HomeMy WebLinkAbout_2006 11 14 City Commission Special Minutes
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
The Special Meeting of Tuesday, November 14,2006 of the City Commission was called
to Order by Mayor John F. Bush at 6:31 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the
Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida
32708).
Roll Call:
Mayor John F. Bush, present
Deputy Mayor Michael S. Blake, arrived at 6:32 p.m.
Commissioner Robert S. Miller, present
Commissioner Donald A. Gilmore, present
Commissioner Sally McGinnis, present
Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs, present
City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, present
City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, arrived at 6:33 p.m.
A moment of silence was followed by the Pledge Of Allegiance.
REGULAR AGENDA
REGULAR
300. Office Of The Mayor
Discussion On Parking And Other Contract Issues In The Town Center.
Deputy Mayor Michael S. Blake arrived at 6:32 p.m.
City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese arrived at 6:33 p.m.
City Manager Ronald W. McLemore began the discussion and stated, "What we provided
you with - is a memorandum. We took the James Doran proposal that we received
yesterday, I believe it was, and we have taken it point by point, and then if there were any
points that weren't involved in his draft, that was involved in our draft, we added it to
this. So, basically we have a sheet of all of the issues."
A video presentation was shown to the City Commission.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 2 OF 33
Mr. George Tullos, James Doran Company, 216 Seven Farms Road, Suite 200,
Charleston, South Carolina: explained, "This is not our final product; this is a little
something we put together during the production of our final DVD (Digital Video Disc).
But, I wanted to give you a little sense of the vision, like the Mayor [Bush] mentioned
last Wednesday night. A little sense of the vision of the Town Center - it's primarily
focused on the condominiums as far as the dialogue goes. But, I think the vision of the
Town Center is a strong one."
A scale model of the Winter Springs Town Center was unveiled next.
Commissioner Sally McGinnis said, "Will you see that Andrea [Lorenzo-Luaces, City
Clerk] has a copy of that Presentation?" Mr. Tullos stated, "Certainly. Can I wait until I
get the final product?" Commissioner McGinnis stated, "Yes."
Mr. Kip Lockcuff, P.E., Director, Public WorkslUtility Department said, "I am going to
be going through Ron's [McLemore] memo with cross-referencing of the IDC
Agreement." Manager McLemore noted, "November 14th is the latest one."
Mr. Lockcuff stated, "3.1 under section 3 - obligations and commitments - What they've
requested in this section is a slight change of the mix of the retail office and multi-family
from the original approved Concept Plan. We have no objection with the change of the
mix. We do have some concerns with the language in there in the middle of that bottom
paragraph; 'City hereby grants any and all Variances'. Staff has already identified all the
two-way Variances as part of a Final Engineering. Not sure we need to keep that
language in there. We do want to add some language in there about a minimum of two
(2) story heights, for the lIB portion."
Discussion.
Mr. Lockcuff stated, "3.4 deals with the roadways. We have no problem amending the
Town Center Master Plan. We don't really have a Town Center Transportation Master
Plan. We would amend the original Victor Dover Concept Plan."
Further discussion.
Regarding 3.8, Mr. Lockcuff stated, "The only thing we'd add to that, we'd like to see the
number of spaces going to be provided on that pad. Is it ten (10); is it thirty (30); is it
fifty (50)? We'd also like to put a contingency that it either be removed when Tuskawilla
[Road] on-street parking is available or the north garage is complete; or the issuance of
the south garage Permit; not the Application, but the actual issuance of the Permit. The
timing between Permit application issuance may be four (4) months. That's four (4)
months that could be well served by that temporary parking lot."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FWRIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 3 OF 33
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Completion, meaning available for parking?" Mr. Lockcuff
stated, "Correct." Manager McLemore stated, "C.O. (Certificate of Occupancy) is good."
Deputy Mayor Blake added, "But, you could have a C.O. (Certificate of Occupancy) and
still have it blocked off; due to other construction considerations that are going on around
it." Mr. Lockcuff stated, "That's a good point."
Regarding 3.8.2, Mr. Lockcuff stated, "We would like some additional language that we
talked about in 4.0 and how those spaces actually are assigned - it's going to be a four (4)
or five (5) story garage? Where are the city spaces? Where are the limits for the
commercial? Where are the limits for the residential? Which are the assigned
residential? Which are the unassigned residential? We've put some language in section
4.3 of the City version that we prefer on that. It basically goes into more detail."
Manager McLemore added, "In the City's Agreement."
Manager McLemore said, "It's not very complicated. They said we'll have some signage
that says, 'This is commercial parking' or 'Non-residential parking'. We'll put the
commercial at the lowest floors - the general public parking; and you all will work out
some system of how you differentiate the assigned parking from the regular."
Regarding 3.9, Mr. Lockcuff said, "We'd like to go ahead and build that ourselves. We
think we can do it cheaper. The time line we would do is twenty-four (24) months -
within: twenty-four (24) months of the first Building Permit for IIA. We would need
Spine Road right-a-way dedicated shortly after the execution on this Agreement.
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Who needs to dedicate that?" Mr. Lockcuff said, "JDC."
Furthermore, Deputy Mayor Blake added, "Are we waiting for Schrimsher to act on any
Deed or Easement, or anything?" Mr. Lockcuff answered that "Yes. But, unrelated to
JDC. "
With further discussion, Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Twenty-four (24) months from
issuance of the first Building Permit, my understanding was, or I believe it was, that JDC
was working towards the C.O. (Certificate of Occupancy) on this Phase in eighteen (18)
months." Deputy Mayor Blake added, "If that's the case, are we able to shorten that
twenty-four (24) months up to eighteen (18) months?" Mr. Lockcuffresponded, "Yes. I
believe we could."
Regarding 3.10, Mr. Lockcuffsaid, "We're not comfortable with either of those requests.
If we were to freeze or even deviate from where the impact needed to be at some point in
the future, General Fund would have to make up that delta. I think we're comfortable
agreeing to a freeze until at least October 1 st of 2007. Obviously, we are not under way
with any studies to change a plan. It would probably take us almost that long to change
them anyhow. We're okay with freezing them until October 2007."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FWRIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 4 OF 33
Mr. Lockcuff continued, "You may recall in Phase I, the Developer submitted a Study
that provided for basically internal capture and allowed for reduction of the
Transportation Impact Fees by fifteen percent (15%). They wanted that granted as part of
the Agreement. I would request that we follow the same process that was done in Phase I
and have the appropriate documentation submitted that we can review and verify that it in
fact it's the same situation." Deputy Mayor Blake asked, "That fifteen percent (15%)
discount was only for the Transportation Impact Fee - and they are requesting a fifteen
percent (15%) reduction across the board?" Mr. Lockcuffstated, "That's correct."
With further discussion, Mr. Lockcuff said, "The Phase I wasn't limited to the geographic
limits of Phase I; it actually accounts for the bigger area. So, whether it's the same or
higher or lower. . ." Deputy Mayor Blake added, "... I am just wondering if we can agree
that the fifteen percent (15%) would be appropriate on that same basis and not require the
expenditure of going through a separate study that's going to give the same answer." Mr.
Lockcuff stated, "I would really suggest you not do that - the Code lays out the process to
follow. I really recommend they follow that process with the documentation. It may not
be exactly the same, it maybe sixteen percent (16%)."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Going back to the freezing of Impact Fees, is there a method
that exists or one that we can create that would allow the Developer to prepay all of the
Impact Fees on the entire Phase, thus fixing them at the current level?" Manager
McLemore stated, "I don't know why we wouldn't allow it." Manager McLemore added,
"I don't know. We'll think about that one."
On the issue of parking, Deputy Mayor Blake asked, "Have we decided to go to parallel
parking from angle parking?" Manager McLemore answered, "Well, we hope so. This
whole Agreement is centered around..." Deputy Mayor Blake added, ".. . Has the
Commission decided to go from angle parking to parallel parking along that section of
TuskaWilla Road, because I don't think there has been an action yet that the Commission
has taken?" Manager McLemore stated, "I thought we had a Consensus on that."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "I don't think we do."
Deputy Mayor Blake added, "If you look through the Minutes of the last Meeting we had
where we discussed Parking, there were no Motions; there were no final determinations.
Continuing, Deputy Mayor Blake said, "We did have some discussion about, where's it
appropriate to go down to parallel parking; and when to do it. I don't think we have had
a resolution on that yet."
Tape IISide B
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
. MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 5 OF 33
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "How many spaces on the east side? How many spaces do we
lose by going - from angular to parallel?" Mr. Brian Fields, P.E., City Engineer, Public
Works Department said, "It's eighteen (18). Goes from the thirty-four (34) now, to
sixteen (16) when the project's completed." Deputy Mayor Blake then said, "So,
eighteen (18). But, four (4) of those eighteen (18) are due to the driveway; it doesn't
matter which way it happens?" Mr. Fields stated, "That's correct."
Regarding 3.20, Mr. Tullos said, "What we've done is mark up an Elevation which we
can show you in our response, unless you'd like to see it now - which shows where this
condition exists. What we've talked about is where it occurs three (3) times on Main
Street. This is where we were potentially willing to entertain a compromise. The other
places it occurs is down Tree Swallow [Drive] towards the residential. And, then it
occurs in many locations in the residential portion; both behind the building facing the
wetlands area and further east along Tree Swallow [Drive], where it is all residential."
Manager McLemore said, "In their plan which they have proposed, they have variations
on balconies - all of these points do not meet the six foot (6') minimum..."
Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs asked, ".. . All of the balconies..." Manager McLemore
stated, ".. . Balconies and canopies - so, some do, some don't. So, my suggestion was to
try to get us by this point tonight that where there are entranceways to buildings there
would be at minimum six feet (6'). And, then at the other points along, we would accept
basically the plan that they presented to us."
Commissioner Donald A. Gilmore inquired, "Why don't we have a standard set of
drawings issued that show all of the balconies and where they apply and get it over
with?" Manager McLemore said, "In your Code, there is a six foot (6') standard for
balconies, on the second floor - second floor balconies, and it does allow for variations
above that. And, they're seeking some relief from that - in this project."
Manager McLemore added, "So, what we've put on the Record is a compromise for you
to think about and see if the information they give you brings you to the point where you
can be comfortable with that compromise."
Regarding entrances to buildings, Mr. Tullos said, "Are you talking about entrances to
say, a common lobby of the building, or a pass-through, or are you talking to every
individual entrance to a storefront?" Manager McLemore answered, "When you have an
entranceway into a building - then there would be at least a six foot (6') canopy there in
some way. Either a cloth or whatever that material is at those entry points." Mr. Tullos
added, "So, either shade from the balcony on the second floor; an awning on the first
floor; a marquee on the first floor; a canopy on the first floor. Correct?" Manager
McLemore said, "That's the way that we talked about it earlier today."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 6 OF 33
As to height of buildings, Commissioner Gilmore said, "The buildings on Tuskawilla
Road could be constructed to six (6) stories, according..." Manager McLemore added,
". . . You've already approved that." Commissioner Gilmore noted, "All of them."
Manager McLemore said, "Yes."
Regarding 3.22, Mr. Lockcuff said, "The only issue there, we'd like to strike the 'Sit-
down' restaurants base and not get into - an interpretation of different type of restaurants.
We think a restaurant, is a restaurant, is a restaurant, as far as parking."
In terms of parking spaces, Commissioner Krebs said, "Those 1 08 spaces, is that
something we agreed to?" Mr. Lockcuff said, "We had had the 1 00 temporary spaces by
the McDonalds; which I guess is going away as part of this. And our intent with our
original draft Agreement was that those 100 spaces, when they went away, would be
replaced at our expense, in a Phase liB parking garage." Commissioner Krebs asked,
"Does the Commission approve that?" Mr. Lockcuff answered, "That was in a draft.
That was in our draft early on."
Manager McLemore further explained, "We had an extensive discussion with you at the
Meeting prior to this about the goal of the 170 additional spaces and again, my reading on
that Meeting was generally everybody was pretty comfortable with that. And, our
proposal was that it would be paid for out of monies generated within the Town Center."
With further discussion, Commissioner Krebs inquired, "How are we going to fund it?"
Manager McLemore said, "You fund from revenue flows that are generated within the
Town Center, and laid out to you -that was a number based on today's market place
around two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00)."
Manager McLemore said, "The discussion we had about the south elevation on the south
building, the reality is that until McDonalds was built, that wall is going, or that - south
elevation is going to be exposed to the public. What we had asked for was some
adornments to that building and - it didn't affect the function of the building, but affected
basically the skin of the building and some additions to that which would help to soften
that look to the public. Because that's the entranceway to your Town Center; and all of
the beautiful stuff you see facing Main Street, you got this wall facing when you come
into it." Manager McLemore added, "But, to just simply - adorn it and dress it up so that
when you see that going into the Town Center it makes sense with the picture that we're
trying to present. And, I think that you did have some sketches or something to show
tonight. "
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 7 OF 33
Mr. Tullos then said, "We don't agree on this point." Mr. Tullos added, "It was already
approved like it is." Manager McLemore stated, "That's not been the discussion we had,
George [Tullos], you and I." Mr. Tullos remarked, "But, I never agreed to any..."
Manager McLemore stated, "... You never agreed to anything? Did you agree to ask
Chuck [Travis], I believe, to make some sketches and now you've changed? So, that's
where we are."
Mayor Bush called a Recess at 7:41 p.m.
The Special Meeting was called back to Order at 7:52 p.m.
Ms. M Rebecca Furman, Attorney, Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed, P.A., 215
North Eola Drive, Orlando, Florida: commented on the project.
Continuing, Ms. Furman stated, "Is this what the development Implementation
Agreement is going to look like and be voted on? Because, if that's so, I think it's going
to take us, I'm not going to say more time, but I'm just going to want to be a bit more
accurate with the wording of it; and that's our preference is for tonight, to be the last time
that you as a Board deal with this as an Implementation Agreement. I think tonight that
there are a lot of things already that can be agreed upon, that we will agree with. A
couple things that need tweaking and a couple things that George [Tullos] and Shane
[Doran] are going to explain, are unacceptable. But, that said, I think that we're really
close to an agreement. So, I just had a point of clarification on that."
Attorney Garganese said, "If we want to clarify that, it's been noticed for discussion
purposes and I'm sure we'll work through all of the issues; and whatever issues get
worked out - we'd have to go back and memorialize them in a final draft and present it to
the Commission for Final Approval." Ms. Furman added, "I guess tonight we can put it
on an Agenda; because as mentioned, this is something that we do need to move forward.
They have a partnership put together and this Implementation Agreement's really what's
holding up."
Ms. Furman added, "Everything that Ron [McLemore] didn't have an objection to we're
okay with."
Next, Ms. Furman said, "With approval of the Concept Plan, 3.1. - I'm going to let
George [Tullos] address this. For the most part, we're okay with this language - we're
fine with granting the amount of space. It's just that, I think what's caused some of the
problems that we've discussed later on with balconies and things like that, is there's a
Concept Plan - and then an Aesthetic Plan that is okay'd and as we get further through
the process - we're told that we have to come back for Waivers."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 8 OF 33
Mr. Shane Doran, James Doran Company, 216 Seven Farms Road, Suite 200,
Charleston, South Carolina: commented that, "I had a minor point of clarification. I
assumed the City's intent on the two (2) story is to have it two (2) stories in height and
appearance in architecture, but it is not a requirement that two (2) stories - that the
second story be occupied." Manager McLemore answered, "According to Code it is."
Manager McLemore added, "Two (2) occupied floors. We deviated from that in the past
to some degree to allow you - on the restaurant buildings for example to have the high
roofs. But, the Code says it's two (2) story buildings." Mr. Doran stated, "It would be
acceptable to me if the - second story does not have to be occupied."
Mayor Bush stated, "But it exists. The second story exists." Mr. Doran added, "It exists,
but it could be a shell; like some of the two (2) story buildings we've done out here."
Mr. Tullos remarked, "What we're talking about is what you don't see and that's the
Phase lIB piece of property that would extend the east beyond here. So, we're not yet on
this." Mayor Bush then noted, "The City's recommendation was drop Phase lIB from
this revision and deal with it separately."
Continuing, Mr. Doran stated, "I think that we all agree that the design that we are
presenting here for Phase IIA is vastly superior to what could be done under the 'Market
Square' section of the Schrimsher Agreement. So - I need, just to react to the
marketplace, the right to do a few buildings that the second story is not occupied. In case
of a Bank, for example, they don't always want to go on a second story. I don't need a
ton of it. But - I am giving up five (5) pads and then to just say I don't have any, I - don't
wantto do that, I can't react to the marketplace properly."
Manager McLemore said, "My only advice to you on that is to deal with those on a case
by case basis. The Code is clear. We did give up based - on some case by case situation.
The language, you could go back and look at it, it was very definitive in terms of when
that was done."
Discussion.
Regarding 3.1, Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "Ms. Furman, is there anything in 3.1 or
elsewhere - 3.2, I guess does as well, or elsewhere in this proposed Agreement language
that requests or asks for a Variance in our Code that is not shown? Specifically, is there
anything in here that is requesting a one (1) story building or a two (2) story building,
where the second story is not occupied?" Ms. Furman answered, "No. Nothing in this is
requesting that."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 9 OF 33
Deputy Mayor Blake then said, "Ron [McLemore], I am not sure why we need to dwell
on this point at the moment, and why we need to have that language in here. Because it's
already covered by Code and they have not presented us with any conceptual drawings or
architectural renderings, whether they be on paper or three-dimensional format; that is
requesting a two (2) story with a top story not occupied, or a single story structure as of
this time. If they do so in the future, then it will have to go through the process that exists
already to request a Variance and it would have to come before the DRC (Development
Review Committee) and then a decision would be made." Manager McLemore stated,
"Agreed." Mr. Doran remarked, "That's acceptable." Deputy Mayor Blake then said,
"Doesn't need to be here."
Attorney Garganese stated, "Why is lIB even here? Because they have a Final
Engineering Plan for IIA that's been adopted contingent upon an Implementation
Agreement. So, the Concept Plan for IIA is irrelevant, in my view."
Furthermore, Attorney Garganese added, "Then my other point would be lIB does it
really need to be in here? It could be addressed at a later date, except for maybe some
minor point that the Manager raised regarding parking; although they're not minor."
Ms. Furman answered, "Anthony [Garganese], I think some of the reason that we brought
in the retail, the office, and the multi-family is because we want in this Agreement for it
to be clear what our expectations are of future development, of the rest of Phase II.
Because some of the infrastructure improvements, the Spine Road, the cost sharing for
those things are going to affect, not just IIA, even though the Implementation
Agreement's required before we can move past IIA, but - they're being put in place also
for lIB. So, we want to make sure we're clear on what our rights are in lIB and not
agreed to some things as far as; what we will construct; what we will reimburse for; and
then as we move down the road, be unsure about what approvals we can have, or what
types of densities we can have."
Manager McLemore remarked, "Isn't the development program already stated in the
Development Agreement?" Mr. Doran stated, "We did it then, and now we're doing it
again; and that's the main thing I'm getting frankly. I'm giving up Market Square, and
I'm clarifying my rights on lIB - I'm really here for two (2) basic things. To clarify and
secure my approval on IIA on the Elevations and the Civils; because they're all subject to
an Implementation Agreement and to clarify and secure my rights, my density on lIB.
That's why I'm here. That's the main point I'm here."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 10 OF 33
Deputy Mayor Blake asked, "In this Implementation Agreement, is it incorporating this
conceptual Master Plan dated 8/1/05, Scheme 82.5?" Attorney Garganese said, "That
was approved in the Development Agreement, which is the predecessor to the
Implementation Agreement." Deputy Mayor Blake asked, "Was that Concept Plan
approved subject to this Implementation Agreement?" Attorney Garganese stated, "Yes."
Furthermore, Deputy Mayor Blake said, "If we add into this language that Phase II - add
two (2) story minimum language, then we're creating a conflict within our own approval
process? Because - if we've already approved this conceptual Master Plan dated 8/1/05,
Scheme 82.5 and it has in this Conceptual Plan, something on here that defines this
building and that building as being single story, and our Staff members told us thatthis is
a single-story building and that is, whether or not we noticed it then or otherwise, and
now we've put in, put language into the Implementation Agreement that is - directly
related to that Developer's Agreement. This is the same thing that happened back in
1995, with some property that Winter Springs had one (1) Approval on Comp
[Comprehensive] Plan and another approval on Zoning and there was a gap between the
two (2) and our documents were inconsistent."
Manager McLemore stated, "That agreement is clearly subject to the Implementation
Agreement." Then, Attorney Garganese inquired, "Where on this Concept Plan, does it
say that those are one (1) story buildings?" Ms. Furman responded, "I believe when you
see the square footage, it's written on the building that - if you did that square footage by
the size it's shown."
Mr. Doran noted, "The reason we have a Concept Plan - it is intended to let us secure our
rights to go out to the market and - it was approved before. We haven't changed the
location boxes on this. And, I want to remind the Commission that there's nothing we
can do without coming in here and meeting Code. Be that Aesthetic, all your other Codes
to protect you. But, that's the reason the Concept Plan's in here - is to layout some - so
that we can move forward and do what we do."
Manager McLemore mentioned, "It was never my understanding that these were one (1)
story buildings. The Code says you've got to have two (2) story buildings. My opinion
is you need to put it back in your Development Agreement and make it subject to review
on a case by case basis where they can be built with a two (2) story fa9ade, if you choose
to do that."
Discussion.
Commissioner Robert S. Miller asked, "Can you put a second story fa9ade on those two
(2) anchor buildings?" Mr. Doran said, "I could. And, I would."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 11 OF 33
Attorney Garganese said, "It's the intent of the Developer's Agreement that was entered
into back in December of [20]'05 to work towards an Implementation Agreement, which
implements some of the terms of the Development Agreement to more particulars than
we're discussing." Attorney Garganese continued commenting on the two (2) stories
issue and added, "That's an issue that's turned into a big negotiation tonight on the
anchor building, that needs to be clarified on Phase liB. I see their point, but there is a
Concept Plan that's attached to the Development Agreement."
Tape 2/Side A
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Based on the original Agreement that this was a part of
December of [20]'05 and a language in the Implementation Agreement, if the
Implementation Agreement does not state as the City Manager had requested, add two (2)
story minimum language, that language is not in the Implementation Agreement, then
would it be your opinion that the combination of the Developer's Agreement and the
Implementation Agreement without that language would create an expectation on the part
of the Developer, that they do in fact now own the right to build a one (1) story building
without a second story at all? Or, that it would be subject to the Development Review
Committee, whatever their ultimate plans would be for them to discuss."
Continuing, Deputy Mayor Blake remarked, "Can we get past this by providing that the
question isn't answered and the question isn't asked as of yet, and when they come back
with that particular building, that they can then apply or not for a Variance at that time for
a one (1) story building, or two (2) story, where the upper story is not occupied?"
Attorney Garganese said, "You can address it on a case-by-case basis. Or, you can
address it in advance in the Developer's Agreement."
Ms. Furman said, "The point of this Implementation Agreement was not that, now we get
to build a one (1) story building there - until this language came up - we'd been looking
at broader strokes." Ms. Furman added, "The square footage numbers for the retail; the
office; and the residential. So, that's why we want lIA and lIB together. What we didn't
like was the City's language to drop lIB and to also require the two (2) story; because we
agree, we've got to meet Code or we have to have it expressly waived somewhere, and
we've got to come back."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "What I would like to do is have language that - points out
very clearly that the issue of less than two (2) story buildings in liB are specifically not
addressed through these Agreements and that they will need to be addressed in the event
that the property owner requests such a building in the future - through the normal DRC
(Development Review Committee) process at that time."
Mr. Tullos stated, "The only thing that I would say is that it has always been handled on a
case-by-case basis in the past. Why haven't we changed from that?"
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 12 OF 33
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "What we're going to do here is we're going to strike the
language that talks about two (2) story minimum - and we can add language that
specifically states that in Phase lIB..." Ms. Furman noted, "... Height is not addressed."
Mr. Tullos remarked, "We'll have to either get a Variance from the Code or follow the
Code. And, we're willing to do that." Next, Deputy Mayor Blake said, "That includes
the subsequent Developers agreement on Phase lIB. All the avenues that have always
existed..." Mr. Tullos said, "... Or, we seek a Variance."
Mayor Bush remarked, "The City's response says there's no objections to the
development mix or height..." Deputy Mayor Blake said, "...Or, the square footage."
Manager McLemore stated, "...Right, we don't have problems there."
Attorney Garganese noted, "The Manager wants to add two (2) story minimum language
and they're saying, 'No, we want to keep it open; and, they'll live by the Code. And, if
they need something less than two (2) stories, they'll come in for a Variance." Attorney
Garganese added, "You're objecting to putting two (2) story minimum in the
Development Agreement?" Mayor Bush stated, "We don't need it in there." Attorney
Garganese also said, "We don't need it in there."
Commissioner Gilmore said, "When this thing says, "We grant any and all Variances to
make any and all aspects of the Concept Plan lawful and permittable..." Manager
McLemore noted, ".... We're not agreeing to that..." Commissioner Gilmore noted,
"Now, are we striking that out of there?" Attorney Garganese stated, "We can't do that.
1 would advise against the Commission doing something like that. You can't get
Variances based on a general Concept Plan." Attorney Garganese added, "1 would
recommend against putting that in there." Ms. Furman stated, "We're okay with that."
Ms. Furman stated, "On 3.2, at one point there was some kind of complicated language
on how we would do any sort of exchanges of uses. 1 recommended we add an
equivalency matrix. Because that's the way we do it on a lot of other projects. We
would be happy to set a maximum, which 1 think is really what Ron [McLemore] is
suggesting here, is that we set a maximum percentage. We would be fine with thirty
percent (30%), or maybe twenty-five percent (25%) on how much we could change of a
type of Use before we would need to come back to you all for an approval."
Continuing, Manager McLemore stated, "That's not what I've recommended. What 1
recommended was that the Commission would delegate Staff a certain amount of review
without having to bring it back to the Commission. But, it would still have to go through
DRC (Development Review Committee) and then if you all didn't like the rendering of
DRC (Development Review Committee), then you could appeal to the Commission.
That was my recommendation."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 13 OF 33
Mr. Doran then said, "What I'm trying to do here is to define 'Significant'. I think
twenty percent (20%) is very reasonable, as long as, I don't change these mixes up here,
more than twenty percent (20%). I change them per the matrix, but no more than a
twenty percent (20%) change in any mix. That's what I'm proposing so that way we're
not here nibbling in front of you guys over and over again what is 'Significant'."
Manager McLemore said, "Each one of those need to be evaluated in terms of parking
impacts, all kind of different impacts. Most of the time they may not be significant, we
need the right to review each one of those separately. Again, if they don't like the
rendering of the Staff, they cari come and appeal those to you. But, that is not something
we should give up."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "The point that I am concerned about is, we have got - a nice
little mock-up down here. I don't want to all of a sudden, because we now have them or
have given them the opportunity to change whatever they want, that it is one hundred
percent (100%) residentia1..." Ms Furman remarked, "...And, that's not what we would
agree to. A percentage change of anything - above that percentage change, we'd come to
you. "
Furthermore, Deputy Mayor Blake noted, "It's not so much the concurrency, or the
infrastructure that's required for the change that I'm concerned about, because that can all
be taken care of administratively through a matrix. What I'm concerned about is the
overall workability of the development within the remainder of the Town Center and how
it affects it in terms of mixed use...." Mr. Doran said, "... And, that's why we wanted to
propose the twenty percent (20%) to give you all that comfort."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Ten percent (10%) is a great number." Mr. Doran
commented, "We'll agree to ten (10)." Commissioner Miller said, "I'll agree." Deputy
Mayor Blake then stated, "But there has to be a matrix in there that spells out all these
other infrastructure impacts."
Manager McLemore said, "I guarantee it will try to be argued that it's ten percent (10%)
on each transaction." Ms. Furman said, "We can do 'Combined' - we can write that."
Ms. Furman added, "We think we agree to the ten percent (10%) being the significance
threshold, that being measured at ten percent (10%) of combined changes." Mr. Doran
remarked, "IIB."
Further discussion.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 14 OF 33
Attorney Garganese stated, "The matrix is regarding - trips; so there is a ten percent
(10%) impact on parking and trips..." Ms. Furman noted, "...It would be a ten percent
(10%) change." Ms. Furman continued, "What we have as approvals in lIB. So, if, and
I'm using this as an example, I don't have them in front of me; but, let's say we have a
hundred (100) multi-family units and we want to lose nine (9) of them, we'd say nine (9)
and we'd run down our equivalency matrix and we'd see how many - retail spaces we
could buy with that. So, that would fall under the significance because that's only nine
percent (9%). But, if we did twelve (12), and we wanted to change that, we'd have to
come to you."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "You give up nine (9) multi-family residential units and now
you're only going to build ninety-one (91); and you find that you can build 2,000 square
feet of retail with that nine (9). And, the 2,000 square feet of retail is less than ten
percent (10%)." Continuing, Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Traffic generation changes by
eleven percent (11 %). Because retail generally is going to generate more traffic, more
trips than residential, in this example - so, now the question is because one of those
pieces triggered a greater than ten percent (10%) change, now it's across the threshold
and it needs review." Ms. Furman said, "The difference that I want to explain is what
you would change if we chose to lose residential units. The change you would make
would be equal on a traffic generation point because that's what our equivalency matrix
is based off of. So, it would be equal and that would determine the retail that we could
get. "
Deputy Mayor Blake then said, "For that measurement, which is traffic generation. But,
the point I made earlier and this is really important, is that that is not the only impact that
occurs with changing use matrixes." Ms. Furman said, "And, we understand that. That's
why we were saying a threshold would say, 'Okay, now we need to come back here'."
Continuing, Deputy Mayor Blake said, "The end answer isn't just in trip generation in the
matrix. It has to include all of the different impacts." Ms. Furman asked, "What we're
asking for is some flexibility in a Phase right now that is unknown. And, we are asking
for there to be - in that flexibility, that not everything is going to be looked at; that we
would agree that transportation - would be what we would use to switch out anything
that's a change less than, or up to ten percent (10%). Anything over that would be
considered significant. We would then need to come in here and look at Parks and that
sort of stuff."
Discussion.
Attorney Garganese asked Ms. Furman, "A ten percent (10%) impact on what?" Ms.
Furman stated, "Ten percent (10%) of the change of the three (3) Uses is what we're
asking for." Ms. Furman added, "We're talking about cumulative."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 15 OF 33
Deputy Mayor Blake then stated, "As provided in the Agreement for allowing you that
ten percent (10%) unmanaged flexibility along the matrix, you agree to not reduce the
number of parking places already required by the Agreement and there are numbers in
here for parking spaces already..." Ms. Furman said, "... We would agree not to change
them for lIA because we're not going to apply this matrix to IIA - and we would meet
Code for whatever the retail requires for those uses."
Ms. Furman stated, "We would meet Code - we're not asking for a Code Waiver. What
we're saying is, we've set out three (3) different Uses, that have three (3) different
amounts that are specific; I mean, down to the foot, on these three (3) different things.
What we're asking is to be able to switch those out up to ten percent (10%), not to come
here. I'm not asking to waive the Code requirements."
With further discussion on the need for a matrix, Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "As a
different way to get there, no ten percent (10%). You have got to come to us every time.
But, if we do not give you an answer within fifteen (15) days of your Application, then it
is deemed approved. Fifteen (15) days is really short. But it puts our Staff on notice that,
make the phone call, you get it going, and you have got to get it done immediately."
Furthermore, Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "By the way, that approval for that change
couldn't be unreasonably withheld either; as long as you're meeting Code and all the
capacities are there, the numbers work out."
Mr. Doran asked, "Would you put the fifteen (15) days in, put the ten percent (10%) in,
but say, 'I need approval for the ten percent (10%)'? I still come to you for the approval,
but it's not unreasonably withheld?" Manager McLemore said, "If you are saying you
understand that we have to check everything, make sure it meets Code. But, we won't
reasonably withhold your ten percent (10%), as long as everything meets Code and it
doesn't create any excessive parking demands or anything like that. That probably is
something that's workable."
Continuing, Mr. Doran stated, "It wasn't what I wanted, but in the interest of cooperation
and moving forward and getting this project moving, it's acceptable to me." Mr. Doran
then said, "It's acceptable."
Mr. Fields noted, "I think we have some common ground here. Our concern is changes
after Final Engineering, after they're out building it, the pad A which was designated as
retail, becomes some other Use that impacts. If it's done during the Concept stage,
before all - the water, sewer, parking, traffic, gets reviewed, I think our Staffs okay with
allowing some flexibility and that's why we recommended the twenty percent (20%). As
long as it's at that Concept stage." Deputy Mayor stated, "But, even it's already past
Final and it's under construction. Even if it's all there. Then, their burden is to come do
an Application or to provide us with the information necessary for us to say, 'Yes, it
meets all those requirements' ."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 16 OF 33
Mr. Tullos asked, "Then could we say that it's a two (2) fold system here. If it's during
the Concept phase, we have that ten percent (10%) freedom. And, then if we're beyond
the Concept phase, and we're in construction, as defined by Brian [Fields], then we have
to follow your suggestion. That marries the two (2) concepts." Manager McLemore
said, "All we want is the right to review it and say, 'You can make this entrance change,
it doesn't create any burdens on infrastructure, parking, or anything else'." Mr. Tullos
said, "Good."
Ms. Furman commented, "I have ten percent (10%); not unreasonably withheld; must
have answer within fifteen (15) days; must still meet Code." Mr. Tullos added, "Eligible
for Appeal to Commission." Ms. Furman stated, "We'll put 'Working days'." Mr.
Doran said, "Fifteen (15) business days is fine. I'd still like to retain the written right to
Appeal to the Commission. And, does that mean I get on the Agenda? If! hit an impasse
over this issue, can I bring it to the Commission, guaranteed in writing?"
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "That's with the right to Appeal." Mr. Doran stated, "I'll take
it." Manager McLemore stated, "The dilemma that - fifteen (15) day - if Plans are
submitted and there's a problem with Plans and it takes more than fifteen (15) days to get
those Plans straightened out, I mean, that's something that's very real." Mr. Doran noted,
"This isn't a Plan issue, it's a density issue. We're not talking about a review of Plans.
We're talking about, we send you a letter and say, 'We want to change our density, thus,
you have fifteen (15) days to respond'."
The Commission was then asked about a Consensus, to which, Commissioner Miller
stated, "Okay by me." Commissioner Krebs said, "Yes." Commissioner McGinnis said,
"Absolutely." Commissioner Gilmore said, "Yes." Deputy Mayor Blake, "Yes."
Commissioner Miller added, "Yes."
Regarding 3.5, Ms. Furman stated, "With respect to utilities, the problem we had -
basically, we're okay with the concept. The problem that we have with the City
Manager's response is where it states, 'Drainage and pond reimbursement will be limited
to the pro rata share needed for the Spine Road, since the detention pond serves the JDC
site and Spine Road only'. Then it says, 'There is no oversizing for other development
and City will pay for oversizing if it occurs'. I'll take that those last two (2) - it says,
'There's no oversizing for other development'. It's really common when we come in and
put in our utilities, that you all ask us to upsize for someone else; and we want - the pro
rata share for all of the upsizing to be paid by the City. And I don't think we have to
decide right now whether oversizing is going to exist or not."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 17 OF 33
Mr. Doran stated, "We're talking about what's pro rata, but I thought it was much cleaner
once we'd agreed the fund was in permanent functioning to give it to the City at no cost;
have you maintain it as a Utility, otherwise, I'm going to have to send you guys a bill for
your - maintenance of that storm pond every year and that might get messy. I thought it
would be cleaner. Either way is acceptable. But, I just want you to - you guys are
responsible for that year after year. Year after year, you're going to be responsible for
your share. You're going to be getting bills from us, and typically - I think it would be
cleaner to have the municipality just take that; but either one is acceptable. That was my
intention of having you guys own the storm pond." Mr. Lockcuff said. "And, we agree.
We intend to own the storm pond when you build it and convey it."
Ms. Furman asked, "So, on 3.5 is everyone comfortable?" Mr. Doran stated, "I'm okay."
Mayor Bush said, "The question was raised, 'Is the City going to pay for the oversizing
on this water line'?" Ms. Furman said, "No." Deputy Mayor Blake said, "No. What Kip
[Lockcuft] said, he did say, it's a very small number."
Mr. Robert J Lochrane, P.E., Lochrane Engineering, 201 South Bumby Avenue,
Orlando, Florida: as the Civil Engineer on the project, Mr. Lochrane stated, "Kip
[Lockcuft] is right. Ten inch (10") is not a normal size that's used throughout the
industry. It is made, it is used. And, that's exactly what we need hydraulically to serve
the needs of this overall project. City Staff would like to have a twelve inch (12").
That's fine. There is an upsizing cost which I think it's reasonable that James Doran
should see the benefit of."
Continuing, Mr. Lochrane remarked, "There was one other oversizing item, and that is
the sanitary sewer force main which is going from the lift station out to [State Road] 434,
along Spine Road and then eastwardly along [State Road] 434 to connect to the existing
force main where it terminates at the pedestrian bridge. That line is presently proposed to
be an eight (8) and it's upsized from six inch (6") due to the fact that Engle Homes to the
north, could connect into the force main. It's not connecting into the lift station,
therefore, our lift station is not oversized to handle their flow, but the force main actually
is. So, there will be a slight oversizing there."
Mr. Lockcuff said, "Engle [Homes] may be - building it first, but that's why we have the
language in there. If oversizing occurs, we'll kick-in."
Ms. Furman then stated, "The oversizing between the ten (10) and twelve (12)..."
Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "...Is not oversizing." Ms. Furman stated, "The sanitary
sewer force main - the City will pay for that oversizing, any other oversizing."
Discussion.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FWRIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 18 OF 33
Regarding 3.7, Mr. Doran stated, "Would you all agree that it would be judged by the
Code now? That IIA is judged by the Code as it exists right now, and say for a period of
time; say for four (4) or five (5) years. Limit it to a period of time?" Mr. Doran added, "I
am asking you guys only in specifically to the City, not to the State." Deputy Mayor
Blake stated, "Design Codes, not Building Codes." Ms. Furman stated, "The Town
Center Code."
Furthermore, Ms. Furman stated, "I think that there is concern that, that we feel as though
we play by the rules, and the rules get changed and we would like some assurances of, at
what date are these - the rules that we're going to be playing by and building by. And, if
we can just limit it to IIA, that we stick with the Code we have with the City now, and
that's what we're judged on. I really think that's where they're going."
Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "I think you need to have a time period for which that would
be allowable..." Mr. Doran stated, "...I agree." Deputy Mayor Blake added, "We're
talking about Design Code, not talking about Building Code and still have - changes still
have to be reviewed, but - it could be reviewed subject to the Code, as it exists today."
Ms. Furman stated, "We're not really asking for any changes." Deputy Mayor Blake
stated, "We don't lose right of review. If it doesn't comply with what Code is today, then
you have got to either change it or they have got to ask for a Variance." Ms. Furman
stated, "That's what we're asking."
Ms. Furman added, "But, what this says is that you all consent to is Phase IIA, that you
all have already approved on June 12, 2006...
Tape 2/Side B
. . . That all of that is approved and we move on as they are. And what you all are saying
is that, 'Well, their Final Engineering's approved, their Aesthetic Review is approved. I
don't know why they would need that'. Well, then, we need it because it gives us some
level of comfort. If we're all saying it's already approved, then I don't see what the
problem is alleviating here. Obviously, if we're asking for any change to the approvals
that are specifically set forth here, we would have to come back."
Manager McLemore asked, "Are there any deviations in the Plans from what has been
approved?" Ms. Furman stated, "We're not asking for deviations in the Plan." Manager
McLemore stated, "Then why are you asking for anything then, I don't understand. If it's
approved, it's approved." Ms. Furman commented, "We would like the level of comfort
that if in those Approvals, any Variance had been granted, that we don't have to come
back here. That all of that stuff stays, those are the approved Plans. We also referenced
these approved Plans throughout the document. So, it's also a definition of them."
Further discussion.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 19 OF 33
Deputy Mayor Blake then said, "When these modifications occur, we have the right to
review them; and, we can agree to review those subject to whatever our - as to Elevation
specifications, aesthetics and materials, all those design review things that we do up here
for a period of time, fixed at whatever the law is as of the time they were approved." Mr.
Doran stated, "We're essentially asking to be grandfathered in, in case of some future
changes." Deputy Mayor Blake added, "I don't see any reason why we can't do that for a
period of time so that it's well defined for you, exactly what the law is. He gets his
review, you have got to answer the questions when changes are made, because they will
be subject to the laws and the rules that existed at that point in time, for some fixed
period of time in the future."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "My only point would be that I think three (3) or four (4) years
is a little long." Mr. Tullos stated, "It's going to take us three (3) years to build it if! start
today and it takes about a year to draw the Plans. I need, I mean I really was going to ask
for five (5), but I'm not asking for what I want; I'm asking for what I need."
Commissioner Gilmore said, "Are you really saying you want to anchor the Code
changes to a date?" Mr. Doran stated, "Yes. That's correct." Ms. Furman noted, "We
want to work under the Code that the City of Winter Springs has today."
Attorney Garganese said, "I have some issues with that. I'm not saying that you cannot
place some limitations in a Development Agreement. There is some statutory authority
under the Development Agreement Act in the State of Florida to place a limitation or set
the Code at a certain date. However, even the Florida Statutes provides that if there's -
an emergency situation, or the public interest outweighs the Agreement that you made in
setting the Code, that this Commission always has the discretion to exercise its police
power to protect the public interest."
Furthermore, Attorney Garganese stated, "It has to rise to a different level."
Commissioner McGinnis stated, "Can't you put that language in there?" Attorney
Garganese said, "It's not a part of the Statute because if we did a 163 Development
Agreement, we're going to have two (2) Public Hearings on this Development
Agreement. We're going to advertise it differently and adopt it differently." Ms. Furman
added, "We would be happy to include the language about not limiting the police
powers. "
Commissioner McGinnis suggested, "Put the language in that would make..."
Commissioner Krebs said, "...Considering - Anthony's [Garganese] concerns."
Attorney Garganese said, "This whole project..." Mr. Tullos stated, "...IIA."
Mayor Bush said, "Commissioner Krebs, four (4) years?" Commissioner Krebs stated, "I
said with Anthony's [Garganese] - caveat." Commissioner McGinnis said, "Yes."nCommissioner Gilmore stated, "Yes." Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Yes." Commissioner
Miller commented, "Yes."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 20 OF 33
On the issue of 3.8.1 and parking, Mr. Tullos stated, "The Commission last Wednesday
suggested that we go back and take a look at providing the small pad north of
McDonald's, on the east side of Tuskawilla [Road] for temporary parking. We'll do it.
We've already had a preliminary measured, preliminarily laid out. It is not completely
accurate. I want to put that caveat there.
We would need to do a very accurate estimation. Bob [Lochrane] would need to draw it
up in most accurate form. But, as it sits right now conceptually, it could provide up to
fifty-six (56) additional spaces. I think that significantly meets what you asked us to go
back and look for on the north side. Secondly, it would not impact Magnolia Square at
all. We will not stage on Magnolia Park. We're not going to ask you for that. It's yours
to donate or use as temporary parking during the down time on our temporary lot; which
is what we discussed last night, Mr. McLemore."
Ms. Furman stated, "I think the problem that we had is with - the City Manager's
suggested changes - is that we wanted to make it available until we apply for our
Building Permit for the Application. At that time, we would give you thirty (30) days
written notice. It would be thirty (30) days after our Application is made."
Deputy Mayor Blake suggested, "What we're looking for is some assurance that - when
you need to take the one that we have, the other available, and have you thought about in
terms of your timeline..." Mr. Tullos stated, ". ..Magnolia Park you can use. !think he
says, 'Up to thirty (30) spaces in here'."
Mr. Doran stated, "We plan on phasing to where it's just that way. 1 can't encumber - I
can't have you guys stop us from development - if these condos sell out all at once. 1
want the right to build them at once. That's what I'm here to do. Our plan is to do this
one first. So, this would be complete before we needed that. That is the order that we are
proceeding - to encumber this until this is built, that's not a right I have."
Manager McLemore asked, "What is the anticipated length of time to build the garage?"
Mr. Tullos stated, "A year."
Ms. Furman stated, "Y ou all had asked for temporary parking. Weare going to provide
temporary parking. 1 think where it comes down to is we can't guarantee how quickly
we're going to be able to deliver that building and when we're going to start."
Manager McLemore said, "All we're trying to do is some reasonable understanding on
everybody's part - when that parking can be available so they can time a lot of things."
Mr. Doran stated, "I can tell you right now, there's certain things that 1 can negotiate, and
I've been reasonable with everybody. And I'll just disclose to you, that's a deal killer - 1
have promised my investors certain rights. I've promised them to have IIA rights now."
Mr. Doran added, "I cannot agree to the language Ron [McLemore] put in; cannot do it."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 21 OF 33
Ms. Furman stated, "We could agree to what Shane was offering was a longer notice
period."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "I don't really care about the notice of period so much. What
I care about is that period of time between where this temporary parking here, that they're
kind to provide, which is going to help feed the businesses over here, one (1), two (2),
three (3), and four (4) and up in this area to take up some of this here. I know we talked
about the valet parking as well, which is going to help. That's another prong to the
approach here. What I'm concerned about is when we lose this temporary parking and
we still can't get into the garage from a public parking standpoint. That window, that
period of time." Manager McLemore said, "During that time, we can kick in Magnolia
Park. "
Mayor Bush called a Recess at 9:21 p.m.
The Special Meeting was called back to Order at 9:28 p.m.
Mr. Tullos said, "Here's a way, I think, we can reach a compromise on it or an
agreement. We do have an issue with separate partnerships that we can't reach. So, in a
separate Agreement aside from this Implementation Agreement, what I think we can do
to bridge his concern is at the point the temporary parking goes away, we will allow for a
replacement parking of the deficit spaces between Magnolia Park, which the Manager
offered up, and what we had on our pad. So, if that's twenty (20) spaces, we'll allow for
that on those pads behind Publix. But, I can't do it in this Implementation Agreement,
it's got to be a separate Agreement because of the two (2) partnerships. And that way
you have the same amount of temporary parking.
And then at some point in the future when we do develop those pads, you guys finish
Blumberg Road, then temporary won't be an issue once the parking garage is delivered."
Mayor Bush stated, "How many days notice did..." Mr. Tullos stated, "...I think that
could be six (6) months on that additional temporary." Ms. Furman added, "Still thirty
(30) days or something like that on the pad behind the McDonalds. We would offer up
those - the other temporary." Mayor Bush stated, "Shane [Doran] said he would gives us
more than thirty (30) days." Mr. Doran stated, "Yes, we'll give you more than thirty (30)
days on the pad north of McDonalds."
Commissioner Gilmore returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:29 p.m.
Deputy Mayor Blake returned to the Commission Chambers at 9:30 p.m.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 22 OF 33
Manager McLemore said, "Kip [Lockcuff] is saying that we really, probably need about
ninety (90) days to prep it and get it ready for parking." Mr. Doran stated, "The deal
would be ninety (90) days notice on the temporary lot next to McDonalds and if the City
decides there's a shortfall, we would make up the difference in spots between what could
be provided at Magnolia Park and was provided in the temporary parking we had
provided. We would make that up here - under a separate Agreement, from a separate
partnership, a separate letter.
Manager McLemore said, "That separate Agreement would be done now, not then." Mr.
Doran stated, "We'll do it before we leave. I can sign for that partnership." Mayor Bush
said, "Okay." Mr. Doran then remarked, "We'd obviously need notice on that. But, we
would be willing to live with five (5) or six (6) months notice on this. We've applied for
a permit for a building there or for a Site Plan approval- a Building Permit."
Mayor Bush stated, "Consensus on this Commissioners? Commissioner Krebs?"
Commissioner Krebs said, "Yes." Commissioner McGinnis remarked, "Yes.
Absolutely." Commissioner Gilmore said, "Yes." Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "Yes."
Commissioner Miller said, "Yes."
Regarding extra spaces, Manager McLemore said, "What is your notice requirement?"
Mr. Tullos said, "We have ninety (90) days from when we apply for a Building Permit
for the south garage." Manager McLemore stated, "Yes. That gives us time to prep
Magnolia Park." Mr. Doran stated, "If there is a deficit between Magnolia Park and what
we were providing, we'll provide for that on those pads we indicated on the Phase I side."
Manager McLemore stated, "When do we know the numbers that you have on that site?"
Mr. Doran said, "Conceptually, fifty-six (56). But, we'll just have to - actually get out in
the field and measure it." Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "I think the intent of the provision
is being met. As long as it's configured in a way that it uses the number of parking
spaces that will fit on the property." Mr. Doran added, "It is the mode area right next to
the McDonalds, right on Main Street."
Ms. Furman then commented on 3.8.2 - garage parking and noted, "He wanted the
location restriction language regarding assigned, unassigned, residential, non-residential
parking - we could agree to that. The only part of that paragraph I had a problem with is
that it said, 'We would give a warranty that we didn't have a mortgage or lien on it'. And
that's not going to be the case. We can do a joinder and consent to the perpetual
Easement from our lender, but we will have a lender carrying a mortgage."
Also related to 3.8.2, Mr. Tullos stated, "The north garage, of the sixty-two (62) spaces,
we would be willing to sell the City, its thirty-seven (37) spaces in the north garage - and,
it's twenty-five (25) in the south garage." Commissioner McGinnis said, "Okay."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 23 OF 33
Discussion ensued on the costs and bids related to road construction; to which Mr.
Lockcuff explained, "We prefer to build it." Manager McLemore said, "Absolutely.
And we will do it as quickly as it can be done."
Mr. Lochrane remarked, "We are preparing the Application and paperwork for a
subdivision of the entire Phase IIAlIIB property, which will establish the right-of-way
dedication to the City. Those documents probably will be ready to go into, the City
within the next thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days, I would imagine. Then from there, it's
going to be a City processing time table. But, it should be coming pretty soon. It's
underway right now. I believe we are scheduling a pre-op meeting with City Staff. I
don't know if that's been done yet. But, it will be within the next few days. It will be
requested. "
Further discussion.
Ms. Furman stated, "If we build the road, we're taking that risk ourself. If there's any
problem with permits, or designing, or construction; we're willing to take that risk.
Whereas, if you all are going to build the road we want there to be some risk that the
City's taking, if it's not delivered." Mr. Lockcuff stated, "The risk is that we would
allow them to proceed with IIA without Spine Road."
Discussion
Mr. Doran stated, "We'll give you three (3) bids. If you think they're too high - we'll
come up with a process where you guys could bring in a couple of bidders against them
to keep them honest."
Tape 3/Side A
Further discussion followed on the bidding process and the road construction process.
Commissioner Miller said, "If you build a road, how soon would you have it done?" Mr.
Doran said, "I'll commit to having it done twenty-four (24) months after permit. That
gives me time if something goes wrong." Commissioner Miller added, "Ron
[McLemore] said same here. But, the only thing I'm trying to figure out is your concern
- our concern is that maybe this thing will slow down and you won't build it. At least
that's what I'm hearing." Furthermore, Commissioner Miller stated, "If we put a time on
it." Mr. Doran added, "Then we'd put a mechanism in that you can bring in your own
guys."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 24 OF 33
Commissioner Miller said, "I don't see any problem with going ahead with that - as long
they build it within a certain amount of time." Mayor Bush stated, "They build within
twenty-four (24) months and then the bids we would get and the bids that they would
have to agree that they were within - reason." Mr. Doran noted, "We will diligently
pursue it."
Manager McLemore said, "The caveat to me is as soon as those Plans are ready, and we
can go to the County and get our bids and then okay, we'll take the best prices." Mr.
Doran noted, "If you're bidding it, I am not going to bid it."
Much discussion.
Mr. Doran then commented, "I am willing to Table it for now. I really need to get this
project moving. I'm just noting for the Record, I recommend you guys keep a real eye on
this. Because, I hear what Kip [Lockcuff] says about the issues or design." Mr. Doran
added, "The design was done. . Okay. You all took the lowest bidder, because I guess
you all have to as a City. What I would really like to do is be able to choose my bidder
and pay the difference. You said, and I kind of joked with you Mayor - you wanted me
to have to pay the difference. What I'd like to do is have the right to do it. But, I'm
willing to Table it."
With further discussion, Mr. Doran asked, "In light that we've taken the initiative, and
started the Plans, is it acceptable that - when you guys move forward to build it, you're
taking Bob's [Lochrane] plans over - could I be reimbursed in cash for that and the
mitigation. All the hard costs I have in it, rather than Impact Fees?" Manager McLemore
stated, "I think we put that in the Agreement that we would."
Mr. Fields said, "In ours, it's in 6.2 (D) - on Page -6- of the City's version; 'Cash or
Impact Fees'." Ms. Furman stated, "We'll take yours." Mr. Tullos said, "Can we put
that language from your Agreement in this?"
, Attorney Garganese stated, "I just reviewed your Agreement for the first time today. I
haven't compared the two (2). There maybe some legal ease things. Not business points,
but maybe some legal ease things I might want to carry over to their version, if we use
their version. I'm not prepared to tell you what those are tonight." Mr. Doran remarked,
"We obviously can't release the Plans until we get paid for them."
Ms. Furman said, "On 3.10, we will agree with the City on the freezing of the Impact
Fees; agree to freeze them through October 1 st, 2007."
Discussion.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 25 OF 33
Continuing, Mr. Doran said, "Are you saying it's my responsibility for the lights on
Spine Road too, under the Scrimsher Agreement? I am asking the question. The way I
read it, it was part of the road and I wasn't responsible." With further comments, Mr.
Doran said, "Whatever rights we have, we have. Let's move on."
Ms. Furman stated, "Next is 3.12.4. This is dealing with the water and sewer
reimbursement." Ms. Furman added, "Still this was the concern about the - eight (8) to
ten (10). But, are we okay with that?" Mr. Doran said, "We're okay."
Discussion continued on the utilities, with Mr. Lockcuff saying, "Maybe it is reasonable
for the City to agree to pay for the water line portion - some utility portion."
Commissioner Miller said, "If they made a mistake, then they ought to. pay. If we made a
mistake, then we ought to negotiate." Commissioner Miller added, "If there's an error
that was made, it seems like it needs to be rectified somehow." Mr. Doran asked, "If the
City wasn't at fault, why would they reimburse the City? Why do you propose two fifty,
if it wasn't their fault?" Mr. Lockcuff said, "That's our cost that we'd expect to change
the angle to parallel." Continuing, Mayor Bush inquired, "The change of the parking
from parallel from - angle to parallel, is that to extend the sidewalk?" Mr. Lockcuff said,
"Yes." Mayor Bush added, "And that is something that we wanted to do - extend the
sidewalks. "
Discussion.
Regarding 3.15, the Maintenance Bond, Ms. Furman said, "Our concern was who was
building the Spine Road." Mr. Doran stated, "We will agree to the two (2) year. 3.15,
we will agree to."
Next, Ms. Furman stated, "On J.17 - the City's response is they want it to be linked to the
fair market values; SO, some sort of appraisal of our donation for the Impact Fee credits.
And, that's fine. We were a little concerned about the 'No reversion costs' but that's
okay, we'll give it to you - make it a park or sell it."
Ms. Furman said "3.18, 3.19, 3.20, we're all in agreement. 3.20(D), dealing with the
balcony. This goes back to some of the discussions on Aesthetic approvals, Final
Engineering approval Waivers, those things that we hit on before. But, I'd like the
Architect to come up. What we asked for is that for the approvals that we already have
for the six foot (6') balcony rule on that bottom floor for that to be waived as to some
units. "
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 26 OF 33
Mr. Chuck Travis, A/A, Principal, The Housing Studio, 500 East Boulevard, Charlotte,
North Carolina: addressed the City Commission.
Tape 3/Side B
Mr. Travis stated, "What we tried to do is go around the building and identify on the
second level where we have balconies that do not meet the six foot (6') dimension
criteria; and let me first say, the reason that we have a variation is because I think that's
what the intent of what we were trying to accomplish with this new Town Center was
after. "
Furthermore, Mr. Travis said, "In the north building that is in question, this is the entry
into the garage which has a four foot (4') balcony. This balcony has I believe a 5['],2["] -
the dimensions are a little hard to see. And, then the other balcony is four feet (4')."
Mr. Travis said, "What we talked to Ron [McLemore] today is one - is extending these
balconies out so that we have the full six feet (6') doing the same thing here in this
location. The main reason we did not have it at six feet (6') is because of the diagonal
parking. If the diagonal parking stays in place, we felt like if you extend that out another
one foot, eight inches (1', 8") it just became too tight of a relationship between the
balconies and the actual parking space itself. So, we have three (3) conditions on Main
Street, in the north building."
Continuing, Mr. Travis added, "Just to show that we do have variation; there are some
seven foot (7') balconies. This is once again Main Street at the comers, we have two foot
(2') Juliette balconies. But, underneath those Juliette balconies, we have canopies that
extend out six feet (6'); and, we will have canopies that run the entire length of the
building at various locations - at the retail that extend out six feet (6')."
Furthermore, Mr. Travis explained, "This is the two foot (2') Juliette balcony that has the
six foot (6') canopy below it. You can see the awning, canvass type material that will
extend out six feet (6') and the retail space. These actually extend out seven feet (7'); or,
excuse me they have a seven foot (7') depth. They extend from the face of the building
and go out a foot six (I' 6["] to two feet (2')."
Continuing, Mr. Travis noted, "So, what you see is throughout the entire development,
we have a lot of variation which is what we want. We want it to look like it evolved over
time and there's personal preferences. Some people like Juliette balconies because you
can open the door and immediately you're outside and some people like a covered patio.
It's more of a personal preference. It's more of a marketing criteria that drives options
for people; and this is what we talked about today earlier."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 27 OF 33
Manager McLemore asked, "What was the clarification you wanted from me?" Mr.
Doran said, "I thought that there was some talk with Ron [McLemore] today, George
[Tullos] and Chuck [Travis]?" Mr. Travis said, "I think the clarification would be if we
change the parking to parallel parking, then we can extend those three (3) balconies out
that are on the north building. If we don't, it will be my suggestion that we leave them as
we have them as currently designed."
Mr. Doran asked, "How many balconies, Ron [McLemore] does your proposed
compromise affect? How many would I have to change?" Manager McLemore said,
"My proposal was that where you have an entranceway to a building - there'd be at least
a six foot (6') canopy there or covering at that point in time; at the entranceway to
buildings; and then the rest of it would be part of the plan you have proposed."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "This only projects from that doorway they said, a foot and a
half (1' 6")." Mr. Travis noted, "No. From the face of the building. Don't confuse face
of building to a recess in the building. The door's actually recessed back into the space.
So, you have a total of seven foot (7') covering." Manager McLemore stated, "The
function is - for protection of the people on the street. And the entranceways of buildings
is all I was proposing to get us past this point. If we have six feet (6') then you have a
place for people to congregate in the rain and a place to go while they're slowed down,
trying to get into the building. Chuck [Travis], you have to tell us how many there were,
I don't remember - points where we have entranceway to the buildings that you needed to
extend that out as a colonnade kind of thing, or foot and a half (1' 6") or foot eight (I' 8"),
something like that..." Mr. Travis stated, ". ..Along Main Street..." Manager
McLemore stated, "... Yes..." Mr. Travis added, "...I think we have three (3) locations."
Manager McLemore stated, "That's what I was talking about."
Mr. Doran said, "I will accept Ron's [McLemore] compromise if I understand it."
Manager McLemore stated, "We've got to clarify again, the issue on the side street.
What are the plans there? That's what I need to make sure that Commission knows."
Mr. Doran remarked, "I thought the compromise was only on Main Street." Manager
McLemore stated, "That's what I propose to you; is that it would be on Main Street."
Mr. Doran commented that, "As approved, as per the design." Manager McLemore
added, "But, I need the Commission to understand that. That what I was talking about
was that on Main Street. They'd have to have the six foot (6') minimums at these
entranceways of the buildings. And, everything else would be per plan, which means on
the side street, four feet (4'), I think you'd have - what do you have on your
entranceways?
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 28 OF 33
It's four feet (4') everywhere, right?" Mr. Doran stated, "Yes. The majority of the space
would be four feet (4'). You do have some six foot (6') dimensions. And, as you move
around the building, you'll see some variation too. And we only identified the ones that
we thought would be in question. Some are sun rooms. So, if you go into certain areas
of the building, we would have sun rooms along the fayade as well." Mr. Doran said,
"Chuck [Travis], point out where the retail ends and fully residential begins."
Mr. Travis explained, "Retail stops there, that's the opening into the corridor. So, retail
on Tree Swallow [Drive] would start here; go to the comer and come towards [State
Road] 434. So, the balconies that we're talking about already that meet Code are these
two (2). The ones at the comer, will have the extension of the canopy. So, we really
have these three (3) along the edge of Tree Swallow [Drive]. And the reason that these
were held back is because - this is a fairly tight street with parallel parking. And, so
we're once again, we're worried that that dimension of the parallel parking to the actual
covered entry to that retail space."
Mayor Bush said, "So, you've agreed with the Manager?" Mr. Doran stated, "We have."
Mayor Bush asked, "Does the Commission agree?" Commissioner McGinnis
commented, "Yes." Commissioner Krebs stated, "Yes." Commissioner Gilmore
responded positively." Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "Yes." Commissioner Miller
remarked, "Yes."
Next, Ms. Furman said, "3.21 is good."
Ms. Furman noted that, "3.22 is making a distinction. The City Manager makes a
distinction between the sit-down restaurants. We want a distinction; sit down restaurants
and other restaurants." Mr. Doran said, "And, the City - doesn't want to do it, but in the
interest of time, I will take it the City's way, as long as I have the right to bring
restaurants to you all on an individual basis for approval to the Commission." Manager
McLemore said, "We're cool with that." Mr. Doran added, "If they're a non-sit down
restaurant, I want the. right to bring them to the Commission case by case." Manager
McLemore said, "We don't have a problem with that."
Mr. Doran added, "We don't agree with the City, but in the interest of time, we'll leave it
as - like this, but we want, I guess, in essence, a right of appeal to bring the tenants in if
it's a non sit-down, one by one for your consideration."
Ms. Furman stated, "Number 4 to [number] 22, we're all in agreement subject to the City
Attorney's review."
Commissioner McGinnis departed the Special Meeting at 10:51 p.m.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 29 OF 33
Ms. Furman next stated, "The 695 required parking spaces - actually we've moved our
gate - we moved our gate so that needs to be changed." Mr. Doran commented, "We're
good." Ms. Furman said, "We're on dot number one." Ms. Furman added, "The City
requested to purchase 108 spaces in the south garage or a Phase liB." Mr. Tullos stated,
"We don't have it available in the south garage. We told you what we could give you
and we're doing that. Phase lIB. We've kept taking it off the table. We can't do that.
It's a Concept plan right now. We don't even have an idea of where the parking would
layout. "
Mr. Fields explained, "The intent with this is that the City has an option. When a garage
is initiated in lIB, that the City would be presented with - 'Do you want in on this?' Ifup
to 108 spaces, here's a price, we could say yes. Those additional spaces would be built,
we would pay for them. We have an option, not an obligation to buy those."
Next, Mr. Tullos said, "I've got a way to solve it. Why can't we treat it much like we did
Phase IIA? And, that is we got down to the end of the day and designed it, and we said,
'Here's what we have available. And we're selling you the sixty-two (62) spaces'."
Discussion.
Mr. Doran remarked, "I would be willing to give you all, in essence, like a first right of
refusal on spots, if! have them. I don't want to commit to say more than twenty-five (25)
a garage and I want to have a time period on your - response because - 108 in a block is
too much." Deputy Mayor Blake said, "It doesn't even need to be in the garage. It
looked to me like from some of those drawings there, it is surface parking involved." Mr.
Doran stated, "Would you put some language that would protect me that says, 'I'm not
required to do 108 contiguous in the same garage'?"
Furthermore, Mr. Doran added, "Would you also put in that you guys have sixty (60)
days to respond?" Manager McLemore asked, "Sixty (60) days from what point?" Mr.
Doran said, "From the time we say they're available, here they are. You guys have sixty
(60) days." Manager McLemore said, "I think that's fair."
Mr. Doran then asked, "And, the fifteen thousand [dollars] ($15,000.00)? I don't know
how we get a multiplier that works for us." Manager McLemore said, "We put a CPI
(Consumer Price Index) language in there." Mr. Doran said, "CPI (Consumer Price
Index) won't cover Contractors." Mr. Doran said, "I will offer them to you at the same
price I'm paying for my spaces." Manager McLemore said, "Fair." Deputy Mayor Blake
added, "That's fair."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14, 2006
PAGE 30 OF 33
Ms. Furman commented, "We agree to temporary valet." Deputy Mayor Blake asked,
"When would that begin?" Ms. Furman answered, "We want to tie the temporary valet to
the sit-down restaurant that's on the corner of Tuskawilla [Road] and [State Road] 434,
during the evening hours." Mr. Doran said, "Once again, this is done in this Agreement.
It's another letter." Mr. Tullos added, "And, it would not be temporary. It would be
permanent, as long - as a sit-down restaurant were in that space." Deputy Mayor Blake
asked, "So, it would temporary?"
Ms. Furman stated, "Commissioner Krebs, I said we would offer valet service on - the
sit-down restaurant on the corner of - where it's located, Building 1 - during evenings."
Mr. Tullos added, "Valet is going to continue to be a source of parking as the Town
Center gets larger. Okay, it is a valid way, long-term for the viable success of the type of
project; so we don't look at it as temporary. As long as there is a need for valet parking
at that corner, it will exist; and it will exist in other places."
Mr. Doran commented, "Initially, because we're in a state of flux here. We're going to
offer the temporary parking and we're going to move that temporary parking area around
as we need to, to accommodate and not accentuate any negative on anyone else. So, it
could be in one spot for three (3) months and move again to another spot for another
three (3) months, etc. But it will be available the entire time."
Mayor Bush said, "Temporary valet service; not less than sixty (60) spaces when the
restaurant is open there on the corner." Deputy Mayor Blake asked, "I still don't
understand when this starts." Ms. Furman said, "When that restaurant opens."
Ms. Furman said, "We'll put that also in a separate Agreement since that's valet on this
side. City to provide thirty (30) temporary spaces in Magnolia Park. We appreciate
that. "
Continuing, Mr. Tullos said, "This issue came up -last night. This is the first that we've
heard of it. It was not an issue in the previous approvals. We did address the south
exposure of the southern garage to the tune of some significant dollars to enhance it. You
see it in scale right there. You see it with vegetation, etc."
Furthermore, Mr. Tullos added, "We did address the south exposure of the southern
garage to the tune of some significant dollars to enhance it. You see it in scale right
there. You see it with the vegetation, etc. - that would be the garage. This new issue
which again came up within twenty-four hours is this area here. We'd like to build it as
you see it. We really don't want to have to make a change. A change over there is
something that hadn't come up before. It's here in front of us now." Mr. Tullos asked,
"We would ask you that not make that change. Any change to that elevation."
Much discussion.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 31 OF 33
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Last night, was the first time I'd heard of this particular issue.
It doesn't mean that it didn't come up in their negotiations three (3) months ago. I'm
saying, it's the first time I have heard of it. And I think it's rather late in the game for
that. Nonetheless, I do think it's important. And, Shane [Doran], I do think we need to
find a way to do something with - most specifically, this section - on this section of this
building.
Most important - is, we have got some nice architectural value out here on the comer.
And, we have got some things up top. And I understand the fire escape - the fire and the
stairwell being there, that's going to cause a problem. But, I think it's appropriate that
with the frontage, that this will get all the way out to [State Road] 434; even after some
potential future, where the McDonalds building might not be there."
Deputy Mayor Blake added, "A little while ago, I asked that we just - hold back a little
bit on the sidewalk deal and the moving of the utilities. Nobody knows how much that's
going to cost, but I've heard from our side and I've heard from your side, that maybe it's
fifty grand ($50,000.00). I think you can do a lot with the side of that building for fifty
grand ($50,000.00). If the Commission will agree, how about if we pay for the moving
of the utilities and you put the money into that segment of the building? It's important!"
Mr. Doran said, "I'll do it. But, if I cannot come to the terms with the City Manager,
within thirty (30) days as to what that design is, 1 want the right to come back in and
appeal to you all." Mr. Tullos stated, "I would recommend a shorter time frame. We
don't have thirty (30) days - if we're going to agree to that, it needs to be within ten (10)
days."
Commissioner Krebs asked, "Next Meeting?" Mr. Tullos stated, "Next Meeting's fine.
Thank you." Deputy Mayor Blake stated, "Why don't you bring it back to this
Commission directly at next Meeting?" Mr. Doran stated, "I'll agree to it."
Mr. Lockcuffsaid, "The fifty grand ($50,000.00) was an estimate on just the water line. 1
thought you said, all of the utilities. I wasn't sure what you meant." Deputy Mayor
Blake said, "The water line issue, what we talked about before - fifty grand ($50,000.00)
was the number." Mr. Lockcuff stated, "That would be the water line, not the sewer."
Mr. Doran noted, "That wasn't my understanding. You offered two-fifty before. Now,
I'm down to fifty." Mr. Tullos stated, "Two-fifty, plus fifty." Deputy Mayor Blake
stated, "Yes." Mr. Doran stated, "Okay."
Mayor Bush asked, "Commissioners?" Commissioner Krebs stated, "Yes." Deputy
Mayor Blake said, "Up to fifty." Commissioner Miller stated, "Up to fifty. Sure." Mr.
Doran remarked, "We were up to fifty as well. So, if we can make you happy for half
that, so be it." Deputy Mayor Blake mentioned, "No neon."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 32 OF 33
Ms. Furman stated, "The Spine Road is what was Tabled. And, it was my understanding
that we were Tabling that to deal with it outside of this Agreement." Mr. Doran
remarked, "What I did was just punted on it. We'll remove the request that we do it. It's
your responsibility per the Schrimsher Agreement and it's out of this Agreement."
Mayor Bush stated, "So, 3.9 is out of this Agreement?" Mr. Doran stated, "Yes." Ms.
Furman stated, "We'll convey right-of-way. We've got the plat that we're waiting on for
that. "
Mr. Tullos then said, "We did bring a separate Agreement relative to valet parking. We
need a second Agreement relative to the deal we made on the temporary parking." Mr.
Doran added, "We could present those at the next Commission Meeting. We don't have
them ready."
Continuing, Mr. Tullos remarked, "We'll go ahead and request to be on the Agenda at the
next Commission Meeting where we'll produce drawings for that fayade of the building."
Mr. Doran added, "And - letters on the pads and the valet parking with the five thousand
for the restaurant."
Manager McLemore said, "Think the graphic that is going to be subject to this
Agreement?" Manager McLemore added, "This is the one - you want to make subject to
this Agreement?" Mr. Doran said, "It's the same one I submitted you and Brian [Fields],
three (3), four (4) weeks ago, when we met with Anthony [Garganese]. That's the one I
want. "
Mr. Doran said, "We can let the narrative stand until then. The narrative on the density,
if you'd like. Separate the review of that out from this Agreement." Manager McLemore
commented that, "That's part of - lIB?" Mr. Doran said, "It is lIB." Manager
McLemore stated, "I'd like it to be separated out of this - go ahead with the Phase A."
Mr. Doran remarked, "But, the narrative of the density stands as it is and this moves
forward through the normal DRC (Development Review Committee) process. This
Concept Plan should it be approved by DRC (Development Review Committee) will be
incorporated in this Plan." Manager McLemore stated, "No problem."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "The discussions that we've had tonight do all need to be
memorialized into a document, that then comes back before this Commission to be voted
on; and I am wondering how long that will take?" Attorney Garganese stated, "Next
Meeting, right?"
Regarding holding a Special Meeting, Mayor Bush suggested, "The 20th" [of November,
2006] - 6:30 [p.m.]. Commissioner Gilmore mentioned he would not be able to attend.
No objections were noted on the suggested date. Mayor Bush summarized that, "We will
have a Special Meeting - at 6:30 p.m. - on Monday, November the 20th [2006]."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 14,2006
PAGE 33 OF 33
Mr. Tullos stated, "I was going to suggest if we could bring back that drawing, can we
have that by Monday?" Mr. Tullos added, "Could you approve it that night and make it
party to this?" Deputy Mayor Blake said, "Sure." No objections were noted. Mayor
Bush then agreed and stated, "Okay."
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bush adjourned the Special Meeting at 11 :26 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
DEBBIE FRANKLIN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK AND
A LORENZO-LUACES, CMC
LERK
APPROVED:
1M
NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the November 27,2006 Regular City Commission Meeting.