Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 05 08 Regular r VERBATIM PORTION OF MINUTES OF MAY 8, 1995 Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations - Conceptual Plans: 1. Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit 3 (south of Winter Springs Blvd., east of the Country Club and west of Howell Creek); 2. Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit 4 (south of Winter Springs Blvd., west and south of the Country Club); 3. Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit 5 (completion of Wood stream Subdivision, off the southern portion of Northern Way - once approved as Woodstream Addition): LeBlanc - yes, there was a question before the meeting on the base of a conceptual plan, is it required by Code or not. Conceptual plans are not required by Code, in the past people have, developers have expended big dollars in doing engineering plans only to reach the Commission and there was some items that was not satisfactory to the Commission, whatever it was, and they'd have to go back and expend extra monies to revise those plans; for whatever reason, some of them valid or invalid, no matter what people thought, but anyway there was extra monies; so we started the conceptual plan idea bringing it through the P&Z Bd. and through the Commission so the developer could get an idea as to whether or not what he was proposing was satisfactory and then he could expend the dollars on the planning stage. In this respect on Arrowhead Units 3,4 and 5, of Parcel 7,8 and 10, I have furnished you conceptual site plans, minutes of the Staff conceptual plan review, the Land Management Specialist's memo to the P&Z Bd. the P&Z minutes dated April 5th 1995, and a Jim Mikes memo to Don LeBlanc dated April 6th; now please bear in mind that these minutes from the P&z Bd. have not been approved by the Board yet, it has not been presented to them. I thought it was going to be presented before on May 3rd but they did not have a meeting. But, Mr. Hoffinann was aware that this was being presented to you for expediences sake and he approved my giving you the minutes at this time and at this point I'd like to turn, and I also gave you in my minutes of the Staff conceptual plan review, those pages in the agreement that pertain to these projects and at this time I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Mikes so he can make his presentation to you, unless you have any further questions of me at this time. Mayor Bush - Ok, thank you. Ferring - Mr. Mayor Mayor - Mr. Ferring Ferring - Before Mr. Mikes begins his presentation, in lieu of the fact that this is only a conceptual plan, we are not going to be approving or disapproving of this particular presentation, so based on what you have here Jim, I hope you are not going to make your presentation based on what we have here, because myself personally I see a lot of things that I don't personally agree with and in reading the minutes, the unofficial minutes of the P&Z Bd., I tend to agree with them pretty much regarding the additional units that you've put in going west in certain areas and if that's going to be your presentation tonight I would hope that you would just listen to what we're saying before you make your presentation, I don't know if anybody else wants to make comments on this thing, but I'm not going to vote on this thing until I see it come in line with what we've agreed to in our contracts. Mr. Mikes - are you asking for my response? Ok, I will be happy to listen to the collective direction of this Board, I would also be happy to listen to the interpretation from the Attorney representing the City and if that's the issues that you would like to address first, John, let's do that -- F erring - well --- Mikes - there's a couple things first before you get too hung up on all the specifics, first of all there is one plan that I do not believe that either the P&Z or you should have any problem with and that is Woodstream, the second phase - do you have any problem with that John. Ferring - I'm not going to comment on anything as far as Woodstream is concerned, all I know is that we are looking for the units where you've gone up from 39 to 46 units. Mikes - John, is there a reason that Wood stream is something that you're not ready to consider, do you have any reason, did the P&Z have any reason, did Staff have any reason is there any reason your taking a position now that' s---- Ferring - I don't think Woodstream has anything to do with the other units, that's why. Mikes - it's before you tonight John Ferring - oh, no it isn't Mikes - it is there John Ferring - no, no it's not there for me to approve or disapprove Attorney K - no, that's correct, these are not --- Mikes - this is a conceptual plan approval Ferring - we're not approving it Jim, and we're not disapproving it, we're going to note it. Mikes - ok, I'm looking for the direction from the Board John, I'm not here to argue with you, I am only asking to take some property that I happen to own that I want to develop in a fashion that I think this Board, this City, the residents have has an opportunity to see what the first phases of our development can be, what an enhancement to the area it can be. I am not necessarily suggesting John, that you have to do any specific thing; there may be some requests before you that you may have to ask yourself "is this the right thing to do" looking at what has transpired over the course of the last year and a half John. You with an open mind, the Commission with an open mind, look at what is there, look at what has been developed in the Tuscawilla community then ask yourself am I proposing something that is a detrimental, that will have a detrimental impact on that community; am I proposing something that will have a positive impact, there are, I have a - other opinions that are not only mine that I'd be happy to have you listen to tonight. If you are going to close off and say that I cannot bring these in front of you, I'd ask the Attorney to make a decision to advise you in some way John, you're going to have to move this forward in some way, it can't be left in the state of limbo, that is not within your prerogative to say it doesn't move forward - one way or another do it. Attorney - Mayor, let me get this offfrom Don, from what I understand from Mr. Govoruhk and Mr. LeBlanc, prior to the meeting, that tonight this is a presentation to you of what is conceptually been proposed by this developer, for you to provide input to the developer as to your thoughts. It's not for your approval or disapproval, as I understand the City Manager and City Planner's statements to me prior to the meeting. Therefore, what I would recommend is that you go through the items, and maybe you want to take them, rather than jump around, let's do item number E-1, Tuscawilla Unit 3 and each of you identify what, ifany issues you have on item 3, this is not a forum to decide we're right, he's wrong, he's right, we're wrong, let's identify what the issues are and then tell Mr. Mikes to get with the Staff, see the extent those issues that are identified can be resolved. I assume that is the most reasonable way to move this project, then subsequent to that the project will then come back before you at some future time for subsequent action by you, but not tonight for an approval or disapproval, he as a developer needs to hear what your thoughts are before he starts to expend the kind of dollars that ----- Mayor - is that your understanding Mr. Mikes Mikes - very appropriately stated Frank. Mayor - any other comments from the Commission Ferring - ya, I just wanted to say, Mr. LeBlanc, Mr. Mikes raised a question about Wood stream, has there been approve engineering for W oodstream. LeBlanc - there was previously, I have that in my memo, it was once approved as Woodstream Addition and that has expired and let me get to----, there is 70 somewhat lots, if I remember correctly, there were excess of70 lots and Mikes - 77 LeBlanc - and now there are 54, but yes there was previous approval, that project it was approved in 1990 and the engineering expired, they didn't do anything on it, that was during the time of the conflict in the Quate area and the principal owner of that property was hiding low some place in Quate - Mr. Boukhamseen (1 Spelling) It was during Desert Storm and when he came out, I guess he had still eaten pretty well, but you know, the engineering has expired. And this is a rejuvenation of that project. Mayor - at that time you say it was approved for 77 lots LeBlanc - 77 lots Mikes - that was on 26 acres - 77 lots, we now have before you approximately 32/33 acres with 54 lots. Attorney - Mayor the first thing--- McLeod - a lower density on this piece of property Mikes - substantially McLeod - all right Mikes - --1- Footers to 113/114 McLeod - I think Mr. Mikes needs to be able to move forward with his presentation Attorney - if I could recommend, do you want to do them Jim, one, two and three and then Mikes - that's fine, this is an opportunity for all the Commissioners to give all of their input in whatever way to get a direction in the way a community can finish it's development. It is not a forum for one person to dictate their opinions only, I trust that this is a board, elected as it is, elected as it is, to use an open mind and to consider. And that's how I would ask John, that we go forward, ok. F erring - I'm listening - Mikes -let's take the Woodstream first, since that was brought up first Frank - that's #3 Mikes - that's #3 on your, I don't know if you're all familiar Woodstream, but Wood stream is a development that started back in the 80's by the person who will be my venture partner on that. I'm putting in a certain amount of land and a certain amount of money and that person is putting in his land. The gentleman is from Quate, that owns the entity - yes Langellotti - Jim, excuse me, that's unit 5 parcel 10 Mikes - yes sir, and there was an aborted development that, early in the 19 or late in the 1980's they went no further. I believe you're all familiar with the Woodstream development, it has approximately 25 homes, or something in that range, at this point in time; it enters off a private road, the roads are private, we propose to continue developing that in a private road basis, developing it as an extension of the Arrowhead project that you can look at adjacent to our Country Club Clubhouse. The same level of finishes, same entry treatments, same large trees, same large homes, everything of the nature that you already can look at next to the Country Club. Looking at this areal photo, this is a photo of the Country Club, Winter Springs Blvd. to the north and Northern way, obviously, to the south. This is taken just before we started our improvements on the Arrowhead; the Arrowhead the existing Arrowhead with the wall and the entryway is roughly in this area (pointing) adjacent to the Clubhouse. Our Unit 1, which is 19 lots that have already been approved and improved, are those that are on the 8th hole, one on 5th green, 3 on Northern Way at the 4th tee, originally to be done as 7 and then the 8 lots along the 14th hole adjacent to Glen Eagle. The W oodstream parcel fits right in adjacent to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th holes. The original plan on Wood stream provided for has 26 acres, originally permitted for 77 lots; we're adding approximately a 75' strip around the outside and providing for the the retention on the opposite side of hole #2. An enhancement of hole #2 and definite enhancement, I don't know if there is any residents of Greenbriar here, but the Greenbriar units will end up looking out over a retention pond and be able to look directly onto the 2nd fairway. The 2nd fairway will be enhanced through the addition of this retention pond, making it better for the Country Club members, one of our most difficult holes to keep dry during the rainy season. Ok, now without, let me get you back to the actual plan that you have in your hands and the plan that was in front ofP&Z; it provides for - F erring - Which unit are you talking about Mikes - this is on W oodstream ok Ferrlng - W oodstream Mikes - taking Woodstream first because it was raised first, it's the third one, unit 5, parcel 10 Ferring - ok Mikes - Richards Road will be the main entrance, Richards Road is the entranceway t W oodstream at this point, it is private, it would be enhanced with the same wall treatment that you see at our existing. It would have the same entry gate, the entry gate that will be accessed by a computer system, people will call upon the telephone and the telephone will ring in the house, they'll look at their TV, the TV will show a picture of the person at their entry gate, that will be for the benefit for not only the existing W oodstream residents, who will get that for no additional, for no investment on their part and it will be also for the 54 lots that we propose. Effectively the existing W oodstream is along the 5th and 6th holes to the west side of the overall parcel; those are approximately the same size lots, slightly smaller, but some of them are much smaller, but in general slightly smaller that what we proposed - ours will be roughly 113' to 115' wide, which is 13 to 15 feet wider than a Glen Eagle lot for an example. And approximately 160' to 165' deep, which is 20 to 25 feet deeper than a Glen Eagle lot and the approximate size, the approximate size, of the lots that we have on the golf course in the first phase of Arrowhead that we're developing now. The roads will be private, they will be improved exactly the same way as you see in our existing Arrowhead, the double acorn Florida Power lights, the - a brick pavers at the entrance treatment, everyone of the homes will have brick pavers as you enter your driveway, it will have a brick paver apron for the first 10 to 12 feet of every driveway, or it could be continued all the way up the driveway. The landscape requirements that we have started already, they require a Laurel or a Live Oaks every 40', a Laurel Oak that is 8 to 9 inches in caliper to start with, very heavy landscaping requirements; side loaded garages, hard surface roofs, minimum square footage of approximately 3,000 to 3,200 square feet. Very nice homes, you can see examples of those now in the first phase of Arrowhead. The general layout of it will be to basically the same treatment that was in the existing 77 unit approval except that it will not loop in the same fashion. We will not cause those homeowners that are currently at the end of the cul-de-sac in the current, to have the traffic looped in front of theirs, they will still have the same privacy, we will have a series of three cul-de-sacs, generally the same as in our, looking the same look as we have in the ..~J-.:o.'.'.,:..~..-.,e.'O - ---;~.-_--;:-c----:--.-- first phase of Arrowhead. Of the lots, of the 54 lots, you will have over half of them will be on the golf course or on Howell Branch Creek. We will be subject to whatever the same setbacks and working with both the corps of engineers and water management district to have those approved. The retention is depicted on the opposite side of the 2nd fairway adjacent to the Greenbriar homeowners, some of them will be looking directly across now at the 2nd green that they can't see right now with the trees in there. Yes sir. McLeod - you just answered it, you just answered the question. Presently where you got the, where you're going show the retention pond presently is a tree line through there, correct. Mikes - yes, yes that's the Florida Power and Light easement area McLeod - right Mikes - and it's been allowed to grow up, it's a series of all sorts of junk and we're in the process of thinning out what's there, keeping the high quality oaks, keeping the high quality pines and getting rid of the weedy stuff currently. And the whole, the whole Florida Power easement as part of what we're doing on the first, on the phase of Arrowhead, the other phases of Arrowhead, Florida Power and Light at our expense will be taking those large wood power lines and changing them to a concrete single pole as opposed to multiple pole treatment, the much better looking treatment that will both enhance the Greenbriar owners as well as the owners on Country Club Village on the opposite side of the creek. Mayor - Mr. Langellotti has a question. Langellotti - Jim, let me ask you, on the 2nd fairway, who's clearing out all that land along the 2nd fairway Mikes - that's us Langellotti - on the left side Mikes - correct Langellotti - oh, ok, what part of the project is that Mikes - that's this, we aren't taking out everything, at this point we are taking everything, at this point we are leaving the palmettos, 'the oaks, and the pones and trimming out all the weedy stuff at this point. With the arbor, we do have an arbor permit for that; and it also provides views for the Horton homes, and ultimately as we finish all the way up the existing owners in Greenbriar will be looking out at the golf course. Langellotti - that's what I thought, I thought it was Horton that was clearing that Mikes - no, we're doing that Langellotti - ok Mikes - we're doing that for the benefit of Horton at this point and eventually when when this pond is in, it will be surrounded by oak trees - it will be an attractive look. Mikes - The general depiction on this as I said, the size of the lots are approximately 112 minimum to a 115 to 120 feet wide with a, I guess the minimum depth, seems to be about 160 and up to a maximum in the 200 foot deep size. We propose that iffor an emergency access, ifit's needed we will stabilize a path across the golf course so that in case there was a need if there ever was a need, for whatever reason to get in, there will be several locations where emergency vehicles can get into the development with a stabilized path across the golf course, one at the 3rd tee and one just in front of the - where we will have our maintenance building, just in front of, just in front of the creek. McLeod - Mr. Mikes, Mikes - yes sir McLeod - why would the, what would be the need of emergency access, I mean, I see this throughout this plan, about three different locations. Mikes - that was an issue raised, I believe, with a former engineer that was working for the City. I don't see a need for it, but I depicted it because it was something that when we first were discussing any development, the concern was on the length of cul-de-sacs to make sure that ifthere was a need for additional emergency vehicle access it could be done and obviously it can be done because this is a golf hole, there will be a concrete path all the way back - they can drive there and drive across the golf course to have emergency access if they need it. Obviously the most appropriate place is to come right through the gate and right down the street, in the event that there is ever a problem they can come across the golf course. McLeod - so you going then, take easements out of these pieces of property for that purpose Mikes - right, we will create an easement for emergency vehicle access for the benefit of the City and whatever other emergency needs there might be. McLeod - all right, wouldn't that be an issue really by the Staff to address with you at the time of your plans. Mikes - I'd be happy to take it out, it seems --- McLeod- I mean Mikes - I'd be happy to take it out, it's an extra that I don't think is necessary, so I'd be happy to provide it if they want it and I'll also be happy to not provide it it they'd allow us not to put it in. McLeod - it's just very unusual and I think that probably one of the points that Staff and yourself should address. .:~:"'-\.'.~- Mikes - again, that was a former Staff member that had raised at the last level McLeod - ok, that's why I was wondering why it was there. Mikes - other than that, I believe that P&Z thought that this was an acceptable concept for the use of this land, going from 77 on 26 acres to 54 lots of the nature that we're talking about, private access, brick pavers, everything in the same fashion that we're currently developing and that was a good use for this property as compared to what formally had been approved and as compared to whatever might be another option at that, and I do not believe there was a problem at the P&Z level on that and Staff certainly had no objection. And I'd look for any direction you might give me if you'd like to see anything changed on it before we move. Mayor - Commissioner Langellotti Langellotti - Jim, this is showing that wall on the existing W oodstream there Mikes - this wall does not exist now Langellotti - one here, coming in the back of the property adjacent to your - up further, up further Mikes - in here Langellotti - no to your left, up Jim Mayor - up Mikes - oh up Langellotti - ya, that wall there, showing that wall Mikes - we will depict, we will put a wall in there with the concurrence of the homeowners at that side in a fashion that they find acceptable, if they want to extend it all the way, we'll extend it all the way, if they want to go part of the way - we'll go part of the way~ it's really up to that homeowner Langellotti - but these plans are also showing a wall going up Mikes - going up into the development Langellotti - up further Mayor - up further, going up further Mikes - oh, across here, excuse me, ok, we will put a wall behind there so that they will not have to look at homes butting right directly in back~ it's not important right here where they're side by side but where you're getting the homes butting next to each other and the three lots right in here are very ,',l',":n".;Jro";". shallow lots that the existing Woodstream lots are extremely shallow and our suggestion was to create a wall behind there and then when we get to this point, where the cul-de-sac, that's really the engineer depicted that wrong, there wouldn't be a wall through the middle of the cul-de-sac, we would actually construct a cul-de-sac and put a wall around it if that's what the homeowners choose; this has been submitted to the homeowner president and he advised me that on a concept basis it looked fine with something of that nature change, we'll treat that cul-de-sac with regard to whatever comments they may have but it's the wall in not intended to run across the cul-de-sac - that's an error and again we provided emergency access if Staff thought that appropriate. Langellotti - that wall would be separating these two parcels Mikes - no, no, it's not intended to be separating the parcels Langellotti - ok, right Mikes - it's intended to separate Langellotti - the property Mikes - it's intended to separate the backyards of properties and ifit's not trying to state this end of Woodstream is different from here, it is only intended so you know you probably wouldn't put the wall in right in this area and you probably would not put the wall in the same way it's laid out there. And again, that's up to kind of working it out with the homeowners in those locations, what's going to look better, what would they like to see, do they want to see a cul-de-sac of that nature, it was my understanding that they did not want to see a loop coming back in here, they wanted the privacy that they have right now and we'll respect that and leave it that way and in fact put a cul-de-sac in where they currently do not have one. Langellotti - ok Mikes - that is W oodstream phase which would be---- Mayor - does any of the Commission have any comments/recommendations for Mr. Mikes on W oodstream Conniff - I just have one, after you clean out this pond are you going to be responsible for keeping it clean Mikes - ah, yes sir, the same easement easement document, the same responsibilities that we had in the easement declaration that we have on the first part of Arrowhead. The golf course will maintain this pond. Conniff - ok Attorney - that will be tied up Commissioner in documents that you will approve. Conniff - ok Mikes - right, again this is concept and you before you approve the plat you'll have an easement document that you will find acceptable. Conniff - ??? Mikes - six or seven months Mayor -??? let's go on to the next one then McLeod - uh, before we do, I'm trying to read through the P&Z minutes here also, and on page 3 of the minutes, Mr. Mikes explains looking at three plan submittals and so forth, 115 foot wide lots, 77 narrow lots going to 54; then it goes on to say in addition there we will be having about 6 acres and so on and so on.... Mr. Lein said but that doesn't change this parcel, Mr. Mikes you then come back to him and said " he realized, that this is an issue that will have to be addressed with the City Commission on their judgement on this agreement - on the agreement' Mikes - it's not on this one David, that's these earlier two, not the Woodstream that's the earlier two McLeod - all right, that's what I was trying to find out here because it looked you was talking about the other two then you talked about the third one and then Mr. Lein was back on one of the other parcels, is that what we're saying Mikes - correct McLeod - ok Mikes - that issue relates to the other two, the Wood stream that was not an issue I believe, I don't know Gene McLeod - I'm clean, no problem Mikes - all right, ok --- Now we get to two with the problems, ok F erring - yes we do Mikes - good, all right, just because it happens to be up, let's talk about the one that is labeled unit 4 Tuscawilla Parcel 8, the one that shows 46 lots. McLeod - before you do this, Mr. Mikes, I would just like to say that I'm glad to see a reduction in the amount of homes in that area Mikes - if-I'll go over, when we get done with all of this, I'm going to go over, in fact let me make a , let me make a, digress a bit and talk about where we were at one time on all these parcels and where we end up going on all of these parcels. Way back when 1973, 1980 whatever the date you want to pull out, originally we had 150 hotel type units and 120 condominium units on the golf course property; in addition to that on the Hooker land that I went out and bought, there was 192 condominiums or apartments whatever it was and then on the W oodstream parcel there were 77 . You add up all those parcels 77 and 192 and 270 and you had roughly 500 units, 500+ units that were originally permitted for all of this land. Units that would have been of a condominium nature of a hotel nature, certainly not of a single family nature that we are proposing now. If you look at our overall, the overall Arrowhead project, all five phases that we're proposing we end up with approximately 164 homes that we will be selling in the range of roughly $475,000 as the minimum price up to, well that's not, let me take that back - in the $400,000 dollar range for the ones that are on, directly on the golf course in Unit 1, the ones that are not behind the gates and then running upwards into - there's a home starting in the next week or two on the 9th hole, the couple with they're clearing the land tomorrow and that'll be a home in the $650,000 price range, that's in the starting phase. The four, five spec homes with the builders are priced approximately $475,00'0 up to $515,000. McLeod - so you got a reduction of about 405 homes Mikes - about 400 or so down 500 and some down to about 160 but when you look at the assessed valuation you've got 160 times roughly $500,000-$600,000 just assume the assessment, just assume the assessments at $400,000 even if you take off a homestead of $25,000, you're still looking to somewhere in the range of70 million dollars of assessed value. Whatever that reals to the City, look at the reduction of trips, obviously an issue in the Tuscawilla area right now, looking to the City's benefit from this, looking to the community's benefit substantial amount of additional dollars coming into the hands of the City at substantially reduced obligations on the part of the City. We are using private developments, private roads, private security, not asking the city to be providing all the same level of services that they do in other areas. So not only do we have less traffic, more revenue, we are asking the City to put in less in terms of their responsibilities to maintain this. So now that I pat myself on the back, we'll go to the next Ferring - I thought Kruppenbacher took all the credit for that Mikes - he did, he bent my arm all the way here Mikes - ok, the next phase, and obviously this is where you were raising the question, raising a question on number of acres; this is the parcel that was approved in our settlement agreement for originally I believe it was 30, we have in the number something 39 lots, there's a number written in the document. We are depicting it as 46 lots, the difference is, is that when the engineering firm went out and actually laid out the lots and showed the, what the builders were asking for, we ended up with lots that were in the size range of the 100, they wanted a 115 foot wide lot, when we laid it out it ended up 46 lots. The area included in this and Gene Lein had raised the issue that this looked like this was an expansion, the engineers have it and they can lay it out and they will actually show that the amount of acres included in this parcel is less than the number of acres included in the original plan in our settlement agreement. It shows 46 lots but they are slightly - after they did all the calculations and they laid it out like they did it shows 46 lots on less acres, we're taking less out of the golf course and devoting them to housing but ending up with 46 lots that the builders are suggesting are the right size lots. They can take a 115 foot wide lot do a side loaded garage and end up with about a 4,000 square foot home and make it look good. The depth is approximately 155 feet on the golf course in these areas going up to 165, lots as deep as 300 feet along the creek. Now, this depiction, the P&Z found fault with and I then sent another one back to Don LeBlanc and I don't know if that's in your packet; but ifI could, there was an objection to the way the, we laid out the cul-de-sac that at the, we were trying to do a cul-de-sac a double, it actually ended up a double cul- de-sac so we could create a little lane similar to the lane that we've created in our first phase that you can look to - the brick paver at the far west, the far west end of our Arrowhead, the first Arrowhead part, I've deleted that concept and just brought the, brought the cul-de-sac back about half way between the two and ended up basically laying the lots in a comparable fashion but not there's no need for that little lane, it eliminates the objection that the P&Z has with the treatment of the cul-de- sac, so I've addressed two points that the P&Z, the actual acres, I'll have that confirmed by the engineer that the acreage is less and then the second issue that was the treatment of this cul-de-sac, so we do not have that objectionable treatment that they found with the double cul-de-sac before, it's just a single cul-de-sac. Mikes - there's another objection McLeod - in order to do that there is another Mikes - I don't want to say those are the only objections McLeod - ok, what you've done basically is you've make one long continued retention pond in order to achieve what you is trying to do there, which is the main difference. Mr. Mikes - yes sir McLeod - which is the main difference Mikes - correct McLeod - and that gave you the additional lot 43 up on top where there was a retention pond. Mikes - correct, now understand this is a conceptual plan, we haven't done all the soil borings, haven't done all the layouts and it may turn out, this would be the best if everything worked out perfect this is what it would end up, but obviously you go through and the engineers do whatever they are going to do and the number oflots, we may end up not being able to build homes on say lot number 39 or lot number - you may end up loosing some lots as a result of it and that's going to be dictated by the other governmental agencies as well, they're going to look and see what what do we do on the setback along Howell Branch, what do we do on - what soils can we build on, can we take a certain tree out, can we move this, can we move that. Those are issues of an engineering basis that we will get into when we go to preliminary engineering and subsequently to the final engineering - this is againjust concept, an engineer taking a "blob" and then drawing some lines and that's all this IS. -'---'""-i',,,,~'~:;:{"'f~':~ Mayor - Mr. Ferring has a question Mr. Mikes. Ferring - ya, Jim, before you go on, I'm looking at the agreement with your signature on it right over here Mikes - yes sir Ferring - ok, subsection B, where it says FCCI, which is Florida Country Clubs Incorporated, has not as yet completed the preliminary engineering for the lots depicted on the conceptual plans for parcel 7 & 8. FCCI may increase the number and/or reduce the size to the lots located in parcel 7 & 8 and increase the size of the area located in parcel 7 to include the area west of the entry road depicted on the conceptual plan for parcel 7. FCCI shall be permitted to develop a total of 13 lots on parcel 7 and a total of39 lots on parcel 8, now before you go forward, these are the problems that I have right now, plus the fact over in your upper left hand comer, those four lots that you've got going across the 18th green.. Mikes - that's on the other plan, that I'll, I can bring that out if you'd like F erring - ok, Mikes - those are the same lots that are on the other - that's just showing those in relation to this. Ferring - no I'm taking about these over here, no the other ones, those right there, ya - there the same ones Mikes - those are the same ones, they're just, I could have put it on one plan, but then that would have made everything very small F erring - ok Mikes - they're identical, these are not a duplicate, they're not additional, they're shown twice in relation. Ferring - ok, now does all, I would like for my own satisfaction, is for you to explain to me how you went from Blots to 20 lots and from 39 lots to 46 lots. Mikes - since the time that we entered into the revision to the settlement agreement, I've had the opportunity to work with the builders, I've had the opportunity to here from the brokers, I've had the opportunity to look at the market as it exists both in Tuscawilla and overall in Orlando. Looking at homes that are in the price range comparable to what we're building. We're looking at other sites that are comparable, looking at Lake Colony Estates over in Maitland priced 50-60 thousand dollars more than our houses, same houses but on lots that are only 105 feet wide or 100 feet wide, 105 feet wide and a depth of only about a 140 feet. We looked at that, we looked at things in Maitland Club, comparable size lots, we looked at lots in all throughout the area also down in the south end of town, down in the Dr. Philips area, the Bay Hill area, and we looked at our competition to see what is being . ~~,"_';?h;:::.'~~O'I1.~.._.... offered and as we've worked with builders, as we've worked with brokers, we found that the size of lot is appropriate in the size of 115 feet wide which allows for a side loaded garage which is what we are requiring, three car garage and to fit appropnately a house of about 4,000 square feet and not look like it's on a postage stamp lot. At the time that we did the revisions on the last go around, I didn't have all the benefit of what size builders wanted, I also didn't have the benefit of the engineer laying it out precisely, there is a lot more engineering that has gone into this since the date of our last discussion on this in that settlement agreement; when it was listed at 13 or 39, we have not found that in developing this first phase of Arrowhead, we think it's very attractive. At size lots that we basically depicted here, that in this community of Tuscawilla you're approving that not that you necessarily are making a judgement that everything else in Tuscawilla is beautifully and what I'm doing is not beautiful but you've approved projects that have had vested rights of different natures, that have had zonings and densities of different appropriate natures; builders/developers coming in and saying we want to put 5 units per the acres, we what zero lot line here we want whatever we are going to build a house with out a hard surface roof, we're going to build it with a one car garage, we're going to build it with all the different things that others have done; from the perspective of the Country Club, remember I am ultimately trying to sell memberships in the club, I'm trying to charge dues to make the club work appropriately, I'm trying to provide the best Country Club that we can of a private nature; as I can add more homes in the high end, the more I get, the more I'm going to do - the better I'm going to do from the standpoint of the Country Club. 160 very expensive homes probably generates a larger proportion of people that become golfing members in the club as compared to the starter homes, the homes where there's several young children in it, people starting out their first home, they're not likely to be Country Club members at that time in their life. I have found that it's in my best economic interest that if I can develop a 160 homes in this nature it's going to help me on the golf course, so let's talk about what's changed, Jim Mikes has looked at it and found that economically it makes more sense from a golf course standpoint and economically it makes more sense from the development standpoint. I'm not standing before you saying John, this I want you to approve something that I don't have full faith and confidence that what I'm asking you to approve is something that you're going to very proud of that's going to be a real addition to the community, whether it said 13 and 39 and whether we're now at 20 and 46, I'm still asking you to approve something that I think is - that you can look at and you can see the gentleman said he would do "X" and he's done it and it looks pretty good. This project looks pretty good in comparison to some of it's counter parts, we're asking people to put the highest quality products into these homes landscape them appropriately, take care of it appropriately, bring families in there, there will be a definite enhancement to the community people that will, actually it's becoming, we're finding through the parade of homes this last weekend, if you looked at the number of people coming through, we're seeing more people coming in from Glen Eagle and from other places in Tuscawilla looking at it saying ok we now want to design our dream home and we want to build it there, we don't want to go out to Heathrow Woods or Lake Colony, or whatever, this provides an alternative there, it is a type of housing that is needed it's going to look good and I'm not asking you to approve something that's going to stretch your standards in any way. Yes, it is a different number than existed in those documents, yes it's going to make me more money, yes all those things are true. Ferring -let me just respond and then I'll give it up and I'm sorry for trying to take up - just put yourself in our place, in today's times where litigation is pursued at the drop of a hat, we have a contract that says "XYZ" you want us to change the contract that says "XYZ" to put "WXYZ" alright, we do that as a Commission, what happens to us legally, do we have another third party lawsuit on our hands regarding something like this, I mean, what I'm concerned about is the legal premise of the whole thing, I mean can we legally do this. Mikes - I'd have no trouble in making as you go through preliminary engineering, also open it up for any, ifthere is any land use issue, any modification that you think is appropriate is something that can be done at this Board with the signatures of all parties concerned. Mayor -let the Attorney answer Mr. Ferring's Ferring - I've had it Attorney - suffice to say I'm not prepared to let you do anything that I think will result in litigation on this, I'm not prepared to accept an interpretation or express an interpretation of this agreement, I think you should give opinions on the project, raise the issues like Mr. Ferring has raised, he's concerned about a lawsuit etc., then let Staff and I and Mr. Mikes get together and we'll take the steps to try and resolve any concerns and issues you raise. Mayor - Mr. McLeod had a question. McLeod - my question, probably now has been answered by the Attorney, my question was in the document agreement, this agreement is an agreement between Mr. Mikes and the City of Winter springs, so from a legal standpoint then what you're asking the City to do is amend this agreement and allow you to go forward with this conceptual plan to change the amount; so therefore, there had, what seemed to me from a legal issue, there would have to be an agreement first of the Mikes - correct, but not necessarily first.. McLeod - the document, if we say the conceptual plan's not all bad, therefore you need to get with our City Manager, City Attorney and work out the legal details then conceptually we don't have a problem. Mikes - correct, that's what I stated to the P&Z.. McLeod - I think that's what you're after correct Mikes - right, the P&Z was correct in stating the piece of paper said "X' they don't have the political authority to make a change that is for this Commission to do, not for the P&Z to do, you are the ones that would have to make an approval of anything of this nature. McLeod - then I would have to turn to our Attorney, from our Attorney's side, this is a document that is between the City and Mr. Mikes. Attorney - that's correct, that document anticipates your having the ability to make this change McLeod - ok, continue with your presentation please. Mikes - ok, the other comments, let me think of the other, the number oflots was raised, the cul-de- sac was raised and the acreage was raised. One thing we have depicted on this and rather, let me not gloss over this because it's important to me from the Country Club standpoint; the two plans that you have the one that says Unit 4 and the one that says Unit 3, both of them depict some portion of the parking lot, some portion of the entrance treatment and both of them state at the entranceway to the Country Club it will be done in a fashion that will be something similar to what you see at this first phase Arrowhead - high wall coming down a long way into the development getting the sense of privacy coming into the Country Club. There ,will be a gatehouse, it could be maned, it might not be maned, that will then will be the entrance into the Country Club. We will have a 4 foot, 4 foot to 5 foot wall across the face of the Country Club on Winter Springs Blvd., not as high as the 6 or 6 whatever wall in Arrowhead, slightly lower but enough so that as you drive by you can look and you can see the Country Club but you will not look and see it will block the view of the parking lot, you will look and see this building high up but you won't see the cars parked in the parking lot, at least up close. It will create a better vista from the standpoint of the traffic coming across Winter Springs Blvd. yet not totally blocking the fact that there is a Country Club there. The gatehouse obviously is to enhance the exclusivity trying to make it a little more private in nature in all respects. There will be one treatment that we will do different on these next phases of Arrowhead, is that we will actually put a gatehouse in, make it look more like the Lake Colony Estates in Maitland, we like their entrance treatment, the gatehouse treatment, and we'll try to duplicate that again with a deep wall, with a wall treatment that we have. Other than that we do show adding parking spaces which I really, in our parking lot which I'll get into on the other phase, on Parcel 3, it shows it a little more detail. Other than that let me go into that then you'll have both of them to be able to talk about. Mikes - the one that is depicted as Unit 3, Tuscawilla Parcel 7 - is the land that is lying east of the cafe, the pool and on this plan, it shows the removal of the tennis courts and the reconstruction of those tennis courts. It shows the cafe to be expanded and replaced, tom down and replaced in its present position. The pool isn't - we don't indicate anything there but the pool would have the deck will be removed, the shell will be remarisited, all the pool equipment will be totally, you know, brought up to brand new equipment, so the pool in its place with its shell, becomes a brand new pool; with the location of the cafe now going out closer to and actually you'd walk off the deck of the cafe walking into the pool area, trying to make something a heck of a lot more inviting than what we currently have with our twenty year 01d/25 year old cafe and the pool and the tennis building that's falling down. The lighting that will be on the tennis courts, by the way, instead of the very high, very bright lighting, it will be a modem lighting that directs lighting on the court and does not spill over into the adjoining homes on the new tennis courts. The maintenance building will be removed, it does show the brick wall coming across the face of the Club and it shows the addition of28 parking spaces and the addition of another 26 parking spaces for a total actual net gain of parking spaces of somewhere in the range of about 6 or 7 parking spaces, we will be taking some away but adding. It shows the entrance that currently is the entrance by the tennis courts to be turned to just an emergency access entrance that will be a break-away so that if the - if for emergency purposes you can break through it but it will no longer be an entrance and we will no longer direct traffic out that way. Now turning to the lots themselves that's the Country Club and the things that we are asking that you look at, basically at the same time; here are our plans for the Club as we develop these ~"';;-'-'-"". homes we are putting money back into and will be spending in excess of a million and a half dollars in terms of rebuilding the cafe, the tennis courts etc. The development then, will be located directly, the entrance to the development will be located directly across from the entranceway to the Wedgewood Tennis Villas and the brick wall, the same brick wall that we have on the first Phase will be carried across and will be behind the homes separating it from the tennis courts and poll and then carried across Winter Springs Blvd., to a point, and I'm not exactly certain where that point will be, but it will end somewhere short of Howell Branch Creek. The area if you would look on the areal photo, generally it will be taking up primarily where the tennis courts are and where the maintenance building is and going slightly into this wooded area; the bulk of this wooded area remains as is, you have a lot of this right now has been tom - has been constructed on in Chelsea, but the bulk of this wooded area will remain, that's which is on there, we still own all this wooded area in here and they will not be able to build homes in that area. The plan shows again the gated entrance, a short cul-de- sac leading off towards Howell Branch Creek and then a longer cul-de-sac that will in fact cross the 10th fairway below the tee, just below the tee, it will have a stone wall and it will be a fancy treatment, we've seen this at another Country Club in California, I'm going to try to duplicate that and leads to what we depicted as four lots, again which is an expansion of, an expansion of properly noted of what was interpreted in this last agreement, there's no suggestion that this is something that you did approve, that is that's something that you must approve, that that you must now give your consent to - recognize that, it shows 4 lots at the 18th green which would be services off of a cul-de- sac looking down over the creek and looking out on the 18th fairway - those are the same lots that were shown as those extra lots, on this site plan, those are the same. Langellotti - Jim, how wide is that roadway Mikes - oh, that's to City standards, it's not a, no suggestion that it is not going to be to the City Codes. The lots themselves are a 115, against Winter Springs Blvd., are 115 wide and 175 deep at a minimum; the interior lots, I believe, the shortest, the smallest lot we have is one lot that is roughly about 140 by 120, that's the smallest lot in the whole configuration. The rest of them are averaging approximately 115 feet wide and about 185 feet deep, again roughly the same size lots that we have in the first phases of Arrowhead. And that's, I guess that's pretty much everything that we've got between these two plans. The issues you had - expansion of the area that wasn't in the original agreement and the number going from 13 up to 20. Mayor - any other questions for Mr. Mikes. Mr. Ferring Ferring - ya I'm just curious, you're putting in homes here upwards to a half a million dollars Mikes - yes sir Ferring - aren't you concerned at all about Winter Springs Blvd., and what all this big traffic is that's going to be coming on there because of the mall Mikes - so far it hasn't... Ferring - how can you do that something.... . Mikes - so far it hasn't created a sales problem at all, now with the parade of homes - I suggest that you, if you have a chance come out to look at those first couple of homes that are finished in Arrowhead, particularly look at the home that is right on the wall, it's at the west end of ours, take a look at it and I think you'll see that as deep as we have made these lots, that we don't have the same situation that exists for instance in Davemport Glen or Glen Eagle. Look at the size of that yard behind that that house on the west end; now there's a house that's under construction in between there and he chose in order to save all the trees that were at the front of the lot, he has about a 60 foot setback of his house from his property line, so he pushed it way back and actually pushed the house up closer to the wall. But, if you go out there and you look at the size of that yard you'll see that that's not a sales impediment at all that we have found. Traffic from the mall is something we have not heard as a problem in fact the comments have been that they're happy that a mall is coming, whether they're thinking about traffic on Winter Springs Blvd., we're not bringing that up, they can see the signs, my attitude is ifit comes we're going to have traffic, we're going to have congestion, we're going to have anything else that is attendant to any of that type of development but that comes parcel with the benefits that the mall brings. Any of the development here is going to have some of that, hopefully what we're proposing here and going with 160 lots total as opposed to the 500+, we're certainly going to reduce the amount of traffic that is on the road network here, it certainly will be less than what 550 would be producing. But the mall - so far the mall hasn't, has not been a negative factor, again I'm not sure once somebody moves in and somebody says ok now I'm here is traffic going to be an issue, we haven't heard it at this point and again we not - we're sure everybody has seen every one of the signs as they approach Arrowhead, it's not going to be fooling anybody. Mayor - I think the important thing Mr. Mikes' presentation for the Commission, as you recall, there has been other instances not necessarily before this Commission where changes were made to agreements that no one seemed to be aware of and both the P&Z and the Commission tonight have noted the changes in the conceptual plan vs. The settlement agreement so the and so is the public and so everybody is aware of this when it comes back again, the Commission will then make a decision based upon information that they have before them rather than how they were slipped through the other times so we appreciate that very much. Any other questions for Mr. Mikes. McLeod - ya, I think what Mr., I'm sure Mr. Mikes has a question for us because I think his purpose for coming this evening to find out conceptually does the Commission have a problem with it, I don't know if that has been answered. Mayor - wait a minute, I don't think that we can answer that tonight as we understood the Attorney first started his presentation I mean, this is just for your information at this point and he is going to meet with Staff and come back at a later time. Mikes - actually if we could get a direction that if the Attorney was to bless it and it got approved and you did, you're ok conceptually from a planning standpoint do you have a problem with the number of lots. Mayor - that's a question for the commission McLeod - ok, ya I'll - conceptually provided the documents are in such a fashion, they have been written in such a fashion to be changed for both parties benefit either way, and both parties are in agreement to whatever that change is on a legal side, then conceptually what I've seen, I don't have a problem but I think I still want to ask a couple questions based on P&Z's notes here, that I'd like to see addressed but as far as the concepts as a conceptual thing, I don't have a problem with it, I mean that's my own personal opinion based on the legal aspects Mikes - can I address to two things that I think I want to make sure that I do reference because I they impact homeowners adjacent to it. I had asked one of our members, who is also on our Board of Governors, to be here who also happens to be living on one of the, adjacent to one of these - Jim Pitts is here who is on our Board of Governors, Jim also lives just across from this particular house. One of the things that we, I believe there was an intent - a request to make sure that no construction traffic, to develop this, we do have to get some tractors in to get the basic stuff, but when you are talking about the construction of the homes, we're not going to run every sub, nobody is going to run their cement trucks through, right behind Jim's home or right behind the homeowners in Country Club Village up and down here. We also remember, that we committed to putting a brick wall across the back of Country Club Village after, after the homeowners in general do they want it or do they not want it, they as - and I think that is, they will reserve that right for a while to decide does it look right, would it be better to block the view, would it be better to look across and that's something they'll make a judgement on after they see what this looks like. If there's four expensive homes across the pond from them, well maybe that's the best look to keep, maybe they want to put a wall in there, but we do commit that we will not be running the construction traffic for the houses; we do have to run some construction traffic through to get the roads in and that to begin with but after that there will be no, there would be none... Mayor -let me bring something up then I'll come to Mr. Ferring cause I'm a little confused; you know we've seen a conceptual plan not are you going to approve it, the conceptual plan or not, and I'm not for what the Attorney said when we started, I'm not sure that he said the Commission could approve it; on the other hand, Mr. Mikes' got to have some direction here and I think that's what he's asking the Commission for so I think the Attorney needs to clarify this. Attorney - I'm going to go back to what I said in the beginning, that prior to the meeting tonight I conferred with the City Manager and City Planner and said what action, if anything, are you asking for this Commission. The City Manager and City Planner advised me that part of the Code, part of the process they weren't asking you for any action. This developer was asking for each of you, one by one, to identify those issues or concerns that he needed to address to be able to then move this project forward as he begins to finalize the process. Commissioner Ferring raised an issue of the change in density, there were a couple of questions about the ponds and where would they be and what was being moved etc., what he needs to find out from you is John's raised an issue of the lots; are there issues that you have concerns about questions about so he can sit down and work on them and resolve them and bring back preliminary project that can ask for your approval. Mayor - well it appears to me that the lot issue is the major concern. Attorney - ok, now we move the lot issue aside, are there any other issues. .. Mikes - if this said 39 and this said 13 ok, if those numbers were on there conceptually other planning problems with it. Langellotti - I don't see a problem Ferring - here's the way I see it Jim, and I want to ask you Don has notification been made to all the contiguous property owners regarding this and when will the public hearing come involving this particular plan LeBlanc - that - public notice is not required to contiguous property owners, this is not a rezoning issue or anything else, so whenever we have meetings it's just like any place else, the agenda goes up and whatever the distribution where the agenda goes but there is no requirement for public notice and then whenever the final approval for this project is with the commission and that's always at a public hearing at one of your meetings. Ferring - ok, I don't have a problem as long as this thing is advertised that everybody is aware of what we are doing and that nobody can come after anything takes place and says you put something over on us, conceptually I agree with Commissioner McLeod but I don't want to get caught in another blind switch Mikes - you don't want ?????Northern way 7 lots, 3 lots F erring - no Mikes - ok, I do not either Ferring - ok, in other words and I want to be able to just have some input from anybody that's got a concern out there that we haven't heard from yet and that's why I'm hedging LeBlanc - well then maybe the deal is whatever Mr. Mikes' next step is, you know, and I think, you know, that basically Attorney - why don't you not suggest it right now until we meet and talk about this because if you suggest it Mayor - Mr. Conniffhas a question Attorney - Don, I don't mean to cut you short, but why don't you wait until we meet. Mikes - the engineering, the layout of a road is going to stay the same, rather the width, whether the width of these lots lots on this parcel is 115 or 125, it's going, the road is going to stay the same the basic engineering questions so from that standpoint that 39 vs 36 is not stop the engineering process from going forward as long as conceptually it passes Ferring - you mean 46 .. , Mikes - 46 and 39 excuse me. On this parcel the only thing that would be different is the issue of extending it there, other than that this road would culled there vs being cull there so engineering it's not going to change those dramatically. Mayor - Mr. Conniff did you have a question Conniff - well I was just going to make a comment, Mayor, the new lot concept doesn't bother me whatsoever, we've got a man who is obviously going to build a top quality establishment over here or subdivision over here, forgive me if I'm using the wrong terms, as far as subdivision goes, he's in our area, he's running a class operation, it excites me to see this. Attorney - Mayor, if I could intetject one thing just so you note your comments, and the reason I cut Don oft: you have a Code that contemplates a process that this will go through public hearings and then ultimately be brought to you for action at a public hearing, the public is welcome and you've encouraged in the past the public to come, voice it's input and then you make a final decision, so there is no way this thing, although we hear about the tricks and the switches and that, if people stay informed and monitor what gets posted on those bulletin boards and what gets advertised the process is set up to give notice and enable them to give input and I think that's your concern Commissioner F erring. Mikes - let me make a comment... Ferring - and I just wish I could afford to live there but I can't Mayor - Mr. Govoruhk Govoruhk - Attorney beat me to it Mayor, but this goes to staff: to P&Z board for the preliminary then back to Commissioners, then when we finish that process we go back to for the final engineers so all notices will be posted. Mayor - I think some of the comments had been made, so lend support to our idea of maybe a newsletter of some kind coming out from the City too this is, we can't, very few people are here tonight to hear this, very few people are going to read the bulletin board out there but that's something for us to think about. Commissioner Langellotti Langellotti - I'm glad to see this type of project instead of Tusca Oaks, how that monstrosity got through us I'll never know. Mikes - Tusca Oaks, if you look at some of the homes, I'm Langellotti - ya but how many Mikes - I looked at them yesterday, and I'm more pleased with it today looking at it then I was thinking, it's come out a little better than I, I'd envisioned a disaster, it's not a disaster ... , Langellotti - ya but 138 units out there Mikes - yes, I would have liked to have seen fewer units there, but it's - Puilte's building a much higher quality home than I had envisioned Langellotti - that point I'm not arguing, it's just the amount of homes in there, passed through us with no problem Mayor - I think to summarize this so we can move on is that the Commission agrees with the conceptual plan to what's been presented and encourages us to go ahead through the regular procedure established by the City's Codes is that fair to say Commissioners. Mayor - Thank you Mr. Mikes McLeod - and to check the agreement document against the changes with the Attorney Attorney - we understand that Mikes - we recognize that Mayor - and we'll ask the City manager to also to look into how this can be more widely distributed among the community this kind of a change, rather than just our other procedures, maybe that will come up under someone's seat too. McLeod - Mayor, what are we going to do, every time we have something out now in front of the Commission am I hearing we are going to send out a newsletter to the whole City, is that what I'm hearing Mayor - we've done it once in three years I don't think that's too much, no I don't believe that's the case at all McLeod - I mean this is normal process I see we're going through Mayor - it wouldn't be a bad idea, ok you want to take a 5 minute break before we get into the reports, so we'll reconvene about 9:30