HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 10 10 Public Hearing 400
CITY COMMISSION
AGENDA
ITEM 400
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing X
Regular
October 10, 2005
Meeting
MGR.
~EPT
Authorizat'
REQUEST:
The Community Development Department requests the City Commission consider a waiver
request by Mansour "Max" Sabeti, of Metropolis Homes, from Subsection 20-234 (5) of the City's
Code of Ordinances (Code) to allow him to proceed with plans to construct residential
condominium units on 9.1 acres within the C-l zoning district (site is behind the Bank of America,
with frontage on both SR 434 and Moss Road) without providing 2 garaged automobile parking
spaces for each unit.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this request is to consider allowing a waiver from Section 20-234(5)
of the Code, that requires multiple family housing within the C-l zoning district to provide a
minimum of2 garaged automobile parking spaces per residential unit (Ordinance No. 2004-28.
adopted 07/28/04). The applicant has stated that (1) there is a significant difference between town
home and residential condominium developments, (2) that the garaged parking space requirement
is more suited to town home development, and (3) that the market at the proposed location will not
support subterranean parking or massive elaborate and separate parking structures; therefore
making the requirement illogical, economically impossible, impractical, and patently unreasonable.
APPLICABLE LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY:
Sec. 20-34. Waivers.
Sec. 20-82. Duties and powers; general.
Sec. 20-234. Conditional Uses.
CONSIDERATIONS: The site has a Commercial Future Land Use designation and is
within the C-l Commercial zoning district. The project is also located within the SR 434
Redevelopment Overlay Zoning District. On April 12, 2004, the site received a conditional use to
allow multi-family residential development of as many as 84 residential units on this 9.1 acre site
Public Hearing Item 400
October 10, 2005
Page 2 of 4
(9.2 d.u./acre). On July 28,2004, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2004-28, which
requires all multi-family development within the C-l zoning district to provide at least 2 garaged
parking spaces per residential unit. Preliminary engineering plans were submitted to the City on
April 15, 2005. The applicant was advised of the Code requirement, submitted the waiver request
on May 24, and was heard at the July 21 Board of Adjustment meeting. The City Commission
heard Mr. Sabeti's request for a waiver of the garaged parking spaces at its August 22,2005
meeting. The item was tabled at that meeting with instructions for Mr. Sabeti to come back with
his request showing how the proposed carports would be incorporated into the site plan.
The existing multi-family developments in the immediate area do not provide the minimum 2
garaged parking spaces per residential unit. New multi-family developments (others are town
homes) are now providing 2 car garages. This includes the Harbor Winds town homes at the west
end ofthe City, on 15 acres just east of Golf Terrace Apartments.
The plans submitted with this agenda item indicate that there are 164 residential spaces on the
plan. In fact, there are 172 residential spaces equating to 2.05 parking spaces per unit. The 172
spaces are comprised of 84 carport spaces and 88 uncovered spaces.
Staff readily acknowledges that there is a substantial difference in the ability of condominium units
and town home units to provide two parking spaces within an enclosed garage. However, the
existing language of Subsection 20-234 (5) does not provide for the division of the term "multiple-
family residential" into condominiums and town homes for the purpose of determining parking
requirements. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has made an admirable effort to justify the
requested waiver. Staffhas no strong objection to the proposed use of carports along the outer
limits ofthe site with open parking in the interior. This project could be developed in the Town
Center or the R-3 zoning district without providing parking within an enclosed garage or carport.
FINDINGS:
1. The 9.1 acre site is located within the C-l zoning district and has a conditional use for as many
as 84 residential units.
2. The waiver request must conform with all six waiver criteria set forth in Section 20-34 of the
City's Code of Ordinances. The six waiver criteria are as follows:
(1) The proposed development plan is in substantial compliance with this chapter and in
compliance with the comprehensive plan.
The site plan is still within staff review but appears compliant with the comprehensive plan
Public Hearing Item 400
October 10, 2005
Page 3 of 4
and with most Code provisions. The site plan design can be finalized once the applicant
knows whether or not he has to include two garaged parking spaces per unit or whether
the carport and open parking option can be utilized can be utilized.
(2) The proposed development plan will significantly enhance the real property.
The BOA and staff believe the proposed residential condominium development would
significantly enhance the real property as well as the surrounding area.
(3) The proposed development plan serves the public health, safety, and welfare.
The site plan is still within staff review but appears to serve the public health, safety, and
welfare by providing a quality housing alternative to single family and townhouse units.
(4) The waiver will not diminish property values in or alter the essential character of the
surrounding neighborhood.
The BOA and staff do not believe the waiver would diminish property values or alter the
essential character ofthe surrounding neighborhood in a negative way. Any new quality
development in that location would appear to have a positive impact on the surrounding
neighborhood.
(5) The waiver granted is the minimum waiver that will eliminate or reduce the illogical,
impossible, impractical, or patently unreasonable result caused by the applicable term or
condition under this chapter.
Staff believes the applicant has made admirable attempts to demonstrate, through
discussions with City staff and a presentation before the Board of Adjustment, that this is
the minimum waiver as referenced in this requirement. Three (3) of the five (5) BOA
members felt the applicant's argument adequately addressed this criteria. Whether this is,
in fact, the minimum waiver as called for in Criteria #5 is still a debatable issue.
(6) The proposed development plan is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The BOA and staff believe the proposed site plan, although still within staff review, is
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Public Hearing Item 400
October 10, 2005
Page 4 of 4
CHRONOLOGY:
April 12, 2004 - conditional use approved for as many as 84 residential units
September 20, 2004 - City Commission approved 6 month extension to conditional use
April 15, 2005 - City received preliminary engineering plan submittal
May 24, 2005 - City received waiver application and fee
July 21,2005 - BOA votes 3-2 to recommend approval
August 22, 2005 - City Commission continued the request for waiver of the 2-car garages
BOA ACTION: At its July 21,2005, meeting, the BOA voted 3 to 2 to recommend approval.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. No waiver - two spaces per unit must be provided in an enclosed garage
2. Grant a waiver - one space per unit in a carport and one space per unit within an
open surface parking area.
3. Grant waiver - no carports and all spaces (2 per unit) provided in an open surface
parking area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Commission grant a waiver
for Option #2 as noted above because this option gives one (1) protected space per unit and allows
for maximum flexibility in the usage of the remaining spaces.
ATTACHMENTS:
A Application package
B Location map
C BOA draft minutes
D August 22, 2005 City Commission minutes
E Applicant Correspondence
CITY COMMISSION ACTION:
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1126 STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FL 32708 _____
40 7 - 327 - 5 9 6 6 ~ ~ (F()J a 'l.J'].<)
FAX:407-327-6695
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION
R~c..E<~""",rED
o CONDITIONAL USE I SPECIAL EXCEPTION
o V ARIANC E
lX WAIVER
."'i
Of W1NTER SPHINGS
CITY penniti,ng - Max
APPLICANT:
Sabeti Mansour
Last First
128 E. Colonial Dr.
Orlando FL 32801
(407)City835-1369 x 11 State maxabeti@aof~g~~
Max
Middle
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE & EMAIL
PROPERTY OWNER:
If Applicant does NOT own the property:
N/A
Last,
N,A
First
Middle
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE & EMAIL
Cff/A
State
Zip Code
This request is for the real property described below:
PROPERTY ADDRESS: State Road 434, Winter Springs, FL 32708
26-20-30-5AR [-012Q,-012P,-012H]
TAX PARCEL NUMBER:
SIZE OF PARCEL:
396,396
9.1 Acres
Square Feet
Commercial
Acres
EXISTING LAND USE:
Current FUTURE LAND USE Classification:
Commercial
Current ZONING Classification:
C-1neighborhood
Waive requirement
commet1lfi.i~iJ*REFRESHED 05/28/85** I'IISC
IHSCEllANCBIJS CASII RECEIPTS .
of haBailnQTiie parki8S127/05 08:51
PaYlent : $108.80
Re~e'!pj; II . h.h;, : .853364
g amlt'l:.1l1treWi\ 'WNJl): m1
Clerk : dascano
Paid By : ItETROPOLIS HOI'IES
Please state YOUR REQUEST:
spaces for each unit within an enclosed
district.
March 2005
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Building Division
1126 East SR 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Office: 407-327-5963 Inspection Line: 407-327-7596
Permit #: WAIV 200502820
Issue Date: 24-MAY-2005
Parcel #:
Site Address: S R 434
WAIVER PROVISION
Lot #:
Owner: (OWN) Max Sabeti
128 E Colonial Drive
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Phone: 4078351369
Contractor:
Phone:
License #:
Work: WAIVER OF ZONING REGULATIONS
Description: WAIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR 2 PARKING SPACES FOR EACH UNIT WITHIN AN ENCLOSED GARAGE WITHIN THE
C-l DISTRICT
Square Footage: Floor Footage
Total:
Construction Type and Occupancy: Code
Sprinklers:
Description
Fees: Code Description
ZP WAIVER WAIVER PROVISION
Total:
Amount
$500.00
$500.00
Paid
$ 0:00
$0.00
Due
$500.00
$500.00
Notice
This permit becomes null and void if work or construction is not begun within
six (6) months after its issuance, or if the work authorized by this permit
is suspended or abandoned for a period of six (6) months after the time the
work is commenced.
Certification
I hereby certify that I have read and examined this document and know the same to be true and correct. All
provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified
herein or not. Granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of
any state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction.
/ /
Signiture of Contractor or Authorized Agent
Date
***LIVE***REFRESHED 05/20/85** "ISC
"ISCELLAHEOUS CASH RECEIPTS
Date I Tile : 85/27/05 88:51
PaYMent : $588.80
Receip.t * : 853364
Check/Credit Card *: 1997
Clerk : dascano
Paid By : ~TROPOLIS HO"ES
COPYRIGHT KIVA 1997 - 2005
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 witnesses, and be represented by a duly authorized representative.
The CITY COMMISSION shall render all fmal decisions regarding variances, conditional uses and waivers
and may impose reasonable conditions on any approved variance, conditional use or waiver to the extent
deemed necessary and relevant to ensure compliance with applicable criteria and other applicable
provisions of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. All formal decisions shall be based on competent
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 hearings, 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 maybe 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:
rn A copy ofthe most recent SURVEY of the subject property.
[X A copy ofthe LEGAL DESCRIPTION reflecting the property boundaries.
[X 11 x 17 MAP showing ADJACENT STREETS and ZONING AND LAND USE classifications
on the ADJACENT PROPERTY.
[X JUSTIFICATION for the Request (See Attached List)
QJ: NAMES and ADDRESSES of each property owner within 150 ft. of each property line.
QJ: Notarized AUTHORIZATION of the Owner,
IF the Applicant is other than the Owner or Attorney for the Owner (see below).
QJ: APPLICATION FEES:
FEES are as SHOWN BELOW plus ACTUAL COSTS incurred for ADVERTISING or NOTIFICATION,
and for REIMBURSEMENT for TECHNICAL 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
$
500.00
2
March 2005
**************************************************************************************
FOR USE WHEN APPLICANT IS OWNER OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY:
This is to certify that I am the Owner in fee simple 0
Board of Adjustment consideration:
ds described within this Application for
Sig
~ Personally Known
Produced Identification:
(Type)
Did take an Oath
Did Not take and Oath
~~~il:cl
Notary Public
My Commissio e~es:
l\,~'O
_//
S~~to and subscribed before me l:his 5
~ day of (Yla.y 20QQ..
<'-#~~~~ JENNIFER FLORIDA
it<: "Ji.., :*!MY COMMISSION # DO 368069
~'~:ki EXPIRES: November 2,2008
'~Rr;r..~" Bonded Thru Notary PulJlic Unde<writers
**************************************************************************************
FOR USE WHEN APPLICANT IS NOT OWNER OF THE SUBJECT REAL PROPERTY:
I,
do hereby, with my notarized signature, allow
to represent me in this Application related to my property. The
property is identified as: Tax Parcel Number(s)
Located at
Signature ofOwner(s)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
day of 20_.
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
Personally Known
Produced ID: (Type)
Did take an Oath
Did Not take and Oath
**************************************************************************************
3
March 2005
WAIVER REQUEST
A waiver requires compliance with all six (6) criteria enumerated in the fVinter Springs
Code of Ordinances, Section 20-34:
Address each of the following conditions related to the variance request. Attach
additional paper as necessary:
o What is the Waiver you are requesting? We have obtained conditional use
approval to build condos within C-I district. This is a request for waiver of
requirement to have 2 enclosed parking areas per unit.
o Is the proposed development plan in substantial compliance with chapter 20 of
the City's Code of Ordinance and in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan?
Yes. The comments received by staff dated May 3, 2005 indicated so.
o Will the proposed development plan significantly enhance the real property?
The plan which is a mix of residential and commercial developments are in line
with city's future plans for the area.
o Will the proposed development plan serve the public health, safety, and welfare
of the City of Winter Springs?
This will be a gated community and will bring much needed improvements to
this vicinity.
o Will the waiver diminish property values in or alter essential character of the
surrounding neighborhood?
We believe the proposed luxury condo and commercial development will infuse
attractive housing and commercial development to the neighborhood.
o Is the waiver request the minimum waiver that will eliminate or reduce the
illogical, impossible, impractical, or patently unreasonable result caused by the
applicable term or condition under this chapter?
Yes. The requirement of a 2 car garage for each condominium unit is not in line
with intent of conditional use which the city approved.accordingly granting of the
waiver eliminates this illogical, impossible impractical and unreasonable.
o Is the proposed development plan compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood?
The townhome developments to the North and those across the street do not have
any enclosed garages. Other developments in the vicinity are commercial and
garages are not applicable for them.
4
I,
e;
nd
oor
, in-
le of
and
~the
nail
b.letic
(69)
(70)
3; (71)
(72)
(73)
(74)
SUPp. No.6
(44) Interior decorating and draperies;
(45) Jewelry stores;
(46) Launderettes and laundromats;
(47) Libraries;
(48) Loan companies;
(49) Locksmiths;
(50) Luggage shops;
(51) Medical and dental clinics and laborato-
ries;
(52) Micro-breweries and micro-wineries;
(53) Nursenes, plants, trees, etc., retail (in-
cluding outdoor display and sales);
(54) Offices, professional and business;
(55) Outdoor advertising signs sales offices;
(56) Paint store;
(57) Parking garages;
(58) Pet shops and grooming;
(59) Photographic studios;
(60) Post office;
(61) Private clubs and lodges;
(62) Public and government services;
(63) Radio and TV sales and service;
(64) Religious assembly;
(65) Rental shops;
(66) Retirement homes;
(67) Restaurants and outdoor dining; cafes;
(68) Schools, public, private and parochial, ser-
vice vocational schools (such as cosmetol-
ogy, medical and dental assistant's train-
ing) requiring no mechanical equipment;
Shoe repair shops;
Skating rinks;
Sporting goods, retail;
Swimming pool sales, service and sup-
plies;
Tailoring shops;
Taxidermists;
ZONING
r"
~ 20-235
(75) Telephone business office and exchanges
and telemarketers (No dispatch);
(76) Title companies;
(77) 'Thbacco shops;
(78) 'Thy stores;
(79) Travel agencies;
(80) Wearing apparel stores;
(b) Outdoor display andlor sales are prohibited
except by conditional use.
(Ord. No. 44, ~ 44.47, 1-8-68; Ord. No. 264, ~ 1,
7-13-82; Ord. No. 619, ~ 1, 7-8-96; Ord. No.
2002-07, ~ 4, 7-8-02; Ord. No. 2004-28, ~ 2, 7-12-
04; Ord. No. 2004-49, ~ 2, 12-13-04)
Sec. 20-233. Reserved.
Editor's note-Ord. No. 2003-36, ~ 5, adopted Oct. 13,
2003, repealed former section 20-233 in its entirety which
pertained to nonconforming uses and derived from Ord. No.
44, ~ 44.47.1, Jan. 8,1968; Ord. No. 264, ~ 1, July 13, 1982.
Sec. 20-234: Conditional uses.
(1) Amusement and recreational parks and
centers (including golf driving ranges, miniature
golf courses, billiard halls, children's play centers,
bowling alleys and similar uses);
(2) Animal hospitals and veterinary clinics with
outside kennels;
(3) Car wash;
(4) Convenience markets and stores and self-
service gasoline sales;
(5) Multiple-family residential with a maxi-
mum allowable density no greater than that al-
lowed under a medium density residential future
land use designation and with at least two (2)
parking spaces for each unit provided within an
enclosed garage.
(Ord. No. 44, ~ 44.48, 1-8-68; Ord. No. 240, ~ 8,
5-26-81; Ord. No. 2004-28, ~ 2, 7-12-04)
Sec. 20-235. Building height regulations.
In C-l Neighborhood Commercial Districts, the
building height shall not exceed fifty (50) feet.
(Ord. No. 44, ~ 44.49, 1-8-68)
1333
Legal Discription
PARCEL "A"
That certain piece, parcel and tract of land located in Seminole County, Florida, described as
follows:
Port of Lots 12, 52 and 53, Block D of D.R. MITCHELL'S SURVEY OF THE lEVY (LEVEY)
GRANT ON LAKE JESSUP, as recorded in plot b09k 1, Page S(6), Public Records of Seminole
County, Florida described as follows: .
From the intersection of the East right of way line of Moss Road (80 foot right of way) with
the centerline of the Longwood Road (S.R. 434)(100 foot right of way); as shown on the
plat of North Orlando, as recorded in Plot Book 12, pages 10 and 11, Public Records of
Seminole County, Fronda, run N06'SS'33"W along said East right of way 50.02 feet to the
intersection of said East right of way line of Moss Rood with the North right of way line of
said longwood-Oviedo Rood; thence run N84'39'5S"E along said North right of way line
290.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence leaving said right of way line, run N06"55'33"W
28S.82 feet; thence N8S'05'43"E 109.93 feet; thence N03'54'13"W 230.00' feet; thence
589'50'29"E 285.00 feet to a point on a curve concave Easterly, and having a Radius of
924,31 feet; thence from a tangent bearing of S06'16'23"W, run Southerly along the arc of
said curve 187'.25 feet through a central angle of 11'36'26" to the point of tangency;
thence run S05'2'0'03"E 301.56 feet to a point on the aforesaid North right of way line of'
the Longwood-Oveido Rood; thence run S84'39'55"W along said North right of way 372.52
feet to the Point of 8eginning.
PARCEL "B"
Commence at the intersection of the centerlines of Moss Rood and Longwood-Oviedo Road;
thence run S88'23'42"E, 701.16 feet along the center line of Longwood-Oviedo Rood; thence
N01'36'18"E, 16S.00 feet for 0 Point of Beginning; thence continue N01'36'l8"E, 186.56 feet
to the beginning of 0 curve concave Easterly having 0 radius of 924.31, feet and 0 central
angle of 10'48'5S"; thence Northeasterly along said curve a distance of 174.474 feet to 0
point having 0 tangent bearing of N 12"25'13" E; thence run S88"23'42" E 108.582 feet; thence
run S01'36'l8"W 360.00 feet; thence run N88'23'43"W, 125.00 feet to the Point of 8eginning.
PARCEL "e;
That port of Lot 12, 52 and 53 of 810ck 0, D.R. Mitchell's Survey of the Mose E. levy Grant
os recorded in Plot Book 1, Page 5, Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, described
as follows; Commence at the intersection of the East right of way of Moss Road with the
center/ine of the Longwood-Oviedo Road os shown on the plat of North Orlando os recorded
in Plot Book, 12, Pages 1 o and 11 tn the Public Records of Seminole County; thence run
N06'5S'33"W338.02 feet along the East right of way line of Moss Rood to the Point of
8eginning; thence continue NOo55'.33"W 194.82 feet along the East. right of way line of Moss
Road; thence run 301.32 feet to the right along the arc of a curve ,concave, having 0 '
raoius 696.78 feetonda central angle of 25'30'34"; thence run S72'06'.14" E 696.32 feet;
thence run southerly 14.00 feet along a curve concave to the east, having 0 radius' of
924.31 feet, a central angle of 00"52'04", a chord of 14.00 feet that bears S06' 41 '25"W;
thence run N89'50'29"W 285.00 feet; thence run S03'54'13"E 230.00 feet;. thence
S89.05'43"W 400.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
SARATOGA, A CONDOMINIUM
Reasons for the 2-car garages being
ILLOGICAL:
1) The product is a 1000 ft2 to 1200 ft2 3-story
condominium.
2) Demographic group will not require or need a 2-car
enclosed garage.
IMPOSSIBLE:
1) Not possible to accommodate 2-car garages and
additional guest parking spaces on site.
2) Not having sufficient open spaces will inadvertently
make it impossible to provide sufficient parking
spaces for a~l visitors.
IMPRACTICAL:
1) Too many enclosed garages that may not be used.
2) Vistas and openness of community will be adversely
affected.
UNREASONABLE RESULT:
1) 2-car garages are out of sync with type of condos
proposed.
2) No benefit realized through imposition of2 car
enclosed garages
Saratol!a, A Condominium
Why. criteria #5 is satisfied via the proposed via
covered parking spaces:
1) Single carports are compatible and logical
with 1000 ft2 to 1200 ft2 stacked flats 3-
story condominiums.
2) The proposed site plan proves that one
covered parking along with additional open
spaces are possible and create a pleasant
design.
3) It is practical to offer one covered parking
per household and allow the additional open
parking spaces to be used on an as needed
basis.
4) The proposed site plan is a reasonable
alternative to provision of 2-car garages and
provides a reasonable amenity for the type
of homes proposed.
I~
ATTACHMENT B
T, <:;ontipued fg 2407 .
112 h\ \\ ~~-1~~~
G'. . \
~ \ \".....--
\ \ -....-.--.......- ~
. \ ".-
I -..-.-..--..........
..-.....------......---..... , --
\ -
I
- . -. \
~ -- ~
"--- \' ---'''-',,-
H
G
F
o
c
B
i
\ \ .,
\ L 1l0_J
E S~ATE ROAD 434
105 \
fontinued Pg 242~
4
""\ NOTES:
'. .(fl
5
A
v,'
;/
r-v:
Municipal Address Map Book
PRINTED: REVISED:
Apr 2005 1:
City of Winter Springs, FL
o 200
I"I-~.....-
400
. Feel
3'
ap
Page
DeVeloped By: Southeastern Surveying & Mapping Corp.
2:
2415
)TE~
)ARD ME.MBER C:\SMAN ~ A.'~E
aAlRMAN W ATEBS: A.YE
oAlU> MEMBER COLL1NS~ AYE
oJJUl ~MBEll. F AJRC1IlLD: A.YE
rtCE CIlJ\1~ TAYLOR: ~Y.E
!1Q'IION C~"E~
I
ATTACHMENT Cl s;eeZ-~T-~rjtj
CITY OF WJNTeA SPPJW' .
0'" r.T' . n.J ",:i, N.DlUP^
fV'.I'. ",.,N'Pl'lOV.b"D ""lNU1'f.S
1lO^IltD OF "DJtlS1'I'1~
~G1JL-'R MEE"~C; - JUL. Y Z I, zooS
;jiJP
Mr. Baker said. "We aI< planning 00 this gain to the AUgust 22"', t20051 City
conunisslon Meeting."
rtJBL1C BI....I'JNGS
401. CotoJl'onl<1 n...101'mt"Ot D.1'........II'
ll..<t".... 1:\1.. Board Of A.djnsun<lIt Conal<l. A. Wai~.r Jl,.<tIlOS' B~ M..II.our
"M..." 5 aboti, Of M.etrOpolls 110"'." FrolU Sob .cuon 20-234. (4) To AlIO,.lIlm To
l'TOc.ed With 1'1allS To ConstrUct l\esid."lI. Condo..,;nillm Uniu 011 9.1 A.cres
wjtltlo n. C-l ZOllillg District (Sit. I. B. illd ne }Jan\< Of !..1U.Tic', Witb
Frontag. On Both SIt (State llood) 434 AJ1d oS> Road) WitboO' l'T1>v1ding Tb.
RequiSit.2 (1:",,0)<;0" .4 A",.lJlobu.,arl<i 51''''' For E.cb Unit.
Mr. Baker ,aid. '''there Bl'P""'" 10 be ,luee ( ) optio'" a~aiiable ir the wai~er go'"
tlll<lugl>. tha' ere"es one for Mr. sabeti. If it is rornoddOw", he m.Y r"'luest '0 ha~e the
pl1lpertY retoned '0 tnt>lti-rsroily. wbere there is ,,0 such r<<\.uireroent. And ,\tell his other
option appcllI'S to be to cbong< the Code to IIItl od that section of the Cb>Pt'" 20 dealing
wi.th'C~ \ Zoning':'
M.r. Bak'" discussed Wis uenda Item and sta: d \hat "Criteria \'lumber r,ve (5) is the o"e
w' feel he foils short on." M.r. Baker addod. "We ssid. please tr1 to sbow bow you con
meet this,"
DisC\15S\Ol'\..
9217 (3) .,e SS6 of the City code "ddx<l..i~g ,'Ot{-
W. Bol<er refefen~ed Seed?," - . · 0
street pat\<i;lg t<<l."'.....ents'
C I . I D-r1ve Odalldo.
" 'LJo....es 128 East 0 onU1 ,:,
S b . P esidetl' IJ"'opo" " ". , .
w. IJO:< a en, r ',,:n'" ab ut his te<\.~est rot a WOl.a.
Florida'. spo1<" to the BOord ,..eIIl
n:"s 172( .:.at?
__, ">.I.JC ..>r::uNIM. dO..,.'
... l~. ..s..:.
'tL~,S 172E ,,017
<:
t?0'd
8t?:n S00~
c-s't-antl
se-d
%66
r~t~ u:r l.0t'
sr:60 S002-S1-9n~
em OF Wn-;n:~ SPRINGS. FLORIDA #;;)
DRAFTIJNAPPROV.EO twtll'fVT!S
BOARD OF ADJUS'l"ME/'fT .
REGULA Il. MEETING - JULY 21.200S . ~ If~
PAGE 4 0(' l! . (;t)
Mr. Sabeti said, "As Mr- Baker in icates, unbeknownst to us, a few months later, there
was a ~hange in the pa:rking space I quirements." Mr. Sabeti stated, "In anticipation of a
potentIal approval over th. : course!. the past ye~. we pr?ceeded to get our condominium
documents approved and It has bee approved WIth the Site Plan that we have submitted,"
Mr. Sabeti added, "We have made ead ways with St. John's [River] Water Management
[District] (SJRWMD). we have sub itted the Plans to them and we were able to get some
comments back,"
Regarding the Site, Mr. Sabeti sai , 'lWe tried to provide a commmuty feeling for this
project - saving some of the trees t at are on the north side and on the east side so that it
would indeed provide a good resal for this community. We feel that the position for a
two (2) car garage for these units is deed, a little bit illogical from this perspective."
Mr. Sabeti said, "Ha.ving a two (2) car garage does not seem to be really necessary and
from a marketing standpoint and housing type of standpoint, somewhat illogical to
provide, It is impossible from the andpoint that if you provide two (2) car garages for
all the units, according to the way the Code is set Up, we do not need to do anything
beyond that, in other words, there i not going to be any additional parking that would be
available - for guests." Mr. Sabeti added, "Our Site does not cenainly accommodate OT
could accommodate additional op parking spaces. So, it kind of makes it impossible
for us to accommodate all that ne s to be done from the standpoint of the realistic
practical living in a community su h as this one, And not having this additional open
space on - because you are provi ng an enclosed parking space, kind of makes it an
impossible situation for the visitors to park in the complex and we certainly do not have
the room to do thaL" Mr, Sabeti ed, "It is impractical because if a family has a one (1)
car and has a two (2) car garage - s ace that is provided is not going to be used and it is
not going to be needed - and, therefi re, makes it for an impractical situation."
With reference to two (2) car garag s. Mr. Sabeti added that it, "Provides corridors that
block views and would block the b ildings as they are in a way that would not be very
helpful for the looks and aesthetic b auty of the community." Mr. Sabeti said, "The type
of housing is not really in sync what is needed and what is appropriate for the
condominiums of this type and realy, we do not provide a benefit by having the two (2)
car garages,"
In regard to Item Number (.5) of Se ion 20-34. (d), Mr. Sabeti spoke to the City Attorney
Anthony A, Garganese for clarifica 'on of this Item, In discussing carports, Mr. Sabeti
said. "It allows for them to also ha e some storage but forces them to use that space for
parking their cars and, therefore, wo ld be a better solution than a single car garage in this
type of a condominium type of a se ng."
SO'd
'tZ"S j;>eZ ,,OJ;>
'tZ"S j;>eZ ,,OJ;>
Sj;>:'t't S00c-st-9n~
........."""
L~c.."' GC~ ,,~p
Bt:60 S00G-$t-~n~
CITY OF WINTfR SPIUNOS, FLORlDA
DRAFT UNAPPROVED MINUTEtd
BOAJlJ) OF A'OJ\)S'rMENT 1Jy
REGULAR. MEETING -JULY 2), 2005 (,/1~~
'AGESdl"& r/.4
Mr. Sabeti added, "The type 0 a carpon that we have - would indeed be much more
suitable for units that are the si e that these are, one thousand (1,000) to twelve h4ndred
(1,200) square feet with a. three ( ) stacked condominium type ofa setting,"
Mr. Sabeti displayed photograph and the Site plan.
101))1: "Side a
With discussion on the Site PI ., Mr. Sabeti said, "This Plan has not beet! resubmitted
back to the City yet, but there w not enough of - storage for cars and our engin.eer has
made a change to accommodate couple of cars!'
!vfr. Sabeti said, "In conclusion the four (4) Items of the impracticality and illogicality
and unreasonableness and impo sibility - do apply in this type of a situation with the
complex that we have proposed, d we feel that provision of the one (1) caJport per unit
and then providing the rest of th as open spaces indeed is the best that we can do to
accommodate the 'Item' that is i the (City] Code, and we respectfully request for your
approvaJ of the Waiver Request."
Chairman Waters asked Mr. Sab i, "How many total spaces will you have per unit - one
(1) covered and one (1) open pe unit?" Mr. Sabeti said, 'That's correct." Mr. Sabeti
added, "There (are] eighty-four u its (84) and - about one hundred and sixty-eight (168)
spaces that are provided." Cha' an Walers asked, "How much are these going to sell
for?" Mr. Sabeti said, "The 0 (2) bedroom units would probably - around One
Hundred and Eighty Thousand D lIars ($180,000.00) and the three (3) bedroom units _
One Hundred and Ninety Thousan (Dollars] to One Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand
[Dollars) ($190,000.00 to $195,00 .00)."
Board Member Howard Casman ked, "How nlany of the eighty-four (84) units - will be
owner occupied?" Mr, Sabeti sai "IfI were to be selling them today, I would say ~ zero
(0) investors."
Discussion ensued.
Mr, Baker said, "I know that the ( ity) Manager (Ronald W. McLemore) has a vision for
the Village concept that :Mr. Sabe did mention and he wants to come in with a new set
of rules for that area to create a w kable, livable downtown that will emulate the better
features we find in the Town Cent .n
With further discussion, Mr. Sabe . said, "The Staff wanted to send me in a direction
where we would not have gates an I think in the long run that might be a feasible thing
but I insisted that without gates we e not going to have a viable project."
90'd
lL~S t?c~ L.0t?
l~L.S t?G~ L.0t?
8t?:11 S00G-Sl-~n~
L~"'" t..Clo.. O~~
8[:6e ~0e~-st~~n~
CITY OF WOOER SPltrNGS. FLOlUtl^
DRAfT lJN^"ROVED MI'NIlT'ES
80AU OF AOJVSTMtNT
J1L01.JLARMEETTNG_JULYll'200~S 1;4
P^OE 6 OF ~
Mr. Saberi added, "Having it' alled' was important to us and having it 'Gated' w f .
important and also providing the e. of amenities with the fountain and the filfleSs cenler IV
and the fitness path and so on, 1 kmd of went together and we are also providing the
buffer - you asked the questi n regarding the wetlands to the north that we have
preserved in order to provide all dditional buffer."
Mr. Sabeti said, "We are hopi that we can stay positive and move forward with a
Waiver - City Commission, and 0 with what is marketable and would work. If it does
not work, then we really need to 0 back and see what our options are potentially take the
two (2) other options that you th ught of and also Mr. Baker - see where we go, But, I
think that making them all two ( ) car garages is probably not the approa.ch that we will
take."
Chainnan Waters asked, "Would au go for one (1) garage per facility?" Mr. Sabeti said,
"It is certainly possible to do that if your recommendation is going to be that. It would
not require a major site plan ch e for us. And, we certainly can do that. It is not our
preference to do that but if that is could potentially be plausible to do, because it would
not take any more space, we can ove forward with tbe project as we have it and move
on."
Chairman Waters asked Mr. Sabe , "Would Metropolis [Homes] manage this or will you
sell it to someone else to manage" Mr. Sabeti said, "No. We are just going to sell the
individual condominium units an provide the warranties to the individual Wlit owners
and we have a management com any that is going to be doing the management of the
condominium complex." Board ember Kathryn Fairchild asked, "Will you eventually
turn it over to the homeown , . .?" Mr. Sabeti said, "., .Absolutely. There are
provisions in OUT condominium do uments that they would be turned over,"
Discussion ensued on an Ordinanc for condominiums.
Vice Chairman Jack Taylor said, .. believe he [Mr. Sabeti] has met the minimum Criteria
with his proposal.>> Discussion, ice Chairman Taylor added, "We need to look at - the
condo [Minium) use and come up with m. Ordinance that regulates the condo [minium]
use," Board Member Fairchild sai ,"I agree,"
"I MAKE A MOTION TO A PROVE THE SUBJECT WAIVER REQUEST
PROVIDING THAT THE A PLICANT PROVIDES ONE (1) COVERED
PARlONG SPACE AND ONE ( ) OPEN PARKING SPACE AS PROPOSED TO
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTME T ON TODAY'S DATE (JULY 21,1005) PER
RESIDENTIAL UNIT FOR T E PROPOSED EIGHTY-FOUR (84) UNITS."
MOTION BY VICE CHAIRM TAYLOR. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
FAIRCHILD. DISCUSSION.
L0'd
l(LS t'c.( L0t'
H~LS t'c.( L0t'
8t':11 S00c.-Sl-8n~
AUG-1 5- 2005 11 : 48
407 324 5731
41::;1'( ..:\;:::4 ::;" ( ..:\ 1 t-' . 1:::11::1
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS. FLORIDA
DRAFTVNAPPROVED MINUTES
BOARD or ADJUSTMENT
RECUl..AR MEETING - Jut Y 21, 200S
i'A..(jE7 OF&
VOTE:
BOARO MEMBER F AlRCHILD: AYE
CHAlRMANWATERS: NAY
BOARD MEMBER COLLINS: AYE
BOARD MEMBER CASMAN: NAY
VICE CBAlRMAN TAYLOR.~ AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
'':if
600. REPORTS
For clarification on a p~vio\ls "Recommendation" pr cedure, Vice Chairman Taylor
said, "Could we -also into tonight's Minutes that we need answers to these two (2)
questions that did not get answered from the last Meet' g we had." Mr. Baker said, "1
will get those in the mail to you this week."
Discussion ensued on Robert's Rules of Order praced res and other previous Agenda
It.ems.
Further discussion ensued on uWaiver Application" fees.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
"I MAKE A MOnON WE ADJOURN." MOT ON BY VICE CHAIRMAN
T AYLOR. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER AlRCHILD. DISCUSSION.
WITH CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD mE MOTI N WAS APPROVED.
MOTION CARRIED.
Chainnan Waters adjourned the Meeting at approximatel 8:32 p.m.
Of'J" I
""~l"" l~"" 1''''''_
MU~-.~-~~~~ ...~O
...,rJf ...JG.~ ~f...JJ.
...,l::..If .....O::::'04f ...,Jf.....J.
r .!(.J-'
6e"d.ltjlOl
em OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLOIUDA
DRAFT UNAPP~OVED MllJUrss
BOARD OF ADJ\JSTMtNT
fUlCULAR Mf'ETTNO - JULY 21, ~OOS
PAGE S Of8
RESPECTFULLY SUBMmED:
JOANL. BROWN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
DEBBIE FRANKLIN
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
APPROVED:
~kdv.
THOMAS WATERS
CHAIRMAN) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
;./.-'
I'IO-TE: 1'hc:sc: Minu~ ""ere aJ7l)MlYed at the
Rceulu e rd Of Ad)ll.tmcnl Moc:ting.
""
;:~. ..I
'~. I'
.~.,.. ,... ..,.,.... I~..
_..,~ ,. \ I ,_ \ 1_ , ~ I . '""'. f"', I I ..-,
---- -... --..
TOTAL P.09
ATTACHMENT D
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORJDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 22, 2005
PAGE 11 OF 39
VOTE:
COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE
COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE: AYE
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
405. Community Development Department
Requests The City Commission Consider A Waiver Request By Mansour "Max"
Sabeti, Of Metropolis Homes, From Subsection 20-234. (4) To Allow Him To
Proceed With Plans To Construct Residential Condominium Units On 9.1 Acres
Within The C-l Zoning District (Site Is Behind The Bank Of America, With
Frontage On Both SR (State Road) 434 And Moss Road) Without Providing The
Requisite 2 Garaged Automobile Parking Spaces For Each Unit.
Mr. Randy Stevenson, ASLA, Director, Community Development Department presented
this Agenda Item. Photographs ofthe project were displayed.
Mr. Mansour "Max" Sabeti, Metropolis Homes, 128 East Colonial Drive, Orlando,
Florida: addressed the City Commission and stated, "To satisfy the minimum Waiver
requirements is that we have offered to have one (1) exclusive carport per unit, so it
would be covered parking. It would provide some storage that goes with it, and then the
balance ofthe parking spaces will be available for either second cars or for the visitors."
Commissioner McGinnis said, "You have only provided really two (2) - spaces per unit,
assuming that any of those units will have two (2) cars. I don't think you have got
enough for allowing for that and guest parking." Commissioner McGinnis added, "I do
not have problems with no garages." Commissioner McGinnis then said, "If you could
possibly look at this again and come up with some extra spots that could accommodate
that. "
Mr. Sabeti said, "Commissioner, you are right in that there could be households that
would have more than one (1) car. The type of product that we have, I think it's a good
product in the way of amenities that it offers. These are three (3) story concrete
buildings, it's concrete block all the way from the floor, all the way up pre-stressed slabs.
So, from the standpoint of maintenance and upkeep and so on, it is going to be very
effective over the years. The size ofthe units, however the amenity package - floor plans
to show you, a good size master bedroom, eleven [foot] (11') by fifteen [foot] (15') in one
and eleven [foot] (II') by 17 [foot] (17') in the other one; and walk in closets; double
vanities; nine foot (9') - ceiling heights."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 22, 2005
PAGE 12 OF 39
Mr. Sabeti added, "The size of the units are not that large, I mean they are a thousand
square feet in a two (2) bedroom unit and about twelve hundred (1200) square feet in a
three (3) bedroom unit. The three (3) bedroom unit really kind of allows for the third
bedroom to be used as a den. The floor plan is set up so that it could be convertible."
Mr. Sabeti also noted, "It is security gated; it does have a pool; it has a fitness center; it
has ajogging path around the pond area; it has a fountain."
Commissioner Joanne M. Krebs said, "Unbeknownst - to you, there was a change in
parking space requirements. What did you think they were?" Mr. Sabeti said, "We came
up with basically a three (3) story building and we presented it to this body. At that time,
the issue of covered parking did not even come to bear because it wasn't something that
this body or the City was sensitive to. So, that issue was not addressed. I mean at that
point, we did not even plan to have, you know any kind of a - covered space.
So, we proceeded, once we got our PUD [Planned Unit Development] approved, we
proceeded with our plans and, as you know - it takes a long time to get the soil reports,
environmental reports, and traffic studies, and surveying, and engineering, we finally
were able to submit our plans in April of2005 and it wasn't until a month later that when
the Staff comments came back, we realized that there was a change about three (3)
months after we got our Conceptual Plan approval for the PUD [Planned Unit
Development] that required - two (2) garage spaces per unit within the Commercial
District. So that was kind of the history, I mean we thought that it was two (2) units per
space and it didn't really matter when we came to the conceptual and were informed by
the Staff that..." Commissioner Krebs asked, ".. .So, you just found out that they were
covered?" Mr. Sabeti said, "That's right."
Further discussion ensued with Manager McLemore and Mr. Fields on the issue of
parking standards and requirements. Commissioner Krebs inquired, "Where is there
overflow parking?" Then, regarding the parking criteria, Commissioner Krebs stated,
"Where is the supporting information for this; and I really would like to see supporting
information for that." With discussion, Manager McLemore said, "Two (2) per unit is a
very good standard."
Commissioner Miller asked, "What is the total number of parking spaces that are going to
be on this property?" Commissioner Miller then stated, "One hundred and sixty eight? Is
that it?" Mr. Stevenson said, "That's correct." Commissioner Miller remarked, "And -
eighty four (84) units will be under roof? And there was some comment made about
storage area?" Mr. Stevenson said, "I believe they will be under a sheltered roof, it will
not be an enclosed garage." Next, Commissioner Miller asked, "Where is the storage
space?" Mr. Sabeti said, "Part of the back of the carport is going to be a storage facility
where somebody can potentially store something. It is not a huge space, it is a small
space." Commissioner Miller said, "So, it will be like a cabinet on the back wall with
doors on it - and the hood of the car would go under the cabinet." Mr. Sabeti said, "This
one actually goes from the ground all the way up to the height of the trusses."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 22, 2005
PAGE 13 OF 39
Furthermore, Commissioner Miller asked, "Why were we not provided with a copy of the
layout? This plan originally came before us - April 2004. I am a little bit uncomfortable
without being able to look at the actual layout." Mr. Stevenson said, "I don't believe
Staff at this point has the latest Site Plan." Commissioner Miller said, "I think it will be
very useful to us to be able to see what he is talking about because Commissioner Krebs
has brought up the point about the place not becoming a parking garage on weekends
when they have visitors coming in."
With discussion on the Conceptual Plan, Mr. Sabeti said, "We have a storage area per
unit, we have a carport per unit." Mr. Sabeti said, "Had we gone ahead and made these
two (2) car garages potentially, I think the impact on the building would be not as
pleasant as it is now where you do have some spaces where potentially you could have
some plants and trees." Discussion.
Commissioner Miller asked, "Is this whole building - is that separate from the main
building?" Mr. Sabeti said, "Yes." Commissioner Miller said, "So, it is actually going to
be separated completely and there will be a walkway behind it?" Mr. Sabeti noted,
"That's correct." Discussion. With further discussion on parking spaces, Commissioner
Miller stated, "One hundred and sixty eight (168)?" Mr. Sabeti said, "Yes."
Further discussion ensued.
Tape 2/Side A
Commissioner Miller asked, "Staff, were we shown a Site Plan or was it - the proposed
layout of the buildings on the property, I thought. Am I incorrect?" Mr. Baker said, "I
am not sure what we brought at that time, but we do have a previous plan that showed a
possible - townhome development that had residential all the way out to [State Road]
434." Commissioner Miller said, "My concern tonight Commissioners, is that this is not
what I remember."
Manager McLemore said, "I don't remember if the original plan showed the townhomes
coming up to [State Road] 434 or not..." Commissioner Miller said, "...It did not."
Manager McLemore continued, ".. .But what I do remember is we requested that that not
be residential on [State Road] 434 for the obvious reasons." Commissioner Miller said,
"We are now looking at a parking issue and all of this is brand new to me. As I said, I do
not have any objections to this, but I would like to see this maybe Tabled to another
Meeting and have all the original - come back and then let us get to the point on how we
got to the current layout."
Discussion.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 22, 2005
PAGE 14 OF 39
Commissioner Gilmore stated, "I think that it is absurd for us to even consider this
without looking at the entire project, all of the parking." Furthermore, Commissioner
Gilmore said, "I think we need to have this - come back with a drawing showing all of
the units. Let us see what those units look like and the associated parking and all of the
amenities for the development."
Commissioner Krebs asked, "Does this project have a pool and a clubhouse? How big is
the pool and how big is the clubhouse?" Mr. Sabeti said, "We have not signed any
contracts in relation to the pool or the clubhouse at this point, as to the specific layout and
the specific size of the pool, or the specific size of the clubhouse. We do have a
Conceptual - developed an initial Conceptual Plan as to how a clubhouse building would
look like and that's the way we had envisioned it to look again going with that neo-
traditional theme."
Mr. Sabeti further noted, "The Site Plan that we have sent forth - general guidelines -
twenty [foot] by forty [foot] (20' x 40') pool and then space that is somewhere around six
hundred (600) square feet which is basically a fitness room which would have exercise
facilities in it. However again, that issue is open for discussion. If that is a consideration
or a concern, that certainly is subject to change as you know some concerns have come
up and you would like to have the additional time and if you need to propose something
in more detail, the latest plan that we have submitted and address some of the issues, we
would be prepared to do that."
Referencing a comment made by Chairman Tom Waters from the Board of Adjustment
Meeting of July 21, 2005 pertaining to a garage per facility, Commissioner Krebs noted,
"So you are talking about an enclosed garage, are you not?" Mr. Sabeti said, "Yes."
Commissioner Krebs said, "I see here that your preference is not to do that, but
potentially, it is plausible."
Discussion.
Mr. Stevenson said, "This would still need to come back before you with the final layout
if in fact the Waiver is approved." Mr. Stevenson added, "This is a step in the process.
The Final Plans will still come back before this Commission."
Deputy Mayor Blake said, "This is a Public Hearing, an application for a - Waiver - but I
wonder why this isn't a Variance?" Deputy Mayor Blake said, "I might suggest that the
Commission poll themselves and really find out, is it a really big issue as to whether or
not there are two (2) garage spaces or one (1) carport and one (1) flex parking as long as
the criteria of a quality development, one that will improve the neighborhood; one that
will be a catalyst for the surrounding properties; and one that will provide sufficient
parking for whatever the density of development is on - there ought to be, so that we do
not have parking issues."
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 22, 2005
PAGE 15 OF 39
With further discussion, Deputy Mayor Blake suggested that "We Table the question on
this Waiver application tonight but ask the Applicant to bring back the project overall for
us with an understanding that the Commission is not opposed to a Waiver to the two (2)
car garage requirement (the garage requirement with two (2) cars per unit requirement) -
if the Site is designed appropriately to handle all the other issues that we have discussed."
Commissioner McGinnis said, "I support that."
Commissioner Miller said, "I can't tell you how many times we have seen a Site Plan
come in - everybody said 'Okay, fine' and then it came back later and it was completely
different and then we were told, 'Well, you know, the man has already got Engineering,
he has got architectural work, he has got a Contract, he has got' ..." Discussion.
Mayor Bush said, "Commissioner [Miller], I totally agree with you. I think that Staff by
now ought to realize that anything that has parking on it, you had better bring the whole
project up here." Discussion.
Manager McLemore said, "In your Motion, you would put back in there to bring back the
old Site Plan and you may want to just think about taking all those sections out of your
Code that says anything about Preliminary Plans, sketch plans."
Commissioner McGinnis said, "It has been a year and it is just obvious that we cannot
recall exactly what you submitted a year ago - I have no problems with waiving for a two
(2) car garage."
Mayor Bush opened the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
No one spoke.
Mayor Bush closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
"I WOULD LIKE TO DELAY THE DECISION ON THE WAIVER
APPLICATION BY CONTINUING IT TO A FUTURE MEETING,
INCORPORATING ALL OF THE DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT
A V AILABLE THIS EVENING, WITH A REQUEST THAT THE DEVELOPER
BRING BACK TO US THE REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN WITH THE
PARKING SOLUTION AS REQUESTED; AT WHICH TIME THE
COMMISSION WILL BE ABLE TO ACT UPON THE SITE PLAN AS IT
STANDS WITH THE PARKING ISSUE TAKEN - INTO CONSIDERATION ALL
OF THE CRITERIA FOR THIS CHALLENGED LOT." MOTION BY DEPUTY
MAYOR BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS.
DISCUSSION.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
MINUTES
CITY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 22, 2005
PAGE 160F 39
COMMISSIONER KREBS SAID, "DOES THAT INCLUDE THE
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WITH THE
SINGLE CAR COVERED GARAGE?" DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE SAID, "I DID
NOT DISCUSS THAT." DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE FURTHER NOTED,
"WHAT I DISCUSSED AND WHAT THE MOTION INCLUDES - ALL OF THE
DISCUSSION mAT HAS TAKEN PLACE THIS EVENING - I WOULD LIKE
FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO REASONABLY RELY ON THE
INTENT OF mls COMMISSION TO NOT HOLD HIM TO THE TWO CAR -
GARAGES PER UNIT PROVIDED THAT A SUITABLE SOLUTION FOR
PARKING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE IS PROVIDED."
COMMISSIONER GILMORE ADDED, "I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO SUGGEST
THAT WE HAVE SOME VIEWS LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT FROM
GROUND LEVEL - FROM THIS DIRECTION AND FROM THIS DIRECTION
AND SHOW WHAT THESE CARPORT COVERS WILL LOOK LIKE..."
DEPUTY MAYOR BLAKE ADDED, "...THAT IS A GOOD POINT..."
COMMISSIONER GILMORE CONTINUED, "...ON THE SITE."
VOTE:
COMMISSIONER GILMORE: AYE
COMMISSIONER KREBS: AYE
DEPUTYMAYORBLAKE: AYE
COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE
COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE
MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
406. Community Development Department
Presents To The [City] Commission, The First Reading Of Ordinance Number
2005-27 Which Will Vacate And Abandon The West 5 Foot Wide Portion Of A 50
Foot Wide Drainage And Utility Easement, Located Adjacent To And Across The
East Side Of Lot 180, Oak Forest Unit II-B (pB (plat Book) 26, Pages 85, 86)).
Mr. Baker introduced this Agenda Item.
Mayor Bush opened the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
No one spoke.
Mayor Bush closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item.
,ATTACHMENT E
September 22, 2005
To: Members of the Winter Springs City Commission
From: Max Sabeti, Metropolis Homes
Dear Commissioners:
The package of information being submitted to herewith has been developed as a result of
your comments and discussions at our "Waiver Request" meeting which took place on
August 22nd. The new site plan takes into account the following comments made by you:
I) There was concern on number of parking spaces. The new plan shows 4 more
parking spaces above the present code requirements within the condominium
property. In addition, additional parking will be available through the commercial
parcel. As you may note there is access available through a gate to the
commercial property for the condominium residents.
2) There were comments on the storage areas in the back ofthe carports that may
hinder openness and may not be ecstatically pleasing. Carports that offer posts
and a roof cover to address this concern have replaced the old carports.
3) Location of the carports in the middle of the site was of concern. As a result we
have moved all the carports to the perimeter of the site or next to the buildings.
This has allowed for infusion of more landscaping and greenery in the center area
of the parking areas and driveways. We believe this has improved the community
substantially.
4) As there were questions about changes since our original concept plans, we are
. hereby submitting an application for conceptual plan approval to take into account
any additional comments and input you may have.
Weare pleased to submit the revised site plan. At the hearing we will be presenting you
with a virtual tour ofthe community, which we have prepared to provide a complete
picture of how the community will look like, once developed.
We like to thank you for your input on August 22nd as it propelled us to design a better
community for us, the future residents and the City Of Winter Springs.
R E C E B."\.J" E j!':'ii
SEP 2 3 2005
CITY OF Viik:U< :01':
PCltTH1.tiJl:1 - Kdfl
128 E. Colonial Drive. Orlando, Florida 32801 . (407) 835-1369 . Fax (407) 835-9337
www.metropolishomes.net
SEP 2 3 Z005
iJ "-::: d'" ~ S V E 0
" '...... ~. ~l.,"" y....
Ii' 01' WINTER SPRINGS
CI pormltting - Kim
Reasons Why Provision of Carports is the Minimum
Waiver that Will Eliminate or Reduce the Illogical, Impossible,
Impractical
Or Patently Unreasonable Result Caused by Applying the Code
We contend that a designated single carport along with one unassigned
parking space is the minimum waiver that will eliminate the hardships noted
above. Reasons are as follows:
1) We have already demonstrated that 2-car garages will not work with
our type of development and our site. The first level of waiver could
be a reduction of 2 cars to a single garage. This is possible and
reasonable, however, not as logical and practical as providing a
. carport. The reason being that there will be a tendency on the part of
residents to use the garage for storage and using the open spaces for
parking their cars. Therefore there will be a shortage of parking. In
addition, an enclosed structure the bulk of which will have garage
doors as its fayade is not as appealing of openness through a carport.
Therefore the one carport and one open space is the first level of
waiver that could satisfiy all the hardships created by imposition of
the code.
2) The carports utilized will be totally open and will only have
Aluminum posts imbedded in concrete columns supporting the flat
roofs. This will allow for our architecturally appealing condominium
buildings to show through and will provide for an open feeling
throughout the community. As our revised site plan and renderings
demonstrate, Saratoga will be an attractive community, which will
provide maximum amenity for the type of product that is being
offered. Granting the waiver will make this addition to Winter Springs
possible
M~' ../'/
~'''d t .
Metropolis Homes
128 E. Colonial Drive. Orlando, Florida 32801 . (407) 835-1369 . Fax (407Y 835-9337
www.metropolishomes.net
Reasons Why the Application of the Minimum
2-car Garage Requirement Is
Illogical, Impossible, Impractical and Unreasonable
As Applied to Saratoga, A Condominium
Illogical:
The product at Saratoga has been designed after careful consideration of the
immediate neighborhood and realities of the market place in the vicinity.
Our units are 1000 ft2 and 1200 ft2 3 story condominiums. The buyers who
are interested in this type of a product being singles and couples with no kids
are not interested in 2 car garages. In the majority of the cases the household
will have only one car anyway. Therefore, providing them with a 2-car
garage seems to be illogical since they do not need it and will be prepared to
pay for it.
Impossible:
The code requires a 2-car enclosed garage per unit. There are no
requirements for additional parking spaces. This will mean that guests and
visitors have to park inside the garages, which is highly unusual, and we
suggest impossible to achieve. The only solution is to provide open parking
in addition to what is required by code, which in itself is impossibility with
economic, dimensional and environmental constraints of the site.
Impractical:
When detached enclosed garages are provided, there is a high likelihood that
part or all the spl!ce will be used for storage. This in effect takes~away the
purpose for which the structures were built which in turn creates a shortage
RECEIVED
SEP 2 3 2005
128 E.,Colonial Drive' Orlando, Florida 32801 . (407) 835-1369 . Fax (407) 835-9337
h . , . Kim www.metropolishomes.net
of parking spaces. Therefore application of this provision of the code by
itself to a condominium setting such as ours is indeed impractical.
Unreasonable Result:
Proceeding with a 2-car garage for units that are 1000 to 1200 square feet
creates a product that is out of sync and unreasonable with today's housing
types and our specific demographics. Furthermore, it will create an unsightly
community where there are buildings everywhere and not as many open
vistas. This is a case where adherence to a provision of the code brings about
a patently unreasonable result.
We believe that the conceptual plan proposed for Saratoga is a better
solution, creates a better community and will be more reasonable, practical,
logical and certainly possible for development of this particular site.
Max Sabeti //~.//
pr:?:es..i.d. e....n... t.....vl. /... ...".... //
.' ,/' ,C.~/~7
.~.... , ' ,1'//
/
Metropolis Homes
Date: October 10, 2005
The following CD was shown to the Mayor and
City Commission on October 10, 2005 during
"Public Hearings '400'."
~iD~ ..l'tJ.!l~!QJ...(5
\ '-, '-, .-.--'--
~~. ...f'. w~, ~ /'
Fax: (407) 898-2644
Orlando, Fl. 32803
Phone: (407) 898-15303165 McCrory Place, Suite 100
Certificate of Authorization Number: 7107
Fax: (407) 898-2644
Orlando, Fl. 32803
Phone: (407) 898-15303165 McCrory Place, Suite 100
Certificate of Authorization Number: 7107
Fax: (407) 898-2644
Orlando, Fl. 32803
Phone: (407) 898-15303165 McCrory Place, Suite 100
Certificate of Authorization Number: 7107