Loading...
01-10-2005 - Regular W' ~ CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 10, 2005 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES 1 . CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schmidt called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Donald Schmidt Councilman James Brown Councilman Dennis Vincenzi Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes Councilwoman Judith Lichter City Manager Kenneth Hooper City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Paralegal Robin Matusick Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE There was a silent invocation and pledge of allegiance to the Flag. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to be approved at this time. 3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DONATIONS There were no presentations at this time. 4. CITIZEN COMMENTS The following citizens spoke: Dave Ross, 2803 Needle Palm Drive, stated it was his understanding that the Land Development Code was available on disk to the public. When he requested one, he was advised it is not available on disk. He feels the Land Development Code should be readily available to the public. He feels it should also be available on the City's website. He then commented on the cost of the Land Development Code. He feels there is an appearance that the City doesn't want the public to know what the Code says. He feels it is perception that counts, not reality. '-" ..., Mayor Schmidt asked Chief Planner Darren Lear to inform the public if they would like a copy of the Land Development Code what they need to do and what the costs involved would be. City Clerk Wadsworth also stated the reason it is not on disk yet is because they are still making changes. Councilwoman Lichter spoke on behalf of the Council that they have no intention on keeping it from anyone. It is rather new and they just received it. There was further discussion regarding the availability of the Land Development Code. City Clerk Wadsworth stated you can check out a copy of the Code at City Hall or the Library at no charge. Chief Planner explained they can put it on a disk and there is not a problem with that. As far as being on the website still under construction, it is a big document and they don't have a lot of room on the website. He spoke of the large cost to put it on Municode.com Mr. Ross then spoke about the current endeavor of the Planning Department to prepare and present for consideration changes to the Land Development Code as it addresses certain potions of Sections 21-34 and 21-36. He then quoted Section 21-81.01 paragraph b and Section 21-82. He feels it is quite obvious that this is an attempt of some members of staff to influence the policies, not the administration, the policies of this City with their own personal agenda. He further commented on Code Enforcement having questions or problems regarding the performance of their duties. He reminded Council and Staff that following adoption of the existing Code there was a meeting with staff and the AD Hoc Committee which resulted in a full understanding of the intent of the Code. If there are currently, real enforcement issues, he suggested they be documented to Council along with a request for Council to initiate appropriate changes. They should not include requests by staff for changes based on citizen comments, complaints or staff's views of the Code except as they pertain to enforcement. He stated Council did not initiate any revisions that are being discussed. Further it is staff's responsibility and authority to not include initiation of a citizen surveyor a re-write of this Code. He requested Council instruct the City Manager to stop these proceedings unless they believe there is a serious problem. If Council no longer believes the Code recently passed by the Council is appropriate for this community, it seems they should put the topic on the agenda for open discussion. Page -2- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 .~ ..., Mr. Ross doesn't want City Manager Hooper or the staff to believe or understand that by this dissertation he has any meaning or intention of demeaning anyone. He believes that each and all truly have the best interest of the City of Edgewater. He simply believes the mythology being implemented in this scenario is not in keeping with the City Charter and the Codes written thereunder. It is the Council's duty and responsibility to correct the situation. Pat Card, 3019 Willow Oak Drive, commented on the article regarding the desire to build as many high rise developments as we can east of US 1 and south of Roberts Road. He spoke of the Council approving approximately 1500 homes in that area in the last six to twelve months. He knows there are other pieces of property slated for building down there. He asked Council to start raising a stink with the County and see if they can get some money for a north-south extension to carry the traffic from Edgewater north other than U. S. #1 before Williamson Blvd. is extended. He feels this is absolutely necessary. He spoke of 750 homes that have been approved at the corner of Mission Road and Park Avenue. Someone who meets with the planning authorities for this area needs to start raising a stink and get us some support for a north-south extension, whether it be Park Avenue, Mission Road or tear down every business on u.S. #1 on make six lanes out of it. He spoke of the Williamson Blvd. extension being ten or fifteen years away. James Zizak, 410 Sandpiper Court, spoke of a citation issued to him by Code Enforcement for $108.00 for obstruction of the street with garbage that was a result of the Hurricane Jeanne. They exonerated him of the violation but they also, without any notice, came and sent a truck to pick up his garbage. His garbage consisted mostly of furniture and drywall. There was an article in the paper saying that the drywall as long as he didn't have a contractor would be picked up. The other garbage was regular garbage. He had a run in with Code Enforcement and they got into a hassle over it and for some reason he made a big stink out of it and he had the street cleaned up and said he was obstructing traffic and blocking the street. He was charged $328.00 for the cleanup of the garbage. He didn't pay the fine because the fine was included with the violation that Code got him for. He was waiting for a hearing with Council on the charge for pickup of the garbage but they never did and then they start incurring a 10% fine on the fact that he didn't pay for the pickup of the garbage which he was never aware of. He doesn't feel he should have paid for the garbage when there was an article that said they would pickup construction garbage if you didn't have a contractor. Page -3- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 '-' ...." City Manager Hooper spoke of being at the gentleman's house and seeing the garbage piled up and other issues. Fire Chief Barlow stated this is a case of where the debris was placed in the roadway and Mr. Zizak was requested to remove it from the roadway and because it was a traffic hazard it was deemed an emergency to have it removed immediately versus the notice of violation being issued. Mr. Zizak spoke of giving Code Enforcement a picture of the way he put the garbage out. There was no garbage out in the street. He explained he could not live at his house so he was staying at Carter's Motel in a trailer and he was informed he couldn't stay in the trailer so because he had his roof put on at Sandpiper Court he decided to go there and stay through the storm. While he was at the house, a car came by and it was almost past his house and he saw he was there and he stopped and asked him if he was going to clean up the sheet rock and he informed him he was getting ready for the storm. Fire Chief Barlow stated he would research the case and get back to Council on it. Fire Chief Barlow asked Mr. Zizak if he owed anything on a citation today. Mr. Zizak stated he paid for it and he paid for his regular pickup but wanted to know why he is paying for something the City said they would pick up. City Manager Hooper further explained the case. Councilman Vincenzi feels something has to look into this and let them know exactly what happened. Councilwoman Lichter suggested they put a halt on the interest for now. Mr. Zizak stated it has already been paid. City Manager Hooper explained he has paid the fine. The City picked up the garbage, which is paid for by weight and volume. Councilwoman Lichter spoke of the whole situation during the storms being chaotic. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she could see it was in the street but she couldn't see where it was an emergency. City Manager Hooper stated the answer wasn't necessarily an emergency except is he going to haul it away or are we. That was the question. Page -4- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 ~ ...., Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they hauled construction debris from other people not on an emergency basis and they didn't have to pay for it. City Manager Hooper stated not much. Most of what they had was fairly minor. If you were reimbursed for construction debris, either he paid us to haul it away or his insurance company reimburses another company to come and get it. Councilwoman Lichter asked that Fire Chief Barlow look into the situation and it is the $350 that is of concern at this point. Mr. Zizak stated it is more than $350 because he had to pay another $300 to get rid of the rest of the garbage and he was told to put it out. Councilwoman Lichter felt this was not something to be discussed under Citizen Comments and should be placed on the agenda. Mr. Zizak stated Ms. McBride informed him she would make arrangements with Council for that purpose. Fire Chief Barlow agreed to look into this further and then this would be placed on the Council's agenda. 5. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilwoman Lichter reported the day she went to visit the animal shelter in Flagler County she received a call from a gentleman in Shangri La about a very deep hole on the property next to Shangri La behind Regions Bank that was very dangerous. She spoke to Mr. Wadsworth and he contacted Bobby Laramore who really did an excellent job and got the job done within an hour. When they got back from visiting the animal shelter she wanted to show City Manager Hooper and the hole was covered. They don't know if that is City property or belongs to the apartments. She suggested they check this out and notify the property owner. Mr. Wadsworth confirmed they are in the process of finding out who the property owners and notifying them. Councilwoman Lichter commented on article in the News Journal this week and there was a statement by one councilman who has been researching the islands. There was a comment by another councilperson who was against the proposal. This item has never come in front of the Council. She spoke of being approached by people at the dock where she lives. She suggested they put this item on one of their future agendas. Page -5- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 '-' """" Councilwoman Lichter feels in all of the ceremonies they have for Veterans Day, Memorial Day and the 4th of July there is a group of service people who are always the last to get recognized, the WWII guys. She spoke of never recognizing them as a special group of veterans and she hopes to speak to Mr. Corder to do something special for them. Councilwoman Lichter spoke of the condition of u.S. #1 and the trash. She feels it is necessarily being thrown by people. She wants to look into the recycling truck. She spoke of trash coming out of a recycling truck she was following. Mayor Schmidt had nothing at this time. Councilman Brown stated a few years back our Governor made January mentoring month. He asked if there are any people out there who can spare one hour a week to help a kid in the school, please contact one of the schools. They need mentors badly at all of the schools. Councilman Vincenzi stated he was one of the people in the article on Saturday and he agrees they need to be careful but he doesn't look at that as a potential sunshine violation. He can talk to anybody about anything coming up in the City, as long as he doesn't talk to his fellow Councilmembers. Councilwoman Rhodes had nothing at this time. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2004-0-47, Robert Jalbert, Sr., authorized agent for Paul Newsom III, Robert Jalbert Jr. And Asuncion Jalbert, requesting annexation of 12.38~ acres of land located at 2203 and 2295 Cow Creek Road Paralegal Matusick read Ord. 2004-0-47 into the record. City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Schmidt opened and closed the public hearing. Page -6- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 '-' 'wi Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2004-0-47, Robert Jalbert, Sr., authorized aqent for Paul Newsom III, Robert Jalbert Jr. And Asuncion Jalbert, requestinq annexation of 12.38+ acres of land located at 2203 and 2295 Cow Creek Road, second by Councilman Brown. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. B. 2nd Reading, Ord. No. 2004-0-48, Robert Jalbert Sr. requesting annexation of 1.15~ acres of land located at 3208 Eels Grove Road (1st Reading 12/6/04, Item 60) Paralegal Matusick read Ord. 2004-0-48 into the record. City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Schmidt opened and closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2004-0-48, Robert Jalbert Sr. requestinq annexation of 1.15+ acres of land located at 3208 Eels Grove Road (1st Readinq 12/6/04, Item 60), second by Councilman Vincenzi. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Councilwoman Lichter stated she hopes some of this agricultural property can stay agricultural and people can still have horses in this area. C. 1st Reading, Ord. No. 2004-0-30, Edgegate, LLC dba U sto It Mini Storage, applicant for owners Brent Jones and Thomas Vardell, requesting annexation of 1.46+ acres of property located north of 3725 S. US1 Paralegal Matusick read Ord. 2004-0-30 into the record. City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Schmidt opened and closed the public hearing. Page -7- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 W' ....., Councilman Brown moved to approve Ord. 2004-0-30, Edqeqate, LLC dba U sto It Mini Storaqe, applicant for owners Brent Jones and Thomas Vardell, requestinq annexation of 1.46+ acres of property located north of 3725 S. USl, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. D. pt Reading, Ord. No. 2004-0-49, David Dacar requesting amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change 4.95~ acres of land located at 820 W. Park Avenue from Medium Density Residential to Commercial E. 1st Reading, Ord. No. 2004-0-50, David Dacar requesting amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change 4.95~ acres of property located at 820 W. Park Avenue from MH-1 (Mobile Home Park) to B-3 (Highway Commercial) Paralegal Matusick read Ord. 2004-0-49 and Ord. 2004-0-50 into the record. City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. David Dacar, 203 S. Pine Street, New Smyrna Beach, was available to answer any questions. City Manager Hooper and Chief Planner Lear answered questions presented by Councilwoman Lichter and Councilwoman Rhodes. Mayor Schmidt opened the public hearing for Ord. 2004-0-49. The following citizen spoke: John Cordeiro, 1515 Pine Tree Drive, stated he wanted to let the Elks know that he has nothing against any of the Elks. He understands they do a lot of good for a lot of people and commended them for that. He expressed concern with the location for their new clubhouse due to there being drinking at the establishment and this being located next to a playground. He feels it is a bad move because of where it is. All he cares about are Edgewater's little ones. Mr. Dacar stated he measured the distance and it is almost 1,000 feet to the park area. Most of the activity takes place well into the evening. City Manager Hooper referred to the State Statutes. Page -8- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 ...... ..." Mayor Schmidt closed the public hearing regarding Ord. 2004-0-49. Councilman Brown asked what safety features they are planning to use to separate them from the park. Mr. Dacar stated burming the property along the adjacent roadway, Carol Ann Drive. They are looking at doing some heavy landscaping and some burming along that edge. Councilman Brown mentioned a fence. Mr. Dacar feels they could do it with landscaping a lot better. He stated that area is open and it is a very pretty area. He is trying to keep the area open and keep it the way it looks. Councilman Brown spoke of not having a lot of people in there during the week but there will be people there on the weekends during the day. Mr. Dacar stated he would be working with people on the Planning Board to address that. Mr. Dacar stated they are closed on Saturday and Bingo is the only thing on Sunday. Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2004-0-49, David Dacar requesting amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change 4.95+ acres of land located at 820 W. Park Avenue from Medium Density Residential to Commercial, second by Councilman Vincenzi. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Schmidt opened and closed the public hearing regarding Ord. 2004-0-50. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve Ord. 2004-0-50, David Dacar requesting amendment to the Official Zoning Map to change 4.95+ acres of property located at 820 W. Park Avenue from MH-l {Mobile Home Park} to B-3 {Highway Commercial}, second by Councilman Brown. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. F. Res. No. 2005-R-Ol, amending the Code Enforcement Board By-laws by changing the meeting time to the second Thursday at 2:00 p.m. on each month Paralegal Matusick read Res. 2005-R-Ol into the record. City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Page -9- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 W' .-.1 Councilwoman Rhodes expressed concern with the citizens to attend the meetings and their having to leave work. Manager Hooper commented on this being a court system. be no different than going to court. that have City It would Due to there being no comments, Mayor Schmidt opened and closed the public hearing. Councilman Brown moved to approve Res. 2005-R-Ol, amendinq the Code Enforcement Board By-laws by chanqinq the meetinq time to the second Thursday at 2:00 p.m. on each month, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 7. BOARD APPOINTMENTS A. Firefighters' Pension Fund Board - affirming Board's reappointment of Gary Butt for an additional 2-year term Councilwoman Lichter moved to reappoint Gary Butt to the Firefiqhers' pension Fund Board, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. B. Volusia County Growth Management Commission - Mayor Schmidt's appointment of Darren Lear to fill a vacated seat due to an expired term Councilwoman Lichter moved to appoint Darren Lear to the Volusia County Growth Manaqement Commission, second by Councilwoman Rhodes. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 8. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items to be discussed on the Consent Agenda at this time. 9. OTHER BUSINESS A. Tree Permit - Loren Felts, 1422 Pine Tree Drive, requesting a Tree Permit to remove one (1) 37 inch historic live oak tree from his property Page -10- Coun~il Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 '-w' "WIll City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Councilwoman Lichter questioned if a tree is deemed dangerous to two properties, does it really matter what kind of tree it is. City Manager Hooper co~~ented on trees that were taken down after the hurricane having substantial damage. Loren Felts, 1422 Pine Tree Drive, stated the tree inside is rotten and it did do damage through the storms to the roofs and it is going to do more damage. Councilwoman Lichter asked Building Official Fischer if the tree can be trimmed to the point where it wouldn't be dangerous. Mr. Felts commented on how the tree is leaning and the rotten spot inside the tree. City Manager Hooper stated the County Arborist looked at it and said it is very healthy. Mr. Felts stated he received several estimates from tree service people and the first thing they said was the center is rotten. Councilwoman Rhodes asked Mr. Felts if he understands that by removing this tree he is required to replace. Mr. Felts stated if it wasn't a problem he wouldn't want to take it out anyway. He feels he should be able to take it down with no restrictions. City Manager Hooper stated he wants Council to waive the replacement fee. Building Official Fischer commented on the process they follow when someone wants to remove a historic live oak tree. Councilwoman Rhodes asked how many of the estimates that Mr. Felts received indicated the tree is bad. Mr. Felts informed her all of them. Councilwoman Rhodes feels if Mr. Felts can get three estimates and three tree guys say it is a bad tree, then they should deem it a bad tree. Councilwoman Lichter agreed. Joan Mattox, 1418 Pine Tree Drive, spoke of there being limbs that are loose in this tree that hang over her house. City Manager Hooper asked Mr. Felts how much the estimates were for. Mr. Felts informed him they ranged from $1,300 to $2,000. Councilwoman Rhodes felt the question now is replacement and whether they should have to pay $2,150 for tree replacement. Page -11- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 '- ..." Councilman Vincenzi stated he likes trees and usually he doesn't like to see them cut down but if there is some kind of damage, he doesn't have a problem with it. He agreed if they could find three tree trimmers to give statements or estimates saying it is bad that is fine with him. Councilman Brown suggested they take out the one that looks like it is bad and leave the other two. City Manager Hooper stated if you take out the one tree the other two will probably die. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to qrant the permit as far as the replacement trees qo, that is dependent upon three tree surqeons to tell him the tree is bad and prove that to the City and Mr. Felts won't have to pay to replace the trees, second by Councilman Vincenzi. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. There was a ten-minute recess at this time. B. Commercial Refuse Collection - staff recommending City enter into contract negotiations with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida and return with the contract for Council approval City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. He further went over the summary of presentations made. He spoke of Waste Management being the highest yield in franchise fees back to the City. Our idea is an exclusive franchise with Waste Management. There is a franchise fee that will be used a continuing funding source. He recommended they use that money for resurfacing of the streets. The recommendation from the staff selection committee was unanimous with Waste Management 1st, Waste Services 2nd and Waste Pro 3rd. The agenda request is to authorize negotiations of a contract and bring the contract back to the Council at a later date. Councilwoman Lichter spoke of voting NO on this item when it came in front of them before because she believes in free enterprise. She understands why we need one company for the City to pick up recycling and one company for the City to pick up trash. She was upset with the fact that the committee were all City employees and no one from businesses. She spoke of using the franchise fees for roads. She is prone to voting NO on this. Page -12- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 '-" ....- Councilwoman Rhodes spoke on the project revenue being based on the customers that each company currently has in the City. She questioned should go to one, she doesn't see a revenue based on all of the accounts in the City. She questioned this bringing the projected revenue up. City Manager Hooper explained what occurs. The first three years, if Waste Management has 90% of the customers for that three years they would stay with them. He stated Councilwoman Rhodes was correct in the fact that the revenue would go up once they are forced to go with one company. City Manager Hooper further explained Finance Director Williams has provided Council with the revenue that will occur for the first three years. Councilwoman Rhodes questioned if the average rate given by Waste Pro was taken into consideration. Finance Director Williams explained in order to develop the model Council is looking at, they devised a methodology which would compare them based off of each customer base as they are right now. He took the average of what each waste management service provider was offering at the time. It was a consideration but it looks at the average overall. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed with Councilwoman Lichter regarding free enterprise. She feels free enterprise is what makes this country run. She has a hard time restricting that for anybody. She understands this wouldn't be that huge of an issue due to Waste Management already having most of the commercial accounts in the City. She would like to hear from the people that this affects. City Manager Hooper stated it is almost always done on a utility service. In a service area, you franchise all of your power to one company, phone is always done as a base service. Your own utilities, we don't allow any competition with any of our utilities. He is a big advocate of private sector free enterprise but when it comes to utility service and efficiency of what a government is going to do, this is really the only way to do it that makes sense. Councilwoman Lichter again felt that a businessman should have been on the committee. Page -13- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 'W ""'" City Manager Hooper stated if Council wants that input, it's not too late. They can authorize a contract, hold a public hearing when we do the contract, and have him sent out 100 letters to the businesses people and let them come in and tell you what they do and don't like. Councilwoman Rhodes had no problem with this. Councilman Brown spoke about finding out the hard way about trucks driving through our City and kids. These people need to be really aware that their trucks need to be built for safety for kids. City Manager Hooper stated they are aware of that but it is an entirely different type of pickup. That will all come back in the contract. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they approve this, and the contract comes before us and we vote against the contract, does that mean this is null and void or will they be looking at another contract. City Manager Hooper stated they are authorizing him to negotiate a contract and show Council what it will look like. If you don't like it after you see it, game over. Councilwoman Rhodes stated if she speaks to business owners and find out most of them don't care, then she doesn't care either. But if they do care, she won't vote for it to go forward. City manager Hooper stated there will be ample time, and if they have some turnout that tells you they are unhappy with this choice or a singular choice that you can stop it. He hasn't gotten a single call about this. Councilman Vincenzi asked again for a summary of how they chose Waste Management over the other two. City Manager Hooper elaborated. There was a brief discussion regarding what was asked for in the Request for Proposals. Councilman Vincenzi stated he has no problem with this but input from businesses would be nice. City Manager Hooper stated they can bring it back so at the public hearing after they negotiate a contract send the businesses notices letting them know when this will be discussed so they can be here to voice their opinions. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to enter into contract neqotiations with Waste Manaqement of Florida and return the contract to Council for approval, second by Councilman Vincenzi. Page -14- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 w ...." Mike Visconti, 316 Pine Breeze Drive, feels this would be a good time to have new containers, different containers, larger containers and with the larger containers, maybe have one pickup a week instead of two. Chris Balmer, 148 William Street, asked how it would affect a business he owns. Currently the City picks up their trash and they come once or twice a week and are billed on the City water bill. City Manager Hooper informed him there would be no change to what he is doing. The MOTION CARRIED 4 -1. Councilwoman Lichter voted NO. Mayor Schmidt pointed out that 99.9% of these are going to be the one man truck that open your gate, pick up your dumpster, dump it and they are gone. He doesn't know of any that Waste Management does that is commercial that is not dumpster in our City right now. City Manager Hooper stated usually they never get out of the truck. Councilman Brown spoke of Southard's having low trucks and bars where nobody can get under the truck. C. Land Development Code - Mark Hall, requesting Council initiate a Land Development Code text amendment regarding Section 21-60.04 - Prohibited Signs, relating to the prohibition of roof signs City Manager Hooper explained this has been before the Code Enforcement Board and they have determined this is a roof sign and determined the violation and extended a period of time for a sign agreement or compliance until January. Mark Hall, representing J. C. Carder, is present to talk about changing of the rules. An appeal of the Land Development Code needs to go to Circuit Court, not Council. Tonight the discussion is focused on if Council wants to change the Land Development Code to authorize or define that it is okay to have roof signs. Councilwoman Lichter disclosed that she took a trip with Mr. Hall to look at various signs in the community, including this one. She thought it was more to do with various confusions in other types of signs as well as this one. She agrees with Code Enforcement in terms of this particular sign. Councilwoman Rhodes asked Mr. Hall specifically what he wants changed. Page -15- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 -... ..., Attorney Mark Hall, representing J.C. & Rosemary Carder, made a presentation on behalf of the Carder's regarding their sign at Belmont Plaza. Attorney Hall went over photographs he took of other signs in the City. He then went over the definition of a roof sign and a marquis sign. The Code Board has found it is a roof sign but they didn't address the question of whether it is a marquis also. Attorney Hall feels it is a marquis sign. Councilwoman Rhodes asked the difference between the sign on Belmont Plaza and Peggy's. Attorney Hall explained the way it is tied into the roof and he isn't sure if it projecting beyond the building's wall. The Code doesn't specifically allow or prohibit the marquis. Councilwoman Rhodes stated so the crux of the whole matter is the word marquis is not in the Code. Attorney Hall stated and that these types of signs that Mr. Carder had permitted when he went through his building permit and had CO'd appear to now be prohibited and the way it is enforced also because you have an amortization clause that is a pretty heavy hammer in the Code. If you are going to be prohibiting roof signs and allowing some marquis signs but not some other marquis signs, it needs to be clarified. They would like a text change in the ordinance and would bring it back in a month or so and continue the Code Enforcement case, which they are in non-compliance with. They did not fine them, they have given them some time. If the Council agrees the text needs some work, they will continue the Code case another three months. He is fairly confident the Board will do that. Councilwoman Rhodes asked what change to the language Attorney Hall is proposing. Attorney Hall suggested the clarification that a marquis sign regardless of which type of roof it is attached to shall be allowed. If you have a flat roof that hangs off the front, that is okay. If you have a pitched roof with a sign on it, that is not okay. Councilwoman Rhodes disagreed with Attorney Hall on that point. It has nothing to do with whether the roof is flat or not, it has to do with the sign being on the front as opposed to being on the top. Attorney Hall stated but in your own definition, if it is beyond the wall it is a marquis sign and it is not prohibited. Councilwoman Rhodes stated if it is on a roof it is prohibited. Councilwoman Lichter stated even if you got a change because there might be some confusion in the wording, that doesn't mean that sign will be acceptable. Page -16- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 ,... ....." There was a brief discussion regarding wall signs. Councilwoman Lichter asked where there is a marquis sign that is acceptable. City Manager Hooper stated all there is is a definition. The marquis sign discussion was never in the Code, it is not approved. It is just a definition that is there. Councilwoman Rhodes feels the problem with the marquis is because it mentions the word roof-like and it shouldn't be roof-like. It should be soffit-like or some other word. Councilwoman Lichter stated they can change the verbiage and still the sign in discussion would not comply with that. Attorney Hall stated it could if it were built on the edge. Attorney Hall stated it's not a question of what we subjectively like, it is the definitions, which he feels there are problems with. Councilman Vincenzi feels they shouldn't do anything with this tonight and they should consult the City Attorney on the possibility of rewording and what the implications are. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed. City Manager Hooper stated tonight the Council can't change anything except they say they want to consider it and staff can bring them words. The real bottom line is the Council is being asked to say Mr. Carder's sign is acceptable. Councilman Vincenzi feels it looks terrible and he would love to see it down but according to the definition, that might be a marquis sign. City Manager Hooper stated but it is still a roof sign and a marquis sign and that is the problem. That could be a roof sign and a marquis sign but roof signs are not permitted. Councilman Vincenzi feels Attorney Hall has a point that is probably arguable. He feels the definition of a marquis sign is questionable. Councilwoman Lichter feels they are after an appearance to this community to upgrade its look to attract good businesses. Page -17- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 'W ....., Councilwoman Rhodes spoke of signs that are on the face of the building, not up on the roof. While she feels Attorney Hall has a point that because this says roof like structure and that is certainly a roof type structure and that sign is further out than the wall, she feels he is trying to stretch the meaning of marquis, because that wasn't their intent when it was written. She doesn't think anybody could look at it and think it was their intent, but if they can then they need to change that and they need to change the wording. If they don't intend for a marquis to be on a roof, then the word roof shouldn't be in there. Councilwoman Lichter reiterated that they could take three months and change this and it may not affect the situation with this particular sign at all. City Manager Hooper stated tonight they are being asked if it lS their intent to somehow authorize that or a remaking of that. Attorney Hall stated the problem is he has one code case left. He had four but three have been solved. When they go back to the Code Board Thursday, he is in non-compliance and they will probably fine him and they will probably appeal. Councilman Vincenzi stated that is a separate issue. Attorney Hall stated if the Council says yes, see if you can work something out as a proposed text change, then he can go to the Board and say they would like another three months, and he thinks they will agree with them. Otherwise, they are going to be in Circuit Court this time next week. Councilwoman Rhodes stated the only text change they are talking about is taking the word roof-like out of the marquis definition. Attorney Hall stated all they are trying to do is exhaust their administrative remedies. City Manager Hooper confirmed both Attorneys have looked this over. Councilwoman Rhodes feels until it is settled, Mr. Carder should not be fined. City Manager Hooper explained Code Enforcement has issued that he is not in compliance. He is asking Council if they are willing to change the rules. Attorney Hall stated there aren't that many properties that are affected like this, probably one or two. Page -18- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 'W' """" City Manager Hooper explained there is a sign agreement on others and out of 36 in non-compliance, they have gotten most of them in compliance. There is only one other roof sign that is not in compliance. Councilwoman Rhodes questioned if they go to Code Enforcement and Code Enforcement fines them, they have recourse to corne to Council. City Manager Hooper informed her no. Councilman Vincenzi stated they would appeal to Circuit Court. Councilwoman Lichter stated she feels as if the Attorney and his client feel if they change the words, it will not just give an extension but change the sign situation. She is perfectly willing to say this one word needs to change. She will not change her idea about the sign itself. Councilman Vincenzi stated he would be willing to entertain discussion about changing the wording but he would not be willing to entertain the idea of saying marquis signs are acceptable. The intent of the Code is to clean up the City and make it look better and more presentable and attract business. Attorney Hall stated there is no argument that it looks terrible. No one more than Mrs. Carder wants this to be cleaned up but he is hamstrung because another part of the Code says it can't be altered, moved or repaired in anyway except in full compliance with the terms of this article, Section 21-64.01(a). Councilwoman Lichter asked if it would hurt to say they will look at it, talk it over with the Attorney change a word or two as long as they have the understanding it may not change the designation of the sign. City Manager Hooper feels that avoids the question that is being asked. The question is can they fix it in some format and stay on the roof. Councilwoman Lichter and Councilwoman Rhodes stated no. City Manager Hooper stated his answer is that it comes down, you make ground signs, you do pole signs, you do good things to make it look better and they will sign an agreement that gives him a period of time to corne into compliance. Attorney Hall stated his answer is always he's got 28 spaces, 14 tenants. They are trying to put ten pounds of pole sign into a three pound box. Three pole signs will not take fourteen tenants. That is the practical problem there. He can't change any of these tenant signs because staff is understandably taking the position that it can't be altered. Page -19- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 ...., w Mayor Schmidt stated but it can be taken down and the proper ground signs can be erected. Attorney Hall stated and then he gets sued by his tenants. Councilwoman Rhodes asked why individual signs can't be placed on the face of the building with nothing on the roof. Attorney Hall stated the windows are pretty tall. He stated then you go with neon and asked if Council would prefer neon. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if you could letter the windows. She would prefer neon to the existing. Attorney Hall stated and some people don't. It's not an ad hoc type decision. The City has a Code. Councilman Brown stated the only way he could see that could possibly be a marquis is if it was brought down to the very front of that store and enclosed and made it look like that was the existing roof line back. He still doesn't like that idea and doesn't want it to be that way. They ought to be able to put signs in the front to be in compliance with the rest of the City. Attorney Hall stated and he would be willing to do that. Attorney Hall suggested wording that any marquis must be on the face of the building. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that is what a typical marquis is. Attorney Hall stated the definition is problematic. Councilwoman Rhodes stated personally when you say marquis she doesn't think of it being on the roof. It's not problematic for her. Attorney Hall feels it is better to deal with it legislatively now then judicially. He stated so what we are saying is we will work with staff in a month or two, bring a definition back and Mr. Carder will take his lumps no matter how that definition comes out and then they will go to the Code Board Thursday and say we would like a three-month period. Councilwoman Rhodes stated what they want is more time. Attorney Hall stated absolutely, to develop a text change because the definition has problems. Councilwoman Rhodes stated if taking roof-like out of that definition gets you more time, go for it. Councilwoman Lichter asked our process of taking out a word. City Manager Hooper elaborated on the process. Mayor Schmidt stated taking those two words out, doesn't fix that at all. Even as it stands, that is as least permanent as anything can be. Surprisingly it stood up to three or four hurricanes. Provides protection against the weather. What does that provide protection against the weather to? Page -20- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 ~ ...." Attorney Hall explained it is beyond the building's wall, designed and constructed to provide protection. Their argument is that the soffit underneath provides protection. Mayor Schmidt stated when you come down to it, all that is is an eyesore that our Codes are trying to intend to get rid of. Attorney Hall stated their position is if it is rebuilt and perhaps brought to the drip edge, it would look just like Berry Joe Payne's sign or any of the other flat roof marquis signs, or what City Manager Hooper is calling a wall sign. Councilwoman Rhodes stated if you took that sign and nailed it along the front soffit of that building, you would have a marquis. Councilman Vincenzi asked why they would want to go through all that effort anyway. Attorney Hall stated it is mostly for the tenants and visibility, which lS a classic problem with signs. Attorney Hall stated this property has been in existence for twenty-two years and was fully permitted. Mr. Carder was issued tickets from Code Enforcement, which cited him for this. That was the first indication he had that this sign was prohibited by the City's Code. They have got this due process argument too they are going to develop if they have to. Councilwoman Lichter asked if letters were sent out when they changed the sign ordinance. City Manager Hooper stated the Code was put in place in 1997 and no letters went out. It allowed an amortization period and it got modified. In February 2004, everybody got a warning that their sign today is not in compliance, which is the same letter Mr. Carder received. Councilwoman Lichter asked how long after the warning they had to do something. Attorney Hall stated one month. Councilwoman Lichter stated four people are saying aesthetically it does not look right and somehow the word roof can come out and somehow something better be done to make it took safe. She likes the flat signs and she isn't sure that could ever be a marquis sign. Councilwoman Lichter stated if Attorney Hall's intent lS to go back to Code Enforcement and tell them there is going to be a word change, that he can safely do that. Page -21- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 '-' ...., Councilman Brown asked Attorney Hall if it is their intention to take the signs down and replace them or keep the existing sign. Attorney Hall stated to rebuild these signs. If it has to be brought to the front of the building, to do that. That is the intention. Mr. Carder says it is wavy and the whole thing needs to be freshened up. City Manager Hooper stated he is still talking above the roof line. Attorney Hall spoke of this already being in existence since 1983. There was a brief discussion regarding the sign at Chick-Fil-A. Councilwoman Rhodes stated we are sticking to the definition of roof sign and they are sticking to the Code. In her opinion, the existing sign doesn't comply. She feels City Manager Hooper and Code Enforcement are more than willing to work with Attorney Hall to give them more time. Their intent when they passed the Code was that there were no signs on the roof. City manager Hooper asked Council if they are willing to chagne the Land Development code and if they are willing to redefine a marquis sign. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to look at the marquis definition in the Land Development Code and see if it needs to be revised, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 4-1. Mayor Schmidt voted NO. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they have any other situations like this. City Manager Hooper commented on there being one other that there is a roof sign that has entered into a sign agreement. Sign agreements go to Planning and Zoning and eventually come back to Council. This is on the agenda for the 24th to take a roof sign down at the No Name Saloon. Peggy's is down. Myron's is down. He knows of two that are still in the City that they are in the enforcement action. One is on the little market on Park Avenue and the other is at 30th and India, where Rich's used to be. City Manager Hooper further explained no where in the Land Development Code does it approve a marquis sign. You see what is prohibited and approved and marquis is never mentioned in the Code except the definition. Councilwoman Lichter and Councilwoman Rhodes both agreed the definition of marquis should be taken out. Page -22- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 'W v D. Engineering Services - staff recommending Notice to Award contract to Universal Engineering Sciences for building plans review and inspection services for an amount not to exceed $77,000 for Phase I construction of the Edgewater Harbor Project City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation. Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve the Notice to Award contract to Universal Enqineerinq Sciences for buildinq plans review and inspection services for an amount not to exceed $77,000 for Phase I construction of the Edqewater Harbor Proiect, second by Councilwoman Rhodes. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. E. Ratification of FOP Union Contract - staff recommending adoption of the Fraternal Order of Police Agreement as negotiated City Manager Hooper made a staff presentation and went over the changes to the FOP Union Contract. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she read all of it and if she was a cop, she wouldn't have ratified either. Councilwoman Lichter referred to Page 5, where it states "or in conflict with state or federal law" and questioned if those should be spelled out where they are. City Manager Hooper stated no because that could change. Councilwoman Lichter then referred to Page 15, where it states "placed on paid administrative leave". She questioned how that change came about when before it was "suspended without pay." city Manager Hooper elaborated. Councilwoman Lichter referred to Page 50, the last paragraph. This needs to be removed because the paragraph starts again on Page 51. Councilwoman Lichter then referred to Page 55 - the last paragraph regarding the one-time lump sum payment of $325. She asked how they came up with that. City Manager Hooper explained what has occurred. Page -23- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 'W "'" Councilwoman Lichter questioned Page 16 and the comment "split- the-baby". She asked if that is a common thing to say. City Manager Hooper explained that came from our legal attorney's labor attorney's view of that. Councilwoman Rhodes would like to see the proposal to FOP when it comes up and the other union contracts as well. City Manager Hooper elaborated on how that would work. Councilwoman Rhodes feels once it gets to this point, there is no point in questioning anything in it. City Manager Hooper agreed to show it to Council before it comes before them in final form. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve the adoption of the Fraternal Order of Police Aqreement as neqotiated, second bv Councilman Brown. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 10. OFFICER REPORTS A. City Clerk Wadsworth had nothing at this time. B. Paralegal Matusick had nothing at this time. C. City Manager 1) Cancel/Reschedule meeting of February 21 due to President's Day City Manager Hooper commented on needing to have some work sessions to discuss goals and objectives for 2005, reclaimed water, and urban growth to the south. After some discussion, the Council agreed to hold a work session on February 9th from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. with pizza. The meeting for February 21st was canceled due to President's Day. 11. CITIZEN COMMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE There were no Citizen Comments/Correspondence at this time. A. Tentative Agenda Items There were no Tentative Agenda Items to be discussed at this time. Page -24- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005 '-' ""'" 12 . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman Rhodes moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page -25- Council Regular Meeting January 10, 2005