Loading...
06-10-1996 - Workshop CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER WORKSHOP JUNE 10, 1996 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hayman called the Workshop to order at 6: 56 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Jack Hayman Present Councilman Danny Hatfield Present Councilwoman Louise Martin Present Councilman Michael Hays Present Councilman David Mitchum Present City Attorney Krista Storey Present City Manager George McMahon Present City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Present Police Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of the Workshop was for the City Council to receive input from staff and the public on business properties located on Hibiscus Drive and Guava Drive. The discussions would include the three employee cap, proposed changes of land use from Commercial to Industrial, parking and outside activities on business property. Mayor Hayman commented on how the workshop would be conducted. He identified they were here to work together to solve problems . Mayor Hayman identified he had asked City Manager McMahon to have staff describe where they are now, what existing regulations were that they were having differences with, to describe what the alternatives were that had been identified and to describe some of the difficulties they had met over the last month. City Manager McMahon asked Council for the ability to respond to what he considers an invitation from County Councilwoman Lynne Plaskett that he received late this afternoon in response to the Wastewater Plant and was relative to the next meeting. He recommended the Council invite County Councilwoman Lynne Plaskett to their next meeting as an item of discussion. It was the consensus of Council for City Manager McMahon to invite County Councilwoman Lynne Plaskett to the next meeting. 1 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 Community Development Director Mark Karet commented on there being what he felt were two separate but related issues; the first being a land use issue and the second dealing with Code Enforcement. Mr. Karet then commented on the land use issue with regard to the B-2 District having a three-employee cap which applied to light manufacturing and machine shops . The restriction dated back to 1984 . The B-2 District was the City' s neighborhood business district, which was to provide an area for sale of goods and services that were intended for household use. Manufacturing uses and machine shops were inconsistent with the stated intent of the B-2 District. He further commented on how those uses got there in the first place, which in turn created the idea of the three employee cap. Mr. Karet spoke of the general impression of most members of the public being that Guava and Hibiscus was an industrial area. He then identified three reasons why they didn' t just strike the words "limiting the number of employees within the B-2 District" as being they would be ignoring the intent of their Code, there were a number of uses within the B-2 District that were incompatible with full fledged industrial uses and the State requires their Land Development Codes and Zoning Maps be consistent with their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Karet felt the remedy was they needed to change portions of the Future Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan that applied to the areas along Guava and Hibiscus, from their commercial designation to an industrial designation and proceed with the actual rezoning once DCA had approved the change to their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Karet then commented on the Code Enforcement issue. At the May 20th meeting, Council heard about his staff' s recent Code Enforcement activities on Guava and Hibiscus. There were two areas that received the most comment. One was outside auto repair which was prohibited by the current Code . He felt there was some room for compromise in that area. The second issue had to do with parking violations . Their parking requirements were independent of the zoning. The zoning categories for industrial or commercial districts did not contain zoning requirements within those districts . The parking requirements were in a separate part of the zoning ordinance and identified uses independent of the overall zoning and set a certain amount of required parking. Mr. Karet further identified that most areas that have parking problems have a shortage of customer parking. The typical solution was for either a municipality or a business association to get together and develop parking. There is a customer base that needs that parking so there is revenue associated with charging for the parking and improvements can be made and paid for through metering or a number of other arrangements . 2 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 Mr. Karet then commented on individuals being cited as a result of their sites being over capacity due to vehicles that were being worked on or stored onsite, which wasn' t a customer issue but a capacity issue. That wasn' t a problem that easily lends itself to a public solution. Those problems were associated with people that were outgrowing their sites . Councilman Hays commented on having an opportunity to stop by several of the businesses . He thanked the business owners for spending time with him. Councilman Mitchum thanked everyone for coming and felt they all needed to work together. City Manager McMahon identified as of this time the City had not issued citations to anyone in that area. What were issued were notices based on the ordinances, which they were going to be discussing tonight. He wanted anyone who received notices to understand they were not citations . Mayor Hayman summarized the previous discussion and identified he wanted to focus on the three employee cap in the B-2 District. He disclosed that some of the business people in the community had met with City Attorney Storey and Mr. Karet last week to discuss alternatives to how they can cope with this problem. John Moore, 2354 Fern Palm Drive, representing the Edgewater Business Association, which was a group of concerned business owners on Guava and Hibiscus that came together so they could decide what they needed to help all of them and not just each individual business . After their meeting, he realized that just by dropping the three employee cap they would still be in conflict with the comprehensive Plan. He thought Mr. Karet was trying to get a package he has prepared to the DCA so they could see what they had and get their feedback on it. He still had concerns as to how it would be zoned once it was zoned industrial. He felt what Mr. Karet was wanting to do was not to go from B-2 to I-1 but to go from commercial to industry. Once they had DCA' s approval, then they could determine the criteria. He stated when 84-0-14 was enacted, it wasn' t a cure; it was just a mandate. He felt they should get this on the Council agenda so they could proceed with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. City Attorney Storey commented on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process being complicated. She thought it was important for her and Mr. Karet to understand the confusion and felt everyone had a better understanding as a result of the meeting. She then referred to Ordinances 95-0-14 and 95-0-15. Mr. Moore didn' t want Council to consider the 95-0-15 until they prepared a second reading of 95-0-14 . 3 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 City Attorney Storey stated one of the things they talked about at the meeting was moving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment forward and then use the 90 day period, which was what Tallahassee had to review that, to then work on any changes in the language to the B-2 Zoning District as well as Industrial . Mr. Moore felt these were issues they could change once they heard back from Tallahassee, which he felt would solve the three employee cap and some of the outside working issues . He had no idea what they were going to do about the parking. Mayor Hayman wanted to put the three employee cap issue to bed before they started discussing the parking. Mayor Hayman clarified what City Attorney Storey had described with regard to moving Ordinance 95-0-14 forward and then working on 95-0-15 while 95-0-14 was going through the process . Mayor Hayman asked if there was anyone that had a question regarding the suggestion made as an alternative solution to the three employee cap problem. Dominick Fazzone, present member and past Chairman of the LDRA, agreed that was the proper procedure and pointed out that the LDRA worked on the proposals for months and the solution presented was the solution that City Attorney Storey and Mr. Karet came to originally. John Browning, owner of All Storage, asked what the difference was in 95-0-14 and 95-0-15, which City Attorney Storey explained for him. The other piece to this would be some changes to the I1 Light Industrial District, which would be a third piece they needed to follow up on. Mayor Hayman questioned what would happen in the meantime to the business people in the community, the government entity, and to City staff. City Manager McMahon stated he was going to recommend tonight that the Council approve the staff not enforcing the existing ordinances until the ordinances have been reviewed properly through the time process and bureaucracy process that was necessary. He felt there was no need to cause a hardship to anybody until they have resolved the issues . They could have a consensus tonight but the vote couldn' t be taken until a regular meeting. Mayor Hayman identified City Manager McMahon was asking for a consensus of the Council regarding a moratorium of sorts and enforcement of the ordinances that impact on 95-0-14 and 95-0-15 . City Attorney Storey felt there might be some confusion and explained the only thing that 95-0-14 would do was change the Future Land Use Designation potentially of some of the parcels from commercial to industrial . The other items of enforcement that Council had already 4 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 directed staff to hold off enforcement on, she wasn' t sure that this particular ordinance would make any difference one way or another. Mr. Karet pointed out the parking requirements would apply irrespective of the zoning change and that this was still an outstanding problem that would have to be addressed. By rezoning it from commercial to industrial the parking requirements would remain the same and were in effect city-wide regardless of the zoning district. Councilman Hays spoke of the motion that passed unanimously at their last meeting to hold on this with the exception of enforcing the parking regulations on the rights-of-way. City Manager McMahon had no problem like that and identified the rights-of-way were an issue unto itself as they belong to the public and did not belong to any private property owner. He didn' t want City staff to issue citations or even notices to people when there was something under consideration. Ed Fosler, 2835 Cow Creek Road, stated there was a broad spectrum of violations and it wasn' t just the employee cap or the parking. There were many other violations under this umbrella and they wanted time to work on it and not just one issue. They needed time to resolve the whole problem. He felt it sounded like it was limited to one issue and they wanted the whole problem resolved. Mayor Hayman stated he was partly responsible for that as he was trying administratively to take care of one issue at a time but it was very difficult to do. Mayor Hayman felt they needed to address the entire City and not just Guava and Hibiscus as they had issues elsewhere also. City Manager McMahon identified that the process of going through DCA was a lengthy process . He suggested they didn' t issue any citations until the process was completed and back to Council for final resolution. Mayor Hayman spoke of it being the consensus of Council to establish and continue the moratorium that was established at the last meeting. He asked if they had a consensus that they were looking at the City holistically and not just Guava and Hibiscus on matters of a similar nature. Councilman Hays described anything they did had to address the entire City. City Manager McMahon asked for clarification and identified they had other Code Enforcement related issues that had nothing to do with the problems tonight and wanted to make sure Council wasn' t suggesting that be waived as well . Mayor Hayman explained it would be very naive for them to focus their attention on Guava and Hibiscus when there are 5 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 other interests throughout the City as well . What they work out here tonight should apply to the business people in Edgewater in total and not just Guava and Hibiscus . Gary Roberts, 2411 Pine Tree Drive, commented on easing up on enforcing citations or the problems with parking for existing businesses not helping someone like himself who was now building. He felt they couldn' t have double standards by easing up on ordinances for existing businesses and anybody just moving in having to abide by the book. Councilman Mitchum asked for a for instance. Mr. Roberts spoke of onsite parking being a big problem and only having a certain amount of vehicle parking that was acceptable for each type of business . He further spoke of being restricted as far as what he could do. Mr. Karet further commented on the issue and identified he made him comply with all the regulations going through the permitting process . He questioned if after he receives his Certificate of Occupancy does he fall under the moratorium in terms of the enforcement or not. The parking requirements had been in place since 1986. Councilman Hays identified they had gone from one item to another item and wanted to finalize the three employee cap issue and address the parking when they got to that issue. Councilman Hays felt the way things were done 10 or 20 years ago was different than the way they are done today because of different federal and state regulations . City Manager McMahon suggested, in the sense of fairness and equity involved with people that were committed to spending money and that were in the process of building that didn' t know what the outcome of the zoning ordinance would be, that the portion that causes a substantial or proportionate expenditure on behalf of the person with the building permit be put in suspension at this time following the conclusion of what Council does and whatever applies at that time would be universally applied. When they come up with the land use and parking requirements, they would be held accountable for doing what everyone else had to do under the zoning ordinance. City Attorney Storey spoke with Mr. Roberts last week and felt they were mixing different sections of the Code. The sections Mr. Roberts was talking about were not in the Future Land Use Element and were in the Zoning Code but were in another section. The Future Land Use issue and the B-2 were interrelated but the parking requirements were a separate item. She didn' t know how they would proceed forward with a building halfway and then try to figure out what they were going to do later and staff trying to figure out how to issue a CO or not without it being more confusing. 6 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 Mr. Roberts identified the three employee cap would affect parking and felt it was all tied together. City Manager McMahon identified his main concern was moving ahead with the Comprehensive Development Plan and whatever amendments were appropriate. The City has to be sure the zoning ordinances were in compliance with that language. Until the entire issue was resolved, what they were doing was asking a man to commit to do something today out of his pocket that tomorrow may change, which he felt was an issue. Mr. Roberts then commented on changing B-2 to Light Industrial and taking some of the non-conforming businesses which would become conforming when they become light industrial and winding up with a reverse effect. He felt they were correcting some problems and creating others and suggested modifying B-2 if possible. Mayor Hayman agreed with Councilman Hays that they needed to complete the three employee cap issue before discussing the other issues . Councilman Hays felt everything they were discussing tonight was intertwined. He felt if a business fit into the category of exceeding the three employee cap that they had a business decision to make and further commented on having to make hard decisions when you are in business . Bertha Morin, B & M Service Center, asked if they had three employees if that included the owners as well. John Moore, Sr. informed her the three employee cap was for assembly and manufacturing. City Manager McMahon felt they were going to have to be specific with the definition of what it meant when it got to that point. Mr. Roberts asked if they removed the three employee cap, if they would have unlimited employees or set a different cap. Councilman Hays explained logistically they could only put so many employees in one building. Mr. Roberts presented the scenario of someone purchasing a whole block on Hibiscus and putting in a huge factory and if they would want a business there with 50 employees next to duplexes . Councilman Hays felt if someone wanted to buy a whole block and put in a light industry business that would fit into that area he wouldn' t have a problem with it. Mayor Hayman identified they had agreed there were some solutions regarding the three employee cap and they have accepted the recommendation from the Edgewater Business Association that had been worked out with staff and they would move that forward towards resolution at a regular Council meeting with Ordinance 95-0-14 . City Attorney Storey identified that number would change to a new 96 number 7 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 and the earliest that could be on the agenda would be the first meeting in July due to advertising requirements . Mayor Hayman then moved onto the next item regarding outside activities on business property and what was and wasn' t permitted. Councilman Hays commented on discussions he had with some of the business owners . He presented a scenario of work being done under the hood of a vehicle and the need to wait until the vehicle cools down before being able to work on it. He felt they needed to allow reasonable periods of time. He then commented on seeing someone doing wet sanding body work outside. He felt for some of the things common sense would tell them that they needed to allow it. John Moore felt the two issues Councilman Hays was referring to were two different issues with regard to someone repairing a vehicle and someone wet sanding a vehicle. Councilman Hays identified the topic was outside activities on business property. Mr. Moore felt the Code Officer should be looking as closely at Park Avenue and Mango Tree Drive as she was on Hibiscus and Guava. He further commented on cars that were being worked on at residences in Florida Shores . Councilman Hays felt Mr. Moore missed the intent of what he was trying to say and further described he felt there were concessions that needed to be made. He further explained he brought it up because he felt there were certain things where they had gone too far with the enforcement. Mr. Moore expressed concern with vehicles being worked on in residential areas that weren' t being enforced but businesses were. Councilman Mitchum felt what they needed to do when looking at this was to use common sense in what they were doing and felt the owners of the business would also use common sense because of production. He felt it might not be a bad idea to send the Code people by to spend some time with the folks to see what John Moore or Eddie Clinton goes through. Bertha Morin, B & M Service Center, wanted to know why everyone was stirring up a hornet' s nest with auto repair. She asked why it was such a big issue here in Edgewater and what had brought it up. She spoke of having limited space in their places of businesses and there being certain things they have to do outside because they don' t have the space inside . She expressed concern with not being able to take all of the business that came in so they could make money to pay their bills. Councilman Mitchum spoke of there being many businesses on Guava and Hibiscus and the auto repair business being the most prevalent in this area and that it wasn' t being picked on. It just had to be at the 8 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 forefront now of an issue they started looking at. They were trying to find a solution to everyone' s problem. Diane Mitchell, East Coast Cars, 1863 Guava Drive, wanted to know what the intent was behind the outside auto law and if the concerns were safety or environmental . She asked if it would matter if they had a problem with a car and they had to get it handled in the span of one day or were they mainly concerned about people who had vehicles torn apart for long periods of time. Mayor Hayman felt what they were trying to do was an honest attempt to keep someone from trying to disassemble a bulldozer outside near a residential area and leave it there for weeks on end. He spoke of being in the 21st century and dealing with a 20th century ordinance and they haven' t kept pace with that. Councilman Hays spoke of the owners of the businesses finding they are outgrowing themselves . He then commented on what would be considered a reasonable period of time for a vehicle to sit as he saw vehicles that had been sitting in the same place for years that had basically been abandoned. He felt they needed to resolve the issue of what a reasonable period of time was to leave something sitting on a lot and asked the business owners to help the Council decide what that time would be. Ms . Morin pointed out there were laws that they could keep a vehicle for 60 days, advertise a legal ad, go to the courthouse, get the proper paper work and get rid of it. Eddie Clinton, 2210 Hibiscus Drive, spoke of 50% of the work that comes into a mechanic shop and body shop either don' t run or are inoperable so they were going to be parked. He also spoke of the number of cars that may be on a lot changing from week to week. He spoke of Gary Roberts having a problem with his place but he knew his place was there before he built his building and he felt that wasn' t his fault. Ann Davis, 2427 Guava Drive, Performance Dynamometer Services, Edgewater Business Association, stated they were taking into consideration everyone' s circumstances involved with some of the Codes and changing some of the wording for outdoor automotive. They were willing to work together as a group and come to the Council with possibly a very good solution with limitations of what could or could not be on there. Doug Jones, President, Chamber of Commerce, commended the group for coming together so quickly and getting a response from the City Council . He felt it was encouraging to see them working together. He introduced the other Executive Board Members that were also present. He informed Council the Chamber wanted to be a part of the solution and offered their services. 9 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 Mayor Hayman called a five-minute recess at this time. Mayor Hayman suggested with the recommendation from the public and the Edgewater Business Association to proceed as they describe and presented by a vote and it ties into the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance that has to do with zoning that within that framework of the verbiage of what is allowed and now allowed in zoning. The business people want to work with staff to help address each of the issues with regard to the specific zoning area. Mr. Moore felt the Comp Plan amendment would take care of the problems they have with the employee cap as well as some of the uses . He identified they were zoned B-2 and there were a lot of uses that didn' t fly with what the Neighborhood Business District was . Once they heard back from DCA they would have to decide how they were going to use the land as industrial . City Manager McMahon spoke of the issue of insufficient parking and making a verbal agreement with the party that owns property next to you to use their land assuming the parking area was sufficient. Mayor Hayman summarized they would follow the recommendation of the Edgewater Business Association to proceed with the ordinances, for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and zoning changes and the business and professional people in the community would be invited to work with staff on addressing what was permissible in the various types of zoning activity they had. Councilman Hays spoke of the simple things the business owners may know about on a day to day business and asked that they bring those little things into play and felt that things that came up under their routine umbrella were things they needed to allow. Mr. Moore spoke of their being a lot of issues they could solve. He further identified that automotive repair were governed by the State, the County and the EPA. Mayor Hayman then identified they would talk about parking in the right-of-way. City Manager McMahon explained there were situations in the community where a business or property owner will have insufficient property for what they were doing on their own property. The Code required someone to have a signed agreement from another property owner allowing them to use their property for parking. He believed the City was getting into the civil business of two parties agreeing to something that didn' t necessarily have to be done that way. He didn' t believe it should be necessary to have a legal binding agreement for that purpose and didn' t feel the City should get into requiring a signed agreement of the party that consents to doing that. 10 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 City Manager McMahon then commented on the issue of public right-of- way, which he had a very restrictive feeling about. The public owns the right-of-way. He spoke of the City recently putting substantial money into the drainage. He also pointed out that the City mows and maintains the rights-of-way and the drainage swales, detention ponds and conveyance system. When there are cars parked there it restricts the City of work and causes grief to the workers trying to do their jobs . He again pointed out the taxpayers own the right-of-way and that there were utilities in the rights-of-way as well as telephone lines and cable wires . He felt if someone parked in the right-of-way day in and day out and had been asked to move a vehicle by Code or the Police that the City had an obligation to have the vehicle towed and the person cited. Mayor Hayman asked Mr. Moore if the Edgewater Business Association had a position on this subject. Mr. Moore thanked City Manager McMahon for his comments and his approach to the parking problem. He appreciated the leniency they have had so far. He pointed out since May 20th a lot of the parking on the right-of-way had been cleaned up and some of the junk cars had been moved and gone, which he felt was self enforcement . He felt there must be an agency, DOT or the State that could help them come up with a solid solution to solve the problems . He wanted to look at some of the unbuildable lots on Guava and Hibiscus . He was curious about the legality of using the City' s ten foot right-of-way that abutted the FEC Railroad as parking on Hibiscus . He didn' t know that they could up with anything quick enough to attach it to what they had going on with the Comp Plan Amendment and wasn' t sure if it would be necessary to have the parking problem solved before they amended it. He agreed with 100% with the right-of-way parking as it related to rescue vehicle access . City Manager McMahon identified the City did not enforce the FEC right-of-way restrictions and that that was up to the FEC. There was further discussion regarding there being a ten foot right- of-way between Hibiscus and FEC that wasn' t ten feet all the way and that there were some variances . City Manager McMahon stated there was nothing that said that Council couldn' t designate an area for parking that was rights-of-way and restrict cars to a certain distance on the right-of-way so it would be far enough off the road that it wouldn' t create a traffic problem. It was a public right-of-way that could be designated for a public purpose but it had to be common to everyone there. Mr. Moore asked the Council and staff to look into what areas along Guava and Hibiscus could be used for parking legally. He felt this would solve a lot of the problem. 11 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 Mr. Moore then commented on cars being stored on a lot and making work for themselves if they store too many because then they have to move cars to get to one particular car. Mr. Moore then mentioned parking on Hibiscus on some of the streets that had been blocked off for the retention areas . He agreed those should be no parking, some of it because of the burmage. Mr. Moore briefly commented on their water retention working as planned. Mr. Moore then described he felt the parking wasn' t that crucial of an issue. He knew they got confused with the right-of-way parking and some of the legalities of enforcing it. Mr. Moore further commented on addressing the Council months ago about the no parking signs on Guava which he didn' t have a problem with until one was placed two inches from his bumper, dead center while he was at lunch. He identified there was no pre-notice notifying them the City was going to do that. Mayor Hayman summarized what he felt Mr. Moore was recommending. Councilman Hays commented on the delivery truck issue which Mr. Moore touched on as it related to parking in the right-of-way. He then commented on the changes to the parking situation on U. S. #1 as it related to delivery trucks. He didn' t think the intent of the no parking was for delivery trucks, as they are only at a location for a few minutes . Ed Fosler, Ed' s Bottled Water, believed this problem had been addressed with the Florida Highway Patrol . They can make a delivery on the right-of-way and didn' t have to pull into a parking spot and park. They come under the FHP rules . He suggested they look into that. Bertha Morin spoke of having an incident one time when water was being delivered to their place of business and the police informed her it was not against the law for them to sit alongside the road, make their deliveries and leave. City Manager McMahon described the only time the police should be involved was if there was a public hazard situation. He felt this could be worked out very easily. If there was a specific area where the City didn' t have a great concern about parking on ten-foot strip of right of way immediately off the road and then contain the traffic to that, he didn' t see any problem with designating a common area for them to do that. He wasn' t aware of any legal precedence regarding this . He further commented on public safety being the major concern. 12 Council Workshop June 10, 1996 Councilman Mitchum spoke of the businesses that have don' t have customers flowing in and out all the time as a lot of the work being done was drop off work or towed in and the need for parking spaces wasn' t as great. He further commented on looking at if one type of business may require more parking than another type of business . He also commented on having different types of parking spaces, parking for customers and parking for vehicles that were being worked on. He suggested they look at actual situations . Mr. Moore felt there weren' t that many businesses on Guava and Hibiscus that they couldn't address it on a per business basis, which he felt would be the fairest and easiest way to go about it. Councilman Mitchum pointed out the parking requirements for a customer, storage and handicap accessibility weren' t the same and he felt that needed to be addressed. Councilman Hays agreed with City Manager McMahon that if someone has a neighbor that says they can park on their property that it should be none of the City' s business . The rest of the Council agreed. Mr. Roberts didn' t see a problem with using adjacent land for overflow parking. He asked if that would be considered part of a mandatory parking space for an occupational license. Mr. Karet commented on questions he had regarding how he needed to enforce that. He presented a scenario which Councilman Hays felt would be addressing overflow on an existing business . If someone' s neighbor allows them to use their property, if the vehicles were off the right of way and on private property that shouldn' t be considered part of his business if that wasn' t his deeded property. Mr. Karet identified the current language, in order to get credit for it, said they had to own it or lease it long term, which would be in effect for somebody qualifying for an occupational license . Mayor Hayman felt if a property owner saw as an entrepreneurial investment an opportunity to develop a common parking area and lease or rent space to people that needed it, he was sure it could be accommodated but didn' t think it would be cost effective. Mayor Hayman then summarized the conclusions of what had been discussed. He felt the items of concern should pertain to the entire City and not just Guava and Hibiscus . ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilwoman Martin moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned around 9: 00 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer, CMC 13 Council Workshop June 10, 1996