HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 05 22 Regular
e
e
-
----:-~E;;"'..
..~-r:J:'" "S'..
~t:r1)"'<".'" :\,'
ii:J:, ';
", " '\ 'I' ,I
", '"" (J'':
'-1 .~4" '.Ilt~':iJ".n'T'>' ~"- A.r'"
(\ ):::~J:':~~'>'/~'
S ~Af;~
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
400 NORTH EDGEMON AVENUE
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (305) 327-1800
May 7, 1984
To:
City Manager/Rozansky
From:
City Planner/Elwell
Re:
Development/Unit: Lot 9, Blk. D, North Orlando Ranches Sec. 1
Applicant/Agent: Carlos
Review/Action Requested:
and Ketty Rivera/,
City Commission review/approval of
recording of record plat
(Oak Hill Estates)
Pursuant to the applicable sections of the City Code, and in accordance
with prior conditions of approval by the City Commission (identified, refer
minutes of 22 Nov. 83, attached) I find the applicant's request approvable
subject to the following:
1. Removal of the certification by the Zoning Board, and;
2. Receipt of a recording fee of thirty five (35) dollars payable to the
City of Winter Springs pursuant to Resolution No. 335, and;
3. Pursuant to a Commission imposed requirement (identified, refer: minutes)
the applicant shall execute an agreement to the satisfaction of the City
Attorney regarding the five (5) percent of assessed value payment into
the City's recreation fund in lieu of dedication of land.
Pursuant to condition three (3) above, the Building Official shall issue no
permits for the development (identified) until the payment specified by the
Commission is made.
WTE/mn Wa1lit G~
attachments, attached ~
CC: City Commission I,IW (u/(J ~
Applicant/Agent,
Building Official,
City Attorney,
File (identified)
..
e
e
e
(
December 16, 1983
Highlands Homeowners Association
James Conger
675 Shepard Road
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
RE: Track B Highlands
Dear Mr. Conger:
As you are probably aware, we are the owners of Track B
located in the Highlands. Rollingwood Homes has been actively
building and developing both single and multi family communities
in the Orlando area for the past 9 years.
I am enclosing herewith for your review a preliminary plan
encompassing 29 fee simple single story cluster dwellings.
Our engineering has been prepared by Harling Locklin and
Associates with the site plan being done by Studio One.
I would appreciate your reviewing this preliminary plan and
upon my return from vacation I shall contact you to arrange
an appointment to review our site plan and our proposed
projections.
Wishing you a very happy and healthy new year.
Very truly yours,
RO LINGWOOD HOMES, INC.
'(I.~~\
':AlaU! n n D___ 1L'>>n ..._u._ _ ~ ....._ O)n~I'!""
n..
~
,,,,,,..\ ""." "".""
//
Page 2
83-84-5
e
~r Meeting, City Commission, Nov. 22, 1983
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartman that we approve the preliminary plan for
Doug's Unit I Quadruplexes on N. MOss Road subject to the engineer's recommendations
and recommendations of the Planning & Zoning Board with the exception of a sprinkler
system being provided. Seconded by Commissioner Adkins for discussion. Discussion.
Motion and second were withdrawn.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartman that we approve the preliminary plan of
Doug's Unit I Quadruplexes on N. Moss Road with the stipulation that they provide
some sort of fencing on the north east property lines and that they provide one
third acre playground with equipment in lieu of the 5.5 acre site and that they
maintain Moss Road until we pave Moss Road and subject to the Staff recommendations
excluding the fence around the retention pond, and the engineer's report except the
condition No.6 which states fencing around the retention pond. Seconded by
Commissioner Grove for discussion. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner
Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins,
aye; Commissioner Linville, aye; motion carried.
I~Request of Carlos and Ketty Rivera for waiver of subdivision requirements to divide
tr Lot 9, Block D, Ranches Section 1 into four lots on Trade Winds Road (Section 14-3.2).
The City Planner explained the property is located on Trade Winds Road just west of
S. Moss Road. It is to be divided into four lots. They are requesting a waiver
pursuant to Sec. 14-3.2 to subdivide Lot 9, Blk. D, N. Orlando Ranches Sec. 1 into
4 lots without review of engineering plans or installation of improvements. The
_. proposed lots meet the RC-l zoning requirements of Sec. 44.27.13. The City Engineer
_ has inspected the site and finds no field evidence that would contra-indicate the
requested division. Approval of the waiver is recommended by the Staff based on a
policy that has previously been set by the Commission.
No area has been set aside for public recreation land even though Sec. 14.62 b
provides for a Staff recommendation to waive dedica~ion of parks in subdivisions of
less than 20 acres. In previous similar instances the Commission attached the
condition to subdivision waivers that the applicant pay the amount of 5% of the
appraised value of the property into the City's recreation fund in lieu of dedication
of land. This also is a precedent established by this Commission. The recommendation
of the Staff is to continue.
Motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs the application be approved provided that we
collect the 5% in dollars as to the assessed value in lieu of the 5% of the land to
be collected at the sale of the first parcel. Seconded by Commissioner Adkins.
Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye;
Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Linville, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; motion
carried.
The Commission wanted to insure the lots are 120 feet wide at the house line before
any permits are issued.
The Commission agreed that this Agreement with regard to the payment of the 5% be
put in writing.
-
.
,~
./
.
_,I
...
/
J(
. .
.'
~~ar Meeting, City Commission, Nov. 22, 1983
Page 3
83-84-5
First Reading of Ord. No. 284, rezoning Lots 26 and 27, Blk. D, D. R. Mitchells
Survey, etc.:
Motion wa~ made by Commissioner Grove, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to read
Ordinance No. 284 by title only on first reading. Discussion. Vote on the motion:
Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Linville, aye;
Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; motion carried.
Attorney Kruppenbacher read the first reading of Ordinance No. 284 by title only on
first reading.
Resolution No. 434, establishing Official Holidays for calendar year 1984 will be
discussed on the next regular Commission Meeting, December 13.
City Manager - Richard Rozansky:
Bids-Police Vehicles:
Manager Rozansky reported the bid opening for the two police vehicles was held on
November 17, 1983. The Police Chief and City Manager recommend the bid on the Ford
LTD in the amount of $8,999 which includes the police package.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hartman, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to accept
the bid as recommended by City Manager. Discussion. Vote on themotion: Commissioner
Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Linville, aye; Commissioner
Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Grove, aye; motion carried.
N.O.W.S.Co:
Manager Rozansky reported that he met with Mr. Dale Crosby and Mr. John Hall this
past week and they discussed the change-over. He said he would come back with a
preliminary operations change-over plan in a couple weeks.
Motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Linville to amend
the Agenda to include Resolution No. 435, authorizing the issuance of not exceeding
$6,000,000 water and sewer revenue bonds, Series 1983, of the City of Winter Springs,
Florida to finance the cost of acquiring a water and sewer system for the City and
constructing improvements to said system; providing for the payment of the bonds
from the net revenues of the system; making other covenants and agreements in
connection therewith; and providing an effective date. Discussion. Vote on the motion:
Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Linville, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye;
Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; motion carried.
Motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, to adopt Resolution. No. 435 simply for the
purpose of permitting the validation process to begin. Seconded by Commissioner Adkins
for discussion. Discussion.
Motion was amended by Commissioner Adkins, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, the
Commission reserves the right to make amendments to the resolution. Discussion. Vote
on the amendment to the motion: Commissioner Linville, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye;
Commissioner Grove, aye; Commissioner Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; motion
carried.
Vote on motion as amended: Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Grove~ aye; Commis~ioner
Hartman, aye; Commissioner Adkins, aye; Commissioner Linville, aye; motion carried.
I'
e
e
.
-
...
S II ~~
MAY 22, 1984
My name is Jim Conger, 512 Shane Circle, in the Highlands. I am the
President of the Highlands Homeowners' Association and we currently have
over 700 units. I speak tonight for the Highlands' Board of Directors in
connection with the approval by the City Commission on May 8, 1984 of the
Highlands Glen project in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the
Highlands.
Ordinance 56 was the first PUD Ordinance for the City of Winter Springs,
and was approved on March 12, 1971. Among the purposes of this PUD
Ordinance were:
1. Encourage the development of land as planned neighborhood
communities; and
2. Preserve the natural amenities of the land by encouraging
scenic and functional open areas.
This Ordinance also stated:
1. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (DCCRs)
would be submitted to the City for approval;
2. Development must not adversely affect adjoining properties;
3. Structures or buildings located at perimeter of development
plan shall be set back 35 feet and shall be permanently
screened in a green belt of 35 feet to protect the privacy
and amenities of the adjacent existing uses.
The Planned Unit Development plan was approved for the Highlands by the
City shortly after Ordinance 56, and the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for the Highlands was approved by the City
Council on August 16, 1971.
These nCCRs established the Architectural Review Board (ARB) whose
functions are:
/
t
1.
2.
3.
4.
Approve all construction in the Highlands.
Promulgate planning data.
Indicate documents which should be submitted for approval.
Require submission of samples of building materials if
necessary.
The ARB operates in the sunshine and works in a similar manner as any
legislative body. It holds meetings, it considers items at least twice
-1-
e
e
e
e
..
and has the right to change its mind from one meeting to the next. This
is the same as the legislature in Tallahassee, the county, or right here
in Winter Springs where three readings are required for Ordinances. Votes
may change between readings based on new information and the best judgments
of the decision makers.
Assistant City Attorney Lang stated at the meeting on May 8, 1984 that
the City approved the PUD and the DCCRs, but the City has no right to
enforce the DCCRs. He said the City did not create the ARB and the ARB is
only an advisor to the City. If there is a disagreement between the developer
and the ARB, this is between them, and if enforcement becomes necessary, the
Highlands would have to pursue it. He also said that the City Commission
can only determine if the developer is in compliance with the City Ordinances,
and if so, approve the request.
The Highlands Glen submission is, in our eyes, in violation of City
Ordinance 56, the Ordinance in effect at the time of the approval of our PUD.
Spec if ically:
1. Perimeter of the PUD requires a 35 foot setback, screened in a
greenbelt (which you would assume would be on our property).
2. It can adversely affect adjoining areas (regardless of the use
of such areas) by destroying natural features and reducing
scenic areas;
3. 20% common open space has not been provided for use by residents.
We would like to point out that the Final Development Plan was not
reviewed by the P & Z Board as required on page 11, paragraph 10 of
Ordinance 134, the current effective Ordinance for PUDs. If such a meeting
had been held, these points would have been more clearly in focus, and
there might not have been some inaccurate statements made at the May 8th
meeting.
Lastly, the developer has stated in writing to our Homeowners' Associa-
tion that he is building "29 fee simple single-story cluster dwellings,"
and just last week, we received his elevations and floor plans. On the
other hand, as of late last week, the City had no house plans, but has one
elevation drawing submitted by the developer which shows two-story attached
units. The City has assumed these are townhouses, but not so stated anywhere.
Ordinance 134 states the densities for cluster homes are 7 per acre, not the
-2-
.
e
e
10 approved by the City two weeks ago. Since no special exception was
granted by the City, your final approval may have been incorrect.
I am sorry I was out of town on business on May 8th. Had I been
here, I would have urged the Commission to return this to the P & Z Board
to sort out the problems. You should be aware that this is the first and
only time in anyone's memory that the City has overruled the desires of
the ARB. When these City Ordinances were approved, it was the intent of
the City officials to allow the PUDs to control the construction, make
their recommendations, and the City would approve it. This has been
confirmed by conversations I've had with Granville Brown and Troy Piland,
both former mayors of this City.
In summary, the issues are twofold. First, compliance with applicable
City Ordinances which we feel has not been accomplished. Second, settle-
ment of the issue of who controls the building construction in the
Highlands which in the past twelve years by custom and normal practice has
been exercised by the ARB. This latter issue will surface shortly when
Highlands Glen applies for a building permit to construct something that
has not been approved by the ARB. This right of the ARB to approve, and I
emphasize the word approve, is so stated in the DCCRs which the City
approved on August 16, 1971. If the City does not believe the ARB or
other governing body has this authority, and even if the City did not
create the ARB but approved their authority by their action in 1971, then
consideration should be given to doing away with the PUD Ordinances and
retaining all the controls in the City.
e
e
-3-