Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 07 08 Regular . . . MEMORANDUM To: From: Re: CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (407) 327-1800 July 10, 1991 Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher Mary Norton, City C1er~ Request of Highlands Homeowners' Association for Reconsideration of Sidewalk - Commission Meeting July 8, 1991 Attached please find verbatim minutes of Jan. 28, 1991 relative to the above referenced item as per your request. .~ .~~~tllW~~ , jUN 13 199\ lan~ Homeowners' , Association. u --. CTY oj Wlili L:\ '~\)F:l~,k, CITY f~il\l~~:;C;ER 675 Shepard Road Winter Springs, Florida 32708 (407) 327-0640 June 12, 1991 "', Mr. Richard Rozansky' City of Winter Springs 1126 State Rd. #434 Winter Springs, Fl. 32708 Dear Mr. Rozansky: . 'On yanuary 28, 1991, the City Commission granted a variance to the code, eliminating the sidewalk on the east side of Highlands ~akes. I have enclosed the Minutes of the meeting concerning this matter for your review along with the request from Flori~a Land and Mr. Koslov's recommendation. The Highlands Homeowners' Association (HHOA) was not aware of , this request nor were any of our members present at the meeting. Had we been present, we certainly would have objected to this variance. During several informal staff meetings, the HHOA 'was assured that the sidewalk would be included in the plan. It is the opinion of the Highlands' Board of Directors and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) that the sidewalk is vital to the overall master plans of the PUD. Presently, the City i~ building a sidewalk o~ the east side of Sheoah Blvd. across from the tennis courts all the way to "Shepard Rd. Hopefully, as money is appropriated, the sidewalk will ,continue on the northern side of Shepard Rd. to the perk pond property. It is our hope that eventually as the remaining property is developed, the sidewalk would continue to Edgemon Ave. ,If the sidewalk is built on the east. side, it would provide for the least amount of curb cuts and thus have a long uninterrupted distance. This plan is designed for the safety of the residents who walk, jog or cycle through the community and would be esthetically appealing as well. .' . City of Winter Springs page 2 It is ,our belief that any major changes to Highlands Lakes must first be approved by the HHOA and the ARB. Therefore, we request thQt this subject be placed on the Agenda at the June 24th. Commission meeting for re-consideration. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated by the Association. f Sincerely, {~ih. j)~ Kathleen M. Degrenia Executive Director . KMD/mjr cc:' f i.l e encl. . ", \ \ :.\\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \~\ \\~\ \ \\h\ \\ \ \ \\\ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \ '\ \ \ \ ,,' , " ' ,/' " ,,'" " ' '" '" " ,- " " '" '" '" '" " .I~'" //,,:> / ,;> ___.... /,r --......~...... II ....:;:J / '/ // /1j //.. , //0" /1'" ,/ ;1 , / ' // ..Ae'6u.ud'~ ~ 1/ II " . wadL / / .,.,;.." 'J..wtU1.L~ II ", -u I', , III f'~ ~"'-- -":."'2- '",,, =-- _ _ __ __ _ __ 0 ____ _ _ _ _ J :_ ==~~'1 . , -:--------;;T,.,:rf:--~P:O--~_;4--------- ~,~~. r ~. . I, ., '" Zoo J:i~!.!: E:.!!.. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ --------------- CIT"! ort , I' W.N"'.... SP....,...'" \ PONDS . OVERALL ~hlZ"T N".... M"p 'll"ffiigl \lands . l 'n{' '., ... ", '->, , ' . January 25', 1991 Commonwealth ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES ISCORPORATED CONSULTING ENGINEERS Atter:ltion: Mr. Leonard T. Koslov, P.E. City Engineer PreSIdent John D. Froscher, P.E., e.O. Vice Presidents James e. Boyd, P.E. DavId E. Allen, P.E. SenIor Associate Stephen E. Bailey, P.E. ASSOCIates Dou!-:las O. MeBriarty, P.E. Neeo M. Duwney Thomas F. Wille. A.ET. Thomas J. McCann, P.E. City Commission City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, Florida 32708 f Re: Highland Lakes Sidewalk Variance Request Commonwealth Project. No. 204-05-2"1 Honorable Commission: On behal f of our Cl ient, we are requesting a variance to the sidewalk requirement (Section' 9-221 of the LOC) which requires sidewolks to be constructed on both sided of a roadway. We propose to construct sidewalk, in our project, along the west side of Shepard Road only. Along all. other proposed roadways, we will construct sidewalks on both sides, as required by code. The reasons for this request are, as follows: 1 . No sidewalk has been installed along the east side of the existing portion of Shepard Road to the north. . . 2. Any development along the east side of Shepard Road, adjacent to this project, will be in Seminole County and be of an industrial .or commercial land use fronting on County Road 419. Development of this nature should not be permitted rear access onto Shepard Road into a residential area. 3. A sidewalk along the west side (residential side) of Shepard Road, as constructed to the north of this project, would benefit th,e residence of this project. However, a sidewalk along the east side of. Shep~rd Road would be redundant and would cause the unnecessary removal of trees which will be providing a buffer from non-residential development to the east. We appreciate the Commission's indulgence in this matter and hope far a favorable ruling and granting of this request. . Inc. ~~~~UW1r~ JAN 25 1991 cc: Mr. Mr,' Mr. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS Land Development Coordinator,' FAX & US ">, dom/koslav.025/flm/praj/Chrano/via: HD · 2180 WEST S.R. 434, SU.ITE 3100 · LONGWOOD, FLORIDA 32779.5010 . (407) 788.8111 . FAX (407) 774.4002 . . . . --. January 25. 1991 TO: City Manager City Engineer~ Highland Lakes - Preliminary Engineering FROM: SUBJECT: The, revised preliminary ~ngineering for the Highland Lakes project was received on January 24. 1991. All issues of the City's October 5. 1990 letter have been addressed except for the matter regarding the twelve (12) inch water line that is to come down ' Shepard Road. This issue.will have to be resolved by the City Commission in conjunction with the developer. Mr. Ron Campbell. Florida Land Company. ". On Sheet 2 of 3 of the engineering. there is a note stating "Shepard Road requires a 6" W,M.. and 8" W.M. is to be installed'per request,by the City of Winter Springs. The City of Winter Sprin~s to pay the difference between the two", It was publicly stated before the City Commission on January 14. 1991 that the Utility Department-West required a twelve (12) inch water main in lieu of a 6 or 8 inch water main on Shepard Road as per the Master Water Plan,previously approved by the City COl1~ission. The Utility Director publicly stated that he made an error in originally requesting that an e,ight (8) inch line be installed. In addition. Section 9-261(b) of the Land Development Code states "In ~o event shall the City be required to pay the cost of the installation of the water and sewer trunk line system." Therefore. the developer. Florida Land Company. will b~ required to pay for all costs for water and sewer installations. If the developer wishes to have these costs shared. he would have to go to the Board of Adjustment to obtain a variance co this requirement. Next. the developer. Florida Land Company. wishes to delete the need for a sidewalk on'the east side of Shepard Road. Since the east side of the Shepard Road right-of-way is adjacent to the City limits (boundary). it is .., recommended that the Commission grant this request. Reference Section 9-221 (b) Land Development Code. A letter from the Engineer of Record is attached. Ifg ee: Land Development Coordinator Utility Director-West Terry Zaudtke-C.P.H. Buiiding Official Public Works Director " . . Regular Mect~ng, City Commission! Jan. 28, 1991 I P!!fi@ t 9 0" n"'6 Mr. Zaudtke explaincdthe 12'1 line in the computer analysis that was performed on a day-to-day basis without fire flow shows in the future, when that is connected, we have a demand of over 600 gallons per minute going throllgh that'end of the loop. He said the significance of it is we need to provide in this area, the residentia~ area, by Code, 500 gallons per minute in addition to the maximum day and we need to provide 1250 gallons per minute for any industrial or commercial establishment. That is the basic reason for the l2"line. Mr. Gerald Chancellor, Robinson St., Orlando, spoke for the development. Motion was made by Commissioner Partyka that we allow the development of this project with 12" piping that is paid by the developer. Additionally, that th~ sidewalk on the east,side would be eliminated in terms of a variance to Code, and that the west side have a sidewalk per the letter and recommendations by Mr. McBriarity. Seconded by Commissione~ Langellotti. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Langellotti, aye; Commissioner Donnelly, aye; Commissioner Partyka, aye; Commissioner Jonas, aye;, ,,,motion carried. . Presentation/Discussion on Pllrchase of Golf Course-Jack Ahern, Vice Presi~ent, Florida Group Municipal Leasing, Inc.: Mr. John T. Ahern, Florida Group Municipal LeasinR. from Doca Raton, Flor!da, spoke to the Commission. He said his company is presently involved in purchase and lease purchase back to municipalities of facilities needed by municipalities throughout the United States. He said he has negotiated with the owners of Winter Springs Golf facility: He said we did that with the purpose of lease pur'chasing back to the City of Winter Springs that facili~y. The cost that we pay for the facility is $4,800,000 and we project to turn the facility back to the City of Winter Springs on a 240 month lease purchase for a cost of ~42,57l.30 per month, which the 240 equal payments would equal 20 year lease purchase4 At the end of said lease purchase, the property would revert to the City for the cost of $1.00. Mr. Ahern said in the year 1989 or the early part of 1990 the present owners projected a revenue base of $1,370,000 income vs. $840,000 expense ratio. The 'unaudited figures show $1,372,453 income of revenue vs. $841,041 outgo on expenses. The 240 equal payments of $42,571.37 which worked out to $510,804 per year on a rental basis vs. $526,000 profit on revenue basis which includes $20,~00 f6r the existing three partners which raises that to $546,000. In addition the City pays the golf course roughly 30 to$J5,000 per year for spray effluent which raises that number $576,000, giving the City a net operatinR profit for the year 1990 if the City had owned it, approximately $66,000 per year profit. The owners projected 50,000 rounds of golf for the year 1990. Their actual count comes up to :55,184 rounds. Discussion followed. Dr. Sinthro, Greenspointe, John Ferring, Baltic Lane, Mr. Carpenter, Greenspointe, Susan Reid, Hayes Road, Terri Meta Aloha Court, all spoke in discussion. . Motion was made by Commissioner Partyka to tabl~ until the n,ext meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Donnelly. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Langel10tti, aye; Commissioner Donnelly, aye;" Commissioner Partyka, aye; Commissioner Jonas, aye; motion carried. -- -- -. .-- -- , ",-"c '.~' .~~~_.'__~_.'_.'~'___~________a__.______ _.___~.. 1"-'" . "'''- . . Conklin, ~ort.r and Holm.. ~ ~ ENGINEERS. INC. MlO W. FULTON STREET POST OFFICE 80X 11176 SANFORD. FLORIDA 32172-111711 TEL 407-322-6841 TEL 407-831-5717 fAX U07-33~1I MEMORANDUM TO: City of Winter Springs Attn: Mr. Richard Rozansky Terry M. Zaudtke, P.E. Master Plan Water Mains CPH Project No. 6136.11 January 21, 1991 FROM: RE: DATE: Attached please find a sketch of the water mains in the immediate vicinity of the Dayron Ponds. We have shown the 12-inch water main extension from Shepard Road to Edgemon Avenue and then up to S.R. 419. The water main has been highlighted for easy identification. The 12-inch line along the Dayron Ponds will be constructed by the City to allow service to the southern properties. It is anticipated that each developer along the line will extend the 12-inch line along their respecti ve properti es. By extendi n9 the 112-i nch 1 i ne as shown, a distribution loop will be formed; thereby providing better water distribution and fire protection. 1 / 21 i~ 1 A . r-- , \ \ ---, \ I \ , 2. P"w'C \ . ; ~ ~ ',' I III;(IOOSJ \ I" I'" ,.' \ R! ~ l' I. rtC . ~ C/ \ \ IICC I 00iI1 \ · P'f'C L', I 2. P'f'C \ IlCtlOOll \ I. P"w'C l.ct I OOT] \ ,. nc \ I"'~I \ ,. nc ' . ' 1...00031 .\.....- _ ___ , 2" 'VC \ . , L' ., ~~'f\ \- ' rM~J/" ) 7\ PROPOSED, ,- 2. f"IIC (/- / ,1../ \ SITE1 \'\ \ '....0001' '" / / I ~ \ \ I" P'f'C , ' tfJ::I~ /" /~,/ " " ': '\~ ' ~\~~\..(, '~" / ~~ (./ \ ", S':"# ,/ ,~' ./ \ " II" 111:., r r:~<;'~t.:\ ~k~ \ , . /, /~10071 (~~ . \\'::;:\ '/ " " '(j'\~~ \0\';:. \ V.," . '/ / I .,) '" / '/ , .~ "" " _ ' / /,. ,.vc I HIGHL.AND' .1;>',- ,.,'~// IIIPIOOII \. _ VI LlAGE T'h'O ___..- ~ \ '- ......,; ,{ ~ , , "' ...' . . I ---- '. '. .~ "Y~ I .~h ,. P'\IC ~', 'J . , , " \ . . / , . : e;~~~.!h.t~, .. . 'f \ t 1J"\lC \ 1-.170031 . (/AYfl-loN PE.F\G, poNO-'? \ \. i .. \ . '0 i \ \ '. .. , . t ~ . \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ . \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ , , , \ . , , , , , Conklin, ~ort.r and Holm.. ENGINEERS, INC. a 500 w, FUL TON STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1876 ~ ~ SANFORD, FLORIDA 32772.1916 8M PVC c- ,'\ , LEGEND PROPOSED 12" PVC PROPOSED 8" PVC MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN .. . . ~ , . , , , \ "" " -~.~--,., '-. "" ....~.~....-..,......-.-.-. .................-......... - . ;. f;, . ',,--, . '- . , . January 25. 1991 TO: City Manager City Engineer~ Highland Lakes - Preliminary Engineering FROM: SUBJECT: The revised preliminary engineering for the Highland Lakes project was received on January 24. 1991. All issues of the City's October 5. 1990 letter have been addressed except for the matter regarding the twelve (12) inch water line that is to come down Shepard Road. This issue.will have to be resolved by the City Commission in conjunction with the developer. Mr. Ron Campbell. Florida Land Company. On Sheet 2 of 3 of the engineering. there is a note stating "Shepard Road requires a 611 W.M.. and 8" W.M. is to be installed per request by the City of Winter Springs. The City of Winter Springs to pay the difference between the twoll. It was publicly stated before the City Commission on January 14. 1991 that the Utility Department-West required a twelve (12) inch water main in lieu of a 6 or 8 inch water main on Shepard Road as per the Master Water Plan previously approved by the City Commission. The Utility Director publicly stated that he made an error in originally requesting that an e~ght (8) inch line be installed. In addition. Section 9-261(b) of the Land Development Code states "In no event shall the City be required to pay the cost of the installation of the water and sewer trunk line system.I' Therefore. the developer. Florida Land Company. will be required to pay for all costs for water and sewer installations. If the developer wishes to have these costs shared. he would have to go to the Board of Adjustment to obtain a variance to this requirement. Next. the developer. Florida Land Company. wishes to delete the need for a sidewalk on the east side of Shepard Road. Since the east side of the Shepard Road right-oi-way is adjacent to the City limits (boundary). it is recommended that the Conwission grant this reque t. Reference Section 9-221(b) Land Development Code. A letter from the Enginee of Record is attached. Jfg cc: Land Development Coordinator Utility Director-West Terry Zaudtke-C.P.H. Building Official Public Works Director ,Q\r l,O()'j' ~ .1 r" Soo ~ - --- -. . . \-- J . \ " /--.. '-'" . . I \ ," '. ;.')' I : .' .' I . . I . ;.-..:.... . ,Commonwealth /ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES . CONSULTING ENGINEERS INWlu'ullAlW . . January 25, 1991 1111, ') " .. -\ ; ~ .~.:j I ~ 11 Pre.ideol Juhn D. Fro.cher. r.E.. C.O. Vice l're.iJenr. J..me. C. lluyJ, r.E. D..viJ E. Allen. I'.E. Senior A..ociall: SIl.:phen E. B..i1ey. P.E, A..ac,..'e. Doul:la. O. McBriarry. r.E, Necu M. Downey Thuma. F. Wille, A.EJ". Thoma. J, IvIcCann. I'.E, City COlMlission City of Winter Springs' 1126 East State Road 4~4 Winter Springs, Florida tJTX OF l'l'i/'.... . - I "t.l! "1'''........ ....... "lIY - U .'H,w,:, ........ "" [I" "J "[- . .- . · Lo h EU ~2708 Attention: Mr. Leonard T. Koslov, P.E. City Engineer Re: Highland Lakes Sidewalk Variance Request Co"~onwoalth Project No. 204-05-2B1 Honorable COlMlission: On behalf of our Client, we 'are requesting a variance to the sidewalk requirement (Section 9-221 of the LDC) whiCh requires sidowalks to be constructed on both sided of a roadway. We propose to construct sidewalk, in our project, along the west side of Shepard Rood only. Along all other proposod roadways, we will construct sidewalks on both sides, os required by code. The reasons for this request ore oS follows: 1. No sidewalk has been installed along the east side of the' existing portion of Shepard Road to tho north. j Any development along the east side of Shepard Rood, adjacent to this proJect, will bo in Seminole COLlnty and be of on industrial or cam/llQrcial land use fronting on County Road '.'9. Dovolopmont:. of this nature should not be permittod roar access onto Shopard, Road into a residential area. 2. ~. A sidewalk along the west side (residpntial side) of Shopard Road, as constructed to tho north of thiS proJect, would benefi t the residence of this proJect. Howevor, a sidewalk along the east side of Shepard Road would be redundant and would causo the unnecessary removal of trees which will be providing a buffor frolll non-residential dovelopment to the east. We appreciate the Commission's indulgence in this matter and hope for a favorable ruling and granting of this request. cc: Mr. Donald LeBlanc, ity af Winter Springs, via: HD Mr. Gerald Chancellar, Chancellor & Associates, via: Mr. Ron Campbell, Florida Land Company, v1a: FAX & US FAX & US dom/koslov.025/flm/praJ/chrana/via: HD .2180 WEST S.R, ..l... SUITE 3100. LONGWOOD. FLORIDA 32779.5010. (407) 788.8111 · FAX (407) 774.4002. IV- . . . . . HIGHLANDS LAKES FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING Mayor Kulbes asked LeBlanc to speak. Mr. Kozlov. LeBlanc stated he will turn this over to Kulbes stated he wants to ask a simole question. As you know we sent them back at the last meeting to make sure that all of your inauiries were responded to. Have they been responded to. Kozlov stated yes they have Mr. Mayor. Kozlov stated that the only issue that stands out now is the issue over the 12 inch line coming down the Shepard Road, that's the only issue that is outstanding. Kozlov stated he would like to raise one other issue, it was in my memo, I think you all have it, is that the developer would also like to eliminate the sidewalk on the east side of Shepard Road. I have mentioned that I do recommend, I do support that, for the simole reason is that the east side borders the City boundary, if you will, and on the opposite side of that boundary is a commercially zoned area in the County, so there really wouldn't be a need for a sidewalk. but that is a decision the Commission will have to make. Kulbes said can we hear now from our consulting engineer on the issue of the 8.6. or 12 inch water main. Terry Zaudtke stated he prepared a sketch that he provided to the City Manager which he was going to distribute to the Commission. The sketch was taken from this drawing here, which shows the various lines in detail in question. What I have done on this map here is I have expanded, Kind of a spear of influence, in the master plan what I have shown here in green, is the existing 12 inch line, what I have shown in blue is the 12 inch line that will be extended by the City as part of the master plan. What I've shown in pink is what we have anticipated being extended by the developer as they come on board. Prior to this. you'll see one area here that is not color coded, in this area here it splits between the 10 and 8 and loops back in. If you look at a 10 and a 8 combined together in that short distance and in a loop they are an equivalent to about a 12 inch line. The 12 inch line in the computer analysis that was preformed on a max day basis without fire flow shows that in the future that when that is connected we have a demand of over 600 gallons per minute going through that end of the loop. Now the significance of it is if we need to provide in this area here by code, the residential area, 500 gallons per minute in addition to the max day, and we need to provide 1,250 gallons per minute for any industrial or commercial establishment, the City, the former City Hall, the Senior Citizen Center now, would be considered a commercial establishment and the VFW there on the corner. So to provide them with the future fire flow, this loop is going to be put in a greater service over a period of time, that's the basic reason for the 12 inch loop. I also have in the files, provide this drawing, that was submitted as part of the PUD many years ago, it was the ancient master plan, and it shows the same 12 inch loop that we are trying to accomplished today. Kulbes stated - I have a question for you then Terry, go back to the other map, in that top portion of the green, right there, that's a 10 inch line? Zaudtke- it splits, a 10 inch goes down Shepard and an 8 inch goes back this way and comes back down through, I'm not sure of the street names, but it doesn't auite go up to Marni Loop, comes back in here, those two, it's like a branch, water will take both paths according to the amount of area that's available to it, travel down eaually and support this 12 inch. This 12 inch was required 'by this developer to comoliment the entire development. Another words add a little leg of 12 inch on here that runs right to the City property there by Dayron. . . . .. .. Kulbes - the black spot there that you have is not colored at all. Zaudtke- that's correct. Kulbes - what area does that cover. Zaudtke - that covers the FRC project, I'm not sure of the section, range, and so forth, but there is about 16 units. Kulbes - that runs along Shepard Road? Zaudtke - yes the 10 inch runs on Shepard, the 8 runs on Marni Drive, and ~~__ back in. Kulbes - My next question is if the master plan for the PUD, which you showed developed some 20 years ago, shows a 12 inch line in that northern section, why wasn't that enforced when the engineering was presented for the development of that area instead of 10 inch line. Zaudtke - I don't know the answer to that, Phil, the only explanation I have is that it is possible that they considered this loop configuration equivalent to a 12 inch. langellotti - Terry, according to this little map here, it shows a 12 inch line stopping at the perk pond, where would that be? Zaudtke - that's this green portion here. langellotti - that's green, so it doesn't matter what's above that, I mean there is a 12 inch right there, that 10 and 6 comes into a 12, There is a 12 existing. Zaudtke - yes, yes, and there is a 12 down here on 419. Jonas - You agree that the 12 inch should go all the way around. Zaudtke - yes. Jonas - You got no problem with that. Zaudtke - no. Jonas - so the only problem we have is who is going to pay for it, is that the big question. and the big problem in question, you know it's gotta go and, Zaudtke - yes. that's the question, and comes down to your decision not mine. Jonas - yeah, at the last council meeting obviously though there was quite a confusion about the 12 inch line all the way around, and of course we definitely got updated without any question, and now we all realize that that's going to go all the way around its needed to go all the way around and now comes the question, I guess it's the only thing left Phil is who's going to pay for it. Kulbes - Any other comments. Donnelly - The other portions of the line that were 12 inch, someone mentioned at the last meeting about developers receiving credit as new development came on line and tapped into those lines. Is there a president for that, in that particular area? Zaudtke - there's, nothing has ever been done by the City that way. Donnelly - So who ever has put 12 inch in there has put it in. Zaudtke - I don't know, prior to the City taking over in October of 84, I don't know what was done, I can not speak for that issue, but the City has not reimbursed the developer for up-sizing lines. Rozansky - I guess the theory being that the develooment up-stream from where we are developing now, had they not been required to put a 12 inch main in, then we wouldn't have adequate water supply where we are now. Each one including the City will be forced to put that "blue" portion in just as we will be forced to construct our portion of Shepard Road. I don't believe, Doug we've never reimbursed anyone for that, have we? That's just part of the requirements, that's in the code, I believe, it calls for that. Partyka - Terry I just have one simole question, if the plan has always been for 12 inch pipe around the City, even going back all the way to 20 years ago, and since then there was a screw-up evidently with the 8 inch and 10 inch pipe, but since then you had a chance to look at it, and basically follows the plan. Why would the developer still be confused on this issue, why is there a bone of contention? Zaudtke - I wasn't involved in understand his argument is the that discussions he doesn't with need the developer but as I the 12 inch to supply his . . . development with water. need. That that's above and beyond what he'd normally Kulbes - On the southern portion of that colored area that you have there, there is another vacant spot, is that going to be a 12 inch line. Zaudtke - yes, we did not address it in this period but there is an 8 inch that will, that the City will add this 8 inch section to camolete this UP, but eventually this will all be 12 inch. These items were ones that were clearly in the master plan, and have been included in the impact fees. Kulbes - okay, I think it is most appropriate now that we hear from the developer. Gerald Chancellor We all along have not really questioned the technical analysis performed by your engineers. The original question we had was we showed a 6 inch water main on our project and we asked to up-size it to an 8 inch water main, and the City said is that what you need and everybody said yes we want an 8 inch so we then put in an 8 inch water main. The 8 inch water main was shown on the plans for several months and reviewed by everybody and then in November it was decided that now we want a 12 inch water main, which at that time is when we asked what was the technical basis for going from an 8 to a 12 inch. I can't say that I totally agree with Mr. Zaudtke, though I must acquest to his technical expertise and his analysis of the project. As far as the Highlands PUD is concerned if he feels a 12 inch is necessary, but I do think it should be kept in mind the number of units that have been lost in the Highlands over the last 20 years that have not been built and the down zoning so to speak, that has gone on even for our own project from a 120 units to 39 units for instance. Now the 12 inch water main, I think Mr. Zaudtke put it very well, the question is, more of a shall we say a policy decision, if you will, on the part of the City Commission, is are others going to be required to pay for oversizing of the water main, for projects that don't necessarily need that oversize. I think that Mr. Zaudtke said earlier the oversizing, I believe he would agree with me, is not really necessary for my project, an 8 inch loop would adequate, wouldn't it? And so the difference between two pipe sizes is really a need on the part of the City assuming of course your analysis etc. are correct, you know we don't have any proof to refruit those. I do think that your development along 419 to the east and south of our project is going to be very limited at best. I think if you look at the aerial you have over there, you'll see that there is not much property left to develop along 419 and anything really north of 419 I believe is in the Spring Hammock, what is going to be the Spring Hammock Reserve one day under the Carl Program. If it's not already claimed by the majority of the regulatory agencies due to the fact that it's swamp and wet so to speak. So I really think the question gets down to, we have a 39 unit subdivision, which even your own experts state, we don't need a 12 inch line for it, and the City desires a 12 inch line to furnish other people. As I stated before I don't have any recollection of what the City mayor may not have done since they acquired the utility in October of 1984, whether you made any oversizing agreements with anyone or not. Apparently you haven't in the past we did do that when Florida Land Co. did own the utility and we did it with the gentlemen that did the little industrial park on 419, which Mr. Zaudtke pointed on his one map where a 12 inch water main exists today and we did another water main extension down Bahama Road in excess of 100 thousand dollars. I realize that those are all past history of some years ago and the City of course today needs to make its own decisions based upon what it wishes to do, so that's pretty much where we stand on the issue, Thank you. Donnelly - Mr. Zaudtke, if Highland Village reduced their' units and Highland Lakes is less than half of what it originally going to be developed to, if the parcel to the south of that, that's yet to be developed, if it were built out to its maximum capacity, after Highland Lakes is, would 8 inches be sufficient? . . . , Given the units. Zaudtke - If you are talking strictly in terms of meeting demand for the area itself. Donnelly given that those units may not be reduced. Zaudtke - and not having a fire demand greater than 500 GPM, which most of these are now moving to residential areas are having 1000 GPM fire demand. That 8 inch line would supply with adequate pressure the demand for those types of units. Partyka - Just to build on that question, again I want to take a long term point of view on this, I want to do what's right for 5, 10, 15 years from now, which is what is the demand for 10-15 years from now, projecting this out to the future, this is what the whole idea is behind this, or should we reevaluate the plan and say do we only need 10 inches even with future considerations, or based on future considerations is 12 inch still the way to go and why. Zaudtke - based on future considerations for the whole service area, the 12 inches is the way to go, because it will supply out towards the 419 area. Partyka so even with the potential down-sizing in the number of units per development that was brought out earlier, even with those considerations but also in addition to the things you know i.e. more gallons needed in terms of capacity in the future. Zaudtke - there is also another thing that occurs, as development has increased in the Highlands, the demand per unit has increased. Partyka - So at this point in time there is still nothing to change your mind that 12 inches is still the right thing to do at this point in time, for now and in the future. Zaudtke - yes, for the master plan, 12 inches is the way you need to go. Partyka - and as part of the master plan, any development that goes into that has to conform to the master plan which is 12 inch piping. Zaudtke - That's in the developer agreement, that's separate from the master plan. The master plan was written as such with that and the developer agreement, that its not included extensions of water mains such as this are not included in the impact for water. The impact fee is developed by, I mean the connection fee is developed by the lines of capital improvements that you have to build to meet future development, so these lines, the capital cost were not included in the calculation for the impact fee, that's why it remained the same as it had been before. Kulbes - Terry I want to make sure that everybody here thinks along the same lines that I am thinking, you mentioned that the 8 inch line is adequate to serve the demand, when you speak of that demand you talking about the residential units development that wi.ll go in there, but you are not addressing the fire capability of 1000 GPM to take care of the proper fire protection therefore the 8 inch line would not provide that capability. Zaudtke - the velocity in the 8 inch line starts to exceed 10 feet per second, which is not a good design criteria. Kulbes - okay so therefore you could not get the 1000 GPM for fire protection on an 8 inch line. Zaudtke - you might be able to if you had adequate pressure back at the water plant, higher pressure pumps and so forth, but with the pumps that you currently have in there, and with the analysis that we did, I would say that that would be questionable. We've also got to do some improvements right next to the plant as time goes on because there is only a 12 inch line coming out of there. Jonas - We could talk about this all night long but we are killing a dead horse here, the 12 inch line has to go in there's no if ands or buts about it, you can't cut it down to an 8 and then come back up to a 12 later on and expect to get the capacity we need. We know the 12 inch line has to go in, the only question we have is who's going to pay for it, is it going to be the developer or is it going to be the City. We can't go down to an 8 and then try to go back up to a 12 anywhere because in the future all the way around that 12 inch line is needed. So we can't talk 8 and we can't talk 10, we've got to talk that 12 inch line has to go in, in order to be able to meet the needs in the future and the ~ . . . . big question is who is going to pay for it. Kulbes - If there aren't anymore questions, I think, unless the developer has some other input that he wants to put in, but I think at this time we're ready for a motion to include the variance to eliminate the sidewalk on one side of Shepard Road and to install the water mains as prescribed by our code. Chancellor - I would just like to make one question, and maybe one clarification. 1000 GPM is not a residential fire flow today in the City of Winter Springs is it? So the 8 inch water main would provide that flow today. Zaudtke - the code does dictate 500 per residential and 1250 per commercial/industrial. Chancellor - and we of course have a residential development. Kulbes any other comments by the Commission, I look for a motion then to approve the preliminary engineering plans for the Highland Village with the exclusion of the sidewalk on the east side and the requirement that a 12 inch line be installed to provide service to the area. . Jonas - Phil, I won't accept that motion, there's one particular thing that I talked to the developer about, one thing I want to happen in this development is that one of the aspects that we talked about is that in this particular case in the valid point of getting Shepard Road through was that we had to do everything as a council to try to be as safe and to do things that are going to create safe situations. Now we are going to eliminate the sidewalk on one the side only because it borders Seminole County, but there is an agreement that can be made where the sidewalk can go on the opposite side of the road, and I would like to see that happen. I want the sidewalk on the opposite side of the road and when the City comes to build their strip I want the City to continue that sidewalk down so that it goes all the way to the clubhouse. So with that road easement coming though, I want the sidewalk on the opposite side, we have a good legitimate question on the boundary line being in Seminole County but lets go down the other side with that sidewalk and go all the way down to the clubhouse so that we can provide the safety needed for the people in that development. Kulbes - Mr. Jonas, there is a sidewalk in existence now on the west side of Shepard Road that serves the residents of that area now. So I don't see why you want to put it on the east side. Jonas - But Phil, you are going to come up through the City property, the City is going to build a road right? Kulbes - Not that I know of. Jonas - The City has to go through their property with a road then they are going to build their road to meet then we got the far property that goes out to Edgemon which is going to be another road in so the sidewalk evidentually will come from Edgemon all the way down to the developed part of the Highlands. Kulbes - that's correct, along the west side. Jonas - along the, east to west, from the 419 side to the opposite side. Langellotti - I agree with you Don. Kulbes - Gentlemen, I suggest that a motion that would be in order, if you don't like that motion, I'm open for a motion at this time. . Partyka - I would like to make a motion, That number 1: We allow the development of this project with 12 inch piping, that is paid by the developer, additionally that the sidewalk on the east side would be eliminated in terms of a variance to the Code, and that the west side have a sidewalk per the letter and recommendations by Mr. McBriarity. Second: Langellotti. Vote: Langellotti: aye; Donnelly: aye; Partyka: aye; Jonas: aye. Motion carried. <""'-. FELLOW COMMISSIONERS & MR. MAYOR: IT SEEMS 1 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 OOSTS AND DAMAGES. II - I WOULD LIKE TO KNOt\' 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. TI~~" 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 ril, TO HAVE A MORATORILN ON NEW OONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES/TOt\'NHOUSES AND THEN MADE ANOTHER MOT I ON LATER ON REZON I NG TUSCAW I LLA TO R 1-AA, AND I HAVE BROl..lGiT I T UP AGA I N ,- RECENTLY. AS YOU KNeW, I AM NOT A ONE MAN SHOIJ BUT ,PART OF A 5 MEMBER COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION APPROVES OR DISAPPROVES MOTIONS MADE BY ANY COi'1'1ISSIONER. ~ ,- 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 OONSISTENTLY BEEN FOR REZONING? BECAUSE MY OONSTITUENTS 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 ""O(,..tl c'1 t~..! RES I GNED BECAUSE I PERSONALL Y COULD NOT GO ALONG WITH MR. MIKES ~ " -..-.-.. _ r. -, _ _ ~ .", ,........,"'''''.,....... ,_.__..l. ? ...~ "_ . __11 I _L_...~l__ JI ~- ~ __ _ ,. II JQII, ~- r 1-- _ ~. I In _,._._.. 1 r ---.=-- .-.- -" ", ~ I FELT I NEEDED TO RESIGN. ~ LI ~ MR. MIKES' RESPONSE WAS TO BLACK 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. NOt\' I WONDER WHETHER OTHER RESIGNED "'~re:. MEMBERS ARE BLACKBALLED AND TREATED THIS WAY. MR. MIKES ALSO SPOKE TO ME~ON FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1991, ~ AND. DURING THE OONVERSATION THREATENED ME WITH A FINANCIAL LAWSUIT AND ALSO MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD TRY LEGALLY NOT TO HAVE ME VOTE ON ISSUES OONCERNING 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 NOt\' THAT I WILL NOT BE THREATENED OR OOERCED INTO A POSITION THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IN. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SUE ME, SO BE IT. PAGE 3 It IJ v-r~ ) '" (,.. BUT WE AS THE ooVERN I NG BODY SHOULD NOT BE COERCED OR THREATENED INTO S()lq~ I11I tlti! ~ (~.5!fL .~ .. .... -....... ... - ___...'W.o . _. __'-,-'" _, ._ .____n. .., --...;;_ ? .--- .-.-. - -.,~ --~J_ Jlrn!..... THANK YOU, - PAUL P. PARTYKA DEPUTY MAYOR .- -. :.;.: \,.;.;.i 1 7 t"I.::'1 y 1 '::'i8 ':1 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 & l B,:.ard to" [H~t together with the .:ity staff for the purp.::ose 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 that i:lre in the intE?rests of the publi.: r€'~solvt?d". 2. T~le P&Z Board has .lad several workshops Wit~l t~le 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 PUD that do not reasonably fall within the existing zoning districts~ (C), the possibility of rezoning 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 ~;:i'-l(: h fo; t i:, t elllE'n t ~:i. 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-1AAA zoning district. To assign R-1AAA zoning to Tuscawilla would require about 150 variances to the City Code. Similarly to assign R-1AA would t'i:~ql.lir't? i:..dmo~~t 100 variances c.~nd f.:-1A W'::OLlld require ab':'Ld; s~eventy five variances. The number of variances required are for units as a whole and not for individual homes. B. Examination of the of the physical characteristics of the residential units presently existing in the various sections of the TU5cawilla 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 types, densities and other characteristics of those units. - c. Review of the possibility 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' 1;s5 of control by the Tuscawilla HomeOwners Association of land in the middle'of their development and the legal pr~hlems such rezoning -'. \.......:wOLlld caLlse ,:oLlld be m.::onstroLls. 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~velopment~:;. 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 PUD zoning designation. 4. The Board has examined in depth the presently undeveloped land in the PUD 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 east by the .:ity of Oviedo, on the ~;oLlth by the proposed Duda Commercial development and on the west by Bear '-"Cr€i!t~k is presently desi~~n'::'1ted f,::oy' .:ommercial d~'i!velopment. It is ft:~lt 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 connection is 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 Llse desigantion n.'i!mains ",:,:.mmer,:ial" 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 15 the opinion of the Board that the undeveloped land in the .sl:'--o:~':\llr~d "o:.:.mm(~r.:ial ,:o:ore" whi,:h is presently 'thc~ subje,:t .::of the vested rights discussion, because of changes to the PUD that have ____ o,:cL\rred ,::over time, is no l.:,nger appropri.:.'\te f.::.r ':':'mmerl:i.:~l development and indeed has little, if any, viable future as such. The Board recommends the following: -' (1.). Tho:\t pc'':lrt of thE! 1 and b':'Llnd(,~d on the Wf.'~~,;t 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 uni ts p(~r acrE:? .......-.. . (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 ,::.f the Bc,ard that thE~ land usf.-~ designation c.f "singlE!--fc':lmily" presently .:~ssi9ned to Unit 1.5 is n.:;. l,:)ngf?!r appropriatf?! 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 "cQmmt;)rci,al ". T~H? Y'(~\maindE!r of Unit 1:-5 to bE! rf?d(.?!!::,;iqnc':"tE~d rE~sid(;!ntial - with c'':\ mi~d;ure of low den!5ity multi--family and single family .;:l,nd 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 t hI? BOCl,r d. Rf.:~SPf?ct fully !3(?ne Dormc":\n Chairman ,- . .- CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708 Telephone (407) 327-1800 AGENDA WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COMMISSION - CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MONDAY, JULY 29, 1991 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Department Review: Police, Fire, Public Works, Winter Springs Water & Sewer. 4. Adj ournmen t . - ,- Persons are advised that if they decide to appeal any decisions made at these meetings/ hearings they will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose, they may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Section 286.0105 Florida Statutes.