Loading...
09-11-2006 - Regular i .i o CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2006 9:57 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER o ~ Mayor Thomas called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:57 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Michael Thomas Councilwoman Debra Rogers Councilman Dennis Vincenzi Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes Councilwoman Judith Lichter City Manager Jon Williams Assistant City Attorney Nicholas Palmer City Clerk Susan Wadsworth INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present There was a silent invocation and pledge of allegiance to the Flag. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting of August 7, 2006 Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve the August 7, 2006 minutes, second by Councilwoman Rhodes. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . 3. PRESENTATION/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DONA TIONS There were no Presentations at this time. 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS There were no Citizen Comments at this time. Page 1 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 ,. o o 5. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilwoman Rogers had nothing at this time. Councilman vincenzi had nothing at this time. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she only had one comment and it was made by Karen during the break. She said we haven't even approving the budget and we are already over budget. She thought that was a very astute comment. Councilwoman Lichter commented on a public hearing she attended regarding the widening of 1-95. She got a letter back about the project. They appreciated her support and asked her to be assured that they would forward her comments to the appropriate staff members within D.O.T. for their review and consideration. That was when she told them we didn't have an east-west escape route. They are going to send that comment to the right department. Nothing may happen with that anyway because they have been trying to do that for years. She raised a question that she thought City Manager Williams should follow through with. They talked about the replacement of a bridge at SR 442 and 1-95. She was concerned that their representation indicated it was in New Smryna Beach. When they say SR 442 she doesn't think of New Smyrna Beach. It is Edgewater. When in reality it is in Edgewater they say. The slide indicated that the northbound and southbound 1-95 Bridge would be replaced. She asked City Manager Williams if he knew what they were talking about. She didn't. The letter stated this may have been the cause of her confusion. It was not actually donating its location. She handed the letter to City Manager Williams and asked if he could check with D.O.T. and then maybe they could find out northbound/southbound, where is the bridge they are talking about. City Manager Williams agreed to research it. Councilwoman Lichter stated for those that don't know 1-95 is going to be widened to four-lanes and the two extra lanes are going to be in the middle. They didn't know about two proposed developments that are going to be on the side of the road with that either. Maybe something will come of it, maybe not. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Page 2 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 y o o A. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-27, staff recommending proposed text amendments to the Land Development Code, cont. from 8/7/06, Item 6D Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-27 into the record. Mayor Thomas asked City Manager Williams to explain to the public how they got to this point. That it was proposed at the last meeting and the City Council went through it item by item and made suggestions. City Manager Williams explained during the first reading, the City Council reviewed the proposed changes that were recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board. Upon review of each item, they made recommendations and motions as to what they would like to have in the proposed changes for the Land Development Code. As a result, they have their recommendations before Council tonight for second reading for final approval of the proposed changes. Staff is prepared to address the Council's position on the proposed Land Development Code changes and they can also bring forward the Planning & Zoning Board's comments. It is Council's pleasure on which direction they would like staff to proceed. Development Services Director Darren Lear went over the proposed changes to the Land Development that were approved by the City Council at the August 7, 2006 Council meeting. Mr. Lear went over the concern made by Councilman Vincenzi regarding the vested rights determination at the beginning of Article I being in conflict with Page 1-11, Section 21- 12 Effective Date. It is staff's recommendation since that conflicts with the vested rights determination that the first sentence be made to go in line with at least the October 1, 2006, if not sooner than that date and that they strike the second sentence altogether. City Manager Williams stated they also discussed the language in further detail describing effective immediately, that if it is Council's intention to have it effective immediately that they replace that language with today's date if it is their intention to approve these changes and describe September 11, 2006 as the effective date. Mr. Lear further explained that change would need to be made throughout Article I. Page 3 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 f o o Mr. Lear mentioned that staff had spoken to City Attorney Paul Rosenthal and Assistant City Attorney Palmer regarding the PUD's and the 35-foot height restriction. It is their interpretation that to get a waiver from that, they would have to come back and do another Land Development Code Text Amendment. There isn't anything in this Code that provides a variance to that. Councilwoman Lichter asked if the same applies to Number 8. Mr. Lear informed her any set restriction that is put in the PUD, they would have to change the text in the Land Development Code. City Manager Williams stated they asked that question based off of the previous discussion where they had talked about potential of a variance process and how they would achieve that variance process. This is the only way you can do it with regard to the BPUD's, RPUD's, and IPUD's. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they are voting on these as a whole or if they were going to take them separately. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they are voting on it as a whole. They already voted on each item separately. Mayor Thomas asked for Council comments. Councilwoman Rogers stated she didn't have much to say at this point because they have talked about and discussed these items. What they have here is what they have here. Councilman Vincenzi stated he feels the same as Councilwoman Rogers but with the change in Section 21-12, Effective Date, did he have to make a motion on that. Assistant City Attorney Palmer recommended if that is the only change, the motion to approve, if that is the motion that is heard, be subject to that change being worked out, being subject to that change they just discussed. Councilman Vincenzi stated so they are looking at these changes right now and they would come back to this or make the motion to include this. Assistant City Attorney Palmer recommended making the final motion to approve being subject to and conditioned upon Section 21-12 being changed as previously discussed. Page 4 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o Councilman Vincenzi stated when the times comes to make a motion he would like to see the effective date changed to September 11th in Section 21-12 and throughout the document and the second sentence deleted. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they have worked on this a long time and she didn't have any problem with most of it. She still is of the belief that you can control growth with density, not with lot size. She doesn't like that they are tying their hands with the PUD's. She feels they are able to get some much-needed benefits for the City when they are allowed to negotiate a PUD, when you are allowed to trade off. You can get roads and land and other things. She was opposed to tying their hands with that. Other than that she doesn't have a problem with it. Councilwoman Lichter stated she would be voting against the whole thing because it is combined because she is definitely against seven and eight. Being able to see the personality, conformation, and uniqueness of a lot is killed by this definite determination. Before a City Council had the option of negotiating with the developer. This will now lead to sprawl. She believes in Smart Growth. She'has worked on many committees with Smart Growth. They came up with a pretty good Smart Growth Plan and part of that plan was to at least let cities like us have some say in each lot because every lot is different. This is sprawl to her and not taking into mind good growth. She also spoke of losing their negotiating abilities. She feels they have taken away. It takes a certain flexibility of nature and a certain being able to have skills that can switch degrees back and forth but it also takes a thinking of people. She is saying that especially in the eighth one. They have worked with developers in the past and if every lot has to be 75 feet, they are taking away from some people that like lots smaller than 75 feet. She feels they have to think of people and not just numbers. They need to be flexible and intelligent enough to say they can be flexible. Because they are all lumpe~ together, she will be voting against this. She doesn't believe in seven and eight. Mayor Thomas opened up the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: Page 5 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o Dave Ross, Needle Palm Drive, stated he had a question regarding the 35-foot PUD. If they pass this and if the Charter amendment that you all have proposed that would allow certain exceptions for 35-foot, such as commercial and industrial, will that Charter amendment override this or will they still be prohibited by the Land Development Code even though the Charter amendment says you may have it. Councilman vincenzi stated the Charter prevails. Mr. Ross stated so this is a moot point. If the revised or the Charter amendment that you are proposing passes, he didn't understand why Council was proposing both. They are talking out of both side of their mouth. He understood this should pertain to residential. He had no problem with this. If they didn't want to limit commercial and industrial to 35 feet, if they have a commercial PUD, they are saying no if a guy wants to build a 38-foot tall building and he didn't understand this. He would like the Council to discuss it because he would like to know what their logic is. Mr. Ross stated he has recommended to Council that they incorporate minimum standards for RPUD's, which would set minimum percentages for lot widths of less than 75 feet. Allowing no lots of less than 75 feet does not accomplish any of the following. It will not control growth nor reduce density. These two can only be managed by allowing development on buildable land, not in swamps and minimizing or reducing or setting low density when the property is zoned, that is how you control density and control growth. It will not provide for diversity of housing and legitimate needs for smaller lots. It will not prevent the unnecessary clear cutting of land nor the encroachment of development into areas, which should be preserved. Again these can only be managed by appropriate codes. Setting minimum standards for RPUD's will accomplish this. Minimum standards are just that. They can be more restrictive on a case-by-case basis as the Council deems necessary or appropriate but they can't be more lenient. The standards will advise property owners and developers up front that the City allows no less and if properly worded will give proper notice that very tight controls will be imposed on all new developments. The standards will continue to provide for the flexibility that is a very positive aspect of PUD's while eliminating the open ended, whatever you ask goes, that they have had in the past. There is one thing the seventy-five foot lot width will accomplish. It will send all new development into the cities of Oak Hill and Page 6 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o New Smyrna and we will still get the same impact with no tax results and absolutely no control over the growth. Both of these cities are willing to take in all the big developments they can get real quick. He asked Council not to forfeit their right and responsibility to manage this City's growth. City Manager Williams stated in reference to the height restriction in the Charter, if Charter amendments pass you could always be more restrictive in the Land Development Code. Certainly as they have had numerous discussions referencing commercial, industrial, public/semi-public, if they provide for some exceptions within the Charter and they don't place a height cap, at that point they can address it in the Land Development Code with height caps and that is really where that should be addressed. Brad Jones, owner of A S D Properties, stated he just got to listen to the citizens of Edgewater complain about taxes and why they are having to pay so much. He currently is trying to develop affordable income housing for the citizens of Edgewater and he keeps coming up against a brick wall. The brick wall is the City of Edgewater. He is a businessman and busts his hump just like everybody else does. He could only be in business if he makes money. He can't be in business by charging higher taxes because he has no one to charge higher taxes to. He feels if they pass the 75-foot width lot, they are putting undue restrictions on developers who cannot come in, buy property, develop property and sell it for $90,000. There are no $90,000 homes in Florida Shores anymore. There are no $90,000 lots. A lot of people don't live on the river and don't look at their homes as investments. That is the last place they are going to spend the rest of their lives. They aren't looking for a place that is going to appreciate in value. They are looking for a place they can live the rest of their lives and not have to worry about how they are going to pay their taxes, their mortgages, their medicine and their food. At seventy-five foot wide lots, they won't have any more affordable housing in this town. He won't build it because it isn't profitable. The reason this Country runs the way it does is economics. People only invest money when they make money. If they can't make money they won't invest money in this City or any other city. He spoke of developers going where they can make things happen. He wants to give the City thousands of dollars in impact fees. He wont' give them impact fees if Page 7 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o he can't have something that is profitable. Certain PUD's do not impact the City. Private communities, like Hacienda del Rio, private roads, private sewers, private everything but you have all these people that spend money in Edgewater that won't come to Edgewater if they put all these restrictions on builders and everybody else. If they vote this through, they kill this town. We will look like every other town where everything is just walked away from it. Bill Glasser, 1703 Needle Palm Drive, commented on the new buzz words with the developers. If it isn't conservation corridors, or whatever they are going to leave all of the wildlife for you to enjoy. It's workforce housing being affordable. The guy that was here from Halifax Homebuilders said the $170,000 was affordable housing for worker bees. Some guy is building ten houses on an acre in New Smyrna is going to charge $140,000 for the worker bee. He asked if anyone has gotten on the internet or gone to a bank and said they make $35,000, which is medium income in this County, how much house can I buy. Councilwoman Rogers estimated $120,000 to $150,000. Mr. Glasser informed her what he found was $50,000 to $65,000. That is a worker bee's house. Mr. Glasser stated the fifty-foot lots in Coral Trace that go for $100,000 just for the lot, how many worker bees are going to afford that. He spoke about negotiating with developers on the PUD's. It sounds to him like they are extorting something out of a builder or a developer. He built a house in Florida Shores in 1966. He used to have deer, wild pigs, raccoons, and whippoorwills. He hasn't seen a deer in fifteen years. He hasn't seen a raccoon or a possum. As soon as these folks move in and see these animals they are going to want them either moved or killed. What they don't move or kill they will run over with their car. Don't give us this crap about preserving the wildlife while you tear the hell out of everything in the country. The builder extorts stuff out of the City. I'll pay you so much money to let me kill all your damn gopher turtles instead of having them move the gopher turtles. Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated this is her town. She lives on an eighty-foot lot and she loves it in Florida Shores. She thinks a lot of other people have a 120' lot. That is what we want. We don't want developers coming in our town and running our town because they are going to give us land for a City Hall. That is probably because they can't use the land because it is under water Page 8 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o and they are going to ask the City to fill it. She then commented on Toyota building prefab housing and their houses are going to start at $227,000 and they are calling them affordable housing. She stated right now Pelican Bay can't even afford the maintenance fees there and now another developer has gone in and is buying a golf course and tennis courts and therefore they will build more houses. Houses do not bring lower taxes. They bring the need for more schools and more roads. They must consider that Volusia County wants to be in charge of our water now. If Hammock Creek goes in, which that isn't even supposed to be built there because the State said you shouldn't build it there, but the developers want to bring it there because they say it is going to lower taxes. When she went out with the petitions, nobody out of 3,000 people they talked to don't want high-rises or anything other 35 feet. A Target is not over 35-feet and neither is the hospital. If you think Bert Fish is coming here to build a hospital guess what? They can't even run the hospital they have because they are in such bad shape. Her concern is remember what is going on in Pelican Cove. These developers are not caring about our City and our needs. u.S. #1 is loaded with traffic. So is SR 442. They just went through two years of having that widened. Who is going to pay for the road when it has to go our to Hammock Creek? She doesn't appreciating any City Manager trying to push them into another petition and running to Ann McFall and setting up another item on the ballot because that is what she heard he did. She would like that clarified. She felt their petition spoke for the people. Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, representing ECARD, agreed with Mr. Glasser and Ms. Stoughton. Ms. Carlson asked if this was the second reading on this. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed her yes. Ms. Carlson asked if there was a first reading approved. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed her yes. Ms. Carlson asked if this was a change to the first reading approved. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he believed those were the amendments that the Council made prior to adopting the. Ms. Carlson stated so there hasn't been any change to this since the first reading. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated except for the change that was made previously having to do with the effective date in Section 21-12 for vested rights. Ms. Carlson asked if that Page 9 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o was legal after they have had a first reading. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they approved it at the first meeting with the changes. They asked for the changes to be brought back at the second reading. Ms. Carlson asked Councilman Vincenzi to explain vested rights for her. Councilman Vincenzi stated vested rights are defined and maybe the Attorney could define it better. When a development is in the final stages of submitting plans, they acquire vested rights. They have already gone through the process of buying the land, possibly changing it a little bit. Ms. Carlson stated so he is ready to go and he's got what he's got. She stated so whatever they've got on the works they get today. Councilman Vincenzi stated not everybody has vested rights. Only if you have gone through the application and permitting process to a certain degree. Ms. Carlson informed Councilwoman Lichter on her comment that every lot is different. Every lot is different. Unfortunately the people on Jones Fish Camp Road found out that every lot is different and they are going to get some condos. Ms. Carlson informed Councilwoman Rhodes she was right. Sprawl is not good and you can control sprawl with density and the net usage, the land. If you've got swamp, you don't touch it. Councilwoman Rhodes stated and they have that in there. Ms. Carlson stated and she appreciates it. Bill Klein, Central Mariners Drive, stated he just moved from Ohio seven months ago and he has been in the real estate business about eighteen years. From what he has heard tonight, if they adopt this they will have more problems. He came from a town that was very similar in size and very similar to the County and City government that we have. positive growth is the best thing you could ever have. You can't take away people's rights to own property. If you limit the size of these lots, there are people that won't be able to afford housing. They are also going to kill the tax base by keeping people out. There is ,nothing wrong with positive growth. The best thing that could happen to this City is positive growth. There is nothing wrong with condominiums. There is nothing wrong with this kind of stuff. If it is done right and done proper it will benefit the City. If they adopt this, especially number seven and eight, they are killing Page 10 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o themselves. They are going to have more problems in the future trying to meet the budgets and trying to pay the bills. Jim Scott, General Counsel, Sea Gate Companies, stated they own land in Edgewater that was annexed in. There is a State law that defines vested rights and he feels it is important that they compare and make consistent if they can the definition of vested rights that they are going to put in the ordinance with that State law. The courts are working on that definition in State law as they sit. They might want to try to get those consistent. There are some, including the company he works for, that had land that wasn't in the City but annexed into the City under beliefs, under discussions with the City about what they would be able to do. Now the rug is kind of being taken out from under them with the date they are picking and how they are defining what vested rights are. Those of them that relied on what the City was going to let them do, even though their applications are pending and they aren't all the way up to the point of a development order, they should be allowed to be grandfathered in as part of those vesting rights. That is just fair. It is a different story if you are someone who comes in and buys land now that is in the City or comes in and wants to be annexed now and they see and know and are aware the Code is changing. They had no idea this was going to happen when they annexed in. He suggested they consider in a fairness sort of thing to make a broader definition of what would be vested in. Ted Brown, Attorney for GS Florida, stated tonight they have a measure in front of them which represents at some level what he is sure some on the Councilor all of the Council believe is the best way to secure the future of Edgewater. He was here tonight as a representative of not only the largest land owner in this City but probably the company that has invested more of its capital in excess of $100 million in the City. He doesn't think as he drives through Edgewater that any other individual or company has ever come to this municipality and spend that kind of money. They invested that money in response to a vision, which was articulated by this Council. It was articulated when the City annexed this land. They said it would be a mix of residential, commercial and conservation land use. They said it would be low and medium density residential, which they calculated to be 7,000 units. They projected 500 acres of retail office and general commercial. They Page 11 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o estimated 750,000 square feet of commercial space and they asked for 2,120 acres of conservation area. It is against that backdrop that they invested $100 million to buy land and come to Edgewater. Six months ago when they came to the City, they came and began a process with Edgewater, New Smyrna Beach and Volusia County to figure out how it was that they could jointly develop this project to meet the expectations that they articulated in the annexation ordinance. Tonight he doesn't ask them to adopt his version of a changed vision. It is evident by what they have in front of them. He asked them to step back from the path they are on and indefinitely table this matter. They have the right to say no to them or anybody that comes in front of them but the adoption of this proposal tonight if implemented as it is set forth will not allow the vision that was contained in the annexation ordinance. It is not physically possible on that land. They have just this past Friday filed the application for development approval. Mayor Thomas informed Mr. Brown he hated to cut him off. He asked him to wrap it up real quick. Mr. Brown asked for the Council's indulgence to make the points he is making. Councilwoman Lichter felt when you invest that kind of money in something you thought you were going to accomplish, he should be able to continue. Councilwoman Rhodes stated it isn't about money. You are entitled to the same thing everybody else is entitled to. Mayor Thomas had no problem with one of his representatives speaking for three minutes. Mr. Brown asked if he could speak for them. Mayor Thomas informed him no, sorry. Thank you very much. Shannon Julian, 1625 Taylor Road, Port Orange, stated she had a couple things she would like to bring forward on behalf of the Volusia County Association for Responsible Development and the Volusia County Home Builders Association. Ms. Julian read a prepared statement into the record and provided Council with a copy. Ms. Julian read as representatives of the building and development communities, we appreciate your concerns with land development issues and efforts to upgrade your codes so that you can make your City the most productive that you can. However, as we've stated in previous workshops and Page 12 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o hearings our committee of professionals, mixed professionals, strongly believes some of the Code amendments being proposed are contrary to sound land use planning principles. Outside of the letter she would like to state the Economic Development Board wasn't in strong favor of the changes. Your own Planning Board wasn't in favor of the changes the way they were on the board and yet they move forward. Back to the letter. As Volusia County Association for Responsible Development and the volusia County Homebuilders Association we caution that the changes could be leading to some of the things they have talked about already. Sprawl, inadequate preservation of green space and conservation laws, problems with housing affordability, long term tax base. She has heard them say they have inherited some of the problems. She thinks in five years they will be standing here listening to we've inherited these problems with the land code. At the September 11th final hearing today, we once more urge you to reconsider the adoption of these amendments and first hear input from objective planning, environmental and engineering professionals with agencies such as the Water Management District or Regional Planning Councils that don't have a vested interest in the City like some of the developers do. She was voted to be the Chairman because she doesn't have any big development issues here. She works on both sides. She works for the County of Volusia when they are doing stuff that needs environmental work and she also works for the developers when they need environmental work. She tries to bridge the gap. That is her job as a consultant. But once again, members of our association really would welcome the opportunity to provide them with the thing they offered in the beginning, education and help to lead the discussion and come up with a balance. She has heard Dot & Carol. She understands their concerns. She understands the concerns from what they consider this side of the room, which is why she sat on the other side for a change. There has to be some middle ground from what you are hearing. She didn't know that this does that. She thanked Council for their consideration once again and for listening to her once again. As the joint committee, she wished the Council the best in moving forward. Greg Blossett, Director of Government Affairs, Volusia Home Builders Association, 3520 West International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona Beach, stated from the beginning the Homebuilders Association has told them that the proposed Page 13 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 i o o changes to the Land Development Code will encourage sprawl, are environmentally dangerous and would severely impact the development communities ability to construct affordable workforce housing. It is interesting to see that after a three hour discussion they had earlier this evening on how Edgewater residents can't afford a tax increase and costs are rising and the belt is tightening on their purse strings, that they are still sitting there voting on restrictions this evening that will most definitely result in higher housing costs, as much as 35% according to a recent study from the Department of Housing and urban Development that was conducted in 2005. They are legitimately concerned about affordable housing. Along with the realtors, they were one of the founding partners in establishing the Sidowski act in 1992, which leads to how you fund your SHIP programs. They have been in the community for over fifty years in this County battling for affordable and workforce housing and that is why they are here doing what they are doing. They understand the Council's concerns with controlling growth. They w~re part of the Smart Growth Implementation Committee. Nothing about what all of the professionals who get paid to look at developing communities and land development see anything smart about the way that Edgewater is going to grow from here on out. He reiterated their concern with affordable housing and the direction the Council is heading in. Robert Lott, 2112 S. Riverside Drive, stated he isn't a developer. He owns one piece of property that he lives on. He has four generations of his family currently living in this town. He has no vested interest in rampant growth. What he hears tonight scares the hell out of him. It is a very emotional issue and he understands that. Everybody behind him thinks they are doing the right thing and they are passionate about it or they wouldn't be sitting there at 11:00. They can't cut people off. They have to listen to what they have to say. He felt cutting Mr. Brown off was irresponsible in his opinion. He wanted to hear what he had to say. He felt they should allow him to come up and say his peace. Mayor Thomas stated they try to be fair and give everyone the same amount of time. Mike Stull, 1401 S. Ridgewood Avenue, Suite 5, stated he is a twenty plus year resident and business owner in Edgewater. He is trying to figure out and he has a Page 14 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o development going that should be at the next Planning & Zoning Board meeting and he is trying to figure out whether he has vested interest. He asked if somebody could explain that for him. Mr. Lear informed him not at this point. Mr. Stull then stated he doesn't have any vested interest after multiple sit-downs with the City. Mr. Lear stated unless he had a development approval by Council, he doesn't have any. Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. He would like to see in the motion one amendment that was made tonight that wasn't made the other night. Councilman Vincenzi made a motion that they approve the changes to the Land Development Code as stated on August 7th and additionally make the change in Section 21-12, effective date. Change the first sentence to say these regulations shall be effective date September 11, 2006 and to delete the last sentence in that paragraph and also make all dates consistent throughout Article I, second by Councilwoman Rogers. The MOTION CARRIED 3 -2. Councilwoman Rhodes and Councilwoman Lichter voted NO. B. Public Hearing, the City of Edgewater requesting Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement for ParkTowne Industrial Center City Manager Williams made a staff presentation by discussing the proposed amendments to the Development Agreement for ParkTowne with regard to excluding .9~ acres of property from the ParkTowne Industrial Center Industrial Center boundaries; add Concrete Batch Plants as a permitted use for development in Area "B"; and permit two points of access on any lot or parcel. He then commented on the economic impact analysis on the Florida Rock & Concrete Batch Plant that he provided. Mayor Thomas asked if they had just put into affect the 35- foot height cap. City Manager Williams informed him they did but this has vested rights. Mike Dale, representative for Kimly, Horn, Civil Engineer, 851 Dunlawton, stated he was present to answer questions. Page 15 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 i o o The last time they talked they were interested in Tarmac's facility. He estimated their silo to be every bit of 65 or 70 feet from his estimate in looking at it. That is maybe 1,000 feet from the site they are talking about. Mayor Thomas asked for Council comment. Councilwoman Rhodes stated her personal opinion is that it is a darn shame that for twenty feet they were willing to turn down jobs in the City. She appreciated they were going to stay even though it is going to cost them more money. Councilwoman Rogers stated she wasn't willing to turn it down. She was the one who made the motion to go forward with this and just put aside the issue with the aO-foot silo until after they decided to do what they were planning to do with the Land Development Code. She is all for the jobs. She would really like to see the 12-15 people really get $35,000 per year. She knew they didn't give pensions, not like the City. Mr. Dale stated the way he sees it the land code didn't have to do with vested rights projects. Councilwoman Rogers stated it doesn't and they weren't made aware about the vested rights until after that. Councilwoman Rhodes stated.really the Land Development Code has nothing to do with it. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. The following citizen spoke: Linda Small, 1629 Willow Oak Drive, asked if they could use accurate numbers. She stated City Manager Williams was driving her crazy with this average house of $90,000 and you have to have 49 houses to generate $65,000. He is making them nuts because it is not true. City Manager Williams asked her to tell him what wasn't accurate. Ms. Small stated there are no $90,000 homes. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement for ParkTowne Industrial Center, second by Councilwoman Rogers. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . C. Public Hearing, Richard Stonecipher, owner of Earthquake Magoon's, 132 W. Park Avenue, Page 16 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 o o requesting a Special Annual Biketoberfest October 21, 2006 Activity Permit for an Oyster Roast to be held Development Services Director Lear made a staff presentation. Councilwoman Rhodes mentioned the letter, which they have never received before, from the tenants around him. She thinks in the letter some valid points are made with regard to picking up trash and vomit and things of that nature. Mayor Thomas asked if they wanted to postpone this until they could do more research. Councilwoman Rhodes suggested they have a break so Mayor Thomas could read the letter. City Clerk Wadsworth informed him the applicant was present. Mr. Lear suggested they make this a condition of the special activity permit that they need to clean up. Manuel Cacdac, 2312 Hill Street, New Smyrna Beach, local business owner, Aztec Scooter Company, stated what they are trying to do is keep the quality of business in the plaza to a certain level. They have had an ongoing issue with Mr. Stonecipher as far as keeping the parking lot clean and just basically taking care of his customers and business practices, which affect their businesses as well. There has been damage to the building. There has been garbage left out, including oyster shells. There has been a rancid beer smell for months. Part of his conditions with the homeowner's association is to remove all his outdoor bar, his grill, his smoker but none of those items ever get moved. He included pictures of some of the items that are left there year round that are supposed to be removed immediately after the events. Nobody in the plaza seems to want to address these issues directly with Mr. Stonecipher so he felt he should. It is affecting his business and his customers, who are a little intimidated by people standing outside drinking. His liquor license doesn't cover people drinking outside unless there is a special permit. He doesn't want to eliminate his tradition. He just wants to make sure they keep things in check so that the rest of them in the building don't have any problems making money and dealing with quality of service for their customers. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if there were police at Earthquake Magoon's like they have at the No Name Saloon. Mr. Cacdac stated they have made requests and they are Page 17 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 i o o friends with a couple of the officers in Edgewater and they have made efforts to drive through and citizens patrol has been doing a great job at riding through a couple times in the evening. Councilwoman Rhodes stated at the No Name Saloon the City requires police officers to be there and maybe in this case they need to require the owner of the business has to pay for the police service. Mr. Cacdac stated that would be greatly appreciated. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she felt all of Mr. Cacdac's concerns were valid and that they should require a police officer be there just like they do at No Name. Councilman Vincenzi didn't see any problem with that. He knows the No Name Saloon has to go through a big, permitting and review process. Mr. Lear stated they have a meeting before every event with the owners of No Name. Councilman Vincenzi asked if they could put off approving this until Mr. Lear has a chance to speak to the owner. Mr. Lear stated with this in the permit it states that any cost of police or clean up will be made by the owner or the applicant. Councilman Vincenzi mentioned it never being enforced before. City Manager Williams informed him there had never been any issue. He suggested Council approve the permit with the requirement that the Police Department be present and within three days they do an inspection of the property to verify the event has been cleaned up if that seems to be acceptable. Councilwoman Rhodes stated at the cost of the owner. City Manager Williams stated then they can report that information back to Council. Councilman Vincenzi and Councilwoman Rhodes stated that was fine by them. Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing and entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion that they grant the special permit to Earthquake Magoon's for a special activity permit for the Oyster Roast on October 21, 2006 along with providing for a police officer to be there during that time and an inspection by the City three days afterwards to be sure all of these concerns are addressed, second by Councilwoman Lichter. Pagel8of35 Council Regular Meeting September II, 2006 i o o Mayor Thomas asked if one police officer was enough or if they needed two. Interim Police Chief John Taves stated the officers they put down at No Name is for pedestrian traffic safety, getting across U. S. #1. There will be no crossing of Park Avenue. He had no problem with there being an officer there. It is a twelve-hour shift. They are in radio communication with each other and if they need another officer they can call. He believed all special permit documents state that even with No Name, if you have two officers, it also includes if additional officers are needed. He felt that phrase would carry them if they needed to put another officer down there. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they didn't need twelve-hour shifts. They just needed someone there during the event. Interim Police Chief Taves stated he believed the permit was asking for twelve noon until midnight. If there is going to be an officer there, he would like to see two. Assistant City Attorney Palmer asked Councilwoman Rhodes if she wanted to clarify her motion. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she didn't want to limit them to two if they needed five. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . There was a ten-minute recess at this time. The meeting recessed at 11:10 p.m. and reconvened at 11:20 p.m. D. 1st Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-31, Bishop Thomas Wenski requesting annexation of 9.97~ acres of property located at 2310 S. Ridgewood Avenue Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-31 into the record. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. Councilwoman Rhodes mentioned not receiving any development plans on this. She asked if there was anything unofficial. City Manager Williams informed her not at this time. Mr. Lear explained this is only for annexation at this point. They will come back for a land use amendment and rezoning at a later date. Page 19 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 i o o Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing and entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-31, Bishop Thomas Wenski requesting annexation of 9.97+ acres of property located at 2310 S. Ridgewood Avenue, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . E. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-10, City of Edgewater requesting amendments to the data and analysis, and the Goals, Objectives and Policies within the Future Land Use, Conservation and Coastal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, cont. from 8/21/06, Item 6C Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-10 into the record. Development Services Director Lear made a staff presentation. He pointed out that this item and the next three are part of the large-scale submittal cycle. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-10, City of Edgewater requesting amendments to the data and analysis, and the Goals, Objectives and Policies within the Future Land Use, Conservation and Coastal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, second by Councilman vincenzi. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . F. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-11, City of Edgewater requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 17.63~ acres of property located southwest of the Edgewater Lakes Subdivision phase 1a (Northstar Lane) as Public/Semi-Public with Conservation Overlay, cont. from 8/21/06, Item 6D Page 20 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 i o o Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-11 into the record. Development Services Director Lear made a staff presentation. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-11, City of Edgewater requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 17.63+ acres of property located southwest of the Edgewater Lakes Subdivision Phase 1a (Northstar Lane) as Public/Semi-Public with Conservation Overlay, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. G. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-13, Targator Partners, LLC requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 2.67~ acres of land located along Falcon Avenue, west of Riverside Bank as High Density Residential, cont. from 8/21/06, Item 6E Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-13 into the record. Development Services Director Lear made a staff presentation. Mayor Thomas asked if Mr. Lear if he had any idea what they were going to do there. Mr. Lear informed him town homes. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. Tim Howard, Managing Member for Targator Partners LLC, 3028 willow Oak Drive, asked if they had it absolutely right this time. Mr. Lear informed him yes. Mr. Howard asked if he was vested. Mr. Lear informed him as staff has determined it's been vested because he had a rezoning approved. Mr. Howard stated he also had a development agreement, which he requested an extension of. Mr. Lear stated he hadn't heard on that. Mr. Howard stated he understands he is waiting for Mr. Palmer. He asked for an Page 21 of35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 ;; o o estimated time when that will occur since this is almost two years now. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he did understand that there was an existing RPUD agreement for the property. He hasn't seen it. As this is a quasi-legislative action of the City Council in adopting this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, if the City so chose they could condition this approval on an amendment that the development agreement to comply with the new height restrictions imposed during the current round of Land Development Code revisions. Councilwoman Rhodes stated so the answer is no he is not. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated the answer is he's vested in terms of zoning, however he doesn't have a Comprehensive Plan designation consistent with that zoning. He needs a Comprehensive Plan Designation prior to development and since this is a quasi-legislative action of the City the City could impose a condition that the development agreement be amended. If this is approved without condition, he believed, having not looked at his development agreement, it would still be in effect and he would be vested. Mr. Howard stated let's get the record straight here. He made application in January 2005. It was submitted to DCA that March under a small scale. It was kicked back. He went to Tallahassee to find out why. He came back and met with Mr. Lear telling him what it was. He asked no questions and took no notes. That following August it was submitted again the same way. It was kicked back again. You are only allowed twice a year so he was forced to wait until 2006 with this recent submission. Now they are telling him he is restricted to 35 feet. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated that wasn't what he was saying. Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Howard how tall he was going. Mr. Howard informed it wasn't 35 feet he didn't think. He informed him he forgot what the height was. It is only two-story townhouses. Mayor Thomas stated you don't know. Mr. Howard informed him it has been.a long time since the plans have been in Dennis' office and approved and he forgot the height because he has moved on to some other things. Page 22 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 il o o Councilman Vincenzi stated this is on request they should grant the way it is because of this going back and forth. Councilwoman Rogers agreed. This isn't his fault. Councilwoman Rogers stated they needed to make some type of mention whether his rights are vested or not because he began this process. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed her they didn't need to. Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing and entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-13, Targator Partners, LLC requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 2.67+ acres of land located along Falcon Avenue, west of Riverside Bank as High Density Residential, second by Councilman Vincenzi. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . H. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-14, the City of Edgewater requesting amendments to the data and analysis; and the Goals, Objectives and Policies within the Future Land Use and Housing Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, cont. from 8/21/06, Item 6F Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-14 into the record. Development Services Director Lear made a staff presentation. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-14, the City of Edgewater requesting amendments to the data and analysis; and the Goals, Objectives and Policies within the Future Land Use and Housing Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, second by Councilwoman Rhodes. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . Page 23 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 a o o Ordinances 2006-0-20, 2006-0-21, 2006-0-22, 2006-0-23, 2006-0-24 and 2006-0-25 have not received certification from the Vo1usia Growth Management Commissions and are scheduled for second hearing on October 2, 2006 I. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-20, Janice Shore requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 1.0~ acres of property located at 1008 Flying M Court as Low Density Transitional with Conservation Overlay, cont. from 7/24/06, Item 6B J. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-22, Stephen and Jill Hole requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive plan Future Land Use Map to include 0.17~ acres of property located east of 114 Oak Ridge Avenue from Low Density Residential to Commercial, cont. from 7/24/06, Item 6C K. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-24, Dana and Marcia Cornelius requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change 0.38~ acres of property located south of 114 Oak Ridge Avenue from High Density Residential and Commercial to Low Density Residential, cont. from 7/24/06, Item 6D L. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-21, Janice Shore requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to include 1.0~ acres of property located at 1008 Flying M Court as RT (Rural Transitional), cont. from 7/24/06, Item 6E M. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-23, Stephen and Jill Hole requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change 0.17~ acres of property located east of 114 Oak Ridge Avenue from R-3 (Single Family Residential) to B-3 (Commercial), cont. from 7/24/06, Item 6C N. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-25, Dana and Marcia Cornelius requesting an amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change 0.38~ acres of property located south of 114 Oak Ridge Avenue from R-5 (Multi-Family Residential) and B-3 (Highway Commercial) to R-3 (Single Family Residential) , cont. from 7/24/06, Item 6G Page 24 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 . o o Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated so the City does not have to readvertise these public hearings, he read the titles for Item I - Ord. 2006-0-20, Item J - Ord. 2006-0- 22, Item K - Ord. 2006-0-24, Item L - Ord. 2006-0-21, Item M - Ord. 2006-0-23, and Item N - Ord. 2006-0-25 into the record. He recommended the Mayor entertain a motion to continue Items I - N as just read into the record to the Regular City council Meeting to be held on October 2, 2006. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes so moved, second by Councilman Vincenzi. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . O. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-30, proposing an Amendment to the Charter of the City of Edgewater providing for exceptions to the prohibition against new building heights in excess of 35 feet (to the electors of the City of Edgewater at the November 7, 2006 General Election) Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-30 into the record. City Manager Williams made a staff presentation. He went over the proposed alternative language. Mayor Thomas confirmed that this was the City's language and didn't have anything to do with ECARD. City Manager Williams explained this clarifies ECARD's proposed Charter Amendment. In ECARD's Charter amendment it doesn't reference exemptions related to commercial, industrial and public and semi-public. Through numerous discussions with various citizens, business leaders and the Economic Development Board, there has been a major request to corne out and simplify the language. Councilwoman Lichter felt the language for the second alternative was better. City Manager Williams informed her they are offering two suggestions. Councilwoman Rhodes also felt the second alternative was more clear. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he believed it was staff's recommendation under the bottom paragraph under Text of Proposed Amendment staff is also recommending the Page 25 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 il o o deletion of the provision appearing after (iii) any building located within a DRI. The bottom paragraph would read the building height restrictions contained in Section 1.01(a) (1) of Article I of the City Charter shall not apply to any commercial, public, semi-public, or industrial buildings. The foregoing shall not preclude the City Council from adopting land development regulation which otherwise restrict or limit the building height of any such buildings and they would revise the ballot question. Councilwoman Rhodes asked why the last sentence had to be in there. She feels that complicates it. City Manager Williams informed her that allows them to place restrictions in the Land Development Code. Councilwoman Rhodes stated but they have that anyway. She feels it just adds more words that don't really do anything. City Manager Williams stated it basically tells them they will govern the height restrictions in the Land Development Code and not in your constitution. It should be handled within the Land Development Code. That is what the last sentence provides for. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he agreed with what Councilwoman Rhodes said. He thought they put it in there to clarify and make it absolutely clear of the City's ability. Councilwoman Rhodes felt they muddied the waters in her opinion. Councilman Vincenzi and Councilwoman Rhodes felt that should be scratched. Councilman Vincenzi asked what other building not intended for residential use is. City Manager Williams informed him they wanted to strike that language too. Councilman Vincenzi confirmed the language would be the building height restrictions contained in Section 1.01(a) (1) of Article I of the City Charter shall not apply to any commercial, public, semi-public, or industrial building. City Manager Williams asked if they should say building or use. He felt they should say use. Councilwoman Rhodes stated or industrial use as defined in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. She suggested they leave off the last sentence because they have that ability anyway. Councilman vincenzi stated that sounded good to him. Page 26 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 .. o o Councilwoman Rogers asked if they were taking (ii) any mixed-use building of which at least 70% of its square footage is dedicated to non-residential uses out. Councilwoman Rhodes informed her yes. Councilwoman Rogers stated confirmed they were taking (ii) and (iii) out completely. She felt if they were going to do this they should put a height limit on this. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they have done that in the Land Development Code though. Councilwoman Vincenzi stated well not really. Councilwoman Rogers stated no we haven't. In the Land Development Code they just did 35 feet. City Manager Williams stated right, so you have placed the height limit on it at this point. Councilwoman Rogers asked if she could ask Dot Carlson a question since she did the petitions. In speaking with her about the height and this amendment, was it not her intention, and when she spoke to the citizens, that this was to limit, not residential specifically, but residential multi-family to 35 feet. She was against the condos and she wasn't conveying to the public that this was going to be across the board for building, commercial and industrial. Ms. Carlson stated the ballot language on theirs is exactly as it is in Jacksonville Beach. They were telling the public if a variance was needed for public use and semi-public, hospitals, high schools, schools, those could be added from the City. Councilwoman Rhodes stated not when your Charter Amendment says all buildings. Ms. Carlson stated that is what it says in theirs. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that is what it says in theirs so they as Council can't go against that. They can't give a variance to somebody for that. Ms. Carlson stated that has to be applied for. Councilwoman Rogers stated if it is in the Charter that is it. If it wasn't in the Charter but in the land use. What she was getting at with this one item that they are going to possibly approve in this amendment, they have taken out all of the confusion language. The only thing that is there is the commercial, public, semi-public and industrial. She feels they need to specify a height limit there so the sky is not the limit. Ms. Carlson agreed with Councilwoman Rogers. Councilwoman Rogers stated Ms. Carlson's intent and what the public was perceiving with this 35-foot height was more or less fighting the issue with the condos and houses to be taller than 35 feet. Initially when they were talking about the land amendments, she had presented the commercial Page 27 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 ~ . o o to not be more than 50 feet. Then she backed up to the 35 feet and now that they are getting specific with this and if this does get approved in the Charter, they would be cutting Edgewater's throat if they just say 35 feet across the board but if they go back to commercial, public, semi- public and industrial and say that can't exceed 50 feet, she felt that would appease Ms. Carlson. Ms. Carlson stated if they want to do higher than 50 feet. Councilwoman Rogers stated they couldn't do higher than 50 feet because of this being in the Charter. That is why she is saying what if they need a little more than 35 feet they won't be able to because it is in the Charter. If they say 50 feet, then they are okay, they are covered and they are saying no more than 50 feet, which means they couldn't go over. Ms. Carlson didn't think ECARD would have a problem with that. This clears it up for these two items on the ballot would have been totally confusing. As far as condos and stuff, they don't' think that is going to make a lot of money. They don't believe in warehousing people. But hospitals, schools fine. City Manager Williams stated they have contacted Port Orange and talked with them and he thought the average was running about 40 to 48 in terms of Home Depot, Lowes and Target. Ms. Carlson stated she did know WalMart was considering reducing their height because they are air conditioning and cooling a lot of space that they don't use. ECARD is fine with that and she didn't think it would be that confusing. They can vote yes for both and she thinks everybody will win-win. Councilwoman Rogers felt just saying commercial, public, semi-public and industrial not exceeding 50 feet. Ms. Carlson stated most people were having a problem with the DRI. Councilwoman Rogers stated that is gone and the 70/30, that is gone. Mr. Carlson stated that is fine. Councilwoman Rogers stated before there were four items. Here there is three of which they have changed the one but it doesn't matter because they aren't even talking about all three. They are only talking about the one and the only thing they are doing is striking or other buildings. Ms. Carlson stated or other was very confusing. City Manager Williams asked Council's consideration on whether or not the 50 is really what they want to land on. Not turning their words against them, but they just described if they had a need at 35 feet and they had a cap in the Charter they couldn't go above it. If they had that Page 28 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 , . o o same need and it was above 50 feet they are bound by that height restriction. Councilwoman Rhodes stated the Land Development Code addresses height caps. This isn't even about the Council. All they are doing is saying to the voters if for them to make the decision. So many times they are accused of not listening to the voters. Now they want to give it to the voters so they can let the Council know what they want. She didn't feel they were mutually exclusive at all. Councilwoman Lichter asked how high the tower is at Boston Whaler to take the smell away and get it up high. She asked if that was 50 foot. She could think of some things that might be higher. City Manager Williams wasn't sure. The Council just approved for some industrial development to come in. He felt ECARD's ballot does provide for exceptions to water towers and fire towers and different uninhabitable objects. He suggested they consider what restrictions they place on themselves. Ms. Carlson stated she believed there were exceptions to spires, churches, silos, towers, and radio cell phone towers. There are exceptions and they are in the ballot language. Councilwoman Lichter stated the fifty-foot was okay with her if those things are some place else. She didn't think any of this should be in the Charter. City Manager Williams stated they could govern the height restriction within the Land Development Code. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they could do all of this in the Land Development Code. City Manager Williams stated yes they could. Councilwoman Lichter stated that is where it should be. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: Bob Lott, 2112 S. Riverside Drive, Chairman, Economic Development Board, spoke of serving on the Charter Review Committee. They went over the Charter item by item and they were very careful to make sure that anything they recommended as a change would still fit 25 years from now. When you make a change to your Charter, rarely does it ever come back. He cautioned the Council. This is not the place for Land Development Code in the Charter. They need to have the flexibility of Council to make those kind of decisions. However if it is the will of the people it is the will of the people. He is pleased that they are Page 29 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 . o o putting that exception in for commercial growth. He feels that is very important. He suggested very strong that they don't put yet another number on that. He asked about the cement plant that wanted SO-foot silos. City Manager Williams informed him that is what their request was but they landed on 60 foot. Mr. Lott stated if they put the fifty-foot on there they don't know what it is going to be 20 years from now. Do what you can to make it fit 25 years from now. They need vision. They have to look at what it is going to be like for their children and their children's children. Let's don't handcuff them. Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated a school or a hospital does not have to conform to the City's codes. They can come in and go where they want. They aren't going to go in the middle of a development. ECARD's intent was to stop what they all didn't want and that was what the petition was for. They also thought there was a deadline with Ann McFall's office but somehow the City are pushing for the developers. The wishes of the people are they did not want high-rises and they didn't want condos over a certain height. She didn't know how City Manager Williams got it through. He must have some power out in the administration building or with Ann McFall and with the developers. She was sorry to say that but felt it was true. Dot Carlson, 1714 Edgewater Drive, asked if the language has been sent to Ann McFall. City Manager Williams informed her the new language, no they have not. Pending Council's action tonight, they will send it. Ms. Carlson stated hers had to be in by September 1st but it is at the discretion of the Supervisor of Elections. City Manager Williams stated if asking a question makes him guilty then he is guilty. Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing. Councilman Vincenzi asked what the wording was again exactly. Assistant City Attorney Palmer again read the language to be "The building height restrictions contained in Section 1.01 (a) (1) of Article I of the City Charter shall not apply to any commercial, public, semi-public, or industrial buildings. Councilwoman Rhodes corrected him Page 30 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 . o o and said industrial uses as defined in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Councilwoman Rogers stated and the addition of the fifty- foot height limit or what are they doing with that. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that has to be included in the motion. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated to clarify Councilwoman Rhodes question about Statute 380.06. That is the Statute relating to the DRI's. He asked if there was anything specific she wanted. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she was impressed that he knew what that was because she didn't. Councilman Vincenzi asked if there was a height limitation in there or not right now. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed him there is if they include it in the motion. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Councilwoman Rhodes moved that they put this amendment on the ballot as was just read by Assistant City Attorney Palmer, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Councilwoman Roqers voted NO because it did not include the 50 foot heiqht limit. P. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2006-0-32, proposing an Amendment to the Charter of the City of Edgewater amending Section 3.11(b) (Rules and Journal) to provide that City Council meetings shall include one 5-minute period for "Citizen Comments" to be determined by City Council in lieu of two periods at the beginning of the meeting and directly prior to adjournment (to the electors of the City of Edgewater at the November 7, 2006 General Election) Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-0-32 into the record. City Manager Williams made a staff presentation. Mayor Thomas opened the public hearing. Page 31 0[35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 . o o The following citizen spoke: Carol Ann Stoughton, 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated she didn't know what they are trying to accomplish by stopping the public. The public has a right to speak. Before they vote and after they vote they have a right to get up there. This is America, this is a democracy. They have a right and they intend not to be stifled or stopped or sought after by investigators or policemen or anything else, they have that right. She doesn't like all of a sudden that they are going to be silenced. She told Mayor Thomas he started this with the three minutes, when it was five minutes. He agreed to listen to the people and do for the people. She is sorry. We have a Charter that says they are entitled to whatever. If people want to speak, she feels they should be heard. Councilwoman Rhodes stated and they will speak because they will vote. If they don't vote for it, then it will be the way it is now. There is nothing fairer than that. Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2006-0-32, proposing an Amendment to the Charter of the City of Edgewater amending Section 3.11(b) (Rules and Journal) to provide that City Council meetings shall include one 5- minute period for UCitizen Comments" to be determined by City Council in lieu of two periods at the beginning of the meeting and directly prior to adjournment (to the electors of the City of Edgewater at the November 7, 2006 General Election), second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Q. Res. No. 2006-R-09, modifying Section 19-130 (Reclaimed Water System Charges and Fees) , Article X (Reclaimed Water Reuse Program) of Chapter 19 (Utilities and Services) Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Res. 2006-R-09 into the record. City Manager Williams made a staff presentation. Page 32 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 .. .. . o o Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Res. 2006-R-09, modifying Section 19-130 (Reclaimed Water System Charges and Fees), Article X (Reclaimed Water Reuse Program) of Chapter 19 (Utilities and Services), second by Councilwoman Rhodes. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . 7. BOARD APPOINTMENTS Mayor Thomas stated Mr. Leaf resigned so he wanted to appoint Joe Daly to the Volusia County Prepares Steering Committee. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve the recommendation of Mayor Thomas to appoint Joe Daly, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. Purchase of New Filters - staff recommending declaring the Allen Bradley PLC components for the Alan R. Thomas Water Treatment Plant filter controls as a sole source item and authorize purchasing these components from Rexel Consolidated at a cost of $20,275.38 Councilwoman Rogers asked if this was in the budget. City Manager Williams informed her it was a budgeted item. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve the Consent Agenda, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . 9. OTHER BUSINESS There was no Other Business to be discussed at this time. 10. OFFICER REPORTS A. City Clerk Wadsworth had nothing at this time. Page 33 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 . ... . o o B. Assistant City Attorney Palmer had nothing at this time. C. City Manager Williams City Manager William stated they had a request to solicit interest in attorney services. He has provided Council the current contract that was previously approved by this Council with Foley & Lardner. He has also provided legal review fees for this fiscal year verses last fiscal year and wanted to describe the process that they would be using in seeking out professional services for legal counsel. He has confirmed with Paul Rosenthal this afternoon that there is not a need to issue an RFP and that they can use the same procedures they did the last time they went out for these professional services. They advertised the ad in a newspaper of general circulation. They receive requests for interest and then they will review those requests for interest and bring those candidates before Council at a budget workshop for a final selection if it is a Council's intention. Some of the concerns that have been expressed from staff's point of view are that with Foley & Lardner, they are an all encompassing firm. If Council has no comments and is okay with the direction, if they give him the authorization he will issue the ad for professional legal services and they will move forward and begin that process. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they would have the same format we have now. Is it the general consensus of the group to have the attorney at every meeting or special meetings or would they talk about that at a different time. She was thinking about the cost involved. City Manager Williams informed her he envisioned it would be under the same format that we are currently providing those services for. Councilman Vincenzi made a motion for City Manger Williams to move forward in the direction he described about advertising for an attorney, second by Councilwoman Rhodes. The MOTION CARRIED 4 -1 . Councilwoman Lichter voted NO. City Manager Williams stated with respect to one additional item that was brought up earlier tonight with the second independent review or auditing that would take place. He Page 34 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006 .. 101 .. o o asked for Council's consideration on appointing Councilwoman Rogers to work directly with him, if she is so willing, to prepare that RFP so they can get the RFP on the street. Councilwoman Rogers stated she wanted to speak to him further about that. Something that was presented to her that could be a less expensive way to accomplish what it is she wants. She would speak with him privately about that and then they would bring it back to Council. 11. CITIZEN COMMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE Mayor Thomas saluted the public that stayed at the meeting that late. A. Tentative Agenda Items There were no Tentative Agenda Items to be discussed. 12 . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman Rhodes moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page 35 of 35 Council Regular Meeting September 11, 2006