Loading...
01-28-2006 - Workshop ~ CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER WORKSHOP JANUARY 28, 2006 9:00 A.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Thomas called the Workshop to order at 9:00 a.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Michael Thomas Councilwoman Debra Rogers Councilman Dennis Vincenzi Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes Councilwoman Judith Lichter City Manager Kenneth Hooper City Clerk Susan Wadsworth City Attorney Paul Rosenthal Paralegal Robin Matusick Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of the meeting was to discuss possible Land Development Code amendments. Mayor Thomas commented on how he planned on running the meeting. There was a silent invocation and pledge of allegiance to the Flag. City Manager Hooper stated today there are a couple of subjects. As you indicated and did very well and very clear, he thought the Land Development Code was what the Council had asked to talk about but a little bit of old business and that is we have received a letter from Mr. Storch asking to be reheard, reconsider, you kind of fill in the blanks on that but he would like to go back on the agenda for completion of the 1M that they heard, the 16- story condos. Liz McBride handed out to Council the letter that came from Mr. Storch asking to do that. He believed Mr. Rosenthal had talked to each of them and there is some Page 1 of 1 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 ,... fuzziness. As they recall there was a motion to approve it that failed, which means it did not move to a second public hearing. The motion to deny didn't occur so at that point they are taking the stance, they being the developer, that there was not a motion to deny it. He thought there were some record clean up so his advice to the Council and City Attorney Rosenthal was going to address it in more detail, to place it on the agenda, re-advertise at a first reading coming up and hear what they want to hear of it and then make their motion as they so please to move on it, dispense of the item and either move it to a second reading or deny it but deny it and put it on the record with cause and why they are doing that. City Attorney Rosenthal stated essentially he guessed for future reference too, when an applicant has a matter pending before the Council, if they have a motion to approve, which fails basically the application is still before the Council. Any other motions are still in order at that point be it to deny, to continue, to approve with some modifications or whatever else might be appropriate. If they don't take any other action then they are kind of left in never-never land as a Council with the applicant still sitting out there, the rights of the applicant are a little ambiguous so their recommendation would always be that if they want to dispose of it, either end it with a denial or with some type of approval. Also the Code requires that they have certain findings of fact in connection with their actions. Just say on a historical basis if a developer is before them and they are approving it and they are happy, the developer is happy, and the public is happy, probably nobody is really caring the extent to which they got all the i's and cross all the t's on following their procedure but if they have a developer or an applicant before them and they are denying it he thinks from the standpoint of the protection of the City it is important that they make sure they have followed their codes and that there aren't any procedural issues which might be a basis for overturning the decision. So in this particular case if the intention of the Council is to deny, they would recommend that they work with staff and us in terms of developing some specific findings consistent with the Code so that any decision in that regard would be unlikely to be overturned by a court. Today is a workshop so they couldn't take any formal action today and because it was a public hearing it did need to be readvertised. His recommendation is that they don't just throw it in at Page 2 of 2 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 the next meeting and that they give sufficient time for them to work with them to make sure that there is an appropriate record established. So he would say they want to at least give themselves a month. Particularly, he thinks when they hit publication deadlines, it is probably going to be the first or second meeting in March until he thinks they are able to get it back to them in a procedural form and he was happy to work with anyone of them individually in terms of crafting whatever motions they might feel would be appropriate when it come back before Council. City Manager Hooper felt February 27th or March 6th were the dates far enough out to work with staff and City Attorney Rosenthal to put the record the way they would like the record set. Councilwoman Lichter stated to City Attorney Rosenthal that those reasons to vote no have to somehow apply in our Land Development Code, it can't be contrary to her or something. She asked him to explain this better to her. In other words, roads are not built yet on east-west for example or she doesn't trust the pictures taken, are those reasons or do they have to appear in the Land Code, when someone votes no and gives a reason? City Attorney Rosenthal informed her this might be somewhat relevant to their discussion today. Everything they do needs to be consistent with their Charter, their Comprehensive Plan and their Land Development Code. As legislators, they have the authority to amend or propose amendments to their Charter, amend the Comprehensive Plan and amend the Land Development Code. Obviously a Land Development Code amendment needs to be consistent with the Comp Plan and all of those need to be consistent with the Charter. Councilwoman Lichter asked if that included the PUD's. City Attorney Rosenthal informed her even the PUD's. He further stated as they go through that process when they are acting as legislators amending the Land Development Code for example, they have very broad discretion. If it is fairly debatable, two people sitting in a room might have differing opinions and your opinion is A and their opinion is B, your opinion controls. For example if they wanted to adopt a provision which restricted height within the City in the Land Development Code in certain zoning districts, they have very broad discretion to do whatever they want in that regard. If they adopt a Code provision however that establishes a maximum height and then they want to make somebody go lower Page 3 of 3 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 than what the maximum height is in the Code that becomes a little bit more problematic. That doesn't mean they can't do it. Then when they have proceedings before them such as rezonings and subdivision plans or site plans, they are acting not totally as legislators at that point. They are now then acting it's called quasi-judicial proceeding. Sort of as judges looking at the evidence so if they had a hearing and they had a staff report with a recommendation for approval for example and none of them said anything in the record and nobody in the public said anything in the record and the only thing in the record was a staff report recommending the approval, then that's the competent substantial evidence. There would be nothing there to support a denial and if they denied it then that decision would likely be overturned, which isn't to say they can't put contrary evidence in the record and then what they do as sort of semi-legislator judges is weigh that evidence. Obviously there is a lot of subjectivity in this but what they want to do is take action in a manner that makes it unlikely that a court would overturn their decision should anyone choose to take them to court. Obviously most of the time they don't get taken to court but they want to protect their decisions and the City's decisions, they want to act in that regard to the best extent they can. City Manager Hooper stated he didn't think it was by accident that Mr. Storch used the words competent substantial evidence. He asked City Attorney Rosenthal to brief the Council about what they needed to do and what that means to them. City Attorney Rosenthal stated he has not personally looked at any of the facts of this case and he didn't want to talk about this particular case at this point in time. Competent substantial evidence means basically the testimony in the record. They can put together a different session if they want to and sort of go through what is or isn't competent substantial evidence. There are lots of cases out there. Staff reports are competent substantial evidence. Testimony of a traffic engineer and engineering firm likewise would be competent substantial evidence. Testimony of citizens sometimes is, sometime isn't. It depends on the particular subject matter. Council's testimony can be competent substantial evidence. It's obviously very fact specific. Sometimes they can get evidence in the record to support both sides. Sometimes you might look at it and say, well there's not a lot of Page 4 of 4 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 good evidence on the other side. Most of the time they can find evidence to support both sides if they work at it but that requires some advanced notification but he thought working with staff to make sure they have the right information they need to accomplish whatever goal they want, obviously staff not knowing what the majority of the Councilmembers are going to provide in that direction. His personal approach is as an attorney and with all of them as his client, if one of them wanted to talk to him about how to get something approved, he would tell them how to get it approved. If on the same issue, one of them wanted to know how to get it denied, he would give legal advice on how to get it denied and then they are the ones who get to vote. City Manager Hooper pointed out that Liz was handing out the agenda through April 17th. There were many unscheduled events. He was looking for direction to re-advertise the first hearing and rehear that on March 6th. Mayor Thomas asked City Clerk Wadsworth to research the records for them. He wanted from where this first started from the beginning on the change of the rezoning. He believed it was in August. He wanted how it unfolded and the Council comments and the minutes of the meetings. He felt this would help City Attorney Rosenthal with the evidence. City Manager Hooper informed him that was in their package. When they receive the first reading all of that history is there. The property has not been rezoned. That is what was in front of Council last Monday night. The only thing that has occurred is the property has been annexed and the land use amendment went through last year to change it to high density residential. Those are the only events on this property that have occurred. City Attorney Rosenthal explained when they annex land and establish Comprehensive Plan amendment, the County zoning remains in place until such time as they adopt initial zoning. The initial zoning has not been established with respect to this particular property. Councilwoman Rogers questioned it being zoned currently for R5. City Attorney Rosenthal informed her it is zoned whatever the zoning was in the County at the time of annexation under the County Land Development Code. Page 5 of 5 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 Councilwoman Rhodes questioned part of it being zoned commercial. City Manager Hooper commented on it having mixed zoning. He recalled for Council the reason they suggested they continue the rezoning. City Attorney Rosenthal explained with the Comprehensive plan Amendment in place as a matter of law they are entitled to a zoning classification consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that doesn't necessarily mean they are entitled to a PUD zoning classification because there would be a variety of zonings, which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Thomas asked City Clerk Wadsworth if she understood exactly what he was requesting. He wanted the exact wordage, verbatim. He asked if she would be able to get the information by March 6th. City Manager Hooper stated she would have time and that they would work with her to make sure that occurs. He also commented on a work session with Mr. Storch and the property owners. If they would like they could also have that transcribed. Councilwoman Lichter and Councilwoman Rhodes wanted the work session transcribed. City Attorney Rosenthal informed Mayor Thomas he would also talk to staff to make sure whatever the work product is that on that schedule there is sufficient time for everybody to look at it. City Manager Hooper asked if he was hearing March 6th as a consensus. City Attorney Rosenthal informed him he would need to have that as a vote at a Council meeting setting the date. City Manager Hooper agreed to place it on the next agenda to set the work session for March 6th. Councilwoman Lichter asked if a consensus is considered a vote. City Attorney Rosenthal informed her it was not a vote. City Manager Hooper commented on there being an old version of the Land Development Code done in 1997 that the City used use to operate with. When he got here in 1998 a review said it was pathetic so it was tossed out. They hired a consultant to update it. Staff has updated, some of the current staff but mostly himself. This was updated in July of 2000. They have had a progression ever since of an annual update to match changing conditions. They have added gateway standards. They have added impact fees, mandatory impact fees. They have added fire criteria. Page 6 of 6 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 Every year there is an update to either add something that the legislature has changed, add something that Council has seen change in a community and they wanted to address it, such as gateway standards and what they have done to protect SR442. This Code is probably the most current in Volusia County. It is very stringent and very strict. Their discussion with him, either one on one or as a group, has been that they are looking for some architectural standards, a universal height standard and a minimum lot size standard and there may be variety of other things that he wasn't sure they were looking for. The purpose of today was to discuss those from Council's point of view and what they want staff to review and research and prepare. His caution is changing this Code sounds simple. That's a two public hearing process. Some things they change in the Code are dictated by the Comp Plan. There is a hierarchy. They have a Comp Plan that is a huge blueprint umbrella of how the City works. Then they get more focused on details with the Land Development Code, which describes every zoning category they have. They have height restriction. They have a lot width restriction and then it tells them how the PUD works. He described for them that they control what PUD agreements come back to Council. The Code addresses those. It has standards for how a subdivision is platted, for site plans, how they are approved. It has drainage requirements and those drainage requirements will be updated. They have been writing the new, more modern drainage requirements and restrictions in the PUD documents. They will become incorporated in our next update, which is scheduled for May, which is the next major update. He mentioned Senate Bill 360 and 444. Those are all nice things to talk about but the City's Code covers 95% of those things already in place. The only thing truly lacking is school concurrency. The School concurrency, which has a mandate, goes into effect in February 2008. He spoke of serving on a Committee working on how this will be implemented back into the Code. They are working on a regional plan with the School Board. He needed direction on things Council wanted to consider doing or things they wanted to change or open up for debate or discussion. Sometimes he doesn't understand what as a group the Council wants until it is there. He asked Council to tell him what they want to change in the Land Development Code. Councilwoman Lichter asked if there is another layer of government besides the two voting on this, the two public hearings, does it have to be approved by another level of Page 7 of 7 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 government? City Manager Hooper informed her no and commented on the process. He then mentioned on the steps subdivisions goes through and at each point they are entitled to get stronger. The whole process has to be defined so everybody coming to the City understands the rulesJ the same rules for everybody and they are clear. Councilwoman Rogers felt that as City Manager Hooper mentionedJ everything he mentionedJ were concerns. Architectural standardsJ the lot widthsJ height restrictions and the gross density verses the net density. We have different types of land in the City and she believed that when they have land that is uplands that they should have a certain minimum lot width and that it should be different then when they have a low land type of property. She suggested that they have a minimum lot width for the uplands of 75 feet. When they have low lands and there are different types of low lands from what she was understanding they have some that are considered wetlands and some that are low lands. They are different. One has a muck type of soil and one just has different layers of hard pan. She suggested that when we are dealing with a wetland or a low landJ that they have a minimum of one house per acre. The reasoning for that is that the property will have drainage issues and why she feels that they need it bigger is so that the neighbors are not draining on someone elseJs property. Hopefully with one acre of property they can have a building and be able to create the swales or some kind of ditch effect around the perimeter to help with the runoff so it doesnJt affect their neighbor. As far as the height restriction goesJ she was going to propose 50 feet height and then they have to be careful because they have residentialJ they have commercial. What they are dealing with as far as the rezoning of River OaksJ she was thinking it was an R5 but itJs several different zoning classifications right now. From the conversation or from the developerJs comments the other eveningJ it made her think it was already R5 for some reason because he talked about scraping the landJ slating. City Manager Hooper informed her the portion in the County was R5. They have some industrial and some commercial. It has a mixture. Mr. Lear thought what they were saying was that they could go to a City R-5 and would be entitled to at least a regular zoning of R-5 in the city and then they would have a max of 35 feet. Page 8 of 8 Council Workshop January 28J 2006 Councilwoman Rogers stated something she noticed on the difference between an R5 and RPUD in the Land Development Code, is there are various things that can be built in one that couldn't be built in the other. Then there are many similarities but the biggest difference she found was in the RPUD it allows for a marina. So that's something they need to consider too as far as the impact because if they are allowed that will that affect some of these single- family residents that live and have property. She didn't believe so because the manatee protection plan does allow those people to have docks. But she thinks it will limit them in the future so 50-foot height restriction is what she was going to propose and say perhaps for it to be on an R5 and RPUD type of a property. She didn't know if she would want to propose that restriction for commercial at this time because they don't know what the future is going to bring. They don't know yet as far as what they are going to do for City Hall or any of these other types of buildings. As far as architectural standards, she was just saying that they needed to have further discussion in the City as to what they want the City to represent, what do they want to be? Do they want to be just known as concrete slap the houses together, no style, no design? Do they want to look traditional? They need to have more comments about that. As far as the gross density verses the net density, she thinks that where they have gotten into some trouble is especially on these low lands or wetland properties. It sounds good when somebody says four units per acre but by the time they get done subtracting things like retention, environmental constraints, etc. they are down to these 50 foot wide lots. She was wanting to prevent that so she was going to need more assistance from Mr. Lear's Department on the gross verses the net density. Do they come out and say they don't want the net density to go beyond this limit? Development Services Director Darren Lear informed her they would need to change the Comprehensive Plan as well because that is where it states gross verses net. Councilwoman Lichter stated that she was perfectly happy actually and wished to keep their option to vote in the PUD. She thinks each land should be considered separately. Every land has uniqueness like every person. Right now they do have 35 feet in the rest of the City. She asked if that was correct. Development Services Director Lear informed her 26 feet for single family and 35 feet for multi-family. Councilwoman Lichter stated by putting it up Page 9 of 9 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 to 50 feet, they are raising that standard so she was talking about leaving it flexible. PUD's are excellent because they can decide themselves what they want, soft lands, high lands. She was also in favor of having each land, each unique project decide the width of the project, the width of the development parcel. She lives in a parcel where there are 50 feet houses in front of her property. Her width is 50 feet and seniors choose those. She left three acres of land and she misses that kind of space. She knows in this day and age that some people want 50 feet. Some projects deserve 55 feet and some deserve 75 feet. She wanted to leave that flexibility in the PUD's because each lot is different. She thinks they have a very good system now and do not need to find that much need for change because there are so many steps along the way where these projects are reviewed, especially in terms of water. Especially in terms of wetlands so she is quite satisfied. She thinks it is an excellent Code and they do well to give the flexibility. She then went back to this idea of one acre. Some projects certainly deserve an acre. In terms of her three acres, she was allowed to have horses but she sees where there is very progressive communities where there are horse holders and what they do now instead of each parcel having an individual land and needing three acres, is have one barn which everyone in that project shares. That's a way to save land and she was perfectly willing to see the pluses of that type system. She does not want to generally be able to change what the County has to a lesser or more density. She believes if it's possible they should try to stick with what the County has. People have a right to buy land and people have a right to come in front of Council and she likes the flexibility and doesn't want that to be a set rule in our City. She wants people that are middle income to be able to afford to come to the City. They must be able to have our teachers and our policemen live here. Every time they make a lot 50 feet wider, they are eliminating some people from buying in this day and age so she really thinks that the Council and Planning and Zoning haven't quite listened to them all the time. She has been brought up in the past for saying she didn't listen to it. They don't always listen to it. They didn't right now in terms of the towers but she thinks that they should be listening to Planning and Zoning as much as possible and have the flexibility of PUD's, which she feels are excellent. She is more familiar with water and wetlands and she knows that St. Johns puts the clutch on anything that isn't right but she doesn't think anyone's Page 10 of 10 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 talked about the wildlife. There is no one that's more concerned about the life of some of our species that have been wiped out and she thinks with the PUD's and all the steps they go through that they ought to be a little more concerned about that. She is quite frankly the environmentalist in this group that gives money to every environmental concern there is and she was very concerned about our environment. She thinks if any project leaves more land open that's what she would be looking for. She is in favor of smart growth, most of the concepts in there, but they even have to be flexible but she really believes in the smart growth concept and would like to incorporate those wherever they can. Mr. Lear referred to the table from the Land Development Code that shows each zoning district and minimum lot widths, depth and heights that are in those zoning categories right now. Mayor Thomas confirmed with Councilwoman Lichter that what she was saying was that she was in agreement and didn't want to change anything. Councilwoman Lichter stated that basically she was in agreement. She thinks that their emphasis could change a little and they could be more cautious. Mayor Thomas asked if they had a map of the City that shows the Snowden and McCaskill property. Councilman Vincenzi thinks that the Codes they have in place are much better than they were in 1997. He thinks Mr. Hooper has done a lot of upgrading. He did think there was still room for improvement and that's where they get into the process of stumbling along, approving developments, finding out what mistakes they made and then tightening up the Codes even further. He agreed with many of the recommendations that Councilwoman Rogers' has put up, the architectural standards, the lot widths, and the heights. He was not too sure about the height. Fifty feet is good for a maximum. The thing that he was concerned about was the RPUD's. He thinks they are necessary however he thinks they can be designed better. He thinks they give the City flexibility to do things that they would otherwise not be able to do. He thinks that the restrictions need to be built into it. In other words, when the City goes and negotiates an RPUD with a developer, it's not a total negotiation. There are some things they can do and there are some things they can't do and he thinks those restrictions need to be built into an RPUD before they even Page 11 of 11 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 get into the negotiating process. What the restrictions were, he wasn't sure right now. They need to discuss that. Possibly lot widths, possibly many things that Ms. Rogers' said, height restrictions, but just build it in there so they can't cross those lines. He thinks many of the problems they run into are with the RPUD's that are negotiated. They are good in one aspect and bad in another. He thinks they need to discuss those aspects and see how the RPUD process of negotiating an RPUD can be modified so it's tighter. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed with Councilman Vincenzi to a point. She didn't have a problem with any of this. She liked the 35-foot height restriction that we have now. She liked the flexibility in an RPUD's. She hates for them to cut their noses off to spite their face and put everything so iron clad that they don't have any leeway in or out. There are things that come up like non-conforming lots and they are there and they have to deal with them on an individual basis. She agreed with Councilwoman Lichter in that respect. She agreed with minimum lot widths but not 75 feet because she would like to give them some flexibility. Another thing that she would like to see is that Council have a goal setting session workshop so that they can all get together and decide a vision for the City. When they have that vision for the City then maybe these things will fall easier to determine. She agreed with having things in writing with the RPUD's that gives them a structure to it because she is in favor of all things for the most part being equal for all people and she thinks that does that but she also wanted to keep the flexibility of an RPUD because not everything falls under one umbrella. Mayor Thomas stated he has been to the smart growth seminars and they are talking about clustering, saving wetlands and saving uplands. He feels this is clustering. He stated that one thing in the Land Development Codes is the protection of the well fields. He spoke of having well fields by the logging road. If a log truck has an accident that is going to spill a lot of diesel fuel. Do they have a plan B on our water? All this is very wet. The McCaskill property has a high sand ridge and then you've got your wetlands. He commented Crane Swamp being a very large wetland that belongs to the Miami Corporation. A wetland is nothing but a sponge or a filter, which goes into an aquifer that will benefit our wells. On the Snowden Annexation, the back side is Spruce Creek Swamp, Page 12 of 12 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 which is nothing but a big drain, which eventually goes into Cow Creek, which goes into Deep Creek, which goes into the St. Johns River. This is also a sponge, a drain. He then pointed out the lowlands. It is supported by Cypress hedge, hundreds and hundreds of Cypress hedge. That is what we have to be particularly careful of in our future if they are going to protect our water system, our future water system for them to drink. If they have ever been down to the Keys they have got a water line that's going down, they have to pump their water from up in the Miami area. He doesn't want to have to do that. He wants to protect our water system. He pointed out where he didn't think one-acre lots were going to be big enough. He thinks 2.5 acres lots at a minimum or if they wanted to cluster around an upland and make sure there is some green or wet, then that's fine but they need to be very concerned with their future of being able to breathe our clean air and to drink our clean water. People take this as nothing and they have to do this. If they don't, they are not going to survive. The human race is not going to survive. They can take this as a direction of how they want to use it but they need to be very concerned on this. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if that workshop was Monday evening. City Manager Hooper informed her they cancelled it. What the Mayor was talking about is the Snowden piece. The owner is going through a Development of Regional Impact, which defines his impacts to the environment with regard to traffic and water. That will come to Council but it is twelve months away. That is not their plan to date. Closer to reality is the McCaskill piece. There is a master plan that has been submitted to the City that is making its way through the system. They will see it. It is not a DRI. It is slightly below that threshold. It's a mixed use of high density and commercial at the interchange. Councilwoman Lichter asked which project they went over with the County. City Manager Hooper informed her that was the Snowden piece for the annexation. He spoke of working with the County on the McCaskill property on the land use amendment. It also has not been rezoned. It is sitting there with an agricultural type zoning for the most part coming through the system with a land use amendment. Those will be back before Council. It will come in as a PUD. Page 13 of 13 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 Mayor Thomas asked if they could negotiate in regarding a Plan B in case something happens. Hooper informed him they have probably done a than that by securing additional sites. the future City Manager little better Councilwoman Lichter stated they could also enhance, enlarge or probably do something with their present ones. Mr. Lear commented on wellfield protection zones that are established in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code City Manager Hooper explained what Mr. Lear was defining was they have an area, a radius around that they can't build on. They have that around each well and along the wellfields. Mayor Thomas called a ten-minute recess at this time. The meeting recessed at 9:50 a.m. and reconvened at 10:00 a.m. Councilwoman Rogers stated that in reference to the flexibility, especially with the 50 foot wide lots, etc. for seniors, she believes that was a good comment that was made and she would like to further add that they should indicate if the residential community is going to be seniors that the 50 foot wide lots could fit into that but as far as blanket across the whole City, she was still of the belief that they need to have a minimum 75 foot for the uplands. The comments that were made in reference to the Snowden piece, the one home per 2.5 acres, that was something they should also consider. She felt they should indicate that if something is going to be used for senior living or something along those lines, then a smaller lot would be acceptable but they would also have to say in regards to if it were an upland. She doesn't think seniors would want to be having housing out in a wetland area. As far as the comment about the flexibility, if she understood this correctly, from the comments from Attorney Storch's letter, basically they need to have the competent substantial evidence. In other words, to support if they continue to deny the condo project. If they did have a 50 feet height limit for an RPUD, would that not be considered competent substantial evidence? City Attorney Rosenthal informed her that they would not need competent substantial evidence because then their underlying Land Development Code would set a maximum height. It would be just the lot. Page 14 of 14 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 Councilwoman Rogers stated that so they wouldn't have an opportunity to present what they are trying to present to them? City Attorney Rosenthal informed her that would be correct and that that would be prohibited in the City. Councilwoman Rogers stated so when they are talking about the lack of flexibility, they need to make sure that what they are doing is to protect the City as a whole from these types of development coming to them. If they don't have something in there, then they are not protected and it would be based upon the votes of the City Council. City Attorney Rosenthal informed her that was correct. City Manager Hooper clarified it was once the Code was adopted City Attorney Rosenthal stated they get into grayer areas, when they have a particular application obviously which is pending before them and they haven't adopted the Codes. So they are really talking about future projects should that type of amendment be adopted. Councilwoman Rogers stated she has been mentioning since she has been on the Council that they need to think, where do they want to be, what does the City of Edgewater want to represent so that would all go into line of a vision. From that point they need to go back and have an opportunity to have a workshop discussion scenario with some of the items in the Comp Plan as well because wouldn't the vision be in the Comp Plan? They have future land use maps. It also designated the zoning for those areas as well and so she thinks they need to have further discussion on that. Councilwoman Lichter wanted to mention something in terms of architectural standards. She thinks there is a lacking of a historical district and a lacking of concern for historical buildings. Having a whole City looking the same is very offensive to her. She thinks it is the right of a developer to be creative and for people to be more conservative in their taste, more traditional in their taste, as she is or more modern and the whole development might be that way. She would hate to see standards set that uniformed the City. That would not be part of her vision and the City certainly should have a vision. When she was a Councilwoman up north, there was a bid on for a historical district. There were beautiful colonial homes in there etc. They thought the people involved in the historical district would jump at. They didn't want the restrictions on their property and it was voted down, of what color paint to use, what the outside should look like Page 15 of 15 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 etc. She feels they best be very careful on what they mean by setting architectural standards. Basically she has expressed quite frankly when she spoke before, some of her pros as well as her cons and she sticks by that. Vision doesn't bother her at all. She thinks there is one thing they left out of the discussion and that is where they abut or touch other communities and the County. She thinks visions have to almost match or they have to be responsible. There are some communities that over lap and have a question of services and they have to be addressed. They have written in the plan what she thinks is generally good smart growth that there will be green areas and that they have to be cognizant of them on both sides, whether it's County and City working together or two cities working together, she thinks that should be part of their vision. When they do this vision, she would like maps that look more like the WAV maps and not more like the smart growth maps where they can't tell where one City starts and where one ends. She does think that the idea of a vision be it very late, she wished they had a vision for Riverside Drive when they started it because there are some very non- conforming lots and there are some lots that cannot access to the streets. There are other places in their rather old community where there are different types of vision in the south part of the community, where there was no vision actually. She thinks it's almost three fourths through the process of development unhappily and they cant change what's there but she doesn't mind them thinking about the wetlands, high lands, lowlands, water potential and certainly of our neighbors. She thinks that it's important to try to work with their neighbors on all sides. Councilman Vincenzi stated he interpreted architectural standards as being standards that people should go by, not necessarily meaning that they should design buildings the same or that everything has to look the same. It's just architectural standards and criteria in general. He had a problem with the comments about the minimum lot sizes. He hears developers all the time come up and their justification for 50-foot lots are there is a market for it. He didn't necessarily see the need to design developments with 50-foot lots because someone will buy them. One of the few reasons he has heard that might justify 50-foot lots is that a senior person may desire it because they are getting older and they don't want to maintain property and what not. That to him would be an acceptable reason to allow small lot sizes, if it is in a Page 16 of 16 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 senior community. Just because there is a market for it to him it's not justification for a 50-foot lot. He was willing to talk about minimum lot sizes in certain cases under certain conditions but the justification put forth by the developers was not good enough for him. Other than that he just wanted to reiterate the fact that the RPUD's need the good ideas but they need restrictions and they need lines that the developers just can't cross and that's what he was going to be pushing for. Councilwoman Rhodes asked on 442 they have architectural standards do they not? City Manager Hooper informed her they have gateway standards that include architectural standards. Councilwoman Rhodes asked why she was thinking they adopted them to the City? City Manager Hooper informed her they defined for them at the time that they were going to do them along 442 and at the next update of the Land Development Code they would be doing them along the u.s. #1 corridor. They are working on that. Frontage roads, arterial like u.s. #1 and SR 442 is where they start. Standard aren't meant for houses as much as they are for business commercial or the change to business commercial. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that she would agree in that scenario. A large part of the Land Development Code is there because people can't be good neighbors. You have a beautiful house and you keep it well maintained and your neighbors have got crap everywhere. A lot of those rules are there to help prevent that. But she is also of the opinion that her land is her land and the government needs to keep its nose out of it, as long as she is not breaking any rules. As far as architectural standards, that's such a broad definition that she has. If they get into more specifics then she could tell them yes or no, that she was in favor or not in favor. But as it stands now, she was not in favor of it for residential areas. She was in favor of it for commercial areas because once again some businesses are bad neighbors. Gross density verses net density if that could be put into the Comp plan that they go on net density, she would be happy with that. She already told them what she thought about minimum lot widths. She didn't have a problem with the lowlands or the wetlands, one house per acre, make it one house per two acres, she didn't care. She cared but her point was the more they can do to preserve those lands, she was in favor Page 17 of 17 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 of. Height restriction, residential, like she said the 35- foot height restriction that they have now works for her. She had a problem with commercial because there is land that the hospital owns that they are going to want to build on it. She didn't know that they should restrict a hospital. She knows they shouldn't. She thought that's already counted for they hope. City Manager Hooper informed her the hospital would come to them as a public/semi-public PUD. Councilwoman Rhodes stated as they grow rather than those businesses falling out, it would be her preference to see them go up. If they need five stories to accommodate their level of business, she doesn't think that should be restricted or she thinks that should be higher. She thinks commercial height restriction should be higher. She thinks the residential height restriction should stay the same. She thinks they should have a goal setting workshop because not only does that give direction for the Manager, it gives direction for their Planning & Zoning Board, Economic Development Board and Code Enforcement Board. They all rely on Council to give them some standards and some leadership. Mayor Thomas commented on how fragile this piece of property is. He spoke about remembering driving from 44 to Possum Camp Road and the water being deep the whole way. If they go out there right now it's dry. But they have to be very careful on how this is developed. He was sending a message to Mr. Hooper on the future of this. When he first moved up Edgewater, they didn't have roads and sewers. They had their septic tank in the front yard and they had their well in the backyard. Our wells are here for the whole City so they don't want to have a septic tank out here. He was talking about pollutants such as pesticides, fertilizers and the whole deal. So this needs to be developed very carefully. He thinks there needs to be another set of standards on the other side of 95. That's just a suggestion. This is a semi fragile piece of property with the backside being close to the drain. In our drainage now, this Turnbull Hammock, they are utilizing it right now free of charge. This actually goes into the Indian River and they are using this to drain into the Indian River, which he was not happy about. But it's been here a long time before he was. He thinks the goal setting of the future needs to be discussed. He wants a quality of life in Edgewater, not quantity. They've got the new annexations with the 50-foot lots and they've got Florida Shores with 80 X 120 foot lots. They've got pretty good Page 18 of 18 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 variety right now and that's why he would like to see this with a bigger lot size. And when you have a quality development that is going to invite quality people to join them and not everybody is the same. When everybody goes to the beach, some people like to go where it/s really crowded and some people like to go where there it/s semi crowded and some people like to go where there isn/t hardly anybody. He thinks they can provide a quality of life through future visions. Councilwoman Lichter stated that she really wanted to emphasize that the County in their year summary didn/t mention one thing about water safety. She wasn/t talking about the quality of water. She was talking about terrorism and vandalism. At the last WAV meeting she brought up with the new plan, there was not one mention of terrorism or vandalisml which did happen. Vandalism happened in a City on the west side of this County. She thinks that in any way they can protect their wells and their water supply, she will put that input into WAV and City Manager Hooper with the Managers and Environmental Services Director Terry Wadsworth with the TAC Group. That subject should be brought up. 1t/s being slighted over but in biblical days, when they wanted to conquer a citYI they got to that well supply and that really bothers her that she hasn/t heard a word about the safety of it. City Manager Hooper commented on agreeing with Mayor Thomas regarding there being a variety of lots and lot styles for everybody. His resistance to much of what Council has said is they want no SOlS, not 60s1 and a minimum of 75 or some numbers. He was resistant to tell them that was smart growth. 1t/s not. They need a variety of optionsl financially and size and lifestyle. He spoke of coming up with a set of plans that will match new development. He thinks their idea of something west of 1-95 with a different standard is exactly where it is headed. He then commented on drainage and a new set of drainage rules that will not allow some of the things that have been done in the past. He then commented on the drainage in Florida Shores being put in after the subdivision was built and the subdivision having to be retrofit. He then commented on Councilwoman Rogers' comments regarding net density verses gross density. City Manager Hooper then commented on the 50-foot as far as height. They have that generally in every zoning condition Page 19 of 19 Council Workshop January 281 2006 they have. They still have the right of every PUD that comes in front of them to restrict that height. He then commented on setting some standards and setting some policies. He then spoke of uplands and lowlands and having something to identify. He proposed that they don't have any development below the lOa-year and that they don't allow compensating storage. He spoke of Volusia County being a rural county going through the urban transition. Part of the struggle is annually they update the Code. They make these giant strides. Some of the frustration is they don't communicate well enough over some of the strides that they have made and they have folks that are upset about the rapid growth that they can't stop. He spoke of the Council controlling what they have control over. City Manager Hooper pointed out that Councilwoman Lichter described in essence no change to the current Code other than a few tweaks to it. He wasn't sure what Councilman Vincenzi wanted. Councilman Vincenzi pointed out he wanted restrictions on PUDs. He doesn't want them as loose as they have been. He wants the ability to negotiate and he wants certain criteria and certain lines that developers can't cross. City Manager Hooper informed him they have that. They just need a clear communication of that. Councilman vincenzi wanted it written in so it could not be negotiated. City Manager Hooper informed him they could do that by saying there is a maximum height and a minimum lot size. By doing that they have stripped away the Council's power to do that, not his. If they come to town with a very good deal, they may want to trade some of those things, which are incentives. Councilman Vincenzi felt maybe they needed to see the RPUD's in a public meeting before they come up for a reading. City Manager Hooper felt that was a good idea. It's as simple as communication. If they talk to him he can tell them what he is negotiating. City Manager Hooper then commented on 50-foot lots. He lives on a 50-foot lot. There is nothing wrong with those. He's not an old guy but he is older and he hates to cut grass and he thinks there are a lot of people in the City that like that. He spoke of having a variety of lot sizes and lifestyles. City Manager Hooper then commented on architectural standards. He spoke of it being made mostly for Page 20 of 20 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 businesses. He spoke of having no standards in the Shores due to not having a Homeowners Association. Everything that has come to Council lately has been a PUD. He commented on these being negotiable. He wanted them to understand that benefits them. Councilwoman Rhodes stated say they have a workshop on a PUD and at that workshop there is a consensus of the Council on PUD and then they get to a Council meeting and the Council votes against the PUD, does that workshop count against them as competent substantial evidence? City Attorney Rosenthal informed her no, it does not count against them until they get to a public hearing when the public has an opportunity to come before them and give them their input and all the evidence. All the totality gets put together and they are not bound. If they had a workshop with a developer and they have a consensus and the developer has spent substantial sums of money putting together a plan, which the developer believed to be based on that consensus and they deny it, they may have an unhappy developer before them. He thinks from the standpoint of what he would call just fundamental fairness, they want to be clear in terms of direction they are giving but until they get to the public hearing they can do whatever they want to do. Mayor Thomas asked City Manager Hooper what he was thinking about changing? City Manager Hooper informed him the net density. He would bring them something back over heights and the ability to have minimum lot size. Those were the three areas they talked about. He referred to tweaking drainage. He spoke of architectural standards. He wanted to show them some of the things that are done in the other cities and counties over restrictions of PUD's. Some places have minimum sizes and they can't be smaller than 20 acres. Some have a mandatory requirement that it has to be ex-percent commercial. The minimum heights and minimum lot widths they were going to discuss. Mayor Thomas asked if another set of standards could be put in place on the other side of 1-95. City Manager Hooper informed him definitely. It needed to be clear and defined in the Code. Mayor Thomas confirmed City Manager Hooper would bring it back in front of them and then they will vote on it. City Manager Hooper thought it would come back to them more than likely in a work session where they will Page 21 of 21 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 tell him which ones they want to do. Some will require a Comp Plan Amendment and some will require a land development code. He further commented on the process. Councilwoman Rogers stated when she was talking about architectural standards, she also doesn't want to have everything looking alike and she didn't indicate that. But just where we do need to discuss that further. As far as the height, she did make mention that it shouldn't be for residential. She does understand that have a 35-foot height in place. She did mention she didn't want it for commercial. What she was getting at was the RPUD or the zoning designation where a condominium could come in. She meant point blank they do not want 190 feet tall condos. They don't want 100 feet tall condos. She knows that that property if these people don't do condos on it and they do townhouses or something along those lines, that it's not going to 50 feet tall. She was aware as the future of the City goes that banks, commercial buildings, etc. will have height that will perhaps exceed the 50 feet. Her hope is that it wouldn't but either way she was not trying to say let's be so stagnant that they are saying no to that. She was just trying to say go to condo. Councilwoman Lichter suggested they could try encouraging developers to no use so much grass and a different type of grass. The grass they are using takes too much watering in people's eyes. She spoke of other types that might be better. City Manager Hooper informed her those were things within their standards and they could certainly adopt those. The County adopted the minimum standards to that effect and they could expand on those to do conservation. Councilman Vincenzi wanted to wait and see what City Manager Hooper had to offer. Councilwoman Rhodes wanted to set a date for a goal setting session. It was the consensus of Council to have a goal setting session on February 6th at 6:30 p.m. Councilwoman Rogers asked if it was possible for them to talk about the voluntary impact fees at the workshop. Get more explanation and understanding and just talk about it. It happened very fast at the meeting Monday and she wants to feel very comfortable in her decisions and wants to get better educated about that. City Manager Hooper suggested they separate the two due to the time it will take for the Page 22 of 22 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 goal setting. He commented on the way it has been done in the past. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could set an alternate date for the February 6th work session in case Mayor Thomas couldn/t make it. Mayor Thomas agreed to look at his calendar as soon as he got home. City Manager Hooper told Mayor Thomas to let him know if it didn/t work for him on February 6th and they would pick a new date and contact each of the Councilmembers and work out another date. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could get a list of the last set of goals. Mayor Thomas confirmed that City Manager Hooper had what he needed with regard to the Code I which he did. Mayor Thomas stated they would talk about the big vision on February 6th. Councilwoman Rogers asked if at that time they could talk about what she had mentioned and she wanted to elaborate. There are other terms for voluntary impact fees and other ways they can get developers to pay for impact whether it be them increasing what the mandated development fees are so it looks more uniform. There is a lot of room there. There are a lot of things they need to discuss. She has been doing some research but there are some other terms she has come across. She asked if they could talk about that at the goal setting workshop and set up another time specifically for that. She has also gotten information and spoken to an attorney in regards to different types of fees. City Manager Hooper suggested the Council meet one- on-one with himself and Mr. Lear to talk about what they have done in the pastl what are development fees and what are impact fees. That is a very detailed subject. Councilwoman Lichter felt impact feels that are not required should come after they decide on a project and call it a contribution. City Attorney Rosenthal informed Council they do have the authority to have City initiated land use changes to the Comprehensive Plan and City initiatedl let/s call it down zoningsl so to the extent they are saying they don/t like the way the Code applies to a particular piece of land and they have a landowner who is entitledl what can they dOl an alternative answer to amending the Code is City initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the land use map. City initiated down zonings. He couldn/t tell them they could Page 23 of 23 Council Workshop January 281 2006 successfully do that in every circumstance because it depends on what entitlements, if any, a particular piece of property has. If they have a piece of property with a Comprehensive Plan designation and a zoning but nothing in the City, no agreements, no nothing sitting there with the City, as part of the visioning process, they have some flexibility in that area to initiate processes. This is not that commonly done because usually they have a little bit of a fight with the property owner if they talk about down zoning their property but that's within their prerogatives. In terms of the PUD process, a potential mid ground to some of this discussion on amending the Land Development Code is an adoption of some policy guidelines, which are presented to the staff, which they do not have the authority to deviate from. Let's just say hypothetically if it was the maximum 50-foot height RPUD they could adopt as a policy of the commission as opposed to an amendment to the Land Development Code that for whatever reasons, the policy of the City is that RPUD's won't be more than 50 feet in height and these are their reasons and that establishes a record and that gives them a legal basis to deny anybody that wants more. Staff comes in. A developer says he wants 70 feet. The developer and staff know that's not within their prerogative to negotiate or even suggest they have any authority to negotiate. But at the same time, that leaves them as the elected body should they choose with the authority or the ability to negotiate that because it's a policy, not something in the Code. To the extent they have concerns that staff is going off in a direction on some of these negotiations different than what they like, they might have sort of a policy shopping list. These are the parameters. Staff knows it. The developers know it. If somebody wants to negotiate it, they know they are going to have to come to Council and have a workshop or some type of forum with the elected officials. The potential benefit of that is they haven't prevented themselves from doing something that they might later decide they want to do. So that's just something to throw out there as possible discussion. City Attorney Rosenthal stated in terms of the low lands and uplands discussions. Typically from a Land Development Code, he would say that is not terminology that they would frequently see in a Land Development Code, telling developers what they can do or not do. For example, in Edgewater if they want to be on a one acre lot, that property is zoned RT, Rural Transitional, so if they have Page 24 of 24 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 land that they want only one acre lots on they have the authority to do that. If it is Comp Plan Low Density Residential, they don't need a Comp Plan amendment. They can zone it RT. Not that common in urban, more common in the County. But that's their prerogative. They don't need to amend the Land Development Code if they want to do something like that. City Attorney Rosenthal then commented on the 100-year flood plain issues. They can be more restrictive then the Water Management District in terms of what they allow in the wetlands and the environmentally sensitive lands. As City Manager Hooper mentioned, he does represent another governmental entity that has very restrictive regulations. Every developer walks in, they shake their head and when they first adopted and they didn't believe it and then they understood but essentially no development in the 100-year flood plain, no compensating storage. He wasn't saying that's good or bad but he was saying that those are alternative options, which don't necessarily involve rewriting all of these provisions. It's an overlay they might find it. If they do some of those kinds of overlays, they ultimately get them to the same objective that they are trying to accomplish. Changing the wording in this Code will not necessarily get them what they are trying to accomplish so they need to make sure they are looking at the bigger picture. Mayor Thomas opened the workshop up for public comments. David Dacar, New Smyrna Beach, has an architectural engineering branch office at 203 S. pine Street. He has about a 15 man office, with his main office in Tampa. For the last 13 months now he has been working through the development process in the City of Edgewater on a project he is doing for the Elks Club and they are getting close. He thinks they are getting pretty close to getting things done. The other day he read in the newspaper this little article about the City turning down $140,000. He read through it and after reading it he decided to come here and express some concerns and observations. He has been through the process with the City now for almost a year and maybe he had something to offer. First of all, he thought it was wonderful that they turned the money down. He thought that was an honorable and good thing to do because when he read through the article they have this thing called negotiated volunteer money. He was trying to Page 25 of 25 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 understand exactly what that meant because he has been part of this process. He went through Black's Law dictionary and he read something and it said the obtaining of property from another induced by or under the color of official right. He asked City Attorney Rosenthal what that definition would be. City Attorney Rosenthal informed him it was called an exaction. Mr. Dacar asked what that meant. City Attorney Rosenthal informed him there was legal and illegal exactions and that is fact specific. Mr. Dacar thinks it is important that the same rules apply for everybody. He thinks it's extremely important that when they are talking about large sums of money and property that it's all above board. Extremely important. Someone just mentioned that if someone gives money, do it after the fact, not prior to. Mr. Dacar then commented on architectural standards. He was an architect. He has been practicing for 30 years now and he is also an engineer. His company does both. Thirty years ago, he was involved in a place called Worthington, Ohio and the company he was working for was DL Rinkus Associates, which he became a partner of later on. They were doing a lot of McDonalds and Wendys. Worthington had the toughest architectural standards he has ever experienced in his life. He thought those people were way off the left hand. If they look at that town and how it has developed, it's beautiful. Land values desired by people who want to come there and live. They took their standards and they applied them in certain ways, especially towards the commercial properties. McDonalds came in and they wanted their arches, etc. They went to court, Worthington went to court and Worthington won. They were happy after the fact. They were extremely happy. The McDonalds that was built there was one of the most pleasing buildings he has ever seen. It tied everything together. Worthington started as a very small community with really nothing. It had no character, it had a very small downtown but it took that downtown and it expanded it out to the point that if they would to go to that town today, they would drive around and see modern buildings. They did some of the nicest office buildings that they could have imagined there and they were very modern with a lot of glass. They had to file their architectural plan to some degree and it did tie the city together. It was a very attractive city and something that they might want to take a look at it. Page 26 of 26 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 Mr. Dacar stated City Attorney Rosenthal was a very impressive man. He has been to several of these meetings and he thinks they have a good guy here and a very good attorney. City Manager Hooper thought what Mr. Dacar was talking about was the right-of-way on Park Avenue. Greg Blose, Director of Government Affairs for the Volusia Home Builders Association, 3520 West International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona Beach, stated he was very concerned and that's why he was attending this meeting on a Saturday. He thinks a lot of his comments were going to reflect concerns that the City Manager has. When they talking about requiring a minimum lot size of 75 to 70 feet, whatever the number is, implementing building height requirements, talk about implementing architectural design standards, they are moving away from smart growth and affordable housing and encouraging sprawl. The Volusia Home Builders Association was one of the major stakeholders in developing the Smart Growth Implementation Committee report. They came together and a lot of people say the homebuilders really aren't worried about the environment but there are a lot of really good ideas about the environment in that report. The reason they have been so in the background on this is because when the Homebuilders come out for something people get concerned. But he thinks there are a lot of good ideas and a lot of really good environmental things that the City could do that make more sense then the path that they are heading down. He has heard a lot of people talk about being concerned about the environment. He thinks it's environmentally dangerous. They are going to start doing 70-foot wide lots. They are going to develop land faster then they ever thought they were going to before. He wasn't going to go over smart growth. They had a presentation. He was here that night. They know what it is and their concerns are when they start talking about restricting building heights. When they start restricting the size of a lot, they are not going to get that cluster development that is so key in the smart growth report. As far as the 50-foot lots are concerned, he heard some comments about that and he was just going to touch on the affordable housing really quick. The reason why the development community goes for 50 foot lots is because they are more affordable than 75 foot lots and they put these developments together not because they are going to sell great but it's because the cost of building a new home is Page 27 of 27 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 going up so much and the cost of land is increasing so much so fast that they need to build these homes for policemen, firefighters, teachers, government employees. That's the reason they are trying to put these together and that's the reason why every time they hear about the increase in lot size, they get concerned about it. Port Orange did the same thing that Edgewater is doing right now about eight or nine months ago. They were really involved in that and he's concerned because he attended all of their meetings. You go here and you tell a group of elected officials about some of the decisions and the path they are about to head down and how it affects affordable housing and the working family in Volusia County in Edgewater. And at that meeting they just didn't care because they didn't take the necessary actions and they didn't have the vision to look and see that it really did have that type of an impact. The cost of a house in the News Journal of an existing house is $225,000. We are almost at a quarter of a million dollars for a medium house. Imagine what a new home is. They are getting to a point where the regular people in this area are not going to be able to afford to build let alone a new house but they aren't going to b able to afford a decent house that exists right now. Mr. Dacar then commented on architectural design standards. It's the VHBA position and it always has been that they let the market dictate the design of the home. Not everybody can afford exactly whatever they have in mind and he knew they were still trying to figure out what that is. But that's really their position on it. They are going to handcuff their options and the same thing with the lot sizes. They are going to handcuff the type of development options that are going to be coming to them if they are talking about increasing the lot sizes and implementing architectural design standards and that's really their concern. He knew the Council didn't say they were going to do smart growth. He knew Deltona recently turned it down. In his opinion if they continue to go down the road that they are going down, then forget smart growth and they may not officially come out and say that as a body but they might as well in his my opinion and they can disagree with that and that's okay and he really respects their opinions. Mayor Thomas stated on the 50-foot lot size and smaller lot size, that's fine on uplands. But they can't do that on wetlands but most of the uplands are gone around here, the buildable. He thinks they have approved just about Page 28 of 28 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 everyone that what they felt was buildable. But that's not going to work on the other side of 95. John Cordeiro, 1515 Pine Tree Drive, asked City Attorney Rosenthal how long he had been the attorney for Edgewater. City Attorney Rosenthal thought his law firm would have been for six years now. He knew when he first used to come to these Council meetings and workshops, he used to be here and all of a sudden he just disappeared. He thinks they need him here. Councilwoman Rhodes stated he wasn't here. City Attorney Rosenthal informed them it was Scott Cookson. Councilwoman Rhodes stated even he wasn't there all that time. Six years ago when the previous Council was elected, they were paying an attorney $125 an hour to sit in that seat for two or three hours on Council meeting nights and then whatever to be the City Attorney in the office. It saved us almost a hundred thousand dollars a year to not have an attorney sit here but yet they are able to have an attorney sit there when they need him. That was a savings for the taxpayers and that's why they did that. Mr. Cordeiro didn't think it was a savings in the long run. He thinks the Mayor and Council need to hear someone like City Attorney Rosenthal. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they can hear him anytime they want to. Mr. Cordeiro stated they stopped paying, because they didn't want to payout that money but in the long run he believed they ended up paying a lot more than not paying the attorney. He hears some things from City Attorney Rosenthal that makes sense and he thinks the Mayor and the Council need to hear someone like him. Mayor Thomas stated it's all on how you look at it too. Evidently he made the mistake the other night that may cost them a lot of money in the long run. If he was sitting there and could have instructed him to do something then they may not lose that money. Mr. Cordeiro agreed with Mayor Thomas. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they still had an Attorney for Code Enforcement. She asked if it was the same firm. City Attorney Rosenthal informed her no. Page 29 of 29 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 Councilwoman Lichter stated generally she agreed with Mr. Blose. She was very aware of smart growth and felt it should apply where it needs to apply. They have to be flexible applying it but many of their ideas have been around longer than they thought. She remembered Jack Hayman sitting up there many years go saying they need all types of housing, all size lots, talking about clustering before it became a popular word. Back when she was on a City Council elsewhere years ago, they had a development that was clustered with open spaces around. So it's really not a new concept and it can be very, very flexible. But when you get a group of people from such diversified backgrounds that served on that Committee, Mayors, environmentalists, builders and agriculture, every representation of this County coming up with a toolbox. In that toolbox may not be everything they need all the time but they better pay attention to it or they will have sprawl. Councilman Vincenzi stated Mr. Blose stated that it was his opinion and that's how he feels. He didn't necessarily agree with everything he said. Smart growth has some good principles. It's also got some principles that are twisted and manipulated by developers and he thinks that's what they have to be on look out for. Councilman Vincenzi stated another comment that the gentleman made about affordable housing. Someone has yet to give him a new definition of what's affordable. He doesn't see any 50-foot lots, 75-foot lots or anything being sold by developers for under $225,000 to $250,000. Is that affordable? Probably not by the average person any more. But that being said he was looking forward to the goal setting session and to adopting whatever changes and recommendations and guidelines that may come out of it to make Edgewater a better place to live. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could get the paperwork from their last goal setting session. City Manager informed her what he would be providing to them. Smart growth, maybe they should have another workshop and take the smart growth package and take it piece by piece and make a decision as to what parts of it this City is interested in retaining as part of their vision and what parts of it they don't want to be implemented or maybe they want all of it to be implemented or maybe they don't want any of it to be implemented. She thinks they all need to Page 30 of 30 Council Workshop January 28, 2006 decide what that is. She read the Smart Growth Initiative and pretty much agreed with most of it. There was only one part that she didn't agree. She didn't think they needed to trade off density for it. Other than that she agreed with most of it so she would be interested in finding out what parts they are talking about that they don't approve of or don't like. Councilman vincenzi stated he liked all the principles. He thinks the principles are manipulated by developers to maximize their profit. Mayor Thomas then recognized Tracey Barlow. He wanted him to comment on the letter he wrote for the grants concerning the hurricane shelter. He thought it was really good and he forgot to mention that the other day and he wanted Council to be aware of Plan B. Fire Chief Barlow stated what the Mayor was referring was a letter he sent to the County Emergency Management Director in reference to a letter of support in consistency of a County initiative to provide more hurricane resistant structures that they could utilize for an Emergency Operations Center. Currently they are submitting through the Emergency Management Preparedness Act grant, EMPA, for grant opportunity to construct such a structure west of 1- 95 or in the area of 1-95 and SR 442 that they can utilize for an Emergency Operations Center. It's a shot at a grant and they did receive the letter from the Emergency Management Director of the County that states that it is consistent and he supports that project. Mayor Thomas stated that he thought the letter was very well written and he appreciated it and he thinks they need that and that's something they may need to negotiate with those land people out there to get some property for that. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman Rhodes moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page 31 of 31 Council Workshop January 28, 2006