Loading...
06-19-1995 - Regular ..... ~ CITY COUNCIL 'OF EDGEWATER REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 1995 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Hayman called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL: Mayor Jack Hayman Councilman Danny Hatfield Councilwoman Louise Martin Councilman Michael Hays Councilman David Mitchum city Attorney Krista storey city Manager George McMahon city Clerk Susan Wadsworth Police Chief Lawrence Schumaker Police Lieutenant Bucky McEver Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Excused Present INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The invocation was delivered by Rev. Dr. Bill Sharp, Christian Life center. There was a pledge of allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Reqular Meetinq of June 5, 1995 Councilwoman Martin made a motion to approve the June 5, 1995 minutes, second by Councilman Hatfield. The motion CARRIED 5-0. CITIZEN COMMENTS REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS ONLY (Other than public hearinqs) There were no citizen comments at this time. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilman Hatfield Councilman Hatfield had nothing at this time. Councilwoman Martin Councilwoman Martin had nothing at this time. Councilman Hays Councilman Hays had nothing at this time. councilman Mitchum Councilman Mitchum had nothing at this time. Mayor Hayman Mayor Hayman had nothing at this time. .... ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Public hearinq Ord. 95-0-06 Amendinq section 19-1 (utilitv deposit. service charqe and transfer fee) Mayor Hayman presented the background of Ord. 95-0-06. Mayor HaYman read Ord. 95-0-06. Mayor HaYman opened the public hearing. City Attorney Storey entertained any questions Council may have. There were no questions. Mayor Hayman closed the public hearing. Councilman Hatfield made a motion to approve Ord. 95-0-06, second by Councilman Hays. The motion CARRIED 5-0. B. Public hearinq on Davenport/Rio Casa development aqreement Mayor Hayman explained the quasi-judicial hearing proceedings. city Attorney Storey asked that memo 95-72 be incorporated into the record. She stated she would provide that in the package to the City Clerk. Mayor HaYman opened the public hearing. city Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath to Community Development Director Mark Karet. Mr. Karet presented his credentials. He informed Council the applicant has reduced the number of units he is proposing to build from 10 to 9. Mr. Karet presented the background for the proposed development agreement and explained the contents included in the proposed agreement. Mr. Karet went on to explain the agreement calls for a rezoning and because the agreement proposes to rezone the property from R1A to R4, staff has gone through the process of addressing each of the criteria that have been established in section 6.04 of the Land Development Code. He explained the criteria for Council at this time. Mr. Karet commented on an illustration that was included in the packet as part of the LDRA report. Mr. Karet continued to elaborate on the criteria included in the proposed agreement. utilities Director Terry Wadsworth was administered the oath. Mr. Wadsworth presented his credentials. Mr. Karet asked some questions pertaining to the existing water and sewer systems further down on Riverside Drive which were answered by Mr. Wadsworth. City Engineer Kyle Fegley was administered the oath. Mr. Fegley presented his credentials and his responsibilities to the city. Mr. Karet asked some questions pertaining to the capacity on Riverside Drive and if it could handle additional traffic volumes which were answered by Mr. Fegley. Page -2- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 "-'" ..", Mr. Karet continued to comment on the criteria beginning with number four. Mr. Karet called on Mr. Fegley to answer questions regarding stormwater and pollution issues. City Attorney storey reminded Mr. Fegley he was still under oath. Mr. Fegley answered the questions presented to him by Mr. Karet. Mr. Karet continued to comment on the criteria beginning with number seven. Mr. Karet stated staff feels the applicant's request is reasonable and Council should consider approving the development agreement and the first reading of the rezoning ordinance. Mayor Hayman informed the audience it was time for questioning. He reminded Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. Fegley and Mr. Karet that they were still under oath. Mayor Hayman stated they would begin questioning with the Council first, the applicant, persons in the notice area and then the general public. Councilman Hatfield questioned the map and Lot 3 being in the B-4 section and Lot 7 in the R-1A section. He asked what are on those properties at this time. Mr. Karet informed him Lot 3 is the Riverview Apartments. Lot 7 is a single family residence. Councilman Hatfield questioned if directly across the street there are single family residences. Mr. Karet informed them there are. Councilwoman Martin had no questions. Councilman Hays questioned the request being changed from 10 units to 9 units but maintaining the existing footprint. Mr. Karet informed him that is the request. Councilman Mitchum had no questions. Mayor Hayman had no questions. Mayor Hayman called on Mr. Davenport or his representative for questions. He asked that Attorney Hal Spence be administered the oath. Attorney Spence questioned if a lawyer has to be sworn in. City Attorney Storey stated unless he is providing actual factual testimony, it wouldn't be necessary to swear him in. Attorney Hal Spence, representative for Buddy Davenport, 221 N. Causeway, New Smyrna Beach agreed with staff. Attorney Spence asked to present their side of this matter related to all three issues at one time and let evidence or testimony stand over for the rezoning as well. Mayor Hayman called on the notice area for questions. Mr. Karet explained the notice area being the people who received registered mail indicating this matter was going to be considered. Mayor Hayman read the mailing list for the notice area. Astrich deperry, Attorney for Mr. & Mrs. Vopelak, introduced herself. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Page -3- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 .... """" Attorney deperry questioned when the application was received and the nature of the application. Mr. Karet stated the actual application was received 10/20/94. He stated there is a paid stamp dated 3/7/95 which he explained. Attorney deperry asked when the application was deemed complete. Mr. Karet stated when this was originally initiated there were no formal application requirements and there was no formal determination as the current LDR's require. There is an indication in his file in May that a warranty deed had not been submitted which was the only item asked for. He had a warranty deed in his file but there was no stamp that indicated the exact date upon which it was received. Attorney deperry asked if the application was deemed complete sometime in May. Mr. Karet stated on May 11th there is a letter that asks for a copy of the warranty deed for the property and that was the only item that was indicated as not being within our file. Attorney deperry asked if an application was received for a comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Karet stated not a separate application for a comp plan amendment or a rezoning. It has been the city's past practice when those have been required with development agreements that they have been bundled together for the purposes of expediting the applicant's request. Attorney deperry asked if the city ever advertised a notice of change of land use as required by F.S. 163. city Attorney storey asked to be sworn in due to her giving factual testimony. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. City Attorney storey stated as part and parcel of the advertisement for the development agreement, that advertisement contained a reference to the fact that a land use change had been requested. Pending the determination by this Council as to whether Ord. 95-0-08 would go forward on first reading, that would then constitute the City's public hearing on the comp plan amendment at which time the City would comply with the statutory requirements under Chapter 163 and our own Land Development Code in terms of advertising that proposed land use amendment. Attorney deperry asked for clarification that there has not yet been any separate duly advertised notice for a public hearing on a land use amendment. City Attorney storey informed her that is correct because no public hearing has been held up to this point. Attorney deperry asked if the City has issued a sign for posting the property for a land use change or a change of zoning. Mr. Karet stated there has not been a posting on the property. Attorney deperry stated later on she would be referring to certain policies in the City's comprehensive plan and she would like to establish that she took the copies out of these documents and asked for clarification that these documents indeed constitute the duly adopted comp plan for the city. Mr. Karet stated there are two documents that comprise the formally adopted comp plan. The first was the original draft which was prepared by different consultants and transmitted to DCA and a response document which responds to DCA's objections, recommendations and comments. Those two adopted together constitute the comprehensive plan. Attorney deperry stated she had no more questions at this time but asked to be able to ask questions at the end of the matter. Mayor Hayman asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in the notice area. There were no further questions. Page -4- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 '-" """II Mayor Hayman asked for questions from the general public. Doris Hill, 112 Lincoln Road, introduced herself. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Ms. Hill asked Mr. Karet why the traffic count was not taken sooner when the people were here and the traffic was here. Mayor Hayman informed Mr. Karet he did not have to answer that question. Dominick Capria, 606 Topside Circle, introduced himself. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Mr. Capria commented on the LDRA voting 3-3. He expressed concern about not hearing from the LDRA on the affirmative and negative votes. He feels information should be coming to the public from the LDRA to help them understand what is going on. Mayor Hayman clarified Mr. Capria's question being why the LDRA is not making a presentation during these proceedings to justify their position for a 3-3 split. City Attorney storey explained the proceedings of the LDRA constitute a portion of the record. The Council has received the minutes from the LDRA's hearing. She commented on two separate public hearings being required in a development agreement. Mayor Hayman explained the applicant has the opportunity to make a presentation for Council. Attorney Hal Spence was administered the oath by city Clerk Wadsworth. James R. Davenport, 106 Grandview Drive, New Smyrna Beach, was administered the oath by City Clerk Wadsworth. Attorney Spence stated he doesn't like the way the courts have come down with rulings where these types of hearings have to be done. He feels they are cumbersome and they don't necessarily give the public the opportunity to petition their Council. Attorney Spence stated they would like to make a short presentation and they have several persons they would also like to have testify after Mr. Davenport. Attorney Spence stated Mr. Davenport was counting on a 10 unit project, however, they thought that by dropping it to nine units that all of the questions and technicalities would be eliminated as it relates to the comprehensive plan amendments. He explained Mr. Davenport agreed to go with nine units instead. He commented on the work done by Mr. Davenport on the Windview project next door to the location being discussed. He turned the presentation over to Mr. Davenport. Mr. Davenport presented his background and credentials. He commented on the Windview project. He commented on the extensive planning that was put into the proposed project. Mayor Hayman stated if there is no further presentation, there would be questions from the Council of the applicant. Councilman Hatfield had no questions. Councilwoman Martin had no questions. Councilman Hays had no questions. Councilman Mitchum had no questions. Page -5- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 ...... ...", Mr. Karet commented on their being no posting on the property for a rezoning or a comprehensive plan amendment as a separate item. He asked was there any posting on your property identifying that this property would be subject to a development agreement. Attorney Spence stated to the best of his recollection, he remembers seeing a sign on that property but he did not specifically get out and read what it said. Mayor Hayman asked if there were any more questions from staff. There were no questions. Mayor Hayman asked if there were any questions for Mr. Davenport from the notice area. There were no questions. Mayor Hayman asked if there were any questions from the general public. Carolyn Goins was administered the oath by ~ity Clerk Wadsworth. Ms. Goins asked Mr. Davenport what the height will be of the proposed project as opposed to the Windview project. Mr. Davenport stated to the best of his recollection the maximum height of the Windview town homes is approximately 35 feet. The height of the proposed project will be between 25 and 28 feet. There was a five minute recess at this time. Mayor Hayman asked if there were questions from people in the notice area. Mayor Hayman stated they would go back to applicant presentation due to Mr. Davenport wanting people to speak on his behalf followed by questions from people in the notice area. Attorney Spence stated Ken swaine, state certified Residential appraiser, was present and he looked at the surrounding real estate appraisals and made some opinions related to that. Ken swaine, 2938 Silver Palm Drive, introduced himself. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Mr. Swaine presented his credentials. Attorney Spence asked Mr. Swaine if he had taken a look and made an analysis of the real estate values related to the Windview project before and after the construction of the project and if so, what results did he find. Mr. Swaine elaborated on what he had done. Attorney Spence asked Mr. Swaine if he has an opinion as to whether the proposed project would have a decreasing or increasing effect on real estate as a result of this project. Mr. Swaine feels the project would have no negative effects on the neighborhood. It is possible property values will continue to go up but there should be no negative effects from it at all. Attorney Spence asked Lois Kane and Roland Bazin to step forward. Attorney Spence presented Mr. Swaine's resume to City Clerk Wadsworth and asked that this be made part of the record. Lois Kane, 2031 S. Riverside Drive, introduced herself. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Attorney Spence questioned Ms. Kane who explained she has no problem with the proposed project. She feels it would be an improvement. Page -6- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 ~ ....." Roland Bazin, 1909 S. Riverside Drive, introduced himself. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Mr. Bazin commented on 1909 S. Riverside Drive being the Windview Town homes. He feels the proposed project would enhance the beauty of the area and expressed support for the project. Attorney Spence asked Mr. Bazin where he lived before moving to Windview. Mr. Bazin informed him he lived at 1014 S. Riverside Drive. Attorney Spence spoke about the testimony of Mr. Davenport regarding him seeking to build to a market of some that might want to give up lawn maintenance and asked Mr. Bazin if that had any applicability to him. Mr. Bazin informed him it didn't hurt. Councilman Hatfield asked Mr. Swaine where the two properties were that decreased in value in front of the Windview. He questioned if they were across the street, or north or south. Mr. Swaine informed him they were across the street. Councilman Hatfield asked Ms. Kane if she is on Lot 10 or 11. Ms. Kane stated she believes she is on part of Lot 8 and 9. Councilman Hatfield asked who the agent of record was for Windview. Ms. Kane stated part of the time she was but not the entire time. Councilwoman Martin had no questions. Councilman Hays had no questions. Councilman Mitchum had no questions. Mr. Karet asked Mr. Swaine what the values were of the homes before they started decreasing. Mr. Swaine stated the assessed values according to public records in 1991 were $50,195 and in 1994 it went to $47,820 and the other property was $52,195 which was reduced to $49,220. Mr. Karet questioned if they were single family residences or town homes. Mr. Swaine stated he believed they were town houses. Mr. Karet questioned if the single family residences in the surrounding properties that were looked at had gone down in value. Mr. Swaine stated he could not answer that. Mayor Hayman asked if there were any questions from the people in the notice area. There were no questions. Mayor Hayman asked if there were any questions from the general public. Roger Hammond, 2104 S. Riverside Drive, introduced himself. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Mayor Hayman asked Mr. Hammond to present his credentials. City Attorney Storey stated she thought he was asking a question as opposed to testifying. Mayor Hayman withdrew his request. Mr. Hammond asked Ms. Kane to tell the audience what her home is worth. Mayor Hayman questioned the relevance of that to what is being discussed. Mr. Hammond stated Ms. Kane's home is valued at approximately $350,000 to $400,000. A structure may be built next to her property valued at between $180,000 and $200,000. He feels there has to be a reason why she wouldn't mind this structure being built next to her home. Ms. Kane stated it is a good project and it isn't going to decrease the value of her property. Page -7- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 "-'" ....., Attorney deperry, Attorney in DeLand, 114 West Rich Avenue, presented her credentials. She explained how she got involved in this matter. She commented on the different provisions in the comprehensive plan and why she feels what is being done now is not consistent with the comp plan. Attorney deperry read different provisions in the comprehensive plan and commented on inconsistencies she found. Councilman Mitchum had no questions. Councilman Hays had no questions. Councilwoman Martin had no questions. Councilman Hatfield had no questions. There were no questions from staff. There were no questions from the applicant. There were no questions from the general public. Mayor Hayman stated the next item would be questions from the general public. Attorney deperry introduced Laura Reilly, 2101 S. Riverside Drive. city Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Ms. Reilly commented on owning a home 400 feet from the proposed development. When they bought the home three years ago, Camerons Marina and Riverside Landings were there and they accepted that fact. The river edge community is unique, scenic and single family. The Riverwalk is an asset to their area. She doesn't want this zoning change to be a precedent for future development along Riverside Drive. She asked the zoning change and development proposal not be approved. There were no questions from Council. There were no questions from staff. There were no questions from the applicant. There were no questions from the general public. Attorney deperry introduced vivian Dyett, 2014 S. Riverside Drive. city Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Ms. Dyett stated she lives directly across from the property in question. She commented on buying their home 20 years ago. She expressed opposition to the zone change of the three lots on the east side of the property. She spoke about the entrance to the proposed development being directly across from her property. This means there will be more traffic. She feels the value of her home will be lowered as well as the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. The only sign ever posted on that property was posted knee high about the LDRA meeting. There have been no other signs ever posted. There were no questions from Council. There were no questions from staff. There were no questions from the applicant. There were no questions from the general public. Page -8- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 '-'" ..",., Ms. Hill informed the applicants that if they are turned down tonight, they lose nothing. They have three very valuable home building sites and they are entitled to use this land to its highest and best use as it is zoned. Tonight, with so few of the single family lots left on the river, this developer is trying to justify building a 280 ft. long building and shutting off everyone's view. He can not do this unless at least three Councilmen agree that his right to change supersedes the citizens and property owners rights to maintain the current zoning. She asked that Council uphold Edgewater's laws and covenants and say no to this proposed development agreement. There were no questions from Council. There were no questions from staff. There were no questions from the applicant. There were no questions from the general public. Attorney deperry introduced Peter Hellsten, 1717B S. Riverside Drive. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Mr. Hellsten commented on his credentials. He spoke about the background as to the development of the comprehensive plan from when he served on the LDRA. He read Policy 2.9 and 3.1 of the Conservation Element. Mr. Hellsten handed out and commented on a chart regarding assessments. Mr. Hellsten commented on the criteria the LDRA follows. He reminded Council what the people of Edgewater want from the City survey that was done. He spoke about the item - parks and waterfront property in Edgewater are valuable assets to permanently retain. Ninety-one percent of the people of Edgewater said yes. Mr. Hellsten spoke about the item - Edgewater should try to maintain a quiet residential family-oriented community. Eighty percent of the people agreed or strongly agreed with that statement. Mr. Hellsten stated it is his understanding the city has a responsibility to do stormwater calculation for single-family residences. He spoke about the garage on Riverside Drive that he lives behind. He commented on the site plan for the proposed development being inconsistent. There were no questions from Council. There were no questions from staff. There were no questions from the applicant. Peter Moncure, 120 N. Riverside Drive, was administered the oath by City Clerk Wadsworth. Mr. Moncure questioned the stipulation agreement discussed by Mr. Hellsten. He asked what two parties this pertained to. Mr. Hellsten informed him it was between the Department of Community Affairs and the city of Edgewater. There was a five minute recess at this time. Attorney deperry introduced Carolyn Murphy, 2008 S. Riverside Drive. The oath was administered by city Clerk Wadsworth. Page -9- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 '-" ..."." Ms. Murphy commented on owning two homes in Edgewater. She stated her personal residence will be one of the three homes most adversely effected by this proposed project. She spoke about being the first home on Pelican Place. She spoke about an interest fifteen years ago to purchase the lot directly across from her house and being told no due to the owner saving the property for retirement. She feels this project will ruin her home investment. She asked Council to review this proposed project with openness and hear their appeal and protect the citizens and their property from this intrusion. There were no questions from Council. There were no questions from staff. There were no questions from the applicant. There were no questions from the general public. Attorney deperry introduced Ed Vopelak, 2027 S. Riverside Drive. city Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Mr. Vopelak presented his credentials. He commented on the Riverview apartments being there for forty years. He referred to Policy 5.2 of the land use regulations. He commented on future potential gross development and being protected from this. Mr. Vopelak spoke about section 5-9 of the Land Development Code. He discussed improvements that have been made by residents to their homes. Mr. Vopelak commented on these proceedings being held in a quasi- judicial manner because of the Supreme Court Snyder decision. By approving this project, the integrity of the entire riverfront could be jeopardized. He asked this proposal be denied by Council. There were no questions from Council. There were no questions from staff. There were no questions from the applicant. There were no questions from the general public. Attorney deperry introduced DuPont Murphy, 2008 S. Riverside Drive. City Clerk Wadsworth administered the oath. Mr. Murphy commented on his home being located directly across the street from the northern most lot of the three lots in questions. He spoke about choosing Edgewater as his place to live because he loves the area and the river. Mr. Murphy stated he has no objection to Mr. Davenport building his project but he does take exception to the place he has chosen to build it. Mr. Murphy commented on two principles, Objective 5 and objective 5.2, described in the revised future land use document adopted by the city. He also referred to the future land use principles included in the land use plan. Mr. Murphy complimented Council as being the body who brought the vision of the Riverwalk to reality. He asked Council to ask themselves why they would want to change the integrity of the neighborhood on Riverside Drive. He implored Council not to approve this project where it is planned as it does not comply with the future land use plan for that neighborhood. Page -10- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 ..... "-'" Mr. Murphy thanked Council for the opportunity to let everyone speak. There were no questions from Council. There were no questions from staff. There were no questions from the applicant. There were no questions from the general public. Mayor Hayman stated the next matter is any general public wishing to comment. There was no one from the general public wishing to comment. Mayor Hayman announced next would be staff response on the evidence and facts presented by previous speakers. Mr. Karet commented on the many issues that were brought up. Mr. Karet stated he would not respond to procedural issues and suggested Council may want to question the City Attorney. Mayor Hayman stated there would now be an opportunity from the applicant, persons within the notice area or the general public, who believe that the staff summary, remarks just made by Mr. Karet, include factual error. Attorney Spence addressed Mr. Karet's comment regarding the requirement for nine units per acre. He believed Mr. Karet meant to say 9 units for the project which is 1.7 acres. Attorney deperry commented on behalf of the notice area. Mayor Hayman again announced an opportunity from anyone wishing to comment on Attorney deperry's comments. Mr. Karet clarified comments made by Attorney deperry. Attorney Spence disagreed with Attorney deperry's interpretation of the law and her specific sightings of sections out of the comp plan and the land development regulations. Mayor Hayman closed the public hearing. Mayor Hayman announced next would be the Council's opportunity to comment and ask questions of staff, the applicant, persons in the notice area and the general public. Mayor HaYman announced the Council's decision in reference to the development agreement would be addressed first. Councilman Mitchum questioned when this was originally presented it was for 9 units, and it was advertised for nine units, so when it went to LDRA why was it 10 units. Mr. Karet explained the original proposal was for 9 units with a clubhouse which would be the entrance to the pool. He went on to explain how they got back to 9 units. Councilman Mitchum asked City Attorney Storey if it is a problem that this was advertised for 9 and then went to 10 at the LDRA meeting where everyone was noticed to be there. City Attorney Storey explained the development agreement process requires two public hearings: the LDRA level and Council level. She explained this public hearing was noticed for 10 units. The applicant certainly has the ability to drop 'back from any proposal. Page -11- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 '-' .."., Councilman Mitchum asked if there is a problem advertising the LDRA meeting as 9 units and then having the actual hearing based on 10 units. City Attorney storey stated she is not concerned with that. She feels the intent of the development agreement was put forward and at the public hearing that information was set forward. city Attorney Storey stated they need to make clear what they are requesting is what is advertised but she is not overly concerned. Councilman Mitchum commented on if there are only 9 units there doesn't need to be a comp plan amendment. Mr. Karet informed him that is his position. Councilman Mitchum asked if this particular development agreement is being done any differently than any other development agreement. Councilman Mitchum stated Attorney deperry would have them believe that they have been doing everything backwards. City Attorney Storey disagreed with Attorney deperry. She feels she has a limited approach to the concept of development agreements. It was decided that this development agreement is being done the same way as any other development agreement. Councilman Hays questioned when this went before the LDRA as 10 units and then it was decided to go to 9, why was this not run back through the LDRA. He asked if this was at the request of Mr. Davenport that it just go before Council. City Attorney storey stated she did not feel that was necessary. She explained why the development agreement process is different than the rezoning and the comprehensive plan process. city Attorney Storey stated Mr. Davenport was given the option of continuing the public hearing until he could get some type of recommendation but he elected to move on to this public hearing. She feels that is perfectly within his right. Councilman Hays questioned the comment of rounding up. He asked for City Attorney Storey's opinion which she addressed for Councilman Hays. Councilman Hays stated he is at a little bit of a loss. errors versus opinions have run rampid and sometimes it to decide which side of the line you place the comments Factual is hard on. Councilman Hays spoke regarding the velocity zones. He feels there are two different opinions on that and asked for City Attorney Storey's opinion. She explained she is not the fact finder and the Council has the testimony by the City Planner who has experience with the comprehensive plan. Councilwoman Martin stated if this was zoned R-4 the most the City would have to do is make sure they follow the regulations. She feels that going from R-1A to R-4 increases density to high density, not medium. She feels for the people who have invested in their homes and expect their homes to increase in value. Councilman Hatfield questioned the density situation. He asked Mr. Karet if R-4 and R-5 are considered high density or medium density and how is that determined. Mr. Karet stated without the development agreement, it is his opinion that the R-4 zone would not be consistent with low density. He went on to explain how the density is determined. Page -12- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 "- ..", Councilman Hatfield questioned the situation of 60% open space even in the R-4 destination. Are we throwing out all the rules when we go into a development agreement. This is the one legal issue he has. Mr. Karet stated through a development agreement you could make a determination on what the appropriate setbacks or the bulk that would result. What staff has done in this agreement has patterned it after the Windview development. Councilman Hatfield asked City Attorney storey if Windview is a precedent setting decision and would this legally tie us into the next step. He asked if the City could legally be sued if a precedence has been set for Windview if that precedence is not followed in the next issue. city Attorney storey feels this is factually distinct from Windview. City Attorney storey followed up for Councilman Hatfield the legal basis for the development agreement. Councilman Hatfield feels the first process should be zoning. City Attorney storey explained this being a confusing process. A vote in support of the development agreement does not bind Council to a decision on the rezoning in the public hearing later on. There were no questions from Council for the applicant, the members of the notice area or the general public. Councilman Mitchum commented about denying someone the use of their property. He stated this is not an easy issue. Councilman Mitchum questioned if they are technicality the units being rounded up. is a simple rezoning issue and they would again. city Attorney storey informed him explained some options for Council. ending on a What this would then be have to go through this that is correct. She Mayor Hayman asked for a motion to approve or disapprove the development agreement. Councilwoman Martin made a motion to deny the development agreement, Councilman Hatfield second the motion for discussion. Councilman Hatfield stated if they vote the agreement down, does that void the two ordinances. city Attorney Storey explained to him yes and that she would see no reason to move forward on them. Councilman Hatfield stated when he was on the LDRA if they disagreed with staff they had to give a reason. city Attorney Storey explained why that was done. Councilman Hatfield stated he has problems with high density in an area traditionally low density and because of that he is voting against the plan. He further commented on the positive aspect of the proposed project and Windview. Councilman Hays stated because some of his questions remain unanswered, he does not feel comfortable voting for the development agreement. Councilman Mitchum agreed he too has some unanswered questions. He stated he would have to go on record as supporting what he thinks would be a natural barrier. Mayor Hayman commented on this issue being very complex. He commented on the character of the river and the riverside community changing very little from many years ago. He commented on the importance of the development agreement for this issue. He explained his feelings for both sides. Page -13- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 ~ 'WI' Mayor Hayman stated he supports Mr. Davenport's request. He expressed concern about stormwater management, conservation, ecology, and the loss of the obstruction of the view to the river. The motion CARRIED 3-2. Councilman Mitchum and Mayor Hayman voted NO. C. First readinq Ord. 95-0-08 Comprehensive plan amendment D. First readinq Ord. 95-0-09 Rezoninq Councilman Mitchum made a motion to deny Ord. 95-0-08 and Ord. 95-0-09, second by Councilman Hays. The motion CARRIED 5-0. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items to be discussed on the consent agenda. OTHER BUSINESS A. Authorizinq borrowinq road improvement proiect funds based on best rates between bonds or bank loan as of Julv 19 City Manager McMahon explained the reason for this is because the Federal Reserve Board is probably going to meet the early part of July and if there is going to be any further action of reducing the interest rates they will probably take that action at that time. City Manager McMahon stated they have to produce, in order to have a competitive rate, a preliminary official statement. city Manager McMahon asked Council to authorize he and Finance Director Munoz to be able to choose the right vehicle at the lowest interest rate. Councilman Mitchum moved to approve the request, second by Councilman Hays. The motion CARRIED 5-0. B. Resolution of 1994-95 collective barqaininq agreement impasse with Coastal Florida Police Benevolent Association Mayor Hayman presented the background regarding the PBA agreement. City Attorney storey stated in addition to the agenda, information was received from the PEA declaring an impasse and advising Council that subject to the retroactive wages to October 1, 1994, the other items have been dropped. Pursuant to Council's previous comments, they have a second amendment to the PEA agreement which is similar to the PBA agreement. Ed Davis, Tindall, Beck, and Davis, Daytona Beach, explained he is representing the PBA and the PEA and presented the background for these contracts to the best of his knowledge since he recently became involved with this. City Attorney storey stated the City was never advised that there was an impasse until correspondence was received on May 31st and the subsequent correspondence in reference to the PBA. The PEA correspondence was received on June 15th. There was further discussion regarding when it was actually decided the PBA and PEA bargaining units were in impasse. Mr. Davis spoke about making the 2% retroactive back to October 1st. He feels it is in good faith that the employees have accepted the 2% but to make it retroactive. Page -14- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 '-' ...", Councilman Mitchum commented on this being ongoing and here we are at negotiations again and the last one has not been settled yet. He doesn't feel the City made any doubts about where they stood. Councilman Mitchum would like the PBA and PEA to accept a three year contract. He spoke about the unions tieing up the negotiations for a year and are now willing to settle for exactly what was proposed 9 months ago. Councilman Mitchum questioned if the union is willing to give the City a three year contract where the only thing that is subject to any unknown factor is the fact that we have to decide what percentage of the budget is put in the pay for performance plan. Councilman Mitchum made a motion that this agreement be approved retroactive with the stipulation that Council will be given a three year contract under the conditions that he spoke about. Councilman Hatfield stated they couldn't set a hard line on negotiations. He doesn't think the motion should include that they have to go with the three-year contract. Mayor Hayman questioned why the City has to give the employees retroactive to negotiate a three-year contract. Councilman Mitchum stated in good faith. Mr. Davis explained why he feels this would be unfair labor practice. city Attorney storey explained she is uncomfortable with tieing this year's contract to a proposal for the upcoming year. Councilwoman Martin expressed her feelings regarding the length of time is takes to get these negotiations resolved. City Manager McMahon suggested Council by motion authorize the City to discuss with the union the thought put forth by Councilman Mitchum. He commented about the employees not knowing what is going on with the contracts. Mr. Davis commented on the attitude of the bargaining units and how employee morale is effected. City Manager McMahon stated he suggested to the City Attorney a long time ago that at the beginning of negotiations, at least the union reps and the City agree to some type of rational time table for coming to a conclusion. He commented on the morale of the employees. He feels the three-year contract may be worthwhile to discuss. Councilman Mitchum suggested doing this for a number of years so they don't have to go through this every year and talk about low morale and all of these things. Mr. Davis feels the best thing to do for morale and for their attitude in approaching new negotiations is!to give them the 2% retroactively and then he feels as we approach the new year there will be a new attitude. Officer Gary Conroy, 3107 Queen Palm Drive, introduced himseif as the new Police representative. He feels the best thing he did was meet with Mr. McMahon and told him very plainly that these things will no longer happen. We don't want to be adversaries with the City, we want to work with the City. He assured Council the next negotiations will probably be the fastest in City history. Page -15- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 '~ ~ Officer Conroy commented on the Police pension as a member of the Police Pension Board. James Hoppe, PEA representative, stated the employees are tired of the way things have dragged on. He feels a three-year contract would be great. He informed Council he has a meeting scheduled for tomorrow with the PEA bargaining unit and this matter would be brought up for discussion. Councilman Hays feels it would be in the benefit of both sides to look at a longer contract. Mayor Hayman would like to see a buy in the pay for performance. There was been a resistance to pay for performance because there is a lack of understanding of what is embodied in pay for performance. He would also like to see a longer contract. Councilman Mitchum withdrew his motion. City Manager McMahon asked Council to authorize him/and or city Attorney storey to talk to the appropriate union reps to discuss the philosophy of what was discussed tonight and come back to the Council with a representation. City Attorney storey stated she is confused as to what is trying to be accomplished. We have this year's contract before us and I we are trying to tie that decision to negotiations for the upcoming year in terms of a time frame. Mayor Hayman feels Mr. Hoppe has shown a positive attitude and approach and he asked City Attorney storey and City Manager McMahon sit with him and see if we can't get things worked out. Councilman Mitchum stated the Council needs to approve the contract we are working under now and what we do from this point on would constitute a new contract. Councilman Mitchum made a motion to approve the union's request that this be retroactive and that the contract for this year be set into motion, second by Councilman Hatfield. Councilman Hatfield asked if the recommendation of deferring the pension plan will go into the next negotiation automatically or if it should be included in this motion. He was informed that wasn't up for discussion tonight. Councilman Hays called a question on the motion. He asked if we have the funds. City Manager McMahon informed him it is in the budget. The motion CARRIED 5-0. C. Consider cancellinq or relocatinq. regular Council meetinq of Monday. Julv 3. 1995. due to Volunteer Fire Assoc. setting UP Community Center for Julv 4th activities Councilman Hays made a motion to cancel the July 3, 1995 meeting, second by Councilman Hatfield. The motion CARRIED 5-0. GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE Peter Moncure stated Duke Murphy asked Mr. Moncure to thank Council for listening to his remarks. The comprehensive plan was a big surprise to him. He asked Council at some future time to question whether or not these documents could be made available to the LDRA and more specifically made available in such a condition that the maps contained within it are legible. Page -16- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995 .~ .", OFFICER REPORTS city Attorney City Attorney storey asked Council to authorize the retaining the law firm of Dean, Ringers, Morgan and Lawton in reference to the cases of Pusdrofski and East. Councilman Mitchum so moved, second by Councilman Hatfield. The motion CARRIED 5-0. city Manager City Manager McMahon asked Council to confirm his administrative decision to extend the gas station site plan on SR 442 where the tanks went in the ground. He went ahead and extended it because the contractor who purchased it really depended on getting the same plan accepted. There were no technical changes. It was the same plan approved byLDRA and the previous council. He asked Council to include in the same motion to authorize himself and the City Attorney to procure the right-of-way necessary to provide access to those properties behind that. Mr. Barrett is not going to give the City the land. Councilman Mitchum so moved, second by Councilman Hatfield. Councilman Hays asked if this is a change of plan. There will be an access road parallel to the railroad tracks behind the store~ City Attorney storey informed Councilman Hays they are working on an easement across the top portion to grant access to Coleman Plumbing. The motion CARRIED 5-0. city Manager McMahon asked Council for their authorization to move forward under the emergency powers of purchasing with the City to complete the work necessary that S & E did not complete to correct the deficiencies. Councilman Hatfield so moved, second by Councilman Mitchum. The motion CARRIED 5-0. city Clerk City Clerk Wadsworth had nothing at this time. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilman Hatfield moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Kruckmeyer Page -17- Council Regular Meeting June 19, 1995