HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 04 10 City Commission Regular Minutes
, .
88-89-15
.
REGDLAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
APRIL 10, 1989
The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida,
was called to order by Mayor Leanne M. Grove at 7:30 p. m.
Roll Call:
Mayor Leanne M. Grove, present
Deputy Mayor Philip A. Kulbes, present
City Manager Richard Rozansky, absent
City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present
Commissioners:
Cindy Kaehler, present
Arthur Hoffmann, present
William A. Jacobs, present
Paul P. Partyka, present
For the invocation Commissioner Cindy Kaehler asked for a moment of silent prayer.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes for approval of the minutes of March 27,
1989. Seconded by Commissioner Jacobs. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner
Partyka, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner
Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; motion carried.
Public Comment:
Helen Powell, Hacienda Village, spoke about an incident that occurred with her
neighbor when she called 911. She also spoke about the construction of the new
State Farm Building and what appears to be retention ponds, and she asked for
someone to check on this construction.
.
Gene Dorman, Northern Way, (Chairman, Planning & Zoning Board) read a letter into the
record in response to an article in the Tuscawilla Homeowner's newsletter: this letter
is in response to Moti Khemlani's comments in the April Newsletter 'relative to the
Planning & Zoning Board's actions in regard to the possible rezoning of Tuscawilla.
First of all, despite Khemlani's glaring headlines, which said Planning & Zoning
Board refuses to rezone, the Planning & Zoning Board has not refused to rezone the
Tuscawilla P.D.D., the P&Z Board can't rezone anything. It does provide recommenda-
tions to the City Commission whose responsibility it is to take the rezoning action.
Secondly, the meeting of the Board on 15th March was a workshop. The intent of which
was to insure that all members of the Board were familiar with the physical aspects
of the Tuscawilla P.D.D., specifically including all the remaining undeveloped areas
and the developments that abut the so-called commercial core.
.
The only people who normally participate in a workshop are the board and pertinent
City staff members. With all the widely communicated discourse by both sides in
regards to the shopping center problem, it was not considered necessary to have input
from the homeowners or the developers at that meeting. Prior to the workshop Khemlani
was informed that there would be a public hearing on the matter before the Board made
its recommendations to the Commission. Thirdly, the motion quoted by Khemlani as being
and there's a misspelling anonymously passed by the City Commission instead of unanimously,
was, if not unclear, it certainly was very broad in what the Commission wanted the P&Z
Board to do. The motion as quoted from the minutes of the Commission meeting as follows:
for the Staff and P&Z Board to get together for the purpose of specifically reviewing
the Tuscawilla P.D.D. zoning and whether it would be better to make it residential,
R-lAAA, and/or reviewing all land use designations in the P.D.D. or having any other
issues associated with the properties that are in the interest of the public resolved.
.
.
Regular Meeting, City Commisison, April 10, 1989
Page 2
88-89-15
That wasn't real clear to me and to the members of the Board. Fourthly, if there was
any confusion, now he talks about the way the meeting was conducted and comments made,
if there was any confusion on procedural matters, public input, and public hearings,
it existed only in the mind of Khemlani. As long as I conduct the meetings of the
P&Z Board I will allow a free interchange of ideas that are pertinent to the matter
at hand specifically at Workshops. I will allow members of the Board at the
beginning of the meeting to speak their minds even if I personally totally disagree
with the relevance or accuracy of their comments. Fifthly I allowed Khemlani to
speak in the hope that he would provide something of substance to the workshop.
This he did not do, only taking the opportunity to criticize the Board. In my
estimation, his comments were unnecessary, uncalled for and not pertinent to the
purpose of the meeting.
I did ask Commissioner Partyka to help clarify the motion passed by the Commission.
His comments were very helpful. He did state that the Board was to look at the
possibility of converting all sections of Tuscawilla to R-1AAA and if that was not
possible to convert the sections to other zoning districts in the City Code and if
they did not fit into the existing districts to consider making new zoning districts to
fit the existing individual Tuscawilla section restrictions.
I have other problems with the content of this article but hopefully I made my point
that all is not as presented. Finally I would assume that most residents don't know
what the present City Code has to say about restrictions or protection that apply
to the various zoning districts including P.D.D.'s that exist within the City.
In any case don't be mislead by emotional rhetoric that may be inaccurate. Please get
all the facts at the public hearing as to whether rezoning, or R-1AAA, or whatever, is
the best solution to Tuscawilla's present land use problems. I intend to do just that
and I will conduct the hearing in such a manner that we will obtain all the pertinent
information. The P&Z Board public hearing will be held on May 10th at 7:30 p.m. at the
City Hall. Signed Gene Dorman, Chairman, P&Z Board.
Cindy Jennell, Wildwood, asked if the City is a wildlife sanctuary.
Bill Bates, N. Cortez Ave., spoke about a problem of traffic and speeders on his road
and asked if something could be done about it.
Mr. Carey, N. Cortez Ave., also spoke about the speeders on N. Cortez Avenue.
Charles Malcus, Tuscawilla Trail, asked if a right "by-pass" could be made on
Tuscawilla Road, right after Lake and before the Church of the New Covenant. He said
there are many minor accidents occurring there and asked if something could be done.
He was informed that was a County road, and he would have to contact the County. It
was also mentioned that it could be brought to the County's attention during the
joint workshop meeting on April 17, 1989.
General Agenda:
First reading of Ord. No. 456, annexation, Lots 12 & 16, Phillip R. Yonge Grant
(Casscells):
First Reading of Ord. No. 457, annexation, Lot 14, Blk. B, D.R.Mitchell's Survey-
(William Lee Sanders, Jr.) :
First Reading of Ord. No. 458, annexation, Lot 15, Blk. B, D.R.Mitchell's Survey-
(James Meade):
. Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to read Ord. NO. 456, 457 and 458 by title
only on first reading. Seconded by Commissioner Jacobs. Discussion. Vote on the motion:
.
Regular Meeting, City Commission, April 10, 1989
Page 3
88-89-15
Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye;
Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; motion carried.
Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. No. 456, 457 and 458 by title only on first reading.
Resolution No. 614, appreciation to Nicholas Bozic:
Attorney Kruppenbacher read Resolution No. 614 by title only.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to adopt Resolution No. 614. Seconded by
Commissioner Hoffmann. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Hoffmann, aye;
Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, absent; Commissioner Partyka, aye;
Commissioner Kaehler, aye; motion carried.
Mayor Grove called a brief recess at 8:05 p. m. and called the meeting back to
order at 8:10 p.m.
Duda Presentation:
Attorney Aaron Garrowicz, with the law firm of Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed,
Orlando, representing Duda Lands, Inc. and the Duda family gave the presentation.
He presented a map depicting the property at the intersection of realigned Red Bug
Lake Road with the Seminole County expreosway which is proposed. He said the project
is roughly 500 acres, about 250 acres will not be developed. There is primarily an
office and office showroom component. There will be about 800,000 square feet of
office space which would be along a loop road which would be heavily landscaped.
There is a hotel site, a multi-family site and a relatively small single family site.
.
There is an eagle on site and Attorney Garrowicz explained to protect the eagle,
there will be a primary zone of 750 feet around which nothing would be done. The
secondary zone is 1500 feet out and only one story buildings would be built there
for as long as the eagles are there.
There are about 100 acres of wetlands on site, and this development will be encroaching
onto 8 of those acres. As for buffering, the Dudas have agreed to put 185 to 200 feet
buffer along the perimeter of Tracts 1, 2, 3 and 4. The heights on those tracts have
been reduced to a maximum of 45 feet.
He spoke about the expressway loop, the realignment of Red Bug Road and where to put
the commercial area. He said the Dudas are donating over 100 acres of right of way.
Discussion on the connector road followed. Commissioner Kaehler asked the Attorney
about the law that says when two county roads are connected by a city road, the City
road can be taken over into the jurisdiction of the County, and could that happen to
Winter Springs Boulevard in this case with C.R. 426 and Tuscawilla Road both being
County roads. She asked the Commission if they would say whether or not they would
agree to start looking into the City altering Winter Springs Boulevard so that it is
no longer a through street. The Commission was in favor of looking into the statutes
and see what they say and looking into the options of altering the road.
Mr. Glen Chiles, Wildcat Court and Mr. Moti Khemlani, Tuscawilla Homeowners Association,
spoke in reference to this project.
. This will come before the Board of County Commissioners on April 25, 1989.
.
Regular Meeting, City Commission, April la, 1989
Page 4
88-89-15
John Casselberry will be on the Agenda for the next meeting.
Bentley Green Unit I-Acceptance of Plat and Covenants for recordation:
Motion was made that we accept the final plat and covenants of Bentley Green Unit I
as corrected and amended by the Attorney and City Engineer. Seconded by Commissioner
Hoffmann. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner
Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner
Hoffmann, aye; motion carried.
Tuscawilla Trail-Acceptance of Plat and Covenants for recordation:
Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to accept the plat and covenants on Tuscawilla
Trail. Seconded by Commissioner Kaehler. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner
Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner
Hoffmann, aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; motion carried.
.
Planning & Zoning Board Recommendations of March 29, 1989:
1. SW Part of Lot 17, Blk. B, Mitchell Survey of Levy Grant, PB 1, PG 5, 2.85 acres
at SW Corner of Lot l7-north of intersection of SR 434 and Brantley Ave., north of
railroad-add to Winter Springs Land Use map at Light Industrial classification (Zone
C-2) (Reclassification from Seminole County Suburban Estates). (Application withdrawn):
The City Planner explained there was a public hearing on two small scale amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan, the first one being the three acre proposal for the Joyce
property to change the land use that Behe and Umholtz are using. In the proposed
agreement that was to settle the issue there was a difference of opinion on the wording
so it was not executed and the applicant withdrew that application, and as of now there
is no application for that specific purpose. Miss Koch explained the entire Joyce
property has been added to the spring amendments to the Comprehensive Plan with a
proposed residential zoning. No action was taken by the Commission, this was just
for information that the application was withdrawn and there is no current movement
for light industrial on that property.
2. Part of Lot 8, Blk. A, Mitchell Survey of Levy Grant, PB 1, Pg. 5, 1.36 acres
immediately south of intersection of SR 434 and Tuscawilla Road-reclassify land use
to Light Industrial (Zone C-2):
The request was to change from commercial to light industrial to enable the development
of a gas station, car wash and a little island, small shop that sells snacks, etc.
It was suggested there are a couple of ways to deal with this rather than to rezone
the property to C-2. One alternative is to change the C-l zoning code to allow this
type use and to protect it from convenience stores by limiting the square footage of
the grocery sales area. The square footage could be limited to no more than 500 to
800 sq. feet, whatever the proper size would be to avoid becoming a convenience store.
The other alternative is to determine that this is not what is listed in zone C-2,
and not listed in zone C-l, and is determined this is not a convenience store, then
they could go to the Board of Adjustment and ask for a special exception.
Commissioner Partyka said if this came before the Commission for a vote, he would vote
against it, because he has some problems with this. This is a classic case of piece-
meal development and until we have a plan for the City, and until we know where the
City wants to go over the next two, three or five years, that is his position.
.
.
.
.
Regular Meeting, City Commission, April 10, 1989
Page 5
88-89-15
Motion was made by Commissioner Kaehler to table Item E2, (this item), on the
Agenda until the next meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Partyka. Vote on the
motion: Commissioner Partyka, aye; Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann,
aye; Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; motion carried.
City Manager Ricahrd Rozansky:
1. Fee Study Report - Jacqueline Koch:
Miss Koch explained this will have to come to the Commission at the next meeting
because of the amount of money involved; however, Manager Rozansky wanted Miss Koch
to go over the proposal and answer any questions the Commission might have.
The Commission has received a copy of the Tipton proposal for an impact fee study.
Tipton has recommended the standards driven approach. Attorney Kruppenbacher
suggested we get a timeframe from Tipton when they would complete this work.
Attorney Kruppenbacher reported that he and Chief Govoruhk and attorneys for the
Orange Shopper are to meet regarding the legalities associated with our ordinance
that precludes throwing paper on people's lawns.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said he would write a letter supporting a proposed bill
regarding eliminating the law that prevents a municipality from shutting off a
utility service to a renter.
On the Joyce case the Attorney said he would report back.
Commission Seat I - Cindy Kaehler:
Commissioner Kaehler asked if anyone knew why all the digging is being done on South
Edgemon Ave. Commissioner Kaehler also suggested that builders and developers be
told during the site plan process of their responsibilities to the public regarding
roads and traffic and that they will be fined instead of being issued a warning if an
infraction occurs.
Commission Seat II - Arthur Hoffmann:
Commissioner Hoffmann said he has given the Commissioners articles on concurrency.
The changes to the nuisance ordinance will be discussed at the next meeting.
Commission Seat III - Philip A. Kulbes:
Commissioner Kulbes gave a brief report on the task force on Solid Waste Management.
He said the recycling committee has made some studies and found that mandatory
collection should be included in any ordinance that we pass. They are talking about
a pilot curbside recycling program for the City of Longwood and Oviedo. Seminole
County is responsible for sending letters explaining what the law is and how it will
be implemented. Commissioner Kulbes gave thanks to our City Attorney for his review
and input of the agreement as quickly as he did.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kulbes to appoint Richard Tiffaney as a member of the
Board of Adjustment to fill the unexpired term. Seconded by Commissioner Jacobs.
Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Kaehler, aye; Commissioner Hoffmann, aye;
Commissioner Kulbes, aye; Commissioner Jacobs, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; motion
carried.
.
Regular Meeting, City Commission, April 10, 1989
Page 6
88-89-15
Commissioner Kulbes reported that he, the City Manager, Mr. Archer and
have met with the architect for the Senior Center and Mr. Soellner has
the documents and specifications. The City Attorney has reviewed the
the City Clerk was asked to advertise for bids as soon as possible.
Mr. Whitsett
prepared
contract and
Commission Seat IV - William A. Jacobs:
Commissioner Jacobs asked the status of Beautification of Winter Springs.
Commission Seat V - Paul P. Partyka:
Commissioner Partyka is to give the City Manager and Attorney a copy of the Lake Mary
sign ordinance. Commissioner Partyka asked the status of the utility easement ordinance
and again asked about the Piggly Wiggly Shopping Center.
Mayor's Office:
Mayor Grove reported the Committee working on the 30th anniversary celebration of
Winter Springs has had a preliminary meeting and have set the celebration for June
24, 1989.
Meeting was adjourned 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
.
#~~~
Mary T. Norton,
City Clerk
Approved:
OR
.
{
. .
.
This letter is in response to Moti Khemlani's comments in the April
Newslet~er relative to the P and Z Board's actions in regard to the
possible rezoning of Tuscawilla.
First of all despite Khemlani's glaring headline, the P & Z Board has
not refused to rezone the Tuscawilla PUD. The P & Z Board can't rezone
anvthing. It does provide recommendations to the City Commission whose
responsibility it is to take the rezoning action. The Board has been
reviewing all technical aspects of possible rezoning action in order
to make the most appropriate recommendation.
Secondly the meeting of the Board on 15 March was a workshop, the
intent of which was to insure that all members of the Board were
familiar with physical aspects of the Tuscawilla PUD, specifically
including all the remaining undeveloped areas and the developments
that abut thf.~ sc,- called "comml=rcial corf~". The only pf..~ople who
normally participate in a workshop are the Board and pertinent City
Staff members. With all the widely communicated discourse by both
~:;idE~~:; in r'f?qard to thf!.~ "!::;hopping Center" problem, it was not
considered necessary to have input from the Homeowners Association, or
the developer, at that meeting. Prior to the workshop, Khemlani was
informed that there would be a public hearing on the matter before the
Board made its recommendation(s) to the Commission.
..
Thirdly the motion quoted by Khemlani as being (anonymously) passed by
the City Commission was, if not unclear, certainly very broad in what
the Commission wanted the Board to do. The motion is quoted from the
minutes of the Commission meeting as follows. .'.....for the Staff and
P & Z Board to get together for the purpose of specifically reviewing
the Tuscawilla PUD Zoning and whether it would be better t,o make it,
residential R-1AAA and/or reviewing all land use designations in th~
pun or having any other issues associated with the properties that are
in thl:-"! interests of the public t-esolved".
l=-oLwthly, if there was any "confusion on prc,,:edural matters, publi,:
input and public hearings", it existed only in the mind of Khemlani.
As long as I conduct the meetings of the P & Z Board I will allow a.
free interchange of ideas that are pertinent to the matter at hand.
Specifically, at workshops I will allow members of the Board at the
beginning of the meeting to speak their minds, even if I personally
totally disagree with the relevance or accuracy of their comments.
Fifthly I allowed Khemlani to speak in the hope that he would provide
something of substance to the workshop. This he did not do, only
taking the opportunity to criticize the Board. In my estimation his
comments were unnecessary, uncalled for, and not pertinent to the
pL~pose of the workshop.
.
I did ask Commissioner Partyka to help clarify the motion passed by
the Commission. His comments were helpful. He did state that the Board
was to look at the possibility of converting all sections of
Tuscawilla to R-1AAA, and if that was not possible to convert the
sections to other zoning districts described in the City Code, and if
they did not fit in the existing districts, to consider making new
zoning districts to fit the existing individual Tuscawilla section
re<::;tri.ctions.
I have a number of other problems with the content of the article but
hopefully I have made my point that all is not as was presented by
f:::hecnlani.
i.~
.
~..
.
Finally I would assume that most residents, through no fault of their
own, don't know what the present City Code has to say about the
restrictions, or protections, that apply to the various zoning
districts, including PUDs, that exist within the City. In any case
don't be misled by emotional rhetoric that may be inaccurate. Please
qet all the facts at the public hearing as to whether rezoning, or
P-1AAA, or whatever, is the best solution to Tuscawilla's preseent
land use problems. I intend to do just that and I will conduct the
hearing in such a manner that we will obtain all the pertinent
information. The P & Z Board public hearing will be held on May 10 at
7~30 PM at the City Hall.
Gene Dorman
Chairman, P & Z Board
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA
1126 STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (407) 327-1800
April 7, 1989
Mr. Brian D. Austin, P.E.
Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc.
2200 Park Avenue North
Winter Park, FL 32789
HE: Fairway Lakes (Bentley Green) at Tuscawilla - Phase I
"As-Buil t" Engineering Review
Dear Brian:
.
On April 4, 1989, the City had made an "as-built" engineering field
inspection of Fairway Lakes at Tuscawilla - Phase I. Upon further review all
engineering was found to be satisfactory. It should be noted hcMever, that
Certificates-of-OCcupancy will not be issued until a permanent means of public
access (Greenbriar Lane Extension) is achieved ani accepted by the City of
Winter Springs. In addition, when this roadway access is complete, fire
hydrant testing will be required, and shall be conducted by the Winter Springs
Fire Department.
If you have any further questions, please contact this office.
PH/mh
cc: Ci ty Manager
Land Developnent Coordinator
Building Department
Mr. David Weaver, P.E.
.
.
.-
~-..
.
..
April 6, 1989
TO: city Manager
SUBJECT: Unexecuted Joyce Agreement
Attached is a copy of the proposed agreement Behe and Umholtz' attorneys
submitted to resolvp. their appeal regarding the code violations on the Joyce
property (Lot 17) northeast of City Hall.
TIle City Attorney had requested wording changes to p.-'3.ragraphs 4 and 5. These
were rejected by the applicants' attorneys and the associated request to zone
only 3 acres of the property C-2 was subsequently withdrawn.
~
Jacqueline Koch
Director of Aruninistrative Services/Comprehensive Planning
/mh
.
.
.
AprilS, 1989
TO: City Manager
coordinato~
FROM: Land Development
RE: Agenda Item, Bentley Green Unit I
This is to record the plat and covenants. The City Engineer reviewed the project
and had no objection. The City Attorney reviewed the project and found minor
changes to be made and these will be made before the Commission Meeting. His
opinion is that this can be placed on the Agenda from a legal viewpoint. Bonds
are not required for this project as this is a private subdivision.
DRL/gh
cc: Mayor
Commission
City Attorney
City Clerk
.
.
.
April 5, 1989
TO: Land Development Coordinator
FROM, City Engineer X~
SUBJECT: Bentley Green (Fairway Lakes) Phase I - "As-Built" Engineering
An inspection of the Bentley Green Phase I project was found to be in
substantial conformity with the "as-built" engineering.
/mh
cc: Ci ty Manager
Building Department
PARKER, JOHNSON, OWEN, MCGUIRE, MICHAUD, LANG & KRUPPENBACHER, P.A.
.' CLAY PARKER
'ILLIAM E. .JOHNSON
ONALD M. OWEN
H ..JOSEPH McGUIRE
SCOTT H MICHAUD
..J. SCOTT MURPHY
ARMANDO R, PAYAS
THOMAS F. LANG
FRANK C. KRUPPENBACHER
COUNSELORS AT LAW
REPLY TO ORLANDO OFFICE:
POST OFFICE BOX 2867
ZIP CODE 32802
ORLANDO OFFICE
1300 BARNETT PLAZA
201 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801
TELEPHONE (407) 425-4910
FACSIMILE 1407) 423-3140
ELMO R. HOFFMAN
OF COUNSEL
MARK C. DABOLD
.JAMES T. FERRARA
ALAN J. LANDERMAN
PAMELA A. MARK
MARK L. ORNSTEIN
WILLIAM T. ROSHKO
KENNETH R. SEGAL
MARK S. WALKER
MICHAEL 0 WILLIAMS
April 5, 1989
DEERFIELD BEACH OFFICE
600 WEST HILLSBORO BLVD" SUITE 660
DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA 33441
TELEPHONE 1305) 421-1011
FACSIMILE 13051 421-1359
NORMAN E. GERBER
ADMINISTRATOR
VIA HAND DELIVERY
~M~' (p; f? O\V) );:::l r-~'
D.:J 5 ~ ts:; H }J 1~ IJl.:.J
~t ' -",.,
~J> ' .~ 1,_, ~ ~).
Mr. Donald R. LeBlanc
City of Winter Springs
1126 State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida
:CP1? 0 5 }Qh.1.
.r~j \ ".' <....; .
32708
;.cra OF. WINTER SPRJNqS
J.:4lnd Development CoordinatDr.
.
RE:
Bentley Green
Dear Don:
Per our telephone conversation this date, the following
comments are provided as to the revised Declaration of Covenants.
1. The second WHEREAS, page 1, second line, is acceptable.
2. Article II, Section 3, should be changed to provide no
change without City Commission approval.
3. I have no legal objection to Article VIII.
4. Article IV should be governed by additional sentence
that, "Nothing herein shall relieve property owner from
complying with the City Code for the City of Winter
Springs, Florida."
5. I have no objection to Article IV, Section 7.
6. I have no legal objection to Article VI.
7 .
Article VII,
that any."
Article VII,
Article VI I,
Section 1
should be changed to "determine
.
Section 4,
Section 5,
should delete Seminole County.
should be deleted.
.
PARKER, JOHNSON, OWEN, MCGUIRE,
MICHAUD, LANG & KRUPPENBACHER, P.A.
Mr. Donald R. LeBlanc
April 5, 1989
Page Two
8. Article IX, Sections 1, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 19 and 22
should be amended to incorporate your comments.
9. Articles XII, XIII and XIV should require City approval.
10. Article XV, Section 1, is legal.
11. Setbacks are governed by City Code.
12. As to the Articles of Incorporation, they are acceptable.
I have reviewed these comments with Jeff Weiland and he will
provide you a revised set of documents in accordance herewith prior
to Monday's meeting. This can go on the agenda from a legal
viewpoint.
Should you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
.
FCK/cmh
.
.
.
.
\ ~
-
April 5, 1989
TO:
City Manager ~
Land Development Coordinator .'
FROM:
RE:
Agenda Item, Tuscawilla Trail
This is to record the plat and the covenants. This is a peculiar property as
referenced in the City Attorney letter dated June 8, 1988. The City Commission
concurred and approved this June 13, 1988. The City Attorney has reviewed the
documents for legal issues and has no objections. Bonds are not required for
this project, nor is City Engineer approval required.
DRL/gh
cc: Mayor
Commission
City Attorney
City Clerk
PARKER, JOHNSON, OWEN, MCGUIRE, MICHAUD, LANG & KRUPPENBACHER, P.A.
.~' CLAY PARKER
ILLIAM E. JOHNSON
RONALD M. OWEN
H JOSEPH McGUIRE
SCOTT H MICHAUD
..J SCOTT MURPHY
ARMANDO R. PAYAS
THOMAS F. LANG
FRANK C KRUPPENBACHER
COUNSELORS AT LAW
REPLY TO ORLANDO OFFICE:
POST OFFICE BOX 2867
ZIP CODE 32802
ORLANDO OFFICE
1300 BARNETT PLAZA
201 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32601
TELEPHONE (407) 425-4910
FACSIMILE (407) 423-3140
ELMO R. HOFFMAN
OF COUNSEL
MARK C. DAB OLD
JAMES T. FERRARA
ALAN J, LANOERMAN
PAMELA A MARK
MARK L ORNSTEIN
WILLIAM T. ROSHKO
KENNETH R SEGAL
MARK S. WALKER
MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS
April 5, 1989
DEERFIELD BEACH OFFICE
600 WEST HILLSBORO BLVD., SUITE 660
DEERFlELD BEACH, FLORIDA 33441
TELEPHONE (305) 421-1011
FACSIMILE (305) 421-1359
NORMAN E. GERBER
ADMINISTRATOR
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mr. Donald R. LeBlanc
City of Winter Springs
1126 State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida
32708
RE: Tuskawilla Trail Subdivision
.
Dear Don:
I have reviewed the issues raised in your letter of March 22,
J.989.
Per our telephone conversation of this date, I find no legal
objection to the plat as presented.
Should you have any questions, please call me.
S ncer~;Y,
FCK/cmh
.
~~~~llWtt@
APR 0 5 1989
.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Land Development Coordinator
.
RANDALL W. HANNA
LUCY H. HARRIS
ELISE F. ,JUDELLE
FRANK C. KRUPPENBACHER
STEPHEN ..J. KUBIK
THOMAS F. LANG
..J. CHRISTIAN MEFFERT
WILTON R. MILLER
W. ROBERT OLIVE
DALE S. RECINELLA
MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS
LAW OFFICES
BHYANT. Mn.um. OLIVE. LANG AND KI(Ul'PENBACmm
50 WEST LUCERNE CIRCLE 1328011
POST OFFICE BOX 3387 132802-33871
OHLANDO. FLOHIDA
1*~<<'lQ~!x .
.
407/423-8611
NEW YORK OFFICE
100 WALL STREET
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10005
12121 363-6036
June 8, 1988
TALLAHASSEE OFFICE
201 SOUTH MONROE STREET
SUITE 500
TALLAHAS5EE. FLORIDA 32301
19041222-8611
OF COUNSEL
C. FARRIS BRYANT
Donald LeBlanc
Land Development Coordinator
City of Winter Springs
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Re: Whittington Property
Dear Don:
.
This will confirm our conversations regarding the above-
referenced matter.
You told me the above-referenced property comprises 4
- 5 acres. It was annexed by the City and shows "PUD" zoning.
The City does not know how the property was zoned "PUD". The
City has been presented a plan to construct three (3) homes
on the property. The plan is totally compatible with the surrounding
area and is viewed with approval by the City staff. The staff
is now concerned that the persons seeking development of the
property may be required to comply with the requirements of
a large PUD application when same would be innappropriate.
Based upon our total analysis of the situation, and our discussions,
I feel the staff is correct and total compliance is not required.
If you should have any further questions regarding this
matter do not hesitate to call my office.
/kjp
W~~~llWOC~
JUt.i 0 = 1988:
Frank C. Krup8
City Attorney
City of Winter Springs
.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGSl
Land Development CoordinatOI1
.
.
.
...
DUDA
r
DUDA LANDS, INC.
P.O. Box 257
Oviedo, Florida 32765
Telephone: (407) 365-2111
Fax: (407) 365-2148
AprilS, 1989
commissioner Sandra Glenn
SEMINOLE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1101 East First Street
Sanford, Florida 32771
Re: DLI Properties - Corporate Office Park
Dear Sandra:
I must admit I was surprised to read such a harsh letter
to you and the City of Winter Springs from Mr. Moti
Khemlani, following what was generally a supportive
reception of our project ~resentation at the Tuscawilla
Homeowners Association meet~ng last month.
Mr. Khemlani, President of
attendance, and with the
connector road to Winter
homeowners in attendance
project.
the Association, was in
exception of the proposed
Springs Blvd. the majority of
were quite pleased with the
We discussed many of Mr. Khemlani's concerns
Tuscawilla Homeowners Association meeting, both
and site-specific issues. We explained that
working with both the Regional Planning Council
Seminole County to address the concerns of all
groups.
Subse~ent to the East Central Florida Re~ional Planning
Counc~l hearings I met with Mr. Khemlan~ and Mr. Al
Becker, Vice President of the Tuscawilla Homeowners
Association, to discuss Mr. Khemlani's letter and
concerns. I e~lained to them that the ECFRPC hearings
and recommendat~ons are principally aimed at addressing
issues of regional concern whereas site-specific issues
of local concern are trPically addressed at the local
level as a part of zon~ng and site plan review processes.
at the
regional
we were
staff and
affected
.
commissioner Sandra Glenn
April 5, 1989
Page two
.
I indicated that the Seminole County Planning and Zoning
commission would review this project on April 5, 1989.
The Board of County Commissioners would review this
project on April 25, 1989, having received recommenda-
tions from the ECFRPC, the Planning and Zoning
commission, Seminole County staff and other interested
and affected groups, and at this meeting the Commission
would take action appropriate to the best interests of
the general community. I further indicated that the
Seminole County staff report and recommendations were not
yet out but would certainly address the concerns of Mr.
Khemlani as well as other concerned citizens and
interested organizations and provide them a forum for
additional input.
Notwithstanding the Seminole County staff report and
recommendations, we believe it appropriate and necessary
to delineate our position to you relative to the specific
concerns Mr. Khemlani has raised. Perhaps the most
salient issue relates to the proposed roadway connector
from the corporate office park to Winter Springs Blvd.
We originally proposed the connector based u~on our
market research studies, land planning strateg~es and
traffic engineering considerations. During the review
process factions have come out very strongly either
endorsing or op~osing the connector road. We believe the
connector road ~s appropriate and continue to support it;
however, we believe we have demonstrated that our project
"works" with or without the connector and are willing to
abide by whichever alternative the Board of County
Commissioners believes is in the best interests of the
general community.
with regard to the proposed apartment complex, we would
note that the Seminole County Expressway Authority will
probably need to shift the expressway interchange to the
east, reducing the size of the apartment tract signifi-
cantly. Notwithstanding the above, it is difficult at
this early date to ascertain precisely how many school-
aged children might reside at the apartment develo~ment,
although an estimate of 256 was included in our or~ginal
DRI analysis. The ~urpose of providing an apartment
parcel was to prov~de affordable housing in close
proximity to a major emplOYment center. Even in the
event that the apartments are predominantly family
oriented, it is easy to conclude that the impacts the
corporate office park will have on the school system will
be minimal in proportion to the amount to assessed
valuation it will be placing on the county tax rolls.
.
... ,
.
.
.
Commissioner Sandra Glenn
April 5, 1989
Page three
Concern about the office/showroom land uses in close
proximity to existing residences is an issue we have been
working on extensively with the countr staff. com~ati-
bility and impacts are being addressed ~n a three-t~ered
fashion. First is the provision of an immediate buffer
along the property line where visibility is an issue with
existing or proposed residential uses. This buffer will
include a masonry wall along with significant tree
screening, i.e., 4" calibre oak trees. Secondly, we have
developed a formula based upon a line of sight analysis
which would make permissible building heights a function
of their setback from residential property lines. The
four ~arcels abutting residential tracts will also be
restr~cted as to a reduced maximum permissible building
height. Finally, we are working with staff to develop a
list of uses and activities which would or would not be
permissible in proximity to residential development.
Although not yet completed, we will create a property
owners association, permanent restrictions and covenants,
design guidelines and an architectural review committee
to insure a quality office park is created and
maintained.
Regarding Mr. Khemlani's concerns relative to the
intensity of our development and traffic impacts, I would
point out that our land plan produces relatively low net
developable acres in proportion to the total acres, i.e.,
217 acres versus 497 acres. The DRl process focuses very
heavily on the traffic impacts of our development and we
are responsible for the impacts of our project. We have
donated significant right-of-way for the expansion of
Mitchell Hammock Road and stand willing to dedicate
right-of-way for Red Bug Road and the Seminole County
Expressway. Additionally, we will participate in the
design and construction of a portion of Red Bug Road
through our project. We would note that with respect to
the above contrIbutions we are receiving no impact fee
credits and, therefore, all building improvements will be
required to pay full impact fees.
We have worked very hard in the planning and preliminary
engineering of the DLl co~orate office park over the
last two years. We bel~eve we have a program of
development which respects the natural environment of the
area, the existing residential development of the area,
as well as future development Vrowth trends. We have
evaluated and accounted for the ~mpacts of development.
. ..
.
commissioner Sandra Glenn
April 5, 1989
Page four
We are required to monitor and account for the impacts of
our project as they occur during the construction phases.
We are confident that our development will be of the
highest quality and represent an asset to the community.
We have worked hard to address the concerns of interested
and affected parties. We look forward to working with
all interested parties in the future as we continue work
on the development of this project.
Yours truly,
DUDA LANDS, INC.
~7~:;;{
--~
GEORGE J. VIELE
Real Estate Project Manager
.
sm
cc: Seminole county Board of Commissioners
Seminole county planning and Zoning commission
Ken Hooper, Seminole County
Lee Ann Grove, City of winter Springs
Richard Rozansky, Citr of winter springs
Jane Dees, Citr of Ov~edo
V. Eugene will~ford, III, city of oviedo
Moti Khemlani
.
- ~
,..
.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (305) 327-1800
OFFICE OFTHE MAYOR
LEANNE M. GROVE
March 3, 1989
Honorable Sandra Glenn
Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Seminole County Services Building
1101 East First Street
Sanford, FL 32771
Dear Commissioner Glenn:
.
It has come to my attention that recent verbal offers presented to
County Staff to discuss any outstanding litigation, or other items of
mutual concern between our two entities, was quite vehemently rebuked. In
light of comments made by some of my fellow Mayors at the Seminole County
Council of Mayors meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 28th, I am concerned that perhaps
our offers are not getting back to the County Commission. I must say that
the two Mayors representing cities you have met with described these meetings
as very productive, and spoke enthusiastically of a very genuine attitude of
cooperation being displayed by both the County Commission and the County Staff.
Therefore, on behalf of the Winter Springs City Commission and, at the
request of the Winter Springs City Commission I would like to formally advise
you that the City of Winter Springs would be receptive to discussing items of
mutual concern with the Seminole County Commission, in an effort to reach a
harmonious relationship.
Sincerely,
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Leanne M. Grove,
Mayor
LMG/mn
.
.
~
10
t~\NTf:1?~~>
..0/< 'j.}\
\. uo_.... - /1\
.(~ .., ....~\
\u ,Ul!
tflln'1ll~.~~~!,_ j
.
.
.~
"(-?F3_'9f>-:,
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re:
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA
1126 STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (407) 327-1800
March 14, 1989
City Commissioners
City Manager
Staff
Mayor Grove
Meeting with County Commissioners on April 17, 1989
Please prepare a list of proposed agenda items to be discussed with
the Board of County Commissioners on April 17th. Any and all items
you feel need to be discussed should be on your list.
I would like to have these items as soon as possible so that I can
prepare an Agenda and send it to the County Commissioners.
€t
.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEHENT is made by and between the city of winter
springs, Florida, hereinafter "city"; the Estate of David M. Joyco,
hereinafter "Joyce"; and Dehe & Umholtz Electrical Contractors,
hereinafter "Dehe", this 1'-/ day of rfl3fV4~ ( , 1909.
WHEREAS, the city of winter springs Code Enforcement Doard has
imposed a fine against Joyce and against Deho by order dated
November 17, 1900, and
WHEREAS, Joyce and Behe have taken appeals of the decision of
the Code' Enforcement Board by filing appeals with the Circuit Court
of Seminole County, Florida, Case Nos. 00-12-AP and 00-13, and
WHEREAS, Joyce has submitted a request for rezoning to the
. ci ty of winter springs by application dated December 7, 1900,
seeking to rezone approximately 2.9 acres of the property owned by
Joyce, and rented by Dehe, and
WHEREAS, the city, Joyce and Dehe de'sire to rosol ve the
dispute that has grown between them and to avoid additional costs
and litigation.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The parties have entered into agreements extending the
time period of the filing of various papers in the appeal process.
2. The city will process the rezoning application
notwithstanding the provisions of winter springs Code section 2-
1.1, if applicable.
J. The City will diligently process the application for
rezoning and the applicant will comply with all applicable city
.......
code provisions.
4. The city will not take action to record or foreclose the
Code Enforcement Board lien until sixty (60) days after a decision
is reached on the rezoning request.
If the rezoning request is
denied, the city will not record or enforce the Code Enforcement
Board lien if the violation ceases wi thin the sixty (60) day
.......a.
period.
In the event that the rezoning request is approved, or
the violation shall cease within the sixty (60) day period after
denial of the rezoning, the city council shall request that the
-1-
.
Code Enforcement Board rescind its orders of November 17, 1988.
5. Following the action by the city council on the rezoning
request, and rescission of the Code Enforcement Board order, Joyce
and Behe agree to dismiss their appeals of the Code Enforcement
Board action.
They further agree to take no nppeal from the
decision of the City commission on the rezoning request.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the undersigned parties have set their
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
By:
.
BEHE & UMHOLTZ ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTORS
f? ,121 /reQ.,
f/4r<. TNt/!.
ESTATE OF DAVID JOYCE
By:
{j/{U4 ~ ~JU-
Clara D. Joyce
personal representative of
the Estate of David M. Joyce -
Clara D. Joyce, indiv~dually
~
~.
.....
-.-..
~
-2-
.
.
~
..
'.
Clara D. Joyce
1170 Orange.Avenue
Casselberry, FL 32707
March 29, 1989
City of Winter Springs, Florida
Planning and Zoning Board
1126 East SR 434
Winter Springs, FL
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that I hereby withdraw my rezoning application
dated December 7, 1988 scheduled for hearing March 29, 1989, at
7:30 p.m. at the Winter Springs City Hall.
I reserve the right to resubmit my application at a later date.
M. Joyce (deceased)
HAND DELIVERED
RECEIVEIJ
Mt~R 2 9 198~ J
P'"
IVH"..' q, '1: i' 't:
, . J. ~/, '~.Intor S ..
lDi.tJett~.4I~ WAd '- . .pnng~
mJOlstrat/orr
.
.
~
..
..
,- :2.4-o.0Q' -
I
1
.~
..
~~I, ~~~~~,'~'
1r1"; )>L..J.~I'"
vI.f>' Z ~-,...
LL':()'1' , z r
rr. Ij ~I 1. r
J> z: t ' I ~ ~ r' l .,
rn I "~,Oll" d j\
r (f' U' "TIj JI' ('l
;JJ.::.jO~(f1 ;<1'
f1l _ ~~. (111" OJ ~
(fl ol,~; ~ ~ b,~<: i!
. -j~ l~' ~ ~
:r 1-:1 ~I 0 tl' n ~"
: ~ ~ ~I ~ (. ~ ~
I cr ~ijl ~ r.o
I l.tJ~1 ~ 11' ~
I -l ~ Qi 'I (/I 0
I, I 11 ' j.:; ."
'0 . 7\l ;'
11 ?J ~)I 0 < ~
(1) ! ~~ ' ~ -1/
(T1f-' ~ :r
0,10 I 0l'1
::; -r1 I ." I
~~' - i~
o rn~
~! ' ~I"i
9' fT,~ -
Jj)
It:t:
"I' '
t
.J
. V.
(:1'1
...J
[J1
o .
o
~
7' (") ~
......D
?:I ~-1 r
. / 0
--~ -1
~t<1 ;-u
~;p)>
C1 0 l..
" \l )?
! ~ T'1 5
, o,~ l
I ~,''''''
. ,.p
I /-{ )>
; D: r
.J I
r: (fl
r I: (rl
-I! ~
:--.1 ' -
~;I' ~
.\1 I
~ "~
· IL.AKE
JESSUP
- ,
.~
.
1
.
.
I
I
\
1
........--\ ,..............
..-........ '.' ............
--- . , -'-..,
r \ .. ............
' \ , '---
II \\\ !~
I . \ I I -- - ___!
\ \ I
. \ I ...........
~-.._ i A r--~~._ EB
,\ ~j_____ C:J 1.~r'C{)
.~. --------------- I.~.. '.J\f~ I
. .'~' ~. r
fA..... -- l: --'
I J tt ~
1 Al \
~_____ ! ,>V i
--~~ ,
,) ---..:-..::......... I
~, ~.
~\ \Y
y.~
-.......
-'.
'.
'.
..
..
~
I
I
~
....----.
~...-::.::-~
~~-----
I~~ / ~_
I /'
I .'
: ~
( \
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
,
r-.----....j
I
I
I
.
I
D
- ......
..
..
.
..
~
. .
ctTY OF \.JINTER SPRINGS
APPLICATION fOR ANNEXATION OR CHANGE OF ZONING
PLEASE PRINT IN INK OR TYPE
Annexation
X Change of Zoninf
X Amendment to Land Use Nap
Amendment to PUD Preliminary Plan
LTOYCE
Last Name
DAVID
First
M.
Niddle Initial
1205 Orange Avenue
Mailing Address
(If the applicant is not the
owner of the subject property,
the applicant must include a
letter of authorization signed
by the owner)
winter Springs, Florida
City State
32708
Zip Code
(407) 327-3226
Telephone Number
Legal description of the subject property (attach map): portion of Lot 17, Block B,
described as:
See attached.
Total No. of Acres 2.9
Total Usable Acres
2.9
Present Zoning Category
A - 1
lsuburbaD E~tCltes
Present Land Use C assiticat10nl
General location of subject property (including names and types of roads which tract abuts)
North of intersection of State Road 434 and TuscawillCl Road, west of
BrClntley Avenue, North of railroad
Present development status of Land:
home/office, out buildings, work shop
and storage shed
Zoning Categories and Land Use Classification of abutting property:
City C-2, County A-I
City Light IndustriCll, County Suburban Estates
Zoning Category requested
C-2
Liqht Ind4stri~J
Land Use Classification Required/
Detailed information concerning purpose and intent of request:
'.0
rezoninq of ~
,~:)
~ portion of eight acres annexed in March, 1988. City land use not yet
J.,.
~: adopted for entire parcel. Refer to Code Enforcement Board No. 88-09-23-02)
~~atc December 7, 1988 Applicant/Owner / 4" ._-/---z::-t::;&<:~-
~.~ ~ Jo;eci /
o~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
',.1'.,
:~~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((I
r
"hE
c2/!J---
AMOUNT
RECEIPT NUMBER
~Ordinance References
,~
clnformation Verified By
~
Date
q" 1"1:':'1'1 f; r J 1):i /1.1 ') /::j ':,1 (:;, JJ< ,: . J::;
.
UNOFFICIAL
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
MINUTES
March 29, 1989
The meet ing was called to order at 7: 30 P. M.
)30ARD ~ERS:
David Hopkins, Present
Gene Dorman, Chairman, Absent
John Torcaso, Present
David McLeod, Present
Michael Saporito, Vice-Chain~, Present
CITY OFFICIALS:
J. Koch, Dir.Adm./Comp. Planning
D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coordinator
Approval of Minutes of March 22, 1989:
Torca.so moved to approve the minutes of March 22, 1989. Seconded by Hopkins.
Vote: All aye. Motion carried.
Saporito recessed the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting and opened the Public
Hearing.
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING
.
Small-Scale Amendments to Comprehensive Plan
SW Part of Lot 17, Blk. B, Mitchell Survey of
2.8b Acres at SW Corner of Lot 17 - North
Brantley Avenue, North of Railroad - Add to
Light Industrial Classification (Zone C-2)
County Suburban Estates) :
Saporito stated that the first item for the public hearir~ has been withdrawn
by the applicant, and is no longer pending before this Board. He stated that
wk~n this application comes before tr~ Board again, this will be advertised in
the newspaper.
Levy Grant, Plat Book 1, Page 5,
of Intersection of S11 434 and
Winter Springs Land Use M.:l.p at
(Reclassification from Seminole
Saporito read the letter of withdrawal for the people present in the audience
who \^/ere present for this item.
"City of Winter Springs, Florida
Planning and Zoning Board
1126 Ectst SR 434
Winter Springs, FL
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that I hereby withdraw my rezoning application dated December
7, 1988, scheduled for hearing March 29, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. at the Winter
Springs City Hall.
. I reserve the right to resubmit my application at a later date.
Clara D. Joyce for David M. Joyce (deceased)
Hand Deliveredll
Hece i ved Mc:lrch 29, 1989
.. .
.
.
.
...
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Minutes
March 29, 1989
Page 3
Sapori to stated that the issue before the Board is whether or not the Board
recoJIunends the zoning be changed. The problem is there is no classification
for this type of use. We have several choices; 1) reconunend that the code one
way or another be amended to provide for a classification, 2) change the zoning
classification, 3) made a determination that it does not fall in either C-1 or
C-2 zoning and the applicant can make an application for a Special Exception to
allew this under the present zoning, and 4) JU.3k.e a recollunendation to the
Canunission that the Canunission reconsider to add this specific use under C-1
zoning.
Torcaso moved to reconunend denial of the request by the applicant for a change
of zoning and a finding be made that the use does not fall within either C-1 or
C-2 and the applicant is eligible for an application for a Special Exception.
Seconded by Hopkins.
Discussion on the motion.
Paul Earshot, representative for Mobil Oil, spoke on the request. He stated
that the major function for this project is gas. The snack shop is more of
impulse items such as cigarettes, candy, soft drinks, potato chips. The size
of the snack shop is approximately 985 s. ft., with an office, rest room, small
storage area, and a security desk, which leaves approximately about 500 s. ft.
for display of these i terns for sale. He stated that everything is under a
roof, even the gas pumps, the car wash is built off to the side and not
attached.
Vote on the motion: All aye. Motion carried.
Saporito asked if there was any other business to come before the Board.
Hopkins asked that it be put on the agenda for the next meeting to reconunend
changing the C-1 zoning to allow a gas station/car wash/snack shop.
Sapori to asked if Staff could assist the Board with information as to a name to
classify for this type of business. The Board was in agreement.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
'-;1dtp ~/dJ
Mango Hopkins, Recording Secretary
Planning and Zoning Board
....
.
II
.
.
TIPTON ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ICI VI L ENGINEERING
930 WOODCOCK ROAD ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32803
March 27, 1989
Miss Jacqueline Koch
City of Winter Springs
Director of Administration and Planner
City Hall
1126 E. S. R. 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Dear Jacqueline:
This letter is in response to your request for a proposal for Tipton
Associates Incorporated to assist the City in developing a transportation
impact fee. In this effort, Tipton Associates Incorporated will be sup-
ported by its subcontractor, Leftwich Engineers, on the ongoing Winter
Spri ngs efforts.
FIXED FEE SCOPE OF WORK
The Consultant will assist the City of Winter Springs in developing a
Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance. The Consultant will specifically ac-
compl ish the technical input needed related to transportation engineering
documentation to serve as backup for the Transportation Impact Fee Or-
dinance. This scope of work includes the accomplishment of the Transporta-
tion Impact Fee Ordinance efforts based upon the traffic generation rates
published in the most recent ITE Trip Generation Manual.
A Transportation Impact Fee Schedul e for the City of Winter Springs
will be developed based upon a formula for calculating the estimated new
facilities needed to accommodate individual types of development based upon
the 4th Edition, Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers in 1987. Recent updates to that manual will be
included in developing the Winter Springs Impact Fee Schedule.
The following discussion is an overview of the calculation formula.
In the detailed analysis, a number of additional factors will be taken into
account.
Generally, the formula will utilize the trip generation characteris-
ti cs for the various types of 1 and uses sel ected by the City, the average
trip length for that type of trip, the level of service standard of the
407/ 894-2055
.. .
.
II
.
.
Miss Jacqueline Koch
March 27, 1989
City, and the cost per lane mile to arrive at the total cost for accom-
modating the impact of a particular type of development. From this cost,
credits will be subtracted for motor fuel taxes paid and motor vehicle
1 icense fees paid for that part of those funds which go toward the trans-
portation system. (These credits have been found necessary by the courts
in upholding the validity of Transportation Impact Fee Ordinances.)
A meeting will be held with City staff to determine those types of
land uses the City wishes to specifically include in the City of Winter
Springs Impact Fee Ordinance. In addition, available data will be ob-
tained from the City at this meeting for the average cost per lane mile in
the City for right of way, design and construction.
A technical memorandum will be written documenting the methodology
util ized in establ ishing the technical portion of the City of Winter
Springs Transportation Impact Fee. A reproducible of this report will be
provided to the City for reproduction. A meeting will be held with City
staff to review the technical memorandum.
This scope of work includes the Consultant's assistance to the City
of Winter Springs attorney in reviewing the proposed Ordinance to be writ-
ten by the attorney. The Consultant's experience with other transporta-
tion impact fees enacted across the State will be used to assist the City
attorney in ideas which might be included in the City of Winter Springs
Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance.
In addition to the data collection meeting and the technical memoran-
dum meeting mentioned earlier, this scope of work includes three additional
meetings. One of these meetings is anticipated to be a work session with
the City Commission; one of the meetings is anticipated to be a meeting
with the Planning and Zoning Commission; and a third meeting is anticipated
to be a Public Hearing concerning the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance.
A maximum of these five meetings are included in this scope of work.
Thi s fixed fee scope of work is compl eted when the City of Wi nter
Springs Commission has taken an official action concerning the Transporta-
tion Impact Fee Ordinance.
FIXED FEE SCHEDULE
Work will begin on this effort within one week following your written
notice to proceed. The technical backup material can be provided within
, .
.
II
.
.
Miss Jacqueline Koch
March 27, 1989
two weeks following the data collection meeting with City staff. The
remainder of the schedule will involve the attorney's progress in preparing
drafts of the Ordinance and the action of the City Commission.
FIXED FEE SCOPE OF WORK FEE
This scope of work will be accomplished for a fixed fee of $13,400.
Payments will be monthly based upon the Consul tant' s estimate of per cent
complete.
CLIENT TO PROVIDE
The Client agrees to provide the following at no cost to the
Consultant:
1.
The land use classifications the City desires to utilize in the
Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance.
2. Average construction, design, and right-of-way costs for roadways
within the City.
3. Reproduction of the technical memorandum supporting the Transporta-
tion Impact Fee Ordinance.
4. The proposed Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance for consultant
review.
5. Adequate advance notice of meetings the Consultant is to attend.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
The attached Standard Provisions dated January 5, 1989 are incor-
porated as a part of this agreement.
.
II
.
.
Miss Jacqueline Koch
March 27. 1989
If you are in agreement with this proposal. please sign in the space
provided below and return one copy for our files. This proposal will be
open for acceptance until April 20. 1989. unless changed by us in writing.
We look forward to working with you on this project.
Very truly yours.
TIPTON ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
~-~
William E. Tipton. Sr.. P.E.
:ah100
name
titl e
--------------------------
company
date
.
STAND. PROVISIONS
.
(1) Fixed Fee Agreement: In contracts where compensation to Tipton Associates Incorporated (the Engineer) is established as a fixed fee, this
fixed fee shall be the maximum amount payable to the Engineer for the services inclu,ded within the scope of work. Payments will be made IIIOnthly by the
Client to the Engineer based upon invoices submitted by the Engineer. The Engineer shall determine the proportional amount of the total fee .due .with
each invoice based upon a ratio of the amount of work done, as reasonably determined by the Engineer, in relation to the total amount of work whIch IS to
be performed, less prior partial payments, if any, which have been made. _ .
(2) Hourly Rate Agreement: In the event the Engineer's compensation under this agreement is based upon the hourly rate schedule, payments wlll
be made monthly by the Client to the Engineer based upon invoices submitted by the Engineer. These invoices shall be determined by (a) the attached
Hourly Rate Schedule multiplied by the hours incurred by the Engineer in providing services plus (b) reimbursable charges based on the attached Reimbur-
sable Rate Schedule with Outside Charges reimbursable expenses multiplied by a factor of 1.15 plus In-House Charges reimbursable expenses at the rates
tabulated on the Reimbursable Rate Schedule.
Should this agreement be in effect for more than one year from its date of execution, the Engineer shall have the option of annually increasing the
hourly rate schedule to account for inflation. The increase in rates will not exceed the increase in the Consumer Price Index for the past twelve
months.
For agreements in which the Engineer is to be compensated on an hourly rate basis, a budget shall be established as the estimated maximum fee for
the scope of work. Should the estimated budget not be sufficient to complete the scope of work included in this agreement, the Client will be notified
and the Client agrees to modify the budget in writing to allow for satisfactory completion of the work.
(3) Invoices: Invoices will be submitted by the Engineer to the Client monthly for services performed and expenses incurred pursuant to this
Agreement during the prior time period. Payment of each such invoice will be due within twenty-five (25) calendar days from date of submission. In-
voices unpaid when due shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law commencing on the invoice date.
(4) Failure to Pay: If the Client fails to made any payment due the Engineer for services and expenses within sixty (60) calendar days after the
Engineer's transmittal of its invoice therefor, the Engineer may, after giving seven (7) calendar days' written notice to the Client, suspend services
under this Agreement until it has been paid in full all amounts due for services and expenses.
(5) legal Action: In the event any invoice or any portion thereof remains unpaid for more than sixty (60) days following the invoice date, the
Engineer may initiate legal proceedings to collect the same and recover, in addition to all amounts due and payable, including accrued interest, its
reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses related to the proceeding. Such expenses shall include, but shall not be limited to, the cost, determined
at the Engineer's normal hourly billing rates, of the time and direct expenses devoted to such proceeding by its employees. Venue of legal proceeding
shall be in Orange County, Florida.
(6) Non-Contingency: The Cl ient acknowledges and agrees that the payment for services rendered and expenses incurred by the Engineer pursuant to
this Agreement is not subject to any contingency unless the same is expressly set forth in this Agreement.
(7) Opinions of Cost: Since the Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over
methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, any and all opinions as to costs rendered hereunder, including but not
limited to opinions as to the costs of construction and materials, shall be made on the basis of its experience and qualifications and represent its best
judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineer, familiar with the construction industry; but the Engineer cannot and does not guarantee
that proposals, bids or actual costs will not vary from opinions of probable cost prepared by it. If at any time the Client wishes greater assurance as
to the amount of any cost, he shall employ an independent cost estimator to make such determination.
(8) Termination: The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) calendar days
written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating
party. In the event of any termination, the Engineer will be paid for all services rendered to the date of termination, all expenses subject to reim-
bursement hereunder and other reasonable expenses incurred by the Engineer as a result of such termination. In the event the Engineer's compensation un-
der this Agreement is a fixed fee, upon such termination the amount payable to the Engineer for services rendered will be determined using a proportional
amount of the total fee based on a ratio of the amount of the work done, as reasonably determined by the Engineer, to the total amount of work which was
to have been performed, less prior partial payments, if any, which have been made.
(9) Reuse of Documents: All documents, including but not limited to drawings and specifications, prepared by the Engineer pursuant to this
agreement are related exclusively to the projects described herein. No documents prepared by the Engineer pursuant to this agreement are intended or
represented to be suitable for use by the Client or others on extensions of this current project, or for re-use in any other project. Further, in the
event that Engineer's services under this agreement are terminated for any reason prior to completion of the services described in this agreement, then
Engineer shall not be responsible for any documents prepared by the Engineer. Any continued use of Engineer's documents on this project, or any use on
any other project, with or without any changes or adaptations, made after termination of Engineer prior to completion of Engineer's services according to
this agreement will be at the Client's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to the Engineer; and the Client shall indemnify and hold the En-
gineer harmless from all claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting therefrom.
Ownership and right to exclusive possession of all documents, including but not limited to reports, letters, applications, drawings, and specifica-
tions, prepared by the Engineer pursuant to this agreement, belong to Engineer until payment has been made in full by Client pursuant to either the Fixed
Fee Agreement or the Hourly Rate Agreement, as invoiced by Engineer to Cl ient. In the event of failure of Cl ient to pay pursuant to paragraphs 4 or 8
herein, Client agrees to return to Engineer all originals and all copies of all documents prepared by the Engineer.
TIPTON ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION /CIVI L ENGINEERING
.
930 WOODCOCK ROAD ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32803
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE
Hourly Ra te
William E. Tipton (Persona 1 ) $ 85
Chief Engineer/Planner $ 75
Principal Engineer/Planner $ 70
Senior Engineer/Planner $ 60
Engineer/Planner/Designer $ 50
Junior Engineer $ 40
. Senior Traffic Analyst-Designer $ 35
Senior Technician-Draftsman $ 30
Technician-Draftsman $ 25
Junior Technician-Draftsman $ 20
Senior Technical Typist $ 25
Technical Typist $ 20
Enumerator $ 15
For sworn testimony at depositions and hearings, etc., the
above rates will be doubled.
For services in court, the above rates will be doubled with a
minimum of an eight hour day charged for each day of ap-
pearance.
Overtime to accomplish a project by the Client's required
completion date will be charged at 1.5 times the above hourly
ra te s .
.
Reimbursable Rate Schedule on reverse of this sheet.
August 26, 1988
407/894-2055
NOT ICE
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1989, THERE WILL BE AN ORGANIZATIONAL
AND PLANNING MEETING FOR THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF WINTER SPRINGS.
THE MEETING WILL BE HELD AT COMMISSIONER KAEHLER'S HOUSE,
741 MIMOSA AVE., WINTER SPRINGS. 7:30 P.M.
~Jljb
r