Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 04 08 Regular ~@~~ . SEMINOLE COUNTY EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY 1 101 EAST F"IRST STREET SANF"ORO, F"1.0RIDA 32771 14071321-1130, EXT. 7776 GERAI.D N. BRINTON. EXECUTIVE DIRECT,r-", April 4, 1991 ~~., '.",# " ",?!2~~." '. <. '.'(~ ,~,':''I\,,' '~,j .... ,,:..: ,I :." , , r:;J:) ".") r 7 ;, ..J ,; , '", J ' , ~1::, ' BY FACSIMILE i ;':"' " Phillip A. Kulbes, Mayor City of winter Springs 126 East S.R. 434 winter Springs, Florida 32708 Dear Mr. Kulbes: p!"!- IVI CiTY I' :. ,,' ')'1'/1<., '. '.[.f,:~ The state statute establishing the Seminole County Expressway Authority provides that the five (5) County Commissioners and two (2) elected municipal officials within the County serve as Authority members. The Statute also provides that the Board of County Commissioners select the municipal members unless two-thirds of the municipalities jointly recommend in writing to the County Commissioners their selection of a member for appointment within thirty days of a vacancy occurring. . The term of one of the municipal positions held by Casselberry Commissioner Mary Lou Miller will expire soon. The Council of Local Governments at its meeting of April 3, 1991 unanimously recommended that Lake Mary Commissioner Paul Tremel be appointed to the Expressway Authority for a two (2) year term. The Council asks that each City endorse the Council's selection by placing this matter before their respective Councilor Commission for official action and advise County Commission Chairman Fred W. Streetman, Jr. of the action taken prior to the County Commission meeting of May 7, 1991. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions please call me at 321-1130, extension 7776. ;t~;;~ Gerald N. Brinton Executive Director GNB : gw (calno.l) . cc: Commissioner David Mealor, CALNO Chairman Commissioner Fred W. Streetman, Jr., BCC Chairman Mayor Bettye D. Smith, SCEA Chairman AUTHORITY MEMBERS tJENNIF'EA C. KELLEY, VICE CHAIRMAN BETTVE SMITH. CHAIRMAN MARY Lou MILLER PAT WARREN LARRY FURLDNG ROBERT STURM FRED W. STREETMAN. ..JR. l!l{5 ~/JU"7/~ Ktp->I-, I . April 15, 1991 TO: City Manager Engineeer ~ Right-of-Way Acquisition (S.R. 434 in Front of City Hal~ FROM: City SUBJECT: FDOT Attached is a rendering of the line and area the FDOT is to condemn in front of City Hall for Right-of-Way acquisition. The R-O-W line is to be extended fifty (50) feet into the City Hall property from the existing R-O-W line. The shifting of the R-O-W will impact two stormwater inlets and piping on the southwest corner of the property, eliminate the second exit from the municipal complex and require the large water meter box and water meter to be moved. Lastly, the driveway at the southwest corner would mostly disappear. . The sign for City Hall will have to be moved back along with the elimination of a number of trees and green space. The FDOT is taking only seventeen (17) feet of property on the other side of S.R. 434. I spoke with Tom Lochrane of Lochrane Engineering whose company did the survey alignment. He told me that apparently two issues dictated the proposed alignment. One issue is that the broad curve to be installed at Wagner's Curve and associated wetlands required this alignment. The second issue was the fact that there are several homes on the west side of S.R. 434. Jfg attach. cc: Land Development Coordinator Director of Public Works Utility Director . 10 February 1991 "1"7';' ~ ~ ,~-,~. '~~ "', \." .. -'. , '\ ~ ,"~~: \ ;'~'.'~:~ ".:..;j ~,,-.: ~-.' I' .~; !:l"~" .0.,' .~ FES 1 1 "'1" ~~ , .....'.. ., . ',' 1 ";,j .~', . City Commission City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 ~~T:t. Of ~r" t~U 1" L ,~~ r1GS RE: Parking of RV on residential property At the Commissioner's Meeting on 12 November 1990, my request for renewal of the parking permit to park my RV, which exceeds the City Code length restriction by 3 feet, was denied because a complaint had been made by a single neighbor. The complaint concerned the proximity of my RV to his house and infringing on his privacy. My RV was parked behind a 6-foot fence approximately twenty feet from his house and actually blocked the view between the two houses. The neighbor/owner who made the complaint was in the process of moving at the time of the complaint and does not presently reside in the house. The house is not occupied except for an hour or two during the day if the owner visits. I presently keep my RV at a campground in Kissimmee which is an inconvenience when I need to prepare the RV before or after a trip and when necessary to perform maintenance, which is usually required after a trip, particularly cleaning the interior and exterior. . No one who lives in the neighborhood objects to me parking my RV on my property. When it is parked in my back yard behind a 6-foot fence, it does not detract from the appearance of the neighborhood, and is not visible from the front except when looking directly at the front of the RV between the houses (see enclosures). Since the neighbor/owner who made the complaint no longer resides in his house and the house is unoccupied except for occasional short periods of time during daylight hours, I request that the Commission reconsider my request for renewal of the parking permit approved previously. If the 'parking permit is not approved because of the complaint which has no basis or grounds, I hereby request that the Commission consider and authorize me temporary parking of at least one week each month for the purpose of preparing and servicing my RV before and after a trip and to perform any maintenance that may be necessary. The RV will not degrade the neighborhood, will be kept behind the front building line of the house behind a 6-foot fence and will have the blinds drawn at all times when parked between the houses (and if necessary, I will extend the fence 2 feet to conceal the windows on my ~V if it will help obtain the approval). r ~~-- -1z'.D. EDELEN 307 Birch Terrace Winter Springs, FL 32708 Phone: 327-5942 -- sures: Photographs of RV parked Signatures of neighbors e . . 10 November 1990 Winter Springs City Commissioners: We, the undersigned, find and have no objection to K. D. Edelen parking his 32 foot Elandan recreation vehicle on his residential property at 307 Birch Terrace. The recreation vehicle is parked in his back yard, behind a privacy fence, is not obviously visible from the street, and does not degrade the appearance of the neighborhood in any way. ~~'1Yl~ (Name) ~_~~S__ (Name) ~-~-- (Name) ~~-~~------- (Name) ~)j-'~--- (Name) t dJ~~__~~__ (Name) J(d-Le--Cm.J.J.e..----- (Name) ~_ (1.".,,1_________ (Name) .1--(J'.L~ _~o_~-B~jJJMtkJL---------- (Address) ~eJ-:t-:bUtc.b--d-JlM~--------- (Address) _~~~__~l~~_~~~___________________ (Address) :$Q?_ _ ~ !~~6{__T!E~K ~~_f_ __ _ __ _ _ _ ___ (Address) _L1QQ__~~~__~__:_____________ (Address) ~~r-g;J4~-~~------------ (Address) ~t2__~__~~;:;-5___~------------ (Address) _~~r___?~_!?1~~~__~~-__----------- (Address) . 31 December 1990 @r~:(F:~ rrll J7 jJJ~' \."", """";':, :,"/ I l~, ~ ' 'J (jj J~N ~'1Oqi ' "CITY DF WIN i ER . CITy HALL SPillNGS City Commission City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 RE: RV Length Restriction . The city code states in part: "...that no RV in excess of 28 feet in length shall be parked or stored in a residentially zoned district without a permit issued by the city commission and renewed annually..." I applied for and was allowed a permit my first year in Ivinter Springs since my motor home has a 32-foot overall length. The city commission did not allow renewal of my permit because of a complaint by a neighbor. It was explained. by Commissioner Kaehler that since there was a complaint, no permit could be allowed. The validity of the complaint or an attempt to resolve the complaint other than denying me a permit was not considered. I got the impression from the commission that they "do not get involved in neighbor squabbles" and if my motor home was 28 feet or less in length, the complaint would have had no bearing on parking my motor home on my property since it would never have come in front of the commission in the first place. I will remove my motor home from my residential property as requested by the Code Inspector even though the neighbor who made the complaint has moved and the house is unoccupied. Information obtained from the City Clerk Office indicates the length restriction was placed into the city code in 1978. It is difficult to determine why a 28-foot restriction was established then, but today, according to the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association "1989 Year End Report," 69.6 percent of all class A motor homes exceeded 30 feet in length, with 53.4 percent between 30 feet and 34 feet and 11 inches. The length restriction is a frivolous prohibition. Prohibitions concerning where the RV should be parked or stored; number of RV's that may be parked or stored; or whether RV's should be occupied when parked or stored would be more appropriate and meanin3ful than the length prohibition. What difference does it make how long a motor home is if the entire vehicle is parked or concealed behind the front building line of the lot? Information received from neighbor cities: Casselberry, Sanford, Longwood, and Oviedo, indicate that only one (Sanford) has any length restriction on RV's. Sanford's length restriction is 32 feet. All other cities address where and how the RV's should be parked or stored on residential property. . . . . I submit that the city code prohibitions as it refers to RV length is outdated and should be reviewed with the purpose of bringing the restriction up-to-date with today's standards. If the length restriction was appropriate with today's averages, the commission could spend their time on subjects that are more important and meaningful to all the residents of Winter Springs, rather than being concerned with approving or disapproving parkins permits. D. EDELEN 307 Birch Terrace Yinter Springs, FL 32708 Phone: 327-5942 Copy to: City rIanager Code Inspector Code Enforcement Board -2- . . . ~ Monday, April 8, 1991 Re: Ordinance 501, Closing of Orange Avenue, etc.. My name is James Ferguson. I own the property at 1110 Orange Avenue. This is also known as the west half of lot seven. My property is located between the winter Springs Park and Lake Jessup. My wife and I were looking for property on which to build a new home for several years. We discovered the Orange Avenue property and purchased it two years ago. We have been making improvements to the property such as clearing out dead orange trees, grading and planting grass and putting up fences. We are now ready to begin the construction of our home. It is apparent The City of Winter Springs believed the property in this area was a good location also. Their land purchase for a new city park was a pleasant surprise to me and the other residents of the area. I welcome the park development and believe it will be a benefit to my lifestyle and hopefully the property value. If of no other benefit it will assure no commercial or industrial development will be built at my front door. I look forward to being a good neighbor to the park. Sometime surprises are not very pleasant. I learned of the city's proposed Orange Avenue closing only by a chance call to city hall to inquire about the park progress. I must say I was alarmed to learn that the city was ready to close the Orange Avenue section passing through the park cutting off the only reliable access to my property. I was further alarmed to find out no notices of this proposed action were provided to the property owners and further, the ordinance was set for its second reading and final approval at the March 25 meeting. When I asked about notice requirements at the March 25 commission meeting, I was told the city is not required to provide written notice, only advertise their notices in the local paper. That may me the LAW but it doesn't promote a very good neighbor feeling. There are very few property owners on Orange Avenue. A few letters or phone calls would have been appreciated. When I first learned of this proposed road closing, I called the residents living at the west end of Orange Avenue to find out if they knew what was about to happen to us. It was a surprise to most of them. The residents and I attended the March 25 commission meeting to express our real and valid concerns for maintaining access to our property. We had yet another surprise the day of the meeting. A letter to the city commission from Seminole County commissioner Bob Sturm citing a four year old INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT between the city and county regarding our area. In this agreement the city agreed to provide our area with; * Fire protection, including first response fire fighting, * Public safety services, * Emergency services, * law enforcement, * Road maintenance. These services are to be provided in the same manner as the city provides to residents of the city. Well that was the good news. We were pleased to know the city had agreed to take care of all of our necessary governmental services. . . . The bad news came when city attorney Kuppenbacher provided his interpretation of the agreement as it applied to Orange Avenue repair and maintenance. His statement was essentially that if winter Springs chooses to maintain the road, it will. It they choose to not maintain the road, they will not. While I understand that this is his "opinion" I hope it is not the councils carefully considered position as the "appropriate" thing to do. The area affected by this closing is not undeveloped land. There are five homes, my homesite and several undeveloped lots directly affected by the ordinance. Some homeowners have lived there for more than twenty years. We all regularly use that section of Orange Avenue the city proposes to vacate. As evidenced by the Interlocal Agreement, winter Springs clearly has an interest in and some level of responsibility to us and our area. You must be aware that without the new planned access road at the west boundary of the park the easterly section of Orange Avenue will be the only access to our property. This access via Orange to Brantley to SR434 will add one and a half miles to my travel each way. This will be satisfactory for persons going to Tuskawilla road or east on SR434 but inconvenient for persons like myself exiting west on SR434. Inconvenience I can accept. A single unreliable access road is not safe or acceptable. Our grave concern is that the west end of Orange Avenue is in very poor condition. The road as it exists does not provide reliable access to our property or access for the city to perform the agreed level of city services. The Interlocal agreement clearly places liability with the city for injury or damage from failure of the city to perform these services and the negligent or wrongful performance of such services. { Ref. Para 3. (c) } Following the March 25 meeting I contacted Seminole commissioner Bob Sturm. I asked Mr. Sturm if there was any possibility of Seminole County and winter Springs cooperating in the effort to repair the affected section of Orange Avenue. Mr. Sturm was supportive and had Seminole County Public Works Director, Jim Wilson contact me directly. After explaining the problem to Mr. Wilson he was to contact Winter Springs Public Works to see what could be done. I also talked with city manager Dick Rozanski last week. He told me he would contact Mr. Sturm to discuss a possible shared work solutions to the road repair problem. He expressed understanding and concern for our situation and wanted to prevent us from being cutoff from our homes. There appears to be a real opportunity for the city to share Orange Avenue repair work with the County if you act now. The road needs to be graded and stabilized with a base material starting at the proposed closed section at the park boundary East to the currently stabilized road area. Once the road has been stabilized, it could be placed on a "repair or service as needed" schedule. I urge you to carefully consider the ramifications of this proposed ordinance and reach an equitable implementation. A long term solution is in all our best interests. . . . ~ I would suggest the city council move to adopt the proposed Ordinance 501 with the following clarifications; 1. The Council will agree that Orange Avenue and Clifton Avenue right of way not be vacated until suitable alternative access is available to the property owners and residents of Orange Avenue. 2. The council will direct the city manager to contact seminole County to seek a cooperative venture to bring Orange Avenue up to a standard necessary to provide reliable access for the property owners, residents and the city. 3. The council confirms that improvement to Orange Avenue is necessary to allow the city to deliver the required governmental services to the area as required by the 9 February, 1987 Interlocal Agreement between the City of winter Springs and Seminole County. I believe I speak for the affected Orange Avenue residents in the following; * We do not wish our concerns about the road access to be considered as a negative attitude toward the city's expansion plans. We believe the park is a beneficial addition to our neighborhood. We appreciate the city's consideration in designing park facilities to minimize disturbance to our homes. * * Your thoughtful consideration in reaching an equitable and long term solution to our road access problem will go a long way toward making the residents and property owners more receptive to the future annexation into the city. Thank you again for your consideration in this matter. ,.., I- I M Pt ," / - ') '. , , j . ) ~-r)~,~. . . n t-:: .' 1\ \ .f. \ ' , ....7' \' I,. I ~'.... '1/' <.. ' --' )$ t j' \-,- ~ C: -----.,' - : -:-- t:: ~ J;--- _ r <-... h -;J:f-r '\. ./t e:=- }/ ."/ 1'. I' \ H L / ?\. /.\ -f1 'L.. \ \, ;r ; ( , ( ,I' <:::.::J'1? L . t:: I f"~ !' ,. ,r;: r= d " ~'/ ; I '...~ I\. -jl ~) i ,( ----. L t ., C; C) ~ "J ,/ \,c-.-' r..'- !\_ j'/')' 7 L. )/ ,\ .c.... \. ".- I , \ L.,. re. , r I ( , -- 2--'. < /"), '\1 ( , . ./ \ ~~u ,: 'VII' -. ' "I Vi r- 9~/'!.. /, 1","\ .:...-....' , _ ! ~ .' \ :, .< /'\- . 1, I' 7 '- ' ?:.-) " ' -" \ .', . . " f\ I ~_.--. " 'I '-' ,/ ,f A 1\ , ' L '/ / I "J~ ) j'~"""" "~~. ! ' , ' I' .. ,\ /"1 , [ ,/ T' , , t' ,f j 1)' ~., / ~/. , f .... ( ) ) 7)-1 '1':: ~ "- -'~ Ll . ., 1 .~.~ L'. r ,f~.1 /.1 ~ ,^ ^/' -;, r-" !-: " r-, /'; I -"." v c. A. " A . ,.. l ,- .... , r' v.....') ~ ( r ). :< 7";; L;:' . " !,-_.,.- ~/ l~ / I ~/ t" " . r " ~ J /',,1 ~'l , ..;,..-"'~ ",--', A "1-, " /-~' y :' r-, ! /1 ' I', J.. ^1t \ / ' /i ~',_~ L l'- ! , 1 \ c_ ~, "\ 'I I I ~- . r"" ,- , ) ")}J ,\ n ( , I_A ~ ,~. 'I, ..'~ i.h IJ i ~ :::::',t:..:. .. "", "! , L~_ .'" ".; . . . 'Coopers & Lybrand certified public accountants 501 Norlh Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801-1397 In principal areas 01 the world telephone (407) 843-1190 April 1, 1991 The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners City of Winter Springs, Florida We have provided our response to the City's Request For Proposal in connection with auditing services for the year ended September 30, 1991. Because we were not present at the March 25, 1991 Commission meeting to respond to the statements of Mr. William A. Jacobs, we would like to respond at this time. In Mr. Jacobs' opening statement, he indicates that we "glossed over" the management comments sect ion of our repor t. Those who were present when we explained our comments should recall that we indicated that the City's staff were preparing a written response to our comments and that once the response was received and reviewed by the Commission that we would return to answer any questions or offer additional explanations. We do not believe that this constitutes "glossing over" our comments. Instead, it paves the way for an intelligent, constructive approach to implementing changes rather than an unproductive finger-pointing session at a public forum. Mr. Jacobs' comments with respect to the acquisition and cost of Seminole Utilities do not reflect anything that has not existed in the public record for some time. The agreement he referred to regarding the additional payments required was clearly disclosed in the Official Statement which the Commission authorized in connec- tion with the acquisition. With respect to the status of current utility operating results, the City is required by its bond cove- nants to deposit certain amounts each month toward debt service payments, and during the period under audit, all such deposits were current. We do not understand Mr. Jacobs' comment regarding the City's uninvested funds. Perhaps he was confused by the footnote to the financial statements regarding the City's deposits which are made up almost entirely of interest-bearing accounts such as money market funds and certificates of deposit. The City's checking account balances on its general ledger are, in fact, negative due to its overnight investment practices. . The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners City of Winter Springs, Florida April 1, 1991 Page Two Mr. Jacobs' final comments dealing with what he perceives to be our failure to respond to him are also disapPointing to us. We held numerous, lengthy phone conversations with Mr. Jacobs in an effort to address his concerns. We also performed extensive reviews of the bond and related documents dealing wi th the acquisi tion of Seminole Utilities and compared the process against procedures required under Florida Statutes. We consulted with representatives of the Audi tor General of the State of Flor ida regarding inter- pretation of certain statutes. All of this was COJIUnunicated to Mr. Jacobs, along with the fact that we would continue to be alert to his concerns and that the proper format for any written COJIUnuni- cations was our audit report. We also suggested to Mr. Jacobs that if he wanted to question the validity of certain transactions under state law, that the City could request an opinion from the Attorney General. None of our lengthy discussions of these mat ters, how- ever, could satisfy Mr. Jacobs. . It is worthy of note that during all of these procedures, the one individual that we did not consult with was the City Manager. This is in complete contradiction to Mr. Jacobs' statement that "they were, in my opinion, following the instructions of the City Manager. . . ". Furthermore, when any ci ti zen raises an issue con- cerning the actions of a government, we have no choice but to investigate the validity of the issue regardless of the source of payment for the time incurred. We would also like to point out that each time we did not provide Mr. Jacobs with the response he was looking for - namely an indict- ment of the City Manager and the City's legal advisors _ he pro- ceeded to send a threatening letter to whomever he perceived to be in a position of authority over the person in our Firm that he was dealing with. After countless hours of work and several unsuccess- ful attempts at explaining our position to him, we came to the unfortunate conclusion that his over-riding issue was to vent a personal frustration he apparently has with the City Manager. We hope that this letter will help the Commission to understand the situation we have been faced with and our attempts to respond to it in a professional manner. We have invested more than l, 000 hours in obtaining an understanding of your operation, auditing your 1990 results, responding to Mr. Jacobs' requests, and preparing for what we perceived to be a long-term relationship. Your staff have also expended considerable time and effort in providing us wi th back- ground information and explanations of current procedures. . . . . The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners City of Winter Springs, Florida April 1, 1991 Page Three The attached proposal is an expression of our willingness to continue to serve you and the credentials we have to offer. The City of Winter Springs is an important client to our local office and to our Firm. We would be pleased to discuss our proposal or this letter with you at your convenience and we also re-emphasize our offer to discuss our management letter relating to the 1990 audit in greater detail once the written response by your staff is available. Very truly yours, fJt:lWu./2tf.~ Patrick J. Khipe Managing Partner /J/J . -L. r '/ /. /",/J ~~.... C. N'~L Christine E. Hill Engagement Partner .' . . ~ James M. Ferguson 277 South Street - Fern Park, FI. 32730 834-4946(H) 859-7410(W) TI!!~ml -, April 16, 1991 City of winter springs 1126 East SR-434 Winter springs, Fl. 32708 -,-..,.. ....1. ,'I :.,1 -IJ,isLII:)f!\/" -. qll~~ '-t' :';'\l~~j\\,j..-,,;~ Re: Ordinance 501, closing of Orange Ave., etc. Dear C"'l1lIIlie~iuu"r. 1"l'Y!.. ~ ~ I appreciated the opportunity to speak to you at the last commission meeting held on April 8, 1991. You are now very aware of my concerns and that of the other families living along O~ange Avenue. If you could picture yourself living in our isolated location and facing the proposed closing of the long established access to our property you will begin to understand our concern and alarm. I was pleased you agreed to delay a decision and direct the staff to study the problem further. I have ongoing skepticism from the last meeting. Comments from the commissioners' decrying the Interlocal Agreement continue to cause me great concern. I have heard statements that Orange Avenue is not a "real" road; That the county has some nerve to expect the city to spend the taxpayers' money to fix "their" road; The agreement is not fair; The city will do as it wishes concerning the road. These statements and the fact your staff was split on their assessment of the road situation have caused me considerable apprehension that a satisfactory solution may not be forthcoming. This concern has prompted me to write this letter. Well you must understand, Orange Avenue is "my" road and serves "my" property access. The road serves many other residents and property owners as well. Clearly Orange Avenue and Clifton Road have existed and been in constant use for years. There indeed may be ~ c~ntinued legal access availabla =cr oursglva~ because of this long term use. That is a legal question best answered by the -lawyers'. Simply put, closing the Orange Avenue exit to Wagners curve will create a clear hardship for the Orange Avenue property owners and me. The poor condition of the single alternative access route may actually prevent us from the use of our property. Our area along Orange Avenue has become an isolated enclave of winter springs solely through the city's expansion and in particular the land purchase for the planned development of the Super Park. The Interlocal Agreement anticipated this situation and provided a specific and mutually agreed solution. . Before the announced plan to close our Orange Avenue access the residents, Seminole County and winter Springs were content to continue the status-Quo on the road. We had access to SR-434 at Wagners curve and those of us with 4-wheel drive vehicles could brave the trek to the Brantley, SR-434 intersection. The proposed closing of our regular access has shattered the status- quo and created this critical problem. Regardless of the Interlocal Agreement, the city has a clear responsibility to all persons inside or outside the city, affected or damaged by the city's expansion. The city council members must clearly recognize the impact and potential damage the proposed road closing will have on the Orange Avenue property owners. I take this opportunity to respectfully request you continue to seriously undertake whatever and all actions necessary to provide a proper and safe alternate access road to our property before closing the road section through the park. For those of you that have taken the time to speak with me personally on this matter, thank you. I know you are all faced with difficult problems such as this matter in moving forward with the park and other important city business. Please feel free to call me if I may be of any help in resolving this matter before you. It will be much easier if we can work together and maintain close communication on this issue. . I look forward to the next commission meeting on April 22. Sincerely, Jame~u ,z,-----. r~ ). ~(f~ o ~ . . April 2, 1991 TO: City Manager coordinator~ FROM: Land Development RE: Agenda Item F, Request of Southern Bell, etc. . This is a request of Real Estate Service Team, Inc., a subcontractor with Southern Bell, for a 400 square foot easement within Sunshine Park, along Edgemon Avenue. The City Attorney and the City Engineer have reviewed this request and offered no objection. The Commission action requested is to allow the City Manager to proceed with the necessary paperwork needed to grant this easement. This action is identical to that recently granted by the Commission in reference to the Florida Power Easement within Sunshine Park. See attached correspondence. ffg attach. cc: Mayor Commission City Attorney 1] JUII." . . FRANK KRUPPENBACHER LAW OFFICES HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND 390 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE SUITE 1300 ORL.ANDO, f"L.ORIDA 3260'.2446 Cc', e,;-~\ V\\~)-e(l. COHN TELEPHONE 14071 648-0300 TELECOPIER 14071 648-1155 WEST PALM BEACH, F'LORIDA TAMPA, f"l.ORIDA DETROIT, MICHIGAN LANSING, M,CHIGAN HOUSTON, TElIAS LOS ANGELES, CALIF'ORNIA March 19, 1991 Mr. Don LaBlanc City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 424 Winter Springs, FL 32708 RE: Southern Bell Easement Dear Don: . This will confirm my approval of the above referenced easement. Very truly yours, --/1 (hQ C ~"jU"b d-~AiN / P- Frank C. Kruppenbacher ~ FCK/ dkl 2068X SIGNED IN MR. KRUPPENBACHER'S ABSENCE TO AVOID' DEU\'l . fl';:ltOl!1f, 21 1991 C/i.Y OF Land D - W/Nr. elle/oPtnenC: SPRING Coord' 'S nator: . February 13. 1991 TO: Land Development Coordinator City Engineer ~ SUBJECT: Inspection of Proposed Southern Bell Telephone Company Easement - (Edgemon Avenue next to Sunshine Park) FROM: . An inspection of the proposed Southern Bell Telephone easement was made on February 13. 1991. The location of the 20x20 foot proposed easement appears to be satisfactory but is located closer to the stormwater pipe than noted in "Exhibit 1 of Standard Option to Take Easement." This telephone easement should not hamper or impair the potential maintenance and repair of the adjacent stormwater pipe. There should be a fifteen (15) foot drainage easement (7.5 foot on each side of the pipe), and the proposed telephone easement should not infringe on this area. Jfg cc: City Manager . - . 'BO-TYPE COMMUNITY SERVICE CABINET ~~r:7~~::-r-:'-~'~"~-,'~,-:-~,----~.~",,-~,~~.,,,':"-. ~~.-:'_.". .' - -." ..... .". -- ""-"'__.-moll'l4ll~~....tb --- - . Designed to resemble a signboard, the 3D-Type Community Service Cabinet is suitable for locations in full public view, such as drivewZlY entrZlnces to .JpZlrtment complexes or Indu<.tflal pZlrks. i . Construction is corrosion-resistant aluminum. . Heavy-duty construction provides vandalism protection. :I [nclo~ure is shippeci completely assembled and wired. . Construction is weather and fire resistant. . Raised open design prevents accumu- lation of leaves or Windblown debris. . Guidelincs are aVJil.:1ble for uSing the enclosure as J 5ignbo~Hd. . The enclosure does not require on-site personnel, Jnd mallllenJnce activity IS minimal. - ~ . The SLC 96 C:Hrier is electronic, so opc'rLlllon is virtually nOiseless. . Enclosure is protected by "silent" security systl'1 ns- alJrms do not sound at the enclosure site, but at the IOGII central office. ~. ...i1 SlC. 96 Carrier Remote Terminal Enclosure " . . . I . ',. ...j 80-TYPE COMMUNITY SERVICE CABINET . t .,', \' l . . .,1'. 'I' '" ' ., , ," . 1,'11" , 'I " . 1,' I"" ,', Size: The SO-type cabinet is 6Yl feet wide, 5Y2 feet high, clnd 27 inches deep. The SO-type cabinet can Clccommodate up to three SLC 96 Carrier Systems and a serving area interface or four SLC 96 Carrier Systems. The enclosure is well secured. It CJn only be opened by using a special tool. A "silent" illarm (alarm sounds only at the centrj)1 office, not at the enclosure site) provides protection against unj)uthonzed entry. The power source is commercial 117 Vac, 60 Hz. Each SLC 96 Carrier has a string of 48 Vdc bilttenes thZlt can provide operZltion for a minimum of eight hours during commerCIj)1 power failure. Capacity: Security: Primary Power: Back- up Power: - ..... .. ~ AT&T --- - r- . . . . ---- SERIAL NUMBER STANDARD OPTION TO OBTAIN EASEMENT STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF SEMINOLE IN CONSIDERATION OF the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the receipt of which is acknowledged, the undersigned, as owner of record, ("GRANTOR"), hereby grants unto Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, its successors and assigns ("GRANTEE"), the exclusive option to obtain an easement for telecommunications electrical equipment structures and appurtenant facilities covering the property preliminarily described in Exhibit "1" (the "Property"), which description 1s subject to verification by a certified survey. 1. GRANTEE'S exercise of its option shall be by written notice served upon GRANTOR personally or by registered hlaU within 120 days from the date this Agreement is fully executed. If the final date for service falls on a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, the notice period shall automatically be extended to include the next business day. 2. GRANTEE shall have Thirty (30) days after notice of election to continue examination of the title to the property and to consummate the transaction. If on said examination of title it should appear at any time before completion of the transaction, that GRANTOR has not good and marketable title thereto (a title deraigned from a tax deed, including a ~lurphy Act Deed shall not be conddereci as good and marketable) or that said Property is subject to liens and encumbrances of any kind or character, (i~cludlng without limitation all taxes and oil, gas, mineral, or drainage reservations or easements) other than state, county and/or municipal ad valorem taxes for the current year not yet due and payable, or is restricted by .deed, statutes, zoning ordinances I or otherwise, in such manner as to prevent or interfere with the full use of said Property by GRANTEE for the above purpose, GRANTOR shall he allowed THIRTY (30) days after r~ceipt of notice from GRANTEE of objections to said title, to furnish good and marketable title and convey the Easement substantially in the form attached as Exhibit "2". 3. GRANTEE is hereby granted the right, at its expense, to have the Property surveyed by a registered land surveyor and/or civil engineer. 4. There arc no agreements, promises, or understandings between these parties except as speCifically set forth here!n. No alterations or changes shall be made to this Agreement except in writing and signed by tho parties herein. 5. ADDITIONAL TERMS I CONDITIONS OR CONTINGENC IES: Grantee shall land- scape the Property with indigenous plants. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, of the parties hereto have set their hands on this , 191,L. day Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of GRANTOR: THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS (type or print name) BY: TI'llLE: As to GRANTOR Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: GRANTEE: SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY REAL ESTATE SERVICE TEAM, INC.-Agent BY: Daniel Jay Barber, President TITLE: Licensed Real Estate Broker As to GRANTEE / / l~ EX II 1 Ul'l' .. t.. OF' !J'l'lUm/\IW 01''l'lUtI 'l\) 'l'1\.JW EJ\!JEtmtfl' SEllll\L NUMB Ell 1J1\'I'r::U . PIlOPER'j'Y SKETClh 'I'his "EXIIIOl'l' "I." is an attilclllllent to that "stanllarll Option 'fo Obtain E<lsemellt" by nnll between THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS ("GllJ\U'I'un") ~1I11 Southern Dell 'I'elel'holle c\llll 'I'elegrnph COlllpallY ("GIlI\N'I'EE") llntell the llay of , 19.21-, SUNSHINE PARK TAX PARCEL 26-20-30-SAR-OCOO~0140 ~ IS' STORMWATER DRAINAGE EASEMENT (7 1/2' each side of pipe) L ~ STORM INLET . SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY EASEMENT LOC~lON P s EDGEMON AVENUE l LEGEND R/W". Right of Way Line P/L - Property Line POB - Point of Beginning (Not to Scale) POC - Point of Commencement EIP - Edge of Pavement CIL - Center Line xxx - Pence (Identify from known reference points Include North arrow) I'rlELlHUWlY LECJ\.L UESCRIPTION: (Subject to veri !lcaUolI by a certlf ied survey) . A Portion of land situated within Tax Parcel 26-20-30-SAR-OCOO-0140, Section 26, Township 20, Range 30, of the public records of Seminole County, Florida. Said Portion of Land being nore particularly described as follows: The southerly 20 feet of the easterly 20 feet, lying contiguous to the westerly right-of- way line of Edgemon Avenue, of Tax Parcel 26-20-30-SAR-OCOO-Ol40, Section 26, Township 20, Range 30, of the public records of Seminole County, Florida: . A legal description for the above-described easerrent shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor. Should there be a discrepancy oon,'een the preli.minar~' description herein and the above sketch, the above sketch shall govern. Said property being located in Section 26 , TownshIp SEMINOLE 20 County, Florida and located in and nange 30 GRJ\NTOR I Gfl/\tfreE: lnltlalecl: / .... .... .. . . / EXHIBIT 11211 OF STANDARD OPTION TO TAKE EAS&lENT DEED OF EASEMENT The undersigned owner(s) of the premises herein desc r1bed (IIGrantorll), for and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and receipt of which are acknowledged, hereby grant, sell and convey to Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, a Georgia corporation, authorized to do business in Florida, whose post office address is 20A5) Southern Bell Center, Atlanta, Georgia )0315, its successors, assigns and affiliated and associated companies ("Grantee"), an exclusive easement for the construction, operation and maintenance of: 1. Telecommunications electrical equipment structure(s) commonly described as subscriber loop carrier or substantially similar equipment structures; Poles, guys, anchors, aerial cables and wires; Buried cables and wires, cable terminals, markers, splicing boxes and pedestals; Conduit, manholes, underground cables and wires; Driveways or other vehicular access. and Other amplifiers, boxes, appurtenances or devices; 2. 3. 4. S. . 6. . . as well as appurtenant facilities reasonably required for the support, use, operation and maintenance of 8uch equipment structures to be installed from time to time with the right to reconstruct, improve. add to, enlarge and remove the same on, in or over the premises desc ribed in the attached Exhibit IIAII ("Premises"): Grantee may allow any other person to construct wires or .1ay cable or conduit vithin the Premises for wa ter, cODllDunica tions or elec trie power transmission or distribution. Grantee shall have the right of ingress, egress and regress to and upon said Premises at all times for the purposes of insulling, constructing, operating, inspecting, maintaining and repairing its facUities. The Grantee shall have the right to clear and keep the Premises clear of all trees, undergrowth or other obstructions and to trim, cut and keep trimmed and cut all dead, weak, leaning or dangerous trees or limbs outside the Premises which might interfere with the lines or systems of communication or electric power serving the Grantee. The grant of this Easement shall in no way restrict the right and interest of the Grantor in the use, maintenance and quiet enjoyment of the Premises to the extent that such use does not interfere wi th the rights granted herein. Any ad valorem taxes accruing from Grantee's improvements shall be chargeable to and paid by Grantee when due if separately assessed by the taxing authority as personal or real property of Grantee. The Gran tee shall be liable fo r pe nona1 inju r ies and damage to real or personal property that may result from its use of the Premises, and shall indemnify the Grantor in the event Grantor is required to pay any claim arialng from said use by Grantee. This Eaaement ahall run vi th the land in perpetuity and shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefits of the parties hereto, their .ucce88ors or a8signs. Grantor covenants that is is the fee simple owner of the Premises, has full right, title and capacity to grant this Easement, that the property is free and clear of any encumbrances or liens of wha tsoever charac ter and that it vil1 defend the same against the claims of all parties. This instrument prepared by: INITIALED: GRANTOR: / GRANTEE: / . Page 2 of Deed of Easement From: To: Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantor has executed this Deed of Easement, this day of , 19_. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the presence of: GRANTOR: (Type or Prin t) WITNESS BY: WITNESS TITLE: ATTEST: . TITLE: (Corporate Seal) ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, this day of , 19_ by and of , a corporation, on behalf of the corporation. (Official Seal) Notary Public . My Commi8sion Expires: . INITIALED: GRANTOR: / GRANTEE: / PR :lp HLD1J/B9