features necessary for the grocery store. However, the City must also retain the right to say "no" to a project without enough offsetting merits, and retain the right to refuse permits later to more of the same. Therefore the Code has a carefully constructed provision to allow for the development of a fairly standard supermarket within the network of blocks and streets, through a carefully monitored process, via Special Exceptions. Note that it truly would be difficult to develop a supermarket at the northeast corner ofSR434 and Tuskawilla Road unless the Trail is realigned. That, of course, is just the unfortunate reality of the property, and has nothing to do with the plan. From diagrams provided to Bill Owen to illustrate just some of the many ways an anchor tenant (and its front parking) can be integrated into the system of blocks and streets: The diagrams above illustrate variations on a supermarket on the Kingsbury property. I . The diagrams below illustrate variations on a supermarket on the Schrimsher property, assuming the trail has been realigned. There are of course many other options as well, and some are better than others. All of the options above leave the street system layout intact in its entirety. However, under the Special Exception mechanism that is used to review and approve large-footprint stores, the street system itself can be modified, radieally or subtly. That opens still more options. \', " Ii- .j SCHRIMSHER/CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMMISSION WORKSHOP JANUARY 13, 1999 6:30 P.M. INDEX TO HANDOUT Tab No. 1. Copy of Minutes of Regular Meeting of City Commission Meeting of June 9, 1997 2. Copy of Draft of Developer Agreement submitted to City Manager on August 20, 1997 3. Copy of Transcript of November 4, 1998 Meeting of Planning and Zoning Board 4. Copy of Transcript of December 2, 1998 Meeting of Planning and Zoning Board 5. Copy of Section 70.001 Florida Statutes, 1997 (Bert J. Harris, Jr., Private Property Right Protection Act) 6. Copy of Orlando Business Journal Article - re: Celebration, dated January 1-7, 1999 ORL95 103985.1 - LKF e . . . REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION JUNE 9, 1997 The Regular Meeting of the City Commission was called to order by Mayor Paul P. Partyka at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Mayor Paul P. Partyka, present Deputy Mayor David McLeod, present City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present COMMISSIONERS: Larry Conniff, present Michael Blake, present John Langellotti, present Cindy Gennell, present Approval of Minutes of May 12. 1997: Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve the minutes of May 12, 1997. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of May 19. 1997: Motion was made by Commissioner Blake to approve the minutes of Special Meeting of May 19,1997. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes, Mayor Partyka presented Wmter Springs High School Principal Wayne Epps with a proclamation for being Seminole County's Principal of the Year and for being nominated for State recognition. Mr. Epps thanked the Mayor and Commission for the Proclamation. Mayor Partyka presented Michelle Robinson with a proclamation for being named Student of the Year at Oviedo High School and for her achievements. Ms. Robinson thanked the Mayor and Commission. II. PUBLIC INPUT Harold Scott, 911 Augusta National Blvd., spoke regarding possible ethical problems. Philip Kulbes, 705 Glasgow Ct., spoke regarding the City transporting emergency and non-emergency . patients. Joseph Genova, 715 Adidas Rd., spoke regarding the emergency and non-emergency transportation service. Robert Miller, 679 Silvercreek Dr., spoke in reference to having eight foot sidewalks along State, County and City Roads in Winter Springs and asked the Commission to vote to make an amendment ---- e . Re2ular Meetin2 City Commission June 9. 1997 96-97-16 Pa2e 2 to the visioning plan for eight foot sidewalks. Tom O'Connell. 1718 Seneca Blvd., 1st Vice-President of the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association, spoke on behalf of the Association's Board of Director, in opposition of the proposal of widening a portion of Winter Springs Blvd. MaryAnne Fitzpatrick, 218 Chestnut Ridge St., asked about lot grading, the issuance of C. O. ' s and about residents living in a home before a C.O. is issued and why a community's A.R.B doesn't sign off on building plans any longer. . Jim Mathews, 1824 Seneca Blvd., President of the Chelsea Woods Homeowners Association, and stated that he was representing the Presidents of 21 Homeowners Associations within the Tuscawilla PUD, spoke in opposition of the proposal of the widening a portion of Winter Springs Blvd. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that Attorney Cacciabeve was present to update the Commission on the litigation with regards to the Tuscawilla Country Club issue. Attorney Cacciabeve updated the Commission as to the status of this issue and stated that he feels that Mr. Mikes' plans to not comply with the 2nd Amendment to the Settlement Agreement. Attorney Cassiabeve also stated that he contacted Mr. Mikes Council regarding getting on Seminole County's Circuit Court Trail Docket and that Mr. Mikes Attorney stated he would not be available in either July or August. Attorney Cacciabeve stated he is trying to get on the docket for September. III. CONSENT AGENDA Fire Department A. Requesting authorization to assign the current contract for Billing Services for the Emergency Medical Transport System to Regional Emergency Services, L.P. PURPOSE: to gain Commission authority to assign the current contract as requested for Billing Services provided by Medical Compliance, Inc., to Regional Emergency Services, L.P., and to request authorization for the City Manager to enter into a service agreement with Regional Emergency Services, L.P. for Billing Services fro the Emergency Medical Transport System for the same terms and agreement. Public Works Department B. Requesting authorization to execute Amendment 55 for Consulting Engineering Services with Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineers, Ine. PURPOSE: to request authorization for the execution of Amendment 55 for the design ofthe Panama Road Paving and Drainage Improvements with Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineers, Inc. at a cost of$52,108.00. Utility Department C. Requesting authorization to execute Amendment 9 for consulting Engineering Services with Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineers, Inc. PURPOSE: to request authorization for the execution of Amendment 9 for the design of the East Lift Station's Force Main Modifications with Conklin, Porter & Holmes Engineers, Inc. at a cost of$28,580.00. .e e Re2ular Meetin2 City Commission June 9. 1997 96-97-16 Pa2e 3 Public Works Department D. Requesting authorization to enter into a Contractual Agreement for Drainage, Roadway and Water Main Improvements on Moss Road, Hayes Road and Panama Road. PURPOSE: to request authorization to enter into a contractual agreement with Bergeron Land Development, Inc., for drainage, roadway and water main improvements on Moss Road, Hayes Road and Panama Road at a cost of $449,000.00, plus a 10% contingency. Land Development Division E. Requesting Commission approval for authorization to accept ownership, and to record in the Public Records of Seminole County the Special Warranty Deed, of that 1.5 acre parcel located on the south side ofS.R 434 in that area known as Tuscawilla Tract 15. PURPOSE: to receive Commission approval for authorization to accept ownership, and to record in the Public Records of Seminole County Florida the Speeial Warranty Deed, of that 1.5 acre parcel located on the south side of S.R. 434 in that area known as Tuscawilla Tract 15. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye. Motion passes. IV. INFORMA TIONAL AGENDA Parks and Recreation Department A. Informing the Commission of the planned July 4, 1997, Fireworks and Trails Walk-A-Thon program. PURPOSE: to provide information to the Commission concerning fund expenditures, fund sources, vendor selection and event programming. Land Development Division B. Presenting to the Commission for informational purposes, an update on the progress of the John Govoruhk Public Safety Complex. PURPOSE: to inform the Commission on the progress of the John Govoruhk Public Safety Complex, and on the status of the funding for the project. Community Development Department C. Informing the Commission that the Board of County Commissioners has promulgated a study "U.S. 17/92 Corridor Assessment of Needs" (blight study) leading to the establishment of a Community Redevelopment Agency along a certain section of U.S. 17/92. PURPOSE: to inform the Commission that the Board of County Commissioners has promulgated a study "U.S. 17/92 Corridor Assessment of Needs" (blight study) leading to the establishment of a Community Redevelopment agency along a certain section of U.S. 17/92, and that the County is seeking a cooperative working relationship with the several municipalities bordering U.S. 17/92. Public Works Department D. Advising the Commission of the Tree Give-Away Program for the 1997 Arbor Day Celebration in conjunction with the Tree City USA requirements. PURPOSE: to advise the Commission of our intent to continue to hold a Tree Give-Away in observance of the Arbor Day Celebration based on the success rate of the 1996 Tree Give-Away. - .e e ReS!ular MeetinS! City Commission June 9. 1997 96-97-16 PaS!e 4 Public Works Department E. Advising the Commission of the intent to install new City signs at 12 entrances within the City limits. PURPOSE: to advise the Commission of the intent of the Public Works Department to install new City entrance signs that were selected by the Beautification of Winter Springs Board. General Services Department! Add-On F. Advising the City Commission of the May 22, 1997 -intent to protest letter filed by Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc., relative to the award of the Telephone System contract to Orlando Business Telephone Systems, Inc. (OBTS) on May 19, 1997, by the City Commission. PURPOSE:.Advise the City Commission of the concerns raised by Siemens, and to advise that no actions by the Commission are indicated or recommended. ACI10N: Discussion on the Public Safety Complex. It was the consensus of the Commission to see what the reasoning is for the delays and to expedite this and if the contractor doesn't expedite this then the City will start the fines. Discussion on the new entrance signs for the City. Attorney Kruppenbacher spoke regarding Item F- Add-On; and stated that it was his opinion that there was no violation on the City's part regarding the Bid process and procedure. Attorney Kruppenbacher also stated that representatives from Siemens were invited to the meeting tonight and said for the record no one is present from Siemens. Mayor Partyka formally asked if there was anyone present from Siemens. No one spoke in representation for Siemens. Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to accept the Informational Agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Gennell. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes. V. REGULAR AGENDA Community Development Department A. Requests the Commission approve the first reading for adoption of Ordinance No. 645, regulating the siting and construction of Telecommunication Towers within the City. PURPOSE: to request the Commission approve the first reading for adoption of Ordinance No. 645 regulating the location, construction, and impacts of Telecommunications Towers in the City that will protect the health, safety. and welfare of the residents and businesses in the City: Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve the first reading of Ord. No. 645 and to read by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion passes. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 645 by title only. Ms. Elizabeth Gregg, 215 E. Bahama Rd., read for the record a petition signed by all residents of East Bahama Road. Ms. Gregg also asked why five sites; what would the towers look like; why was the proposed site moved from Panama/Shore Roads to Bahama/Shore Roads; and the distance between homes and the towers. Discussion. It was the consensus of the e - , Regular Meetin2: City Commission June 9. 1997 96-97-16 PS2:e 5 Commission to have the City Manager look into the site location in the Ranchlands and bring this back at the next meeting. Also, Mr. Grimms and Mr. LeBlanc will get with Ms. Gregg and the President of the Ranchlands Homeowners Association regarding the site location. Discussion on the distance between the towers and homes. Mayor Partyka called a recess at 8:05 p.m. Mayor Partyka reconvened the meeting at 8: 15 p.m. Community Development Department B. Request the Commission hold a Public Hearing and Second Reading for adoption of Ordinance No. 661 creating a "Town Center" Overlay Zoning District, and to direct Staff to develop a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning Change that would be in accordance with the development of the Town Center. Also, to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement with ~ the Schrimschers (owners ofa portion of the property covered by the Town Center Overlay Zoning District) consistent with Sec. 20-333 of the Town Center Overlay Zoning District. PURPOSE: to request the Commission hold a Public Hearing and second reading for adoption of Ordinance No. 661 creating a "Town Center" Overlay Zoning District that would include the lands outlined in the map attachment titled "Area of Proposed Town Center". Also, request is made for the Commission to direct Staff to (1) prepare a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and (2) prepare a zoning change that would be in accordance with the development of the Town Center, and (3) to prepare a Development ;i- Agreement with the Schrimschers (owners of a portion of the property covered by the Town Center Overlay Zoning District) consistent with Sec. 20-333 of the Town Center Overlay Zoning District: Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 661 by title only on Second Reading. Manager McLemore stated that he has had communieation with the Sehrimschers to discuss this issue of their inclusion in the Town Center. Manager McLemore said they talked in lengths about a developer agreement which would define how the property to the east of Tuskawilla Road would be brought in and dealt with; Manager McLemore said it was basically agreed (among themselves) that we would take privaledge of the section of the Ordinance that allows for development agreements to come up with an agreement that we were all comfortable with in order to include them in the Town Center. There are some constraints on the property, one being the strict prohibition on Out-Parcels. Manager McLemore said he sees no problem with agreeing that we would take the Schrimscher property out of the equation for about 30 days to allow us to meet and see if we can come up with some language for a development agreement that we would be comfortable with and bring to the Commission for review. Jim Willard, Attorney for the Schrimscher's, spoke in favor of what the Manager has indicated. Mayor Partyka closed the Regular Meeting and opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak on the ordinance. No one wished to speak. Mayor Partyka closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Regular Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner ConnitT to approve the Second Reading of Ord. 661 and not to include any of the Schrimscher property subsequent to the Developer Agreement and also to add "pedestrian access" to 8-a, page 11 as it was left out. Seconded by Commissioner Lallgcllotti. Discussion. Commissioner ConnitT called the motion. Mayor Partyka asked for a vote to continue e e '-, Reimlar Medine: City Commission June 9. 1997 96-97-16 Pae:e 6 discussion. Vote to stop discussion: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: nay; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: nay; Commissioner McLeod: nay. Discussion continues, Commissioner Gennell brought up the fact that pedestrian access on page 11, 8-a was left out. The Commission was in agreement that this was left out. Commissioner Conniff amended his motion to include pedestrian access be included; Commissioner McLeod amended his second. Commissioner Gennell also brought up other items she would like changed. It was determined by the Commission that those items were discussed and the Commission didn't agree to change them. Commissioner Blake called the question. Mayor Partyka asked for a vote to stop discussion and call the motion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: nay; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes to end discussion and call the motion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye. Motion passes. General Services Department C. Deleted-see Informational Item F General Services Department D. Requests the Commission amend Omnicom Inc. 's contract to include excess trip expenses of $8,516.69, and $3,380 for additional bid evaluations, (42.25 hours x $80/hr) encountered in StatelGSA contract evaluations. PURPOSE: to allow the Commission to amend Omnicom Inc. 's contract. This contract would cover excess trip expenses of$8,516.69 and $3,380 for additional bid evaluations, (42.25 hours x $80/hr) encountered in StatelGSA contract evaluations. THIS ITEM POSTPONED UNTIL THE JUNE 23, 1997 MEETING. City Manager E. Requests the Commission establish the voting requirements for the Oak Forest Wall mail ballot. PURPOSE: for the Commission to determine who shall be authorized to vote, and what the Commission shall detennine to be a decisive vote relative to the Oak Forest Special Assessment District. Ken Haines, 1115 Aloha Ct., thanked the City Manager and the Commission for their time and effort regarding the Oak Forest Wall and stated that he is in favor of the City Manager's recommendation. It was the consensus of the Commission to have the Mayor present for the ballot counting. Also, it was the consensus of the Commission to add "any challenge of the vote will be within five days from the July 28th vote count. Discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to approve Item E, The Commission agreed that e . -.... Re!!ular Medin!! City Commission June 9. 1997 96-97-16 Pal!:e7 there would be one vote per parcel and that being the parcel owner. Also, the ballot shall be decided by a simple majority vote - 50% +1 (50% + 1 of the amount of people who vote); the Commission retains full discretion to decide any challenges to the vote; the Commission decided that the counting; of the vote by the City Manager, Police Chief and City Clerk. The City Clerk shall certify the results to the Commission on July 28,1997, any challenge of the vote will be within five days; the vote is an advisory opinion and there is no minimum vote required - this is a non-binding vote for the Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes. VI. REPORTS A. City Attorney - Frank Kruppenbacher Attorney Kruppenbacher stated the City has received the environmental report regarding the donation of the 69 acres from Mr. Mikes; staifis reviewing that and said he has recommended that the City forward that to Attorney Winders. Attorney Kruppenbacher also stated that he has received a request from Mr. John Ferring to get the Attorney General's opinion regarding the City's Garbage Franchise and Mr. Ferring also raised potential violations of State bidding Statutes. Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that it was his opinion that there was no violation and if the Commission wanted he would write to the Attorney General for an opinion. It was the consensus of the Commission to go with the City Attorney's opinion and not get the Attorney General's opinion. B. City Manager - Ronald W. McLemore Manager McLemore stated the City has received the approval of the Beautification Grant for S.R. 434; and stated that he needs an acknowledgment from the Commission on the record, approving this as the City has some in-kind contribution to make and a small amount of money to put up (which is in the budget this year). Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve this and to authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes. Manager McLemore stated that he has decided on a Community Development Director and will announce his selection at the next meeting. Manager McLemore asked for the COnmllssion's direction regarding Commissioner Gennell's travel expenses. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow Commissioner Gennell to go to the Florida League of Cities Annual Convention and that this would be her last trip expenditure for this fiscal year. C. Commission Seat I - Larry Conniff Commissioner Conniff stated that the lot on the corner of Hayes Rd. and S.R. 434 has overgrown weeds. Commissioner Conniff stated that he as dealt with Alan Hill, P.W. Supervisor and stated that he was very professional and commended Kip Loekcuff for his choiee. - . Re2ular Meetin2 City Commission June 9. 1997 96-97-16 Pa2e 8 Commissioner Conniff read a letter from Robert Amato resigning from the Code Enforcement Board and regretfully accepted the resignation. Manager McLemore stated that he will be recommending in the budget that the City take over the maintenance of S.R. 434. The State would maintain it at a cost of $18,000 but as seen it is not what we want for the type of community we want to be and stated that he has figured it will cost the amount of$18,000 plus $35,000 more to have it at a level we want. D. Commission Seat II - Michael Blake Commissioner Blake mentioned that the ball field at Sunshine Park had weeds growing that were 6 to 10 inches high. Manager McLemore said he would see that it was taken care of Commissioner Blake mentioned a letter from five year old, Matt VanColuen, in which he was asking for fluoride in the City's drinking water. Discussion. E. Commission Seat III - John Langellotti No Report. F. Commission Seat IV - Cindy Gennell Commissioner Gennell thanked the Commission for their support of h~r various endeavors for the City. Commissioner Gennell mentioned she was appointed (a few months ago) to the Tourist Development Council, there are only seven voting members in the County and only through CALNO, which is how she was appointed. The County levys a 3% tax on hotel beds, which amounts to a good amount of money and the seven members on the council vote as to how it is used; it is used to promote tourism in the County. To the City of Winter Springs, it is not money that is not coming from our taxpayers at all, we don't have a hotel, not having to do the infrastructure, police protection etc., for a hotel; and said she has been working along the lines of the Tourist Development Council to see what part of those funds could be put to use here in Winter Springs. Commissioner Gennell said she has the Council talking to Wayne Epps about the pool in the City, and stated that she may be able to get the City some of the money. Commissioner Gennell stated that the Pilot Project for the Seminole Trail will have a ground breaking Saturday, June 21, 1997 at 11:00 a.m. next to the Greenway and invited the Mayor and Commission and anyone interested to attend. G. Commission Seat V - David McLeod Commissioner McLeod asked about the study for the pool. Manager McLemore said there will be a report to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner McLeod stated that a group who put in to purchased property at the end of Shore Road has approached him with regard to extending Shore Road to S.R. 434 and asked the City Manager to look into that possibility. Diseussion. .. . Retrn~ar Meet in 2 Citv Commission June 9. 1997 96-97-16 Pa2e 9 ~i\!~~f~;;:';;~j . ~'", ','J" e .~~.... .io ". H. Mayor's Office - Paul P. Partyka Mayor Partyka asked the Commission if they wished to place an ad for $400.00 on the back cover of the Broadway Gymnastics Booklet. which was done last year. . . ,'.' - . ".' . .~.... '~..:f j . ..: 7~' ~.~. ~ . ~::;. ;..: ; ~ iI : !' . '. .... :- ".". ., . -.. .'~ Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve the expenditure for the advertisement. . Seconded by' Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Blake: nay; Commissioners Conniff, Langellotti, Gennell and McLeod: aye. Motion passes. The meeting adjourned at 10: 10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted. ~Af~ ~, '-XL_ L..':.. I ~~;THopki~~ City Clerk AP.l?~OVED: --- - ~ DRAFT r-j1-0 111 DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT (the IIAgreement") made and entered into this ___ day of August, 1997, by and between SCHRIMSHER LAND FOND II, III, V & VI, LTD. (I1Developerl1) and the CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida (the "City"). RECITALS: A. Developer owns land located in the City containing approximately 436 acres and located in the northeast and southeast quadrant of Tuskawilla Road and S .R. 434, as more particularly described in the attached. Exhibit "An (the "Property"). B. Property nBn (the District The City is desirous of incorporating that portion of the crosshatched' on the preliminary plan attached as Exhibit "Preliminary Plan") into the Town Center Overlay Zoning (the "Town Center") . C. Land within the Town Center is normally subject to the Town Center design standards adopted by the City dated May 21, 1997 (the "Town Center Design Standards") . D. Developer has adopted its own design standards for the Property as set forth in the Design Standards Manual for the Reserve last revised as of August , 1997 (the I1Reserve Design Standards") . E. The Town Center Design Standards were, in fact, based upon and generated from the Reserve Design Standards. F. The Reserve Design Standards are substantially similar to and compatible with the Town Center Design Standards and further the goals, objectives and policies set forth in the Town Center Design Standards. G. Developer has agreed to consent to the incorporation of a portion of the Property into the Town Center subject to the terms of this Agreement. H. The parties desire to address other issues affecting the development of the Property as hereafter set forth.. .' . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the City and Developer agree as follows: 1. Inco~oration of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and accurate and are incorporated herein by reference. 2 . Incl usion of Pro.perty in Town Center. Developer consents to the inclusion of that portion of the Property crosshatched on the attached Preliminary Plan into the Town Center. Notwithstanding the foregoing, due to the substantial conformity of the Reserve Design Standards to the Town Center Design Standards and the determination by the City that adherence to the Reserve Design Standards will further the same obj ecti ves, goals and policies as the Town Center Design Standards, . the City hereby specifically agrees that with respect to that portion of the Property included in the Town Center, so long as the development of said land is governed by the Reserve Design Standards, said land will ~ be subject to the Town Center Design Standards and shall, instead, be subject only to the Reserve Design Standards as'amended from time to time. 3. Impact of S.R. 434 Corridor Desian Guidelines. The City acknowledges that it is currently reviewing and intends to adopt design guidelines for the S.R. 434 corridor similar to the Town Center Design Guidelines. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 2 above with respect to the Town Center Design Guidelines, the City hereby specifically agrees that so long as the Property is governed by the Reserve Design Standards, no portion of the Property will be subject to the S.R. 434 corridor design standards as now proposed or hereafter adopted by the City. 4. Land Use Change. The City acknowledges that the future land use designation under the City Comprehensive Plan for a portion of the Property was inadvertently changed from commercial to rustic residential. The portion of the Property so affected is labeled on the attached Preliminary Plan as "Rustic Residential to Mixed-Use"and legally described in the attached Exhibit "cn. In recogni tion of the adj acent residential land use north of the subject parcel, the City hereby agrees to amend its future land use plan and zoning ordinance to change the designation of said parcel from rustic residential to mixed-use. Said mixed-use designation -2- @ ~ shall allow multi-family residential development not to exceed twenty (20) units per gross acre, as well as office, assisted care living facilities and all other uses permitted in the mixed-use designation. The City shall immediately administratively initiate and diligently process through completion such comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning necessary to implement the foregoing land use change. s. Trail Relocation. A portion of the Property is presently encumbered by the former CSX railroad line now owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida and which is intended to be improved and converted to a public nature and recreational trail (the "Trailll). To enhance the location of the Trail, as well as accommodate a more orderly development of the Prpperty, the City pledges to support Developer's effort to relocate the Trail from its present location to that shown on the Preliminary Plan. The City shall~ooperate wi th the Developer, Seminole County, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and all other necessary governmental agencies and interest groups to effectuate the proposed. Trail relocation on the Property, including allowing the Developer to reserve and/or transfer development intensity with respect to portions of the Property bisected by the relocated Trail. 6. Utilities. The City agrees to provide City sanitary sewer and potable water service in capacities adequate to serve the intended development of the Property as and when required to accommodate development of the Property. To the extent sewer and water facilities are extended by the City from their present locations to the Property and sized and located in such manner to serve lands other than the Property, Developer agrees to pay its prorata share of the cost of such extended utility facilities based on the anticipated flows/usage of the Property compared to the total anticipated flows/usage of such extended utility facilities. Upon request by either Developer or the City, the other party shall negotiate in good faith and execute a more comprehensive utilities service agreement to implement the basic terms set forth in this paragraph. The comprehensive agreement will address, but not be limited to, such issues as utilities design, location, easements, scheduling and construction. 7. Collector Road Impact Fee Credits. The Developer and the City agree that a collector road (the "Collector Road") through the -3- - ~ . Property in the location generally set forth on the Preliminary Plan may be beneficial to the orderly development of the Town Center. Provided the Collector Road is designed and constructed in accordance with City standards, and the completed Collector Road is conveyed/dedicated to the City without charge, the City agrees to grant to its Developer, for the benefit of the Property, a credit against the then existing City road impact fees in an amount .equal to the actual construction cost of the Collector Road, including design, permitting and engineering fees, as reasonably verified by and approved by the City. 8. Cooperation. Developer and the City shall cooperate fully with each other to effectuate the intentions of this Agreement. 9. Authority. Each party hereby represents and warrants to the other that they have full power and authority to enter into this Agreement. The City specifically represents .that all requirements and procedures, including public hearings, have been properly conducted so that the execution hereof by the City shall constitute the final, nonappealable action of the City. 10. Notices. Any notice required or allowed to be delivered hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be delivered when: (a) hand delivered to the official hereinafter designated, or (b) upon receipt of such notice, when deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or (c) one day after deposit with a nationally recognized overnight courier service, e.g. Federal Express, Purolator, Airborne, Express Mail etc., addressed to'a party at the other address as specified below or from time to time by written notice to the other party delivered in accordance herewith. Developer: Schrimsher Land Fund II, III, V & VI, Ltd. c/o Frank L. Schrimsher Schrimsher Properties 600 E. Colonial Drive - Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32803 Phone: 407/423-7600 Fax: 407/648-9230 -4- ot .... .~~.1.. .'. :10.,-'\ .......... .t....:.., ~ ,.,,"," ~;, ".......J..... . _J:-~ "i. ~....l I.. M'..t .,,' .-~" ~ _ :'-:...Ji."...."\. ...-:.....~.,,-,.... _.' ....!L --.4-...... ,\ .~.~~.:._:..". .,,_ ~. ..L..>.~..J'. -.(!,......- ~. .~,."....:1 .....,..:10 .". .....~ .. '-.. ~. e With Copy to: James G. Willard, Esquire Shutts & Bowen LLP 20 N. Orange Avenue - Suite 1000 Orlando, Florida 32801 Phone: 407/423-3200 Fax: 407/425-8316 City: City of Winter Springs 1126 East S.R. 434 Winter Springs, Florida 32708-2799 Attn: City Manager Phone: Fax: 11. Defaults. Failure by either party to perform each and everyone of its obligations hereunder shall constitute a~ default, entitling the nondefaulting party to pursue whatever remedies are available to it under Florida law. The prevailing party in any litigation arising under this Agreement shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, whether incurred at trial or on appeal. 12. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of each of the parties. 13. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 14. Amendments. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended except by written agreement duly executed by both parties hereto. 15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any other agreement, oral or written, and contains the entire agreement between the City and Developer as to the subject matter hereof. 16. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable to any extent by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same shall not effect in any respect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement. -5- ......,.1;... 1(+_. ..........,......._ .{,-\.."--,,.., __:-......f. '.,..J.~.,,-......' ......~.6 ~- - Ll.-" .-_..:.!....u:..~_ ... . . ~ t> . 17. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon approval of the Agreement by the City and execution of this Agreement by both parties, whichever shall occur last. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developer and the City have executed this Agreement in form sufficient to bind them as of the day and year first above written. nDEVELOPERn SCHRIMSHER LAND FUND II, III, V & VI, LTD . By: . nCITYn CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS By: ORl95 57907.2 - SMW Draft Date 08119197 -6- . ft 3 ~ WHEREUPON: THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD: \. MR. BROWN: WE WILL MOVE ON TO 2(B) AND THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT DESIGN CODE, AND I BELIEVE I HAD -- SHOULD HAVE PUBLIC INPUT FIRST OR AFTERWARDS? MR. FERNANDEZ: THAT'S A MATTER OF PREFERENCE. MR. BROWN: MR. GRIMMS, I WOULD THINK I WOULD LET YOU GO FIRST AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THE INPUT AND THEN YOU MAY ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS THAT WOULD BE COMING UP. MR. GRIMMS: JUST TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW MR. BROWN: MR. CARRINGTON AND MR. GRIMMS ARE REPRESENTING THE CITY HERE TO ADVISE US ON THE TOWN CENTER. m ~ a ~ MR. GRIMMS. ~ ~ . MR. GRIMMS: OKAY. I WILL TRY TO KEEP THIS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. THE CITY COMMISSION ASSESSED = 2 ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ THE SITUATION WITH THE TOWN CENTER WHICH, OF COURSE, IS IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TRAFFIC SITUATION ELEMENT AS A REQUIREMENT TO BE EVENTUALLY PUT IN PLACE. THE -- I HAVE IT DETAILED OUT HERE FOR YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. DO YOU WANT ME TO READ BRIEFLY REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 4 j.;i. .... THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE AUDIENCE HERE TONIGHT OR WHAT, MR. CHAIRMAN? '-. MR. BROWN: YES. MR. GRIMMS: OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWN CENTER CONCEPT AND THE DISTRICT DESIGN CODE, THE CITY COMMISSION AT ITS JUNE 9TH, 1997 MEETING ADOPTED ORDINANCE 661(C), THE TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. THE CITY COMMISSION, AT ITS SEPTEMBER 8TH,' 1997 MEETING, ADOPTED ORDINANCE 276, INSTITUTING THE TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. ON JANUARY 12TH, 1998, THE CITY COMMISSION VOTED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH DOVER, KOHL AND ASSOCIATES TO PREPARE A TOWN CENTER CONCEPT PLAN AND A DESIGN CODE TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN. m i VARIOUS WORKSHOPS WITH THE PUBLIC IN o j .'0. PRESENTATIONS WITH THE CITY COMMISSION WERE HELD IN . FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF 1998. .. :I ex: ~ ~ II> ex: . ~ ON FEBRUARY 11TH, DOVER, KOHL AND PARTNERS HELD A KICK-OFF PRESENTATION AT CITY HALL FOLLOWED BY TWO WORKSHOPS, AND ITS PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS ON FEBRUARY 17TH AND WORK IN PROGRESS ON FEBRUARY 20TH. ON MARCH 23RD, DOVER, KOHL AND ASSOCIATES " PRESENTED THEIR FINAL PLAN OF THE TOWN CENTER TO THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. , ~ 5 ~ COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION APPROVED IT AND DIRECTED THEM TO PROCEED WITH STEP TWO OF THEIR CONTRACT WHICH , WAS TO PREPARE A PRESCRIPTIVE GRAPHIC CODE. CITY STAFF REVIEWED A DRAFT OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE GRAPHIC CODE KNOWN AS THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT DESIGN CODE AND RECOMMENDED CERTAIN CHANGES. IN OCTOBER, DOVER, KOHL AND PARTNERS PRESENTED THEIR FINAL DRAFT OF THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT DESIGN CODE TO CITY STAFF, INCORPORATING THE CITY STAFF REQUESTED CHANGES, AND THIS IS INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO YOUR AGENDA ITEM. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE YOU AS A BOARD -- AND THIS COMES APPROPRIATELY BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THIS WAS DULY ADVERTISED, THIS MEETING TONIGHT, ! ~ ~ ~ ~ :1 . AS THE FIRST MEETING AND THE SECOND MEETING. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE CITY COMMISSION HAVE ALREADY BEEN DULY ADVERTISED. m ~ ~ MR. CHAIRMAN. ~ m ~ ~ MR. BROWN: I HAVE THE ADVERTISEMENT IN ~ FRONT OF ME AND ON THE NOTICE OF THE NEW ZONING ~ DISTRICT REGULATIONS WHICH APPEARED IN THE ORLANDO SENTINEL AND AS OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING THIS EVENING. SO I CONFIRM MR. GRIMMS' STATEMENTS ON THAT. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. '-~ 6 ~ THERE WAS A WORKSHOP HELD ON SEPTEMBER 28TH THAT I ATTENDED THAT WAS A JOINT WORKSHOP BETWEEN THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION, AND A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WENT IN DETAIL. AND I WENT THROUGH THE REPORT THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO US THIS EVENING, AND ALL THE NECESSARY ITEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP THAT EVENING HAVE APPEARED HERE. THEY ARE HERE AND THEY ARE IN ORDER. I THINK I WILL HAVE THE PUBLIC INPUT. I CAN JUST GO AHEAD? MR. FERNANDEZ: YES. MR. BROWN: MR. ALLEN WHITNEY, PLEASE. DON'T GO TOO FAR, GENTLEMAN. I'M SURE THERE WILL BE QUESTIONS. WILL YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR. m ~ ~ ~ MR. WHITNEY: YEAH. MY NAME IS ALLEN c ~ .w ~ WHITNEY. I'M WITH SPRINGLAND JESSUP SHORES JOINT . VENTURE, PROPERTY OWNER, AT THE CORNER OF 434, WINTER m 2 << ~ ~ m << ~ SPRINGS. MAILING ADDRESS IS 175 LOOKOUT PLACE, SUITE 201, MAITLAND FLORIDA, 32751. MR. FERNANDEZ: WHAT DID YOU SAY WAS THE PROPERTY OWNER? I'M SORRY. MR~ WHITNEY: SPRINGLAND JESSUP SHORES JOINT VENTURE. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. ~. 7 MR. FERNANDEZ: OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. WHITNEY: RIGHT THERE AT THE CORNER AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE PARK. BASICALLY I'M HERE TONIGHT TO HAVE A STATEMENT ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE TOWN CENTER CONCEPT, THE PARCEL THAT I REPRESENT WAS EXCLUDED ON THERE. AND BASICALLY THE FIRST NOTIFICATION THAT WE HAD THAT OUR PARCEL WAS INCLUDED WAS IN THE ADVERTISEMENT IN THE NEWSPAPER WHERE THE LINE WAS CHANGED. AND BASICALLY WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, YOU KNOW, TO OUR PARTNERS TO, YOU KNOW, LOOK AFTER THIS PROPERTY. AND AT THIS TIME, WE JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, JUST STATE OUR OBJECTION TO THE INCLUSION OF THIS PROPERTY AT THIS TIME. g ~ ~ ~ THE REASON BEING IS WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME ~ 2 .W ~ TO CONSULT WITH OUR PARTNERS, WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH e TIME TO STUDY THE IMPACT THAT THIS ZONING ORDINANCE m 2 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ WOULD HAVE ON THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, BOTH ECONOMICALLY AND HOW IT WOULD RELATE TO OUR VESTED RIGHTS. YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE TIME TO MAKE THAT DECISION, WHETHER WE WANT TO BE INCLUDED, OR IF FORCED TO BE INCLUDED, IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 8 ~ CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW. YOU KNOW, JUST IN CONCLUSION, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TIME TO BE ABLE TO RESEARCH, YOU KNOW, THE EFFECT THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE ON US AND THE CONCLUSIONS. MR. BROWN: ONE SECOND. MR. GRIMMS, CAN YOU RESPOND? . MR. GRIMMS: YES, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO MENTION THAT THIS WAS DULY ADVERTISED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 166.2043 AND THIS MAP WAS INDICATED IN THE PAPER. AS PER THEIR REQUEST FOR TIME, THEY CERTAINLY WILL HAVE TIME BEFORE THE DECISION IS MADE. YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. THE DECISION IS NOT BEING MADE TONIGHT. THE DECISION WILL BE MADE NOVEMBER 23RD BY THE ! 13 ~ 51 i .W ,0. CITY COMMISSION, THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE CITY. THAT HOPEFULLY WILL AFFORD THEM SOME TIME TO MAKE . THEIR NECESSARY REVIEWS. '" ::Ii a: ~ ~ '" a: ~ MR. BROWN: THIS PIECE OF GROUND THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, TUSCAWILLA AND 434; RIGHT? MR. GRIMMS: NO. THIS IS AROUND THE CURVE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS AREA OVER HERE. MR. BROWN: OKAY. MR. GRIMMS: IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 9 ~ CURVE, SO-CALLED WAGNER'S CURVE, THE SMOOTHED OUT CURVE IN THE WIDENING OF STATE ROAD 434 ON THE NORTHWEST, SHALL WE SAY, OF THE WINTER SPRINGS POST OFFICE. MR. BROWN: WHAT IS THAT PROPERTY ZONED AT THE PRESENT TIME? MR. GRIMMS: C2, OUR GENERAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. MR. CARRINGTON: IF I CAN SHED JUST A LITTLE LIGHT ON MR. WHITNEY'S QUESTION AND HIS POINT. WE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM MR. LERNER, THE . I GUESS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR AT LEAST THE MANAGING PARTNER OF SPRINGLANDS JESSUP SHORES, JUST THIS LAST WEEK STATING THAT HE HAD NOT HAD AN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF BEING INCLUDED IN THE TOWN CENTER ON THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF ! ~ s ~ PROPERTY. ~ i w & BUT OVER THE PAST SIX WEEKS OR SO, I KNOW . THAT MR. LERNER AND THE CITY MANAGER HAVE MET AT m 2 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ LEAST TWICE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM THE CITY MANAGER, THAT MR. LERNER HAD ASKED THAT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY BE INCLUDED. I PERSONALLY CALLED, AFTER TALKING TO THE CITY MANAGER, CALLED THE CONSULTANTS AND HAD THEM AMEND REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 10 :; ",,; THE MAP AT WHAT I THOUGHT WAS MR. LERNER'S REQUEST, TO INCLUDE THAT PROPERTY IN THE TOWN CENTER. ... IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY ADVERTISED AND CERTAINLY THERE IS NO PERSONAL NOTIFICATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUIRED UNDER STATE STATUTE. THE ADVERTISEMENT IN THE NEWSPAPER, YOU KNOW, SUFFICES. THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING. AND AS TOM HAS SAID, THERE'S AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO NOTIFY THE OTHER PARTNERS, THE LIMITED PARTNERS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS, PRIOR TO FINAL ADOPTION. AND IT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION THAT IT BE LEFT IN UNTIL GIVING THE SPRINGLAND JESSUP SHORES PARTNERSHIP AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THEIR PEOPLE AND EVALUATE THE ADVANTAGES TO BEING IN THE TOWN CENTER VERSUS THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH IS C2. CERTAINLY THE USES ALLOWED IN THE TOWN CENTER ! fj ~ ARE MUCH GREATER THAN WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE C2 ~ i .... .'0. DISTRICT. . SO APPARENTLY THERE'S EITHER A MISUNDERSTANDING III :Ii a: ~ ~ OR CERTAINLY A MISCOMMUNICATION. a: ... ~ MR. BROWN: I THINK THE ISSUE FROM BOTH SIDES IS ON THE RECORD AND WILL BE HANDLED ACCORDINGLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. MICKY GRINDSTAFF. STATE YOUR NAME AND REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 11 7 .~ :;. ADDRESS, SIR, PLEASE. MR. GRINDSTAFF: MY NAME IS MICHAEL GRINDSTAFF, MICKY GRINDSTAFF. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH THE LAW FIRM OF SHUTTS & BOWEN IN ORLANDO, 20 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 1000. I AM HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION THERE. AND LIKE MR. WHITNEY'S CONCERN, OURS IS BASED ON I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION AND PERHAPS A MISUNDERSTANDING. WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THIS MATTER FOR AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, A RECOMMENDATION BY THIS BODY TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THEY CONTINUE THE FIRST HEARING FOR AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS. m ; 2 ~ ~ i .~ THE BASIS FOR THIS REQUEST GOES BACK MUCH FURTHER THAN MR. WHITNEY'S RECENT SITUATION. OURS . PREDATES THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN SEPTEMBER 8 OF m ~ ~ ! 1997. ~ ~ SOMETIME IN JUNE . . . OR ACTUALLY THE PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COMMISSION THAT OCCURRED ON JUNE 9TH, 1997, THERE WAS A CONSIDERATION OF THE TOWN CENTER. AND AT THAT HEARING, THE CITY COMMISSION AGREED REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 12 ~ c,;;.. TO CONSIDER A NUMBER OF THINGS PERTAINING TO THE TOWN CENTER. ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS A FACTOR IN THAT HEARING WAS A DIRECTION TO STAFF TO COOPERATE, NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE SCHRIMSHER FAMILY AND THEIR INVESTORS TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY AS IT RELATED TO TOWN CENTER. THE STAFF AND THE SCHRIMSHERS DID IN FACT COMMENCE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND THE -- LET ME JUST, FOR YOUR REVIEW, I WILL GIVE YOU A COPY OF THE MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING THAT OCCURRED ON JUNE 9TH, 1997. YOU WILL SEE SOME LITTLE STARS HIGHLIGHTING THE TRACTS, ONE WHICH WAS THE DIRECTION TO GO AND NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT. ! ~ s ~ ~ i ~ . AND I WANT TO HAND THAT TO YOU AT THIS TIME. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THIS WAS NOT A -- WE DON'T THINK ANYTHING EVIL. WE ARE NOT HERE TO SAY BAD = 2 ~ o ~ ~ = ~ ~ THINGS WERE HAPPENING. WE THINK JUST A SERIES OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SOMETHING HAS FALLEN THROUGH A CRACK AND WElD LIKE TO HAVE THIRTY DAYS TO EVALUATE WHAT THAT WAS AND HOW THAT HAPPENED. THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT HAS STILL NOT BEEN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 13 FINALIZED. IN FACT, IT WAS NEGOTIATED. IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY ON AUGUST THE 20TH, 1997, TOGETHER WITH A COVER LETTER, AND WE CAN PROVIDE COPIES OF THAT. I ONLY HAVE ONE THIS EVENING BUT WE CAN GET COPIES TO THE CITY TOMORROW. I HAVE SHOWN IT TO MR.. CARRINGTON, WHO DID NOT HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT IT. THAT WAS ON AUGUST 20, 1997. ON AUGUST THE 25TH, FIVE DAYS LATER, THERE WAS THIS FIRST HEARING ON THE TOWN CENTER OVERLAY THAT OCCURRED, JUST FIVE DAYS LATER. THEN ON SEPTEMBER 8, THERE WAS A SECOND READING OF THE TOWN CENTER OVERLAY, WHICH WAS A REZONING. NOW HERE TODAY, WE ARE HERE TALKING ABOUT YET ANOTHER REZONING WHICH IS INTENDED TO REPEAL WHAT TOOK PLACE ON SEPTEMBER THE 9TH, 1998. ~ i ~ .& WHAT WE WOULD REQUEST IS, A, AN EXTENSION OF THIS FIRST READING AND A RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS . BODY TO THE COMMISSION TO DO THAT, UNLESS YOU COULD = 2 ~ ~ ! ~ ~. CONTINUE HERE TONIGHT. AND B, AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH OUR DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT AND WHY THINGS CHANGED TO THE POINT WHERE WE NOW HAVE MORE THAN FIFTY PERCENT OF THE DEVELOPABLE LAND WITHIN THIS AREA SUBJECT TO THIS PLAN, WHICH WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF AT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 14 THIS POINT. AND LIKE MR. WHITNEY IS CONCERNED, HE IS ASKING , FOR A DELAY FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO GET A GRIP ON WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. WE, WHILE WE HAVE BEEN ACTIVE -- MR. SCHRIMSHER, MIKE SCHRIMSHER, IS HERE THIS EVENING AND HAS BEEN ACTIVE AND ATTENDED A NUMBER OF THESE HEARINGS AND IS PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE ARE READY FOR THE OVERLAY REZONING TO COME ON FOR FIRST READING NEXT MONDAY TONIGHT. THIRTY DAYS IS NOT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE CITY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, HAS TAKEN A NUMBER OF YEARS AND AT LEAST SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, THE DEVELOPER AND HIS CREW, TO EVALUATE THIS PROCESS, AND NOW IT SEEMS NINETEEN DAYS WOULD BE LONG ENOUGH FOR MR. WHITNEY AND THE REST OF US. m ~ ~ ~ WE WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO REQUEST A THIRTY DAY o ~ W & EXTENSION AND REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION. . MR. BROWN: WHEN WOULD THIS GO IN FRONT OF = 2 ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ THE CITY COMMISSION? MR. GRIMMS: FIRST READING WOULD BE NOVEMBER 9TH. SECOND READING AND ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE NOVEMBER 23RD. MR. BROWN: IT WOULD GO NEXT WEEK THEN? MR. GRIMMS: YES, MR. CHAIRMAN. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 15 MR. BROWN: MR. GRIMMS. MR. GRIMMS: I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WHAT THE ,- GENTLEMAN IS TALKING ABOUT TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONIN'G DISTRICT. MR. FERNANDEZ: DO YOU HAVE THE MINUTES HE GAVE US? MR. GRIMMS: RIGHT. MR. FERNANDEZ: RIGHT. MR. GRIMMS: I SEE THAT. BUT HE'S URGING YOU TO SEEK A DELAY IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. AM I CORRECT ON THAT? EXCUSE ME. MR. GRINDSTAFF: I'M URGING YOU TO DELAY THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS DESIGN CODE AND ANY ACTION TAKEN RELATING TO THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT DESIGN CODE. m ~ ~ ~ i i .W & YOU ARE ATTEMPTING, ACCORDING TO MR. CARRINGTON, IN ADDITION TO THE DESIGN CODE THAT WILL BE ADOPTED ? e AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, THERE WILL BE A ZONING MAP m 2 ~ ~ ~ m ffi ~ ADOPTED AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. MR. GRIMMS: RIGHT. LET ME MAKE A DISTINCTION HERE FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS. THIS IS NOT -- WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU, THIS IS NOT A TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE. THERE IS NO UNDERLYING ZONING REGULATIONS THAT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 16 ARE EXISTING IN THE CITY CODE CHAPTER 20 THAT WOULD BE LIKE AN UNDERLYING BASIS FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, .... WHICH IS PART OF THE CONCEPT OF OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, OKAY. WHAT YOU HAVE HERE WILL BE COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM ANYTHING IN CHAPTER 20, AND THEREFORE, NOT AN OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. MR. BROWN: I WAS AT THOSE MEETINGS. MR. GRINDSTAFF: WITH ALL DUE RESPECT MR. BROWN: YES. MR. GRINDSTAFF: WHAT WOULD BE REPEALED IF THIS IS NOT AN OVERLAY DISTRICT? MR. GRIMMS: WELL, WE ARE NOT PUTTING IN PLACE AN OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT AND REPEALING AN OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR. m '9 a ~ OKAY. WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU, THIS DISTRICT o ~ .'" ..... BOUNDARY OF THE TOWN CENTER, OKAY, THIS WOULD BE A . ZONING DISTRICT TO REPLACE THE OVERLAY ZONING .. :Ii a: It g ., a: '" ~ DISTRICT PASSED SEPTEMBER, 1997. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME TRACK AND UNDERSTANDS THIS. MR. BROWN: MR. CARRINGTON. MR. CARRINGTON: LET ME -- LET ME SEE. AGAIN, THE WHOLE IDEA IS UNDERSTANDING, NOT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 17 MISUNDERSTANDING, WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE , CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING TEXT, T-E-X-T, AMENDMENT AND A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE TOWN CENTER, AND IT'S ENTITLED THE TOWN CENTER DESIGN CODE. BACK IN 1997, THE CITY WENT THROUGH A PROCESS OF CREATING DESIGN CODES NOT ONLY FOR WHAT THEY ENVISIONED COULD BECOME A TOWN CENTER BUT ALSO FOR STATE ROAD 434 REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND STATE ROAD 434 DEVELOPING AREA. THAT IS A ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT WHICH RELATES TO SIGNS, IT RELATES TO LANDSCAPING, RELATES TO A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT WOULD AFFECT ANY USE THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THE EXISTING UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT, BE IT A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. m ~ ~ ~ WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A ZONING MAP o i :~ . AMENDMENT TO CREATE A NEW DISTRICT IN THE CITY AND THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE TOWN m 2 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ CENTER DISTRICT WOULD NO LONGER HAVE THE C2 OR RESIDENTIAL OR OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS THAT THEY HAVE ON IT AS OF TODAY. SO IT'S A MAJOR CHANGE NOT ONLY IN THE TEXT THAT WOULD APPLY TO THIS NEW DISTRICT BUT IN THE ZONING MAP BY CREATING A NEW TOWN CENTER DISTRICT. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 18 MR. GRIMMS: A COMPLETELY SELF-STANDING ZONING DISTRICT. MR. BROWN: WE HAVE HEARD THEM DEFINE WHAT IT IS. DOES THAT STILL PRESENT. . MR. GRINDSTAFF: ABSOLUTELY. TO THE EXTENT I WAS REFERRING TO THIS AS THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, ERRONEOUSLY, THE NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT, BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSION THAT IN FACT IS A NEW DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO REPEAL THE PRIOR OVERLAY AS WELL AS THE UNDERLYING ZONING THAT EXISTED BENEATH THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. I RIGHT, MR. GRIMMS? IS THAT MORE ACCURATE? (NO RESPONSE.) IN EITHER EVENT, IT'S A MAJOR CHANGE AND IT IS A MAJOR CHANGE THAT IS COMING DOWN NOW FAIRLY RAPIDLY GIVEN THE FACT THE CITY HAS HAD AS MUCH TIME AS THEY ! '9 S ~ ~ .~ .,Q. HAVE HAD TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION. WE ARE HERE ASKING FOR A THIRTY DAY CONTINUANCE . TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHAT HAPPENED TO Ol ::IE a: ~ ~ THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT AND GOOD FAITH WITH WHICH a: ~ MR. SCHRIMSHER WAS DEALING WITH THE CITY IN JUNE AND AUGUST OF 1997. MR. GRIMMS: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS AT THOSE MEETINGS, NOT EVERYONE OF THEM BUT CERTAINLY A NUMBER OF THEM. AND MIKE SCHRIMSHER AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 19 WERE THERE AND STAFF AND SO FORTH. WE COULD NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT. -.... I CAN TELL YOU THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT THERE IS NO SIGNED DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT RELATING TO THAT SITUATION. WE COULD NOT COME TO k~ AGREEMENT. SO SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, IT WAS DECIDED TO . GO FORWARD. MR. BROWN: MR. CARRINGTON. MR. CARRINGTON: AGAIN, AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE MOTION THAT I'M READING FROM, THE LETTER OR FROM THE MINUTES THAT WAS HANDED OUT, STATES THAT NONE OF THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY WOULD BE INCLUDED UNLESS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS SIGNED AND AGREED UPON. SO IT SAYS, AND NOT TO INCLUDE ANY OF THE g; :; fa ~ ~ .... .'0. SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY SUBSEQUENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO THEY ARE NOT EVEN INCLUDED IN THE . OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT WAS ADOPTED BACK IN '97. III ~ o ... ~ II: ... ~ THE MOTION EXCLUDED THEM UNLESS THE TWO PARTIES NEGOTIATED, SIGNED OR EXECUTED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT TAKES BOTH PARTIES TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT. MR. BROWN: BUT THEY ARE INSIDE THE RED BORDER NOW? REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 20 MR. CARRINGTON: OH, YEAH. IN THE NEW , DISTRICT, OH, YES, AND HAVE BEEN A PARTY TO DISCUSSIONS ON THIS NEW DISTRICT AND THE EVOLUTION OF THIS NEW DISTRICT SINCE IT COMMENCED IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, OF 1998. MR. SCHRIMSHER HAS ATTENDED I THINK EVERY MEETING, HAS BEEN A PARTICIPANT AND HAS DISCUSSED THE MATTER CONTINUOUSLY SINCE ITS INCEPTION. SO IT'S NO. SURPRISE -- AND CERTAINLY IF THERE IS CONFUSION, THE PROPER WAY TO DEFER THIS, IF IN FACT THERE IS AN ERROR OR IF THERE IS CONFUSION, IS WHEN IT GETS TO THE SECOND READING PRIOR TO ADOPTION. BUT TO DEFER IT AT THIS LEVEL WOULD SIMPLY JUST MEAN THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD NOT HAVE AN INPUT INTO THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT WHEN IT GOES TO THE FIRST READING ON MONDAY TONIGHT. ~ ~ s ~ ~ i .W & IT IS ALREADY BEEN ADVERTISED AND WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION ON MONDAY NIGHT. BOTH THE . FIRST AND SECOND READING OF THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT m 2 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED. SO IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT IF A DEFERRAL IS PROPER, THEN THAT DEFERRAL OUGHT TO OCCUR AT THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION, THE CITY COMMISSION'S DISCRETION AT THEIR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER THE 23RD. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e 21 MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. GRIMMS, THE NOTICE IN THE PAPER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE MATERIAL IN THE PACKET IN A REASONABLE TIME FORWARD OF THE MEETING AND THAT THE ITEM WAS DULY ADVERTISED IN THE NEWSPAPER ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 166, THEREFORE THE OPPORTUNITY EXISTS FOR THIS BOARD TO MAKE ITS RECOMMENDATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO, THE CITY COMMISSION WILL FEEL THAT, WELL, YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AS THIS BOARD AND THEY WILL GO FORWARD AND HOLD THEIR FIRST HEARING. MR. BROWN: I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT MR. SCHRIMSHER WAS SPEAKING WITH THE CITY. MR. GRINDSTAFF: HE WAS. AND HE WAS IN FACT AT THESE MEETINGS AND HE HAS PARTICIPATED. AND HE LEARNED FROM A FRIEND WHO READ THE PAPER YESTERDAY m s ~ OR THE DAY BEFORE ABOUT THE UPCOMING MEETING MONDAY ~. i .~ . NIGHT. HE HAS BEEN IN HERE WITH MANY DISCUSSIONS WITH m 2 ~ ~ g m ~ ~ ~ CITY STAFF. AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIRTY DAYS IS NOT THAT LONG OF A PERIOD OF TIME WITH A MATTER SUCH AS THIS. MR. BROWN: CAN I CALL -- I WANT YOU TO STAY THERE SO WE CAN . . . YOU KNOW, IF I CAN RESOLVE THIS AND KEEP MOVING ON WITH VERBAL INTENT, OKAY, REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 22 WITHOUT TURNING IT INTO SOMETHING, BECAUSE I KNOW I'M SURE ON YOUR SIDE AND ON THE CITY'S SIDE THERE HAS '- BEEN A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT PUT INTO THIS. MR. SCHRIMSHER, I HAVE YOUR PAPERS. WOULD YOU COME UP NOW, TOO, AND . . . BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE MORE INSIGHT. I KNOW I HAVE BEEN AT MEETINGS WITH AND SEEN YOU SPEAK AND THINGS. YOU WANTED TO SPEAK THIS EVENING. YOU HAVE HEARD THIS DISCUSSION AND YOU KNOW WHERE I AM, OKAY. GO AHEAD. MR. SCHRIMSHER: NO, I DON'T REALLY. MR. BROWN: I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD CLEAR AS TO - - GO AHEAD AND YOU MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. MR. SCHRIMSHER: I WAS WAITING TO SEE HOW THINGS WENT WITH MR. GRINDSTAFF TO DECIDE WHAT TO SAY. ~ t MR. BROWN: 11M AT A STALEMATE WHERE MY ~. :.~ . MIND IS SITTING HERE. MR. SCHRIMSHER: I HAVE COME TO MOST IF NOT Ol 2 ([ fil ~ ([ ~ ALL OF THE MEETINGS AND PARTICIPATED, AND MUCH OF MY PARTICIPATION HAS BEEN TO EXPRESS OBJECTIONS. MR. BROWN: OH, OKAY. MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND MY OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND BASICALLY IGNORED. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THAT WAS EVER MADE TO THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 23 ORIGINAL TOWN CENTER DESIGN REGULATIONS THAT I SUGGESTED, AND ESPECIALLY HAVE RECEIVED NO, YOU KNOW, SATISFACTION IN TERMS OF RESPONSE FOR THE OBJECTIONS I HAVE RAISED CURRENTLY, AND THAT INVOLVES CORRESPONDENCE AND TELEPHONE CALLS AND FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS WITH VICTOR DOVER AND ROBERT GRAY, BOTH HERE AND IN MIAMI, WITH CITY STAFF, INCLUDING MR. GRIMMS, MR. CARRINGTON, MR. MCLEMORE, INCLUDING MEETING WITH FOLKS FROM MICHIGAN. I THINK MR. CARRINGTON IS RIGHT. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE TO BE KEPT OUT OF THE TOWN CENTER, YOU KNOW, AND THAT THIS DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WOULD BE ARRIVED AT. OUR LAST CORRESPONDENCE WAS SUBMITTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS NOT RESPONDED TO. FRANKLY, THAT'S BEEN THE BASIC RESPONSE. ! ~ ~ ~ THE CITY STAFF AND ITS CONSULTANT HAVE AN ~ i .W ~ AGENDA, HAVE A GOAL TO ACHIEVE, AND THEY LISTEN . POLITELY TO ME AND OTHERS WHO HAVE RAISED CONCERNS m 2 ~ ~ g m ~ ~ AND OBJECTIONS. THEY GIVE US THAT COURTESY BUT BASICALLY IT DOESN'T CHANGE. WHAT I'M SEEING NOW IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE SEVERE ECONOMIC DAMAGES TO ME AND MY COMPANY AND MY PARTNERS BECAUSE THE ONLY THINGS THAT PEOPLE IN THE MARKETPLACE WANT TO BUILD ON OUR PROPERTY AND REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. -~ 24 MAKE OFFERS TO ME TO BUY THE PROPERTY SO THEY CAN BUILD IT ARE THINGS THAT ARE PROHIBITED BY THE TOWN , CENTER NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES, AND THE THINGS THESE NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES ALLOW, I DON'T HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BUILD THAT. THE CITY HAS WORKED HARD TO FIND SOMEONE WHO WOULD COME AND DO THAT AND I HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER OF INTENT AND THAT LETTER OF INTENT WAS AT A PRICE BARELY MORE THAN HALF WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN OFFERING ME FOR MY PROPERTY. THERE'S SOME PRETTY PICTURES IN THESE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND IF SOMEONE WANTS TO COME AND PAY MARKET PRICE FOR OUR PROPERTY AND BUILD WHAT'S PICTURED HERE, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. THEY CAN FEEL FREE TO DO SO. MR. BROWN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I ~. ~ s ~ APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP AND BEING VERY FORWARD AND ~ i .~ & HONEST WITH US, SIR. . IS THERE ANY COMMENT FROM YOU GENTLEMEN? m 2 ~ ~ ~ MR. GRIMMS: MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE ~ ~ ~ BOARD, AS MR. SCHRIMSHER HAS SAID, HE HAS ATTENDED MOST OF THE MEETINGS WITH CITY STAFF AND IN PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ALONG THE WAY. AND, YES, HE HAS GIVEN COGENT ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST AND SO FORTH. USUALLY AGAINST I GUESS. AND REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 25 YOU KNOW, HIS POINTS WERE DISCUSSED, YOU KNOW, AT LENGTH BY THE COMMISSION AND STAFF AND SO FORTH. ~ THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS IS THAT THERE WAS OPPORTUNITIES, YOU KNOW, TO BE HEARD AND SO FORTH, LIKE THAT, AND CONSULTANTS LISTENED AND I THOUGHT THERE WERE SOME ADJUSTMENTS MYSELF. THE STUDY INDICATED THAT IT IS A MARKET FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND SO WE, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPED CODE PROCEEDINGS ALONG THOSE LINES TO DEVELOP THOSE IN THAT FORM TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. BUT WE FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWED THE PROCESS, HAVE BEEN VERY OPEN, VERY PARTICIPATORY. IT WAS NOTICED PROPERLY. AND THIS HAS TAKEN MANY, MANY MONTHS, AND I HAVE TO SCRATCH MY HEAD TO ERASE THIRTY DAYS, TO SIGNIFICANTLY DO OR ADD TO OVER WHAT HAS BEEN DONE I ~ ~ FOR SO MANY MONTHS, AND WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWAR~ o < i w ~ ON THIS. . THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THIS IN m 2 ~ ~ ~ m ~ w o ~ TERMS OF ITS, YOU KNOW, ITS WORTHINESS AND SO FORTH LIKE THAT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHETHER IT SHOULD ADOPT THIS DISTRICT FOR THIS NEW ZONING DISTRICT AND, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES AND SO FORTH THAT ARE BEING RAISED, YOU KNOW, BY MR. SCHRIMSHER AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE, MAYBE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. , 5 ~ ; ~ ~ .~ . m 2 ~ o ~ g m ~ ~ ~ 26 ADD SOME TIME TO NOVEMBER 23RD OR, YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE THE COMMISSION IN ITS WISDOM CAN PONDER ON NOVEMBER 9TH, YOU KNOW, OR ON THE 23RD EVEN AS TO WHETHER THEY WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE OF COURSE OR ADD THIRTY DAYS OR SO. MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BROWN: YES. MR. GRINDSTAFF: A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. ~. ~ MR. BROWN: CERTAINLY. MR. GRINDSTAFF: AS YOU TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHAT CAN BE ADDED IN THIRTY DAYS, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO PICTURE YOURSELF RECEIVING A LETTER IN THE MAIL SORT OF LIKE MR. WHITNEY DID OR FIND OUT IN READING THE PAPER THAT YOUR HOME OR PIECE OF PROPERTY YOU OWNED WAS SOMEHOW INCLUDED IN SOMETHING THAT YOU REALLY WEREN'T SURE ABOUT. WHAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THIRTY DAYS IS A BETTER EDUCATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PROPERTIES ARE IMPACTED BY THIS NEW ZONING DISTRICT AND THE IMPACT OF IT AND FOR US TO FIND OUT PARTICULARLY WHAT IN THE WORLD HAPPENED WITH THIS DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT. AND I APPRECIATE MR. CARRINGTON'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T ENTERED INTO AND THEREFORE THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY WAS NOT INCLUDED BUT THAT IS REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 27 IN DIRECT CONFLICT TO THE EXHIBIT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED ON THE 8TH. THE LINE THAT IS DRAWN AROUND INCLUDES A PORTION . A LARGE PART OF THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A MISTAKE, ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE IN THERE BECAUSE OF A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE CONFUSION ABOUT THIS. IT'S A MAJOR INTERSECTION. IT'S GOING TO HAVE A BIG KIND OF IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES. WHAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THIRTY DAYS. I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY AT THE END OF THIRTY DAYS. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS: THEY MIGHT BE HAPPY AT THE END OF THIRTY DAYS, AND THEY DOG-GONE SURE WILL BE BETTER INFORMED AT THE END OF THIRTY DAYS. I ~ ~ ~ i .~ . WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AT A MINIMUM, EVEN IF YOU SEND IT ON UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED OR FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT m 2 ~ ~ g m ~ YOU ATTACH TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT IT BE CONTINUED FOR THIRTY DAYS, IF YOU DO APPROVE IT. THERE'S NOTHING HERE RIGHT YET. YOU HAVEN'T EVEN APPROVED IT YET. WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO APPROVE IT. BUT IF YOU DO APPROVE IT, WHICH IT SOUNDS TO ME FROM THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION THAT ~ REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 28 THAT'S A FOREGONE CONC~USION, BUT PLEASE GIVE US THIRTY DAYS. ~ MR. BROWN: WHEN I CAME HERE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE LAY PEOPLE UP HERE. WE ARE A BODY OF COMMISSIONERS. MR. GRINDSTAFF: AND PROPERTY OWNERS. MR. BROWN: WE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS. WE TRY TO DO THE BEST WE CAN IN VIEWING THE SITUATION AND IN LISTENING TO EVERYTHING. AND I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION, BECAUSE I ATTENDED THE WORKSHOP IN SEPTEMBER, AS TO SIDEWALKS, LIGHTING, PARK CONDITIONS, ALL THESE ZONING RESTRICTIONS THAT MR. CARRINGTON MENTIONED THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE TODAY IN THE CITY, SO BY CREATING A NEW DISTRICT ALL THESE THINGS WOULD BE EFFECTED. m ~ ; THAT'S WHERE I CAME IN THIS EVENING, WITH ALL ~ i :~ . THESE ISSUES. AND THEN TO HEAR THAT -- BECAUSE I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WERE m 2 ~ ~ ~ GOING ON AND THINGS WERE MOVING ALONG, AND THAT HAS . ~ w ~ SORT OF BEEN I HAVE SEEN THIS PRESENTATION, AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING I GUESS THAT'S NOT IN YOUR FAVOR AS A LAY PERSON, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS PRESENTATION AT THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION MEETINGS IN TUSCAWILLA, I REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 29 HAVE SEEN IT AT THE ROTARY. IT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN MANY PLACES. I HAVE SEEN IT MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER AND IT INCLUDES WHAT I HAVE SEEN THIS EVENING. MR. GRINDSTAFF: HAS THAT INCLUDED ANY CONSIDERATION, RECOMMENDATIO~, BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS? MR. BROWN: NO, NO. THAT'S WHAT I SAID TO you. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION ALL THE THINGS WE ARE LOOKING AT IS TO BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, TO THE SIDEWALKS, WHICH WE NORMALLY DON'T DO, AND ALL THOSE THINGS, AND NOW YOU HAVE ENLIGHTENED US WITH ALL THESE OTHER ISSUES. SO WE HAVE TO TAKE ALL THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHICH MAKES OUR JOB A LITTLE HARDER IN BEING FAIR TO EVERYBODY. m ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 .w & AS YOU SAY, WE ARE HOMEOWNERS AND WE LIVE IN THE CITY AND HAVE OUR OWN VIEWS AND EVERYTHING, AND SO . DOES THE COMMISSION. = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT? MR. GRINDSTAFF: NO, SIR. MR. GRIMMS: MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A COUPLE OBSERVATIONS, MAYBE MORE TECHNICAL THAN SUBSTANTIVE. THE GENTLEMAN MENTIONED THAT SUCH AND SUCH THIS BOARD REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. . -, 30 APPROVING, THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE APPROVING AUTHORITY. ONLY THE LEGISLATIVE ARM OF THE CITY, CITY COMMISSION DOES APPROVE ZONING. MR, GRINDSTAFF: THAT'S CORRECT. POOR CHOICE OF WORDS ON MY PART. MR. GRIMMS: ON THE MATTER OF PROVIDING INFORMATION, BEING INFORMED AND SO FORTH, AGAIN I COME BACK TO WE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 163 166 FLORIDA STATUTES FOR DUE NOTICE. AND IN TERMS OF MORE DIRECT, PERSONAL TYPE OF INFORMATION, AT THE WORKSHOPS I HAVE OBSERVED VARIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE TOWN CENTER AT THESE WORKSHOPS. AND MR. SCHRIMSHER'S NAME COMES UP. MR. SCHRIMSHER WAS THERE AND HE TOOK AN ACTIVE PART ! ~ 2 ! ~ o .ffi .- S ~ m 2 ~ ~ IN THE DISCUSSIONS BOTH IN THE WORKSHOPS AND IN THE MORE GENERAL PuBLIC MEETINGS WHERE THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE RIGHT HERE IN THIS CHAMBERS. ~ m ~ ~ j AND DOVER, KOHL TALKED DIRECTLY TO MR. SCHRIMSHER. SO I FEEL, YOU KNOW, THAT HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. IN FACT, HE HAD INTERACTION &~ HE WAS KEEPING ABREAST OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TOWN CENTER DESIGN CODE AND THE CONCEPT AND THE DESIGN CODE. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 31 MR. CHAIRMAN. - , MR. BROWN: ONE THING THAT'S EVIDENT WITH US, WE DON'T LIMIT ANYBODY TO THREE MINUTES EITHER. SO WE ARE GETTING PLENTY OF GROUNDWORK HERE. MR. GRINDSTAFF: I APPRECIATE BEING HERE AND I HAVE ONE COMMENT. I STAND CORRECTED. I REALIZE THAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE. WHAT YOU DO IS YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO, A, RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL BECAUSE WE ARE NOT READY FOR IT AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOT READY FOR IT. IF YOU AREN'T ABLE TO DO THAT, IF YOU DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, DO SO WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMISSION TABLE IT FOR THIRTY DAYS OR CONTINUE IT FOR THIRTY DAYS SO THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS CAN BETTER DIGEST WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THEM. ! ~ g l ~ ~ w .~ MR. BROWN: I'M SURE YOU ARE GOING TO TELL THEM THAT IF IT DOES GO FORWARD AND CERTAINLY MAKE . THEM AWARE. m 2 ~ ~ ~ . m ~ ~ MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES, SIR. MR. BROWN: DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING, MR. CARRINGTON? MR. CARRINGTON: YES. I WAS SIMPLY GOING TO SAY WHAT HE JUST SAID IN THAT THIS BODY HAS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO RECOMMEND DENIAL, RECOMMEND REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 32 APPROVAL OR APPROVAL WITH CHANGES, AND CERTAINLY YOU ~ MAY RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER A THIRTY DAY DEFERRAL. THAT'S WITHIN YOUR PREROGATIVE. MR. BROWN: AS YOU WELL KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED VERY WELL IN THAT VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE PORTION. I HAVE THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. I APPRECIATE THAT. I HAVE JUANITA BLUMBERG, ONE MORE SPEAKER. IS SHE HERE? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. THANK YOU. MS. BLUMBERG: I'M JUANITA BLUMBERG, 1130 EAST STATE ROAD 434, WINTER SPRINGS. EXCUSE ME. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED IN THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE WINTER SPRINGS CITY HALL AND I CAME EARLY TO ASK SOME ! I ~ .W & QUESTIONS. EXCUSE ME. BUT I'M -- I HAVE TO SAY A COUPLE OF OTHER . THINGS IN VIEW OF WHAT I HAVE JUST HEARD. NUMBER m ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ONE, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE VERBIAGE OF 166, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH ONE OR MORE PRINCIPAL PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO SEND OWNERS A LETTER SPECIFICALLY TO THEM AND NOT JUST ADVERTISE IT IN THE NEWSPAPER THAT THERE'S A MEETING COMING UP. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 33 THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT ALTHOUGH I ~ . THE PLAN AS I SEE IT LOOKS FINE, BUT WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH SO FEW PROPERTY OWNERS, IT SEEMS INCUMBENT UPON THE CITY TO TRY AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED REASONABLY COMFORTABLE WITH THE SITUATION, AND I'M REALLY SORRY THAT THE BALL HAS BEEN DROPPED BETWEEN SCHRIMSHERS AND THE CITY BECAUSE AFTER ALL, THEY REPRESENT MORE THAN HALF OF THE PROPERTY. IF THE CITY CENTER IS GOING TO SUCCEED -- MR. SCHRIMSHER IS RIGHT. WE TOO HAVE GOT AN OFFER IN THE MAIL FROM THE MASTER DEVELOPER, WELBRO, WHICH CERTAINLY WASN'T AN AMOUNT THAT I EXPECTED, CONSIDERABLY LOWER. THEY ARE BASING THEIR OFFERS ON APPRAISED VALUE ON THE OLD ZONING. AND ALTHOUGH I REALIZE WE CAN ALL ! ~ g ~ ~ ~ .~ . NEGOTIATE WITH THESE PEOPLE, I THINK IF THE SCHRIMSHERS NEED THIRTY MORE DAYS, YOU SHOULD GIVE IT TO THEM. m ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ OKAY. NOW, ON TO THE QUESTIONS I CAME UP HERE TO ASK. I READ THE DESIGN PLAN WITH GREAT INTEREST AND EVERY WORD OF IT. NOWHERE IN THERE DO I SEE ALLOWED USES. IS THERE SOME OTHER PIECE OF PAPER THAT GOES WITH THIS THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN? IN OTHER WORDS, MY REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 34 PROPERTY AT THE MOMENT, OUR PROPERTY, IS ZONED Cl AND C2 AND I HAVE A LONG LIST OF ALL THE THINGS ALLOWED ..... WITHIN THAT ZONING. BUT IN THIS NEW DOCUMENT, THERE'S NOT ONE SINGLE WORD ABOUT WHAT IS ALLOWED OR DISALLOWED. MR. BROWN: CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE ITEMS? MS. BLUMBERG: OH, YEAH. I MEAN, IN Cl I THINK THEY HAVE EVERYTHING FROM -- I THINK THE FIRST ONE IS AUTOMOTIVE PAINT SHOP RIGHT ON DOWN TO A PL&~ NURSERY. IN THIS DESIGN CODE, I DON'T SEE ANY MENTION OF WHAT CAN OR CANNOT. I READ A LOT ABOUT HOW IT NEEDS TO LOOK, WHATEVER IT IS, AND HOW CLOSE TO THE ROAD IT COULD BE AND HOW MANY TREES IT NEEDS AND WHERE THE PARKING SHOULD BE. III lli 13 ~ ~ i "' .0. BUT DON'T THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE SPECIFIED? ANYWAY, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANKS. e MR. BROWN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CD 2 a: !.' ~ a: ~ MR. SCHRIMSHER: WHAT ARE THE USES? MR. BROWN: DID YOU WANT TO DETAIL ANY OF THAT MR. CARRINGTON? MR. CARRINGTON: LET ME GIVE YOU THE LAY AREAS AS BEST AS I CAN, OKAY. IN THE PRESENTATIONS THAT I HAD RECEIVED AT THE WORKSHOPS AND ALL, THERE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 35 WAS VARIOUS AREAS OF THE CITY. THERE WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND THEN THERE WOULD BE AREAS FOR ~ SHOPS AND THE PARK AREAS. I REMEMBER TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT I FELT WAS ALLOWED AND WHAT WASN'T ALLOWED AS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. IT WAS DIVIDED DOWN INTO EACH CATEGORY. AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD PERSONALLY AND MR. FERNANDEZ AND MYSELF ATTENDED THAT WORKSHOP FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD -- AND A LOT OF OUR ISSUES WERE BASED ON THE LIGHTING THROUGHOUT THE CITY, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND YES? MR. SCHRIMSHER: JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE THINGS THIS CODE SAYS IS NO BUILDING WILL EXCEED TWENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET UNLESS THE CITY SAYS IT'S OKAY. i ~ ~ I THINK EVERYONE HERE SHOPS IN A GROCERY STORE ~ ~ .W .& AND I HAZARD TO SAY THAT NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE . SHOPPING IS BIGGER THAN THAT BUT IT'S PROHIBITED IN m 2 ~ ~ ~ m ~ w ~ THE CITY UNLESS SOMEONE GIVES YOU A SPECIAL EXCEPTION. I'M NOT CONFIDENT I CAN GET A REASONABLE APPROVAL OR APPROVAL OF A REASONABLE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN THE CITY BASED UPON HOW PATHETICALLY FEW OF THE THINGS I HAVE REQUESTED HAVE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 36 BEEN CHANGED WITH THE ORIGINAL TOWN CENTER GUIDELINES, AND NOW THESE, HOW VERY LITTLE I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REALLY SATISFACTORILY GET. AND I WOULD ALSO -- AND SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER WHEN I MADE THE ANALOGY WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU BOUGHT A LOT AND WERE GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE AND YOU CAME BY YOUR PROPERTY ONE DAY AND THE NEIGHBORS WERE STANDING AROUND THERE DECIDING WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WAS GOING IN, WHETHER IT BE ONE OR TWO STORIES, WHAT COLOR YOU PAINT IT, GOT SOME SNICKERS AND CONDESCENDING LOOKS. THIS SPECIFICALLY SAYS IN HERE THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL HAVE TO APPROVE WHAT COLOR A BUILDING OR WALL OR FENCE MAY BE PAINTED OR STAINED. SO I THINK AT THE LEAST -- I'M NOT CLAIMING TO BE A PROPHET, BUT I'M ENTITLED TO AN APOLOGY AND ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ & ADMISSION THAT I WAS RIGHT IN THAT REGARD. THAT'S TWO EXAMPLES I COULD GET. . IT DOES NOT SPECIFY A USE, WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT = 2 ~ ~ ~ = ~ . ~ BE DONE. IT BASICALLY SPECIFIES WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE. AND IT DOES PROHIBIT SHOPPING CENTERS AND OTHER USES THAT ARE IN DEMAND IN THE MARKETPLACE. MR. BROWN: MR. CARRINGTON. MR. CARRINGTON: FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS A DESIGN FOR A DOWNTOWN. IT DOES NOT -- IT IS NOT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. ~ 37 DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE BIG BOX CONSTRUCTION AS MR. SCHRIMSHER HAS SAID. , HOWEVER, THERE IS A PROVISION IN THERE THAT ALLOWS LARGE BOX CONSTRUCTION OVER TWENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION GRANTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. AND IT DOES NOT SAY, SHALL BE GRANTED; IT SAYS, MAY BE GRANTED. SO THEY HAVE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY WHETHER THEY WOULD APPROVE IT. THEY WOULD APPROVE IT, I WOULD ASSUME, IF IT FITS INTO THE TOWN CENTER. IN REGARD TO MRS. BLUMBERG'S AND MR. SCHRIMSHER'S QUESTIONS ABOUT LAND USES, ALMOST ANY USE THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE, IT'S ALLOWED IN THE TOWN CENTER THERE. THAT INCLUDES HOTELS, HOSPITALS, CIVIC CENTERS. IT INCLUDES MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, ! ~ ~ OFFICE, A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL USES AT A o c i .~ & GREATER DENSITY THAN IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE C2 . DISTRICT AND THE OTHER UNDERLYING DISTRICTS THAT m 2 ~ i ~ ~ APPEAR ON THE PROPERTIES TODAY. THE USES ARE DETERMINED BY A MARKET STUDY. THIS WHOLE TOWN CENTER, ONE OF THE EARLY THINGS THAT THE CONSULTANTS REVEALED ABOUT THE TOWN CENTER IS THAT IT WOULD BE MARKET DRIVEN AND THAT BASICALLY THE MARKET NOT ONLY WOULD DRIVE THE TYPES OF USES THAT WOULD BE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. .... ~ '9 i3 ~ ~ i .W .0. . Gl ~ ~ ~ Gl Ct ~ 38 ALLOWED IN THE TOWN CENTER BUT IT WOULD ALSO ~.; DETERMINE THE PACE OF DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT WOULD DEVELOP OVER FIVE YEARS OR TWENTY YEARS OR THIRTY YEARS. AGAIN, I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT IT'S NOT THE TRADITIONAL STRIP DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE CORRIDOR. IT'S DESIGNED TO BE A TOWN CENTER AND THAT'S WHY IT HAS A TOWN CENTER ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION AND DIFFERENT USES APPLY THAN BEFORE. THE CURRENT C2 ZONING WOULD ALLOW, FOR EXAMPLE ON MR. LEARDON'S PROPERTY, TWELVE UNITS PER ACRE FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY. UNDER THE TOWN CENTER, THAT'S MARKET DRIVEN. IF THE MARKET REVEALED THAT THERE WAS A NEED FOR THIRTY-SIX UNITS PER ACRE, THEN CERTAINLY THEY CAN DO THAT. I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS HAS DEVALUED THE PROPERTY, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE MASTER DEVELOPER IS MAKING AN OFFER TO BUY ALL OF THEIR PROPERTY UP FRONT BASED ON AN APPRAISAL. AGAIN, ANY OFFER IS NEGOTIABLE AND THE CITY IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS. SO I'LL SAY NO MORE THAN THAT ABOUT THAT. I KNOW THAT THE OFFERS WERE BASED ON THE APPRAISALS. MR. GRIMMS: THE EMPHASIS OF THE TOWN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 39 CENTER WAS NOT TO ALLOW, REPAIR, DEVELOP, AS YOU SEE IN SO MANY PLACES, STRIP SHOPPING CENTERS. . ~ THROUGH VARIOUS WORKSHOPS, PUBLIC MEETINGS, THE PEOPLE OF WINTER SPRINGS EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THEY DID EXPRESS THEY DON'T WANT STRIP SHOPPING CENTERS. THEY WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND THIS IS HOW ALL THIS CAME ABOUT. A COMMENT ALLUDED TO ABOUT THE ECONOMICS, WELL, DOVER, KOHL WAS WELL AWARE OF THIS BASED ON THE GIBB STUDY THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING INCREASED DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES OF VARIOUS USES, NOT JUST DIFFERENT TYPE USES. THIS IS WHERE THE PROFITABILITY TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD BE REALIZED IN THE SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES AS COMPARED TO WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE PRESENT SITUATION. m. I MR. CHAIRMAN. t ~ o z W & MR. BROWN: MR. SCHRIMSHER. . MR. SCHRIMSHER: I THINK IT'S SURPRISING m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS THINKS IT NEEDS -- WELL, HOW MANY ACRES IS IT UP TO NOW. IT WAS TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY. THAT THEY NEED THAT BIG OF A DOWNTOWN. THE MARKET STUDY THAT THE GIBBS GROUP DID WAS ONLY A RETAIL STUDY, PERIOD. THEY DID NO OFFICE STUDY. THEY DID NO RESIDENTIAL STUDY. THEY DID NO REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 40 HOSPITAL STUDY, NO HOTEL STUDY. THEY DID A VOID ANALYSIS FOR THE DEMAND FOR RETAIL IN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. THEY DISCOVERED THERE WAS A DEMAND FOR A GROCERY STORE, A FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, BECAUSE ANYONE IN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS WHO BUYS ANYTHING LEAVES THE CITY TO BUY IT. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF RETAIL ON THE WEST PORTION OF STATE ROAD 434 BUT MOST PEOPLE DRIVE SOUTHBOUND TO TUSCAWILLA ROAD OR WEST AND SPEND THEIR MONEY IN LONGWOOD OR CASSELBERRY OR OVIEDO. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT MARKET DRIVEN. I HAVE OFFERS TO BUY OUR PROPERTY ALONG THE FRONTAGE FROM THE RANGE OF FOUR DOLLARS A SQUARE FOOT, LETTERS OF INTENT FROM PEOPLE WANTING TO BUY THE REAR OF THAT PROPERTY FOR OVER THREE DOLLARS A SQUARE FOOT, AND ~ ~ fl ! !i o z W .0. THEN WELBRO IS INTERESTED IN PAYING TWO BUCKS A SQUARE FOOT. . THEY ARE THE ONLY MASTER DEVELOPER IN THE CITY III :I a: ~ g III a: ~ OF WINTER SPRINGS THAT HAS BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH ADOPTING THIS VISION. I DON'T MIND THIS AS AN OPTION. I DON'T MIND THIS AS A SUGGESTION OR POSSIBILITY. WHAT I DO MIND IS THIS IS BEING MADE THE LAW AND THIS IS WHAT MY PROPERTY WILL HAVE TO CONFORM TO. .REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 41 THIS IS A PARTIAL CONDEMNATION. IT IS A LAW BEING PASSED THAT IS SERIOUSLY IMPACTING THE VALUE OF , OUR PROPERTY AND IT'S AS OBVIOUS AS CAN BE, IT'S JUST PLAIN OBVIOUS. AND THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS HIRED AN APPRAISER AND NOW I MUST SELL MY PROPERTY BASED ON THAT APPRAISAL THEORETICALLY, AND IN FACT, THIS OFFER IS BELOW THAT APPRAISED VALUE. I MEAN, I WAS AT THE LAST WORKSHOP AND THERE WASN'T AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT. THAT'S WHY YOU DIDN'T HEAR FROM ME THAT NIGHT. YOU SPOKE AND THE COMMISSIONERS GOT TO ASK QUESTIONS, CITY STAFF GOT TO ASK QUESTIONS BUT THE PUBLIC WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY. MR. BROWN: AT THE WORKSHOP, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE PUBLIC INPUT AT A WORKSHOP. I ~ ~ ~ ~ BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. o ~ i .W ~ MR. SCHRIMSHER: I TRIED TO SPEAK AT A . WORKSHOP ONE TIME AND THEY WOULDN'T LET ME. SO, YOU m 2 ~ ~ ! ~ w ~ ~ KNOW, JUST MY EXPERIENCE IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS MAKES ME SKEPTICAL ABOUT MY PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE OF GETTING, FOR EXAMPLE, SPECIAL EXEMPTION TO ALLOW US TO BUILD A STORE LARGER THAN TWENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, WHICH DO EXIST IN DOWNTOWNS BY THE WAY. MR. GRINDSTAFF: I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 42 MR. CARRINGTON. I REALIZE THAT EACH AND EVERYONE OF THESE, IN THE PLAN, THE NOTES ON EACH OF THOSE ROADS .... HAVE A STATEMENT THAT GENERALLY SAYS, ALL PERMITTED USES ARE ALLOWED, WHICH I THINK YOU WERE GOING TO THE QUESTION ABOUT USES. WHAT ARE THE PERMITTED USES? IT SAYS, ALL OF THE PERMITTED USES ARE ALLOWED, BUT THERE'S NOT A DESCRIPTION IN THIS DISTRICT AS TO WHAT THE PERMITTED USES ARE. SHOULD IT HAVE SAID, ALL USES ARE PERMITTED OR ALL PERMITTED USES? MR. CARRINGTON: I DID NOT WRITE THE CODE AND THE GENTLEMAN YOU NEED TO ASK THAT QUESTION TO IS VICTOR DOVER. HE WILL BE HERE MONDAY NIGHT. WHAT HE IS REALLY REFERRING TO, AGAIN, IS THAT MARKET STUDY. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT POINT. THE ! '9 f.i ~ STUDY THAT GIBBS DID WAS A STUDY FOR THE CITY. HE o 2 .... .n. WAS THE CITY'S CONSULTANT TO IDENTIFY TODAY'S MARKET. e TODAY'S MARKET TODAY AS HE STUDIED IT IS Ol ~ 12 ~ EXEMPLIFIED IN THAT REPORT THAT HE GAVE, SAYING, YES, a: ~ THERE'S A NEED FOR A HARDWARE, A GROCERY STORE, RESTAURANTS, A VARIETY OF THINGS, AND HE STATED HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS NEEDED TODAY. THE TOWN CENTER IS MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT, MUCH BROADER THAN THAT. IT STRETCHES OVER SEVERAL YEARS. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 43 THE WHOLE IDEA IS FOR THE MASTER DEVELOPER TO CONTRACT WITH A MAJOR MARKET STUDY. ~ NOW, I'M TALKING ABOUT WE SPENT LESS THAN -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS BUT AROUND THIRTY OR FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A MARKET STUDY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MARKET STUDY THAT COSTS A HUNDRED OR TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. THAT'S THE KIND OF MARKET STUDY THAT WOULD BECOME THE BASIS TO DICTATE THE USES THAT WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL IN A TOWN CENTER. NO ONE IS GOING TO COME IN AND BUY ALL THIS LAND AND PUT IN THE BASIC INTRASTRUCTURE AND COST TO IMPROVE THE LAND UNLESS THEY CONDUCT THIS TYPE OF MARKET STUDY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT. ALL OF THAT WOULD BE DONE DURING THE FEASIBILITY i ~ ~ ~ ~ .J . PERIOD THAT THE BUYER HAS ASKED FOR BEFORE THEY WOULD ACTUALLY CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY SO THAT THEY CAN RUN THEIR NUMBERS AND MAKE SURE THAT THE BOTTOM LINE = 2 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ . THAT THE NUMBERS WORK ON THE COST THAT THEY ARE PAYING FOR THE LAND AND THE VALUES THAT THEY WOULD GET OUT OF THE SALE OR RENT OF THE PROPERTY. YES, MAJOR MARKET SAID IT WOULD DICTATE USES. MR. GRINDSTAFF: SO IN EFFECT WHAT YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO RECOMMEND IS THE APPROVAL OF AN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 44 ORDINANCE DESCRIBING A ZONING DISTRICT THAT HAS NO CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT THE USES ARE. , WE ARE GOING TO BE RELYING HOPEFULLY, ONE DAY MAYBE, IF WE ARE LUCKY, ON A MARKET STUDY BY A PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER THAT IS GOING TO COME IN AND DO A MARKET STUDY TO TRY THEN TO FINALIZE THE ORDINANCE. MR. BROWN: THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. LET'S j SEE IF WE CAN'T BOX THIS THING UP HERE. IN THE CONSIDERATIONS IN THE REPORT THAT THE CITY HAS PRESENTED US THIS EVENING, IT SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION AT ITS SEPTEMBER 8TH, 1997 MEETING ADOPTED ORDINANCE 676 INSTITUTING THE TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. WHAT'S THAT MEAN IN LAY LANGUAGE? HAVE THEY ALREADY ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED THIS OR DID THEY -- MR. GRIMMS: IT IS THE INTENT OF THE CITY ! ~ g ~ COMMISSION TO WORK WITH DOVER, KOHL AND ASSOCIATES TO o < i w & -- THEY GAVE THEM THE DIRECTION AND THIS IS THE . RESULT, TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN ORIENTED, GRAPHIC = 2 ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ DESIGN ORIENTED CODE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN CENTER. THEIR INTENT WAS TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION AND THAT THESE WOULD REPLACE WHAT THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY PASSED. MR. BROWN: THAT WAS WHAT WE SEE HERE OR IS REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 45 THAT THE ONE THEY DID NOT INCLUDE THEIR PROPERTIES, DO YOU KNOW? ~ MR. CARRINGTON: THE MATTER THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT. MR. BROWN: I UNDERSTAND. I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD SQUARED AWAY. MR. GRINDSTAFF: IT'S MORE THAN A DESIGN CODE. IT'S THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT THAT INCLUDES THE DESIGN CODE. MR. BROWN: I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND. MISS KARR. MS. KARR: MY QUESTION IS FOR THE ATTORNEY. WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IN THIRTY DAYS? MR. GRINDSTAFF: LIKE THE REST OF US, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK LIKE PERHAPS THIS BOARD, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING m ~ g ~ ~ ~ w ~ ON WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. I MEAN, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW . AND AN EXCELLENT QUESTION WAS'RAISED ABOUT THE m 2 ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ USES. WHAT ARE THE USES IN THIS DISTRICT GOING TO BE. MR. WHITNEY, HE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON HIS PROPERTY. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.. WHEN WE WERE GIVEN THE MINUTES TODAY FOR THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 46 ~ SEPTEMBER 8TH MEETING AND FOUND THAT IN THE BACK OF THE DRAWING -- AND I'M SHOWING TO YOU FOR THE RECORD , THE BACK PAGE OF THE ITEM THAT WAS PASSED ON SEPTEMBER 8TH IT INCLUDES THE SCHRIMSH~R PROPERTY. WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS INCLUDED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MR. CARRINGTON READ EARLIER. WE FIND OUT THAT THIS ITEM SEPTEMBER 8 HAD US INCLUDED. WE DIDN'T THINK WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE INCLUDED. AND NOW ALONG COMES THIS NEW DISTRICT THAT'S GOING TO INCLUDE A DESIGN CODE AND REPEAL THE SEPTEMBER 8TH ACTION. MA'AM, I DON'T THINK ANYONE KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. MR. GRIMMS: MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BROWN: YES, SIR. ~ ~ ~ a ~ MR. GRIMMS: WELL, THAT ISSUE THAT HE'S ~ ~ w ~ BRINGING UP, ISN'T IT MORE A MATTER FOR THE . LEGISLATIVE BODY TO BE CONSIDERING'AND NOT REALLY SO m 2 ~ ~ c ~ MUCH FOR THIS BOARD. THIS BOARD IS LOOKING AT THE ~ w ~ ~ CONTENT OF THE DESIGN CODE. AGAIN I MENTION THAT THE INTENT OF THIS TOWN CENTER IS TO ALLOW FOR A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY IN DEVELOPMENT, MIXED USE, MUCH HIGHER INTENSITIES AND DENSITIES. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 47 ~ THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS A LEAD ROLE, AS INDICATED ON PAGE 2 AND SUCCEEDING PAGES, TO BE MINDFUL OF THIS FLEXIBILITY OF MIXED USES, AND THEY WOULD BE QUJTE AWARE, YOU KNOW, OF MIXED USES. MR. GRINDSTAFF: WHICH MEANS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS ABOUT TODAY. WE WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON SOME FUTURE MARKET STUDIES. SO MAYBE WE KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, MAYBE WE DON'T. MR. BROWN: OKAY. I'M GOING TO TRY MS. BLUMBERG: I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, DOVER, KOHL AND TOM AND MR. CARRINGTON HAVE ALL MADE IT CLEAR ABOUT THE ~ FLEXIBILITY AND THE HIGHER DENSITIES OF TOWN CENTER. I DON'T WANT THIS BOARD TO THINK THEY DELUDED US ALL THIS TIME. HOWEVER, I WAS A SECRETARY FOR ENOUGH YEARS AND THEN A BUSINESS WOMAN FOR ENOUGH YEARS ~ ~ ~ ~ AFTER THAT TO KNOW THAT THINGS LIKE THIS NEED TO BE ~ o z ~ ~ PUT IN WRITING. . SOME BOARD LOOKING AT IT TWO YEARS DOWN THE LINE = ~ ~ o ~ IS GOING TO -- IF THEY LOOKED AT THIS DOCUMENT, THEY ~ ~ ~ WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS ALLOWED. SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT SOME VERBIAGE BE PUT IN THAT IS MUCH MORE SPECIFIC, OR AT LEAST BE SPECIFIC. YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A LIST OF USES PERHAPS REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. Jifi4-., . 48 BUT YOU AT LEAST HAVE TO TALK ABOUT MIXED USE AND HIGHER DENSITIES AND FLEXIBILITY AND AT LEAST WHAT " YOU ALL HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN DOWN. MR. BROWN: LIKE I SAY, IT SOUNDS LIKE A QUESTION I ASKED AT THE WORKSHOP. AND LIKE I SAY, LIKE I EXPLAINED THIS EVENING, THE CITY IS GOING TO BE DIVIDED INTO THESE CERTAIN AREAS WHICH ARE LISTED. LIKE I SAY, THE RESIDENTIAL UNDER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS. I ASKED THAT SAME DETAILED QUESTION. MS. BLUMBERG: COMMERCIAL COVERS A LOT OF TERRITORY. I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT AN AUTO BODY SHOP ON MAIN STREET AND THE MARKET WOULDN'T CALL FOR IT. BUT NONETHELESS, YOU NEED MORE SPECIFICITY. MR. BROWN: GENERICALLY AS IT IS DEFINED, YOU COULDN'T HAVE A AUTO BODY SHOP NEXT TO THE PARK. ~ .. ; MS. BLUMBERG: YOU COULD HAVE IT ON MAIN o ~ w .. STREET. . MR. BROWN: AGAIN, LIKE YOU SAY, IT'S NOT Ol :I It Il g Ol It ~ WRITTEN OUT IN DETAIL, YET YOU COULDN'T DO A LOT OF THESE THINGS. ALL RIGHT. I MAY BE OUT OF ORDER, BUT I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK MR. CARRINGTON AND MR. GRIMMS ARE CERTAINLY KNOWLEDGEABLE TO THE CITY AND I THINK TO TAKE THE TIME NOW TO REVIEW THIS, BECAUSE WE ARE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 49 UNDER DIFFERENT RESTRICTIONS TOO -- AND WHERE WE ARE GOING TO COME FROM I DON'T KNOW YET -- BUT THE CITY COMMISSION CAN CERTAINLY BE ADVISED AND I CERTAINLY WOULD RECOMMEND THEY LISTEN TO THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE LET THIS DISCUSSION GO ON AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT HELP TO THEM. AND OF COURSE, MR. CARRINGTON AND MR. GRIMMS WILL CARRY THIS BACK TO THE CITY. SO TO ME, WHETHER I'M OUT OF ORDER OR NOT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD FORMAT THAT WE ARE GETTING THESE ISSUES OUT BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULTIES, BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF TO BE RESOLVED IN WHAT I'M HEARING. HOW IT'S GOING TO BE DONE, I DON'T KNOW YET. GO AHEAD. STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN. MR. WHITNEY: ALLEN WHITNEY. I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT ALL THESE TOWN MEETINGS AND ~ 'l' 2 ~ ~ ~ '" 0. HEARINGS THAT HAD BEEN GOING ON AND I HAVE AN EXHIBIT HERE THAT SHOWS OUR PARCEL IS EXCLUDED FROM THIS. . I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHAT DATE IT WAS CHANGED AND al ::I a: o ... WHAT PUBLIC NOTICE WAS THERE GIVEN THAT ACTUALLY ~ . al a: ~ EXCLUDED OUR PARCEL. THE FIRST DATE THAT I HAVE IS SOMETHING THAT WENT TO PRINT ON OCTOBER 22, 1998, WHICH WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PUBLIC UNTIL SOMETIME AFTER THAT. THAT'S MY POINT. THIS IS THE 4TH. I HAVE HAD REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 50 ~ ABOUT A WEEK SINCE THERE'S ANY PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF OUR PARCEL AS FAR AS I KNOW. THAT'S ONE OF OUR , REASONS TO STATING MORE TIME. I WASN'T INVOLVED IN ALL THESE PRIOR MEETINGS, ET CETERA BECAUSE AT THAT TIME WE WEREN'T INCLUDED IN IT. THIS IS THE FIRST THAT WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY. MR. BROWN: I THINK THAT'S RECORDED OUT THERE. I'M NOT GOING TO PUT ANYBODY ON THE SPOT TO TRY AND FIND A SPOT, UNLESS YOU KNOW ONE. DO YOU KNOW ONE? GO AHEAD, MR. CARRINGTON. MR. CARRINGTON: I SIMPLY WANTED TO SAY THAT THE ADVERTISEMENT REFLECTED THE AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 434. THAT'S IN CONTINGENCY BY MR. LERNER, AND I UNDERSTOOD HIS REQUEST AND IT IS CERTAINLY REFLECTED IN AN OBVIOUSLY EARLIER DRAFT m ~ s ~ INCLUDING THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. ~ ~ ~ . THE CITY HAD NOT CONSIDERED PUTTING THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IN UNTIL MR. LERNER AND MR. MCLEMORE HAD. m 2 ~ o ~ ~ m ~ ~ THEIR DISCUSSIONS, AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WAS DONE AT MR. LERNER'S REQUEST. IF THAT'S NOT TRUE, THEN CERTAINLY I WAS MISLED. I'M THE ONE THAT CALLED DOVER, KOHL AND ASKED THEM TO AMEND THE MAP AND I CERTAINLY ASKED TOM TO MAKE SURE THE MAP ADVERTISED REFLECTED THE AREA HE HAD ASKED TO REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 51 "0 BE INCLUDED. IF THAT'S NOT HIS DESIRE, CERTAINLY WE WERE ...... MISLED OR I WAS MISLED. MR. BROWN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. MR. BROWN: MR. FERNANDEZ. MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. CARRINGTON, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS GOING TO CONSIDER THIS MONDAY NIGHT WHETHER WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL, APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS, DENIAL, UNLESS WE . . . OR EVEN IF WE REQUEST IT TO BE SENT BACK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IT HAS BEEN PUBLICLY NOTICED AND IT'S GOING TO GO IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION; IS THAT CORRECT? MR. CARRINGTON: THEY COULD DEFER IT OR POSTPONE IT. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IT IS ON THEIR AGENDA FOR MONDAY NIGHT. ~ :; 12 ~ ~ ... Q. ~.. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'M RE-EMPHASIZING THE POINT, AND I'M SURE IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE INSOFAR AS ., THE ATTORNEY IS CONCERNED, THAT WE ARE NOT IN A III ~ o .. g III '" ~ POSITION TO RECOMMEND A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO GO ANYWAY. AND IT'S REALLY, IF YOU ARE WANTING A CONTINUANCE, IT SHOULD COME OUT OF THE CITY COMMISSION. IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. .. . 52 COMING UP FOR FIRST READING, THAT THE BOUNDARY LINES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY COMMISSION CAN DELETE IF THE CITY COMMISSION CHOOSES TO DO SO. MR. CARRINGTON: UNDER STATE STATUTE, THE BOUNDARY AS ADVERTISED MAY BE REDUCED. IT CANNOT BE ENLARGED. THEY CANNOT MAKE IT A LARGER AREA. MR. FERNANDEZ: IF THERE'S ANY MISCOMMUNICATION, IT COULD CERTAINLY BE CORRECTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION BY REDUCING THE AREA. THAT MATTER CAN BE ADDRESSED THE 23RD, OR POSSIBLY EVEN THE 23RD OF DECEMBER IF IN FACT THE CITY COMMISSION DECIDES TO PUT IT IN JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS. OKAY. WE ARE SITTING IN OUR CAPACITY AS A LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, IS THAT CORRECT, IN MAKING DETERMINATION ON THE TOWN CENTER ZONING DESIGN CODES? MR. CARRINGTON: YES, SIR. g; i MR. FERNANDEZ: AND THE MAP AMENDMENT? ~ ~ ~ . MR. CARRINGTON: YES, SIR, DISTRICT, LANGUAGE AND THE MAP AMENDMENT. CD :I a: Ii? ~ CD a: ~ MR. FERNANDEZ: AND IN THAT CAPACITY AND WEARING THAT HAT, WE ARE NOT PLANNING AND ZONINGj WE DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE TESTIMONY UNDER OATHj WE DO NOT I GUESS WE DO NEED TO MAKE SOME FINDINGS OF FACT, OR HOW SPECIFIC -- TALK TO ME IN THIS AREA. MR. GRIMMS: ALL RIGHT. IN COMING TO THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 53 .. CITY, WHAT I TRY TO DO IS ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT WHEN APPROPRIATE, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, BOTH AS THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND AS AN LPA. IN YOUR CAPACITY AS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TONIGHT TO REVIEW THE ZONING REGULATIONS, YOU CAN -- YOU KNOW, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT PREPARATORY TO YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. MR. FERNANDEZ: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. THEN AT THIS POINT I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION, AND I AM SO MOVING, THAT THEY APPROVE THIS TOWN CENTER DISTRICT DESIGN CODE AS WELL AS THE MAP. MR. CARRINGTON: AMENDMENT . MR. FERNANDEZ: BASED ON THE FACT THAT I HAVE, MYSELF, ALSO ATTENDED THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, I ~ 'l' g ~ HAVE HEARD THE INPUT FROM THE CITIZENS THAT WE ARE I NOT LOOKING FOR STRIP SHOPPING CENTERS. THAT IS A . FINDING OF FACT. THAT THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED, THAT III :I 0: fl ~ 0: ~ THE CONSULTANTS HAVE RECOMMENDED IT. I AM, HOWEVER, OPEN TO THE INPUT RECEIVED THIS EVENING THAT THE PERMITTED USES, AND I NOTE ON PAGE 10, MARKET SQUARE, NOTE D3, MAGNOLIA SQUARE, PAGE 11, NOTE D3, HICKORY GROVE PARK, PAGE 12, NOTE D2, PAGE 13, SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE, NOTE D2, ORANGE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. , 54 ~ AVENUE PARK, PAGE 14, NOTE D2, AND PAGE 15, MAIN STREET, NOTE D3, AS WELL AS STATE ROAD 434 FRONTAGE , ROAD ON PAGE 16, NOTE D2, AND AGAIN URBAN BOULEVARD, 17, D2, TOWN CENTER STREET, 18, D2, EDGE DRIVE, 19, D2, NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, 20, D2, CROSS SEMINOLE TRAIL, 21, D2, NEIGHBORHOOD LANE, 22, D2. EVERYONE OF THOSE SAYS, ALL PERMITTED USES ALLOWED ON ALL FLOORS IN THOSE DISTRICTS. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS LEGISLATION, AND I'M RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COMMISSION, AND WHETHER IT BE A FINDING OF FACT OR NOT, THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME GUIDANCE TO THE PUBLIC AS TO WHAT ARE PERMITTED USES. IF IT'S ALL LEGAL USES ALLOWED ON ALL FLOORS, SO BE IT, ALL LEGAL USES IN SEMINOLE COUNTY, ALL LEGAL USES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ALL PERMITTED USES. AGAIN,. IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC DEFINITION, THEN I ! ~ g ~ ~ ~ . RECOMMEND THAT IN THE DEFINITION STAGES UP HERE UP FRONT WHERE I SAW IT ON PAGE 4, DEFINITION ROMAN NUMERAL III, THAT THEY INCLUDE WHAT THEY MEAN BY m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PERMITTED USES. IF THAT BE LEGAL USES, THEN THAT BE INCLUDED. AND IN ANY EVENT, BASED ON THE STATUS OF THIS MATTER TODAY, THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY HEARD AT VARIOUS MEETINGS, THE PUBLIC INPUT RECEIVED /. THIS EVENING, I RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 55 COMMISSION AND GIVING DUE DEFERENCE TO THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES AND THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, TO TAKE ~ INTO CONSIDERATION THEIR REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO MEET WITH THE CITY. WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, I RECOMMEND APPROVAL. MR. BROWN: THAT'S QUITE A MOTION. I WILL LEAVE IT INTACT. DO I HEAR A SECOND? MS. KARR: I SECOND. MR. BROWN: MRS. KARR SECONDS THAT. MR. STEPHENS. MR. STEPHENS: I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON FLORIDA STATUTE 166, IF YOU COULD GIVE US MORE INFORMATION ON THAT, PLEASE, FINDINGS OF FACT. MR. GRIMMS: NO. ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ MR. BROWN: MR. GRIMMS, TAKE CARE OF THAT. YOU WANT IT. e MR. GRIMMS: NO. OKAY. THE ADVERTISING IS = 2 ~ o ~ g = ~ ~ ~ NOTICED IN THE NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE AREA -- AND I CERTAINLY CAN'T READ VERBATIM BUT THAT'S THE IDEA. AND WE HAVE ADVERTISEMENTS AND I CAN TELL YOU 11M VERY CONFIDENT THAT THEY HAVE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND I'M VERY CONFIDENT, IN ADDITION TO REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 1. 56 HAVING DONE THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES, THAT BOB GUTHRIE, OUR CITY ATTORNEY, HE HAS REVIEWED IT AND EXPRESSED A '- CONFIDENCE LEVEL HIMSELF BOTH FOR THE NOTICE FOR THIS BOARD MEETING TONIGHT AS WELL AS FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND MEETING OF ORDINANCE 707 FOR NOVEMBER 9TH AND NOVEMBER 23RD BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION. MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BROWN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? MR. FERNANDEZ: JUST ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS TOWN CENTER DESIGN DOES ARTICULATE A VISION THAT THIS COMMUNITY WISHES TO HAVE FOR THE FUTURE, PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND QUALITIES IN THIS TOWN CENTER. MR. STEPHENS: THAT'S TRUE. MR. FERNANDEZ: AND THAT'S A SPECIFIC ~ i FINDING OF FACT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IN SUPPORT o i ~ . OF MY MOTION FOR APPROVAL. ~ III a: ~. MR. BROWN: ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MS. LOVINGFOSS: MR. STEPHENS. MR. STEPHENS: AYE. MS. LOVINGFOSS: MR. FERNANDEZ. MR. FERNANDEZ: AYE. MS. LOVINGFOSS: MISS KARR. MS. KARR: AYE. III ~ .0 ... REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 57 MS. LOVINGFOSS: MR. BROWN. ~ MR. BROWN: AYE. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR INPUT AND I WOULD LIKE 'TO MAKE A REQUEST THAT THE TAPES BE GI~1N TO THE COMMISSIONERS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. MR. CARRINGTON: WE WILL HAVE A SET OF MINUTES FOR THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO THEIR MEETING. MR. BROWN: JUST THESE MINUTES, NOT IN FULL. THAT'S QUITE A BURDEN TO PUT ON HER. MR. CARRINGTON: OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO HAVE A SET OF MINUTES BEFORE THE COMMISSION MEETING TYPED AND HANDED OUT TO THEM ON THIS MEETING. MR. BROWN: IN FULL? MR. CARRINGTON: YES, SIR. NOT A VERBATIM. MR. BROWN: THAT'S WHY I WANTED THE TAPES TO GO SO THEY COULD LISTEN TO THE TAPES. ~ ~ ~ ~ MR. CARRINGTON: OH, THAT'S FINE. Q i w ~ MR. BROWN: I DIDN'T WANT HER TO DO . VERBATIM. WE HAVE DONE THAT ON OCCASIONS. m ~ o ~ ~ m ~ MR. CARRINGTON: WE DON'T NORMALLY DO VERBATIM. THE NORMAL MINUTES THAT YOU WILL GET AT YOUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION. MR. BROWN: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE HAVE DONE VERBATIM. AT LEAST TWICE IN THE LAST FIVE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 58 MEETINGS WE HAVE DONE VERBATIM BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO THE COMMISSION SO RAPIDLY. ~ MR. FERNANDEZ: AREN'T THE TAPES AVAILABLE TO THE CITY COMMISSION IF IN FACT THEY DO WANT TO LISTEN TO THEM? MR. CARRINGTON: ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS ASK THE CITY CLERK AND SHE MAKES ONE FOR THEM. MR. BROWN: I AM ASKING THAT WE DO IT. TOM HAS DONE IT FOR US ON OCCASION. WHETHER THEY LISTEN TO THEM OR NOT, I'M SORRY. I WOULD LIKE THEM TO GO TO THEM. LIKE I SAID, I THINK WE HAVE PUT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT INTO THIS THIS EVENING AND I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO HEAR IT. MR. FERNANDEZ: YOU WANT THE WHOLE THING OR JUST THIS AGENDA MATTER? ! ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 :~ MR. BROWN: JUST THIS AGENDA MATTER. MR. GRINDSTAFF: WE MAY BE ABLE TO SOLVE . PART OF THAT PROBLEM. THE COURT REPORTER THIS ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ EVENING IS HERE ON OUR BEHALF AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS MEETING TRANSCRIBED. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY OF IT. MR. FERNANDEZ: THAT'S THE WAY TO GO. IT WOULD BE QUICKER. THEY HAVE A COMPUTER AND THEY ZAP IT IN THERE. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 59 { MR. GRINDSTAFF: THEY ARE MIRACLE WORKERS. MR. FERNANDEZ: ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE HER ~ TRANSCRIBE JUST THE PORTION ON THE DESIGN CODE, TOWN CENTER DESIGN CODE? MR. GRINDSTAFF: I GUESS SO. MR. BROWN: DOES THAT PRESENT ANY PROBLEMS, MR. GRIMMS? MR. GRIMMS: NO. MR. GRINDSTAFF: THEY ARE UNDER OATH. THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. SHE WILL BE TRANSCRIBING IT. IT WON'T BE US. MR. BROWN: IS THAT SATISFACTORY, GOES TO COMMISSION, MR. GRIMMS? MR. GRIMMS: SURE. ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 w ~ . m ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ MR. BROWN: AND MR. GRIMMS WILL SEE IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION. I FEEL IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO EVERYONE THIS EVENING IF THE COMMISSION COULD HEAR THIS. (WHEREUPON, THE FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT 8:55 PM.) REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 60 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE "-.. STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF ORANGE: I, JUDITH A. VICK, RPR, CERTIFY THAT I WAS AUTHORIZED TO AND DID STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORT THE FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS; AND THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE RECORD OF THE AFORESAID PROCEEDINGS. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT A RELATIVE, EMPLOYEE, ATTORNEY, OR COUNSEL OF ANY OF THE PARTIES; NOR AM I A RELATIVE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY OF THE PARTIES, ATTORNEYS OR COUNSEL CONNECTED WITH THE ACTION; NOR AM I FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN THE ACTION. DATED THIS 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1998. ~ 'l' 2 ~ JlfLu- J JUDITH A. VICK, RPR o .. !l w Go NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE COMMISSION #CC607401 EXPIRES: FEBRUARY 25, 2001 . II:> :I a: ~ ~ II:> ~ ~,,\\\\"I ""11111 ~"\~6\\h A. 0i>7.1~ *' .,) ........ ""If ~ ~ ...:,~ISS/ON ;~_.. ~ ;::: · ~,... "1'"..0.......: ~ ......v ~""'y <:s ~.. ~ ::: .~~ ,~-~.-::: = : {1j ~ <fl: :: =*. LA.;: ..... _ _*= ~~,\ ICC 607401 J ~g ~,... -::;::, ~~;. /;o%Of/(Jed \\\~ ~r.,"'...~ ~ ~ ,.o~.. fain.lns\l~..~ ~~ ~.Illllic.ST~*- r;s~,,~"'" ~/I'II j" 1111\\\\'\ REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. co. , .. 1 \ (i tmTM Registered Professional Reporter TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS' CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IN RE: AGENDA ITEM A: TOWN CENTER DISTRICT DESIGN CODE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *' * * TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS DATE TAKEN: DECEMBER 2, 1998 PLACE: . .1126 E. STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, -. FLORIDA REPORTED BY: JUDITH A. VICK, RPR' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .* * * * * * Realtime 'R.:.'.t.~-fR~rters, Inc. J:::l. /" \\ .. 'e,;~..~' l:::~1,... . . Registered Professional Reporters Certified Video Technicians 1188 Fox Forrest Circle · Apopka, Florida 32712 · (407) 884-4662 · FAX (407) 884-4664 Sandra A. Dawkins, President IH~I OrIand.O. ~--=.- . . Professional Reporting SInce 7977 2 APPEARANCES: TOM BROWN, CHAIRMAN WILLIAM W. FERNANDEZ, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN ROSANNE KARR CARL E. STEPHENS, JR. ALSO PRESENT: RONALD W. MCLEMORE, CITY MANAGER THOMAS GRIMMS, AICP, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING/ZONING COORDINATOR CHARLES CARRINGTON, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MICHAEL J. GRINDSTAFF, ESQUIRE MIKE SCHRIMSHER A. C. LEERDAM ~ ~ ; o < " z W 0. . '" :I a: Ii' o ~ '" a: w '" S REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 3 WHEREUPON: THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD: " THE CLERK: THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1998, 7:00 P.M., COMMISSION CHAMBERS. CHAIRMAN BROWN: I WILL CALL THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REGULAR MEETING, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2ND, 1998 TO ORDER. CALL TO ORDER, PLEASE. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE FIRST. (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.) ROLL CALL. THE CLERK: CHAIRMAN TOM BROWN. CHAIRMAN BROWN: PRESENT . THE CLERK: VICE CHAIRMAN CARL STEPHENS, '" '" ill I JR. ~ " z W 0. MR. STEPHENS: PRESENT. . THE CLERK: MARK CLINCH. '" ::i a; 12 o ~ '" ~ (NO RESPONSE.) THE CLERK: BILL FERNANDEZ. MR. FERNANDEZ: PRESENT. THE CLERK: ROSANNE KARR. MS. KARR: PRESENT. CHAIRMAN BROWN: THE APPROVAL OF THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 4: OCTOBER 28TH, 1998 MEETING. ARE THERE ANY ERRORS OR CORRECTIONS? MR. FERNANDEZ: I THINK SHE IS GETTING VERY GOOD AT DOING OUR MINUTES. MS. KARR: I HAD ONE. CHAIRMAN BROWN: GO AHEAD. MS. KARR: IT IS ON PAGE 5 OF 6. CHAIRMAN BROWN: THE FIRST SET? MS. KARR: OCTOBER 28TH. CHAIRMAN BROWN: OCTOBER 28TH. MS. KARR: IT SAYS BOARD MEMBER FERNANDEZ SAID, I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD. I WOULD, W-O-U-L-D. CHAIRMAN BROWN: GET THE WET NOODLE OUT. IT'S PROBABLY ON, WHAT IS IT, WORD PERFECT OR SOMETHING. IT SHOULD BE IN THE COMPUTER. g: &: i;j ~ ~ ~ W 0. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ERRORS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE 28TH MINUTES TO THE MEETING? . MR. FERNANDEZ: I MOVE THAT THEY BE ADOPTED '" ~ a: it o ~ '" a: ~ AS CIRCULATED, WITH THE CORRECTION IN THE SPELLING ON PAGE 5 OF 6 OF OCTOBER 28TH, '98. CHAIRMAN BROWN: DO I HEAR A SECOND? MS. KARR: I SECOND. CHAIRMAN BROWN: IT HAS BEEN REGULARLY MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28TH REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 5 BE APPROVED. IS THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? IF NONE, SO ORDERED. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4TH, 1998. ANY ERRORS OR CORRECTIONS? MS. KARR: MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 4TH MINUTES. MR. BROWN: I HAVE ONE LITTLE QUESTION, MR. FERNANDEZ. DO YOU REMEMBER IF THE WORKSHOP WAS ON SEPTEMBER THE 8TH OR THE 28TH? MR. FERNANDEZ: IF I HAD BROUGHT MY CALENDAR. MS. KARR: I HAVE MY CALENDAR. MR. FERNANDEZ: YEAH, BUT I DIDN'T WRITE IN YOURS, I WROTE IN MINE. MS. KARR: YEAH, BUT I WROTE IN MINE. WAIT A MINUTE. NOVEMBER 8TH OR NOVEMBER 28TH? MR. FERNANDEZ: IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY. . CHAIRMAN BROWN: THREE O'CLOCK IN THE co ::l; a: li' AFTERNOON. ~ co a: w '" S MS. KARR: NO, I DON'T HAVE IT. MR. FERNANDEZ: SHE WROTE IT DOWN BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR. MS. KARR: YOU KNOW WHAT, IT WAS OCTOBER 28TH. IT WAS OCTOBER 28TH. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 6 CHAIRMAN BROWN: SO WHAT PAGE ARE WE DEALING WITH HERE? SO ON PAGE 4 OF 11, I HAD STATED THAT I HAD ATTENDED A WORKSHOP. I WAS PROBABLY WRONG. IT WAS PROBABLY OCTOBER THE 28TH INSTEAD OF SEPTEMBER THE 8TH. SO I STATED IT INCORRECTLY. WERE THERE ANY OTHER ERRORS OR CORRECTIONS? (NO RESPONSE.) IF NOT, DO I HEAR A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I THOUGHT MISS KARR ALREADY MOVED THAT. MS. KARR: I MOVED THAT. CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY. SECOND? MS. KARR: I MOVED THAT. MR. FERNANDEZ: I SECOND IT. CHAIRMAN BROWN: AND MR. . FERNANDEZ SECONDED g; ill iil ~ IT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. o < ~ W 0. (VOTE TAKEN.) . CHAIRMAN BROWN: UNANIMOUSLY PASSES. III :::E II: o ... o is III II: w '" 5 MR. FERNANDEZ: CAN WE -- I MEAN, THE MINUTES, 4 OF 11, OR I MEAN ELEVEN PAGES OF MINUTES, I THOUGHT WE WERE GETTING AWAY FROM VERBATIM TYPE OF TRANSCRIPTS UNLESS WE HAVE A COURT REPORTER PRESENT LIKE WE DO THIS EVENING. I THINK IT'S JUST ADDING A LITTLE EXTRA BURDEN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e ON THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR HER TO HAVE TO SORT OF 7 " TRACK THE COMMENTS VERBATIM OF ALL OF THE MEMBERS. CHAIRMAN BROWN: I WAS REQUESTED BY THE MAYOR THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT ON ALL THE BOARDS, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. FERNANDEZ. SO WE WILL HAVE TO WORK THAT INTO SOME KIND OF A SCHEDULE OR IN SOME WAY AS AN ISSUE GOING TO THE COMMISSION SO THEY WILL HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE TAPES IF THEY WANT TO HEAR IN DETAIL RATHER THAN DO THE MINUTES. IT IS QUITE A BURDEN. MR. GRIMMS: LET ME JUST MAKE A GENERAL COMMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THAT IN MY JUDGMENT ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, I HAVE ENCOURAGED THE SECRETARY TO THIS BOARD TO BE VERBATIM. IT IS NOT THE NORMAL POLICY FOR MINUTES OF THIS g; .. ~ ~ ~ ~ " z W 0. BOARD TO BE VERBATIM, BUT AS I SAID, ON CERTAIN WHAT I CALL OR WHAT I THINK ARE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, I e HAVE ENCOURAGED THAT THEY WERE VERBATIM TO GIVE en :li a: f! ~ a: ~ PRECISION AND TO PREVENT MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF WHAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE AT THE MEETING. CHAI RMAN BROWN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. GRIMMS. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ISSUES? (NO RESPONSE.) REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 8 WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. AND ITEM A ON THE REGULAR AGENDA IS THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE. MR. GRIMMS, PLEASE. MR. GRIMMS: MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AS YOU KNOW, THIS ITEM CAME BEFORE YOU AT THE LAST MEETING, NOVEMBER. IN NOVEMBER YOU TOOK A LOOK AT IT, REVIEWED IT AND YOU RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION, NOTING THAT PERMITTED USES SHOULD BE DEFINED, AND ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT IN VIEW OF SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE PROPOSED TOWN CENTER DISTRICT AND THEIR CONCERNS AND COMMENTS, THAT YOU RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COMMISSION TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND PERHAPS EXTEND THE TIME FRAME FOR LIKE A MONTH OR SO, WHICH THE CITY COMMISSION III :j: i:i ~ ~ " z w .. DID. THEY DEFERRED THE FIRST MEETING OF THE TOWN e CENTER DESIGN REGULATIONS UNTIL A LATER DATE, WHICH al ~ a: 12 o ~ al a: ~ IS GOING TO BE DECEMBER 14TH FOR THE FIRST READING. SO THE COMMISSION, IN VIEW OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO BRING IT BACK TO THIS BOARD. BASICALLY THE MAJOR CHANGE IS THAT THE PERMITTED USES HAVE BEEN DEFINED. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 9 AND ALSO, I DROVE OUT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS AND PUT IN THEIR MAILBOX FURTHER CHANGES AND SO FORTH THAT WERE MADE BY THE CONSULTANT, AND THIS ITEM HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE, ADDRESSED TO CHARLES, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED LETTERS AND MEMOS CONCERNING THE TOWN CENTER, TOWN CENTER BOUNDARY. THOSE ARE BASICALLY THE CHANGES. AND WE BRING THIS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT HOPEFULLY THAT YOU WILL SEE FIT TO LOOK UPON IT AND FEEL THAT IT IS IN GOOD ORDER AND THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THEY HOLD THE FIRST HEARING FOR THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 707 WHICH WOULD INCIDENT THESE TOWN CENTER . THE TOWN CENTER DESIGN CODE. MR. CHAIRMAN. CHAIRMAN BROWN: THANK YOU, SIR. THE TWO ITEMS THAT MR. FERNANDEZ HAD RECOMMENDED IN HIS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ MOTION WERE THE PERMITTED USES, AND A REQUEST WAS MADE FOR A POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF THIRTY DAYS BY THE , . APPLICANT OR MR. SCHRIMSHER'S REPRESENTATIVES, AND m ~ ~ ~ o ~ m ~ ~ THAT WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION ALSO IN OUR MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD. AND NOW PRIOR TO HEARING THE GENTLEMEN THIS EVENING, EVERYBODY IS REFERRING TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENT. AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO HEAR, IF IT'S BEEN REVIEWED AND WHAT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 10 IS THE FEELINGS AT THIS TIME. '" GO AHEAD, MR. GRIMMS. MR. GRIMMS: WE HAVE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS COPIES OF THESE REGULATIONS FOR THEIR REVIEW AND AN INVITATION, NOTICE THAT THIS MEETING WAS GOING TO BE HELD TONIGHT. SO THEY DID GET A COPY, AND HOPEFULLY THEY DID AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE IMPETUS TO REVIEW IT. CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY. MR. FERNANDEZ. MR. FERNANDEZ: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. GRIMMS, THE PERMITTED USES, WAS THIS OUR CONSULTANT THAT CAME UP WITH THESE? MR. GRIMMS: YES. OUR CONSULTANT SUBMITTED THE PROPOSED PERMITTED USES AND THE CITY STAFF REVIEWED THEM. WE HAD MADE SOME CHANGES THAT WE WANTED AND THEY WERE INCORPORATED BY THE CONSULTANTS, 0> . '" ~ ii ~ !i " z W Q. SENT BACK, AND WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS THE RESULT OF ALL THAT. . MR. FERNANDEZ: ALL RIGHT. EVERYONE IS III ~ a: l2 o g PROBABLY WELL AWARE THAT I AM AN ATTORNEY. AND FOR a: w ~ THE TOWN CENTER, ONE OF THE PERMITTED USES IS ATTORNEYS. AND I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I HAD TO BE LEGALLY PERMITTED TO BE AN ATTORNEY. I THOUGHT THE STATE ALLOWED ME TO DO THAT. I THINK WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 11 PROFESSIONAL OFFICES OR ATTORNEYS' OFFICES WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE AREA. MR. GRIMMS: RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE . . . ATTORNEYS WOULD BE UNDER PROFESSIONAL OFFICES BECAUSE YOU ARE REGULATED BY THE STATE. MR. FERNANDEZ: AND I NOTE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH CATEGORY FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. THEY DON'T LIST DOCTORS AS PERMITTED USES. THEY LIST MEDICAL CLINICS AND LABORATORIES BUT THEY DON'T LIST DOCTORS. DOCTORS ARE ALLOWED IN OUR DOWNTOWN. THEY CAN GO TO RESTAURANTS AND BUY FOOD. MR. GRIMMS: RIGHT. WELL, I GUESS, MR. FERNANDEZ, YOU HAVE A COMPLIMENT THAT YOUR PROFESSION HAS BEEN SIGNALED OUT THERE. OVER ON THE RIGHT IN THAT COLUMN THERE ABOUT A THIRD OF THE WAY DOWN, IT SAYS REGULATED PROFESSIONS, ~ I OFFICES AND PROFESSIONS LICENSED, WHICH ATTORNEYS c ~ o z w ~ ARE, AND REGULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL . REGULATION PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE CHAPTER 455, m ~ ~ ~ o ~ m ~ w ~ FLORIDA STATUTE 20.30 AS NOT EXISTING WHERE IT MAY AS HEREINAFTER BE INVENTED. MR. FERNANDEZ: GREAT. AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE. MR. GRIMMS: YOU WOULD RECOMMEND STRIKING OUT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 12 MR. FERNANDEZ: WELL, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD USE THIS FOR ATTORNEYS IN THE TOWN CENTER. MR. GRIMMS: OKAY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. OKAY. MR. FERNANDEZ: FUNNY HOW I ALWAYS LOOK AT THE LEGAL ISSUES. THAT WAS MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND MR. GRIMMS. CHAIRMAN BROWN: IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD ON THE USES OR ON ANY OF THE ITEMS OF CHANGES THAT WERE SUBMITTED? THERE'S A LETTER THAT WAS GIVEN TO MR. CARRINGTON THAT WAS -- NOT A LETTER, SORT OF A MEMO DATED OF THE CHANGES WHICH WAS GIVEN TO US PRIeR TO THE MEETING, AND WE HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES FROM THE BOARD? III '" ~ ~ ~ 51 ~ w .. MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. CHAIR. CHAIRMAN BROWN: YES, SIR. MR. FERNANDEZ. e MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. GRIMMS, THIS HAS BEEN 1Il ~ a: I( o 5 1Il a: w ~ -- LET ME BACK UP. THE ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE TOWN CENTER GUIDELINES HAS BEEN ADVERTISED AND THERE'S A SCHEDULED HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION; IS THAT CORRECT? MR. GRIMMS: THAT'S CORRECT, FOR DECEMBER THE 14TH. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 13 MR. FERNANDEZ: AND NO MATTER HOW WE VOTE, WHETHER TO EXCLUDE A PIECE OF PROPERTY OR WHATEVER ELSE, IT IS GOING TO COME UP IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION ON DECEMBER THE 14TH, WHETHER WE RECOMMEND IT OUT, RECOMMEND IT IN, APPROVE IT, DISAPPROVE IT, WHATEVER? IT IS STILL COMING UP? MR. GRIMMS: IT IS SCHEDULED TO COME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM ON DECEMBER 14TH, THAT IS CORRECT. MR. FERNANDEZ: ALL RIGHT. SPECIFICALLY ON THE LITTLE PACKAGE TO CHARLES, AND I ASSUME THAT'S MR. CARRINGTON, IS THERE ANY ACTION THAT YOU WANT THIS BOARD TO ADDRESS AS TO ANY OF THE LETTERS OR ANYTHING ABOUT PROPERTIES BEING LEFT IN OR LEFT OUT OR ANYTHING? MR. GRIMMS: WELL, YOU KNOW, IT IS UP TO ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ z w ~ THE BOARD TO LOOK AT THIS AND GIVE THEIR CONSIDERED OPINION AS TO WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN CENTER . BOUNDARIES ARE APPROPRIATE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ IF THEY SEE FIT TO THE FULL CITY COMMISSION. MR. FERNANDEZ: IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS ON THIS MATTER . HAVE WE CLARIFIED, I SHOULD SAY, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOWN CENTER? REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 14 MR. GRIMMS: .1 KNOW THAT THERE WAS .... DISCUSSION, AND YOU CAN'T SAY I'M PRIVY TO ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION AND THEY WERE INVITED TO car.m 'INTO THE TOWN CENTER AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT THERE. SO WE WENT AHEAD AND DEVELOPED THAT, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING THEM IN. AND OF COURSE, MR. LEERDAM HAS, AS YOU SEE, A LETTER THERE INDICATING HIS REQUEST OTHERWISE, SO CHAIRMAN BROWN: THANK YOU, SIR. MR. FERNANDEZ: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. CHAIRMAN BROWN: I HAVE ONE OTHER GENERAL QUESTION GENERICALLY AS A LAY PERSON. ON THIS CONCEPTIONAL PLAN FOR THE CORNER WHERE THE CURVE IS, I KNOW THAT THAT LAND HAD BEEN ZONED '" <D i COMMERCIAL QUITE A FEW YEARS AGO, C1 AND C2. ~ " z "' Q. WE ARE CONSTANTLY TALKING ABOUT A DOWNTOWN AND e THE REGULATIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN AND TO DO AWAY WITH '" ~ a: !2 c ~ a: ~ THE STRIP MALLS, BUT HERE WE ARE STICKING ANOTHER STRIP MALL RIGHT ON THE CORNER HERE WITH A GROCERY AND A DRUGSTORE AND THE RETAIL AND THE PARKING AREA THERE. AM I MISUNDERSTANDING THIS CONCEPT? MR. GRIMMS: MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE TOWN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 15 CENTER, DEVELOPING THE WAY IT HAS, AS A RESULT OF A NUMBER OF A PUBLIC MEETINGS WHERE WE GOT INPUT FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND SO FORTH, MY RECOLLECTION, AGAIN, IS THAT THERE WAS A RATHER STRONG INTEREST ON THE PART OF THE PUBLIC ESPECIALLY. THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANY MORE TYPICAL STRIP SHOPPING CENTERS THAT THEY SEE ALL THE WAY ALONG 17-92, LIKE THAT, BUT THAT THEY WANTED SOMETHING A BIT DIFFERENT, A BIT DIFFERENT, NOTICEABLY DIFFERENT. AND THAT IS WHY THE ORIENTATION WENT TOWARDS THE TOWN CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE HAVE NOW, WHICH INCORPORATES, AS PLANNERS SAY, NEO-TRADITIONAL ASPECTS. FOR EXAMPLE, NEARBY US IS DISNEY'S CELEBRATION, IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT DOWNTOWN. WHAT YOU SEE ill .. 'l' iii ~ THERE, SOME ELEMENTS WOULD BE IN OUR TOWN CENTER o < ~ W Q. PLAN. . OKAY. ACROSS THE COUNTRY THERE HAS BEEN THIS '" ::l; a: 12 o ~ '" a: w S GROWING INTEREST BY THE PUBLIC IN HAVING A MORE TRADITIONAL FOCUS THAN, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAY, THE STRIP SHOPPING MALLS OR EVEN MALLS. SO . CHAIRMAN BROWN: MR. CARRINGTON, DO YOU HAVE A MOMENT HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU WHAT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e I'M LOOKING AT. 16 MR. CARRINGTON: YES. CHAIRMAN BROWN: MAYBE I'M CONFUSED. IS THAT PART OF A CONCEPTIONAL PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED? MR. CARRINGTON: LET ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY. CHAIRMAN BROWN: CERTAINLY. MR. CARRINGTON: LET ME SPEAK TO A COUPLE OF ISSUES. ONE RAISED FIRSTLY, IF I MAY, BY MR. FERNANDEZ ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED HAD INITIATED THE ZONING CHANGE. THERE ARE REALLY THREE WAYS TO INITIATE CHANGES OF ZONING. THE MOST COMMON ONE THAT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS INITIATION TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY m ~ 2 ~ 51 .., z w Cl. THAT IS OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL, OR IT COULD BE A CONTRACT PURCHASER WITH PERMISSION OF THE OWNER. 4& ANOTHER WAY THAT ZONING CAN BE INITIATED IS ell ~ a: l! o ~ BY THIS BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY a: w ~ COMMISSION THAT ZONING BE CHANGED BECAUSE FOR SOME REASON IT IS IMPROPER. IT WOULD BE ADVERTISED, COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD, AND THEN ON WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 17 THE OTHER WAY IS A CITY-INITIATED ZONING CHANGE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. THIS ZONING CHANGE AND THE BOUNDARIES ARE THE MANIFESTATION OF A. CITY-INITIATED ZONING CHANGE. IN REGARD TO YOUR OTHER QUESTION, THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT YOU ARE LOOKING . . . THAT YOU SHOWED ME, IS, IN FACT, ATTACHED TO A LETTER FROM A . . HAS A. LETTERHEAD, EUROCAPITAL PARTNERS, AND IT'S SPRINGLAND, JESSUP SHORES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. AND THEY ACTUALLY OWN THE PROPERTY ON EACH SIDE OF 434 IN THAT AREA. AND THIS IS A CONCEPT PLAN THAT THEY DEVELOPED SHOWING A STRIP MALL AND SHOWING THE PARCEL ON THE EAST OR WEST SIDE, BROKEN INTO WHAT APPEARS TO BE FIVE DIFFERENT PARCELS. IT'S ONLY A CONCEPT PLAN. IT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. IT WOULD BE ALLOWED, I m ill ia ~ ~ " z "' 0. SUPPOSE, UNDER TRADITIONAL ZONING. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AND WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE . PROCESS. co :l ~ c ~ co a: ~ A STRIP SHOPPING CENTER WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IF, IN FACT, IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT. AND, OF COURSE, THAT WAS THE REQUEST THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AS WE UNDERSTOOD AND THE CITY COMMISSION AND I THINK SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY. SO, YES, I THINK THAT'S THE CONFUSION. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 18 CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY. I THINK YOU CLEARED '- THAT UP IN MY OWN MIND. IS THERE ANYONE ON THE BOARD THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT THAT MR. CARRINGTON CAN CLARIFY OR CLEAR THEM UP FOR US? (NO RESPONSE.) SO BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THAT WE KNOW THAT IT WAS BEEN APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL BUT IT HAS . NOTHING HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. MR. GRIMMS: IT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL. MR. CARRINGTON: IT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL. THIS IS STRICTLY A CONCEPT PLAN. CHAIRMAN BROWN: YEAH, RIGHT. MR. CARRINGTON: BACK SOME YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A COURT ORDER AND A JUDGMENT IN REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY, AND IT IS STILL IN PLACE. IT EXPIRES I .. ; ia ~ 5l j! W 0. THINK IN JUNE. AND THAT ALSO IS ATTACHED WITH THE ATTORNEY'S e RULING. AND I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND I 1Il :l a: ~ c ~ a: ~ BELIEVE THAT WAS EXPRESSED TO YOU THE LAST TIME, WAS CONCERN THAT THE RIGHTS GRANTED UNDER THAT COURT ORDER, THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED UNDER THAT COURT ORDER MAY BE IN JEOPARDY BECAUSE OF THE REZONING PROPOSED ON THIS PROPERTY TO THE TOWN CENTER. AND I BELIEVE IF YOU READ THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 19 RULING, YOU WILL SEE THAT IT DOES NOT JEOPARDIZE THE '.. VESTED INTEREST. BUT MR. LEERDAM, WHO SIGNED THE LETTER, I THINK WAS STILL CONCERNED ABOUT A PORTION OF HIS PROPERTY BEING INCLUDED, THAT PORTION BEING LABELED AS C IN THE TOWN CENTER. THAT'S A DECISION THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MADE FIRST BY THIS GROUP AND THEN ON ULTIMATELY BY THE CITY COMMISSION. MR. MCLEMORE: ALSO THERE'S A POTENTIAL, IF THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE CENTER, OF GREATER DENSITIES, GREATER INTENSITIES THAN OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS. CHAIRMAN BROWN: LET ME GIVE YOU -- I WAS SERVING ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AT THE TIME THAT THIS CAME ABOUT. THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE CORNER i i3 ~ AND THE HIGH SCHOOL BEING PUT IN. AND THE ACTUAL ~ ~ W Q. CURVE WAS THE OLD CURVE THAT WE HAD AT THAT TIME. e AND SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER THERE WAS IX> ::I a: ~ o ~ a: ~ ELECTRICAL BOXES AND PHONE BOXES AND IT WAS QUITE A MANEUVER TO GET AROUND THAT CORNER AND HOW THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ALL THOSE BOXES AND EVERYTHING. BUT AT THE TIME -- AND THIS, AGAIN, IS JUST GENERAL INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BECOME AVAILABLE TO REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 20 YOU IN THE FUTURE -- WE HAD A LARGE DISCUSSION ABOUT ~ . THIS PARKING LOT BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AT THAT TIME FOR THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WAS REQUIRED. THAT WAS A DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME ALSO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FULL DETAILS WERE. BUT THIS IS JUST INFORMATION THAT I REMEMBER AT THAT TIME WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS BECAUSE OF THE CURVE. ~ I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN TODAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LAND THERE IS UP THERE. BUT I THINK THERE ARE A FEW THINGS, AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS A CONCERN TO ME. BUT I FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR PRESENTATION AND I ACCEPT IT VERY MUCH AND I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. CARRINGTON. .~ IT CLARIFIES FOR ME WHERE WE ARE ON THIS. BUT IT ALSO SAYS THAT WE WILL BE ALERT WHEN IT COMES THROUGH OR WHATEVER. e IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE m 2 ~ ~ m ~ w S BOARD ON THE QUESTIONS? YOU WANT TO STAY RIGHT THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC INPUT RIGHT NOW. MICHAEL GRINDSTAFF, SIR. MR. GRINDSTAFF: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS MICHAEL GRINDSTAFF. I'M WITH THE LAW FIRM REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 21 OF SHUTTS & BOWEN, 20 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE .... 1000, ORLANDO, FLORIDA. OUR LAW FIRM REPRESENTS THE SCHRIMSHER GROUP HERE, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE MAIN INTERSECTION OF THE TOWN CENTER AND IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION. AND, IN FACT, THE LARGEST PROPERTY OWNER THAT COULD BE IMPACTED BY THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT. IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, BECAUSE I -- THERE IS NO NEED TO GO BACK OVER THE TWO HOURS OF CONVERSATION WE HAD A MONTH AGO, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO RESTATE ALL OF OUR OBJECTIONS THAT WE MADE A MONTH AGO. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT WE -- AND IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED !ll ill ia ~ IN THIS TOWN CENTER, OR AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THE c < ~ W Q. PROPERTY OWNERS, AND CLEARLY THE MAJORITY OF THE e ACREAGE -- DO NOT WANT THIS ORDINANCE ADOPTED. m 2 ~ f2 c :z o m ~ w S MR. CARRINGTON WAS CORRECT IN THAT THIS IS A CITY-INITIATED ORDINANCE, A CITY-INITIATED ORDINANCE BASED UPON ONE OR SOME PEOPLE'S IMPRESSION OF WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS BY DEFINING THE TYPICAL STRIP CENTER UP AND DOWN 17-92 AND THE CORNER OF 436 AND 17-92, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS AN OVER-EXAGGERATION OF WHAT THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 22 ALTERNATIVES ARE. ~ JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A DUMPY SHOPPING CENTER SOMEWHERE IN THE COUNTY OR IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S WHAT THESE PEOPLE WANT TO DEVELOP UNDER THE TRADITIONAL ZONING THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS IN WINTER SPRINGS. COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ MENTIONED SOMETHING VERY INTERESTING -- AND I'M GLAD HE POINTED IT OUT HAVING TO DO WITH THE PERMITTED USES AND THE ATTORNEYS' USE. I HOPE COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ WENT ON WITH THAT THOUGHT PROCESS AND ASKED HIMSELF, WELL, IF I DID WANT TO OPEN THAT LAW OFFICE IN THE TOWN CENTER, WHERE WOULD IT BE, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE AND WHO WOULD BE THE PEOPLE TELLING ME WHERE IT WOULD BE AND WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. ~ ~ ~ ia ~ AND I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT WHILE THERE ARE, .0 < o :z w Q. AS A LAUNDRY LIST OF PERMITTED USES, THOSE PERMITTED e USES, NO ONE WILL KNOW WHAT, WHERE OR WHEN THEY CAN m 2 ~ o ~ c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 DO ANYTHING UNTIL THE DISCRETION OF THE DRC, WHICH IS THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY, HAS EXERCISED TELLING THEM WHAT THEY CAN DO, WHERE AND WHAT TIME, AND IN SOME INSTANCES, WHAT COLOR AND WHAT THE TRIM IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. AND I WANT TO ASK YOU, WOULD YOU WANT YOUR REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 23 OFFICE TO DO THAT, WOULD YOU LIKE FOR YOUR HOUSE TO , , BE SUBJECTED TO THAT TYPE OF DISCRETION OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE WHICH, AND I QUOTE FROM PAGE 2 OF THE ORDINANCE, THE COMMITTEE SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY FOR APPROVING ALL ASPECTS OF SITE PLANNING AND EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURE, INCLUDING ESTHETIC APPROPRIATENESS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS, TRAFFIC IMPACTS, AND OTHER SITE SPECIFIC MATTERS NOT DELINEATED HEREIN. IF YOU WERE TO GO THROUGH THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF WHAT WOULD MY BUILDING PERMIT LOOK LIKE, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT YOU WERE ABSOLUTELY EXPOSED TO WHAT I BELIEVE COULD BE THE ARBITRARY DISCRETION OF THE DRC. NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND BAD GUYS OR BAD PEOPLE, * ia ~ JUST MEANS THAT THEY CAN BE. AND THAT'S GOING TO ~ o :z w Q. TURN OFF OR DISSUADE MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE OTHERWISE e INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN A TOWN CENTER. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w S ON PAGE 12 OF THE ORDINANCE -- I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU, IF YOU WOULD, TO KIND OF PINCH YOUR PAGES TOGETHER AND KEEP PAGE 2 AND PAGE 12 WHERE YOU CAN GET TO THEM READILY. AND THEN IF YOU COULD, ALSO BE ABLE TO FLIP OVER TO PAGE 17. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 24 PAGE 2 OF THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN CORRECTED TO , CLEARLY TELL YOU, AND CLEARLY TELL THE PUBLIC AND TO CLEARLY DESCRIBE THAT THAT PART OF THE COUNTY ENCLAVE THAT IS NOT IN THE CITY -- AND PLEASE LOOK AT PAGE 2 AND NOTE THE PROPERTY THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE CITY AS WITHIN THESE PURPORTED BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWN CITY ORDINANCE. THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT PROPERTY AND WOULD NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THAT PROPERTY WITHOUT SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT WITH SEMINOLE COUNTY. ON PAGE 12, WHEN YOU GET INTO THE MARKET SQUARE DESCRIPTION, THE SQUARE IS THE WINDOW INTO MAIN STREET. ON PAGE 17 -- I WAS READING AT THE TOP, LEFT-HAND CORNER OF PAGE 12 TO SAY THAT. !ll ~ I ~ ~ W Q. ON PAGE 17, MAIN STREET IS THE MOST IMPORTANT STREET IN TOWN CENTER. FOLKS, YOU HAVE NO e JURISDICTION OVER TWO CORNERS OF THAT INTERSECTION. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ IT'S NOT IN THE CITY. AND YOU ARE ASKING FOR THE REST OF THE PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE SCHRIMSHERS AND ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE WITHIN THE CITY AND WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES, TO TAKE A RISK WITH Y'ALL THAT YOU ARE SOMEHOW GOING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF JURISDICTION REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 25 TO GET THESE FOLKS TO PLAY BALL WITH THEM. ~ IF THEY DON'T PLAY BALL WITH THEM, THEY CAN DESTROY NOT JUST THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS BUT IT CAN ALSO DESTROY THE VISION OF WHOEVER DREAMED THIS TOWN CENTER PROGRAM UP WHENEVER IT CAME UP. YOU DON'T CONTROL THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY. TAKE A LOOK AT THE MAPS. ONE OF THE THINGS AND I WILL BE HONEST, I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT ALL OF THE CHANGES. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK WE HAVE GOT COPIES OF THE CHANGES. WE GOT A COPY OF THE NEW ORDINANCE THAT HAS THE PERMITTED USES IN IT AND WE HAVE GOT A COpy OF THIS PAGE THAT SHOWS THE EXCLUSION OF THE COUNTY PROPERTY AND THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY OUT TO THE WEST. BUT TAKE A LOOK, IF YOU WOULD, ON PAGE 2 AT THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP. NOTE ALL THE ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Q. DETAIL AND ALL THE DIAGRAMS AND SPECIFICITY THAT IS DEPICTED ON THE EASTERN, WHAT I WOULD SAY MAYBE THREE e QUARTERS OF THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ 5 COMPARE THAT TO WHAT IS DEPICTED ON THE NEWLY ADDED PROPERTY, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN DULY PUBLISHED THE FIRST TIME BUT IT HAS PROBABLY SINCE BEEN CORRECTED TO INCLUDE. WHY ARE THEY TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY? WHO KNOWS. AS YOU FLIP BACK THROUGH THE VARIOUS MAPS AND REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 26 YOU SEE THE MAP FOR THE CIVIC AREAS AND THE MAPS FOR THE STREETS AND THE MAPS FOR THE SQUARES AND THE MAPS FOR THE TYPES OF STREETS, FRONTAGE AREA, URBAN BOULEVARD, TOWN CENTER STREET, EDGE DRIVE, NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS, THOSE ARE ALL DRAWN IN ON EVERY OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT NOT ON THAT. EXCUSE ME? CHAIRMAN BROWN: MR. GRIMMS, IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY FOR THE PUBLIC THAT IS HERE THAT WE CAN GET THIS UP ON THE SCREEN. I SEE WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE IN THE BACK, WHICH IS VERY UNUSUAL, BUT WE APPRECIATE IT THAT YOU ARE HERE THIS EVENING. JUST TO SIT BACK AND HEAR THIS, YOU MAY GET A BETTER VIEW. IT'S A GOOD TEST FOR YOU, TOM. (OFF-THE-RECORD.) !ll ill ia ~ 5! o :z w Q. OKAY. DUE TO THE INABILITY TO OPERATE THE CAMERA, WE WILL LET YOU CONTINUE ON, AND APOLOGIZE TO e THE PUBLIC THAT IT DOESN'T WORK. m 2 ~ o ~ c ~ m ~ ~ MR. GRINDSTAFF: I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC'S SITUATION BECAUSE WHEN YOU ASKED MR. CARRINGTON, WHAT WAS THIS, WE REALLY WEREN'T SURE WHAT IT WAS YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT EITHER. SO I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. AND I WOULD ASK ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION IF YOU ARE UNCLEAR ABOUT WHAT I WAS SAYING REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. . . 27 CHAIRMAN BROWN: NO, NO, I WAS CLEAR. WAS ANYONE UP HERE NOT CLEAR? WE HAVE EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF US. I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MR. GRINDSTAFF: IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THERE WAS SOME PROPERTY ADDED OVER THERE ON THE WEST SIDE KIND OF QUICK, MAYBE OVERSIGHT, NOT SURE WHAT, ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WAS INCLUDED, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN BURDENED WITH THE SPECIFICITY THAT THE REST OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN BURDENED WITH, NOT TO SAY THAT THEY STILL DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS DISCRETIONARY PROCESS TO BE TOLD BY DRC, WHO WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO IS OR WHO WILL BE HERE WE GO. CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY, TOM, BRING IT UP. YOU'VE GOT IT NOW. OH, MAN, I AM IMPRESSED. OKAY, LOOK AT THAT. THERE WE GO. ~ ~ ~ ia ~ 5! o z W Q. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. GRIMMS. THAT'S OUTSTANDING. OKAY. STOP NOW. QUIT WHILE YOU ARE e AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. m 2 ~ o ~ c ~ m ~ ~ OKAY. THE CORNER PROPERTY THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, THAT WAS THE ONE THAT I HAD QUESTIONED IN CONCEPTUAL PLAN, AND MR. CARRINGTON HAD EXPLAINED TO US THAT THERE'S NOTHING FORMAL THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ON IT. HE CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION TO THAT, I'M SURE, FOR THE CITY. BUT NOTHING HAS COME TO US AS TO WHAT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 28 WOULD BE THERE, BUT I BELIEVE I HEARD MR. CARRINGTON ... STATE THAT IT WOULD ALSO FALL UNDER THE GUIDELINES OF THESE PROPOSALS. YOU KNOW, THE SAME THINGS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO YOU AND MR. SCHRIMSHER. MR. GRINDSTAFF: DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA WHERE THE INTERIOR ROADWAYS WILL BE? I MEAN CHAIRMAN BROWN: NO, I DON'T. MR. GRINDSTAFF: YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT CLEAR. YOU ARE PASSING AN ORDINANCE. THERE'S PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE, WHICH OVER HERE YOU HAVE GOT ALL SORTS OF HAIR THAT COULD HANG ON TO THIS PROPERTY AND THE CONDITIONS AND SPECIFICITY THAT COULD ATTACH ITSELF TO ALL THIS OTHER PROPERTY. OF COURSE, NOT THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER THAT. BUT THIS OVER HERE, THEY ~ ~ ij ~ ~ o :z ~ e STILL GET -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS BETTER OR WORSE. I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU IT WOULD BE BETTER BECAUSE AT LEAST YOU . . . WHEN YOU GO BEFORE THE m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ DISCRETIONARY BOARD OR BEFORE THE DRC, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PRESUPPOSITION AS TO WHAT YOUR PROPERTY SHOULD LOOK LIKE AS TOWARD THE REST OF THIS STUFF. YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR JUST THE RED LINE TO EXIST, EXCEPT FOR THE PART THAT YOU HAVE NO REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e 29 JURISDICTION OF, THE DONUT HOLE. ANYWAY, I BELIEVE THAT THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY. AND AS MR. FERNANDEZ MAY HAVE REFERRED FROM TIME-TO-TIME, THE EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCHRIMSHER PIECE IS BEING . . . ALL PIECES OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER ARE BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. AND WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER PROPOSED BOUNDARY AREA, VARIOUS PARCELS ARE BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY AT THE EXPENSE . . . AT THEIR EXPENSE OR AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS. IT'S JUST THAT PART IS JUST NOT FAIR AND I THINK COULD ULTIMATELY BE A FUNDAMENTAL FLAW WITH THE ORDINANCE. SPEAKING OF FLAWS, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO KNOW, ~ ~ ia ~ 5! o z W Q. BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT DOWN THE LINE AND I KNOW THAT THE CITY WILL BE REVIEWING THIS BEFORE THE . 14TH, WE BELIEVE, IN LIGHT OF OUR INABILITY TO VISIT m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 WITH THE PUBLIC AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS, THAT WHILE, ON THE OTHER HAND, STAFF IS FAIRLY FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH BOTH PUBLIC-ELECTED OFFICIALS AS WELL AS APPOINTED OFFICIALS SUCH AS YOURSELVES, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS TO THE PROPERTY REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 30 OWNERS. ., WE ARE BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE OPPONENT IN THIS CASE. THE OPPONENT HAPPENS TO BE THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS THE ELECTED BODY. WE BELIEVE THAT THE ORDINANCE, IN MANY RESPECTS, WHILE UNDULY SPECIFIC IN SOME RESPECTS, SUCH AS ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES, COLOR OF PAINT -- AND I HOPE YOU GUYS READ THE . YOU FOLKS READ THE COLOR OF PAINT DISCRETION THAT THE DRC HAS -- WHILE THERE'S AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SPECIFICITY IN THE ORDINANCE, THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF DISCRETION. AND IT IS, IN OUR OPINION, VAGUE. VAGUE BECAUSE THE MEMBERS OF THE APPOINTED BODY WILL NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO, AND IT'S GOING TO BE AT THEIR WHIM. WE BELIEVE THAT THE CITY WILL BE UNLAWFULLY DELEGATING THAT RESPONSIBILITY DOWN TO THIS APPOINTED ~ = ~ ia ~ BOARD, WHICH WILL CHANGE FROM TIME-TO-TIME. ~ o z W Q. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT MANY ELEMENTS OF THE . ORDINANCE WILL CONSTITUTE A TAKING OF THE PROPERTY. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ ~ w S NOW, NOT TO GET INTO A LEGAL DEBATE, I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT IF THERE'S ANY TYPE OF BENEFICIAL USE OR REASONABLE USE THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED FOR AFTERWARDS, THAT THERE IS NOT A TAKING. THERE'S THAT ARGUMENT. A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S INCLUDED WITHIN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 31 THE ENTIRE TOWN CENTER IS BEING TAKEN. IN FACT, IT'S , EARMARKED IN THIS VERY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT. PARKS, RECREATION, INCREDIBLE SETBACKS, FRONTAGE ROADS. THOSE ARE PUBLIC PURPOSES. THAT'S PROPERTY THAT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE USED. TO THE EXTENT PROPERTY CAN CONTINUE TO BE USED BUT ITS VALUE IS IMPACTED SEVERELY, I THINK THE CITY WILL BE EXPOSED TO DAMAGES TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS UNDER THE BURT J. HARRIS ACT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ FOR YOU, AND I'M SURE MR. FERNANDEZ HAS A COpy OF THIS AT HIS OFFICE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO READ FOR YOU SECTION 70.001, SUBSECTION 1 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES ENTITLED, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION. IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THIS AND YOU HAVEN'T HEARD OF IT, YOU NEED TO PLEASE READ IT AND BE AWARE OF IT ~ = i BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A LOT OF THAT GOING ON WITH ~ o :z w Q. THIS ORDINANCE FOR A LONG TIME. e THIS ACT MAY BE CITED AS THE BURT J. HARRIS, JR. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT. THE LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZES THAT SOME LAWS, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES OF THE STATE AND POLITICAL ENTITIES IN THE STATE AS APPLIED MAY INORDINATELY BURDEN, RESTRICT OR LIMIT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS' WITHOUT AMOUNTING TO A TAKING UNDER THE STATE CONSTITUTION OR REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 32 THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. THE LEGISLATURE DETERMINES THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT STATE INTEREST FROM SUCH INORDINATE BURDENS. THEREFORE, IT IS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION FROM THE LAW OF TAKINGS, THE LEGISLATURE HEREIN PROVIDES FOR RELIEF OR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION WHEN A NEW LAW, RULE, REGULATION OR ORDINANCE OF THE STATE OR POLITICAL ENTITY IN THE STATE AS APPLIED UNFAIRLY AFFECTS REAL PROPERTY. TO THE EXTENT THIS PROPERTY IS NOT TAKEN, OUR POSITION AND OUR CONTENTION IS THAT IT IS GOING TO UNFAIRLY BURDEN ALL THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE TOWN CENTER IN PURSUIT OF SOMEONE'S VISION, WHICH I WOULD REMIND YOU, WHEN THE VISION WAS DESCRIBED, THE CITY, !ll ~ ~ ia ~ ~ z W Q. AFTER A NUMBER OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, ISSUED ELEVEN RFPS FOR PEOPLE ALL AROUND TO COME IN AND MAKE A e PRESENTATION AS TO HOW THEY WOULD TAKE THIS TOWN m 2 ~ f2 c 5 m ~ ~ 5 CENTER CONCEPT AND DEVELOP IT INTO THE CITY OF THE FUTURE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. THEY GOT THOSE NAMES OF PEOPLE THEY SUBMITTED THOSE RFPS TO BY GOING TO PLACES SUCH AS ORLANDO, NAVAL TRAINING CENTER, WHICH BY THE WAY, IS TOTALLY OWNED BY THE CITY OF ORLANDO NOW THAT THEY HAVE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 33 CLOSED WITH THE NAVY BASE. CELEBRATIONS IS ANOTHER REFERENCE THAT WAS EVEN MADE HERE TONIGHT, TOTALLY OWNED BY DISNEY OR SOME DISNEY-RELATED ENTITY WITH DEEP POCKETS, THE PROPERTY AT CELEBRATIONS. MR. CARRINGTON LOOKS PUZZLED. IF HE HAS A QUESTION, WE'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER IT. MR. CARRINGTON, DO YOU -- MR. CARRINGTON: I WILL WAIT UNTIL YOU FINISH. MR. GRINDSTAFF: ELEVEN RFPS WERE PRESENTED. I BELIEVE THIS TO BE CORRECT. IF I'M OFF, IT WON'T BE OFF BY MUCH. EIGHT INTERVIEWS WERE CONDUCTED BY PRIVATE GROUPS WHO WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN LOOKING INTO DEVELOPING THE TOWN CENTER PROGRAM AND BEING THE MASTER DEVELOPER. ONE PERSON SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL, ONE ENTITY e SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL, AND IT WAS WELBRO AND I'M NOT m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 SURE OF THE TECHNICAL NAME. THAT PROPOSAL, WE BELIEVE, HAD A LOT OF CONDITIONS ON IT. ULTIMATELY THEY SUBMITTED AN OFFER TO THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY WHICH WAS BELOW THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS THE APPRAISAL PRODUCED BY THE CITY AND IT HAD CONDITIONS ON IT WHICH REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. tit e 34 INCLUDED THE EXCLUSION OF SOME OF THE OTHER PROPERTY IN YOUR TOWN CENTER. THERE SHOULD BE A CLUE THERE AS TO WHAT THE MARKET AND WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT AND WHAT THE HOW SHOULD I SAY, EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED IN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. I WON'T GO ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT NOT HAVING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY PARCEL, WHICH COULD BLOW THE WHOLE THING OUT OF THE WATER, OR ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE SQUEEZED OUTSIDE THE TOWN CENTER BOUNDARY LINE AND DEVELOPING. IN FACT, KASH AND KARRY IS DEVELOPING DOWN THE STREET RIGHT NOW. YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD THOSE HEARINGS. THAT'S HAPPENING BECAUSE THE TOWN CENTER IS THE NUCLEUS OF THE CITY. THIS TOWN CENTER AREA HAS BEEN STYMIED AND !ll ~ ~ fj ~ SQUELCHED BY THIS TOWN CENTER EFFORT. WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL c < 2 w 0. OF THIS ORDINANCE. WE DID THAT LAST TIME. I HAVE e m 2 ~ f2 c 5 m ~ w ~ 5 GOT A FEELING YOU PROBABLY ARE BECAUSE ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS ADD YOUR PERMITTED USES IN YOUR MIND. I THINK IT HAS ADDED MORE CONFUSION WITH THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF THE COUNTY PROPERTY. BUT WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU NOT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 35 TO ANSWER THEM. CHAIRMAN BROWN: I HAVE ONE QUESTION. AT THE LAST PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING -- AND I ATTENDED THE COMMISSION MEETING WHEN THE ITEM WAS NOT DISCUSSED, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT UP, IT WAS TABLED. BUT IN OUR PREVIOUS MEETING, I THINK I HAD LEFT WITH THE FEELING THAT YOU WOULD BE MEETING WITH THE CITY AND DOING SOME DISCUSSIONS. HAS ANY OF THESE MEETINGS TAKEN PLACE? MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES. CHAIRMAN BROWN: IS THERE ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF THE COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETINGS? MR. GRINDSTAFF: YES. THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF MEETINGS. WE HAVE BEEN OUT TO VISIT WITH MR. GRIMMS AND HIS STAFF TO GO THROUGH SOME FILES. ~ ia ~ ~ W Q. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MEETINGS. I'M NOT SURE OF THE SEQUENCE OF THE DATES BUT I e KNOW THAT WE HAVE MET WITH MR. MCLEMORE, ATTORNEY m 2 ~ C is m ~ w ~ 5 GUTHRIE, RIGHT AROUND THE TIME OF THAT HEARING. MY RECOLLECTION WAS IT WAS NOVEMBER 4TH WAS THE P AND Z. AND THEN THE VERY NEXT MONDAY WAS THE CITY MEETING. AND SOMEWHERE EITHER THAT FRIDAY OR THE FOLLOWING FRIDAY, WE MET WITH MR. MCLEMORE. IN ADDITION, NEXT TUESDAY WE HAVE A MEETING REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 36 SCHEDULED WITH MR. MCLEMORE, MR. GUTHRIE AND OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS STAFF TO FURTHER DISCUSS THIS SITUATION. I CANNOT STAND BEFORE YOU AND REPRESENT TO YOU THAT THERE IS A VIABLE PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE IN ANY REGARD. I WILL TELL YOU THAT AS IT IS PRESENTLY EXISTING, IT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO THE SCHRIMSHER GROUP. CHAIRMAN BROWN: I UNDERSTAND. AS YOU KNOW, WE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING, THIS BOARD, WE CERTAINLY LET YOU EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS OPENLY, AND THEY ARE ON THE RECORD, AS WE DID AT THE LAST MEETING AND AS YOU HAVE THIS EVENING. AND I BELIEVE THAT MR. CARRINGTON AND MR. GRIMMS REPLIED AT THE LAST MEETING. AND, OF COURSE, LIKE YOU SAY, WE DID APPROVE IT WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE USES WHICH DID COME OUT THIS TIME. ill ~ ij ~ ~ ~ W Q. AND I DO KNOW FOR A FACT THAT WE HAVE ATTENDED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR WE HAVE LISTENED TO THE TAPES OF e NUMEROUS MEETINGS, PUBLIC AND WORKSHOPS ON THIS m 2 ~ f2 c is m ~ ~ ISSUE. AND WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE PAINT AND ALL, WE HAVE BEEN DOWN TO THE MAILBOXES AND, YOU KNOW, THE STREET RULES AND THE CORNICES ON THE BUILDINGS AND WHAT THE DESIGN IS. WE HAVE REALLY LOOKED INTO MANY, MANY ITEMS. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e 37 SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE COVERED THIS '-. EVENING -- AND WE WILL LET MR. CARRINGTON COME BACK AND ANSWER AS MUCH AS HE POSSIBLY CAN BECAUSE I CAN'T BECAUSE I'M NOT A CITY EMPLOYEE AND I DON'T HANDLE THIS ISSUE DAY-IN AND DAY-OUT LIKE IT SHOULD BE HANDLED. IT'S A MAJOR PROJECT. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS. I UNDERSTAND THE SECTION OF WHO YOU ARE REPRESENTING AS THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THAT AREA, WHICH IS A VITAL PART OF THE WHOLE CONCEPT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I CAN'T ANSWER A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS. I CAN LISTEN TO YOU AND -- MR. GRINDSTAFF: I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. BROWN. I HAVE SERVED ON P AND Z BOARDS BEFORE AND BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS. I KNOW LOTS OF TIMES YOU CAN GET ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS WHICH YOU REALLY AREN'T QUALIFIED TO e ANSWER, AND NEITHER WAS I OR AM I PERHAPS. m 2 ~ f2 c is m ~ w ~ 5 BUT YOU ARE CHARGED WITH A RESPONSIBILITY CHAIRMAN BROWN: YES. MR. GRINDSTAFF: THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS TO LISTEN TO THE FACTS, PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON, PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT, ON ONE HAND STAFF IN THIS CASE IS TRYING TO DO, AND WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 38 TRYING TO DO, PUT YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF THE '... TAXPAYER, WHETHER THAT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER OR WHETHER THAT'S SOME SORT OF STAFF VISIONARY WHO WANTS TO DO SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE AROUND HERE BEFORE. NO ONE HAS ASKED YOU -- YOU DON'T JUST CONDUCT A BOARD THAT'S A VENTING BOARD, VENTING VENUE THAT PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND JUST BLOW OFF STEAM, NOD HEADS, SEND IT ON UP. I MEAN, THAT CAN HAPPEN. BUT, I MEAN, I HAVE LISTEN TO Y'ALL FOR A COUPLE HEARINGS NOW AND I KNOW THAT YOU GENUINELY CARE AND YOU GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THESE THINGS. NO ONE IS ASKING YOU JUST TO STAMP IT AND SEND IT ON UP. AND WE APPRECIATE THE INTEREST THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO OUR SITUATION. WE WILL CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOU RECOMMENDING DENIAL BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT e ON THE CITY AND THEY WOULD APPRECIATE HEARING FROM m 2 ~ f2 c is m ~ ~ YOU IF THAT IS THE WAY THAT YOU FEEL. AND IF THAT IS THE WAY THAT YOU FEEL, WE'D APPRECIATE YOU ACKNOWLEDGING IT AND COMING TO OUR RESCUE IN THIS CASE. CHAIRMAN BROWN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. WE APPRECIATE THAT. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 39 MR. CARRINGTON, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? MR. CARRINGTON: YES. THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON, TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE AND AT LEAST GIVE PERHAPS A FURTHER EXPLANATION FOR CLARIFICATION, BEGINNING WITH THE PARCEL THAT SEEMS TO BE IN ISSUE HERE THAT BELONGS TO SPRINGLAND, I BELIEVE, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. MR. LEERDAM, THE GENERAL PARTNER FOR NOT ONLY THAT PROPERTY BUT FOR THIS PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET IN THIS TRIANGLE HERE, WHICH HAD ALWAYS BEEN IN THE TOWN CENTER, APPROACHED STAFF -- I BELIEVE THIS IS A CORRECT VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED. I WAS NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED. !ll ~ 'l' 13 ~. 5! o z W Q. BUT MR. LEERDAM WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIMITATION ON THE MULTIPLE FAMILY DENSITY IN THAT e AREA WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY THE COMP PLAN AND LIMITED m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w S TO TEN UNITS PER ACRE AND WANTED TO KNOW HOW THE TOWN CENTER REZONING WOULD AFFECT THAT PROPERTY. AND IT WAS EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT THE TOWN CENTER DENSITIES FOR MULTIPLE-FAMILY WOULD BE MARKET-DRIVEN AND COULD BE MUCH HIGHER, DEPENDING UPON THE MARKET, COULD BE AS HIGH AS THIRTY OR THIRTY-SIX UNITS PER REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 40 ACRE, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WAS OF INTEREST TO MR. LEERDAM. .... HE, I UNDERSTOOD, FOR THAT REASON, WAS CONSIDERING BEING BROUGHT INTO THE TOWN CENTER FOR THAT PARCEL BUT HAD SOME RESERVATION, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE COURT ORDER AND THESE VESTED RIGHTS, AND WAS CONCERNED THAT PERHAPS HE MIGHT LOSE VESTED RIGHTS THAT HE HAD GAINED THROUGH SOME COURT ACTION IN THE PAST AND ASKED FOR A RULING FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, IN YOUR PACKAGE, WHICH NEGATED HIS CONCERN FOR LOSING VESTED INTEREST. SO WE ASSUMED THAT HE SAW THAT AS A BENEFIT. MR. LEERDAM WILL HAVE TO SPEAK TO THAT ISSUE. BUT THAT'S WHY IT WAS NEVER A MASTER PLAN BY THE CONSULTANTS IN MIAMI. LIKE THE REST OF THE PROPERTY, IT WAS SORT OF A PERIPHERAL ADD-ON, IF YOU WILL, AT WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE PROPERTY OWNERS' REQUEST AND ~ "m ~ 13 ~ 5! o :z w Q. WHAT SEEMED TO BE, FROM THE CONSULTANTS' EYE, A REASONABLE USE OF THAT PROPERTY FOR THE WINDOW OR, AS e YOU WOULD, THE ENTRANCE INTO THE TOWN CENTER. m 2 ~ f2 c is m ~ w S MOVING ON -- AND THAT'S WHY THE STREETS WERE NOT DRAWN ON IT. THEY COULD BE DRAWN. WE WOULD HAVE TO HIRE AND PAY THE CONSULTANT AN ADDITIONAL FEE, BUT WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT WHEN IN ALL PROBABILITY THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, IF, IN FACT, THAT WERE A REALITY, WOULD BE PRIVATE STREETS AND WOULD NOT BE A GENERAL REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 41 LAYOUT LIKE THE PUBLIC STREETS ON THE OTHER SIDE. , BUT THE CITY COULD GO TO THAT EXPENSE. I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WOULD BE WISELY SPENT. GOING ON, ABOUT THE ANNEXATION, THE PARCELS THAT ARE OUTLINED WITH THE DASH LINE ARE SIMPLY TO IDENTIFY THAT THOSE ARE COUNTY ENCLAVES AND THEY DO EXIST AS COUNTY ENCLAVES AND THE CITY CANNOT INITIATE ANNEXATION ON THOSE PROPERTIES BUT . . . AND CERTAINLY WdULD NOT TAKE THE LEAD IN ANNEXING THEM, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN INITIATE ANNEXATION AND FOR NO OTHER REASON THE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC UTILITIES WOULD MAKE IT WORTHWHILE. CERTAINLY SEMINOLE COUNTY IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVIDE BASIC PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO THOSE ENCLAVES. SO, TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE. IF I OWNED THE PROPERTY OR MY REVIEW OF THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE, AS A PROPERTY OWNER, TO APPLY FOR e INCORPORATION INTO THE TOWN IN ORDER TO HAVE THE m 2 ~ o ~ c ~ m ~ w ~. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND BE ABLE TO DEVELOP UNDER A HIGHER DENSITY THAN THE CURRENT COUNTY ZONING WOULD ALLOW WITH WELL AND SEPTIC TANK. THIS THING ABOUT APPOINTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND STAFF HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND DISCUSS AND TALK WITH PUBLIC OFFICIALS, QUITE FRANKLY THAT DOES REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 42 NOT HAPPEN, HAS NOT HAPPENED. , I KNOW THAT THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THE APPOINTED OFFICIALS, DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS, HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE CONSULTANTS, THE HIRED CONSULTANTS, AND EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS AND THEIR IDEAS FOR THE REALIZATION OF THE TOWN CENTER. BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO STAFF MEMBER HAS MET WITH EITHER A GROUP OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS, EITHER ELECTED OR APPOINTED, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS TOWN CENTER AT ANY TIME EXCEPT IN A PUBLIC MEETING IN A PUBLIC FORUM LIKE THIS, AND THAT'S BEEN THE DESIGN FROM DAY ONE. AND UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN -- AND I'M NOT AWARE OF SOME MEETINGS -- BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED. !ll ~ ~ ; SO I'M SORRY THAT THE APPLICANTS FEEL THEY NEED ~ o z W Q. THIS ONE-ON-ONE MEETING AND THE RULING OF THE CITY e ATTORNEY WAS NOT IN THEIR FAVOR. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ BUT STAFF HAS NOT TAKEN THAT LIBERTY AND CERTAINLY SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT INTO THAT ARGUMENT. AND I CERTAINLY AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE BURT J. HARRIS ACT AND THE TAKING OF THE PROPERTY, AND SO IS THE CONSULTANT, AND I'M SURE SO IS THE CITY ATTORNEY. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 43 IT IS AN ISSUE. IT IS AN ISSUE, ALWAYS IS AN ..c '- ISSUE IN A CASE LIKE THIS. THE ATTORNEY STATED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTITLED TO A REASONABLE USE OF HIS LAND, AND CERTAINLY HE IS UNDER ANY TAKING ISSUE. IT HAS BEEN FELT, AND CERTAINLY THE DESIGN" HAS BEEN TO GIVE A MUCH GREATER AND MORE INTENSIVE USE FOR THE PROPERTY THAN WAS PREVIOUSLY REALIZED. THE CITY IS ALSO INVOLVED IN INCREASING ITS CAPACITY FOR WATER AND SEWER AND ACTUALLY EXTENDING WATER AND SEWER INTO THE AREA TO INCREASE DENSITY AND HOPEFULLY TO INCREASE THE VALUES OF THE PROPERTY. THAT IS A LEGAL ISSUE AND I CERTAINLY WON'T COMMENT ANY FURTHER ABOUT THE TAKING ISSUE. THAT 'S ONE FOR THE ATTORNEYS TO DEBATE. IN CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS IN OUR INTERVIEWS, I KNOW OF NO INTERVIEW OR NO ~ = ~ ~ 13 ~ 5! ~ W Q. DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CELEBRATION OR THE WALT DISNEY PEOPLE. e BUT WE DID CONTACT ABOUT TEN PEOPLE, TEN m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS RECOMMENDED TO STAFF MEMBERS. AND WE DID INCLUDE THE FOUR PEOPLE THAT WERE BIDDERS ON THE ORLANDO NAVAL TRAINING CENTER. THE FACT THAT THE ORLANDO NAVAL TRAINING CENTER WAS PUBLICLY-OWNED HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE WE CONTACTED WERE DEVELOPERS OF GOOD REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 44 STANDING, FINANCIALLY SOUND AND HAD A REPUTATION AND ..... ABILITIES TO COME IN AND DEVELOP A MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS. WE INVITED, I THINK, ABOUT TEN PEOPLE. WE HAD A REJECTION FROM A COUPLE. WE ENDED UP INTERVIEWING EIGHT MASTER DEVELOPERS. AND, YES, OUT OF THE INTERVIEWS AND IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, WE ONLY HAVE ONE PROPOSAL. BUT WE DO HAVE A SOLID PROPOSAL WITH SOLID FINANCIAL BACKING AND EXTREMELY GOOD DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITIES, AND I THINK THE CITY IS VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE WELBRO ON OUR TEAM, AND CERTAINLY WELBRO HAS BEEN SELECTED AS THE MASTER DEVELOPER. IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTRACT STAFF OR THE CITY, NEITHER HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE LETTERS OF INTENT OR CONTRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. e THAT'S STRICTLY BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT PARTNER, m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ WELBRO, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS. WE HAVE NOT SEEN THEM. WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY CONTAIN. I CANNOT COMMENT ON THEM. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE VALUE WAS. I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN INVOLVED. I WOULD SAY THAT IF THEY WERE LOW, AND I REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 45 CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND FROM THE PRESENTATION THAT THE ~ PROPERTY OWNER THINKS THEY ARE LOW, BUT YOU ALWAYS START OUT WITH AN OFFER, WHETHER YOU ARE BUYING AN AUTOMOBILE OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, AND PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO LAND, REAL ESTATE, A NEGOTIABLE ITEM, AND IT TAKES BOTH PARTIES TO MAKE A DEAL. CERTAINLY YOU CANNOT MAKE A REAL ESTATE DEAL WITHOUT A WILLING SELLER AND A WILLING BUYER. AND EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT. THAT'S A BASIC PRINCIPLE IN REAL ESTATE, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE CERTAINLY -- I THOUGHT THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME NEGOTIATION, JUST NOT AN OUTRIGHT OBJECTION TO THE OFFER, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED FROM MR. SCHRIMSHER. SO ANYWAY, THOSE ARE GENERAL COMMENTS. I WILL BE GLAD TO ELABORATE. I'M JUST RESPONDING TO THE ill i QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS MADE. ~ o z W 0. CHAIRMAN BROWN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, e MR. CARRINGTON. m 2 ~ o ~ c is m ~ ~ MR. FERNANDEZ. ONE SECOND, SIR. MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. CARRINGTON, THE TOWN ~ CENTER GUIDELINES. WE HAVE ALREADY GOT AN EXISTING WINTER SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL OUT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS LITTLE THING. IS THAT -- IT APPEARS TO BE IN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 46 THE CITY. ARE OUR GUIDELINES GOING TO APPLY TO THAT FOR ANY FUTURE EXPANSIONS, RENOVATIONS OR CHANGES THAT MAY OCCUR ON THE SCHOOL PROPERTY? ARE THEY GOING TO BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER? MR. CARRINGTON: NO. WELL, IT'S NOT PRIVATE. THE SCHOOL IS PUBLICLY OWNED AND THE CITY HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER PERMITS OR INSPECTIONS OR ANYTHING WITHIN THE SCHOOL PROPERTY. SO THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AS THEY DO TODAY. MR. GRIMMS: THE SCHOOL BOARD THROUGHOUT THE STATE IN MANY RESPECTS OPERATES UNDER SEPARATE RULES AND REGULATIONS. THEY ARE A SPECIAL CASE VIEWED BY THE STATE. THERE IS ONLY LIMITED AUTHORITY THAT !ll ill MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, HAVE OVER SCHOOL BOARD ; 5! o z W Q. OPERATIONS. e MR. FERNANDEZ: THAT'S NOT INTEGRAL TO OUR m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w S DESIGN AND OUR CONCEPT WITH THE SCHOOL BEING LOCATED WHERE IT IS; IT'S SORT OF OFF TO THE EDGE? MR. CARRINGTON: SIR, I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. I WAS MAKING A NOTE. t MR. FERNANDEZ: OUR CONCEPT AND DESIGN AND VIEW OF THIS CITY THAT WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO IMPLEMENT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e 47 THROUGH THIS DESIGN GUIDELINES IS NOT CONTINGENT ON THE CURRENT LOOK OF THE HIGH SCHOOL OR HOW IT MIGHT CHANGE IN THE FUTURE? MR. CARRINGTON: NO. AND I THINK THE CONSULTANT HAS REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS A CONCEPT PLAN, THAT THE STREETS AND THE DIAGRAMS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS ROAD ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY, AND I THINK IT SAYS THAT IN THE DESIGN DISTRICT CODE. THOSE ROADS AND THE GENERAL LAYOUT CAN CHANGE. IT'S NOT FIXED IN HARD AND FAST AS AN ENGINEERING STUDY WOULD BE. IT IS A CONCEPT PLAN. I FORGOT TO MENTION ONE THING A MINUTE AGO. MICKEY SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT THER~ WAS SOME LANDS THAT WERE BEING TAKEN, AND FOR EXAMPLE, THE GREEN SPACE HERE AND SOME OF THE OTHER GREEN SPACE OVER HERE AND HERE. I WOULD REMIND THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY'S e EFFORT TO APPLY TO THE FLORIDA 2000 TRUST AND THE m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ AWARD THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE CITY OF FOUR MILLION, NINE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND DOLLARS TO ACQUIRE THESE GREEN SPACES, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE BOUGHT UNDER STATE STATUTE. WE WOULD HAVE TO ORDER APPRAISALS BY STATE-APPROVED APPRAISERS AND PAY APPRAISED VALUE. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 48 AND, AGAIN, IT TAKES TWO PARTIES TO DO A DEAL. IT TAKES NOT ONLY A WILLING SELLER BUT A WILLING BUYER. SO ALL WE COULD DO IS HAVE IT APPRAISED. IF IT IS OVER FIVE MILLION, WE HAVE TO HAVE TWO APPRAISALS AND SUBMIT AN OFFER TO THE SELLER. AND IF THEY ARE UNWILLING TO SELL, THEN THE DEAL DOESN'T TAKE PLACE. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. THERE'S NO ARM-TWISTING OR NO HEAVY-HANDEDNESS IN THIS. IT'S SIMPLY A DEAL THAT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN THE CITY AND BELIEVES AND I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE -- ENHANCES THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, DOESN'T DETRACT FROM THE VALUE. AGAIN, THE WHOLE IDEA WAS TO HAVE A MASTER DEVELOPER TO STEP IN AND HAVE THE FINANCIAL WHEREWITHAL TO BUY ALL OF THE PROPERTY OR THE BULK OF THE PROPERTY IN THE TOWN CENTER AND DEVELOP IT OVER A PHASED PROGRAM" THAT MIGHT LAST TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS. !ll ~, ia ~ 5! o z W Q. BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO GET HIS RETURN FOR ALL OF THE MONEY UP FRONT. SO THERE IS A. e VALUE IN THE COST OF MONEY AND CERTAINLY THAT SHOULD m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w S BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. UNDER NORMAL TERMS, IT WOULD TAKE MANY YEARS FOR THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP OUT WITHOUT THE TOWN CENTER. HERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO REALIZE THE MARKET VALUE FOR THEIR PROPERTY UP FRONT. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. . 49 MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. CARRINGTON OR '- MR. GRIMMS, I WAS AT THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND I DID HEAR THE CONSULTANTS INDICATE THAT NO ONE THING WAS A DEAL BREAKER AND THAT'S HOW THEY HAD DESIGNED THIS CONCEPT. HOWEVER, I AM STILL OF THE IMPRESSION THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TUSCAWILLA AND 434 AS A VIEWPOINT MAIN DRAG, CUT DOWN THE LINE, AND IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT, THAT QUITE POSSIBLY THAT MIGHT BE A DEAL BREAKER. HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CONSULTANTS OR ANY OPINIONS THAT IF THIS COUNTY ENCLAVE THAT ENCOMPASSES OUR MAIN VIEW, TUSCAWILLA AND WHATEVER IT'S CALLED, ORANGE DRIVE, WHATEVER IT IS THAT GOES BACK UP IN THERE, IF THAT'S NOT EVER BROUGHT INTO THE CITY, IS THAT A DEAL BREAKER OR ARE !ll ~ fj ~ ~ " :z w Q. WE THEN WHISTLING IN THE WIND IN PASSING THESE DESIGN CONCEPT IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN? e MR. CARRINGTON: WELL, NOT A DEAL BREAKER. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ IT WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE A MAJOR DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON ~ w ~ 5 THE TOWN CENTER. BUT PUT YOURSELF IN THE PROPERTY OWNER'S POSITION, IF YOU WILL, FOR A MOMENT. PUT YOUR KINGSBURY HAT ON AND LOOK AT THE PROPERTY THERE THAT BELONGS TO MR. KINGSBURY THAT IS, IN FACT, A COUNTY ENCLAVE, AND CONSIDER REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 50 YOUR DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN THE COUNTY WITH COUNTY / ZONING AND UNAVAILABILITY OF UTILITIES VERSUS THE .... TOWN CENTER ZONING, WHICH IS ALMOST UNLIMITED IN DENSITY, PLUS THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER, SEWER AND DRAINAGE. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT THEY ARE EQUAL IN VALUE. CERTAINLY THE TOWN CENTER CONCEPT AND THE ANNEXATION HAS A GREATER VALUE. IT'S PHENOMENAL THAT YOU COULD THINK OTHERWISE. CHAIRMAN BROWN: THANK YOU, SIR. YES, SIR. MR. GRINDSTAFF: MR. BROWN, WE THINK OTHERWISE. AND IT MAY BE PHENOMENAL BUT THIS SUGGESTION THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE BIG-TIME INTENSITY, THEREFORE THERE'S BIG-TIME ENHANCEMENT OF VALUE, WE DON'T THINK FLIES. !ll ~ ij ~ ~ " :z w Q. JUST FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IF SOMEONE TOLD YOU . . . WHAT IF A PLANNER CAME IN HERE AND SAID, I WOULD LIKE . TO SEE THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING DUPLICATED RIGHT m 2 ~ C ~ ~ ~ THERE AT THAT INTERSECTION AND THINK OF THE DENSITY AND THINK OF THE EXPOSURE AND THINK OF ALL THE OFFICE SPACE YOU WOULD HAVE IN ONE PLACE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN A HILL OF BEANS IF THERE'S NOT A MARKET TO FILL THAT BUILDING. AND I MEAN A HILL OF BEANS. YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE A HILL OF BEANS REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e 51 AFTER YOU GO THROUGH THE COST OF BUILDING THAT THING AND THE BANKRUPTCY AND EVERYTHING ELSE. INTENSITY AND DENSITY DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO VALUE. NOW, IT CAN. I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT IT CANNOT OR THAT IT WON'T. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS DO THAT, THAT YOU DON'T LEGISLATE A MARKET, YOU RESPOND TO A MARKET. YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE THAT MARKET, IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION. MR. FERNANDEZ POINTS OUT THAT THE SCHOOL -- AND I'M REALLY DELIGHTED THAT HE APPRECIATES AND THAT EVERYONE APPRECIATES THE POTENTIAL FATALITY OF EVERYTHING IF THESE PEOPLE DON'T COME INTO THE CITY, " AS IS ONE MAN'S OPINION, OR PERHAPS MORE THAN ONE MAN'S OPINION THAT, OH, THIS IS GOING TO BE SO GREAT, THEY ARE GOING TO LINE UP AND COME WALKING INTO THE ~ = ~ ~ ij ~ 5! " z W Q. CITY. THAT'S NOT TRUE. HOW COME THAT HASN'T HAPPENED e YET. I MEAN, IT MAY HAPPEN. THERE'S NO ASSURANCE m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w S THAT IT WILL HAPPEN. AND IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE, ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE WHO CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THE OTHER DEVELOPER, THEIR PERSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OR DEVELOPERS COME IN AND SAY, OKAY, WE SEE ALL THIS STUFF, WHAT'S GOING ON OVER REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. S2 HERE, FELLOWS. ~ WELL, WE DON'T KNOW, BUT IT SURE WOULD MAKE A LOT OF SENSE FOR THEM TO COME IN. THAT'S NOT FAIR. THAT'S NOT -- IT'S A GIANT EXPERIMENT. IT'S A DREAM. AND I WON'T FAULT PEOPLE FOR DREAMING, BUT IT'S A DREAM AND AN EXPERIMENT WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY. IF THE PUBLIC WANTS TO DREAM AND EXPERIMENT, THEY SHOULD BUY THE ENTIRE TOWN CENTER BOUNDARY PROPERTY AND THEN THEY DO A DEAL WITH WELBRO. LET THEM DEAL WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE MASTER DEVELOPER PROPOSES. IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS. IT'S NOT FAIR ULTIMATELY TO THE TAXPAYERS, FOLKS. I MEAN, THEY WOULD BE THE ONES BEARING THE BRUNT OF IT IN ONE FORM OR THE OTHER, AND I HOPE THAT THEY ARE !ll ~ 'l' ia ~ AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING. c < " z W Q. IT'S COOL TO THINK ABOUT GETTING AN ICE CREAM AT e TOWN CENTER ON A SUNDAY AFTER A SOCCER GAME, BUT IT'S m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ NOT COOL TO PICK UP THE PIECES OF A FAILED SITUATION WHERE OUR MARKET STUDIES AND OUR EXPERT OPINIONS AT CITY COUNCIL WILL DESCRIBE FOR YOU OR DESCRIBE FOR THE COUNCIL WHAT THEY THINK WILL HAPPEN. THAT'S NOT FAIR TO BASE THAT ON ONE MAN'S SPECULATION OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE'S SPECULATION. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e S3 CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY. '- MR. GRINDSTAFF: THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY ON THE -- FORGIVE ME, MR. CARRINGTON, ON THE CELEBRATION SITUATION, I DID NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT YOU HAD SPECIFICALLY NEGOTIATED WITH CELEBRATION. I SOMEHOW, I GUESS, WAS BABBLING AND FELT LIKE CELEBRATION WAS A CONCEPT THAT THIS PROJECT HAD BEEN COMPARED TO. AND WHEN YOU COMPARE THESE PROJECTS TO OTHER PROPERTIES AND OTHER PROJECTS, ONE THING I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO FIND IN COMMON IS UNITY OF OWNERSHIP, UNITY OF OWNERSHIP AND PEOPLE WHO VOLUNTARILY SUBJECT A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY TO THIS TYPE OF ZONING. AND I WILL SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET BECAUSE I KNOW MR. SCHRIMSHER WANTS TO SPEAK. CHAIRMAN BROWN: YES, I WOULD LIKE PUBLIC ~ ~ 12 ~ ~ ~ W Q. INPUT. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON MR. MICHAEL SCHRIMSHER, PLEASE. e MR. SCHRIMSHER: I'M MIKE SCHRIMSHER, 600 m 2 ~ f2 c is m ~ w S EAST COLONIAL DRIVE, SUITE 100, ORLANDO, FLORIDA, REPRESENTING THE PARTNERSHIPS THAT OWN PROPERTIES EAST OF TUSCAWILLA, WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOWN ...." CENTER. WE ALSO REPRESENT MR. KINGSBURY AND WOULD REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 54 HAVE A MUCH BETTER . . . MUCH HIGHER LIKELIHOOD ~ " OF REPRESENTING HIS OPINION OF THIS PLAN THAN MR. CARRINGTON OR ANYONE ELSE, AND HE IS NOT IN FAVOR OF IT. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY BUT THERE ARE RULES ABOUT REFUSING TO GIVE SERVICES OF SEWER AND WATER TO COUNTY ENCLAVES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF WINTER SPRINGS. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN GIVE HIM AN ULTIMATUM, THAT HE CAN TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, LIKE IT OR LUMP, IF HE WANTS TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES THAT HE IS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO IN SEMINOLE COUNTY. A LOT OF THINGS HAVE BEEN RAISED. IT'S GOOD THAT THIS MAP SHOWS THE COUNTY ENCLAVES IN THE AREA KNOWN AS THE TOWN CENTER. IT'S ALSO GOOD THAT IT WAS ~ ~ 2 ~ 5! " z W Q. POINTED OUT THAT THE SCHOOL IS IN THE TOWN CENTER AND NOT -- I MEAN, THE DEVELOPER HAS LAMENTED THE FACT e THAT IT IS THERE AND CUTS A HUGE SLOT THROUGH THE m 2 ~ ~ m ~ w S TOWN CENTER AREA. IT'S ALSO INTERESTING IN THE ADOPTION OF THESE PERMITTED USES, BASICALLY WHAT WAS USED, IF YOU WANT TO COMPARE IT TO THE CURRENT CODE, IS THE C1 USES. THE USES, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT ARE NOW PERMITTED ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY C1 USES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 55 UNDER OUR C1 ZONING. , A FEW HAVE BEEN DELETED; A FEW HAVE BEEN ADDED. AND THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING TO LIST AS THE PERMITTED USES FOR ALL THE PROPERTY IN THE TOWN CENTER, WHICH IS WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES, BECAUSE PROPERTY IN THIS TOWN CENTER, SOME OF IT IS NOT ZONED C1. SOME OF IT IS ZONED SOME TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL. AND YET IT IS NOW, WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN, POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE, AS YOU REZONE THIS TO TOWN CENTER, HAVING ALL THOSE COMMERCIAL USES BECOME POSSIBLE FOR PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY MULTI-FAMILY, OFFICE, MIXED-USED, WHATEVER. HOW CAN THIS CITY ADOPT THIS PLAN KNOWING THAT A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE AREA, INCLUDING TWO OF THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE KEY INTERSECTION, ARE LOCATED IN ~ = ~ ~ ; SEMINOLE COUNTY, NOT IN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. c < " :z w Q. WHY HAS THE CITY BACKED OFF ON ITS COMMITMENT TO e IMPROVE TUSCAWILLA ROAD TO THE LAKE FRONT WITH AN m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ OVER-LOOKING LAKE JESSUP. THIS USED TO INCLUDE . . . THIS PLAN USED TO INCLUDE THE PAVING AND IMPROVING OF THIS STRETCH OF ROAD DOWN TO AN OVER-LOOKING LAKE JESSUP. THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS IS A HUGE ASSET, NOT FOR SWIMMING BUT FOR THE VIEW IN LAKE JESSUP, AND YOU REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 56 WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW IT'S THERE. , THE ONLY ROAD THAT LEADS TO THE LAKE IS ONLY PAVED TWO-THIRDS OF THE WAY NOW BECAUSE THE SCHOOL BOARD PAVED IT PART OF THE WAY AND THE PEOPLE WHO DEVELOPED ST. JOHN'S LANDING TOOK IT DOWN AS FAR AS THEY DID AND IT STILL SITS THERE AS A DIRT ROAD, UNUSABLE. AND THAT JUST TIES IN WITH OTHER THINGS THE CITY COULD DO BUT CHOOSES NOT TO, SUCH AS EXTEND SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES, BUILD OR IMPROVE OTHER ROADS, OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITIES WHEN DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS ST. JOHN'S LANDING ARE BEING BUILT TO HAVE THE SEWER LINES OVER-SIZED IN ANTICIPATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO ST. JOHNS LANDINGS, AND JUST, YOU KNOW, APPROVE A SEWER LINE TO BE PUT IN THAT JUST MEETS THE NEED OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING ~ ~ 'l' ia ~ 5! " z W Q. BUILT AT THIS TIME WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION FOR WHAT MAY BE COMING RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. e JUST IN CASE, BECAUSE I WENT THROUGH THE m 2 ~ f2 c is m ~ ~ EXERCISE, JUST SO YOU WILL KNOW, PUT IN THE RECORD, THE EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE LISTED UNDER THE PERMITTED USES, USES THAT COULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, ARE BOWLING ALLIES, SKATING RINKS, SWIMMING POOLS, SALES AND SERVICE AND SUPPLIES. THE EXCLUDED USES ARE CAR WASH, MINI-MART, REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. S7 CONVENIENCE STORE, SNACK SHOP, SELF-SERVICE , GASOLINE, RETAIL SALE OF ICE, LAUNDERETTES AND LAUNDROMATS, PAWN SHOPS AND RENTAL SHOPS. IT'S JUST A QUESTION. SHOULD THOSE USES BE CONSIDERED SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, THOSE RECREATIONAL USES. ALSO, IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT OTHER THAN THE LAST THREE, LAUNDROMATS, PAWN SHOPS AND RENTAL SHOPS, ALL THOSE OTHER USES CURRENTLY EXIST AT THE KEY INTERSECTION OF THE TOWN CENTER. CAR WASH, MOBILE STATION, MINI-MART AT THE MOBILE STATION AND ACROSS THE STREET WITH THE TACO BELL, CONVENIENCE STORE, SNACK SHOP, SELF-SERVICE GASOLINE. SO IF YOU ADOPT THIS PLAN, YOU ARE ADOPTING SOMETHING THAT ALREADY HAS EXCLUDED USES PROMINENT AT THREE OF THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE KEY INTERSECTION. THIS PLAN CALLS FOR MAXIMUM PARKING ALLOWANCE OF e ONE SPACE PER THREE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, EVEN THOUGH m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ MANY COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND OFFICE USES REQUIRE A SPACE PER TWO HUNDRED SQUARE FEET. MANY CITIES, SUCH AS ORLANDO, ARE BACKING AWAY FROM A TREND THAT WAS PREVALENT FOR AWHILE TO RESTRICT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING DEVELOPERS COULD WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD WITH THEIR NEW DEVELOPMENTS REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 58 BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO FORCE A GREATER USE OF ~ MASS TRANSIT OR FORCED USE OF PARKING GARAGES OR, YOU KNOW, LIMIT THE SEA OF ASPHALT THAT EVERYONE IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT. BUT NOW THE CITY OF ORLANDO AND OTHERS ARE BACKING AWAY FROM THAT TREND. IT'S JUST A FACT. IN OFFICE SPACES, OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, THE MOST COMMON AMOUNT OF PARKING NEEDED IS FIVE SPACES PER THOUSAND, WHICH IS ONE PER TWO HUNDRED SQUARE FEET, AND TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT FORBIDS THAT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. IF SOMEONE DOES NOT NEED THAT AND WOULD LIKE TO BUILD LESS, I'M SURE THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM. THIS ORDINANCE SAYS THAT ANYTHING OVER TWENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT IS A LARGE FOOTPRINT BUILDING AND CAN ONLY BE BUILT UNDER SPECIAL EXCEPTION. THIS IS TOO RESTRICTIVE BECAUSE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE . TOWN CENTER INCLUDE CONVENTION CENTER, GROCERIES, m 2 ~ f2 c ~ HOSPITALS, HOTEL, INNS, ET CETERA. ~ ~ 5 AND ALSO, IF YOU TAKE THE PLAN THAT'S DRAWN TO STANDARD BLOCK THERE'S VARIOUS SIZES OF CITY BLOCKS BUT THIS IS THE ONE THAT IS MOST TYPICAL, IS ABOUT THREE HUNDRED FEET BY FOUR HUNDRED, EIGHTY FEET AND INCLUDES A HUNDRED AND FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e S9 FEET OR THREE POINT THREE ACRES. '- AND TO SAY THAT NO LARGER THAN TWENTY,THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT FOOT PRINT BUILDING IS ALLOWED TO BE IN THERE IN THAT SIZE OF A BLOCK WITHOUT A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS JUST FAR TOO RESTRICTIVE. IT COULD EASILY ACCOMMODATE A MUCH LARGER BUILDING WITHIN THE CITY BLOCK. AND IT ESPECIALLY COULD ACCOMMODATE A LARGER BUILDING, A SO-CALLED BIG BOX, IF, AS IT SAYS IN THE GUIDELINES, A STREET IS INCORPORATED INTO THE PARKING LOT AS A DRIVE-ON. YOU COULD ACTUALLY HAVE THE BUILDING IN ONE BLOCK AND THE PARKING IN THE OTHER BLOCK. AND IN FACT, THIS PLAN PICTURES A GROCERY STORE AND A CONVENTION CENTER OR A HOTEL BEING LARGER THAN TWENTY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. SO IT'S AN UNNECESSARY RESTRICTION. I THINK THE ONLY REASON IT'S IN THERE, IT DIDN'T USED TO BE MENTIONED BY VICTOR DOVER. I THINK IT'S A WAY OF HIM e CONTROLLING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE ONE OR MORE m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ GROCERY STORES IN THE TOWN CENTER. BY THE WAY, AS I PREDICTED SEVEN MONTHS AGO, THIS DEVELOPMENT OF THE KASH AND KARRY SHOPPING CENTER OUTSIDE THE TOWN CENTER IS HAPPENING BECAUSE THE PREFERRED LOCATION FOR A SHOPPING CENTER AT THIS INTERSECTION IS BEING PROHIBITED AND STYMIED. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 60 AND IF WHAT WAS SAID AT THE TIME IS TRUE, THAT A SHOPPING CENTER WILL SUCK UP, ABSORB THE RETAIL DEMAND IN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND HURT THE POTENTIAL OF THE TOWN CENTER, THEN THAT'S HAPPENING ANYWAY. THIS PLAN ALSO PROHIBITS ENTIRELY VEHICULAR DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOWS AND IT ALSO PROHIBITS NEWSPAPER BOXES COMPLETELY. THE CURRENT TOWN CENTER GUIDELINES ALLOW A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW TO BE ON THE SIDE OR REAR OF A BUILDING THAT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET THE BUILDING FRONTS ON. THEY ARE CONSIDERED UNSIGHTLY. BASICALLY YOU ARE JUST OUTLAWING ALL SO-CALLED FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS BECAUSE THEY DO APPROXIMATELY FIFTY-FIVE TO SIXTY PERCENT OF THEIR BUSINESS THROUGH THE DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW. THEY COULD MORE EASILY !ll ~ ~ ij ~ GIVE UP THEIR DINING ROOM THAN THEY COULD THEIR c ~ W Q. DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW. e SO ANY DREAM ANYONE HAS ABOUT INCORPORATING m 2 ~ f2 c ~ ~ w S MCDONALD'S INTO AN IN-LINE LOCATION, JUST FORGET IT. AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, CONTACT THEM YOURSELF. AND I KNOW NEITHER OF THEM WILL SHED A TEAR IF THEY LOSE MCDONALD'S, BUT IT ISN'T JUST MCDONALD'S. IN-LINE LOCATIONS FOR FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS ONLY WORK IN THE BIG CITIES WHERE THERE IS REAL DENSITY, REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 61 SOMETHING LIKE ATLANTA, NEW YORK CITY, OR MAYBE IN .... EUROPE. I SAW THREE ON ONE TWO-MILE STRETCH IN VIENNA. THE FRONTAGE ROAD, THIS IS THE 434 CORRIDOR THROUGH THE TOWN CENTER. IT IS BEING, AS YOU KNOW, WIDENED FROM TWO-LANE TO FOUR AND HAS A POTENTIAL OF GOING TO SIX. THIS PLAN PICTURES A SINGLE-LANE, FRONTAGE ROAD WITH PARALLEL PARKING AND A TWELVE FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK ALONG THE ENTIRE STRETCH ON BOTH SIDES OF 434. IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 18, IT SHOWS A MEDIAN BETWEEN THE SINGLE-LANE, FRONTAGE ROAD AND 434 WITH AN UNKNOWN WIDTH. IT SAYS VARIES. THE ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT'S SHOWN TO BE REQUIRED, SHOWN AS THIRTY FEET, BUT YOU WILL NOTICE IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THAT MEDIAN WHOSE DIMENSION IS ~ I SHOWN AS VARIES. c < " z W Q. THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE CREATED BY VICTOR DOVER, e INCLUDING THE ONE THAT'S ON THE WALL, THE SCALE m 2 ~ c ~ ~ ~ DRAWINGS SHOW THESE MEDIANS TO BE ONE HUNDRED FEET, FOR THE MOST PART ONE HUNDRED FEET WIDE, BUT THEY DO NARROW TO FORTY FEET WHEN YOU GET NEAR THE INTERSECTION. YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR DRAWINGS CLEARER THAN THIS THAT IN THESE AREAS THERE'S PONDS PICTURED IN THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 62 MEDIAN, WHEREAS UP HERE IT'S JUST SHOWN AS LAWNS. YOU WILL ALSO SEE THAT IT SHOWS TREES AROUND BOTH SIDES OF THAT MEDIAN IN ADDITION TO THE TREES THAT ARE AGAINST THE BUILDING THAT ARE REQUIRED. THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM SEVENTY TO ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FEET FOR ALMOST THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF OUR PROPERTY ON BOTH SIDES OF STATE ROAD 434, AND IT CREATES SETBACKS OF THE SAME DISTANCE, SEVENTY TO ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FEET INSTEAD OF THE CURRENTLY REQUIRED FIFTY FEET. THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL ROWS OF TREES AND LANDSCAPING TO OBSCURE WHATEVER BUILDINGS ARE BUILT IN THE FUTURE. ' IS THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS PREPARED TO PURCHASE ALL OF OUR FRONTAGE, WHICH IS THE MOST VALUABLE PART OF OUR PROPERTY. WE WON'T DONATE IT. THIS AREA TOTALS APPROXIMATELY TEN ACRES ON OUR PROPERTY ALONE, NOT INCLUDING A SIMILAR AREA WEST OF e THE INTERSECTION ON OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 THE SAME WIDTHS AND LENGTHS ARE IN THE PLAN WEST OF TUSCAWILLA AS THEY ARE EAST. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER PROPHECY FULFILLED, YOU KNOW, WHEN I USED THE HOUSE AS AN ANALOGY, HAVING YOUR NEIGHBORS TELL YOU WHAT COLOR TO PAINT IT. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 63 YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK ABOUT HAVING A COMMITTEE , TO DICTATE WHAT COLOR PAINTS AND STAINS CAN BE USED FOR BUILDINGS THAT CAN BE BUILT AND WHAT ARCHITECTURAL STYLES OR DETAILS CAN BE APPROVED. ON PAGE 30, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, IT GIVES THE TYPES OF SHINGLES THAT ARE APPROVED. SLATE IS NOT MENTIONED. IS SLATE PROHIBITED? MANY VARIOUS CONCRETE PRODUCTS THAT SIMULATE SLATE ARE ALSO NOT MENTIONED. UNDER SHINGLES, SHAPES, BARREL TILE IS NOT MENTIONED. ARE SPANISH STYLE, BARREL TILE ROOFS PROHIBITED OR ARE THEY PERMITTED? PAGE 32 SAYS THAT MONUMENT SIGNS ARE TO BE PROHIBITED. THERE'S A BIG RED X OVER THEM. BUT THEY WILL CERTAINLY BE NEEDED ALONG STATE ROAD 434, ESPECIALLY IF THIS PLAN IS ADOPTED RESULTING IN ~ 'l' ~ ~ ~ " z W Q. STORES THAT ARE SET TOO FAR BACK, UP TO A HUNDRED AND THIRTY FEET FROM THE ROAD WITH THREE ROWS OF TREES IN . FRONT OF THEM. m 2 ~ c ~ c ~ NOBODY IS GOING TO KNOW WHAT IS THERE IF YOU ~ w ~ 5 DON'T HAVE SOME MONUMENT SIGNS. THE RETENTION AREAS THAT ARE PICTURED IN THE DRAWING ARE INADEQUATE AND POORLY PLACED. IT REALLY IS IRRITATING, AS A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER, TO HAVE YOUR PROPERTY DESIGNED BY SOMEONE ELSE, TO HAVE" THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 64 GOVERNMENT TAKE THIS UPON THEMSELVES TO DO, , , ESPECIALLY IF THEY WON'T DO IT ANY MORE ACCURATELY , THAN THIS. THERE IS NO WAY WE ARE GOING TO PUT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSES ON THIS PROPERTY, AND YET THEY ARE PICTURED ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY. AND THE REASON, I BELIEVE, IS JUST TO PACIFY THE OWNERS OF ST. JOHN'S LANDING. AND THERE'S NO WAY THAT THE RETENTION PONDS, AS DRAWN, ARE BIG ENOUGH TO' HANDLE THIS PROPERTY, AND THEY ARE PLACED IN RIDICULOUS LOCATIONS, SUCH AS THE MEDIAN ALONG 434 AND UP AGAINST ST. JOHN'S LANDING. THE LAYOUT OF ROADS, I'M TOLD, IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY BUT THIS PLAN GOES INTO A LOT OF DETAIL, AND THERE'S NOWHERE THAT IT SAYS THESE ARE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES AND MAY CHANGE. IT'S I ~ " z W Q. NOT IN THERE. THESE LAYOUT OF ROADS IS SPECULATIVE, IT IS LIMITING TO US, AND IT IS EXPENSIVE TO US. AND e m 2 ~ C ~ c ~ ~ ~ ANYONE WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT KNOWLEDGE KNOWS THAT TO BUILD THIS MANY FEET OF ALLIES AND SINGLE-LOADED ROADWAYS WILL BE FAR MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE CONVENTIONAL FORM OF DEVELOPMENT WITH DOUBLE-LOADED ROADS. AND TO SHOW ONLY ONE CONNECTION, ONE ROAD IN AND REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 65 OUT CONNECTING THE REAR PART OUR PROPERTY TO THE '.... FRONT IS ANOTHER THING THAT IS NOT A GOOD PLAN, AND WE OBJECT TO BEING SHOWN AS THE PLAN THE CITY WOULD ADOPT BECAUSE, ESPECIALLY AS TIME GOES ON AND STAFF CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN, ALL THEY HAVE TO GO BY IS WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THEM. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN IN ALL OF THESE MEETINGS AND HEARD MR. CARRINGTON SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY ARE GOING TO GO BY WHAT'S ON THE PAGE. AND GENERALLY THEY TRY TO STRICTLY ADHERE TO IT IF POSSIBLE, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT THAT'S GOING TO BE QUITE A BURDEN TO PLACE ON US, THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE WETLAND PARK ERRONEOUSLY PICTURES PONDS AND STREAMS THAT DO NOT EXIST, AND IT IS DRAWN MUCH LARGER THAN NECESSARY. IT IGNORES THE JURISDICTIONAL LINES OF THE ISOLATED WETLANDS THAT EXIST. !ll ~ ; ~ " z W Q. THE PROPERTY, THE WETLAND PARK, IS DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY. IT CAN BE MITIGATED BECAUSE IT IS ISOLATED e WETLANDS. IT IS ABOVE THE HUNDRED-YEAR FLOOD. IT m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w S DOES NOT CONNECT TO THE WETLANDS ALONG HOWELL CREEK AS IT IS SHOWN. QUESTION. IS THE CITY COMMITTED TO BUILDING THE TWO BOULEVARDS THAT CONNECT TUSCAWILLA ROAD TO STATE ROAD 434 EAST OF THE INTERSECTION, THIS ONE AND THIS ONE? REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 66 HAS THE CITY COMPARED THE ECONOMIC COSTS AND , BENEFITS BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND THIS EXPERIMENTAL, NEO-TRADITIONAL APPROACH, INCLUDING THE IMPACT ON FUTURE CITY TAX REVENUES? PROPERTY VALUES, THE TIMING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE COST OF DOING THINGS, AS I ALREADY SAID, BUILDING, EXTRA ROADWAYS, SINGLE-LOADED ROADWAYS AND ALLIES. HOW CAN THE AREAS SOUTH OF STATE ROAD 434 HAVE ANY RELATION TO THE PROPERTY NORTH OF 434 SINCE IT IS DIVIDED, SEPARATED BY A ROAD THAT WILL BE THREE HUNDRED, SEVENTY-FIVE FEET WIDE, A LITTLE WIDER THAN THE TYPICAL INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. AND I THINK YOU SEE HOW THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY RESPONDED TO THAT ALREADY IN THAT THE ONE PROPOSAL THAT THE CITY HAS RECEIVED FROM WELBRO/LERNER ONLY IS INTERESTED IN ACQUIRING THE !ll ~ ia ~ ~ " z W Q. PROPERTY NORTH OF 434. IF SOMEONE IN THE MARKETPLACE WANTS TO COME AND e BUILD EVERY SINGLE BIT OF THIS, I DON'T MIND. ALL WE m 2 ~ f2 c is m ~ w ~ REALLY WANT TO DO IS SOMETHING NICE. AND OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO SELL LAND, GET A RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT WE MADE TWELVE, THIRTEEN YEARS AGO, AND WE KNOW IT MAY TAKE YEARS MORE FOR THAT TO OCCUR. ~ BUT WE DON'T SEE WHY IT CAN'T BE BOTH/AND, WHY IT HAS TO BE AN EITHER/OR, WHY THIS IS THE ONLY REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 67 OPTION THAT CAN BE LEGALLY PERMITTED, WHY THE CITY CAN'T CREATE THIS VISION, AND THEY CAN DO THAT. THEY CAN CREATE INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE THIS VISION TO OCCUR INSTEAD OF OTHERS THAT MIGHT OCCUR. THEY DON'T NEED TO PROHIBIT ALL OF THE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE IN THE MARKETPLACE, OPTIONS THAT WHICH I'M AWARE OF, THERE'S MORE DEMAND FOR. THEY'LL NEED TO CREATE INCENTIVES TO MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPEN. IF WE DO NOT REACH AN AGREEMENT AS WILLING SELLER AND WELBRO/LERNER AS WILLING BUYER, WHAT DO WE HAVE. DESPITE THE CITY'S BEST EFFORTS, THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES SHOWING INTEREST. AND AS MR. GRINDSTAFF MENTIONED, THERE ARE A LOT OF CONDITIONS IN THEIR LETTER OF INTENT, AS WELL AS A BELOW APPRAISED VALUE OFFER PRICE. WHY SHOULD I BE LIMITED TO ONLY DEALING WITH ONE BUYER? I'M NOT SAYING THE CITY IS -- I'M NOT e ACCUSING THEM OF ANYTHING, BUT I'M SAYING THAT BY m 2 ~ ~ m ~ w ~ 5 GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IT CREATED A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE ALL ONLY AWARE OF ONE PARTY THAT'S INTERESTED IN DOING THIS, AND THEY ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN DOING PART OF IT AND THEY ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN DOING IT IF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS NORTH OF 434 WILL AGREE, CAN AGREE. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 68 AND THERE ARE OTHER CONDITIONS AS WELL. AND " DEAL KILLERS, ACCORDING TO THEM, INCLUDE THEIR INABILITY TO COME TO TERMS WITH US OR THEIR INABILITY TO COME TO TERMS WITH MCDONALD'S OR THEIR INABILITY TO COME TO TERMS WITH KINGSBURY. ANY ONE OF THOSE, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AND THE WHOLE DEAL IS OFF, AND THEN WHERE AM I OR WHERE ARE WE, WHERE IS THE CITY. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE ARE BEING PAINTED INTO A CORNER WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY OUT. AND IF THAT WAY DOESN'T WORK, WE HAVE GOT NOTHING. I'M AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THIS WILL TAKE YEARS TO DEVELOP, WHETHER WE ARE BOUGHT OUT IN LUMP SUM NOW OR WHETHER WE ARE BOUGHT OUT PIECEMEAL OVER TIME, AND I'M AWARE 'OF TIME VALUE OF MONEY AND CALCULATING PRESENT VALUES OF FUTURE CASH RECEIPT. ~ = ~ 'l' I AND AS OF RIGHT NOW, ALL I KNOW ABOUT IN THE ~ Cl :z w Q. MARKETPLACE, THIS RESULTS IN LOWER VALUE FOR OUR e PROPERTY. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ THAT'S MOST OF THE STUFF I COULD REMEMBER AT THIS SECOND. CHAIRMAN BROWN: MRS. KARR HAS A QUESTION. MRS. KARR. YOU WERE DONE, I GUESS? MR. SCHRIMSHER: I THINK. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 69 CHAI RMAN BROWN: THANK YOU. , MS. KARR: OKAY. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. THE FIRST IS FOR MR. CARRINGTON. AND THAT IS, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TOWN CENTER CONCEPT WITHOUT THE SCHRIMSHER AND KINGSBURY PROPERTIES, IN YOUR MIND? MR. CARRINGTON: WITHOUT THE KINGSBURY? MS. KARR: AND THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES ANNEX TO THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. . MR. CARRINGTON: YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE. . . MS. KARR: THE BLACK AREA. MR. CARRINGTON: THAT'S OUTLINED THERE? MS. KARR: YES, UH-HUH. MR. CARRINGTON: WELL, I WILL GO BACK TO MY PREVIOUS STATEMENT THAT IF YOU WILL PUT ON YOUR PROPERTY OWNER'S HAT AND CONSIDER THE FACT THAT YOU ARE MARKETING THAT PROPERTY, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT YOUR MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES WOULD BE MUCH GREATER e WITH THE AVAILABILITY OF THE TOWN CENTER AND THE m 2 ~ o ~ c ~ m ~ ~ DENSITIES AND THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE TOWN CENTER, PLUS THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER AND SEWER TO BE PROVIDED TO THE TOWN CENTER BY THE CITY THAN HAVING COUNTY ZONING, WHICH IS VERY RESTRICTIVE, AND NO AVAILABILITY OF WATER AND SEWER, PUTTING IN WELL AND SEPTIC. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 70 SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD ~ QUICKLY REALIZE THAT HIS BEST OPPORTUNITY WOULD BE TO APPLY TO THE CITY FOR ANNEXATION, BUT THAT WOULD REMAIN TO BE SEEN. BUT OBVIOUSLY, OVER TIME, THAT WOULD HAPPEN. MR. SCHRIMSHER: THAT DIDN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. AND BESIDES THAT, I WEAR THE PROPERTY OWNER'S HAT AT ALL TIMES, AND I AM THE BROKER FOR ~ MR. KINGSBURY AND I'M WELL AWARE OF THE HAT HE IS WEARING AS PROPERTY OWNER. THE FACT THAT HE HAD HIS PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT FOR SALE TO A SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPER TO BUILD A GROCERY STORE AND SHOPPING CENTER AT THAT LOCATION, WHICH WOULD ALREADY BE FINISHED AND PEOPLE WOULD BE SHOPPING AT IT IF THE CITY DIDN'T OBSTRUCT THAT PROCESS AND WHICH HAS CREATED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A, ~ m ~ ! YOU KNOW, GROCERY STORE AND SHOPPING CENTER TO BE ~ " Z W Q. BUILT OUTSIDE OF THE TOWN CENTER. e AND I'M ALSO AWARE OF WHAT OFFERS MR. KINGSBURY m 2 ~ f2 c ~ ~ ~ GETS FOR HIS PROPERTY NOW THAT, UNDER THE NEW GUIDELINES, THAT ARE PROPOSED, AND IT IS A HUGE REDUCTION. SO TO SAY REPEATEDLY THESE THINGS LIKE A MANTRA AS IF THE REPEATED SAYING OF THEM MAKES THEM TRUE, IT JUST DOESN'T PROVE TO BE TRUE. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 71 WHEN YOU INCREASE REGULATION AND YOU LIMIT ~ OPTIONS, YOU REDUCE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND YOU REDUCE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A BUYER OR A SELLER TO RESPOND TO A MARKET DEMAND. I THINK, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IF WE AND KINGSBURY AREN'T IN, I THINK YOU HAVE GOT A HUGE, SHOTGUN-BLASTED HOLE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR PLAN. AND I WON'T REFUSE TO SELL OUR PROPERTY. I'M NOT PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSED TO THIS. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO STEP UP AND OFFER TO PAY US A PRICE THAT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE MARKET VALUE, WE WILL SELL IT TOMORROW. I THINK IT WOULD BE -- AND THEN IF IN THE LONG RUN PEOPLE COME AND THEY BUILD IT AND THEY BUY IT AND THEY RENT IT, IT'S A WONDERFUL SUCCESS, I WILL BE ~ 2 , HAPPY FOR THEM. ~ " z W Q. CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY. MISS KARR IS STILL e QUESTIONING. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ .~ ~ MS. KARR: MY NEXT QUESTION IS FOR MR. SCHRIMSHER. AND THAT IS, WHEN YOU PURCHASED YOUR PROPERTY AT THAT CORNER, WHAT DID YOU ENVISION, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE ANNEXED TO WINTER SPRINGS OR REMAINED IN SEMINOLE COUNTY? MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT. WE WERE IN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 72 SEMINOLE COUNTY WHEN HE BOUGHT IT. WE ANNEXED INTO '- THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND WORKED WITH THE CITY TO HAVE THE PROPERTY ZONED C1. ~ WHAT WE SAW AND WE WHAT WE ENVISIONED AS WE FLEW OVER THE PROPERTY IS THERE'S ONE CORRIDOR THROUGH WINTER SPRINGS, AND THAT'S 434. THERE'S ONE NORTH/SOUTH ACCESS TO WINTER SPRINGS, AND THAT'S TUSCAWILLA. THIS PROPERTY IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF THOSE TWO ROADS. WE KNEW ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE BELTWAY WAS PROPOSED. DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE IT WOULD HAPPEN OR WHEN, BUT IT WAS PROPOSED. WE KNEW THAT 434 WAS PROPOSED TO EVENTUALLY BE FOUR-LANED. SO WE BOUGHT IT FOR SPECULATIVE REASONS, ANTICIPATING THAT WITH LAKE JESSUP AS A NATURAL BOUNDARY TO GROWTH, IT'S SORT OF A TWO-EDGE SWORD. !ll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " z W Q. IT LIMITS YOU IN ONE WAY BUT IT HELPS YOU IN ANOTHER BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT CAN'T OCCUR OUT THERE WHERE THE e FISH AND GATORS ARE. m 2 ~ o ~ c ~ m ~ ~ AND BECAUSE OF THE SUCCESS OF THE HOUSING IN THIS AREA, SUCH AS TUSCAWILLA ESPECIALLY, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN CENTRAL FLORIDA, THAT YOU HAD ALL THE CONDITIONS RIGHT, WITH A PASSAGE OF A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME, FOR THERE TO BE DEMAND FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 73 THERE IS NO -- I MEAN, WE TALKED ABOUT IT. ... THERE IS BASICALLY NO, OTHER THAN THE OLDER STUFF ON THE WEST SIDE OF WINTER SPRINGS ALONG 434 TOWARDS LONGWOOD, THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN WINTER SPRINGS. IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE GROCERY STORE, YOU HAVE GOT TO LEAVE TOWN. IF YOU WANT TO BUY ANYTHING, YOU HAVE TO LEAVE TOWN. IF I WANT TO GO EAT, YOU HAVE GOT TO LEAVE TOWN. ANYWAY, WE ANTICIPATE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WE ADOPTED ON OUR OWN AND AT OUR OWN EXPENSE AND WITH CONSIDERABLE TIME INVESTMENT WHAT WE CALL THE RESERVE GUIDELINES IN 1989, AND THEY ARE THE BASIS FOR THE CITY'S GUIDELINES THAT THEY ADOPTED LAST YEAR FOR THE TOWN CENTER, THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AREA, THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. !ll ill ia ~ 51 ~ W Q. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE CITY TOOK OUR GUIDELINES, WHICH WE WERE IMPOSING ON OURSELF ABOVE AND BEYOND e THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY LAW, AND GAVE THEM THE m 2 ~ o ~ c is m ~ ~ WEIGHT OF THE LAW AND THEY MADE THEM STRICTER AND REALLY PRETTY PUNITIVE IN CERTAIN AREAS, SUCH AS SIGNAGE ESPECIALLY. AND AS MR. JAEGER IS FINDING OUT, WITH THE HELP OF MR. JONES, GETTING A SHOPPING CENTER OR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVED, BESIDES THE NORMAL REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 74 OBJECTIONS FROM HOMEOWNERS AROUND WHICH SEEMS TO ". ALWAYS HAPPEN, IT'S HARD TO DEVELOP ANYTHING UNDER THE GUIDELINES AS THEY WERE CHANGED BY THE CITY WITHOUT BUMPING INTO THE NEED FOR VARIANCE. AND ONCE YOU ASK FOR VARIANCE, NOW YOU HAVE OPENED YOURSELF UP TO BE BENT, YOU KNOW, OVER THE BARREL BY THE CITY, TO SEE WHAT THEY WANT IN EXCHANGE FOR THE VARIANCE. SO WE PICTURED -- I'M TAKING SOME YEARS TO DEVELOP OUT NORMAL, WHAT NORMALLY OCCURS ALONG HIGHWAYS, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, BUT WITH A HIGHER STANDARD THAN WAS BEING REQUIRED EITHER BY THE COUNTY OR THE CITY AT THE TIME. CHAIRMAN BROWN: MR. FERNANDEZ. MS. KARR: I'M NOT FINISHED. I WAS FIRST. CHAIRMAN BROWN: MY GOODNESS. ALL RIGHT. !ll ~ ~ 13 ~ ~ z W Q. WELL. . MS. KARR: I LIVE IN WINTER SPRINGS. I e LIVE IN TUSCAWILLA. AND I MOVED THERE BECAUSE IT WAS m 2 ~ f2 c ~ ~ ~ A BEAUTIFUL DEVELOPMENT AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT WOULD BE PRESERVED AS SUCH. THERE ARE -- I CAME FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT UP THERE. MR. SCHRIMSHER: I JUST GO THERE AS A REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 75 TOURIST. "-. MS. KARR: I LIVED IN A SUBURB, BETHESDA, MARYLAND, WHERE THERE IS A NICE CITY AND NICE CITY STREETS, AND THAT'S WHAT I SEE THIS TURNING INTO. BUT I ALSO SEE ROCKVILLE AND BETHESDA BEING OVER-DEVELOPED, WHICH I DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN TO WINTER SPRINGS. I HAVE ALSO PASSED SEVERAL AREAS IN ORLANDO WHERE SHOPPING CENTERS HAVE BEEN ABANDONED. FOR EXAMPLE, 17-92 AND 436. COSTCO WAS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET IN, I DON'T KNOW, SOME REMOTE AREA OFF OF I-4, WHICH I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT IN WINTER SPRINGS EITHER. SO I'M ALL FOR THE TOWN CENTER. I REALIZE AS A DEVELOPER YOU MIGHT LOSE SOME MONEY IF IT DOESN'T HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHERE YOU WANT IT. i ia ~ 5! " z W Q. I REALIZE THAT THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT ZONING IS QUITE RESTRICTIVE, AND I THINK IT'S FOR A GOOD e REASON, BECAUSE IN PRIOR YEARS THERE WEREN'T m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ RESTRICTIONS AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED OVER ON 434 WHERE THERE'S AN ABANDONED SHOPPING CENTER AND IT'S TURNED KIND OF TRASHY, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO TURN AROUND. THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY. MR. SCHRIMSHER: WELL, I AGREE WITH YOUR REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 76 CONCERN ABOUT NOT WANTING AN UGLY, ABANDONED SHOPPING CENTER. I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES WITH THAT. THE QUESTION IS HOW TO ACHIEVE THAT. AND THERE'S MORE THAN ONE WAY TO DO IT, AND I THINK THEY HAVE CHOSEN THE WRONG WAY TO DO THAT. AND ALSO I OFTEN HEAR COMPARISONS MADE TO PLACES LIKE BETHESDA OR BOCA RATON OR EVEN WINTER PARK, AND I THINK IT IS A HARD -- I DON'T THINK IT'S A VALID COMPARISON TO COMPARE WINTER SPRINGS, THE SIZE OF TOWN THAT IT IS, THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IT'S AT, THE RELATIVELY RURAL FEEL THAT IT HAS AND THINK THAT YOU CAN USE A STYLE OF DEVELOPMENT HERE THAT JUST BECAUSE IT WORKED SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU HAVE AN INTENSE, VERY DENSE POPULATION AND YOU ARE GOING IN WHAT'S CALLED IN-FILL AND REDEVELOPING 'AN AREA THAT HAS MAYBE ~ = ill ; ~ " z W Q. BEEN BLIGHTED AS OPPOSED TO THIS WHICH IS REALLY PIONEER WORK AT THIS POINT AND THE SAME PRESSURES e AND MARKET FORCES AREN'T AT WORK. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ YOU HAVE ABOUT TEN THOUSAND HOMES IN TUSCAWILLA. YOU DON'T HAVE A MILLION OR TWO PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN A COUPLE SQUARE MILES OR A FEW SQUARE MILES OF THE PROPERTY TO SUPPORT THE DENSITIES THAT ARE TALKED ABOUT AS ADDING VALUE TO THIS PROPERTY. BECAUSE WE OWNED THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY WE DID, REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 77 THAT'S ONE REASON WE ADOPTED THE STANDARDS. WE HAD CONCERNS PROBABLY SIMILAR TO THE CITY AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO SELL TEN ACRES AT THE CORNER, FOR EXAMPLE, AND HAVE SOMEONE WALK IN AND BUILD SOMETHING REALLY JUST, YOU KNOW, UNPLEASANT AND THEN WE ARE LEFT TRYING TO SELL THE PROPERTY BEHIND IT AND NEXT TO IT WHEN THEY HAVE ALREADY RUINED, YOU KNOW, THE POTENTIAL. SO THAT'S WHY WE IMPOSED THE STANDARDS THAT WE DID. AND EVEN THE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE MCDONALD'S OR A GAS STATION, I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MOBILE GAS STATION IS ONE OF THE MORE ATTRACTIVE STATIONS AROUND . WE REQUIRED THAT IT BE BRICK. WE REQUIRED THAT THE ROOF BE SLATE. WE REQUIRED THAT THOSE TYPE LAMP POSTS BE USED. WE REQUIRED THAT THE SIGN BE A !ll ill 13 ~ 5! ~ W Q. MONUMENT SIGN RATHER THAN A PYLON WHICH WAS ALLOWED. WE REQUIRED THE LANDSCAPING ABOVE AND BEYOND e WHAT THE CITY REQUIRED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO m 2 ~ f2 ~ a> ~ ~ PUT UP SOME METAL BUILDING, STARK, UGLY THING RIGHT AT THE CORNER. I MEAN, A GAS STATION WAS IN DEMAND, PEOPLE WANTED TO BUY GAS, BUT IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO WHAT WOULD COME NEXT. AND WE TRIED TO DO THE SAME THING WITH THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 78 MCDONALD'S. I WOULD SAY WE WERE SUCCESSFUL BUT TO A LESSER DEGREE. AS I SAY, THE STANDARDS WE HAVE MUST BE PRETTY GOOD BECAUSE THE CITY USED THEM TO CREATE THEIR OWN, AND THEY CONTINUE TO BE, ALTHOUGH THEY INTENSIFIED THEM, BUT THEY CONTINUE TO BE WHAT THIS CITY IS OPERATING UNDER ALL ALONG 434 RIGHT NOW. IT'S WHAT THE KASH AND KARRY DEVELOPMENT IS HAVING TO LIVE UP TO RIGHT NOW. CHAIRMAN BROWN: ANYTHING ELSE, MRS. KARR? MS. KARR: YEAH. I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT THREE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, INCLUDING MYSELF, ATTENDED A PLANNING WORKSHOP. AND IN THAT WORKSHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE -- WAS IT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NAPLES, THE CITY? CHAIRMAN BROWN: YEAH. YES. i 13 ~ MS. KARR: OKAY. A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ~ ~ W Q. NAPLES MADE A PRESENTATION, AND THEY SAID THAT IT IS e IMPORTANT FOR A CITY TO SET STANDARDS AND TO DETAIL m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ BUILDING CODES. AND IF THEY WANT TO, IF A COMPANY SUCH AS -- WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THAT COMPANY -- TOYS-R-US. CHAIRMAN BROWN: WELL, MCDONALD'S THEMSELVES, THEY SHOWED DIFFERENT . . . IF YOU TALK TO DIFFERENT CORPORATIONS, YOU CAN HAVE THEM STYLE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 79 THEIR BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, INTO -- , MR. SCHRIMSHER: HAS ANYONE SEEN THE NEW COST CO THAT IS BUILT NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF 434 AND 436? (MULTIPLE RESPONSES: YES.) MR. SCHRIMSHER: OKAY. IT'S STILL A COSTCO, BUT WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT IT IS ABOUT TWO HUNDRED PERCENT BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT WAS LOCATED IN EATONVILLE? IT'S POSSIBLE TO BUILD A BIG BOX, AND THAT'S WHAT THAT IS, WITH LIMITED SIGNAGE AND EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING. I MEAN, YOU CAN HARDLY SEE THE BUILDING AND YET THEY ARE ABLE TO SURVIVE AND DO THE BUSINESS. LIKEWISE, IT'S ONE THING TO TELL A MCDONALD'S, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MUST LOOK NICE, YOU MUST HAVE EXTRA LANDSCAPING, YOU MUST, YOU KNOW, HIDE YOUR ~ m ill ~ ~ 5! " z W Q. DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW, BUT IT'S ANOTHER THING TO SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE A DRIVE- THROUGH WINDOW AND, BY THE e WAY, YOU HAVE GOT TO GET IN LINE WITH A BUILDING m 2 ~ c ~ c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 THAT SITS UP AGAINST THE SIDEWALK AND HAS ITS PARKING IN THE REAR, ET CETERA. I MEAN, THEY WON'T DO IT. CHAIRMAN BROWN: I THINK PART OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE HEARD THIS EVENING, I JUST HOPE EVERYONE ELSE IS AS ENLIGHTENED AS WE ARE FROM THE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 80 PREVIOUS MEETING THAT WE HAD AND THIS MEETING THIS ,'. ~ EVENING BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY COVERED A LOT OF ITEMS. AND SIGNS AND MCDONALD'S, THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS IN THIS ISSUE. MR. SCHRIMSHER: WELL, THE ISSUE OF MCDONALD'S IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE -- CHAIRMAN BROWN: WELL, THEY ARE IMPORTANT BUT I MEANT BECAUSE IF YOU TOOK THE PRIORITY OF THE SITUATIONS TO BE RESOLVED, IF I HAD THE POWER TO RESOLVE IT ON ONE SIDE AND YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE POWER TO RESOLVE IT ON THE OTHER SIDE, I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT MCDONALD'S SIGNS. YOU KNOW, WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT THE ANNEXATION AND THE MONEY BECAUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT AND THE CITY IS TRYING TO BUILD A CITY. SO I THINK THAT THE ISSUES VARY. YOU KNOW, THEY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z W Q. ARE ALL OVER. MR. SCHRIMSHER: WE MIGHT BE TALKING e TALKING ABOUT WHY THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS NEEDS A m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ TOWN CENTER THAT'S THREE HUNDRED ACRES BIG. CHAIRMAN BROWN: YES, THERE'S A LOT MR. SCHRIMSHER: IT DWARFS TOWN CENTERS IN CITIES THAT ARE MUCH HUGER THAN THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. IT'S HUGE OVERKILL. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT THE GIBB'S PLANNING GROUP REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 81 FROM DETROIT, MICHIGAN RECOMMENDED WAS A COMMERCIAL AREA THAT ORIENTED ALONG TUSCAWILLA NORTH OF 434. ... AND THEN, OF COURSE, YOU WANT IDEALLY ROOF TOPS TO SUPPORT THAT, RESIDENTS LIVING THERE WHO WILL SHOP IN THOSE COMMERCIAL AREAS AND HAVE OFFICES NEARBY ALSO. BUT IT HAS KIND OF TAKEN ON A LIFE THAT'S. . . YOU KNOW, HAS FAR EXCEEDED THAT. CHAIRMAN BROWN: LET ME GET -- MR. FERNANDEZ HAS HAD HIS LIGHT ON FOR QUITE AWHILE HERE. DID YOU WISH TO SPEAK? MR. FERNANDEZ: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MR. SCHRIMSHER, WHILE YOU ARE THERE, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PERMITTED USES AND YOU WERE TALKING -- AND I THINK THAT'S ON PAGE 5 -- AND YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE USES PERMITTED BY SPECIAL EXCEPTION ONLY ON ~ = ~ ~ 13 ~ 5! " :z w Q. PAGE 6. AND I HEARD YOU MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT SOME e EXCLUDED USES. m :Ii ~ o ~ c ~ m ~ ~ MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT. MR. FERNANDEZ: WHERE DID YOU GET THAT? MR. SCHRIMSHER: I LOOKED AT THE CURRENT USES THAT ARE PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION C1 AND JUST COMPARED WHAT'S CURRENTLY PERMITTED AND WHAT THIS PROPOSES TO PERMIT, AND I'D REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 82 SAY EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT OF IT IS THE SAME. ....' A FEW HAVE BEEN ADDED, SUCH AS BED AND BREAKFAST INN, HOSPITAL. AND A FEW HAVE BEEN REMOVED. MR. FERNANDEZ: SO IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S NO PLACE IN THIS THIRTY-SOMETHING PAGES OR WHATEVER IT WAS THAT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCES EXCLUDED USES? IT IS BY OMISSION? MR. SCHRIMSHER: IT'S BY OMISSION. MR. FERNANDEZ: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. GRIMMS OR MR. CARRINGTON -- YOU MIGHT WANT TO LET HIM GET IT DOWN. THE ADOPTION OF THIS -- FIRST OF ALL, AND I ASSUME THAT MR. 'SCHRIMSHER IS AWARE BECAUSE HE HAS MADE REFERENCE IN HIS PRESENTATION TO THE TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF SEPTEMBER 8, ~ m ~ ia ~ ~ " Z W Q. 1997, AND THEY ARE IN EFFECT ALONG THIS CORRIDOR EVEN IF WE DO NOT . EVEN IF THE CITY COMMISSION DOES . NOT ADOPT THIS TOWN CENTER CONCEPT; IS THAT CORRECT? m ~ f2 c :z c m ~ ~ MR. GRIMMS: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. FERNANDEZ: ALL RIGHT. AND HE HAS AGREED THAT THOSE SOMEWHAT RESTRICTIVE TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT GUIDELINES ARE IN EFFECT AND HE IS ALREADY ABIDING BY THEM AND CAN ABIDE BY THEM. NOW, THE REAL TOUGH QUESTION REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 83 MR. SCHRIMSHER: I SHOULD ADD A ... QUALIFICATION TO THAT. ACCORDING TO THE CITY COMMISSION'S ACTIONS WHEN THAT WAS ADOPTED, WE WERE LEFT OUT OF THAT AND WE WERE TO HAVE A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WORKED OUT BETWEEN US AND THE CITY, WHICH THOSE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BASICALLY STALLED AND GONE NOWHERE SINCE ABOUT A YEAR AGO, BASICALLY BEEN IGNORED, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ADVENT OF THIS WHOLE PLANNING PROCESS. MR. FERNANDEZ: THAT'S A GOOD POINT THEN. DID YOU -- I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. WHAT IS YOUR PERCEPTION OF WHAT ZONING -- WELL, I KNOW WHAT ZONING YOU HAVE GOT, BUT WHAT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ARE YOU WORKING UNDER RIGHT NOW ON YOUR EXISTING PROPERTY? MR. SCHRIMSHER: I THINK DEVELOPMENT ON ~ m ~ '" ia ~ ~ ~ W Q. OUR PROPERTY RIGHT NOW IS THWARTED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT COULD BE DEVELOPED ON OUR PROPERTY RIGHT NOW e BECAUSE . m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ MR. FERNANDEZ: WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LIVE UP TO? MR. SCHRIMSHER: I DON'T THINK I COULD GET ANYTHING APPROVED ON MY PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. MR. FERNANDEZ: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU SUBJECT . . . DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE TOWN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 84 CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS? '"', MR. SCHRIMSHER: NO. MR. FERNANDEZ: OR YOU STILL HAVE THIS DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT YET TO NEGOTIATE? MR. SCHRIMSHER: YES. WE STILL HAVE THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT TO NEGOTIATE. MR. FERNANDEZ: I DON'T WANT YOU TO GIVE UP ANY OF YOUR RIGHTS. I JUST WANTED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU WERE COMING FROM. MR. SCHRIMSHER: I THINK WE ARE STILL UNDER THE OLD C1 ZONING. MR. FERNANDEZ: OKAY. MR. SCHRIMSHER: IT'S PROBABLY IN A STATE OF LIMBO, WOULD BE THE BEST THING TO CONSIDER IT, TO CALL IT, BECAUSE I THINK ANY SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL WOULD BE JUST STIFF-ARMED ~ m ill ij ~ ~ " Z W Q. BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS. MR. FERNANDEZ: ALL RIGHT. THEN I WOULD e ADDRESS MR. GRIMMS AND/OR MR. CARRINGTON AND ASK THAT m :::E ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 SAME QUESTION TO THE CITY. WHAT IS OUR PERCEPTION OF WHAT . . . WHETHER OR NOT THE TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS APPLY TO THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY? DO WE NEED TO GO WITH THIS DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT? REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 85 IS THAT A CONDITION PRECEDENT? ~. AND IF, IN FACT, WE PASS THIS OR RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTS THESE TOWN CENTER GUIDELINES, DESIGN CONCEPTS, AND WELBRO DOESN'T GO FORWARD, IS THERE . . . ARE WE GOING TO REVOKE THIS ORDINANCE AGAIN? IS THERE A FALL-BACK POSITION? IS THERE A TIMING QUESTION, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO. ARE WE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE? DOES WELBRO HAVE TO HAVE THESE TOWN CENTER GUIDELINES, THE CONCEPT, ADOPTED AND PASSED BY THE CITY BEFORE THEY BUY THE PROPERTY OR DO WE HAVE WELBRO BUY THE PROPERTY FIRST AND HAVE THIS ALL READY TO GO AND HAVE IT ADOPTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WELBRO BUYS THE PROPERTY? WHAT'S THE CITY'S POSITION, IF YOU KNOW? ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ffi Q. MR. GRIMMS: WELL, I WOULD DEFER TO CHARLES CARRINGTON ON THAT. ON THE LIGHTER SIDE, I WILL e TRUST MYSELF TO REPLY TO A PORTION OF IT. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 THE AREA ON OUR ZONING MAP IS INDICATED AS C1. NOW, YES, THERE HAS BEEN MENTION OF A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR PROPERTY BEING QUOTED IN THE TOWN CENTER AS PASSED BY ONE OF THE ORDINANCES, 661 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BACK IN '87. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 86 WE HAVE HAD PROTRACTED DISCUSSIONS WITH ..... SCHRIMSHER ON TRYING TO COME UP WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT HAS NOT COME ABOUT . AS STAFF, IT HASN'T COME ABOUT WHERE THERE WAS AN INSTANCE WHERE IT WOULD BE ACTIVATED, BUT IT WAS OUR VIEW THAT, YOU KNOW, HIS PROPERTY WAS IN THE TOWN CENTER AS DESCRIBED IN THAT ORDINANCE BACK THEN. LIKE I SAY, NOTHING HAS COME ABOUT WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT IN TERMS OF THAT. NO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL HAS COME ABOUT TO US. ORDINANCE 707, WHICH WOULD INSTITUTE THE TOWN CENTER BOUNDARY, HERE IS INDICATED ON PAGE 2 OF WHATEVER. I HAVE TO GET MY GLASSES ON. AND THE CODE WOULD REPLACE COMPLETELY THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCES. AND I WOULD DEFER TO MY DIRECTOR ON THE REST OF ~ 'l' ~ ~ ~ " :z w Q. YOUR QUESTION OR OBSERVATION. CHAI RMAN BROWN: THANKS, TOM. e MR. GRIMMS: THANK YOU, SIR. m 2 ~ f2 c :z o m ~ w S MR. CARRINGTON: AS A FOLLOW-UP TO WHAT HE SAID, IT'S NOT ON PAGE 2. IT'S THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 1. IT DOES STATE THAT THIS DOCUMENT, IF ADOPTED, REPEALS ORDINANCE 676. AND MR. SCHRIMSHER IS CORRECT, THAT UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 87 GUIDELINES FOR THE TOWN CENTER BACK IN 1997, THE MOTION SAID THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE BROUGHT UNDER THE REGULATIONS UNTIL THEY FINALIZED A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, WHICH IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HAS NEVER BEEN FINALIZED. I CAN'T SPECULATE ON WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. AND I CERTAINLY CAN'T SPEAK FOR WELBRO. THE WHOLE IDEA BEHIND THE TOWN CENTER WAS TO FIND A QUALIFIED AND FINANCIALLY CAPABLE MASTER DEVELOPER TO COME IN AND ACQUIRE ALL OF THE LAND SO THAT THE CITY COULD SIT DOWN WITH THAT DEVELOPER AND NEGOTIATE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AS TO THE ROLE THAT THE CITY WOULD PLAY AND THE ROLE THE DEVELOPER WOULD PLAY IN THE FINAL REALIZATION OF THE TOWN CENTER. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS HANGING OUT THERE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THE RELOCATION OF THE TRAIL IS !ll ~ I ~ " z W Q. HANGING IN LIMBO. THE FIVE MILLION DOLLAR GRANT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE OFFICE OF GREENWAYS AND TRAILS IS e HANGING IN LIMBO. m 2 ~ f2 ~ m ~ ~ THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT REALLY CANNOT HAPPEN UNTIL WE HAVE SOME SENSE OF DIRECTION AS TO WHETHER THE CITY COMMISSION IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE. VICTOR DOVER WILL BE HERE AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING. AND A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 88 THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED, I THINK, SHOULD BE DIRECTED "" TO THE CONSULTANT. WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THEM AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, BUT I THINK THAT A FURTHER EXPLANATION CAN BE GRANTED BY THE CONSULTANT, AND IT SHOULD BE. I CERTAINLY CAN'T SPECULATE ON WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I JUST DON'T KNOW. AND I WOULD NOT BE PRESUMPTUOUS ENOUGH TO TRY TO GUESS. I HAVE SOME IDEAS, BUT THEY ARE SIMPLY MY IDEAS. MR. FERNANDEZ: YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CARRINGTON. IF I READ INTO YOUR COMMENTS, YOU FEEL THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO ADOPT THE GUIDELINES FIRST AND THEN LET THE PROPERTY BE BOUGHT BY WELBRO OR WHATEVER SECOND, THAT WE NEED THAT TO GET THE FOUR POINT NINE MILLION GRANT AND ~ = ~ ~ i TO GO FORWARD WITH OTHER PLANNING THAT WE HAVE TO ~ " :z w Q. GO FORWARD WITH, BUT THE CITY SHOULD GO FORWARD e WITH THIS FIRST? m ::Ii ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ MR. CARRINGTON: RIGHT. WHETHER WELBRO IS IN THE PICTURE OR WHETHER OTHER DEVELOPERS OR A COMBINATION OF SEVERAL DEVELOPERS OR WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNERS BECOME DEVELOPERS OR WHAT, IF, IN FACT, THIS BODY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE TOWN CENTER ZONING AND THE CITY COMMISSION ULTIMATELY REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 89 ADOPTS IT, THEN REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES THE ~ DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT IS DONE ON A PIECEMEAL BASIS OR AN ORGANIZED STAGING AND PHASING DEVELOPMENT BY ONE MASTER DEVELOPER, THE RULES AND GUIDELINES OF THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE WOULD APPLY. THERE WAS SOME INFERENCE MADE EARLIER THAT GIVING REVIEW TO THE DRC, THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, PERHAPS WAS A MISTAKE. BUT THE WHOLE IDEA AND THE CONCEPT THERE WAS TO EXPEDITE AND TO NOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPER TO GO THROUGH THE TIME-CONSUMING PROCESS OF APPEARING BEFORE A P AND Z AND THE CITY COMMISSION IN ORDER TO GET APPROVALS. IT WAS A IT WAS PURPOSELY DESIGNED INTO THE DOCUMENT AND RECOMMENDED BY THE CONSULTANT AS A MEASURE TO EXPEDITE THE PERMITTING PROCESS. THAT'S SIMPLY ALL IT IS, NOT TO GIVE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ANY SENSE OF POWER OR ANY SENSE OF LEVERAGE IN CONNECTION WITH PICKING e COLORS OR ANY OF THE THINGS THAT WERE ALLUDED TO. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 IT'S SIMPLY A MEANS OF EXPEDITING THE PERMITTING PROCESS, WHICH EVERYONE FROM DAY-ONE HAS FELT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DESIRABLE BY ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. MR. FERNANDEZ: MR. CARRINGTON, DRAWING ON YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND YOUR NUMEROUS YEARS AND EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING IN YOUR CHOSEN REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 90 PROFESSION AND FIELD, FOR A CITY OF, WHAT ARE WE, "" THIRTY THOUSAND OR SO, WHAT'S. . . HOW BIG IS OUR .... TOWN CENTER, HOW BIG SHOULD IT BE? ARE WE GETTING TOO BIG HERE? MR. CARRINGTON: WELL, NO, I DON'T THINK SO. WE ARE AT A POPULATION OF ABOUT TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND AND THE CITY IS ALMOST . . . AND FOR THE MOST PART, THE CITY HAS SEEN MOST OF ITS DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH. THE STUDY THAT WAS ALLUDED TO BY . . . THAT WAS PREPARED BY GIBB'S UNDER CONTRACT TO THE CITY WAS A MARKET STUDY SHOWING IMMEDIATE DEMAND. IT WAS NOT A PROJECTION INTO THE FUTURE. IT WAS A MARKET STUDY THAT SAID TODAY'S DEMAND WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE TOWN CENTER, TO SERVICE TODAY'S DEMAND, WOULD HAVE LIKE -- I DON'T REMEMBER THE FIGURES. SOMETHING LIKE. . . AROUND NINETY-FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AND OTHER USES e THAT WERE EXPLAINED IN THERE. m 2 ~ f2 c is m ~ w ~ 5 IT WAS NOT A PROJECTION OF MARKET NEEDS OR MARKET PROJECTIONS INTO THE FUTURE. IT WAS, MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT THE MASTER DEVELOPER, ONCE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WAS CONSUMMATED, WOULD MOVE INTO A MAJOR MARKET STUDY. AND FROM THAT MAJOR MARKET STUDY, THE TIMING AND REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e 91 STAGING AND PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN ~ " CENTER WOULD EVOLVE. ~.' AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OR MORE FOR THE MARKET STUDY. SO OBVIOUSLY THAT CAN'T BE DONE UP FRONT. MR. FERNANDEZ: THANK YOU, SIR. THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT I HAD. CHAIRMAN BROWN: MR. CARRINGTON, THIS AREA THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY, THAT'S SEMINOLE COUNTY, ZONED C1; RIGHT? THAT'S NOT PART OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS? MR. CARRINGTON: IT IS A COUNTY ENCLAVE. I'M REALLY NOT SURE ABOUT THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. CHAIRMAN BROWN: MR. SCHRIMSHER, IS IT C1? WHAT IS THAT ZONED NOW? MR. SCHRIMSHER: I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL -- I ~ l:l ~ ia ~ 5! " z' W Q. MEAN, THERE'S QUITE A FEW PROPERTIES IN THERE. I DON'T KNOW. e CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY. m 2 ~ c is m ~ ~ MR. SCHRIMSHER: PROBABLY SEVERAL CLASSIFICATIONS. CHAIRMAN BROWN: OH, I SEE. OKAY. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IS OVERLAY THAT WITH OUR PROPOSAL; RIGHT? MR. CARRINGTON: WHAT WE ARE DOING, JUST TO REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. . 92 EXPLAIN THIS, IS THE RED BOUNDARY THAT'S SHOWN ON PAGE 2 WOULD, IN FACT, BE THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY OF THE TOWN CENTER. CHAIRMAN BROWN: RIGHT. THE RED, OKAY. SORRY. MR. CARRINGTON: YEAH, I HAVE IT HERE. LET ME TAKE THIS OFF. EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND. THE RED BOUNDARY AS SHOWN WOULD, IN FACT, BE THE BOUNDARY OF THE TOWN CENTER. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT ENCOMPASSES THE AREA, THE ENCLAVES. THERE'S ONE BACK HERE AND THERE'S ONE HERE IN THIS AREA. SHOULD THOSE AREAS REQUEST AND BECOME PART OF THE INCORPORATED CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, THEN THE ZONING FOR THE TOWN CENTER WOULD APPLY. IF THEY ELECT NEVER TO COME IN, WHICH IS ~ ~ ia ~ 5! ~ W Q. CERTAINLY THEIR OPTION, AND THAT IS THE SITUATION IN THIS COUNTY AND IN THIS CITY, THEN IT WOULD REMAIN A e COUNTY ENCLAVE IN PERPETUITY. m :i ~ f2 c :z o m ~ w S CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY. AND THAT'S WHERE WE GOT INTO ALL THE OTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WATER AND SEWAGE AND ET CETERA, ET CETERA. OKAY. MR. SCHRIMSHER: CAN I ANSWER SOME OF THAT? CHAIRMAN BROWN: LET ME GET ONE THING IN. MR. SCHRIMSHER BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE ROAD NOT GOING REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 93 OUT TO LAKE JESSUP THERE, THAT MAIN STREET. ..... MR. CARRINGTON: YEAH, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING, THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE HERE, AND I KNOW SOME OF YOU WERE, YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT WE HAD TWO PEOPLE THAT, IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT, THAT GOT UP AND SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING, PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT THE TOWN CENTER WOULD IMPACT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THOSE PEOPLE LIVED DOWN IN . . . ONE IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE AND ONE IN THIS HOUSE RIGHT HERE. AND THIS INDIVIDUAL THAT LIVED IN THIS HOUSE RIGHT HERE WAS VERY OPPOSED. I WON'T SAY VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED BUT VERY OPPOSED TO THIS. IT WAS GENERALLY FELT THAT ALTHOUGH IT WAS DESIRABLE, THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY NECESSARY FOR THE TOWN CENTER PRIMARILY BECAUSE ON THE TRAIL WE ~ ~ i HAVE A SCENIC OVERVIEW HERE. ~ ~ W Q. IF THE TRAIL IS RELOCATED AND MATERIALIZES, WE e ALSO HAVE A GRANT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED TO ACQUIRE m 2 ~ f2 c is m ~ ~ PROPERTY LEADING DOWN TO THE LAKE IN THIS AREA. SO IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF COMPROMISE, AND THE CITY DOESN'T OWN THAT PROPERTY ANYWAY. IT IS A PUBLIC STREET. CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY. FOR CLARIFICATION, ,/ ON PAGE 11 AND PAGE 22, THEY WILL HAVE TO REVISE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 94 THOSE BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT STREET GOING TO THE LAKE \., ' AND BEING PART OF MAIN STREET AS A NEIGHBORHOOD STREET. SEE IT THERE? IT'S GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LAKE. MR. CARRINGTON: THE STREET DOES EXIST, YES. CHAIRMAN BROWN: YEAH, BUT THE RED SHOULD STOP; RIGHT? MR. CARRINGTON: AGAIN, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR VICTOR DOVER. CHAIRMAN BROWN: YEAH, TO BE LEGALLY RIGHT. AND THEN ON PAGE 22, THEY SHOW IT GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN. SAME PICTURE BASICALLY BUT IT'S BUT BLACK AND WHITE. OKAY. MR. STEPHENS. ~ = ~ 'l' ; ~ W Q. MR. STEPHENS: YES. IF THIS CODE, THIS TOWN CENTER CODE, IS ADOPTED, HOW MUCH -- WHAT DOES e IT TAKE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, IF WE WANT TO MAKE m ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ 5 AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES AS WE GO ALONG? WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO DO THAT? MR. CARRINGTON: IT'S AN ORDINANCE AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED AGAIN JUST LIKE WE ARE ADVERTISING NOW. IT WOULD COME BEFORE THIS BODY AND THEN ON TO REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 95 THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FIRST READING, SECOND ,. READING. INSTEAD OF ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE, IT WOULD BE SIMPLY AMENDING THE ORDINANCE. SO FOR THAT PROCEDURE MR. STEPHENS: CHANGES COULD BE MADE AS YOU GO ALONG? MR. CARRINGTON: OH, ABSOLUTELY. IT IS TO BE EXPECTED. MR. GRIMMS: THE P AND Z BOARD CAN TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE CHANGES AND THEY RECOMMEND THEM TO THE CITY COMMISSION. AS CHARLES SAID, MENTIONED, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A COURSE OF PROPER PROCEDURE FOR ADVERTISING AND THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO HOLD THEIR FIRST READING AND THEN SECOND READING. AND THIS WILL ALL TAKE, WITH THIS BOARD AND THAT BOARD, PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, A MONTH AND A HALF TO TWO !ll ~ ~ ~ ~ 5! " z W Q. MONTHS. MR. STEPHENS: ANOTHER QUESTION, TOO. I e KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPER IS CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING m 2 ~ c ~ c ~ m ~ ~ PART OF HIS INVESTMENT TO THIS. BUT HE DID MENTION THE BURT HARRIS ACT, THE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, AND THAT KIND OF IS ~ LIKE A DOUBLE SWORD. IF HE DOES TRULY LOSE MONEY IN THIS DEAL, THEN / HE IS STILL GOING TO BE PROTECTED EITHER WAY. AND IF REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 96 HE IS PROTECTED THROUGH THE COURTS, THE COURTS ARE '- ONLY GOING TO AWARD HIM THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE PROPERTY IS TRULY WORTH ANYWAY; CORRECT? SO HE IS PROTECTED IF WE GO WITH THIS. IF HE IS TRULY DAMAGED BY THIS CODE, HE IS PROTECTED BY THE LAW ANYWAY. MR. GRIMMS: RIGHT. BUT I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S TIME-CONSUMING, TAKES MONEY AND ALL THAT SORT OF THING. MR. STEPHENS: I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITIES HERE. " AND AS YOU MENTIONED, THE CITY IS CONSIDERING ACCESS TO THE LAKE OR THROUGH THE SEMINOLE TRAIL ON ORANGE AVENUE FARTHER DOWN TO THE LEFT SIDE; RIGHT? MR. CARRINGTON: THIS AREA HERE AND THEN AGAIN THIS POINT RIGHT HERE. MR. STEPHENS: RIGHT. I HAVE LIVED IN e FLORIDA ABOUT FORTY YEARS NOW AND I HAVE SEEN ALL THE m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ STRIP MALLS AND I HAVE SEEN ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THEY HAVE TRIED TO BUILD SHOPPING CENTERS AND SO FORTH. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS TOWN CENTER. IT'S UNIQUE IN MANY WAYS. AND I'M SURE IT IS A GAMBLE BY THE CITY BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 97 SHOULD TRY TO DO. , WELL, THE CITY MIGHT END UP PAYING FOR IT, I'M SURE. IF IT COMES DOWN TO THAT, THEY MIGHT END UP PAYING FOR IT. BUT EITHER WAY, THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE PROTECTED BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT. BUT I THINK THIS IS A WORTHWHILE EFFORT. WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH LAND LEFT IN FLORIDA FOR THIS TYPE OF THING, AND THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, I THINK. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPER . . . OR THE CITY TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER MORE. AS YOU SAY, AMENDMENTS CAN BE MADE WITH THIS, CHANGES CAN BE MADE. AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE AN ONGOING EFFORT. IF THIS CODE IS PASSED, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD STOP THERE. I THINK THERE SHOULD STILL BE A WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEVELOPER AND CITY. THE CITY SHOULD HAVE MORE WORKSHOPS AS WE GO ALONG. I THINK IT'S TO THE CITY'S BENEFIT AS WELL. I . THINK OVERALL THIS CODE IS A VERY GOOD IDEA. FROM m 2 ~ f2 c ~ WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST FORTY YEARS, I THINK ~ w ~ 5 THIS IS CERTAINLY WORTH THE GAMBLE. CHAIRMAN BROWN: WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, I THINK I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR ANY FINAL REMARKS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE ON WITH THIS. PARDON ME? REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 98 MR. CARRINGTON: DO YOU HAVE OTHER PEOPLE '<. THAT WISH TO SPEAK? CHAI RMAN BROWN: NO. I DON' T HAVE ANY TICKETS. YES, SIR. MR. SCHRIMSHER: CAN I ANSWER WHAT TOM AND CHARLES AND MR. STEPHENS HAS JUST SAID, TRY TO? CHAIRMAN BROWN: YEAH, SURE, GO AHEAD. MR. SCHRIMSHER: AS FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THEY BASICALLY ENDED IN AUGUST LAST YEAR WHEN WE SUBMITTED A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND IT WAS NOT RESPONDED TO. OKAY. WE SENT A LETTER TO MR. MCLEMORE WITH A DRAFT COpy OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. BASICALLY THAT LETTER WAS NEVER ANSWERED. THERE HAVE BEEN NO EXTENSIVE NEGOTIATIONS OTHER ~ III ~ ; !l " z W Q. THAN THERE WAS KIND OF A FLURRY OF ACTIVITY, PHONE CALLS AND MEETINGS IN, SAY, JULY AND AUGUST LAST e YEAR, AND THEN IT JUST STOPPED. m 2 ~ o ~ c ~ m ~ w ~ AND IT'S PRETTY TYPICAL THAT PHONE CALLS AND LETTERS I SEND AND MEETINGS I HAVE DON'T REALLY RESULT IN ANYTHING HAPPENING. IT'S SORT OF SIMILAR TO THE EFFORT HERE IN THAT A LOT OF THE ISSUES I RAISED ARE JUST NODDED AT AND NOT REALLY RESPONDED TO. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 99 NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, ABOUT THIS ACCESS TO ..... LAKE JESSUP, TWO PROPERTY OWNERS OBJECT AND SO IT'S PULLED. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH I OBJECT TO ALL OF THIS, NOTHING CHANGES. I DON'T KNOW. AND THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT OWNED BY THE CITY, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S RIGHT-OF-WAY, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO SLOW THE CITY DOWN FROM PLANNING WHAT TO DO WITH ALL THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE COUNTY ENCLAVES OR PROPERTY THEY DON'T OWN THAT WE OWN. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY IT SHOULD DETER THEM FROM PLANNING TO PAVE A ROAD THAT EVERY TIME IT RAINS DUMPS A TON OF SILT AND DIRT IN THAT LAKE AS IT RUNS DOWN THE UNIMPROVED DITCH. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THEY HAVE NO PROVISION FOR STORM WATER RETENTION OR DETENTION. JUST GO DOWN THERE NEXT TIME IT RAINS HARD AND SEE THE FLOOD OF 8l ill ~ ~ ~ " z W Q. CRUD FLOWING INTO THAT LAKE. MR. CARRINGTON: WHERE ARE YOU TALKING e ABOUT? m 2 ~ f2 ~ m ~ w ~ 5 MR. SCHRIMSHER: AT THE END OF TUSCAWILLA. I MEAN, YOU COULD AT LEAST TAKE THE INITIATIVE, INSTEAD OF WAITING . YOU KNOW, COMPLAINING ABOUT DEVELOPERS AND THEN WAITING FOR THEM TO COME ALONG AND BUILD AND PAVE AND IMPROVE YOUR STREETS AND PUT IN WHATEVER STORM WATER OR SEWER AND WATER FACILITIES REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 100 YOU HAVE. "" ' ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTY OVER HERE NEAR THIS OTHER LAKE ACCESS ARE NOT EXCITED ABOUT HAVING SOME KIND OF PUBLIC BOAT RAMP OR PICNICS AT WHATEVER HOUR. I HAVE HEARD FROM THEM OUT IN THE LOBBY. SO I'M SURE YOU WILL BE HEARING FROM THEM IN THE FUTURE, TOO. I NOTICED KNOW THAT USED TO SHOW UP IN THE PLAN AND THAT HAS ALSO BEEN REMOVED. THERE USED TO BE A LITTLE RED LINE THAT SHOWED THE CITY'S PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF THAT. THE ONLY THING THEY LEAVE ON THERE IS WHAT'S ON OUR PROPERTY. WHO NEEDS, YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO LAKE JESSUP ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEN WE HAVE GOT PLANS TO PUT ONE ON THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY. CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY, FINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. LEERDAM, IF YOU CAN COME UP, PLEASE, WE e WILL GIVE YOU THE FLOOR AS SOON AS SHE GETS HER PAPER m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ w ~ CHANGED HERE. BETWEEN THE OVERHEAD VIEWER AND THE PAPER AND MR. LEERDAM: MY NAME I S ED LEERDAM, 175 LOOKOUT PLACE, MAITLAND. MY GROUP REPRESENTS THE JESSUP SHORES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND THE JESSUP SPRINGLAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, THE TWO PARCELS. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 101 I HAVE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS. FIRST OF ALL, I , UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE RECEIVED THE NEW REGULATIONS, AND I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING AND I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE BEING UPDATED ON ANY CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE. SECOND OF ALL, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO GET INVITATIONS. I KNOW THAT YOU ADVERTISE IN THE PAPER, BUT I AM INVOLVED IN MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY PROJECTS IN THE ORLANDO AREA AND I'M SORRY NOW BUT YOU CAN'T EXPECT ME TO READ THE PAPER UPSIDE DOWN, LEFT TO RIGHT, BACKWARDS EVERY SINGLE DAY. SO I REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE BEING INVITED FOR ANY MEETING REGARDING THE TOWN CENTER. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS I HAVE SENT A LETTER TO A MR. CARRINGTON ON OCTOBER THE 29TH AND I ~ m ~ ij ~ ~ ~ W Q. BASICALLY TOLD HIM WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST HERE. e THAT'S THIS PARCEL C IN PARTICULAR, IN MY m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ OPINION, SHOULD BE DELETED FROM THE TOWN CENTER. CHAIRMAN BROWN: DELETED? DID YOU SAY DELETED? MR. LEERDAM: SHOULD BE DELETED, YES. /' THAT'S WHAT I REQUEST IN MY LETTER. CHAIRMAN BROWN: WE HAVE THE LETTER. THAT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. .... ~ m i !i! ~ W Q. e m 2 ~ : c ~ m ~ w S 102 LETTER IS IN YOUR PACKAGE. f MR. LEERDAM: I HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH MR. MCLEMORE. THE ISSUE CAME UP WHETHER THIS PARCEL SHOULD BE INCLUDED OR NOT. FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS NEVER INCLUDED A NUMBER OF TIMES THE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP, BUT I HAVE NEVER REQUESTED THIS PARCEL TO BE INCLUDED. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN AT THE LATEST VERSION, PARCEL C WAS INCLUDED. I'M NOT TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW THAT IT NEVER SHOULD BE INCLUDED. BUT AS OF TODAY, I PREFER IT NOT TO BE INCLUDED. AND THAT'S WHAT I MADE CLEAR IN MY LETTER AND I HOPE THAT THE BOARD WILL HONOR MY REQUEST. AND THAT'S BASICALLY ALL I HAD TO SAY. CHAIRMAN BROWN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. APPRECIATE THAT. MR. SCHRIMSHER: HOW IS HIS PROPERTY ZONED RIGHT NOW? I MEAN, IT'S JUST FURTHER EVIDENCE OF WHAT I PREDICTED FOR SEVEN MONTHS. THERE WILL BE TWO SHOPPING CENTERS BUILT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE TOWN CENTER. THIS IS BETWEEN THIS AND THE KASH AND KARRY. WHAT -- HOW MUCH DEMAND DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO BE STILL LEFT FOR THE GROCERY STORE OR SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT THE GIBB'S GROUP FOUND A DEMAND FOR REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. .. 103 IN THE TOWN CENTER? ",. I MEAN, YOU CAN BUILD MOVIE PROPS LIKE \J". HOLLYWOOD, JUST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE THE TRUMAN SHOW. YOU CAN BUILD A FAKE CITY IN THERE IF YOU HAVE GOT THE DEEP POCKETS OF DISNEY WORLD TO SUPPORT IT AND NOT LET IT GO UNDER. YOU CAN PAY PEOPLE TO WALK AROUND LIKE TRUMAN FINALLY NOTICED. THERE'S PEOPLE JUST WALKING AROUND IN CIRCLES, WALKING DOGS AND PUSHING BABY CARRIAGES THAT DON'T REALLY LIVE HERE. IT'S JUST A SHOW. THAT'S THE SAME THING THAT TAKES PLACE AT CELEBRATION AS WELL, BUT DISNEY CAN AFFORD TO DO THAT. I THINK IT'S I WANTED TO ALSO SAY I DIDN'T GET AN INVITATION TO THIS MEETING AND I HAVE A COpy OF THE NEW REGULATIONS BECAUSE CHARLES RAN ME A COPY. '" m ~ ~ fj ~ ~ Z W Q. CHAIRMAN BROWN: YOU MEAN THE MEETING THIS EVENING? e MR. SCHRIMSHER: RIGHT. m 2 ~ f2 c is m ffi ~ 5 CHAIRMAN BROWN: YOU WEREN'T INVITED TO THE MEETING? MR. SCHRIMSHER: I MEAN, I WASN'T NOTIFIED, INVITED, WHATEVER. YOU HAVE TO RELY ON YOUR OWN TAKE YOUR OWN INITIATIVE. AND THE REASON I HAVE A COPY OF THESE REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 104 REGULATIONS IS BECAUSE CHARLES AND I TALKED ABOUT ,"' ~ THEM AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING AND HE WENT DOWN THE HALL AND MADE ME ONE. SUPPOSEDLY ONE WAS BEING FAXED OR MAILED TO ME UNDER SEPARATE COVER, BUT THAT HAS NEVER ARRIVED. SO I CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS JUST UP HERE REGARDING THE RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THIS THAT ARE BASICALLY LEFT TO THEIR OWN DEVICES TO HOPEFULLY SEE NOTICES ABOUT THESE MEETINGS IN THE NEWSPAPER AND TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO GO GET COPIES OF REGULATIONS AS THEY CHANGE BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE EXTENDED THE COURTESY OF BEING GIVEN THEM. ALSO, IF I JUST SEND A LETTER REQUESTING TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TOWN CENTER, IS THAT ALL IT TAKES? I REALLY WISH YOU WOULD ADDRESS ONE OF MANY MAIN !ll ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Q. CONCERNS I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND I JUST GET A BLANK STARE AND A SMILE AND A NODDED HEAD. e WHAT ARE Y'ALL GOING TO DO ABOUT TAKING m 2 ~ f2 c :z o m ~ w S APPROXIMATELY TEN ACRES OF OUR FRONTAGE AND THEN HIDING ALL THE PROPERTY THAT SITS BEHIND IT, ALL THE WAY FROM ONE END OF OUR PROPERTY TO THE OTHER? THAT IS A NO-BRAINER. WE OPPOSE IT. WE NEVER WILL APPROVE IT. WE WON'T DONATE IT. LET'S GET SERIOUS. IF Y'ALL WON'T ADDRESS THAT REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 105 ONE QUESTION YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE THING IS A JOKE. THAT IS JUST SO OBVIOUS. ',- IT'S LIKE . IT'S RIDICULOUS. CHAIRMAN BROWN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE BEFORE, MR. LEERDAM. MR. LEERDAM: LEERDAM. I'M DUTCH. CHAIRMAN BROWN: DUTCH. THAT'S FINE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. WE ARE ALL SOMETHING, RIGHT. THAT'S A STRANGE THING ABOUT AMERICANS. THERE'S NO INDIANS LEFT. COULD YOU TELL US WHY YOU WOULD BE OPPOSED TO COMING INTO THE CITY? MR. LEERDAM: WELL, I EXPLAINED IN MY LETTER THAT I'M THE GENERAL PARTNER IN THIS. . . IN THESE TWO PARTNERSHIPS. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW CERTAIN ~ = ~ ~ ia ~ PROCEDURES AND THERE WAS JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO ~ ~ ~ e GO THROUGH ALL THE PROCEDURES. NOW, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO INTO ALL THE m 2 ~ o ~ c is m ~ w ~ 5 DETAILS. CHAIRMAN BROWN: NO. MR. LEERDAM: I JUST STUMBLED INTO THIS TOWN CENTER BY ACCIDENT. AND THEN I FIND OUT THAT WE ARE INCLUDED AND I NEVER FOLLOWED THE NORMAL PROCEDURES THAT I REALLY SHOULD FOLLOW BECAUSE OF MY REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 106 FIDUCIARY INTEREST RELATIVE TO THESE PARTNERSHIPS. THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT I STATED IN MY LETTER. I'M NOT SAYING NEVER, BUT TODAY YOU HAVE PUT ME IN A VERY PRECARIOUS POSITION IF YOU LEAVE THIS PARCEL INTO THE TOWN DISTRICT. OF COURSE, I HAVE HEARD MANY, MANY ADVANTAGES. I HAVE HEARD MANY DISADVANTAGES. I REALLY NEED TO STUDY THE SITUATION MYSELF BEFORE I CAN MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS TO MY PARTNERS. AND THEN IT'S UP TO THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. WE HAVE MADE A SIZABLE INVESTMENT IN THESE PARCELS AND WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL. MR. GRIMMS: LET ME ASK, WHERE DID THIS PLAN COME FROM? MR. LEERDAM: THIS IS BASICALLY A PLAN WAS DEVELOPED BASED ON A PRIOR PLAN WHICH HAS VESTED ~ = ill ia ~ ~ ~ W Q. RIGHTS ATTACHED TO IT. IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME BECAUSE THAT'S . IMPOSSIBLE NOW BECAUSE AS OF TODAY A MAJOR HIGHWAY m 2 ~ c ~ c ~ IS RIGHT THROUGH OUR ENTIRE SITE. ~ w ~ " 5 SO THE INITIAL PLAN WAS DIFFERENT. THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU SEE HERE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT HAS LOWER DENSITY. IT'S LESS INTENSE THAN THE PLANS THAT WERE VESTED. CHAIRMAN BROWN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 107 OKAY. I GUESS WE WANT TO WRAP THIS UP. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY MAJOR QUESTIONS FROM THIS BOARD? OKAY. MR. SCHRIMSHER: MAY I? CHAIRMAN BROWN: YES. MR. SCHRIMSHER: THIS PLAN IS PROHIBITED BY THE TOWN CENTER GUIDELINES. I MEAN, IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. IF I WAS MR. LEERDAM, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE IN THE TOWN CENTER IF THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH MY PRIVATE PROPERTY BECAUSE THIS IS FORBIDDEN. CHAIRMAN BROWN: WELL, WE -- YES. MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND AS FOR, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE HAD ANY DEVELOPERS INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING OUR PROPERTY, WE HAVE HAD MANY, AND SEVERAL HAVE MET WITH MEMBERS OF THE CITY STAFF. * .i;i ~ ~ W Q. ONE IN PARTICULAR I COULD REFER TO IS MR. CANDLER OUT OF ATLANTA, CANDLER DEVELOPMENT, WHO e SENT THINGS IN THE MAIL AND BY FAX, WHO MADE CALLS m 2 ~ o ~ c ~ m ~ w S AND WHO VISITED AND WENT THROUGH THE FRUSTRATING EXERCISE, JUST LIKE STAFFORD PROPERTIES DID ON MR. KINGSBURY'S PROPERTY, TO TRY TO COME TO A SITE PLAN THAT WOULD BE FOR A SHOPPING CENTER, A MODIFIED SHOPPING CENTER THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY " UNDER THE TOWN CENTER GUIDELINES. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 108 AND BASICALLY IT IS A NULL SET. YOU CAN'T GET THERE. WHEN YOU FINALLY ARRIVE AT SOMETHING THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, YOU HAVE SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, TURNED SIDEWAYS AND SMALLER AND NO OUT-PARCELS AND THE PROPERTY VALUE GOES DOWN BECAUSE OF THE WAYS THAT THE RENTS CAN BE ACHIEVED, THE AMOUNT OF LEASABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU HAVE AND THE PROPERTY VALUES ASSOCIATED ESPECIALLY WITH THE OUT-PARCELS, AND THE SPACE TO BE RENTED IN ADDITION TO THE GROCERY STORE ARE GONE OR REDUCED. SO . CHAIRMAN BROWN: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHRIMSHER: AND I WAS STRESSING WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THE FRONTAGE. THE OTHER THING IS WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THE FACT THAT NOT ALL THE PROPERTY IN THIS TOWN ~ ~ 13 ~ CENTER IS ZONED C1, AND YET WITH A SWEEP, YOU KNOW, c < " z W Q. ONE STROKE OF THE PEN, YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE ALL e THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED USE OR m 2 ~ f2 ~ m ~ ~ OTHER ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ALL THE PERMITTED USES THAT CURRENTLY JUST FOLKS IN C1 ENJOY. CHAIRMAN BROWN: YES. OKAY. GENTLEMAN AND LADIES, LADY, DOES ANYONE WISH TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, RECOMMENDATION, NON-RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDATION WITH AMENDMENTS OR ANYMORE DATA OR REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. e e 109 WHAT? " YOU HAVE HEARD A REAL GOOD DISCUSSION, I THINK, "'- THIS EVENING. I WOULD THINK THAT A LOT OF THIS THAT HAD WENT ON THIS EVENING SHOULD BE HANDLED MAYBE IN MORE DETAIL WITH OTHERS, I THINK PERSONALLY, BEFORE IT CAME TO US. THERE SEEMS TO BE AN AWFUL LOT OF THREADS AND LOOSE ENDS. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO TURN TO MR. FERNANDEZ AND SEE HOW THIS WORKS OUT. MR. FERNANDEZ: ALL RIGHT. I GUESS NOBODY ELSE WANTS TO BITE THE BULLET. ALL RIGHT. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE TOWN CENTER DISTRICT DESIGN CODES TO THE CITY COMMISSION BASED ON FINDINGS THAT OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD ARTICULATE A VISION OF THE FUTURE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE AND QUALITY IN THIS COMMUNITY, ~ = ~ ~ I 51 " z W Q. THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED MEANINGFUL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT VARIOUS MEETINGS, THAT WE DO NEED TO HAVE AN e IDENTIFIED TOWN CENTER. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ ~ w ~ 5 I WILL FURTHER INDICATE OR ADD TO THAT THAT JUST AS THE TOWN CENTER OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1997, ORDINANCE NUMBER 676, WAS MADE INAPPLICABLE TO THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTIES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS DEVELOPED, THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THAT I REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 110 WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION MAKE THIS TOWN CENTER DISTRICT CODE INAPPLICABLE TO THE SCHRIMSHER PROPERTY, AS WELL AS TO THE LET ME GET THE GENTLEMAN'S PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS HERE -- THE SPRINGLAND INVESTMENT LIMITED, JESSUP SHORES LIMITED AND EUROAMERICAN INVESTORS GROUP, REPRESENTED BY SUNBELT INVESTORS GROUP, MR. A. C. LEERDAM, THAT IT BE INAPPLICABLE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS NEGOTIATED WITH THOSE PARTIES AND/OR THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY A MASTER DEVELOPER. I WOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT SINCE WE ARE ACTING IN OUR CAPACITY AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ON A BROAD SCALE AS OPPOSED TO ONE SINGLE PARCEL, THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO MAKE THE DETAILED FINDINGS OF FACT THAT ARE REQUIRED WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH A VERY SMALL PARCEL OF PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH I HAVE INCLUDED IN MY MOTION GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT, INCLUDING THE PRESENTATION OF ALL THOSE WHO HAVE e COME FORWARD AND SPOKEN THIS EVENING, INCLUDING m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ MR. SCHRIMSHER AND MR. -- I KNOW I'M NOT PRONOUNCING IT CORRECT BUT MR. LEERDAM, AS WELL AS MR. MICHAEL GRINDSTAFF. THAT'S MY MOTION. CHAIRMAN BROWN: DO I HEAR A SECOND? " MS. KARR: SECOND. REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. 111 CHAIRMAN BROWN: IT HAS BEEN REGULARLY -" ' "'- MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL THOSE -- WELL, ROLL CALL. THE CLERK: TOM BROWN. CHAIRMAN BROWN: AYE. THE CLERK: ROSANNE KARR. MS. KARR: AYE. THE CLERK: CARL STEPHENS, JR. MR. STEPHENS: AYE. THE CLERK: BILL FERNANDEZ. MR. FERNANDEZ: AYE. CHAIRMAN BROWN: MOTION CARRIED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYONE THIS EVENING FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR EFFORT. AND I THANK MR. FERNANDEZ. IT'S CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING TO HAVE HIM ON THIS BOARD AND HIS GOOD JUDGMENT. ill 'l' ij ~ AND WE HOPE THAT WE HAVE MADE GOOD JUDGMENT IN 5! " z W Q. WHAT WE HAVE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION. e THANK YOU AGAIN. m 2 ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ (WHEREUPON, THE FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED. ) REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. - 112 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF ORANGE: I, JUDITH A. VICK, RPR, CERTIFY THAT I WAS AUTHORIZED TO AND DID STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORT THE FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS; AND THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE RECORD OF THE AFORESAID PROCEEDINGS. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT A RELATIVE, EMPLOYEE, ATTORNEY, OR COUNSEL OF ANY OF THE PARTIES; NOR AM I A RELATIVE OR EMPLOYEE OF ANY OF THE PARTIES, ATTORNEYS OR COUNSEL CONNECTED WITH THE ACTION; NOR AM I FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN THE ACTION. DATED THIS 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1998. ill ill ij ~ 5! " :z w Q. r~ e m ~ ~ f2 c ~ m ~ ~ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE COMMISSION #CC607401 EXPIRES: FEBRUARY 25, 2001 ~,,\\\""I""'111. ~"'~~~\\'n A. ltic.l"~ ~ ~..........."..- ~ ~ .. .,~\SS/ON ~._.. ~ ~ .. t;:)~' y """"1""",,0 e. ~ ~ .,"-l.,~2$~. ~ ~ .~ ~v ~~~. ~ .:: .~ _cb'~ ~ fPe -:::. =*: ~ i:' :*;:: = . &.&.; ........ . = ~a ~ ICC 607401 i ~g ~::;.\.. ~ . ..~~ ~1!9,..~~onded\"~(\~..<:::) ~ ~ ").-,0,.... Fain'lnSIl~..~ ~~ ~IIP8lic.s;-~~ ~",~ ~111,,,j III ,,\\\\'~ / REALTIME REPORTERS, INC. --- .. 'Ch. 70 RELIEF FROM BURDENS em REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS F.S.1997 70.001 70.51 CHAPTER 70 RELIEF FROM BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Private property rights protection. Land use and environmental dispute resolu- tion. . ConstNction of ch. 95-181. affects real property, i or permit. (e) The te "inordinate burden" or "inordinately burdened" mean tha an a or more govern. mental entities has directly restricted or limited the use 70.001 PrIvate property rights ProtectJon.- of real property such that the property owner ~ perma. (1) 7h~ act may be dted es the "Bert J. Harris, Jr., nently unable to ahaln the reasonable, Investment. Private Property Rights Protection Act." The Legisla- backed expectation forthe existing use of the real prop. ture recognizes that some laws, regulations, and o"'i- erty or a Vested right to a sPecific use 01 the real Prop. nances 01 the state and POlitical entllles in the stata, as erty wnh respect to the real property as a whole, or thaI applied, may i o"'i "'en restrict or limn ri- tha property owner ~ leh with existing or vested uses vate ~roperty ~hlS without emOunllng to a ta Ing that are unreasonable such that the property owna, under he State - onslitutlon or the United States Con- bears pennanenlly a disproportionate share of a bur. slIMion. The legIslature detennines that there is an den imposed for the good of the public, which in fal,. Important state interest In protecting the interests 01 pri- ness should be bome by the pUblic at large. The tenns vate property oWners from such inordInate bUrdens. 'no""oote burden" or "inordinately bu"'ened" do no. Therelore, n ~ the Intent 01 the legislature that, as a include temporaoy Impacts to real property; impacts to separate and dlsllnct cause of actIon from the law 01 real property occasioned by govemmental abatement. takings, the legiSlature hereIn Provides lor relief, or prohibmon, prevention, or remediation 01 a public nu> payment 01 compensation, when a new law, ru'e, regu- sance at common law or a noxious use of private prop. latlon, or ordInance 01 the state or a polllical entity In the erty; or Impacts to real property caused by an ectlon 01 sta'e, as applied, unfairty affects real property. a govemmental entity taken to grant relief to a property (2) When a specific action of a governmental entity owner under this section. has ino""ootely burdened an existing use of real prop- (Q The tenn "property owne" means the pe_ erty or a vested right to a specific use of real property, who holds legal title to the real property at Issue. 7he the property OWner of that real property Is entitled to tenn does not include a govemmental entity. reliel, which may include compensation for the ectual (g) The term "real property" means land and loss to the faIr merket value 01 the real property caused InclUdes any appurtenances and Improvements to the by the action of govemment, es Provided in this seclion. land, including eny other relevant reel property In which (3) For PU'!>oses of this section: the property OWner had a retevant interest. (a) The existence of a "vested righr is to be deter- (4 lea) Not/ess than t 80 days prior to filing an actIon mined by applying the prinCiples of equnabla esloppel under this sectIon agaInst a govemmental entity, a or SUbstantive due process under the common law or property owner who seeks compensation under this by applying the staMooy law of this sta'e. seCtIon musl presenlthe claIm in writing to the head 01 (b) The lenn "exIsting use" means an actual, pre.. 'he govemmenlal enlity. The property owner musl sub- en. use or actIvity on the real property, IncludIng peri. mil, along with Ihe ctaim, a bona tide, valid app'als~ Ods 01 inactivIty which are nOnnally assocIated wnh, or that supports the claIm and demonsl,ales the loss in are incidental to, the nature or type offuse or activity or faIr market value to the real property. lithe action 01 Such reasonably loreseeable, nonspeculative land govemment Is the culmination of a process thaI uses which are suitable lor the Subject real property involves more then one govemmentel enlity, or . e end compatible with adjecent lend uses and which complete resolution 01 all relevent Issues, In the view of have Created an existing faIr market velue in the prop. the property OWner or In the view of a govemmental erty greate, than the lair market value of the actual, entity 10 whom a claIm Is presonted, requires the aclive present use or ectivlty on the real property. participation of more than one govemmental enllty, the (c) The term "govemmental entity" lnc'udes en property owner shall present the claim as provided in agency of the stale, a regional or a lOCal govemment th~ section to each of the govemmenlal entitles. created by the State Constitulion or by general or spe- (b) 7he govemmental enllty shall provide wrlffen dal act, any county or munic/pallty, or any other entity notice of the claim to all partIes to any admln~tratlve that Incfependenlly exerc~es govemmental authority. aclion that gave rise 10 the claim, and 10 owners of raal The tenn d_ nOllnclude Ihe United Stales or any of property contiguous 10 the owner's property at the Its agendes, or an agency of the Slate, a regional or a addresses Iisled on the most recent county tax rolls. local govemment Crealed by the Stale Constitulion or Wnhln 15 da~ aher the claim being presented, the by general or special act, any county or municipality, or govemmenlal enlity shall report the claim In writing 10 any other entity thaI independently exercises govem- the Department of legal Affalrs, and ahall Provide the mental authority, whan exercIsing the pOWers of the department with the name, address, and lelephone United States or any of ns agencies through a fonnal number of the employee of the govemmental entity delegation of federal authority. from whom additlonallnlOnnatlon may be obtaIned (d) The lenn "action of a governmental entity" about the claim during the pendency of the claim and means a specific action of a governmental entity which any subsequent Judicial action. 532 . n on an application 70.80 F.S.19{ i t I (c) i extende tal entit) tuate: 1. I standar, ment or 2. I sity, or I 3. 1 4. 1 5. , mitigatic 6. 1 proper!) 7. ( permitte 8. I more co or devel 9. I: special f 10. F therein, 11. t entity. If the pre governn offer by ing a vc nary reli paragrar (d)1. a settlen have the exceptio nance a: property. est servE priate re regulatol property. 2. VI sett/eme, have the ute as it \ erty, the shall jOin real pro~ agreeme protects issue anc the gOVE burdenin, (5)(a) sett/emer each of tl suant to r decision subject p mental er the 18O-C F.S. 1!!? apPlication lordinately re govem_ ~d the USe is perma- lestment_ real prop. eal prop. e, or that ted Uses y oWner If a bUr- I in fair- e terms do not lacts to ement, lic nui- I prop. tion of )perty erson , The and ) the hich tion I, a this f of Jb- sal in of at a )f II 9 I I F.S. 1997 REUEF FROM BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (c) During the 1BO-day-notlce periOd, unless extended by agreement of the parties, the govemmen_ tal entity shall make a Written settlement offer to effec- tuate: 1. An adjustment of land development or permit standards or other provisions COntrolling the develop- ment or use of land. . 2. Increases or modifications In the density, Inten- sity, or use of areas of development. 3. The transfer of developmental rights. 4. Land swaps or eXchanges. 5. Mitigation, InclUding payments in lieu of onslte mitigation. 6. Location on the least sensitive Portion of the property. 7. Conditioning the amount of development or Use permitted. B. A requirement that Issues be addressed on a more comprehensive basis than a single proposed use or development. 9. Issuance of the development order, a variance. special eXCeption, Or other extraordinary relief. 10. Purchase of the real property, or an Interest therein, by an appropriate govemmental entity. 11. No changes to the action of the govemmental entity. It the property Owner accepts the settlement offer, the govemmental entity may implement the settlement offer by appropriate development agreement; by issu- ing a variance, SPecial exception, or other extraordi_ nary relief; Or by other appropriate method, Subject to paragraph (d). (d) 1. Whenever a govemmental entity enters into 8 settlement agreement under this section which Would have the effect of a mOdification. variance, or a Special exception to the application of a rule, regulation, or ordi- nance as it Would otherwise apply to the Subject real property, the relief granted shall protect the pUblic inter- est served by the regulations at issue and be the appro- priate relief necessary to prevent the governmental regUlatory effon from inordinately burdening the real property. 2. Whenever a govemmental entity enters into a settlement agreement under this section which Would have the effect of contravening the application of a stat- ute as it Would otherwise apply to the Subject real prop- erty, the govemmental entity and the property OWner shall jointly file an action in the circuit court where the real property is located for approval of the settlement agreement by the court to ensure that the relief granted protects the pUblic interest served by the statute at issue and is the appropriate relief necessary to prevent the governmental regulatory effort from Inorc;finately burdening the real property. (5)(a) DUring the 1 BO-day-notice period, unless a settlement offer is acCepted by the property Owner, each of the govemmental entities provided notice pUr- suant to paragraph (4)(a) shall issue a written ripeness decision identifying the allowable Uses to which the Subject property may be put. The failure of the govem- mental entity to issue a Written ripeness decision during the 1 BO-day-notice period shall be deemed to ripen the Ch.70 I prior action of the govemmental entity. and shall oper- ate as a ripeness decision that has been rejected by the property oWner. The ripeness decision, as a matter of law, constitutes the last prerequisite to jUdicial review, and the matter shall be deemed ripe or final for the pur- POses of the jUdicial prOCeeding created by this section, notwithstanding the availability of other administrative remedies. (b) If the property owner rejects the settlement offer and the ripeness decision of the govemmental entity or entitles, the property OWner may file a claim for com- pensation in the circuit court, a copy of which shall be served contemporaneously on the head of each of the govemmental entities that made a settlement offer and a ripeness decision that was rejected by the property oWner. Actions under this section shall be brought only In the county where the real property is located. (6) (a) The circuit court shall determine whether an existing use of the real property or a vested right to a Specific use of the real property existed and, if so, Whether, conSidering the settlement offer and ripeness decision, the govemmental entity or entitles have inor- dinately burdened the real property. If the actions of more than one govemmental entity, considering any settlement offers and ripeness decisions, are responsi_ ble for the action that imposed the inordinate burden on the real property of the property owner, the Court shall determine the percentage of responsibility each Such govemmental entity bears with respect to the inordi- nate burden. A govemmental entity may take an inter- locutory appeal of the court's determination that the action of the govemmental entity has resulted in an inordinate burden. An Interlocutory appeal does not automatically stay the prOCeedings; however, the court may stay the prOCeedings during the pendency of the interlocutory appeal. If the govemmental entity does not prevail in the interlocutory appeal, the court shall award to the prevailing property oWner the costs and a reasonable attomey fee incurred by the property OWner in the interlocutory appeal. (b) FOllowing its determination of the percentage of responSibility of each govemmental entity, and follow- ing the resolution of any interlocutory appeal, the court shall impanel a jury to determine the total amount of compensation to the property owner for the loss in ~alue due to the inordinate burden to the real property. I The aWard of compensation shall be determined by cal- culating the difference in the fair market value of the real property, as it existed at the time of the govern- mental action at issue, as though the owner had the ability to attain the reasonable investment-backed expectation or was not left with Uses that are unreason_ able. whichever the case may be, and the fair market value of the real property, as it existed at the time of the governmental action at ISsue, as inordinately bUr- dened, considering the settlement offer together with the ripeness decision, of the govemmental entity or entities. In determining the aWard of compensation, consideration may not be given to business damages relative to any development, activity, or use that the action of the govemmental entity or entities, COnsider- Ing the settlement offer together with the ripeness deci- sion has restricted, limited, or prohibited. The aWard of 533 Ch.70 . RELIEF F! BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS e1 F.S. 1997 compensation shall include a reasonable award of pre- (8) This section does not supplant methods agreed judgment interest from the date the claim was pres- to by the parties and lawfully available for arbitration, ented to the govemmental entity or entities as provld~ mediation, or other forms of altemative dispute resolu- in subsection (4).' tion, and govemmental entities are encouraged to uti- (c)l. In any action filed pursuant to this section, lize such methods to augment or facilitate the pro- the property owner is entitled to recover reasonable cesses and actions contemplated by this section. costs and attomey fees incurred by the property owner, (9) This section provides a cause of action for gOY. from the govemmental entity or entities, according to emmental actions that may not rise to the level of a tak. their proportionate share as determined by the court, ing under the State Constitution or the United Stales from the date of the filin,SLof the circuit court action, if the Constitution. This section may not necessarily be con- property owner prevails in the action and the court strued under the case law regarding takings if the gOY' determines that the settlement offer, including the ripe- em mental action does not rise to the level of a taking. ness decision, of the govemmental entity or entities did The provisions of this section are cumulative, and do not constitute a bona fide offer to the property owner not abrogate any other remedy lawfully available, which reasonably would have resolved the claim, including any remedy lawfully available for govemmen. based upon the knowledge available to the govem- tal actions that rise to the level of a taking. However, a mental entity or entities and the property owner during J govemmental entity shall not be liable for compensa. the 180-day-notice period. ;.II tion for an action of a govemmental entity applicable to, 2. In any action filed pursuant to this section, the or for the loss in value to, a subject real property more govemmental entity or entities are entitled to recover than once. reasonable costs and attomey fees incurred by the (10) This section does not apply to any actions taken govem~en~al entity o~ enti!ies from the date of the !iling by a govemmental entity which relate to the operation, of t~.e CirCUit ~o~rt action: ,f the govemmental entl~ or maintenance, or expansion of transportation facilities, entities prevail In the actl,on and the court determines and this section does not affect existing law regarding that the property ow~er did n~t accept a b?~a fide s.et- eminent domain relating to transportation. tlement offer, including the npeness deCISion, which (11) A cause of action may not be commenced reasonably would .have resolved the claim fair1y to the under this section if the claim is presented more than 1 property owner If the settlement offer had been year after a law or regulation is first applied by the gOY' accepted by t~e property owner, based ~pon th~ emmental entity to the property at issue. If an owner ~nowledge available to the gove.mmental entity or e~tl- seeks relief from the govemmental action through law. ties. and the property owner dunng the 18D-day-notlce fully available administrative or judicial proceedings, penod. . . the time for bringing an action under this section is 3. The determination o! total reasonable costs and tolled until the conclusion of such proceedings. attomey fees pursuant to thl~ paragraph shall be made (12) No cause of action exists under this section as by the court and not by the J~ry. Any pro~~sed settle- to the application of any law enacted on or before May ment o~er or ~ny proposed npeness declsl,on, ex~ept 11, 1995, or as to the application of any rule, regulation, for the final wntten settlement offer or the final wntten or ordinance adopted or formally noticed for adoption ripeness decision, an~ any ~egotiations or rejections in ,on or before that date. A subsequent amendment t~ regard .to the form~l~tlon elt~er of ~h~ se~lement offer any such law, rule, regulation, or ordinance gives rise or the npene~ deCISion,. are Inadm!SSlble.ln the subse- to a cause of action under this section only to the extent quent proceeding established .by t~IS section except f?r that the application of the amendatory language the purposes of the determination pursuant to thiS imposes an inordinate burden apart from the law, rule, paragrap~. . . regulation, or ordinance being amended. (d) Within 15 da~s afte~ the executl.on of any settle- (13) This section does not affect the sovereign !'lent pursuant to thiS s~tIon, ~r the Issuance of any immunity of govemment. Judgment pursuant to thIS section, the governmental HI~.-e. 1. ch. 95-181, entity shall provide a copy of the settlement or judg- ment to the Department of Legal Affairs. (7)(a) The circuit court may enter any orders nec- essary to effectuate the purposes of this section and to make final determinations to effectuate relief available under this section. (b) An award or payment of compensation pursu- ant to this section shall operate to grant to and vest in any govemmental entity by whom compensation is paid the right, title, and interest in rights of use for which the compensation has been paid, which rights may become transferable development rights to be held, sold, or otherwise disposed of by the govemmental entity. When there is an award of compensation, the court shall determine the form and the recipient of the right, title, and interest, as well as the terms of their acquisition. [; r I: '" L , . I: ! !; F.S. 1997 of local gove: to be issued , government development to, prograrrn 166,187,25 (c) MSpec the parties t< lion. The sPf and posses and at least ing familiari mental pem and state ~ the law gov (d) MOw ble interest a developr regional, or order, or Yo subject to entity. (e) "pr, posal filed erty. (f) MGI state, a rE State Cor county or dently ex does not cies. (g) ML includes ; land, inch the owne (3) A order, ei developr govemm dens thE within 3( govemrr (4) 1 owner n appoint! the dev, enforce entity n relief ar cialma and the of the r (5) has be' relief b (a) owner' roll. (b) oral 01 stanm lions t 70.51 Land use and environmental dispute resolu- tlon.- (1) This section may be cited as the "Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act." (2) As used in this section, the term: (a) "Development order" means any order, or notice of proposed state or regional governmental agency action, which is or will have the effect of grant. ing, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit, and includes the rezoning 01 a specific parcel. Actions by the state or a local govern-- ment on comprehensive plan amendments are not development orders. (b) "Development permit" means any building per- mit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, certification, special exception, variance, or any other similar action 534 I Ii ~ ,. L f li . .i F.S.1997 F.S.1997 RELIEF FROM BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Ch.70 sovereign of local govemment, as well as any permit authorized or enforcement action at issue. Notice under this para- to be issued under state law by state, regional, or local graph is required only if that party indicated a desire to govemment which has the effect of authorizing the receive notice of any subsequent special master pro- development of real property including, but not limited ceedings occurring on the development order or to, programs implementing chapters 125, 161, 163, enforcement action. Each govemmental entity must 166, 187,258,372,373,378,380, and 403. maintain in its files relating to particular development (c) .Special master" means a person selected by orders a mailing list of persons who have presented the parties to perform the duties prescribed in this sec- oral or wriUen testimony and who have requested lion. The special master must be a resident of the state notice. and possess experience and expertise in mediation (6) The request for relief must contain: and at least one of the following disciplines and a work- (a) A brief statement of the owner's proposed use ing familiarity with the others: land use and environ- of the property. mental permitting, land planning, land economics, local (b) A summary of the development order or and state govemment organization and powers, and description of the enforcement action. A copy of the the law goveming the same. development order or the documentation of an enforce- (d) .Owner" means a person with a legal or equita- ment action at issue must be aUached to the request. ble interest in real property who filed an application for (c) A brief statement of the impact of the develo~ a development permit for the property at the state, ment order or enforcement action on the ability of the regional, or local level and who received a development owner to achieve the proposed use of the property. order, or who holds legal title to real property that is (d) A certificate of service showing the parties, subject to an enforcement action of a govemmental including the govemmental entity, served. entity. (7) The special master may require other informa- (e) .Proposed use of the property" means the pro- tion in the interest of gaining a complete understanding posal filed by the owner to develop his or her real pro~ of the request for relief. erty. (8) The special master may conduct a hearing on (f) .Govemmental entity" includes an agency of the whether the request for relief should be dismissed for state, a regional or a local govemment created by the failing to include the information required in subsection State Constitution or by general or special act, any (6). If the special master dismisses the case, the spe- county or municipality, or any other entity that indepen- cial master shall allow the owner to amend the request dently exercises governmental authority. The term and refile. Failure to file an adequate amended request does not include the United States or any of its agen- within the time specified shall result in a dismissal with cies. prejudice as to this proceeding. (g) .Land" or .real property" means land and (9) By requesting relief under this section, the includes any appurtenances and improvements to the owner consents to grant the special master and the land, including any other relevant real property in which parties reasonable access to the real property with the owner had a relevant interest. advance notice at a time and in a manner acceptable to (3) Any owner who believes that a development the owner of the real property. order, either separately or in conjunction with other (10)(a) Before initiating a special master proceeding development orders, or an enforcement action of a to review a local development order or local enforce- govemmental entity, is unreasonable or unfairly bur=') ment action, the owner must exhaust all nonjudicial dens the use of the owner's real property, may apply local govemment administrative appeals if the appeals ...within 30 days jifter receipt of the order or notice of the take no longer than 4 months. Once nonjudicial local govemmental action for relief under this section. administrative appeals are exhausted and the develo~ (4) To initiate a proceeding under this section, an ment order or enforcement action is final, or within 4 owner must file a request for relief with the elected or months after Issuance of the development order or appointed head of the govemmental entity that issued notice of the enforcement action if the owner has pur- the development order or orders, or that initiated the sued local administrative appeals even If the appeals enforcement action. The head of the govemmental have not been concluded, the owner may initiate a pro- entity may not charge the owner for the request for ceeding under this section. Initiation of a proceeding relief and must forward the request for relief to the spe- tolls the time for seeking judicial review of a local gov- cial master who is mutually agreed upon by the owner emment development order or enforcement action until and the govemmental entity within 10 days after receipt the special master's recommendation is acted upon by of the request. the local govemment. Election by the owner to file for (5) The governmental entity with whom a request judicial review of a local government development has been filed shall also serve a copy of the request for order or enforcement action prior to initiating a pro- relief by United States mail or by hand delivery to: ceeding under this section waives any right to a special (a) Owners of real property contiguous to the master proceeding. owner's property at the address on the latest county tax (b) If an owner requests special master relief from roll. a development order or enforcement action issued by (b) Any substantially affected party who submiUed a state or regional agency, the time for challenging oral or wriUen testimony, swom or unswom, of a sub- agency action under ss. 120.569 and 120.57 is tolled. stantive nature which stated with particularity objec- If an owner chooses to bring a proceeding under ss. lions to or support for any development order at issue 120.569 and 120.57 before initiating a special master 535 hods agreed r arbitration, ,pute resolu- raged to uti- ate the pro- section. ;tion for gov- ~vel of a tak- nited States ari/y be con- ~s if the gov- I of a taking, ,tive, and do y available, governmen- However, a . compensa- ,pplicable to, operty more ctions taken e operation, on facilities, w regarding :ommenced more than 1 I by the gov- If an owner hrough law- roceedings, s section is ings. s section as before May , regulation, :>r adoption, endment to e gives rise o the extent I language Ie law, rule, ,ute resolu- lorida Land I Act.. I order, or lernmental Ict of grant- application rezoning of cal govem- Its are not uilding per- ertification, nilar action -;;. J . ~:- :;~~~:::~~~:::1..::' ".". . , . - . .. . .. . ~_'_,_!f', 1: " " ....' RELIEF FROM BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS F.S. 1997 Ch.70 proceeding, then the owner waives any right to a spe- cial master proceeding unless all parties consent to proceeding to mediation. (11) The initial party to the proceeding is the govem- mental entity that issues the development order to the owner or that is taking the enforcement action. In those Instances when the development order or enforcement action is the culmination of a process involving more than one govemmental entity or when a complete reso- lution of all relevant issues would require the active par- ticipation of more than one govemmental entity, the special master may, upon application of a party, join those govemmental entities as parties to the proceed- ing if it will assist in effecting the purposes of this sec- tion, and those govemmental entities so joined shall actively participate in the procedure. (12) Within 21 days after receipt of the request for relief, any owner of land contiguous to the owner's property and any substantially affected person who submitted oral or written testimony, swom or unswom, of a substantive nature which stated with particularity objections to or support for the development order or enforcement action at issue may request to participate in the proceeding. Those persons may be permitted to participate in the hearing but shall not be granted party or intervenor status. The participation of such persons is limited to addressing issues raised regarding altema- tives, variances, and other types of adjustment to the development order or enforcement action which may impact their substantial interests, including denial of the development order or application of an enforcement action. (13) Each party must make efforts to assure that those persons qualified by training or experience nec- essary to address issues raised by the request or by the special master and further qualified to address altematives, variances, and other types of modifica- tions to the development order or enforcement action are present at the hearing. (14) The special master may subpoena any non- party witnesses in the state whom the special master believes will aid in the disposition of the matter. (15)(a) The special master shall hold a hearing within 45 days after his or her receipt of the request for relief unless a different date is agreed to by all the par- ties. The hearing must be held in the county In which the property is located. (b) The special master must provide notice of the place, date, and time of the hearing to all parties and any other persons who have requested such notice at least 40 days prior to the hearing. (16)(a) Fifteen days following the filing of a request for relief, the govemmental entity that issued the devel- opment order or that is taking the enforcement action shall file a response to the request for relief with the special master together with a copy to the owner. The response must set forth in reasonable detail the posi- tion of the govemmental entity regarding the matters alleged by the owner. The response must include a brief statement explaining the public purpose of the regulations on which the development order or enforce- ment action is based. (b) Any govemmental entity that is added by the special master as a party must file a response to the request for relief prior to the hearing but not later than 15 days following its admission. (c) Any party may Incorporate in the response to the request for relief a request to be dropped from the proceeding. The request to be dropped must set forth facts and circumstances relevant to aid the special master in ruling on the request. All requests to be dropped must be disposed of prior to conducting any hearings on the merits of the request for relief. (17) In all respects, the hearing must be informal and open to the public and does not require the use of an attomey. The hearing must operate at the direction and under the supervision of the special master. The object of the hearing is to focus attention on the impact of the govemmental action giving rise to the request for relief and to explore altematives to the development order or enforcement action and other regulatory efforts by the govemmental entities In order to recommend relief, when appropriate, to the owner. (a) The first responsibility of the special master is to facilitate a resolution of the conflict between the owner and govemmental entities to the end that some modifi- cation of the owner's proposed use of the property or adjustment in the development order or enforcement action or regulatory efforts by one or more of the gov- emmental parties may be reached. Accordingly, the special master shall act as a facilitator or mediator between the parties in an effort to effect a mutually acceptable solution. The parties shall be represented at the mediation by persons with authority to bind their respective parties to a solution, or by persons with authority to recommend a solution directly to the per- sons with authority to bind their respective parties to a solution. ,(b) If an acceptable solution is not reached by the parties after the special master's attempt at mediation, the special master shall consider the facts and circum- stances set forth in the request for relief and any responses and any other information produced at the hearing in order to determine whether the action by the governmental entity or entities is unreasonable or unfairly burdens the real property. (c) In conducting the hearing, the special master may hear from all parties and witnesses that are neces- sary to an understanding of the matter. The special master shall weigh all information offered at the hear- ing. (18) The circumstances to be examined in detennin- ing whether the development order or enforcement action, or the development order or enforcement action in conjunction with regulatory efforts of other govern- mental parties, is unreasonable or unfairly burdens use of the property may include, but are not limited to: (a) The history of the real property, including when it was purchased, how much was purchased, where ~ is located, the nature of the title, the composition of the property, and how it was initially used. (b) The history or development and use of the real property, including what was developed on the property and by whom, if it was subdivided and how and to whom It was sold, whether plats were filed or recorded. 536 F.S. 1997 I- I I; I; ~ I r: # '\ and whether improvement (c) The I land use con and when th scribed,and (d) The r erty, includin (e) The I the time of implementat later, under common lay. (f) The' the developr the nature al the underlyil order or en developmen to the achie' there are al ment action purpose anc the property (g) Use: similar prop (h) Any the special : (19) With ing, the Spl parties a wr (a) If thl order at is!: ment actior tions of oth able or doe property, th developme undisturbec the owner's (b) If thl order or en' or enforcer; , or regulatio sonable or erty, the sr proceed, n that protec! ment order issue but a owner's rei 1. An, standards ' ment or us 2. Incr sity, or USE 3. ThE 4. Lan 5. Miti mitigation. 6. Loc property . 7. Cor permitted. ~~ ~( \. .1 ; ~~ ,i 1 , ., , , 1 . , ! :1 1 .\ ) ~ ; 1 :j ~1 1 1 ~ ~ F.S. 1997 F.S.1997 RELIEF FROM BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Ch.70 added by the sponse to the not later than and whether infrastructure and other public services or improvements may have been dedicated to the public. (c) The history of environmental protection and land use controls and other regulations, including how and when the land was classified, how use was pro- scribed, and what changes in classifications occurred. (d) The present nature and extent of the real prop- erty, including Its natural and altered characteristics. (e) The reasonable expectations of the owner at the time of acquisition, or immediately prior to the implementation of the regulation at issue, whichever is later, under the regulations then in effect and under common law. (f) The public purpose sought to be achieved by the development order or enforcement action, including the nature and magnitude of the problem addressed by the underlying regulations on which the development order or enforcement action is based; whether the development order or enforcement action is necessary to the achievement of the public purpose; and whether there are altemative development orders or enforce- ment action conditions that would achieve the public purpose and allow for reduced restrictions on the use of the property. . (g) Uses authorized for and restrictions placed on similar property. ' (h) Any other infonnation detennined relevant by the special master. (19) Within 14 days after the conclusion of the hear- ing, the special master shall prepare and file with all parties a written recommendation. (a) If the special master finds that the development order at issue, or the development order or enforce- ment action in combination with the actions or regula- tions of other govemmental entities, is not unreason- able or does not unfairly burden the use of the owner's property, the special master must recommend that the development order or enforcement action remain undisturbed and the proceeding shall end, subject to the owner's retention of all other available remedies. (b) If the special master finds that the development order or enforcement action, or the development order or enforcement action in combination with the actions or regulations of other govemmental entities, is unrea- sonable or unfairly burdens use of the owner's prop- erty, the special master, with the owner's consent to proceed, may recommend one or more altematives that protect the public interest served by the develop- ment order or enforcement action and regulations at issue but allow for reduced restraints on the use of the owner's real property, including, but not limited to: 1. An adjustment of land development or pennit standards or other provisions controlling the develop- ment or use of land. 2. Increases or modifications in the density, inten- sity, or use of areas of development. 3. The transfer of development rights. 4. Land swaps or exchanges. 5. Mitigation, including payments in lieu of on site mitigation. 6. Location on the least sensitive portion of the property. 7. Conditioning the amount of development or use permitted. e response to pped from the must set forth id the special :lquests to be onducting any r relief. Ie infonnal and , the use of an 9 direction and ter. The object :l impact of the quest for relief pment order or , efforts by the mmend relief, :ial master is to een the owner It some modifi- he property or Ir enforcement ore of the gov- ::cordingly, the lr or mediator ect a mutually 18 represented ity to bind their , persons with ctly to the per- ive parties to a reached by the )t at mediation, ::ts and circum- relief and any roduced at the Ie action by the reasonable or special master that are neces- tr. The special ed at the hear- led in detennin- lr enforcement lrcement action f other govern- rty burdens use t limited to: including when has ed, where it nposition of the I use of the real on the property nd how and to led or recorded, 8. A requirement that issues be addressed on a more comprehensive basis than a single proposed use or development. 9. Issuance of the development order, a variance, special exception, or other extraordinary relief, includ- ing withdrawal of the enforcement action. 10. Purchase of the real property, or an interest therein, by an appropriate govemmental entity. (c) This subsection does not prohibit the owner and govemmental entity from entering in to an agreement as to the pennissible use of the property prior to the special master entering a recommendation. An agree- ment for a pennissible use must be incorporated in the special master's recommendation. (20) The special master's recommendation is a pub- lic record under chapter 119. However, actions or state- ments of all participants to the special master proceed- ing are evidence of an offer to compromise and inad- missible in any proceeding, judicial or administrative. (21) Within 45 days after receipt of the special mas- ter's recommendation, the govemmental entity respon- sible for the development order or enforcement action and other govemmental entities participating in the pro- ceeding must consult among themselves and each govemmental entity must: (a) Accept the recommendation of the special mas- ter as submitted and proceed to implement it by devel- opment agreement, when appropriate, or by other method, in the ordinary course and consistent with the rules and procedures of that govemmental entity. How- ever, the decision of the govemmental entity to accept the recommendation of the special master with respect to granting a modification, variance, or special excep- tion to the application of statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances as they would otherwise apply to the sub- ject property does not require an owner to duplicate previous processes in which the owner has participated in order to effectuate the granting of the modification, variance, or special exception; (b) Modify the recommendation as submitted by the special master and proceed to implement it by development agreement, when appropriate, or by other method, in the ordinary course and consistent with the rules and procedures of that govemmental entity; or (c) Reject the recommendation as submitted by the special master. Failure to act within 45 days is a rejec- tion unless the period is extended by agreement of the owner and issuer of the development order or enforce- ment action. (22) If a governmental entity accepts the special master's recommendation or modifies it and the owner rejects the acceptance or modification, or if a govem- mental entity rejects the special master's recommenda- tion, the govemmental entity must issue a written deci- sion within 30 days that describes as specifically as possible the use or uses available to the subject real property. (23) The procedure established by this section may not continue longer than 165 days, unless the period is extended by agreement of the parties. A decision describing available uses constitutes the last prerequi- site to judicial action and the matter is ripe or final for subsequent judicial proceedings unless the owner initi- 537 .... .. Ch.70 RELIEF FROM BURDENS ON REAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ates a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. If the owner brings a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57, the matter is ripe when the proceeding culmI- nates in a final order whether further appeal is available or not. (24) The. procedure created by this section is not itself, nor does it create, a judicial cause of action. Once the govemmental entity acts on the special master's recommendation, the owner may elect to file suit in a court of competent jurisdiction. Invoking the proce- dures of this section is not a condition precedent to fil- ing a civil action. (25) Regardless of the action the governmental entity takes on the special master's recommendation, a recommendation that the development order or enforcement action, or the development order or enforcement action in combination with other govem- mental regulatory actions, is unreasonable or unfairty burdens use of the owner's real property may serve as an indication of sufficient hardship to support modifica- tion, variances, or special exceptions to the application of statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances to the sub- ject property. (26) A special master's recommendation under this section constitutes data in support of, and a support document for, a comprehensive plan or comprehensive plan amendment, but is not, in and of itself, dispositive of a determination of compliance with chapter 163. Any comprehensive plan amendment necessary to carry out the approved recommendation of a special master under this section is exempt from the twice-a-year limit on plan amendments and may be adopted by the local govemment amendments in s. 163.3184(16)(d). (27) The special master shall send a copy of the rec- ommendation in each case to the Department of Legal Affairs. Each govemmental entity, within 15 days after its action on the special master's recommendation, shall notify the Department of Legal Affairs in writing as' F.S.1997 F.S.1997 to what action the govemmental entity took on the spe- cial master's recommendation. (28) Each govemmental entity may establish proce- dural guidelines to govem the conduct of proceedings authorized by this section, which must include, but are not limited to, payment of special master fees and expenses, including the costs of providing notice and effecting service of the request for relief under this sec. tion, which shall be bome equally by the govemmental entities and the owner. (29) This section shall be liberally construed to effect fully its obvious purposes and intent, and govemmental entities shall direct all available resources and authori- ties to effect fully the obvious purposes and intent of . this section in resolving disputes. Governmental enti- ties are encouraged to expedite notice and time-related provisions to implement resolution of disputes under this section. The procedure established by this section may be used to resolve disputes in pending judicial pro- ceedings, with the agreement of the parties to the judi- cial proceedings, and subject to the approval of the court in which the judicial proceedings are pending. The provisions of this section are cumulative, and do not supplant other methods agreed to by the parties and lawfully available for arbitration, mediation, or other forms of altemative dispute resolution. (30) This section applies only to development orders issued, modified, or amended, or to enforcement actions issued, on or after October 1, 1995. Hlllory.-s. 2. en. 95-181; s. 7, en. 96-410; I. 25, en. 97-96. 71.011 71.021 71.031 71.041 71.011 flles.-A soever, E public oft inafter pi (1) V ested in may ree: (2) V ord or filE existed I paper, \ affected dents of son see I (3) F shall prE ords am manner. (4) E (a) J effect of immedic it, but a until ree, official, ( until a c court or certified which is may be (b) V to land ir ord with record a tied cop may be ' the dee( (5) ( any pap vided, S that the and is n, time an attachec that the persons aQainst Htl1ory.- 1523-1527. 3265: CGL : ....-f! 70.80 Construction of ch. 95-181.-11 is the express declaration of the Legislature that ss. 70.001 and 70.51 have separate and distinct bases. objec- tives. applications, and processes. It is therefore the intent of the Legislature that ss. 70.001 and 70.51 are not to be construed in pari materia. Hlllory.-s. 3, ell. 95-181. 538 ..JHN-t::J;:)-~~ t:JI?,1.,1. rl'l ,u....V.L.;:> .....-,J..) ....wwU'-"'....IC.w ..."', ~'=>"::I ~q.=>( p.e2 ~} - i \ ~~.trlu.t!JlSiles8 Joarul Jan, 1-7, 1999 ------ .___~___Aro-und--n--.- ___ Continued from page 1 ... Not too much to Celebrate? Word h~s it that substantial numbers of retailers at Celebration will be exIting following largely disappoint.ing season- al sales. Even if sales had been as brisk as hoped, some retailers.say they've been hurt by. the success of competi. ---Uon 'at-Downtown Disney - and the failure of Disney to bring in enough foot traffic to Celebration to keep the model community's "downtown" alive and well ...