Loading...
08-07-2006 - Regular CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 7, 2006 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Thomas called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Michael Thomas Present Councilwoman Debra Rogers Present Councilman Dennis Vincenzi Present Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes Present Councilwoman Judith Lichter Present Assistant City Attorney Nick Palmer Present Interim City Manager Jon Williams Present City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Present INVOCATION, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE There was a silent invocation and pledge of allegiance to the Flag. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting of June 19, 2006 Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve the June 19, 2006 minutes, second by Councilwoman Rhodes . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . B. Regular Meeting of July 10, 2006 Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve the July 10, 2006 minutes, second by Councilwoman Rhodes . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 3. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/PLAQUES/CERTIFICATES/DON ATIONS Page 1 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 There were no presentations at this time. 4. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilwoman Rogers stated other than the fact that she understands that Florida Shores did receive a workshop. Interim City Manager Williams informed her that was correct. Councilwoman Rogers asked if it satisfied the needs of the citizens that were worried about their water bills. Interim City Manager Williams stated he thought they had about 20 – 25 residents that turned out. There were some there that were pretty boisterous over the fact that the rates have changed due to the fact that there was a promise not to raise the rates several years ago. They went back and researched the record and can’t find that comment anywhere in the record. In general terms, he felt by the end of the evening everybody felt that the new proposed rates that staff is recommending was very fair. They tried to get some assurance from him that those rates would not rise, however, he would not provide that assurance. Councilwoman Rogers stated she received two calls from residents pertaining to the reclaimed water as well as the services provided by the City for the normal housing water. She commended Director of Environmental Services Terry Wadsworth. She forwarded an e-mail to Liz McBride and she definitely handled it because the resident called her today to thank her. Councilwoman Rogers stated as a follow up back to the Interim City Manager as well as Darren Lear, she would like to have a response in reference to a question she brought up back in June that has to do with what happened to the dredging issue in the intercoastal because that was a source of revenue or at least she was lead to believe that was a source of revenue. She was looking to propose that to be a City Hall reserve. She also wanted to know if they had an opportunity to review some of the information she gave them regarding the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Interim City Manager Williams stated they are working on finding a response from Florida Inland Navigation District as it references the dredging material. They will continue to seek out something in writing to bring back to Council. Page 2 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Interim City Manager Williams reported they have reviewed some of the MPO stuff. They have also got an update tonight on the County five-year road program, which he would bring up under his reports, which in short summary describes lack of funding and increased construction costs. Councilman Vincenzi stated they have been busy with budget and Land Development Code issues and hopefully they will begin talking about the Land Development Code issues tonight. Councilman Vincenzi reported he had received phone calls from people on the reclaimed water. He received a lot of phone calls from people when the rates were first put into place. All of them negative. He still received a few phone calls when the new proposed rate structure was talked about last time and after they had the workshop at the Florida Shores Clubhouse. He was quoted in the newspaper as saying these rates are a lot more reasonable and he believes that. He believes you can’t be allowed to use as much as you want of any resource because it is limited and there has to be some kind of measure of conservation built in somehow. He feels these rates are getting more towards a more reasonable structure. He doesn’t see how they can be improved, other than to increase the allotment and reduce the cost. There has to be limits there somewhere. He feels these rates are falling into place and are going to be okay. Not everybody is going to be happy with them as always but he thinks they are doable. Councilwoman Rhodes had nothing at this time. Councilwoman Lichter stated in the back of the room on the table from the Pet Society is a list of volunteer type of jobs that are needed at the shelter. It is quite hot there. It’s not the best working conditions but they do have several volunteers but it is not a consistent thing. There is also a form that needs to be filled out if for anyone that is going to volunteer. She reported on working three hours a day at the Animal Shelter. They are placing excellent but they have 31 cats and kittens and 11 dogs and that isn’t easy. They are doing the best they can and are making every effort they can to place them. They went to Petsmart this past weekend and placed two of the five kittens they took with them. She feels that is encouraging. Page 3 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Mayor Thomas reported on attending the Florida Shores workshop with Interim City Manager Williams. After they talked to the residents and explained some things, he feels they are more understandable. He spoke of his electric bill going up last month due to increased fuel costs. His insurance also went up. Mayor Thomas spoke of some things he took out of the slide presentation at the workshop. It was an idea from somebody in 1993 and it was a good idea to do some runoff into the Indian River, which is one of his goals to have zero runoff into the Indian River and to let the people use it. In the meantime they have had to go over some bumps. St. John’s came in and told us that was viable water and to regulate it. Somebody has to regulate the water. He commented on always preaching about conservation. He spoke about eventually having to have a pipeline to get our water if we don’t start conserving. He feels they need to educate the public about water conservation. Mayor Thomas further commented on inheriting a junk bus and it not working properly. He spoke of having 3,000 residents and not being able to scrap it. They have to pay for it because it cost $4.5 million. They are going to have to go up on the rates. Part of the rate structure is to get the public to reduce their water capacity. Mayor Thomas mentioned the new fire tanker the City received as part of a grant. Fire Chief Barlow further commented on the new fire tanker. FEMA paid $180,000 and the City contributed $20,000. This tanker has the ability to carry 2,500 gallons of water and pump 750 gallons per minute. He further commented on the multiple purposes the new fire tanker can be used for. He mentioned the fire tanker assisting with lowering our ISO rating which provides the savings on fire insurance to businesses and residents. Anybody that wanted to go out and look at the truck during the first break is more than welcome. Interim City Manager Williams stated this was also part of a total grant that was $690,000, of which FEMA picked up $570,000 and we were able to satisfy some other firefighting needs. 5. CITIZEN COMMENTS Page 4 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 The following citizens spoke: Andy Anderson , Pine Tree Drive, informed Mayor Thomas he was right about water. We are going to have to conserve it probably more than we realize in future years. Particularly when we have a lot of new people coming into town. These people are going to need water just like anybody else. If everybody doesn’t conserve, we are going to be in hot water. We have to think about the new folks coming into town who are going to be using a lot of it. The more we get, the more they are going to use, the scarcer it is going to be, and the more expensive it is going to get. Mr. Anderson asked about illegal aliens. He asked if hiring an illegal alien in this City illegal. Councilwoman Rogers stated it should be. Mayor Thomas informed him he would write down his questions and respond at a later date. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he wasn’t an employment or tax lawyer, but it is his understanding generally you need the specific documentation to apply for and get compensated at any job. That would be his quick response. Mr. Anderson stated so it would be illegal. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed him that was correct. John Cordeiro , 1515 Pine Tree Drive, stated he can only talk for three minutes and he can only take a three-minute shower now. What else is going to be cut down? What upsets him about the water is Edgewater lets all these developers come in and build and ruin all these wetlands where we get our water from. He will have to pay so much money for reclaimed water when he was promised he was only going to pay so much. He asked Mayor Thomas if he knew what the roll back tax rate is for Edgewater. Interim City Manager Williams informed him he believed it was 4.93319. Mr. Cordeiro stated he just saw in the newspaper New Smyrna Beach is going to lower their taxes and are going to use the roll back tax rate and it is going to be 3.7 and our taxes are 6.45. he felt something could be done there. There are a lot of people living on fixed incomes in this City. This is a chance to do it. If a professional Page 5 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 accountant, which we have one on the Council, could see the budget and figure things out, he is sure there could be a pretty good size cut in taxes. They revalued everything so the City is getting all that more money for taxes. He spoke of the extra taxes the City is receiving. He feels there is no reason in the world why if an accountant that knows what they are doing, and we have one that does know, could check things out. He informed Mayor Thomas one of his primary goals was to scrutinize the budget and lower the tax base. Now he has a chance to do it. He would appreciate it if he would research it and see what he can do on that. Even get a Councilwoman, who is a professional accountant, to check things out. Andy Anderson , Pine Tree Drive, stated last year the City resurfaced several streets in Florida Shores. He hasn’t seen any of that being done lately and questioned if that has stopped. Interim City Manager Williams informed him it has not. They have just pulled a P.O. He wasn’t sure of the total length of the resurfacing that would be done or even which streets are going to be done now. They have also made provisions in next year’s budget to continue that process. Mr. Anderson stated Pine Tree Drive from SR 442 north to th 12 Street is in pretty bad shape. Dominic Capria , 606 Topside Circle, stated he thought there was $25,000 in the budget for resurfacing if he wasn’t mistaken. He stated he brought up sludge and dredging at the last meeting. He was told we aren’t getting anything. He stated Councilwoman Rogers brought it up tonight and now all of a sudden they are checking into it. The only reason he brought it up again is because if they are checking into it and we are going to get something, let’s get it before the budget it done. Mr. Capria stated he brought up before that water conservation, wells, four hours, twice a week, City water eight hours twice a week. He knows it is a County problem but we have somebody on the Water Authority who could be fighting with the County to get that straightened out. Councilwoman Lichter stated St. John’s regulates that. Mr. Capria asked what our cultural contract obligations are for ParkTowne on the $350,000 a year that we have to pay for 15 years. He asked if he could get an answer tonight. Page 6 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Interim City Manager Williams stated the proposed $350,000 is related to contractual obligations for the sale of property to build Base Leg Drive and another driveway out there known as Driveway A. Those contracts are currently being reviewed at the request of several members of the Council. Those contract obligations were written into those Purchase Sale Agreements and Foley is reviewing those presently. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated Interim City Manager Williams did contact them and ask for a specific written opinion advising the City of what the specific contractual requirements are under those contracts. Those contracts are being reviewed now and they will provide that written opinion to City Council at a later date. Mr. Capria hoped they had the opinion before the budget is done. Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Cordeiro how many three minutes he wanted. John Cordeiro , 1515 Pine Tree Drive, informed him he didn’t want to talk but he had an article written by Bill Hill on taxes about Edgewater that he wanted to hand them out to everyone. Councilwoman Lichter stated she gets the News Journal. Councilwoman Rhodes felt our budget needed to be compared to New Smyrna. They run the same city on twice the budget. Councilwoman Rogers stated in all due respect, she read that article and she feels he doesn’t know what he is talking about. There wasn’t one person talking about lowering the rate, there were two. She didn’t need to read it again. Councilwoman Rhodes felt everyone wanted to lower the rates and didn’t feel that was ever an issue. Councilwoman Lichter mentioned New Smyrna having twice the tax base that Edgewater has. Dave Davis , 928 Lake Ave, stated he just moved here and he and his fiancé came to their first meeting three months Page 7 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 ago. Green Coast Energy brought a proposal to the Council and in three months the Council hasn’t had anything to say about it. He asked if there is anything that is holding up this proposal. He feels Green Coast has an idea that he feels the Council should look into and bring forward. If it does what it says it can do they can bring in more money for the citizens and reduce taxes along the line. He asked if the City is doing anything. Interim City Manager Williams stated they have had a th meeting most recently as July 27 of which he believed Mr. Hunter had provided comments to the Council in reference to the meeting. Obviously they have provided some response back. He stated Assistant City Attorney Palmer has prepared a statement as well and he was going to let him address some of those concerns. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated Interim City Manager Williams had asked for some general quick advice and they explained to him if he wanted an opinion from them saying the City could enter into a letter of intent with Green Coast Energy, there would be some issues that would need to be researched. They suggested that Interim City Manager Williams speak with Green Coast Energy about some type of reimbursement agreement for the City’s research cost and also some alternative proposals such as an indemnity agreement in case the City is sued by Florida Power or any company in terms of that. They would be happy to look into it further as far as the City would like them to do. Having given those general comments to Interim City Manager Williams, he suggested they not go any farther with their view at this time. Interim City Manager Williams stated part of that is when they brought those issues up with representatives from Green Coast Energy they didn’t seem to be very receptive over the issuance of the agreement to reimburse the City for its cost of due diligence. You have a group or a business that has approached the City and has said they want to give the City $6 million but they want this in return. That response from staff’s perspective is they don’t know if that is in the best interest of the City and they don’t know if there is another company that is willing to provide something more to the City. They brought up the necessity of an RFI, which is a request for interest, of which was not very well received from those representatives as well. They have some issues they have to work through. Page 8 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 More importantly, the issues that Assistant City Attorney Palmer has brought up tonight. Mr. Davis asked if there is any way the citizens around there could turn around and help the City out by purchasing the land behind their houses to turn around and give the City the money for the purchase of the land. The City would turn around and increase their tax revenue off of the people who own that because they would also have more land and it would be higher taxes because it is right on the water. He asked how they can go about doing that, what is the purpose that they can’t do it and how can they get around this so they can? Mayor Thomas asked what lake he was talking about. Interim City Manager Williams stated he is talking about the borrow pit on Mango. Mayor Thomas stated they are trying to make that into a park. Mr. Davis stated he didn’t think the part behind his house they would be making into a park. Mayor Thomas stated they are going to try to. Mr. Davis questioned all the way around it. Mayor Thomas informed him yes. Mr. Davis asked if it would be smarter to sell that land to the citizens so they could pay taxes on it. Mayor Thomas stated no he didn’t think so because reclaimed water is going in there. They have some ideas to make a catch and release area and a dog running park and they are going to negotiate on the land across the street to have some trails. It will all be joined together. It’s in the future plan. Mr. Davis stated what he is talking about is behind. Mayor Thomas informed him he knew exactly where he was talking about. Mr. Davis informed him he was talking about his part on the other side of the lake. He asked the Mayor if he didn’t think it would be better for the City to tax the citizens on that to bring in tax revenue for the City. Councilwoman Lichter felt it was a tough one to debate tonight and felt it needed to be looked into. She felt if Mr. Davis met with Interim City Manager Williams he would find out exactly what is going on a little better. Mr. Davis stated right there is a little bit of money the City could use without raising the taxes on everybody else. Mayor Thomas stated a little bit of money. Mr. Davis thought a little is better than nothing. Carol Ann Stoughton , 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated she would like the Council to take note that the County has lowered Page 9 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 their tax rate to 4.95. She asked the Council if they were aware of that. She feels if the County can do it, she felt the Council could try to do it and try to work towards saving instead of mustering up monies that aren’t in excess to build, to buy, to spend, to hire, to do whatever. She thinks the people of this town live on a fixed income. She hasn’t been at the meetings because she has been very busy gathering petitions for ECARD, of which she has spoken to 2,000 to 3,000 people. She feels the Council doesn’t realize the people who live here do not want all of this development. They did not want high rises. She informed Mayor Thomas when he ran for office he said he would be the candidate for the people and their families. She feels his yes vote on that showed that he did a flip-flop. She was so proud of Councilwoman Rogers when she came forward and voted against this. They talk about conservation and saving water yet how many thousands of homes are planned to be built west of I-95. How can you talk about saving when you have 9,000 or 10,000 homes being planned? Councilwoman Rogers stated right now all they have is Reflections that has been approved and she believed it was around 1,400 homes. Hammock Creek they can’t talk about yet because they aren’t there yet. Councilwoman Lichter stated she thought they were supposed to wait until the end to answer because she would answer. Ms. Stoughton stated 1,400 homes is not 1,400 people. Pretty soon, we won’t have any water for the current people who live here who came here first. She feels it is time the Council realizes this is a City, a Country, a Town, of the people, by the people and for the people and not for the developers and engineers and everybody else that is in this town. She feels it is time to realize that they should stop this building progress before. They don’t even have a high school in this town. They don’t even have enough room for our children in this town to go to grammar school. She spoke about the citizens being given three minutes to talk and yet the developers can have all the time in the world. She feels that is totally unfair. Bob Tolley , Green Coast Energy, stated he had no intentions on speaking to the Council tonight until he heard some of the statements made tonight. He presented what he said was the accurate side of what has been going on. In November they met with the then City Manager and he proposed to Page 10 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 bring a project to this City anywhere from $58 million to $122 million in costs, generate jobs, throw $6 million right into the City’s coffers, pick up some land for the park to also donate to the City of Edgewater. They were asked about the concern with FP&L. They went out of their pocket and spent several thousand dollars to bring a professional letter here from a utility attorney regarding the issue with FP&L, which he gave to Interim City Manager Williams and Ken Hooper in February. That issue was taken care of. Since then he has met with Interim City Manager Williams and Ken Hooper and spoke to them on several occasions. Rob Hunter has met and spoken with them. All they have ever asked to move ahead with the City was a letter of interest. It does nothing with a letter of interest. All it says is the City of Edgewater is interested in what they are proposing. There is no legal ramification and there is no issue with FP&L other than what is being fabricated. FP&L knows they are talking to the City and they are very upset about that because they have been milking the City like the sacred cow for years and they are angry that they are here. But that is okay because they can deal with FP&L. This other issue did not come up until tonight and the Assistant City Attorney raised it. He knew nothing except from Interim City Manager Williams paying for the additional due diligence work. He stated that was the only thing he asked them for. Interim City Manager Williams stated in the e-mail where he responded back to Mr. Hunter he addressed the three issues that were outlined there. He then listed the three issues; 1) an agreement between Green Coast Energy and the City is required to reimburse the City for expenses incurred during the due diligence process; 2) a request for interest is necessary to determine that this is the best offer available to the City and 3) research the impact a letter of interest might have on our current franchise agreement with FP&L and associated legal obligations the City may incur. Mr. Tolley stated which they gave them several months ago. He agreed to pay the City for the due diligence based upon what. All he asked them for was, if they are going to go out and spend thousands of dollars for the City’s due diligence, give them a letter of interest. That is all they asked for. They aren’t going to go out and spend thousands of dollars for the City to say they don’t really know if they want this in the first place. As far as anything else, they said they would give it to Interim City Manager Williams. He could not understand because the tax rate is going up and the water is going up. Page 11 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 They are arguing with the City to pump this type of project into the City. All they do is get thrown under the train. He couldn’t understand how the City is conducting business. If they don’t want a $60 million to $122 million-dollar plant here, tell them. They will go away. He doesn’t have to come up here and get his blood pressure up. They will put it in another city. Before he does that, he wants to give the Council a chance to hear what is really going on. Mayor Thomas informed him it wasn’t the time or place and that they would address it again. Dot Carlson , 1714 Edgewater Drive, stated she has heard a lot of stuff up here tonight and all of it has been good and some of it she has learned new. She stated there is a lot of stuff going on in the City that the average Joe Edgewater doesn’t know about and that is how many projects are coming in here. She asked if they could do a Comprehensive map and put it in the paper. Let the people in Edgewater know everything has been given to them piecemeal. They don’t have the big picture. She has been out there on the streets and they know people don’t know what is coming at them and it is coming at them like a freight train. They moved here to a quiet town. Some of the folks are new and it looks like a nice quiet town. That is an illusion. It is not going to be a quiet town anymore. We are overgrowing ourselves. We are putting too many horses in one small pasture and we can’t feed them and we aren’t going to have water. Mayor Thomas asked if any of the Council wanted to address any of the comments. Councilwoman Lichter stated Mr. Capria has eluded to several times the watering of the lawns and there is no conservation measure in that respect. These rules are not set by Edgewater or the County. St. John’s comes down with what is okay and what is not okay in terms of what Mr. Capria is asking. She was shocked when she read it on the list of things herself. Can the Water Authority who is fighting for its very existence at this moment because cities would rather not cooperate but in the end have water wars. She agreed to bring this up the next time a representative from St. John’s comes what Mr. Capria was asking. In terms of running out of water, yes we are talking about a particular shortage, exactly eight to ten years from now in the County, if growth continues like it Page 12 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 is. St. John’s and five other permitting organizations must permit for every development that goes through. She believed some of the information that has been given out in terms of the condos gave been erroneous. After she read the article in the News Journal this week and having a height requirement meaning the City is stopping growth. A height requirement means that in some cases, and maybe those are higher than some people would like, but two normally high condos on the river verses six lower buildings in the woods behind the river is sprawl and kills more animals than the two buildings. People buy land and they have a right to develop it. We have a right to make sure it is developed wisely. Smart growth is one factor, other restraints are other factors. Edgewater Landing was opposed when it came in. Florida Shores was opposed when it came in but people have a right to sell their land and other people have a right to move to Florida. We cannot put a fence around it. This is one of the last areas to grow in the State. Flagler is growing at a faster rate than us. She would rather see two buildings a little bit higher so she still could have the wildlife that lives behind her and not have building after building taking its place. Each parcel of land is different and each parcel of land has a personality. She lives on a fifty-foot lot. Some people sitting on the Council say that is terrible and that from now on they should be 65 or 75. Edgewater Landing, a manufactured home park, is quite frankly like a park. It is gorgeous. She feels new projects that come in should have a ratio of 50-foot lots, 55-foot lots, 75-foot lots and a wider one because there is a diversity in needs of people. The price that each foot of land is is one factor of why they are talking about some smaller lots. You can have large lots and the place looks like a dump. You can have small lots and it looks like a park if you have enough greenery, and enough ponds and enough diversity around. They sit up there as taxpayers also. She is on a set retirement pay. They are all in the same set income. She wished we had the resources of New Smyrna so they could lower the taxes with the desire that our citizens have. Our citizens like two days a week garbage pickup. Our citizens like our marvelous Fire and Police Departments and the things we offer but we don’t have the tax base of the homes of New Smyrna. If the City starts cutting, they are going to cut things that people will complain about that they have cut. They are trying very hard on a Ford income to pay for a Cadillac and some of these things people want to live nicely. They are sitting up there as concerned as Page 13 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 the citizens. She spoke of when she attended Council meetings before she became a Councilmember. She spoke of Florida Shores being an expense because it was put in without paved roads and without sewers. Everybody in this City is paying a little bit for that, actually 1/3. She feels strongly they rose it to the highest they could for the moment because capital projects were going to be knocked out otherwise. She commented on her water bill being high and everything she pays being high but she is doing the best she can. She feels they can come down if they can come down and keep some of these projects in the budget. We do not have the tax base of New Smyrna Beach. Mr. Capria called a point of order and asked if they could have a rebuttal on that speech. Mayor Thomas and Councilwoman Rhodes informed him no. Mr. Capria stated he didn’t think so. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she did some research and found out that the City of New Smyrna Beach has five more square miles than the City of Edgewater. They’ve got only a couple thousand people more than the City of Edgewater but their budget is double to run their city. The fact that we can run our City on half the amount of money that it costs New Smyrna to run theirs, she feels is a plus. She thinks they do the best they can always. She feels they cut the budget to the bone and that they are very good stewards of the tax dollars in this City. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they talk about development and yes developers come and they own tracts of land. With that land comes an entitlement, a density entitlement. They are entitled to a certain amount of units per acre for that land. She presented an example of a developer selling his property to individual property owners and those property owners being entitled to build a home. Where do you stop it? Where do you say you don’t have the right to do something with property that you own? If not one other person moves into this City, she would be happy but nobody is going to make her happy. She questioned where do you draw the line. Regardless of where they draw the line, there are many legal things that have set the limits for the City. There are some things they cannot do. All they are trying to do is get the least amount of people on the most amount of land. They are doing their best. Page 14 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Mayor Thomas informed the public he wasn’t going to take any more citizen comments right now but informed them they could respond at the end. Councilwoman Rogers stated the comments regarding the budget, they are going to have a budget workshop next week at 6:30 p.m. and she felt that was the time to address that. For those that are not aware, she is not in favor of the 6.45 millage. Both her and Councilman Vincenzi voted for a 5.95 and of course, they were not the majority. She prefers to see a 5.45 and better yet, she prefers to see pretty darn close to the roll back rate for various reasons of which she has voiced from day one since they began talking about the millage adjustments. She stated there is a definite split on this board as to how they all feel about this. She is fully aware that Volusia County has lowered their rates, or they are going back to a lower rate. She is fully aware that New Smyrna Beach is at a roll back rate and Oak Hill is working on lowering their rate. Here we are at 6.45, which point blank is a tax increase. If we are not at the roll back rate to bring us back in the exactly amount of money we received last year it is a tax increase. She understands that gas costs more money and she understands a lot of this however she also feels that the budget we have right now is based upon actual numbers from the previous fiscal year ended and adjustments have been made to go forward for any increases in salaries, etc. Actual expenses from last year could have been built in increases because they were actual for that time period. There may have been a few line items that were higher than what they should have been. There are a lot of different issues. She encouraged those that were interested in the budget to attend the budget workshops. They will hear first hand what they are discussing and not just what is put into the newspaper. They are doing the best job that they can to put it in the paper but even what they write is edited and filtered because there is only so much space they can have as far as what they write put into the paper. AS far as building height, lot width, etc. they are getting ready to discuss that. For those that were at the workshop in January, they started something in January. Tonight is the first time the Council is going to be talking about the land use code changes again. She didn’t understand why it took so long. It took too long to the point of ridiculous when she looks at other counties like Flagler, that have proposed some things very similar to ours and theirs already hit the Page 15 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 process of being heard by the Council. It wasn’t delayed, it wasn’t put off. But in this City it was delayed and it was put off. She is hearing the issue that Mr. Anderson brought up about water. She has been talking about water. She made mention when they were talking about the Reflections property, if they had enough water and she understands various calculations are performed at the City level as well as other levels where they say we have capacity. Okay fine. She pointed out that in Southwest Florida they also had supposed capacity. What is going on in Southwest Florida? They made mistakes. No one is perfect. Transportation is probably her biggest sore spot. We have got a ton of people that are going to be hitting this City. We have approved development that are not yet built at or not yet even started. We don’t even see those residents yet. Once they hit the streets, they are going to see and feel that impact real fast. We are going to have a ton of subdivisions building out. She wondered if they are all going to sell. It appears to her like they are all going to be competing with each other. She feels there are going to be price wars going on. She commented on what is going on with the condo market. She spoke of a proposed condos in New Smyrna Beach that are on hold right now because they don’t have permitting for boat slips. She feels some of the condos in our area are going to have the same problem as well as the financing for these condos. She again encouraged the public to come to the budget workshop. Councilman Vincenzi had nothing at this time. Mayor Thomas in the past in order to expedite the meetings, he has asked the Council not to respond but he feels the public is asking some very important questions that need some answers. At the last meeting and at this meeting, it appears that they think he has changed. He hasn’t changed a bit. He has learned about politics. He wasn’t a politician when he came in and had never gone to a Council meeting but he has learned it takes a long time to do something. There were a lot of things on the agenda before he ever got here. These developers have vested rights and entitlement rights. You are saying well spend the money correctly and just say no when they are going to come in here and win a lawsuit. He isn’t going to spend the City’s money like that. He may be dumb, but he’s not stupid. He commented on spending all weekend looking at the Land Development Code. He informed some of the residents they Page 16 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 better not leave. He stated they have asked for this and they have got the opportunity tonight to change some of these things. If you come for half a meeting and then you leave, your word isn’t any good because that is all he does is go to meetings. He has learned a lot about politics and it is a slow process but he hasn’t changed a bit. There was a ten-minute recess at this time. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Public Hearing, Edgewater Harbor, LLC, requesting Amendment No. 2 to the Planned Unit Development Agreement for Edgewater Harbor Interim City Manager Williams informed Council this item has been withdrawn. nd B. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-04, James Morris, Agent for Charles and Phyllis Barry, requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 5.04+ acres of land located south of SR442 and west of Old Mission Road as Commercial with Conservation Overlay, (cont. from 6/5/06, Item 6D) Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-O-04 into the record. Development Services Director Darren Lear made a staff presentation. Jim Morris, 420 S. Nova Road, Daytona Beach, New Smyrna Beach High School graduate, stated this is a piece of property that has been cleared and filled for a number of years and had all the appropriate permits. The Fire application in the early-mid 1990’s received objection from Volusia County. The Growth Management Commission has a job of resolving comments and objections from different government agencies so this plan amendment has been through that process and Volusia County’s objections have been resolved. He pointed out the site on an aerial map. He spoke of a portion of the site going towards I-95 being for commercial purposes. He commented on the meeting he attended where Mayor Thomas used a sponge when he was talking about the wetlands. He understands the concerns the Council has. This property is a property that pre- Page 17 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 existed present rules and was filled and cleared legally. It is only appropriate to use it for commercial purposes. The borrow pit behind it is an active borrow pit. He then commented on the discussion they had with Council about the alternative uses of the property, it would potentially be multi-family use. He thought the discussion at that time was in terms of choices between commercial use and multi- family use, was that the Council preferred commercial use from a standpoint of tax base, from a standpoint residential impact and from a standpoint even of traffic because of the traffic generation factor. They requested that Council finalize the discussions that have occurred prior to this evening to adopt the amendment and let the property have an Edgewater designation of commercial. He spoke of the Barry’s discussion with the Council at that time, the designation of commercial when they annexed the property into the City. That process was not completed. He contacted Mr. Lear when they started and restarted. They didn’t pickup where they left off. They began the process anew. They completed the entire review process with current administration and they respectfully requested Council’s approval. Councilwoman Rogers stated she noticed there was a sewer 8” force main on this property. Mr. Lear informed her along Indian River but they can access it. According to their notes under the adequate public facilities, they indicate that City water is currently available to the site. She asked if it will accommodate the 2” water main that she believes is what is necessary for commercial property. She is aware of some properties that are commercially zoned in the City, businesses that are trying to get up and running but are having problems because they don’t have the access of City water via a 2” water main. Before they go further with this, she wanted to make sure whoever takes over the property and develops it commercially that they aren’t going to have the problems that some of our commercial business owners have currently. They don’t want them to have problems and she was encouraging that they get these businesses up and going, even more so than residential development. We need the commercial tax base. She confirmed we do in fact have the City water and it is at the right dimension for the main line. Mr. Lear informed her it is along the north side of Indian River. They will probably have to do a jack and bore but it is available. Councilwoman Rogers then asked if it was cost effective for them. She doesn’t want them to come back to us at some Page 18 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 point, a future applicant of a business, saying they’ve been told it would cost $20,000 to tie into this because it is too far away and they won’t get a 2” or anything like that. She doesn’t want these people to have the problem that two of our current business owners have along U.s. #1. Mr. Lear stated they have not seen a proposed development plan. They will be notified as soon as they come in how to get to it. It is along the north side of Indian River. Councilwoman Rogers stated she just wants it real clear for anybody in the future. Mr. Morris stated they understand the water main is on the north side and they understand the water line has to be brought under the road. They had discussion with City staff in regards to providing a stub connection that would run parallel along the southbound region to provide for water services and also for looping for increased pressure for fire protection. They know the water has to be brought to the property from across the road. Councilwoman Rogers asked if the owners have mentioned anything about what they are going to do and who is going to buy it or develop it. Mr. Morris informed her not so far. He spoke of their process with the Volusia Growth Management Commission being continued three times. They have been waiting for that process to be finalized. It is finalized now in terms of the resolution and VGMC is not a dispute resolution group but rather a compatibility resolution group. Hopefully with this evening the process will be complete and they can move forward to the next step. Councilwoman Lichter stated in terms of going west, if a car is coming from I-95 heading this way and it is on the right-hand side they have no problem accessing the business property. If that car wants to go back across I-95 do they have to go up a bit more to the right and then is there a crossover so they can get back. Mr. Morris didn’t recall exactly where the median break was. Mr. Lear informed her if they are going east, they would have to go to the light at Old Mission and do a u-turn to go back west. Mr. Morris informed her the exit would be right in right out in terms of traffic movement when the site design is done. Councilwoman Lichter stated she sees no other use they could do with it. It has kind of been butchered over the years. Page 19 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Mayor Thomas stated it was originally part of the Turnbull Hammock wetlands system but it has been upgraded a long time ago. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve Ord. 2006-O-04, James Morris, Agent for Charles and Phyllis Barry, requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to include 5.04+ acres of land located south of SR442 and west of Old Mission Road as Commercial with Conservation Overlay second by Councilwoman Rogers . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . nd C. 2 Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-26, amending Chapter 11 (Occupational Licenses, Taxes and Regulations) of Article I (General) by amending Sections 11-7 (Administrative Fees, Application Fees and Inspection Fees) and 11-8 (License Tax Schedule) of the Code of Ordinances Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-O-26 into the record. He informed Council the Statutes on occupational licenses requires that any action to changes in the occupational license code be passed by a majority plus one vote of the City Council. While the majority of three to one was sufficient to move the ordinance from first reading to second reading, tonight this ordinance would require a positive vote of at least four members of the Council. Interim City Manager Williams and Mr. Lear made a staff presentation. Councilwoman Rogers asked Councilwoman Rhodes why she voted no on the first reading. Councilwoman Rhodes stated her reasoning was in an effort to encourage commercial growth in this City, which in her opinion should be of the higher priority in order to reduce taxes, her thought was with other expenses going up, she thought in order to give them a little bit of encouragement, even though they will raise the prices to them they will pass it on the consumer. We are going to pay for it one way or the other. She thought it would be a pat on the back from the City to encourage Page 20 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 our businesses to grow and prosper. That was her reasoning and still is. Councilwoman Lichter stated she looked over the numbers pretty closely. Basically it is a one-dollar to a three- dollar increase, except for a couple. She asked if this is paid once a year. Mr. Lear informed her every year you are required to renew your occupational license. She didn’t feel the increase was excessive and stated that is why she voted yes. It’s not even the five percent that the State allows. Due to there being no comments, Mayor Thomas opened and closed the public hearing. Councilman Vincenzi moved to approve Ord. 2006-O-26, amending Chapter 11 (Occupational Licenses, Taxes and Regulations) of Article I (General) by amending Sections 11-7 (Administrative Fees, Application Fees and Inspection Fees) and 11-8 (License Tax Schedule) of the Code of Ordinances, second by Councilwoman Lichter . The MOTION FAILED 3-2 due to not having a majority plus one. Councilwoman Rhodes and Councilwoman Rogers voted NO . st Reading, Ord. No. 2006-O-27, staff D. 1 recommending proposed text amendments to the Land Development Code Assistant City Attorney Palmer read Ord. 2006-O-27 into the record. He informed Mayor Thomas for purposes of discussion just on a matter of procedure, if the Council is going to discuss proposed amendments to the ordinance, he advised that initially the Mayor consider a motion to adopt the ordinance at first reading and entertain separate or combined motions for amendments. In no way would the initial motion to adopt bind any of the Councilmembers to vote for or against the ordinance at second reading. Adopting it would table the item for discussion and then separate motions for amendment could then be had. Mayor Thomas thanked Assistant City Attorney Palmer for his suggestions but informed him they would be handling it in a different way. He informed Council they would go in voting order. If they have any changes, they will state those and then put it in a motion or they will have discussion on it Page 21 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 and then put it in a motion and then vote on it at that time. Interim City Manager Williams made a staff presentation. He informed Council Director of Development Services Darren Lear has prepared a little discussion related to the proposed amendments. He asked Council if they would like to go over these or go directly into Council discussion. They are prepared to highlight the proposed amendments. Councilman Vincenzi stated just for clarity what is in the Code is here. What they are discussing and voting on are the changes they expressed they would like to see. Various members suggesting various changes and certain text changes that are just clerical and clean-up type items. The stuff in yellow is what the Planning & Zoning Board recommended as changes to those. Mr. Lear confirmed those are their proposed amendments to the original document Council got in March. Councilman Vincenzi stated so what they would be voting on first are the changes that were recommended by the Council and then discussion would entail recommendations from the Planning & Zoning Board. Then they would decide which ones they want to accept and which ones they don’t want to accept and then vote accordingly. Interim City Manager Williams stated Council made some recommendations for proposed changes. P & Z has reviewed them and there have been several review processes that have taken place. What is provided back to Council is their recommendations for amendments, which probably don’t exactly follow suit with some of Council’s ideas or omitments to the Land Development Code. Councilman Vincenzi stated what he is trying to get at is, there is the Land Development Code the way it is, the suggested Council changes and the Planning & Zoning Board recommendations. We would be discussing and voting on whether to accept or not accept Planning & Zoning Board recommendations and then to fashion the wording for the actual Land Development Code changes. Mr. Lear stated what they have presented to them tonight is what staff is recommending approval on. He informed him that was the yellow and gray highlights. It’s all in one document together. Councilman Vincenzi stated the first one is on Page I-5 and it’s the highlighted yellow change. That is kind of Page 22 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 st obvious since the process has been delayed. June 1 is no st longer a valid date so October 1 is more reasonable. He is fine with that. He pointed out this occurs a couple of times on the following pages. Councilman Vincenzi then referred to Page II-7. He pointed out the change to the definition of buildable area. Mr. Lear stated it clarifies that language that buildable areas that envelope within all those setbacks. A lady in the audience asked if the public could get a copy of what was being discussed because they couldn’t see it. Mr. Lear stated they could put the Land Development Code up if that is what Council wanted. Councilman Vincenzi then referred to Page II-24 with regard to the proposed change to the definition of Net Density. He asked what the change, ”Land below the 100-year flood plain may be used in calculations if compensating storage requirements are met.” He asked what this meant. Mr. Lear informed him in Article V there is the floodplain compensating storage requirements that they are suggesting to put in. It was the suggestion of the Planning & Zoning Board. If they can meet those requirements they should be able to utilize that land in their calculations. For every foot they fill they have to have a foot of storage within the 100-year flood plain to make up for that. He then questioned why the City would want to let them do that. Mr. Lear stated he believed that it doesn’t punish the landowner that wants to develop. The floodplain compensating storage requirements are very strict. That was a caveat for them that they could have the additional developable land if they could meet the compensating storage. Councilman Vincenzi stated if they have land below the 100- year floodplain that they can’t use to build on. Mr. Lear informed him if they have land below the 100-year floodplain and they fill it but they can compensate for that with extra retention then they could utilize that land area in their calculations. Councilman Vincenzi stated he was sure retention meant digging deeper. Mr. Lear informed him actually it’s required to be other ponds within the 100-year flood plain. It can’t be your existing stormwater storage retention areas that you require normally. Page 23 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Councilman Vincenzi stated the reason for not using land below the 100-year floodplain is because it could potentially fill with water with a 100-year storm event. Mr. Lear informed him that is why they are requiring in Article V that if you do that you compensate for it. Councilman Vincenzi stated with this same land. Mr. Lear informed him it could be on that site or elsewhere as long as they compensate for it. Any fill that they put in the 100-year they have to be able to account for it. Councilwoman Rhodes questioned where else it would be. Mr. Lear informed her they could do it offsite if they could meet the requirements that are in the Land Development Code. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed with Councilman Vincenzi and stated she didn’t understand. Councilman Vincenzi asked Mr. Lear if he could clarify it or if he was going to say the same thing. Mr. Lear asked him what he wanted him to say. Councilman Vincenzi stated he didn’t understand why you would want to be able to use that figure in calculations other than to up the density, increase the number of houses that are put on that property by using potentially unusable land. Mr. Lear explained most of the time what happens is in that 100-year floodplain, it is going to make them lose lots to compensate for it. They are going to have to eat up lots anyway for another pond somewhere onsite or it could be offsite where that is going to be taken away. It penalizes them. This was basically a suggestion from the Planning & Zoning Board to give something back. They are looking at net density instead of gross density and they are also looking at open space requirements that weren’t there before. Councilman Vincenzi stated so on a 500-acre piece of property, roughly estimating, right now it is 25-year floodplain is the limit. Mr. Lear confirmed 100-year. Councilman Vincenzi stated what is it right now. Mr. Lear explained it depends where the property is. He informed him he wasn’t following him. Councilman Vincenzi stated what property, places that are considered not buildable right now. Mr. Lear informed him generally it is below the 100-year floodplain. You have outside of the 100-year, you have a 500-year floodplain and then there is 100-year floodplain. Councilman Vincenzi asked about there being nothing else, 25-year. He thought he remembered seeing something later on about that. Mr. Lear informed him there is a 25-year storm event. Councilman Vincenzi stated so right now people can’t build below the 100-year floodplain, they can’t build and can’t fill. Mr. Lear stated they can Page 24 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 now but it is going to be tougher if it gets approved in the proposed changes to the Land Development Code. Councilman Vincenzi stated so they can do it now. How much on a 100-acre piece of property, what is the typical percentage that is below the 100-year floodplain and what is not? He referred to the Reflections area. Mr. Lear stated it depends where it is. Councilman Vincenzi stated let’s say there is fifty acres out of a hundred. What is the implication of including the highlighted yellow piece? Mr. Lear explained if they were wanting to fill fifty acres of floodplain they would have to find fifty acres of storage. Councilman Vincenzi stated somewhere else. Mr. Lear informed him somewhere. Councilman Vincenzi stated it could be anywhere. Mr. Lear explained there are certain requirements that they have in here that it has to be linked and there has to be a logical nexus for that stormwater. Councilman Vincenzi asked him like what. He asked for an example. Mr. Lear stated like downstream. If it can help a situation downstream and if you can create a storage area there that also helps a non-conforming stormwater area and that would be improved. Councilman Vincenzi stated whether they own that or not. Mr. Lear stated they would have to get permission from the property owner. Councilman Vincenzi stated he would be in favor of not including the yellow highlighted piece only because it is extremely confusing and he hasn’t received in his mind, an adequate explanation as to why it is there. Mayor Thomas asked him if he wanted to make a motion to that affect. Councilman Vincenzi asked if they wanted to wait until everybody discusses it. Mayor Thomas informed him no. Councilwoman Rhodes felt the explanation was adequate; she just didn’t like it. Councilman Vincenzi stated he sees the possibility of a lot of problems occurring such as non-clarity and confusion. Councilwoman Rhodes referred to Page IV-5, which she feels sets forth all the criteria so there are criteria for it. She just didn’t feel it was necessary. She understands the Planning & Zoning Board’s reason is to compensate the landowner for not being able to have gross density. She felt this was a nice thought but didn’t feel it was necessary. Councilwoman Rogers stated because what they are dealing with here is the discussion between the gross density and the net density, the fact that they are going to net Page 25 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 density is going to limit a developer on how much of the land they can develop. By this little statement, land below the 100-year floodplain may be used in a calculation, it is now allowing it as long as they mitigate or go elsewhere. Mr. Lear informed her exactly. Councilwoman Rogers felt this was almost like a double negative. She asked if they could go ahead and make a motion and say no or yes that they want this. Mayor Thomas entertained a motion. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed her they could make individual motions. He stated they could make specific motions that might also reflect provisions that appear later to make them consistent with this. If they change this one, additional motions might be necessary once they get to the floodplain mitigation sections to change that to be consistent with the definition. Councilman Vincenzi stated he was sure they would have Assistant City Attorney Palmer’s legal expertise to help them with that and make it consistent. Right? Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed him yes. Councilman Vincenzi made a motion that the yellow highlighted recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Board be stricken from the definition of net density, second by Councilwoman Rogers . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . Councilman Vincenzi then referred to the Planned Unit Development definition on Page II-27. It’s yellow but it’s stricken meaning it was in there but the Planning & Zoning Board decided they did not want to recommend it. He then read the definition. This is what they were talking about that says if you are going to negotiate a PUD anything under 15 acres would not even be considered. There would not be any PUD negotiations. It would have to be fifteen acres or more. The Planning & Zoning Board decided they would like to strike that and he didn’t like this idea. He would like to keep that in there. Mayor Thomas asked Councilman Vincenzi if he would like to make a motion to that affect. Councilwoman Lichter asked if she could ask a question about what he mentioned. Mayor Thomas suggested they would Page 26 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 do that under discussion. He asked Councilman Vincenzi if he wanted to make a motion to keep that in there. Councilman Vincenzi asked Mayor Thomas if they wanted to make a motion and then discuss it. Mayor Thomas informed him right. Councilman Vincenzi made a motion that the last sentence highlighted in yellow that was recommended to be stricken by the Planning & Zoning Board remain in there and the statement to remain in should be “Total land area must be fifteen acres or more”, second by Councilwoman Rogers . Mayor Thomas entertained discussion. Councilwoman Lichter stated she knows for some reason when this came up Ken was in favor of it. She was not but she never got a chance to ask him why. She asked why they were in favor of making it at least fifteen acres. Interim City Manager Williams stated he didn’t recall what Ken’s thinking was on that. Councilwoman Rhodes asked why the Planning & Zoning Board didn’t want it to be fifteen acres. Mr. Lear explained the belief is, not to handcuff yourself and take away the flexibility you have with these PUD agreements. Councilman Vincenzi stated it doesn’t remove it, it just removes it under small parcels. Interim City Manager Williams stated a scenario would be if you have a parcel that is ideal for infill within some of the older sections of town that are below fifteen acres, you would be able to bring it in under an RPUD agreement and negotiate. With that, by placing the fifteen-acre minimum in place you eliminate that ability. Councilwoman Lichter asked if we have some in the City that are less than fifteen. Mr. Lear informed her we did. He gave Pinehurst as an example. Councilwoman Lichter asked if the project behind Riverside Bank was a PUD. Mr. Lear informed her yes. Mayor Thomas stated there is a motion on the floor that has been seconded. He asked for a roll call vote. Councilwoman Lichter stated maybe somebody else has a question. Page 27 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 The MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Councilwoman Rhodes and Councilwoman Lichter voted NO . Mr. Ross asked when they are going to have citizen comments. Mayor Thomas informed him at the end. Mr. Ross asked if that would allow the Council to go back and change their votes if the citizens offer information that will change their vote. Mayor Thomas informed him it might. Councilman Vincenzi then referred to Page II-35 in reference to the definition for Vehicle, Inoperable. He stated not a growth related one. He asked what they have against the definition for inoperable vehicles. Mr. Lear stated it is already addressed in Article III Section 21- 34.06. They felt it was better not to have it in two different places. Councilwoman Lichter stated they are in conflict because they don’t say the same thing. Mr. Lear stated the proposal from the Planning & Zoning Board for the definition of the inoperable, abandoned and or wrecked vehicles is without a current valid assigned registration that is appropriately displayed or a current vehicle restoration permit. Councilman Vincenzi questioned the fact that this definition didn’t match this one was why they decided they wanted to strike it. Mr. Lear informed him it was easier just to put it in Article III and leave it there. Councilman Vincenzi didn’t have a problem with that. City Clerk Wadsworth asked Councilman Vincenzi if he missed II-29. Councilman Vincenzi informed her that was one of those things that didn’t matter to him one way or the other so he didn’t worry about it. Councilman Vincenzi then referred to Page V-2, Table V-1 – Site Dimensions. He mentioned the changes occurring under the PUD agreements. This summarizes what is in text format throughout the document. Mr. Lear informed him this gives them all of the setback requirements for each zoning category. Councilman Vincenzi stated so under RPUD it had a minimum of 15 acres. The Planning & Zoning Board highlighted it and wanted to strike it. That is consistent with what they Page 28 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 wanted to strike before, which they reversed so far. That is no longer a valid change. Mr. Lear informed him if it changes in the definition it needs to change there also in the reference in Article III as well. Councilman Vincenzi stated anything under fifteen acres he would like to not have it fall under a PUD. He asked what needed to be changed on the table to make that consistent. Mr. Lear informed him they would just take out the strike through. Councilman Vincenzi asked if they have to vote on it since it was previously done. Assistant City Attorney Palmer suggested they make a general motion to edit all provisions of the proposed Land Development Code inconsistent with the now adopted definition to include fifteen acres. Councilman Vincenzi stated so a general one at the end. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed him now or at the end. Councilman Vincenzi made a motion that any changes that are voted on and approved by the City Council also be edited and updated throughout the document to be consistent, second by Councilwoman Rhodes . Mayor Thomas asked for discussion and a roll call vote. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . Councilman Vincenzi then referred to other figures on the chart with regard to the minimum lot square footage for the RPUD. He asked where the 8,625 came from. Mr. Lear informed him that is the 75’ X 115’. Councilman Vincenzi stated so the fact it has a line through it and it’s highlighted and says n/a, what exactly is being proposed. Mr. Lear informed him that they don’t have those requirements in the PUD. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that is what the Planning & Zoning Board is proposing, that they don’t have those requirements. Councilman Vincenzi stated with the PUD if anything under fifteen acres is not going to fall under a PUD agreement, does any of this need to be discussed at all. Councilwoman Rhodes and Mr. Lear informed him yes. Councilman Vincenzi stated he meant as far as the lot widths and all that stuff yeah but for anything under fifteen acres it doesn’t matter because it’s not going to be discussed or if it’s not a PUD then those are the minimums. Mr. Lear stated if it is under fifteen acres, apparently from what he is hearing tonight, it would have to go to a single family zoning category. Page 29 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Councilwoman Lichter stated and you are saying it has to be at least 75 feet and she disagrees with that. Mr. Lear stated the smallest they have is the 75’ X 115’ in the R-3 Single Family District. Councilman Vincenzi stated so all the numbers in those two categories match up except the column that says maximum height. He asked why the RPUD was 150 and the R-3 was 26. Mr. Lear informed him it was proposed to be 50 and the Planning & Zoning Board’s recommendation is that there be no maximum height limitation. Councilman Vincenzi stated so if they are talking under fifteen acres and they are going to an R-3 designation, that height limit should be 26 feet. Councilman Vincenzi questioned making it consistent with the rest of the figures in that category. Mr. Lear informed him right. Councilman Vincenzi stated motion again. Mayor Thomas stated motion. Councilman Vincenzi stated and then they will discuss it. Councilman Vincenzi made a motion that anything under fifteen acres would just fall under R-3. Mr. Lear informed him he didn’t think they needed to because it takes care of itself. Councilman Vincenzi stated so they need to discuss anything over fifteen acres. Mr. Lear and Interim City Manager Williams informed him that was correct. Councilwoman Lichter assumed the Planning & Zoning Board thought it was more flexible that way. Councilman Vincenzi stated as long as that minimum fifteen acres is scratched and right now it is because under fifteen acres does not fall under PUD agreements and fifteen acres or more does. Mr. Lear informed him that was correct. Councilman Vincenzi stated as long as that is scratched anything under fifteen acres falls basically under R-3. Mr. Lear stated or any of your other Euclidian zoning districts they have. Councilman Vincenzi stated so anything over fifteen acres would fall under an RPUD. Mr. Lear stated not necessarily, only if they apply for an RPUD. They could come in over fifteen acres and still want to do R-1 or R-2. Councilman Vincenzi stated so anything that comes in as an RPUD would basically be acceptable under your negotiations. Interim City Manager Williams informed him that was correct. Councilman Vincenzi stated and it would have to be approved by City Council. Interim Page 30 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 City Manager Williams informed him that was correct. Councilman Vincenzi stated so the n/a under minimum lot square footage for fifteen acres or more with an RPUD is okay. The n/a under minimum lot depth is fine and the same with the height. Councilwoman Rhodes stated that is what this says. Councilman Vincenzi stated right, for fifteen acres or more as long as that minimum fifteen acres is still in effect. Interim City Manager Williams informed him that was correct. Councilman Vincenzi stated he is fine with that. Councilman Vincenzi stated he was going to let someone else tackle the discussion on the BPUD and the IPUD because he didn’t really think about that one. So let’s move on to the next one. Mayor Thomas stated yes sir. Councilwoman Rogers asked if she could bump out of turn since they are kind of doing this a little different. Mayor Thomas informed her they would go back to her in a second. Councilman Vincenzi then referred to Page V-7 Item k. He asked why the Planning & Zoning Board wanted to remove the stricken item. Mr. Lear stated he thought they felt if the driveway met the required setbacks then they should be approved. Councilman Vincenzi didn’t think there were many situations where that would come into play. He had no problem leaving it in there. Councilwoman Lichter asked what the minimum is right now for driveways. She questioned if they had changed the minimum width. Mr. Lear informed her no. Councilman Vincenzi then referred to Page IX-19 Section 21- 101-01 - Intent. He questioned the point of adding “usually in accordance with planned residential, business or industrial developments”. Mr. Lear informed him he thought that was just clarification to better specify why you have zoning agreements and agreements are the PUD’s. Councilman Vincenzi stated if they are not in accordance with one of those what are they in accordance with. Mr. Lear stated the only thing he could think of was maybe if you had to enter into some sort of agreement that wasn’t going to be a PUD but is required to extend a road or bring in more capacity for water or sewer, something along those lines. Page 31 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Mr. Lear stated it’s not totally necessary. Councilman Vincenzi stated he just likes things as simple as possible because they can get very cloudy very quickly. He asked if this one sentence is going to cloud things in the future. He asked if there were any legal opinions or interpretations. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated his legal advice would be not to use the word usually in the Land Development Code. Councilman Vincenzi asked if they should leave it the way it is and strike usually. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he thought that was fine. He thought some of the confusion here might be the term zoning agreements. It might be more applicable to term these development agreements. As a general rule, development agreements are required for PUD’s and can be utilized for other development of the property. He didn’t see a situation where there would be a zoning agreement or anything styled as a zoning agreement. His initial reaction would be that this section could be amended to discuss development agreements in lieu of zoning agreements. He would be happy to take a closer look at that. Councilman Vincenzi stated so Assistant City Attorney Palmer’s suggestion would be to change zoning agreements to development agreements. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed him yes. Councilman Vincenzi asked him about the usually part. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he would recommend striking it. Councilman Vincenzi asked if they would have a chance to look this over and discuss it at the second reading also. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed him yes and suggested at the end of this discussion and public comments that if there is a motion to approve that it be a motion to approve as amended with direction of staff to change the ordinance in accordance with tonight’s discussion and review of the City Clerk’s record before bringing it back for second reading. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they should do a motion now to correct this. She asked Councilman Vincenzi if he could just do it and they could keep it clean and neat so it is all in order. Councilman Vincenzi stated I suppose. Page 32 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Councilman Vincenzi asked Assistant City Attorney Palmer what the motion should be. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed him to change the title of Section 21-101 from zoning agreements to development agreements and change the remainder of Section 21-101 to be consistent therewith and to delete the word usually. Councilman Vincenzi stated he would like to make a motion to propose what Assistant City Attorney Palmer just said, change zoning agreements to development agreements, strike usually from the wording and make the rest of this section consistent according to discussion, second by Councilwoman Rhodes . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . Councilman Vincenzi stated he seemed to remember some other points about minimum lot widths and things like that but he didn’t seem to earmark them. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she only had one issue. On Page V-45, it has variable up to 4.0 dwelling units per gross acres in areas designated Low Density. She asked if that should be net acres. Interim City Manager Williams informed her it was a type-o. Mr. Lear informed her it would be changed throughout. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if she should make a motion to change all gross to net. Mayor Thomas stated yes, please do. Councilwoman Rhodes made a motion to change all gross acre to net acre in the Land Development Code, second by Councilman Vincenzi . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . Councilwoman Lichter stated she wanted to ask a question on the minimum lots. Right now on the Single Family Residential, which isn’t manufactured homes, what is Florida Shores lot widths. Mr. Lear informed her 80’ X 125’ is the standard lot. Councilwoman Lichter stated that is because they put two lots together. In this case, they are making that narrower to 75’. Mr. Lear stated Florida Page 33 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Shores is the R-2 zoning district where it is required to be Councilwoman Lichter referred to Page V-2 and pointed out that R-1 single family residential specifies 100’. She asked what it is now. Mr. Lear informed her none of those are proposed to change. Councilwoman Lichter questioned MH-2 - Manufactured Homes being changed from 50 to 60. Mr. Lear informed her what is highlighted in gray or yellow are the proposed changes. Councilwoman Lichter asked what manufactured homes are now. Mr. Lear informed for her a manufactured home in the MH-2 district, the minimum lots widths are 60’ X 110’. Councilwoman Lichter asked Mr. Capria what the width requirement is of their home in Edgewater Landing. Mr. Capria informed her they are all different, anywhere from 36’ to 120’. Councilwoman Lichter questioned this being a set one right now. She asked if they are taking a new one at 60’. Mr. Lear informed her that is the way that zoning category has been for several years. Councilwoman Lichter asked about the new ones that they put up on Mission Road. Mr. Lear informed her they were proposing to do a PUD. Councilwoman Lichter asked what they were in the PUD. Mr. Lear informed her Oak Leaf is single-family residential and Mission Oaks is a non- conforming existing mobile home park in the County. Councilwoman Lichter asked what multi-family residential is now. She is just trying to see if they are making them narrower than they were before or if they are basically the same. Mr. Lear informed her they are not proposed to be changed. Councilwoman Lichter then referred to Article XIV, Section 21-181, 21-181.04 Membership in particular. There is a lot of wonderful verbiage there but in actuality they aren’t doing that quite and some of that hasn’t changed. She commented on combining the Beautification Committee and Recreation/Cultural Services Boards. She didn’t know if this was the time to strike a line or change a line and she didn’t think the Planning & Zoning Board would pay as much Page 34 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 attention to this as she would. She asked if she could get into this a little more. She feels the historical aspect is being neglected. She spoke of working to get these two boards together. She feels that board has certain duties and requirements in establishing and recognizing old homes, historic homes, putting up signs on the homes, etc. She feels that is neglected a little bit. She thinks it needs to be looked at as a committee again to see if they can emphasize that cultural/historical aspect they aren’t doing. She questioned why it is in the Land Development Code and asked if it could come out and be handled as a separate committee. Mr. Lear commented on other boards being addressed in the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code lets any board member or City Councilmember or any staff member propose a text amendment at any time. He suggested at a later date, if they wanted to form a committee or something to look at that then they could come back. She felt they needed to look into this a little more. Mayor Thomas referred to Page I-2. He mentioned in Item c - the flood prone areas and wetlands being stricken and Item f – Ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive lands being stricken. He didn’t understand the reason for this unless it is covered somewhere else. Mr. Lear informed him he believed the reason for that was because they talk about the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. They did the research of what Chapter 163 says now and it has changed since this was originally stated. Mayor Thomas stated Item e says ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive land designated in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if they are eliminating some double wordage. He doesn’t want to let down his protection of the environmentally sensitive lands and the flood prone areas and the wetlands. Mr. Lear informed him they aren’t doing that with changing this. Environmentally sensitive lands are covered in the Comprehensive Plan that talks about conservation land use and conservation overlay. Mayor Thomas then referred to Page II-13 – the definition or Discharge. He didn’t want to get away from the wordage of intentional or unintentional. He sees a loophole of someone getting out if they did release gaseous materials or liquids or some type of hazardous waste. They could say they didn’t do it intentionally. He asked the reasoning for this. Mr. Lear informed him that was proposed by the Page 35 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Environmental Services Department. He didn’t know why they wanted that changed. He strongly suggested somebody make a motion that they do not eliminate that. Councilman Vincenzi asked Mayor Thomas if he wanted him to make the motion. Councilwoman Rhodes told him to go ahead. Councilwoman Vincenzi asked Mayor Thomas if that was what he was suggesting. Mayor Thomas informed him yes. Councilman Vincenzi made a motion on Page II-13 under the definition of discharge that intentional or unintentional action or omission remain in the definition, second by Councilwoman Rhodes . Mayor Thomas asked for a roll call vote and then asked if there was any discussion. Councilwoman Lichter felt they were saying parts of it twice. She mentioned they really only want the words in there shall mean any intentional or unintentional and then it ties in and you are repeating if you leave all of it on top, leaking, seeping, pouring emitting, emptying and dumping. Mayor Thomas stated that is fine. He really wanted the words intentional or unintentional. He felt the motion covered that. Councilwoman Lichter confirmed the motion was just to combine a bit of the first one with the whole of the last three lines. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . Mayor Thomas then mentioned Page V-2 and Councilman Vincenzi hitting upon the chart of the RPUD. He is all in favor from now on of having a minimum lot size of 75 feet by 115 feet, square footage of 8,625 with a residential height cap of 35 feet. They have had a certain amount of people that wanted a percentage of lower lot sizes. Since he has been here the residential developments they have approved have got those 55 foot lot sizes. He thinks we have already obtained our percentages. If they vote on a 75 minimum lot change, that means they aren’t going to use as much water and won’t have as much traffic on the road because the developer will only be allowed to put so many houses on so many pieces of property. He strongly suggested a motion to that affect. Page 36 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Interim City Manager Williams stated by offering this change, they eliminate their ability to negotiate. If a developer comes in and they seek negotiations outside of the RPUD under one of the other zoning classes, they eliminate the ability to ask for donations of land to be used for public/semi-public purposes such as Fire Stations. They eliminate the ability to ask for the ability to ask for a capital fee. In the case of Reflections, maybe $340,000 is on the table. He spoke of negotiating where the school site would be given to the City and ultimately that City conveying that site over to the School Board for some additional reasons the City has a use for. He thinks by placing these restrictions on this RPUD, they eliminate their ability to totally negotiation and may potentially force some other alternative zoning classes that may not be in the best interest for that particular use of property. They also begin to eliminate the ability to provide some diversity within each individual proposed development with the variety of lot sizes and different things each community may have to offer. Mayor Thomas informed Interim City Manager Williams he appreciated his suggestions but he doesn’t want to negotiate anymore. He thinks they ought to be up front. He feels all the subdivisions that were onboard that had entitlement and investment rights when he took over, they went with them and they gave them the fifty-five foot lots. There has to be a percentage in the City for people that can’t afford. He feels we have a lot. He feels we have a good percentage of fifty-five foot lots already in this City. He would maintain that they go with a minimum 75- foot X 115 foot, square footage of 8,625 and a residential height cap of 35 feet. Councilwoman Rhodes asked him why he wants to raise the residential height cap. Mayor Thomas stated it was fifty. Councilwoman Rhodes stated the residential height cap right now is 26 feet. Mr. Lear stated that is in the regular straight zoning of R-2 and R-3. Councilwoman Rhodes stated those numbers go with the regular straight zoning. Councilman Vincenzi asked Mayor Thomas if he was saying no more than 35 feet. Mayor Thomas stated no more than 35 feet, yes. Page 37 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Councilwoman Lichter stated the part she doesn’t understand is if two people live on a seventy-five foot lot or two people live on a fifty-five foot lot, maybe seniors or a little poorer, and just want that much land, it is still two vehicles that leave the development. The width of the lot doesn’t make it more or less vehicles. Mayor Thomas commented on having three fifty-five foot lots compared to two seventy-five foot lots. Councilwoman Lichter stated they are talking about combined ones generally, not separate lots. Councilwoman Rhodes stated she is of the opinion that lot size is not the issue, density is what needs to be addressed. Reflections has large and small lots but the amount of people that is in Reflections would be there if every lot was 75 foot because they have the density and the land to accommodate it. By allowing them some fifty-five foot lots, you have made them more affordable, you have provided some housing for seniors that don’t want to take care of the yard, and you have provided more green space because instead of taking up all their parks and trails that they had planned for that project, they have some smaller lots. It didn’t cut down the density any and it didn’t raise the density any. She will not support this. She feels they need to pay attention to density. Councilwoman Rogers stated with that being said the Reflections property is approximately 877 acres. The developer is limited already on how much property he can develop. She thought the limitation was 350 acres. Because you have limited by increasing the lot widths, all it would have done is brought in less people because he was already limited because of the wetlands and whatnot. She didn’t totally agree with that statement and she couldn’t say exactly what the percentage would be unless they sat down with a map and drew it out with the wider lot widths. That is neither here nor there because Reflections got approved and she didn’t approve it. Back in January on a Saturday when they did the workshop, she is the one that started the seventy-five foot lot widths. Her reasoning and her thinking was we have a lot of development coming into this City and it is going to be west of I-95. She wished Volusia Forever would have bought up all that land so they wouldn’t be going through this but their funds are limited and they have done a good job buying up what they have. She wished they could have bought up more so they Page 38 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 wouldn’t have to deal with the future to be and that is Hammock Creek. She suggested they go drive Venetian Bay and tell her what they like in Venetian Bay. What they see in Venetian Bay is going to continue unless they do something. The land use code, these proposed changes, started because they knew west of I-95, all this land was annexed previously before she got elected, before the Mayor got elected. All during their campaign, discussions came up about the land west of I-95 and unsuitability of the land and various engineering firms that have already walked that property. One in particular, in New Smyrna Beach, she believed they all received reports where they are already letting us know that land wasn’t suitable to build on. Now they are having to deal with it because it was annexed into the City. Now they have to do the best they can and they need a book and a rule and somewhere to start and it is the land use code. The flexibility stuff you keep hearing about and the RPUD, throw that out the window. The City got sued by a developer. Oh we have flexibility. I don’t think so. The sky was the limit was the phrase she heard from one of the attorneys when they were talking about the height. Councilwoman Rogers stated height, we’ve got the fifty-foot proposed and now 35 feet proposed. What Councilwoman Rhodes said about the 26 foot height limit for residential, it’s in the chart. They have also got 100 feet on the BPUD, which that has been stricken out and put in as non applicable. She feels they need to take away the non applicable and put in there a fifty foot on the BPUD, they need to put a 35 feet on the RPUD and they need to keep the 26 feet on the residential. The IPUD, she suggested they go with the 35 feet. She wasn’t certain but she believed she heard the height restriction would be on the November ballot. She asked if this was correct. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated the City did receive a citizens’ petition for Charter amendment proposing 35-foot building cap, which he has prepared a memo to discuss under the City Attorney’s report. Councilwoman Rogers asked if the 35-foot height cap is across the board. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated it is a very broad prohibition, 35-foot in all zoning classifications. There is a limited exception within the language of the proposed Charter amendment. He then listed the exceptions. Page 39 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Interim City Manager Williams made a suggestion with the proposed height restrictions when it comes to BPUD, IPUD, those types of things of that nature. For instance as they all know there is a proposed hospital that is planned for our area. If they put those types of limitations in place they have the preliminary BPUD already for that hospital so they are basically saying they can’t build a hospital any higher than 50 feet. If there is a school that is proposed it couldn’t be higher than 50 feet. If the City has a need of its own that would require something to be above the 35 feet or the 50 foot height, they put those limitations in place that the Council will be bound by and severely inhibit some of those potential projects that may be forth coming. Mayor Thomas stated when he was talking about residential, isn’t a condominium residential or is that commercial. He is talking about condominiums. Interim City Manager Williams informed him it was residential. Councilwoman Rogers stated multi-family residential. Councilwoman Rhodes stated so if it’s residential it falls under the residential code but only if it’s RPUD can you go outside and that was what they are talking about. They are talking about RPUD limits. Interim City Manager Williams stated he believed Councilwoman Rogers brought up there should be some proposed height limits on BPUD and IPUD as well. Councilwoman Rogers stated in as much with this so-called flexibility, what you are saying as far as a school. If they say fifty feet on a BPUD and we need more height for the school, then according to what they are doing they would be restricted. But wouldn’t they as Councilpeople be able to tell somebody yes a school could be fifty-five feet and therefore there is flexibility but they are protected that it couldn’t be more than fifty feet unless they decided. They don’t want to have another lawsuit. Assistant City Attorney Palmer felt what they were proposing is a requirement or limitation subject to a variance. Appropriate variance language would have to be written and included specifically applying to the height limitations, which he thought it was unclear whether the variance language in the existing code applies to those height limitations. Page 40 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Councilwoman Rogers stated a school would not be under BPUD because it is government and questioned what it would be under. Mr. Lear stated it could be public/semi-public. If there was another development with it, it could come under PUD as well. Councilwoman Rogers then asked if they have public/semi-public. Mr. Lear informed her it was the third item down, which is an addition as well. Councilwoman Rogers stated and it has a maximum height of 35 feet, which they haven’t even touched. Interim City Manager Williams stated part of his discussion that is directly related to the proposed petition is that discussion came forth in bringing up essential impacts that that petition in and of itself will have across the board because of the clarification issue. Councilwoman Rogers feels they need to get very specific with this. Now she is looking at the public school, the 35-foot height. She asked the height of New Smyrna Beach High School. She asked if it is two or three stories. Mr. Lear informed her probably two-story. Councilwoman Rogers stated she is going to assume commercial height is ten foot high in a classroom. Councilwoman Lichter asked if she has seen the high school in Daytona Beach seems much higher than two stories. Councilwoman Rogers stated she doesn’t care to look like Mainland High School in Daytona Beach. Mr. Lear informed her probably twelve. Councilwoman Rogers stated so then they are at 24 feet. With the pitch of the roof let’s throw in another ten so then you are looking at 34 feet. She feels that would come into play. She asked if they could have a maximum height and then have some kind of an asterisk and a note indicating that this could be changed based upon a majority of the Council if it is for a public school use or something like that. Mr. Lear informed her it was a good time to point out in the definition section the definition of a variance means a modification of the strict application of site development requirements related to yard setbacks, building height, parking requirements, landscaping, drainage and or signage. In the Land Development Code, a variance just goes to the Planning & Zoning Board unless it’s appealed to Council. By doing this and having that definition, they are looking at a lot of variance requests coming to the Planning & Zoning Board. Page 41 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Mayor Thomas stated they are on the first reading at this time. What he is trying to do is get a consensus of how to build this and bring it back to them. There are a lot of things that may affect another section. Then they are going to go over it again. Mr. Lear wanted the Council to be aware that for anything there is always a way around it. Come to expect the unexpected. Councilwoman Rogers stated when they are dealing with residential, multi-family or RPUD, then they are already specific on these heights. The only area they need this flexibility is if it pertains to a public school and then if it would pertain to a BPUD because of a bank or whatnot. Industrial she thinks is pretty defined as well. They could define industrial to not be more than 35 foot height but the high schools, elementary schools and certain types of businesses is where they would need the attorney to help them with the verbiage they would need so that at the time that something like that would come to the Council then they wouldn’t need a variance. Mr. Lear informed Council that soon they would be seeing an amendment to the Parktowne Industrial Development agreement, which is to change to eighty feet in height for silos for concrete thatch plants. Councilwoman Rogers asked what a silo would follow under. Mr. Lear informed her it would be in the IPUD but they are still considered a structure even though they are not habitable. Councilwoman Rhodes asked about Boston Whaler. If twenty years down the road, Hammock Creek does input the population that it is expected to, then that effectively doubles the size of this City. So now you have the size of this City doubled. Maybe the size of businesses will double. At some point in the future this has got to happen but you run out of land so where else are they go to go but up. If they were going to build a new City Hall on the existing site, they would have to have parking with the building above it. She is concerned it is short sided to put limits. They could put limits and down the road they are going to have to change them. Councilwoman Rogers stated put limits on BPUD and IPUD. She doesn’t hear residential, multi-family or RPUD, which she feels is good. She hears industrial and BPUD. She is listening but at the same time to double that what is that Page 42 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 going to be? Forty, fifty, sixty years down the road. She is sure by that time they are going to have lots of Councilpeople and then they could go back and change this if that needs to be the case. For now and ten years out, she doesn’t see that they need to go any higher than this. As far as a silo, they can create that wording and say with the exception of silos or with the exception of church steeples or something so they are covered on the building not going in excess of these heights but these other items that are not truly the building but a part of it in another fashion, they could specifically state that that could be taller. Interim City Manager Williams stated if they start with the exception they would find that that definition grows very quickly. Councilwoman Rhodes stated and then you leave your door open for the lawyers to come in and say you gave this person the exception and why won’t you give this person the exception. Mayor Thomas asked Councilwoman Rogers if she wanted to make a motion. Councilwoman Rogers made a motion to set a maximum height for RPUD’s no more than 35 feet, BPUD’s 35 feet, IPUD’s 35 feet, 35 feet across the board . Councilwoman Rhodes asked if they could do one motion for each one. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed her yes. Mayor Thomas stated if this doesn’t pass then they can go back. Councilwoman Rhodes confirmed Councilwoman Rogers wanted 35 feet for RPUD’s. Councilwoman Rogers stated for all of it. Then she stated she is being specific. RPUD’s, BPUD’s and PUD’s. She isn’t mentioning the public schools because they already have a 35-foot height so that would be redundant. Just the three they have highlighted right now that the Planning & Zoning Board has taken away. Mayor Thomas confirmed that all that Councilwoman Rogers wanted to do was the height. Councilwoman Rogers stated at this moment. Councilman Vincenzi seconded the motion . Page 43 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 The MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Councilwoman Rhodes and Councilwoman Lichter voted NO . Mayor Thomas asked Councilwoman Rogers if she had anything else. Councilwoman Rogers informed him she did. Mayor Thomas stated what he is planning on doing is he is going to let her have her turn. He was sure the public would want to make comments. He had to go to the bathroom real bad so he was going to let her talk and then they would come back and get some public comment. Councilwoman Rogers stated when they approved for Edgewater Harbor to change from the 100 foot height to the 50 foot height so they could do town homes for his reasons he gave them, she made a motion that it be based upon either the land use code they had at that moment or if they changed it in the future. She didn’t think they had pulled permits for that yet. If this becomes effective, that would mean October 1st is the effective date. If he doesn’t have that permit pulled, then he is stuck with the 35-foot heights that would change his town homes. Mr. Lear stated it would be the agreement he has. Councilwoman Rogers stated in the agreement she had it worded and she believed she made it pretty clear with the attorney we had at the time that it would run with the land use code as it would be at the time he applies the permit because we were in the process of changing land use codes. Interim City Manager Williams agreed to research her motion and get back to her on that. Councilwoman Rogers stated just a comment because the Planning & Zoning Board, she didn’t understand why it took so long, but her hope is that it was because they were passionate and wanted to do the very best that they felt for the City. Because they aren’t going with a majority of their recommendations, she doesn’t want them to think they don’t care or that they aren’t listening. They are listening but they are proposing and making these changes based upon a lot of research. They seemingly didn’t spend as much time as they did but they did follow what they were doing. She can speak for herself and she is sure the people at the dais have also paid attention to the time that the Planning & Zoning Board struggled with this. She doesn’t want the message to go out that they aren’t passing what they proposed and that they took it lightly. They listened and they heard but they are going forward. Page 44 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Councilman Vincenzi asked Mayor Thomas if they still wanted to address the lot width. Mayor Thomas informed him that was up to him. Councilwoman Rogers stated for single family residential she made a motion that they go with a 75-foot lot width minimum, 115-lot depth minimum. Councilwoman Rhodes asked if this was for an RPUD. Councilwoman Rogers informed her they have already approved the RPUD. Councilwoman Rhodes and Councilman Vincenzi informed her they did not. Councilwoman Rogers stated when they struck it and went back they did that. Mr. Lear stated that was only the acreage they changed. Councilman Vincenzi stated under fifteen acres. He thought that is what Mayor Thomas was talking about before was the height, the depth and the width. Councilwoman Rogers stated so they have to make a motion that they go to that 75-foot lot width minimum and she was making that motion . Mayor Thomas asked if there was a second. Assistant City Attorney Palmer asked for clarification if it applies to the RPUD zoning requirement. Councilwoman Rogers informed him yes. They went back and forth striking and unstriking. It was rather confusing. Councilman Vincenzi asked what the motion was. Councilwoman Rogers informed him that in RPUD’s the minimum lot width will be 75 feet, the minimum lot depth will be 115 feet . Mayor Thomas stated there was a motion on the floor. Councilman Vincenzi seconded the motion . Councilwoman Rhodes again stressed that you can have all the 75-foot lot widths you want but you better watch the density because if you are going to allow high-density projects, then it doesn’t matter if the lot widths are 75 feet or 150 feet because you are still allowing high- density development. She feels that would be a big mistake. Page 45 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 The MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Councilwoman Rhodes and Councilwoman Lichter voted NO . There was a ten-minute recess at this time. The meeting recessed at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened 10:00 p.m. Mayor Thomas spoke of the large document that was given to Council that he spent all weekend going through. He stated they had to come to a consensus on some of the things they wanted in here and didn’t want in here. This was the first reading. Staff is going to prepare what they said, they are going to look it over to make sure that is what they said they wanted and it will come up for a second reading. Mayor Thomas asked for public comment. The following citizens spoke: Donald Mears , G. S. Florida, 300 International Parkway, stated he wanted to wait until second reading, which he felt would be the appropriate time to address technical issues the Council has raised. Clearly he was shocked. th They were there on June 27 and presented what they hoped was their first pass at a conceptual master plan community they envisioned for Hammock Creek. At that time they talked about having 60% to 65% of that area preserved in its natural state and restored back to what it was in 1935 or 1940. They are talking about 3,800 to 4,200 acres of just basically walking away from. He stated Councilwoman Rogers had mentioned for them to take a closer look at job growth opportunities and commercial area, which they have and they realized they were extremely low on their first cut. They went back and started looking at some of their master plan communities they have done in the past. She was correct and they pushed that up to about a 2 million square feet, which makes sense, for the amount of units that were coming into Hammock Creek. They have had quite a few contacts and calls from people that want to come in and start corporations here. He is here on behalf of Hammock Creek Green LLC team. They are disappointed the LDC’s are going the way they heard they are going tonight. He feels the Councilwoman Rhodes hit it on the head when she talked about this being a density issue. In his opinion, she is correct. Having built about 35 master plan communities through the states, in the last 30 years, in using the current planning paradigms that this nation is using to Page 46 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 move forward on protecting the wildlife corridors and to really make a place a better place to live and not spread out through 6,500 acres of land, which is what is going to happen out there. Try to provide for those corridors, which the Fish & Game, St. John’s and the Army Corp of Engineers have said that is what they want to say. They want to see the large swasp of space be preserved. He spoke of wanting to preserve and save what is out there and create what was there fifty years ago and put aside another 1,500 acres of upland to protect the wetland area. It’s a cluster approach. If they go out in the country and see what the environmentalist and naturalists are doing, they are doing this. They want the big pieces of land and want to make sure it has connectivity. They went to the Miami Corp and talked to them. The City has 58,000 acres on the south property line. They wanted to make sure they tied into their watershed and habitat areas. He went to Landmark north of us to make sure they are tied in and to make sure they had their corridors and create what their kids and grandkids want to see. Carol Ann Stoughton , 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated she is so thankful that our City is going back to the people thanks to Councilman Vincenzi, Councilwoman Rogers and Mayor Thomas. The people have spoken when they filled out the petitions. Maybe the lawyer didn’t like the wording or maybe the developers would like the lawyers to make changes so they can build what they please but the petition will stand. The people have spoken and they will speak again in November. They want their little city and don’t want high rises. It’s non-conforming to the area. She thanked the Council for protecting the City. Dave Ross , 2803 Needle Palm Drive, stated going back to the RPUD on 15 acres, his concern is if there is a 14-acre parcel that is non-conforming and that is in desperate need of rehabilitation and the only way that can be accomplished is with an RPUD, they are saying to leave it as a piece of junk property. He feels the Council needs to consider that if it is a non-conforming piece of land. His recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Board was to do that, which they didn’t agree with and that is fine. He wished Council would think about that between now and the next meeting. If they have a parcel of land less than 15 acres that is non-conforming and it needs to be improved and the only reasonable way to do that is with a PUD, then why not let the man work a PUD on it. Page 47 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Mr. Ross then commented on the seventy-five foot lot widths. He agreed with Council’s intention. He agreed with Councilwoman Rhodes. The key to this City’s survival is our controlling the density and that is done at the time the land use change comes before Council. If you take Hammock Creek and give him R-3 density on 3,500 acres of land, do you know how many units you are going to have? If you give him R-1 on 3,500 acres, you are talking low density but that is where it has to start. He wasn’t sure they couldn’t control it with RPUD’s without the minimum lot widths and give some variability to it. He felt it was a tough thing and needed to be thought through a little more. He feels they are going to have some ramifications that they haven’t expected. He informed Councilwoman Rhodes she was correct. When you get a land use change before you that is the time to set the restrictions. He asked if they want 23,000 people in Hammock Creek? That is what they are going to ask for. He felt the Council was going to have to set the standards for the density up front real quick. Councilwoman Lichter asked if this is part of the ??? Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed her that is a procedural question up to the Mayor. The Mayor runs the meeting and can permit or deny the ability to speak in accordance with the City’s general practice. Councilwoman Lichter asked about three minutes at the end of the meeting??? Jason Gambone , Director of Planning & Community Relations for SeaGate communities, 185 Cypress Point Parkway, Palm Coast, felt if they follow through with the second reading with the options they have taken tonight, they are going to devastate their development rights on properties they have. He has two applications in right now. Both of them are excellent mixed-use projects. He felt the Council needed to understand the ramifications of what they are doing and the adverse impact it can have on their projects as well as the City as a whole. He was the original Planning Manager for the City of Palm Coast and Development Services Director before he joined SeaGate about a year ago. In Palm Coast they went through many of these same items in 2000 and 2001 when the City was doing its first Comprehensive Plan. They had the benefit at that time of Page 48 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 modeling and they did planning models that showed the implications on traffic, on economics, on tax base, on jobs and when you model some of the changes you are doing you can see it very clearly what the implications are to your actions tonight. He feels they have made sweeping changes without the benefit of going through and seeing what those changes will affect. He hopes they understand, as far as Seagate Homes, they will probably hear from their legal counsel at the next meeting. This devastates them as a company and he feels the Council needs to understand that and there are going to be ramifications and they are going to be forced to be taking other actions. He apologized for that but stated ultimately it is going to come down to a business decision for them. Carol Ann Stoughton , 2740 Evergreen Drive, stated she didn’t know if they are aware of the fact but she was pretty much in politics in New Jersey and a botonomous?? body is one such as a school or a hospital and they do not have to listen to and they can go ahead, which has nothing to do with the petition and build so they don’t have to worry because the petition is for residential. She feels it is so sad that SeaGate has to come up here and many other developers and threaten the City with lawsuits when it is the people that have already live here having more say than they have because they want profit and they just want to keep our taxes lower. Growth does not bring lower taxes. To her any of the yellow, looks like perhaps the lawyer didn’t like what was there and was hoping they wouldn’t make the changes. She was very proud of the three Councilmembers for doing this. Jason Gambone stated Palm Coast is one of the fastest growing cities in the State. He lives in Palm Coast and the millage rate the City has had for several years has been 3.4 mills. Their tax base in the past year increased by almost 40%. Right now the Council is looking at reducing that millage rate to under three mills. He felt they needed to take some of this stuff into consideration. He strongly encouraged the Council to do a planning model and look at some of the implications before taking such a harsh action. Richard Burgess , 2724 Juniper Drive, stated he was born in Miami and has lived in Florida all his life. He has moved up the coast about forty miles every ten years watching it turn into a war zone behind him. Last year he drove Page 49 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 through South Miami, Perrine, Hialeah and it is disgusting. They were all beautiful planned communities. He asked the Council to take a drive or take a look on the Internet at some pictures down there of what these planned communities turn into after a while. What it boils down to is the number of people increased and it is density, it is all about the number of people packed in per square mile but you can’t legislate the number of people per square mile. St. John’s and everybody else says you can’t fill an area with houses. You have to have so much drainage. This being the only tool you have to control the number of people per square mile, don’t feel guilt and don’t feel bad. He has donated to and is a member of something called Numbers USA. He urged Council to go their website and look at what is happening to the United States as we slowly fill up and part of it is the illegal immigration problem. It is a major problem. We are seeing an influx here, a little worse to the west of us. We are going to see a much bigger problem in this Country because every little area you put a house on and pack people into, eventually is going to become filled with more and more people. There is no way to stop it except to reduce the number of homes per square mile. That is the only way you can slow it down, you can’t stop it. Dot Carlson , 1714 Edgewater Drive, representing ECARD, stated whatever land came in from the County and whatever the density they had is what the City can allow. They don’t have to give them more. As far as the height, if it is a need of the people, that can be a variance. They do not have to give them density. Greg Blossie , Director of Government Affairs, Volusia Home Builders Association, 3520 W. International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona Beach, stated back in January when the Council had the first meeting in reference to what these changes to the Land Development Code would be, he started his comments off that morning by saying the proposed amendments were environmentally dangerous and quote in the paper that way, and he feels what they have seen this evening is that is in fact going to be true. They have had the largest land developer in the City come to Council and say that all of the land and all of the preservation efforts he was going to make as part of an agreement, he can no longer do because it is no longer financially feasible. The results of these amendments are going to be less open space, more sprawl. He knows the Council doesn’t Page 50 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 like smart growth but it is what almost every other City and County is doing because they recognize that certain concessions have to be made to get what the City also needs. As far as affordable and workforce housing, the changed amendments no longer allow townhouses which is one of the primary ways that developers are satisfying the workforce housing needs. He feels as far affordable and workforce housing, it is virtually non-existent after these. You can’t expect any developer or homebuilder to build an affordable house on a 75-foot wide lot. It’s just not going to happen. These amendments will increase the cost of housing by as much as 35% if not more. The bottom line is that a vote for the amendments, is a vote against affordable and workforce housing and for bad development because the type of development the City is encouraging is not something that anyone would consider to be progressive. It’s going back to the 1950’s and 1960’s, which has gotten the City to exactly where it is at today. Mayor Thomas asked Mr. Blossie if they could build an affordable house on a 55-foot lot. Mr. Blossie informed him they are doing it in Port Orange. Councilman Vincenzi asked for how much. Mayor Thomas asked how a twenty-foot lot reduction is going to make an affordable house. Mr. Blossie informed him because it reduces the land cost, which his the primary factor in the cost of a home. Councilman Vincenzi asked what they are selling for. Mr. Blossie informed him the ones in Port Orange that folks are working on are $150,000, which he feels is pretty affordable. In New Smyrna Beach, they have worked with them to develop several approaches to affordable and workforce housing that has resulted in them building brand new townhouses near Sugar Mill for $170,000. He feels this is very affordable for a workforce, people with two jobs and a family. He doesn’t see how an existing resident would be able to afford, that is on a fixed income, to stay in this community when you are talking about 75-foot wide lots and housing projects going up, that is going to increase the cost of land and that is going to affect existing property values so it is just another thing to consider as well. Page 51 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Councilwoman Rogers stated Mr. Blossie mentioned the main cost is the land. He wasn’t talking about materials or labor and the fact that worker’s comp has gone through the roof, they aren’t talking about materials, the fact that they have increased and increased due to hurricanes, etc. She had to beg to differ. The last time she started looking at numbers, labor and material is equivalent with land. Labor and materials are starting to exceed the cost of land. She spoke of all the for sale signs that are around. People aren’t getting exactly what they want for their land anymore. It is more of a buyer’s market now than a seller’s market. Councilwoman Rogers elaborated on Ms. Blossie’s comments about this is a vote for bad development. Mr. Blossie stated absolutely. Councilwoman Rogers questioned what they are up there for, the developers or the citizens? The gentleman talked about Miami and Hialeah. She just got back a few weeks ago from the Keys and they had to go through Hialeah and what a mess. That has to do with population. As far as the comment regarding the density being the issue. Mr. Blossie informed her he didn’t make that comment. Councilwoman Rogers stated the density is but at the same time look at the types of soil the property west of I-95 has. It is swamp and low land. By increasing it to 75 feet, they have given them something. She spoke of the average wages that people earn in this County. Councilwoman Rogers stated she didn’t understand what went on tonight but she is going to find out. This individual that was talking about bringing a plant to the City, Green Coast Energy, that’s jobs and that is money. She is like that is opportunity lost or can they do something about it. She would rather see jobs come here than people so perhaps the people that live here could work here without having to drive clear to Orlando. There are a lot of issues. She understood Mr. Blossie was looking out for the Volusia County Homebuilders and for the working people, when she sees developers like Hammock Creek and Reflections coming in, how many of our local people are they going to hire at levels where they are going to pay them well, like our City employees get paid, with benefits and pension etc. Mr. Blossie stated a lot. They account for 15% of the workforce. Councilwoman Rogers suggested they go to Palm Coast and look a how many illegal aliens are on those jobs. Mr. Blossie stated the bottom line is the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which are the experts in Page 52 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 affordable and workforce housing, put out a report in 2005 that said land cost is the primary reason and has the most impact on the affordable and workforce housing. Councilwoman Rogers stated that is one statistic but they all know that those statistics can be moved and massaged just like appraisals on houses. William Glaser , 1703 Needle Palm Drive, asked what the size of the lots are in Coral Trace? He asked if they are fifty-foot? He asked if they know what they charge for that 50-foot lot? He stated $100,000. He then asked if they know what you can buy an eighty-foot lot for in Florida Shores? Councilman Vincenzi stated $100,000. Mr. Glaser informed him $80,000. He asked how somebody providing a fifty-foot lot charging $100,000 is providing workforce housing? Mayor Thomas closed the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Palmer suggested they make a general motion to accept the Land Development Code as amended by tonight’s direction and direct staff to incorporate the changes passed by motion and previous discussion to bring back for the second reading. Councilwoman Rogers made a motion to ditto that, second by Councilman Vincenzi . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 7. BOARD APPOINTMENTS A.Planning and Zoning Board – nomination by Councilman Vincenzi to fill the remaining term of Todd Fuhrmann due to his resignation Councilman Vincenzi nominated Dan Grisell to serve on the Planning & Zoning Board, second by Councilwoman Lichter. The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . B.General Employees Pension Board – Council approval of Interim City Manager’s appointment of Brett Tanner to fill the remaining term of Jon Williams Page 53 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Interim City Manager Williams stated he has vacated his appointment to the General Employees Pension Board as a result of Council’s approval to be the City’s Interim City Manager. He has requested that Interim Finance Director Brett Tanner fill his vacancy. Councilwoman Rhodes approved the Interim City Manager’s appointment of Brett Tanner to the General Employees Pension Board, second by Councilwoman Lichter . The MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Councilwoman Rogers and Councilman Vincenzi voted NO . Councilwoman Rogers felt this was premature at this time because they are dealing with an Interim Finance Director and an Interim City Manager. They haven’t made any definite decisions yet on the City Manager so by taking an appointment he has when he was a full Finance Manager and then giving it to an Interim Finance Manager, what do they do if he doesn’t become the full City Manager. Do they reverse it or does it stay as it is? Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed Council the motion could be to approve subject to Jon remaining Interim City Manager or becoming full City Manager. Councilwoman Rhodes informed her if it had to be that. Mayor Thomas informed her it didn’t have to be. Councilwoman Rhodes wanted her motion to stand. After a second roll call vote, the MOTION CARRIED 3-2. Councilwoman Rogers and Councilman Vincenzi again voted NO . 8. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items to be discussed on the Consent Agenda at this time. 9. OTHER BUSINESS A.Grant Acceptance – staff recommending approval to accept a Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant to install Fabric Shield storm panels to critical City facilities for the sum of $26,710.00 with a City match of $8,561.00, and authorize the Mayor or Interim City Manager to execute the documents Page 54 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 Fire Chief Barlow made a staff presentation. Their goal is st to have this implemented before October 1. Councilwoman Lichter moved to approve accepting a Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant to install Fabric Shield storm panels to critical City facilities for the sum of $26,710.00 with a City match of $8,561.00, and authorize the Mayor or Interim City Manager to execute the documents, second by Councilwoman Rogers . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . B.Employee Insurance – staff recommending approval to renew the City’s Florida Health Care plans and Jefferson Pilot Disability plan, changing to Met Life for dental and life insurance and authorizing the Mayor or Interim City Manager to sign the contracts Personnel Director Debby Sigler made a staff presentation. Mayor Thomas asked about getting the same benefits for less money with the plan the City is going to change to. Ms. Sigler elaborated. Councilwoman Rogers questioned Met Life and Guardian using the same dentists. Ms. Sigler informed her that was correct. Councilwoman Rogers confirmed the other two would be staying the same so people didn’t have to worry about changing doctors. Ms. Sigler informed her that was also correct. Councilwoman Rogers moved to approve renewing the City’s Florida Health Care plans and Jefferson Pilot Disability plan, changing to Met Life for dental and life insurance and authorizing the Mayor or Interim City Manager to sign the contracts, second by Councilman Vincenzi . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . C. Pension Boards – staff recommending approval to enter into an agreement with the legal firm of Christiansen & Dehner to provide legal services to the General Employees Pension Board and the contract with Foster & Foster to prepare an Page 55 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 actuarial report for the General Employees and Police pension boards Personnel Director Debby Sigler made a staff presentation. Mayor Thomas questioned the employees being okay with this. Ms. Sigler stated they have to wait and see what the actuarial says. The actuarial will come back to the Pension Board and they will make a decision based on the results of the actuarials. Interim City Manager Williams stated there have been some representations that have been made from a preliminary standpoint that there is some significant savings to be had associated with the enclosed General Employees Defined Benefit Plan. This hires the actuary and allows them to prepare the full evaluation and bring back what the potential savings are or will be. He thinks that Bogdahn & Consultants has identified this could potentially be done st and in place by October 1. He doesn’t think given the sensitivity of this subject area, that it would be prudent of them to rush this evaluation through to have something st in place by October 1. He feels one of the questions they are going ask once they receive the actuarial evaluation is how they are going to achieve those savings. They are going to have to define operationally what they feel is appropriate. Councilwoman Rhodes moved to approve entering into an agreement with the legal firm of Christiansen & Dehner to provide legal services to the General Employees Pension Board and the contract with Foster & Foster to prepare an actuarial report for the General Employees and Police pension boards, second by Councilwoman Lichter . The MOTION CARRIED 5-0 . 10. OFFICER REPORTS A. City Clerk City Clerk Wadsworth had nothing at this time. B. City Attorney Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he needed direction at the next meeting. The City has received a petition, Page 56 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 circulated by ECARD, calling for a Charter Amendment that would impose a general 35-foot height restriction on buildings within the City. The Council has some representative copies of some of the petitions on the table. Generally the law states that a petition signed by 10% of the registered electors of the City is sufficient to direct the City Council to place the proposed Charter Amendment on the ballot for the next General Election or to call an election for that purpose. According to the Supervisor of Elections there were 14,509 registered electors in the City of Edgewater as of the last election. The Supervisor of Elections verified that the petitions were signed by 1,554 registered electors, which would indicate it was signed by a sufficient number of electors to direct the City to place this on the ballot for the next election. There is a Statute that deals with the general requirements for things such as a title and summary of the proposed amendment. It is their opinion that the petitions did meet those requirements. City staff discussed with them some discrepancies in some of the petitions that were provided, none of which they thought were material or rose to a level that would give the City basis to reject the petitions is sufficient. There have been two interpretations of the Statute. The Attorney General takes the position that the Statute provides that the City’s position is merely ministerial. If the City receives a petition that is sufficient in form and signed by the requisite number of people, then the City is required to place it on the ballot at the next election regardless of whether the substance of the petition would be valid or not. There is case law to indicate that if a City could have a potential ability in advance of placing it on the ballot to get a declaratory judgment from a court advising them as to whether the subject matter of the proposed Charter amendment is valid or not. They have specifically not researched the issue of whether this proposed Charter amendment would be valid if it were to be on the ballot and supported by the number of electors required to pass because they didn’t want to do any research the Council would not want them to do. He referred to Page 4 where they outlined some general alternatives the City has. They felt number one was the most conservative of them and that is to direct Assistant City Attorney Palmer to prepare a motion to bring back before Council at the next meeting which would direct the Supervisor of Elections to place this proposed Charter Amendment on the ballot for the General Election at the November Election. He went over Page 57 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 some of the other options. He needed some general direction from Council. If the City does exactly what the Statute requires and places it on the ballot and if it passes there is a potential that this Charter amendment might be subject to challenge. The most conservative approach would be for the City to adopt the resolutions, place it on the ballot and see what happens and then they would have to come back to Council and see what their position would be to advocate and based on research to take in such litigation. Councilwoman Lichter stated when they have gone into court cases in the past, they have had the opportunity to ask questions of the attorney in private, all of them together. She asked if this is a different situation or is this open because of Sunshine in terms of asking the Attorney about some of the things he just said. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated if they would like to ask questions as a board, they would have to be at public meetings because this is not the subject of present litigation. The general exception for closed meetings, he believed was very specific and requires present litigation for the City to invoke those. He would be happy to speak with any Councilmember individually on the matter. He suggested if there is no consensus of exactly what position to take, that they direct him to bring back the motion for the next meeting that would be subject to a public hearing and it could be discussed further at that time. Councilwoman Rhodes stated as far as she was concerned they should put it on the ballot and let’s vote and decide. They just put it into the Land Development Code and it costs thousands of dollars to put something on the ballot. She wasn’t sure that it is necessary. She suggested they put it on the ballot and if the voters signed the petitions, let them make the decision. Councilwoman Lichter expressed concern with someone suing this decision. Assistant City Attorney Palmer explained if you don’t put it on a ballot, you risk a suit by the petitioners committee and that kind of suit says the City does something wrong. If you place it on the ballot, it passes and gets challenged, then the challenge is that the subject matter of the Charter amendment is invalid and not necessarily that the City acted incorrectly. From that Page 58 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 perspective, he feels placing it on the ballot is the most conservative approach at this point. Councilwoman Lichter asked if Ormond Beach challenged this type of thing in a Charter because they felt it was more appropriate in the Land Development Code. She thought this was happening or in the process. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed her Charter amendments are being challenged in lots of jurisdictions right now. He wasn’t familiar with exactly how Ormond Beach has handled it. He commented on what has been done in Titusville. Councilwoman Rhodes felt it belonged in the Land Development Code, not the Charter. If the voters think that is where it belongs, then let’s do that. If it is challenged, it is challenged and they will deal with that when it happens. Interim City Manager Williams stated at a very minimum. Staff would like to request Council’s consideration for proposing a second question to help clarify the issue. He understood the representatives from ECARD stipulate that this applies to residential development. It’s not specifically clarified in the petition what it applies to so it applies to everything across the board. Comments made by Councilman Vincenzi were inaudible. Interim City Manager Williams explained he felt they needed to go at the same time. Comments made by Councilman Vincenzi were inaudible. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed him it was correct, they would be separate items. Councilwoman Rogers believed it needed to go on the ballot. She also believed it was something that needed to be put into the Charter. What Jon Williams mentioned about the clarification, she believed they needed to have some clarification because they went back and forth with the different heights and what not for the other areas. Councilwoman Rhodes stated right now, we have in R-3 a 26- foot maximum height cap. She asked if somebody in an R-3 Page 59 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 zoning could come back and say the Charter allows for 35 feet and they wanted 35 feet. She asked if this is an option. Assistant City Attorney Palmer explained as it is written, he thought it would be more likely to be interpreted as a prohibition against 35 feet and not an entitlement up to 35 feet, to the extent there are zoning requirements that are more stringent than what is in the Charter. Councilwoman Rhodes felt the Charter superceded the Land Development Code and she didn’t want anybody to come back and say they want more. Interim City Manager Williams felt this was a good point. She asked Assistant City Attorney Palmer as it relates to Riverside Drive, there were some height restrictions put in place to help control that height and protect the views. He spoke of having situations now where properties are being bought and the current house is raised and another one is going in its place. The 26-foot height restriction would be lifted and allow that property owner to build to the 35 foot if they so choose. He asked if he was correct. Assistant City Attorney Palmer informed him he would have to take a closer look at that. Councilwoman Rhodes felt they have to be careful when they put it in the Charter that it doesn’t get twisted around and used against them. Mayor Thomas stated they don’t have a choice. They have filed a lawsuit to put it on the ballot. Once they approve this second reading, they may want to rescind their lawsuit but the Charter has more teeth than the Land Development Code. Councilwoman Rhodes stated if they want to protect then they need to be aware. Mayor Thomas stated what they are trying to do is clarify the language so nobody can challenge that. He commented on the estimated cost of $35,000 to the City to place it on the ballot. Councilwoman Rogers stated there were three homes build on the east side of Riverside Drive, north of City Hall. There was one in particular where the family wanted the height of the home to be at a certain height because the son’s height was so tall. She asked if that home is 26 or 35 feet high. Mr. Lear asked her what home she was talking Page 60 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 about. Councilwoman Rogers informed him Kayat. Mr. Lear stated he believed it was higher than 26 but that came in prior to the definition of building height changed. It was originally that you took the average of the roof elevation. Then it was changed specifically for houses a long Riverside Drive that it is to the peek of the roof. Councilwoman Rogers questioned that being the tallest structure on the east side of Riverside Drive. Mr. Lear also mentioned some townhomes to the south. Councilwoman Rogers stated but as far as single family residential that is the tallest one. She feels they should use that to set a precedent as far as changing the verbiage so that wouldn’t happen again by saying to the roof pitch rather than the peak of the roof. Mayor Thomas stated he appreciated Council’s diligence on this tonight. Assistant City Attorney Palmer stated he thought he got the direction he needed to bring back a resolution at the next meeting. C. City Manager st Interim City Manager Williams stated on July 31 he and Mr. Lear attended the five-year road program meeting at the Brannon Center. During that meeting discussion took place regarding the revenues, which have declined greatly in zone 2, which is the area we fall in. Construction costs have increased drastically thereby forcing the County to make some proposed changes to their road program. As a result of that, we have expressed some concerns as it directly relates to some safety improvements along Old Mission Road. That road isn’t scheduled for any major construction until 2015. We have requested the County install safety measures, guardrails or something of that nature along Old Mission as a result of the new school being open. They feel some of our students will heavily use that road. He commented on nothing being planned under the County’s Dirt Road Reduction Program for approximately 1,000 lineal feet of dirt road out on Airpark Road until 2011. As a result of the school being open, they feel our students will use Airpark to make their way to the high school and believe the transition from the pavement to the direct and back to the pavement is a safety concern and they have requested Page 61 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 that they finish that 1,000 lineal feet of pavement and make that a priority for this year. If not, for the next fiscal year. They have also follows that up in writing to County Councilman Jack Hayman. These items will be coming th before the County Council for priority on August 17. In addition to roads they also follow up based off the public th input meeting on the widening of 10 Street. There were two proposed alternatives there. The preferred alternative th shifted 10 Street down into the City resulting in two homes being taken and then the effects of the commercial property in the Old Winn Dixie shopping plaza had to be th torn down and they were proposing that they open 10 Street to Palmetto. During that input meeting several of our residents objected to Palmetto Street being opened. We have followed up with a letter as well to Mr. Hayman recommending that Palmetto Street not be opened. They also expressed a desire to work with Volusia County as it th relates to stormwater associated with the widening of 10 Street and potentially locating that as an entryway feature into the City as an urban type of park. They followed that th up as well. As a result of the widening of 10 Street and the preferred alternative there was a sidewalk on the southern boundary that they felt led to nowhere and forced th our children to cross the four lanes of 10 Street without safe access across there. They have addressed all those concerns as well in that same letter. 11. CITIZEN COMMENTS/CORRESPONDENCE The following citizen spoke: Jack Hayman , County Councilman, District 3, Volusia County, th 3003 Travelers Palm Drive, stated they are broke. 10 Street and Josephine Street has consumed all the Zone 2 Road building money for the next three years. What has occurred is an ordinary rise in building materials, especially asphalt. It has caused what was to be a $3 million section of the road to rise to $6 million. He commented on some other unforeseen things. They have to finish that project. It is difficult to tell them at this point where they are going to get all the money. He commented on the various options they are looking at. He spoke of having an unusually high requests for community service grants this year and for the next three or four years. He commented on the State and Federal agencies cutting back and keep mandating that someone else do it. He spoke of being pretty fortunate over the years with Page 62 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006 transportation dollars during his tenure. He spoke of reaching a point where it is going to take a lot more coordination and they are going to have to be very careful about deciding what they do and the impact on our infrastructure. Beginning in 2007 they are going to be looking at financial impact analysis with regards to roads, pipe, clean air, utilities from A to Z. He mentioned the need to do Airpark Road. He spoke of having to come to an agreement and understanding of how they determine their proportionate share of roads in each of the cities. He spoke of it being a tough time right now. He understood th this morning was an awful mess on 10 Street and they had cars backed up from the turnoff into the High School all the way to the U.S. #1 intersection. He spoke of the buses having a hard time turning into the high school because of the entryway into the school. He then spoke of pushing back three big roads in Port Orange. Interim City Manager Williams asked Council to review the County’s Charter Commission proposed amendments to the County Charter and be prepared to discuss that during the next Council meeting. They will be bringing back to the Council a proposed resolution objecting to some of those Charter amendments on the basis of violation of home rule. A. Tentative Agenda Items There were no Tentative Agenda Items to be discussed at this time. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Council moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 11:08 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer Page 63 of 63 Council Regular Meeting August 7, 2006