Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 11 28 City Commission Regular Minutes --~-.~-------'-'----;-- REGULAR MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS NOVEMBER 28, 1994 The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs was called to order by Mayor John F. Bush at 7:30 P.M. . The invocation was given by Gus Scheuneman, Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Mayor John F. Bush. Roll Call: Mayor John F. Bush, present Deputy Mayor John V. Torcaso, present City Manager John Govoruhk, present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present Commissioners: John Ferring, present John Langellotti, present Cindy Gennell, present David McLeod, present Approval of minutes of November 14, 1994: there were no additions or corrections; the minutes stand approved as presented. Mayor Bush mentioned that this is the last Commission meeting for Deputy Mayor John Torcaso; Mr. Torcaso has served the City well over the years and we are certainly going to miss him, at this time I would like to ask the Commission's consent, I would like to appoint Mr. Torcaso to the Wastewater Transmission Authority; this does not require an elected official, I think Mr. Torcaso would be an excellent representative for the City with his knowledge and experience he has. Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the appointment of Mr. Torcaso to the Wastewater Transmission Authority. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Torcaso: aye. Motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENT Gene Lein, Winged Foot Circle East, President of the Country Club Village Homeowners Association, spoke regarding the development that is taking place across from Country Club Village, Tuska Oaks, the only problem we have is they are moving dirt from that location to another location and the trucks that are taking the dirt out of that area cannot make the V-turn at the intersection of Winter Springs Boulevard and Augusta National Boulevard because it is too steep of a turn for those trucks to make. What they are doing, they are pulling into Augusta National Boulevard maybe 10 or 15 feet and backing down to go towards the Oviedo area. What is happening is about a year ago the City put their reclaimed water line down the side of the road and across Augusta National Blvd. with a utility cut; the City has repaired the utility cut, with the weight of these trucks, it has depressed it enough it is no longer flat, it is maybe an 8 to 10 inch drop in it already. I am just wondering how or who is going to take care of it, and whoever is going to take care of it can they please notify us since Augusta National Blvd. is a private road and we should know what is going on. Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 2 City Manager Govoruhk stated that this is the first he has heard of this and he will check into it first thing in the morning and will get back to Mr. Lein. Discussion. Commissioner Langellotti also mentioned the same trucks are damaging the center island and I think the sprinkler system is being harmed by it so I think we should look into that also. Art Hoffinann, Mt. laurel Drive, spoke on behalf of the Winter Springs Civic Association, and said they want to thank the Police Department for controlling traffic at our recent Holiday Parade, the Recreation Department for helping construct the grand stand and also the Public Works Department for having erected all the pole decorations that are along Tuscawilla Road and S.R. 434. The Staff of the City has done a good job. Approval or Disapproval of Settlement of Lawsuit - Earley vs. City of Winter Springs, Florida, per terms of proposed written Settlement Agreement: Carl Stephens, President of the Ranchlands Homeowners Association, spoke in regards to this item. He stated he is present to convey the feelings of our members and how those decisions came about. As you know there have been several attempts to change the zoning on this land from it's current one house per acre to a much higher density, those attempts have always failed because of the well advertised and above Board procedures involved. Now though through the efforts of at least one Staff person, who is no longer with the City, the zoning was incorrectly and discreetly changed on the Compo Plan without anyone's knowledge until the owner decided he wanted the zoning on his land changed to match the Compo Plan. A neighbor of mine had told me he spoke with a Commissioner and the Commissioner made a statement something to the effect that he, the Commissioner, could vote more intelligently if he only knew what the Ranchlands wanted. This Association has let the Commission know exactly what we wanted from the start. It was only when the Commission wavered in a stance in the mediation process did we have to alter our request to try to lessen the damage of the concessions made by this Commission. When this went before the P & Z Board, we as an Association most definitely let the Board know that we wanted the land to remain at one house per acre~ we were not apposed to development of the property, we just wanted the zoning to remain at one house per acre to be compatible with what actually exists in terms oflot size in the surrounding area. We watched them deny the owners rezoning request, and they also by the way recommended that the Compo Plan be amended to Rustic Residential, one house per acre. We most definitely let the City Commission know what we wanted - the zoning remain one house per acre~ and we watched the City Commission deny the owners request, and we left that meeting with thought that the City would support the issue and amend the Compo Plan. A few months later we learned that the developer was suing the City, this was not really a surprise, everyone expected this right from the start. Later we learned that the City Commission developer would be involved in a mediation~ while this worried us but were told it is just another procedure in this type of law suit and hope that the City would hold it's ground and protect us. Unfortunately we soon learned that the bargaining session resulted in something completely different then what we expected and hoped for from our representatives. Many residents felt discouraged in the many years traipsing down to City Hall to protect our land seemed to be taking it's toll. We called a special homeowners Association meeting Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 3 and invited City Representatives to give us specific details of the mediation. Weare not happy with the results especially since the City seemed to agree to a higher density then even the R-1 AAA of one house per half acre, which would have been in compliance with the Compo Plan. After the City Representatives left our meeting, the members decided that the hope of the City holding it's ground on this issue and protecting us was obviously gone~ therefore because of the City Commission changing it's stance, the members realized that they had to come up with a new set of recommendations in hopes that these recommendations would temper the damaging effects of this higher density development in our area. These recommendations should in no way reflect that we are happy with this development. WE strongly feel that these recommendations need to be followed in order for the proposed development to exist. We have had two meetings to confirm these recommendations with our members. We as an Association have already submitted our recommendations in writing to you but for the record tonight I will read them to you again. Mr. Stephens stated that many developments in this City has walls around them, we feel that of all developments this certainly needs one~ we would like a masonry wall to be constructed as high as City Code allows along the 50 foot buffer, this wall should be constructed all along Fisher Road and that part of Panama Road which borders the development~ the wall would be placed on that part of the buffers edge which measures 50 feet from the City's right-of-way, this would mean that the majority of 50 foot buffer would be on the Ranchlands side of the wall. The wall should also be covered with brick facing on Fisher Road and the Panama Road side~ if no wall is going to be constructed then the buffer is to be increased to 75 feet, a 50 foot buffer by Ranchlands standards is not as long as many of our driveways and will not conceal the higher density development that is proposed here. In either case the buffer is to remain natural with no cutting of vegetation at all, the Homeowners Association of the development should be responsible for up keep, such as picking up trash and debris not consistent with a natural buffer. The City and the developer should work together should work together to lessen the impact from the speed of traffic in the Ranchlands specifically Fisher Road, Panama Road and Stoner Road. If the developer cannot comply with the wall requirement or the alternative which is the 75 foot buffer, then the Association feels the City should deny the developers request on this proposal. I think that's pretty clear. I will say it again, you cannot protect the City unless you protect the individual communities within this city, you must feel deep down that this proposed development is not compatible or proper for the area or you wouldn't originally have denied the owners request for rezoning in the first place. The Commission itself has said that the Compo Plan was incorrect when this was issued, we are asking that you at least hide the mistake with a wall don't make the Ranchlands suffer the mistakes and improper discrete decisions of a City Staff person. Don't send the message to developers that anything goes if you are willing to sue the City of Winter Springs. We are asking you one more time to protect us, we are asking that you at least require a wall around this incompatible development. I've heard some of you say that you've inherited problem from other people who are no longer with us, well you also have another inheritance up until now all the previous City Board's and Commission's have protected when it comes to improper development of this property you now have this responsibility, that is your inheritance now, either way a wall is going to be constructed, a wall will be build to conceal and separate incompatible developments or a wall will be built between citizens and it's representatives~ we are asking you to put that wall in the right place. Regular Meeting City Commisison November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 4 William Fernandez, Panama Road, spoke regarding this request. Mr. Fernandez stated that he echoes the sentiments of our President, he speaks eloquently, I would like to add that I believe that we also requested that the City Planner be asked to consider a traffic study to minimize the impact of the speed and number of vehicles in the Ranchlands, in addition to the wall and buffer zone. I know that this was mentioned once before and we were told at the time that those are City roads out there and cannot be blocked off, specifically I'm talking about the end of Panama where it joins Shore and possibly at the end of Bahama where it joins Shore. I certainly feel that my investment and the rest of the residents investments in the Ranchlands are equally worthy of protection. Accordingly we would ask that some City Staff personnel in traffic planning consider some alternate means at least possibly at least making it one way from Fisher all the way down to Shore, so that we don't get traffic flowing back up out of one of the main entrances out of this proposed subdivision; and possibly the same thing along Bahama. I certainly think a traffic flow pattern and if not blocking off the road with concrete barriers at least making them one way and also considering the implementation of a stop sign that would face westbound, as you are coming off of Shore onto Panama, so that we can stop the traffic from going around that turn onto Fisher. I wish to echo the comments of our President and request your diligent consideration of this matter. Trish Drebert, Hayes Road, also spoke regarding this item. Ms. Drebert stated she would like to talk about how it came to be, what she doesn't understand is how the prime 80 acres of Earley, only that instead of several other pieces in the Ranchlands were changed. On the tapes from several months back, one of his people (Earley) mentioned that he didn't own it at the time, that doesn't matter who owned it, we just wonder how it actually got changed. The actual 34 acres in the back aren't changed there is still Rustic Residential, we wonder how whomever thought of changing the developer's property. I would like to speak tonight on the conservation district; on March 18th a special meeting was held and this is an excerpt from that meeting - "the Board also recommends creating a zone called conservation to assure that the wetlands and other environmental sensitive areas will remain and not be developed". They want areas as these to stay undeveloped and unpolluted. Minutes from April 13, 1992 - and this is less than 30 days from when the plan was adopted, the conservation issue came up again, Under Policy B-1 - "Residential density should not exceed one dwelling unit per gross acre, this is the establishment of the conservation land district, which now appears on a map as a district, previous to that this had not appeared on a map we are assigning it to a density of dwelling per gross acre". Minutes from July 19, 1993, Greg Kern, the City Planner explained "the main issue we have here is that we have an inconsistency between the future land use map that was adopted April 27, 1992, and our current zoning map". I would like to speak about the mediation meeting, I was there all day and evening and I got upset in the first of it, I requested the mediator fax our title and on our title in big letters it actually have one home per acre, it has been there for 25 years. I would like to talk about the two last council meeting on October 24, 1994, they had a draft agreement and read through it, and at that same night they were finally handed the original draft that they signed at the mediation meeting; it took that long to get a draft of the original. On the workshop of November 7, 1994, Earley's attorney handed them another draft and stated that this doesn't count because there has been changes since this was drafted. Everything is up in the air and it's our neighborhood; during the break of the Oct. 24th meeting I spoke with the Mayor John Bush, and I said I can't believe we are in this mess, why didn't you all do something, what happened; and Mr. Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 5 Bush answered me by saying "it fell through the cracks". We trusted you all when it was turned down from the P&Z Board and from the Commission meeting, to follow through on amending it. In the other draft there was something in there about the wetlands, I didn't like that, it was something about they get to fill in a couple of wetlands; it shouldn't be, wetlands are precious, other Cities preserve their wetlands and here we are letting the developer fill them in. The habitat in the Ranchlands has many endangered species, through the years we've has a black bear or two come through, a blonde and a black panther have been through. The Earley property should be preserved, and there are organizations that buy property because of the endangered species. We need to keep it natural out there. If we keep letting the developers take the natural environment and build we'll have to go to museums or zoos to see our wild life. Kristine Stap, Williams Road, spoke regarding the request. Ms Stap stated that Fisher Road had about two feet of it washed out from the storm. It is flowing into Dr. Earley's property, the road engineers put down a pipe with rocks over it so we could continue to drive. Now there is a very large dip now in the road; these kinds of things should be considered because we do live with a lot of water. Our life will change drastically, Earley bought the property knowing the zoning, knowing what we all expected and not only is he letting us down but whole City. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated to the Commission that they have in front of them the final draft of the proposed settlement agreement, we've reviewed these issues with you at prior meetings. You have here Mr. Roper who is defending this lawsuit from the Florida League of Cities, who can answer any questions you may have; you have myself and Mr. Bricklemeyer here who are not defending the lawsuit. Commissioner Ferring said to the City Attorney that we have gone through this for quite a while now, one last time I would like you to put forth what the options are that this Commission has. Attorney Kruppenbacher said you have the option to not accept this agreement; you can decide not to adopt the agreement and not settle the matter and instead pursue defending the litigation. You have the opinion from Mr. Roper, who is council for the Florida League of Cities, who is providing you the defense in this case; that you have all evaluated. Mr. Roper who evaluates has not positive for the City and as one that would result in an adverse ruling for the judge, that ruling most likely being sending it back to the Commission to select one of the three other options that you could go with and that would be: R-1AAA, R-1AA and R-IA. Those are the three zoning categories that you could select from, each one of those categories have different elements to it. You could decide to accept the settlement agreement tonight, those would effectively be what I call your five options that are viable at this particular point in time. The selection of an option other than settling and other than fighting the lawsuit, while that may resolve the issue of the designation for the property, it would not be dispositive of the lawsuit claims as to condemnation, damages for taking; although we independently have evaluated those claims not to be significant in our opinion. Commissioner Ferring asked about Mr. Roper's decision. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that Mr. Roper has provided you in private meetings regarding this case that has been transcribed. Mr. Roper Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 6 said he doesn't believe that there has been a final written opinion on that, we've discussed it in the executive sessions, and quite frankly I don't know that it is fruitful in this forum to discuss the merits ofthe legal opinion. Commissioner Ferring said he would like to take this time to render his views regarding this mediation settlement. It is no secret that I have opposed this mediation settlement right from the work go; I respect my colleagues and their opinions and the way they voted, they voted with all sincerity. But, I take issue with it and just listening to Ms. Drebert, makes me feel kind of bad that we are letting these people down. I do want to say that this issue has been given tremendous research and study. This City went out and got an analysis from an Attorney on the analysis of merits of Mr. Earley's lawsuit against the City. Going through it and looking at this reflections I feel he makes some very substantial contributions to what we could do if we decided not to adopt tonight. Make now mistake about it my fellow Commissioners, I know that there is risk involved and the people in the Ranchlands should know that there is risk involved if we proceed forward with this lawsuit. I still believe in the jurisprudence system of this country and I believe that going before any Judge and stating the plane clear honest facts on the merits of the case for the people of the RancWands has to weigh very heavily on that individual judge. For the years that the RancWands has been established and their rural and country way of life is going to be disturbed has to come into the picture. Irrespective of whatever slipped through the cracks unbeknownst to this Commission, unbeknownst to the Planning and Zoning Board and unbeknownst to a lot of other people, I refuse to accept in my mind that we can't give it all out, for what I've gathered I don't know if we can come out much worst than what we are right now, there is that risk and everybody should be aware of that. I believe in my own heart that the people in the residence of this City deserve our full support. What I heard tonight from the President of the Homeowners Association is that inspite with everything even though they don't agree with the settlement, this developer would aquess to the demands of putting up a wall to buffer this property they could live with it, that issue was floated and it was denied. I feel we have a case, I feel that we've got a long shot, but anytime you go before the justice of the courts it's a crap shoot. I therefore stick to my full opinion and vote that the compatibly issue in this particular case should take president. Commissioner Torcaso stated that he is very familiar with this program for the last 18-19 years, and the settlement agreement in itself seems very credible, the only thing that I can see is this buffer. A 50 foot natural buffer, a 50' foot buffer doesn't cost the developer a nickel; a 50' wall would cost him some money to start it, but who pays for that in the long run - the people that buy the homes in there. I would like to see this agreement settled with a couple of changes in especially as far as the buffer is concerned, I like the R-1AAA homes, the only thing I can't see really is if this agreement was okayed by the Commission, why do we have to pay Mr. Earley $50.000. Attorney Kruppenbacher said for point of clarification, this City Commission did not agree to pay $50,000 to Mr. Earley, out of no where the insurance representative from the Florida League of Cities stated when there were efforts being made to reduce the number oflots and said I'll give you $50,000 as part of getting this case over with and getting some more lots down; and that came out without anybody having any idea that it was coming out - it is the League of Cities $50,000; the City is not paying that. Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 7 Commissioner Torcaso said as far as the agreement is concerned he would like to see the buffer changed, I would like to see a wall than rather than a 50' buffer. Commissioner Langellotti asked the representative for Mr. Earley, Randi Fitzgerald, if we were ever told actually how many buildings lots are available onMr. Earley's property. Ms. Fitzgerald said the difficulty in answering that is that we've only have done a sketch plan of a number of lots, we haven't actually gone through the engineering to lay it out; we haven't gotten the Water Management permit to know what is actually going to be developable land. We have done a sketch that shows 110 lots, 1,500 sq. ft. minimum, most of them being 100 feet wide at the building line, but it is not an engineered plan. We feel that we can get 110 lots, but again the way the agreement is drafted is that is going to be subject to permitting exercise through the Water Management District, so it could be less than that. Ms. Fitzgerald said that statement that was made earlier that this agreement results in a density of the highest density that would be allowable under the Compo Plan is not accurate. If you calculate the density on the basis on the 114 acres, which is really how I think it ought to be calculated because we are really saying we would forgo any development on the 34 it works out to be .96 dwelling units per acre, so it is less than one dwelling unit per acre when you look at it on a gross basis and if you just take the 80 acres alone and count-assume 110 on that 80 acres it is 1.37 dwelling units per acre, so I apologize if the homeowners have gotten the misimpression about the densities that this is dealing with, it is much lower than what was represented. Commissioner McLeod said he would like to clear a few things up, I'm not sure everyone out here understands what we did have and what we do have. Under the R-IA, we have a figure of 280 homes allowable on that property. R-lAA with a 10,000 sq.ft. lot on the 80 acres could have approximately 240 homes on the property. Where we are at is basically a modified R-lAA which is a 15,000 sq.ft. lot with a 2,000 sq.ft. home which does not include the garage, that is just living quarters. That gives us a much better land usage, if you take the parameter of this property, if you consider a 50' buffer on the outside of that property with a hundred foot minimum lot size in width, that picks up the other 5,000 sq.ft. per lot or giving you a minimum 2,000 sq.ft. lots along Fisher Road with a 50' natural buffer that is on there. I believe that is better than what you would have had with R-lAAA because you would have had no buffers. The inside lots become a little smaller basically they drop down to no less than 1,500. The homes are a little larger homes they do complement what is in the area. The other advantages is that the roads will be paved coming into the development which will extend Fisher Road's paving through where the present wash-out occurred and to correct you there always has been a pipe under that road, I believe the pipe was blocked for some reason and that is why the road washed out, that pipe running through there has always been a natural drainage of that lake and flows east, it has always come back through the Earley property through Dr. Mosley's and on out. The other thing that we have is Shore Road is to be paved up to the development and that is also to have curbing, so the access in and out should be better for you folks. I believe your overall settlement is as good as you would have come out of even if you went to court and Dr. Earley came out with an R-lAAA, I don't know if you would have picked up Regular Meeting City Commission November 28 1994 94-95-4 Page 8 anything, you probably would have had smaller homes next to you. My opinion is that I believe your over all deal basically the settlement agreement is a good solid agreement for what we are dealing with. Commissioner Fening said this original litigation was based on 80 acres and not 114 acres, if we go into the courts it will not be 114 acres that we will be discussing, it will be 80 acres and again, I happen to believe in the jurisprudence of the courts and that is my position. Commissioner McLeod said that he would like to mention one other thing and that is in looking at the site plans last week we did realize there is basically about 10 acres of wetlands or watered area within the 80 acres, so we are actually down to about 70 acres worth of developable property which means the 110 homes should be definitely less by the time St. John's Water Management gets done with them. Commissioner Gennell said as to the mediation meeting, it was quite lengthily, and I personally, I understand that it has to be limited with people there but I would have been much happier if all of you could have been privledged to that, because it wasn't just giving away the store. It is a long shot for us to try and fight this and we dickered for 10 or 11 hours, and at every juncture, that we did anything we asked ourselves is this going to ultimately be better for these homeowners. I am comfortable with it, this is as good or probably better then you might get going to court. I really think the Commission worked very long and hard on this and we tried to weigh everything, and I don't see you coming out better ifwe were to put the City in a position of going full blast into court. I wouldn't want to face you people later when you got considerably less if that happened. Commissioner Torcaso said he would like to ask the City Attorney once more about the fifty foot natural buffer, is that going to be part of this agreement. Attorney Kruppenbacher said there is a fifty foot buffer that is part of the agreement, there is no wall as part of this agreement. A wall was proposed and did not result in an agreement being reached. Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher went over the agreement for the Commission and the residents. Commissioner Ferring reiterated his feeling regarding the settlement agreement. Discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to approve the Settlement of Lawsuit - Earley vs. City of Winter Springs, Florida, per terms of proposed written Settlement Agreement. Seconded by Commissioner Gennell. Vote: Commissioner Torcaso: aye; Commissioner Ferring: nay; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Mayor Bush stated that agenda item C will be tabled until the next meeting; also agenda item H will be tabled until the next meeting. We will move agenda item I and J as the next items. Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 9 Approval of Pay Classification Study as Amended, retroactive to October 1, 1994, Tabled from November 14. 1994. meeting: Manager Govoruhk stated he issued a memo adoption of the Cody Pay Plan and it is still our recommendation that we go with it. Discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Torcaso to approve the Pay Classification Study as Amended, retroactive to October 1, 1994. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Torcaso: aye. Motion passes. It was determined that the pay increases will be seen by the employees no later than December 15, 1994. Resolution No. 746 - Establishing Holiday Schedule for Calendar Year 1995: Manager Govoruhk stated that this is the paid holiday schedule throughout the City which is basically the same thing as last year except for the days that they actually fall on. It is the same number of holidays it is just the date that has changed. Attorney Kruppenbacher read Resolution No. 746 by title only. Motion was made by Commissioner Torcaso to approve Resolution No. 746 - Establishing Holiday Schedule for Calendar Year 1995. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Torcaso: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion passes. Approval/Disapproval - Final Engineering for Parcel 15 (Tuscawilla Area - north of CSX Railroad, east of Howell Creek. west of Expressway. south of S.R. 434): Donald LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist, stated that Staff review was held on November 1, 1994, the Commission approved the preliminary engineering on June 27, 1994, and you have received the covenants and deed restrictions. I find no problems with this at this time, the Staff is recommending approval of final engineering and the developer is present if you have any questions. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to approval the final engineering for Parcel 15. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Ferring: nay; Commissioner Torcaso: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Approval/Disapproval- Recordation of Plat and Covenants, The Reserve at Tuscawilla (Parcel 80, Tuscawilla - west of Howell Creek, north ofCSX Railroad, east of unincorporated area, south of S.R. 434): Donald LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist, stated this is to only record the plats and covenants, this is not to accept any part of the infrastructure. You have a letter of credit in the amount of one million thirty thousand eight hundred and ninety one dollars. I just received a letter from Ms. Ann South, a copy of a letter to Mr. Dale West ofRichland Properties, stating that they were going to do Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 10 an ademdem to the letter of credit, I had a problem with it because they had an expiration date of November 1995. This is a performance letter of credit and what they will do is add a statement an ademdem to this that this will be automatically renewable for one year periods, and of course we always have a 60 or 45 day notice of termination, at which time we can submit a claim to this if the project is not completed. The engineer has verified that figure, and some of the questions I had about the covenants and Mr. Kulp is present, page 53, section 14.18 where it states sales activities, they are changing that and are calling that a model or informational center and the other things the City Attorney has to answer. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that they have agreed to make the changes we have requested. Mr. LeBlanc said if your desire is to approve this, I would appreciate, with a contingency that we have the ademdum to the letter of credit plus the changes made to the covenants before we record. Discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner GenneU to approve the recordation of plat and covenants, of Parcel 80, per recommendation of the Staff. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Torcaso: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner GenneU: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes. Approval!Disapproval - Recordation of Plat and Covenants. Tuska Oaks (Parcel 61, Tuscawilla- north of Winter Springs Boulevard, east of Northern Way, south and west of Georgetowne subdivision): Donald LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist, stated that this is again the same type deal, I have not seen any problems with this, we have a letter of credit in the amount of906,468.05 guaranteeing the performance of this work. Again, this is not the acceptance of the project, it will allow building permits to be issued but certificates of occupancy cannot be issued until such time the City accepts the improvements. Motion was made by Commissioner LangeUotti for approval of the recordation of plat and covenants ofTuska Oaks Parcel 61. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Torcaso: aye. Motion passes. Approval/Disapproval- Acceptance of improvements in Winding Hollow Unit 1 subdivision (that parcel of land south of S.R. 434 lying approximately mid-way between City Hall and school bus barn): Donald LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist, stated that we have accepted the improvements and they have instead of a bond they have posted a cash escrow in two various ways, they previously had a check of $36,857.10 guaranteeing performance with the City and 10% of the bond would be $46,273.31 and Paused has given us a check for $9,416.21 which makes up the maintenance bond and they will secure a bond and before we substitute it the City Attorney will review it for legal content. Discussion regarding the proposed traffic light for this development. Manager Govoruhk Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 11 stated that D.O.T. said when the traffic warrants it they will advise. Mayor Bush said why don't we write them a letter and ask them to expedite it. Manager Govoruhk said he will write them another letter but the last meeting we had they said when we are ready. Motion was made by Commissioner F erring to approve the acceptance of improvements in Winding Hollow Unit 1. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Torcaso: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion passes. Approval/Disapproval - Recordation of Plat and Supplemental Covenants, Highland Lake Phase 2 (Highlands PUD area at terminus of MacGregor Road): Donald LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist, said this is a project that was going to be built in three phases but they have decided to do it in two, we have a performance letter of credit in the amount of$150,000.00. This will only allow the issuance of building permits not certificates of occupancy until such time as the City accepts the project. You also have a copy of the supplemental covenants which are bringing this additional property under the guidelines of Highland Lakes Phase I. Discussion. Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve the recordation of plat and supplemental covenants of Highland Lake Phase 2. Seconded by Commissioner Torcaso. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Torcaso: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes. Mr. LeBlanc stated that in regards to Mr. Gene Lein's complaints regarding the roadway to Country Club Village, Mr. Cooper of Tuska Oaks, was present and he has agreed they will repair Country Club Drive, the damage that is being done by the dump trucks when they are done hauling dirt; and he will send me a letter to that effect. City Attorney - Frank Kruppenbacher: Reports: Attorney Kruppenbacher said following the City of Oviedo advising that it had taken action, regarding the Oveido Crossing and our easement etc.; we immediately convened a meeting of your Staff, Mr. Bricklemeyer, myself, and Mr. Tipton (vis telephone), we have made a number of assignments. We are having the development agreement that was drafted legally analyzed by myself and Mr. Bricklemeyer; a planning analysis is being done on that agreement by Mr. Gosline, Mr. Ketteringham and Mr. Goodrow; the plan amendment that is proposed by Mr. Bricklemeyer is reviewing from a legal stand point from a Staff planning and analysis standpoint by Mr. Gosline, Mr. Ketteringham and Mr. Goodrow. Legal analysis is being done regarding the annexation that has been proposed by myself, the Staff analysis is being done by Mr. Gosline, Mr. LeBlanc and Ketteringham. The imminent domain issues are being reviewed by your lawyers and I am in consultation with outside experts in the field of imminent domain to evaluate those issues. The D.R.I. amendment is being reviewed by Mr. Bricklemeyer along with Mr. Tipton, Mr. Ketteringham, Mr. Gosline and Mr. Goodrow. The Oviedo Charter is being reviewed by myself, the Oviedo Compo Plan is being -- ------:---:-:-;-:\-~ ~~- - " . . Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 12 reviewed by myselfand Mr. Bricklemeyer along with Statfreview by Mr. Goodrow, Mr. Gosline, Mr. LeBlanc and Mr. Ketteringham. I will advise tonight that I will notify you of the need to meet with you regarding this matter; I have received a copy of a letter that has gone to you (the Commission) that has asked pursuant to the Florida Statutes, they have advised us of a notice of intent to commence litigation regarding condemnation, they have asked for a meeting pursuant to the Florida Statute, it is my recommendation that you authorize the Mayor to notify the City of Oviedo immediately that you are prepared to meet in a joint session. I recommend tonight that none of you make any comment regarding this particular matter. I would ask that you exercise descression and let your Staff and Attorneys continue to prepare this matter. Mayor Bush mentioned he received a letter from Tom Hagood, Chair of the Oviedo Commission. Mayor Bush stated that he will prepare a letter in response stating that we are prepared to meet with the Oviedo Commission. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he has a Resolution that we have talked about in the past and read the title: A resolution of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, providing for confidentiality in dealing with all matters involving potential or current litigation, severability and effective date. What this resolution basically calls for is that no member of this City Commission, which includes the Mayor, neither the City Manager or any City employee when dealing with potential threatened or actual litigation shall provide information to anyone regarding with anything to do with pending or actual litigation, unless prior approval of release of said information has been obtained either from the City Manager, City Attorney and/or Attorney handling the litigation issue, that the passage of this resolution is not intended to conflict with or be restrictive of the Florida Public Records law but will be implemented by the City in compliance with said law. Discussion. This resolution will be on the agenda for the next meeting for adoption. City Manager - John Govoruhk. Reports: Manager Govoruhk stated as a reminder to the Commission there is only one meeting in the month of December. Commissioner Ferring mentioned the length of the City Planner's monthly report. Discussion. Commissioner Ferring also mentioned the financial reports. Attorney Kruppenbacher mention that this is Commissioner Torcaso's last meeting and that it has been an honor to represent him. Commissioner Gennell asked the City Manager to have a count of how many people attend the Senior Center activities. Commission Seat III - John Langellotti: Commissioner Langellotti mentioned that there were 52 transports to the hospital in the past month and asked the City Manager who paid for the transportation. Manager Govoruhk stated that the City paid for the transportation. Regular Meeting City Commission November 28, 1994 94-95-4 Page 13 Commission Seat IV- Cindy Gennell: Commissioner Gennell showed the Commission pictures she received from a resident of Commissioner Gennell mentioned that she received a phone call from a resident who had their water shut off and asked the Manager to look into this. Commission Seat V - David McLeod: Commissioner McLeod asked the City Manager when the workshop regarding the L.D.R. 's would be held with the Planning and Zoning Board and ifhe could report back at the next meeting regarding this. Mayor's Office - John F. Bush: Mayor Bush mentioned that there will be a special meeting on December 5, 1994, for the swearing in ceremony for the new Commission at 1 :00 p.m. Mayor Bush also stated that a committee of four people has been formed to review the applications for the vacant City Clerk's position. He will meet with the committee during the last week in December and will make his recommendation to the Commission at the first scheduled meeting in January. Mayor Bush also mentioned a letter he received from Mr. Kramer regarding the Art Festival and there will be a brief opening ceremony on Saturday morning and if the Commissioners plan on attending to notify the Clerk so she can inform Mr. Kramer the Commissioners who will be present so they can be acknowledged. Mayor Bush also mentioned that he has sent a letter to the Chair of the County Commission regarding the joint session with our Commission on the Tuscawilla Road widening. Commission Seat I - John Torcaso: Commissioner Torcaso stated that he is retiring from the Commission and that he hopes that the Commission keeps their faith in the City Manager and City Attorney and keep on doing a good job, and thanked everyone for being allowed to work with them. Commission Seat II - John Ferring: Commissioner Ferring stated that it has been a pleasure working with Commissioner Torcaso throughout the years. Commissioner Ferring said he want's to complement the Civic Association under less than desirable conditions, they held their annual parade on Sunday and it was a huge success. Mr Bill Schaeffer was presented a plaque from the City expressing their appreciation for him being the Master of Ceremonies for all these years. Commissioner Ferring also complemented the Public Works Department and Kip Lockcufffor the decorations along S.R. 434 and on Tuscawilla Road. Commissioner Ferring also mentioned a letter he received from Mr. Ian King of Oak Forest regarding the widening of Tuscawilla Road. Commissioner Ferrlng mentioned a meeting he attended today at the Seminole County Services Building on the Small Area Study regarding the growth for the area near us. Regular Meeting City Commission The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Approved: November 28, 1994 Page 14 94-95-4 Respectfully Submitted, ~~;t.~ Margo M. Hopkins, Acting City Clerk