HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 04 10 Regular
e
e
e
,"
..
~::J.::.J._1.
~Plu~ 'IlINTE.q S~<"
ft" ,P"""""" ,'"
ill.) " ,
I ,
~ ... '\I~.. . ~ .~
, ^
"" >~'7:;;' ;:.~'
J..rS:.t.-.:o_">-
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA
400 NORTH EDGEMON AVENUE
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (305) 327.1800
MEMO TO: Commission/Mayor
SUBJECT: Annexation, Lot 6 and a portion of Lot 7 Entziminger Farms Add. No. 2
DATE: April 6, 1984
I have placed the above referenced annexation on the agenda for your
action. The item has been before the Planning and Zoning Board on March 28,
1984. A motion to recommend annexation failed and the item was subsequently
tabled. After reviewing the minutes I determined that a motion had been
made, seconded and when the vote was taken, failed 3 to 2. However, another
motion to table was made and passed 4 to 1. I believe this to be an improper
action. (See my letter to the P & Z Board of April 4, 1984)
I recommend the Commission authorize the preparation of the Annexation
Ordinance and that the process be allowed to continue in the normal manner.
We can stop short if necessary. However, we feel the problem will be worked
out and we will have all lots in the immediate area ready for annexation.
Additionally, I beleive we could lose the opportunity to annex this lot if
we do not take positive action.
RR/pkl
Enclosure
cc: Police Chief
City Planner
City Attorney
e
e
e
"",
_~_'\",'\;,\ t.
~ - "\NT~.Q .
-r:J ... ~:'
:;r....'.'.J'"
: (J . ~ '!t, "
. ,
, .'. .
. .
", ...";'
. . ~ :~..~';"'~'~:r." .>-/,'
, . J.. IS! '
CITY OF WINTER'SPRINGS. FLORIDA
400 NORTH EDGEMON AVENUE
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (305) 327.1800
April 4, 1984
Mr. John Hatfield
Chairman, Planning & Zoning Board
City of Winter Springs
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Reference: Voluntary Annexation - Lot 6 and a portion of Lot 7,
Entzminger Farms Add. No. 2
Dear Mr. Hatfield:
I have reviewed the Planning and Zoning Board minutes of March 28,
1984. As a result of the review I feel that the next proper step to take
regarding the matter of the annexation is to place the item on the next
City Commission agenda for consideration.
In my opinion any motion to table an item after a motion to take action
is made, seconded and subsequently fails, is an improper motion. Additionally,
I believe the motion to table as qualified as this tabling motion is denies
the applicant ultimate access to the City Commission, the only body with
the authority to approve or deny an annexation application.
Consequently I intend to place the item on the next agenda for considera-
tion by the City Commission.
cere1y,
RR/mn
ene. Minutes of 3/28/84
cc: }~yor/Commission
City Planner
/ I
,,1 I. r;;-)
\ .
..
e
Planning and Zoning Board
Minutes
Wednesday, March 28, 1984
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Chairman Hatfield.
ROLL CALL:
John Hat field, Chairman, present
Cindy Kaehler, Vice-Chairman, present
Richard DeFazio, present
Robert Smedley, present
Taru Joshi, present
CITY OFFICIALS:
Walter ,Elwell, City Planner
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1984.
DeFazio moved to approve the minutes as submitted.
Vote: All aye. Minutes approved as submitted.
Joshi second.
e
VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION - LOT 6 AND PORTION OF LOT
3.7 ACRES, SEMINOLE CO.
Elwell presentation.
DeFazio moved to recommend to City
annexed into the City contingent on
the City first. Hatfield second.
Vote: Kaehler, nay; Smedley, nay;
Motion does not carry.
7 , ENTZMINGER FARMS ADD. NO.2,
Commission that Lot 6 and portion of Lot 7 be
the other lots that create an enclave come into
Discussion.
Joshi, nay; Hatfield, aye. DeFazio, aye.
Smedley moved the matter be tabled without penalty to the applicant and if the
other lots do not come in for annexation in a reasonable period of time the
applicant's fee be refunded. Kaehler second. Discussion.
Vote: DeFazio, nay; Hatfield, aye; Joshi, aye; Kaehler, aye; Smedley, aye.
Motion carries.
Smedley moved the Board's oplnlon that annexation in this area is welcome. We
appreciate the individual's application and we hope to see the applications of
the other lots before this Board in a timely fashion so that we can act on all
these lots in the near future. Kaehler second. Vote: Hatfield, aye; Joshi, aye;
Kaehler, aye; Smedley, aye; DeFazio, nay. Motion carries.
REZONING _ AMENDI-ffiNT TO PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN (CHANGE OF LAND USE/DESIGN) WINTER
SPRINGS COMMERCE CENTER, WALTER DITTMER.
Elwell presentation. Walter Dittmer, applicant, came forward with his presentation.
Discussion.
Smedley moved the request for amendment to the preliminary plan be tabled until April
11th meeting and the matter be agended as the first item with a strict time limit
of 20 minutes after which a motion one way or the other will be made and vote taken
ane. that staff be directed to send a letter to the President of the Wi:ldwood Homeo't.'Tle
Association requesting their participation at said meetinb. Kaehler second.
Vote: Kaehler, aye; Smedley, aye; Joshi, aye; Hatfield, nay; DeFazio nay.
Motion carries.
e
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~ J1J~ l(,l.. ,t,i,,?,"{
~~,I;;".1"r"..n7 ,\
e(
ec
e ((
<i
cJ;.&j!nL
Work performance product, addresses JOB TASKS: Support of
CITY CODES: Land Development,
Walt~r Thomas Elwell, CITY PLANNER, CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA.
"
'"
Boards,
REQUEST FOR INSPECTION/RECOMMENDATION ON DIVIDING PLATTED~RO~E
Development/Unit: LoTI; ELI<. 0/ N O..e44NPO RIINCIf&5 J see 4- I\^^' .
Applicant/Agent: /.flJNARP 'Bte-oso6"/ L IV ~ STAMP/ TTACH:
ReView/Action Requested:c-~CQ~~.(~Y.1~~~~Vh~ Date/Work Order No.
LOT SPLIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 14-3.1 ~/l3 /4 /
CPT/",/ /
----~
MEMORANDID1 TO: DEPTS./AGENTS (Specify):O Mgr. ,~i~~r./p.Works, OPolice,
o Fire, tl Bldg., .DAttny., 0 Other (Sp~cify): ~- . .' .
/FROM: City Planner/Elwell (sign/date): / j /..-J//. 0 ~ II /1
V{/{l#t/f 6 kNt(j' I 2/1V/1lr: ~ #{
Text, page 1 of
/
Assessment,
Validation
Pursuant to the applicant's/agent's written request (attached) please
coordinate to: 1. Inspect the proposed development (identified), and;
2. Complete the following assessments by return memo (execute/return
this memo as per your responsibility/jurisdiction under the applicable
codes of the City) as follows (any correspondence regarding the appli-
cant's request should be attached/addressed to me, with copies sent to
all relevant parties):
A.
The parcel in question is a single lot of record.......................
,and;
B.
The applicant is the owner of record.........,..........................
;Vll OWNEI?~fI/P <:::'Ee7fP/CA-7fOry /tY ,A~t(CriNTS j..677"b72..
,and;
C.
The parcel of record has not previously been split.....................
NO /NO/c4r/a.v Of: PR/(J72 .s;p~ff /ijC/7}' peAT ~tJCX.
,and;
D. Each resulting parcel (proposed) meets in every respect the criteria
established elsewhere in t~e City Code (in addition to Sec. 14-3.1) as
follows:
(1)
Zoning (specify .classification): R-/A4
. l'aOOOSC;;.FT. / 3ct;240 SC;.+=f: +
(a) area requl.rement.............................................
,and;
.A.
Identified,
Above;
~Iux/(
. B.
AFFf~ Vir
lJIe60ED I
E((.AT!"(/
.c.
COMa-fa
EkPt/ /
.(a)
C.OMllI5,
Eff>>C(/
(b)
yard requirements
. r. 3S R.ZE;;.5. 20
( s pee i fy) . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . (b)
COJllt::r:/5S/
C k>>d I
,and;
(c)
minimum lot width reqUirements..~.~.~...(~r!:!.........
,and;
.(c)
CCyV/Ptles /
E?t'A11 '-
.
. j
REQUEST FOR INSPECTION/RECOMMENDATION ON DIVIDING PLATTED PROPERTY
Deve1opment/Unit:Lor~ 8t../t. 0, AI. tJf?tANOORI1NC#cS,c5E.C 4.
Applicant/ Agent: LBJ}lAeD BCWsa;- /
Review/ Action Requested: CITe.,-' COM/I1. 12eY/EW! APPQ(JVA C-
LOT SPLIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 14-3.1
Report Text. Page 2
(
Assessment/
Validation
~(t{ ~_(2) Engineering requirements set out in Chapter 14 ~
tla)~ (Specify by attachment)......................................... .(2)~~
,and now therefore;
e(
e(
(3) Other applicable requirements of the City Code (specify):....... .(3)~
f)()~S{)AN'T 71) see. (,f-3,~ WHClZ.~ rH6 UJT5 P?C~SEO (ia:urIPt~O)
Neer IN EY$C! ~~OT rfle" Cent7fZIA (Z6"'1N~/ cN~/NE€7Z/N6...
ItJe.lTfFrC[;J .Ae,ljVc) 7#6" F{/~L P2DVI.$/()"'~ OF C-I7APTe7Z- /4
MAl( 6e:- WAtVCZ/AN.o VIfK::./ANCe:> G/t/6JV, €Jwd(
$-~~~~-/~~
~/<f~k~~~'
~~c2~~~~~'
;J~ J r~~~~~
~ ~A~~~ ~~~/oo
?-: ~CL'.~ ~~ rrl4 ",r
3P~~~~j/r-~
f( (j, $9.er
DEPT.
RESPONDANf~$~
Signature/Position/Date
--
CITY OF WH'HER SrRI~GS
RECEIVED
'1a 2 9 1984
a~~
(
(
e
TO CI~Y O? WDEE.a SFEI!,:G:>
3-1[; -S~.
T0 ilhor'l It i.lay ConCPl n:
I. L~onarJ El~:s0A, woul~ likA to divide
e
the property at the ?Drt!J. Orlanno Hanehf'-' On
H~jli'~s Roa,-}, Lot 1 Block D Sec. 4.,
On@ Lot to consis~ of ~2.051.6o squar~
fe~t a~(j thp other Lot to consist of 39.240
squar/! fl"',...to
T'!1ank you,
~d&~
255 pa nama Road
Winter Springs
Ph: 695-1498
We. Leonard & Elsie Bledsoe,
are the solp ow~ers o~ said
OTY Of WmTER SPRINGS
RFCEIVED
e
L::J$~~
~ ~~ / \ ,\-
/ (, f) IJJ . ~ .;,
aG~~~4'
Mlt; _. '. .__~....-.;:,
MAR
1984
CITY PLANNER
, .
.
~
r.......--c7riJ/j 7fl1K- Tl~Cd/lP--PlAI-- -----. ,-.' -OTV.O~.-WJNJER-SPRiHGS'-"
/ v/'7 RECEIVED
( NdfJrtl · ;';--'-MAR!41984 ~.....-.
P8-
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
\
I
]
]
.60
I
j(
..~
I
e
..,......
. . "
.. / 'l .", ';
..I " .,'
I
;.IlO~ Ac,
11",", ,..
~"i "
".J'
cr.,;
z
@
I. TZZ Ac
r.....
(.
~....
\...:~
J;o" ...
. .
-,.
l-:..~ -
.
" ~
3
/. 72~ Ac,
- ;,;..
~~;
.~ .. .
\.~ ..:~ : ',', "
.l
I) I- (., I.:
.... t.
t~ ",
I";" .
~'
..... ,.~
. ,.,
.
,..
".-"-.
CITY PlANNER
"(.7 ~ . -, ...
';C,..<!.,1, I. Y '. t>-
.
~ 2. O::t/ r ~o . ""
'" ':'f
, .....
f,ll' 7 Ac, I'
r.
.3 f.JJt 0 . CJt:>
\:)..,.
~
,:5(," D .....
.. . .1 .l{~
"
, i~
~
......
o
~
~
"
"
~
"
:~
z
@
/,1/~ Ac
..
~
-.... .
. ..'
J
I "!lJ ;to:
~ .
Work performance product, addresses JOB TASKS: Support of Commission and Boards,
CITY CODES: Land Development, Zoning:
Walter Thomas Elwell, CITY PLANNER, CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA.
-
STAFF REPORT, PLANNING DEPT. ~ ORDER/~: 84,2,1,2 / 17 APIUL 84
(
Development IUni t : TUSCAWILLA/UNIT 14
Applicant/Agent: WINTER SPRINGS DEV. CORP./ J. ALPERT
Review/Action Requested: CITY COMMISSION REVIEW/APPROVAL
SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAN
Report Text, Page 1, REVIEW/ANALYSIS OF APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC SURVEY
Assessment/
Validation
To:
CITY MANAGER/Rozansky, and all parties who may become identified
relevant to the above identified request for review/action,
From:
CITY PLANNER/Elwell (sign/date).
. . .. . .
. . e. .
tfk4;
/71on/ H
Re:
STAFF REVIEW-for action toward approval of the above identifi.ed
development.
The Applicant's/Agent's analysis (Traffic Impact Analysis Tuscawilla Develop-
ment Plan, Winter Springs, Florida) dated March 1984 has been referred
through City Commissioner Hartman to the Transportation Department of the Eas
Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC) for technical review~ and
with the following result:
e
1.
The Council (Executive Director Cliff Guillet, Planner/Dowling) agreed
to review the applicant's study without charge, as a council service to
its member/jurisdiction (City of Winter Springs), and;
2. The Council's Analys t/Fred Milch reported (4 p ..m., 16 April 84) their
findings, by telephone, to City Planner/Elwell, and ~ade the points as
follows:
A. The Analyst's review-addressed primarily the link (Winter Springs
Blvd.) between Traffic Zone fifteen (~Z15) in Tuscawilla and State
Road 426 (S.R. 426) in Oviedo, and;
B. The Analyst finds-three (3) notable sources of traffic not addressed
or otherwise accounted for in the Applicant's impact analysis:
(1) Zone 4 in Tuscawilla should produce ~ore trips. Analyst/Milch
estimates conservatively: 1660 additional trips, twenty (20)
percent of which (330 vehicles) he would assign to the link in
question, and;
(2) The applicant's analysis does not address the Alafaya Woods
Development (3,500 dwelling units in Seminole County outside of
Tuscawilla) which analyst/Milch estimates conservatively would
generate 30,000 vehicles per day, nine hundred (900) of which
he would assign to the link in question to enter TZ15,and;
e {
STAFF REPORT, PLANNING DEPT. WORK ORDER/DATE: 84 ,2,1,2 / 17 APRIL 84
e
Development/Unit: TUSCAWILLA UNIT 14
'Applicant/Agent: WINTER SPRINGS DEV. CORP./J. ALPERT
Review/Action Requested: CITY COMMISSION REVIEW/APPROVAL
SUBDIVISION, PRELIMINARY PLAN
Report Text, Page 2, REVIEW/ANALYSIS OF APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC SURVEY
Assessment/
Validation
(3) The applicant's analysis does not address Red Bug Road
traffic projected to 1995, ten (10) percent (1,100 vehicles)
of which analyst/Milch would assign to the link in question
to enter Tuscawilla, and;
C. Evaluating, subjectively-what the foregoing means, Analyst/Milch
feels that the link- in question would provide traffic service at
or about level "D". (Depiction of level of service (LOS) "D"
attached) .
D. Other concerns-expressed by Analyst/Milch are:
(1) No peak ho~r analysis was presented by the Applicant. There
is not always a direct correlation of level of service
estimates, between average daily travel (ADT) and peak hour
analysis. At peak hours traffic service on the link in
question may fall below what Analyst/Milch has estimated
(a high level of service in range "D"), and;
e
(2) No intersection analysis was presented by the Applicant.
Some concern seems warranted over traffic control at the
intersection of the link in question and S.R. 426, and;
E. In the period required ~ arrange and perform the above analysis-
additional information on the funding of the Dean Road route for
the northerly extension of the East-West Expressway has become
available (clipping attached). It seems likely to Analyst/Milch
that the route (identifi~gl..ma~ be extended through Tuscawilla 14,
and require (for reason~V~Jg~se buffering) a right-of-way
width of 1000 feet, plus acreage for interchanges (refer: con-
victions 1 thru 4, page 2 Memo of Planner/Elwell to City Mgr.,
10 April 84).
ucdl!
WTE/rnn
Attachments, attached
cc:
Winter Springs City Commission/Mayor
File (identified)
.
(
.,..
~~o/ -
E /wi}
ANALYSIS) qpt~h/5IU -(M2/CCdr~
~5 6-f<S-f+ (tJ.,Ylk((J tA.-Is
--
~12'05~ 65
~ 6W(;~
e
(DRAFT TUSCAWILLA TRAFFIC
POIN~ON DESIGN OF THE LINK IN QUESTION
1.
The design proposed by the applicant (two (2) lanes in ea~h~d~~~tfj)
seems to the analyst/Milch to be adequate for the traffic'~p99i~, hbwever;
2. Problems with traffic service often arise from the design of the nodes~
(intersections). Intersection design often dictates the capacity of roads,
~~~I\~Sc>(lJI(~ ( LOS) "E" and "F" on 434 at 1-4 at peak hours (5-6 PM Fridays~) is an
example of how intersections (turning movements~etc.) can impact the traffic
service, o~ otherwise adequate roads, and;: J(gf(JV"rvdVC~ 1\'l~\j~M.(~
3. The 1_ ~ "iflrE,?,ection analysis, and of peak hour anal.ys.~s ~d' nl!ll)l-
"f>....l ~ J ~ ~~m Th1~applicant' s traffic impact analysis\4oei; not support
an objective evaluation of th~ nodes Q: the link in questiOl;.
dfb$lal.1 6c....."'-.Q. ,-f.if:..!~I.{($1- ($
Finally, from the analysis to date" aRRl:; _...'v.,...... f the conviction that..ee:-
~ AcrllIlovt+l~ty 8f Ujr+-n br>.. h't;::> should insist on appropriate design to limit the access
to commercial development^Ut<-TZ15, 4yy(~ 'l~+eV'SG'C~IOV\ C\v(.t-(ySf,sO---w'\ q'.('~~
f ~.p:'':cc( fbV b0 +fto o-rProfl'ltc+t o.t>-f'Iv\II(\-+YJ.
~61J\{' <^V\,tA"\~tS ,"'~ ~ v-e"U\vL'~Vf"C>-.(..(~ 1~..f((StC"1I6v1 a~-tiA.e
II vt.-k (,..L-\.. ~.f~ u..s I. f~ ~ '2-'=' #
e
\VI\)~~J:r!(';:\(.. L~ 'D'I)~~~~J4~../
~ I Pop.
rJo 5 CfJ G -'/(j 250/ QOO ~. ftJP
No ~b\J ~ ~L ~\J.!
--
M~
e