HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 08 20 Public Hearing 500.1 Vertex Development LLC Request for Conditional Use - Telecommunications Toweri_
CITY COMMISSION
AGENDA
ITEM
~
Au st 2007
~,~ M ting
500.1
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing X
Regular
:r~%G~
..~~ MGR. /DEPT.
REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission
review Vertex Development, LLC's request for a Conditional Use to allow a
telecommunications tower, on a 70' x 70' lease site, at the Tuscawilla Country Club
(1500 Winter Springs Boulevard), in the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development (PUD).
PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Commission to consider
the appropriateness of the proposed 150' tall monopole telecommunications tower (cell
tower) and its associated site improvements, pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section
20-33 and Section 20-451 of the City's Code of Ordinances.
ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Zoning: PUD
Future Land Use Designation: Recreation and Open Space
Conditional Use: Pending
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
Section 9-600 through 9-606 of the City's Code of Ordinances
Section 20-33. Conditional Uses '
Section 20-451, as amended 6y Ordinance No. 2006-12, Telecommunication Towers
Settlement Agreement and Amended Settlement Agreement No.l
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
Section 365.172 Florida Statutes
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. There may be a need to improve cell phone service in the Tuscawilla PUD. The
applicant proposes to locate a 150' tall monopole tower on a 50' x 50' fenced compound
on a 70' x 70' lease site at the 140 + acre Tuscawilla Country Club site within the
Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development (PUD.
2. The proposed site is located near the southwestern end of the existing driving range.
CITY COMMISSION
AGENDA
ITEM 500.1
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing X
Regular
r~/~
August 13, 2007 ..~~~ MGR. /DEPT.
Meeting
REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission
review Vertex Development, LLC's request for a Conditional Use to allow a
telecommunications tower, on a 70' x 70' lease site, at the Tuscawilla Country Club
(1500 Winter Springs Boulevard), in the Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development (PUD).
PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Commission to consider
the appropriateness of the proposed 150' tall monopole telecommunications tower (cell
tower) and its associated site improvements, pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section
20-33 and Section 20-451 of the City's Code of Ordinances.
ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Zoning: PUD
Future Land Use Designation: Recreation and Open Space
Conditional Use: Pending
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
Section 9-600 through 9-606 of the City's Code of Ordinances
Section 20-33. Conditional Uses
Section 20-451, as amended by Ordinance No. 2006-12, Telecommunication Towers
Settlement Agreement and Amended Settlement Agreement No.l
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
Section 365.172 Florida Statutes
CONSIDERATIONS:
1. There may be a need to improve cell phone service in the Tuscawilla PUD. The
applicant proposes to locate a 150' tall monopole tower on a 50' x 50' fenced compound
on a 70' x 70' lease site at the 140 + acre Tuscawilla Country Club site within the
Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development (PUD.
2. The proposed site is located near the southwestern end of the existing driving range.
August 13, 2007
Public Hearing 500.1
Page 2 of 8
3. The applicant must provide evidence that the proposed structure meets the criteria set
forth in Subsection 20-451 (as amended by Ordinance 2006-12) ofthe City Code as well
as the conditional use criteria in Section 20-33. The attached application packet includes
the applicant's responses to the Section 20-33 criteria and Section 20-451 criteria.
4. In addition, the applicant must provide evidence that the proposal meets the
requirements of Section 9-600 through 9-606 of the City's Code of Ordinances (Aesthetic
Review Standards). The aesthetic review is a separate agenda item.
5. Section 20-33 sets forth the criteria and process for a conditional use.
6. Section 20-451, as amended by Ordinance No. 2006-12, sets forth a 3 tiered zoning
system for the location of all proposed telecommunication towers within the City.
The first tier allows telecommunications towers as a permitted use at 4 specific, mapped
sites within the City (the City's wastewater treatment plant #1/west plant, the Seminole
County School Board Consolidated Services Facility - a.k.a. "bus barn, the City's west
effluent disposal sites - located at the SE quadrant of Site 16, east of the percolation
ponds, and the City Hall site).
The second tier allows telecommunication towers to be considered for a conditional use
at the following sites:
a. On property owned by the City of Winter Springs that is designated
public/semi public on the City's future land use map; or
b. On an existing commercial or industrial building, not located or incorporated
within a single family residential area, provided the tower does not extend
more than ten (10 ) feet above the roof line of the building and the tower does
not exceed the applicable maximum height limitation in the City Code; or
c. Within (enclosed) an existing church steeple or other type of existing structure
which exists for a primary purpose other than for personal wireless services.
It is the intent of this subsection to take advantage of existing structures for
providing personal wireless services and not to allow the construction of new
structures for said purposes; or
d. Upon existing sports lighting structures, utility structures, and water tanks,
provided the structure is not located within a single family area, the tower
does not extend more than ten (10 ) feet above the top of the existing
structure, and the tower does not exceed the applicable maximum height
limitation in the City Code; or
e. On the site of the proposed Fire Station #3 which is to be located on the south
side of S.R. 434 in Tuscawilla Tract IS, Parcel 3(approximately 2300 feet
west of Vistawilla Drive). Said tower, if approved, shall not exceed one
hundred twenry (120') feet.
The third tier allows a request a for conditional use for a site not listed in tier one or
tier two, if the appGcant presents competent, substantial evidence which
demonstrates that the first two tiers are not available or technically feasible for
locating a tower. A telecommunication tower shall be considered for a conditional
use on the following preferred sites, which are listed in the order of preference.
These preferred sites shall be considered in the sequence listed below and the
August 13, 2007
Public Hearing 500.1
Page 3 of 8
applicant shall be required to demonstrate, based on technical feasibility, that a more
preferred site is not available or suitable before requesting a lesser preferred site:
a. Property which has a future land use designation of Industrial.
b. Properry which has a future land use designation of Mixed Use and is part of
a Development of Regional Impact.
c. Densely wooded or concealed areas limited to a golf course and areas of
property which have been designated conservation by perpetual easement and
on the city's future land use map. If a new telecommunication tower is placed
within trees or x~oded areas, the tower shall be concealed by the surrounding
trees or wooded areas to the mcrrimum extent possible to minimize the
visibility of the tower from any road, occupied building, and fairway if located
on a golf course. Trees can be existing on the subject property or installed to
meet the requirements of this subsection, or they can be a combination of
both.
d. Property which has a future land use designation of Greeneway Interchange
District.
All other locations shall be prohibited. Further, the construction of a tower for
speculative purposes shall be prohibited. For purposes of this code, it shall be deemed
primae facie evidence that a tower is being built for speculative purposes if the applicant
cannot provide with the application written evidence that one or more carriers have
committed to locate on the proposed tower within three (3) months of the construction of
the tower for a period of at least five (5) years.
7. Pursuant to Section 20-451, all telecommunication towers must comply with the
following development standards:
(a) They shall be located as far as technically feasible from properties that are
designated residential on the City's Future Land Use and Zoning maps and shall
comply with all other applicable distance standards which are set forth in the City
Code.
The applicant must substantiate, that the proposed tower is as far as is
technically feasible from properties designated residential on the City's FLU
and zoning maps. The request appears to comply with the other applicable
distance standards (e.g. the lease site appears to be at least 200' from the
nearest residential properties along Augusta National Boulevard and E.
Pebble Beach Circle, in Country Club Village). The minimum distance from
residential properties is 125% of the height of the proposed tower. The 200'
distance represents 134% of the proposed tower height.
(b) To the extent feasible, the lowest height technology must be incorporated
including, but not limited to, micro-cell technology.
The appGcant must substantiate that the proposed tower and future co-
locators will incorporate the lowest height techno(ogy, including, but not
limited to, micro-cell technology. The applicant has stated that the proposed
height is the minimum height required to accommodate seven carriers (co-
locators). In addition, the 150' monopole is proposed to be located among
August 13, 2007
Public Hearing 500.1
Page 4 of 8
mature vegetation which might have an impact on the proposed tower height.
Staff has included as a part of this document, a report from Arthur K. Peters
wherein he details some alternate technologies, including the use of multiple,
low-height towers (as in Medina, Washington) and the use of stealth and
disguise facilities. Other low height technologies, such as Distributed
Antennae Systems (DAS) may be available and should be considered before
approving a 150' high monopole.
(c) Tower height must be the minimum necessary to serve the applicant's needs (not
to exceed a total height of 165' or a height calculated based on a tower setback of
125 percent of the tower height measured at grade from the base of the tower to
the closest residentially zoned property line.
As stated in item # 7 above, the site appears to be approacimately 200' from
the adjacent Country Club Village residential subdivision. As also
referenced above, the number of co-locators was a justification given by the
applicant for the 150' tower height. In addition, staff noted the nearby dense
tree canopy as being a potential influence on the tower height. No technical
data was provided by the applicant which addressed the use of some of the
more effective stealth technologies. As previously stated, other low height
technologies may be available and applicable and should be considered
before approving a 150' high monopole.
(d) The most effective stealth technology (including stealth technology) must be
incorporated.
The use of a 150' tall monopole does not appear to represent use of the most
effective stealth technology. However, staff also recognizes that there are
numerous other factors, including the number of co-locators and the e~eisting
tree canopies on adjacent parcels, which influence the design of the proposed
facility. The antennae and all associated electrical wiring and connections
shall be internally-mounted/concealed rather than close-mounted. Further,
other stealth technologies should be employed to the maa~imum extent
feasible.
(e) The location must be the least visually intrusive in the community.
To address this requirement, the applicant has provided a visual impact test
(balloon test) which was performed on March 7, 2007. This documentation
includes photographs of the balloon taken from various locations depicted on
a map. This test is attached as part of this report. This test provides
documentation of the visual impact of the proposed 150' tall monopole but
does not address the reduction of visual impacts on the community attainable
through the use of lowest height technologies.
( fl The proposed tower shall be located in an area where the visual impact on the
community is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
As stated above in item e, the applicant has provided the balloon test to
document/address the visual intrusion into the neighboring communities.
Again, there has been no consideration of the possible mitigation levels
August 13, 2007
Public Hearing 500.1
Page 5 of 8
attainable through the use of lowest height technologies and ancillary wiring
and connections.
(g) Antennas must be close mounted or concealed (however concealment shall be
encouraged and preferred to the greatest extent practicable).
Staff requires concealed antennae. The aesthetic review is the subject of a
separate agenda item.
Like all other developments of structures and buildings within the City, Ordinance 2006-
12 requires all applications for location of a telecommunications tower to comply with
Sections 9-600 through 9-606 of the City's Code of Ordinances. These sections address
the minimum community appearance and aesthetic review standards of the application.
OTHER FACTORS:
Another cell tower site was proposed, but has been withdrawn, on the City's East Waste
Reclamation Facility site located at 1560 Winter Springs Boulevard. This site is a Tier
Two site, as defined by Ordinance 2006-12. Anyone proposing a Tier Three site must
present to the City competent substantial evidence which demonstrates that Tier
One and Tier Two locations are not available or technically feasible for the location
of a tower. The Tier Three site could be considered as part of the employment of lowest
height technology wherein multiple sites would be required to provide adequate wireless
service to the area.
The proposed telecommunication tower site is subject to a final order approving
settlement agreement and amended settlement agreement#1, recorded in Official
Records Book 3102, page 1356, as amended by the second amendment to settlement
agreement, recorded in the ORB 3146, page 0454. Said agreements state that the
subject property shall be developed as single family, detached residences. The
proposed cell tower is inconsistent with the agreements. An amendment to the
settlement agreements would be required to permit a cell tower on the subject
property. The applicant and the Tuscawilla Country Club have not proposed any
amendments to the settlement agreement. Therefore, the City Commission is not in
a position to ascertain whether an amendment to this settlement agreement is
acceptable at this time.
FINDINGS:
1. The parent tract contains a golf course and has a Recreation and Open Space FLU
designation.
2. Any approval of a telecommunications tower on the proposed site will require an
amendment to the applicable settlement agreements, as referenced above.
3. Pursuant to Section 20-33 of the City Code, "all conditional use recommendations and
final decisions shall be based on the following criteria to the extent applicable:
August 13, 2007
Public Hearing 500.1
Page 6 of 8
a) Whether the applicant has demonstrated the conditional use, including its
proposed scale and intensity, traffic-generated characteristics, and off-site
impacts, is compatible and harmonious with adjacent land uses, and will not
adversely impact land use activities in the immediate vicinity."
The concept of harmony and compatibility, as applied to the proposed
facility, is different than for an addition to a building. The only other similar
structures in this immediate area with which this monopole can be compared
are the Transmission line power poles, which are approarimately sixty (60')
feet shorter than the proposed monopole. The off-site impacts are limited to
the visual presence of the tower on surrounding residential and recreational
areas. The use of lower height technology would lessen this impact.
b) Whether the applicant has demonstrated the size and shape of the site,
the proposed access and internal circulation, and the design enhancements to be
adequate to accommodate the proposed scale and intensity of the conditional use
requested. The site shall be of sufficient size to accommodate design amenities
such as screening, buffers, landscaping, open space, off-street parking, and sunilar
site plan improvements needed to mitigate against potential adverse impacts of
the proposed use."
The application for this facility specifies a 50' x 50' fenced compound on a
70' X 70' overall site, which includes a 10' landscape buffer. Staff
understands that a slight modification may be necessary once the exact
location is established. Details regarding access, power supply feeds, and the
source of power must be addressed as part of the final engineering for the
proposed tower.
c) Whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the local
economy, including governmental fiscal impact, employment, and property
values."
Theoretically, the proposed facility could have a positive impact on the local
economy because it could enhance wireless communications in the Tuscawilla
area. If the applicant employed concealment, low height, stealth
technologies, impact on property values could be negligible.
d) Whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the natural
environment, including air, water, and noise pollution, vegetation and wildlife,
open space, noxious and desirable vegetation, and flood hazards."
The proposed facility will not have an adverse impact on the natural
environment, subject to the applicant providing a listed species survey
indicating no adverse impacts. In addition, a survey or statement from the
applicant documenting that the tower lease site will not encroach upon any
wetland.
August 13, 2007
Public Hearing 500.1
Page 7 of 8
e) Whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on historic, scenic,
and cultural resources, including views and vistas, and loss or degradation of
cultural and historic resources."
Staff does not believe that the proposed tower will create any of these adverse
impacts except for the possibility that an adverse impact may occur to the
scenic resources of the area. The 150' height question needs to be addressed
as part of the consideration of scenic resources. At issue are the scenic vistas
and views and the potential adverse impacts to the area's scenic resources.
fl Whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on public services,
including water, sewer, surface water management, police, fire, parks and
recreation, streets, public transportation, marina and waterways, and bicycle and
pedestrian facilities."
Staff does not believe the proposed use will create any of these adverse
impacts.
g) Whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on housing and
social conditions, including variety of housing unit types and prices, and
neighborhood quality."
The proposed monopole should not impact social conditions and the variety
of housing types. Housing prices and neighborhood quality are potentially at
risk of being affected because of the visual presence of the proposed
monopole. The use of lowest height technology will decrease these potential
impacts.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The applicant and the Tuscawilla Country Club have not proposed any
amendments to the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the City
Commission is not in a position to ascertain whether an amendment to this
settlement agreement is acceptable at this time.
2. Provide a revised landscape plan depicting specifically what vegetation
will remain and what will be removed and an associated irrigation plan
for the new plantings
3. Provide a Listed Species Report and sufficient documentation to verify
that the proposed facility location does not encroach upon a wetland.
4. The applicant must provide credible and compeWng data
documenting that the lowest height technology required to provide
personal wireless service to the Tuscawilla area has been used.
5. The applicant must provide competent substantial evidence which
demonstrates that Tier One and Tier Two locations are not available
or technically feasible for the location of a tower.
6. Amend the applicable settlement agreements to allow the installation of
a telecommunications tower on the subject parcel.
August 13, 2007
Public Hearing 500.1
Page 8 of 8
7. Any other conditions deemed appropriate t~y the City Commission to
meet the requirements of the applicable City Codes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the requirements contained in the applicable City Codes, including the
aesthetic review code (Section 9-600 through 9-606) and Section 20-451 as amended by
Ordinance 2006-12, it is questionable as to whether a 150' monopole meets the criterion
stipulated by the City for the use of lowest height technology and aesthetic compatibility
and harmony requirements under the Code.
Staffrequests the City Commission consider the information presented in this staff
report, the testimony of the expert witnesses and that of the applicant and during the
public hearing testimony and, if the Commission is satisfied that the request is consistent
with all applicable criteria and code provisions, including whether or not the applicant
has provided competent substantial evidence which demonstrates that Tier One and Tier
Two locations are not a~ailable or technically feasible for the location of a tower, make
the recommendation they deem appropriate to the City Commission based upon the
criterion set forth in Sections 20-33 and 20-451 of the City's Code of Ordinances In
addition, the City Commission must consider the necessity of amending the applicable
settlement agreements.
The City Commission may consider the use of two or more shorter towers or the use of
concealed/stealth technology as an alternative to the one tower as proposed in this
request.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Location Map
B. Ordinance No. 2006-12
C. Arthur K. Peters Report
D. Application package
E. City Manager Letter on Tower Height
F. Draft BOA minutes
TT A !'~TTI~ ~rTwTm
w: 1 ES 4~,
~ NOTES:
.
: ~
:
~
: ~
.
; _ Municipal Address Map Book ° 200 ~
PRINTEO: REVISED:
Apr 2005 ~ z : s •
~ o~ City of Winter Springs, FL
p
2631
Page
Pa~e ~vcwnvM ~T wnr wnr ~ a z Mi~ nwiu~ ecmw •,~~•~~,~• or. ••,,•,•,~•,•~••, ~••, y•~ •• •nyY••~s •,•••r.
~ ~j I~ ~ V ~ f;. • ~ ~~" ~',cs ~
Y .~
~p/n~ o ~. ~ ~~~C"~ ~~ {k ^q~ ' ~~.;+• :'-
W ~ ~ ~ . ~ . "Cr~ ~'Y~+~t ~ ^+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
• ~ - 14' . ~ s t~ : ~~
, ,~~ .~- "`',. i , `~<
~Y r ~Z ~`t ~,~~ ~'~}r
:
i, . '~i . ~ r~ `.~j~' ~ ,f,,, ~.#' \ ~ _ V "~?~ _ ~ .3-
~ ,~. ~, . * _ r.. ~'i .~`S
~F ~ '~ • '~~ ~ ~1
G :J
_ w - f ~
)
~ • .'~~~ `~` . :~
~ L ~ ' --
« ~'
~: .~I~ ~ ~ ! ' ' ~
p . .. . ". . . ~`~ ~~ , v ~/!~l . '.
~ ~.~Y~. r. • f - '' ` ~~~. ~' ~ ..~~
s ~ ~ ~ ~~.. r. ~ ~l.
~* ~'r`c, ~ k ~
~ - J ~ ~ k Y~a' ~ ~~ •r*.+F
: J~ ,u . ~~~~~ ~`.-~
~
~ .J ~ ~ ~ .~rj ~ r~~ ti~y~~ . ~ J ~ ;.
' ~' '~ I~j. ~1 `.'+ ,~rf~r~ ~p~~
w, Z 0 4 r-h.. ; ,.
*
t~,. ' ~ '4 ~ ',~L= ~ 7/
y ~ 1 ~, ~ FZ . y+t2 yZj .~•~3~ J _
F1C.... 2 W -fy;~ . ~.'1~ p N F r
FG. 'a t rS. ~~"~
~, ^'! ` t/j W . . ,~e -'~ -)y ~~y{ ~~Z = .'~,; Z p ~~~.
Y.F,~.•.. . .. ~ ~ ~ ' '. C2J. ~.~~ ~~ 4.1"~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
*
~* W v . ~ ¢,F. 1`at~E'' ~ ~ S~ .. Q~
~ •t, "ry~ , r,y~ +~. ,x ~'' ~N :~... iJ..
.~{~ S jf~ Ii ~ .•' ~
~~~ _'ii'f~i ~t~~~~~`~."'~' ~ClW~ I i~
~1•_,•~~' *~ ~ ii` ~~ *1?- . ': .. "~ k.,- ,.4k...: ~ JE ; ? ~ . I~:. .
~ . ~Qj ~ ~ : ~ ~"~~5~ • , i. • l' E~ ~~ " . ~ _ . ,~'.~~'. • ~ d Y ` ~~ `' '~ ,i ~y ~ :~?., , ` ~" ~
~41~~ ~ ~ S w~"~ d, `, L4~ - ~~~Lt, .
w~~-, }~ T.K *~ I 4{ ' r' M ~ ~
~st +~~~. ~!` ~ `.` .~ s v
~ ~ ~ . ,~ ~,.. ~ ~ ~ •
~#~ ~ 'j V ~ ~,~. `~•. ~ -' ,
I PI • ~ e~ l ~ ~1" ,;.} \ ~ 4" ~~ ~, ~ : ' ~, t ~
'~ -~~s ~,~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~~ , ~~f
~ i~ ' 1 _ 7~k ~. n .:. ~I ,
~ ~ ~_ J ~~ ~~ ~ ,~ ' !-"`` • ` ; vh;~l . rl ' .~ f'~ ` i` • i. ' s ~
t ~l~` ' ~ t~, ~ . ~ • , ; h .- ~y~,'y
~ .,~.' 'j ). . ~ ~I fn . ~ ``„~:.c. .' ~ a .:;4'' 4.. y,y~ a,~,~ /~'~.'rj.'~v'.~: .,, r ,u :~.<~ ~ ~ .. `.~E~, ~'" ; j' 4 , ,' ~-.' :. `-. 'li~J
F :.~t O ar n ~~
~ ~ ~ " 4~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ \` ' ~ ~ , . M ~ :J
' ' '~ r.r r~'~- y ? ~ 2 ~ ,~,.: A# i y1 ,~, f~ ~ `` . 4~' ~< 1~~~ \ ~' ~ ~ `:; ~ t ~r,ea~ a
...~ ,..t.~ ~_~' ~~ ~~i ~ .~~ii' '4,y' t .,~'" ,-VF..~~" p ~`_ ti ~ f`V, \.` ~~,~~ - i,.>P ''~,~~~~
~,y, r, ' ~ ~
~ ~ ~, .~ ~ +~~ .Y~ . ~ ~ N ;M ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~"„t.i, i A ~ : ~ ^ L~ ' 1 " ~ ~«.. r •
~ :,. ~~•• .-~l~ . ~' ~' a .. ~'..r 41 *x t „~ .-. i J` . I! ' M~1~\ ~' ` ` '~ ~~'.i
~ r'~'~;I1(ti X F~- Fi~' ~F".1~~~,~~~~~ ~ ~',~.A ~~:~~t~ '~1 q~.~~,' ~~if
"~ y~ y~ ~~~p ~ .1 :r~t~'4.~r, .
~~~R ~{R > > F ~j~. % t
.~ ~~ . . . ~~~ ~ ~"' ~ "!X . ~ / ~ ..1~',Zy~~.~~ . _.. .4 a~~- ~ ..
} . - B~ 8 ~ ~ r "`*1. '
, / ;{~~ e`_~~ ' ~`~" .~I~ t~ F Df . ~ iJ' s~ w~ sr ' r : ~t~y ; ~ ~~ ,r:,~
U
/ ~ ~ O~ O O ~~f{ o~. ' U`
f
, ~9..~ fL ~L
~ ~ ~ .~~~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ '~~.~ - O 0 :: p ~x p 'T tyf~ :~ ' ~ ; ~ y ~ i ~ . t4e ._-~?",:
~-~ ~~ ~, a'~ `~ `'~ ~ ~K Z K O K ~' ~ `~ .~ ~ d~i 5
• i~ ~~ 9 a < a n g a ~` ti '~,,,, .- ~ • '~`."~ '~ .
' ~ ~~ ~'" ~ ~. k '
'~ \` `: '1'i b ~ w - ' -~ , ; ~ ~- y~~*,,,, ,~ ~ w - ~' ,.
1. ~+ 3 ' ,~'" \ 7 .`~•~~y• ~ ,,f ~i .
t • x~ ~ :~. ~ ~~~ • ~Sy / ,,'.[f'r~f C 1 .
41 ^
~~.~ . ~ ~ ~ ' C / ' + ~~ ~~'~
, ;, ~~ '°' ~~ (~? ~~~~'~ _ ~, ~t
~ \ t ~": ~` ~ t' •`
Y`z ' ~~ \ ~ ~ ~~,~~' ~~~ ' ~~ ,~ w. ; ~(.
*` , ~~ ; 1
. ~ r ~1 ~ , ~ ` ~ /~< ~ r ~LI . ~ ? ' ~r
> ,~, • ` ~ r,~,,~ . ~'~~ ~
'~~, ~~ • ; ." .,. }. ~ .t'
~ .y ~`""" , .. ~'~ ~~~~ ~ ^M . -•
~~``~ ' a, ~~ ~~ ~ .A ~C 4` s .. _
'. ` . . ~ ~ ' =~x ~ ~ ., t ~~ ~ ~ j.... . f.. ~: [ ~~Ir ' r ~ !~ ~ : . ~~- i.
• ~ ~ - ~ ``' --C~ . ''~,.j ~~. ~ i t r ...
~ ~ ' . _ /t. ~~. '~~~ , ~ /~ ~' ~~ ~/ ~ ~ ~ <, ~' ~ .
~ ~ }~ ':
. . ~. ~~ ` . ~, . ~' ; ~~iU f' ~`~ '~+ '~ ` I' %S~ .. w `.,~'` • ~ ~ '{'r .. _ . : M
Z M ~ ' 7 ~.s ~F . ~ ' j~'~~ i` f. -• . ~~ ~ '_~ /. a .
~ ~ tt> • ~R a
~~ . . * ' Y r . ~ . +Y` k , v r, ~ '~~- • ~ ._ .
c ~ r : ~i .,.~. < ~,~~~ ]..r ~' ~ b .~~ ~u ~"~-~~ ~ r i . ~_V
I1 ~ f- k ' .ti ai' o ib . ~k ~ • w r ~' ~ '; ,t ,S' ,!
~ ` ,~ . ~; ; ~ r - ~ 't~.- ,, t , ~ ~ i ~i
.i~N ~~ ~ ~ ~ . 1A i ~ ; ~.
+i' 'N ~ '< ~~: + ~,~` '~-, ~ ~. '2k . ~:E ~ -~~.
~~ ~ ~j~4 _ ~. Y:~ .}.~-; [ R ~,: ~~ ,t~ T ~?~I~ ~ (~~ .
~, w
s~~ .
t~3 ~•: ~k.iJ'' _};.~ ~'~,-.._. ~ ~. r , ~y ~ ,~ ~~ .,.~~~ ~( +. . ~ ~`;+A
y N O ~. -~~, ~ .. :' ~ ~` ~ ` s r. . yh _ ~ 4 t w .~~rJL ~ "v. .-.:M~ ~~ ~ ~ 6 " ~
C9~1`~ T ~V 7~ ~: +~.~'~;~~ rr..r ~ }~ ~ ., . .U'S2 ~.
'~c ~- ~ . . ~`~ f ` ' ` ~~~ ~`` (~ M ~k~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ v~ F ~ ~ ~~[.~ .
.. ~ ~ . ~ " ~ .. ''~. . • ~r ~ 4, . , .. r . .,, ~ ~.. ~ ' y ~ = VI } ~ f
~, • - , _
~ ~, ti.~", 1'~ : ~ ~o i ~, i . '4 , r~cy~ ; . r ,j~. ~ 8 ~ ~ w ~r.
a~ f Z .s .~ . :' _.;~~~ +.. 1'. ~ ~> ! = Z p F •
~ ~{ ~~ ~ ~ ~ `Tr - 4~ ~ Z Z ~{,.
~, Gi k~ :1. ~ti. ~~ ~.~,'i ~ ~ ~..;3t ~~/ ~ j~~y~, s: •~, ~~,~v ' ~ ~~J. 04 , .'s,~..~.
v }~, x - ~~. ,~ ..~ ~a:: 4 i,sC i ..sc~: ~' .~'" W4X- ~ ~~y'~;~ \ (~H' NO~j
'~~~ ~ ~ • .aY~ t t~ Z • ~'. • ~ r • • . f~. ~ j , rl~, ~. V (yj ~~.~ ~
~.- ~`~ ~~ .: :; . _ ~~_ ~ °- . ~ , +lF ' ~ .,~..
` e . . _ tr t ik~ ~ 1 , ~tl~'~,~' ~as ~ ~- ~ ' •
i
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-12
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 20-451 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION
INTO THE CODE SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WI-~REAS, the City is granted the authority, under Section 2(b), Article VIII, of the State
Canstitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by
law; and
WHEREAS, the City Cornmission has held several public workshops and hearings r~ga~ding
the current telecommunication tower ordinance and has detertnined that said ordinance should be
updated to potentially allow additional locations for telecommunication towers and/or other
appropriate personal wireless service facilities in order to enhance the quality of personal wireless
services that are being provided to the citizens and businesses of Winter Springs; and
WH~REAS, the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, hereby finds this
Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Winter
Springs.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WINTER
SPKINGS ~IEREBY ORDAINS, AS FOLLOWS: "
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated herein by this
reference.
Seetion 2. Code Amendment. The City of Winter Springs Code, Section 20-451,
Telecommunication towers, is hereby amended as follows: (underlined type indicates additions and
s~triiteottt type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* **) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of
text existing in Section 20-451. It is intended that the text in Section 20-451 denoted by the
asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to
adoption of this Ordinance).
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 1 of 18
Sea 20-951. Telecommunications towers.
1. (a) Definitions.
Antenna shall mean a transmitting andlor receiving device used in telecommunications
that radiates or captures electromagnetic waves, ineluding directional antennas, such as
panel and microwave dish antennas, and omni-dtrectional antennas, such as whips,
Pv~li;r~~nb ra~i~r a,n±Pn~ ae amatP~~~„r ~a„1~n a,nt~n~na~,c a,n~ S~tP11~tP ea~tY; gtat~^n~.
...,, .,.
Co-location shall mean teleeommunications towers that have the potential to have three
(3) or more carrier antennas located on it.
Development review com~ittee shall mean the city staffeomposed of the city manager,
land development coordinator, city engineer, public works/utilities director, community
development coordinator, building officia~; police chief, fire chief.
Guyed tower shall mean a telecommunications tower that is supported, in whole or in
part, by guy wires and ground anehors.
Lattice tower shall mean a telecommunications tower that is constructed with a series '
of struts forming a non-solid surface tower, without guy wires standing on and fastened
to an in-ground pier.
Microwave shall mean a dish antenna, or a dish-like antenna used to link
communication sites together by wireless transmission of voice or data.
Monopole tower sha11 mean a telecommunications tower consisting of a single pole or
spire self supported by a pennanent foundation, constr~cted without guy wires with
ground anchors.
Panel antenna shall mean an array of antennas designed to concentrate a radio signal in
a particular area.
Personal wireless services shall mean an~personal wireless service defined in the
Federal Telecommunications Act which includes Federal Communication Commission
~FCCI licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services including cellular,
nersonal communication services ~PCS~pecialized mobile radio (SMRI, enhanced
~ecialized mobile radio (ESMR) pa~ing as well as unlieensed wireless services, and
cuii~i~uii ~arricr wireless excl~arige acc~ss servi~es.
Stealth facility shall mean any telecommunications facility whieh is designed to blend
into the surrounding environment. Examples of stealth facilities include architecturally
screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and
telecommunications towers designed to look like light poles, mono-power poles or trees.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 2 of 18
Telecommunications tower shall mean a monopole tower constructed as a free-standing
structure greater than thirty-five (35) feet and no more than one hundred sixty-five (165)
feet in height including antenna, which supports communication, transmission or
receiving equipment. The term includes towers for the transmission or receiving
television, AM/FM radio, digital, microwave, cellular telephones, or sirnilar forms of
eieeironic communicaiion. i ne ierm exciudes radar iowers, radio suppon suuciures
licensed by the FCC, transportable communication devices, private home use of satellite
dishes and television antennas and satellite earth stations.
Whip antenna shall mean a cylindrical antenna that transmits signals in three hundred
sixty d~grees (360) degrees.
(b) Findings and intent. The city has with increasing frequeney recei~ed requests to
approve sites for telecommunications towers. Land development regulations have not
adequately identified specific procedures to address recurring issues relating to the
approval of locations for telecommunications towers. Therefore, it is the intent of this
section to address the recurrent issues pertaining to the approval of telecommunications
towers upon parcels located in the city. Accordingly, the city commission finds that the
promulgation of this section is warranted and necessary:
(1) To protect residential azeas and land uses from the potential adverse impacts of
telecommunications towers when placed at inappropriate locations or permitted without
aciequate controls and regulation consistent with the provisions of law;
(2) To minimize the adverse visual im~acts resulting from telecommunications towers
through sound and practical design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative
camouflaging techniques all in accordance with generally aeceptable engineering and
planning principles and the public health, safety and welfaze;
(3) To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties through sound engineering and
planning and the prudent and careful approval of telecommunications tower sites and
structures;
(4) To require shared use/co-location af existing and new telecommunications towers
(capability of having space for three (3) or more carriers) to avoid proliferation of
towers throughout the city. One (1) co-located position shall be reserved exclusively for
the use of the city;
(5) To ensure that location of telecommunications towers is consistent with the
provisions of the City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan, the East Central Florida
Regional Policy Plan, the state comprehensive plan as well as the provisions of state and
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 3 of 1 S
federal law; and-
(6) To fix a fair and reasonable compensation, by resolution of the city commission, to
be paid to the city for the privilege to locate a telecommunications tower in the city and
defray the administrative costs of reviewing the applications. Also, a fee shall apply
separately to eaeh antenna user on the tower or other support structure. Fee rates shall
be renegotiable when contract e~piresi.-
~71 To discoura,ge new telecommunication towers and to encoura~e the use of existing
structures includinQ but not limited to, rooftops, sports li~ ,~utilit~poles, and
church steeptes for denloying.personal wireless service facilities; and
~81 To encoura~e the use of the lowest hei~ht technolo~~provide personal wireless
services includinQ, but not limited to, micro cell techrioloQV.
(c) Applicability.
(1) All new telecommunications towers and antennas in the city shall be subject to these
regulations and all other applicable regulations. For purposes of ineasurement,
telecommunications tower setbacks as listed in subsection ( fl(1) shall be calculated and
applied to facilities located in the city, irrespective of other municipal and county
jurisdictional boundaries. -
(2) All new communications antennas (i,e., stealth rooftop or building mounted
antennas) which are not attaehed to telecommunications fowers shall comply with
subsection (~(11).
(3) All telecornmunication towers existing on July 14,1997 shall be allowed to continue
their usage as they presently exist. Routine maintenance shall be permitted on such
existing towers. New construction other than routine maintenance on an existing
telecommunications tower shall comply with the requirements of this section.
(4) For purposes of implementing this section, a telecommunications tower that has
received city approval or building permit, but has not yet been constructed, shall be
considered an existing tower so long as such approval is current and not expired.
(d) Location, permitted uses and conditional uses.
~l ~All telecommunication towers shall complv with the followin dg evelopment
standards:
~iL Thev shall be located as far as technically feasible from properties that are
desi~nated residential on the City's Future Land Use or Zonin~Maps and shall comply
with all other applicable distance standards which are set forth in the citv code;
~ii) To the extent technicallv feasible, the lowest hei~ht technolo~v shall be
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 4 of 18
incor_porated includin~ but not limited to micro cell technolo~v;
~iii~„Towers shall be erected to a hei,ght that is the minimwn hei~ht necessarv to
technicallv serve the a~vlicant's needs but not exceedme the lesser of one hundred
sixty five (165} or a hei~ht calculated based on a tower setback of one hundred twentv-
five ~12 ~ nercent of the tower hei ng t measured at ~rade from the base of the tower to
the closest residentiallv ~oned pronertv line:
~ivl The most effective stealth technology (includinQ stealth towersl sha11 be
incorporated•
~vl The location shall be the least visually intrusive location in the communitv:
(vil The nroposed tower shall be located in an area where the visual impact on th~
communitv is minimized to the Qreatest extent nracticable;
vii Antennas shall be close-mounted or concealed. However concealment shall be
~ncoura~ed and.preferred to the ~reatest extent practicable; and
~viiil The visual impact of all towers shall be reduced or eliminated to the maximum
extent,possible bv concealment camoufla~e and dis~uise.
(2) In addition to the st~ndards set fo~th in subsection (11 above the location of all
proposed telecornmunication tower sites shall be determined based unon a tiered zonine
syste~ S_pecifically a telecommunication tower shall be allowed as erther a nerxmtted
use or a conditional use depending, upon the location of the anplicable srte:
(i) Tier One. Telecommunication towers shall be a permitted use
at the following sites (see map
attachment Figure 1 dated Februarv 12, 2007 , ) subj ect to other
regulataons whieh may apply:
a. City of Winter Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant #1/West Plant.
b. Proximate area of the Seminole County School Board Consolidated Services Facility
(a/k/a Bus Barn).
c. City of Winter Springs West Effluent Disposal Sites: at the southeast quadrant of Site
~~j 8c1~ ~~t~?~ SORI~}let'Tl ~??mplztinn nnn~lc_
d. City of Winter Springs City Hall.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page S of 18
(3r-i~ Tier Two. A telecommunication tower sha11 be considered a conditional use at the
followin~ locations nrovided the pro~osed tower complies with the standards of this
section and complies with the conditional use criteria set forth in 20-33 of the Crtv
Code:
a On propertv owned bv the Citv of Winter Sprin~s that is desi~nated nublic/semi-
public on the Cit~s future land use map; or
b On an existins commercial o~ industrial buildin~ not located or incornorated within
a sin leg family residential azea .provided the tower does not extend more than ten (10)
feet above the roof line of the building and the tower does not exceed the apnhcable
maximum hei~ht limitation in the City Code; or
c Within (enclosed) an existing church steenle or other type of existin~ structure
which exists for a primarv nurpose other than for personal wireless services._ It is the
intent of this subsection to take advanta~e of existin~ structures for nrovidinQ versonal
wireless services and not to allow the construetion of new structures for said numoses;
or
d U~pon existing, snorts lightin@~structures utilihi structures and water tanks, nrovided
the structure is not located within a sin~le famitv residential area the tower does not
extend more than ten (10~ feet above the t~ of the existinQ structure, and the tower
does not exceed the a~plicable maximum heig~ht limitation in the Citv Code; or
e On the site of th~ronosed Fire Station #3 which is to be located on the south side
of S R 434 in Tuscawilla Tract 15 Parcel 3(approximatelv 2 300 feet west of
Vistawilla Dri~e~ Said tower if apnroved shall not exceed one hundred twentv (1201
feet.
(iii) Tier Three If an applicantpresents to the ci competent substantial evidence
__.t,;~L .7~W,,,-~4..,:acn aL,.a T;_. /'~ !~ ny~ Ti°,i i~`vV'J IDCc.~iTO~iS ui~ ii^vi uvuii%avi~ vi
YVl1L~.11 11V111V11Jl.lUINJ I.11CLL l llil ~.Jll~i Clll~ j•
technicallv feasible for the location of a tower, a telecommunication tower shall be
considered a conditional use on the followin~~nreferred sites which are listed in order
of preference The preferred sites shall be considered in the seauence listed below and
the a~plicant shall be rec~uired to demonstrate based on technical feasibilitv, that a more
preferred site is not available or suitable before requestin a~ lessor vreferred site:
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 6 of 18
a Propertv which has a future land use desi~nation of Industrial.
b Pro~eriv which has a future land use desi~nation of Mixed Use and is vart of a
Development of Re~ional Imnact.
c Dense~ wooded or concealed areas limited to a~olf course and areas of propertY
which have been desig;nated conservation bxnemetual easement and on tt~e crtv's future
land use ma . If a new telecommunication tower is laced within trees or wooded areas
, ~ »~_ 1,.,7 1.., ~l,o .,,,n.~;,,n troac nr wnnl~P.l~ At'P_,aC t(1 ~tie lTla?C12T1L1II1
TI70 fOWOI Sil~lll UG 1:V11C;Galcu v lllli JlUlvuaau~aa ~.. .. ~. .. ~ - --
extent.Qossible to minimize the visibility of the tower from anv road occunicd buildinQ,
and fairwa.y if located on a$olf course Trees can be existm~ on the sub ect ro,perly
or installed to meet the reQUirements of this subsection or thev can be a combmation
of both.
e Propertv which has a future land use desi~narion of Greenewav InterchanQe.
All other locations shall be rohibited. Further the construction of a tower for
s eculative oses shall be rohibited. For u oses of this code it shall be deemed
~rimae faeie evidence that a tower is bein~ built for sueculative purposes if the apnlicant
can not rovide with the a lication written evidence that one or more carners have
committed to locate on the proposed tower within three (3) months of the construction
of the tower for a period of at least five (5) vears.
.. ~ '
~
, •
,
~
,, , ' ~
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 7 of 18
> >
~
. ,
~
. . .
111JLLVJl~il1+H111f.~J1.L111JUVaawiaa~w+av. rruv......r+.."~'-%.-~--"':"^'"="'"'---.._.
f
~
f
!
f -
f
(e) Site plan A,p~lication• Technical Supportin~ Data.
~l,Z Any telecommunications company or entity that intends to install a
telecommunications tower in the city shall file a site plan for review and approval by the
city in aecordance with the city code All.proposed towers reauirin~ eonditional use
~~roval shail be reviewed bv the board of adiustment for comnliance with this section
and other applicable nrovisions of the citycode Upon review the board of adiustment
shall make a recommendation to the cit~commission of either approval annroval with
r(~n~li~l~nc flY ~PtL?~
u.;, ., u... ua.
~2) All anplications shall contain the information reQUired bv the Citv to process
apnlicable buildin~~permits aesthetic review~ursuant to section 9-600 et seq. of the crtv
code siteplan pernuts~,and any other reauired development nermits. Anplications shall
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 8 of 18
be ~rocessed within the time frames reguired by law Additionallv at a minimum, the
follawin~ information shall also be provided bv the anulieant:
a. Name address telephone number and ori i~, nal siQnatures of the anplicant and all co-
applicants.
b Detailed descri~tion of the request.
c Location information includin~ le ag 1 description of subiect uronertv, narcel
identifieation,.geographie eoordinates and name of nearest roacis street adciresses, or
other landmarks.
d Scaled elevation and engineerin~ drawin~s depictinQ the pronosed tower and related
faeilities includin~ all mounts antennas colIocation spaces and eQUinment facilrties.
e A current propertv appraiser aerial delineatin~~the subiect prouertv, the nroposed
tower and related facilities within 1 000 feet of the proposed tower and facilities.
f For proposed towers within trees and wooded areas a tree survev identifvin~ the tvpe,
size (DBHI and height of existing and/or proposed trees within a 75-foot radius of the
pro.posed tower and related facilities.
~, Future land use and zoning desi~nation of the subiect nropertv.
h An~pplicable letters of approval for the proposed request received bv the applicant
from any other.g,overnment a~encv includin~ the FAA FDOT and FCC (if permitted
b law .
i Documentation of location and site selection process ineludinQ search ring, location
and sitin eriteria, alternative sites in the area and site selection methodolo~v.
i To the extent ~ermitted or required bv law ~ technical data mans and analvsis
showin~ the area to be served by the vroposed tower and nersonal wireless service
facilities and anv clairned ~aps in covera~e where the annlicant desires to ereet a tower.
In addition technical data and maps demonstratin~anv other vrovosed, existm~, and
authorized towers in the service area as the proposed tower and relate_d facilities.
k Docurnentation evidencing that one or more carriers have committed to locate an
antennae on the pro~posed tower for nuraoses of providin~ t~ersonal wireless services.
~31 The ~plicant shall ,provide a visual impact report that provides a line-of-si~ht
ana~sis includin~ scaled and colored front side and rear elevation drawmes or
photo~raphs that de,pict the pronosed tower and related facilities. The drawin~s or
nhotog,raphs sha11 also denict anv si rg ~ificant natural and manmade features that affect
the bufferin~ of the~otential visual impact of the proposed tower and related facilrties.
IJ op n recei~pt of the visual impact report the City mav require the apnlicant to conduct
a visual im.pact demonstration consistin~ of a minimum of two hour balloon test, which
shall demonstrate the maximum hei~ht of the proposed tower. The balloon test shall be
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 200fr12
Page 9 of 18
scheduled with the Cit~y and representatives of the Cihi shall be uresent at the nrovosed
site for purposes of evaluatin~ t~he_test.
(41 For purposes of demonstrating technical feasibili~under this section 20-451, the
~plicant shall be re~uired to submit in co~unction with a site nlan anvlication and to
the extent permitted or required b~law technieal data indicatin~ that the pronosed
tower is the onlv technicallv feasible available site to assure telecommunications
services covera~e needs to area citizens. Further, such technical data not for
s~eculative untried teleeommunications uses but is for current technolo~v reco~nized
or a~proved for service area needs and market conditions under applicable state, federal
or local laws re~ulations or ordinances All such technical data shall be vrovided at
cost to the applicant The city m~ in~nroximate cases in its sole discretion, retain the
service of technical~v competent consultants to evaluate the data submitted bv an
~~licant to ~ustify an additional towe~ursuant to this section. The annlicant shall nost
a deposit with the citv manager or his desi~nee in a sur~ such that the annlicant for the
additional telecommunicafion tower pavs the full cost of technical review of such tower
~ citv's consultant.
~
~
__- _ _- _' _ ' _ _ __ _ ~-.~..~. .~.~ . ~ tT» t i _ _ !'1L _'_a_" !1 11T ,..~,1
LV Y V1Vrllll\+11~ Vvuv vi vaw..a..a.vv..~ .i~~J .~- •~ ------ -i----{>-i .
( fl Performance standards/design criteria.
(1) Setbacks.
a. Telecommunications tower setbacks shall be measured from the base of the tower to
the property line of the parcel on which it is located.
b. The setback requirements shall be a mini~num of ten (lU) feet from any lot line and
shall comply with setback requirements in this section or the City Code for setbacks
from acijoining uses.
(2) Separation of towers from off-site uses used to calculate maximum tower height.
Sepazation distances between telecommunications towers and the lot line of any
residential zoned property shall be used to determine the maximum height of a proposed
tower. The maximum height of any tower sha11 not exceed one hundred sixty-five (165)
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 10 of 18
feet provided however that the distance from the tower base to the neazest lot line of
residentially zoned property shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty-five (125)
percent of the tower height.
(3) Measurement of height.
a. Measurement of telecommunications tower height shall include antenna, base pad,
and any and ail other appurtenances and shall be measured from the finished grade of
the pazcel on which the telecommunications tower is located.
b. Telecommunications towers shall not exceed one hundred si~ty five (165) feet in
height which shall include the antenna.
(4j Illumination. Telecommunications towers shall not be artificially lighted except to
assure human safety as required by the Federal Aviation Administration.
(5) Finished color. Telecommunications towers not requiring FAA painting/marking
shall be. of such color that will blend with the surrounding enviror~ment.
(6) Structural design.
a. Site plan(s) are required and shall be submitted for approval as defined in Chapter 20
Zoning (if applicable) and/or Chapter 9 Land Development, Code of Ordinances, City
of Winter Springs, Florida.
b. Telecommunications towers shall be constructed in aeeordance with the EIA/'I'IA
222-E Standazds as published by the Electronic Industries Assoeiation, whieh may be
amended from time to time, ASCE 7-95, "Minimum Design Load for Buildings and
Structures," (Wind Loads Chapter), as published by the Am~rican Society of Civil
Engineers, and further defined by ASCE 7-88, "Guide to the Use of the Wind Load
Provisions", both which may be amended from time to time, and all City of Winter
Springs construction/building codes as indicated in a statement signed, sealed and dated
by a professional engineer lieensed to practice in the State of Florida.
c. Such statement shall also describe the tower's capaeity, number and type of antennas
it can accommodate. No tower shall be perrnitted to exceed its loading capacity. For all
towers attached to existing structurss, the sta~ement sha11 include certification that the
structure can support the load imposed by the tower.
d. All new telecommunications towers, and those existing towers to be modified, shall
have the capability of having space for three (3) or more carriers. Upon request b~
Citv, 6 one of these spaces shall be reserved exclusively for the use of the City of
Winter Springs. Tower owners shall accommodate other antenna users on their towers.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 11 of 18
e. Further, any improvements and/or additions (i.e., antenna, satellite dishes, etc.) shall
require submission of a site plan signed, sealed and dated by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Florida which provides substantial competent evidence of
compliance with the EIT/TIA 22~-E Standazds ASCE 7-95, "Minimum Design Load for
Buildings and Structures," (Wind Loads Chapter), as published by the American Society
of Civil Engineers, and further defined by ASCE 7-88, "Guide to the Use of the Wind
T r1D ~{~ ~ ~~ ~. 4~+ i>~inj+ m~i~~ ~a amanr~o~ frnm t~imP `~ t~mP ln P~P~t Mt thP t~7Y1P
LVRUl 1V V1J1V11~1~ UVUl YY111V11 Lll{4'', VV li1~JV11MV~1 LVali _ ~~
of said improvement or addition.
(7) Public notice. Notice of any request, under this section, shall be published (in a
newspaper of general circulation) and personal notification shall be given to all properly
owners located within three (3) times the height ofthe tower area. Personal notification
shall mean notice sent by first class U.S. mail, and to the board of directors of duly
recogni~ed homeowners associations.
(8) Signage. No commercial signage or advertising shall be permitted on a
telecommunication tower unless otherwise required by law or the signage pertains only
to the posting of the property relative to trespassing. The use of any portion of a tower
or perimeter fence/wall for signs or advertising purposes, including company name,
banners, streamers, etc., sha11 be prohibited.
(9) Fencing.
a. A vinyl coated chain-link fence or masonry wall not l~ss than eight (8) feet in height
from finished grade shall be installed b}~ the applicant around each telecommunications
tower. Barbed wire or other fencing method to prevent pedestrian access to the tower,
not to exceed two (2) feet in height, shall be installed along the top of the fence or wall,
but shall not be included when caleulat,ing the height of the fence or wall.
b. Access to the tower through the fence or wa11 shall be through a gate which shall be
locked at all times the tower site is not being occupied by the person or entity in charge
of the telecommunications tower or site.
(10) Landscaping. The visual impae#s of atelecommunications tower shall be mitigated
for nearby viewers through landscaping or other sereening materials at the base of the
tower and ancillary structures in order to maintain visual aesthetics for those who must
~,, _ •. . « .1•.,..~ a . • • ~: ~:.. ..~.2 :!...
'vicT~% uiC ~i~~ Ciil a Tc~i.Ilai ~asis includi,-~g~ bU~ il~~ Iuilt2u ~0~ ~TvXiiuai.c ic~iu~uw aliu ~uc
travelling public. The following landscaping and buffering requirements shall be
required around the perimeter of the tower and accessory structures;
a. A row of shade trees of minimum of eight (8) feet tall that will reach heights of foriy
(40) plus feet, two and one-half (2 1/2) inehes in caliper, and a maximum of ten (10)
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 12 of 18
feet apart sha11 be planted around the outside perimeter of the fence/wall;
b. A continuous hedge shall be planted in front of the tree line referenced above; it shall
be at least thirty (30) inches high at plant~ng capable of growing to at least thirty-six (36)
inches in height within eighteen (18) months shall be planted in front of the tree line
referenced above;
r A I~ ~anrlcl~~~~1~'1~0~ C}1?I~ }1P. ()f tllP. PVPI'p P.P.TI Val'1P.tV }1P_,1Tlo A 1Y11711TI1i1T11 (illr_1I1tV (1~F~OP1_Ua
#1.
d. All landscaping shall be xeriscape tolerant and shall be properly maintained by the
telecommunications tower owner/operator to ensure good health and viability.
The use of existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and
may be used as a substitute or supplement towards meeting landscaping requirements.
(11) Antennas on buildings.
. , _ Stealth rooftop or
building mounted antennas may be erected. Any steal~h rooftop or building mounted
antennas which are not attached to a telecommunications tower, shall be a permitted
ancillary use to any commercial, industrial, public 6uildings, utility installation, and
recreation (sites greater than ten (10) acres in size) land uses indicated on the future land
use map of the city's comprehensive plan provided that:
a. Antennas shall only be permitted on buildings which are at least fifty (50) feet in
height (the height requirement may be waived if publie safety needs warrant the
antenna);
b. Antennas may not extend more than twenty (20) feet above the highest point of a roof
(this requirement may be waived if public safety needs warrant additional height);
c. Antennas and related equipment buildings shall be located or screened to minimize
the visual impact of the antenna upon adjacent properties and shall be of a material or
color which matches the exterior of the building or structure upon which it is situated;
d. No commercial advertising shall be allowed on an antenna or supporting structure;
e. No signals, lights, illumination shall be permitteci on an antenna or equipment
building unless required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): and
f. No more than one (1) total unrnanned equipment building shall contain more than
seven hundred fifly (750) square feet of gross floor area or be more than twelve (12) feet
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 13 of 18
in height. All building shall be subject to regulations of the building department; and
(12) Equipment storage. Mobile or immobile equipment not used in direct support of
a telecommunications tower facility sha11 not be stored or parked on the site of the tower
unless repairs to the tower are being made, and are in progress.
(13) Schedule of structural integrity. Telecommunication tower owners/operators shall
submit to the building department a certified statement from a q_ualified, registered,
professional engineer, licensed in the State of Floricia, attesting to the struciural and
electrical integrity of the tower on the following schedule:
a. All towers examined one year after initial construction.
b. All towers every five (5) years;
c. The city may require such certified statement after a nearby unusually severe storm
event as determined by the (NOAA) national weather service.
(14) Transmission/reception interference. Each application to allow construction or
modification of a telecommunications tower shall include a certified statement from a
qualified, registered, professional engineer, licensed in the State of Florida, attesting that
the construetion of the tower, including receiving and transmitting functions, shall not
interfere with public safety communications and the usual and customary transmission
or reception of radio, television, etc., service enjoyed by adjacent residential and non-
residential properties.
(15) Prohibitions with certainprincipal uses. Telecommunications towers are prohibited
when a proposed or existing principal use includes the storage, distribution, or sale af
volatile, explosive, or hazardous wastes such as LP gas, propane, gasoline, natural gas,
and corrosive or dangerous chemicals. This prohibition does not applv to emergency
generators.
(g) Co-location of communications antennas. The City of Win~er Springs desires to
minimize the number and general proliferation of communication towers. This section
is intended to insure that telecommunication towers that are permitted within the City
of Winter Springs aze utilized in a manner that provides for the ma~cimum number of
service providers upon each tower within the context of technical feasibility and safety.
Further, this section is intended to minimize the number of such towers within the city.
Specifically, as a minimum, telecommunications towers exceeding one hundred (100)
feet in height shall be engineered and constructed to accommodate three (3)
communication providers. The city shall have the authority to require, specify and
otherwise stipulate that telecommunication towers be engineered and constructed in a
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 14 of 18
manner that provides for three (3) co-locations as part of the conditional use and/or site
plan approval processes. As a condition of approval of all telecommunieation towers
and to the extent that co-location is technically feasible, all owners of existing
telecommunication towers shall, upon request of another service provider and for
reasonable and agreed upon consideration, permit additional communication service
providers upon such existing telecommunication tower. Applicants desiring to construct
new telecommunication towers shall submit written documentation that cleazly explains
the need for and reasons for the proposed construction of a new telecommunication
tower rather than locating proposed antenna array/communication equipment upon an
existing tower. Such documentation shall include plans of existing and future towers by
the applicant/provider in question, correspondence with existing telecommunication
tower owners and may include a cost analysis of alternatives. Existing service providers,
e.g., existing telecommunication tower owners, that are unwilling, upon request of
another service provider, to allow co-location upon such existing tower, shall submit
written documentation to the city with reasons and justification as to why such co-
location cannot be accomplished. Competition between service providers shall not be
considered to be a valid reason for preventing or otherwise obstructing co-location. The
city shall determine whether the applicant and/or existing provider are reasonable and
correct in their respective assertions. If the city determines that either party is being
unreasonableor otherwise uncooperative, the city shall deny the applicant's request for
a new tower and/or the city may cause the existing telecommunication tower's approval
to be revoked and said existing tower to be removed. Such determination involving
existing tower owners shall be made in writing and adopted by a majority vote of the
city commission upon holding an advertised public hearing a~~t notification of the
owner at least fifteen (15) days prior to such hearing. Upon adoption of such
determination by the city commission, the existing tower owner and the property upon
whieh such tower is located shall be considered to be a violation of the city's Land
Development Regulations and shall be subjeet to any and all remedies and penalties
thereof.
To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation and clustering of
telecommunications towers, co-location of communications antennas by more than one
(1) carrier on existing or new telecommunication towers shall take precedent over the
construction of new single-use telecommunications towers as follows:
~~l PrppqS~~ COIllmitni~atinnc antPnn~c chall ~n-1n~atP pntp ~X2S#2I??
telecommunications towers.
(2) Type of construction. A telecommunications tower which is reconstructed to
accommodate the co-location of an additional communications antenna shall be of a
monopole tower type. Stealth-designed monopoles are encouraged.
City of Winter Sptings
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 15 of 18
(3) Height. An existing telecommunications tower may be modified or rebuilt to the
allowed height including antennas by compliance with this article;
(4) Onsite-location.
a. A Telecommunications tower which ~s being rebuilt to accommodate the co-location
of an additional communications antenna may be moved onsite, but shall comply with
nr m,a~v:m~~P gPtha~l~ rPnnirPmentc frnm rP~~rlPntiail~ ~nnar~ rrnYPrt~ ,
.1.....,.~......,.
b. After a telecommunication tower is rebuilt to accommodate co-location, only one (1)
tower shall remain on the site;
(h) Certification of compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) NIER
Standards. Prior to receiving final inspection by the Winter Springs Building
Department, documented certification shall be submitted to the FCC, with copy to the
land development coordinator, certifying that the telecommunications facility complies
with a11 current FCC regulations for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER).
(i) Abandonment.
(1) In the event the use of any telecommunications tower has been discontinued for a
period of one-hundred eighty (180) consecutive days, the tower shall be deemed to be
abandoned. Determina~ion of the date of abandonment sha11 be made by the building
official who shall have the right to request documentation andlor affidavits from the
telecommunications tower owner/operator .regarding the issue of tower usage. The
telecommunications tower owner/operator shall provide all requested information within
ten (10) working days of a request being made, and failure to so provide shall be
deemed to constitute one hundred eighty days (180) days of non-use of the tower. Upon
such abandonment, the owner/operator of the tower shall have an additional ninety (90)
days within which to:
a. Reactivate the use of the tower or transfer the tower to another owner/operator who
makes actual use of the tower; or
b. Dismantle and remove the tower. With regard to towers that received conditional use
approval, ninety (90) days after dismantling or the expiration of the two-hundred
seventy (270) day period as set forth in this section, the conditional use and/or variance
ior ihe iower shall automaiicaliy expire.
(2) The City of Winter Springs, upon abandonment, and at its discretion, may assume
ownership of the tower at no cost, or require the owner to dismantle the tower at the
owner's expense. If the decision is to dismantle the tower, the property shall be cleared
of all appurtenances and returned to its natural state.
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 16 of 18
(3) An appropriate sureiy instn~ment to assure dismantling costs shall be provided by
the owner prior to a tower construction permit.
Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior
llll.~ll$1.St~ntOl~111Qi1~.GJ Ai1LLlt'.$viuiiviiu uuvy~~u vy iii°v v:~j~ rvm~.m..:.~,$.~n~ n~ ~~1't~ nf~1'1llfllTl~/ilal'1(:P.R
and resolutions in conflict herewith, aze hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 4. Incor~oration Into Code. This Ordinance, including Figure 1 which is
attached hereto and fully incorporated herein by this reference, shall be incorporated into the Winter
Springs City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter, and any heading may be changed
or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical, and like enors
may be conected and additions, alterations, and omissions, not affecting the construc#ion or meaning
of this ordinanee and the City Code may be freely made.
SecYion 5. Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or
provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural, or any other reason, such portion shall
be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, and pursuant to City
Charter.
[ADOPTION PAGE FOLLOWS]
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 17 of 18
ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, in a regular
meeting assembled on the 12th day of February, 2006.
~. ~~~~~
, ~_.^__ __
J(j1i1~ r . ~f U ~ri, MayQ~r
V
LORENZO-LUACES, City Clerk
Approved as to legal form and suffciency for
the City 'nter Springs Qnly:
ANTHONY . GARGANESE, City Attorney
First Reading: January 22, 2007
Second Reading: February 12, 2007
Effective Date: February 12, 2007
City of Winter Springs
Ordinance No. 2006-12
Page 18 of 18
ATTACHMENT C
CONSUL7'ING ENGINEERS
ARTHUR K. PETERS
RADIO
TELEVISION
CATV
COMMON CARRIER
(352) 331-0149
FAX: (352) 331-8026
5422 NW 91 ST BOULEVARD
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32653-2872
April 17, 2007
Mr. Ronald W. McLemore
~;+„ ~ ~,,..,,,.,..
v~iy rvia~ iayci
City of Winter Springs
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Dear Mr. McLemore:
~~~~~~~~
APR 2 6 2007
~~fy (,?i~ !MNfip~E~sR~ SPRINGS
~E~ERpAFCCE
www.akpce.com
akpce~cox.net
This is in response to your request for information concerning (1) the experience that the City of
Medina, Washington is having with disguise and stealth cellular technology, and, (2) will similar
technology work in Winter Springs.
The City of Medina is small, with a population of about 3000 persons, a land area of 1.43 square miles
and a water area of 3.35 square miles. Its, population and area is ten times smaller and its tree density is
much lower than Winter ~prings. Finally, Medina's terrain undulations are approximately similar to
Winter Springs except near the water where the land abruptly falls to sea level.
I spoke with Ms. Rebecca Leslie, a planning consuitant to the City, and with Mr. Joseph Gellings,
Director of Development Services. The City regulates Wireless Communications Facilities in Title 17,
Chapter 90 of its Municipal Code.
A feature most pertinent to this analysis is that Medina overall tower heights are restricted to 35 ft.
above ground, including all antennas. This restriction has given rise to a number of different tower
configurations. For example; one tower is a relatively thin pole-like structure. Another is disguised as a
light pole in a church parking lot. Another has recently been rebuilt using a fatter, shrouded cylindrical
tower. Co-location is encouraged on a~i towers. Some ground facilities are placed inside of in-ground
vaults having an above ground height of-about 5 inches.
Medina has seven cellular towers. The spokespersons knew of few service problems. At present four
providers serve Medina over the seven towers. This impiies that not all potential providers have physical
facilities in the City. It is believed that each tower supports a single provider. There are three cities
adjacent to Medina that likely have cell sites that provide service into Medina, possibly including
providers having no sites within Medina.
Since Medina celis use regular cellular equipment, there are no special technical issues relating to
disguise and stealth antennas. Only physical mounting and shrouding considerations differ between
normal and disguised facilities. For example, regular antennas mount to fake trees that hide the
antennas behind non-conducting fake leaves or needles. Also, regular antennas are used behind
shrouds within a lighting standard extension or a fiagpole.
Because standard technology is employed in Medina, similar technology will work in Winter Springs.
However, due to the dissimilar size and population of the two cities, several important considerations
must be examined before employing the Medina experience.
Page 2
Mr. Ronald W McLemore
April 17, 2006
Most importantly, according to the Medina spokespersons, stealth and disguise facilities do not totally
hide cellular facilities and antennas, except in cases such as bell towers and the like. My personal
experience is that, for example, a tail bell tower or tall fake tree are almost as visually objectionable as
monopole towers because they can be foolishly out of scale and, as a result, more visible in some
locations and circumstances.
Another consideration is the number of towers required. In Medina there are seven towers in an area of
1.3 square miles for a tower density of 5.3 towers per square mile. If consideration is given in Winter
Springs to a 35 ft. maximui-n height then, for the tyrical number o~ providers ~n Flo!ida, three more
providers must be accommodated. At 35 ft. it is doubtfu~ that there would be any collocations.
Therefore, the tower density wouid rise in Florida to 10 towers with a density of 7.7 towers per square
mile. The Winter Springs area currently requiring improved coverage has a radius of about one mile
covering an area of about 3.1 square miles. It could require 24 towers to cover that area with 7
providers using 35 ft. towers. This includes both 800 MHz and 1900 MHz systems.
If towers were allowed 70 ft. heights the numbers would decrease both because of greater range and a
few collocations might occur. Even with this height increase the number of towers could, in this case,
require 6 or more towers. There is also the issue that quite possibly the providers will do nothing further
in Winter Springs because of the expense of multiple towers and celi site equipment.
I recommend some consideration be given to the utilization of a single, relatively thin cylindrical
(uniform cross-section) monopole structure that houses antennas and transmission lines inside a non-
conducting shroud. These structures seem to be less visualiy distracting and perceptually fade into the
background noise rather quickly. The finish should be non-reflecting and have a pleasant, neutral gray
color, as opposed to white or black. This type of structure has been termed a flagpole, but when used
as an actual (white) flagpole, is usually offensively out-of-scale.
Finally, as an update to my March, 2006 report, there has been little progress of cellular alternative
technologies. There are a few standards being voted on in the next months that will lead to the
development of dual mode service that is aimed at seamlessly merging Wi-Fi and cellular services.
However, current plans for these services revolve around computer centric operations such as short
messages, images and e-mail. While there is mention of voice services and efforts to inciude voice in
the initial standard processes, convenier~t and ffuid cellular-like voice services are still years in ihe fuiure
because there have been no viable suggestions or proposals relating to managing transfer of calls
between Wi-Fi networks and the public switched telephone (cellular) network.
Sincerely,
Arthur K. Peters, P.E.
Via Faosimile and USPS
` ~ ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1126 STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FL 32708
407-327-5966
FAX:407-327-6695
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
~l CONDITIONAL USE / SPECIAL EXCEPTION
^ VARIANCE
^ WAIVER
APPLICANT:
Last ~ , First " , Middle
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE & EMAIL ~~DA~iz_ -~~1~ ~J'r-4'1( ng ~ CI.~Cal1~2U-Z Anuc a2+ i„nk. ne-~
~Ca~hRar~-(~~3)q2$-Q4o3 /a~~.cachKan~fav~e~.~al.~.~^^
If Applicant does NOT own the property:
PROPERTY OWNER: ~I~TC.Q JYJ A.1 nG~S C a It'~ Ll.~
Last First Middle
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE & EMAIL
-Ke L=~n~dne~ -( 4Dh ) 3l~tn- ~ gS I J n~t~aad~e2(W-I~uscaw- ~~acc~ eo~
~-
This request is for the real property described below:
PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~~ dtU I~17 eR J~(L I NtGS~I1Id ~ W 1/iTe2. ~Va ~ nG~ ~ t. -32 7~g
TAX PARCEL NUMBER: .'3 I- eZ D- 3 I- J'~ B~ - Z~ D~ L~ ~ QC1Q A
SIZE OF PARCEL: ~,pTlo~L~~~. ~ ~J4D , ~ C~C ,
Square Feet Acres
EXISTING LAND USE: ~~OIT~ COl1QS~
Current FUTURE LAND USE Classification: ~~(ATl I]{1 W i`~'Y~~l.~ ~ Ve~_
- ~
Current ZONING Ciassification:~eCQC:~Tl~0~1 vV-~~~,~.iJ p~QQ~Q~I
Please state YOUR REQUEST:
~~~~~~~~
p ~;..~~i
~~~ ~ ~ ~~^~
Match 2005
CI'lY QF WINTER SPRINGS
Permitting - Kim
The APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE for posting the blue notice card (provided by the City) on the site at
least SEVEN (7) DAYS prior to the Board of Adjustment Meeting at which the matter will be considered.
Said notice shall NOT be posted within the City right-of-way. All APPLICANTS shall be afforded minimal
due process as required by law, including the right to receive notice, be heard, present evidence, cross-
examine wimesses, and be represented by a duly authorized representative.
The CITY COMMISSION shall render all final decisions regarding variances, conditional uses and waivers
and may impose reasonable conditions on any approved variance, conditionai use or waiver to the extent
deemed necessary and relevant to ensure compliance with applicable criteria and other applicable
f.l_ _ • J/~_ 1 .1_.~'_"_ 11 t__ L,-__J _~
piuvi~iuii~ u~ uiC i.iiy Cuue atiu wtn~rreuei~sive Flau. r"1i1 formal uc~t~iuii~ sltau uc ua~ru vu coiiij;ciciii
substantial evidence and the applicable criteria as set forth in Chapter 20, Zoning. APPLICANTS are
advised that if, they decide to appeal any decisions made at the meetings or hearings with respect to any
matter considered at the meetings or heazings, they will need a record of the proceedings and, for such
purposes, they will need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, at their cost, which
includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, per 286.0105, Florida Statutes.
Any CONDITIONAL USE, VARIANCE, or WAIVER which may be granted by the City Commission shall
expire two (2) years after the effective date of such approval by the City Commission, unless a building
permit based upon and incorporating the conditional use, variance, or waiver is issued by the City within
said time period. Upon written request of the property owner, the City Commission may extend the
expiration date, without public hearing, an additional six (6) months, provided the property owner
demonstrates good cause for the extension In addition, if the aforementioned building permit is timely
issued, and the building permit subsequently expires and the subject development project is abandoned or
discontinued for a period of six months, the conditional use, variance or waiver shall be deemed expired
and null and void. (Code of Ordinances, Section 20-36.)
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE TO BE SUPPLIED WITH THIS APPLICATION:
~ A copy of the most recent SURVEY of the subject property.
~ A copy of the LEGAL DESCRIPTION reflecting the property boundaries.
~ 11 x 17 MAP showing ADJACENT STREETS and ZONING AND LAND USE classifications
on the ADJACENT PROPERTY.
5~ JUSTIFICATION for the Request (See Attached List)
~ NAMES and ADDRESSES of each property owner within 150 ft. of each property line. ~ 3~'j Mt S`I'I1e ~l~ ;~~j~-~
i~ `1~e ~o~nl~.2 ~ ~5 ~f ~'• ~
l~ Notarized AUTHORIZATION of the Owner,
!F the Rp~licant 9s oth~r than the Owner or Attorn~y for the O::~n~r (see beloN:).
@~ APP~ICATION FEES:
FEES are as SHOWN BELOW plus ACTUAL COSTS incurred for ADVERTISING or NOTIFICATION,
and for REIMBURSEIv~NT for TECHMCAL and/or PROFESSIONAL SERVICES which may be
required in connection with the review, inspection or approval of any development (based on accounting
submitted by the City's Consultant) , payable prior to approval of the pertinent stage of development.
CONDITIONAL USE / SPECIAL EXCEPTION $ 500
WAIVER $ 500
VARIANCE $ 500
TOTAL DUE $ OD ~'
2
Mazch 2005
Qy sut~mitting ihis applicalion yau hereb}~ arant temparary tight o1' en[rv for ci~y officials to enter upat the subject
gropetty POr purpc~ses of ec~aluating t(tis ap~lieatic~rti.
~F~EE+Y#1~Y~#tk##9~+kf~k~KM**~K~kR~k#~K~k4~kb#a`~F~lJ~:F+U#~Rk#+t~l~k:k#tfLt~R#t+R4###9:Y~R~At4+k$4~F~6#~R~R$~R~ER4+k+6~R~F$~k+F~k
FOR USE WHEt1 APPL.IGANT IS OWM1IEFZ OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY:
This is tn cettify that I am the du•ner in fee simple of subject [ands described within this Application fQr
Baard o~Adjnstment consideration:
Signature of Qwner
Sworn to and subscribed before ine this
day of 20_~. Notary Public
tit~= Commission expires:
Personally Known
Produced Identificatic~n:
(Type)
~id take an Oath
Did Not take and Oath
t**t**t~e*~r~s*~~xwrk~~e*~st,sxt4s~r~**s*x~t**e~*~sr~ct*s~~s~r~st~e**+~~e~w~rt+~t~~t~~.~+*~tt~~~t*s~~x~
~ FOR USE WHEN APPUCANT ~S NOT QWNER OP THE SUBJ~GT REAL PROPER7'Y:
I~i~ G i p~ ~~rr- ~ do hereby, with my notarized signature, a(law
V~ r r,~ Y ~~~~ 7~ m A n r~ T T t' t~ represent me in this Application retated to my praperty. T[~e
propeciyisidentifiedas: TaxParce.I7~utnbe~{s) 31-20-3~-SBB-OOQO-004A
Locatedat I ~00 WINTER SPRIIVGS ~3
Signature af O~v er(s)
Sz~o n to and subseribed before me this
~ day of ~~~_ 24Q 7 .
~, ~CCSOAa~~}' ~6Wi1
E
~/ ~lS~~lilit~,(_. ~ ~~~~~~~~
Natary Public
My Cammissii~o,,n expire`s-: ~^ J~
~ C/ . ~~PFO~~V
ProducedlD:{Type~
Did tal:e an Oath ~ s~~ p~.,,, LAURA A. ROUNTREE
Did Not talte and Qath ;`~' ; Notary PubC~c - State of Flo~tde
'•~Ay Commtssbn Expires Feb 26~ 2010
=? c~`; Comrt~ssion # DD 4~~~6
, _,~
+*~wx~~~*a;.~~t~xrt*wa~*a~*tes+*~~~**+~r*~~se*t-~ *~F.r~~~~~~~~~onde~~yNa~ona~~lotaryAssn* s*4~*
R~h ZfJtYa
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
Taken from Winter Springs Code of Ordinances, Sec:tion 20-33(d):
All Conditional Use recommendations and final decisions shali be based on the
following criteria to the extent applicable. Attach additional paper as necessary:
l~] What is the Conditional Use you are requesting?
150' flagless flagpole-type wireless telecommunications stealth tower and
associated ground equipment ("the wireless facility").
~1 How is the Conditional Use (including its proposed scale and intensity,
traffic- generating characteristics, and offsite impacts) compatible and
harmonious with adjacent land uses?
The wireless facility is proposed to be located on a 140.5 acre parent tract
developed as a golf course. The size of the parent tract itself absorbs most, if not all, of
any adverse visual impact from any offsite residential uses. Additionally the proposed
wireless facility has been located on the parent tract abutting a mature tree canopy so
as to provide additional buffering and screening from offsite uses. The proposed
wireless facility, at full capacity, will only generate approximately 8 vehicle trips per
month.
~l Will the Conditional Use adversely impact land use activities in the
immediate vicinity? If no, why not'?
No. The proposed wireless facility will neither adversely impact the recreational
uses on the parent parcel nor will it adversely impact off-site residential uses.
[~l Demonstrate how the size and shape of the site, the proposed access and
internal circulatio~, and the design enhancerr~ents are adequate to accommodate
the proposed scale and intensity of the conditional use requested. The site shall
be of sufficient size to accommodate design amenities such as screening buffers,
landscaping, open space, off-street parking, and other similar site plan
improvements needed to mitigate against potential adverse impact~s of the
proposed use.
The proposed wireless facility is proposed to be a 70' by 70' foot compound, the
minimum size necessary to accommodate 7 carriers on the facility. The height
proposed, 150', is also the minimum height required to accommodate 7 carriers. The
stealth design of the wireless facility mitigates any adverse visual impacts. The
compound will be fenced and screened according to the land development code. The
proposed wireless facility has been placed on the parent tract so as to maximize the
screening and buffering of existing mature vegetation. The site requires no off street
parking.
ORLA_439939.1
C~ Will the proposed use have an adverse impact on the local economy,
including governmental fiscal impact, employment, and property values? If no,
why not?
No, the proposed wireless facility places no demand on city services, displaces
no one, and will have no impact on property values.
Will the proposed use have an adverse impact on natural environment,
inciuding air, water, ana noise poiiuiion, vegeiaiion anci wiiciiife, open space,
noxious and desirable vegetation, and flood hazards? If no, why not?
The proposed wireless facility does not require sewer or water, creates no odor,
noise, or flood hazard, nor will create any adverse impact on vegetation or wildlife.
~l Will the proposed use have an adverse impact on historic, scenic and
cultural resources, including views and vistas, and loss or degradation of cultural
and historic resources? If no, why not?
There are no historical or cultural resources nearby.
[~ Will the proposed use have an adverse impact on public services, including
water, sewer, surface water management, police, fire, parks and recreation,
streets, pubic transportation, marina and waterways, and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities? If no, why not?
No, the proposed wireless facility creates little or no demand on public services.
The unmanned facility does not need water or sewer, and creates no parking, traffic, or
other transportation issues.
C~l Will the proposed use have an adverse impact on housing and social
conditions, including a variety of housing unit types and prices, and
neighborhood quality? If no, why not?
The proposed wireless facility is to be placed on a parent tract that is already
developed as a golf course. The surrounding lands are also already developed with
residential uses No adverse impact is expe~ted. The proposed wireless facility will,
however, greatly enhance the ability of the wireless industry to serve the ever increasing
demands and needs of the adjacent residential uses.
2
ORLA 439939.1
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Alan Ruiz, President,
Vertex Development LLC, who being by me first duly sworn, under oath, deposes and states as
follows:
1. I am over eighteen (18) years of age and have personal knowledge of the matters
contained herein.
2. I am the President of Vertex Development LLC and have the authority to sign this
affidavit.
3. The construction of the tower located at 1500 Winter Springs Boulevard, Winter
Springs, will accommodate Co-Location of additional antennas for wireless service
providers or users.
4. Based upon Vertex's search of the area, no existing Telecommunications Tower,
Alternative Tower Structure, building or other structure is located within T-Mobile's
geographic search area.
5. Based upon Vertex's search of the azea, government-owned property is not available
within the T-Mobile search area for the Wireless Communication Facility.
6. Vertex, and/or its successors and assigns, hereby agree to a11ow the shared use and
Co-Location of the Tower, if additional user(s) agree in writing to meet reasona.ble
terms and conditions for such shazed use.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Alan Ruiz, President
Vertex Development LLC
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH
STATE OF FLORIDA
This foregoing ' strum was acknowledged before me this ~*day of ~~ ~
, 2007, by ,~~G/1 tr r Z , who is personally known to me or
produced and w o e an o .
WITNESS my hand and off'icial seal, this~G _Y'~'day of 2007.
Notary Pub
My Commission Expires:
~~~`""~ AMY A. COCHRAN
_ ~~... ;`w,
_. E Commission N DD 417630
'* ` My Commissioa Expires
` ``~'„~, „w,~'~ July O1, 2009
01l00100 12:00A P.001
V~ ~~~ ~ ~j,,'r ~.S C4 t,J I~~Li ~v N W l"'Yv) l~li~*v
V
May 23, 2007 'F~~~:~Ky=Y~i;t~~~
ver~~ort wirel ess
a~.ry-M..~:,:.
Verizon Wireless
To: Amy Cochran s~ae sooto Roaa
Vertex Development, LLC Boca Ratan, FL 33431
40~ South Dalc Mabry High~~~ay,
. #244
Tampa, FL 33609-2820
Re: Proposed Ta~ver Collocation, Tuscafvilla Site ID# $Q321 at Winter S~rings, FL.
Dear Amy:
Thank you for infoi~ming Verizon Wireless of tt~e proposed tawer ihat Vertex Development is
planning to build at 1.500 Winter Springs Blvd., Winter Springs Florida 327o8. Verizon ~~/ireless
has determiaied that it has a need for additional coverage and/or capacity that could be served by
a collocation on the proposed communications tower. I will be contacting you to discuss your
proposed site in more detail and to obtain periodic updates as to your progress to obtain fiiiat
zoning approval.
Verizon VVireless will consider entering into a collocation agreement with Vertex Develapment,
LLC to collocate on the proposed tower to the extent that Vertex Development, LLC obtains all
necessary gavernn~ental approvals, and assuming that the parties can come to terms on a
collocation agreement with terms and conditions acceptable to Verizon Wireless.
This letter is not a commitment by Verizon Wireless to enter into a collocation agreement, and
this letter should not be relied upon by Vertex Development, LLC in that regard, A binding
agreement for the lease of any tower space from Vertex Development, LLC shall not exist until a
final, definitive, and fully negotiated collocation agreement has been fully executed and
delivered. 1=urtl~er, it is understood by all parties that Verizon Wireless reserves the right to
simultaneously negotiate ~r~~ith other tandlords for sites in the immediate geographical area in
which the above described proposed cornmunications tower is to be located; and there is no
assurance whatsoever that Verizon Wireless wi1.1 conclude a deal for the above described
proposed communications to~uer unless and until a collocation agreement is fully executed and
delivered.
Cordially,
. ' { . ;-,, ,; ~:._,,.
;~~~ f ,. ~ % / ~.
~; c ~~1.~~!'G~.-
;%Josep Conde, Real ~state and Construction Manager
cc: .lason Hillenbrand, Project Manager
01/00t00 12:00A P.001
TOWER LEASE WITH OPTION
THIS TOWF1t I.EASE WfTH OPT'ION (this "I,ease") is by and between Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability coct~any ("Landlord"} and T-Mobile South LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (°Tenant"}.
1. Oation to Lease.
(a} In cansideration of the payment of ~ ~ (the "Opiion Fee") by Tenant to Landlord,
Landiord hereby grants to Tez-ant an option to lease the use of a portion of the real property described in the aYtached Exhibit A
(the "Propert~'), together with the right to use the tower located thereon ('"fower'~ on the terms and conditions set forth herein
(the `Option"). The Option shail be for an initia! te~m of tweive {I2) months, comtnencing on the Effective Date (as defined
below) (the "Option Period'~. The Optian D°^^~ ma~ hP Pxtended bv Tenant for an additional six (6) manths upon writien
notice to Iandiortl and payment of the sum o. • j("Additional Option Fee") at any t~ prior to the
end of the Optioa Period.
(b) Ihuing the Option Period and any exbension ther~of, and durmg the term of this Lr~e, Landlord agrees to
cooperate with Tenant in obtaining, at TenanYs expense, alI licenses and perniits or authori~alions reqitired for TenanCs use of the
Premises {as defined below) from all appiicabte govemmeret ~d/or regulamry entities (inciuding, without timitation, wning and
Iand use authorities, aad the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") ("Govemmental Approvals"), including appointing
Tcnant as agent for all land use and wning permit applications, and Landlord agrtes to cooperate with and to allow Tenant, at no
cost to Landlord, to obtaip a tide report, zoning approvals and variances, land-use perrnits, and Landlord expressly grants to
Tenant a right of access to the Property to perform surveys, soils tests, and other tngineering procedures or environmentat
investigations on ihe Praperty necessary to determine that TenanYs use of the Premises will be compatible with Tenant's
engineering specifications, system design, operations and Govemmental Approva}s. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenani may
not change the zonB-g classificarion of the Property without firs# obtaining Landlord's written consent During the Option
Period and any c^actension thereo~ Landlord agrees that it wil] not interfere with 'Fenant's efforts to secure other licenses and
permits or authori2ations that relaie to other property. During the Option Period and any extension thereo~ Tenant may euercise
the Option by so notifying Landlord in writing, at Landlord's address in accordance with Section 12 hereof.
(c) If Teaant e~cercises thc Option, then, subject to the following tertns and conditions, Landlord hereby ]eases to
Tenant the use af that portian of the Tower and Property, together with easements for access ~d utilities, generally described and
depicted in the attached ~x}ubit B(collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Pranises'~. The Prunises are Iacated at I500
Winter Springs BIvd, Winter Springs, FL 32708. 'Tenant's location on the Tower shall be at the 15S (cvel of the approved
structvre.
2. ~'I~e initial term of t6e Lease si-alt bs seven {7) years commencing an the date of exercise of the Option (the
"Cammencement Daie'~, and terminating at midnight on the last day of the initial tetm (the "Initial Term'~.
3. Pemu~d Use. The Premises may be used by Tenant for the transcnission and receptian of radio communication
signals and for the construation, installation, operation, maintenance, repair, r~ertwval or rtplacement of related faciiities, towe~
and base, antennas, micmwave dishes, cquipnxnc shelters and/or cabinets and relaied activities. Approved Equipment is shown
on ihe attached xhibit .
4. ~s . Tenant shail pay LandTord, as rent , per month
("Rent"). Rerrt shall be payable within twenty (20) days following the Commencement Date prorated for the remainder of the
month in which tfie Caam~encement I?ate falls and thereafter Rent wiil bc payable manthly in advance by the fifth day of each
month to Vertex Developinent, I.I.C at Landlord's address speci5ed in Seation 12 below. If this I,ease is terminated at a time
other than on the last day of a montU, Rent shall be prorated as of the date of Dermination for any reason (other than a default by
Tenant) and all prepaid Rent shall be imrr~ediateIy refunded to Tenant
5. Renew . Tenant shal] have the right ta extend this Lease for four (4} additional, five-year tern~s (ear1~ a"Renewal
Term"). Each Renewa] Tum shall be on thc same terms and conditions as set forth herein, except that Reai shall be inczrased by
.••_, of the Rent paid over the preceding term. This Lease shall autamaTically renew for each
successive xenewat '1'eim untess Tenant notifies Landlord, in writing, af Tenant's intention not to renew this Lease, at least sixty
(60} days prior to the expiration of the Initial Terrn or any Renewal Term If TtnanE shaIl retrrain in possession of the Premises at
the ezpiration of this Lease or any Renewal Term without a wriaen agreement, sucb taiancy shall be decmed a manth-to-month
tenancy under thc same ter~ns and wnditions of this Lcase.
6. Interf'erence. Tenant shall not use thc Premises in any way which interferes with the use of the Property by
Landlard or lessees or iicensees of Landlard, wit6 rights in the Property prior in time to Tenant's (subject to TenanYs rights under
this L.ease, including, withoui lurutarion, non-interference). Similarly, Landloid sha11 not use, nor shall T.andlord permit irs
lessees, licensees, employe.es, invitees or agenu to use, any portion of the Property in any way wb.ich interferes with the
svex~¢nber: Fwsze ve~ionla2-0I
Sioe Name: N. TuSkawALi
Muket Orlando
01100l00 12:00A P.002
""' _._i
operations of Tenant. Such interference shall be deemed a material breach by the interfering party, who sha(I, upon written
notice from the other, be responsible for terminating said interference. In the evenc any sueh interference does not cease
promptly, the parties acl~owledge that continuing interference may cause irreparable inj ury and, therefore, the injured party shall
have the right, in addition to any other rights that it may have at law or in equity, to bring a court action to enjoin such
interference or to tertninate this Lease immcdiately upon written notice.
7. Improvements: Utilities: Access.
(a) Tenant shall have the right, at its expense, to erect and maintain on the Premises improvements, personal property
and facilities necessary to operate its communications system, inctuding, without (imitation, radio transmitting and receiving
antennas, microwave dishes, tow•er and base, equipment shelters and/or cabinets and related cables and utility lines and a location .
based system, including, wzthout limitation, antenna(s), covcial cable, base units and other associated equipment (collectively,
rl~... 'A.,`o F~..:l~~:o~~~l rl~,~ ~~~Mt:n.. {~~5`~ rS:~m ~a r}r~ r~ni~~~P~ }~v anv rniiniv ctato nr fnrlPral aorn~vlriPnartmrnt
. .. . ~.. ..~...~. «~.~ a a~. ~~ .r..~. $j »} R J J J~ - _o"'_~. r
Tenant shall have t6e right to alter, replace, expand, enhartce and upgade the Antenna Facilities at any time during the term of
this Lease. Tenant sha11 cause all construction to occur lien-free and in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances.
Landlord acknowledges that it shall not interfere with any aspects of construction, including, without limitation, attempting to
direct construction personnel as to the location af or method of installation of the Antenna Facilicies and the Easements (as
defined below) ("Construction Interference"). Landlord further acknowledges that it will be responsibfe for any costs and
damages (including, fines and penalties) that are directly atiributable to L.andlord's Construction Interference. The Antenna
Facilities shall remain the exclusive property of Tenant. Tenant shall have the right to remove the Antenna Facilities at any time
during and upon the expiration or termination of this Lease, °
{b) Tenant, at its expense, may use any and atl appropriate means of restricting access to the Antenna Facilities,
including, ~vithout limitation, the construction of a fence.
(c) Tenant shall, at Tenant's expense, keep and maintain the Antenna Faciliries now or hereafter tocated on the Property
in commercially reasonable condition and repair during the term of this Lease, normal wear and tear and casualty excepted.
Upon termination ar expiration of this Lease, the Premises shall be reYumed to Landlord in good, usable condition, normal wear
and tear and casualty excepted. _
(d) Tenant shali have the right to install utilities, at Tenant's expense, and to improve the present utilities on the
Property (including, but not limited to, the installation of emergency power generators). Landlord agrees to use reasonable
efforts in assisting Tenant to acquire necessary utility service. Tenant shall, wherever practicable, install separate meters for
utilities used on the Property by Tenant. 1n the event separate meters aze not instalied, Tenant sha)1 pay the periodic charges for
all utilities attributable to Ten.ant's use. Landlord shall diligently correct any variation, interruptian or failure of utitity service.
(e) As partial consideration for Rent paid under this Lease, I,andlord hereby grants Tenant an Easements in, under and
across the Property for ingress, egress, utilities and access (including access for the purposes described in Section 1) to the
Premises adequate fo install and maintain utilities, which include, but are not limited to, the installation of power and telephone
service cable, and to service the Premises and the .4ntenna Facilities at atl times during the Initial Term of this Lease and any
Renewal Term (collectively, the "Easements"). The Easements provided hereunder shall have the same term as this Lease.
(~ Tenant shall have 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week access to the Prerruses ("Access") at all times during the Initial
Term of this Lease and any Renewal Term. In the event Landlord, its employees or agents impede or deny Access to Tenant, its
employees or agents, Tenant shali, without waiving any other rights that it may have at law or in equity, deduct from Rent
amounts due under this Lease an amount equal to five hundred and no/100 Dollars (~500.00) per day for each day that Access is
impeded or denied.
8. Ternvnation. Except as othenvise provided herein, this Lease may be terminated, w7thout any penalty or further
liabiliry as follows:
(a) upon thirty (30) days' written notice by Landlord if Tenant fails to cure a default for payment of amounts due under
this Lease within that thirty (30) day period;
{b) immediately if Tenant notifies Landlord of unacceptable results of any ritle report, environmentat or soil tests prior
to Tenant's installation of the Antenna Facilities on the Premises, or if Tenant is unable to obtain, maintain, or o2herwise forfeits
or cance{s any license (including, without limitation, an FCC license), perrnit or any Governmental Approval necessary to the
installation and/or operacion of the Antenna Facilities or Tenant's business;
(c) upon ninety (90) days' written notice by Tenant if the Property or the Antenna Facilities are, or become
unacceptable under Tenant's design or engineering specifications for its Antenna Facilities or the communicacions system to
which the Antenna Facilities belong;
Silc h~rtnbcr. E482C Vcrsion 10-?-O]
Sile hame: 1v. Tuskawitla
Markec Orlando
01/00/00 12:00A P.003
(d} imrnediately upon written notice by Tenant if the Premises or the Antenna Facilities are desiroyed or damaged so as
in TenanYs reasonable judgment to substantially and adversely affect the effective use of the Antenna Facilities. In such event,
all rights and obligations of the parties shall ccase as of the date of thc damage or destruction, and Tenant shall be entitled to the
reimbursement of any Rent prepaid by Tenant. TfTenant elects to continue this Lease, then aii Rent shall abate until the Premises
and/or the An[enna Faci(ities are restored to the condition existing immediately prior to such damage or destruction; or
(e) at the time title to the Property trans£ers to a condemning authority pursuant to a taking of all or a poRion of the
Property suf~icient in Tenant's determination to render the Premises unsuitabJe for Tenant's use. Landlord and Tenant shall each
be entitled to pursue their own separate awards with respect to such taking. Sa[e of all or part of the Property to a purchaser with
the power of eminent domain in the face of the excrcisc of thc powcr shall be treated as a taking by condemnation.
9. Default and Right to Cure. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary and without waiving any
nthor rirthtc n.~..toA ~~ '• ^i iu'.': ~'
••e•••~ s•~-~~•~~ ~• u v~ ii~ Cyiiii'y', cdcu Na~iy 5naii nave ine ilgh[, but not the obligation, to terminate this L,ease on --
written notice pursuant to Section t2 hereof, to take effect imrncdiately, if the other party (i) fails to perform any covenant for a
period of thirty {30) days aftcr reccipt of written notice thereof to cure or (ii} commits a material breach of this L,ease and fails to
diligently pursue such cure to its completion after sixty {GO) days' ~vritten notice to the defaulting party.
10. Taxes. La~dlord shall pay when due all real property taxes for the Aroperty, including the Premises. 1n thc event
t6at Landlord fails to pay any such real praperty taxes or other fecs and assessments, Tenant shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to pay such owed amounts and deduct them from Re~t amounts due under this [.ease. Nohvithstandin~ the foregoing,
Tenant shall pay any personal property tax, rea! properry tax or any other tax or fee v~~hich arc directly attributable to the presence
or installation of Tenant's Antenna Facilities, only for so long as this Lease has not expired of its ovm terms or is not terminated
by either party. Landlord hereby grants to Tenant the right to challenge, whether in a Court, Administrative Proceeding, or other
venue, on behalf of Landlord and/or Tenant, any personal property or real property tax assessments that may affect Tenant. If
Landlord receives noiice of any personal property or real property tax assessment against the Landiord, which may affect Tenant
and is directty attributable to TenanYs installation, Landlord shall provide tirnely notice of the assessment to Tenant sufficient to
allow Tenant to consent to or challenge such assessment. Further, Landlord shall provide to Tenant any and all documentation
associated with thc assessment and shall execute any and all documents rcasonably necessary to et~'ectuate the intent of this
Section l0. [n the event real property taxes are assessed against Landlord or Tenant for the Premises or the Property, Tenant
shall have the right, but not the obligation, to terminate this Lease without further liability after thirty (30) days' writfen notice to
Landlord, provided Tenant pays any real property taxes assessed as provided herein.
f I. Insurance and Subroeation and Indemnification.
(a} Tenant wiU provide Commercial General Liabiiity Insurance in an aggregate amount of One Mitlion and no/]00
Dollars ($1,~00,000.00). Tenant may satisfy this mt~uirement by obtaining the appropriate endorsemcnt to any master policy af
liability insurancc Tenant may maintain.
(b) Landlord and Tenant hereby mutual(y release cach other (and their successors or assigns) from liability and waivc
all right of recovery against the other for any loss or damage covered by their respective first party propecty insurance policies for
all pcrils insured thereunder. In the event of such insured loss, neither party's insurance company shal) have a subrogated claim
against the othcr. To thc extent loss or damage is not covered by their first party property insurance policies, Landtord and
Tenant each agree to indemnify and hotd harmlcss the other party from and against any and all claims, damages, cost and
expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, to the extent caused by or arising out of (a) the negfigent acts or omissions or
willfui misconduct in the operations or activities on the Property by the indemnifyittg party or the employecs, agents, contractors,
licensees, tenants and/or subtenants of the indemnifying party, or (b) a breach of any obligation of the indemnifying party under
this Lease. Tvotwithstandinb the foregoing, this indemnification shall not extend to indirecE, special, incidentat or consequential
damages, including, without limitation, loss of profits, income or business opportunities to the indemnified party or anyone
claiming through the indemnified party. The indemnifying party's obligations under this section are contingent upon (i) its
receiving prompt ~vritten notice of any event giving rise to an obligation to indemnifying the other party and (ii} the indemnified
party's granting it the right to control the defense and settlement of the same. Nohvithstanding anythittg to the contrary in this
Lease, the parties hereby confirm that the provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Lease.
Tenant shall not be responsible to Landlord, or any third-parry, for any claims, costs or damages (including, fines and penalties)
attributable to any pre-existing ~•iolations of applicable codes, statutes or other regulations governing [he Propcrty.
]2. IYotices. AI! notices, requcsts, demands and other communicarions sha11 be in writing and are cffective three (3)
days after deposit in the U.S. mail, certi.fied and postage paid, or upon receipt if persanally delivcred or sent by next-business-day
deiivery via a nationally recognized overnight courier to the addresses set forth below. Landlord or Tenant may from time to
time designatc any oiher address for this purpose by providing ~vritten notice to thc other party.
Sitc Numbcr. Fii32C Version 10-2-01
Sife I~fame: I~. Tuskawilla
Market: Or(andu
01J00t00 12:00A P.004
If to Tenant, to: With a copv to:
T-Mobile T-Mobile South LLC
12920 SE 38'h Street 3407 W. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
IIellevue, WA 98006 Tampa, FL 33G07
Attn: PCS Lease Administrator Attn: Lease Administration Managcr
With a copy to: Attn: Legal Dept.
If to Landlord, to: With a copv to:
Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
405 S. Dale Mabry Hwy, #244
Tampa, rL 33GOJ-282~
i.i. Quie[ Enjovment, T. i[ie and i~uinoritv. iandiaro covenants and warranis co Tenant cnat ~i j i.and'lord 'nas fuil right,
powcr and authority to execute thi5 Lease; (ii) it has good and unencumbered titlc to the Property and the Towcr free and clear of
any iiens or mortgages, except those disclosed to Tenant and which will not interfere with Tenant's rights to or use of the
Premises; and (iii) execution and perforniance of this Lease will not violate any la~vs, ordinances, covenants, or the provisions of
any mortgage, lease, or other agrecment binding on Landlord. Landlord covenants that at all times during the term of this Lease,
Tcnant's quiet enjoyment of the Premises or any pact thereof shall no[ bc disturbed as long as Tenant is not in default beyond any
applicable grace or cure period.
14. Environmental Laws. Landlord represents that it has no knowledge of any substance, chemical or waste
(collecti~~ely, "Hazardous Substance") on the Property that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any app3icable
federal, state or local law or regulation. Landlocd and Tenant shall not intrpduce or use any Hazardous Substance on the
Property in violation af any applicable law. Landlord shalt be responsible for, and shal! prompily conduct any investigation and
rcmediation as required by any upplicable environmenta{ taws, all spills or other releases of any Hazardous 5ubstance not caused
solely by Tenant, that have occurred or which may occur on the Property. Each party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the other from and against any and all adrninistrative and judicial actions and rulings, claims, causes of action, demands
and liability (coliectively, "Claims") including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, assessments, penalties, fines, losses,
judgments and reasonable attorney fees that the indcmnitee may suf~'er or incur due to the existence or discovery of any
Hazardous Substances on the Property or the migration of any Huardous Substance to other properties or the release of any
1-fazardous Substance into the environment (collectively, "Actions"), that relate to or arise from the indemnitor's activities on the
Propcrty. Landlord agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Tenant harmless from Claims resulting fram Actions on the Property
not caused by Landlord or Tenant prior to and during the Initial Term and any Rcnewal Term of this L.ease. The
indemnifications in this section specifically include, a~ithout limitation, costs incurred in connection with any investigation of site
conditions or any cleanup, remedial, rcmova3 or restoration work required by any sovernmcntal authority. This Section 14 shall
survive the termination or expiration of this Lcase. ~
15. Assienment and Subleasin¢. Tcnant shall have the right to assign or otherwise transfer this Lease and the
Easements (as defined above) to any person or business entity which is authorized pursuant to and FCC licensed to, operate a
wireless communications business, is a pare~t, subsidiary or affiliate of Tenant, is merged or consolidated with Tenant or
purchases more than fifty percent (50%) of cithcr an otimership interest in Tenant or the assets of Tenant in the "Metropotitan
Trading Area" or "Basic Trading Area" (as those terms are defined by the FCC) in which the Property is located. Upon such
assignmcnt, Tenant shatl be relieved of all liabilities and obligations hereunder and Landlord shail look solely ro the assignee for
performance under this Lease and all obligations hereunder. Tenant may sublease the Premises, upon written notice to Landlord.
Tenant may othenvise assign th.is Lease upon ~~itten approval of Landlord, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed,
withheld, conditioned or denied.
Additionally, Tcnant may, upon notice to Landlord, mortgage or grant a security interest in this Lease and the Antenna
Facilities, and may assign this L.ease and the Antenna Facilitics to any mortgagees or holders of security interests, including their
successors or assigns (collectively "Mortgagees"), provided such Mortgagees agree to be bovnd by the terms and provisions of
this Lease. In such event, Landlord shall execute such consent to leasehold financing as may ~easonably be required by
Mortgagees. Landlord agrees to notify Tenant and Tenant's Mortgagees simultaneausly of any defau[t by Tenant and to give
Mortgagees the same riSht to cure any default as Tenant or to remove any property af Tenant or Mortgagees located on the
Prcmises, except that the cure period for any Mortgagees shall not be iess than thirty (3U) days after receipt of the default notice,
as provided in Section 9 of this Lease. All such notices to Mortgagees shall be sent to Mortgagees at the address specified by
Tenant. Failure by Landlord to give Mortgagees such noticc shall not diminish Landlord's rights against Tenant, but shall
preserve all rights of Mortgagces to cure any default and to rcmove any property of Tenant or Mortgagees located on the
Premises as provided in Section 17 of this Lease.
16. Successors and Assi¢ns. This Lease and the Easements granted hcrein shAll run with the land, and shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective successors, personal representatives and assigns.
17. Waiver of Landford's Lien. Landlord hereby «-aives any and all lien rights it may have, statutory or otherwise,
concerning ihe Antenna Facilities or any portion thereof, ~vhich shall be deemed persona) property for the purposes of. this Lease,
Silc Nurnber. ~A82C Vc~ion 10-2-O1
Site r'anx:: N. Tuskawiila
titarkeC Orlmtdo
01100/00 12:00A P.005
~vhether or not tilc same is deemed real or personal property under applicable laws, and Landiord gives ?enant and Mortgagees
thc right to remove ~11 or any portion of the samc from time to time, w~hether before or after a default undcr this Lease, in
Tenant's and/or Mort~agec's sole discretion and without Landlord's consent.
t8. Miseellaneous.
(a) The prevailing party in any iitigation arising hereunder shall he entitled to its reasonabie attomeys' fees and court
costs, including appeats, ifany.
(b) Each party agrees to furnish to thc other, within twenty (20) days after request, such truthful estappel information as
the other may reasonably request.
(c} This Lease constitutes the entire agrecment and understanding of the parties, and supercedes all offers, negotiations --
and other agreements, with respect to the subject matter and property covered by this Lease.
(d) Each party agrees to cooperate with the other in executing any documents (including a Memorandum of Lease in
suUstantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C necessary to protect its rights or use of the Prenvses. The Memorandum of
L.ease may be recorded in place of this Lease, by either party. [n the evcnt the Property is encumbered by a mortgage or deed of
trust, Landlord agrees, upon request of Tenant, to obtain and fumish to Tenant a non-disturbance and attomment agreement for
each such mortgage or deed of trust, in a form reasonably acceptable to Tenant. Tenant may obtain title insurance on its interest
in the Premises. Landlord agrees Yo execute such documents as the title company may reGuire in connection therewith.
{e) This Lease shall be construed in accordan~e with thc laws of the state in which the Propcrty is located.
(~ ff any term of this Lease is found to be void or invalid, such findins shall not affect the remaining terms of this
Lease, which shall continue in ful{ force and efl'ect. The parties agree that if any provisions are deemed not enforceable, they
shap be deemed modified to the extent necessary to make them cnforceable. Any questions of particular interprctation shalt not
be interpreted against the draftsman, Uut rather in accordance with the fair meaning thereof. No provision of this Lease will be
deemed waived by either party unless expressly tivaived in writing signed by the ~vaiving party. No waiver shal3 be impfied'by
delay or any other act or omission of cither party. tro waiver by cither party of any provision of this Lease shall be deemed a
waiver of such provision with respect to any subsequent matter relating to such provision.
(g) The persons ~vho have executed this Lease represent aad warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Lease
in their individual or representative capacity as indicated.
(h) This Lease may be executed in any number of counterpart copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all
of tivhich togethcr shall constitute a single instrument.
(i) All Exhibits refcrred to herein and any Addenda are incorporated herein for all purposes. The parties understand
and acknowledgc that Exhibit A(the legal description of the Property) and Exhibit B(the Premiscs location within the Property),
may be attachcd to this Lease and the Memorandum of Lease, in prcliminary form. Accordingly, the partics agree that upon the
preparation of final, rnore complete exhibits, Exhibits A, and/or B, as the case may be, wrhich may have been attached hereto in
preliminary form, may be replaced by Tenant with such final, more complete exhihit(s). The tcrms of all Exhibits are
incorporated herein for all purposes.
(j) [f Landlord is represented by any broker or any other leasittg agent, Landlord is responsible for all commission fee
or other payment to such agent, and agrees to indemnify and hold Tenant harmless from all claims by such broker or anyone
daiming through such broker. If Tenant is represented by any broke~ or any other leasing agent, Tenant is responsible for all
commission fee or other payment to such agent, and agrees to indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from all claims by such
broker or anyonc claiming through such broker,
The effectivc date of this Lease is thc date of execution by the last party to sign (the "Effective Date").
SiteNurnW:r. C•482C Vcrsion ]0-2-01
Sitc Nan~e: N. Tuska~4illa
Market: Orlando
01J00l00 12:00A P.@06
LANDLORD: Vertex Development, LLC, a Dela~vare limit ' bil
By: ~ ( _.~-~"Y_.~-~"/"
~
Printed Name:
Alan Ruiz
~
ti
Its: ~
Mana e
Datc: ~~~ il (~~ ~~~ ~
TENANT: T-Mobilc South LLC
By: ~~' Ic:~~. ~
Printed Name: Mike Ackroyd ~
lts: Directo , Engineering & Operations
Date: ~~ ~ l~1
Site Ntmiber. ~482C
Site Name: ~l. Tuskaw•illa
h7arket: Oriando
company
Print Name
Vcrsion Iaz-ol
~c.-~
\.ViTNFCCFC•
01/00/00 12:00A P.001
srrs NnAae: v~T~u~wu~
sn~: Nuu~~sa:rr,oxi,i~9
COMMUNICATION TOWER SUBLEASE AGREEMENT
S COMMU1vICATION TOWER SUBLEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated and is effective as
of ~ , 2007, is between Clea~wire US LLC, a Nevada Gmited liability company
" le ire" or "Tenanf'), and Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Land(ord").
For good and valuable consideration the receipt and sut~iciency of ~viuch are hereby acknos~ledged, the
parties hercio agree as follows:
1. Premises.
1_1 Landlord owns a pazcel of land ("Land°') and a telecommunicaGons tower ("Tawer") located in
the City of Winter Springs, County of Seminotc, State of Florida, commonly known as Tuscawilla Country Club
located at 1500 Winter Springs Boulevard, Winter Springs Florida (APN: 31-2~-31-SBB-OOUO-004A). The Tower
and the Land are collectively refened to herein as the "Property." The Land is more particularly described in
Exhibit A annexed hereto. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2 below {"Effective Date/Due Diligence
Period"), Landlord hereby leases to Clearwire and Cl~arvvire leases from Landlord appro.~cimately Forty-Nine (49)
square feet of Land and aIi access and utility easements necessary or desirable therefore (collectively, "Premises")
as may be described generally in E~:hibit B annexed hereto.
1.2 The Premises are Iocated on the Land lcased to the Landlord under that certain prime lease
between Winter Springs Golf LLC, as Prime Lessor, and Landlord, as Prime Lessee, dated as of January G, 2006
("Prime Lease"), ~vhich is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary conlained in tlus Agreement, if the Prune Lease requires Landlord (as the Prime Lessee thereunder) to
obtain Prinne Lessor's prior written consent before subleasing or licensing space within I,andlord's leased area,
then such consent shall be a condition precedent to this Agreement and to each of the parties' rights and
respansibilities set forth herein.
2. EIl'ective Date/Due Ditig,erice Period. This Agreement shall be effective on the date of full
eteculion hereof ("Effective Date"). Beginning on the Effective Datc and continuing until the Term
Commencement Date as defined in Paragiaph 4 below ("Due Diligencc Period"), Clearwire sha11 only be
permitted to enter thc Property for the limited purpose of making appropriate engineering and boundary sun~eys,
inspecdons, and other rcasonably necessary im~estigations and signal, topographical, geotechnical, structural and
environmental tests (c~llectively, "Investigations and Tests") that Geanvire ma~~ deem neccssary or desirable to
determine the physical conditioi~, feasibility and suitability of the Premises. In the event that Clearwire deternunes,
duting the Due Diligence Period, that ihe Prcmises are not appropriate for Cleani~ire's intended use, or if for any
other reason, or no reason, Clearw~ire decides not to commence its tenancy of the Premises, then Clearwire shall
have the right to ternunate this Agrecment without penaity upon w~ritten notice to Landlord at any time during the
Due Diligence Period and prior to the Term Commencement Date_ L~andtord and Cleana~ire expressl}~ acknowledge
and agree that Clcarn~re's access to the Property during this Due Diligence Period shall be solely for the limited
purpose of performing the Investigations and Tests, and that CIeanvire shall not be considered an owner or
operator of any portion of the Property, and shall have no ownership or control of any portion of the Propert5~
(except as expressty pravided in i:his Paragraph 2); prior to the Term Cammencement Date.
3. Use. The Premises may be used bp Tenant. for any lawfiil activity in connection with the
provisions of wireless communications services, inctuding without limitalion, the transmission and the n~ception of
radio communication signals and the construcdon, maintenance and operdtion oP related communications facilities.
Landlord agrces, ai no expensc to Landlord, to cooperate with Tenant, in making application for and obtaining all
licenses, pernuts and any and all other necessary appror~als that may be required for Tenant's intended use of the
Premises.
4. Tercn. The ierm of this Agreement shall eommence upon Ute riate Tenant begins construction
of the Tenant Facilities (as defined in Paragraph 6 below) or tturty (30) days following the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the Property, whichever occurs first ("Term Commeneement Date") and shall terminate on the
tenth (10~') anniversary of the Tcrm Commencement Date ("Term") tu-less othenvise terminated as provided
01t00l00 12:00A P.002
Sii'E NAF~: Vatoc lyccaw~a
SffE NUMBERFL-0RL169
herein. This Agreement shall automatically be extended for foar (4) suc~essive five (5} year periods ("Renewal
Terms") an the same terms and conditions as set forth herein unless Tenant notifies I.andlord of its inbention not
to renew at least six (6) montbs prior to commencement of t3ie succeeding Renewal Terut.
Tenant shall be mquired to use Iandlord's general contractoz ta compleie ti~ir installation at their sole
cost and expense.
5. Ren~ Within fi$sen (15) business days following the Term Commencement Date,
Tenant st~all pay_to Landlard as rent ~ per
month ("Rent"} to be paid a~mually in advance. R,~na for any fractional monm at tne t~eginning or at the end of the
Tarm nr RPnraual Trrnt chali lw nmratnvi Rw~t ch~~it tw .,.,..~1.7., r.. T ~,..it., 4+ ~nc c,,...w r~..t„ *~..s._. v:..a._..._.
Y~••••••+~~+. l+a.~ aw.v w-- v u~ -rv.. uvuau ai(au. ari~uay tu~uNa~'>
Suite 244, Tampa, Florida 33609; Atbention: Alan Ruiz. All of Tenant's znnnetary abtigations set forth in this '
Agreement are conditioned ~on Tenant's receipt a~an aoauate and e~cecuted W-9 Form from I,andlord. Rent
shall be increased on each annivei^sary a~ the Commencement Date lry an amount equal to ~ercent of the
Rent for the previous year.
Within tlutty (30) days of the Commencement i7ate TPnant shall nay to Landlord a one-time capitat
contributian fee in the amount af
6. Improvements.
6.1 Tenant has the right to consauct, maintain, install, repair, secure, remove and operate
on the Prernises radio commnnications facili#ies, including but not limited to utiIity lines, transmission lines, an ioe
bridge(s), etearonic equipment, ttausmitting and receiving antennas, antennas and equipment, a power generator
and generator pad, and svpporting equipment and strnctnres thenefore ("Tenapt Bariti#ie~'). In connedion
thec~ewith, Tenant bas the rigM to do all work ne~ssary to prepane and maimain the Premises for Tenant's
wmmunications operafions and to instaII ntility tiues and transmission Lines connecting antennas to transmitters
and receivers. All of Tenani's constxuction and installation work shaIl be peifozmed at Tenant's sole cost and
expense and in a good and worl~antike manner. Title to the Tenant Faciiities and any equipmem placed on the
Premises by Tenant shall be held by Tenant or its lenders or assigns and are not fixtures, Tenant has the right te
remave the Tenant Facilities at its sole expense on or before the expiration or eartier termination of this
Agreement, and Tenant shall repair any damage ta the Fremises caused by svch remaval. Upan the cxpiration or
earlier termination of this Agreement, Tenani sball remwe its Tenant Facilities, indvding bm not limited to
antenna stn~cture(s), bvilding {s) (except footings), fnctures and all personai property and otherwise restore the
Premises to its original conditioq reasonable wear and tear and casualty excepted.
7. Aocess and Utilities.
7.1 Landlord sball provide Tenant, Tenant's employees, agents, contracxors, suboontractors
and assigns witb aooess to the Premises tw~nty-four (24) hours a c3ay, seven (7) days a wcek, at no charge to
Tenant Landlord grants to Tenant, and Tenant's agents, emplayees and vontractors, a non-exclnsive right and
easement for p~trian and velucular ing~ss 2nd egress across the Pzape~ty, and such right and easement m~ay be
descn~Ued generally in Exlubif B.
7.2 Landlord sbal2 maintain alt aooess roadways from the nearest public roadway to the
Premises in a manner su~"icieni to allow pedestrian and vehicular access at all times under normai weather
canditions. Landlord sball be responsible for ma~intaining and repairing such roadways~ at its sole expense, except
for any damage caused by Tenant's use of such roadways.
7.3 Tenant shall have its own m~er installad and be responsible for its own utility bills.
8. Tnterf'erence, Tenant shall operate the Tenant Facilities in oompliance with all Federal
Cammwnications Commission ("FCC") requirements inciuding those pmtubiting interferenoe to communicatioas
facilities of Landlord or other lessees or licensees of the Properiy, pmvided that the inst~ilation and operation of
any su~h facilities predaUe the installation of tl~ Tenant Facalities. Subsequent w th~e inst~Ilation of the Tenant
Facilities, Landlord will not, and wilE not permit its lessees or izoensees to, install new eqnipment on or make any
alterations to the Praperiy or property contiguous thereto owned or conirolled by I.andlord, if such modifications
01100/00 12:00A P.003
STI'E NAME: VeAsnt Tu'c~willa
577'~ NUMBE2FI.-0RL I o9
are likely to cause interference with Tenant's operations. In the event intederence occurs, Landlord agrees to use
best efforts to eliminate such interference in a reasonable time period. Landlord's failure to comply with this
paragraph shall be a material breach of this Agreement.
9. Ta~ces. Tenant shall pay personal property taxes assessed against the Tenant Facilities and
Landlord shall pay when due, all real property t~es and all other ta~es, fees and assessments aitribatable to the
Prcmises or this Agreement.
10. Termination.
10.1 "This Agreement may be terminated without further iiability on thirty (30} days prior
written notice as Follows: (i) by either party upon a default of any covenant or term hereof by the other party,
which default is not cured within sixty- (60) days of receipt of written notice of default, except that this Agreemeni
shall not be terminated 'zf the default cannot reasonably be cured ~ti~thin such sixty (60) day period and the
defaulting parly has commenced to cure the default witliin such si~.-ty (60) day pcriod and diligentl}~ pursues the
cure to completion; provided that the grace period for any monetary default is ten (10) days from receipt of written
notice. This Agreement may be tercuinatcd by Tenant without further liability far any reason or for no reason,
provided Tenant delivers v~~ritten noticc of termination to Landlord prior to the Commencement Date.
10.2 After the initial term, this Ag~ement may also be ternunated by Tenant without furiher
liabiiity on sixty (60) days prior written notice if Tenant is unable to reasonably obtain or maintain any certifiCate,
license, permit, authority or approval from any governmental authority, thus, restricling Tenant from installing,
removing; replacing, maintaining or operaling the Tenant Facilities or using the Premises in the manner intended
bp Tenant.
11. Destrucdon or Condemnation_ Tf the Premises or Tenant Facililies are damaged, destroyed,
condemned or transferred in lieu of condemnation, Tenant may elect to ternunate this Agreement as of the datc of
the damage, destruction, condemnarion or transf'er in Geu of condemnation by giving notice to Landlord no more
tUan forty-five (45) days following the date of such damage, destruction, condemnalion or transfer in lieu of
condemnadon. If Tenant chooses not ta terminate this Agreement, Rent shali be reduced or abated in proportion to
the actual reduction or abatement of usc of the Premises_
12. Insurance: Subro~ation; and Indemnitv.
12.1 Tenant shall provide Cammercial General LiabiIity Insurance in an aggregate amount of
One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Tenant may satisfy this requirement by obtaining the
appropriate endorsement to any master policy of liability insurance Tenant may maint~-in.
12.2 Landlord and Tenant hereby mutuall3~ release each oEher (and their successors or
assigns) fram liability and waive all right of recovery against the other for any loss ar damage covered by their
respoctive first-party properly insurdnce policies for all perils insured thereunder. In the event of such insured ioss,
neither party's insurance company shall have a subrogated cla.im against the other.
I2.3 Landlord and Tenant shall each indemnify, defend and hold ttie other hacmless from
and against all ciaims, losses; liabililies, damages, costs, and expenses (inclnding reasonable attorneys' and
consultants' fees, costs and expenses) (collectively "Losses") arising from the indemnifying party~s breach of any
term or condiUon of this Agreement or from the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party or its
agents, employees or contractors in or about the Property. The duties described in this Paragraph I2.3 shall appiy
as of the Ef~ecti~~e Datc of this Agreement and sunive the cermination of this Agreement.
13. Assignment. This Agreement may be sold, assigned or transferred by the Tenant witl-out any
approval or consent of the Landlord to TenanYs lender(s) pursuant to a financing agreement, or to the Tenant's
principal, affiliates, subsidiaries of its principal; to any entity which acquires all or substanliaily all of Tenant's
assets in the market defined by the Federal Communications Commission in whieh the Propertj• is located by
~.~
01J00/00 12:00A P.004
S[7E NAME: Vcrtcc TttSCawiAn
SITE NIiMBGk:FL-0RL169
reason of a merger, acquisitiou or other business reorgani-cation. As to other parties, this Agc~ement may not be
sold, assigned or transferred without the written consent of the Tenant, which such consent will not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed. Tenant may snblet the Premises within iLs sole discretioq upon notice to
Landlord. Any sublease that is entered into by Tenant shall be subjoct to the provisions of ihis Agt~ement and
shall be binding upan tl~e successors, assigns, heirs and legal representalives of thc respective parties hereto.
14. TiUe and Quiet Enjovment.
14.1 Landlord represents and warrants that (i) it has full right, power, and authvrity to
execute this Agreement, (ii) Tenant may peacefully and quietly enjoy the Premises and such access thereto,
provided a~ai Tenant is not in defauit hereuncier after notice antt expiration or aii cure periocis, (iii j it bas obtaineci
all necessary approvais and cansents; and has taken all necessary action to enable Landlord to enter inta this~
Agreement and allow Tenant to insiall and operate the Facility on the P.remises, including without limitation,
approvals and consenis as may be necessary from other tenants, licensees and occupants of Landlord's Properiy,
and (iv) the Properiy and access rights are free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and restrictions except those of
record as of the Effective Date.
14.2 Tenant has the right to obiain a tide report or couunitment for a leasehold litle policy
from a tit~e insurance company of its chvice.
15. Enrtironmental. As of the Effectivc Date of this Agreement: (1) Tenant hereby represents and
wam~utts that it shall not use, generate, handle, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material in, on, under, upon or
alTecting the Properly in violation af any applicable law or regulation, and (2) Landlord hereby represenls and
warrants diat (i} it has no knowledge of tlie presence of any Hazardous Material located in, on; under, upon or
afiecting the Properly in violation of any appIicable law or regulation; (ii) no notice has been received by or on
behalf of Landlord from any governmental cndty or any person or entity claiming any ~~olation of any applicable
enviroiunental !aw or regulation in, on, under, upon or affecting the Property; and (iii) it will not permit itself or
any thi.rd party to use, generate, handle, store or dispose of any Hazardous Materiai in, on, under, upon, or
affecting the Property in violation of any applicable law or regulation. Without limiting Paragraph 12.3, Landlord
and Tenant shall each indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless ftom and against all Losses (specifically
including, without limitation, attorneys', engineers', consultants' and experts' fees, costs and ea~~penses) arising
from (i) an,r• breach of any representation or warranty made in this Paragraph 1S by such pariy; and/or (ii)
environmentaI conditions or noncompliance with any applicable law or regulation that result, in the case of
Tenant, from operations in or about the Property by Tenant or Tenant's agents, employees ar coniractars, and in
the case of Landiord, from the ownership or control of, ar operalions in or about, the Property by Landlord or
Landlord's predecessors in interest, and their respective agents, employees, coatractors, tenants, guests or other
parties. The provisions of this Paragraph 15 sha21 apply as of the Effective Date of this Agreement and survive
ternunation of this Agrcement~ "Hazardous Material" means any solid, gaseous or liquid wastes (including
hazardous wastes), regulated substances, paIlutanis or contaminants or terms of similar import, as sach terms are
defined in any applicable environmental law or regulation, and shall include, without limitation, any petroleum or
petroleum products or by-products, flanunable explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos in any form,
poiyctilorinated biphenyls and any other substance or ma~erial which constitutes a threat to health, safety, properiy
or the envimnment or which has been or is in the future detertnined by any govemmental enlity to be prohibited,
limited or regulated by any applicable environmental law or regulation_
IG.
Subordination of Landlord's Lien. Landlord hereby subardinates an}~ and all Iien rights it may have, statutory• or
otherwise conceming the Tenant Facilities or any portion thereof wluch shall be deemed personal property for the
purposes of Yhis Agreement, whetl~er or not the same is deemed real or personal property under applicable law~s,
and Landlord gives Tenant and Mortgagees the right to remove all ar any portion of the same from time to time,
whether before or atier a default under this Agreement, in Tenant's and/ot Mortgagee's sole discretion and without
Landlord's consent.
17. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications hereunder s~all be in writing
and shaIl be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed, ceriified mail, retum receipt requested, or sent by for
next-business-day detivery by a nationally recognized overnighf carrier to the following addresses:
01/00/00 12:00A P.005
S11'E NAkfF~ Verterz 7lucewilla
SfIE 1:UMAERFL-ORLI69
If to Tenant, to: With a copy to: If to Landlord, to:
Cleaiwire US LLC Ctearwire US LLC Vertex Development, LLC
Atin: Site Leasing Attention: Legal Depaztment Attention: Alan Ruiz
4400 Carillon Point 4400 Carillon Point 405 S, Dalc Mabry Highway
Kirkland, WA 98033 Kirkland, WA 98433 Suite 244
Telephone: 425-216-?600 Telephone: 425-216-7G00 Tampa, Florida 33G09
F~: ~325-216-79~0 Fax: 425-21G-7900 Tele hone: t813) 335-4'168
Landlord or Tenant may from time to time designate any other address for this .purpose by wrilten notice to the
other party. Ail notices nereunder shall be deemed received upon actual receipt or refusal to accept del'rvei}~.
18. Marldn~ and Li~hting_ Landlord shall be responsible for compliance v~rith all marking and
lighting requirements of the Federal Avialion Administration ("FAA") and the FCC. Should Tenant be ciied
because the Property is not in compliance and should Landlord fail to cure the conditions of noncompliance,
Tenant may proceed to cure the conditions af noncompliance at Landlard's expense, which amounts maq be
deducted from (and offset against) the Rent and any other charges or amounts due, or coming due, to Landlord.
19. Miscellaneous.
19.1 Tf Tcnant is to pay Rent to a payee olher than the Landlord, Landlord shall natify Tenant
in advance in writing of the payee's name and address.
19.2 The subscantially prevailing parly in any legaf claim arising hereunder shall be entitled
ta its reasonable attomey's fees and court costs, including appeals, if any. '
19.3 If any provision of the Agrcemcnt is invalid or unenforceable with respect to u-y pariy,
the remaiuder of this Agreement or the a~plicalion of such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is
held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected and each pro~zsion of this Agreement shalt be valid and
enPorceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
19.4 Terms and conditions of this Agreement which by their sense and conte~ survi~cle thc
ternunation, cancellation or expiradon of this Agreement will so surFZVe.
19.5 This Agreement shall be governed under law of the State in which the Premises are
located. and be binding on and inure to the bencf'it of the successozs and permitted assignees of the respective
pariies_
19.6 A Memorandum of Agreement in the form aitached hereto As E.+chibit C ma.y bc recorded
by Tenant confirnung the (i) effectiveness o.f this agreement, (ii) expiration date of the Term, (in) the duration oi'
any Renewal Terms, and/or other reasonable terms consistent with this Agreement.
19.7 Ail E.Yhibifs referred herein are incarporated herein for all purposes.
19.8 Landlord shall make a diligent and good faith effort to obtain a Nondisturbance
Agreement for the benefct of Tenant from each lender with a security interest recorded upon the tide to the Site at
the time of execution af this Agreement.
19.9 This Agreement constiiutes the entire Agreement bet~-een the parties, and supersedes all
understandings, offers, negotiations and other leases concerning the subject matier contained herein. There are no
representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments, modifications or waivers of
any of the terms and condirions of this Agreement must be in wriUng and e~ecuted b3~ both parties.
19.10 Landlord agrecs not ta disclose, without che written consent of Tenant, any of the terms
of this Agreement or any other written agreement between the pariies relating to the privileges granted herein,
except as required by governmental authority, in wtuch case Landlard shall inform Tenant prior to divulging such
information.
01100J@0 12:00A P.006
Sf1~NMSE: Ve~t~:'llscau~qla
SITL NUb[i3f•,R:FIrOkLl69
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement effective upon the date of
ea~ecution by all parcies.
LANDLORD:
Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company
By~ ~=~i~B ~_ -__~---~
Name: Alan Ruiz
Titlc: Managcr
Date: ~/ Id 7
Tax I.D.: ~ ~'~ - ~~ ( ~c~ ~,3
WITNESSE5:
~'~,(I t ~C~..tis
Print Name_ ~ 1~, -~ ~~ 1C~ NSh-
Print Name:
TENANT:
Clcar~wire US LLC, a Nevada limited 1.iability company
By: C;,,.,,_ ~~~
Name :,~i7t"! f~ ~tf}f'~3":
~J4~~ r~;c~s~~f~r~- rv~~~vcrri~ ~.~~~~f;~yirr~r~~:
Title:
Date: ~~ f , 2~f - ~ ~
Print Name: ~, tC ~~ N(' _ ~~r~~`i~~-~!
msrmoro0 12:mma P.mO~
Sl7'F tuA1~tE' Vertex 7lucaw~]la
SI7'Ei NOMBER:PLORL169
Vertex Development, LLC
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH )
I certi#y that I know or have satisfactory e~~idence ihal Alan Ruiz is the person who appeared before me,
and said pcrson acknowledged that he signed this instiument, on oath stated tlu~t he was authorized to execute che
instrument and acknowledged it as the Manager of Vertex De~~elopment, LLC, a Delawu~e limited liabilit~~
!'4I?] ».n tn ~ thP frn~ ~nri :~~liw,nt~,n~~.~rFF/'h~f ~i~~h r~art.~ £~: ~}:~'.:c..n.c..~..n~i m~rnncne m~:::10.^.£.~. :.^. tf:°v :...~suYl'..~::v:::. _'
F Y, Dated: L,r.,~l~2i~0Y ~o~. t~C~C~J~o YLL.,N~~~~
AMY A. COCHRAN
Commisslon ~9 DO 4.17fi30
My Commission Expires
_____July O1 , 2009
(Use this space for nolary stamp/seal)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF KING
Notary Public "
Print Name Am~= . ochran
My cammission expires Julv i. 2009
)
) ss.
)~
I certify ttzat I know or have salisfactory evidence that John A. Storch is the person who appeared bcfore
me, and said person acknowlcdged that he signed tiris instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execuie
the insirument and acknowledged it as the VP Network Deplayment af Clearwire US LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, to be the free and voluntai}~ act of such pariy for the uses and pucposes mentianed in the
instrument n _ ~, .
Dated:
,~~~,``,~`•'~1~S.y~ ~
.; : ~ •,,x',=~ ;~,~' ~ ~. ,
;--~ ~ ~~.
~ - _~: . ; ~'~ ~ : . . ~ ~' ".'+r.~~ ~`~i~
= ~~-• ~ •;~:: : . ' ' ;:~ ,, ..
- =:.;L :;'; cf%~,~~
__ ~ . ~,.;; r
. _.~ ' ~
'i :;~~'•, :.;; _ . .,:~ =-c',-
'S`, _ O_
{ l `
~''-•~~~.r 1'_~~~~.1~4~/'`\y
~1i.~ ~~: ~h~~~t~ti~•"~` \°Ml~.
~ ~
S `.:`
~~~4~~ ~1\i~~\`~~
Nolary Pubi ic-~~~~
Print Name
My commissFOn cxp-res
(Use this space for notary stamp/seal)
01/00/00 12:00A P.001
CUiVi~I.UI~'iCAT10~TS STTL L~ASE AGR~EMENT
TT-IIS CONIMU~TICATIONS 5ITE L~ASE AGIZE~NI~NT (~~Lease
Agreement") dated 1s of , is inade by and bet~veen Royal Stweef
Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited Iiability cotnpany ("Lessee"} lncl Vertex Development,
LLC, a Dela~vare limited liability compan~ ("Lessor").
R~CITALS
This 1.:ease Abreement is entered into based upon the following facts, ci~~cumstances and
understandings:
A. Lessor lcascs certain rea] propercy legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hcreto
and commonly known as I=I.,5032; 1500 Wintcr Sprin~;s }31vd. ~'1%inter Springs, 1;lorida 32708 Assessor's
Parcel Number 31-20315F3[3-0000-004A ("Lessor's Real Property"). Lessee desires to lease a porlion o1'
l.essor's Real Properly ~i~ith any nccessary easements over other po~-tions of Lessor's Rea! I'roperty
and!or shared use of Lessor's easemeilts over otller reaf prop~rty necessary for Lessee's access a~~d
utilities tu the leased are~ (alto~;ether the "Premises"); as described on Exhibit "B" ~rttached hereta.
Lessor represents and ~varrants that it has the right to ~rant the rights set forth herein and that it l~as Cull
rights of ingress to and egress from the Pcemises from 1 public road~vay.
B. 1_essee is a eommunications carrier that desires to construct and oPerlte a wireless
communications site at the Premises as part of its co~nmunications nenvortc.
C. B~sed on lhe Premises set forth herein and on the terms and conditions set forth
below, I~essor is willing to lease the Premises to Lessee for I.essee's proposed use subject to the terms
and conditions of this Lease Agreement.
WIII;R~FOR~, in consideratinn of the Premises set forth abo~c~e and tlic terms and
conditions set forth herein, tlie Parties, intencling to be legally bound, hercto agree ~s follo~r~s:
1. Gr~nt of Lease. Lessor hereby I~ases to Lessec: the Premises for t.essee's proposed
use, subject to the fiollowing tcrms and conditions for the Tenn.
2. Permitted Uses. The Premises may be used by I~essee for the operation of' a~~~ireless
communications site. Under ihis Lease Agreement, Lessee may install, place, use and opecate on the
PreEnises such antennas, radio tra~zsmitting and reeeiving ec~uipment; conduits, wires, batteries, baclc-up
generators; utility lines and facilities, supporting structures, telephone facilities, and related equipment
(collective(y "Lessee's Facitities") as Lessee deems necessary for thc operation of its wireless
CO111It1UflICRlIOIIS site at tI~e Premises. Further, Lessee may perforrn construction, maintenancc, repairs,
additions to, and replacernent ol' Lessee's Facilities as necessary and appropriate for its ongoin~ business
and has the ri~ht to do al] work necessary to prepare, modify and m~intain the Premises co accommodate
Lcssec's Facilities and as required for Lessee's communications ope;rations ai thc Premises.
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: I~QU Wintcr Sprin~s I31vc1
EXECU"C[UN COPY 7.10.U6
~~4`intcr Springs, 1'lorida 32708
Page 1 of 17
EXECUTION G~PY
01r0mr0o sz:mma P.Omz
3. Conditions Precedent: Prior Approvals. This Lease Agreement is conditioned upon
Lessee obtaining all governmental licenses, permits and approvats enabling I,essee to consiruct and
operate wireiess communications facilities on the Premises vyithout condi#ions which are not standard or
rypical for premises where wireless communications facilities are located. Lessor agrees to cooperate
with Lessee's reasonable requests for Lessor's signatures as real property owner on permit apptications,
for allowing site inspections by governmental agencies required in connection with reviewing permit
applications, and for assistance in obtaining such necessary approvals, provided that such cooperation
and assistance shall be at no expense to Lessor.
4. Term. The term of this Lease Agreement ("Term") shall be Seven (7) years
commencing with the issuance of a local governmental building permit allowing Lessee to construct
Lessee's Facilities on the Premises or iwelve (12) months from the date af full execution of this Lease
Agreemen~ whichever occurs first ("Commencement Date"}. Lessee shall promptly deliver written
notice to Lessor of the Commencement Date. Lessee shall have the right to extend the Term of this
Lease Agreement for four (4) additional terms (each a"Renewal Term") of five {5) years each. The
terms and conditions for each RenewaJ Term shall be the same terms and conditions as in this Lease
Agreement, except that the Rent shall be increased as set forth hereinbelow. This Lease Agreement shall
automatically be extended for eacli successive five (5) year Renewal Term untess Lessee notifies Lessar
in writing of Lessee's intention not to extend this Lease Ag,reement at least thirly (3Q) days prior to the
expiration of the frst Term or any Renewal Term.
5. Rent. Within fifteen (15) days of the Commencement Date, Lessee shall pay Lessor~as
rent, the sam of ~-. : ' .. j per month. Rent shall be payable on the
first day of each month, in advance, to Lessor or Lessor's alternate payee specified in Section 22, Notices
and Deliveries. If the Commencement Date of this Lease Agreement is other than the first day of a
calendar month, Lessee may pay on the first day of the Term the prorated Rent for the remainder of the
calendar month in which the Term commenees, and thereafter Lessee shall pay a full month's Rent on the
first day of each calendar month, except that payment shall be prorated for the final fractional month of
this Lease Agreement, or if ttiis Lease Agreement is terminated before the expiration of any manth for
which Rent should have been paid. Rent shall be increased annualty, on the anniversary of the
Commencement Date b~ of the previous year's Rent.
6. Due Dili2ence ContingencY and Pre-Commencement Date Access to Pretnises.
Lessee shalt have the right (but not the obligation) at any time following the fult execution of this Lease
Agreement and prior ta the Commencement Date, ta enter the Premises for the purpose of making
necessary inspections, taking measurements and eonducting engineering surveys (and soil tests where
applicable} and other reasonably aecessary tests to determine the suitability of the Premises for Lessee's
Facilities {"Due Diligence"), and for the purpose of preparing the Premises for the installation or
construction of Lessee's Facilities. During any Due Diligence activities or pre-construction work, Lessee
shall have insnrance which covers sach activities as set forth in Sectionl5, Tnsurance. Lessee wil! notify
Lessor of any proposed tests, measurements or pre-construetion work and will coordinate the scheduling
of such activities with Lessor. [f in the course of its Dae Diligence Lessee determines that the Premises
are unsuitable for Lessee's contemplated use, then Lessee shall have the righE to terminate this Lease
Agreement prior to the Commencement Date by delivery of written notice thereof to Lessor as set forth
in Section 13, Termination.
Page Z of 17
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: t560 Wintcr Springs $Ivd. Winter Springs. C=lorida 32708
EXBCUTION COFY 7.10.06
01/00/00 12:00A P.003
7. On~oina Access to Premises. Throuphout the Term and any Rene~~~a1 "I'erm of this
Lease Agreement, Lessee shall Iiave the ri~;ht of access ~~~itllout escort to the Premises for irs employees
and agents twenry-four (24} hours a day, seven (7) dzys per ~veelc, at no additionai charge to Lessee. ln
exercisin~ its right of access to the Premises herein, Lessee agrees to cooperate with an}~ reasonable
security procedures utilized by I:essoc at Lessor's Real Property and f-urther aorees not to unduly disturb
or interfcre with the business or other activities of I.essor or of other tei7ants or occupants of Lessor's
Real Property. Gessor shall maintain alI existiag access roadways or drive~vays extending from the
111rU1C~Jt ~.IUUilli IVCIUI~VCL~' lV r1.liV InlVlltlJVJ !1i µ I1141111v1 JU~11vi~iii ~v ~ii~vii' ivi tiP..°,.°,vv'S 'uCvvS$ Iv :~iP '_
PI-e171lSCS. LCSSOC SIl3II bC CCS~~OflSlble ~Of I71c~lI1t3111111~T c111CI CC~~c1ll"111~ SUCIl f02dWitys and drive«~ayS 3t '
Lessor's sole eYpense, except f'ar Any dlmage caused by Lessee's use of such raad~~+~ays or drivewzys. lf
Lessee causes any such damage, Lessee sha{1 promptly re~air the same at its sole e~pense. Cxcept those
constructed by Lessee, Lessor, i~~t Lessee, shall be responsible for the maincenance and compliance with
la~~,-s of alt towers and struccures located on dlc {'remises, including compliance with Part 17 of the
1=ederal Communications Commissions' Rules.
8. Lessee's Worl:, Maintenance ancl Repairs. All of Lessee's construction and
installation woric ac the Premises shall be perlocmed at Lessee's sole cosl and expcnse and i~i a good and
worl~manlike manner. Lessee shall submit copies of the site plan and specifications to the Lessor for pcior
approval, ~vliich approval will not Ue unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Lessor shall give
such ap~rova[ or provide Lessee ~~ith its requests for changes within five (5} business days oi' I,essor's
receipt of Lessee's pl~ins. If Lessor does not provide such approval or rec~uest for changes witl7in such
Eive (5} business day period, Lessor shall be deemed to have approved the plans. Lessor shall not be
entitled to receive any additional consideration in exchange for giving its ~ipproval of J.,essee's plans.
Lessee shall maintain Lessee's Facilities and the Premises in neat and safe conditio-i in compliance with
all applicable cades and government~l regulations. Lessee shall not be required to make any repairs to
the Premisc;s except for damages to the Premises caused by Lessee, its employees, agents, co~~tractor5 or
subcontractors. Up~n the expiration, cancellation or cennination of this Lease Agreement, Lessce shaU
surrender the C'remises in ~;ood condition, less ordinary wear and tear; ho~vever, Lessee shall be required
to rernove any foundation supports for Lessee's racilities which have Ueen insta]led by Lessee.
~). Title to Lessee's Facilities. Title to Lessee's Facilicies and any equipment placed on
the Premises by Lessee shali b~ hald by Lessee. .AI[ of' Lessee's Facilities shall remain the propercy of
Lessee and are not tixtures. l:essce has the right to removc all l..essee's Facilities at its solc expense on
or be1'ore the expir~ition or termin~tion of this Lease Abreement. Lessor ackno~~~led~es tha.i Lessce may
enter into financing arrangements inc(uding promissory notes and financill ~nd securiCy a~reements for
the I~inancing of Lessee's F'acili~ies (the "Collateral") with a third pa~rty iinancing entity and may in the
future enter into additional i~inancing arrangements witl~ other financing entities. [n connection
there.with, Lessar (i) consents to the installation of the Collateral to the extent that the Callatera! is pac-t
of the approved Lessee's Facilities; (ii} disclaims any interest in the Collateral, as fixtures or otherwise,
~~~hether arising at law or otherwise, including, but not (imited to any statatory landlord's lien ; and (iii)
abrees that the Collateral shall Ue eaempt from eaecution, foreclosure, sale, levy, actachment, or distress
for any Rent due or to become due and that such Collateral may be removed at any time without recourse
to ]e~;al proceedings.
I0. Utilities. Lessee sha(1 have the right to install utilities, at Lessee's expense, and to
improve the present utilities on or near the Premises (including, but not limited to fhe instaliation of
emergency back-up po«~er). Subject to Lessor's approval of the locltion, which approval shall noc be
Pa~e 3 of 17
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: I500 4VinYer Sprincs Iilvcl. 4Vinter Springs, Florida 32708
BX~CUT10~1 CQPY 7.10.06
01/00/00 12:00A P.004
_.. __ ___ _... ___
unreasonably ~~~ithheld, conditioned, or delayed, Lessee shall have the right to piace utilities on (or ro
bring utilities across) Lessor's Real Property in order to service the Premises and Lessee's Facilities.
Upon Lessee's request, Lessor shall e?:ecute recordable easement(s) evidencinb this ri;;ht. Lcssee shall
fully and ~rompi(y pay for all utilities furnished to the Premises for the use, operation and maintenance
of Lessee's Faeilities. Upon Lessee's request, Lessor shal( allo~v Lessee to inst~ill sub-metering
equipment on existing Lessor utility seiti~ice(s). Lessee agrees to install; at Lessee's cosl, tfle required
equi~ment, meters and connections and ~vill reimburse Lessor for Lessee's use of utilities at d rate equal
to Lessor's unit cost foc the utilities. Lessee shall pay the cost oF utility se~-vice provided to the Premises
~~~d attrib~.~t~hle tn i.~tc~e'.c ttcr ("IlYility Ch.iro~"l. I,ec~ee shall n~y tli~ estim~tec~ c~st of the I)tility
Char~~e monthly in advance. The parties estimate the Utility Charge at the commencement of constcuction
to b~ TBD ($0.00) per month. During the tenn of this Lease Agrcement, at Lessor's request (which
request shaU not be more frequent than once every t~velve months), Lessee shall calcul~te the actual
Utilit~7 Charge for the immediatety preceding twelve (l2) months based on the readings f'rom ihe
privately installed sub-meter at l,essor's property. If the actual Ucility Char~e varies from the c;stimated
Utility Charges paid, the parties shall reconcile past paymenis o1' utility charges and adjust futurc
estimates ot the Ltifiry Char~e to ref7ect Lessee's lctual usage.
ll. Interferencc with Communic~tions. Lessee's I~acilities and operations sh111 not
interfere ~a~ith tl~e communications canfigurations, frec~uencies or oper~rting equipment which exist on
l.:essor's Real Property on the eff'ective date ot'this Lease A;ree;ment ("Pre-existi~ig Communications"),
and Lcssce's 1'acilities and oPeraCions shall comply ~Yll~l all non-interference rules of the Federal
Communications Commission ("I'CC"). Upon written notice from I.essor of apparent inter(erence b,y
Lessee ~~ith t're-e~isting Communications, Lessee sf~all have the responsibility to promptly terminate
such interPerence or demonstrate to Lessor ~vitll compelent inforn~ation that the applrent interference in
fact is not caused by Lessee's F~icilities or operations. Lessor shal[ not, nor shall L,essor permit any other
tenant or occupant of any portion of Lessor's Real Property to, engage in any activities or operations
which interfere with the communications operations of Lessee described in Section 2, above. Such
interference with Lessee's communication§ operacions shall be deemed a maficrial breach by Lessor, and
Lessar shzll have the responsibility to ~romptty terminate said interference. In the event any SUCII
interferen.cc does not cc;ase pcomptly, the paMies acknowledge that continuing interPer~nce will cause
irreparabte injury to I.,essee, and tllcrefore Lessee shall have the riglit to brin~ a court action to enjoiil
suclt interFerence or to terminate this Lease Agreement immediately tipon notice to Lessor. t.essor agrees
ta incorpo--ate equivalent pi•ovisions regai•ding non-interCerence ~~~ith Pre-existing Cornmunications into
any subsequent leases, licenses oc rental ~i~;reements ~vith otller persons or entities f~r any portions oi~
Lessor's Real Property.
1?. Taxes. Lessce sIialf pay personal pro~erty taxes assessed against Lessee's Pacilities,
and Lessor shal[ pay ~vhen due all real property taxes and all other taxes, t-ees and a>sessments
attributable to the 1?remises and this Lcase Agceement.
13. Terminatian. Tllis Lease Asr~:eme~lt may Ue terminated by Lessec etiecti~~e
imn~ediatcly without further liability by deliver}' of ~a~ritten notice thereoF to Lessor prior co the
Commencement llate for any reu~on resulting from Lessee's Uue Dili~ence, or if a title report obtained
by I,essce For t_essor's Rea( Property shows any defects of title or an)~ liens or encumbrances which may
adverselv affect l~essee's use oP the Pre~l~ises for Lessee's intended use, or for any other or no reason.
This Lease ma} be terminated ~n~ithout further liability on thirty (30) dlys prior wcitten notice as follows:
(i) by either pzriy i~pon a default of any covenaut, condition, oc term hereof by the other party, ~~'hich
default is n~t cured witl~in sixty (60) days of receipt of ~vritten natice of default; (ii) by Lessee if it does
Page 4 of 17
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: 1500 1~1'inter Springs BIvt1. ~~'inter Sprines, Plarida 32708
NX~CUT[ON COPY 7.10.06
01100t00 12:00A P.005
not obtain licenses, permits or uther approva(s necessary to the construction or operation of' Lesse;e's
Facilities ("Permits"), is unable to obtain such Aermits ruithout conditions ~i~l~ich are not ~tandard or
typical for premises ~;~here r~~ireless c~mmunicaeions facilitics are located or is unable to maintain such
lice~lses, pei~niis or approvals despite reasonable efforts to do so; (iii} by Lessee if Lessee is unable to
occupy or utilize clle Premises due to ruling or directive of tlse t~CC or other ~;oven~tmental or regulatory
abency, includin~, but noi limited to, a take back of fi-equencies; or (iv) ~il=ter the initia[ term by Lessee if
Lessee determines that the Premises are not appropriate for its operations for economic, environmental or
tcchnolo~*ical rcasons, includin~;, ~vilhout Iimitation, signal sErength or interference. Othcr than as stated
hr~rHi~i T CSSQC 5~:::II n~ t 1:.~^,:'~ ~~ ., ~~ r: ~~:^~ 2.~° ••.'..'Cl:~ 1 tl,~~ ~ ~., r
~.J J. 1L 1,~17 t~ lll v~ ~ ~. v'i vuP~Cv~ ui~.~ L./~.l1JV I-1:~1V~IIlVIIL. __
14. llestruction of Premises. 1f the Premises or Lessor's Property is destroyed or
damabed so as IIl l,essee's judgment to hinder its effective use of Lessor's Propei~ty for ihe onaoing
operation of a~~rireless comrnunications site, Lessee may elect ta terminate this Lease Agreement without
further liability of Lessee as of the date of the dama~;e or destruction b~~ so notiiying I..essor no more than
thirty (3U) days following the date of damage or destruction. ]n such event, 11l ri~;hts and obligations ofi
the parties which do not survive the tcrminltion of this Lease AbreemenC shail cease as of the date of the
damabe or destruction.
15. Cc»demnation. 11' a condemning authority takes ~ill of Lessor's Rcal f'ro}~crty, or a
portion ~~~hich in l.essee's reasonable opinion is sufficient co render the Premiscs unsuitable Cor Lessec's
ongoing operation of a wireless communications site, tfien this Leasc A~reement shaEl tennina.te without
fi~rther liability of I..essee as of the date when possession is de[ivered to the condemning auil~ority. !n
any condemnatioii proceedin~ cach pariy shall be entitled to make a claim against the condemning
authority for,ju~t cam~~ensation recoverable under applicable condemn~rtion la~r~. Safe of'all or part of the
Pr~mises to a~ucchlscr witll tlie po~~~er of eminent domain in t11e face of the exercise of its pow~er ol'
eminent domain shal[ be treated as a taking by a condemnin~ luthority.
1G. [nsur~nce. I~essee shall~maintain the f~llo~vin~ insurance: (1) Commercial Genera)
Liability with limiis of One Milfion Dollars ($1,OUO,OOU.00) per occurrencc, (2} AuEornobile LiabiliCy
with a combined sin~le [imit of One Million Doll.ars ($1,000,000.00) per lccident, (3) Workers
Compensltion as renuired by 1aw, 1nd (4} Employer's Liabiiity witl~ limits of Une Million Dollars
($l,U0U;000,00) per occurrence. Lessor, at Lessor's sole cost and expense, shall procurc 1nd niaintain on
the ~'roperty, bodily iiijury and properly damage ins~u~ance with a combi3~ed sinble limit of at le~ut One
Million Dollars ($1,0OO,OQ0.00) per occurrence. Such instirance shal) i3~sure, on an occurrence basis,
against liability of Lessor, its employees and a~ents arisinb out of or in connection with Lessor's use,
occupancy and mai~ltenance of the Properly. Cach party sllall be n~med as an lddiiional insured on the
other's policy, Baclz party shall provide to the other a certificate of insurance evidencing the caverage
recluired by this para~naph ~~~ithin thirty (30) days of the Commencement Date. Each party waives any
ri~hfs of recovery against the other for injui}~ or l~ss due to hazards covered b}~ their proper~y insurance,
and each plrty shalt require such insurance polieies to contain a waiver of recovery lgainst che other.
17. Assi~nments or Transfers. Lessor may assi3n or transfer this l.ease Agreemenc to any
person or entity ~~~itllout any rcquirement for prior approval by Lessee, provided that such assignee or
transferee agrees i» writiilg to fulfll the duties and obligations of the Lessor in said Lease r~greement,
including the oblibation to respect Lessee's rights t0 nondisturbanCe and quiet enjoyment of the Premises
cluring the remainder of the ']'erm and any Renewal Term hercof. I:essee may assibn or transfer this
1,ease Agreement witt~out prior approval by Lessor to any of Lessee's parmers, shareholdet's; mernbers,
subsidiaries, or afifiliates, to any entity in ~vhich Lessee or any of its affiliates holds an ownership
Page 5 of ] 7
Site No.: ORD210
SiTe Address: 15001~~'inter Springs k31vd. Vv'intcr Sprinbs. }~lorida 32708
~x~cu•r~oN coNY ~. i o.06
01100100 12:00A P.006
interest, or to a person or entity acc~uiring by purchase, merger or o~eration of law a majority of the value
of the assets of Lessee, Lc:ssee shall not assign or transfer this Lease Agreement to any other person or
entity without the pri~r written approval of Lessor, WIl1C~1 approva[ shal( not be unreasonably ~vichhefd,
conditioned, or delayed. NotwithsYanding anything to the contrary concained in this Agreement:, Lessee may
assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise transfer ~vithout consent its interest in this Agrec:ment to
any iinancing entity, or agent on behalf of any financinb entity to whom Lessee (i) has obligations far
borro~ved money or in respect of guaranties thereot; (ii) has obligatians evidenced by (oans, bonds,
debentures, iiotes or similar instrwnents, or (iii) has obligations under ~r with respect to letters of credit,
~v`:..:.~:~.~ ..w`v'~~~+~~wo uliu .~iu~~ii.'.u i~'aCii~iiw v~ ~u IVJ'.IVVt V~b~1UJU1i~Iv°$ t~iGiPiOf. _- -
18. Subleases. Lessee shall not have tha right to sublcase or other~vise allow any other
communicaYions provider to occupy space on any antenna structure or ec~uipment enclosure installed by
Lessee at tlle Premises.
1). Nandisturbance and Quiet ~njovment: Subordination: Esto~pel Certificates.
(a) So lon~ as Lessee is not in default under this l,ease Agreement, l..essee sha(I bc
entitled to c~uiet enjoyment oP the Premises durin~ the term of this Lease Abreement ar any Renewal
"I~enn; and Lessee sl~all not be disturbed in its occupancy and ase of the Premises.
{b} This Le1se Agreeinent sl~all be subordinate ta each and every deecl of trust,
mortglge or otl~er security instrument which may now or hereaf~er affect Lessor's Real Prope~-ty and to
any renewals, extensions, supE~lements, amendments, modifcations or replacemenes thereof. In
confirmation of such subordin~tion, Lessee shall execute and deliver promptly any certiiicate of
subordination that Lessor may~ reasonably request, provided that such certificate acknowledges that this
Lease Agreement remains in iiill force and effect, recognizes Lessee's right to nondisturbance and quiet
enjoyment of the Prcmises so long as Lessee is not in default under this Lease Agreement, only contains
true and accurace statemcnts and Lessee's liabifity shal! be capped ut the reinaining rcnt under this l.ease
Aareement. ICany mortgagee or lender succeeds to Lessor's interest in Lessor's 2eal Property through a
foreclosure proceeding or by a c(eed in lieu of fia~ec(osure, Lessee shail attorn to and reco~~nize such
successor as Lessor uilder this Lease Agreeme~it,
(c) At any time upon not less than ten (l0) days' prior written notice by Lessor,
Lessee shall executc:, acknowledge a.nd deliver to Lessor or a~~y other party specified by Lessor a
statement in «~riting certifying that this Lease Agreement is in full force and effect, if true, and the status
of any continuing defaults under ehis Lease Agreement.
2U. Indemnifications.
(a) Lessec's Inclemnitv. Lessee hereby agrees to i~idemniiy and hold Lessor ancl
Lessor's officers, directors, plrcners, shareholders, emplo~~ees, aaents, contractors or subcontractors
llarmless from and against any 1nd alt ]osses, claims, liabilities, damabes, costs and ex~enses (including
reasanable attorney's fc:es and costs} and injuries (including personal injuries or death) arising fi•om or in
connection with Lessee's use, operation, maintenance or repair of Lessee's FacilitiLS at the P~~emises or
access over Lessor's Real Property or Lessee's sliared use of I,essor's easements for access to the
Premises, except those resultind from the neglibence or ~~ri]lful misconduct of Lessor or Lessor's offcers,
directors, partners, sh~reholders, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors.
I'a~Je 6 of 17
S ite N o.: ORD21 U v
Site Address: 1~U0 11~intcr Springs 131vd. Wintcr Springs, Florida 327(?8
F,XECt1TlON COPY 7.10.06
01100/00 12:00A P.007
(b) Lessor's Indemnit~•. Lessor hereby agrees to indemnil'y and hold Lessee and
l,essee's of{icers, directors; partners, shareholders, employees, ~gents, contractors or subcontractors
harmless from and against any and all losses, claims, liabilities, damabes, costs and expenses (inc[udinb
reasonable attorney's Pees and costs) and injuries (including personal injuries or death) arising from ar in
connection ~vith Lessor's use, operation, maintenance or repair of improvements on Lessor's Real
Propert~-, Lessor's shared use of easements for access to Lessor's Rea1 Propcrty, any violation of
bovernmental cegul.ations relating to tlic Preinises and any to~;~ers used by Lessee (including the lighting
or painting far aviation pathv~~ays), except those resultin~ fi•om the negli~ence or willful misconduct of
T ~~~~~ v:' r pgg~~'~ Cf,P,`r,n;-e r~,IjrP~t•nrc nartn~rc cl~arvlinlrl~rc rmnlrn~rrc a~r~ntc qniitr;tc•.t~t~c nr
.,~ .., r».~...,. > > r•~~ - ~ ••a-•• - - -
subcontractors,
(c) Surviv.il of Indemnitv Yrovisions. The indemnity provisions of this section
shal] survive the expiration, cancellation or expiration of this Lcase Abreement.
21. H~tzarclous til~teriats. Lessee aarees that it ~~~il( not use, generate, store or dispose of
any 1-~azardous 1~1aterial on, undcr, about or within tlze Lessor's Real Property in violation of any law or
regulatian. Lessor represents, ~varrants and agrecs (]) that neither Lessor nor, to Lessor's kno~vledge, any
third party has used, ~encrated, stored or disposed of, or permitted the use, gene~ation, storage or
disposal oP, any 1-tazardous Material (d~fined below) on, under, about or within I.~essor's Rcal Property in
violation of any law or regufation, and (2) that L~essor «-ill not, and ~rlill not pcrmit any third party to use,
generate, store or dispose oi'any [-fazardous Materiaf on, under; abOUt Or within Lessor's Real Property in
violation of any la~i~ or regulltion. Lcssor and Lessee each agree to defend, indemniEy and hold harmless
the other and the other's partners, af{iliaies, agents and employees against any and all losses, liabilities,
claims and/or costs (includin~ reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arisin~ From any breach of' a.ny
representation, ~~~~c'ra~lty or a~reement contained in this par<igraph. As used in this paragrapli,
"I-lazardous Materill" shall mean petroleum or any petroleum product, asbcstos, any s«bstance lalo~vn by
Yhe statc in which Lessor's Real Property is located t~ cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity, and/or-
any Substance, chemical or waste that is identitied as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any a~plicable
federal, state or local law or rebulation. This paragraph shall survive the termination of ihis Agreement.
22. Notices and Deliveries. Any notice or de3liand required to be given hcrein shall be
made by certitied or rcgistered mail, return receipt requested, confirmed fax, or reliable overnight
delivery service to the address of the respective parties set forth belo«~:
Lessor: Vertel Uevelopment, LLC
405 S. Dale Ntabry Flwy., ~24~1
Tampa, FC, 33609-2820
Attn: Ala~~ Ruiz
Telephone: 813 335-4765
racsimile: 813 436-5674
Federal Taxpaycr ID Number: 37-1494273
Lessee: Royal Street Communications, LLC Copy to: Metro ACS
75~7 l~ambler Itoad. Suite 700 Attn: I.easing!Lonin~ Mana~;er
Ual(as, Texas 75231 511 Soutli US 1-l~~y 301
Attn: I'roperty l~lanager Tampa, I'L 33619
Telept~ane; 214-265-6509 813-830-5500
Facsimile: 214-265-6510
Page 7 oF l7
Site No.: ORD2 ] 0
Site Address: 1~OU 1~Vinter Sprinbs I3lvd. W ituer Springs. I'lorida 32708
cx~curro~ coPV ~.io.od
01100/00 12:00A P.008
Lessor or Lessee may fi-atn cimc to time designaCe any other address Por notices or deliveries by ~~~ritten
notice to the other ~arty.
23. iVliscel(aneaus.
(a) Severabilitv. If any provision of tl~e Lease Agreem~nt is held to be invalid or
I l0 1.., + F ~..,.,,N~t~.,r ~i '.i'~+:r... ..'I~:i ''C°rC^.~ ~n n~r N ~: j'~ ~~;C :E'.:::P,I::G.nr nf 1'hj~ I~acrV
unenfc~cea~,~ ~; a c:~Gr, c. ,,,,~,~ ,,..,~~< <r.s....,~,.,., . ,., ~ z..
Agreement or the application of such provision to persons other than those as to wham it is held invalid
or unenforceable shall not be ~rffected, each ~rovision of this Lease ~lgreement shal} be valid and
enforceable to the ti~llest extent ~ermitted by law, and the parties shall negotiate iii good faith to amend
this Lease Abreement to retain the economic effect of the invalid or t~nenforceable provisions.
(b) Binclin~ .Effect. Each party represents and warrants thal said plrty has full
po~ver and authority, and tlle person(s} executing this Lease Agrcement have full po~ver and authority, to
execute and deliver this Lease A~reement; and that this Lease Agreement constitutes a valici and bi~zdinb
obligation of each party, cnforceable in accordance with iis terms, except as enforceabi[i~}' «~ay be
limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moi•ltoc•iurn or other la«~s affectin~ clle
enforceEnent of crcditor's rights generally and by generai equitable principles (~~~hether enforcement is
sou~ht in proceedings in equity or at law). This Lease Agreement shall Ue binding on and inure to the
bcnefit of the successors 1nd permitted assignees of the respective parties. _
(c} Waivers. No provision of this Lease Agreement shatl 6e deecned to have been
waived by a party unless the waiver is in writin~ and signed by the party against whom enforcement of
the waiver is attemptcd. No custom or practice which may develop bet~i~een the parties in the
implementation or actminis[ration of the terms of this C,ease ~greement sllail be co~tstrued to ~vaive or
lessen any right lo insist upon sirict performance of the terms of this Lease Agreement.
(d) Governin~ La~w~. This Lease sllall be governcd by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State in which the Premises ara located.
(e) Attorne~c~s' Fees ancl Costs.. The prevailing parly in any legal claim arising
ltereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs.
(f~ SurvivaL Terms and conditions of this Le1se Agreement which by their sense
and context survive the termination, cancellation or expiration of tllis C,ease Agreement wi(( so survive.
(g) Memoranclum of Lease. Lessor ackno~~~ledges that a Memorandum of
Agreement substantially in the form annexed hereto as Cxhibit C wil) be recorded by l.essee in the Ofiicial
Records of the County ~~here the Property is loclted.
(li) rntire A~reement; Ameudments. This Lease Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement and understanding between the parties regarding Lessee's lease of the Premises and
supersedes all priar and contcmporaneous offers, negotiations and other a~reements conceming the
subject matter .coneained herein. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth
herein. Any amendments to this Lease Agreemenc must be rn writin~ and executed by duly authorized
re~resentatives of both parties.
Page 8 of ] 7
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: 1500 Winier 5prings I3Ivd. Winter Springs, I~lorida 32708
GXGCUTION COPY 7.10.06
01/00/00 12:00A P.008
(i) h~o Presumpfions Re~ardin~ Preparation of Lease :~dreement. The parties
acknowled~c and agree that each of the parties has been represented by counsel or has had full
opportunit}~ to consult ~vith counsel and that each of the pallies has pa~licipated in the neootiation and
drafting of this Lease Agreement. Accordingly it is the intention and aareement of the parties tiiat the
language, terms 1nd conditions of this Lease Agreement are not to be construed in any «~ay d~ainst or in
favor oi' any party hereto by ceason of the roles and responsibilities of the parties or their counsel in
connection with the preparation of t1Zis Lease A~reement.
~ST.GNATURE YAGC FOLGQWS]
I'a~e 9 of 17
Site No.: URD210
Site Address: 15U0 ~~'inter Springs I31vd. ~'dintcr Sprines, Florida 32708
ExLCV~r~oN cor~Y ~.io.o~
0liooroo i2:mma P.msO
IN VVITNESS VVHEREOF, the parties ha~~e caused this Lease Agreement to be executed by their
duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below and acknowledge that this Lease
Agreement is effective as of the date ~rst above written.
WITNES~
Name:
Print:
Name:
Print:
WITNESSES:
~~(~, ~
N a m e: ;l`~.~=D"1.c..``--_. ~ P~c.~
Print: ~~t~1'-r ~ G~
N a m e: ~ k~.-/
~Gt C_. ~~ 1
Print: ~~i~~ '~.~tt~`'7
L~SSOR:
Vertex Development, LLC,
a Delaware (imited liabilit}~ company - -
By: -
(Signature
( ~
Print Name: I(:ft~c 1,.~,,,? _
Title: ~" /1C~ Gr ~ A a ~~
Date: `t- ~~'d~P
LESSEE:
Royal Street Communications, LLC, a Dela~~~are
limited liability cumpany
By: ''
(Sign ire)
PrintName: ~I~n~~.. C..:~~"~r~~~-
"1'itle: ,_,~o~~lr~.k l~~xsr,-,-~° .•x.~ /~1CLua.c,th .
0
Date:
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: I~UO Wintcr Springs E31vd. Wintcr Sprinos, Florida 32708
EXECUTION COPY 7.10.06
Page 10 of 17
~~~~
~~
#~
^~. ~~. (\/n .,~ ' ~, •N _~'t~ ~,~C €~;<~' !F'~ .4lI~1`+ ~.9.. ~"@p1f~ .~ _~ . p .. ~. , ~.~..~y"
r c•c- ~ ~{l~2WF~ ,~ '.
a 5 \7 S `:~.. ~.~ ~~ yy;r~! ~ ~ ~ , ~~ , Q~ ~, ~ ~
,~1~ t ~ * y~
~'~^#~Ii A.,I`'+~ !M ~MS~:"~'~~~~1+'_, ~ry_~ ~~.. , . ,q~ ` '~
~ y~~ 'G .a~''"~•* ~ .'"~,~r '~ !' y"°~ -R 4 .".J4
. sr~r '~
~. ~ •,~t~ 4~ , a . u
GRAPH/C SCALE LE G E N D
800' 0' 400' 800' 1600'
O LOCATION OF PI10T0
(Scale in feet)
Scale: t"=800' - DIRECTION OF PI10T0
VERTEX DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
TUSCAWI LIA
PROPOSED I 50' TOWER
WINTER SRPRINGS, FL
foresite .
,;~
~~.~t~~:. -
;
~._~: S± " . ,
i~~' `I~~~g~~~"~ .-c .
I
~
w ~.~.~.. .~ ~
4~`/ ~ . '~ . '.~j.:
~
-l.~~ ~ YP+M: l
;•+~ "I I
~+'`
- ~' :.~~
I ~ ~ `~~"';' ,
f
'
~ ' - ~.
_-ti ''~iS:- •
~
... ,w~~"' : #",,,L
,~~
,"'+r-~~ tif i~{
~r ryi,'~ ~'
~.,~~ Y
~yS` `
~ .. ~`f''
' { . . _
. •. .
•
.
,
1 '
~~ j
- . ;n , : , _ . 'y '
. .._:_
' ' ~ a
~ '
. ~~
r, ' t„~~, ~.
1 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ y
.'
~l'
lX`"~'~ ~
~ .
- ' ~
SI ~ -~.
'~~''
~
~
f -
a ~
t
_ A -
_ ;fi ~ ,-
. F 1
, ~
_
+
~~
-
' . - ~'s.,*
.
' ~ -
:
r ~~
- -
'
' '
`
-~~ ¢~ ~
~ ,- .
r :~ ~ ~.. a
.
~ .
~S.+l- >
. . f*
,
:
.
r ~ ..
~
y.~ ~
y,/
,
,j~
~ „
~
.
. _ .
~~~ -• _
'. ~
~~ . ~
~ ~
I i' ~
~ ~ ~+~ F
P
,
~ ~ ~~ ~r ~S'~ ~ ~~
.~'y ~
~
,
~
f ,
~ ,
~~ /~
°
~
y
~"~•.• I
~1~
~' " ,
y
i r ?
.1. -
.
.,
~
~.
.
..
' ~V' ~
` h ,~y „
1
~`
~.
~" 'x.' ~'i.,'~ ,/~
*
-~
~:
~ - f ~~ /
L
- .
_
,
,, ,r _
~. '~~~ ~ "
_' ' .~ ~-. , ,
' . {•. '
~" _
___ .
.
.
! ' ~
G
~
•
~
P
y aa
ye :
"
~ '"~i. ~ ,
y}~,
• " ~ ~ i
1
L
~
k
~ ` y
1~s~ y
. ` ^, 1 ~~'
J/~~
.. ~ /~~// ` ~~ ~'~Y - .
~ .1
~ .
.
~. ' ~
: ~ f ~
. j
e ~. '~
~q =e .
_
.
r+r ,
F'~,.. ~ .
~.;. F.a, w:. ~.- ~> , y~.. .
Y
- ~ ~' -t'r~ ,~
~°,~.,'
. '
-
-
'
!
` ~y ,~~ 1
~ . 1
~ y ~„~~` : P
I ~
_
.
.y ~ .
~ "1
. .
r
~~
fi ~;
^ ~ ~'4a~ '
" ~
~'S'-
~
~ ~
,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i ':;~- ~ ~•
'
• . ~~
~~.aF~ ?
~
_
~~.ti: .' : ^ ~R~`~ ~.i ~ - rr~. ;
~`~~ts~
_ ~ ~F .
~n_
' ~~
.~ _f 3
~~,,
..=,~
~
,~~ ~~ ~~ ~ «.> .
>;~„ "a
r ~ ~ ~' ~~~~ ~1
S . 4~
a~~; ~_
o~ a.
'~ , r~~ ..~',~ a , s; ,~ ':~K :
~, ash-
n ~ RS ~ f p
~ ~-; s ~z ,~~~~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ k ~,'~~~ ~ "" °~ ~
~
a~ ~~.~~- tr Z _~ ~..s~ F .~~'~a ~ 3 'M4: ~ .~~_~l~
~
' ",~" • ; ==:~ . ,;
~ • _'.y.•~a~c.~,~;~
4
~ ~~ m~ ~`~ t
r • . ~.., - - '~ ~ _
. ,~} ,
. '~-,~
,: a_-
~ ~~
~-,~~
. ~ ~t~ ~'
~,,F ~:y. M.~T..s'.
~g. ~~,~ v ~~
~l.'NN~iN fi,'^ "Tu :: . ....s'~t
_` ~R'az' ~r:,: ~, '-..-...Yw"~~~ii
~ ( ? fi} f
4vy.~ :~/ ~' X wr~_
~ '/ ! ~ ~.
;y ~_
~ ~.~_
_ _= ~ ~ '-~' ``' -
~. , ~ A *~_/ 1~ ~ ~
, ~. ' ~ t ~ ~,,,~ ~ _,w _~'~ ~
~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ j ~..
~; s'4r !` . .~ i ~-` ` .»_• ~!'~ ,~
jE ". ~;~';•~w ~~ . 'i~"'. ~ ,c~ °' - .. ~ •~ ~
.; , •. ~•: ~ ~'. , ;a ~. ~ ~ '.
~'~~~ yq ~~• 3.r "A~ vt S~ ~ S~ fi5, ~~.. .
m ~ '~k.^,* ~ * }~ ~~F. ` z
~'.~ y .~ , 4~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ . ~ J ~. -
~''`" .'~t ~'a,~ A e 1L ~ T : ~'. ~~;..~ . t s°t'-a?" ~.~* ~ ¢ ~ '",~ _-~
'~ ~a 1~, '~ ~* ~~ ~,,~` ~~` .i =r , ~kQ . '°X~ R} ~.5~~ a~ ` , 6+, ~ ,y , ~.
~' ~} '~ . ~`, '~:~y~ r i, z ~ r t r~~~~ ~~ty~.~.`~ r~~ . `a '" ,+7r~.' .
- t' :s~ir Ys ) ~" .~ ~, ~ .'~t ~, ~.. ~ ~ "k ~ ~' ~" <
~ ~ . .~ . ~ ~ . t ~ r ~.~ ~, _ ~ ,~ ~ -~,: .a.
~ ~ s ,~.: _. ~~,'~, ~ . "'" ~ ~ ~ : ~. ~.-w~~ y,k*~
yy~y,~, ,~~ ''::.. . ~ ~~,,s~. r K . , ~ '. ~ ~ ~ , f ,i . ~~€. ~~, 3
~7/ 7.~t' t'~~y. ~7., . y ~ ,, s~.. ~,r.~ar: _ c~ , ~~'-'..~ . m'~~z
~ ,{ ~, '~ Y ~ ~ ~'~~,, f g It,= * , ~',~ , ~' R z ` - .. ~ ~~
,
~~ ~ r ~- '; y4 , . Si ~. 3 ..,~.t t~.;r
„ . , ~~ - i ~ ~s . ' ~~ . ° ~ ~
, ~~. ~ ~ a~, .. ~ M~a _ . '~y~'r
,' Jt '~ ~ ~ ~ t - , ,
,.. y cr ~ f~l S :~Jl. C .„`~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.~'~~~ ._ ~~ s ~._4
"'a': - _ ~~~ `~-.{ ~ ~` tl i~`, ., ~~ ~ ~ ~. . 4 . { ~ . ~ le.i.
_ .'h ~~ ~'~i.~: ~~~F',d°.~'~~~~ ~
':h .. .~M . .
foresite -
gr~u~~ i
~
~:
_. .. ..,~..,~.._ _ ~
4 . . . . . . ... . ~ ~ .
~.-~
~
-": ,.~'~ v.'~1r
R~I ~
1 ~ a i
4$~~~ 0 -_~ - y1
~ ~~~ ~x-.
,~ ~, k
E ~~ ~ ~'~ , Y~ ° 1
_ ~ ,~ ~'F~, '
, ,~''
Proposed Tower
,
. F~
"'~'Y~E.:'i.L:,;G! ~
~~p'
- .
~ ~ f I i
:
. F
~.
i ~ '
. .
F
•
,
y
~~+
ki ~: Nd~,.; ,: "~ ~~fr
~ ~+~ ~, V ,~,~a ~ 4.. ',~~,<,~. i ~.
~p
°
I' . "3. ~
fa. }r . s~'.~d ~
e ,
A
'~ ~.
~ ~ z
~
~
3
~
~:
~~
.`. r ,
~
.'~5..i
. . _ Y ~ .yF-: . .
r fi _ '".~'s .{h¢vh, ~-i 7.,'Y ~ .
. - . . . P .
. '.
~
~ ,J ~h ,
Q
y~
~~
~~
.~
~"~~. r-
'~~r ~
!,i ;'~t~ ~ ~- ~
.. k - ~l~~~ j ,~r , ~ ~~
r •~~ I
;.; ,~ . .~- - I
;
~ ~
.
„-
~ ~ j
~ ~ ~
~ y
R ~
~
a
Q ~
~~
~ 'r
~ '.a
~ ~
~' ~~ R
~ . .
~'
r
* «~,
"
w
~ ~t
~4 ~ ~
~ ~
> _
Y ~n
I~
~
i
? ~~
'~ r
. ~
~
' ~. ~'~.
~ ~
'~
~~' y
~ $ 1~~4
: ..~~
1
~ ~
.~~
,~~
„~ ^• ~ ~
`~,~ , f ,'~ ~, J
i~ ~ X~ <~ ~.~""~` •~
M-:~
~
y
,~~
~,+~~.~
'4 ~ .~
f.'.;.'~{'...
^y
4i +[t
~ , ~~ ~ ~'
w
~' ~ ,
.
'.~~ . ~` 6'_t
~ "`~ 66
~I
~`
~A S^~ '~` %' ~ )~ t•~
J ~ . '~
~P~ ~
`
~`~~'.`. .
° ,
.~
~
+1 ~ ~ l[~~
u~
,~r4. ,~'
~ ~
.
r' j_i
:!
? .. I ~~
,
a,I7°
a y ~
J ._~o ~ •4'
r
'
~
~+
~
~7.~ ~~ _ i L:
~'
:y ,
~
'~
~
~ .-~i
~ ~ ~~
~j~ ~`~~ e~ r: •.,,_~ ~ -
,.
'- 3, }:. ~ x~
~~ "~~ ~y ~ i~~ , '~*. _:~.
-~~~ j~
~
~
~ aa~.;x- i~,. ~
, "'bt.
~
4 ,
! .
~ '
~
1' ~ ~
~ ~
.
. .
.
~.::~:-~ _~
~
~
'..
_ r o
'
;
i
- ~.~ ,
5
~
Ti
~ n,... ,_~
"~
~ , ~•
~"`' _~
.
~~~;;
~ ~
: `°~~~
*~. "°°~'~~ , _._
""'"~-~"""~a~.: ,~
: ,~
_ "~`~.'z«~':~ ~
, .
., _
..~~ ~ti~~i 1 . .
foresite ~
nroU~~~
'~ .~;;,~ Poposed Tower
_~
, .~
--~ -~--.
y . .,. ~'-I -'_~..~~.. ~r.. -~
~
~~~.- ~ .. ~ . ~ . .
~ .,. . ~~' ' ~.~. ,,.+ ' ~ ' .:... . ~
. . . . _ . . _ "'+*• ' „~~ '' ~~ ~,... ~ y~ -''~' ~zz ~~} ~e. -~,.<,
~~ ,.
.:~r ~ y~,~~~ ... , . _ --
~ t '~C" . ~r' k Y ..' ~ ' . .~ . . . . . . , ~ . .~~, .
~"~ os,~~~. ~ ~~tYk.~w,~. 4 *: ~ ~ ~j~; :.. Y .. ., ~ w . .. . .
r `~' ,~-: "S ~' °,~ ~ ~.~''~,~ "~i~ ~" ~ ~ ~ F'.,,~y a _ ~~*~' « _ .. ~ ap •
~'~~*1~~"c ~4 w~ a.~.~,, . s ~,._ .. t+. `..4 '"~.i _ + ~ ~~^~~~ ' a
~ ~ 4 ~ ` , M', ~ ~ ~:.
~' ~'dMi'~ Y~yY~:kl1~1'~,'~}``. t~T ~ ~~ _ . . .. _ -
- t~ ~~' t ..... ~ ... .. ;._."i..~.t.~.5~c.1.~„_.6i:~~._ + Ii : `~ .~, ;. . . _ . _.. ~ ~r~: . e • . _ . F-vzzaSl~~~l . .
.
:::i~~.,
-
~
-~
~. ~ ~. _
~
~ ~. ~~
. ~ _. - .
.. -- - .~~
~-.= ~ :_-~ ,
~,~-~ W , ~~ ~,~,_~~~°~- , . ,
~~._. . --~ . .. ~.~- .
~
~+
:
Proposed tower
{ ,.
~
,~: ~1~~L~
.. ~ ~_.~
`~=~
~~
- ~ ~_
,.~
~ ~ .~
~
D
/ ~
Y •,
't^' -
~ _. .
-z „~ ~~~r .
~ _.~. _
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Ronald W. McLemore
City Manager
June 29, 2007
Alan Ruiz
Vertex Development, LLC
405 Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 244
Tampa, Florida 33609
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
This letter is to advise you that the City Commission has expressed strong concerns regarding the
negative aesthetic impacts of cell tower monopoles at the 130-150 foot height being discussed at
this time. The Commission has expressed a strong preference for a lower tower alternative that
would fit on an existing telephone pole and a new pole installation that would not extend above
the typical tree canopy line in the City.
This letter is provided for advisory purposes only and should not be construed in any way as a
regulatory decision.
If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
~.~~~ ~3 /~~ ~~~
Ronald W. McLemore
City Manager
~JP
cc: Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
CALL TO ORDER
The Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting of Wednesday, July 11, 2007 (Rescheduled
from July 5, 2007) was called to Order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman Thomas Waters in the
Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434,
Winter Springs, Florida 32708).
Roll Call:
Chairman Thomas Waters, present
Vice Chairman Jack Taylor, present
Board Member Howard Casman, present
Board Member Linda Collins, present
Board Member Kathryn Fairchild, absent
A moment of silence preceded the Pledge of Allegiance.
Under Agenda Changes, Mr. Randy Stevenson, ASLA, Director, Community
Development Deparhnent stated, "'There was to be two (2) Agenda Items tonight `500'
and `501'. Your Agenda Item `500' the Application for Crown Castle [International] was
withdrawn from consideration this morning."
PUBLIC INPUT
No one spoke.
INFORMATIONAL AGENDA
INFORMATIONAL
100. Not Used.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLARIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM NLY 5, 2007)
PAGE 2 OF 15
CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT
200. Of~ce Of The City Clerk
Approval Of The January 4, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes.
"I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THE MINUTES - JANUARY 4, 2007."
MOTION BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER CASMAN. SECONDED BY
ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER COLLINS. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE
CHAIRMAN WATERS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER COLLINS: AYE
VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
300. Not Used.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS
500. Community Development Department
WITHDRAWN
Requests The Board Of Adjustment Hear The Request Of Crown Castle
International For A Conditional Use To Allow A Telecommunications Tower, On
An Approximately 75' X 75' Lease Site At The City's Wastewater Treatment Plant
Site In Tuscawilla, Along Winter Springs Boulevard (1560 Winter Springs
Boulevard). The Site Is Located Within The PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Zoning District (The 5ite Has A Public/Semi-Public Future Land Use Designation).
This Agenda Item was not discussed as it was Withdrawn.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE 3 OF 15
PUBLIC HEARINGS
501. Community Development Department
Requests The Board Of Adjustment Hear The Request Of Vertex Development,
LLC For A Conditional Use To Allow A Telecommunications Tower, On A 70' X
70' Lease Site, At The Tuscawilla Country Club (1500 Winter Springs Boulevard),
In The Tuscawilla Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Site Is Located Within
The PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District (The Site Has A Recreation
And Open Space FLU (Future Land Use) Designation).
Mr. Stevenson presented this Agenda Item and stated, "According to Ordinance 2006-12,
we have ninety (90) business days in which to process this. That means we need to -
acted on by the Commission by September 7`I', 2007."
A Map entitled "Figure 1 to Ordinance 2006-12" dated February 12, 2007 was displayed.
An Aerial view was then shown of the proposed site and pictures of the proposed
monopole towers.
Mr. Stevenson then said, "Staff would recommend that the Board of Adjustment consider
the information presented in the Staff Report as well as the upcoming Public Hearing
Testimony and Testimony of the Applicant. And if the Board is satisfied that the request
is consistent with all the applicable data and Code provisions including whether or not the
Applicant has provided the evidence that demonstrates that Tier One or Tier Two sites
are not available or technically feasible, make the recommendation that they deem
appropriate to the City Commission based on the Criteria set forth in the applicable Code
sections that we talked about here tonight."
Discussion.
Ms. Mary D. Solik, Foley & Lardner LLP, 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800,
Orlando, Florida: representing Vertex Development LLC, Ms. Solik spoke on this
Agenda Item.
Tape 1/Side B
Ms. Solik said, "I want to put in a full set of the Application in the Record. You all were
not given the full set in your packages and later I will outline what was in there that is not
in your packages. Just for example, we did submit a Tree Survey to the City that was in
the Application package. That was one of the Conditions of approval. That has been
done."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADNSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - NLY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM NLY 5, 2007)
PAGE 4 OF 15
After numerous phone conversations with City Attorney, Anthony A. Garganese, Ms.
Solik noted, "I need to state my objection on the Record. I am of the opinion that the
modified Ordinance does not give the Board of Adjustment Aesthetic Review jurisdiction
that still remains in the City Commission. That's not generally something that this Board
deals with. Your Staff Report indicates that you have that jurisdiction and has asked you
to opine on that. My review of the Ordinance and your existing [City ofJ Winter Springs
Code provisions says that that's not how that is read. The City Commission still makes
that decision and that you are not Advisory on that issue. You certainly are Advisory on
the `Conditional Use'. Again, legally, I just need to get that on the Record.
The next thing I want to do is, there was an additional Letter of Intent that we received
today from a carrier, and that was Sprint [Nextel]. That was not in your Application
package. I am going to put that in the Record."
A letter from Sprint [Nextel] dated July 11, 2007 was distributed to the Board Members.
Ms. Solik said, "I want to put into the Record the Letter from Crown Castle
[International] withdrawing their Application, since that is an issue that has been
referenced in your Staff Report."
Mr. Alan Ruiz, Yertex Development, LLC, 405 South Dale Mabry Highway, #244,
Tampa, Florida: spoke regarding proposed cell tower location. Mr. Ruiz said, "First and
foremost is the location going to work from a radio frequency perspective for the tenants
that you are trying to put on the tower. In other words, is the location in the right place
from a technical point of view, because it can be the best location in the world from every
other point of view but if it doesn't work technically for the people who need to mount
antennas on the tower, it is a worthless location. So, the very first consideration that you
take into account is the needs of your tenants.
In this case, T-Mobile is our anchor tenant, and basically, they let us know that the most
preferred and best location not to mention the location that would work, would be on the
west side of that golf course if at all possible. So, that is how we ended up dealing with
Tuscawilla [Country Club] Golf Course and community center, and so we approached
them and started working with them about a location on their property. The second thing
that you have to consider, as much as an impact the actual tower is, the compound that
houses all the ground equipment for the tower is impacted to those immediately
surrounding the area.
So, in an ideal world you are able to put that compound in a tree stand such as the one we
are proposing today. I think we have the best case scenario in this situation as far as the
compound location goes, because we are able to put it in a tree stand that really
minimizes the visual impact and the impact overall of the actual ground mounted
equipment, the equipment that goes on the ground that supports the cell sites for each of
the tenants.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - NLY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM NLY 5, 2007)
PAGE 5 OF 15
Another consideration - is the actual tower itself and how it is going to impact things.
And so, we felt that by putting it up close next to the existing ninety foot (90') high
voltage power line easement would at least minimize the impact considering there was
already an impact there. We weren't bringing something completely new to the game,
there was already an impact being made and so we are just adding to that hopefully,
choosing the least obtrusive location as possible for the actual pole that goes up into the
air.
You have to find a landlord that is willing to lease you or sell you or allow you to put this
Application in place - and we were lucky enough to do that with the [Tuscawilla]
Country Club, but we had to consider what their operations are with the golf course."
Mr. Ruiz said, "So we had to consider where to put that tower relative to the operations
of the parent track which is the [Tuscawilla Country Club] Golf Course and how they do
their business. There are also other considerations such as bringing power to the site,
bringing telco [telecommunications] to the site, whether or not there is adequate tree
cover. Again this goes back to trying to screen the facility as much as possible.
For example, are there wetlands, are there endangered species in the area? These are all
things that are all necessary - that need to be considered for a site. For an example, there
is a little creek that runs in the area, we made sure we were appropriately set back from
the wetlands so we were not impacting those wetlands and again - we very much so
consider the landlord's use of the property and what their needs are and so we try to
balance all these things.
The Radio Frequency Engineer's need to know, so that we can technically address the
needs of the site. We want to make sure that the compound is being screened, the tower
is being screened, that the golf course can continue its operations without us impacting
them too much and so that we are also able to bring access power and telco
[telecommunications] to the site adequately. So, these are all the things that we - when
we spoke to the [Tuscawilla] Country Club and figured where the best place would be to
put the tower."
Ms. Solik said, "The Tiered analysis, [Mr.] Art Peters (Consultant) really has already
answered the question about Tier One. He has told you, he told the City Commission in a
report that has been paid for by the City that the four (4) locations in Tier One will not
work to provide coverage to the Tuscawilla residential area. So, now we need to go
through the Tier Two analysis. And the first location in Tier Two are on properties that
are owned by the City of Winter Springs that are designated public, semi-public on the
Future Land Use Map (FLUM)."
The City of Winter Springs Future Land Use Map (FLUM) was then displayed.
C[TY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FIARIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE 6 OF 15
Ms. Solik said, "We are talking about - the general geographic search area is the
Tuscawilla area and I have circled the four (4) properties that are even remotely close to
this area that are deemed public, semi-public on the City's Future Land Use Map
(FLUM). The Code also requires that they be owned by the City of Winter Springs. This
is the school property that is not owned by the City. This is a church property - also not
owned by the City. This would - actually I don't know who owns this piece, but it is so
far remote; it is right up on [Florida State Road] 417. Our engineers are going to testify,
they will tell you that they have tower, cell locations on this side of [Florida State Road]
417 and this would be much, much too close to their existing cell sites over here to
provide any additional coverage.
So, the only possibility is the water reclamation facility next to Sam Smith Park and the
three (3) RF (Radio Frequency) Engineers who will testify tonight will all tell you that
that site just doesn't work for them. It is too far east. And as demonstrated in Art Peters'
Report, the cells are kind of developed in a honeycomb fashion and in order for a call to
pass from one cell to another, there has to be some overlap in coverage between the cell
sites. And if you move the site that far east, then you create a gap between the cells on
the west side and you don't get that hand off. So, the appropriate geographically location
is to the west of that property."
Ms. Solik read an excerpt from the Code of Ordinances.
Continuing, Ms. Solik said, "The whole goal here, the whole geographic coverage
objective is to provide coverage to a residential area, so we can't, even if there were
commercial or industrial buildings tall enough to support a ten foot (10') antenna on top
of the building in this area, which there are not. The Ordinance by its very terms would
prohibit us from locating on that property in the Tuscawilla residential area.
The third criteria is within an enclosed existing church steeple or other type of existing
structure and [Mr.] Randy Stevenson told you that that is not intended for us to build a
church steeple, that means its got to be something existing and again there are no
facilities in that residential area that have sufficient height that we could co-locate an
antenna in and add coverage. The next Tier Two location is upon existing sports lighting
structures, utility structures and water tanks provided that the structure is not located
within a single residential area.
Again that eliminates Tuscawilla because this is a single residential area. So, we can't
utilize any structures in that area. And finally, the last one is on the proposed Fire Station
number three (3) which is to be located on the south side of State Road 434. I have
circled it up there. That's this little site up here. This is outside of the geographic search
area as well which is much more down in this area, as shown on the Art Peters' map and
as the RF (Radio Frequency) Engineers will testify to. So, those are the Tier Two
locations. They just don't work. They just don't allow us to get in there and provide the
coverage in this residential area."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE 7 OF 15
Next, Ms. Solik said, "This is also another copy of the City's Future Land Use Map
(FLUM). I am now moving to the Tier Three location. And the first Tier Three location
and Randy [Stevenson] is correct, these are listed in order of preference. You - can't use
[Tier] One before you can use [Tier] Three, which is the site that we have chosen.
And the first - property which has a Future Land Use (FLU) Designation of `Industrial'.
The only properties in the City of Winter Springs with `Industrial' Future Land Use
(FLU) are up in the very northwest tip of the City." Ms. Solik said, "So, that is not an
option."
Continuing, Ms. Solik said, "And the next category of Uses is property which has a
Future Land Use (FLU) Designation of `Mixed Use' and is part of a Department of
Regional Impact (DRI). I only found two (2) properties on your Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) which are designated `Mixed Use', this one right there and the one down here
on the bottom, and neither one of those is a DRI (Department of Regional Impact). I
checked with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and they told me that only
Oviedo Marketplace is a DRI (Department of Regional Impact)."
Ms. Solik said, "Again, it is outside the geogaphic search area even if it is a DRI
(Department of Regional Impact) property. It's much too far south and it is going to be
too close to locations that carriers have on the east side of [Florida State Road] 417. So,
not a whole lot of RF (Radio Frequency) support needed to tell you that we just can't -
find a location in Tier Two, we have to drop down to Tier Three.
Ms. Solik introduced the RF (Radio Frequency) Engineers from T-Mobile, metroPCS
[Inc.] and Clearwire [US LLC]. All three (3) of these entities have submitted leases,
they have signed leases to co-locate on this tower and those leases have been submitted
as part of your package - Alan [Ruiz] - tell these folks who all have expressed interest,
what the level of commitment is and how this tower is loaded up."
Mr. Ruiz said, "This tower is loaded for seven (7) levels of loading. On the first level, we
have a lease signed with T-Mobile. On the second level, we have a Letter of Intent and a
Tenant Application submitted by Verizon Wireless. Sprint Nextel has submitted a Letter
of Intent and an Application committing themselves to the third and fourth levels.
metroPCS [Inc.] has a signed lease in place for the fifth level. Cingular Wireless has
submitted an Application for the sixth level and we have a signed lease on the seventh
level with Clearwire [US LLC]. Now the reason we don't have signed leases on every
single unit is because some of the corporate policies that some of these companies have
are that they don't sign leases until the tower is in the air. And others don't have that
same policy, therefore, they are able to submit Applications and Letters of Intent, but not
signed leases yet, others are able to sign leases. The bottom line is that every single cell
phone company that operates in this community and this County has submitted either an
Application, Letter of Intent, or a signed lease to co-locate on this tower. In other words,
every one needs it."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FIAR[DA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE 8 OF 15
The Site Plan was displayed to show the elevation drawings of the tower.
Continuing, Ms. Solik said, "Each one of these little squares are levels on this tower is a
Tier for a wireless carrier and T-Mobile will be at the top, Clearwire [US LLC] is at the
bottom, Verizon [Wireless] is down here and Sprint [Nextel], three (3) and four (4),
Cingular [Wireless], metroPCS [Inc.]." Board Member Casman asked, "The higher up
you are the better the coverage?" Ms. Solik said, "Absolutely."
Chairman Waters asked, "What are those increments between antennas?" Mr. Johnson
said, "Each one of those pods is ten feet (10') so what you are looking at is one hundred
and fifty foot (150') tower with the top seventy feet (70') of that tower having antennas.
So, what you really need to consider is we need to provide the ability for all licensed
carriers to provide coverage in the area. The lowest carrier, which is Clearwire [US
LLC] is looking at the bottom spot ranging between eighty one (81') and ninety feet
(90')."
Mr. Dan Babilla, Senior RF Engineer, T-Mobile, 200 Telcom Drive, Orlando, Florida: as
a resident of Winter Springs, Mr. Babilla spoke of cell phone coverage in the Tuscawilla
area. Referring to a T-Mobile cell phone coverage map of Tuscawilla, Mr. Babilla said,
"The `red' areas show a very strong level of cell phone coverage that would work for the
most part, most - residential indoors. That would be in the `red'. The `yellow' shows an
in-vehicle - coverage acceptable reliable coverage in your car. The `green' level in the
middle - a lot of pixels on this computer model coverage chart shows that there is a
deficiency where it only works outdoors."
Mr. Babilla said, "Radio frequency is a line of site technology and it's been that way for
however long it has been discovered and a form of communications for us. There is one
(1) white pixel and that is right where Howell Creek comes through on Northern Way
and it is a low spot. So, it kind of demonstrates that line of - radio frequency line of site
is determined and other variables also go into that. Tree cover absorbs and scatters the
signal so, trees can block the signal. Construction of our homes - concrete, obviously
steel and on the other end, windows can let the radio signal in somewhat. So, basically
what we are looking at is our current coverage and if we put this proposed site at a
hundred and fifty foot (150') right at the proposed location, we see how it is almost like a
piece of the puzzle."
Mr. Babilla then said, "With very little gaps between the sites, as far as a good rock solid
residential level of coverage. I wanted to demonstrate the site locations we currently
have now in and around Winter Springs - and we kind of centered this around
Tuscawilla."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 1 l, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE 9 OF 15
Mr. Babilla explained, "This location is obviously east of [Florida State Road] 417 - just
north of [State Road] 434, it's back in the woods a little bit right there and that site - just
gets - just barely south of [State Road] 434 and a little bit into the Tuscawilla area but
obviously it doesn't get toward the center. And the same with the tower - Oviedo
Marketplace you notice a tower right behind it right off of [Florida State Road] 417, that
would be that site location right here. This wireless communication tower - on
Tuskawilla Road just south of Red Bug Lake Road and that obviously is too far south to
get into the Tuscawilla community.
We also have this site, and this site Mary (Solik) either on City property or on an
easement, right-of-way, anyway it is by some power lines - that is here and then right
across the street or right next door actually is a monopole - that actually T-Mobile
originally developed and worked and partnered with the City before for providing
coverage at this location. So, the question I heard was, `Why do we need the site in this
location'? The network has matured around and dictated, we have to put it in a location
in the middle of the hole as opposed to having multiple sites. If we have to move this
outside of our search area ring, either this way or that way, that is going to - open up a
coverage hole to the other site. It is basically a location balance." Mr. Babilla said, "We
found this to be a very feasible and plausible location that I think is probably the best we
have come up with."
Ms. Solik asked, "Mr. Babilla is this one [hundred] fifty [feet] (150') height perfect
coverage for you?" Mr. Babilla said, "You can see there are a few gaps, but it is very
feasible and it will work." Ms. Solik then asked, "Are you utilizing the lowest height
technology at this site?" Mr. Babilla said, "Yes. This is our minimum design height."
Ms. Solik asked, "Is the technology that you use dictated by the height of the proposed
application?" Mr. Babilla said, "Yes." Ms. Solik then said, "Do you have a different
technology at a hundred feet (100') than you use at a hundred and fifty feet (150')?" Mr.
Babilla said, "We use the same equipment, the same technology throughout our network
is consistent."
Ms. Solik asked, "Do you ever go in and seek approvals for a height higher than you
really need?" Mr. Babilla said, "No. We don't believe in doing that because basically -
a number of reasons. Building it higher than we need causes interference to other places
in town, because we have to reuse the limited spectrum of frequency that the FCC
(Federal Communications Commission) gives us. Also, it gives us additional loss in
equipment, like coaxial going up the tower, it has to be fed with coax cable which is
usually made of copper or copper clad materials, it's expensive. It is not feasible to do
that."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADNSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE ] 0 OF 15
Ms. Solik asked, "Do you take aesthetic considerations into account when you are
designing your network location?" Mr. Babilla said, "Yes. It is T-Mobile's practice and
it is a corporate mandate actually that we do the best we can as far as site wireless
communications facilities and be a good neighbor in the community and work with the
jurisdictions and partner with them any chance we can get."
Ms. Solik then asked, "If you could have more height out there, would you take it?" Mr.
Babilla said, "Yes. But I would want to jump at the opportunity, but at the same time, I
don't think that would be the right thing to do because this is our minimum height but at
the same time we want to partner with the community so, we are looking for a good
medium."
Discussion.
Mr. Craig O'Neill, RF Engineer, metroPCS Inc., 8256 Exchange Drive, Suite 230,
Orlando, Florida: spoke about a need for additional coverage and displayed a map of the
coverage area. Mr. O'Neill said, "If you just take a look at these two (2) plots I have, it is
very similar to what Dan [Babilla] did. This is at our spot - I believe it is spot five (5)
which is a hundred and five feet (105'). This is showing our existing coverage and our
existing towers in the area and the obvious hole in Tuscawilla. The plot above there will
show the improved - currently we have sites that our `yellow' here these four (4) in the
circle here and it creates the hole right in this area. This is the proposed Vertex
[Development, LLC] tower here and this is the area of improvement that we would get
here at a hundred and five feet (105').
Just a little bit of area down here that is not going to get filled in quite as we would like,
the `green' shading here basically depicts good in car coverage and fair in building
coverage and the `white' would depict poor coverage areas that we would like to
concentrate on improving. So, basically this site does fill in a large portion of the area
that we are looking to fill in - eighty percent (80%) criteria that Dan [Babilla] was talking
about, we do something similar. This single site would definitely service a large
improvement in our current coverage and actually we have been waiting on this site since
before we launched. It was supposed to be part of our initial launch plan to provide
coverage to this area, so this is a much needed site for us."
Ms. Solik asked, "Are you using the lowest height technology?" Mr. O'Neill said, "Yes.
At the hundred and five feet (105') level that we are going at, that is probably the lowest
height that we would want to use in a topography such as this with a lot of tree lines and
residential homes in the area, that tends to block the signal going out maybe - as close as
a mile and a half or so, it starts to degrade at that point rather quickly.
CiTY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE 11 OF 15
And if you get too much into the trees or below the trees that affects and magnifies even
more. Probably the absolute lowest height we would want of a site like this would be
about ninety feet (90'), so a hundred feet (100') is probably just about as low as we would
want to go and still get adequate coverage off of this site. Now, the hundred and fifty
foot (150') that T-Mobile is getting would be nice but everybody can't have that
unfortunately."
Mr. Calvin Johnson, RF Engineer, Clearwire US LLC 414 Pursley Drive, Deland,
Florida: spoke about the cell tower location. Mr. Johnson said, "Clearwire [US LLC] is a
little bit different from the cellular and PCS [Personal Communication Service] carriers.
We are a- high speed broadband internet provider for home use. We are currently
stationery in your house - modem, high speed broadband access. There are a couple of
differences that I would like to mention. The band we use has much higher frequency
than the cellular and PCS [Personal Communication Service] carriers and cellular
carriers. The frequency they use goes through trees a little bit better than we do; PCS
[Personal Communication Service] not quite as good and then there is us. So, our target
coverage is usually a mile to a mile and a half radius what we can get out of a site.
These are the sites we have surrounding right here now - this is a site in question. With
this site turned off, this is the hole that we have, so the `white' would be no service. So,
we wouldn't try to sell to these households. There would just be no service. With this
site, you will notice it is really a poor service area. Actually, I would prefer a hundred
and eighty feet (180')." Mr. Johnson said, "We are taking the ninety feet (90') here the
lowest spot." Ms. Solik asked, "Mr. Johnson, if you had to go below ninety feet (90'),
would you take this site?" Mr. Johnson said, "I barely took the site as it is. In fact, I
recommended that it be killed." Mr. Johnson then said, "A hundred and eighty feet (180')
really would probably be what I need to get my engineering targets."
Ms. Solik said, "The Cingular [Wireless], Sprint [Nextel] and Verizon [Wireless] have
corporate policies that they don't send RF (Radio Frequency) Engineers to sites and they
don't make formal commihnents until the sites are approved. And let me remind you
again, in our application package, you have the leases from T-Mobile, Clearwire [US
LLC] and metroPCS [Inc.], you have the Letter of Intent from Sprint [Nextel] and from
Verizon [Wireless] and an Application from Cingular [Wireless] requesting a particular
height on the tower." Ms. Solik then said, "I think that if this site is approved the carriers
that have not signed lease agreements will be burning up the phone lines and beating a
path to the Building Department to get this thing on the air."
Chairman Waters recessed the Meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Chairman Waters reconvened the Meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Tape 2/Side A
Various pictures were displayed of Monopole towers.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY I 1, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE 12 OF 15
Discussion.
Ms. Solik read a letter received from Mr. Peters dated April 17, 2007.
Referencing the Settlement Agreement, Ms. Kate Latorre, Attorney, Brown, Garganese,
Weiss, & D'Agresta, P.A., said, "The Staff wanted you to know the Settlement
Agreement was out there and that it affects the [Tuscawilla Country Club] Golf Club
property, however, if you were to recommend approval and the City Commission were to
eventually approve this Application, the Settlement Agreement - the City Commission
would have to work out at that time."
Chairman Waters said, "It has nothing to do with our decision tonight?" Ms. Latorre
said, "We just wanted to let you know it was out there. It should not be a factor in your
consideration."
Then, Chairman Waters asked, "Is the site plot going to be seventy by seventy [feet] (70'
x 70') or fifty by fifty [feet] (50' x 50')?" Ms. Solik said, "Fifty by fifty [feet] (50' x 50')."
Mr. Ruiz said, "The actual compound itself that is fenced in will be fifty by fifty [feet]
(50' x 50'). But, we have allowed for a ten foot (10') landscaping buffer around it."
Chairman Waters asked, "You are not going to store any hazardous materials there that
violate any regulations. Is that correct?" Ms. Solik said, "There is nothing hazardous out
there."
Chairman Waters asked, "Is there going to be a generator there?" Mr. Ruiz stated,
"Vertex Development [LLC] does provide generator power for the tenants. The tenants
will choose whether or not to install equipment that has a built in generator. So, it is
really up to each individual tenant."
Regarding wildlife assessment, Chairman Waters asked, "What are you going to do with
the gopher tortoises?" Mr. Ruiz said, "If there are any, we will properly re-locate them
which we have at many other sites in the past." Chairman Waters said, "You are not
going to bury them?" Mr. Ruiz said, "No Sir. We use licensed gopher tortoise re-
locators."
Discussion.
As to coverage in the Oak Forest area, Mr. Babilla said, "We would see coverage
enhancement in some areas."
Referencing the installation, Mr. Ruiz said, "It has a case on tight foundation, which is
basically a cylinder of concrete that goes down into the ground and it is anchored, bolted
to that and there are absolutely no guide wires whatsoever."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - NLY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE 13 OF 15
Chairman Waters opened the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
Ms. Diana Yarusinski, 1166 Winged Foot Circle East, Winter Springs, Florida: lives
within one hundred feet (100') of the proposed tower and is concerned about the home
values, generator noise, and wildlife. Ms. Yarusinski was not in favor of this Agenda
Item.
Mr. Charles Lacey, 733 Bear Creek Circle, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke in favor of
this Agenda Item.
Chairman Waters closed the "Public Input " portion of the Agenda Item.
Mr. Ruiz said, "The access will be developed to Staffls requirements in terms of building
a road, not building a road, graveling it, not graveling it. We will follow what your
building Code requires. As far as trips to the site, once the site has been built, there is
approximately one (1) trip per tenant a month in terms of checking up on the site and
making sure everything is good. Once a month, Vertex [Development, LLC] sends out
somebody to make sure that the locks and the fencing and the landscaping and everything
is up to par and that the paint is not chipping - those are our maintenance efforts to make
sure we keep the site up to par. As far as construction goes, it is about a sixty (60) day
process and we will have all the tenants that are co-locating on the tower have their co-
location occur during the construction of the tower verses having them build us a tower
and then having each one of them come individually afterwards to co-locate on the
tower." Continuing, Mr. Ruiz added, "The use of the generator's is very infrequent."
Mr. Stevenson displayed an aerial map of the proposed site and stated "One other
question - has to do with the Tier Two site. As I said earlier in the presentation, the City
has voted to allow an Application to move forward for a tower on the wastewater
treatment plant. That is approximately 3,500 feet to the east of this particular site. It
represents an area that is at the closest point 430 feet away from existing houses that
would be on Ironwood Court. Probably over twice the distance of this proposed facility
is. I guess if I might, I would like to ask the Applicant or the RF (Radio Frequency)
Engineers - how detrimental is a relocation of this particular site to Tier Two site 3,500
feet east on the wastewater treatment plant in terms of coverage. I looked at the pixilated
coverage maps and it appeared that they indicated areas of white and inadequate coverage
and basically for Staff's edification and possibly those in the audience, I would like to
know if that really effects the ability of the carriers to provide service to the Tuscawilla
area."
Referring to the "Coverage Maps", Mr. Babilla said, "Our proposed site - in this area is
the water treatment plant just - a little bit east of Greenbriar [Lane] - I think that is just
past Glen Eagle right where the Sam Smith Park entrance is."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - JULY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM JULY 5, 2007)
PAGE 14 OF 15
Mr. Babilla said, "If we moved it that far the center of this - ring, that would shift - as
you can see the shape of the site - that would shift that too far to the east and would open
up most of this area between - west of Tuscawilla - to close to Northern Way." Ms.
Solik asked, "Would you reject that site?" Mr. Babilla said, "I would not accept that site
as a viable candidate, just because the location pushes it over and it is pretty close to the
other sites, but the main concern would be - traveling through here, we would lose the
residential indoor coverage but even in your car, you are opening up to the similar
situation we have right now handing off to the other sites, and you could drop a call."
Mr. Stevenson said, "Again, my intent is as part of ineeting the requirements of this Code
to assist the Board of Adjustment, we have to have definitive proof that the Tier Two site
is not available or not viable. Tier Two site is available, now we have to address the
question of whether or not it is a viable site."
Mr. O'Neill said, "Basically, I would have to concur with Dan [Babilla]. We have less
margin for error being at a lower site that he does. The nice thing about this particular
location, even though we have a little bit of wiggle room - it is pretty much equal
distance with the existing tower ring in the area - and it is right in the middle of where
our coverage is the worst. Referring to the multi colored map, Mr. O'Neill said,
"Basically those two (2) red spots just to the south of the proposed site is definitely the
two (2) areas that we want to most make sure that we hit and that location is ideal for
doing that. If we move 3,000 feet to the east, we won't be able to do that. If you look at
our existing coverage currently, if we move that far over, we will be getting into an area
where we have a little bit better signal already, we won't be adequately covering the
center of our worst area and it will make a potential for hand offs to fail."
Next, Mr. Johnson said, `By moving further over, it is even worse."
Furthermore, Mr. Stevenson spoke of a Letter of Intent for the Record.
Tape 2/Side B
"I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THE CELL TOWER." ADVISORY BOARD
MEMBER CASMAN ADDED, "RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION
THAT WE APPROVE IT." MOTION BY ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER
CASMAN. SECONDED BY VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR. DISCUSSION.
VOTE:
BOARD MEMBER COLLINS: NAY
VICE CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: AYE
CHAIRMAN WATERS: NAY
BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: AYE
MOTION DID NOT CARRY.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FIARIDA
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING - NLY 11, 2007
(RESCHEDULED FROM NLY 5, 2007)
PAGE 15 OF 15
For the Record, Board Member Casman said, "It appears to me that the Applicant has
demonstrated Compliance with all the Codes and Ordinances and they do meet the third
Tier requirement." Vice Chairman Taylor said, "I agree exactly with what you just said."
Vice Chairman Taylor said, "Then maybe we should ask the Applicant if they would like
to take a look at this and come back to us with some alternative plans?" Mr. Stevenson
said, "The calendar that we are working on, we have an obligation pursuant to the
Ordinance to get this before the City Commission for a Vote one way or another prior to
September 7~' [2007]."
Discussion.
Regarding sending the Agenda Packets electronically to the Board Members, Board
Member Casman said, "Personally, I think we ought to stick with killing trees." Board
Member Collins said, "I would be afraid that I would forget to check my email."
Chairman Waters said, "If we were to do it electronically, we would probably want the
City [of Winter Springs] to deliver the - already printed." Vice Chairman Taylor said, "I
vote to stick with the paper."
REGULAR AGENDA
REGULAR
600. Not Used.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Waters adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:46 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JOAN L. BROWN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
THOMAS WATERS
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the , 2007 Regular Board of Adjustment Meeting.
..
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached document was presented into the
Record by Ms. Mary D. Solik, Esquire, during
the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item
"500.1" at the August 20, 2007 City
Commission Special Meeting.
1
~
e
e
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
January 23. 2006
01 2306_COMM_Regulac308_Cell_TowecOrdinance_Review
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 308
Consent
Informational
Public Bearin2
Re2ular X
January 23, 2006
Regular Meeting
~
fr-- Mgr / I
Authorization
;7
npl't /
REQUEST: City Manager requesting the Commission to consider review of the City's Cell
Tower Ordinance Number 678 relative to the capacity of the Ordinance to provide City-
wide Cell Service.
PURPOSE:
This agenda item is needed to evaluate the capacity of the City's Cell Tower Ordinance to
reasonably provide for all tower service in the City.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Vertex Development Inc. has entered into a lease agreement with the Tuscawilla Country Club to
construct a 150-foot telecommunications tower on golf course property.
According to Vertex, technical data demonstrates that a large hole in coverage exists in the
Tuscawilla area that cannot be filled by any of the tower sites provided in the City's Ordinance.
Additionally, Vertex states that the proposed tower would have sufficient location to eliminate
any further towers in the City.
If Vertex's technical claims are correct it would indicate that the City's Ordinance, as written, is
defective in that a reasonable level of all phone service cannot be provided throughout the City.
Vertex is requesting that the west tower site located at the west water treatment site be either
removed from the City's site list, or changed to be developable as a conditional use. This action
would result in Vertex being able to proceed to the Commission with a conditional use permit to
locate the tower at the country club site.
e
e
Staff believes that the City should employ an independent third party consultant to determine if
Vertex's claim that the City cannot be adequately served from the four sites approved in the City
Ordinance is valid.
If the City's consultant finds that the City can be served from the four sites provided for in the
Ordinance, then there would be no need for the City to amend the Cell Tower Ordinance.
If the City's consultant finds that Vertex's claim is accurate, then the City would need to
seriously consider amending the Ordinance in such manner as to allow reasonable cell phone
coverage throughout the City.
The City has contacted Arthur K. Peters, Consulting Engineer, a company specializing in this
type consulting services for governmental agencies. The company could complete this study in
approximately 5-days for a price of $3600.
FUNDING: This study would require a $3600 supplemental appropriation from the General
Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
If the Commission desires to evaluate the capacity of its Cell Tower Ordinance to allow for
reasonable City wide cell phone service, it is recommended that the Commission authorize the
City Manager to enter into a contract with Arthur K. Peters, Consulting Engineer in the amount
of $3600 to determine if the Tower Ordinance needs to be amended to provide for reasonable
cell phone coverage throughout the City.
If the Commission does not desire to validate the efficiency of the current Ordinance then no
action is required. However, the Commission would need to be advised that it could be open to
legal challenge to its Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Tower Ordinance Review Proposal.
2. Arthur K. Peters Resume
3. Attorney Mary Solik January 13, 2006 letter to City Manager.
COl\fMlSSION ACTION:
Jan 17 06 04:27p
e
~3318026
p.2
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARTHUR K. PETERS
RADIO
TELEVISION
CATV
COMMON CARRIER
15"'22 NW .,ST BOULEVARD
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32&83.2872
MEMBER ..."celt
(352) 3310014$
,.AX; (3152) 331-8020
January 17, 2006
www.akpce.com
akpceOcox.net
Mr. Randy Stevenson. ASLA
Community Development Director
City of Winter Springs
1126 State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Re: Tower Ordinance Review
Dear Mr. Stevenson:
This is to describe services and costs for an analysis of the City's current Telecommunications Ordinance. It
is estimated that the minimum principal time expenditure for thIs project is 3 days. This Includes an analysis
of up to six sites and attendance at two City Commission hearIngs. It does not include future crafting of a
new Ordinance.
The anticipated work product will be a written report, including maps and calculation results, that illustrate
current coverage conditions and up to three alternative situations. should they be required. The final report
can be delivered within 60 days of commencement.
Principal hours are billed at $ 150.00 per hour. Assuming 24 hours of principal time, the project should
incur a maximum cost of $ 3600.00. Billing will occur at the completion of the project.
Attached is a CV. Should you have any questions, please do nC?t hesitate to contact me.
ZZt~
Arthur K. Peters. PE
Via Fax and US Mail
Jan 17 06 04:27p
e
413318026
p.3
PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF
ARTHUR K. PETERS, CONSULTING ENGINEER
Arthur K. Peters is a principal in the firm of Arthur K. Peters, Consulting Engineers,
with offices located in Gainesville. Florida.
He has been associated with communications and broadcasting engineering since
1956 and has been a principal In his own firm since 1969.
Mr. Peters is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
and a member of the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers. He
Is a registered Professional Engineer In the State of Florida. He has had over 50 papers
published in various technical publications, mainly in the radio common carrier paging
and mobile industry. These papers principally discussed the subjects of one-way paging
and two-way mobile communications.
Mr. Peters was for more than thirteen years a member of the TIA Cellular Radio
Technical Committee (TR-45.1), which created and maintained analog cellular radio
standards in the United States. He was also a full member of the Cellular Radio Digital
Standards Committee (TR-45.3) that designed and is maintaining standards for dual
mode analog/digital cellular equipment. The firm has completed designs for more than
90 cellular systems in the United States and Canada and more than 5,000 paging
systems, worldwide.
The Firm of Arthur K. Peters. Consulting Engineers, has represented a large number
of both small and large companies participating In the radio communications industry.
These companies provide paging and mobile services in most of the major metropolitan
areas and in many smaller cities throughout the United States. The firm has represented
equipment manufacturers, radio common carriers, private radio companies, telephone
companies and other entities engaged in the communications industry. The firm has
represented clients in Venezuela, Argentina, Puerto Rico, Canada, England, Japan, the
Caribbean, several countries In Eastern Europe, North Africa, Russia, Australia,
Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand.
The major responsibility of the firm Is to design radio communications facilities for
paging and mobile systems, microwave radio systems, television stations, FM broadcast
stations and AM broadcast stations.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARTHUR K. PETERS
Jan 17 06 04:28p
e
e3318026
p.4
y
Page 2
Resume of Arthur K. Peters
Daily activities of the firm include advising clients, Including a number of
manufacturers, on the best methods and procedures to utilize In achieving each client's
objectives. Advice is also given to manufacturers with respect to new product needs.
Special projects Include circuit design such as a telephone over-dial digit detector, a
credit card reader to control airborne telephones and an automated television station
controller and switcher. In addition to its normal activities, the firm has completed
systems designs of complex specialized mobile radio system (SMRS) designs and
wireless distribution of television signals at 28 GHz. Several years ago the firm
completed the design of a massive cellular system for the entire country of Argentina.
The firm routinely interfaces with federal agencies such as the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Peters has been a
pilot for more than 40 years and holds commercial and instrument ratings.
For the last several years Mr. Peters has been a technical participant in county and city
efforts to create antenna and tower siting policies and ordinances to control the impact
of personal communications systems
Mr. Peters, an Electrical Engineering graduate of Purdue University, has testified as
an expert witness before various administrative agencies such as the Federal
Communications Commission and the International Trade Commission. Additionally, Mr.
Peters has been accepted as an expert witness before many state public utilities
commissions including, but not limited to, the States of California, illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Florida, South Carolina and Georgia. Every public utilities
commission in the United States has accepted the work prOduct of the firm of Arthur K.
Peters.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
ARTHUR K. PETERS
e
e
Jan-IS-OS 02:54pm From-FollY' Lardnlr
407 648 1743
T-842 P.002/002 F-64S
: FOLEY
January 13,2006
FOLEY . LARDN~R lJ.P
A'tTOJlNEYS At LAW
111 NoRTH ORANGIO AV!NU~ SUITE 1800
ORLANDO, FL. 32801.2386
P.O. BOX 2183
ORLANDO, 'L 32802-219S
407.423.7656 TEL
407.648.1741 FAA
www.toley.com
WRlln'S DIRECT LINt
407.244.32159
msollk@foley.com EMAlL
CUENT/MATTER NUMBER
055546.()103
VIA FACSIMILE AND u.s. MAIL
Ronald W. McLemore
City Manager
City ofWintcr Springs
1126 E. SR 434
Whiter Springs. FL 32708
Re: Proposed Te1ecommunicatioD$ Tower
Dear Mr. McLemore:
This fum represents Vertex Development, Inc. and T-Mobile. Vertex has now
entered into a lease agreement with the Tuscawilla Country Club for the proposed placement of a
150' telecommuniccltions toWCJ on the golf course property. Vertex has already secured the
conunitInents of T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint to collocate on this tower. VerteX bas also
received requests for applications to collocate on the tower from Cingular iWd Metro PCS.
Together, these companies represent the five FCC licensees in this marketplace. AU of these
COIIlpanies have indicated to Vertex a lack of cell coverage in the specific area ofTuscawilla and .
generallY in the easteIIl portion of the City of Winter Springs. V cItex is now prepared to begin
the zoning process for approval of this proposed tower. Please advise us as to what the process
will be for the processing of zoning ~proval on this site.
V cry tr:uly yours,
!~~~
MDS:jlc
cc: AnthOJlY Garganese. Esq.
A1811Ruiz
IlOlITOI'l
BRU$S~
CHICACO
DETftOIT
.lAC"'_"'-1
LOS ll,NGiLES
MADISON
M1lVVAUK!!
NEW YOfUC
ORLANDO
SACRAMENTO
SAN DIEGO
$AN OItGOlDEL ~
SAN l'RANClSCO
&IUCOl'l v~LlT
TALl,AHASUE
TAMP''''
TOKYO
WA$Hl~ON. D.c..
WEST PALM IlACtI
ORlAji99144.1
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached documents were presented into the
Record by Ms. Mary D. Solik, Esquire, during
the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item
"500.1" at the August 20, 2007 City
Commission Special Meeting.
2
01/00/00 12:00A P.001
.-....
TOWER LEASE WITH OPTION
TIllS TOWER. LEASE wrrn OPTION (this "Lease") is by and between Vertex DeYeJopmmt, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Landlordj and T-Mobile South LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Tenantj.
I. Option to Lease.
(a) In considQ"lltion of the paymeot of . (the "Option Fcc} by Tenant to Landlord,
Landlord hereby grants to Tenant lID' option 10 lease the use of a portion of the reaJ. property described in the attached Exhibit A
(the "Property"). together with the right to use the tower located thereon ("Towcrj on the terms aod CODditioos set forth herein
(the "Ophon}, The Option shall be for an initial term of twelve (12) months. COJJ1I1lChCing on the Effective ~ (as defined
below) (the "Option Period}. The Option D-"nr! "",v hP. r.xtended bv Tenant for an additional six (6) IIIODIbs upon wriuen
notice to Landlord and paymeut of the sum o. . ) ("Additional Option Fcc") at lID)' time prior to the .
end of the Optioo Period.
(b) During the Option Period IIIKl any extension therco~ and during the term of this Lease:. Land10nI agrees to
cooperate with Tenant in obtaining. at Tenant's expense, a1lliccnses and pennits or authorizations required for Teoant's use of the
Premises (as defined below) from all applicable government and/or regulatory entities (including. without limitation. zoning and
land use authorities. and the Federal Communications Cormnission ("FCC") ("GovemmcotaJ ApJrovals}. including appointi.ng
Tenant as agent for a1J bmd use and zoning permit applications, and Landlord agrees to cooperate with and to allow Tenant, It no
cost to Landlord. to obtain a title report, zoning approvals and variances. land-use permits. and Laudbd c:xpn:ssJy grants 10
Tenant a right of access to the Property to perfonn surveys. soils tests. and other engineering procedures or environmental
investigations on the Property necessary to detcnninc that Tenant's use of the Premises will be compatible with Tenant's
engineering specifications, system design. operations and Governmental Approvals. Notwitbsl:andius the foregoing. Tenant may
not cbange the zoniDg ~l"ssifjcation of the Property without first obtaiDing LandIord's written consent. During the Option
Period and anyexteasion thereof; Landlord agrees that it will not intctfere with Tenant's effor1s to secure ocher licenses and
permits or authorizations that relate to other property. During the Option Period and any extension thereo~ Tenant may exercise
the Option by so notifying laDdJord in writing. at Landlord'~ address in aa:ordance with Section 12 hereof.
(e) If Teoaot excrcisa the Option. then. subject to the following terms and conditions. Landlord hereby leases to
Tenant the use of that portion of the Tower and Property, together with easements for llCCCSS md utilities, geocraJJy described and
depicted in the at1acbed Exhibit B (collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Premises"). The Premises Ire located It I SOO
Winter Spriup Blvd. Wmter Springs, FL 32708. Tenant's location on the Tower sbaIl be at the 155' Ic:vd of the approved
structure.
2. Imn. The initial tenD of the Lease sliaJl be seven (7) years commencing on the date of exercise of the Option (the
"Commcoccmc:ot Date"). and terminating at midnight on the last day of the initial tenD (the '"Initial Term").
3. Pcnnittcd Use. The Premises may be used by Tenant for the transmission and n;cepbOD of radio coumunication
signals and for the construction. insta1Jation, operation, maintenance. repair, removal or replacemcnt of related facilities. tower
and base. antemJas. miaowave dishes. equipment shelters and/or cabinets and related activities. Approved Equip:meat is shown
on the atta<:hcd Exhibit D.
4. &m. Tenant sba1J pay Landlord. as J'CIIt . per month
("Rent"). Rent sball be payable withiD twenty (20) days following the Commencement Date prorated for the remainder of the
month in wbicb the Comml::Dccmeot Date falls and thereafter Rent will be payable monthly in advance by the Mh day of each
month to Vertex Dcvclopmcmt, u.c at Landlord's address specified in Section 12 below. Iftbis Lease is te.uw...tcd at a time
other than on the last day ofa month. Rent shall be prorated as of the date of termination for any reason (other than a default by
Tenant) and all prepaid Ralt sba1J be immediately refunded to Tenant
S. RenewaL Tenant shan bav.: the right to extend this Lease for four (4) additional. five-yar terms (each a "Renewal
Term"). Each Re:newaI Tam shalJ be OD the same terms and conditions as set forth buein. c:xccpt that Rcnt shall be increased by
. ...' '., of the Rent paid over the preceding term This Lease sball lUtomatica1Jy renew for each
SUCCCSSlVe 1U:DeWal Term UDICSS Tenant notifies Landlord, in writing, ofTeoant's intention DOt to renew this Lease. It least sixty
(60) days prior to the expiration of the Initial Tcnn or any Renewal Term. IfTcnant shan remain in possession of the Prr:mises at
the expiration of this Lease or any ReuewaJ Tenn without a written agrcane:nt. such tenancy sba1J be deemed a D1OIlIb-to-month
tenancy under the same terms and conditions of this Lease.
6. Interference. Tenant shall not use the Premises in any way which interferes with the use of the Property by
Landlord or lessees or licensees of Landlord, with rights in the Property prior in time to Tenant's (subject to Tenant's rights under
this Lease, including. without limitation. non-interference). Similarly. Landlord shall not use. nor sba1J Landlord permit its
lessees. lic:cnsecs. employees, invitces or agents to use; any portion of the Property in any way which interferes with the
SiIc NlIIdJc:r:
Site Name:
MarUl:
EA82C
N. TlBbwilb
0rIud0
Vcnioa JG-2~1
01/00/00 12100A P.002
--
'-.
operations of Tenant. Such interference shall be deemed a material breach by the interfering party, who shall, upon written
notice from the other, be responsible for terminating said interference. In the event any such interference does not cease
promptly, the parties acknowledge that continuing interference may cause irreparable injury and, therefore, the injured party shall
have the right, in addition to any other rights that it may have at law or in equity, to bring a court action to enjoin such
interference or to terminate this Lease immediately upon written notice.
7. ImDTOvements: Utilities: Access.
(a) Tenant shall have the right, at its expense, to erect and maintain on tbe Premises improvements, personal property
and facilities necessary to operate its communications system, including, without limitation, radio transmining and receiving
antennas, microwave dishes, tower and base, equipment shelters and/or cabinets and related cables and utility lines and a location
based system. including, without limitation, antenna(s), coaxiaJ cable, base units and other associated equipment (collectively,
the "Antenna Facilities''), as such location based system may be required by any county, state or federal agency/department.
Tenant shaH have the right to alter, replace, expand, enhance and upgrade the Antenna Facilities at any time during the term of
this Lease. Tenant shall cause all construction to occur lien-free and in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances.
Landlord acknowledges that it shall not interfere with any aspects of construction, including, without limitation, attempting to
direct construction personnel as to the location of or method of installation of the Antenna Facilities and the Easements (as
defined below) ("Construction Interference'). Landlord further acknowledges that it will be responsible for any costs and
damages (including, fines and penalties) that are directly attributable to Landlord's Construction Interference. The Antenna
Facilities shall remain the exclusive property of Tenant. Tenant shall have the right to remove the Antenna Facilities at any time
during and upon the expiration or termination of this Lease.
(b) Tenant, at its expense, may use any and all appropriate means of restricting access to the Antenna Facilities,
including, without limitation, the construction of a fence.
(c) Tenant shall, at Tenant's expense. keep and maintain the Antenna Facilities now or hereafter located on the Property
in conunercially reasonable condition and repair during the term of this Lease. Donnal wear and tear and casualty excepted.
Upon termination or expiration of this Lease, the Premises shall be returned to Landlord in good, usable condition, normal wear
and tear and casualty excepted.
(d) Tenant shall have the right to install utilities, at Tenant's CJtpense, and to improve the present utilities on the
Property (including, but not limited to, the installation of emergency power generators). Landlord agrees to use reasonable
efforts in assisting Tenant to acquire necessary utility service. Tenant shall, wberever practicable, install separate meters for
utilities used on the Property by Tenant. In the event separate meters are not installed, Tenant shall pay the periodic charges for
all utilities attributable to Tenant's use. Landlord shall diligently correct any variation, interruption or failure of utility service.
(e) As partial consideration for Rent paid under tbis Lease, Landlord hereby grants Tenant an Easements in, under and
across the Property for ingress, egress, utilities and access (including access for the purposes described in Section I) to the
Premises adequate to install and maintain utilities, which include, but are not limited to, the installation of power and telephone
service cable, and to service the Premises and the Antenna Facilities at all times during the Initial Term of this Lease and any
Renewal Term (collectively, the "Easements"). The Easements provided hereunder shall have the same term as this Lease.
(f) Tenant shall have 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week access to the Premises ("Access") at all times during the Initial
Term of this Lease and any Renewal Term. In the event Landlord, its employees or agents impede or deny Access to Tenant, its
employees or agents, Tenant shall, without waiving any other rights that it may have at law or in equity, deduct from Rent
amounts due under this Lease an amount equal to five hundred and noli 00 Dollars (S500.00) per day for each day that Access is
impeded or denied.
8. Termination. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Lease may be terminated, without any penalty or further
liability as follows:
(a) upon thirty (30) days' written notice by Landlord if Tenant fails to cure a default for payment of amounts due under
this Lease Vlithin that thirty (30) day period;
(b) immediately if Tenant notifies Landlord of unacceptable results of any title report, environmental or soil tests prior
to Tenant's installation of the Antenna Facjlities on the Premises, or if Tenant is unable to obtain, maintain, or otherwise forfeits
or cancels any license (including, without limitation. an FCC license), permit or any Governmental Approval necessary to the
installation and/or operation ofthe Antenna Facilities or Tenant's business;
(c) upon ninety (90) days' written notice by Tenant if the Property or the Antenna Facilities are, or become
unacceptable under Tenant's design or engineering specifications for its Antenna Facilities or the communications system to
which the Antenna Facilities belong;
Site Number:
Sile Name:
Market:
E482C
N. TusJcawilla
Orlando
VeRian 10-2.01
01/00/00 12:00A P.008
"-'
.-,"
(d) immediately upon written notice by Tenant if the Premises or the Antenna Facilities are destroyed or damaged so as
in Tenant's reasonable judgment to substantially and adversely affect the effective use of the Antenna Facilities. In such event,
all rights and obligations of the parties shall cease as of the date of the damage or destruction, and Tenant shall be entitled to the
reimbursement of any Rent prepaid by Tenant. If Tenant elects to continue this Lease, then all Rent shall abate until the Premises
and/or the Antenna Facilities are restored to the condition existing immediately prior to such damage or destruction; or
(e) at the time title to the Property transfers to a condemning authority pursuant to a taking ofaIl or a portion of the
Property sufficient in Tenant's determination to render the Premises unsuitable for Tenant's use. Landlord and Tenant shall each
be entitled to pursue their own separate awards with respect to such taking. Sale of all or part of the Property to a purchaser with
the power of eminent domain in the face of the exercise of the power shall be treated as a taking by condemnation.
9. Default and Ril!:ht to Cure. Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary and without waiving any
other rights granted to it at law or in equity, each party shall have the right, but not the obligation, to terminate this Lease on
written notice pursuant to Section 12 hereof, to take effect immediately, if the other party (i) fails to perform any covenant for a
period of thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof to cure or (ii) commits a material breach ofthis Lease and fails to
diligently pursue such cure to its completion after sixty (60) days' written notice to the defaulting party.
10. Taxes. Landlord shall pay when due all real property taxes for the Property, including the Premises. In the event
that Landlord fails to pay any such real property taxes or other fees and assessments, Tenant shall have the right, but not the
obligation, to pay such owed amounts and deduct them from Rent amounts due under this Lease. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
Tenant shall pay any personal property tax, real property tax or any other tax or fee which are directly attributable to the presence
or installation of Tenant's Antenna Facilities, only for so long as this Lease has not expired of its own terms or is not terminated
by either party. Landlord hereby grants to Tenant the right to challenge, whether in a Court, Administrative Proceeding, or other
venue, on behalf of Landlord and/or Tenant, any personal property or real property tax assessments that may affect Tenant. If
Landlord receives notice of any personal property or real property tax assessment against the Landlord, which may affect Tenant
and is directly attributable to Tenant's installation, Landlord shall provide timely notice of the assessment to Tenant sufficient to
allow Tenant to consent to or challenge such assessment. Further, Landlord shall provide to Tenant any and all documentation
associated with the assessment and shall execute any and all documents reasonably necessary to effectuate the intent of this
Section 10. In the event real property taxes are assessed against Landlord or Tenant for the Premises or the Property, Tenant
shall have the right, but not the obligation, to terminate this Lease without further liability after thirty (30) days' written notice to
Landlord, provided Tenant pays any real property taxes assessed as provided herein.
II. Insurance and SubrolZation and Indemnification.
(a) Tenant will provide Commercial General Liability Insurance in an aggregate amount of One Million and nollOO
Dollars ($ I ,000,000.00). Tenant may satisfy this re'quirement by obtaining the appropriate endorsement to any master policy of
liability insurance Tenant may maintain.
(b) Landlord and Tenant hereby mutually release cach other (and their successors or assigns) from liability and waive
all right of recovery against the other for any loss or damage covered by their respective first party property insurance policies for
all perils insured thereunder. In the event of such insured loss, neither party's insurance company shall have a subrogated elaim
against the other. To the extent loss or damage is not covered by their first party property insurance policies, Landlord and
Tenant each agree to indemnify and hold hannless the other party from and against any and all claims, damages, cost and
expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, to the extent caused by or arising out of (a) the negligent acts or omissions or
willful misconduct in the operations or activities on the Property by the indemnifying party or the employees, agents, contractors,
licensees, tenants andlor subtenants of the indemnifying party, or (b) a breach of any obligation of the indemnifying party under
this Lease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this indemnification shall not extend to indirect, special, incidental or consequential
damages, including, without limitation, loss of profits, income or business opportunities to the indemnified party or anyone
claiming through the indemnified party. The indemnifying party's obligations under this section are contingent upon (i) its
receiving prompt written notice of any event giving rise to an obligation to indemnifying the other party and (ii) the indemnified
party's granting it the right to control the defense and settlement of the same. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Lease, the parties hereby confirm that the provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Lease.
Tenant shall not be responsible to Landlord, or any third-party, for any claims, costs or damages (including, fines and penalties)
attributable to any pre-existing violations of applicable codes, statutes or other regulations governing the Property.
12. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other corrununications shall be in writing and are effective thrce (3)
days after deposit in the U.S. mail, certified and postage paid, or upon receipt if personally delivered or sent by next-business-day
delivery via a nationally recognized overnight courier to the addresses set forth below. Landlord or Tenant may from time to
time designate any other address for this purpose by providing written notice to the other party.
Sill: Number:
Site Name:
Market:
B482C
K Tusbwilla
Orlando
Version 10-2-01
01/00/00 12100A P.004
'-
.......
Ifto Tenant. to:
T-Mobile
12920 sa 38lh Street
Bellevue, W A 98006
Attn: PCS lease Administrator
With a copy to: Attn: Legal Dept.
With a CODV to:
T-Mobile South LLC
3407 W. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33607
Attn: Lease Administration Manager
If to Landlord. to:
Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
405 S. Dale Mabry Hwy, #244
Tampa, FL 33609-2820
With a CODY to:
13. Ouiet Enioyment. Title and Authority. Landlord covenants and warrants to Tenant that (i) Landlord has full right, . _
power and authority to execute this Lease; (ii) it has good and unencumbered title to the Property and the Tower free and clear of
any liens or mortgages, except those disclosed to Tenant and which will not interfere with Tenant's rights to or use of the
Premises; and (iii) execution and perfonnance of this Lease will not violate any laws, ordinances, covenants, or the provisions of
any mortgage, lease, or other agreement binding on Landlord. Landlord covenants that at all times during the term of this Lease,
Tenant's quiet enjoyment of the Premises or any part thereof shall not be disturbed as long as Tenant is not in default beyond any
applicable grace or cure period.
14. Environmental Laws. Landlord represents that it has no knowledge of any substance, chemical or waste
(collectively, "Hazardous Substancc") on the Property that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any applicablc
federal, state or local law or regulation. Landlord and Tenant shall not introduce or use any Hazardous Substance on the
Property in violation of any applicable law. Landlord shall be responsible for, and shall promptly conduct any investigation and
remediation as required by any applicable environmental laws, all spills or other releases of any Hazardous Substance not caused
solely by Tenant, that have occurred or which may occur on the Property. Each party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the other from and against any and all administrative and judicial actions and rulings, claims, causes of action, demands
and liability (collectively, "Claims") including, but not limited to, damages, costs, expenses, assessments, penalties, fines, losses,
judgments and reasonable attorney fees that the indemnitee may suffer or incur duc to the existence or discovery of any
Hazardous Substances on the Property or the migration of any Hazardous Substance to other properties or the release of any
Hazardous Substance into the environment (collectively, "Actions"), that relate to or arise from the indemnitor's activities on the
Property. Landlord agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Tenant harmless from Claims resulting from Actions on the Property
not caused by Landlord or Tenant prior to and during the Initial Term and any Renewal Term of this Lease. The
indemnifications in this section specifically include, without limitation, costs incurred in connection with any investigation of site
conditions or any cleanup, remedial, removal or restoration work required by any governmental authority. This Section 14 shall
survive the termination or expiration of this Lease. .
IS. Assimment and Subleasin2. Tenant shall have the right to assign or otherwise transfer this Lease and the
Easements (as defined above) to any person or business entity which is authorized pursuant to and fCC licensed to, operate a
wireless communications business, is a parent, subsidiary or affiliate of Tenant, is merged or consolidated with Tenant or
purchases more than fifty percent (50%) of either an ownership interest in Tenant or the assets of Tenant in the "Metropolitan
Trading Area" or "Basic Trading Area" (as those terms are defined by the FCC) in which the Property is located. Upon such
assignment, Tenant shall be relieved of all liabilities and obligations hereunder and Landlord shall look solely to the assignee for
performance under this Lease and all obligations hereunder. Tenant may sublease the Premises, upon written notice to Landlord.
Tenant may otherwise assign this Lease upon written approval of Landlord, which approval shall not be unreasonably delayed,
withheld, conditioned or denied.
Additionally, Tenant may, upon notice to Landlord, mortgage or grant a security interest in this Lease and the Antenna
Facilities, and may assign this Lease and the Antenna facilities to any mortgagees or holders of security interests, including their
successors or assigns (collectively "Mortgagees"), provided such Mortgagees agree to be bound by the terms and provisions of
this Lease. In such event, Landlord shall execute such consent to leasehold financing as may reasonably be required by
Mortgagees. Landlord agrees to notify Tenant and Tenant's Mortgagees simultaneously of any default by Tenant and to give
Mortgagees the same right to cure any default as Tenant or to remove any property of Tenant or Mortgagees located on the
Premises, except that the cure period for any Mongagees shall not be less than thirty (3D) days after receipt of the default notice,
as provided in Section 9 of this Lease. All such notices to Mortgagees shall be sent to Mortgagees at the address specified by
Tenant. Failure by Landlord to give Mortgagees such notice shall not diminish Landlord's rights against Tenant, but shall
preserve all rights of Mortgagees to cure any default and to remove any property of Tenant or Mortgagees located on the
Premises as provided in Section 17 of this Lease.
16. Successors and Assigns. This Lease and the Easements granted herein shall run with the land, and shall be binding
upon and inure to the benefit ofthe parties, their respective successors, personal representatives and assigns.
17. Waiver of Landlord's Lien. Landlord hereby waives any and all lien rights it may have, statutory or otherwise,
concerning the Antenna facilities or any portion thereof, which shall be deemed personal property for the purposes ofthis Lease,
Silc NIIIlIber:
Silt Narno::
Market
6482C
N. Tuskawilla
Orlando
Version 10-2.01
01/00/00 12:00A P.005
.~.,
whether or not the same is deemed real or personal property under applicable laws, and Landlord gives Tenant and Mortgagees
the right to remove all or any portion of the same ITom time to time, whether before or after a default under this Lease, in
Tenant's and/or Mortgagee's sole discretion and without Landlord's consent.
18. Miscellaneous.
(a) The prevailing party in any litigation arising hereunder shaH be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and court
costs, including appeals, ifany.
(b) Each party agrees to furnish to the other, within twenty (20) days after request, such truthful estoppel information as
the other may reasonably request.
(c) This Lease constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties, and supercedes all offers, negotiations
and other agreements, with respect to the subject matter and property covered by this Lease.
(d) Each party agrees to cooperate with the other in executing any documents (including a Memorandum of Lease in
substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C necessary to protect its rights or use of the Premises. The Memorandum of
Lease may be recorded in place of this Lease, by either party. In the event the Property is encumbered by a mortgage or deed of
trust, Landlord agrees, upon request of Ten ant, to obtain and furnish to Tenant a non-disturbance and attornment agreement for
each such mortgage or deed of trust, in a form reasonably acceptable to Tenant. Tenant may obtain title insurance on its interest
in the Premises. Landlord agrees to execute such documents as the title company may require in connection therewith.
(e) This Lease shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state in which the Property is located.
(Q If any term of this Lease is found to be void or invalid, such finding shall not affect the remaining terms of this
Lease, which shall continue in full force and effect. The parties agree that if any provisions are deemed not enforceable, they
shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary to make them enforceable. Any questions of particular interpretation shall not
be interpreted against the draftsman, but rather in accordance with the fair meaning thereof. No provision of this Lease will be
deemed waived by either party unless expressly waived in writing signed by the waiving party. No waiver shall be implied-by
delay or any other act or omission of either party. No waiver by either party of any provision of this Lease shall be deemed a
waiver of such provision with respect to any subsequent matter relating to such provision.
(g) The persons who have executed this Lease represent and warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Lease
in their individual or representative capacity as indicated.
(11) This Lease may be executed in any nu'mber of counterpart copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all
of which together shall constitute a single instrument.
(i) All Exhibits referred to herein and any Addenda are incorporated herein for all purposes. The parties understand
and acknowledge that Exhibit A (the legal description of the Property) and Exhibit B (the Premises location within the Property),
may be attached to this Lease and the Memorandum of Lease, in preliminary form. Accordingly, the parties agree that upon the
preparation of final, more complete exhibits, Exhibits A, and/or B, as the case may be, which may have been attached hereto in
preliminary form, may be replaced by Tenant with such final, more complete exhibit(s). The terms of all Exhibits are
incorporated herein for all purposes. .
(j) If Landlord is represented by any broker or any other leasing agent, Landlord is responsible for all commission fee
or other payment to such agent, and agrees to indemnify and hold Tenant harmless ITom all claims by such broker or anyone
claiming through such broker. If Tenant is represented by any broker or any other leasing agent, Tenant is responsible for all
commission fee or other payment to such agent, and agrees to indemnify and hold Landlord harmless from all claims by such
broker or anyone claiming through such broker.
The effective date of this Lease is the date of execution by the last party to sign (the "Effc,~tiveDate'').
Si\c Number:
Silt Name:
Markel:
E482C
N. Tuska..illa
Orlando
Version 10.2-01
LANDLORD:
By:
Printed Name:
Its:
Date:
TENANT:
By:
Printed Name:
Its:
Date:
Site Nunilcr:
Silt Nam::
Market:
-'
01/00/00 12:00A P.006
..-
.....-""
a;z
. tiAJA-r // ;)007
T.Mobilc South LLC
.~\o\ . ~~\A~~
Mike Ackroyd
Direct~ Engineering & Operations
L\ \"'b \~"\
E482C
N. Tuskawilla
Orlando
Version IG-2-01
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached documents were presented into the
Record by Ms. Mary D. Solik, Esquire, during
the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item
"500.1" at the August 20, 2007 City
Commission Special Meeting.
.
2
~..---
01/00."012~ 1-'?::l::10A P~00:l
._,,~
st'!'L N:\.Ml.:. \-\;;~~ T~....(,4w~lL;.
SITE NlJ;'in~~~K~rAl,t{',!~
COMMUNICATiON TOWER SUBLEASE AGREEMENT
/'jtHIS CO~fUNICATION TO\VER SIJBLEASE AGREErvfENT ("Agreement") dated and is effective as
of C.4,.J.iJ!k.._ h< . 2007. is bct\"'CCil Clearnire US LLC, a Nevada limited liability comp..wy
V'~ite"" or "TcnanC), and Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability t:cmpany ("Landlord")
! /
V
For good a.ucl ....aluable consideration tt'1c receipt and sufficiency of wi>jch are hereby acknowledged., the
parties hereto agree as follows:
L pr~IIll_~.~'
1.1. Landlord owns a parcel of land ("Land") and a teIccomnmuications lOwer CTower") located in
the City of Winter Springs. County of Seminoie, State of Florida, cofllmonly known as Tusca~;lla Country Club
located at 1500 Winter Springs Boulevard. Winter Springs r10rida (APN: 31-20-31-5BB-OOOO-OO4A). The Tower
and the Land are c...,llectively referred to herein as the "Property." The Land is more particularly described in
Exlubit A annexed hereto. Subject to the provisions of Par-agrdph 2 bclow("Effective DateiDue Diligence
Period"). Landlord hereby leases to Cleanvire and Clca."'wire leases from Landlord approximately Forty-Nine (49)
square fect of Land and all access and utility easement<; necessary or desirable therefore (collectively, "Pre.nises")
3S may be described generally in Exhibit B aIUlexed hereto.
1.2 The Premises are located on the Land leased to the Landlord tmder that certain prime lease
between Winter Springs Golf, LLC, as Prime Lessor~ and Landlord, as Prime Les.'lee, dated as of January 6, 2006
("Prime l...ease"), which is attached l1ereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Agreement, if the Prime Lease requires Landlord (as the Prime Lessee thereunder) to
obtain Prime Lessor's prior written consent before subleasing or licensing space \+i.thin Landlord's leased area,
then such consent shall be a ccndi.tion precedent to this Agreement and to each of the parties~ rights and
responsibilities set forth herein.
2. Eflective Date!D~J~!!!gericc P_t.!!i<!fi. Tills Agreement shall be effective on the date of full
execution hereof ("Effedh'c Date"). Beginning on the Effective Date and continuing until the Term
Commencement Date as defined in Paragraph 4 below ('"Due Diligence Period"), Clea.."'\\ire shall only be
permitted to cnter t.he Property for the limited purpose of making appropriate engineering and boundary survey'S,
inspections. and other reasonably necessary investigations and signal, topographicaL geotechnical. slruClural and
environmental tests (collectively, '<Investigations and Tests~) that Clearnire may deem necessary or desirable to
determine the physical CQndition, feasibility and suitability of the Premises. In the event that Cleaoyirc determines.
during the Due Diligence Period, t.ba1 the Premises arc not appropriate for Clearwire's intended. use, or if for any
other reason. or no reason, Clcarwirc decides not to commence its tenancy of the Premises, then Cleanvire shall
have the right to tenninate this Agreement without penalty llpon "'Titlen notice to Landlord at any time during the
Due Diligence Period and prior to the Tenn Commencement Date. Landlord and Clcan,,>'ire expressly acknowledge
and agree that Clcarwire's access (0 tbe Property during this Due Diligern;c Period shall be solely for the limited
purpose of performing the Investigations and Tests, and that Clear-yire shall not be considered au owner 01
operator of any portion of ft.e Propeny, and shaJi have no ownership or control or any portion of the Property
(e.xcepi al> expressly provided in this Paragraph 2). prior to the Term Commencement Date.
:\ T):;e The Premises may be used by TerulflLfor any hlwful activity in connection v.l.th the
provisions of wireless communications services. including .without limitation. the transmission and the reception of
radio communication signals and the constmction, maintenance and operation of related commurucatiollS H1Cilities.
Landiord agrees, at no expense to Landlord, to cooperate with Tenant in mal-ingapplication for and obtaining all
liccnsc~ permil.S and ~ny and aU oUier necessary approvais thaI may be required for Tenant's iutended use of the
PremiS':s
4 Tcml. The term of this Agreement shaH commence upon the date Tenant begins construction
of the Tenant facilities (as defined in Paragraph 6 below) Of tl>jrty (30) days fonowing the issuance of;.1 Certificate
of O';CUpallGy for the Property, whichever occurs first ("Tenn Commencement Date") and shall terminate on the
tenth (10"') ::umivcrsary of the Term Commencement Date ("Term") unless oUtenvi.se terminated as pJOvided
01 ,....\~0,,...,~W~i 1 ~~ ': 0t?)A P , 002
-_._~
,
SrrFNA.YE V~ !"~v..i&
srmNUMllF.R:"',OftI.I~
herein. This Agreement shall automatically be extended for fom- (4) successive five (5) year periods ("Renewal
Terms") 011 the same terms and conditions as set furth herein unless Tenant notifies Landlord of its intention not
to renew at least six (6) months prior to commencement of the succeeding Renewal Term.
Tenant shali be required to use Landlord's general contractor to complete their installation a11heir wle
cost and expense.
5. Rent. Within fifteen (15) busines-s days following the Tenn Commencement Date,
Teuant: shall pay to Landlord as rent 1 per
month ("Rent') to be paid annually in advance. Renifo! any ftactional montll at the begJnning or at the end of the
Term or Renewal Term sbaU be prorated Rent shaD be payable tQ Landlord at 405 South Dale Mabry Highway.
Suite 144, Tampa, Florida 33609; Attention: Alan Rniz. All ofTenanfs monetary obligations set forth in this
Agreement are conditioned upon Tenant's receipt of an accwate and executed W -9 Form :from Landlord. Rent
shall be ~ on eacb anniversaIy of the Conunencement; Date l1,y an amount equal to let'CCOI of the
Rent for Ore previous year.
Within thirty (30) days of the Commencemenf n"tf' Tf>nar!1 !\ball Dav to Landlord a one-time cal~ilal
contribution rec: in the amount of
6. ~.
6.1 Tenant has the right to construct, maintain. install, repair, seam:. remove and operate
on the Premises radio communications facilities, including but not limited to utility lines. transmission. tines, an ice
bridge(s), electronic equip~ tpn!mtitting and receiving ~Jltennas. antennas and eq1Ji~, a power generator
and genemtor pad,. and supporting equipment and stru<;t:ures therefore r-TeaaDt Facilitic:sj. In connection
therewith, Tenant has the rigbt to do all work nea:ssaIy to prepare and maintain the Premises for Tenant's
communications operations and to iru.1aIl utility lines and transmission lines counecting antennas to transmitters
and receiveJS. All of Tenant's oonstmction and installation work: shall be petfuum:d at Tenant's sole cost and
e.xpense and in a good and wnrlarnmlike manner. Title to the Teuant Facilities aad any equipmeut placed on the
Premises by Tenant shall be held by Tenant Of its lenders or assigns and are not fixtures. Tenant bas the right 10
remove the Tenant Facilities at its sole ~ on or before the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement, and Tenant sh:ill repair any damage to the Premises caused by such removal. Upon tl1e expitation or
earlier termination of this Agreement, Tenant shall reJllO\"e its Tenant Facilities. inclnding but not limital to
autenna strncture(s). building (s) (except footings), fixmres and all pelSOnal property and otherwise restore the
Premises to its original condition, i'e3SOnable wear and tear and casualty excepte(i.
J. ~ and Utilities.
7.1 Landlord sbaIl provide Tenant, Tenant's empl9Yees, agen~ contraculIs. subcontrdCtors
and assigns with access to the Premises twenty-four (24) boors a day, seven (7) days a week, at no charge to
Tenant Landlord grants to Tenant, and Tenant's agents. employees and oontractors, a non-exclusive right and
easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress across the Property, and such right and easement may be
des...'Tibed generally in Exhibit B,
7.2 Landlord shall maintain all access roadv.-ays from lbe nearest public roadway to the
Premises in a manner sufficieni to allow pedestrian and vehicular access at all times under normal weather
ronditioIlS. LandlonI shall be responsible for maintaining and repairi..'lg such roadways. at its sole expen..~, except
for any tI~m:;lg'" caused by Tenant's use msuch roadways.
7.3 Tewm shall ha-l'e its own mete( imiiaaed and be IeSpODSible foe lIs own utiIiIy bills.
8. Interference. Tenant shall operate the Tenant Facilities in compliance with all Federal
C-OIDh"1Wlications Commission ("FCC') requirements including those prohibiting interference to communications
facilities of Landlord or other lessees or licensees of the Property, provided that the installation and operation of
any such facilities predate the installation of the Tenant Facilities. Subsequent to the m<:rnnmii:,n of the Tenant
Facilities, l.andlord willliOl, and will not permit its lessees or licensees to, install new equipment on or ~ any
alter.ilioru; to the Property or property contiguous thereto owned or controlled by Landlord, if such modifications
01/~~i00 12:~~A P.003
.~
~:J1'I N-AMl::: Vcrtrx Tuscamtla
o;m; l'!UMBER'F1.~"Rl.l!\9
are likely to cause interference with Tenant's operations. In the event interference occurs, Landlord agrees to use
best eff~rts to eliminate such interference in a reasonable time period. Landlord's failure to comply with this
paragraph shall be a material breach of this Agreement.
9. Taxes. Tenant shall pay personal property taxes assessed against the Tenant Facilities and
Landlord shall pay when due, ail real property taxes and all other taxes. fees and assessments attributable to the
Premises or this Agreement
10. I~r:milltltiQ!l-
10.1 This Agreement may be tenninated without further liability on thirty (30) days prior
written notice as follows: (i) by either party upon a default of any covenant or term hereof by the other party,
which default is not cured within sh.1y (60) days of receipt of written notice of default. except that this Agreement
shall Dot be tenninated if the default cannot reasonably be cured ",ithin such sixty (60) day period and the
defaulting party has commenced to cure the default ""ltM} su\;h sixty (60) day period and diligently pursues the
cure to completion; provided that the grace period for any monetary default is ten (lO) days from receipt of written
notice. This Agreement may be terminated by Tenant without further liability for any reason or for no reason.
provided T emml delivers \\'riltennouce of termination to Landlord prior 10 the Conuncncemcnt Date.
10.2 After the initial term, this Agreement may also be tenninated by Tenant without timher
liability on sixiy (60) days prior ,,"'ritten notice if Tenant is unable to reasonably obtain or maintain any cex+Jficate,
license, permit, aut.hority or approval from any govcmmentai authority, thus, restricting Tenant from installing,
removing, replacing,. maintaining or operating the Tenant Facilities or using the Premise.s in tile manner intended
by Tenant.
II. Destruction or Condemnati@. If the PrcwJscs or Tenant Facilities are damaged, destroyed,
condemned or tr'dIlSferred in lieu of condemnation, Tenant may ele.-;t to terminate this Agreement a... ofthc date of
the damage, destruction, condemnation or transter in lieu of oondcmnationby giving notice 10 Landlord no more
than forty-five (45) days following the date of such damage, destruction, condemnation or transfer in lieu of
condemnation. If Tenanl chooses not to terminate this Agreement, Rent shall be reduced or abated in proportion to
the actu.al reduction or abatement of use of the Premises.
12. insurance: SJM:Jtn.Mlion; and lndemrun:.
12.1 Tenant shall provide Commercial General Liability Insurance in an aggregate amount of
One Millioll and No/loo Dollars (Si,OOO,OOO.OO). Tenant may satisfy iliis requirement by obtaining the
appropriate endorsement 10 any master policy of liability insurance Tenant may maintain.
12.2 Landlord and Tenant hereby mu1l.1a1ly release each olller (and their successors or
assigns) from liability and waive all right of recovery against the other fm any loss or damage covered by their
rc.-spect.ive first-paJiy property insurance policies for all perils insured thereunder. in the e...-ent of such insured loss.
neither party's insurance company shall have a subrogated claim against t.he other.
12.3 Landlord and Tenant shaH each indemni.f)r, defend and hold the other harmless from
and against all claims, losses, liabiiiiics, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' and
consultants' fees, c.osts and expenses) (coHectivcly "Losses") arisingtrom the indernnifYlng party's breach of any
term or condHion of this Agreement or from the negligence or willfulmisoonducl of the indemnifYing party or its
agents, employees or contractors in or about the Property. The duties described in this Paragraph 12.3 shall apply
as of Ule Effective Date of illis Agreement and sunive the term..i nation of this Agreement.
13. Assi~J!1~_Q.t This Agreement may be sold, assigned or L"atlSferred by the Tenant without any
apprO"y'al or consent of the Landlord to Tenant's lcnder(s) pllISuant Lo a financing agreement, or to the Tenant's
principal, affiliates, subsidiaries of its principal; to any entity which acquires all or substantially all of TeIlaJ.'1t's
assets in lhc market defined by lhe Federal Communications Commission in which the Property is iocated by
01!0~!00 lZ:00A P.004
....-
,
SITE NA.'dE: V.rtex Tusc.""m,
SITE NU"MBEIl:FL.oRL1C9
rea...~n of a merger, acquisition or other business reorganization. As to other parties, this Agreement may not be
sold. assigned or transferred without the written consent of the Tenant, which such consent will not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed. Tenant may sublet the Premises within its sole discretion, upon notice to
Landlord. Any sublease that is entered into by Tenant shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement and
shall be binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs and legal representatives of the respective parties hereto.
14. Title and Quiet Em9..Yment.
14. I Landlord represents and w.mants that (i) it has ful! right. power, and autru.uity 10
execule this Agreement, (ii) Tenant may peacefully and quietly enjoy the Premises and stlcn access tJtereto,
provided tl1at Tenant is not in default hereunder after notice and e:\.-piration of all cure periods, (Hi) 11 has obtained.
aH necessary approvals and consents. i-md has taken all necessaIy action to enable Landlord to enter into thIS
Agreement and anow Ten:mt to instal! :L'!d operate the Facility on the Premises, including without limitation,
approvals and consents as may be IlC(:essary from omIT tenants, hcensees and occupant" of Landlord's Property,
and (h') the Property and access rig.'J.ts arc free and dear of all Hen&. encumbrances. aru:llesUiction.s except those of
record as oflhe Effective Date
14.2 Tenant has the right to ubtain a title report or CO!nnl!tn!Cnt for a leasehold title policy
hum 11 line insurance company of its Ch01CC.
15 ~,f!~jI"Q.I1me~1!~. As Df the E'ffuctivc Date of frJs Agreement: (1) Tenant hereby represents and
warrants thai it shaH not uS!;:. gencJdtc. handle. store or dispose of any Hazardous Material in, OR under. npon or
affecting the Property in violation of any applicable la,\, or regulation. .U1d (2) Landlord hereby reprcscnts and
warrants that 0) it has no knowledge of the presence of any Hazardous Material located in, on, ~nder, upon or
affecting the Propcny in VIolation of any applicable law or regulation; (iij no notice Jlasbeen received by or on
bch:!lf of Landlord from any governmental entity or any person or entity claiming any violation of allY applicable
eIlHronmentallaw OT regulation lll. on. Ullder, upon or affecting the Property: and (iii) it wHl not permit itself or
any third party to use, generale, handle, Slore or dispose of auy Hazardous NJ.atcJ'ial in, on, under. upon, or
affCcting thePmperty in violation of any applicable law or regulation, \Vithout limiting Paragraph 12.3, Landlord
and Tenant shall each indemnity. dclend and bold the otiler hannless from and against. all Losses (speclficaH~'
including, ~'ithout limi!.aticn, attamC'is', engineers', consultallts7 and c:\.jJcrts' fees, costs and C.\.'-pCilSes) arising
from (i. any breach of any representation or warranty made in this Paragraph 15 by such part)': ~md!or (Ii)
cnviromncnW conditions or noncompliance willi any applicable law or regulation tllat result, in Ule case of
'f"emmt from operations in or about the Property by Tenant or Tenant's agents, employccs or contractors,and in
Ule case of Landlord. from (he ownerslnp or control of or operations U! o.r about the Property by Landlord or
Lalldlcd's predecessors in interest, ;md their respeclive agenl.S, employees, contractors, tenants. guesL.. or oHler
panJes The provislOns of this Paragraph 15 shall apply as of the Effective Date of this Agreement and survive
tcmunalloIl of tllis Agreement. "Hazardous i\i3.ter.ai" means any solid, gltseoUS or liquid wastes (includmg
h37.ardous 1-vastes), regulated substances, pollutants or contaminants or terms of similar import, as such terms ar;;
defJne.d III any applIcable environmenlallaw or regulatiQn. and shaH include. without limitation, any petroleum or
petroleum products or bY-Ploducl.S, fhmUIlabk: explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos in any forI'll.
polychlorinated biphenyls and any other substance or material which constitutes a thrc.at to health, safct'j, property
or the Cllyironment or which has been or is m the furure determmed by any governmemal entity to be prohihitefl
Iinlited or regulated by any applicable cn\irolli11cntall~nv or regulatioll.
lr,,:"
1.\.J.
SuJ,t9JJh!l!!tioILQf L?ndlcrd's Lien. Landlord hereby subordinates any and mIlien rights it may ha\-c, statutory or
otherwise concerning the Tenant FacilitICS or any portIOn thereof which shaH be de.cmed personal property for the
pu.-pcscs of tbls Agreement, v.'hcthcr or not the same is deemed real or personal property under appii~le laws,
and Landlord gives Tenant and Mortgagees the right to remove an or any portion of the sa.rne from time to time,
whether befole 01 aliCT a default under this AgrecmcnL ill Tenant's and/or Mortgagee's sole dIscretion and wHhom
ttlndlord)s consent.
J 7. Noticc~. All llotices~ requests" dwnands and otiier conununications hcreWlder shall be in writing
~md sMH be deemed given if persona!!)' ddj".-ered or mailed, certified lllilil, retur1l receipt requested, or sent by for
.uexi.-business-dav deiiveLV oy a Ilallonallv recoglll7.ec1 overnlgbt c.arrier to the following addresses:
01/00/00 1Z:00A P.005
sm; NAME; VCltCl< TuocIwiIIa
" SITE 1'<1JMBEJl:FL..01lL11i9
If to Tenant, to: With a copy to: If to Landlord, to:
Clearwire US LLC Clearwire US U.C Vertex Development, LLC
Attn: Site Leasing Attention: Legal Department Attention: Alan Ruiz
4400 Carillon Point 4400 Carillon Point 405 S. Dale Mabry Highway
Kirkland, W A 98033 Kirkland, WA 98033 I Suite 244
Telephone: 425-216-7600 Telephone: 425-216-7600 Tampa, Florida 33609
Fax: 425-216-7900 Fax: 425-216-7900 i Telephone: (813)335-4768
Landlord or Tenant may :from time to time designate any other address for thispmpose by written notice to the
other party. All notices hereunder shall be deemed received upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery.
18, ~!1.& and Lighting. Landlord shall be responsible for compliance with all marking and
lighting requirements of the Federdl Aviation Administration ('""FAA") and the FCC. Should Tenant be cited
because the Property is not in compliance and should Landlord fail to cure the conditjons of llOficompliance.
Tenant may proceed to cure the conditions of noncompliance at Landlord's expense, which amounts may be
deducted from (and offsel against) the Rent and any other charges or amouIJ(s due. or coming due, to Landlord.
19. A-~,~tilllC()llS.
19.1 If Tenant is to pay Rent to a payee other fuan fhe Landlord Landiord shall notify Tenanl
in advance in writing of ihe payee's name and address.
19.2 The substantially prevailing party jn any legal claim arising hereunder shall be entitled
10 its reasonable attorney's fees and coun COSL~, including appeals. if any.
19.3 If any provision of the Agreement is inyalid or unenforceable with respe~t to any party,
!he lemainder O'f this Agreement or Lhe application of such provision to' persons oOler tllan those as to' whom it is
held invalid or ullenfon;\."able, shall not be affected and each provision of this Agreement sliall be valid and
enforceable to the filllest extent permitted by law.
j(tA Terms and conditions of thIS Agreement which by their sense and context sun;,:c the
terminatiO'n. cancellation or expmltion O'f tlus Agreement will so SUlVWC
19.5 This Agre.ement shall be govcmed under law of the State in which the Premises are
located. and be binding on :uld inure io the benc:!1t of the sllccesS()r:~ Mid permitted assignees of V,e respective
partIes.
19.0 A Memorandum of Agreement in the form attached hereto as ExpJbit C may berccorded
by Tenant wnlinning the (i) effectiveness of titis agreement (ii) expiration date of tile Term, (iii) the du.ration of
<my Renewal Terms, and/or other reasonable terms consistent 'With this Agreement
19.7 All Exhibits referred herem are incotpOrdted herein for all purposes.
19 8 Landlord shaH make a diligent and good faith effort to obtain a Nondistu.'"bancc
Agreement for the benefit of 'fenant from each lender with a security interest recorded upon the title to the Site at
the tiJne of execution of this .A.greclncnt.
19,:; Tbis Agre;;;menl wClstitules file entire Agreement between the partles, and supersedes all
understandings, offers, negotiations and other leases concerning the subject matter cont3ined herein. There arc I10
reprcsemations 01' understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments, modifi~tions or waivers of
any cfUle terms and conditions of this Agrccment must be in writing and excculed OJ' both parties.
19. 10 LandlO'rd agrees not to disclose, without the written consent of Tenant any of the terms
of this Ab'Tcement or any other \'>Titten agreement between the pa.'1ies relating to the privileges granted herein.
except as reqmred by governmental authority. in wbich case Landlord shall jflfryrm Tenant prior to ffi"1Ilging such
information.
t
01/00/013 12100A
P.00S
sm; NAME: "-'I'-iIt.
SlI"I NIJMllER:FL.ORLltII
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement effective upon the date of
execution by all parties.
LANDWRD:
Vertex Development. LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company
By:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Tax 1.0.:
TENANT:
~~~
Alan Ruiz - :5
Manager
&//1.//)7
I I
39... HCf4;2?~
Clearwire us LLC. a Nevada limited liability company
By:
Name
Title:
C-.~
,lOho A Storch
\I'~ President - Network Deployment
Date: 0 r. '2.< - 01
Print Name:
01/00/00 12100A P.007
--
SOl! NAME: V_ 'r.c.wiIIo
SfIll NUMJIIIa:FL.OIU.I6lJ
Vertex Development, LLC
STAlE OF FLORIDA )
) 55.
COUNTY OF HlILSBOROUGH )
] <:eIt.i1Y that ] know or have satisfactOIy evidence that Alan Ruiz is the person who appeared befOR me.
and said person acknowledged that he signed this instnJmeot. on oath stated that be was authorized to ~ the
instrument and acknowledged it as the Manager of Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitJ
company, to be the free and volun such party fOf the uses and plJl'))C)SeS mentioned in the insmu.a
Dated: blp
NotaIy Public
Print Name Amv ochran
y commission expires Julv 1. 2009
~~tiJ AMY A. COCHRAN
(.rA~l CommiSSlo!',. 004.17630
~...~A My CommISSIon ElCpiru
..,.::.v July Ot. 2009
(Use this space fOf notary stamp/seal)
STATE OF W ASHlNGfON
)
) S5.
).
COUNTY OF KING
I certifY that I know or bave satisfactory evidence that John A Storch is the person who appeared before
me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute
the instrument and acknowledged it as the VP Network DeplO}ment of Clearwire US LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company. to be the free and voJuntaty act of sucb party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the
instrument.
Dated:
Notary Public
Print Name
My commission expires
1~11~,~~~~~;~,
t i>:\ A:'.~;., ,_ ,/i j
~, --'~ 'i, /; - g' (;~ ~_-I.:.. .:
Jil-'Y/~:'q.".~ P" -._...........p....0.::-
lit r,,~ "''''''\\\\\\\\''\~..\.,'\' ~
'J{i. Of: W/~.s'....,...:..::::-
qh\\\\\~,"'~'
(Use this space for notary stamp/seal)
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached documents were presented into the
Record by Ms. Mary D. Solik, Esquire, during
the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item
"500.1" at the August 20, 2007 City
Commission Special Meeting.
2
01/00/00 12:00A P.001
.-.
-'
COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT
TIDS COMMUNICATIONS SITE LEASE AGREEMENT ("Lease
Agreement") dated as of , is made by and between Royal Street
Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Lessee") and Vertex Development,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Lessor").
RECITALS
This Lease Agreement is entered into based upon the following facts, circumstances and
understandings:
A. Lessor leases certain real property legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and commonly known as FLS032; 1500 Winter Springs Blvd. Winter Springs, Florida 32708 Assessor's
Parcel Number 31-203 J 5BB-OOOO-004A ("Lessor's Real Property"). Lessee desires to lease a portion of
Lessor's Real Property with any necessary easements over other portions of Lessor's Real Property
and/or shared use of Lessor's easements over other real property necessary for Lessee's access and
utilities to the leased area (altogether the "Premises"), as described on Exhibit "8" attached hereto.
Lessor represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the rights set forth herein and that it has fllll
rights of ingress to and egress from the Premises from a public roadway.
B. Lessee is a communications carrier that desires to construct and operate a wireless
communications site at the Premises as part of its communications network.
C. Based on the Premises set forth herein and on the terms and conditions set forth
below, Lessor is willing to lease the Premises to Lessee for Lessee's proposed use subject to the terms
and conditions ofthis Lease Agreement.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the P,.cmises set forth above and the tc,.ms and
conditions set forth herein, the parties, intending to be legall)' bound, hereto agree as follows:
l. Grant of Lease. Lessor hereby leases to Lessee the Premises for Lessee's proposed
use, subject to the following tenns and conditions for the Term.
2. Permitted Uses. The Premises may be used by Lessee for the operation of a wireless
communications site. Under this Lease Agreement, Lessee may install, place, lIse and operate on the
Premises such antennas, radio rransrnitting and receiving equipment, conduits, wires, battel;es, back-up
generators, utility lincs and facilities, Supp0l1ing structures, telephone facilities, and related equipment
(collectively "Lessee's Facilities") as Lessee deems necessary for the operation of its wireless
communications site at the Premises. Further, Lessee may perform constnlction, maintenance, repairs,
additions to, and replacement of Lessee's Facilities as necessary and appropriate for its ongoing business
and has the right to do ~lll work necessary to prepare, modify and maintain the Premises to accommodate
Lessee's Facilities and as required for Lessee's communications operations at the Premises.
Site No.: ORD2] 0
Site Address: 1300 Winter Springs Blvd. Winter Springs. Florida 32708
EXECUTION COPY 7.]0.06
Page ] of J 7
EXECUTION COpy
01/00/00 12:00A P.002
3. Conditions Precedent: Prior Approvals. This Lease Agreement is conditioned upon
Lessee obtaining all governmental licenses, permits and approvals enabling Lessee to construct and
operate wireless communications facilities on the Premises without conditions which arc not standard or
typical for premises where wireless communications facilities arc located. Lessor agrees to cooperate
with Lessee's reasonable requests for Lessor's signatures as real property owner on permit applications,
for allowing site inspections by governmental agencies required in connection with reviewing permit
applications, and for assistance in obtaining such necessary approvals, provided that such cooperation
and assistance shall be at no expense to Lessor.
4. Term. The term of this Lease Agreement ("Term") shall be Seven (7) years.
commencing with the issuance of a local governmental building permit allowing Lessee to construct
Lessee's Facilities on the Premises or twelve (12) months from the date of full execution of this Lease
Agreement, whichever occurs first ("Commencement Date''). Lessee shall promptly deliver written
notice to Lessor of the Commencement Date. Lessee shall have the right to extend the Term of this
Lease Agreement for four (4) additional terms (each a "Renewal Term'') of five (5) years each. The
terms and conditions for each Renewal Term shall be the same terms and conditions as in this Lease
Agreement, except that the Rent shall be increased as set forth hereinbelow. This Lease Agreement shall
automatically be extended for each successive five (5) year Renewal Term unless Lessee notifies Lessor
in writing of Lessee's intention not to extend this Lease Agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration of the first Term or any Renewal Term.
s. Rent. Within fifteen (15) days of the Commencement Date. Lessee shall pay Lessor...as
rent, the sum of "". .- .. ) per month. Rent shall be payable on the
first day of each month. in advance. to Lessor or Lessor's alternate payee specified in Section 22. Notices
and Deliveries. If the Commencement Date of this Lease Agreement is other than the first day of a
calendar month, Lessee may pay on the first day of the Term the prorated Rent for the remainder of the
calendar month in which the Term commences, and thereafter Lessee shall pay a full month's Rent on the
first day of each calendar month, except that payment shall be prorated for the final fractional month of
this Lease Agreement, or if this Lease Agreement is tenninated before the expiration of any month for
which Rent should have been paid. Rent shall be increased annually, on the anniversary of the
Commencement Date b) of the previous year's Rent.
6. Due Dilil!:ence Continl!:enev and Pre--Commencement Date Access. to Premises.
Lessee shall have the right (but not the obligation) at any time following the full execution of this Lease
Agreement and prior to the Commencement Date, to enter the Premises for the purpose of making
necessary inspections, taking measurements and conducting engineering surveys (and soil tests where
applicable) and other reasonably necessary tests to detennine the suitability of the Premises for Lessee's
Facilities ("Due Diligence''), and for the purpose of preparing the Premises for the installation or
construction of Lessee's Facilities. During any Due Diligence activities or pre~conStrUction work, Lessee
shall have insurance which covers such activities as set forth in Section 16, Insurance. Lessee will notify
Lessor of any proposed tests. measurements or pre-constrUction work and will coordinate the scheduling
of such activities with Lessor. If in the course of its Due Diligence Lessee determines that the Premises
are unsuitable for Lessee's contemplated use. then Lessee shall have the right to terminate this Lease
Agreement prior to the Commencement Date by delivery of written notice thereof to Lessor as set forth
in Section 13, Termination.
Page 2 of 17
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: 1500 Winter Springs Blvd. Winter Springs. Florida 32708
EXECUTION COPY 7.1 0.06
01/00/00 12:00A P.003
--.'
"..-'
,
7. One:oinl! Access to Premises. Throughout the Term and any Renewal Term of this
Lease Agreement, Lessee shall have the right of access without escort to the Premises for its employees
and agents twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days per week, at no additional charge to Lessee. In
exercising its right of access to the Premises herein, Lessee agrees to cooperate with any reasonable
security procedures utilized by Lessor at Lessor's Real Propelty and further agrees not to unduly disturb
or interfere with the business or other activities of Lessor or of other tenants or occupants of Lessor's
Real Property. Lessor shall maintain all existing access roadways or driveways extending from the
nearest public roadway to the Premises in a manner sufficient to allow for Lessee's access to the
Premises. Lessor shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing stich roadways and driveways at
Lessor's sole expense, except for any damage caused by Lessee's use of such roadways or driveways. If
Lessee causes any slIch damage. Lessee shall promptly repair the same at its sole expense. Except those
constructed by Lessee, Lessor, not Lessee, shall be responsible for the maintenance and compliance with
laws of all towers and strllctures located on the Premises, including compliance with Part 17 of the
Federal Communications Commissions' Rules.
8. Lessee's Work. Maintenance and Repairs, All of Lessee's construction and
installation work at the Premises shall be perfonned at Lessee's sole cost and expense and in a good and
workmanlike manner. Lessee shall submit copies of the site plan and specifications to the Lessor for prior
approval, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Lessor shall give
such approval or provide Lessee with its requests for changes within five (5) business days of Lessor's
receipt of Lessee's plans. If Lessor does not provide such approval or request for changes within su~h
five (5) business day period, Lessor shall be deemed to have approved the plans. Lessor shall not be
entitled to receive any additional considel'ation in exchange for giving its' approval of Lessee's plans.
Lessee shall maintain Lessee's Facilities and the Premises in neat and safe condition in compliance with
all applicable codes and governmental regulations. Lessee shall not be required to make any repairs to
the Premises except for damages to the Premises caused by Lessee, its employees, agents, contractors or
subcontractors. Upon the expiration, cancellation or termination of this Lease Agreement, Lessee shall
surrender the Premises in good condition, less ordinary wear and tear; however, Lessee shall be required
to remove any foundation supports for Lessee's Facilities which have been installed by Lessee.
9. Title to Lessee's Facilities. Title to Lessee's Facilities and any equipment placed on
the Premises by Lessee shall be held by Lessee. All of Lessee's Facilities shall remain the property of
Lessee and are not fixtures. Lessee has the right to remove all Lessee's Facilities at its sole expense on
or before the expiration or termination of this Lease Agreement. Lessor acknowledges that Lessee may
enter into financing arrangements including promissory notes and fimmcial and security agreements for
the financing of Lessee's Faciliries (the "Collateral") with a third party financing entity and may in the
future enter into additional financing arrangements with other financing entities. In connection
therewith, Lessor (i) consents to the installation of the Collateral to the extent that the Collateral is part
of the approved Lessee's Facilities; (ii) disclaims any interest in the Collateral, as fixtures or otherwise,
whether arising at law or otherwise, including, but not limited to any statutory landlord's lien; and (Hi)
agrees that the Collateral shall be exempt from execution, foreclosure, sale, levy, attachment, or distress
for any Rent due or to become due and that such Collateral may be removed at any time without recourse
to legal proceedings.
10. Utilities. Lessee shall have the right to install utilities, at Lessee's expense, and to
improve the present utilities 011 or near the Premises (including, but not limited to the installation of
emergency back-up power). Subject to Lessor's approval of the location, which approval shall not be
Page 3 of ] 7
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: 1500 Winter Springs Blvd. Winter Springs. Florida 32708
EXECUTION COpy 7.10.06
01/00/00 12:00A P.004
-'
unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed, Lessee shall have the right to place utilities 011 (or to
bring utilities across) Lessor's Real Property in order to service the Premises and Lessee's Facilities.
Upon Lessee's request, Lessor shall execute recordable easement(s) evidencing this right. Lessee shall
fully and promptly pay tor all utilities furnished to the Premises for the use, operation and maintenance
of Lessee's Facilities. Upon Lessee's request, Lessor shall allow Lessee to install sub-metering
equipment on existing Lessor utility service(s). Lessee agrees to install, at Lessee's cost, the required
equipment, meters and connections and will reimburse Lessor for Lessee's use of utilities at a rate equal
to Lessor's unit cost for the utilities. Lessee shall pay the cost of utility service provided to the Premises
and attributable to Lessee's use ("Utility Charge"). Lessee shall pay the estimated cost of the Utility
Charge monthly in advance. The pal1ies estimate the Utility Charge at the commencement of constnlction
to be TBD ($0.00) per month. During the tenn of this Lease Agreement, at Lessor's request (which
request shall not be more frequent than once every twelve months), Lessee shall calculate the actual
Utility Charge for the immediately preceding twelve (12) months based on the readings from the
privately installed sub-meter at Lessor's property. If the actual Util ity Charge varies from the estimated
Utility Charges paid, the parties shall reconcile past payments of utility charges and adjust future
estimates of the Utility Charge to reflect Lessee's actual usage.
11. Interference with Communications. Lessee's Facilities and operations shall not
interfere with the communications configurations, frequencies or operating equipment which exist on
Lessor's Real Property on the effective date of this Lease Agreement ("Pre-existing Communications"),
and Lessee's Facilities and operations shall comply with all non-interference rules of the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC"). Upon written notice from Lessor of apparent interference by
Lessee with Pre-existing Communications, Lessee shall have the responsibility to promptly terminate
such interference or demonstrate to Lessor with competent infonnation that the apparent interference in
,fact is not caused by Lessee's Facilities or operations. Lessor shall not, nor shall Lessor permit any other
tenant or occupant of any portion of Lessor's Real Property to, engage in any activities or operations
which interfere with the communications operations of Lessee described in Section 2, above. S\lch
interference with Lessee's communications operations shall be deemed a material breach by Lessor, and
Lessor shall have the responsibility to promptly terminate said interference. In the event any sllch
interference does not cease promptly, the parties acknowledge that continuing interference will cause
irreparable injury to Lessee, and therefore Lessee shall have the right to bring a COUI1 action to enjoin
such interference or to terminate this Lease Agreement immediately upon notice to Lessor. Lessor agrees
to incorporate equivalent provisions regarding non-interference with Pre-existing Communications into
any subsequent leases, licenses or rental agreements with other persons or entities for any portions of
Lessor's Real Property.
12. Taxes. Lessee shall pay personal property taxes assessed against Lessee's Facilities,
and Lessor shall pay when due all real property taxes and all other taxes, lees and assessments
attributable to the Premises and this Lease Agreement.
13. Termination. This Lease Agreement may be terminated by Lessee eftective
immediately without fulthcr liability by delivery of written notice thereof to Lessor prior to the
Commencement Date for any reason resulting from Lessee's Due Diligence, or if a title report obtained
by Lessee for Lessor's Real Property shows any defects of title or any liens or encumbrances which may
adversely (tffeet Lessee's use of the Premises for Lessee's intended use, or for any other or no reason.
This Lease may be terminated without further liability on thirty (30) days prior written notice as follows:
(i) by either party upon a default of any covenant, condition, 01' term hereof by the other party, which
default is not cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of default; (ii) by Lessee if it does
Page 4 of 17
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: J 500 Winter Spring::; Blvd, Winter Springs, Florida 32708
EXECUTION COPY 7.10.06
01/00/00 12100A P.005
'-.-.-
.'--
not obtain licenses, permits or other approvals necessary to the construction or operation of Lessee's
Facilities ("Permits"), is unable to obtain such Permits without conditions which are not standard or
typical for premises where wireless communications facilities are located or is unable to maintain such
licenses, permits or approvals despite reasonable efforts to do so; . (iii) by Lessee if Lessee is unable to
occupy or utilize the Premises due to ruling or directive of the FCC or other governmental or regulatory
agency, including, but not limited to, a take back of frequencies; or (iv) after the initial term by Lessee if
Lessee determines that the Premises are not appropriate for its operations for economic, environmental or
technological reasons, including, without limitation, signal strength or interference. Other than as stated
herein, Lessor shall not have the right to terminate, revoke or cancel this Lease Agreement.
14. Destruction of Premises. If the Premises or Lessor's Property is destroyed or
damaged so as in Lessee's judgment to hinder its effective use of Lessor's Property for the ongoing
operation of a wireless communications site, Lessee may elect to terminate d1is Lease Agreement without
further liabil ity of Lessee as of the date ofthe damage or destruction by so notifYing Lessor no more than
thirty (30) days following the date of damage or destruction. In such event, all rights and obligations of
the parties which do not survive the termination of this Lease Agreement shall cease as ofthe date of the
damage or destruction.
15. Condemnation. If a condemning authority takes all of Lessor's Real Property, or a
portion which in Lessee's reasonable opinion is sufficient to render the Premises unsuitable for Lessee's
ongoing operation of a wireless communications site, then this Lease Agreement shall terminate without
further liability of Lessee as of the date when possession is delivered to the condemning authority. In
any condemnation proceeding each party shall be entitled to make a claim against the condemning
authority for just compensation recoverable under applicable condemnation law. Sale of all or part of the
Premises to a purchaser with the power of eminent domain in the face of the exercise of its power of
eminent domain shall be treated as a taking by a condemning authority.
16. Insurance. Lessee shalf maintain the following insurance: (1) Commercial Generdl
Liability with limits of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, (2) Automobile Liability ,
with a combined single limit of One Million Dollars ($],000,000.00) per accident. (3) Workers
Compensation as required by law, and (4) Employer's Liability with limits of One Million Dollars
($ J ,000,000.00) per occurrence. Lessor, at Lessor's sole cost and expense, shall procure and maintain on
the Property, bodily injury and property damage insurance with a combined single limit of at least One
Million Dollars ($] ,000,000.00) per occurrence. Such insurance shall insure, on an occurrence basis,
against liability of Lessor, its employees and agents arising out of or in connection with Lessor's use,
occupancy and maintenance of the Property. Each party shall be named as an additional insured on the
other's policy. Each party shall provide to the other a certificate of insurance evidencing the coverage
required by this paragraph within thirty (30) days of the Commencement Date. Each party waives any
rights of recovery against the other for injury or loss due to hazards covered by their property insurance,
and each party shall require such insurance policies to contain a waiver of recovery against the other.
17. Assi1!nments or Transfers. Lessor may assign or transfer this Lease Agreement to any
person or entity without any requirement for prior approval by Lessee, provided that such assignee or
transferee agrees in writing to fulfill the duties and obligations of the Lessor in said Lease Agreement,
including the obligation to respect Lessee's rights to nondisturbance and quiet enjoyment ofthe Premises
during the remainder of the Term and any Renewal Term hereof. Lessee may assign or transfer this
Lease Agreement without prior approval by Lessor to any of Lessee's parmcrs, shareholders, members,
subsidiaries, or aftiliates, to any entity in which Lessee or any of its affiliates holds an ownership
Page 5 of 17
Site No.: ORD2 1 0
Site Address: 1500 Winter Springs Blvd. Winter Springs. Florida 32708
EXECUTION COpy 7.10.06
01/00/00 12;00A P.008
"---'
.......-.
interest, or to a person or entity acquiring by purchase, merger or operation of law a majority of the value
of the assets of Lessee. Lessee shall not assign or transfer this Lease Agreement to any other person or
entity without the prior written approval of Lessor, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned, or delayed. Not\vithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Lessee may
assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothccate or otherwise transfer without consent its interest in this Agreement to
any financing entity, or agent on behalf of any financing entity to whom Lessee (i) has obligations for
bOITowed money or in respect of guaranties thereot~ (ii) has obligations evidenced by loans, bonds,
debentures, notes or similar instruments, or (iii) has obligations under or with respect to letters of credit,
bankers acceptances and similar facilities or in respect of guaranties thereof.
18. Subleases. Lessee shall not have the right to sublease or otherwise allow any other
communications provider to occupy space on any antenna structure or equipment enclosure installed by
Lessee at the Premises.
19. Nondisturbance and Ouiet Enioyment: Subordination: Estoppel Certificates.
(a) So long as Lessee is not in default under this Lease Agreement, Lessee shall be
entitled to quiet enjoyment of the Premises during the term of this Lease Agreement or any Renewal
Term, and Lessee shall not be disturbed in its occupancy and use of the Premises.
(b) This Lease Agreement shall be subordinate to each and every deed of trust,
mortgage or other security instrument which may now or hereafter affect Lessor's Real Property and to
any renewals, extensions, supplements, amendments. modifications or replacements thereof. In
confinnation of such subordination, Lessee shall execute and deliver promptly any certificate of
subordination that Lessor may reasonably request, provided that such certificate acknowledges that this
Lease Agreement remains in full force and effect, recognizes Lessee's right to nondisturbance and quiet
enjoyment of the Premises so long as Lessee is not in default under this Lease Agreement, only contains
true and accurate statements and Lessee's liability shall be capped at the remaining rent under this Lease
Agreement. If any mortgagee or lender succeeds to Lessor's interest in Lessor's Real Property through a
foreclosure proceeding or by a deed in lieu of foreclosure, Lessee shall attorn to and recognize such
slIccessor as Lessor lindeI' this Lease Agreement.
(c) At any time upon not less than ten (10) days' prior written notice by Lessor,
Lessee shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to Lessor or any other party specified by Lessor a
statement in writing certi1)ring that this Lease Agreement is in full force and effect, if true, and the status
of any continuing defaults under this Lease Agreement.
20. Indemnifications.
(a) Lessee's Indemnitv. Lessee hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor and
Lessor's officers, directors. partners, shareholders, employees, agents. contractors or subcontractors
harmless from and against any and all losses. claims, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including
reasonable attorney's fees and costs) and injuries (including personal injuries or death) arising from or in
connection with Lessee's use, operation, maintenance or repair of Lessee's Facilities at the Premises or
access over Lessor's Real Property or Lessee's shared use of Lessor's easements for access to the
Premises, except those resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of Lessor or Lessor's officers,
directors, partners, shareholders, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors.
Page 6 of 17
Site No.: ORD21 0
Site Address: 1500 Winler Springs Blvd. Wimer Springs, Florida 32708
EXECUTION COpy 7. J 0.06
01/00/00 12:00A P.007
0,-<"
........,.
(b) Lessor's Indemnitv. Lessor hereby agrees to indemniry and hold Lessee and
Lessee's officers, directors, p~lrtners, shareholders, employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors
harmless from and against any and all losses, claims, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including
reasonable attorney's fees and costs) and injuries (including personal injuries or death) arising from or in
connection with Lessor's use, operation, maintenance or repair of improvements on Lessor's Real
Property, Lessor's shared use of easements for access to Lessor's Real Property, any violation of
governmental regulations relating to the Premises and any towers used by Lessee (including the lighting
or painting for aviation pathways), except those resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of
Lessee or Lessee's officers, directors, partners, shareholders, employees, agents, contractors or
subcontractors.
(c) Survival of Indemnitv Provisions. The indemnity provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration, cancellation or expiration of this Lease Agreement.
21. Hazardous Materials. Lessee agrees that it will not use, generate, store or dispose of
any Hazardous Material on, under, about or within the Lessor's Real Property in violation of any Jawor
regulation. Lessor represents, warrants and agrees (1) that neither Lessor nor, to Lessor's knowledge, any
third party has lIsed, generated, stored or disposed of, or permitted the use, generation, storage or
disposal of, any Hazardous Material (defined below) on, under, about or within Lessor's Real Property in
violation of any law or regulation, and (2) that Lessor will not, and will not permit any third party to use,
generate, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material on, under, about or within Lessor's Real Property in
violation of any law or regulation. Lessor and Lessee each agree to defend, indemni fy and hold harmle~s
the other and the other's partners, affiliates, agents and employees against any and all losses, liabilities,
claims andlor costs (including reasonable attomeys' fees and costs) arising from any breach of any
representation, warranty or agreement contained in this paragraph. As used in this paragraph,
"Hazardous Material" shall mean petroleum or any petroleum product, asbestos, any substance known by
the state in which Lessor's Real Property is located to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity, and/or
any substance, chemical or waste that is identified as hazardous, toxic or dangerous in any applicable
federal, state or local law or regulation. This paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
22. Notices and Deliveries. Any notice or demand required to be given herein shall be
made by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, confinned fa..'(, or reliable overnight
delivery service to the address of the respective parties set forth below:
Lessor:
Vertex Development, LLC
405 S. Dale Mabry Hwy., #244
Tampa, FL 33609-2820
Attn: Alan Ruiz
Telephone: 813 335-4768
Facsimile: 8 I 3 436-5674
Federal Taxpayer ID Number: 37-1494273
Lessee:
Royal Street Communications, LLC
7557 Rambler Road. Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75231
Attn: Property Manager
Telephone: 214-265-6509
Facsimile: 2 I 4-265-651 0
Copy to: Metro PCS
Attn: Leasing/Zoning Manager
511 Soutb US Hwy 301
Tampa, FL 336 I 9
813-830-5500
Page 7 of] 7
Site No.: ORD21 0
Site Address: 1500 Winler Springs Blvd. Winter Springs. Florida 32708
EXECUTION COpy 7.10.06
01/00/00 12:00A P.008
~,'
,-,",e"
Lessor or Lessee may from time to time designate any other address for notices or deliveries by ,.vritten
notice to the other party.
23. Miscellaneous.
(a) Severability. If any provision of the Lease Agreement is held to be invalid or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction with respect to any party,' the remainder of this Lease
Agreement or the application of such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is held invalid
or unenforceable shall not be affected, each provision of this Lease Agreement shall be valid and
enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law, and the parties shall negotiate in good faith to amend
this Lease Agreement to retain the economic effect of the invalid or unenforceable provisions.
(b) Bindinl! Effect. Each party represents and warrants that said party has full
power and authority, and the person(s) executing this Lease Agreement have full power and authority, to
execute and deliver this Lease Agreement, and that this Lease Agreement constitutes a valid and binding
obligation of each party, enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as enforceability may be
limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium or other laws affecting the
enforcement of creditor's rights generally and by general equitable principles (whether enforcement is
sought in proceedings in equity or at law). This Lease Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the
benefit of the successors and permitted assignees of the respective parties.
(c) Waivers. No provision of this Lease Agreement shall be deemed to have been
waived by a party unless the waiver is in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of
the waiver is attempted. No custom or practice which may develop between the parties in the
implementation or administration of the terms of this Lease Agreement shall be constnJed to waive or
lessen any right to insist upon strict performance of the terms of this Lease Agreement.
(d) Governinl! La,,,,'. This Lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State in which the Premises are located.
(c) Attornevs' Fees and Costs. The prevailing party in any legal claim arising
hereunder shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs.
(1) Survival. Terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement which by their sense
and context survive the termination, cancellation or expiration of this Lease Agreement will so survive.
(g) Memorandum of Lease. Lessor acknowledges that a Memorandum of
Agreement substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit C will be recorded by Lessee in the Official
Records of the County where the Property is located.
(h) Entire Ae:recment~ Amendments. This Lease Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement and understanding between the parties regarding Lessee's lease of the Premises and
supersedes all prior and contemporaneous offers, negotiations and other agreements conceming the
subject maner contained herein. There are no representations or understandings of any kind not set forth
herein. Any amendments to this Lease Agreement must be in writing and executed by duly authorized
representatives of both parties.
Page 8 of 17
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: 1500 Winter Springs Blvd. Winter Springs, Florida 32708
EXECUTION COPY 7.10.06
01/00/00 12:00A P.008
"--
....-"
(i) No Presumptions Reeardinl! Preparation of l...ease Aereement. The parties
acknowledge and agree that each of the parties has been represented by counselor has had full
opportunity to consult with cOllnsel and that each of the parties has participated in the negotiation and
drafting of this Lease Agreement. Accordingly it is the intention and agreement of the parties that the
language, terms and conditions of this Lease Agreement are not to be construed in any way against or in
favor of any party hereto by reason of the roles and responsibilities of the parties or their counsel in
connection with the preparation of this Lease Agreement.
ISIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
Site No.: ORD210
Site Address: 1500 Winter Springs Blvd. Winler Springs, Florida 32708
EXECUTION COpy 7.10.06 "
Page 9 of 17
'-'
01/00/00 12100A P.010
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Lease Agreement to be executed by their
duly authorized representatives on the dates set forth below and acknowledge that this Lease
Agreement is effective as of the date first above written.
Name:
Print:
Name:
Print:
WITNESSES:
~~CJ?r~JL
Print: y,,~' 'fjGIu.
Name: ~t~ }~~
P r i n t : k cJreu/ 0...ea Y]
Name:
LESSOR:
Vertex Development, LLC, .
a Delaware limited liability companY~
By: ~_.
(Signat~
Print Name:-1l1afl r-pr '. ;2.
Title: -1J (i flu.. j~ "j ~M.lyf
Date: ~.~lp
Print Name:
Title:
Date:
LESSEE:
(Signature)
Royal Street Communications, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability compa~y ~ .
By: ~'~..hj_-^ ./1111,
I (Sign re)
Print Name: L /.(') d w L?4.r /,' J (..,.
Title:1f7;JrMlL ~~ ~~.J. .I
Date: 91C;/(J~
Site No.: ORD2JO
Site Address: 1500 Winter Springs Blvd. Winter Springs, Florida 32708
EXECUTION COpy 7.10.06
Page 10 of J 7
@j
01/00/00 12:00A P.001
----
..'
SITE NAME: Vcrte:K "",..will>
SITE NUMBER:F["'()RLI69
COMMUNICATION TOWER SUBLEASE AGREEMENT
S COMMUNICA nON TOWER SUBLEASE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") dated and is effective as
~ 2007, is between Clearwire US LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
're" or "Tenant"), and Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Landlord").
For good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as fo11o\'\'5:
1. Premises.
1.1 Landlord owns a parcel of land ("Land") and a telecommunications tower ("Tower") located in
the City of Winter Springs, County of Seminole, State of Florida, commonly known as TuscawiUa CountIy Club
located at 1500 Winter Springs Boulevard, Winter Springs Florida (APN: 3l-20-31-5BB-OOOO-004A). The Tower
and the Land are collectively referred to herein as the "Property." The Land is more particularly described in
Exhibit A annexed hereto. Subject to the provisions of Paragrdph 2 below ("Effective. DatelDue Diligence
Period"), Landlord hereby leases to Clearwire and Clearwire leases from Landlord approximately Forty-Nine (49)
square feet of Land and all access and utility easements necessary or desirable therefore (collectively, "Premises")
as may be described generally in Exhibit B aIUlexed hereto.
1.2 The Premises are located on the Land leased to the Landlord under that certain prime lease
between Winter Springs Golf, LLC, as Prime Lessor, and Landlord, as Prime Lessee, dated as of January 6, 2006
("Prime Lease"), which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Agreement, if the Prime Lease requires Landlord (as the Prime Lessee thereunder) to
obtain Prime Lessor's prior written consent before subleasing or licensing space within Landlord's leased area,
then such consent shall be a condition precedent to this Agreement and to each of the parties' rights and
responsibilities set forth herein.
2. Effective DateIDue Diligence Period. This Agreement shall be effective on the date of :full
execution hereof ("Effective Date"). Beginning on the Effective Date and continuing until the Term
Commencement Date as defined in Paragraph 4 below ("Due Diligence Period"), Clearwire shall only be
permitted to enter the Property for the limited purpose of making appropriate engineering and boundary surveys,
inspections, and other reasonably necessary investigations and signal, topographical, geotechnical, structural and
environmental tests (collectively, "Investigations and Tests") that Clearwire may deem necessary or desirable to
determine the physical condition, feasibility and suitability of the Premises. In the event that Clearwire determines,
during the Due Diligence Period, that the Premises are not appropriate for Clearwire's intended use, or iffor any
other reason, or no reason, Clearwire decides not to commence its tenancy of the Premises, then Clea.rwire shall
have the right to tenninate this Agreement without penalty upon written notice to Landlord at any time during the
Due Diligence Period and prior to the Term Commencement Date. Landlord and Cleanvire expressly acknowledge
and agree that Clearwire' s access to the Property during this Due Diligence Period shall be solely for the limited
purpose of performing the Investigations and Tests, and that Clearwire shall not be considered an owner or
operator of any portion of the Property, and shall have no ownership or control of any portion of the Property
(except as expressly provided in this Paragraph 2), prior to the Term Commencement Date.
3. Use. The Premises ItUlJ' be used by Tenant-for any lawful activity in connection with the
provisions of wireless communications services, including without limitation, the transmission and the reception of
radio communication signals and the construction, maintenance and operation of related communications facilities.
Landlord agrees, at no expense to Landlord, to cooperate with Tenant, in making application for and obtaining all
licenses, permits and any and all other necessary approvals that may be required for Tenant's intended use of the
Premises.
4. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date Tenant begins construction
of the Tenant Facilities (as defined in Paragraph 6 below) or thirty (30) days following the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the Property, whichever occurs first ("Term Commencement Date") and shall terminate on the
tenth (101lt) anniversary of the Term Commencement Date ("Term") unless otherwise terminated as provided
01/00/00 1Z100A P.00Z
-
sn1INAME: V_T--.
sn1I~J6t
herein. This Agreement shall automatically be extended for four (4) successive five (5) year periods ("Renewal
Terms") on the same terms and conditions as set forth herein unless Tenant notifies Landlord of its in1eution DOt
to renew at least six (6) months prior to commencement of the succeeding Renewal Term.
Tenant shall be requiIed to use Laodlord's general contractor to complete their installation at their sole
cost and expense.
5. Rent W1tbin fifteen (IS) business days fullowing the Term Commencement Date,
Tenant shall pay. to Landlord as rent 1 ~
month ("Reut") to be paid annually in advance. Reot for any ftactional month at the beginning or at the end of the
Term or Renewal Term shall be prorated. Rent shaD be payable to Landlord at 40S South Dale MabIy Highway,
Suite 244, Tampa. Florida 33609; Attention: Alan Ruiz. All of Tenant's monetary obligations set furth in this
Agreement are conditioned upon Tenant's receipt of an accumte and executed W-9 Fmm from Landlord. Rent
shall be inaeased on each annive:rsaJy of the Commencement Date by an amount equal to )Crce:ol of the
Rent fur the previous year.
. .
Within thirty (30) days of the Commencement TlAtP. Tp.lllIJ\t shal1 DaY to Landlord a onc-time ~itaI
contribution fee in the amount of
6. ImDrovements.
6.1 Tenant has the right to construct:, maintain. install, repair, secure. remove and operate
on the Premises radio communications facilities. including but not limited to utility lines. tnro!m1i$Sion lines. an ice
bridge(s), eleclrODic equipment. transmitting and receiving antennas. antp.DnM and equipment, a powec generator
and genemtor pad. and supporting equipment and strucIDres therefore ("Teaut FaciIitiesj. In. connection
therewith. Tenant has the right to do all wodc necessmy to prepare and maintain the Premises for Tenant's
communications operations and to instaII utiIi1y lines and transmission lines connecting antenNlIl to transmitters
and receivers. All of Tenant's construction and installation wmk shall be perfuimed at Tenant's sole cost and
expense and in a good and worlcmanli1re 1D3DIIeJ". Title to the Tenant Facilities and any equipmeot placed on the
Premises by Tenant shall be held by Tenant or its lenders or assigns and are not fixtuJes. Tenant has the right to
reJDO\Ie the Tenant Facilities at its sole e.xpeose on or befoIc the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement, and Tenant shall repair any damage to the Premises caused by such remowl. Upon the expiJation or
earlier termination of this Agn:emeot. Tenant shaD remove its Tenant F~ including but DOt limited to
antenna structme(s), building (s) (except footings), fixtures and all personal property and otherwise restote the
Premises to its original condition, reasonable wear and tear and casualty excepted..
7. Access and Utilities.
7.1 Landlord shaD provide Tenant, Tenant's employees. agents, contractors. subcontmctors
aDd assigns with access to the Premises twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. at no charge to
Tenant Landlord grants to Tenant, and Tenant's agents. employees and CODtracto.Is, a non-exc1usive right and
easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress across the Property, and such right and ~ may be
descn"bed geneJ3lly in Exhibit B.
7.2 Landlord shall m:rinfain all access roadways from the nearest public roadway to the
Premises in a manner sufficient to allow pedestrian and vehiaJlar aa:ess at all times undec normal weather
. conditions. LandloId shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing such roadways. at its sole expense, except
for any damage caused by Tenant's use of such roadways.
7.3 TeDaDt shall have its own meter installed and be responsible for its own utility bills.
8. Interference. Tenant sball operate the Tenant Facilities in compliance with all Fedem1
Communications Commission ("FCC") requirements including those prohibiting inteJfereoce to communications
facilities of Landlord or other lessees or liceosees of the Property, provided that the ~nmion and operation of
any such facilities predate the installation of the Tenant Facilities. Subsequent to the installation of the. .Tenant
Facilities, Landlord will not, and will not permit its lessees or liceoseesto, install new equipment 00. or make any
alterations to the Property or property contiguous thereto owned or controlled by Landlord. if such modifications
01/00/00 12:00A P.008
m......
sm N.,\MI!: VertelI. T......wiIIa
SlTIi NUMIII!ItFL-ORLJ69
are likely to cause interference with Tenant's operations. In the event interference occurs, Landlord agrees to use
best efforts to eliminate such interference in a reasonable time period. Landlord's failure to comply with this
paragraph shall be a material breach of this Agreement
9. Taxes. Tenant shall pay personal property taxes assessed against the Tenant Facilities and
Landlord shall pay when due, all real property taxes and all other taxes, fees and assessments attributable to the
Premises or this Agreement.
10. Termination.
10.1 This Agreement may be terminated without further liability on thirty (30) da}'S prior
"written notice as follows: (i) by eitber party upon a default of any covenant or term hereof by the other party,
which default is not cured within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice of default, except that this Acreem~nt
shall not be terminated if the default C"dDDot reasonably be cured \"\ithin such sixty (60) day period and the
defaulting party has commenced to cure the default within such sixty (60) day period and diligently pursues the
cure to completion; provided that the grace period for any monetary default is ten (10) days from receipt afwritten
notice. This Agreement may be terminated by Tenant without further liability for any reason or for DO reason,
provided Tenant delivers written notice of termination to Landlord prior to the Commencement Date.
10.2 After the initial tenn, this Agreement may also be tenninated by Tenant without further
liability on sixty (60) days prior written notice if Tenant is unable to reasonably obtain or maintain any certificate,
license, pennit, authority or approval from any governmental authority, thus, restricting Tenant from installfng,
removing, replacing, maintaining or operating the Tenant Facilities or using the Premises in the manner intended
by Tenant.
11. Destruction or Condemnation. If the Premises or Tenant Facilities are damaged, destroyed,
condemned or transferred in lieu of condemnation, Tenant may elect to tenninate this Agreement as of the date of
the damage, destruction, condemnation or trimsfer in lieu of condemnation by giving notice to Landlord no more
than forty-five (45) days following the date of such damage, destruction, condemnation or transfer in lieu of
condemnation. If Tenant chooses not to terminate this Agreement, Rent shall be reduced or abated in proportion to
the actual reduction or abatement of use of the Premises.
12. Insurance: Subroeation: and Indemnitv.
12.1 Tenant shall provide Commercial General Liability Insurance in an aggregate amount of
One Million and No/loo Dollars ($1,000,000.00). Tenant may satisfY this requirement by obtaining the
appropriate endorsement to any master policy of liability insurnnce Tenant may maintain.
12.2 Landlord and Tenant hereby mutually release each other (and their successors or
assigns) from liability and waive all right of recovery against the other for any loss or damage covered by their
respective first-party property insurance policies for all perils insured thereunder. In the event of such insured loss,
neither party's insurance company sball have a subrogated claim against the other.
12.3 Landlord and Tenant shall each indenmify, defend and hold the other hannless from
and against all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' and
consultants' fees, costs and expenses) (collectively "Losses") arising from the indemni.f)ring party's breach of any
teon or condition of this Agreement or from the negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party or its
agents, employees or contractors in or about the Property. The duties described in this Paragraph 12.3 shall apply
as of the Effective Date of this Agreement and survive the termination of this Agreement.
13. Assiroment. This Agreement may be sold, assigned or transferred by the Tenant without any
approval or consent of the Landlord to Tenant's lender(s) pursuant to a financing agreement, or to the Tenant's
principal, affiliates, subsidiaries of its principal; to any entity which acquires all or substantially all of Tenant's
assets in the market defined by the Federal Communications Commission in which the Property is located by
01/00/00 1Z:00A P.004
---
SITE NAME: Vertex ThscaoviDa
SITE NUMBER:FL-ORL16lI
reason of a merger, acquisition or other business reorganization. As to other parties, this Agreement may not be
sold. assigned or transfened without the written consent of the Tenant, which such consent \\oiD not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed. Tenant may sublet the Premises within its sole discretion, upon notice to
Landlord. Any sublease that is entered into by Tenant shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement and
shall be binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs and legal representatives of the respective parties hereto.
14. Title and Quiet Eniovrnent.
14.1 Landlord represents and warrants that (i) it has full right, power, and authority to
execute this Agreement, (ii) Tenant may peacefully and quietly enjoy the Premises and such access thereto,
provided that Tenant is not in default hereunder after notice and expiration of all cure periods, (Hi) it has obtained .
all necessaIY approvals and consents, and has taken all necessary action to enable Landlord to enter into this'
Agreement and allow Tenant to install and operate the Facility on the Premises, including without limitation,
approvals and consents as may be necessaIY from other tenants, licensees and occupants of Landlord's Property,
and (iv) the Property and access rights are free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and restrictions except those of
record as of the Effective Date.
14.2 Tenant has the right to obtain a title report or commitment for a leasehold title policy
from a title insurance company of its choice.
15. En~ironmental. As of the Effective Date of this Agreement (1) Tenant hereby represents and
wanants that it shall not use. generate, handle, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material in. on, under, upon or
affecting the Property in violation of any applicable law or regulation, and (2) Landlord hereby represents and
wanants that (i) it has no knowledge of the presence of any Hazardous Material located in, on, under, upon or
affecting the Property in violation of any applicable law or regulation; (ii) no notice has been received by or on
behalf of Landlord from any governmental entity or any person or entity claiming any violation of any applicable
environmental law or regulation in, on, under, upon or affecting the Property; and (ill) it will not permit itself or
any third party to use, generate, handle, store or dispose of any Hazardous Material in, on, under, upon, or
affecting the Property in violation of any applicable law or regulation. Without limiting Paragraph 12.3, Landlord
and Tenant shall each indemnify, defend and hold the other harmless from and against all Losses (specifically
including, without limitation, attorneys', engineers', consultants' and experts' fees, costs and expenses) arising
from (i) any breach of any representation or warranty made in this Paragraph 15 by such party; andlor (ii)
environmental conditions or noncompliance with any applicable law or regulation that result, in the case of
Tenant, from operations in or about the Property by Tenant or Tenant's agents, employees or contractors, and in
the case of Landlord,. from the ownership or control of, or operations in or about, the Property by Landlord or
Landlord's predecessors in interest, and their respective agents, employees, contractors, tenants, guests or other
parties. The provisions of this Paragraph 15 shall apply as of the Effective Date of this Agreement and survive
termination of this Agreement. "Hazardous Material" means any solid, gaseous or liquid wastes (including
hazardous wastes), regulated substances, pollutants or contaminants or terms of similar import, as such tenDs are
defined in any applicable environmental law or regulation, and shall include, without limitation, any petroleum or
petroleum products or by-products, flanunabJe explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos in any fonn,
polychlorinated biphenyls and any other substance or material which constitutes a threat to health, safety, property
or the environment or which has been or is in the future determined by any governmental entity to be prohibited,
limited or regulated by any applicable environmental law or regulation.
16.
Subordination of Landlord's Lien. Landlord hereby subordinates any and all lien rights it may have, statutory or
otherwise concerning the Tenant Facilities or any portion thereof which shall be deemed personal property for the
purposes of this Agreement, whether or not the same is deemed real or personal property under applicable la",'5,
and Landlord gives Tenant and Mortgagees the right to remove all or any portion of the same from time to time,
whether before or after a default under this Agreement, in Tenant's andlor Mortgagee's sole discretion and without
Landlord's consent.
17. Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications hereunder shall be in writing
and shall be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed, certified mail, return receipt requested. or sent by for
next-business-day delivery by a nationally recognized overnight carrier to the following addresses:
01/00/00 12100A P.005
.-
sm:: NAME: Val... Tuoc:owiIIo
SITE l'o'\JMBEJl:FL-ORLI69
If to Tenant, to: With a copy to: If to Landlord, to:
Clearwire US LLC Clearwire US LLC Verte.x Development, LLC
Attn: Site Leasing Attention: Legal Department Attention: Alan Ruiz
4400 Carillon Point 4400 Carillon Point 405 S. Dale Mabry Highway
Kirkland, WA 98033 Kirlcland, W A 98033 Suite 244
Telephone: 425-216-7600 Telephone: 425-216-7600 Tampa, Florida 33609
Fax: 425-216-7900 Fax: 425-216-7900 TeleDhone: (813)335-4768
Landlord or Tenant may from time to time designate any other address for tbispurpose by written notice to the
other party. AU notices hereunder shall be deemed received upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery.
18. Marking and Lighting. Landlord shall be responsible for compliance with all marking and
lighting requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and the FCC. Should Tenant be cited
because the Property is not in compliance and should Landlord fail to cure the conditions of noncompliance,
Tenant may proceed to cure the conditions of noncompliance at Landlord's expense, which amounts may be
deducted from (and offset against) the Rent and any other charges or amounts due, or coming due, to Landlord.
19. Miscellaneous.
19.1 If Tenant is to pay Rent to a payee other than the Landlord, Landlord shall notify Tenant
in advance in writing of the payee's name and address.
19.2 The substantially prevailing party in any legal claim arising hereunder shall be entitled
to its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, including appeals, ifany.
19.3 If any provision of the Agreement is invalid or unenforceable with respect to any party,
the remainder of this Agreement or the application of such provision to persons other than those as to whom it is
held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected and each provision of this Agreement shall be valid and
enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law.
19.4 Terms and conditions of this Agreement which by their sense and context survive the
termination, cancellation or expiration of this Agreement will 50 survive.
19.5 This Agreement shall be governed under law of the State in which the Premises are
located, and be binding on and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assignees of the respective
parties.
19.6 A Memorandum of Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C may be recorded
by Tenant confinning the (i) effectiveness of this agreement, (ii) expiration date of the Term, (ill) the duration of
any Renewal Terms, and/or other reasonable terms consistent with this Agreement.
19.7 All Exhibits referred herein are incorporated herein for all purposes.
19.8 Landlord shall make a diligent and good faith effort to obtain a NondistUIbance
Agreement for the benefit of Tenant from each lender with a security interest recorded upon the title to the Site at
the time of execution of this Agreement
19.9 This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and supersedes all
understandings, offers, negotiations and other leases concerning the subject matter contained herein. There are no
representations or understandings of any kind not set forth herein. Any amendments, modifications or waivers of
any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement must be in writing and executed by both parties.
19.10 Landlord agrees not to disclose, without the written consent of Tenant, any of the terms
of this Agreement or any other written agreement between the parties relating to the privileges granted herein,
except as required by governmental authority, in which case Landlord shall inform Tenant prior to diVulging such
information.
01/00/00 12:00A P.006
SlTE NAME: Vert"" 'I\IocowiJI&
SITE NUMBER:FL-ORl.I611
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this Agreement effective upon the date of
execution by all parties.
LANDLORD:
Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company
By:
~~h
Alan Ruiz
Name:
Title:
Manager
Date:
(p /1 t-/b7
I I
3e;~ /4'14;;27.3
Tax 1.D.:
TENANT:
Name
,John A Storch
V'~ ~"res;dent - Network Deployment
Print Name:
Clearwire US LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
By:
~~
Title:
Date:
nr. '2<-01
01/00/00 12:00A P.007
..-
. .~:.~
8m NA.>,u!: Vat" ThscowilIa
SI'I'E NUMBEIl:FL-ORLI69
Vertex Developmen~ LLC
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF mLLSBOROUGH )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Alan Ruiz is lhe person who appeared before me,
and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oalh stated that he was authorized to execute lhe
instrwnent and acknowledged it as the Manager of Vertex Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, to be the free and volun f such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrwnenl
Dated: b{p
Notary Public
Print Name A . ochran
My commission expires Julv 1. 2009
iI:.I:.~":"':~'\. AMY A. COCHRAN
t. ~1 CommiSSlo."" DD.t 17630
~ W MV CommIssIon ElCpirn
~,%l:I\' July 01. 2009
(Use this space for notary stamp/seal)
STATE OF WASlDNGTON
)
) ss.
).
COUNTY OF KING
I certiJY that I know or have satisfactory evidence that John A Storch is the person who appeared before
me, and said person acknowledged that be signed this instrument, on oath stated that be was aulhorized to execute
the instrument and acknowledged it as the VP Network Deployment of Clearwire US LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in lhe
instrument
Dated:
Notary Public
Print Name
My commission expires
,...."':'''--".\~ ~l~. ~ ~f
........ N""~S.ll II,
..;:-..... ..,:,'::,\.; ~"""'~\~~'1'" r. 1'1
~:~/;.::;p:',,:-'n ..:~~~'};:::&
- ..\.~ =...~.:. '" :......1-) ~a:s:~ ~
[{: :,.,,,.:' '6J
~I ~-1"~'1 9'i'9.\)9#..:;.~:
II l'. t;~ . ...... ,v-
i,!$' \I\\\""''''y...~';;::-
"/11 Of: WAS "........
11\\\\\\\\"
(Use this space for notary stamplseal)
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached documents were presented into the
Record by Ms. Mary D. Solik, Esquire, during
the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item
"500.1" at the August 20, 2007 City
Commission Special Meeting.
2
July 11, 2007
City of Winter Springs
Community Development
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Reference: Vertex Development Communication Site
1500 Winter Springs Blvd.
Gentlemen:
Sprint Nextel supports the above referenced application of Vertex Development to
construct a communication site to service the Tuscawilla area. Sprint Nextel is
interested in the collocating on the site once the site is constructed. The site will
provide needed wireless service to the Sprint Nextel customers in the surrounding area.
sincerelY,. !
~~
:;i~arper
Market Manger, Central Florida
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached documents were presented into the
Record by Ms. Mary D. Solik, Esquire, during
the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item
"500.1" at the August 20, 2007 City
Commission Special Meeting.
2
01/00/00 12:00A P.001
veri
nwireless
May 23, 2007
To: Amy Cochran
Vertex Development, LLC
405 South Dale Mabry Highway,
#244
Tampa, FL 33609-2820
Verizon Wireless
777 Yamato Road
Suite 600
Boca Raton. FL 33431
Re: Proposed Tower Collocation, Tuscawilla Site ID# 80321 at Winter Springs, FL.
Dear Amy:
Thank you for informing Verizon Wireless of the proposed tower that Vertex Development is
planning to build at 1500 Winter Springs Blvd., Winter Springs Florida 32708. Verizon Wireless
has determined that it has a need for additional coverage and/or capacity that could be served by
a collocation on the proposed communications tower. I will be contacting you to discuss your
proposed site in more detail and to obtain periodic updates as to your progress to obtain final
zoning approval.
Verizon Wireless will consider entering into a collocation agreement with Vertex Development,
LLC to collocate on the proposed tower to the extent that Vertex Development, LLC obtains all
necessary governmental approvals, and assuming that the parties can come to terms on a
collocation agreement with terms and conditions acceptable to Verizon Wireless.
This letter is not a commitment by Verizon Wireless to enter into a collocation agreement, and
this letter should not be relied upon by Vertex Development, LLC in that regard. A binding
agreement for the lease of any tower space from Vertex Development, LLC shall not exist until a
final, definitive, and fully negotiated collocation agreement has been fully executed and
delivered. Further, it is understood by all parties that Verizon Wireless reserves the right to
simultaneously negotiate with other landlords for sites in the immediate geographical area in
which the above described proposed communications tower is to be located, and there is no
assurance whatsoever that Verizon Wireless will conclude a deal for the above described
proposed communications tower unless and until a collocation agreement is fully executed and
delivered.
Cordially,
/,/'-) ,'" {J;rr-I--"v ,';> >2-,
, I ,. I ~.I
.......'f',:~..-J.,.~" -()!'y,,-,u;, I .' '
/''' "'-;/, i'...........1 "--'
/' //
',/Josephine Conde, Real Estate and Construction Manager
cc: Jason Hillenbrand, Project Manager
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached document was presented into the
Record by Ms. Mary D. Solik, Esquire, during
the discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item
"500.1" at the August 20, 2007 City
Commission Special Meeting.
3
Rug 07 07 12:37p
407 971 4354
p. 1
Jacquelyn Lynn Clement
1388 Augusta National Blvd.
\"limer Springs, FL 32703
407.366.3473
J .1cktc LClcmcm'fl;i.lOJ. COlli
www.jncc]lIcll.llll.lm. cOIn
August 7, 2007
Mayor John F. Bush
21 Tarpon Circle
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Dear Mayor Bush:
I understand that the issue of a cell tower in TuscawilIa will be on the City Commission agenda for
Monday, August 13.
Unfortunately. I will be unable to attend that meeting to speak in person, so [ am writing to you to express
my unqualified support ofbuilding a cell tower on the propel1y of the TuscawilIa Country Club.
I live in Country Club Village, which isjust west ofthe proposed location for the cell tower. I am active
in illY community and am committed to preserving the quality of life we enjoy and protecting our
property values. [ believe having a cell tower nearby will be of benefit to the entire community of
Tuscawilla.
At thc very best, the cell service in our neighborhood is sporadic-usually it is impossible to have a
convcrsation by cell phone inside our homes and difficult even outside. "Can you hear me now?" is not
just an advertising slogan for us, it's the primary content of most of our cell phone calls.
This is a potentially dangerous situation. Last year during a pal1icularly heavy rainstorm, I was stranded
in my car in my own neighborhood with water rising over the hood and reaching the windows-and
unable to call for assistance because my cell phone couldn't get a signal. Fortunately, the rain slacked off
and the drainage caught up with the water flmv, so [ wasn't injured (my car, however, was totaled), but it
was a very frightening experience. And when the landlines were down after the 2004 parade of
hurricanes, it would have been nice (an understatement) to have had cell service. Beyond emergencies, [
could go on for pages about the inconvenience we routinely experience because of the poor cell service in
Tuscawilla.
Decent ccll service will enhance propclty values and makc our neighborhood more attractive ro potential
new residents, as well as safer and more convenient to those of LIS already here. We already have power
line poles rUllning through Tuscawilla; one more pole that will give us a strong cellular signal will bc
barely noticeable, even if it will be taller.
The fastest and most economical way to achieve good cell service for the citizens ofTuscawilla is to
approve the request to bu i Id a tower on the country club' s property. I urge you to avoid further delay and
approve this request at your meeting on August 13.
Sincerely.
L::1j:c~
~
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached documents were presented for the
Record by Mr. Anthony A. Garganese during the
discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item
"500.1" at the August 20, 2007 City
Commission Special Meeting.
10
...
EXHIBIT
lWy
BROWN, GARGANESE, WEISS & D'AGRESTA, P.A.
Attorn~ys at Law
Debra S. Babb-Nutcher"
Joseph E. Blitch
Usher L. Brown"
Suzanne D'AgrestaD
Anthony A. GarganeseU
J'w. Taylor
Jeffrey S. Weiss
Offices in Orlando, Kissimmee, Cocoa,
Ft. Lauderdale & Tampa
Vivian P. Cocotas
Scott J. Dornstein
Mitchell B. Haller
Katherine W . Latorre
Terri E. Oster
Amy J. Pitsch
"Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer
oBoard Certified City. County & Local Government Law
+Board Certified Appellate Practice
Erin J. O'Leary+
Catherine D. ReischmannD
William E. Reischmann, Jr.
Of Counsel
Re: Final Order and Amended Settlement Agreement No.1,
dated April 21, 1994, as Amended ("Settlement Agreement")
Dear Mayor and City Commission:
This letter addresses the Settlement Agreement that affects the Tuscawilla Country Club
property ("Property"). The City of Winter Springs and the owners of the Property are parties to the
Settlement Agreement. In general, the Settlement Agreement expressly provides for the types ofland
uses that are allowed on the Property and is recorded in the Official Public Records of Seminole
County as a binding obligation against the Property.
At this time, Vertex Development ("Vertex"), through an apparent lease with the owners of
the Property, seeks a conditional use permit to construct a 150 foot cell tower on the Property.
During the conditional use hearing before the City Commission on August 13, 2007, Vertex argued
that the Settlement Agreement does not apply to their conditional use application, or alternatively,
if the Settlement Agreement does apply, it does not prohibit a cell tower on the Property.
For the reasons explained below, it is my view that the Settlement Agreement applies in this
instance. Further, if the City Commission desires to approve the conditional use, the Settlement
Agreement must be amended. Any amendment will need to be negotiated between the owners ofthe
Property and the City of Winter Springs, given that the. contractual rights belong to these two parties
and not Vertex. I
I
The Settlement Agreement appears to be a de1nitive agreement regarding the future use of
the Property. Relevant here, the Settlement Agreemt~~ provides:
I
1. For purposes of determining which uses are pertnitted on the Property, the Property is divided
into two categories ofproperty; "Development Property" and "Golf Property."
I
1
,
225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660. P.O. Box 873. Orlando, Florida 32802-2873
Orlando (407) 425-9566 Fax (407) 425-9596. Kissimmee (321) 402-01 4. Cocoa (866) 425-9566. Ft. Lauderdale (954) 670-1979
Website: www.orlandolaw.net.Emal:firm@orlandolaw.net
,,,-,
Mayor & City Commission
August 20, 2007
Page 2
2. With respect to Development Property, the Settlement Agreement provides that "[s]ubject
to Further Approvals, the Development Propyrty shaD hereafter be developed with sixty-
nine (69) single-family, detached residences on lots as generally depicted on the
I
Conceptual Plans and the new plan for me Tuscawilla PUD which incorporates the
Conceptual Plans into the Current Plan (the "Proposed Plan") attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit "F." See page 4 (Emphasis added).
3. Conceptual Plans for eight (S) parcels are att~ched to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit
"E." Parcel S will be impacted by Vertex's celt tower proposal, if approved. ParcelS is oddly
shaped and is generally the wooded area located around the driving range and adjacent to the
southern boundary of the Ninth fairway, and it also runs from Winter Springs Boulevard
adjacent to the Arrowhead Subdivision and the Ninth green.
3. Relevant to the Golf Property, "[t]he Golf Property shaD be used for the purposes of
operation of a country club, golf course, tennis club, club house/restaurant, golf and
tennis teaching and training, facility/schoollacademy (with no on-site residence), storm
water drainage retention and detention for the Development Property, effluent
disposal and related uses." See page 6. Golf course improvements may be relocated to
accommodate the development ofthe Conceptual Plans "in harmony with the golf course."
See page 4 (Emphasis added).
4. The owner of the Property is required "to secure the Further Approvals and that it must
comply with the applicable CITY Codes for approval of preliminary and final engineering
plans and plats. The parties also agreed that the owner of the Property "may complete at its
discretion and on its schedule, the preliminary and final engineering for the respective Parcels
and shall submit such preliminary and final engineering plans and plats to the City for
applicable review and approvals (it being understood that engineering plans and plats may be
submitted for individual or multiple parcels)." See page 5.
Subsequent to the Settlement Agreement being executed and recorded, the parties entered
into two amendments to the Settlement Agreement.' 'Despite Vertex's attorney's assertions at the
conditional use hearing2, these amendments did not specifically change or amend the land uses that
are allowed on the Property per the original Settlement Agreement. As the City Commission minutes
of May S, 1995 and July 24, 1995 reflect, the Second Amendment to the Settlement Agreement,
dated September 30, 1996 ("Second Amendment"), did not even mention modifYing the Property
owner's original intent to construct single family, detached residences on the Development Property.
I The Second Amendment amends part ofthe First Amendment.
2 At the Commission meeting, the attorney appeared to be arguing that the language in the
Second Amendment "FCCI shaD be permitted to develop not more than nineteen (19) lots on
Parcel 7 and forty-six (46) lots on ParcelS" amended ~he language in the Settlement Agreement
which provides that the Development Property shall h~reafter be developed with sixty-nine (69)
single- family, detached residences.
.
Mayor & City Commission
August 20, 2007
Page 3
For the most part, the Second Amendment merely addressed several engineering issues that the owner
was facing trying to finalize his development plans for Parcel 7 and 8 under the Settlement
Agreement. In particular, the Second Amendment primarily addressed the size of lots and the
maximum number of residential lots that can be devt1loped on the Development Property. A copy
ofthe City Commission minutes of May 8, 1995 and July 24, 1995, including verbatim transcripts,
are attached to this letter.
Therefore, based on my review of the documents in question and the City Commission
minutes referenced above, it is my opinion that the two amendments to the Settlement Agreement in
no way changed the requirement that the Development Property "shall hereafter be developed with
sixty-nine (69) single-family, detached residences."
Consequently, the Settlement Agreement, as amended, does not expressly permit cell towers
on Development Property or GolfProperty. A modification ofthe Settlement Agreement is required
ifthe City Commission desires to approve Vertex's cell tower application.
Anthony A. Garganese
City Attorney
aag/
enclosures
~ ,
REGULAR ~EETING
CITY COMMISSION
MAY 8, 1995
The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs was called to order by
Mayor John F. Bush at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Mayor John F. Bush, present
Deputy Mayor John Langellotti, present
City Manager John Govoruhk, present
City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present
COMMISSIONERS:
Larry Conniff, present
John Ferring, present
Cindy Gennell, absent
David McLeod, present
Approval of Minutes of April 24. 1995:
Mayor Bush asked ifthere were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting
of April 24, 1995. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of
April 24, 1995. Minutes stand approved as presented.
PUBLIC INPUT:
There was no public input.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Approva1lDisapproval of Letter to Seminole County on Proposed Tuscawilla Bypass.
2. NPDES Part 2 Interlocal Agreement with Seminole County.
3. Request from Morrison Homes:
Mayor Bush asked if any Commissioner wishes to have any item pulled from the consent agenda.
Being none, Mayor Bush asked for a motion to approve the consent agenda.
Motion was made by Commissioner F erring to approve the items on the consent agenda. Seconded
by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner
Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes.
Commissioner Ferring said regarding the issue of the School Board and a Resolution regarding what
the School Board is intending doing, or a letter to the School Board telling them we (the
Commission) are totally opposed to taking Option "G", which takes a good percentage ofthe children
out of Winter Springs and sends them elsewhere.
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that he will write a Resolution which he will bring up under his seat
so the Commission can take action and then have the City Clerk type and have the Mayor sign.
Commissioner Ferring asked if the rest of the Commission agrees to recommend Option "F" to the
School Board. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend Option "F" to the School
Board.
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 2
GENERAL AGENDA:
Glen Eagle Stonnwater Agreement - Dedication of Drainage and Retention Easement:
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated there had been an issue regarding drainage within Glen Eagle and
there had been a dispute involving the Homeowners Association; the developer(s) and the owner of
the golf course. In an effort to resolve this, we met and subsequent to meeting, documents have been
drafted back and forth, Mr. Lockcuff, Utility Director, has review those documents and from an
operational standpoint Mr. Lockcuffis comfortable with the documents and they facilitate what he
needs to have in order to continue to properly operate. Attorney Kruppenbacher said we bring to you
tonight is a recommendation to approve the documents subject to the deletion in the document titled
"Dedication Agreement" paragraph 5. There is a provision where the City would release parties and
I would like you to approve these documents deleting the release of any parties by the City. You will
be authorizing the Mayor to execute those documents in final fonn as soon as Mr. Lockcuff says
these are the final exhibits and the originals in front of you less that release.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the Glen Eagle Stonnwater Agreement
Dedication of Drainage and Retention Easement with the deletion of paragraph 5 in the Dedication
Agreement (on page 3). Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner
Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes.
Second Reading and Public Hearing Ord. 582 - Amending Fiscal Year Budget 1994-1995:
Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to have the City Attorney read all Ordinances by title
only. Seconded by Commissioner Langel1otti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye;
Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 582 by title only, "Ord. 582, An Ordinance of the City of Winter
Springs, Florida, amending the 1994-1995 fiscal year budget which was adopted pursuant to Ord. 566
of the City repealing Ordinances in conflict herewith providing for severability, conflict and effective
date".
Mayor Bush closed the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Mayor Bush asked if anyone
wished to comment on Ord. 582. There were no comments on Ord. 582. Mayor Bush closed the
Public Hearing and reconvened the regular meeting.
Commissioner Ferring asked Harry Martin, Finance Director, about the increase in the Capitol
Improvements and about the interest revenues and miscellaneous revenues increase. Kip LockcufT,
Utility Director said the increase in the Capitol Improvements was for Capitol Projector a new
digester east; bids came in at $682,000 so we increased that to $700,000. Discussion. Mr. Martin
then stated most of the increase shown in the interest was that we did a float purchase of the debt
service reserve for the Utility and we gained nearly $100,000 which was considered interest income.
Commissioner Ferring then asked about the other $46,000. Mr. Lockcuff stated that is the
~eimbursement for the money spent to on the contaminated wells on Jackson Circle to put the line
m.
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 3
Commissioner Ferring asked if the budget figures took into account the increases that we would be
giving to the individual members ofthe City. Mr. Martin said when the budget was approved a year
ago we did not have that in there, that was adjusted in this budget. Discussion. Commissioner
Ferring asked what was the total reserves. Mr. Martin said a little over $900,000.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve Ord. 582, Amending the Fiscal Year Budget
1994-1995. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod:
aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Manager Govoruhk mentioned that there will be one more budget revision at the end of this fiscal
year.
First Reading ofOrd. 584, adopting the map and description of the recommended districts filed by
Districting Commission. etc.:
Gene Lein, Chainnan of the Districting Commission, stated that the Districting Commission has just
completed four meetings and one public hearing and he is present to turn over the final figures for the
Commission's acceptance. The population between April 1992 and January 1995: District 1 was
issued 113 single family building permits for a population increase of 322; District 2 was issued 222
single family building permits for a population increase of627; District 3 was issued 400 single family
building permits for a population increase of 1,139; District 4 was issued 127 single family, 41 multi-
family building permits for a population increase of 441; district 5 was issued 43 single family, 1
mobile home building permits for a population increase of 125. The changes were made in District
5, North Orlando Sec. 8, all the homes south of Pearl Street have been moved into District 1; Oak
Forest Unit 8 - moved from District 2 to District 5; the remainder of Arbor Glen, Bear Creek Estates,
Carrington Woods and Davenport Glen have moved from District 3 into District 2. The Districts
have a net increase as follows: District 1 - 459 total population; District 2 - 738 total population;
District 3 - 672 total population; District 4 - 441 total population and District 5 - 344 total
population; for a total increase of population from April 1992 to January 1995 of 2,654 for an 11 %
City increase. The criteria for redrawing the map is that the Districts cannot exceed one percent of
population between each other. District 1 total population 5,172 for 19.9%; District 2 total
population 5,324 for 20.4%; District 3 total population 5,290 for 20.3%; district 4 total population
5,184 for 19.9%; District 5 total population 5,084 for 19.5%. As of January 1995 the total
population for the City of Winter Springs is 26,054.
Mr. Lein thanked the members of the Commission: KatWeen Roy, Skip Drumheller, Bruce Cox, Ken
Haines, Vern Rozelle and Lee Ferguson.
Commissioner Ferring thanked Mr. Lein and the Districting Commission for the work they have done.
Commissioner Ferring then stated that the Districting is basically for geographies where a
Commissioner may live to run for office within a specified district; however, that particular Commissioner represents the entire City, there are 5 single member districts. A Commissioner gets
elected from the district they live in but they represent the entire City of Winter Springs.
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 4
Commissioner Conniff arrived at 7:58 p.m.
Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 584 by title only IIAn Ord. of the City of Winter Springs, Florida,
adopting the map and description of the recommended district filed with the City by the Districting
Commission pursuant to Ord. 524, providing for conflict and severability".
Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve Ord. 584, first reading. Seconded by
Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner McLeod:
aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit 2 - Approval/Disapproval, acceptance of improvements for City
Maintenance (subdivision located to the south of Winter Springs Boulevard and west of the Country
Club:
Donald LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist, stated that this is for the City to accept the following
approvements in Arrowhead Unit 2, which is located south ofWmter Springs Blvd. and west ofthe
Country Club. It is a private subdivision but there are four items that we are accepting for City
maintenance. The water lines, the sanitary lines, the reuse lines and the sidewalk along Winter
Springs Blvd. You have the comments from the City Engineer, the Fire Chief, the Police Chief the
Public WorkslUtility Director; offering no objection. In lieu of a maintenance bond, 10%
maintenance bond for these particular items, Mr. Mikes already had escrowed over $26,000
guaranteeing the performance of Arrowhead Unit 2, this has been accomplished; and until such time
as he gets a bond to my office and reviewed and approved by the City Attorney we will retain
$9,377.46 of the escrow account. This is a figure derived and approved by the City Engineer per his
letter of April 27, 1995.
Mayor Bush asked about the sprinkling system along Winter Springs Blvd., the street side of the wall.
Mr. LeBlanc stated that the sprinklers belong to the Homeowners. Mr. Mikes stated that they are
in the process of turning them down, the Homeowners Assoc., will maintain the sprinkler system
when it it turned over to them.
Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve the acceptance of improvements for the
City maintenance for Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit 2, subdivision located to the south of Winter
Springs Blvd. and west of the Country Club. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Vote:
Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye;
Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations - Conceptual Plans: 1. Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit
3 (south ofWmter 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 TuscawiUa Unit 5 (completion of Wood stream Subdivision, off the southern portion
of Northern Way - once approved as Wood stream Addition):
Mr. LeBlanc stated that conceptual plans are not required by Code, in the past developers have
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 5
expended large amount of dollars in doing engineering plans, only to reach the Commission and some
items were not satisfactory and they would have to go back and expend extra monies to revise those
plans. So we started the conceptual plan idea, bringing it through the P&Z Bd. and 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 or parcels 7,8 and 10; I have furnished you conceptual site plans, minutes of the Staff conceptual
plan review, the Land Mngt. Specialist memo to P&Z, the P&Z minutes dated April 5, 1995, and a
run Mikes memo to D. LeBlanc dated April 6, 1995. I also gave you the pages in the agreement that
pertain to these projects.
Commissioner Ferring said 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 based on what Mr. Mikes has here. I
hope you are not going to make his presentation 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 unofficial minutes of the P&Z
Bd., I tend to agree with them regarding the additional units that you have put in going west in certain
areas. And if that is going to be your presentation tonight, I hope that you would listen to what we
are saying before you make your presentation. I don't know if anyone else wants to make comments
on this, 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 stated that he will be happy to listen to the collective direction of this Commission and
would also be happy to listen to the interpretation from the Attorney representing the City and if that
is the issues you would like to address first, then let's do that. There is a few things first, before you
get too hung up on all the specifics; first of all there is one plan that I do not believer either the P&Z
or you should have any problem with and that is Woodstream, the second phase. Commissioner
Ferring said that he will not comment on anything as far as Woodstream is concerned, all he knows
is that we are looking for the units where you have gone up from 39 to 46 units. Mr. Mikes asked
if there was a reason that Woodstream is something that you are 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 you are
taking a position now. Commissioner Ferring said he doesn't think Wood stream has anything to do
with the other units, that is why it is not there for me to approve or disapprove. Mr. Mikes said this
is a conceptual plan approval. Commissioner Ferring said we are not approving it, and we are not
disapproving it, we are going to note it. Mr. Mikes said he is looking for the direction from the
Commission, he is not here to argue, he is only asking to take some property that he owns and wants
to develop in a fashion that he thinks that the Commission, the City, the residents have had an
opportunity to see what the phases of our development can be. What an enhancement to the area it
can be, I am not necessarily suggesting that the Commission has to do any specific thing, there may
be some requests before you that you may have to ask yourself if this is the right thing to do looking
at what has transpired over the course of the last year and a half 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 will have a detrimental impact on that Community. Am I
proposing something that will have a positive impact; I have other opinions that are not only mine that
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 6
I'd be happy to have you listen to tonight, if you are going to close up 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, you are
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.
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that from what he understands from the City Manager and Mr.
LeBlanc prior to the meeting, is that tonight this is a presentation to you of what is conceptually has
been proposed by this developer; for you to provide input to the developer to your thoughts. It is
not for your approval or disapproval, as I understand the City Manager's and City Planner's
statements to me prior to the meeting. Therefore, what I would recommend is that you go through
the items, and each of you identify what, ifany, issues you have on any of the items. This is not a
forum to decide whether we are right, he is wrong, etc.., 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 the Commission but not
tonight for an approval or disapproval. Mr. Mikes, as a developer, needs to hear what your thoughts
are before he starts to expend the kind of dollars that is necessary to go forward.
Commissioner Ferring stated to Mr. LeBlanc, that Mr. Mikes raised a question about Woodstream,
has there been approved engineering for Woodstream. Mr. LeBlanc stated there was previously,
which is in his memo, it was once approved as W oodstream Addition and that has expired. There
was an excess of70 lost, and now there are 54, but yes there was previous approval. That project
was approved in 1990 and the engineering expired, they didn't do anything on it. This is a
rejuvenation of that project.
Mr. Mikes stated that this is an opportunity to give a direction in the way a community can finish a
development, it is not a forum for a person to dictate their opinions only. He stated that he trusts that
this is a Commission elected as it is to use an open mind and toconsider, that is how I would ask that
we go forward.
Mr. Mikes went over the Woodstream parcel (number B-3) - He stated Woodstream is a development
that started back in the 80's by the person who will be his venture partner. He said he is putting in
a certain amount orland and a certain amount of money and that person is putting in his land. There
was an aborted development that went no further; he believes the Commission is familiar with the
Woodstream development. It has approximately 25 homes, it enters offa private road. The roads
are private and 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 to the south.
The existing Arrowhead with the wall and entryway is adjacent to the Club House. Our Unit One
which is 19 lots, that have already been approved and improved, are those that are on the 8th hole,
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 7
one on the 5th green, 3 on Northern Way at the 4th tee; originally to be done as 7 and then 8 lots
along the 14th hole adjacent to Glen Eagle. The Woodstream parcel fits right in adjacent to the 2nd,
3rd and 4th holes. The original plan on Wood stream provided for had 26 acres, originally permitted
for 77 lots; we are adding approximately a 75' strip around the outside and providing for the retention
on the opposite side of hole #2. An enhancement of hole #2 and definite enhancement for Greenbriar,
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. The plan provides for (unit 5, parcel 10) Richards Road will be the main entrance,
Richards Road is the entranceway to Woodstream at this point, it is private; it would be enhanced
with the same wall treatment that you see at our existing, it will have the same entry gate, the entry
gate will be accessed by a computer system, people will call on the telephone and the phone will ring
in the house, the resident can look at their TV and 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 investment on their part, and will also be for the 54 lots that we propose. Effectively the
existing Woodstream is along the 5th and 6th holes to the west side of the overall parcel; those are
approximately the same size lots, slightly smaller, some ar much smaller, but in general slightly smaller
than what we had proposed. Ours will be roughly 113' to 115' wide, which is 13' to 15' wider than
at Glen Eagle and approximately 160' to 165' deep, which is 20' to 25' deeper than a Glen Eagle lot
and the approximate six of the lots that we have on the golf course in the first phase of Arrowhead
that we are 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, brick pavers a the
entrance treatment, everyone of the homes will have brick pavers as you enter the driveway it will
have a brick paver apron for the first 10' to 12' 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
live oak every 40', a laurel oak that is 8" to 9" in caliper to start with, very heavy landscaping
requirements, side loaded garages, hard surface roofs, minimum sq. ft. of approximately 3,000 to
3,200 sq.ft., 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 have the same treatment that is 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 cul-de-sac 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 looking as in the first
phase of Arrowhead. Of the 54 lots you will have over half of them on the golf course or on Howell
Branch Creek, we will be subject to whatever the same setbacks. Working with 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 at the 2nd green that they can't see right now with the trees in there.
Commissioner McLeod said presently where you show the retention pond there is a tree line there,
correct - Mr. Mikes answered yes, that is the Florida Power easement area, it has been allowed to
grow up, it is a series of all sort of junk and we are in the process of thinning out what is there,
keeping the high quality oaks and pine and getting rid of the weedy stuff The whole Florida Power
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 8
easement as part of what we are doing on the other phases of Arrowhead, Florida Power and Light
at their expense will be taking those large wood power lines and changing them to a concrete single
pole as opposed to multiple pole treatment, much better looking treatment that will both enhance the
Greenbriar owners as well as the owners in Country Club Village on the opposite side of the creek.
Commissioner Langellotti asked who was clearing the land on the 2nd fairway. Mr. Mikes said they
are clearing for this project. They are not taking out everything, at this point they are leaving the
palmettos, the oaks, and the pines and trimming out all the weedy stuff at this point. We do have an
arbor pennit for that. It also provides views for the Horton homes and ultimately as we finish up the
existing owners in Greenbriar will be looking out at the golf course. Weare doing that for the benefit
of Horton at this point and eventually when the pond is in it will be surrounded by oak trees, it will
be an attractive look.
Mr. Mikes said the general depiction on this as he said, the size of the lots are approximately 112'
minimum to 115' to 120' wide with a minimum depth(seems to be) about 160' up to a maximum in
the 200' deep size. We propose that for an emergency access, if it is needed, we will stabilize a path
across the golf course, in case 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 a the 3rd tee and one just in front of the creek.
Commissioner McLeod asked what would be the need for an emergency access. Mr. Mikes said that
was an issue raised with a former engineer that was working for the City. He (Mikes) didn't see a
need for it, but he depicted it because it was something that when first discussing any development
the concern was on the length of cul-de-sacs to make sure that if there 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 needed. Obviously the most appropriate place is to come right through
the gate and right down the street, in the event there was ever a problem, they can come across the
golf course. Commissioner McLeod asked if easements will be taken out of these pieces of property
for that purpose. Mr. Mikes said yes, we will create an easement for emergency vehicle access for
the benefit of the City and whatever emergency needs there might be. Commissioner McLeod said
wouldn't that be an issue by the Staff to address with you at the time of your plans. Mr. Mikes said
he would be happy to take it out, it is an extra that he didn't think was necessary. He would be happy
to provide it if they want it an also be happy to not provide it if they allow us not to put it in.
Commissioner McLeod said it is just very unusual and he thinks it is probably one of the points that
Staff and Mikes should address. Mr. Mikes stated that again that was a former staff member that had
raised that a the last level. Mr. Mikes said other than that he believes that P&Z thought that this was
an acceptable concept for the use ofthis land, going from 77 lots on 26 acres to 54 lots of the nature
that they are talking about, private access, brick pavers, everything in the same fashion that they are
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. I do not believe there was a
problem at the P&Z level on that and Staff certainly had no objection. I look for any direction you
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 9
might give me, if you would like to see anything changed on it.
Commissioner Langellotti said this is showing the wall coming gin the back of the property. Mr.
Mikes said we will put a wall i 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 will intend it all the way, if they
want to go part of the way, we will go part ofthe way, it is up to that homeowner. Commissioner
Langellotti said the plans show a wall going up. Mr. Mikes said we will put a wall behind there so
that they will not have to look at homes butting right directly in back; it is not important where they
are side by side by where the homes butting next to each other and the three lots are shallow lots that
the existing Wood stream lots are 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 is really where the engineer depicted that
wrong; there wouldn't be a wall through the cul-de-sac, we would actually construct a cul-de-sac and
put a wall around it if that is what the homeowners chose, this is what has been submitted to the
Homeowners President, he advised me that on a concept basis it looked fine, with something of that
nature changed, we'll treat that cul-de-sac with regard to whatever other comments they may have.
The wall is not intended to run across the cul-de-sac that is an error. again, we provided emergency
access if the Staff thought it was appropriate, Commissioner Langellotti said that wall would separate
the two parcels. Mr. Mikes said no, it is not intended to separate the parcels, it is intended to
separate the back yards of properties; it is not trying to state that this end of W oodstream is different
from the other, that is up to working it out with the Homeowners in those locations, what will look
better, what do they want 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, they wanted the privacy they have
right now, and we will respect that and leave it that way and in fact put a cul-de-sac in where they
currently do not have one.
Commissioner Conniff asked Mr. Mikes that after he cleans out the pond is he going to be responsible
with keeping it clean. Mr. Mikes answered yes, the same 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 the pond. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that will be ties up in
documents that the Commission will approve. Mr. Mikes stated, again this is concept and before the
Commission approves the plat they will have an easement document that they will :find acceptable.
Commissioner McLeod stated that with reading the P&Z minutes on page 3, Mr. Mikes explains
looking at three plans submittal and so forth, 115' wide lots, 77 narrow lots going to 54, then it goes
on to say in addition there will be having about 6 acres.. .Mr. Lein states that doesn't change this
parcel, then Mr. Mikes states he realizes that this is an issue that will have to be addressed with the
City Commission in their judgement on the agreement. Mr. Mikes stated that is not on Woodstream.
Commissioner McLeod stated that he is glad to see a reduction in the amount of homes in this area.
Mr. Mikes stated in 1973-1980 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 he bought) there was 192
condominiums or apartments and on the Woodstream parcel there was 77; if you add up all those
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 10
parcels you had roughly 500+ units that were originally permitted for all of this land. Units that
would have been of a condo nature, a hotel nature, certainly not of a single family nature that we are
proposing now. If you look at the overall Arrowhead project, all 5 phases that we are proposing, we
end up with approximately 164 homes that we will be selling in the range of roughly $400,000 range
for the ones directly on the golf course in Unit 1, then running upwards to $650,000, the five spec
homes with the builders are priced approximately $475,000 up to $515,000. Commissioner McLeod
said so you have a reduction of about 405 - Mr. Mikes said about 500 and some down to about 160,
but when you look at assessed valuation you have 160 times roughly $500,00-$600,000 just assume
the assessment at $400,000 even if you take off the homestead at $25,000 you are still looking at
somewhere in the range of 70 million dollars of assessed value~ whatever that reels to the City, and
look at the reduction of trips. Looking to the City's benefit, the communities 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 of 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.
#2 - Arrowhead Unit 4 - Mr. Mikes stated that this is the parcel that was approved in our settlement
agreement for originally (he believes) 39 lots, we are depicting it as 4610ts~ the difference is when
the engineering firm went out and actually laid out the lots and showed what the builders were asking
for, we ended up with lots that were in the size range of 100. They wanted a 115' wide lot, when we
laid it out it ended out 46 lots. The area included in this, and Gene Lein had raised the issue that this
looked like an expansion, the engineers have it and they can lay it out, and they can 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 are taking less acres
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 lIS' wide lots, do a side loaded garage and end up
with about a 4,000 sq. ft. home and make it look good. The depth is approximately 155' on the golf
course in these areas going up to 165'; lots as deep as 300' along the creek. This depiction, the P&Z
found fault with and sent another one back to Mr. LeBlanc. There was an objection to the way we
laid out the cul-de-sac, we were trying to do a cul-de-sac, but actually it ended up a double cul-de-sac
so that we could trade a little lane similar to the lane that we created in our first phase that you can
look to the brick paver at the far west end of the first Arrowhead part. I've deleted that concept and
brought the cul-de-sac back about halfway between the two and ended up basically laying the lots
out in a comparable fashion but now there is no need for that little lane. It eliminates the objection
that theP&Z had with the treatment of the cul-de-sac, so I have addressed two points that the P&Z
had. The actual acres, which I'll have that confirmed by the engineer that the acreage is less and the
second issue 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 is just a single cul-de-sac. Commissioner
McLeod said what you have done basically is you've made one long continued retention pond in order
to achieve what you were trying to do there. MR. Mikes stated yes. Commissioner McLeod said
which is the
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 11
main difference, then that gave you the additional lot 43 up on the top where there was a retention
pond. Mr. Mikes said correct, 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, but obviously you go through and the engineers do whatever they do and the number of
lots, we may end up not being able to build homes on some lots, we may end up loosing some lots
as a result of it and that's going to be dictated by other governmental agencies as well, they are going
to look and see what do we do on the setback along Howell Branch, 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 again just concept, an engineer taking a "blob" and drawing some lines that is all
this is.
Commissioner Ferring said to Mr. Mikes that he is looking at the agreement with his signature on it,
subsection B, where is says FCCI (Florida Country Clubs, Inc.) has not as yet completed the
preliminary engineering for the lots depicted on the conceptual plans for parcel 7 and 8. FCCI may
increase the number and/or reduce the size of the lots located in parcel 7 and 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 of 39
lots on parcel 8; now before you go forward, these are the problems that I have right now, plus the
fact over in the upper left comer, those four lots that you have going across the...Mr. Mikes stated
that those are on the other plan, that's just showing those in relation to this. Commissioner Ferring
said for his own satisfaction he would like Mr. Mikes to explain to him how he went from 13 lots to
20 lots and from 3910ts to 46 lots. Mr. Mikes said since the time that we entered into the revision
to the settlement agreement, he has had the opportunity to work with the builders, and had the
opportunity to hear from the brokers, and had the opportunity to look at the market as it exists, both
in Tuscawilla and overall in Orlando. Looking at homes in the price range comproable to what he
is building. We are looking at sites that are comproable, Lake Colony Estates in Maitland which are
priced $50-$60 thousand more than theirs but the same houses on lots that are only 100' to 105' wide
and a depth of only about 140'. We have looked at that and things in Maitland Club, comproable size
lots, and lots throughout the area, the south end of town Dr. Philips area, the Bay Hill area. As we
worked with builders and brokers we've found that the size oflot is appropriate in the size of 115'
wide, which allows for a side loaded garage, which is what we are requiring. Three car garage and
to fit appropriately a house of about 4,000 sq. ft. and not look like it is on a postage stamp lot. At
the time we did the revisions on the last go around, he did not have the benefit of what size the
builders wanted and 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 the settlement
agreement. When it was listed at 13 or 39, we have now found that in developing this first phase of
Arrowhead we think it's very attractive, at size lots that are basically what we have depicted here.
Mr. Mikes stated from the perspective of the Country Club, he is ultimately trying to sell
memberships in the Club to make the Club work appropriately, he is trying to provide the best
Country Club that he can of a private nature. As he adds more homes in the high end, the better he
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 12
is going to do from the standpoint ofthe Country Club. One hundred and sixty very expensive homes
probably generates a larger proportion of people that become golfing members in the Club as
compared to the starter homes. Mr. Mikes said that he has found that it is in his best economic
interest that if he can develop 160 homes in this nature, it will help him on the golf course. He said
his is not here before the Commission saying he wants them to approve something that he doesn't
have fuU faith and confidence that what he is asking to be approved is something the City will very
proud of and a real addition to the community. This project looks good in comparison to some of
it's counter parts, we are asking people to put the highest quality products into these homes,
landscape them appropriately, take care of it appropriately; it will be a definite enhancement to the
community. It is a type of housing that is needed, it is going to look good, and won't stretch the
City's standards in any way. Yes it is a different number than existed in those documents, and yes it
is going to make him more money, all those things are true.
Commissioner Ferring said to Mr. Mikes to put his self in the Commission's place, in today's times
where litigation is pursued at the drop of a hat, we have a contract that says one thing and you want
us to change the contract to say something else; if 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. What I'm
concerned about is the legal premise of the whole thing, can we legally do this. Mr. Mikes said he
has no trouble as you go through preliminary engineering if there is any land use issue, any
modification that you think is appropriate and is something that can be done at this Commission with
the signatures of all parties concerned.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said suffice to say, he is not prepared to let the Commission do anything that
he thinks will result in litigation on this; he is not prepared to accept an interpretation or express an
interpretation of this agreement. He feels the Commission should give opinions on the project, raise
the issues, like Mr. Ferring has raised and then let Staff and himself and Mr. Mikes get together and
will take the steps to try and resole any concerns or issues that are raised.
Commissioner McLeod said the agreement is between Mr. Mikes and the City, from a legal
standpoint what you are asking the City to do is amend the agreement and allow him to go forward
with the conceptual plan to change the amount. So, therefore, it seems that from a legal issue there
would have to be an agreement first of the document, if we say the conceptual plan is not all bad,
therefore you need to get with our City Manager and City Attorney and work out the legal details,
then conceptually we don't have a problem.
Commissioner McLeod said to the City Attorney that this is a document that is between the City and
Mr. Mikes. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that is correct and that document anticipates your having
the ability to make this change.
Mr. Mikes said the other comments from P&Z were the number of lots, the cul-de-sac and the
acreage was raised. One thing we have depicted on this, the two plans that you have says unit 4 and
3 both depict some portion of the parking lot, some portion of the entrance treatment and both state
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 13
the entranceway to the Countly Club; it will be one in a fashion that will be something similar to what
you see at the first phase of Arrowhead. A high wall coming down a long way into the development,
getting the sense of privacy coming into the Country Club. There will be a gate house, it might or
might not be maned; that will be the entrance into the Country Club; we will have a 4' to 5' wall
across the face of the Country Club on Wmter Springs Blvd., not as high as the 6' wall in Arrowhead,
slightly lower, but enough so that as you drive by you can look and see the Country Club but it will
block the view of the parking lot. 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
gate house is to enhance the exclusivity trying to make it a little more private in nature in all respects.
One treatment that we will do different on these next phases of Arrowhead is we will actually put a
gate house in, make it look more like the Lake Colony Estates in Maitland.
#3. Tuscawilla Unit 3 (parcel 7) - Mr. Mikes stated this is the land that is lying east of the cafe, the
pool and this plan shows the removal of the tennis courts and the reconstruction of those tennis
courts. It shows the cafe to be expanded and replaced in its present position. The pool will have the
deck removed, the shall will be remarisited, all the pool equipment will be totally new equipment.
The location of the cafe going out closer to and actually you will be able to walk off the deck of the
cafe, and into the pool ares. We area trying to make something a lot more inviting than we currently
have with our old cafe and pool and tennis building that is falling down. The lighting that will be on
the tennis courts, instead of the very high and very bright will be a modem lighting that directs lights
on the courts and not spill over into the adjoining homes. The maintenance building will be removed,
and it shows the brick wall coming across the face of the Club and the additions of28 parking spaces
and the addition of another 26 parking spaces for a total actual net gain of parking spaces of whole
in the range of 6 or 7; we will be taking some away but adding some. It shows the entrance that
currently is the entrance by the tennis courts to be just an emergency access that will be a break away
for emergency purposes. 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 tenns of rebuilding the cafe, and tennis courts, etc.
The entrance to the development will be located directly across from the entranceway to the
Wedgewood Tennis Villas and 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 pools and carry it across
Winter Springs blvd. to a point somewhere short of Howell Branch Creek. The plan shows the gated
entrance, a short cul-de-sac leading off towards Howell Branch Creek and a longer cul-de-sac that
will cross the 10th fairway below the tee. It will have a stone wall and a fancy treatment and leads
to what we depicted as four lots, which is an expansion of property noted in the last agreement. It
shows four lots at the 18th green which would be serviced off of a cul-de-sac looking down over the
creek and looking down over the 18th fairway.
Commissioner Langellotti asked how wide is the roadway. Mr. Mikes said it was to City standards
and it is no suggestion that it is not going to be to the City Codes. The lots themselves are 115' wide
against Winter Springs Blvd, and 175' deep at a minimum. The smallest interior lot we have is one
that is roughly about 140' wide by 120' deep, the rest are averaging approximately 115' wide by 185'
deep, rougWy the same size lots that are in the first phase of Arrowhead.
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 14
Commissioner Ferring asked Mr. Mikes ifhe was concerned at all about Winter Springs Blvd. and
the traffic that is going to come there because of the mall. Mr. Mikes stated that so far it hasn't
created a sales problem. Traffic from the mall is something that we have not heard as a problem, in
fact the comments have been that they are happy that a mall is coming. Hopefully what we are
proposing here with going to 160 lots total as opposed to the 500+, we area certainly going to be
reducing there amount of traffic that is on the road network and it certainly will be less that what
550+ would be producing.
Mayor Bush said the important thing with Mr. Mikes' presentation for the Commission as you recall,
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 Commission tonight has noted
the changes in the conceptual plan vs. the settlement agreement and so is the public. So that
everybody is aware of this when it comes back again, and the Commission will make a decision based
upon information that they have before.
Mr. Mikes asked the Commission, from a conceptual planning standpoint, does the Commission have
a problem with the number of lots.
Commissioner McLeod said conceptually, provided the documents have been written in such a
fashion to be changed for both parties benefit, and both parties are in agreement to whatever that
change is on a legal side, then conceptually what he has seen he doesn't have a problem.
Mr. Mikes asked if he could address two things and wants to make sure that he references this
because they impact homeowners adjacent to this. There was a request that there be no construction
traffic to develop this - we have to get some tractors in to get the basic stuff, but not with the
construction of the homes. We also committed to putting a brick wall across the back of Country
Club Village after the homeowners say if they want to or not; I think they will reserve that right for
a while to decide ifit will look right, that is something that they will make a judgement on after they
see what this looks like. We do have to run some constructing traffic through to get the roads in to
begin with but after that there will be none.
Mayor Bush said we have seen a conceptual plan, are we going to approve the plan or not. From
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 has to have some direction and I think that is what he is asking the
Commission for.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said that prior to the meeting tonight, he conferred with the City Manager
and City Planner and asked what action, if any are they asking of this Commission. They advised me
that per the Code and per the process, they weren't asking for any action. The developer was asking
for the Commission to identifY those issues or concerns that the developer needed to address to be
able to then move this project forward as he begins to finalize the process. What the developer needs
to find out from the Commission is are there issues that you have concerns and questions about so
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 15
that he can work on them and resolve them and bring back the preliminary project to ask for the
Commission's approval on.
Mayor Bush said it appears that the lot issue is the major concern. Attorney Kruppenbacher said
moving the lot issue aside, are there any other issues. Mr. Mikes asked other than the lots, are there
any other planning problems. Commissioner Ferring asked if notification has been made to all the
contiguous property owners regarding this and when will the public hearing come involving this
particular plan. Mr. LeBlanc said public notice is not required to contiguous property owners; there
is no requirement for public notice, whenever the final approval for this project there is always a
public hearing at one of the Commission meetings. Commissioner Ferring said he does not have a
problem a as long as this is advertised and that everybody is aware of what we are doing;
conceptually I agree with Commissioner McLeod but I don't want to get caught in another blind
switch, I want to be able to have input from anybody that has concern out there that we haven't heard
from yet. Mr. Mikes said the layout of the road is going to stay the same, whether the width ofthese
lots are 115' or 125', the road is going to stay the same and the basic engineering questions so from
that standpoint the 39 vs 46 is not going to stop the engineering process from going forward as long
as conceptually it passes.
Conunissioner Conniff commented that the new lot concept doesn't bother him and that it is obviously
going to be a top quality establishment and it excites him to see this.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said you have a Code that contemplates a process, that this will go through
public hearings and ultimately be brought to the Conunission for action at a public hearing. The
public is welcome and encouraged to come and voice their input. There is no way this, if people stay
informed and monitor what gets posted on the bulletin boards and is advertised, to enable the public
to give input.
Commissioner Langellotti said he was glad to see this type of project.
Mayor Bush said to summarize this, the Commission agrees with the conceptual plan to what has
been presented and encourages Mr. Mikes to go ahead through the regular procedures established
by the City's Code. The Commission was in agreement. Mayor Bush said we will ask the City
Manger to look into as to how this can be more widely distributed among the community rather than
just our other procedures.
City Attorney - Frank Kruppenbacher - Reports:
Attorney Kruppenbacher read Res. # _' "A Res. of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, unanimously
requesting the School Board of Seminole County, Florida adopt and implement plan F as it's rezoning
Plan." Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that his recommendation upon passage is that it be signed
tomorrow and a cover letter from the Mayor and/or Commissioners, be delivered to the
Superintendent and each member of the School Board. Commissioner Langellotti suggested that the
Commission attend the next School Board meeting and speak in opposition of the other plans.
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 16
Attorney Kruppenbacher said there is going to be a special hearing on the 17th of this month where
action will be taken. Mayor Bush said the public hearing is at 6:00 p.m., May 17, 1995, at Lake
Howell High School. Mayor Bush said this is the rezoning for the High School only. Discussion.
Commissioner Fening said if he recalls when the Commission met with the School Board regarding
the interlocal agreement that we entered into with them, did they not indicate to us that they would
do everything in their power with Winter Springs High School to accommodate the youth of the City
of Winter Springs.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said ifhe remembers correctly, they said that and qualified that there was
a question about keeping all the Winter springs students here and the qualification was that there
maybe students who did not reside in Winter Springs who would have to come to the High School
and they wanted everybody to understand that. They never identified students from Winter Springs
leaving Wmter Springs. Mayor Bush said if the Commission so desires he will attend the meeting on
the 17th and read the Resolution publicly. Discussion.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve yet to be numbered Resolution that was just
read by Attorney Kruppenbacher. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote:
Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye;
Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said that at the last meeting there was discussion regarding the sale of the
building which is owned by N.O. Water & Sewer or the Utility Fund/Enterprise Fund; there was a
3-2 vote regarding a decision by the Commission as to whether to permit that property to go forward
with the procedures for sale. Mr. Lockcuff and I met with the City Manager and went through the
bond covenants and there is no bond prohibition or restriction on your ability to convey this property.
Discussion.
Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to place on the agenda the sale of the building.
Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Ferring:aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion
passes.
Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to go forward with the sale of the building to the
present high bidder of the bids we presently have in house. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring.
Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher said this means that the City Manager and his Staff and I will
prepare the contract and the Ordinance and approval of it per your Charter and move the process to
culminate the sale. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes.
Attorney Kruppenbacher asked Mayor Bush if we could schedule a meeting prior to the next regular
scheduled meeting, pursuant to Section 286.011 of the Florida Statutes, as we are in need of advise
regarding litigation stragety. The persons attending this meeting will be a court reporter,
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 17
Commissioners McLeod, Langellotti, Gennell, Ferring, Conniff Mayor Bush, City Manager
Govoruhk, Attorney Kruppenbacher and possibly Keith Bricklemeyer. The meeting will be limited
to discussion regarding settlement negotiations or stragety relating to litigation expenditures involved
in the lawsuits that are presently pending against the City by the City of Oviedo, by the Tuscawilla
homeowners Assoc., by the City against the City of Oviedo, the Rouse Corp., and the Viera Corp.
Discussion of a meeting date. it was determined to hold the closed executive session after the regular
scheduled meeting on May 22, 1995 at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said the evaluation system that we talked about at the last meeting, to clarifY
any misunderstanding, the actual evaluations of people are not going to be brought back to the
Commission.
Commissioner Ferring asked if it is considered a violation of the Sunshine if the City Attorney could
bring the members of the Commission up to what has transpired at this particular point before we go
into the closed executive session. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he is able without violating the
Sunshine and that he will contact each Commissioner this week and give them a verbal update,
confidentially.
City Manager John Govoruhk - Reports:
Manager Govoruhk said on behalf of the Fire Chief he is announcing that the Fire Station on Northern
Way is open and there will be an open house for the City on Saturday, May 27, 1995, from 2:00 to
4:00 p.m. Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that he will pick up the tab for the
refreshments for the open house at the Fire Station.
Manger Govoruhk also stated that the Commission has an update on Cypress Club and hopefully we
will be given them the final C.O. and this will close out Cypress Club.
Manager Govoruhk stated that the rebidding for the restroom at Central Winds Park is completed and
seven bids were received and the low bid was $59.557. The pavilions are going up and should be
completed by the time we have the employee picnic.
Manger Govoruhk said we have received the last payment for the State for the bucket truck. The
City has not paid anything for the purchase of the truck. The total amount of the last check was
$21,076.14, making for a total of $28,000 we received for the truck.
Manger Govoruhk also mentioned that he wrote a letter to the Winding Hollow subdivision builders
who were giving out wrong information that Trotwood and the back entranceway will be open; he
told them to cease all false advertisement.
Commission Seat III - John Langellotti:
Commissioner Langellotti said a few meetings ago he mentioned the City receiving a check for $1,000
from the Chamber. After consulting with the City Manager, it was decided to give each of the
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 18
schools a fixed amount of money: Indian Trails - $333.33; Winter Springs Elementary and Keith
Elementary - $333.34 each. That money will go into a fund for underprivileged children.
Commissioner Langellotti said he would like to see this as something the City can do to get together
with Homeowner Associations to start donating money to the schools; and thanked the Commission
for allowing him to do that with the money.
Commission Seat V - David McLeod:
Commissioner McLeod asked where do we stand with talking to the residents of Oak Forest about
the walls and problems of that nature with regard to the Tuscawilla Road widening. Discussion.
Commissioner McLeod said he feels that this should be an agenda item to get input from the
residents. Mayor Bush said it would be appropriate to schedule this for a future date so that the Oak
Forest Homeowner Assoc., has enough time to publish the notice in their newsletter. Discussion.
It was determined that this would be an agenda item at the June 12, 1995 meeting.
Commission Seat I - Larry Conniff:
Commissioner Conniff asked if anything has been done regarding the nets at Central Winds Park. Don
Wilson, Recreation Director, stated that he has gotten estimates and should have everything together
soon.
Commissioner Conniff mentioned that he has gotten calls regarding the Police and Fire Departments
and has gotten nothing but positive feed back and stated that he greatly appreciates it and thanked
them and told them they are doing a fine job.
Commissioner Conniff also mentioned a letter from the General Services Director stating the rational
of using the Orlando Sentinel to cover getting out the information over the Oviedo Voice and the
Sanford Herald; it makes more sense that we use the Orlando Sentinel as it is read by more people.
Mayor Bush asked the City Manger to get in touch with Mr. Allen and make him aware of the
findings regarding the advertising in the Orlando Sentinel.
Commission Seat IT - John Ferring:
Commissioner Ferring said in respect to the previous conversation, he see no problem with the City
putting their advertisements in another newspaper also. Discussion.
Commissioner Ferring mentioned the copy of the Coopers & Lybrand report on the audit that they
did for the City of Ocala. It proved to be interesting and was much in favor of Ocala. Discussion.
Mayor Bush asked the City Manager to get more information on this and report back to the
Commission to be put on a future agenda.
Commissioner Ferring also mentioned the issue regarding members of the Boards in the City who
are presently members of Homeowners Associations that are litigating against the City. Attorney
Kruppenbacher said that that issue will be on the next agenda as an ordinance removing members of
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 19
Boards if they are a member of a Board of Directors of any Orgiznation that has files suit against the
City, they will immediately forfeit the position on any respective Board in the City.
Commissioner Ferring stated that he will make his appointment to the B.O.W.S. Board at the next
meeting.
Commissioner Ferring mentioned that on May 13, 1995, the Civic Assoc. is having a B-B-Q outside
the Civic Center, chicken and fixings with tickets $4.00 each from 1 :00 to 4:00 p.m. The profits will
go to the Christen Sharing Center of Seminole County.
Commissioner Ferring also mentioned a newsletter to bring the citizens up to date on what is
happening by putting this in the utility bills. Discussion. it was determined that this will be an agenda
item for the next meeting.
Mayor's Office - John F. Bush:
Mayor Bush stated that some time ago the Commission approved the recognition of an outstanding
senior citizen in the City, calling it the Mayor's Award. I have identified such a person, Mr. Charles
Bryam, who has been an outstanding civilian volunteer to the Police Department. Mayo Bush said
he would like at the nest meeting to have a Resolution honoring Mr. Bryam as well as a plaque for
his outstanding service for the past 13 years.
Mayor Bush stated that we are well into 1995 and for some of the Commission approximately half
way through their terms in office. This past year a lot of time was spent on items that have been
challenging and taking a lot of our energies. however, I would like to propose some issue for the
Commission to consider to address in the coming months. 1. I would like to see us work diligently
on annexation of contiguous properties and those properties surrounded by the City that are still not
within the City. 2. I would like to see the Commission consider working with the other Cities around
us, Oviedo in particular on these annexation issues that could impact both Cities. Wok jointly in the
start rather than after the fact. 3. I would like to see us in a cooperative venture with maybe Oviedo,
Casselberry, the other Cities around us for an economic development project that would benefit our
Cities that would be compatible with our quality of life. When I first thought of this I thought of
maybe a sports complex that we might be able to attract a professional orgiznation. But a second
thought I've come up with that I would like to mention for your consideration and that is Lake Jesup.
I understand Lake Jesup at one time was a premier bass fishing lake. If a joint project could be
undertaken to bring this lake back to the status it once held, it would benefit all residents of our City
and could have a significant impact on our economic development, our recreation facilities and at the
same time a positive impact on our environment. This might be something that maybe the
Commission might want to do something with other that fight the "fires" we have for the last year and
a half. If the Commission thinks there is any of this worth looking at we will put it on the agenda for
a future meeting. Discussion.
Mayor Bush also stated that he has an appointment to the B.O.W.S. Board which he will delay to the
Regular Meeting City Commission
next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~A.~
Margo M. Hopkins,
City Clerk
APPROVED:
t.~
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 20
VERBATIM PORTION OF MINUTES OF MAY 8,1995
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations - Conceptual Plans: 1. Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit
3 (south ofWmter 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. Hoffmann
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. FerTing
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 myselfpersonaIly 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 Woodstream is something that you're not ready to consider, do
you have any reason, did the P&Z have any reason, did Staffhave 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 - ob, 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-l, 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 Woodstream, 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 (? 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.
Ferring - I'm listening -
Mikes - let's take the W oodstream 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 Wood stream, 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 Wood stream 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 Woodstream ok
F erring - W oodstream
Mikes - taking Woodstream first because it was raised first, it's the third one, unit 5, parcel 10
F erring - 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 ofthe person at their entry gate, that will be for the benefit for
not only the existing Woodstream 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
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 if for 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 if there 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 Woodstream 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
shallow lots that the existing Wood stream 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 cui-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 ofthat 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 if it'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
Woodstream
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 win find acceptable.
Conniff - 117
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 Wood stream 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 Woodstream 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 $475,000 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 oft'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 ofit and that's going to be
dictated by the other governmental agencies as wel~ 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.
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 corner, 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
Ferring - 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 13 lots 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
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 appropriately 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.
F erring - 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, if there 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 ofthem depict some portion ofthe
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 - iffor 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 tenus 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 Wmter 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 if it 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 oflots.
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 ofthe, 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 clarity 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 identity 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.
4 .
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
Ferring - 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. Connitfhas 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
10. to.
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 thiogjust 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
Ferring.
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 stafl: 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 ofTusca Oaks, how that monstrosity got
through us I'll never know.
Mikes - Tusca Oaks, if you look at some ofthe 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
r.
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION
JULY 24, 1995
The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs was called to order by
Mayor lohn F. Bush at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Mayor lohn F. Bush, present
Deputy Mayor John Langellotti, present
City Manager lohn Govoruhk, present
City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present
COMMISSIONERS:
Larry Conniff: present
John Ferring, present
Cindy Gennell, present
David McLeod, present
Attorney Kruppenbacher said to Mayor Bush, pursuant to Florida Statute 286.011, the time is 6:40
on the 24th of luly, 1995, at this he asks that Mayor Bush adjourn to a closed session to discuss
settlement discussion regarding the lawsuits we (the City of Winter Springs) currently have with
Viera, Rouse, and Duda.
Mayor Bush convened the Regular Meeting ofthe City Commission at 6:40 p.m., to go into closed
executive session.
Mayor Bush reconvened the Regular Meeting of the City Commission at 7:30 p.rn.
Mayor Bush asked for a moment of silent prayer for the invocation.
Ap,proval of Minutes ofJuly 10. 1995:
Mayor Bush asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting
of July 10, 1995. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of
luly 10, 1995. Minutes stand approved as presented.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Dan Wood, White Ibis Court, Golf Director and also one of the owners of the Wmter Springs Golf
Club, spoke regarding that he would like to make two land swaps and will go through the proper
procedures with City Staff.
Commissioner Fening mentioned that Mr. Wood won the Florida Open Jr. Division golfing event and
congratulated him.
GENERAL AGENDA
Fiscal Year 1995-1996 Budget, Commission sets: Proposed Millage Rate, Rolled Back Rate and Day,
Time and Place of Public Hearing for Tentative Budget (Monday. SeJ)t. 11. 1995):
Commissioner Ferring said in lieu of the workshops that we have done and in lieu of the work that
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 2
has been accomplished by the City Manager and his Staff and the Finance Director and the discussion
that we had at our workshop last Monday night, move to set the Proposed Millage Rate at 3.7023.
Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye;
Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to set the rolled back rate at 3.7023. Seconded by
Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion
passes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to set the Public Hearing for the tentative Budget as of
Monday, September 11, 1995, at 7:30 p.m., Winter Springs Commission Chambers. Seconded by
Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell:
aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion
passes.
Commissioner McLeod also thanked the City Manager and Finance Director and all members of the
Commission for working together as they did.
Mayor Bush also commented on Manager Govoruhk's effort in taking the Commission's wishes and
translating it into the decrease in taxes, he said he thinks that if our new City Manager can handle the
City such as Mr. Govoruhk has done on this particular item; that the City will be well served. Again,
the Commission has proven that you can operate government more efficiently and you can lower
taxes and still deliver the services that the citizens need; I think it is a great thing and as
Commissioner Ferring said we can in fact duplicate this again, so I am looking forward to next year
also.
Chestnut Estates Phase II - Acceptance ofImprovements for City Maintenance (Northwest corner
ofWmter Sprirnzs Boulevard and Seneca Boulevard):
Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti that the City accept the improvements for City
maintenance for Chestnut Estates Phase II - northwest corner ofWmter Springs Blvd. and Seneca
Blvd. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye;
Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner
Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Resolution No. 762 - Fixing the Fees to be paid for applicants for Certain Occupational Licenses;
Conflicts and Effective Date:
Commissioner Ferring thanked the members of the committee that sat on this difficult task in coming
up with the documents that they have come up with and an effective resolution.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve Resolution No. 762, fixing the fees to be paid
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 3
for applicants for certain occupational licenses, conflicts and effective date. Seconded by
Commissioner LangelIotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff:
aye; Commissioner Fening; aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion
passes.
Proposed Amendment to Settlement Agreement between Florida Country Clubs, Inc. and The City
ofWmter Springs - Adding seven (7) lots to Parcel 7, adding seven (7) lots to Parcel 8, and adding
additional property to that subdivision known as Woodstream:
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that Mr. Mikes is not present and asked that the Commission
continue this item until the next meeting so Mr. Mikes could be present for any questions.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to table this item - Proposed Amendment to Settlement
Agreement between Florida country Clubs, Inc. and the City of Wmter Springs. Seconded by
Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring:
aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Mcleod: aye. Motion passes.
City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher - Reports:
Attorney Kruppenbacher said he has given the Mayor and Commission what is termed an amended
settlement agreement, to deal with the Viera, Rouse, Duda matter and he asks that the Commission
please consider putting this on the agenda for action.
Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to place the amended settlement agreement on the
agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Feering: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye;
Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that the settIement agreement that the Commission has in front of
them, in summary, I would advise you, deletes the original provision of the original settlement
agreement, requiring the City to vacate the conservation easement and permit the crossing of the
conservation easement for ingress and egress to the Mall Site. What the new agreement does is as
follows: it will provide that there will be no ingress or egress to Wmter Springs Blvd., west of the
Greenway from the mall site; through an additional covenant running with the land, which the
developer will place on the property at the time they begin to do any vertical improvement for the
maIl; it provides for payment ofSI50,000. Mayor Bush asked the City Attorney, on the restriction
on use of the conservation, would he put that into Iaymans terms what that really means for the public
that is present tonight.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said the owner of the mall property (whoever that may be from the date of
the agreement going into effect - forward and the date of the recording of the covenant, will be bound
that they will never be able to, as the owners of the property, to use that property to ingress or egress
to the mall west of the Greenway onto Winter Springs Blvd. Mayor Bush said so the owners cannot
cross the easement, is that what you are saying. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that is correct, the mall
owners agree they will never attempt to cross the easement, that goes with title and will be recorded
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 4
and goes into effect when they begin to pull the building pennit for the vertical improvement of the
property. It calls for Parcel 14 to be tendered to me in escrow and released 90 days after Seminole
County's approval of the pending project in front of the County; if the project is not approved, there
is no armexation ofParce114 as written in this agreement. It calls for $150,000 to be paid to the City
of Winter Springs after the first building pennit is pulled to construct a vertical improvement on
Parce112 (the mall site) payment ofS150,OOO will be tendered to the City. It deletes the requirement
of the City ofWmter Springs affirmatively as a political body encouraging the approval of the project
in accordance with applicable codes and regulations; those are in summary fashion the modifications
to the original settlement agreement. Attorney Kruppenbacher also stated that they (Rouse, Viera
and Duda) will be required, the provision in this, the City of Winter Springs, since the day that we
negotiated the original amended settlement forward, have not been billed by Mr. Bricklemeyer or
himself for any work done on this project; at that table, we agreed to accept the sums provided in this
agreement to compensate, so you know based upon the figures, it is fiIr below what Mr. Bricklemeyer
would have been entitled to in the particular litigation. The reality is that the City is not out of pocket
for the legal fees incurred in dealing with the issues after settlement.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said it calls for bike paths, if there is a dispute regarding bike paths, as to
their ability to be put in, in the conditions outlined, for the parties to have mediation for resolution
of that dispute with East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
Mayor Bush stated Commissioner Ferring, who worked very hard on this as well as our Attorney,
he (Mayor Bush) thinks this is a fair agreement with the City and thanked everyone for their efforts.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said if the Commission deems it appropriate to accept the agreement, he
asks that the Commission does so with the understanding that it is approved subject to the authority
of the City Manager and City Attorney to make any necessary tinallegal "clean-ups" (such as
attaching exhibits) and authorization for the City Manager and City Attorney to accept anything that
would further enhance the agreement.
Commissioner Mcleod asked if the money being paid to the City Attorney includes payment if there
is litigation regarding the bike paths. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the payment is for legal services
rendered up until this point, including the handling of the litigation, dealing with the negotiations and
working through the agreement. Discussion.
Commissioner Mcleod said in regarding to the annexation of Parcel 14, that it would happen at the
time the building footers start raising horizontally. Attorney Kruppenbacher said no, after the
expiration of ninety days from the Seminole County's Commission approval of the project and their
transmittal to the State of the applicable approval documents, he (City Attorney) is authorized to
release the petition for annexation to the City to commence the City's annexation process.
Commissioner GermeU asked the City Attorney to clarifY paragraph 11. Attorney Kruppenbacher said
we (the city) are agreeing in this document, that we as a political body (the Commission), will not
be objecting to the project as currently proposed; and that we will affirm that position to the
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 5
respective bodies that are dealing with this process that we are not objecting, we are not obligated,
and I deleted from it to say that we are affirmatively pushing the project. Further I will claritY to you
that paragraph 11 does not prohibit the individual opinions of any individual to be expressed; but you
as a governmental body, acting as the City Commission. is taking that position that you have no
objection as currently proposed. Discussion. Commissioner Gennell asked if we (the City) will have
someone in attendance at every public hearing to say that we don't object to it? Attorney
Kruppenbacher said that there are two public hearings left, one is on August 2, 22, 1995, and I will
appear to represent that we have no opposition to the project and that's not to be interpreted as we
have support of the project, we are just not voicing the opposition to the issue.
Commissioner Ferring said that there is a couple of people that has helped getting this resolved and
one is Aaron 1. Gorovitz and Mr. Mason Blake of the Viera Corp., through their efforts they were
able to convince the rest of the principals that we had to come to a fair agreement and wants to thank
Mr. Gorovitz and Mr. Blake publicly.
Mayor Bush said for the benefit of the public, there was a closed meeting at 6:30 p.rn.. where the City
Attorney briefed the Commission on the amended settlement agreement.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the amended settlement agreement subject
to the comments made by the City Attorney (above) and the execution of that agreement by Oviedo
and Viera, Rouse. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner
Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff:
aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes.
Commissioner McLeod stated that he would like to publicly thank Commissioner Ferring for the job
he has done with this and also the City Manager and City Attorney, in the overview of everything that
he (Commissioner McLeod) knows about it, they have done a good job in working a fair deal for this
City and a fair deal for all parties involved without getting into court cases.
Mayor Bush mentioned that Mr. Mikes is present now, he would like to bring it back on the agenda.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to withdraw his motion to table item "D". Commissioner
Langellotti withdrew his second.
Proposed Amendment to Settlement Agreement between Florida Country Clubs, Inc. and The City
ofWmter Springs - Adding seven (7) lots to Parcel 7, adding seven (7) lots to Parcel 8, and adding
additional propertY to that subdivision known as Woodstream:
Commissioner McLeod asked if the site plans had changed since the last time the Commission looked
at them. Mr. Mikes, owner/developer, stated to address the several points of opposition on the
driving range area, we have taken the cul-de-sac and turned it into a single cul-de-sac as opposed to
the double cul-de-sac look, to make it exactly as the Commission had asked, that it just be a straight
cul-de-sac; every lot has the required street frontage and direct access on the dedicated streets. On
the parcel near the tennis courts, he has depicted on that 19 lots and moved the entrance drive so it
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 6
not cross in front of the golf tee, there was an objection to that. We removed one lot, instead of
showing 20 lots, we show 19 lots.
Attorney Kruppenbacher for the sake of any misconfussion, he would like to go over the agreement
so there will be no misunderstandings on any issues. In paragraph 2-B, the first sentence, we are
dealing with the preliminary engineering on Parcels 7 & 8; what you (Mr. Mikes) are agreeing to in
this is that you would be entitled to increase the number and or reduce the size of a lots in Parcels 7
& 8. Attorney Kruppenbacher said there is a difference between the word "number" and "size". Mr.
Mikes said the intent is that basically what is shown on the conceptual plan would be the minimum
lot size and the maximum number ofl~ the actual acreage that is included is actually less than what
was included in the original settlement agreement because we have taken the size of the lots, instead
of being 125' wide and 200' deep; they will be 115' wide and about 160'-170' deep. Attorney
Kruppeobacher asked Mr. Mikes ifhe would not have a problem revising it to provide what he just
said and that being that there will be not more than 19 lots permitted on Parcel 7 and 46 lots on
Parcel 8; Mr. Mikes said that would be fine. Attorney Kruppenbacher said then this would be revised
to state that there will be no more than 19 lots permitted on Parcel 7 and no more than 46 lots on
Parcel 8; provided those lots can be developed in accordance with applicable City Codes and State
and Federal Laws and regulations.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said then the next sentence would be: where at the City will promptly
process, review and approve such modifications; we would modifY that that we would promptly
process, review and propose for consideration for approval. Mr. Mikes said that was fine.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said the last thing is "provided in the settlement agreement the term
development property shall hereafter shall be deemed for the purpose of permitting Parcels 7 & 8 to
be developed with the additional lots herein" correct? Mr. Mikes said yes. Attorney Kruppenbacher
said there are three additional things; the land lying north of the 9th tee, directly west of the Parcel
conunon1y know as the Hooker Parcel, adjacent to the Country Club Clubhouse and parking lot. Mr.
Mikes said that is what is shown on Parcel 8 in the original settlement agreement, that is right at the
entranceway, it has always been part of that plan, it is an acre and 3/4, that is adjacent to the brick
wall that we already have up. Attorney Kruppenbacher said all you are say it that is what is currently
known as Parcel 8. Mr. Mikes said correct.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said next is "B" - the approximate 100' of land lying adjacent to the second
through fourth holes of the Club, in the property commonly known as Woodstream. Mr. Mikes said
that is shown on the conceptual plan, what we call Woodstream, our Unit 5. Attorney
Kruppeobacher asked is that property where the Commission previously approved the lots to be? Mr.
Mikes said correct, that was permitted for 77 lots, we are going to add to there 26 acres, we will add
a 100' strip all the way around the outside of it and then we will reduce their 77 plus our 100' down
to 54 lots; we are not adding any more lots, we are reducing the number of lots but also increasing
the area so that the lots become 113'-114' wide and 165' deep.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said the final one is the parcel currently occupied by the tennis courts and
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 7
the parcel bounded by the 10th and 18th fairway and Howell Branch Creek. Mr. Mikes said yes, that
is the tennis court parcel. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that is in the current agreement; Mr. Mikes
said yes and is Pared 7. Attorney Kruppenbacher asked what parcel is Woodstream. Mr. Mikes said
that it wasn't a parcel in the settlement agreement, it is what is in front of you as Unit 5 of our
Arrowhead project, the 54 lots. Discussion.
Mr. Mikes said Woodstream has nothing to do with what was in the original parcels, in the original
agreement we had said that we weren't going to use any other property for residential development
and we are just trying to clarify that we are going to take a strip 1 ()()' wide around the Wood stream
property. Attorney Kruppenbacher asked Mr. Mikes if he would not mind if we put that language
in a separate paragraph that says that is what we are doing and delete it from this paragraph. Mr.
Mikes said that is fine.
Mr. Mikes said he has one other clarification point on that, the people in the Greenbriar development,
Horton Homes, they have come to him and there is land that you would not think of other than part
of the Greenbriar parcel, but I actually own it, they have a 40' setback along that they have put in their
covenants and I have agreed to waive that 40' setback so they can build their houses closer. It is still
well away from the fiUrway, I have also agreed with them that if they can come back to the City and
replat a portion ofit, that they could even take some of our land and actually add it to their property
so that they include it in their lots. They are going to come to the City looking for approval of 115
lots, increasing the size of the lots, reducing the number of the lots, but then I would give them some
land near the 18th tee so that they could expand the lots back there, and then they could get bigger
homes, they want to go to a 50' wide lot and in order to do that everything has to expand out; I told
them that they can have approx. one acre of extra land, a strip along the 18th tee, the 17th fairway
to expand their lots. If you could approve that in that area. if they come back to you and if they get
their plat approved by the City, that they could use the land that I would give them for those
purposes. In this agreement we had said nothing else would ever be used for residential purposes,
we would like to be able to give them a strip that you would not think of as the golf course.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said if the Commission does deem this appropriate to approve, I ask that
it be with a motion subject to the changes that we have discussed here tonight, subject to the Staff
signing on: the Attorney signing off on the final, redraft the document with the authority for the
Mayor to execute it.
Discussion on this item.
Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve the proposed amended settlement agreement
between Florida Country Clubs, Inc, and the City of Winter Springs, subject to the changes
mentioned by the City Attorney and approvals by Staff etc. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring.
Discussion. Vote: Commissioner GenneU: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner
LangeUotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes.
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 8
City MAnll~er - John Govoruhk - ReJlOrts:
Manager Govoruhk stated to the Commission that back in February 1995, they received a package
for an inter-local agreement for all Cities, the Sherifi's Dept. and the County, to go to an 800mh
communication system. The Mayor just signed the agreement and what this agreement does is it will
give all Cities in the County the opportunity to communicate, dispatch and work together as one unit.
We will have our own console for independent communication once they come to our area. This is
saving our City between 1 and 2 million dollars; the equipment will be maintained by the County,
unless we buy additional communication for ourselves. We will continue to maintain our current
system incase of an emergency situation.
Commission Seat m - John Lanl1ellOtti:
Commissioner LangeIlotti asked the City Manager if he had heard anything regarding the ambulance
service not renewing their contract with the County. Manager Govoruhk said what he has heard
right now as of today, the ambulance service is in the process ofbeing purchased again. The Fire
Chiefhas been attending every meeting that they have had; the intent is between Orange and Seminole
County, is the Fire Dept. looking at transporting and the County is looking at the same thing also.
If the City has to do that, we have the equipment, the only thing we would have to do is hire three
more people. We would have the capability among the Cities for back-up, so we are in fine shape
to assume that whichever way the County goes.
Commission Seat IV - Cindy Gennell:
Commissioner Gennell said when we discussed advertising for the City Manager, she didn't remember
when it was going to be advertised in the Orlando Sentinel. Commissioner Conniff said it was
advertised in Sunday's paper.
Commission Seat V - David McLeod - J\ppointment/Rea.ppointment to Planning and Zonin8 Bd:
Commissioner McLeod said he would like to reappoint William Fernandez to the Plannin8 and Zoning
Bd. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye;
Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner
Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Commissioner McLeod said to the City Manager that he would like to have the Police Chief and Fire
Chief look into the use of a receiver that would put out a signal, that would open the gates in the
gated communities within the City. This would omit having a number of different receivers in a
vehicle. Commissioner McLeod said he would like to see this option investigated to get costs etc.
Manager Govoruhk said we are in the process for the fire trucks, rescue units and a1~ for all stop
lights throughout Seminole and Orange Counties, we will have a master override for traffic lights and
we will check with the same company to see what we can do with regard to Commissioner McLeod's
suggestion.
Commission Seat I - Lany Conniff:
No Report.
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 9
Commission Seat IT - John Ferrin~:
Commissioner Ferring said to the City Manager with the construction going on on S.R. 434,
regarding the speed limit that the State has erected along the corridor for construction which is 35
mph.; when there is no construction going on and there is no impairments in the road, he doesn't
understand why they are posting the 35 mph speed limit signs. Usually as a general rule, when there
is construction on the way, they have the construction speed limit signs when work is in progress and
said he would like to see the City Manager talk to D.O.T. for consideration for this corridor, because
it is bad enough now and what they have done with the speed limit down to 35 mph even when they
are not working is going to make it worse. Manager Govoruhk said he has a meeting set for next
week with D. O. T. regarding that subject.
Commissioner Ferring asked the City Attorney the status regarding the Tuscawilla Homeowner's
lawsuit and how far he has gotten with the eight questions that he has raised prior. Attorney
Kruppenbacher said the Homeowner's lawsuit is currently being reassigned, Judge Freeman
disqualified himself from sitting on the motion, it was reassigned from Judge Benson to Judge
Freeman when the Judges realigned and we are waiting the realignment to a different Judge. We are
in the midst of investigating the facts regarding those issues. This involves more than myself
(Kruppenbacher) it involves other parties and he is the recipient of the information as the other people
identify it also and I will report back to the Commission sometime in the near future.
Commissioner Ferring said he is very elated with the deal the City Manager has made with Morrison
Homes complex to the landscaping that has been done on VlStawiUa Drive; it is a complement to that
area and it is landscaped beautifully, it does enhance the entranceway.
Commissioner Ferring asked about the status ofthe Tuscora entranceway. Manager Govoruhk said
they are working on that, they (the developer) has finally got the working permit from D.O.T.
Mayor's Office - John F. Bush:
Mayor Bush said he would like to appoint Mr. George Columbo, who lives in the Highlands to the
Code Enforcement Board.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to appoint Mr. George Columbo to the Code
Enforcement Board. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner
Gennell: aye; Commissioner Conniff. aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye;
Commissioner LangeUotti: aye. Motion passes.
Mayor Bush mentioned that Mr. Columbo is the person that he has spoken about who is going to help
putting together the Commission's Newsletter. Mayor Bush said that he and the City Manager met
with Mr. Columbo this past Saturday and discussed some of the topics and asked Mr. Columbo to
introduce himself to the Commission.
Mr. Columbo stated that he lives in the Highlands and has been a resident of Winter Springs for one
year. He said that he is a professional writer, he writes a column for a monthly business magazine
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 10
and also does some free-lance work and also does some paid professional speaking. Mr. Columbo
said he is looking forward to working on the Newsletter.
Mayor Bush mentioned that the Newsletter will come to the Commission before it goes to press.
Mayor Bush said that Manager Govoruhk has been working on ways to get the Newsletter out most
effectively and efficiently and he will be discussing that at a later time.
Mayor Bush also complemented Manager Govoruhk with following up on a citizen's concern over
the cable in Wmding Hollow.
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~~-~~,;.;
Margo M. Hopkins,
City Clerk
APPROVED:
VERBATIM PORTION OF MINUTES OF JULY 24,1995
Mayor - I notice that Mr. Mikes is here now, and even though we tabled that agenda item, I'd like
to bring it back on the agenda tonight
Ferring - Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my tabling motion
Mayor - does the second agree
Langellotti - I'll second that
Mayor - Mr. Mikes I know you're not use to us moving that quickly along the agenda. And this is
agenda item D that's now back on the agenda.
Proposed amendment to settlement agreement between the Florida Country Clubs Incorporated, the
City ofWmter Springs adding 7 lots to Parcel 7, adding 7 lots to ParcelS and adding additional
property to that subdivision known as Woodstream.
Attorney - it was tabled cause you weren't here
Mayor - Mr. Mikes is here, if the Commission would like to ask him any questions, I'm sure he'd be
glad to answer.
Mikes - I'm sorry I don't have the site plans inside, with the rain, they're sitting out in the car, and
I can bring them in if there's any questions on that
McLeod - ya, I'd like to see them
Mikes - ok, there may be a set inside here
McLeod - have they changed since we saw them last time
Mikes - there is a, to address the several points of opposition on the, the, those that are in the driving
range area, we have taken the cul-de-sac and turned it into a single cul-de-sac as opposed to that
double cul-de-sac look to make it exactly as you asked, that it just be a straight cul-de-sac every lot
has the required street frontage and direct access onto dedicated streets. Then, on the parcel where,
near the tennis courts, I have depicted on that 19 lots and have swung the entrance, the drive so that
it do not cross in front of the golf tee, there was an objection to that and that that can be
accomplished and we removed one lot, instead of showing 20 lots, we show 19 lots.
Ferring - ok, good
Mayor - Mr. Kruppenbacher
Attorney - ya, Mayor, could I go through this, only cause I don't want any misunderstandings so
.,
when we all walk out of here it's done and we don't end up back here again
Conniff - we're going to swim out ofhere
Attorney - on any issues and I hate to be so detailed about this at this meeting but I think it important
given the history of confusions on this. If you look at paragraph 2-B, and Tun I'm just going to go
sentence by sentence if we can. The first sentence we are dealing with the preliminary engineering
on lots, parcel 7 and 8 correct
Mikes - correct
Attorney - ok, you agree as being would be said by this document regarding parcel 7 & 8 was that
you would be entitled to increase the number and/or reduce the size of lots in parcel 7 & 8, now
there's a difference between the word number and size. I mean....
Mikes - the intent is that basically what is shown on that conceptual plan would be the maximum,
would be the minimum lot size and the maximum number of lots.
Attorney - SO what....that's what I'm saying.....
Mikes - the actual acreage that's included is actually less than what was included in the original
settlement agreement because we have taken the size of the lots instead of being 125 feet wide and
200 feet deep, they will 115 feet wide and about 160-170 feet deep, they're still larger than ...
Attorney - let me ask you, you wouldn't have any problem then Jim, our just revising it to provide
what you just said in that there will be not more than 20 lots on parcel 7 and 46 lots on.....
Mikes - 19
Attorney - 19 on 7 and 46 on 8
Mikes - that's fine
Attorney - I'mjust, you understand I'm just concerned about the language
Langellotti - say that again, say that again Frank
Attorney - all right, so we would revise it to provide, assuming you all approve this, there be not
more than 19 lots permitted on parcel 7 and 46 lots on parcel 8 provided those lots can be developed
in accordance with the applicable City Codes and State or Federal laws and regulations. So you just
couldn't have any more lots which would really rend the mute the issue of reducing the size, the right
to reduce the size of lots, wouldn't it
Mikes - correct
"
.
Attorney - ok, I mean, think - then the next sentence would be where we of the City shall promptly
process, review, and approve such modifications, we'd modiJY that that you would promptly process,
review and propose for consideration for approval, you can't agree that you're going to approve it
ahead of time.
Mikes - correct, that's fine
Attorney - Jim, the next thing is and the last is. provided in the settlement agreement the termed
development property shall hereafter be deemed for the purpose of permitting parcels 7 & 8 to be
developed with the additional lots herein, correct
Mikes - correct
Attorney - now then there are four, uh, three additional things the land lying north of the 9th tee,
directly west of the parcel, commonly know as Hooker parcel, adjacent to the Country Club
clubhouse and parking lot.
Mikes - there's about, that is what is shown on parcel, what we call parcel 8 in the original settlement
agreement
Attorney - all right
Mikes - that was, that's that entry that's right at the entrance way, it's always been part of that plan,
it's an acre and three quarters that's adjacent to the brick wall that we already have up
Attorney - so all you saying there is that is what's currently known as parcel 8
Mikes - correct
Attorney - ok, I just don't want to end up with somebody saying that that wasn't parcel 8...
Mikes - that's shown right, that's shown on those conceptual plans
Attorney - ok, and then the the next is be the approximate 100 feet of land laying adjacent to the 2nd
and 4th holes of the Club and the property commonly known as Woodstream.
Mikes - that's shown on the conceptual plan, urn, what we call the Woodstream, that that last, our
unit 5 .
Attorney - is that property where the Commission previously approved the lots to be
Mikes - correct, that was what, that was permitted for 77 lots and we're going to add to their 26
acres, we would add a 100 foot strip all the way around the outside of it and then we would reduce
their 77 plus our 100 feet down to 54 lots.
.
Attorney - we're not adding any more
Mikes - you're not adding any more lots, you're reducing the number oflots but also increasing the
area so that the lots now become 113-114 feet wide and 165 feet deep.
Attorney - and the final one is the parcel currently occupied by the tennis courts and the parcel
bounded by the 10th fairway, 18th fairway and Howell Branch Creek
Mikes - ya, that's the tennis court parcel
Attorney - and that's in the current agreement
Mikes - yes,
Attorney - as parcel what
Mikes - 7
Langellotti - 8, isn't it parcel 8
Mikes - 7, the one by the tennis courts I think is parcel 7
Langellotti - oh, ya that's 7
Attorney - ok, what's parcel- is Woodstream part of parcel what
Mikes - it wasn't a parcel in the settlement agreement, it is what is in front of you as unit 5 ofour
Arrowhead project, the 54 lots
Attorney - cause it's included in this
Mikes - urn huh
Attorney - so it's not parcel 7 or 8
Govoruhk - no 7
Mikes - 7
Langellotti - parcel 8 is adjacent
Mikes - parcel- the Woodstream has nothing to do with what was in the 6riginal parcels, that is just
something that we are now - in the original agreement we had said that we weren't going to use any
other property for residential development
Attorney - right
Mikes - and we're just trying to clarifY that we're going to take 100 - a strip 100 feet wide around
the Woodstream property that's undeveloped
Attorney - you don't mind ifwe just put that language in a separate paragraph that says that's what
we're doing
Mikes - that's fine
Attorney - and delete it from this paragraph because then you have 7 & 8 cleaned up and then
Woodstream identified
Mikes - right
Attorney - ok
Mikes - and then I have one other clarification point on that, the people in the Greenbriar
development, Horton homes, they have come to me and they are, there is land that you would not
think of as anything other than part of the Greenbriar parcel but I actuaUy, we own it, and they have
a 40 foot setback along that they have put in their covenants and I have agreed to waive that 40 foot
setback, I have, so that they can build their houses closer. You would, it still you know, weD away
from the filirway; I've also agreed with them that if they can come beck to you and replat a portion
ofil, that they cou1d even take some of our land and actually add it to their property so that they can
include it in their lots. They're going to come to you with right now I guess they are approved for
120 lots, they are going to probably be coming back to you looking to approval of 115 lots, reducing,
excuse me, increasing the size of the lots, reducing the number oflots, but I would give them some
land near the 18th tee so that they could expand the lots back there and then they could get bigger
home. What they can fit right now on a 40 foot, 45 foot wide lot is a very small house, they want to
go to a 50 foot wide lot and in order to do that everything kind of has to just expand out and I have
told them that they can have approximately one acre of extra land, a strip along the 18th tee, the 17th
fiUrway to expand their lots and if you could approve that that in that area, if they come back to you
and if they get their plat approved by you that they could use the land that I would give them for
those purposes and that - but that is on the 17th fairway.
Mayor - but that is separate from this agreement
Mikes - that separate, but in this agreement we had said nothing else would ever be used for
residential purposes, we would like to be able to give them a strip that that you would not, if you
went out there and looked it today, you would not think of it as the golfcourse, it's laying back in
the palmettos that you would not have thought, you would have thought it was part of Greenbriar
not part of ours
Attorney - Mayor, if the Commission does deem this appropriate to approve, I'd ask it be it with a
motion subject to the changes that were discussed here tonight, subject to the Staff signing oft', the
~
Attorney signing off on the final redrafted document with authority for the Mayor to execute.
Mayor - Commissioner Gennell
Gennell- ya, on this proposed parcel 8, where you're proposing 46 or 47 lots, have you given us a
minimum lot size at all.
Mikes - the minimum in there is 115 by 160, I believe is the smallest, 158 - again this isn't final, this
isn't to an engineering state. this is a conceptual plan and it would be roughly the same size as the lots
on the golf course in our existing, which are 115 feet wide.
Gennell - all 46 of em
Mikes - that would be the minimum width, would be ....., 115 at the building line, some of them
would be pie shaped so that they would be narrower at the front and deeper and wider in the back,
but the building pad would be a minimum of 115 feet wide, was our intent.
Mayor - Commissioner Langellotti
Langellotti - fun, clear up my mind, you mentioned the 18th tee
Mikes - correct, the Greenbriar development, Horton has now taken over the second phase of that,
and they're out there selling homes that are not--so far they haven't been very well received. they're
market is, they're slower than what Pulte and Morrison are selling the same priced product and they
now have realize that they have a 45 foot wide lot and they have this string of lots along the golf
course there and they also have a 40 foot setback from our property and the setback is something that
the StatTtold them they don't care as long as I waive, cause I'm the adjoining property owner, if I
waive the setback requirement that's fine, and I said I would do that but they also, in addition to
getting that depth, so they can put a bigger house on there, they also need more width, a 45 foot wide
lot, so they are going to take the lots and basically expand some of them, not all of them. but a good
number so that they can put a house on, that instead ofbeing 1300 or 1400 square feet, it'll be 2100
or 2200 square feet and the only way they can do that is by, is with our ok on the setback and then
them spreading out and in order for them not to loose 10 lots or whatever number that they would
be losing, if they could go on to our property and expand out the lots that are in the back cul-de-sac,
all those roads are improved back there and if you drive back there, there is a cul-de-sac that's back
by the 18th tee and ifwe let them expand out those lots in that area and on the 17th they can pick up
another three lots or somewhere possibly four, instead on picking up more they will loose less, instead
of loosing 10 they might end up loosing 6 in the whole project by doing that
Langellotti - and the other parcel you're talking about, is that along
Mikes - Woodstream. is on number 2,3 and 4, the area on the west side of those lots, uh - those
holes.
Mayor - Commissioner Conniff
.
Conniff - may I make a motion that we approve the proposed amendment settlement agreement
between the Florida Country Clubs, Inc., and the City of Winter Springs with the changes suggested
by our Attorney.
Mayor - and the approvals by Staff etc
Conniff - correct
Mayor - ok, we have a motion do we have a second
Ferring - second
Mayor - discussion, call roll
Roll CalI- Commissioner Cindy GennelI: aye; Commissioner Larry Conniff: aye; Commissioner 10hn
Langellotti: aye; Commissioner David McLeod: aye; Commissioner 10hn Ferring: aye
Mikes - I thank you
Mayor - ok
~...,.,
l.
JUL 06 '95 01:37PM KRUPPENBACHER & ASSC
P.1/2
~
Law Offices
KRUPPENBACBER " ASSOCIATES
A Professional Association
FACSIMILE MESSAGE
TO:
John Govoruhk, City Manaler
City of Winter Springs, Florida
FROM:
Frank Kruppenbacher
Kruppenbacher & Associates, P.A.
RE:
Cancellation of Executive Session
DATE~
July 6, 1995
(407) 3:27w6912
PHONE #: (407) 327-1800
FAX#:
NO. OF PAGES (includina cover sheet) - :2
IF YOU HA vz AR'/ .R08LaM8 OR QUESTIONS WITH TIllS FAX.I'LEASE CAU (<107)]46.0100 OR ~JJl. (~fU.'11~
This messaae is intoDded only for the \I.SC ofthc iudividual or eI1tity to which it Is addressed IDd may contain
inConnatiOl1 that is privileged, coufideotial. and exempt !10m ditoloeure uadtt applioe.b1tllaw. If you are DOt tho
inteaded rccipiaDt. you _ bcnby DOtifiec! that Iff1 uso, ~tiOD, . disln'bution, at oqJ'f afthis ~on is
Slriclly probJ'bited. If you haw reccivcd this conummic:atiOll in error, pleue notify 111 imlDcdiatdy at (407) 246-0200.
Thank you.
MESSAGE: John. refer to attached memo cancelling Executive Session for 7-10-
95. please ask Jan to make distnbution to Margo and Commissioners forme.
Thanks. Linda
FROM 407-426-7767
07-06-95 12:41 PM
POI
JUL 06 '95 01:37PM KRUPPENBACHER & ASSC
P.2/2
... ....
Law Offices
KRUPPENBACHER & ASSOCIATES
A Professional Association
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager and City Commissioners
The City ofWmter Springs. Florida.
FROM:
Frank Kruppenbacher, City Attorney
DATE;
July 6, 1995
RE:
Cancellation of Closed Executive Session
Please be advised that I ha.ve asked the Mayor to cancel the Closed Executive Session
scheduled for Monday, July 10, 1995 at 5:00 p.m., regarding the Oviedo Crossings lawsuit, due
to various vacation schedules, including my own.
Our scheduled negotiation session will be held during the week of 1uly 10, 1995,
therefore, we will not be in a position to provide you any information until after that time.
At. our Regular Meeting on July 10, 1995. I will ask the Mayor to schedule a closed
meeting to provide you with the latest status from the negotiation session.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me.
FCK:lek
cc: John Bush, Mayor
Margo Hopkin$, City Clerk
FROM 407-426-7767
07-06-95 12:41 PM
P02
:..: h. "~'._' .',_ ....._._. ,:~.. :~'. ...., :". ~ . .-:_.-.... ~ ., _ . '\'.':".".
.. ...... ...... ,.", ~'_~_a:",~~.....;.'_",:."""' .~. ':'_:'~~._::-.:.
- ,....:......-:,.7;-..-..~-.-.". ..:~~'t'17;'!~,..
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached document was referenced by Mr.
Anthony A. Garganese during the discussion of
Public Hearings Agenda Item "500.1" at the
August 20, 2007 City Commission Special
Meeting.
11
EXHIBIT
Page 1 of 8
il
I
W2stlaw:
776 So.2d 255
776 So.2d 255,26 Fla. L. Weekly S 19
(Cite as: 776 So.2d 255)
i>
City of Winter Springs v. State
Fla.,200 1.
Supreme Court of Florida.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, Florida, etc.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, et aI., Appellees.
No. SCOO-413.
Jan. 11,2001.
City brought action against state to validate special
assessment bonds for improvements in planned unit
development. The Circuit Court, Seminole County,
Gene R. Stephenson, 1., refused to validate them.
City appealed. The Supreme Court, Harding, 1.,
held that: (l) city's legislative finding that special
assessment conferred a special benefit upon the
lands burdened by the assessment was not arbitrary,
and (2) its method for apportioning the special
assessment was not arbitrary.
Reversed and remanded.
West Headnotes
[1] Municipal Corporations 268 ~917(2)
268 Municipal Corporations
268XlII Fiscal Matters
268XlII(C) Bonds and Other Securities, and
Sinking Funds
268k917 Proceedings Preliminary to Issue
of Bonds
268k917(2) k. Determination of
Validity. Most Cited Cases
The scope of review in bond validation cases is
limited to the following issues: (l) whether the
public body has the authority to issue bonds; (2)
whether the purpose of the obligation is legal; and
(3) whether the bond issuance complies with the
requirements of the law.
[2] Municipal Corporations 268 ~438
Page I
268 Municipal Corporations
268IX Public Improvements
268IX(E) Assessments for Benefits, and
Special Taxes
268k436 Benefits to Property
268k438 k. General or Special. Most
Cited Cases
Municipal Corporations 268 ~465
268 Municipal Corporations
268IX Public Improvements
268IX(E) Assessments for Benefits, and
Special Taxes
268k464 Apportionment of Benefits and
Expenses of Improvement
268k465 k. In General. Most Cited
Cases
A special assessment funding a bond issuance must
satisfy the following test: (l) the property burdened
by the assessment must derive a special benefit
from the service provided by the assessment; and
(2) the assessment for the services must be properly
apportioned among the properties receiving the
benefit.
[3] Municipal Corporations 268 ~917(2)
268 Municipal Corporations
268XlII Fiscal Matters
268XlII(C) Bonds and Other Securities, and
Sinking Funds
268k917 Proceedings Preliminary to Issue
of Bonds
268k917(2) k. Determination of
Validity. Most Cited Cases
City's legislative finding that special assessment
conferred a special benefit upon the lands burdened
by the assessment was not arbitrary and, therefore,
was entitled to a presumption of correctness by the
trial court in a suit to validate bonds to fund
improvements to landscaping, signs, and lighting in
a planned unit development; the city found that the
assessment would improve exterior subdivision
@ 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/printlprintstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft= HTMLE&mt= Florida&vr... 8/1 712007
776 So.2d 255
776 So.2d 255,26 Fla. L. Weekly S 19
(Cite as: 776 So.2d 255)
boundaries, interior subdivision areas, and
subdivision identity and aesthetics and would
enhance the safety, value, and the use and
enjoyment of all properties.
(4] Municipal Corporations 268 ~412
268 Municipal Corporations
268IX Public Improvements
268IX(E) Assessments for Benefits, and
Special Taxes
268k411 Nature ofImprovement
268k412 k. In General. Most Cited
Cases
Municipal Corporations 268 ~419
268 Municipal Corporations
268IX Public Improvements
268IX(E) Assessments for Benefits, and
Special Taxes
268k411 Nature of Improvement
268k419 k. Lighting. Most Cited Cases
The fact that non-residents drove through planned
unit development on their way to other parts of the
city and would incidentally benefit from
improvements, such as new signs, landscaping, and
street lighting, does not invalidate the special
assessment to pay for those improvements.
(5] Municipal Corporations 268 ~503
268 Municipal Corporations
268IX Public Improvements
268IX(E) Assessments for Benefits, and
Special Taxes
268k496 Confirmation or Revision of
Assessment by Court
268k503 k. Scope of Inquiry and
Powers of Court. Most Cited Cases
If reasonable persons may differ as to whether the
land assessed was benefitted by the local
improvement, the findings of the city officials must
be sustained.
(6] Municipal Corporations 268 ~917(2)
268 Municipal Corporations
268XIII Fiscal Matters
Page 2 of8
Page 2
268XIII(C) Bonds and Other Securities, and
Sinking Funds
268k917 Proceedings Preliminary to Issue
of Bonds
268k917(2) k. Determination of
Validity. Most Cited Cases
Without any evidence or rational basis to overcome
the presumption of correctness of a city's legislative
findings on special benefits to property from a
special assessment, there could be no invalidation
of the bonds.
(7] Municipal Corporations 268 ~503
268 Municipal Corporations
268IX Public Improvements
268IX(E) Assessments for Benefits, and
Special Taxes
268k496 Confirmation or Revision of
Assessment by Court
268k503 k. Scope of Inquiry and
Powers of Court. Most Cited Cases
Although a court may recognize valid alternative
methods of apportionment of a special assessment
among benefitted properties, so long as the
legislative determination by the city is not arbitrary,
a court should not substitute its judgment for that of
the local legislative body.
(8] Municipal Corporations 268 €=466
268 Municipal Corporations
268IX Public Improvements
268IX(E) Assessments for Benefits, and
Special Taxes
268k464 Apportionment of Benefits and
Expenses of Improvement
268k466 k. Benefit to Property in
General. Most Cited Cases
City's method for apportioning the costs of the
proposed improvements and thus for apportioning
special assessment was not arbitrary, despite the
existence of alternatives and disagreements among
experts; the improvements consisted of landscaping,
signs, and lighting in a planned unit development,
and the city assigned to each single-family home an
equivalent residential unit value of one and
extrapolated the value to the multifamily dwelling
units and to the commercial properties based on
<<;J 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft= HTMLE&mt= Florida&vr... 8/1 7/2007
776 So.2d 255
776 So.2d 255,26 Fla. L. Weekly SI9
(Cite as: 776 So.2d 255)
square footage.
[9] Municipal Corporations 268 ~465
268 Municipal Corporations
268IX Public Improvements
268IX(E) Assessments for Benefits, and
Special Taxes
268k464 Apportionment of Benefits and
Expenses of Improvement
268k465 k. In General. Most Cited
Cases
Municipal Corporations 268 ~503
268 Municipal Corporations
268IX Public Improvements
268IX(E) Assessments for Benefits, and
Special Taxes
268k496 Confirmation or Revision of
Assessment by Court
268k503 k. Scope of Inquiry and
Powers of Court. Most Cited Cases
The choice of method for apportioning assessments
is the responsibility of a city in the first instance and
must be upheld if not arbitrary.
*256 Arthur J. England, Jr., of Greenberg Traurig,
P.A., Miami, FL; *257George H. Nickerson, Jr.,
Gregory T. Stewart, and Virginia Saunders Delegal
of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee,
FL; Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney, Brown,
Ward, Salzman & Weiss, P.A.; and Virginia B.
Townes of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A.,
Orlando, FL, for Appellant.
Michael D. Jones and Clifton H. Gorenflo of Leffler
& Associates, P.A., Winter Springs, FL; and Beth
Richards Rutberg, Assistant State Attorney,
Sanford, FL, for Appellees.
HARDING, J.
We have on appeal the final judgment of the trial
court refusing to validate special assessment bonds.
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, S 3(b)(2), Fla. Const.
For the reasons expressed, we reverse the trial
court's judgment and remand the cause for further
bond validation proceedings.
Appellant, the City of Winter Springs, Florida
Page 3 of 8
Page 3
(City), filed a complaint for validation of special
assessment bonds for the financing of local
improvements in a discrete portion of the City
known as the Tuscawilla Lighting and
Beautification District (District).FNI Proposed
improvements include enhanced landscaping,
signage, and lighting at various locations within the
District. Appellees, the State of Florida and
Intervenors on behalf of the Property Owners and
Citizens of the City of Winter Springs (Validation
Opponents), filed an answer opposing validation of
the bonds. After a bench trial, the trial court
denied the City's complaint to validate the bonds,
holding that the special assessment was not in
compliance with the law. The City timely filed this
direct appeal.
FN I. Tuscawilla is a Planned Unit
Development located within the City,
consisting of a number of different
independent developments with
approximately four thousand homes, a
county club and golf course, and several
commercial properties. In the early
1990's, a group of Tuscawilla homeowners
approached the City requesting authority to
form a taxing district for the maintenance
and improvement of certain common areas
within Tuscawilla no longer being
maintained by the developer.
[1][2] This Court's scope of review in bond
validation cases is limited to the following issues:
(1) whether the public body has the authority to
issue bonds; (2) whether the purpose of the
obligation is legal; and (3) whether the bond
issuance complies with the requirements of the law.
See State v. Inland Protection Fin. Corp., 699
So.2d 1352 (Fla.1997); Poe v. Hillsborough
County, 695 So.2d 672 (Fla.1997); Northern Palm
Beach County Water Control Dist. v. State, 604
So.2d 440 (Fla. 1992); Taylor v. Lee County, 498
So.2d 424 (Fla.1986). To comply with the
requirements of the law, a special assessment
funding a bond issuance must satisfy the following
two-prong test: (1) the property burdened by the
assessment must derive a special benefit from the
service provided by the assessment; and (2) the
<D 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=S plit&prft= HTMLE&mt= Florida&vr... 8/1 7/2007
776 So.2d 255
776 So.2d 255,26 Fla. L. Weekly Sl9
(Cite as: 776 So.2d 255)
assessment for the services must be properly
apportioned among the properties receiving the
benefit. See Lake County v. Water Oak
Management Corp., 695 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla.1997)
(citing City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So.2d 25,
30 (Fla.1992)).FN2 "[T]he standard [of review] is
the same for both prongs; that is, the legislative
determination as to the existence of special benefits
and as to the apportionment of the costs of those
benefits should be upheld unless the determination
is arbitrary." Sarasota County v. Sarasota Church
of Christ, 667 So.2d 180, 184 (Fla. 1995).FN3
FN2. In this case, it was conceded that the
City had the authority to issue the bonds,
and there was no suggestion that the
purposes for issuance of the bonds were
not entirely proper. Rather, the City's
purpose for the bonds is well-recognized
as a basis for special assessments. See,
e.g., section ~ 170.01 (1), Fla. Stat. (1999)
(authorizing municipalities to impose
special assessments to fund "related
lighting, landscaping, street furniture,
signage, and other amenities as determined
by the governing authority of the
municipality").
FN3. This Court has employed the same"
special benefits" test to analyze the
validity of special assessments in the
context of bond validation cases, see, e.g.,
Collier County v. State, 733 So.2d 1012
(Fla. 1999) (affirming trial court's
invalidation of revenue certificates because
assessment did not satisfy the first prong of
the "special benefit" test); State v.
Sarasota County, 693 So.2d 546 (Fla.1997)
(affirming trial court's judgment validating
proposed bonds issued for purpose of
funding storm water management program
because assessment met both prongs of "
special benefit" test); City of Boca Raton
v. State, 595 So.2d 25 (Fla.1992)
(reversing trial court's invalidation of
special assessment improvement bonds to
improve downtown infrastructure because
special assessment met both prongs of "
Page 4 of 8
Page 4
special benefit" test), and "non-bond
validation" cases where municipalities
have attempted to utilize "special
assessments" (in lieu of ad valorem taxes)
to finance specific improvements or
services. See, e.g., Lake County v. Water
Oak Mgt. Corp., 695 So.2d 667 (Fla.1997)
(holding that fire protection services
funded by county's special assessment
specially benefitted real property in
county); Harris v. Wilson, 693 So.2d 945
(Fla.1997) (affirming validation of special
assessment for solid waste disposal
facility); Sarasota County v. Sarasota
Church of Christ, Inc., 667 So.2d 180
(Fla.1995) (holding that special assessment
for stormwater services is a valid special
assessment).
*258 [3] In this case, however, the City's legislative
finding that the special assessment confers a special
benefit upon the land burdened by the assessment
was not arbitrary and, therefore, was entitled to a
presumption of correctness by the trial court. By
substituting its own judgment for that of the locally
elected officials, and thus failing to attach a
presumption of correctness to the legislative
determination, the trial court erred as a matter of
law.
Validation Opponents argue there is no evidence to
support the City's conclusion that the improvements
will provide a special benefit to all tax parcels
located within the District. Section 1.03(E) of City
Resolution 99-884, however, provides the City's
specific findings regarding the "special benefits"
derived from the improvements:
The Tuscawilla Improvements will provide a
special benefit to all Tax Parcels located within the
Tuscawilla Improvement Area ... by improving and
enhancing the exterior subdivision boundaries, the
interior subdivision areas, the subdivision identity,
and the subdivision aesthetics and safety, thus
enhancing the value, use and enjoyment of such
property.
City of Winter Springs, Fla., Resolution No.
99-884 (July 12, 1999) (emphasis added).
Moreover, the City did employ the services of an
~ 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=S plit&prft= HTMLE&mt= Florida&vr... 8/1 7/2007
776 So.2d 255
776 So.2d255, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Sl9
(Cite as: 776 So.2d 255)
outside consultant and appraiser to specifically "
analyze whether or not such improvements would
have a beneficial impact on home values in the
general area." Letter from Appraiser to City of
Winter Springs (April 10, 1998). After evaluating
the nature, and area, of the proposed improvements,
the property appraiser concluded that there would
be a beneficial impact on overall property values in
the area:[W]e reviewed numerous subdivisions and
PUDS ... [and] had discussions with residential
appraisers, developers, and Realtors regarding
beautification projects, either in place or proposed,
so that we might have an insight into market
opinion on this issue. From this analysis, it was
concluded that having improvements, such as those
proposed for the Tuscawilla PUD and described to
us, in place enhances the market perception of the
area and, ultimately, the surrounding property
values within the development.... There appears to
be a positive and certain influence on the market
value for properties in areas where such
improvements are made.
Id. In addition, during the validation hearing, the
appraiser provided uncontroverted testimony
regarding the special benefit conferred upon
properties in the District:Q. [City Counsel] Now,
Mr. Robbins, what did you, based on your
investigation and your work in this project, what
was your opinion in terms of what these
improvements would have on the value of property,
beneficial value of this property in the assessment
area.
*259 A. [Appraiser] I concluded that there would
be a positive, general overall benefit to the
surrounding properties.
Q. [City Counsel] Could you tell the Court basically
why you felt that.
A. [Appraiser] It was from my discussions with the
developers, residential appraisers, and realtors, and
engaging them in a discussion about what the
impact of these types of improvements generally
have on, or what their perception of those impacts
are. And to see every person that I discussed this
matter they conveyed to me for various reasons it
would have a positive overall impact on those
surrounding homes.
Page 5 of8
Page 5
[4] Validation opponents also argue that because
other people outside of the District may benefit
from the improvements, the improvements do not
confer a "special" benefit upon property owners in
the District. This argument fails, however, because
the mere fact that the opponents presented
testimony that non-neighborhood residents drive
through the District on their way to other parts of
the City, and en route will incidentally benefit from
improvements in the District such as new signs,
landscaping and street lighting, does not invalidate
the special assessment. See Charlotte County v.
Fiske, 350 So.2d 578, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
(holding that a special benefit is not lost merely
because other properties incidentally benefit); see
also Lake County, 695 So.2d at 670 (holding that a
special benefit can only be conferred to the real
property itself, i.e., not to mere passersby).
[5][6] This Court has held that "if reasonable
persons may differ as to whether the land assessed
was benefitted by the local improvement, the
findings of the city officials must be sustained."
City of Boca Raton v. State, 595 So.2d 25, 30
(Fla.1992). Accordingly, the trial court failed to
give appropriate deference to the legislative
findings of the City and to the record evidence that
provided support for those findings. The specific
findings of the City Commission declare that the
assessment for the District would improve exterior
subdivision boundaries, interior subdivision areas,
subdivision identity and subdivision aesthetics, and
would enhance the safety, value, and the use and
enjoyment of all properties within the District.
These findings are supported by the analysis and
testimony of the City's appraiser, who was
specifically employed to address the benefit
question. Moreover, Validation Opponents
adduced no evidence to counter these legislative
findings. Without any evidence or rational basis to
overcome the presumption of correctness which
attends the City's legislative findings, there can be
no invalidation of the bonds.FN4
FN4. Further, this Court has stated that, "
[i]n evaluating whether a special benefit is
conferred to property ... the test is whether
there is a 'logical relationship' between
~ 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.comlprint/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft= HTMLE&mt= Florida&vr... 8/17/2007
776 So.2d 255
776 So.2d 255, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S 19
(Cite as: 776 So.2d 255)
the services provided and the benefit to
real property." Lake County v. Water Oak
Mgt. Corp., 695 So.2d 667, 669 (Fla.1997)
(citing Whisnant v. Stringfellow, 50 So.2d
885 (Fla.1951), and Crowder v. Phillips,
146 Fla. 440, 1 So.2d 629 (1941 ) (on
rehearing)). Here, it is not unreasonable
to conclude that there is a "logical
relationship" between the proposed
beautification and lighting enhancements
within the District and the special benefit
of enhancing the values of individual
properties situated therein.
[7] The second prong of the special assessment test
established in City of Boca Raton requires that the
assessment be fairly and reasonably apportioned
among the properties that receive the special
benefit. See City of Boca Raton, 595 So.2d at 29.
And though a court may recognize valid alternative
methods of apportionment, so long as the legislative
determination by the City is not arbitrary, a court
should not substitute its judgment for that of the
local legislative body. See Sarasota Church oj
Christ, Inc., 667 So.2d at 184; see also Harris v.
Wilson, 693 So.2d 945, 947 (Fla.1997); State v.
Sarasota County, 693 So.2d 546, 548 (Fla. 1997).
[8] The City's method for apportioning the costs of
the proposed improvements *260 was thoughtfully
selected to assure equitable treatment to every land
owner in the District. Through its Resolution
99-884, the City provided the framework for
apportionment of the beautification assessment to
be "substantially proportional to the area of
Buildings located [within the District]." City of
Winter Springs, Fla., Resolution 99-884 ~ 1.03(F)
(July 12, 1999). Inasmuch as the District contains
single-family homes, multifamily buildings, and a
few commercial properties, the City first sought to
determine whether all three property uses would
benefit from the proposed improvements on the
same basis. It determined they would not, as its
consultant testified at the trial:
[W]e know for a fact from analysis that
single-family [residences] produce [ ] a different
impact on the road system and the community as
more than say multi-family condos or apartments,
that there's a different benefit realized.
Page 6 of8
Page 6
The City then analyzed the mix of properties within
the District to find an appropriate basis for
assessing the different property uses equitably. It
determined that the average square footage of each
single-family dwelling unit in the District-the vastly
predominant form of property use-was 2200 square
feet. It then created a formula that assigned each
single-family home an "equivalent residential unit"
value of 1, and it extrapolated the ERU value to the
multifamily dwelling units and to the commercial
properties in the District based on square footage.
It then determined that vacant parcels would pay the
same as a single-family dwelling unit, and that
commercial property would in no event be assessed
less than a single-family home. This method, the
City Commission found, had the effect of "fairly
and reasonably allocating the cost to specially
benefitted property, based upon the number of
ERUs attributable to each benefitted property in the
manner hereinafter described." FN5 City
Resolution 99-884 ~ 1.03(G).
FN5. The City's assessment
methodology-using Equivalent Residential
Units-finds direct support in Rushfeldt v.
Metropolitan Dade County, 630 So.2d 643
(Fla. 3d DCA 1994), review denied, 639
So.2d 980 (Fla. 1994). There the court
upheld "the propriety of the unit method
utilized for the special assessments"
imposed in the taxing district. Id. at 645
(quoting trial court's Final Summary
Judgment).
Moreover, there was testimony by the City Manager
at the validation hearing that nearly all property
owners in the District use the Winter Springs
Boulevard entry for access to their property:
The majority of people and to some degree I would
say every individual that lives in the district is going
to use that road.
The City also brought forward expert witness
testimony that the location of any particular
properties in relation to the improvements was not
an appropriate factor for allocation, becausethe
main benefit of the improvements ... was to provide
an enhanced identity to the community, safety, and
<<;) 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/printlprintstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft= HTMLE&mt= Florida&vr... 8/17/2007
. .
776 So.2d 255
776 So.2d 255,26 Fla. L. Weekly S19
(Cite as: 776 So.2d 255)
landscaping. All of those are the types of benefits
that in our professional opinion spread equally
throughout the entire community.
This testimony was bolstered by the expert's
observation on cross-examination that "[t]he other
enhancements, such as street lights, which enhance[
] the safety of the community ... are equally enjoyed
also by everybody in that community."
[9] Though a court, like Validation Opponents,
might envision alternative apportionment schemes
(e.g., based upon square footage of each particular
home, or the proximity of a property in relation to
each of the proposed improvements, or even based
in some part upon studied usage of various
roadways), the choice of apportioning assessments
by one or another methodology is not for this
Court-or even Validation Opponents.FN6 Rather, it
is a *261 City responsibility in the first instance
which must be upheld if not arbitrary. See
Sarasota Church of Christ. 667 So.2d at 184.FN7
FN6. It should be noted, however, that in
Rushfeldt v. Metropolitan Dade County,
630 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), the
court addressed a contention from property
owners that fair apportionment required a
different assessment for residents close to
and remote from guard gate improvements
and guard services in a gated
neighborhood. The court categorically
rejected that contention, holding there is
no requirement for "tiered assessments
based on a property's proximity to the
entrance," and that distinction being
suggested between residents in the
neighborhood "could make it impossible to
ever create a special taxing district."
Rushfeldt, 630 So.2d at 645 (quoting trial
court's judgment). The RusJifeldt decision
is particularly pertinent here, because the
court there sustained the very same
improvements which are at issue
here-street lights, landscaped green areas,
and better roads. ld. To the same effect is
Northern Palm Beach County Water
Control District v. State, 604 So.2d 440
Page 7 of 8
Page 7
(Fla. 1992), which also upheld special
assessments for signs, landscaping,
irrigation, and street lighting in a
mixed-use community with more than
2000 residential properties.
FN7. In Cape Development Co. v. City oj
Cocoa Beach, 192 So.2d 766, 771
(Fla. 1966), this Court also held that
benefits need not be determined by the
City on the basis of a valuation of each
individual dwelling unit. In this case, the
Court addressed a contention that a valid
assessment required the City to "have each
parcel of land affected show a dollar and
cents comparison of benefits derived to
assessment[.]" ld. The Court saw no merit
in that contention, pointing out:
There are over a thousand parcels of
property affected in this improvement
project, and to require a municipality to
itemize and set forth opposite each parcel
the amount in dollars said parcel would
benefit from said improvements is unduly
tedious and beyond the requirements....
ld. at 773. As noted above, the
Tuscawilla Beautification District has over
4000 residential unit parcels, which would
prove even more tedious to itemize.
Moreover, a mere disagreement of experts as to the
choice of methodology is legally inconsequential.
See Rosche v. City of Hollywood, 55 So.2d 909,
913 (Fla.1952) ("If the evidence as to benefits is
conflicting and depends upon the judgment of
witnesses, the findings of the City Commission will
not be disturbed."). In fact, the validation
opponents' expert witness recognized that his
opinion on methodology did not invalidate the one
selected by the City:
Q. [City Counsel] Are you saying that these
assessments are invalid?
A. [Opponents Expert] No. I'm not saying that any
assessment is invalid. It happens all the time. I'm
just saying that this particular assessment with four
thousand plus homes was not treated properly, in
my opinion. I concluded that there would be a
positive, general overall benefit to the surrounding
properties.
~ 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft= HTMLE&mt= Florida&vr... 8/17/2007
Page 8 of 8
. .
776 So.2d 255
776 So.2d 255, 26 Fla. L. Weekly S 19
(Cite as: 776 So.2d 255)
Page 8
As this Court noted in City of Fort Myers v. State,
95 Fla. 704, 117 So. 97, 104 (1928), however, "[n]o
system of appraising benefits or assessing costs has
yet been devised that is not open to some criticism."
Rather, a host of elements enter into the proration
of benefits, including:
[P]hysical condition, nearness to or remoteness
from residential and business districts, desirability
for residential or commercial purposes, and many
other peculiar to the locality where the lands
improved are located.
Meyer v. City of Oakland Park, 219 So.2d 417,
419-20 (Fla. 1969). The "Equivalent Residential
Unit" ("ERU") method of apportioning based upon
average building square footage of single family
and multi-family residences was reasonable. There
is no requirement to "tier" assessments based on
proximity to the improvement, nor is there any
requirement to value the benefit on each individual
property within the District.
Even an unpopular decision, when made correctly,
must be upheld. A review of the record in this case
yields competent, substantial evidence to support
the City's determination of apportionment and,
therefore, the City's findings regarding
apportionment cannot be said to be "arbitrary."
Rather, in this instance, the City's findings are
entitled to a presumption of *262 correctness, and
the trial court erred as a matter of law in substituting
its judgment for that of the locally-elected officials.
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court appealed
from is reversed, and the cause remanded for further
bond validation proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, ANSTEAD, PARlENTE
, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Fla.,200 1.
City of Winter Springs v. State
776 So.2d 255,26 Fla. L. Weekly S19
END OF DOCUMENT
@2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&prft= HTMLE&mt= Florida&vr... 8/1 7/2007
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached document was presented for the
Record by Kip Lockcuff during the discussion of
Public Hearings Agenda Item "500.1" at the
August 20, 2007 City Commission Special
Meeting.
12
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached documents were presented for the
Record by Mr. Anthony A. Garganese during the
discussion of Public Hearings Agenda Item
"500.1" at the August 20, 2007 City
Commission Special Meeting.
13
EXHIBIT
on
..
1)
D
3
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2001- 2002 BUDGET
TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES & EXENDITURES -184
Originally
Adopted &
Approved Newly
Projected Amendments Revised
Account FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02
Number DescriDtion of Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
315100 Assessment Collections $0 $279,363 $0 $275,000 $275,000 $280,000
361100 Interest $0 $10,622 $11 ,500 $10,000 $10,000 $13,000
TOTAL TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES $0 $289,985 $11,500 $285,000 $285,000 $293,000
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $0 $4,600 $225,430 $225,430 $0
TOTAL TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $0 $289,985 $16,100 $510,430 $510,430 $293,000
Originally
Adopted &
Approved Newly
Projected Amendments Revised
Account FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02
Number DescriDtion of EXDenditures Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
53140 Billing Services Cost $0 $1 ,402 $6,000 $0 $0 $6,000
53180 Consultant Services $0 $0 $10,000 $25,400 $25,400 $5,000
53411 Bank Service Charges $0 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100
54330 Street Lighting $0 $0 $0 $60,610 $60,610 $45,000
54686 Landscaping $0 $0 $0 $226,820 $226,820 $125,000
59130 Transfer to Debt Service Fund $0 $0 $0 $173,000 $173,000 $0
59310 Statutory Reserve $0 $0 $0 $24,600 $24,600 $24,600
TOTAL TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES $0 $1 ,402 $16,100 $510,430 $510,430 $205,700
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $288,583 $0 $0 $0 $87,300
TOTAL TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $0 $289,985 $16,100 $510,430 $510,430 $293,000
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1
$0
$0 $288,600
$278,658 $278,658
$284,000
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE
$0 $288,583
($4,600)
($225,430) ($225,430)
$87,300
FUND BALANCE - September 30
$0 $288,583 $284,000
$53,228 $53,228. $371,300
C-24
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2001 - 2002 BUDGET
TLBD 1999 DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -182
Originally
Adopted &
Approved Newly
Projected Amendments Revised
Account FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02
Number DescriDtion of Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
381400 Transfer from TLBD Improvement Fund $0 $0 $46,600 $173,000 $173,000 $151,800
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES $0 $0 $46,600 $173,000 $173,000 $151,800
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $46,600 $173,000 $173,000 $151,800
Originally
Adopted &
Approved Newly
Projected Amendments Revised
Account FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 01/02
Number DescriDtion of EXDenditures Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
57110 Debt Service - Principal $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 . $40,000
57210 Debt Service - Interest $0 $0 $46,000 $133,000 $133,000 $111,800
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $46,000 $173,000 $173,000 $151,800
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $46,000 $173,000 $173,000 $151,800
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
FUND BALANCE - September 30
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
C-23
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 BUDGET
TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES - 308
Originally
Adopted &
Approved Newly
Projected Amendments Revised
Account FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00101 FY 00101 FY 00101 FY 01102
~ DescriDtion of Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
315100 Assessment Collect $0 $ 163,220 $0 $160,000 $160,000 $160,000
361100 Interest Earned $411 $11,977 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000
363300 Prepaid Assessments $153,393 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
384015 Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $2,240,900 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES $ 153,804 $ 175,197 $2,240,900 $2,690,000 $2,690,000 $180,000
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $ 182,363 $0 $0 $0 $1,580,400
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $ 153,804 $ 357,560 $2,240,900 $2,690,000 $2,690,000 $1,760,400
Originally
Adopted &
Approved Newly
Projected Amendments Revised
Account FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00101 FY 00101 FY 00101 FY 01102
Number DescriDtion of EXDenditures Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
53114 Legal- Tuscawilla $0 $91,561 $10,000 $0 $0 $2,500
53410 Billing Services Cost $0 $785 $6,000 $0 $0 $6,000
53411 Service Charges $15 $30 $100 $100 $100 $100
56315 Construction Improvements $0 $0 $300,600 $2,170,000 $2,170,000 $1,600,000
56820 Beautification-Tusca PUD $0 $20,180 $0 $0 $0 $0
57310 Bond Issuance Costs $0 $0 $102,800 $100,000 $100,000 $0
59130 Transfer to General Fund $0 $245,004 $0 $275,000 $275,000 $0
59193 Transfer to TLBD Debt Service $0 $0 $46,600 $0 $0 $151,800
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES $15 $357,560 $466,100 $2,545,100 $2,545,100 $1,760,400
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $ 153,789 $0 $1,774,800 $144,900 $144,900 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $153,804 $357,560 $2,240,900 $2,690,000 $2,690,000 $1,760,400
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $0 $153,789 ($28,600) $243,846 $243,846 $1,746,200
APPROPRIA TION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $153,789 ($182,363) $1,774,800 $144,900 $144,900 ($1,580,400)
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $153,789 ($28,574) $1,746,200 $388,746 $388,746 $165,800
C-37
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET WORKSHEET
TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES & EXENDITURES -184
Projected Original Amended Tentative
Account FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01102 FY 01/02 FY 02/03
Number Description of Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
315100 Assessment Collections $279,363 $143 $278,200 $280,000 $280,000 $278,200
361100 Interest $10,622 $12,586 $5,000 $13,000 $13,000 $15,000
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES $289,985 $12,729 $283,200 $293,000 $293,000 $293,200
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $1,147 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $289,985 $13,876 $283,200 $293,000 $293,000 $293,200
Projected Original Amended Tentative
Account FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01102 FY 01/02 FY 02/03
~ DescrlDtlon of Exoendltures Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
53130 Trustee Fees $0 $425 $0 $0 $0 $0
53140 Billing Services Cost $1,402 $0 $100 $0 $0 $100
53180 Consultant Services $0 $12,000 $4,800 $5,000 $4,750 $15,000
53211 Administration Fees $0 $0 $6,250 $6,000 $6,250 $6,300
53411 Bank Service Charges $0 $100 $150 $100 $100 $0
54330 Street Lighting $0 $0 $25,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000
54510 Insurance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500
54686 Landscaping $0 $1,351 $55,000 $125,000 $125,000 $110,000
54693 Repairs & Main! - Ponds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000
55251 Repairs & Maint - Signs & Walls $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
59310 Statutory Reserve $0 $0 $24,600 $24,600 $24,600 $14,600
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES $1,402 $13,876 $115,900 $205,700 $205,700 $228,500
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $288,583 $0 $167,300 $87,300 $87,300 $64,700
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIA TIONS TO FUND BALANCE $289,985 $13,876 $283,200 $293,000 $293,000 $293,200
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $0 $288,583 $287,436 $284,000 $284,000 $454,700
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $288,583 ($1,147) $167,300 $87,300 $87,300 $64,700
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $288,583 $287,436 $454,736 $371,300 $371,300 $519,400
E-19
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET WORKSHEET
TLBO 1999 DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES - 182
Projected Original Amended Tentative
Account FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03
Number DescrlDtlon of Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
315100 Assessment Collections $0 $0 $162,500 $0 $160,000 $162,500
361100 Interest Earned $0 $186 $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000
381400 Transfer from TLBD Improvement Fund $0 $46,664 $0 $151,800 $0 $63,500
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES $0 $46,850 $163,500 $151,800 $160,000 $227,000
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $0 $46,850 $163,500 $151,800 $160,000 $227,000
Projected Original Amended Tentative
Account FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 01/02 FY 02/03
Number DescrlDtlon of Exoendltures Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
53130 Trustee Fees $0 $0 $500 $0 $0 $500
53410 Billing Services Cost $0 $0 $150 $0 $0 $1,000
53211 Administration Fees $0 $0 $6,250 $0 $6,250 $6,250
53411 Bank Service Charge $0 $0 $100 $0 $0 $0
57110 Debt Service - Principal $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
57210 Debt Service - Interest $0 $0 $99,958 $111,800 $111,800 $111,100
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $106,958 $151,800 $158,050 $158,850
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $46,850 $56,542 $0 $1,950 $68,150
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $0 $46,850 $163,500 $151,800 $160,000 $227,000
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1
$0
$0 $46,850
$0
$0
$103,400
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE
$0 $46,850 $56,542
$0
$1,950
$68,150
FUND BALANCE - September 30
$0 $46,850 $103,392
$0
$1,950
$171,550
E-18
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET WORKSHEET
TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES - 308
Projected Original Amended Tentative
Account FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 01102 FY 01102 FY 02103
Number DescrlDtlon of Revenues Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
315100 Assessment Collect $163,220 $88 $0 $160,000 $0 $0
361100 Interest Earned $11,977 $35,518 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $2,500
381010 Transfer in $153,789 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
384015 Bond Proceeds $0 $2,240,922 $0 $0 $0 $0
361111 Misc Revenues $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES $328,986 $2,278,028 $20,000 $180,000 $20,000 $2,500
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $28,573 $0 $1,730,000 $1,580,400 $1,828,350 $111,000
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $357,559 $2,278,028 $1,750,000 $1,760,400 $1,848,350 $113,500
Projected Original Amended Tentative
Account FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01102 FY 01102 FY 01/02 FY 02/03
Number DescrlDtion of Exoendltures Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget
53114 Legal-Tuscawilla $91,561 $4,650 $0 $2,500 $2,250 $0
53410 Billing Services Cost $784 $0 $0 $6,000 $6,000 $0
53411 Service Charges $30 $12 $0 $100 $100 $0
56315 Construction Improvements $0 $268,429 $1,750,000 $1,600,000 $1,840,000 $50,000
56820 Beautification-Tusca PUD $20,180 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
57310 Bond Issuance Costs $0 $88,677 $0 $0 $0 $0
59130 Transfer to General Fund $245,004 $46,664 $0 $0 $0 $0
59193 Transfer to TLBD Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $151,800 $0 $63,500 close out
fund
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES $357,559 $408,432 $1,750,000 $1,760,400 $1,848,350 $113,500
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $1,869,596 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $357,559 $2,278,028 $1,750,000 $1,760,400 $1,848,350 $113,500
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $0 ($28,573) $1,841,023 $1,746,200 $1,746,200 $111,000
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE ($28,573) $1,869,596 ($1,730,000) ($1,580,400) ($1,828,350) ($111,000)
FUND BALANCE - September 30 ($28,573) $1,841,023 $111,023 $165,800 ($82,150) $0
E-20
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES -184
TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND. 184
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Totlll
Account FY 01/02 FY 02103 FY 02103 FY 02103 FY 03104 FY 03/04 FY 03104
Number Description of Revenuas Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
315100 Assessment Collections $261,595 $220,000 $276,200 $220,000 $219,000 $0 $219,000
361100 Interest $6,662 $10,000 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES $290,477 $230,000 $293,200 $230,000 $229,000 $0 $229,000
369100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $25,100 $0 $25,100 $91,400 $71,300 $162,700
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIA nONS FROM FUND BALANCE $290,477 $255,100 $293,200 $255,100 $320,400 $71,300 $391,700
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Totlll
Account FY 01/02 FY 02103 FY 02103 FY 02103 FY 03104 FY 03/04 FY 03104
!il!m.!m DescrlDtion of Exoendlturas Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
53160 Consultant Services $0 $1,000 $15,000 $1,000 $15,000 $0 $15,000
53211 Assessment Services $10,740 $5,500 $6,300 $6,300 $5,500 $0 $5,500
53410 Contractual Service Costs $0 $1,100 $100 $1,100 $1,200 $0 $1 ,200
53411 Bank Service Charges $154 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
54310 Utility Servi ces $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $40,000
54330 Street Lighting $17,334 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $55,000 $0 $55,000
54510 Insurance $0 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $2,500
54686 Landscaping $49,072 $163,600 $110,000 $166,000 $135,000 $0 $135,000
54693 Repairs & Maint . Ponds $0 $15,000 $25,000 $10,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000
55230 Clerk Supplies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400 $400
55251 Repairs & Maint. Signs & Walls $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 $0 $60,000
59130 Clerk Fees. Transfer to General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,800 $3,800 *
59130 Beautification Coordinator- Transfer to Gen.Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,100 $27,100
59310 Statutory Reserve $0 $11,200 $14,600 $11,200 $11,200 $0 $11,200
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES $77,300 $255,100 $228,500 $255,100 $320,400 $71,300 $391,700
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $213,177 $0 $64,700 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIAnONS TO FUND BALANCE $290,477 $255,100 $293,200 $255,100 $320,400 $71,300 $391,700
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE. October 1 $287,436 $500,613 $454,700 $500,613 $475,513 $475,513
APPROPRlAnON TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $213,177 ($25,100) $64,700 ($25,100) ($91,400) ($71,300) ($162,700)
FUND BALANCE. September 30 $500,613 $475,513 $519,400 $475,513 $384,113 $312,813
*=derk time 16 hours per month at $20/hr ind benefits
E-17
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES - 308
TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND - 308
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 01102 FY 02103 FY 02/03 FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY03/04 FY 03/04
t!!!!!l!!!!: DescriDtion of Revenues Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
361100 Interest Earned $22,417 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $500 $0 $500
369101 Miscellaneous Revenue $0 $13,500 $0 $13,500 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES $22,417 $16,000 $2,500 $16,000 $500 $0 $500
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $1,603,132 $150,500 $111,000 $150,500 $0 $87,891 $87,891
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $1,625,549 $166,500 $113,500 $166,500 $500 $87,891 $88,391
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 01102 FY 02103 FY 02/03 FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 03/04
t!!!!!l!!!!: DescriDtion of EXDendltures Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
53114 Legal- Tuscawilla $151 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
53410 Billing Services Cost $1,701 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
53411 Service Charges $262 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
55270 Small Tools & Equipment $82 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
59193 Transfer to TLBD Debt Service $0 $0 $63,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
63000 Improvements $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $87,891 $87,891
65000 Construction in Progress $1,623,353 $166,500 $0 $166,500 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES $1,625,549 $166,500 $113,500 $166,500 $0 $87,891 $87,891
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $500 $0 $500
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $1,625,549 $186,500 $113,500 $166,500 $500 $87,891 $88,391
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $1,841,023 $237,891 $111,000 $237,891 $87,391 $87,391
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE ($1,603,132) ($150,500) ($111,000) ($150,500) $500 ($87,891) ($87,391)
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $237,891 $87,391 $0 $87,391 $87,891 $0
($96,098) accrual
$141,793 percafr
E-18
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD 1999 DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES & EXPENDITURES - 182
TLBD 1999 DEBT SERVICE FUND -182
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 01102 FY 02103 FY 02103 FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 03/04
~ DescrlDtion of Revenues Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
315100 Assessment Colledions $164,526 $160,200 $162,500 $160,151 $158,000 $0 $158,000
361100 Interest Eamed $237 $1,500 $1,000 $1,500 $1,500 $0 $1,500
381400 Transfer from TLBD Improvement Fund $0 $0 $63,500 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES $164,763 $161,700 $227,000 $161,651 $159,500 $0 $159,500
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,100 $0 $2,100
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $164,763 $161,700 $227,000 $161,651 $161,600 $0 $161,600
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 01102 FY 02103 FY 02103 FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY 03104 FY 03/04
~ DescrlDtion of EXDendltures Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
53130 Trustee Fees $425 $500 $500 $500 $500 $0 $500
53410 Billing Services Cost $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000
53211 Administration Fees $4,284 $6,250 $6,250 $6,250 $5,500 $0 $5,500
53411 Bank Service Charge $91 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
57110 Debt Service - Principal $0 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $45,000 $0 $45,000
57210 Debt Service - Interest $99,958 $111,100 $111,100 $111,100 $109,600 $0 $109,600
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES $104,758 $158,850 $158,850 $158,850 $161,600 $0 $161,600
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $60,005 $2,850 $68,150 $2,801 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $164,763 $161,700 $227,000 $161,651 $161,600 $0 $161,600
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $46,850 $106,855 $103,400 $106,855 $109,705 $109,705
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $60,005 $2,850 $68,150 $2,801 ($2,100) $0 ($2,100)
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $106,855 $109,705 $171,550 $109,656 $107,605 $107,605
E-16
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2006 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND - 308
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 04106 FY 04106 FY 04105
Number DescrlDtion of Revenues Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
361100 Interest Eamed $3,360 $900 $500 $500 $200 $0 $200
369101 Miscellaneous Revenue $13,463 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES $16,823 $900 $500 $500 $200 $0 $200
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $61,456 $29,100 $87,391 $33,500 $0 $51,437 $51,437
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $78,279 $30,000 $87,891 $34,000 $200 $51,437 $51,637
Projected Orlg inal Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 04106 FY 04105 FY 04105
~ DescrlDtion of EXDendltures Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
53680 Unrecognized Gain/Loss $376 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
63000 Improvements $0 $0 $87,891 $1,000 $0 $51,437 $51,437
65000 30049 Construction in Progress $77,903 $30,000 $0 $33,000 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES $78,279 $30,000 $87,891 $34,000 $0 $51,437 $51,437
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 $0 $200
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $78,279 $30,000 $87,891 $34,000 $200 $51,437 $51,637
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $141,793 $80,337 $87,391 $80,337 $51,237 $51,237
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE ($61,456) ($29,100) ($87,391) ($33,500) $200 ($51,437) ($51,237)
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $80,337 $51,237 $0 $46,837 $51,437 $0
E-19
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 FINAL BUDGET
TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND -184
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 04105 FY 04105
t:l!un!w DescriDtlon of Revenues Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
315100 Assessment Collections $219,545 $219,000 $219,000 $219,000 $219,000 $0 $219,000
361100 Interest $12,319 $8,000 $10,000 $10,000 $4,750 $0 $4,750
TOTAL TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES $231,864 $227,000 $229,000 $229,000 $223,750 $0 $223,750
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $161,762 $162,700 $165,162 $173,567 $50,000 $223,567
TOTAL TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $231,864 $388,762 $391,700 $394,162 $397,317 $50,000 $447,317
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 04105 FY 04105
Number DescriDtlon of EXDendltures Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
53180 Consultant Services $0 $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000
53211 Assessment Services $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $0 $5,500
53410 Contractual Service Costs $1,093 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $0 $1,200
53680 Unrecognized Gain/Loss $1,579 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
54310 Utility Services $41,600 $45,000 $40,000 $40,000 $45,000 $0 $45,000
54330 Street Lighting $0 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $55,000 $50,000 $105,000
54682 landscaping $160,806 $165,000 $135,000 $155,000 $170,000 $0 $170,000
54693 Repairs & Maint - Ponds $9,590 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $30,000 $0 $30,000
55230 Clerk Supplies 0 $0 $400 $400 $100 $0 $100
55251 Repairs & Maint - Signs & Walls $4,215 $35,000 $60,000 $40,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000
59130 Transfer to General Fund - Insurance $0 $4,962 $2,500 $4,962 $5,517 $0 $5,517
59130 Transfer to General Fund - Clerk Fees $0 $3,800 $3,800 $3,800 $3,800 $0 $3,800
59130 Transfer to Gen.Fund - Beautification Coordinator $0 $27,100 $27,100 $27,100 $30,000 $0 $30,000
59310 Statu10ry Reserve $0 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $0 $11,200
TOTAL TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES $224,383 $388,762 $391,700 $394,162 $397,317 $50,000 $447,317
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $7,481 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TlBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $231,864 $388,762 $391,700 $394,162 $397,317 $50,000 $447,317
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $500,613 $508,094 $475,513 $508,094 $346,332 $346,332
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $7,481 ($161,762) ($162,700) ($165,162) ($173,567) ($50,000) ($223,567)
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $508,094 $346,332 $312,813 $342,932 $172,765 $122,765
Street Lighting:
. = Clerk time 16 hours per month at $20/hr (includes benefits) Globe lighting project $50,000
E-18
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 FINAL BUDGET
TlBD 1999 DEBT SERVICE FUND. 182
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 03104 FY 03/04 FY 04105 FY 04/05 FY 04/05
Number DescriDtlon of Revenues Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
315100 Assessment Collections $158,601 $158,000 $158,000 $158,000 $155,185 $0 $155,185
361100 Interest Earned $2,370 $1,200 $1,500 $1,500 $1,200 $0 $1,200
TOTAL TlBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES $160,971 $159,200 $159,500 $159,500 $156,385 $0 $156,385
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $2,400 $2,100 $2,100 $3,515 $0 $3,515
TOTAL TlBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $160,971 $161,600 $161,600 $161,600 $159,900 $0 $159,900
Projected Original Revised Baseline New Total
Account FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY03104 FY 03/04 FY 04105 FY 04/05 FY 04/05
Number DescriDtlon of ExDendltures Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget
53130 Trustee Fees $425 $500 $500 $500 $400 $0 $400
53211 Administration Fees $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 $0 $5,500
53410 Billing Services Cost $790 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000
53680 Unrecognized Gain/Loss $334 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
57110 Debt Service - Principal $40,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $0 $45,000
57210 Debt Service - Interest $111,074 $109,600 $109,600 $109,600 $108,000 $0 $108,000
TOTAL TlBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES $158,123 $161,600 $161,600 $161,600 $159,900 $0 $159,900
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $2,848 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TlBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $160,971 $161,600 $161,600 $161,600 $159,900 $0 $159,900
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE. October 1 $106,855 $109,703 $109,705 $109,703 $107,303 $107,303
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $2,848 ($2.400) ($2,100) ($2,100) ($3,515) $0 ($3,515)
FUND BALANCE. September 30 $109,703 $107,303 $107,605 $107,603 $103,788 $103,788
E-17
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 FINAL BUDGET
TlBD IMPROVEMENT FUND (PHASE "l-_
Original Rev !sed Projected Buellne New Total
Account FY 03104 FY 04105 FY 04105 FY 04/05 FY 01/01 FY 0Ml8 FY 0Ml8
~ Descriotlon of Revenues Actual Budget Budget ActuaUEst Budget Budget Budget
361100 Interest Eamed $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
369101 loan Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
TOTAL TlBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
TOTAL TlBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
Original Rev !sed Projected Buellne New Tobit
Account FY 03104 FY 04105 FY 04105 FY 04/05 FY OI/OS FY 0Ml8 FY 0Ml8
Number Descriotlon of Exoendltures Actual Budget Budget ActuaUEst Budaet Budaet Budget
53211 Admin Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
591 Transfer to TlBD Improvement Phase I $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
59193 Transfer to TlBD Debt SelVice Phase II $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO $0
63000 Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
TOTAL TlBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
TOTAL TlBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRJA TlONS TO FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD DEBT SERVICE PHASE II -_
Original Revised Projected B..One N_ Total
Account FY 03104 FY 04105 FY 04105 FY 04105 FYOJ,IOI FY 05106. FY GUll
Number DescriDtion of Revenues Actual Budget Budget Actual/Eat 8udaet BUdget ElIldget
315100 Assessment Colledions $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO. SO
381400 Transfer from TLBD Improvement Fund II $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 SO
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 SO. SO $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
Original Revised Projected BIadne N_ Total
Account FY 03104 FY 04105 FY 04105 FY 04/05 FY 0IIlII FVotIOl FY OUII
!'f!!m!!!! DescrlDtlon of EXDenditures Actual Budget Budget Actual/Est Budpt Blldaet Budaet
53130 Trustee Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO' SO
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2006.2006 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND. 308
Original Revised Projected ....U... N_ Total
Account FY 03/04 FY 04106 FY 04/06 FY 04/06 FYOMIt FYOIlOt FY 01106
Number Description of Revenues Actual Budget Budget ActuallEst BUdget Budget ~
361100 Interest Earned $948 $200 $200 $200 1200 $0 $200
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES $948 $200 $200 $200 $200 $0 $200
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $29,200 $51,237 $51,137 $31,085 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $30,148 $51.437 $51,337 $31,285 $200 $0 $200
Original Revised Projected ........ Nw Total
Account FY 03/04 FY 04/06 FY 04/06 FY 04/06 ".0II0t FY..... FYOMIt
Number Description of Exoendltures Actual Budget Budget ActuallEst Iudaet BUdget ..-
53211 Administrative Fees - Phase II $0 $0 $31,285 $31,285 $0 $0 $0
53410 Billing Services Cost $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
63000 Improvements $0 $51,437 $20,052 $0 $0 $0 $0
63000 30049 Construction in Progress $29,983 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES $30,148 $51.437 $51,337 $31,285 $0 $0 $0
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $200 $0 $200
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $30,148 $51,437 $51,337 $31,285 $200 $0 $200
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE. October 1 $80,337 $51,237 $51,137 $51,137 $20.052 $20.052
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE ($29,200) ($51,237) ($51,137) ($31,085) $200 $0 .$200
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $51,137 $0 $0 $20,052 $20.252 $20.252
E-22
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND -184
Original Revised Projected 8Qellne New Total
Account FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 04/05 FY 04/05 FY 01106 FY 08106 FY OSI06
~ DescrlDtlon of Revenues Actual Budget Budget ActuallEst Budget Budaet Budaet
315100 Assessment Collections $220,406 $219,000 $219,000 $219,000 $21~.000 $0 $219,000
361100 Interest $8,976 $4,750 $4,750 $4,500 $4,75G SO' $4,75G
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES $229,382 $223,750 $223,750 $223,500 $223.75G $0 $223.150
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $69,593 $223,567 $226,069 $134,019 $138,75G $7.6O(J $146,250
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $298,975 $447,317 $449,819 $357,519 $362,500 $7.500 P70,OOO
Original Revised Projected Baaellne ..... Total
Account FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 04/05 FY 04/05 FYOII06 'FY,~_., ~O8lO6
~ DescriDtlon of Exoenditures Actual Budget Budget Actual/Est BUdget Budjet.' 89dJ1et
53180 Consultant Services $0 $5,000 $4,300 $2,000 $2.000 $0 $2,000
53111 Other Legal $606 $0 $0 $0 SO $0. $0
53211 Assessment Services $6,200 $5,500 $6,200 $6,200 $8.200 $0 $8,200
53410 Contractual Services Cost $1,090 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $0 $1.200
53680 Unrecognized GainlLoss $1,560 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
54310 Utility Services $26,219 $45,000 $45,000 $40,000 $40,000 ~. ~.()OO
54330 Street Lighting $41,657 $105,000 $105,000 $50,000 *.000 $0 *.000
54686 Repairs & Maint - Landscape $137,807 $170,000 $170,000 $160,000 $150.000' SO .'5G,000
54693 Repairs & Maint - Fountains $17,306 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $30.000 $0 , $30.000
55230 Clerk Supplies 30 $100 $100 $100 $100 $0;" "00
54695 Repairs & Maint - Signs & Walls $30,638 $35,000 $35,000 $25,000 PD,ooo $0; PD;ooo
59130 Transfer to General Fund -Insurance $4,962 $5,517 $8,019 $8,019 $8.000 SO' $8.000
59130 Transfer to General Fund - Clerk Fees. $3,800 $3,800 $3,800 $3,800 $3.800 $0 ~.800
59130 Transfer to Gen. Fund - Beautification $27,100 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 P2,ooo $1'.~.. '$39,500
59310 Statutory Reserve $0 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 ,,1,200 $0 "'.200
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES $298,975 $447,317 $449,819 $357,519 $382,5G0 $7,500 P70.000
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $298,975 $447,317 $449,819 $357,519 $362.500 $7.500:" . $370.000
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $508,094 $346,332 $438,501 $438,501 $304,482 P04.482
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE ($69,593) ($223,567) ($226,069) ($134,019) ($138,750) ($7.500) ($,46,250)
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $438,501 $122,765 $212,432 $304,482 $165,732 $158,232
New:
. = Clerk time 16 hours per month at $20/hr (includes benefits) Transfer to Gen.Fund - Beautification:
. Maint. Worker 8hrslwk $7,500
E-21
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD 1999 DEBT SERVICE -182
Original Revised Projected BMiIIne New Total
Account FY 03/04 FY 04105 FY 04/05 FY 04105 FYOIIOI FYOII06. FY 0lI06
Number DescrlDtion of Revenues Actual Budget Budget ActuallEst EkIdqet ~ Budaet
315100 Assessment Collections $153,796 $155,185 $155,185 $155,185 $155,185 $0 $155,185
361100 Interest Earned $1,600 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $0 $1.200
369101 Misc. Revenue $3,775 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES $159,171 $156,385 $156,385 $156,385 $1~,385 $0 $158,385
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $3,121 $3,515 $4,215 $4,246 $2,530 $0 $2,530
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $162,292 $159,900 $160,600 $160,631 $158.915 $0 $158,$15
Original Revised Projected ~ New 'tot8l
Account FY 03/04 FY 04105 FY 04/05 FY 04105 py,.. FY 0lI06 f'/~
Number DescrlDtlon of Exoendltures Actual Budget Budget ActuallEst . BUdpet Budaet lIUdget
53130 Trustee Fees $445 $400 $400 $431 $450 $0 $450
53211 Administration Fees $6,200 $5,500 $6,200 $6,200 .,200 $0 $8,200
53410 Billing Services Cost $779 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1.000 $0 '1.000
53680 Unrecognized Gain/Loss $273 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
57110 Debt Service - Principal $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $0 $45.0Q0
57210 Debt Service - Interest $109,595 $108,000 $108,000 $108,000 $10$.285 $0 '108.285
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES $162,292 $159,900 $160,600 $160,631 $158.915 $0 $158.915
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIA TlONS TO FUND BALANCE $162,292 $159,900 $160,600 $160,631 $158.915 $0 $158,915
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $109,703 $107,303 $106,582 $106,582 '10~338 $10~3$$
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE ($3,121) ($3,515) ($4,215) ($4,246) ~530) $0 ($2.530)
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $106,582 $103,788 $102,367 $102,336 $99,806 $99.806
E-2O
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND (PHASE 11)- 313
Original Revised Projected .ellne NeW Total
Account FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 05106 FY 05/06 FYOtI07 FY_7 FY 0lI07
li!!m!!!!: DescriDtion of Revenues Actual Budget Budget ActuaUEst .... ~ .BucIaet
361100 Interest Earned $0 $0 $0 $0 ~,09<1 $0 $3,000
363300 Prepaid Assessments $0 $0 $135,000 $135,000 $0 $0 $0
364200 Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $430,000 $430,000 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES $0 $0 $565,000 $565,000 $3,09<1 $0 $3,000
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,325 ~,325
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $565,000 $565,000 $3,000 $320.325 $323,325
Original Revised Projected ~ .~ Total
Account FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 05106 FY 05/06 FYMt' F't'~7 ff.QeI07
li!!m!!!!: DescrlDtlon of EXDendlturas Actual Budget Budget ActuaUEst ~ 8'!1'1et Budget
57310 Bond Issuance Costs $0 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0
59125 Transfer to Other Funds (TLBD Imp Phase I) $0 $0 $44,675 $44,675 $0 $0 $0
65000 30105 CIP - Sign age $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1~000 '180,000
65000 30106 CIP - lighting $0 $0 $180,000 $180,000 $0 $180,~25 $180,325
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $244,675 $244,675 $0 $320,~25 $320,325
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $320,325 $320,325 S3.09<1 $0 $3,000
TOTAL TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $565,000 $565,000 $3,000 $320,325 $323,325
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $320,325 ~,325
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $320,325 $320,325 $3,000 ($32O.32S) ~$317,325)
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $0 $0 $320,325 $320,325 $323,325 $3,000
C-29
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2006.2007 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD IMPROVEMENT FUND - 308
Original Revised Projected
Account FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 05/06 FY 05/06
Number Description of Revenues Actual Budget Budget ActuaUEst
361100 Interest Earned $1,465 $200 $0 $0 $0
381305 Transfer from TLBD Fund (Improv. Phase II ) $0 $0 $44,675 $44,675 $0
TOTAL TlBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES $1,465 $200 $44,675 $44,675 $0
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $31,389 $0 $19,748 $19,748 $0
TOTAL TlBD IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUES AND
APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $32,854 $200 $64.423 $64,423 $0
Projected
Account FY 04/05 FY 05/06
Number Description of Expenditures Actual ActuaUEst
53211 Administrative Fees - Phase II $32,755 $0 $11,921 $11,921
59193 Transfer to TLBD Debt Service Phase I #182 $0 $0 $52,502 $52,502
TOTAL TlBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES $32,854 $0 $64.423 $64,423
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $200 $0 $0
TOTAL TlBD IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $32,854 $200 $64.423 $64,423
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1 $51,137 $20,052 $19,748 $19,748
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE ($31,389) $200 ($19,748) ($19,748) $0
FUND BALANCE - September 30 $19,748 $20,252 $0 $0 $0
C-28
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD PHASE II MAINTENANCE FUND -185
Annual Maintenance Assessment Phase II - $48.00 per ERU (legal maxlmum=$48.00 per ERU)
Original Revised Projected BaeIIne 'New Total
Account FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 05106 FY 05106 FY/OII07 FYoet07 FY 0MI7
Number Description of Revenues Actual Budget Budget Actual/Est Budget Budaet Budget
361100 Interest $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $9,000 $9,000
361101 1 nterest - County $0 $0 $0 $0 SO .$300 $300
363120 Assessment Collections (Phase II) $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $198,100 $198,100
TOTAL TlBD PHASE II MAINT FUND REVENUES $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $207,400 $207,400
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 SO SO SO
TOTAL TlBD PHASE II MAINT FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $207,400 $207,400
C-27b
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 FINAL BUDGET
Account
~
334990
361100
361101
363120
TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND - 184
Annual Maintenance Assessment Phase I - $53.14 per ERU (legal maximum=$67.82 per ERU)
Description of Revenues
30096 Other State Grants (Dep't of Forestry)
Interest
Interest - County
Assessment Collections (Phase I)
389100
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES
Appropriation from Fund Balance
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE
Account
Number
53180
53211
53410
53411
54310
54330
54682
54686
54693
54695
55230
59130
59130
59130
59310
Description of Exoenditures
Consultant Services
Assessment Services
Contractual Services Cost
Bank Service Charges
Utility Services
Street Lighting
Repairs & Maint - Grounds
Repairs & Maint - Landscape
Repairs & Maint - Fountains
Repairs & Maint - Signs & Walls
Clerk Supplies
Transfer to General Fund - Insurance
Transfer to General Fund - Clerk Fees'
Transfer to Gen.Fund - Beautification
Statutory Reserve
59990
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES
Appropriation to Fund Balance
TOTAL TLBD MAINTENANCE FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1
APPROPRiATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - September 30
. = Clerk time 16 hours per month at $20/hr (indudes benefits)
Original Revised Projected BaHUne New . 1.'
FY 04105 FY 05/06 FY 05/06 FY 05/06 FY 08107 FY 0lI07 FY 06107
Actual Budget Budget Actual/Est B~et aUdaet Budget
$0 $0 $0 $5,363 ,$0 $0 $0
$14,138 $0 $0 $15,000 $10,100 $0 $10,100
$1 17 $4,750 $4,750 $300 $300 $0 $300
$222,315 $219,000 $219,000 $219,000 $219,300 $0 $219,300
$236,570 $223,750 $223,750 $239,663 $230,300 ~ $230,300
$94,285 $146,250 $146,800 $79,960 $98,000 $0 $98,000
$330,855 $370,000 $370,550 $319,623 $328,300 $0 $328,300
FY 04105
Actual
Original
FY 05/06
Budget
Projected
FY 05/06
Actual/Est
. BaHUne
FY 08107
Budget
Revised
FY 05/06
Budget
$0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0
$6,200 $6,200 $6,750 $6,750 $4;5(10
$1,067 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1,@)
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$38,808 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 .~.'OOO
$41,772 $50,000 $50,000 $42,000 $45,000
$161,444 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2,813 $150,000 $150,000 $140,000 $1~,OOO
$11,271 $30,000 $30,000 $12,000 ~l~
$24,703 $30,000 $30,000 $18,000 $~,OOO
$0 $100 $100 $0 $1~
$8,019 $6,000 $6,000 $5,173 $6.200"1
$3,800 $3,800 $3,800 $3,800 $3,~
$30,000 $39,500 $39,500 $39,500 ~1,OOO
$0 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 $11.200
$330,855 $370,000 $370,550 $319,623 $32$.300
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$330,855 $370,000 $370,550 $319,623 $328;300
'. New
FY 0lI07 .,
Budtet
$0
$0
$0
" $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0.
$0 "
$0.
$0
$0
$0
$0
.1.'
. FY 06107
Budget
$0
$4,500
. $1,500
$0
$45,000
$45,000
$0
$130,000
$20,000
, $20,000
. .$100
$6,200
$3,800
$41,000
$11,200
$328,300
$0
$0 $328,300
$438,501 $304,482 $344,216 $344,216 $2&4,25El
($94,285) ($146,250) ($146,800) ($79,960) ($9$.000)
$344,216 $158,232 $197,416 $264,256 $166,256
C-27
$0
$264,256
($98,000)
$166,256
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 FINAL BUDGET
TLBD DEBT SERVICE PHASE II - 213
Annual Capital Assessment Phase II . $17.00 per ERU (legal maximum=$17.00 per ERU)
Account
Number
DescriDtlon of Revenues
363110
363300
Assessment Collections
Prepaid Assessments
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES
389100
Appropriation from Fund Balance
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIA TlONS FROM FUND BALANCE
Account
Number
DescriDtion of Exoendltures
53211 Administration Fees
53410 Contractual Services
57110 Debt Service- Principal
57210 Debt Service - Interest
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES
AND APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE - October 1
APPROPRIATION TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE. September 30
Original
FY 04105 FY 05106
Actual Budget
Projected
FY 05106
ActuallElt
Revised
FY 05106
Budget
,..,Une
FY 08107
8UcIpt
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $94,523 $94,523 $0
$0 $0 $94,523 $94,523 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $39.386
$0 $0 $94,523 $94,523 $39.388
New
FY08I07
Buc:ktet
$40.883
SO
$40.883
SO
..883
Total
FY oem
....
$40,883
SO
$40,883
$39,388
$80,049
Original Revised Projected
FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 05106 FY 05106
Actual Budget Budget ActuallEst
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $94,283 $93,400
$0 $0 $240 $0
$0 $0 $94,523 $93,400
$0 $0 $0 $1,123
$0 $0 $94,523 $94,523
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,123
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,123
$0
C-26
........
FY 0fI07
8uc:ktet
$4.500
$1.000
$14.870
$19.218
$39.386
$0
$39,386
New .
FY 08107
.....
SO
SO
$0
~
$0
$401883
$40.883
$0
'~'::{'
$1,123
($39.388) $40;883 .
($38;263)
Total
FY CI8I07
8udaet
$4,500
$1,000
$14,870
$19.216
$39.388
$40,883
$80.049
$1.123
$11277
$2,400
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 TENTATIVE BUDGET
TLBD 1999 DEBT SERVICE -182
Annual Capital Assessment. $40.17 per ERU (legal maximum=$42.18 per ERU)
Original Revised Projected New . Total
Account FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 05106 FY 05106 FY 0lI07. . FY 08107
Number DescriDtion of Revenues Actual Budget Budget ActuallEst Budget Budget
363110 Assessment Collections $152,131 $155,185 $155,185 $155,185 $155.100
361100 Interest Eamed $2,886 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 $1.200
361101 Interest Eamed - County $83 $0 $0 $0 $0
369101 Misc. Revenue $5,154 $0 $0 $0 $0
381305 Transfer from TLBD Improvement Fund (#308) $0 $0 $52,502 $52,502 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES $160,254 $156,385 $208,887 $208,887 . . $168,300 $0 $155.300
389100 Appropriation from Fund Balance $290 $2,530 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND REVENUES
AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM FUND BALANCE $160,544 $158,915 $208,887 $208,887
Original Revised Projected
Account FY 04105 FY 05106 FY 05106 FY 05106
Number DescriDtion of Exoenditures Actual Budget Budget ActuallEst
53130 Trustee Fees $431 $450 $450 $450 $450
53211 Administration Fees $6,200 $6,200 $6,750 $6,750 $4.500
53410 Billing Services Cost $754 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1.000
53680 Unrecognized Gain/Loss $195 $0 $0 $0 $0
57110 Debt Service - Principal $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $SO.bOO
57210 Debt Service - Interest $107,964 $106,265 $106,265 $106,265 $104,300
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES $160,544 $158,915 $159,465 $159,465 .18G.250 $0 $160,250
59990 Appropriation to Fund Balance $0 $0 $49,422 $49,422 $0 $0
TOTAL TLBD DEBT SERVICE FUND EXPENDITURES AND
APPROPRIATIONS TO FUND BALANCE $160,544 $158,915 $208,887 $208,887
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
FUND BALANCE. October 1 $106,582 $102,336 $106,292 $106,292
APPROPRIATiON TO (FROM) FUND BALANCE ($290) ($2,530) $49,422 $49,422 ($3,950) $0 ($31950)
FUND BALANCE. September 30 $106,292 $99,806 $155,714 $155,714 $151,764 $151.764
C-25
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached documents were referenced by Mr.
Anthony A. Garganese during the discussion of
Public Hearings Agenda Item "500.1" at the
August 20, 2007 City Commission Special
Meeting.
8
,~ '
REGULAR MEETING
CI1Y COMMISSION
MAY 8,1995
The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs was called to order by
Mayor John F. Bush at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Mayor John F. Bush, present
Deputy Mayor John Langellotti, present
City Manager John Govoruhk, present
City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present
COMMISSIONERS:
Larry Conniff, present
John Ferring, present
Cindy Gennell, absent
David McLeod, present
Approval of Minutes of April 24. 1995:
Mayor Bush asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting
of April 24, 1995. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of
April 24, 1995. Minutes stand approved as presented.
PUBLIC INPUT:
There was no public input.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Approval/Disapproval of Letter to Seminole County on Proposed Tuscawilla Bypass.
2. NPDES Part 2 Interlocal Agreement with Seminole County.
3. Request from Morrison Homes:
Mayor Bush asked if any Commissioner wishes to have any item pulled from the consent agenda.
Being none, Mayor Bush asked for a motion to approve the consent agenda.
Motion was made by Commissioner F erring to approve the items on the consent agenda. Seconded
by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner
Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes.
Commissioner Ferring said regarding the issue of the School Board and a Resolution regarding what
the School Board is intending doing, or a letter to the School Board telling them we (the
Commission) are totally opposed to taking Option "G", which takes a good percentage of the children
out of Winter Springs and sends them elsewhere.
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that he will write a Resolution which he will bring up under his seat
so the Commission can take action and then have the City Clerk type and have the Mayor sign.
Commissioner Ferring asked if the rest of the Commission agrees to recommend Option "F" to the
School Board. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend Option "F" to the School
Board.
ct:WY.PIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF. WNTER PINGS, FLORIDA
~.
t 'I
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 2
GENERAL AGENDA:
Glen Eagle Stormwater Agreement - Dedication of Drainage and Retention Easement:
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated there had been an issue regarding drainage within Glen Eagle and
there had been a dispute involving the Homeowners Association; the developer( s) and the owner of
the golf course. In an effort to resolve this, we met and subsequent to meeting, documents have been
drafted back and forth, Mr. Lockcuff, Utility Director, has review those documents and from an
operational standpoint Mr. Lockcuff is comfortable with the documents and they facilitate what he
needs to have in order to continue to properly operate. Attorney Kruppenbacher said we bring to you
tonight is a recommendation to approve the documents subject to the deletion in the document titled
"Dedication Agreement" paragraph 5. There is a provision where the City would release parties and
I would like you to approve these documents deleting the release of any parties by the City. You will
be authorizing the Mayor to execute those documents in final form as soon as Mr. Lockcuff says
these are the final exhibits and the originals in front of you less that release.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the Glen Eagle Stormwater Agreement
Dedication of Drainage and Retention Easement with the deletion of paragraph 5 in the Dedication
Agreement (on page 3). Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner
Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes.
Second Reading and Public Hearing Ord. 582 - Amending Fiscal Year Budget 1994-1995:
Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to have the City Attorney read all Ordinances by title
only. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye;
Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 582 by title only, fIOrd. 582, An Ordinance ofthe City of Winter
Springs, Florida, amending the 1994-1995 fiscal year budget which was adopted pursuant to Ord. 566
of the City repealing Ordinances in conflict herewith providing for severability, conflict and effective
date".
Mayor Bush closed the regular meeting and opened the Public Hearing. Mayor Bush asked if anyone
wished to comment on Ord. 582. There were no comments on Ord. 582. Mayor Bush closed the
Public Hearing and reconvened the regular meeting.
Commissioner Ferring asked Harry Martin, Finance Director, about the increase in the Capitol
Improvements and about the interest revenues and miscellaneous revenues increase. Kip Lockcuff,
Utility Director said the increase in the Capitol Improvements was for Capitol Projector a new
digester east; bids came in at $682,000 so we increased that to $700,000. Discussion. Mr. Martin
then stated most of the increase shown in the interest was that we did a float purchase of the debt
service reserve for the Utility and we gained nearly $100,000 which was considered interest income.
Commissioner Ferring then asked about the other $46,000. Mr. Lockcuff stated that is the
reimbursement for the money spent to on the contaminated wells on Jackson Circle to put the line
m.
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 WNTER SP INGS. FLORIDA
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 3
Commissioner Ferring asked if the budget figures took into account the increases that we would be
giving to the individual members of the City. Mr. Martin said when the budget was approved a year
ago we did not have that in there, that was adjusted in this budget. Discussion. Commissioner
Ferring asked what was the total reserves. Mr. Martin said a little over $900,000.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve Ord. 582, Amending the Fiscal Year Budget
1994-1995. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod:
aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Manager Govoruhk mentioned that there will be one more budget revision at the end of this fiscal
year.
First Reading ofOrd. 584, adopting the map and description of the recommended districts filed by
Districting Commission. etc.:
Gene Lein, Chairman of the Districting Commission, stated that the Districting Commission has just
completed four meetings and one public hearing and he is present to turn over the final figures for the
Commission's acceptance. The population between April 1992 and January 1995: District 1 was
issued 113 single family building permits for a population increase of322; District 2 was issued 222
single family building permits for a population increase of627; District 3 was issued 400 single family
building permits for a population increase of 1, 139; District 4 was issued 127 single family, 41 multi-
family building permits for a population increase of 441; district 5 was issued 43 single family, 1
mobile home building permits for a population increase of 125. The changes were made in District
5, North Orlando Sec. 8, all the homes south of Pearl Street have been moved into District 1; Oak
Forest Unit 8 - moved from District 2 to District 5; the remainder of Arbor Glen, Bear Creek Estates,
Carrington Woods and Davenport Glen have moved from District 3 into District 2. The Districts
have a net increase as follows: District 1 - 459 total population; District 2 - 738 total population;
District 3 - 672 total population; District 4 - 441 total population and District 5 - 344 total
population; for a total increase of population from April 1992 to January 1995 of 2,654 for an 11 %
City increase. The criteria for redrawing the map is that the Districts cannot exceed one percent of
population between each other. District 1 total population 5,172 for 19.9%; District 2 total
population 5,324 for 20.4%; District 3 total population 5,290 for 20.3%; district 4 total population
5,184 for 19.9%; District 5 total population 5,084 for 19.5%. As of January 1995 the total
population for the City of Winter Springs is 26,054.
Mr. Lein thanked the members of the Commission: KatWeen Roy, Skip Drumheller, Bruce Cox, Ken
Haines, Vem Rozelle and Lee Ferguson.
Commissioner Ferring thanked Mr. Lein and the Districting Commission for the work they have done.
Commissioner Ferring then stated that the Districting is basically for geographies where a
Commissioner may live to run for office within a specified district; however, that particular
Commissioner represents the entire City, there are 5 single member districts. A Commissioner gets
elected from the district they live in but they represent the entire City of Winter Springs.
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 WNTER SP INGS. FLORIDA
. '\
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 4
Commissioner Conniff arrived at 7:58 p.m.
Attorney Kruppenbacher read Ord. 584 by title only "An Ord. of the City of Winter Springs, Florida,
adopting the map and description of the recommended district filed with the City by the Districting
Commission pursuant to Ord. 524, providing for conflict and severability".
Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve Ord. 584, first reading. Seconded by
Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner McLeod:
aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit 2 - Approval/Disapproval, acceptance of improvements for City
Maintenance (subdivision located to the south of Winter Springs Boulevard and west of the Country
Club:
Donald LeBlanc, Land Management Specialist, stated that this is for the City to accept the following
approvements in Arrowhead Unit 2, which is located south ofWmter Springs Blvd. and west of the
Country Club. It is a private subdivision but there are four items that we are accepting for City
maintenance. The water lines, the sanitary lines, the reuse lines and the sidewalk along Winter
Springs Blvd. You have the comments from the City Engineer, the Fire Chief, the Police Chief the
Public W orkslUtility Director; offering no objection. In lieu of a maintenance bond, 10%
maintenance bond for these particular items, Mr. Mikes already had escrowed over $26,000
guaranteeing the perfonnance of Arrowhead Unit 2, this has been accomplished; and until such time
as he gets a bond to my office and reviewed and approved by the City Attorney we will retain
$9,377.46 of the escrow account. This is a figure derived and approved by the City Engineer per his
letter of April 27, 1995.
Mayor Bush asked about the sprinkling system along Wmter Springs Blvd., the street side of the wall.
Mr. LeBlanc stated that the sprinklers belong to the Homeowners. Mr. Mikes stated that they are
in the process of turning them down, the Homeowners Assoc., will maintain the sprinkler system
when it it turned over to them.
Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve the acceptance of improvements for the
City maintenance for Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit 2, subdivision located to the south of Winter
Springs Blvd. and west of the Country Club. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Vote:
Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye;
Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations - Conceptual Plans: 1. Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit
3 (south ofWmter Springs Blvd., east of the Country Club and west of Howell Creek); 2. Arrowhead
at Tuscawilla Unit 4 (south ofWmter Springs Blvd., west and south of the Country Club); 3.
Arrowhead at TuscawiUa Unit 5 (completion of Wood stream Subdivision, off the southern portion
of North em Way - once approved as Woodstream Addition):
Mr. LeBlanc stated that conceptual plans are not required by Code, in the past developers have
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 WNTER P NGS, FLORIDA
BY
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 5
expended large amount of dollars in doing engineering plans, only to reach the Commission and some
items were not satisfactory and they would have to go back and expend extra monies to revise those
plans. So we started the conceptual plan idea, bringing it through the P&Z Bd. and 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 or parcels 7,8 and 10; I have furnished you conceptual site-plans, minutes of the Staff conceptual
plan review, the Land Mngt. Specialist memo to P&Z, the P&Z minutes dated AprilS, 1995, and a
flIll Mikes memo to D. LeBlanc dated April 6, 1995. I also gave you the pages in the agreement that
pertain to these projects.
Commissioner Ferring said 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 based on what Mr. Mikes has here. I
hope you are not going to make his presentation 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 unofficial minutes of the P&Z
Bd., I tend to agree with them regarding the additional units that you have put in going west in certain
areas. And if that is going to be your presentation tonight, I hope that you would listen to what we
are saying before you make your presentation. I don't know if anyone else wants to make comments
on this, 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 stated that he will be happy to listen to the collective direction of this Commission and
would also be happy to listen to the interpretation from the Attorney representing the City and if that
is the issues you would like to address first, then let's do that. There is a few things first, before you
get too hung up on all the specifics; first of all there is one plan that I do not believer either the P&Z
or you should have any problem with and that is Woodstream, the second phase. Commissioner
Ferring said that he will not comment on anything as far as Woodstream is concerned, all he knows
is that we are looking for the units where you have gone up from 39 to 46 units. Mr. Mikes asked
if there was a reason that Woodstream is something that you are 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 you are
taking a position now. Commissioner Ferring said he doesn't think Woodstream has anything to do
with the other units, that is why it is not there for me to approve or disapprove. Mr. Mikes said this
is a conceptual plan approval. Commissioner Ferring said we are not approving it, and we are not
disapproving it, we are going to note it. Mr. Mikes said he is looking for the direction from the
Commission, he is not here to argue, he is only asking to take some property that he owns and wants
to develop in a fashion that he thinks that the Commission, the City, the residents have had an
opportunity to see what the phases of our development can be. What an enhancement to the area it
can be, I am not necessarily suggesting that the Commission has to do any specific thing, there may
be some requests before you that you may have to ask yourself if this is the right thing to do looking
at what has transpired over the course of the last year and a half 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 will have a detrimental impact on that Community. Am I
proposing something that will have a positive impact; I have other opinions that are not only mine that
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 ." WNTER p. INGS. FLORIDA
B.
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 6
I'd be happy to have you listen to tonight, if you are going to close up 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, you are
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.
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that from what he understands from the City Manager and Mr.
LeBlanc prior to the meeting, is that tonight this is a presentation to you of what is conceptually has
been proposed by this developer; for you to provide input to the developer to your thoughts. It is
not for your approval or disapproval, as I understand the City Manager's and City Planner's
statements to me prior to the meeting. Therefore, what I would recommend is that you go through
the items, and each of you identify what, if any, issues you have on any of the items. This is not a
forum to decide whether we are right, he is wrong, etc.., 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 the Commission but not
tonight for an approval or disapproval. Mr. Mikes, as a developer, needs to hear what your thoughts
are before he starts to expend the kind of dollars that is necessary to go forward.
Commissioner Ferring stated to Mr. LeBlanc, that Mr. Mikes raised a question about Woodstream,
has there been approved engineering for Woodstream. Mr. LeBlanc stated there was previously,
which is in his memo, it was once approved as W oodstream Addition and that has expired. There
was an excess of 70 lost, and now there are 54, but yes there was previous approval. That project
was approved in 1990 and the engineering expired, they didn't do anything on it. This is a
rejuvenation of that project.
Mr. Mikes stated that this is an opportunity to give a direction in the way a community can finish a
development, it is not a forum for a person to dictate their opinions only. He stated that he trusts that
this is a Commission elected as it is to use an open mind and toconsider, that is how I would ask that
we go forward.
Mr. Mikes went over the Woodstream parcel (number E-3) - He stated Woodstream is a development
that started back in the 80's by the person who will be his venture partner. He said he is putting in
a certain amount of land and a certain amount of money and that person is putting in his land. There
was an aborted development that went no further; he believes the Commission is familiar with the
W oodstream development. It has approximately 25 homes, it enters off a private road. The roads
are private and 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 offinishes, 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 to the south.
The existing Arrowhead with the wall and entryway is adjacent to the Club House. Our Unit One
which is 19 lots, that have already been approved and improved, are those that are on the 8th hole,
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 7
one on the 5th green, 3 on Northern Way at the 4th tee; originally to be done as 7 and then 8 lots
along the 14th hole adjacent to Glen Eagle. The Woodstream parcel fits right in adjacent to the 2nd,
3rd and 4th holes. The original plan on Wood stream provided for had 26 acres, originally permitted
for 77 lots; we are adding approximately a 75' strip around the outside and providing for the retention
on the opposite side of hole #2. An enhancement of hole #2 and definite enhancement for Greenbriar,
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. The plan provides for (unit 5, parcel 10) Richards Road will be the main entrance,
Richards Road is the entranceway to Woodstream at this point, it is private; it would be enhanced
with the same wall treatment that you see at our existing, it will have the same entry gate, the entry
gate will be accessed by a computer system, people will call on the telephone and the phone will ring
in the house, the resident can look at their TV and the TV will show a picture of the person at their
entry gate. That will be for the benefit for not only the existing Wood stream residents who will get
that for no investment on their part, and will also be for the 54 lots that we propose. Effectively the
existing Wood stream is along the 5th and 6th holes to the west side of the overall parcel; those are
approximately the same size lots, slightly smaller, some ar much smaller, but in general slightly smaller
than what we had proposed. Ours will be roughly 113' to 115' wide, which is 13' to 15' wider than
at Glen Eagle and approximately 160' to 165' deep, which is 20' to 25' deeper than a Glen Eagle lot
and the approximate six of the lots that we have on the golf course in the first phase of Arrowhead
that we are 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, brick pavers a the
entrance treatment, everyone of the homes will have brick pavers as you enter the driveway it will
have a brick paver apron for the first 10' to 12' 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
live oak every 40', a laurel oak that is 8" to 9" in caliper to start with, very heavy landscaping
requirements, side loaded garages, hard surface roofs, minimum sq. ft. of approximately 3,000 to
3,200 sq.ft., 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 have the same treatment that is 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 cul-de-sac 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 looking as in the first
phase of Arrowhead. Of the 54 lots you will have over half of them on the golf course or on Howell
Branch Creek, we will be subject to whatever the same setbacks. Working with 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 at the 2nd green that they can't see right now with the trees in there.
Commissioner McLeod said presently where you show the retention pond there is a tree line there,
correct - Mr. Mikes answered yes, that is the Florida Power easement area, it has been allowed to
grow up, it is a series of all sort of junk and we are in the process of thinning out what is there,
keeping the high quality oaks and pine and getting rid of the weedy stuff. The whole Florida Power
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 8
easement as part of what we are doing on the other phases of Arrowhead, Florida Power and Light
at their expense will be taking those large wood power lines and changing them to a concrete single
pole as opposed to multiple pole treatment, much better looking treatment that will both enhance the
Greenbriar owners as well as the owners in Country Club Village on the opposite side of the creek.
Commissioner Langellotti asked who was clearing the land on the 2nd fairway. Mr. Mikes said they
are clearing for this project. They are not taking out everything, at this point they are leaving the
palmettos, the oaks, and the pines and trimming out all the weedy stuff at this point. We do have an
arbor permit for that. It also provides views for the Horton homes and ultimately as we finish up the
existing owners in Greenbriar will be looking out at the golfcourse. We are doing that for the benefit
of Horton at this point and eventually when the pond is in it will be surrounded by oak trees, it will
be an attractive look.
Mr. Mikes said the general depiction on this as he said, the size of the lots are approximately 112'
minimum to 115' to 120' wide with a minimum depth(seems to be) about 160' up to a maximum in
the 200' deep size. We propose that for an emergency access, ifit is needed, we will stabilize a path
across the golf course, in case 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 a the 3rd tee and one just in front of the creek.
Commissioner McLeod asked what would be the need for an emergency access. Mr. Mikes said that
was an issue raised with a former engineer that was working for the City. He (Mikes) didn't see a
need for it, but he depicted it because it was something that when first discussing any development
the concern was on the length of cul-de-sacs to make sure that if there 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 needed. Obviously the most appropriate place is to come right through
the gate and right down the street, in the event there was ever a problem, they can come across the
golf course. Commissioner McLeod asked if easements will be taken out of these pieces of property
for that purpose. Mr. Mikes said yes, we will create an easement for emergency vehicle access for
the benefit of the City and whatever emergency needs there might be. Commissioner McLeod said
wouldn~ that be an issue by the Staff to address with you at the time of your plans. Mr. Mikes said
he would be happy to take it out, it is an extra that he didn't think was necessary. He would be happy
to provide it if they want it an also be happy to not provide it if they allow us not to put it in.
Commissioner McLeod said it is just very unusual and he thinks it is probably one of the points that
Staff and Mikes should address. Mr. Mikes stated that again that was a former staff member that had
raised that a the last level. Mr. Mikes said other than that he believes that P&Z thought that this was
an acceptable concept for the use of this land, going from 77 lots on 26 acres to 54 lots of the nature
that they are talking about, private access, brick pavers, everything in the same fashion that they are
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. I do not believe there was a
problem at the P&Z level on that and Staff certainly had no objection. I look for any direction you
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 9
might give me, if you would like to see anything changed on it.
Commissioner Langellotti said this is showing the wall coming gin the back of the property. Mr.
Mikes said we will put a wall i 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 will intend it all the way, if they
want to go part of the way, we will go part of the way, it is up to that homeowner. Commissioner
Langellotti said the plans show a wall going up. Mr. Mikes said we will put a wall behind there so
that they will not have to look at homes butting right directly in back; it is not important where they
are side by side by where the homes butting next to each other and the three lots are shallow lots that
the existing Woodstream lots are 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 is really where the engineer depicted that
wrong; there wouldn't be a wall through the cul-de-sac, we would actually construct a cul-de-sac and
put a wall around it if that is what the homeowners chose, this is what has been submitted to the
Homeowners President, he advised me that on a concept basis it looked fine, with something of that
nature changed, we'll treat that cul-de-sac with regard to whatever other comments they may have.
The wall is not intended to run across the cul-de-sac that is an error. again, we provided emergency
access if the Staff thought it was appropriate, Commissioner Langellotti said that wall would separate
the two parcels. Mr. Mikes said no, it is not intended to separate the parcels, it is intended to
separate the back yards of properties; it is not trying to state that this end of Wood stream is different
from the other, that is up to working it out with the Homeowners in those locations, what will look
better, what do they want 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, they wanted the privacy they have
right now, and we will respect that and leave it that way and in fact put a cul-de-sac in where they
currently do not have one.
Commissioner Conniff asked Mr. Mikes that after he cleans out the pond is he going to be responsible
with keeping it clean. Mr. Mikes answered yes, the same 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 the pond. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that will be ties up in
documents that the Commission will approve. Mr. Mikes stated, again this is concept and before the
Commission approves the plat they will have an easement document that they will find acceptable.
Commissioner McLeod stated that with reading the P&Z minutes on page 3, Mr. Mikes explains
looking at three plans submittal and so forth, liS' wide lots, 77 narrow lots going to 54, then it goes
on to say in addition there will be having about 6 acres...Mr. Lein states that doesn't change this
parcel, then Mr. Mikes states he realizes that this is an issue that will have to be addressed with the
City Commission in their judgement on the agreement. Mr. Mikes stated that is not on Woodstream.
Commissioner McLeod stated that he is glad to see a reduction in the amount of homes in this area.
Mr. Mikes stated in 1973-1980 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 he bought) there was 192
condominiums or apartments and on the Wood stream parcel there was 77; if you add up all those
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 10
parcels you had roughly 500+ units that were originally permitted for all of this land. Units that
would have been of a condo nature, a hotel nature, certainly not of a single family nature that we are
proposing now. If you look at the overall Arrowhead project, all 5 phases that we are proposing, we
end up with approximately 164 homes that we will be selling in the range of roughly $400,000 range
for the ones directly on the golf course in Unit 1, then running upwards to $650,000, the five spec
homes with the builders are priced approximately $475,000 up to $515,000. Commissioner McLeod
said so you have a reduction of about 405 - Mr. Mikes said about 500 and some down to about 160,
but when you look at assessed valuation you have 160 times roughly $500,00-$600,000 just assume
the assessment at $400,000 even if you take off the homestead at $25,000 you are still looking at
somewhere in the range of 70 million dollars of assessed value; whatever that reels to the City, and
look at the reduction of trips. Looking to the City's benefit, the communities 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 of 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.
#2 - Arrowhead Unit 4 - Mr. Mikes stated that this is the parcel that was approved in our settlement
agreement for originally (he believes) 39 lots, we are depicting it as 46 lots; the difference is when
the engineering firm went out and actually laid out the lots and showed what the builders were asking
for, we ended up with lots that were in the size range of 100. They wanted a 115' wide lot, when we
laid it out it ended out 46 lots. The area included in this, and Gene Lein had raised the issue that this
looked like an expansion, the engineers have it and they can lay it out, and they can 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 are taking less acres
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 115' wide lots, do a side loaded garage and end up
with about a 4,000 sq. ft. home and make it look good. The depth is approximately 155' on the golf
course in these areas going up to 165'; lots as deep as 300' along the creek. This depiction, the P&Z
found fault with and sent another one back to Mr. LeBlanc. There was an objection to the way we
laid out the cul-de-sac, we were trying to do a cul-de-sac, but actually it ended up a double cul-de-sac
so that we could trade a little lane similar to the lane that we created in our first phase that you can
look to the brick paver at the far west end of the first Arrowhead part. I've deleted that concept and
brought the cul-de-sac back about halfway between the two and ended up basically laying the lots
out in a comparable fashion but now there is no need for that little lane. It eliminates the objection
that the P&Z had with the treatment of the cul-de-sac, so I have addressed two points that the P&Z
had. The actual acres, which I'll have that confirmed by the engineer that the acreage is less and the
second issue 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 is just a single cul-de-sac. Commissioner
Mcleod said what you have done basically is you've made one long continued retention pond in order
to achieve what you were trying to do there. MR. Mikes stated yes. Commissioner McLeod said
which is the
~)
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 11
main difference, then that gave you the additional lot 43 up on the top where there was a retention
pond. Mr. Mikes said correct, 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, but obviously you go through and the engineers do whatever they do and the number of
lots, we may end up not being able to build homes on some lots, we may end up loosing some lots
as a result ofit and that's going to be dictated by other governmental agencies as well, they are going
to look and see what do we do on the setback along Howell Branch, 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 again just concept, an engineer taking a "blob" and drawing some lines that is all
this is.
Commissioner Ferring said to Mr. Mikes that he is looking at the agreement with his signature on it,
subsection B, where is says FCCI (Florida Country Clubs, Inc.) has not as yet completed the
preliminary engineering for the lots depicted on the conceptual plans for parcel 7 and 8. FCC I may
increase the number and/or reduce the size of the lots located in parcel 7 and 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 of 3 9
lots on parcel 8; now before you go forward, these are the problems that I have right now, plus the
fact over in the upper left comer, those four lots that you have going across the...Mr. Mikes stated
that those are on the other plan, that's just showing those in relation to this. Commissioner Ferring
said for his own satisfaction he would like Mr. Mikes to explain to him how he went from 13 lots to
20 lots and from 39 lots to 46 lots. Mr. Mikes said since the time that we entered into the revision
to the settlement agreement, he has had the opportunity to work with the builders, and had the
opportunity to hear from the brokers, and had the opportunity to look at the market as it exists, both
in Tuscawilla and overall in Orlando. Looking at homes in the price range comproable to what he
is building. We are looking at sites that are comproable, Lake Colony Estates in Maitland which are
priced $50-$60 thousand more than their's but the same houses on lots that are only 100' to 105' wide
and a depth of only about 140'. We have looked at that and things in Maitland Club, comproable size
lots, and lots throughout the area, the south end of town Dr. Philips area, the Bay Hill area. As we
worked with builders and brokers we've found that the size of lot is appropriate in the size of lIS'
wide, which allows for a side loaded garage, which is what we are requiring. Three car garage and
to fit appropriately a house of about 4,000 sq. ft. and not look like it is on a postage stamp lot. At
the time we did the revisions on the last go around, he did not have the benefit of what size the
builders wanted and 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 the settlement
agreement. When it was listed at 13 or 39, we have now found that in developing this first phase of
Arrowhead we think it's very attractive, at size lots that are basically what we have depicted here.
Mr. Mikes stated from the perspective of the Country Club, he is ultimately trying to sell
memberships in the Club to make the Club work appropriately, he is trying to provide the best
Country Club that he can of a private nature. As he adds more homes in the high end, the better he
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF NTER SPRINGS, FRIDA
j
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 12
is going to do from the standpoint ofthe Country Club. One hundred and sixty very expensive homes
probably generates a larger proportion of people that become golfing members in the Club as
compared to the starter homes. Mr. Mikes said that he has found that it is in his best economic
interest that if he can develop 160 homes in this nature, it will help him on the golf course. He said
his is not here before the Commission saying he wants them to approve something that he doesn't
have full faith and confidence that what he is asking to be approved is something the City will very
proud of and a real addition to the community. This project looks good in comparison to some of
it's counter parts, we are asking people to put the highest quality products into these homes,
landscape them appropriately, take care of it appropriately; it will be a definite enhancement to the
community. It is a type of housing that is needed, it is going to look good, and won't stretch the
City's standards in any way. Yes it is a different number than existed in those documents, and yes it
is going to make him more money, all those things are true.
Commissioner Ferring said to Mr. Mikes to put his self in the Commission's place, in today's times
where litigation is pursued at the drop of a hat, we have a contract that says one thing and you want
us to change the contract to say something else; if 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. What rm
concerned about is the legal premise of the whole thing, can we legally do this. Mr. Mikes said he
has no trouble as you go through preliminary engineering if there is any land use issue, any
modification that you think is appropriate and is something that can be done at this Commission with
the signatures of all parties concerned.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said suffice to say, he is not prepared to let the Commission do anything that
he thinks will result in litigation on this; he is not prepared to accept an interpretation or express an
interpretation of this agreement. He feels the Commission should give opinions on the project, raise
the issues, like Mr. Ferring has raised and then let Staff and himself and Mr. Mikes get together and
will take the steps to try and resole any concerns or issues that are raised.
Commissioner McLeod said the agreement is between Mr. Mikes and the City, from a legal
standpoint what you are asking the City to do is amend the agreement and allow him to go forward
with the conceptual plan to change the amount. So, therefore, it seems that from a legal issue there
would have to be an agreement first of the document, if we say the conceptual plan is not all bad,
therefore you need to get with our City Manager and City Attorney and work out the legal details,
then conceptually we don't have a problem.
Commissioner McLeod said to the City Attorney that this is a document that is between the City and
Mr. Mikes. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that is correct and that document anticipates your having
the ability to make this change.
Mr. Mikes said the other comments from P&Z were the number of lots, the cul-de-sac and the
acreage was raised. One thing we have depicted on this, the two plans that you have says unit 4 and
3 both depict some portion of the parking lot, some portion of the entrance treatment and both state
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 V\4NT R SP INGS. FLORIDA
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 13
the entranceway to the CountJy Club; it will be one in a fashion that will be something similar to what
you see at the first phase of Arrowhead. A high wall coming down a long way into the development,
getting the sense of privacy coming into the Country Club. There will be a gate house, it might or
might not be maned; that will be the entrance into the Country Club; we will have a 4' to 5' wall
across the face of the Country Club on Winter Springs Blvd., not as high as the 6' wall in Arrowhead,
slightly lower, but enough so that as you drive by you can look and see the Country Club but it will
block the view of the parking lot. 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
gate house is to enhance the exclusivity tJying to make it a little more private in nature in all respects.
One treatment that we will do different on these next phases of Arrowhead is we will actually put a
gate house in, make it look more like the Lake Colony Estates in Maitland.
#3. Tuscawilla Unit 3 (parcel 7) - Mr. Mikes stated this is the land that is lying east of the cafe, the
pool and this plan shows the removal of the tennis courts and the reconstruction of those tennis
courts. It shows the cafe to be expanded and replaced in its present position. The pool will have the
deck removed, the shall will be remarisited, all the pool equipment will be totally new equipment.
The location of the cafe going out closer to and actually you will be able to walk off the deck of the
cafe, and into the pool ares. We area trying to make something a lot more inviting than we currently
have with our old cafe and pool and tennis building that is falling down. The lighting that will be on
the tennis courts, instead of the very high and very bright will be a modem lighting that directs lights
on the courts and not spill over into the adjoining homes. The maintenance building will be removed.
and it shows the brick wall coming across the face of the Club and the additions of28 parking spaces
and the addition of another 26 parking spaces for a total actual net gain of parking spaces of whole
in the range of 6 or 7; we will be taking some away but adding some. It shows the entrance that
currently is the entrance by the tennis courts to be just an emergency access that will be a break away
for emergency purposes. 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, and tennis courts, etc.
The entrance to the development will be located directly across from the entranceway to the
Wedgewood Tennis VIllas and 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 pools and carry it across
Winter Springs blvd. to a point somewhere short of Howell Branch Creek. The plan shows the gated
entrance, a short cul-de-sac leading off towards Howell Branch Creek and a longer cul-de-sac that
will cross the 10th fairway below the tee. It will have a stone wall and a fancy treatment and leads
to what we depicted as four lots, which is an expansion of property noted in the last agreement. It
shows four lots at the 18th green which would be serviced off of a cul-de-sac looking down over the
creek and looking down over the 18th fairway.
Commissioner Langellotti asked how wide is the roadway. Mr. Mikes said it was to City standards
and it is no suggestion that it is not going to be to the City Codes. The lots themselves are 115' wide
against Winter Springs Blvd, and 175' deep at a minimum. The smallest interior lot we have is one
that is roughly about 140' wide by 120' deep, the rest are averaging approximately lIS' wide by 185'
deep, roughly the same size lots that are in the first phase of Arrowhead.
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF NT~P NGS, F ORIDA
tdf
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 14
Commissioner Ferring asked Mr. Mikes ifhe was concerned at all about Winter Springs Blvd. and
the traffic that is going to come there because of the mall. Mr. Mikes stated that so far it hasn't
created a sales problem. Traffic from the mall is something that we have not heard as a problem, in
fact the comments have been that they are happy that a mall is coming. Hopefully what we are
proposing here with going to 160 lots total as opposed to the 500+, we area certainly going to be
reducing there amount of traffic that is on the road network and it certainly will be less that what
550+ would be producing.
Mayor Bush said the important thing with Mr. Mikes' presentation for the Commission as you recall,
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 Commission tonight has noted
the changes in the conceptual plan vs. the settlement agreement and so is the public. So that
everybody is aware of this when it comes back again, and the Commission will make a decision based
upon infonnation that they have before.
Mr. Mikes asked the Commission, from a conceptual planning standpoint, does the Commission have
a problem with the number of lots.
Commissioner McLeod said conceptually, provided the documents have been written in such a
fashion to be changed for both parties benefit, and both parties are in agreement to whatever that
change is on a legal side, then conceptually what he has seen he doesn't have a problem.
Mr. Mikes asked if he could address two things and wants to make sure that he references this
because they impact homeowners adjacent to this. There was a request that there be no construction
traffic to develop this - we have to get some tractors in to get the basic stuff, but not with the
construction of the homes. We also committed to putting a brick wall across the back of Country
Club Village after the homeowners say if they want to or not; I think they will reserve that right for
a while to decide ifit will look right, that is something that they will make ajudgement on after they
see what this looks like. We do have to run some constructing traffic through to get the roads in to
begin with but after that there will be none.
Mayor Bush said we have seen a conceptual plan, are we going to approve the plan or not. From
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 has to have some direction and I think that is what he is asking the
Commission for.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said that prior to the meeting tonight, he conferred with the City Manager
and City Planner and asked what action, if any are they asking of this Commission. They advised me
that per the Code and per the process, they weren't asking for any action. The developer was asking
for the Commission to identity those issues or concerns that the developer needed to address to be
able to then move this project forward as he begins to finalize the process. What the developer needs
to find out from the Commission is are there issues that you have concerns and questions about so
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OFi V\4NT ~ INGS, FLORIDA
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 15
that he can work on them and resolve them and bring back the preliminary project to ask for the
Commission's approval on.
Mayor Bush said it appears that the lot issue is the major concern. Attorney Kruppenbacher said
moving the lot issue aside, are there any other issues. Mr. Mikes asked other than the lots, are there
any other planning problems. Commissioner Ferring asked if notification has been made to all the
contiguous property owners regarding this and when will the public hearing come involving this
particular plan. Mr. LeBlanc said public notice is not required to contiguous property owners; there
is no requirement for public notice, whenever the final approval for this project there is always a
public hearing at one of the Commission meetings. Commissioner Ferring said he does not have a
problem a as long as this is advertised and that everybody is aware of what we are doing;
conceptually I agree with Commissioner McLeod but I don't want to get caught in another blind
switch, I want to be able to have input from anybody that has concern out there that we haven't heard
from yet. Mr. Mikes said the layout ofthe road is going to stay the same, whether the width ofthese
lots are 115' or 125', the road is going to stay the same and the basic engineering questions so from
that standpoint the 39 vs 46 is not going to stop the engineering process from going forward as long
as conceptually it passes.
Commissioner Conniff commented that the new lot concept doesn't bother him and that it is obviously
going to be a top quality establishment and it excites him to see this.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said you have a Code that contemplates a process, that this will go through
public hearings and ultimately be brought to the Commission for action at a public hearing. The
public is welcome and encouraged to come and voice their input. There is no way this, if people stay
infonned and monitor what gets posted on the bulletin boards and is advertised, to enable the public
to give input.
Commissioner Langellotti said he was glad to see this type of project.
Mayor Bush said to summarize this, the Commission agrees with the conceptual plan to what has
been presented and encourages Mr. Mikes to go ahead through the regular procedures established
by the City's Code. The Commission was in agreement. Mayor Bush said we will ask the City
Manger to look into as to how this can be more widely distributed among the community rather than
just our other procedures.
City Attorney - Frank Kruppenbacher - Reports:
Attorney Kruppenbacherread Res. # _' "ARes. of the City ofWmter Springs, Florida, unanimously
requesting the School Board of Seminole County, Florida adopt and implement plan F as it's rezoning
Plan." Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that his recommendation upon passage is that it be signed
tomorrow and a cover letter from the Mayor and/or Commissioners, be delivered to the
Superintendent and each member of the School Board. Commissioner Langellotti suggested that the
Commission attend the next School Board meeting and speak in opposition of the other plans.
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 \MNT SR INGS, FLORIDA
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 16
Attorney Kruppenbacher said there is going to be a special hearing on the 17th of this month where
action will be taken. Mayor Bush said the public hearing is at 6:00 p.m., May 17, 1995, at Lake
Howell High School. Mayor Bush said this is the rezoning for the High School only. Discussion.
Commissioner Ferring said if he recalls when the Commission met with the School Board regarding
the interlocal agreement that we entered into with them, did they not indicate to us that they would
do everything in their power with Winter Springs High School to accommodate the youth of the City
of Winter Springs.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said ifhe remembers correctly, they said that and qualified that there was
a question about keeping all the Winter springs students here and the qualification was that there
maybe students who did not reside in Winter Springs who would have to come to the High School
and they wanted everybody to understand that. They never identified students from Winter Springs
leaving Wmter Springs. Mayor Bush said if the Commission so desires he will attend the meeting on
the 17th and read the Resolution publicly. Discussion.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve yet to be numbered Resolution that was just
read by Attorney Kruppenbacher. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote:
Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye;
Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said that at the last meeting there was discussion regarding the sale of the
building which is owned by N.D. Water & Sewer or the Utility Fund/Enterprise Fund; there was a
3-2 vote regarding a decision by the Commission as to whether to permit that property to go forward
with the procedures for sale. Mr. Lockcuff and I met with the City Manager and went through the
bond covenants and there is no bond prohibition or restriction on your ability to convey this property.
Discussion.
Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to place on the agenda the sale of the building.
Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Ferring:aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion
passes.
Motion was made by Commissioner McLeod to go forward with the sale of the building to the
present high bidder of the bids we presently have in house. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring.
Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher said this means that the City Manager and his Staff and I will
prepare the contract and the Ordinance and approval of it per your Charter and move the process to
culminate the sale. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes.
Attorney Kruppenbacher asked Mayor Bush if we could schedule a meeting prior to the next regular
scheduled meeting, pursuant to Section 286.011 of the Florida Statutes, as we are in need of advise
regarding litigation stragety. The persons attending this meeting will be a court reporter,
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF NTER S I I GS. FL9RIDA
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 17
Commissioners McLeod, Langellotti, Gennell, Ferring, Conniff Mayor Bush, City Manager
Govoruhk, Attorney Kruppenbacher and possibly Keith Bricklemeyer. The meeting will be limited
to discussion regarding settlement negotiations or stragety relating to litigation expenditures involved
in the lawsuits that are presently pending against the City by the City of Oviedo, by the Tuscawilla
homeowners Assoc~, by the City against the City of Oviedo, the Rouse Corp., and the Viera Corp.
Discussion of a meeting date. it was determined to hold the closed executive session after the regular
scheduled meeting on May 22, 1995 at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said the evaluation system that we talked about at the last meeting, to clarifY
any misunderstanding, the actual evaluations of people are not going to be brought back to the
Commission.
Commissioner Ferring asked if it is considered a violation of the Sunshine if the City Attorney could
bring the members of the Commission up to what has transpired at this particular point before we go
into the closed executive session. Attorney Kruppenbacher said he is able without violating the
Sunshine and that he will contact each Commissioner this week and give them a verbal update,
confidentially.
City Manager John Govoruhk - Reports:
Manager Govoruhk said on behalf ofthe Fire Chiefhe is announcing that the Fire Station on Northern
Way is open and there will be an open house for the City on Saturday, May 27, 1995, from 2:00 to
4:00 p.m. Discussion. Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that he will pick up the tab for the
refreshments for the open house at the Fire Station.
Manger Govoruhk also stated that the Commission has an update on Cypress Club and hopefully we
will be given them the final C.O. and this will close out Cypress Club.
Manager Govoruhk stated that the rebidding for the restroom at Central Winds Park is completed and
seven bids were received and the low bid was $59,557. The pavilions are going up and should be
completed by the time we have the employee picnic.
Manger Govoruhk said we have received the last payment for the State for the bucket truck. The
City has not paid anything for the purchase of the truck. The total amount of the last check was
$21,076.14, making for a total of $28,000 we received for the truck.
Manger Govoruhk also mentioned that he wrote a letter to the Winding Hollow subdivision builders
who were giving out wrong information that Trotwood and the back entranceway will be open; he
told them to cease all false advertisement.
Commission Seat ill - John Langellotti:
Commissioner Langellotti said a few meetings ago he mentioned the City receiving a check for $1,000
from the Chamber. After consulting with the City Manager, it was decided to give each of the
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 W:T S~ ING~00RIDA
~-#~. .
;29 / 7 - i(.:z 'I (j J...
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 18
schools a fixed amount of money: Indian Trails - $333.33; Winter Springs Elementary and Keith
Elementary - $333.34 each. That money will go into a fund for underprivileged children.
Commissioner Langellotti said he would like to see this as something the City can do to get together
with Homeowner Associations to start donating money to the schools; and thanked the Commission
for allowing him to do that with the money.
Commission Seat V - David McLeod:
Commissioner McLeod asked where do we stand with talking to the residents of Oak Forest about
the walls and problems of that nature with regard to the Tuscawilla Road widening. Discussion.
Commissioner McLeod said he feels that this should be an agenda item to get input from the
residents. Mayor Bush said it would be appropriate to schedule this for a future date so that the Oak
Forest Homeowner Assoc., has enough time to publish the notice in their newsletter. Discussion.
It was detennined that this would be an agenda item at the June 12, 1995 meeting.
Commission Seat I - Larry Conniff:
Commissioner Conniff asked if anything has been done regarding the nets at Central Winds Park. Don
WIlson, Recreation Director, stated that he has gotten estimates and should have everything together
soon.
Commissioner Conniff mentioned that he has gotten calls regarding the Police and Fire Departments
and has gotten nothing but positive feed back and stated that he greatly appreciates it and thanked
them and told them they are doing a fine job.
Commissioner Conniff also mentioned a letter from the General Services Director stating the rational
of using the Orlando Sentinel to cover getting out the information over the Oviedo Voice and the
Sanford Herald; it makes more sense that we use the Orlando Sentinel as it is read by more people.
Mayor Bush asked the City Manger to get in touch with Mr. Allen and make him aware of the
findings regarding the advertising in the Orlando Sentinel.
Commission Seat IT - John Ferring:
Commissioner Ferrlng said in respect to the previous conversation, he see no problem with the City
putting their advertisements in another newspaper also. Discussion.
Commissioner Ferring mentioned the copy of the Coopers & Lybrand report on the audit that they
did for the City of Ocala. It proved to be interesting and was much in favor of Ocala. Discussion.
Mayor Bush asked the City Manager to get more information on this and report back to the
Commission to be put on a future agenda.
Commissioner Ferring also mentioned the issue regarding members of the Boards in the City who
are presently members of Homeowners Associations that are litigating against the City. Attorney
Kruppenbacher said that that issue will be on the next agenda as an ordinance removing members of
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY IA1NT,. SINGS, FRIDA
Regular Meeting City Commission
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 19
Boards if they are a member of a Board of Directors of any Orgiznation that has files suit against the
City, they will immediately forfeit the position on any respective Board in the City.
Commissioner Ferring stated that he will make his appointment to the B.O.W.S. Board at the next
meeting.
Commissioner Ferring mentioned that on May 13, 1995, the Civic Assoc. is having a B-B-Q outside
the Civic Center, chicken and fixings with tickets $4.00 each from 1 :00 to 4:00 p.m. The profits will
go to the Christen Sharing Center of Seminole County.
Commissioner Ferring also mentioned a newsletter to bring the citizens up to date on what is
happening by putting this in the utility bills. Discussion. it was determined that this will be an agenda
item for the next meeting.
Mayor's Office - John F. Bush:
Mayor Bush stated that some time ago the Commission approved the recognition of an outstanding
senior citizen in the City, calling it the Mayor's Award. I have identified such a person, Mr. Charles
Bryam, who has been an outstanding civilian volunteer to the Police Department. Mayo Bush said
he would like at the nest meeting to have a Resolution honoring Mr. Bryam as well as a plaque for
his outstanding service for the past 13 years.
Mayor Bush stated that we are well into 1995 and for some ofthe Commission approximately half
way through their terms in office. This past year a lot of time was spent on items that have been
challenging and taking a lot of our energies. however, I would like to propose some issue for the
Commission to consider to address in the coming months. 1. I would like to see us work diligently
on annexation of contiguous properties and those properties surrounded by the City that are still not
within the City. 2. I would like to see the Commission consider working with the other Cities around
us, Oviedo in particular on these annexation issues that could impact both Cities. Wok jointly in the
start rather than after the fact. 3. I would like to see us in a cooperative venture with maybe Oviedo,
Casselberry, the other Cities around us for an economic development project that would benefit our
Cities that would be compatible with our quality of life. When I first thought of this I thought of
maybe a sports complex that we might be able to attract a professional orgiznation. But a second
thought I've come up with that I would like to mention for your consideration and that is Lake Jesup.
I understand Lake Jesup at one time was a premier bass fishing lake. If a joint project could be
undertaken to bring this lake back to the status it once held, it would benefit all residents of our City
and could have a significant impact on our economic development, our recreation facilities and at the
same time a positive impact on our environment. This might be something that maybe the
Commission might want to do something with other that fight the "fires" we have for the last year and
a half. If the Commission thinks there is any of this worth looking at we will put it on the agenda for
a future meeting. Discussion.
Mayor Bush also stated that he has an appointment to the B.O.W.S. Board which he will delay to the
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 WNT ,SP INGS. FLORIDA
Regular Meeting City Commission
next meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~A.~
Margo M. Hopkins,
City Clerk
APPROVED:
f.~
May 8, 1995
94-95-20
Page 20
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF . NTER 5P.RIN 5, FLORI)DA
VERBATIM PORTION OF MINUTES OF MAY 8,1995
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendations - Conceptual Plans: 1. Arrowhead at Tuscawilla Unit
3 (south ofWmter 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. Hoffmann
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 ofthe 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.
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF NTER NGS, FLORIDA
, )
L
I - c(,)..?J cIJ.--
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 --
Ferring - 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.
Fening - 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 Woodstream is something that you're not ready to consider, do
you have any reason, did the P&Z have any reason, did Staffhave 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 - ob, 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
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 \MNTE l GS. FLC{RIDA
r(;
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 disapprovaI. 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-l, 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 Woodstream, has
there been approve engineering for Woodstream.
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 of 70 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
contlict in the Quate area and the principal owner of that property was hiding low some place in
Quate - Mr. Boukhamseen (? 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 Wood stream, but Woodstream 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 Wood stream parcel fits right in
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF NTEH PR GS. FLORIDA
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 ifthere 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 Woodstream ok
Ferring - 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 Woodstream 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 l~dscaping 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 ofit 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
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 V'v1NT SINGS, FLORIDA
:t.l
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 aU 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 - Tun, 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 - ob, 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
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 V\.1NTE P GS, FLORIDA
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 if there 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 StafT 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
shallow lots that the existing Wood stream 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~e-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 if it'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.
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE ClTY CLERK
CITY OF \f\ANTE - RI GS, FLORIDA
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 - ?71
Mikes - six or seven months
Mayor - 17? 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
Ferring - 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
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 VVlNT -R P NGS, FLORIDA
where we end up going on all ofthese 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 Woodstream 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 ofrougWy $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 $475,000 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 rougWy $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 of 70 million dollars of assessed value. Whatever that reats 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 finn 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
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF, \MNTE S. RI/ S. FLORIDA
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 if I 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 wel~ 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.
CERTIFIED COpy
OF ICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 'MNT - " SP INGS, FLORIDA
Mayor - Mr. Ferring has a question Mr. Mikes.
Ferring - ya, fun, 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 of 39 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
Ferring - 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
Ferring - 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 13 lots 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
CERTIFIED COpyiOFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 \MNTE P GS. FLORIDA
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 appropriately 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'D 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"
CERTIFIED COpy
OFF E OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF WNTER~'p GS, FLORIDA
.
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, if there 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
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 IMNT R P NGS. FLORIDA
.
McLeod - ok, continue with your presentation please.
Mikes - ok, the other conunents, let me think of the other, the number of lots 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 of 28 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 ifthe - iffor 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
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF \MNTER ~p NGS. FLO~IDA
a. li....l
homes we are putting money back into and will be spending in excess of a million and a half dollars
in tenus 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 canied 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 torn - 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 1"40 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 ofthe 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 oflots.
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
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 \MNTE GS, FL IDA
.
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.
'II- .. ./'
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
Ferring - 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. Conniff has 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 intelject one thing just so you note your comments, and the reason I cut
Don off: 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 statt: 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
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 WNTER ,PRI"JGS. FLORIDA
Langellotti - ya but 13 8 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
'I ,
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 4istributed
among the community this kind of a change, rather than just our other procedures, mayoe 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
~..d
I
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached documents were referenced by Mr.
Anthony A. Garganese during the discussion of
Public Hearings Agenda Item "500.1" at the
August 20, 2007 City Commission Special
Meeting.
9
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COMMISSION
JULY 24, 1995
The Regular Meeting of the City Commission of the City ofWmter Springs was called to order by
Mayor 10hn F. Bush at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Mayor 10hn F. Bush, present
Deputy Mayor 10hn Langellotti, present
City Manager 10hn Govoruhk, present
City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, present
COMMISSIONERS:
Lany Conniff: present
John Ferring, present
Cindy Gennell, present
David McLeod, present
Attorney Kruppenbacber said to Mayor Bush, pursuant to Florida Statute 286.011, the time is 6:40
on the 24th of luly, 1995, at this he asks that Mayor Bush adjourn to a closed session to discuss
settlement discussion regarding the lawsuits we (the City of Wmter Springs) currently have with
Viera, Rouse, and Duda.
Mayor Bush convened the Regular Meeting of the City Commission at 6:40 p.m., to go into closed
executive session.
Mayor Bush reconvened the Regular Meeting of the City Commission at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Bush asked for a moment of silent prayer for the invocation.
Approval of Minutes ofluly 10. 1995:
Mayor Bush asked ifthere were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting
of luly 10, 1995. There were no additions or corrections to the minutes of the Regular Meeting of
luly 10, 1995. Minutes stand approved as presented.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Dan Wood, White Ibis Court, Golf Director and also one of the owners of the Wmter Springs Golf
Club, spoke regarding that he would like to make two land swaps and will go through the proper
procedures with City Staff.
Commissioner Fening mentioned that Mr. Wood won the Florida Open Jr. Division golfing event and
congratulated him.
GENERAL AGENDA
FascaI Year 1995-1996 Budget, Commission sets: Proposed Millage Rate, Rolled Back Rate and Day,
Time and Place of Public Hearing for Tentative Bud!l:et (Monday. Sept. 11. 1995):
Commissioner Ferring said in lieu of the workshops that we have done and in lieu of the work that
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF WNTER SfRI S, FLORIDA
Regular Meeting City Commission .
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 2
has been accomplished by the City Manager and his Staff and the Fmance Director and the discussion
that we had at our workshop last Monday night, move to set the Proposed Millage Rate at 3.7023.
Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Mcleod: aye;
Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to set the rolled back rate at 3.7023. Seconded by
Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Mcleod: aye. Motion
passes.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to set the Public Hearing for the tentative Budget as of
Monday, September 11, 1995, at 7:30 p.m., Winter Springs Commission Chambers. Seconded by
Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell:
aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion
passes.
Commissioner McLeod also thanked the City Manager and Finance Director and all members of the
Commission for working together as they did.
Mayor Bush also commented on Manager Govoruhk's effort in taking the Commission's wishes and
translating it into the decrease in taxes, he said he thinks that if our new City Manager can handle the
City such as Mr. Govoruhk has done on this particular item; that the City will be well served. Again,
the Commission has proven that you can operate government more efficiently and you can lower
taxes and still deliver the services that the citizens need; I think it is a great thing and as
Commissioner Ferring said we can in fact duplicate this again, so I am looking forward to next year
also.
Chestnut Estates Phase IT - Acceptance ofImprovements for City Maintenance (Northwest comer
ofWmter Springs Boulevard and Seneca Boulevard):
Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti that the City accept the improvements for City
maintenance for Chestnut Estates Phase IT - northwest comer ofWmter Springs Blvd. and Seneca
Blvd. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye;
Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner
Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Resolution No. 762 - Fixing the Fees to be paid for applicants for Certain Occupational Licenses;
Conflicts and Effective Date:
Commissioner Ferring thanked the members of the committee that sat on this difficult task in coming
up with the documents that they have come up with and an effective resolution.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve Resolution No. 762, fixing the fees to be paid
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 V\1NT~R SP NGS, FLORIDA
t..~
Pi 2-/10/J
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 3
for applicants for certain occupational licenses, conflicts and effective date. Seconded by
Commissioner LangeIlotti. Discussion Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff:
aye; Commissioner Fening; aye; Conunissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Motion
passes.
Proposed Amendment to Settlement Agreement between Florida Country Clubs, Inc. and The City
ofWmter Springs - Adding seven (7) lots to Parcel 7, adding seven (7) lots to Parcel 8, and adding
additional propertY to that subdivision known as W oodstream:
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that Mr. Mikes is not present and asked that the Commission
continue this item until the next meeting so Mr. Mikes could be present for any questions.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to table this item - Proposed Amendment to Settlement
Agreement between Florida country Clubs, Inc. and the City of Wmter Springs. Seconded by
Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Ferring:
aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes.
City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher - Reports:
Attorney Kruppenbacher said he has given the Mayor and Commission what is termed an amended
settlement agreement, to deal with the Viera, Rouse, nuda matter and he asks that the Commission
please consider putting this on the agenda for action.
Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to place the amended settlement agreement on the
agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Ferring: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye;
Commissioner Conniff: aye. Motion passes.
Attorney Kruppenbacher stated that the settlement agreement that the Commission has in front of
them, in summary, I would advise you, deletes the original provision of the original settlement
agreement, requiring the City to vacate the conservation easement and permit the crossing of the
conservation easement for ingress and egress to the Mall Site. What the new agreement does is as
follows: it will provide that there will be no ingress or egress to Wmter Springs Blvd., west of the
Greenway from the mall site; through an additional covenant running with the land, which the
developer will place on the property at the time they begin to do any vertical improvement for the
mall; it provides for payment of$150,OOO. Mayor Bush asked the City Attorney, on the restriction
on use of the conservation, would he put that into laymans terms what that really means for the public
that is present tonight.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said the owner of the mall property (whoever that may be from the date of
the agreement going into effect - forward and the date of the recording of the covenant, will be bound
that they will never be able to, as the owners of the property, to use that property to ingress or egress
to the mall west of the Greenway onto Winter Springs Blvd. Mayor Bush said so the owners cannot
cross the easement, is that what you are saying. Attorney KruppeOOacher said that is correct, the mall
owners agree they will never attempt to cross the easement, that goes with title and will be rees RT I FIE D COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 WNTER P NGS, FLORIDA
K.-J
Y'l L
11 3 - ICj 4 /7'
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 4
and goes into effect when they begin to pull the building pennit for the vertical improvement of the
property. It ca11s for Parcel 14 to be tendered to me in escrow and released 90 days after Seminole
County's approval of the pending project in front of the County; if the project is not approved, there
is no annexation of Parcel 14 as written in this agreement. It calls for $150,000 to be paid to the City
of Winter Springs after the first building pennit is pulled to construct a vertical improvement on
Parcel 12 (the mall site) payment ofS150,000 will be tendered to the City. It deletes the requirement
of the City ofWmter Springs affinnatively as a political body encouraging the approval of the project
in accordance with applicable codes and regulations; those are in summary fashion the modifications
to the original settlement agreement. Attorney Kruppenbacher also stated that they (Rouse, Viera
and Duda) will be required, the provision in this, the City ofWmter Springs, since the day that we
negotiated the original amended settlement forward, have not been billed by Mr. Bricldemeyer or
himself for any work done on this project; at that table, we agreed to accept the sums provided in this
agreement to compensate, so you know based upon the figures, it is far below what Mr. Bricldemeyer
would have been entitled to in the particular litigation. The reality is that the City is not out of pocket
for the legal fees incurred in dealing with the issues after settlement.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said it calls for bike paths, if there is a dispute regarding bike paths, as to
their ability to be put in, in the conditions outlined, for the parties to have mediation for resolution
of that dispute with East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
Mayor Bush stated Commissioner Ferring, who worked very hard on this as well as our Attorney,
he (Mayor Bush) thinks this is a fair agreement with the City and thanked everyone for their efforts.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said if the Commission deems it appropriate to accept the agreement, he
asks that the Commission does so with the understanding that it is approved subject to the authority
of the City Manager and City Attorney to make any necessary final legal "clean-ups" (such as
attaching exhibits) and authorization for the City Manager and City Attorney to accept anything that
would further enhance the agreement.
Commissioner McLeod asked if the money being paid to the City Attorney includes payment if there
is litigation regarding the bike paths. Attorney Kruppenbacher said the payment is for legal services
rendered up until this point, including the handling of the litigation, dealing with the negotiations and
working through the agreement. Discussion.
Commissioner McLeod said in regarding to the annexation of Parcel 14, that it would happen at the
time the building footers start raising horizontally. Attorney Kruppenbacher said no, after the
expiration of ninety days from the Seminole County's Commission approval of the project and their
transmittal to the State of the applicable approval documents, he (City Attorney) is authorized to
release the petition for annexation to the City to commence the City's annexation process.
Commissioner GenneIl asked the City Attorney to clarify paragraph 11. Attorney Kruppenbacher said
we (the city) are agreeing in this document, that we as a political body (the Commission), will not
be objecting to the project as currently proposed; and that we will affirm that position tOERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
c':i:~~~
6 fJ'7 4-1'91 I':;
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 5
respective bodies that are dealing with this process that we are not objecting, we are not obligated,
and I ddeted from it to say that we are affinnativdy pushing the project. Further I will clarify to you
that paragraph 11 does not prohibit the individual opinions of any individual to be expressed; but you
as a governmental body, acting as the City Commission, is taking that position that you have no
objection as QJJTeIIt\y proposed. Discussion. Commissioner Gennell asked ifwe (the City) will have
someone in attendance at every public hearing to say that we don't object to it? Attorney
Kruppeobacher said that there are two public hearings left, one is on August 2,22, 1995, and I will
appear to represent that we have no opposition to the project and that's not to be interpreted as we
have support of the project, we are just not voicing the opposition to the issue.
Commissioner Ferring said that there is a couple of people that has helped getting this resolved and
one is Aaron 1. Gorovitz and Mr. Mason Blake of the Viera Corp., through their efforts they were
able to convince the rest of the principals that we had to come to a fair agreement and wants to thank
Mr. Gorovitz and Mr. Blake publicly.
Mayor Bush said for the benefit of the public, there was a closed meeting at 6:30 p.m.where the City
Attorney briefed the Commission on the amended settlement agreement.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to approve the amended settlement agreement subject
to the comments made by the City Attorney (above) and the execution of that agreement by Oviedo
and Viera, Rouse. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner
Langellotti: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff:
aye; Commissioner Ferrlng: aye. Motion passes.
Commissioner Mcleod stated that he would like to publicly thank Commissioner Ferring for the job
he has done with this and also the City Manager and City Attorney, in the overview of everything that
he (Commissioner Mcleod) knows about it, they have done a good job in working a fair deal for this
City and a fair deal for all parties involved without getting into court cases.
Mayor Bush mentioned that Mr. Mikes is present now, he would like to bring it back on the agenda.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to withdraw his motion to table item "0". Commissioner
Langellotti withdrew his second.
Proposed Amendment to Settlement Agreement between Florida Country Clubs, Inc. and The City
ofWmter Springs - Adding seven (7) lots to rarcel 7, adding seven (7) lots to Parcel 8, and adding
additional property to that subdivision known as Woodstream:
Commissioner Mcleod asked if the site plans had changed since the last time the Commission looked
at them. Mr. Mikes, owner/developer, stated to address the several points of opposition on the
driving range area, we have taken the cul-de-sac and turned it into a single cul-de-sac as opposed to
the double cul-de-sac look, to make it exactly as the Commission had asked, that it just be a straight
cul-de-sac; every lot has the required street frontage and direct access on the dedicated streets. On
the parcel near the tennis courts, he has depicted on that 19 lots and moved the entrance drive so it
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF \MNTER ~GS. FLORIDA
(jlc'!;~
" p C) 1----/9 '8 /9
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 6
not cross in front of the golf tee, there was an objection to that. We removed one lot, instead of
showing 20 lots, we show 19 lots.
Attorney Kruppeobadter for the sake of any misconfussion, he would like to go over the agreement
so there will be no misunderstandings on any issues. In paragraph 2-B, the first sentence, we are
dealing with the preliminary engineering on Parcels 7 & 8; what you (Mr. Mikes) are agreeing to in
this is that you would be entitled to increase the number and or reduce the size of a lots in Parcels 7
& 8. Attorney Kruppenbacher said there is a difference between the word "number" and "size". Mr.
Mikes said the intent is that basically what is shown on the conceptual plan would be the minimum
lot size and the maximum number ofIots; the actual acreage that is included is actually less than what
was included in the original settlement agreement because we have taken the size ofthe lots, instead
of being 125' wide and 200' deep; they will be 115' wide and about 160'-170' deep. Attorney
Kruppenbacher asked Mr. Mikes ifhe would not have a problem revising it to provide what he just
said and that being that there will be not more than 19 lots permitted on Parcel 7 and 46 lots on
Parcel 8; Mr. Mikes said that would be fine. Attorney Kruppenbacher said then this would be revised
to state that there will be no more than 19 lots permitted on Parcel 7 and no more than 46 lots on
Parcel 8; provided those lots can be developed in accordance with applicable City Codes and State
and Federal Laws and regulations.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said then the next sentence would be: where at the City will promptly
process, review and approve such modifications; we would modifY that that we would promptly
process, review and propose for consideration for approval. Mr. Mikes said that was fine.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said the last thing is "provided in the settlement agreement the term
development property shall hereafter shall be deemed for the purpose of permitting Parcels 7 & 8 to
be developed with the additional lots herein" correct? Mr. Mikes said yes. Attorney Kruppenbacher
said there are three additional things; the land lying north of the 9th tee, directly west of the Parcel
commonly know as the Hooker Parcel, adjacent to the Country Club Clubhouse and parking lot. Mr.
Mikes said that is what is shown on Parcel 8 in the original settlement agreement, that is right at the
entranceway, it has always been part ofthat plan, it is an acre and 3/4, that is adjacent to the brick
wall that we already have up. Attorney Kruppenbacher said all you are say it that is what is currently
known as Parcel 8. Mr. Mikes said correct.
Attorney Kruppeobacher said next is "a" - the approximate 100' ofland lying adjacent to the second
tIuough fourth holes of the Club, in the property commonly known as Woodstream. Mr. Mikes said
that is shown on the conceptual plan, what we call W oodstream, our Unit 5. Attorney
Kruppeobad1er asked is that property where the Commission previously approved the lots to be? Mr.
Mikes said correct, that was permitted for 77 lots, we are going to add to there 26 acres, we will add
a 100' strip all the way around the outside of it and then we will reduce their 77 plus our 100' down
to 54 lots; we are not adding any more lots, we are reducing the number oflots but also increasing
the area so that the lots become 113'-114' wide and 165' deep.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said the final one is the parcel currently occupied by tl:1!ltTI'f lED copy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF WNTER S RI OS, FLORIDA
BY:
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 7
the paroel. bounded by the 10th and 18th fairway and Howell Branch Creek. Mr. Mikes said yes, that
is the teonis court parcel. Attorney Kruppenbacher said that is in the current agreement; Mr. Mikes
said yes and is Parcel 7. Attorney Kruppenbacher asked what parcel is Woodstream. Mr. Mikes said
that it wasn't a parcel in the settlement agreement, it is what is in front of you as Unit 5 of our
Arrowhead project, the 54 lots. Discussion.
Mr. Mikes said Woodstream has nothing to do with what was in the original parcels, in the original
agreement we had said that we weren't going to use any other property for residential development
and we are just trying to clarifY that we are going to take a strip 100' wide around the Woodstream
property. Attorney Kruppenbacher asked Mr. Mikes ifhe would not mind if we put that language
in a separate paragraph that says that is what we are doing and delete it from this paragraph. Mr.
Mikes said that is fine.
Mr. Mikes said he has one other clarification point on that, the people in the Greenbriar development,
Horton Homes, they have come to him and there is land that you would not think of other than part
of the Greenbriar parcel, but I actually own it, they have a 40' setback along that they have put in their
covenants and I have agreed to waive that 40' setback so they can build their houses closer. It is still
well away from the fiiliway, I have also agreed with them that if they can come back to the City and
replat a portion ofit, that they could even take some of our land and actually add it to their property
so that they include it in their lots. They are going to come to the City looking for approval of 115
lots, increasing the size of the lots, reducing the number of the lots, but then I would give them some
land near the 18th tee so that they could expand the lots back there, and then they could get bigger
homes, they want to go to a 50' wide lot and in order to do that everything has to expand out; I told
them that they can have approx. one acre of extra land, a strip along the 18th tee, the 17th fairway
to expand their lots. If you could approve that in that area, if they come back to you and if they get
their plat approved by the City, that they could use the land that I would give them for those
purposes. In this agreement we had said nothing else would ever be used for residential purposes,
we would like to be able to give them a strip that you would not think of as the golf course.
Attorney Kruppenbacher said if the Commission does deem this appropriate to approve, I ask that
it be with a motion subject to the changes that we have discussed here tonight, subject to the Staff
signing off: the Attorney signing off on the final, redraft the document with the authority for the
Mayor to execute it.
Discussion on this item.
Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve the proposed amended settlement agreement
between Florida Country Clubs, Inc, and the City of Wmter Springs, subject to the changes
mentioned by the City Attorney and approvals by Staff etc. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring.
Discussion. Vote: Commissioner GeoneU: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner
Langellotti: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye. Motion passes.
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 \l\4NTE SPR GS. FLORIDA
I .
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 8
City Manay;er - John Govoruhk - Re.POrts:
Manager Govoruhk stated to the Commission that back in February 1995, they received a package
for an inter-local agreement for all Cities, the Sherifi's Dept. and the County, to go to an 800mh
communication system. The Mayor just signed the agreement and what this agreement does is it will
give all Cities in the County the opportunity to comnwnicate, dispatch and work together as one unit.
We will have our own console for independent communication once they come to our area. This is
saving our City between I and 2 million dollars; the equipment will be maintained by the County,
unless we buy additional communication for ourselves. We will continue to maintain our current
system incase of an emergency situation.
Commission Seat ill - John Langellotti:
Commissioner LangeIIotti asked the City Manager if he had heard anything regarding the ambulance
service not renewing their contract with the County. Manager Govoruhk said what he has heard
right now as oftoday, the ambulance service is in the process ofbeing purchased again. The Fire
Chiefhas been attending every meeting that they have bad; the intent is between Orange and Seminole
County, is the Fire Dept. looking at transporting and the County is looking at the same thing also.
If the City has to do that. we have the equipment, the only thing we would have to do is hire three
more people. We would have the capability among the Cities for back-up, so we are in fine shape
to assume that whichever way the County goes.
Commission Seat IV - Cindy Gennell:
Commissioner GenneII said when we discussed advertising for the City Manager, she didn't remember
when it was going to be advertised in the Orlando Sentinel. Commissioner Conniff said it was
advertised in Sunday's paper.
Commission Seat V - David McLeod - ~pointmentIReappointment to Planning and Zoninl1 Bd:
Commissioner McLeod said he would like to reappoint Wtlliam Fernandez to the Planning and Zoning
Bd. Seconded by Commissioner Ferring. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Conniff: aye;
Commissioner Mcleod: aye; Commissioner GenneIl: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye; Commissioner
Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Commissioner Mcleod said to the City Manager that he would like to have the Police Chief and Fire
Chief look into the use of a receiver that would put out a signal, that would open the gates in the
gated communities within the City. This would omit having a number of different receivers in a
vehicle. Commissioner McLeod said he would like to see this option investigated to get costs etc.
Manager Govoruhk said we are in the process for the fire trucks, rescue units and a1~ for all stop
lights throughout Seminole and Orange Counties. we will have a master override for traffic lights and
we will check with the same company to see what we can do with regard to Commissioner McLeod's
suggestion.
Commission Seat I - Larry Conniff:
No Report.
1fML
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 9
Commission Seat IT - John Fel1'in8:
Commissioner Ferring said to the City Manager with the construction going on on SR 434,
regarding the speed limit that the State has erected along the corridor for construction which is 35
mph.; when there is nO construction going on and there is no impainnents in the road, he doesn't
understand why they are posting the 35 mph speed limit signs. Usually as a general rule, when there
is construction on the way, they have the construction speed limit signs when work is in progress and
said he would like to see the City Manager talk to D.O. T. for consideration for this corridor, because
it is bad enough now and what they have done with the speed limit down to 35 mph even when they
are not working is going to make it worse. Manager Govoruhk said he has a meeting set for next
week with D.O.T. regarding that subject.
Commissioner Ferring asked the City Attorney the status regarding the Tuscawilla Homeowner's
lawsuit and how far he has gotten with the eight questions that he has raised prior. Attorney
Kruppenbacher said the Homeowner's lawsuit is currently being reassigned, Judge Freeman
disqua1ified himse1f from sitting on the motion, it was reassigned from Judge Benson to Judge
Freeman when the Judges realigned and we are waiting the realignment to a different Judge. We are
in the midst of investigating the facts regarding those issues. This involves more than myself
(Kruppenbacher) it involves other parties and he is the recipient of the information as the other people
identify it also and I will report back to the Commission sometime in the near future.
Commissioner Ferring said he is very elated with the deal the City Manager has made with Morrison
Homes complex to the landscaping that has been done on VlStawiUa Drive; it is a complement to that
area and it is landscaped beautifully, it does enhance the entranceway.
Commissioner Ferring asked about the status of the Tuscora entranceway. Manager Govoruhk said
they are working on that, they (the developer) has finally got the working permit from D.O.T.
Mayor's Office -John F. Bush:
Mayor Bush said he would like to appoint Mr. George Columbo, who lives in the Highlands to the
Code Enforcement Board.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ferring to appoint Mr. George Columbo to the Code
Enforcement Board. Seconded by Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner
GennelI: aye; Commissioner Conniff. aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Ferring: aye;
Commissioner Langellotti: aye. Motion passes.
Mayor Bush mentioned that Mr. Columbo is the person that he has spoken about who is going to help
putting together the Commission's Newsletter. Mayor Bush said that he and the City Manager met
with Mr. Columbo this past Saturday and discussed some of the topics and asked Mr. Columbo to
introduce himse1fto the Commission.
Mr. Columbo stated that he lives in the Highlands and has been a resident of Winter Springs for one
year. He said that he is a professional writer, he writes a column for a monthly business magazine
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CI:1fTX:~RIDA
lJ 4f I . ;z!lUL
JJCJ 'J -/7 't 17
Regular Meeting City Commission
July 24, 1995
94-95-26
Page 10
and also does some free-lance work and also does some paid professional speaking. Mr. Columbo
said he is looking forward to working on the Newsletter.
Mayor Bush mentioned that the Newsletter will come to the Commission before it goes to press.
Mayor Bush said that Manager Govoruhk has been working on ways to get the Newsletter out most
effectively and efficiently and he will be discussing that at a later time.
Mayor Bush also complemented Manager Govoruhk with following up on a citizen's concern over
the cable in Winding Hollow.
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfu1ly submitted,
~7,,-~~f;';
Margo M Hopkins,
City Clerk
APPROVED:
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CI~.y:~~. ~.S. FLORIDA
6 k j~~
fl? /0 -/l1/C;
VERBATIM PORTION OF MINUTES OF JULY 24,1995
Mayor - I notice that Mr. Mikes is here now, and even though we tabled that agenda item, I'd like
to bring it back on the agenda tonight
Ferring - Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my tabling motion
Mayor - does the second agree
Langellotti - I'll second that
Mayor - Mr. Mikes I know you're not use to us moving that quickly along the agenda. And this is
agenda item D that's now back on the agenda.
Proposed amendment to settlement agreement between the Florida Country Clubs Incorporated. the
City of Wmter Springs adding 7 lots to Parcel 7, adding 7 lots to Parcel 8 and adding additional
property to that subdivision known as Woodstream.
Attorney - it was tabled cause you weren't here
Mayor - Mr. Mikes is here, if the Commission would like to ask him any questions, I'm sure he'd be
glad to answer.
Mikes - I'm sorry I don't have the site plans inside, with the rain, they're sitting out in the car, and
I can bring them in if there's any questions on that
Mcleod - ya, I'd like to see them
Mikes - ok, there may be a set inside here
McLeod - have they changed since we saw them last time
Mikes - there is a, to address the severa1 points of opposition on the, the, those that are in the driving
range area, we have taken the cul-de-sac and turned it into a single cul-de-sac as opposed to that
double cul-de-sac look to make it exactly as you asked. that it just be a straight cul-de-sac every lot
has the required street frontage and direct access onto dedicated streets. Then, on the parce1 where,
near the tennis courts, I have depicted on that 19 lots and have swung the entrance, the drive so that
it do not cross in front of the golf tee, there was an objection to that and that that can be
accomplished and we removed one lot, instead of showing 20 lots, we show 19 lots.
Ferring - ok, good
Mayor - Mr. Kruppenbacher
Attorney - ya, Mayor, could I go through this, only cause I don't want any misunderstandings so
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OFi WNTER PRI GS, FLORIDA
when we all walk out of here it.s done and we don't end up back here again
Conniff - we're going to swim out of here
Attorney - on any issues and I hate to be so detailed about this at this meeting but I think it important
given the history of confusions on this. If you look at paragraph 2-B. and Tun I'mjust going to go
sentence by sentence if we can. The first sentence we are dealing with the preliminary engineering
on lots, parcel 7 and 8 correct
Mikes-correct
Attorney - ok, you agree as being would be said by this document regarding parcel 7 & 8 was that
you would be entitled to increase the number and/or reduce the size of lots in parcel 7 & 8, now
there's a difference between the word number and size. I mean....
Mikes - the intent is that basically what is shown on that conceptual plan would be the maximum,
would be the minimum lot size and the maximum number of lots.
Attorney - so what....that.s what I'm saying.....
Mikes - the actua1 acreage that's included is actually less than what was included in the original
settlement agreement because we have taken the size of the lots instead of being 125 feet wide and
200 feet deep, they will 115 feet wide and about 160-170 feet deep, they're still larger than...
Attorney - let me ask you, you wouldn't have any problem then Tun, our just revising it to provide
what you just said in that there will be not more than 20 lots on parcel 7 and 46 lots on.....
Mikes - 19
Attorney - 19 on 7 and 46 on 8
Mikes - that's fine
Attorney - I'm just, you understand I'm just concerned about the language
Langenotti - say that again, say that again Frank
Attorney - all right, so we would revise it to provide. assuming you all approve this. there be not
more than 19 lots permitted on parcel 7 and 46100 on parcel 8 provided those lots can be developed
in accordance with the applicable City Codes and State or Federal laws and regulations. So you just
couldn't have any more lots which would really rend the mute the issue of reducing the size, the right
to reduce the size of lots. wouldn't it
Mikes - correct
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 \^ANTE PRI GS. FLORIDA
BY:
L
Attorney - ok, I mean, think - then the next sentence would be where we of the City shall promptly
process, review, and approve such modifications, we'd modifY that that you would promptly process,
review and propose for consideration for approval, you can't agree that you're going to approve it
ahead oftime.
Mikes - correct, that's fine
Attorney - Jim, the next thing is and the last is, provided in the settlement agreement the termed
development property shall hereafter be deemed for the purpose of permitting parcels 7 & 8 to be
developed with the additional lots herein, correct
Mikes-correct
Attorney - now then there are four, uh, three additional things the land 1ying north of the 9th tee,
directly west of the parce~ commonly know as Hooker par~ adjacent to the Country Club
clubhouse and parking lot.
Mikes - there's about, that is what is shown on paroel, what we call parcel 8 in the original settlement
agreement
Attorney - all right
Mikes - that was, that's that entry that's right at the entrance way, it's always been part of that plan,
it's an acre and three quarters that's adjacent to the brick wall that we already have up
Attorney - so all you saying there is that is what's currently known as parcel 8
Mikes - correct
Attorney - ok, I just don't want to end up with somebody saying that that wasn't parcel 8...
Mikes - that's shown right, that's shown on those conceptual plans
Attorney - ok, and then the the nelrt is be the approximate 100 feet of land laying adjacent to the 2nd
and 4th holes of the Club and the property commonly known as Woodstream.
Mikes - that's shown on the conceptual plan, urn, what we call the WoodstrC(llffi, that that last, our
unit 5
Attorney - is that property where the Commission previously approved the lots to be
Mikes - correct, that was what, that was permitted for 77 lots and we're going to add to their 26
acres, we would add a 100 foot strip all the way around the outside of it and then we would reduce
their 77 plus our 100 feet down to 5410t8. C E RT I FIE D COP Y
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF NTER RI GS. FLOHIDp
Attorney - we're not adding any more
Mikes - you're not adding any more lots, you're reducing the number oflots but also increasing the
area so that the lots now become 113-114 feet wide and 165 feet deep.
Attorney - and the final one is the parcel currently occupied by the tennis courts and the parcel
bounded by the 10th fairway, 18th fairway and Howell Branch Creek
Mikes - ya, that's the tennis court parcel
Attorney - and that's in the current agreement
Mikes - yes,
Attorney - as parcel what
Mikes - 7
LangeUotti - 8, isn't it parcel 8
Mikes - 7, the one by the tennis courts I think is parcel 7
LangeUotti - oh, ya that's 7
Attorney - ok, what's parcel- is Woodstream part of parcel what
Mikes - it wasn't a parcel in the settlement agreement, it is what is in front of you as unit 5 of our
Arrowhead project, the 54 lots
Attorney - cause it's included in this
Mikes - urn huh
Attorney - so it's not parcel 7 or 8
Govoruhk - no 7
Mikes - 7
Langellotti - parcel 8 is adjacent
Mikes - parceI- the Woodstream has nothing to do with what was in the original parcels, that is just
something that we are now - in the original agreement we had said that we w~~rfp..
other property for residential development "C K I Ire D COP Y
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
C~~FLO~IDA
f J. .., {1 . ~
jJ'i /</-/9 1/1
Attorney - right
Mikes - and we're just trying to clarifY that we're going to take 100 - a strip 100 feet wide around
the Woodstream property that's undeveloped
Attorney - you don't mind if we just put that language in a separate paragraph that says that's what
we're doing
Mikes - that's fine
Attorney - and delete it from this paragraph because then you have 7 & 8 cleaned up and then
Wood stream identified
Mikes - right
Attorney - ok
Mikes - and then I have one other clarification point on that, the people in the Greenbriar
development, Horton homes, they have come to me and they are, there is land that you would not
think of as anything other than part of the Greenbriar parcel but I actually, we own it, and they have
a 40 foot setback along that they have put in their covenants and I have agreed to waive that 40 foot
setback, I have, so that they can build their houses closer. You would, it still you know, well away
from the fairway; I've also agreed with them that if they can come beck to you and replat a portion
of it, that they could even take some of our land and actually add it to their property so that they can
include it in their lots. They're going to come to you with right now I guess they are approved for
120 lots, they are going to probably be coming back to you looking to approval of 115 lots, reducing,
excuse me, increasing the size of the lots, reducing the number of lots, but I would give them some
land near the 18th tee so that they could expand the lots back there and then they could get bigger
home. What they can fit right now on a 40 foot, 45 foot wide lot is a very small house, they want to
go to a 50 foot wide lot and in order to do that everything kind ofhas to just expand out and I have
told them that they can have approximately one acre of extra land, a strip along the 18th tee, the 17th
faitway to expand their lots and if you could approve that that in that area, if they come back to you
and if they get their plat approved by you that they could use the land that I would give them for
those purposes and that - but that is on the 17th fairway.
Mayor - but that is separate from this agreement
Mikes - that separate, but in this agreement we had said nothing else would ever be used for
residential purposes, we would like to be able to give them a strip that that you would not, if you
went out there and looked it today, you would not think of it as the golf course, it's laying back in
the palmettos that you would not have thought, you would have thought it was part of Greenbriar
not part of ours
Attorney - Mayor, if the Commission does deem this appropriate to approve, I'd ask it be it with a
motion subject to the changes that were discussed here tonight, suceoRffm6 thee 0 P Y
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY OF NTE P NGS, FLORIDA
Attorney signing off on the final redrafted document with authority for the Mayor to execute.
Mayor - Commissioner Gennell
Gennell- ya, on this proposed parcel 8, where you're proposing 46 or 47 lots, have you given us a
minimum lot size at all.
Mikes - the minimum in there is 115 by 160, I believe is the smallest, 158 - again this isn't final, this
isn't to an engineering state. this is a conceptual plan and it would be roughly the same size as the lots
on the golf course in our existing, which are 115 feet wide.
Gennell - all 46 of em
Mikes - that would be the minimum width, would be ....., 115 at the building line, some of them
would be pie shaped so that they would be narrower at the front and deeper and wider in the back,
but the building pad would be a minimum of 115 feet wide, was our intent.
Mayor - Commissioner Langellotti
Langellotti - Tun, clear up my mind, you mentioned the 18th tee
Mikes - correct, the Greenbriar development. Horton has now taken over the second phase of that,
and they're out there selling homes that are not-so far they haven't been very well received, they're
market is, they're slower than what Pulte and Morrison are selling the same priced product and they
now have realize that they have a 45 foot wide lot and they have this string of lots along the golf
course there and they also have a 40 foot setback: from our property and the setback is something that
the Staff told them they don't care as long as I waive, cause I'm the adjoining property owner, if I
waive the setback requirement that's fine, and I said I would do that but they also, in addition to
getting that depth, so they can put a bigger house on there, they also need more width, a 45 foot wide
lot, so they are going to take the lots and basically expand some of them, not all of them, but a good
number so that they can put a house on, that instead of being 1300 or 1400 square feet. it'll be 2100
or 2200 square feet and the only way they can do that is by, is with our ok on the setback and then
them spreading out and in order for them not to loose 10 lots or whatever number that they would
be losing, if they could go on to our property and expand out the lots that are in the back cul-de-sac,
all those roads are improved back there and if you drive back there, there is a cul-de-sac that's back
by the 18th tee and ifwe let them expand out those lots in that area and on the 17th they can pick up
another three lots or somewhere possibly four, instead on picking up more they will loose less, instead
of loosing 10 they might end up loosing 6 in the whole project by doing that
LangeUotti - and the other parcel you're talking about, is that along
Mikes - Woodstrearn, is on number 2,3 and 4, the area on the west side of those lots, uh - those
holes.
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 WNTER PRI GS, FLORIDA
Mayor - Commissioner Conniff
Conniff - may I make a motion that we approve the proposed amendment settlement agreement
between the Florida Country Clubs, Inc., and the City of Winter Springs with the changes suggested
by our Attorney.
Mayor - and the approvals by Staff etc
Conniff - correct
Mayor - ok, we have a motion do we have a second
Ferring - second
Mayor - discussion, call roll
Roll Call - Commissioner Cindy GenneII: aye; Commissioner Larry Conniff: aye; Commissioner John
LangeUotti: aye; Commissioner David McLeod: aye; Commissioner John Ferring; aye
Mikes - I thank: you
Mayor - ok
,~:-:......'
JUL 06 '95 01:37PM KRlFPENBAa-ER & RSSC
P.1/2
Law Offices
KRUPPENBACHER " ASSOCIATES
A ProCessional Association
FACSIMILE MESSAGE
TO:
John Govoruhk, City Manalet
City of Winter Springs, Florida
FROM:
Frank Kruppenbacber
Kruppenbacher & Associates, P.A.
RE:
Cancellation of Executive Session
DATE~
July 6, 1995
(407) 327..6912
PHONE #: (407) 327-1800
FAX ##:
NO. OF PAGES (includinl cover sheet) - 2
IF YOU HAVE ANY PR.08L2MS OR QUESTIONS WlTHTIDS FAX.I'LEASECALL (<107)146-OZ00 OR PAlt (407) 4U-77C'7
This IIless&JO is intorJded only for the '*' of the irJdividual or entity [0 which it Is addressed and may contain
inConnatiOl1 that is privileged, CODfidentia!, IlId exompt from cIitoloNe UDdtt applioable law. lfyou are not the
inteoded recipieDl, you are hereby notified lhat my 11$0, ~QD, . distn'butioa, at oortY oftbls commIllIicaIion is
strictly proln'bited. lfyou haw received this communication in eaor, ple$ ntJtify us immediately at (407) 246-0200.
Thank you.
MESSAGE: John, refer to attached memo cancelling Executive Session for 7-10-
9S. please ask laD. to make distnbution to Margo and Commissioners for me.
Thanks, Linda
FROM 407-426-7767
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 V'JINT SINGS, FLORIDA
I
10
I.~ u /
Cj /6' c ,1/Q
07-06-95 12:41 PM ,P 1"61 -/1 vb {
0;'., .'....
..
JlL 06 '95 01:37PM KRlPPENBACHER & ASSC
P.2/2
Law Offices
KRUPPENBACHER & ASSOCIATES
A Professional Association
MEMORANDUM
TO;
City Manager and City Commissioners
The City ofWmter Springs, Florida
FROM:
Frank Kntppenbacher, City Attorney
DATE:
July 6, 1995
RE:
Cancellation of Closed Executive Session
Please be advised that I have asked the Mayor to cancel the Closed Executive Session
scheduled for Monday, 1uly 10, 1995 at 5:00 p.m., regarding the Oviedo Crossings lawsuit, due
to various vacation schedules, including my own.
Our scheduled negotiation session will be held during the week of July 10, 1995,
therefore, we will not be in a. position to provide you any Information until after that time.
At our Regular Meeting on July 10, 1995, I WIll ask the Mayor to schedule a closed
meeting to provide you with the latest status from the negotiation session.
Should you bave any questions regarding the above, please contact me.
FCKJek
co: John Bush, Mayor
Margo Hopkins, City Clerk
CERTIFIED COpy
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY 0 WNTE P GS, FLORIDA
BY:
12: 41 PW
G
p/{i .-; 9 -/9 tf If
PROW 407-426-7767
. .~. "~'~" "~'.' '"_':""---".~ "':'-. -;-"!'" ;:.--....... :".: .. ~.;.;...'. . '.~ .~. ":".. ..... ......, .., ';~..-:"'''- .~"':"."',...:~."."~.""'';''''.'''- -. '~"';:~c::r-~:""':-".':;' .
..u ,...-:-:-'.-,':-.-~:o:-:-_:~.':-:'i'~:'":
. ..... -'
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached was presented for the Record by
Mr. Randy Stevenson during the discussion of
Public Hearings Agenda Item "500.1" at the
August 20, 2007 City Commission Special
Meeting.
15
page 1 ot 1
Randy Stevenson
From: John Baker
Sent: Tuesday, August 07,200710:36 AM
To: Randy Stevenson
Subject: FW: Telecommunications Co-Location on PPL Transmission Line Poles
From: ArmandoJernandez@fpl.com [mailto:Armando_Fernandez@fpl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07,200710:06 AM
To: John Baker
Cc: Gerardo_Garza@fpl.com
Subject: Re: Telecommunications Co-Location on PPL Transmission Line Poles
Mr. Baker,
Transmission poles are reviewed on a case-by-case basis by FPL and approved based on the feedback from our
transmission engineering departments. Transmission's current policy will require that the wireless provider radio
cabinets be on the ground and that antennas be concealed is stealth canister mounted to the top of pole. IfFPL does
not own the ground that the transmission corridor run on, a 3rd party lease will be required with the underlying
landlord. These are the broad stokes of the process and policy but I would be happy to discuss with you any ofthe
particulars not mentioned here. Please feel free to contact me at the phone # below if your would like to discuss a
specific location or the application process. I look forward to hearing from you soon, thanks!
Armando Fernandez
FPL FiberNet
9250 Flagler St.
Miami, Fl, 33174
Office: 305-552-2795
Cell: 954-854-0394
Armando _ Fernandez@fpl.com
D"John Baker" <jbaker@winterspringsfl.org>
"John Baker" To: armandojemandez@fp1.com
<j baker@winterspringsfl.org>cc:
Subject: Telecommunications Co-Location on PPL
Transmission Line Poles
08/07/200709:48 AM
I am trying to determine FPL's policy on co-locating telecommunications antenae on existing FPL
transmission line poles. You were refered to me as the person who can provide the policy.
Your prompt response is greatly appreciated.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment to it, contains information intended only for
the use of the individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail is not the
intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that reading it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank you.
EXHIBIT
l t1.1' J.v
i ..,~. I
8/7/2007
Date: August 20, 2007
The attached was presented for the Record by
Mr. Randy Stevenson during the discussion of
Public Hearings Agenda Item "500.1" at the
August 20, 2007 City Commission Special
Meeting.
16