Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 07 12 City Commission Regular Minutes . 92-93-22 . REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS JULY 12, 1993 The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Philip A. Kulbes at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call: Mayor Philip A. Kulbes, present Deputy Mayor John V. Torcaso, present City Manager John Govoruhk, present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present Commissioners: Don Jonas, present John Langellotti, present Terri Donnelly, present Cindy Kaehler, absent The invocation was given by Commissioner Donnelly and the pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Jonas. Approval of minutes of June 28, 1993: there were no additions or corrections the minutes stand approved as presented. Public Comment: Mel Glickman, Aberdeen Court, spoke about the brochure for the City. He suggested that it be a color brochure, and the extra work would raise the cost $1,900.00, making the total cost $5,000. Mayor Kulbes said he would ask the City Manager if he can find the additional money in this year's budget. . General Agenda: Continued Public Hearing Prior to Transmittal of Amendments to the 1990-2010 Compre- hensive Plan to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and comment: 1. Future Land Use Element; 2. Future Land Use Map: Mayor Kulbes recessed the Commission Meeting and opened the continued Public Hearing. Staff Recommendation: Mixed Use-Residential classification is created only to allow flexibility in the design of residential developments within the currently vacant parcels of the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development, collectively known as the "Remaining Property" by the terms of a court-approved settlement of a dispute between the developer and the City, with the exception of the two commercial portions of Parcels 15 and 61, as stated in the Settlement Agreement. The maximum density shall be in accordance with the Settlement Agreement with no minimum density applied. a. The "Remaining Property" of the Tuscawilla P.U.D. consists of Parcel l4C, Parcel 15, Parcel 61, Parcel 80 and the Lake Jesup Property. The City Planner, Greg Kern stated the Future Land Use Element Policy 3.A.9. is to apply only to the remaining property of the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development. Upon DCA approval of Future Land Use Element Policies 3.A.l through 3.A.7 which will eliminate minimum densities, Policy 3.A.9. will be withdrawn and we expect approval from DCA on those policies, so we do expect this to be withdrawn. Future Land Use Element Policy 3.C.l.: Staff Recommendation: Impervious Surface Ratio and Maximum Height: uses, intensity of use shall be limited by a and a maximum height of 50 feet. In the mixed use category, for commercial maximum impervious surface ratio of 70% . . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, July 12, 1993 Page 2 92-93-22 Mr. Kern explained with the Future Land Use Element Policy 3.C.l we are elimina- ting reference to floor area ratios. In our Land Development Regulation meetings that we had at the Planning & Zoning Board level, we have agreed to retain maximum height as a development provision and not go with floor area ratios when the Compre- hensive Plan was originally drafted. There was discussion with going with floor area ratios to be consistent with the upcoming Land Development Regulations. Mr. Kern said we are proposing elimination of any terminology related to floor area ratios and the maximum height of any building would remain 50 feet which it currently is within the City. Future Land Use Element Policy 4.A.3.: Mr. Kern stated we are proposing elimination of this policy in its entirety. This relates to the same issue that we discussed two weeks ago regarding the property by S.R. 434 and CSX railroad tracks, majority of which is owned by Mr. Leffler. Basically the City is imposing stringent access requirements as they relate to facilities that are not under the jurisdiction of the City, CSX Railroad and S.R. 434. There is really no reason to impose such stringent access regulations. CSX Railroad and FDOT determine access management and their provisions are very strict, so that would be the most stringent that we would want to adhere to. We would not want to deny access to S.R. 434 for any developments in that area, and it relates to the same issue we covered last meeting. Mr. Ken Leffler then spoke to the Commission. He said about ten years ago the City Manager approached him about having the property north of S.R. 434 and the CSX Railroad brought into the City, and he said he agreed he would do that because at the time the City was looking for some land that it might have for commercial use. As it turned out it was classified something lesser than that, but now it is classified Mixed Use, or will be under the Comprehensive Land Plan. This property is the land currently being farmed, and under the new City Comprehensive Plan there is no farming classification. Once we cease using this as a farm, then we will be looking for some other use for the property, and that could come at any time because the Company of which he is a member and stockholder is no longer in the farming business and that land is presently being leased to a person for farming. Mr. Leffler said currently they do have access, there are three approved grade crossings there. He said if they were to develop it, they would have no access to the land if the two policies that have been mentioned here earlier were in existence. This one for instance, would force them to go east from their property across other landownerships that they have no control over to get access to SR 434. The other policy which was discussed earlier would prevent him from crossing the present tracks insofar as any development is concerned. That way he would be denied any access, and no feasible use of the property once the farming operation ceased. Mr. Leffler said the City Manager assisted him, and this was presented to the Planning & Zoning Board. They have recommended that. Mr. Leffler said north of the highway is about 200 acres depending on what the state claims. Then Mr. Kern discussed Annexations. He said annexations are done in two parts. First part the property is annexed in and second part they are assigned land use and zoning. Mr. Kern said that is where we are now. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, July 12, 1993 Page 3 92-93-22 The Shasteen property - proposing lower density residential; The Sprague (Dearborn Electronics) - proposing industrial; The Bergstresser property - proposing industrial; The Voska property - proposing industrial; The Pettit property - proposing commercial The Button/Crescent View Enterprises (proposed High School site) - proposing mixed use. Future Land Use Map Amendments: Mr. Kern explained these properties have all been coded with a Land Use Classification adopted April 27, 1992, sent to DCA and found in compliance. At this point we are going back and reviewing those classifications that were assigned to those proper- ties and we are proposing certain changes: 1. Springs Land amendment proposal is to go from mixed use to commercial. The underlying zoning is Commercial C-l; the City has approved development plans for 180,000 square feet retail operation plus over 3~ acres of out parcels of commercial on this property. The owner is currently going through a vested rights application to determine and acquire a vested rights permit. This property has always been a commercial interest. This was coded mixed use as part of the Town Center concept. There were several parcels around City Hall that were coded the mixed use. It was part of the former Planner's overlay zone of a Town Center. The provision specifications for that overlay zone were never specified to the Planning & Zoning Board. The former Planner could never really come up with a concrete definition of what type of standards or provisions would apply and ultimately, prior to adopting our Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, the Town Center concept was abandoned. Mr. Kern said what we are doing now is looking at the land use classification that has been assigned to these properties that really is contrary to some of the plans for these properties. 2. Schrimsher Properties-the amendment is to go from rustic residential to commercial. The existing zoning is C-l. Mr. Kern explained he wrote a letter to Schrimsher because he had never heard of any residential development that was proposed for this area and he posed that question to them. Mr. Kern said he asked them if they had any plans for a residential development and their response was quick andpointed,no they do not; it has always been commercial and always will be commercial. Mr. Kern said they do not know how it got coded as rustic residential. So the amendment is to go from rustic residential back to commercial. 3. Florida Country Clubs - pursuant to the May 3, 1993 Settlement Agreement, where 8 parcels were laid out across 61 acres for 69 dwelling units; Parcell and 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, 7 and 8; Parcel 8, the portion to be developed in homes is not this large, it is 35 acres. The amendment is to go from Recreation to lower density residential. Attorney Kruppenbacher asked that the beltway easement we received be shown on the map. . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, July 12, 1993 Page 4 92-93-22 4. Joyce Property - The amendment is to go from public buildings to mixed use, the existing zoning is C-2. Currently there is a manufacturing operation and truss mill plant on the site. Mr. Kern explained the reason we are moving to mixed use is to make it compatible with the other proposals and the general area. If the school is not built, the land will have proper designation. Once the facility is built we can go back and change it to public buildings; however, at this point, because public buildings are allowed in any land use classification, this is the recommended way to assign the classification to this property. 5. Winter Springs Development Joint Venture, ParcellS (lC) of the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development - the amendment is to go from commercial to mixed use; this is a 2l~ acre parcel. The applicant wants flexibility for residential develop- ment on this property. The Settlement Agreement spells out to be commercial but the Settlement Agreement also spells out that any land use classifications shall be in- clusive of less intensive land use classifications and in this case mixed use is definitely less intensive than the commercial land use classification. Mr. Kern pointed out if there are any changes to be made to the Settlement Agreement the Agreement does need to be changed. By doing this does not change the Agreement. If they come forward with a residential development on this 2l~ acres, we need to go back and amend that Agreement and we can do that by mutual agreement with Winter Springs Development and passing an ordinance. Winter Springs Development Parcels l4C, 15 (2A & 2B), 15 (3), 80 and 61 - the amendment is to go to the mixed use residential classification that hopefully will be eliminated. The applicant is proposing to change from moderate density, urban density, moderate and moderate density to the new mixed use residential classification. It is in effect a down zoning and will allow flexibility for lower density because that is what the applicant is concerned with. Currently with our Future Land Use designations showing minimum density, the applicant does not have that flexibility. In the moderate density residential it says 3.6 to 6.5 dwelling units per acre and if the applicant or developer comes in and requests 3 units per acre it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This clearly is not the intent of what the plan was trying to do, and that is why we are going back and altering those policies. Again if the DCA approves of our eliminating minimum densities, and our land use classification definition, this will be withdrawn. 11. Parcel 51 Hooker Homes - the request was to go from urban density residential; however, a letter was received today from McIntosh & Associates, and they are withdrawing this request. use amendment is being withdrawn and will not be sent to DCA. density to moderate the applicant, Donald This future land Mr. Kern explained the last three amendments were presented to the Planning & Zoning Board on June 2, 1993 and were denied. The first one is the property owned by Mr. Parker, the applicant. The amendment is to go from mixed use to commercial. The existing zoning is C-l. This is one of the properties Mr. Kern referred to about the Town Center concept. The property was the subject of a rezoning from R-U to C-l back in May 1985. The owner stated at the June 2, 1993 public hearing he was unaware of the change from commercial classification to the mixed use classification. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, July 12, 1993 Page 5 92-93-22 Dick Parker, Kingsley Place, Winter Park, said he had no notice whatsoever that they were changing it from C-l Commercial. He said he started out with C-2, then the Department Head at the time said C-l would get you just about anything you wanted and he suggested Mr. Parker go with the C-l because if he went with something less it would have to be changed later on. Mr. Parker said he never had any indication it had been changed to mixed use. He said he received two affirmative votes from the Planning & Zoning Board. He said he would like to see it go back to C-l instead of the mixed use. Mr. Kern said the City found no records of the public notification to these different property owners. He recommended it go back to commercial and the current zoning is C-l. John Ferring, member of the Planning & Zoning Board, said on this particular piece of property and with a couple others that will be brought up, the notification to the owners the P&Z Board found to be a serious concern, and there was a split vote by the Board to allow commercial zoning in this area. Mr. Kern pointed out the P&Z Board in this amendment and the next two amendments, one of the rationales for the retention of the mixed use classification is they liked the extra requirement for the open space and buffering requirements, etc. Mixed use mandates 20% open space and also states you can hve a maximum of 50% of your gross area for non residential uses. . Lots 28, 29, 30, U.l -The amendment is to go from mixed use to commercial; the existing zoning is C-2 Commercial. Again this is all part of the Town Center concept. Lots 29, 30 and U.l were annexed into the City December 1986 and received Commercial zoning. Lot 28 was rezoned C-2 in 1987. The Future Land Use Map prior to the adoption of our current Comprehensive Plan showed industrial and commercial land use classification. Again there is the question about the notification of the property owners regarding the change from commercial and industrial to mixed use. Attorney Bill Kreuter, attorney with the law firm of Kreuter & Livingston, representing the Blumberg's spoke about this property. He said the City approached the Blumbergs in 1985 and said they would like the Blumbergs to annex into the City because of what was going on here with City Hall being built and a post office across the street, Bill Hatfield's place next door, the railroad on the back of the property. In 1987 this process was completed and it is C-2 on everything except the little parcel, and that is C-l. Then in May 1993 the Blumbergs received a letter in the mail and it said this is a notice of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to conform to the zoning classifications we are going to amend the Plan because the Plan says mixed use and we are going to amend the Plan to make it consistent with the zoning that is on record of commercial. They said "how did it get this? In 1987 we got annexed in as commercial, now you tell us we are something called mixed use, but that is o.k." If the Plan was going to be amended back that sounded reasonable. . About four days later on May 21, 1993 the Blumbergs received another letter and it said the P&Z Board met and have decided not to change it. Then the Blumbergs called Attorney Kreuter and he started looking into this. This applies to the Town Center area, nobody really knew what it was. The City Planner was no longer here and a revision had to go up quickly to Tallahassee and nobody knew what to do with this area . Regular Meeting, City Commission, July 12, 1993 Page 6 92-93-22 around the Town Center, and it was labeled mixed use. Attorney Kreuter said nothing has happened since 1987 that would make this location other than what the plan said back in 1987. He said what has happened is the City Hall is in fruition, it is here and we have the post office. We are going to have a school back here. Attorney Kreuter said the government invaded and changed the atmosphere of what is here and changed the reality of the classification. When the City fathers wanted to have some cooperation they said we need an entrance back here across those railroad tracks, will you let us come across that property? No problem. The bottom line to all this is these folks never were notified, but that is not the most important thing; the reality is what is really consistent here is the commercial zoning that is already there although the Comprehensive Plan rules. At the meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board one of the members made a motion to approve the land use amendment in consistency with what Staff was recommending and it was seconded. He said the comment was made "let's not have this like 17/92". Attorney Kreuter said this is not the local folks that have been here many years before this City Hall existed that have changed the complexity of this neighborhood. It is the government that did. No citizen is trying to change anything. All they want is the consistency the government told them was going to be there in the first place when they asked them to come join this fair City. . The City Planner explained in terms of the designation of the Town Center and the classification of the land as mixed use, the Town Center concept was eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan prior to transmitting it up to DCA. However, we could not go back and change the land use classification mixed use because of the onerous requirement that DCA puts upon you for substantiating any acreage changes and land use classification changes that you have. Knowing that we were eliminating the Town Center concept we could not go back and look at all these parcels and try to amend all the tables that we had to do to justify them going back to commercial. It was too late in the process to reassess all that property knowing at this point we can go back and reassess. Attorney Kreuter said whatever the underlying zoning is, if the Plan were amended to be consistent with that, that would be acceptable. Dennis Salvaggio also noted that no notification was sent out. The City Planner explained the last Land Use Amendment which also was denied by the Planning & Zoning Board Meeting on June 2, 1993 is property owned by William Hatfield. The amendment is to go from mixed use to commercial. The existing zoning is C-l Neighborhood Commercial. The existing use is landscaping company and again part of the Town Center concept. Mr. Kern said that is all the Comprehensive Plan Amendments for this cycle. There were three that were denied by the Planning & Zoning board. The amendments must be transmitted to DCA five days after this Hearing. . Judge Leffler said previously Mr. Jonas asked him a question whether he was satisfied with the classification of mixed use and he did not realize that the 50% non-residential is considered by the Planner as being commercial, but if it does not say that, he said he did not know if he could wisely answer Mr. Jonas' question. He asked "is the City going to take some position as to policy on that, that the non-residential would be Regular Meeting, City Commission, July 12, 1993 . commercial or considered commercial?" Page 7 92-93-22 Mr. Kern said what he was discussing with Mr. Leffler was the City has in its discussion with developers and property owners, implied that in the mixed use definition a non-residential applies to commercial, industrial or public facili- ties; and that is the way it has been interpreted to date. Mr. Kern said basically what Mr. Leffler is asking, should we formally address and at some point in the future, maybe the next amendment cycle, revise the mixed use definition to include some language instead of saying non-residential - it says commercial, industrial, public facilities. Judge Leffler said he did not want to be faced with the situation where he would be told that he misunderstood that; he said he would feel more comfortable with a definition of what the non-residential use would be. Mayor Kulbes closed the public hearing and reconvened the Commission Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Jonas to transmit the amendments as presented to the Department of Community Affairs. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher said in deference to the property owners rights, he just wanted to be sure that we are not in any way misleading the property owners, in this case Judge Leffler. . The City Planner again stated the interpretation by Staff and its discussions with developers ever since we adopted the Comprehensive Plan in April of 1992 has been that non-residential has always been explained as Commercial, Industrial and Public Facilities. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Donnelly, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Jonas, aye; Commissioner Langellotti, aye; motion carried. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that Judge Leffler was one great judge for this community. Public Hearing and Second Reading of Ord. No. 546, amending the 1992-93 Fiscal Year Budget, etc.: Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. No. 546 by title only on second reading. Mayor Kulbes recessed the Commission Meeting and opened the public hearing. No one spoke for or against Ord. No. 546. Mayor Kulbes closed the public hearing and reconvened the Commission Meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Torcaso to adopt Ord. No. 546. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Jonas, aye; Commissioner Langellotti, aye; Commissioner Donnelly, aye; motion carried. First Reading of Ord. No. 547, Code enforcement Board Citation Ordinance, etc.: Motion was made by Commissioner Torcaso to read Ord. No. 547 by title only on first reading. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Jonas, aye; Commissioner Langellotti, aye; Commissioner Donnelly, aye; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; motion carried. . . . . Regular Meeting, City Commission, July 12, 1993 Page 8 92-93-22 Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. No. 547 by title only on first reading. Attorney Kruppenbacher recommended the ordinance be sent to the Code Enforcement Board for their input back to the Commission. Then the Commission will have a second and third reading. Glenn Chiles, Wildcat Court, spoke in discussion of the ordinance. Resolution No. 712, appreciation to Harry Reid for service on the Board of Adjustment: Attorney Kruppenbacher read Resolution No. 712 by title only. Commissioner Torcaso said it should be noted in the Resolution that Mr. Reid served on the Board since 1981. Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve Resolution No. 712 as amended by Commissioner Torcaso. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Langellotti, aye; Commissioner Donnelly, no; Commissioner Torcaso, aye; Commissioner Jonas, aye; motion carried. City Manager John Govoruhk: Presentation of Fiscal Year 1993/1994 Budget: Mayor Kulbes said the City Manager has prepared the Budget for the 1993/94 Fiscal Year and he has done a fine job. All the Commission has received a copy and if anyone has any questions he suggested they get with the City Manager to discuss it. City Manager Govoruhk said a lot of people have put a lot of time into this budget. He pointed out Information Service which is currently under administration, and the programmer Jeanine Marin helped in putting this together as did Mary Willson, Personnel Coordinator and Margo Hopkins, Deputy City Clerk and Harry Martin. The Fire and Police Department helped put together the merit program. Manager Govoruhk said if anyone has any questions to contact him. Commission Seat I - John V. Torcaso: Commissioner Torcaso asked that notification go out to all departments that John Govoruhk is the City Manager and not the acting City Manager. Commission Seat II - Don Jonas: Commissioner Jonas asked the status of the Manager applications. Manager Govoruhk explained all 211 applications have been delivered to the Committee that is reviewing them. Mayor Kulbes said he spoke to the Committee and they hope to have their recommendations to the City by July 23, 1993. Commission Seat III - John Langellotti: No report. Commission Seat IV - Terri Donnelly: No report. Mayor's Office: Motion was made by Commissioner Torcaso to designate Mayor Philip A. Kulbes as the voting delegate for the City of Winter Springs at the Florida League of Cities Convention in Ft. Lauderdale. Seconded by Commissioner Donnelly. Discussion. Vote on the motion was unanimous. . Regular Meeting, City Commission, July 12, 1993 Page 9 92-93-22 Attorney Kruppenbacher said the Attorney for Hubbard Construction contacted him regarding the fact that in the construction of the extension of the beltway there is going to be necessary the delivery of large spans of concrete beams. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he contacted City Manager Govoruhk who advised that he had advised Hubbard Construction that based upon the proposed route down Winter Springs Boulevard which would occur about three or four in the morning, that he did not believe, based upon input from the City Engineer that anybody could adequately assure the City that there would not be structural damage or some other damage to the bridge there or the bridges. Attorney Kruppenbacher said Hubbard Construction has offered to indemnify the City and pay for any damages. Manager Govoruhk has advised Attorney Kruppenbacher that based upon his discussion with the engineers there is no guarantee that those bridges would not sustain structural damage that we would not know about and not find out about down the road. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he supposes there is an expert out there that will say you can test the bridges right afterwards and determine whether or not they are structurally sound, and if they are structurally not sound then Hubbard can pay. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he has not spent any time researching this, and he said he would notify Hubbard Construction tomorrow the City is not desirous of seeing them come down Winter Springs Boulevard, they believe there is a problem. . Attorney Kruppenbacher said his understanding is there is an alternative route down Aloma Avenue. He said he can't say whether we legally have the right or not unless he is told to research it, but if our City Engineer believes that we have a potential problem, he said we ought to stand by that. He said he thinks we have the right to control our roads for the public safety health and welfare. He said he would communicate that on the City's behalf and they are welcome to come to our next meeting. Mayor Kulbes spoke about the request of the Sanford Jaycees to authorize the City to give them 100 to 150,000 gallons of water for Des Moines, Iowa. Meeting adjourned 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~T~ . Mary T. Norton, City Clerk Approved: