The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991 06 24 Regular . . . FELLOW COMMISSIONERS & MR. MAYOR: IT SEEMS I AM IN A POSITION WHERE I MUST DEFEND MYSELF. ON JULY 5, 1991, MR. JIM MIKES FROM TUSCAWiLLA COUNTRY CLUB SENT A LETTER TO FRANK KRUPPENBACHER, SUGGESTING THAT I ALONG WITH MR. KHEMLANI WERE PUSHING MR. KRUPPENBACHER INTO GiVING A UNPOPULAR LEGAL POSITION THAT THE REZONING OF THE "TUSCAWILLA PUD" WILL LIKELY RESULT IN A MULTI-MULLION DOLLAR DAMAGE CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY. FURTHERMORE, HE GOES ON TO STATE THAT I AM PUSHING THE REZONING OF THE PUD FOR "MOTIVES THAT ARE SUSPECT AND WHO SHOULD NOT BE VOTING ON ANY' ISSUE AFFECTING US". HE FURTHER STATES "THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD NOT LET HIS PERSONAL VENDETTA CAUSE THE CITY TO I NOJR COSTS AND DAMAGES." I WOULD LIKE TO KNOtV WHY MR. MIKES FEELS MY MOTIVES ARE "SUSPECT" AND WHAT "PERSONAL VENDETTA" I HAVE? LET ME REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORIES, I HAVE BEEN FIGHTING THE REZONING OF THE TUSCAWILLA PUD BEFORE I BECAME A COMMISSIONER AND BEFORE I KNEW MR. MIKES. THE REZONING ISSUE HAS COME UP A NUMBER OF TIMES OVER THE PAST 2 1/2 YEARS WHILE IN MY TERM OF OFFICE. TIIt!l,. I ~ MADE A MOTION TO REVIEW THE PUD ON FEBRUARY 13, 1989, I FURTHER MADE A MOTION ON DECEMBER 11, 1989, IN REFERENCE TO PARCEL~) TO HAVE A MORATORIUM ON NEW CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES/TOtVNHOUSES AND THEN MADE ANOTHER MOT I ON LATER ON REZON I NG TUSCAW I LLA TO R l-AA, AND I HAVE BROl.JGIT I T UP AGA I N RECENTL Y. AS YOU KNCW, I AM NOT A ONE MAN SHO/J BUT ,PART OF A 5 MEMBER COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION APPROVES OR DISAPPROVES MOTIONS MADE BY ANY COMMISSIONER. . .. . PAGE 2 THE MOST RECENT MOTION PASSED BY THE COMMISSION WAS FOR THE CITY PLANNER TO COME TO US, THE COMMISSION, AND RECOMMEND WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE TUSCAWILLA PUD, WHETHER INDIVIDUAL PARCELS OR THE TOTAL. YOU, THE COMMISSION WOULD DECIDE BASED ON FACTS AND YOUR JUDGEMENT. WHY HAVE I CONSISTENTLY BEEN FOR REZONING? BECAUSE MY CONSTITUENTS HAVE ASKED FOR THIS MANY TIMES. HAVE LETTERS, PETITIONS AND VERBAL COMMENTS ON WHAT THEY WANT. I HAVE BEEN THE MESSENGER. THEREFORE, TO SAY MY MOTIVES ARE SUSPECT AND I HAVE A PERSONAL VENDETTA IS RIDICULOUS. FINALLY, AND THIS IS THE MOST DISTURBING NEWS I WANT TO GIVE YOU" AS BACKGROUND, ON ..JUNE 28, 1991 , RESIGNED MY MEMBERSHIP AT TUSCAWILLA COUNTRY CLUB. I '-0(..11 c.. r~..f MIKES ~ ' .,~.._ >. ___II'''''...... ._.__..l. -; RESIGNED BECAUSE I PERSONALLY COULD NOT GO ALONG WITH MR. _L. -4>1" I _.n l~ .' ~ ~ . - '1'0'1. . -." . ~""--'- . . ......- ~ -~. ..-- -'~ -.. . - ,. "'- .- II JIIB. ~l A 1- ~ I FELT I NEEDED TO RESIGN. ~ ..dtil MR. MIKES' RESPONSE WAS TO BLACK --'''-~ - .,;:".......--.. 1 T ~- ~.",.. BALL ME FROM THE CLUB. IN FACT THERE ARE XEROX NOTICES THROUGHOUT THE CLUB THAT I AM NOT TO BE SERVED EVEN AS A GUEST. NOW WONDER WHETHER OTHER RESIGNED &.~rlC MEMBERS ARE BLACKBALLED AND TREATED THIS WAY. MR. MIKES ALSO SPOKE TO ME~ON FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1991, ~ AND, DURING THE CONVERSATION THREATENED ME WITH A FINANCIAL LAWSUIT AND ALSO MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD TRY LEGALLY NOT TO HAVE ME VOTE ON ISSUES CONCERNING TUSCAWILLA. THREATENED WITH A LEGAL SUIT~ I WONDER IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER WAS fiNALLY, IT IS A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS THAT ANY PERSON SHOULD THREATEN A l GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL WITH FINANCIAL RUIN BECAUSE OF AN OFFICIALS RIGHT TO VOTE ON CITY BUSINESS. LET ME STATE RIGHT NOW THAT I WILL NOT BE THREATENED OR COERCED INTO A POSITION THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SUE ME, SO BE IT. .. PAGE 3 . It IJ 'f7"14 J '" (,.. BUT WE AS THE GOVERN I NG BODY SHOULD NOT BE COERCED OR THREATENED INTO 5U'q1!:. II1I tit';! ? (~ -!i!l1L ,. · \:M R1 ,_ .UJL ~ - ,.... ,'" .- .. ...J.~..._..-. _. ._.._. _. .. _-~__...... _.-- ? ..=- -. ---. L -~. --~;t 1....1I.L THANK YOU, - PAUL P. PARTYKA DEPUTY MAYOR .' . . ..,. \.;;.i 1 7 1"1'::-1 y 1 ':";l8 ':~ Planning and Zoning Board Report to the City Commission on Rezoning and/or Changing Land Use Designations in Tuscawilla. 1. This report is in response to the City Commission's direction to the P ~~ Z Board to" !;:~et tc'gether with the ,:ity staff for the purp,:)se of specifically reviewing the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development zoning and whether it would be better to make it residential R-1AAA and/or reviewing all land use designations in the Planned Unit Development or having any other issues associated with the propereties th,::l.t; are in th~? int€,-Irest~i of the publi,: rt:~solVf?d". 2. The P&Z Board has had several workshops with the City Staff, in addition we have had a public hearing plus a regular meeting of the P&Z Board in order to come up with our report and recommeridations on this matter. As you are probably well aware this has been a particularly knotty problem. While the board has been unanimous in arriving at its recommendations relative to rezoning the Tuscawilla PUD there has not been unanimity in its recommendations as to land use designation changes for the undeveloped portions of the PUD. . 3. The Board has examined: (A), The possibility of rezoning the PUD to R-1AAA and/or any of the other present zoning districts in the City Code~ (8), The possibility of creating new zoning districts to accomodate those residential units of the pun that do not reasonably fall within the existing zoning districts; (C), the possibility of re20ning only the undeveloped portions of the PUD, and (D), In view of the allegations that the PUD has not protected the PUD homeowners as well as if they had been in the more conventional zoning districts, the Board has reviewed the City Code to determine the correctness of ~:iUC h f"i 1; at emt,-'n t s. A. With the possible exception of Bear Creek, none of the units of the Tuscawilla PUD fit within the lot size, front, rear or side set-back, or building line width requirements of the R-IAAA zoning district. To assign R-1AAA zoning to Tuscawilla would require about 150 variances to the City Code. Similarly to assign R-IAA would require al/nost 100 variances and R-IA would require about seventy five variances. The number of variances required are for units as a whole and not for individual homes. 8. Examination of the of the physical characteristics of the residential units presently existing in the various sections of the Tuscawilla PUD shows that if we should keep the number of variances granted per section to one, or in some cases two, that it would require about fifteen new zoning districts to properly describe the et yp(e<::i, dens.i t i I::?S and clther chc1r a,: tel' i st i ': ~~ 0 f th':.se uni t s. C. "<:evif:~w of thf.? pO!:isibility of rezoning ,:only the undeveloped - portions of the PUD, does not reveal a gain of any kind to be achieved by the residents of the PUD or by the City. Conversely there would be a loss of control by the Tuscawilla HomeOwners Association of land in tll\:~ fnicldlt:;" of thf=~ir- dt::!v€.,:,lopment and the lE:!g~:\1 pr.hlems SLId', Y-l'?zoning . \;;..../.woulcJ cau~;e .:ould be m.:)nstrc'Lls. D. Examination of the City Code to compare the kinds and amounts of protections given to home owners in all the residential zoning districts presently described, reveals that there are no protections, covenants, requirements, etc. for other zoning districts that are not also available to residents of a PUD. As a matter of fact the requirements of Article XIV, Part A, relating to PUD Zoning, are much more restrictive as to the kinds of development allowed and the need for any new development to be complimentary and compatible to abutting dE~VEd opil1f:~nt f.:;. E. It is therefor the recommendation of the P&Z Board that the Tuscawilla PUD not be broken up into any of the existing residential zoning districts prescribed by the City Code, nor to new zoning districts. It is the recommendation that the Tuscawilla PUD retain the pun zoning designation. 4. The Board has examined in depth the presently undeveloped land in the pun to see if the changes that have occurred over time indicate a better use of than originally planned for those lands. A. The land at the eastern end of Winter Springs Blvd., bounded on .. the north by Unit 14, on the t'!ast by the .:ity c.f Oviedo, c.n the ~:;outh ~.by the proposed Duda Commercial development and on the west by Bear Creek is presently designated for commercial development. It is felt by the Board that the best use of this land is going to depend to a great deal on the Duda development plans. The recommendation of the Board therefor is in the form of alternatives. (1). If the Duda conne.:tion is'.i to Winter Springs Blvd. within our city limits, Winter Springs Blvd. should be blocked at the bridge over Dear Creek and the land use remain as commercial. (2). If the Duda connection is to Winter Springs Blvd. within the limits of Oviedo, Winter Springs Blvd. should end at the Seneca intersection and the land use changed to residential. (3). If the Duda development does not connect on to Winter SprinQs Blvd. then the land use should remain as commercial. (4), If the land LIse desigantiQn rt7)mains "c.:)mmercial" the types of commercial development allowed should be that which is open only during normal working hours, is not a source for noise, night lights or provide a place for undesireable congregating. B. It 1S the opinion of the Board that the undeveloped land in the sc,--callr-:?d "cc.mm(?rcial .:';:.re" whi.:h is presently thc~ subje.:t ,::of the . vesb?d rights discussi.:,n, bt":KaLISe c.f chanDes to the PUD that have ___ occ Llr r ed .::over time, is no 1.:.nger appr opr i at e f Cor commerc i i.il development and indeed has little, if any, viable future as such. The Board recommends the following: e-. .~ . (1). That part of the land bounded on the west and northwest by Northern Way, on the south and southeast by Winter Springs Blvd. and on the northeast by the FP&L right of way, less the existing fire station, telephone company, office, day care, 7-11 and sales office, be redesignated to multi-family with a density no greater than ten un i t~:; pl""r a,: r E:!. (2). That part of the land bounded by Northern Way, the FP&L right of way, Winter Springs Blvd. and Georgetown be redesignated multi-family with a density no greater than seven units per acre. C. The Board recommends that the land presently designated for apartments, bounded on the west by the perimeter of the PUD, on the north by S.P. 434, on the east by Howell Creek and on the south by the railroad tracks, remain as designated for apartments. D. It is the opinion of the Board that the land use designation of "singlE~--fc':\mi.ly" pn:~sently c~ssignE~d tc. Unit 1::; is no ll:lngf:'~r c~pprclpriatE~ to the entire Unit. The eastern boundary of this unit is not only close to the proposed beltway and the beltway intersection with S.P. 434, but it also abuts land already designated commercial and which will probably, because of its proximity to the aforementioned intersection, have a quite intense commercial developmerit. Similarly S.P. 434 is to be widened to four lanes and is anticipated to be a heavily trafficked thoroughfare. It is the recommendation of the Board that the land use designation of Unit 15 along S.P. 434 extending to the south for a distance no greater than 500 feet be redesignated to "o::ommt;)rcial". Thf? r'I,;~maindE~r of Unit 1~) to bt'~ rf'~d(?signatE.~cf rE!~::.;:i.d(~ntial with a mixture of low density multi-family and single family and the mUlti-gamily providing a buffer between the commercial and single-family areas. 5. Just as the Board did not have unanimity in its recommendations as to the best land use for the undeveloped areas of the PUD, it is recognized that there will not be whole-hearted acceptance of all the Board's recommendations by any individual or organization. The recommendations are however the solutions agreed to by the majority of thE~ BOCl.rd. F.~f.:~speo: t fully Cienl"" Dorman Chairman