|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
APRIL 1, 1997 7:00 PM REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS Present were: Mayor Dave Hood, Commissioners Jeffrey J. Boyle, David L. Schecter, Ed Kelley, Carl G. Persis, City Manager Eugene Miller, City Attorney Fred S. Disselkoen, and City Clerk Veronica Patterson. A G E N D A
Item #1 - Call to Order Mayor Hood called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Item #2 - Invocation The invocation was given by Rabbi Barry Altman, Temple Beth-El. Item #3 - Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hood led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #4 - Approval of Minutes Mayor Hood advised the minutes of the March 11, 1997, meeting had been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #5 - Presentation: Employee-of-the-Quarter Award to Dawn Conklin. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, recognized Mrs. Dawn Conklin, Office Assistant II in the Leisure Services Department, as the Employee-of-the-Quarter. He advised Mrs. Conklin is a true benefit to the community and always strives to be customer friendly and to provide top service to everyone. Mayor Hood presented Mrs. Conklin with a plaque and a watch honoring her as the Employee-of-the-Quarter and expressed appreciation for Mrs. Conklin’s performing a job very well done. Item #6 - Audience Remarks Jazz Matazz Mr. John Connors, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce and Director of Jazz Matazz 1996 and 1997, presented a poster commemorating Jazz Matazz 1996 and expressed appreciation to the City for its efforts in making Jazz Matazz 1996 a success. He announced that plans are currently underway to create Jazz Matazz 1997 which will take place on July 4 and 5, 1997, on the grounds of the Casements and Rockefeller Gardens. Mayor Hood expressed appreciation for the Chamber of Commerce’s efforts in making Jazz Matazz a first-class event. Wilmette Avenue Ms. Rita Press, 875 Wilmette Avenue, stated a great many people are in attendance to discuss the Main Trail/Wilmette Avenue traffic study and intersection design, and she asked if Item 10(A) could be moved forward on the agenda. Mayor Hood stated that public hearings have been scheduled and, as a matter of rule, are heard prior to discussion items; however, the Commission will attempt to move through the agenda as quickly as possible. Item #7 - Consent Agenda Mayor Hood advised the action proposed to be taken for each item on the Consent Agenda is so stated on the agenda. He asked if any member of the Commission had questions or wished to discuss any one or more of the items separately. Commissioner Kelley asked that Item Nos. 7(A) and 7(K) be addressed separately. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of the Consent Agenda minus Item Nos. 7(A) and (K).
Item #7(A) - Bid to Close the City’s Nova Road Class III Landfill
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Resolution No. 97-36, as read by title only. Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, advised staff had met with the consulting engineer for the project, and through a conference call, with the previously recommended low bidder, C.J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc. He stated the consulting engineer had previously advised staff that the caveats included in the low bid did not meet the requirements of the contract specifications; however, C.J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc., has agreed that the bid will be managed as contemplated in the original specifications and has agreed that the low bid will be a ceiling price not to be exceeded. Mr. MacLeod stated these conditions remove all of the risks of the quantity estimates that are included in the contract. He stated staff is now recommending that the bid be awarded to C.J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc., as presented at the March 11, 1997, meeting. Mr. MacLeod stated a resolution has been prepared awarding the bid to C.J. Langenfelder for the Commission’s consideration. Mr. Fred Disselkoen, City Attorney, advised a vote should be held on the motion on the floor to reject all bids, and then the new Resolution No. 97-36 title can be read and voted upon.
Mayor Hood asked that the resolution to award the bid be read.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Resolution No. 97-36, as read by title only. Mr. Disselkoen advised that the phrase "not to exceed" will be inserted in the second "Whereas" paragraph and also in Section One. Mayor Hood stated the motion and second includes that amendment, to which Commissioners Schecter and Kelley agreed.
Item #7(K) - Bid to Construct Four (4) Saltwater Interface Monitoring Wells
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Resolution No. 97-57, as read by title only. Commissioner Kelley stated he is Vice-Chairman of the Volusian Water Alliance which is working with the St. John’s Water Management District in an attempt to become more efficient with the consumptive use permit holders for water in Volusia County. He inquired if every effort has been made to ensure that duplication of efforts has not occurred and that taxpayers’ money is not being spent unnecessarily for permission to withdraw the City’s drinking water supply from the ground. Ms. Judy Grim, City Engineer, stated staff has been involved in negotiations with the District for more than a year on this project, and the cost presented in the resolution represents the minimum the District will accept for this monitoring project.
Item #8(A) - Telecommunications Tower Regulations Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, advised that this is the second reading of the proposed amendments to the telecommunications ordinance and is the end result of six (6) months of intensive work by the Planning staff to establish standards for telecommunication towers. He stated at the first reading of the ordinance, objections were raised by Ms. Laura Belflower, attorney with the law firm of Holland and Knight, who stated the ordinance is prohibitive and does not allow for the location of towers within the City’s boundaries. Mr. Ervin stated the City Commission directed Ms. Belflower to submit evidence of the alleged constraints and provide language that could be added to the proposed ordinance. He stated that Ms. Belflower submitted maps illustrating that the proposed regulations restrict locations where towers are permitted; however, he and the City Attorney have determined the ordinance is restrictive but not prohibitive. Mr. Ervin stated the proposed language presented by Ms. Belflower has merit; however, if that language is incorporated, it would substantially change the proposed ordinance and would require Planning Board review prior to consideration by the City Commission. He recommended adoption of the proposed ordinance at this time, and advised staff will work with Ms. Belflower for presentation of amendments to the Planning Board and City Commission as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Ervin advised that the City’s moratorium expires tonight at midnight; and if the Commission does not adopt the proposed ordinance, the City’s old standards will be in effect which will allow towers to be constructed by Conditional Use Permit in almost every zoning district with no established criteria. Ms. Laura Belflower stated she is a planner, as well as an attorney, with the law firm of Holland and Knight, and is representing PrimeCo Personal Communications, L.P. She stated she had expressed concerns regarding the prohibitive effect of the proposed ordinance at the first reading and has since presented evidence supporting that contention within the time frame given by the Commission. Ms. Belflower displayed color coded maps illustrating the areas that towers are prohibited, areas that towers are restricted by setbacks from residential areas, areas that towers are restricted by setbacks from certain roads, areas that would allow lattice or guyed towers, and areas that would allow monopoles. She stated the maps also show existing tower locations. She stated under the proposed ordinance, there are very few sites where tower facilities can be located. Ms. Belflower stated the information shows that the proposed ordinance is very restrictive and is very close to being prohibitive, and she questioned the justification for the additional setbacks. She asked if the Commission adopts the proposed ordinance tonight, that staff be directed to work as quickly as possible to process the proposed set of amendments which she provided. Ms. Belflower suggested the matter be presented as a courtesy review to the Planning Board at its April meeting, with formal consideration at the May 8, 1997, Planning Board meeting, with the City Commission considering the ordinance on first reading on May 6, 1997, and on second reading on May 20, 1997. She noted the suggested schedule accelerates the time frame by one (1) month, as compared to the schedule suggested by staff. Ms. Rita Press, 875 Wilmette Avenue, stated this is an issue that deems public input and asked for clarification of the request. Mayor Hood explained that a situation existed whereby most communities in Volusia County did not have rules that prohibited the ability to erect telecommunication towers if the applicant met minimum regulations. He stated many cities passed a moratorium until the situation could be reviewed and an ordinance adopted that better regulated tower placement. He stated this public hearing process has been ongoing during the past six (6) months. Ms. Harriet Damesek, 4 Sandpoint Circle, questioned if towers would be allowed in wetland areas; whereby, Mayor Hood replied that telecommunication towers are not specifically prohibited in the Special Environmental district but cannot practically be located in those areas. Ms. Damesek asked if a public hearing will be held for each tower request. Mayor Hood responded that tower applications will be processed in the same manner as any other request in that if the request complies with City regulations, it will not require a public hearing. Ms. Damesek asked why telecommunications towers could not be limited to being placed on tall buildings. Mr. Ervin summarized that the proposed ordinance basically prohibits all towers in residential zoning districts and limits towers to commercial, industrial, and special environmental zoning districts. He stated there is specific criteria, based on the type of tower, that regulates the minimum separation requirement between towers and setbacks from roads, and towers have been prohibited on the beachside. Mr. Ervin stated staff encourages the use of camouflaged antennae and towers which are designed to blend into the existing surroundings and co-location of antennae on existing towers. He stated if an applicant requests a guyed or lattice tower exceeding 300 feet, the zoning districts are restrictive as to where the tower can be located and will require Conditional Use Permit approval. Mr. Disselkoen advised that the Commission must work within the framework of the Federal legislation. He advised that Congress, in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, stated that municipalities can regulate the placement of personal communication facilities, but cannot (1) unreasonably discriminate among providers of those facilities, and (2) cannot prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, the provision of personal wireless services. He stated the distinction being made is that the proposed ordinance is not prohibiting personal wireless services or towers. He stated a city or state must act on an application within a reasonable period of time; must make a finding based on a written record; must provide evidence in the record in order to deny any request for one of these services; and finally, cannot prohibit a facility based on radio emissions. Mr. Disselkoen stated that as long as the provider meets the Federal Communications’ standards, the city cannot otherwise prohibit a tower. He stated the City Commission has limited abilities to regulate in this area. Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(A). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-6, on second reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Kelley asked that the recommendation be amended to include that staff be directed to review the language presented by Ms. Belflower for consideration by the Planning Board. Mr. Ervin asked for clarification as to the meeting dates suggested by Ms. Belflower. He pointed out that according to that schedule, the City Commission will be holding first reading of an ordinance prior to formal review by the Planning Board. Mr. Disselkoen interjected that as a matter of protocol, the Planning Board may take offense to this action because they will be holding a public hearing after the City Commission has taken action. He stated if substantial or material changes are made in the ordinance between first and second reading, then effectively there must be a third advertised reading. Mayor Hood determined that the City Commission meeting on June 3, 1997, is fourteen (14) days from the May 20, 1997, date requested by Ms. Belflower, and he asked if there is an emergent need that dictates that the Commission abrogate the fourteen days. He stated he concurred with the City Attorney’s comments; and having heard no objections by Ms. Belflower, he stated the item will be scheduled for review at the May 8, 1997, Planning Board meeting, with a first reading of the ordinance scheduled on May 20, 1997, and a second reading scheduled for the June 3, 1997, City Commission meeting. Mayor Hood asked Commissioner Boyle if his motion incorporated the amendments as articulated by Commissioner Kelley, to which Commissioner Boyle responded that it did. Commissioner Persis commented on the constant improvements in technology which would make towers of this type unnecessary in the near future, and he gave satellite dishes as an example. He stated he supported the language of the ordinance, specifically the section that requires the owner of an abandoned tower to remove the tower in six (6) months if it is not reactivated.
Item #8(B) - Landscape and Irrigation Plans and to Buffer Area Requirements Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(B). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-8, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(C) - Required Parking for Industrial, Wholesale, and Manufacturing Establishments Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(C). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-9, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(D) - Wall Signs Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #8(D). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-10, on second reading, as read by title only. There was some discussion regarding disagreement with prohibiting roof signs; whereby, Mr. Disselkoen advised that roof signs were removed from the ordinance during its first reading and the revised ordinance addresses only wall signs. Mr. Ervin clarified that this ordinance allows for wall signs to exceed twenty (20’) feet above grade for hospitals, restaurants, hotels, and motels by Conditional Use Permit in the B-1, B-6, and B-7 zoning districts.
Item #8(E) - Adopting Certain Amendments to the Ormond Beach Comprehensive Plan Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(E). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-11, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(F) - Size Requirements for Conditional Use Permit Ms. Harriet Damesek, 4 Sandpoint Circle, asked if the ordinance eliminates the notice requirement of a public hearing for principal buildings over 10,000 square feet, or if it eliminates the public hearing requirement entirely. Mr. Ervin responded the ordinance would eliminate the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit public hearing for uses exceeding 10,000 square feet in gross leaseable area. He stated the Land Development Code previously required that any use, whether it was permitted by right or by conditional use in a commercial zoning district, which exceeded 10,000 square feet of existing or new structure, would have to go through a Conditional Use Permit public hearing process. Mr. Ervin stated that pursuant to specific direction by the City Commission, staff investigated the number of requests and determined that since 1995 there have been twenty-eight (28) applications for Conditional Use Permits, of which five (5) were a result of the 10,000 square foot requirement. He stated if those five (5) uses met all of the other Code requirements and were 9,999 square feet, a public hearing would not have been required and the requests would have required only staff approval. Mr. Ervin contended that the additional criteria contained in Articles I, III, and VI of the Land Development Code, which requires public hearings for specific uses which are called conditional uses, is adequate. Ms. Damesek stated deleting the requirement for public hearings is a loss for the public. She expressed concern with allowing development to occur without the adjacent property owners being notified and a public hearing being held. Mr. Disselkoen stated that in the Suburban Residential zoning district, Conditional Use Permits are required for any primary uses that would be of concern, such as child care facilities, general offices, professional services, and public utilities. Ms. Damesek questioned the sense of having this regulation, if all of the examples given by Mr. Disselkoen require public hearings, to which members of the Commission responded that this is why the restriction is being recommended for deletion. Mrs. Lee Dunkel, 94 Ormond Parkway, submitted a letter from Mr. Dave Bates, relative to this item, which Mayor Hood accepted into the record. Mrs. Dunkel stated that a recent newspaper article stated the County is striving for citizen input in its decision making process and has scheduled a conference to determine how to solicit more citizen input, while at the same time, Ormond Beach is taking away citizen input. Mayor Hood emphasized that the Commission in not trying to prohibit the ability of the public to comment, and he stated the request to eliminate the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for uses exceeding 10,000 square feet is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the Commission does not have the legal ability to deny someone the right to build something that is granted by right under the City’s ordinances, regardless of public input. He stated the public hearing process has absolutely no legal ability to have any effect. Ms. Dunkel stated that large developments, such as the Laser Challenge, which was used as an example by Commissioner Schecter at the previous meeting for approving this change, may hear what the citizens have to say in the public hearing process and perhaps alter their plans in order to comply with the neighborhood; however, if there is no public hearing process, the business owners have no way of hearing from the citizens. Mr. Ervin stated this change to the Land Development Code pertains to a condition in a development that otherwise meets all City standards. He stated the following situations would continue to require a Conditional Use Permit public hearing: outside user storage, more than one principal structure on the property, or any use that is designated as a Conditional Use Permit. He stated the Laser Challenge Amusement Center development is a prime example of what staff is attempting to eliminate. He stated the owners were informed of the 10,000 square foot limitation, so the site plan was submitted for a 9,500 square foot building which met all of the City’s requirements, and the development was approved by staff. Mr. Ervin stated the owners then requested an additional 500 feet for storage; whereby, the Conditional Use Permit process was implemented. He stated this example demonstrates there is a way around the public hearing process for size requirements only, and this standard does not give staff a legal, defensible way to deny a use just because of the size. Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(F). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-12, on second reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle expressed opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment since the Conditional Use Permit process gives important protections, notably requiring public notification and public hearings for certain developments. He stated that staff advised there have been only five (5) projects that required a public hearing due to the 10,000 square foot limitation, which indicates that the size requirement is a minor hardship that does not occur often. He stated the current system seems to serve the city quite well, and he supported retaining the public hearing requirement for the same reasons the City complies with the Sunshine Law. Commissioner Schecter, in response to previous comments made earlier with respect to Laser Challenge, stated that as the former leasing agent for that 13,000 square foot site, he wished to clarify that Laser Challenge was informed of the City’s 10,000 square foot requirement, whereby they agreed to lesser footage so as not to delay the project, with the intent to later apply for a use requiring the Conditional Use Permit public hearing process. Commissioner Schecter advised there were four (4) public hearings and two (2) workshops held on this change regarding size regulations prior to the March 11, 1997, City Commission meeting, and to his knowledge, there was no public input. Commissioner Schecter strongly disagreed with the editorial that appeared in the Daytona Beach News-Journal, which he stated contained not one (1) number or fact of information based on the City’s ordinances. Commissioner Persis stated the former Wal-Mart building located on West Granada Boulevard, which is now a Winn-Dixie store, was vacant for a long time, and he questioned if the Conditional Use Permit public hearing process had caused that delay. Mr. Ervin responded that in addition to the 10,000 square foot requirement, a number of other items had to be reviewed, such as parking waivers and landscaping improvements; and he stated additional criteria had to be applied because the site is located within the Streetscape district.
Item #8(G) - Wetlands Impacts Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(G). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-13, on second reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle expressed opposition to the development of any form of wetland within the community, and he stated the citizens at large have pleaded against any form of wetland development. He stated the only people who have forced or driven these applications have been developers. He rejected the argument that these wetlands are no longer functioning and that the small acreage makes them unimportant. Commissioner Boyle stated that everything in the environment is interrelated in some way, particularly regarding flooding, and he stated that decisions about land parcels that are vital links in the ecology should not be subject to growth pressure. He stated the mitigation concept, as applied in this instance, sets a dangerous precedent of trading wetlands for dollars in whatever formula is applied. Commissioner Boyle also expressed concern to setting a precedent whereby developers can get the City to relax land use restrictions. He stated that other cities located in the western portion of the United States require a unanimous vote in order to approve certain amendments to their comprehensive plans or land development codes, such as this request. Commissioner Boyle stated that although this request applies to ten (10) acres or less, it promotes land speculation--not good development. Commissioner Persis agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Boyle, and he advised his position remains the same as voiced at the first reading. Mayor Hood stated this item pertains to only eight (8) acres out of the twelve thousand (12,000) acres in the City, and they are not Class I wetlands. He stated experts have appeared before the Commission and have verified that this change will not affect flooding, create climatic changes, nor adversely impact independent life form systems. He explained this ordinance pertains to only those wetlands that are along certain arterial roads, are isolated, are five (5) acres of less, and must be encroached or changed in order for the developer to develop his land, which he is legally allowed to do. He stated that only under all those conditions the owner would then pay the City a certain fee, which the City will use to buy additional wetlands to the west of the City to create a wetlands bank.
Item #8(H) - Stormwater Management Fee Mr. Nicholas Fortunato, 155 Oceanshore Boulevard, objected to this ordinance because it allows for drainage improvements for certain areas to be paid by everyone in the city. He supported creating districts and assessing those who directly benefit from the improvements. Mr. Fortunato stated the stormwater fee originated for an environmental necessity, and was not created to pay for drainage improvements. Mr. Miller advised this item has been studied for many years and has been a subject of a workshop in a public hearing type setting. He stated the Commission approved a .5 mill property tax increase last year for street improvements, and to expedite those improvements, staff has dovetailed the street program with the stormwater improvement plan. He stated the Commission agreed to use the "pay-as-you-go" system to fund the more than $12 million in improvements, and he stated it is now time to determine a methodology for additional funding. Mr. Miller stated a stormwater utility was approved in 1987 and was designed to develop a mechanism to pay for improvements that may be attributed to those benefiting properties. He stated the $3.00 fee is applied to the stormwater maintenance system, with minimal funding for capital improvement. He explained the proposed ordinance will increase the stormwater fee by $1.00 per year for the next three (3) years, resulting in a $6.00 fee beginning on May 1, 1999, which will sunset on September 30, 2008. Mr. Miller stated staff recommends increasing stormwater utility fees as the most appropriate method to obtain the necessary revenues to complete implementation of the stormwater plan. Mr. Ronnie Robbins, 3 Carmel Terrace, stated most of those in attendance are present to address the Wilmette Avenue issue and he expressed concern regarding the elderly citizens who have been forced to stand since the beginning of the meeting. He urged the Commission to hear the Wilmette Avenue item as soon as possible. Mayor Hood advised the remainder of the agenda will be expedited. Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(H). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-14, on second reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle thanked staff for providing the additional background information and especially Mr. Paul Lane, Finance Director, for his explanations on this item. He stated all the homes in the City valued at $90,000 or less would be better off with an ad valorem .5 mill property tax increase to fund the stormwater program than they would be with a $3.00 monthly stormwater fee increase. He stated, more importantly, the fee would increase the huge inequity between the top and bottom of the values of the homes. He stated the proposed fee would also assess all homeowners the same but exempt high-rise condominiums, which is an important group when it comes to stormwater. Commissioner Boyle expressed opposition to the formula that equates 3,000 square feet of the Wal-Mart parking lot with 3,000 square feet of the Heritage Condominium, because the condominium has created significantly more stormwater problems than the parking lot. He disagreed with the current proposal that would exempt owners of undeveloped property from being charged; however, the fee, which he stated he considers a tax, would tax schools, churches, hospitals and government offices. Commissioner Boyle stated this proposal would fund a $12 million capital project with fees rather than an ad valorem tax mechanism, which is the traditional method of funding for these type improvements in all local governments. He agreed with a statement made at the last meeting by Commissioner Schecter that this is a historic occasion in our City because the stormwater problem is finally being addressed. He stated this is a progressive city, with great leadership, and a highly efficient staff; however, he stated it would be a dark day for the City if it turns the tax system upside down with a funding mechanism that is clearly regressive. He stated he did not believe the promise that this fee would sunset eleven (11) years from now, as the government would find other uses for the $6.00 fee. Commissioner Boyle moved to delete the fee increase and to substitute a .5 mill ad valorem tax increase to fund the $12 million dollar stormwater project. Commissioner Schecter reiterated statements made at the last meeting that the Commission is sending a message that relief is on the way, and that for the first time in the City’s history, it is finally dealing with the stormwater problem by creating a ten (10) year plan that will incorporate flooding projects with pavement projects. He stated he is proud to be part of the Commission that has taken this action, and he stated the historic element of this whole story is vital to understanding how complex this issue is and how much time has been spent addressing it. He reiterated that he considers this to be the single most important vote he has made on this Commission since taking office in 1994. He proposed not to go to the extreme of a millage increase of .5 mills, nor did he support the entire fee increase to $6.00. Commissioner Schecter moved to amend the current ordinance to increase the existing fee by $1.50 per month, combined with a property tax increase of .1105 mills in 1998 and .1565 mills in 1999, which gives a total increase of .2671 mills. He stated this "mix" would give the perfect balance to start the projects this year, make the commitment to the citizens that stormwater projects will be constructed, and would be most fair and equitable in allocating the funding of these projects. Mayor Hood asked if there was a second to Commissioner Schecter’s motion, at which time, Commissioner Boyle stated he made a motion prior to Commissioner Schecter’s that was not acted upon. Commissioner Boyle restated his motion to delete the proposed $3.00 stormwater fee increase and to substitute the fee with a .5 mill property tax increase. Mr. Fred Disselkoen advised that, effectively, that motion would be a vote against the ordinance because taxes cannot be acted upon at this time but must be decided during the budget process; whereby, Commissioner Boyle withdrew his motion. Commissioner Schecter stated it was his understanding that the City can enact the $1.50 increase and commit the increased millage rates during the 1998 and 1999 budget cycles. Commissioner Boyle seconded Commissioner Schecter’s motion. Mr. Miller restated for clarification purposes that the action being proposed is to approve a $1.50 stormwater fee increase effective May 1, 1997, and in September 1998, according to Commissioner Schecter’s motion, the City Commission will direct staff to submit a budget that would include enough of a levy to fund the $12 million stormwater improvements, and then staff would do the same the following year. Commissioner Schecter concurred with Mr. Miller’s statements and advised his motion also implies that there would be no stormwater fee increase for the next budget year, that a separate fund would be set aside for this millage as was done for the street levy fund, and lastly, that the list of projects would be attached to the ordinance. Commissioner Kelley asked if the provisions in this motion will sunset, to which Commissioner Schecter responded they would. Commissioner Kelley stated staff has established a formula to fund both the road and stormwater projects within a certain time frame, and by increasing the stormwater fee by only $1.50 as proposed by Commissioner Schecter, he expressed concern that the road and stormwater projects would be jeopardized due to the lack of available funding. Commissioner Kelley stated there is no guarantee that the millage rate increase will be approved next year or the following year. He stated he is opposed to an ad valorem tax increase but supports taxing districts being created so that the ones who benefit bear the majority of the costs for improvements. Commissioner Schecter responded that, according to staff, the same number of projects can be completed in the same number of years if the mix he recommended is approved and the money will be budgeted for the improvements for 1998 and 1999. He stated he was confused by the lack of support by Commissioner Kelley for a millage increase for stormwater improvements, when he wholeheartedly spoke in favor for the .5 mill increase for road improvements. Commissioner Persis suggested a $1.00 increase to the stormwater fee on May 1, 1997, which is a thirty-three (33%) percent increase, and a fifty (.50¢) cent increase in May, 1998, with a smaller ad valorem tax increase to be discussed for the 1998 budget. Mr. Paul Lane, Finance Director, stated that he reviewed Commissioner Persis’ proposal, and it appears that the numbers will not provide sufficient revenue to fund the projects beginning in the year 2001 through 2008. Mr. Lane stated the rolled back mechanism will take away growth on most of the tax base and needs further consideration. He stated if the idea is to mix the millage rate with the stormwater fee, the Commission needs to set the millage rate each year according to the revenue necessary for the projects for the next year and not try to speculate at this time as to what millage rate will be necessary two (2) or three (3) years from now. Commissioner Persis agreed to the statements made by Mr. Lane, and he agreed with Commissioner Kelley that there is no need to generate more fee or more tax money than can be spent in any one (1) year period. Commissioner Persis stated he is open minded to consider all methods that will achieve adequate funding for the projects. Mr. Lane stated the average homeowner will be affected by only a couple of dollars per year regardless of whether the Commission chooses a tax and/or fee increase. Mayor Hood summarized there are three (3) choices on this issue: (1) a stormwater fee increase only, and he commented that he and Commissioner Kelley are the only two (2) who have expressed the opinion that it is unfair to have the entire city pay for flooding problems of those in specific areas; (2) a tax millage increase only, and (3) a blend of a fee and millage rate increase, for which he stated a motion is on the floor. Commissioners Kelley and Persis asked Commissioner Schecter if he would be willing to increase the stormwater fee to only $4.00 rather than $4.50, and then the taxes could be analyzed at budget time. Commissioner Schecter stated the problem with a $1.00 increase is that it will still require a .1738 millage increase for this year. He stated the proposed $1.50 fee increase, together with the addition of the property tax, requires no millage increase for this year, a .1105 mill increase next year, and a .1565 mill increase the year after. He stated his proposal guarantees that funding will be available and allows the projects to be constructed in the eleven (11) year time frame promised to the citizens. Mr. Miller stated it is staff’s strong recommendation to continue the stormwater utility concept and not commingle property tax with the stormwater fee. He stated one governing body cannot commit another governing body to actions previously taken, and the millage increase will have to go through the public hearing process on the tax levy.
Item #8(I) - Purchasing Method Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #8(I). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-15, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(J) - Adopting the City of Ormond Beach EAR Report Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(J). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Resolution No. 97-59, as read by title only.
Item #10(A) - Wilmette Avenue Traffic Study - Main Trail/Wilmette Intersection Design. Mayor Hood moved this item ahead on the agenda for the benefit of the audience. Mayor Hood advised that at the March 11, 1997, City Commission meeting, a request was made that the City revisit the Wilmette Avenue/Nova Road signalization issue. He stated the Commission is willing to listen to input as to whether a public hearing should be scheduled before the original June 3, 1997, meeting date. Mr. Dick Pflieger, 761 River Oak Drive, spoke in opposition to the prohibition of east and west traffic movements across Nova Road from Wilmette Avenue and Main Trail. He explained that as a former driver education teacher, he is aware that traffic signals are placed at specific locations in order to move traffic quickly and safely. He stated he understood that anxiety has been expressed by The Trails residents; however, he disagreed that drivers will travel through The Trails as a shortcut to West Granada Boulevard. He stated that it is time now to base a decision on the facts rather than on human emotion. He urged the Commission to reconsider their action and to allow through traffic across Nova Road at the Main Trail/Wilmette Avenue intersection. Ms. Samantha McLaughlin, 7 Lake Trail, asked the Commission to create an additional entrance to the Nova Recreation Complex which would eliminate much of the inconvenience being experienced by the citizens. She stated The Trails residents are also inconvenienced by the Main Trail/Wilmette Avenue intersection design; however, they support the design in order to protect the children in The Trails. Mr. Ronnie Robbins, 3 Carmel Terrace, expressed concern regarding the safety of children traveling to and from the Nova Recreation Center through the Main Trail/Wilmette Avenue intersection. He stated the signalization does not give pedestrians and bicyclists the right-of-way to cross safely, and he questioned who approved this design. Mayor Hood explained the City Commission that served in 1989 approved Resolution No. 89-135 which prohibited east and west traffic across Nova Road from Wilmette Avenue and Main Trail. He stated the current Commission was asked to honor that resolution and reevaluate the situation after ninety (90) days. Mr. Robbins expressed opposition to the current situation and suggested The Trails homeowners incorporate a guardhouse at their entrances to prevent Main Trail from being used as a through street. He stated opening the intersection to through traffic would allow adequate vehicular access to The Trails Shopping Center and Nova Recreation Complex, and he urged the commission to revisit the item. Mr. Dick Gassett, 283 Greenwood Avenue, advised he had been the director of engineering at the firm that designed The Trails roadway system and the director of the firm that designed the Wilmette Avenue extension; and at the same time, he was active in recreation programs and commissioner of the youth baseball program. He stated he had served on a volunteer committee to evaluate traffic patterns within the Nova Recreation areas, and this background gives him an overall perspective of this situation. Mr. Gassett commended the Commission for their ethics in upholding the promise made to The Trails residents in 1989 and for agreeing to evaluate the matter after a ninety (90) day period. He stated, however, that Wilmette Avenue provides the most direct route for the residents from the east side of town to West Granada Boulevard by way of Nova Road, the Nova Recreation Complex entrance, The Trails Shopping Center and The Trails Racquet Club. He stated the City staff, as well as the traffic consultants, have recommended allowing through traffic, and he urged the Commission to support that recommendation. Mr. Gassett stated if the Commission decides not to open the intersection, thereby making Main Trail a private road, then the Commission should create an assessment district of the Trails area to fund repair of The Trails bridge when that becomes necessary rather than assess the other residents of the City for its cost. Mr. Mark Kirby, 1320 Overbrook Drive, stated he is an advocate of allowing through traffic on Wilmette Avenue. He stated if children’s safety is a genuine concern, then he suggested consideration be given to closing through traffic from Old Tomoka Road to Main Trail. Mr. Edwin Bush, 41 Sycamore Circle, stated he read an editorial describing the Wilmette Avenue/Main Trail traffic intersection, and he expressed disbelief that the Commission approved such a design. He stated the rationale defies logic and the safety of the public majority has been compromised. He urged the Commission to reconsider the issue. Ms. Jane Storms, 885 East Lindenwood Circle, asked that the Wilmette Avenue and Main Trail intersection be opened to allow east/west movement across Nova Road. She noted that Main Trail and Wilmette Avenue can each be accessed by going north and south on Nova Road so the issue of through traffic still exists. She expressed strong opposition to attempting to force traffic to turn onto Nova Road to avoid through traffic on Main Trail. Ms. Storms stated the Commission is attempting to practice good government by upholding the 1989 resolution; however, she urged the Commission to correct the intersection traffic pattern by stating this is a safety issue as well as a convenience one. She requested the Commission to dispense with the ninety (90) day observation period, allow the Wilmette Avenue extension to be used properly, and avoid the potential of accidents under the current scenario. Ms. Kim Augustine, 15 St. John’s Place, owner of Nanny’s Child Care in The Trails Shopping Center, stated that she has noticed increased traffic through the shopping center parking lot as a result of the prohibition of east/west traffic through the Wilmette Avenue/ Main Trail intersection, and she encouraged the Commission to address the issue immediately. Mr. Don Strickland, 648 North Ridgewood Avenue, expressed concern regarding the health and welfare of the elderly in the area, as well as with children’s safety. He suggested that speed bumps be constructed along Main Trail to address the residents’ concerns about speeding through the development. Mr. Mike Armond, 10 Vining Court, stated that through traffic on Main Trail is not a problem, but access to the Nova Recreation Center is. He suggested signs be erected on Main Trail west of the entrances to the recreation center and shopping center stating, "Residential area--no through traffic," and that the intersection at Wilmette Avenue and Main Trail be opened to through traffic. Ms. Ela Lugo, 60 Vining Court, stated it appears that the majority of the people are being forced to sacrifice the use of the Wilmette Avenue extension for a few who enjoy the privilege of residing in The Trails. She stated tax dollars paid for the construction of the road, and the City should refund the citizens their fair share with The Trails residents assuming responsibility for the road. She stated this issue has been divisive within the community, and she urged the Commission to allow the entire community to use Wilmette Avenue for its intended purpose. Mr. Danny Dunn, 1111 Roberts Street, stated he made a comparison drive between using Main Trail or Nova Road from Wilmette to reach the Granada entrance to The Trails on West Granada Boulevard. He stated the trip through The Trails took twice the amount of time, and it was his contention that the general public will not use Main Trail as a shortcut. To address safety concerns regarding children in The Trails, Mr. Dunn suggested that parents contact the Volusia County School Board to relocate bus stops off Main Trail. Mr. Robert VanSlyke, 940 North Beach Street, stated he is involved in the City’s recreation programs and is concerned with further limiting access to the Nova Recreation Complex by prohibiting through traffic from Wilmette Avenue. He suggested The Trails consider erecting four (4) way stop signs along Main Trail to further slow the speed of traffic in addition to considering the previously suggested speed bumps. He urged the Commission to reconsider the current situation. Mr. Andy Esterhay, 1208 Overbrook Drive, thanked the Commission for scheduling this item for discussion and urged the Commission to consider the suggestions made by previous speakers. He objected to the prohibition of east/west traffic movement across Nova Road from Wilmette Avenue and Main Trail, and asked the Commission to remove that restriction. Mr. Nicholas Fortunato, 155 Oceanshore Boulevard, stated the 1989 Commission made a mistake when they approved Resolution No. 89-135; and having been the mayor at that time, he recollected that only The Trails residents appeared at the meeting requesting that action to be taken. He stated there had been no opposition voiced from the general public; therefore, the Commission approved the resolution. Mr. Fortunato stated that although the former Commission approved that resolution, he urged this Commission to reconsider and allow east/west traffic through the Wilmette Avenue/Main Trail intersection, at least to the recreation and shopping center entrances. Ms. Marie Sottardi, 115 Timberline Trail, stated she understood the difficulties people are expressing as a result of the intersection design; however, she pointed out that the same access to Main Trail exists as it had before the Wilmette Avenue extension was completed. She stated she would be in favor of a solution to this issue if the Commission could assure The Trails residents there will be no changes to the complexity of the roads, to the beauty of their residential community, or to the safety of their children. Mr. Frank Gillooly, 343 Timberline Trail, stated he cares deeply about what happens to The Trails; however, he also understands the frustrations being expressed. He stated he previously appeared before the Commission and argued forcefully to prohibit through traffic, and he urged the Commission to develop a compromise that will address all the safety concerns. He suggested the Commission consider installing stop signs along Main Trail, and he stated that if all the elements of Resolution No. 89-135 could be retained except for the restriction of prohibiting east and west traffic at the Main Trail/Wilmette Avenue intersection, this may solve the problems expressed by the citizens. Ms. Carolyn Berman, 6 Tomahawk Trail, opposed allowing through traffic in The Trails by allowing vehicular access from Wilmette Avenue. She stated the opposition being heard tonight is mainly due to inconvenience, and she suggested the Commission consider placing a traffic signal at the intersection of Shadow Lakes Boulevard and Nova Road to resolve this matter. She opposed encouraging any additional traffic into The Trails, and she asked the Commission to take the necessary steps to maintain the integrity of their residential community. Mr. Martin Boire, 1 Circle Oaks Trail, supported the Commission’s decision to wait ninety (90) days before revisiting this issue in order to allow adequate time to analyze the traffic pattern. He stated he had contacted the Police Department and been told there have been two (2) accidents to date at the subject intersection, neither due to the change in signage. He stated that fact indicates that the Commission will not be allowing an unsafe condition from a traffic point of view while waiting to settle a matter which relates to convenience. He expressed concern that if the decision is made to temporarily open the intersection, it will remain open. Mr. Don Elston, 15 Wilmette Avenue, applauded the approach the Commission is taking in resolving this matter, and he requested the City enforce the speed limit on Wilmette Avenue in order to protect the children in that area. Ms. Carol Owen, 361 Forest Hills Boulevard, related an incident which occurred where she received a traffic citation for violating the traffic pattern at the intersection. She supported allowing traffic through the intersection; however, if through traffic is prohibited, she suggested additional signs be erected for safety reasons and for clarification. Mr. John Dwyer, 27 Wildwood Trail, supported prohibiting through traffic. With regard to a comment made pertaining to taxpayers’ money paying for repairs to The Trails bridge, he stated the residents of The Trails pay their fair share of taxes. Ms. Gloria Kious, 931 Northbrook Drive, advised she stood at the intersection of Wilmette Avenue and Nova Road with a petition and spoke to the drivers who actually utilize the intersection. She stated that in less than three (3) hours, she received over 230 signatures of people, including a dozen residents of The Trails, who are upset with the fact that they cannot cross the road to access The Trails Shopping Center, the Nova Recreation Complex, the racquet club, or to visit friends in The Trails. She stated these individuals did not wish to cut through The Trails to reach West Granada Boulevard. Ms. Kious advised she also addressed this issue in her own neighborhood and has obtained a combined total of over 560 petition signatures of people who want this matter re-addressed. Mr. Ed Brown, 3 Havenwood Trail, stated he runs on the roads in The Trails, Tomoka Oaks and along Nova Road. He stated an additional entrance to the Nova Recreation Center is necessary since a dangerous situation exists where people attempt to cross the recreation area entrance on Main Trail with three (3) merging traffic areas trying to enter the park. He urged the Commission to construct a road north of Main Trail off Nova Road. Ms. Rita Press, 875 Wilmette Avenue, agreed a second entrance to the Nova Recreation Complex would help matters; however, in response to concerns about safety issues on Main Trail, she noted that Chief Stewart had advised that seventy-five (75%) percent of the traffic violations issued for speeding in that area were to The Trails residents. Ms. Press stated comments have been made by The Trails residents asking why opposition to the intersection design was not voiced earlier, and she advised she has collected data which gives the action taken chronologically, showing at every step it was the residents of The Trails who were notified of actions being taken. She stated she lives three (3) blocks from this intersection and was never notified of the proposed action; however, every homeowner in The Trails received notification, including when the traffic consultants held a meeting. Ms. Press stated the action taken by the Commission has always been in the interest of The Trails residents with no consideration given to the community as a whole. She read statements from a staff report dated January 30, 1997, as follows: "Not allowing through movements would force many drivers to make U-turns on Nova Road. Nova Road is not wide enough to safely accommodate this movement, resulting in vehicles driving off the road before completing the U-turn. This option may increase the cut through traffic through The Trails Shopping Center, Lakebridge Plaza, or Lakebridge Drive which are areas greatly used by pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This option would increase the number of left turns from Shadow Lakes Boulevard across Nova Road, an unsignalized intersection; and due to the stacking of vehicles at the Main Trail/Nova Road intersection, left turn lane customers of the Barnett Bank will not be able to turn left across Nova Road from the south bound lane direction. This would cause customers exiting The Trails, as well as those using the south bound lane of Nova Road to make a U-turn at Shadow Lakes Boulevard. This option would shift traffic from utilizing the signalized intersection at Wilmette Avenue to the unsignalized intersection at Shadow Lakes Boulevard." Ms. Press summarized that staff and the traffic consultant reports state this condition is unsafe, and still the Commission approved the intersection design. She questioned why Commissioner Kelley submitted a letter into the record voicing support for not rescinding Resolution 89-135 when he was absent from the public hearing. She questioned the Commission as to why, after having read the staff report, one of them did not speak on behalf of the 12,000 people who use the recreation area per month or address the business people who will suffer from this intersection design. Mayor Hood stated, as it has previously been noted in the minutes and on the tapes of the past City Commission meetings, this Commission wrestled with the fact that it appeared it would make more sense to allow through traffic, and there were opinions voiced that it would seem to make more sense to do so. However, because the prior City Commission made a promise and approved a resolution to prohibit east and west traffic movements across Nova Road from Wilmette Avenue and Main Trail, it was felt this Commission would honor that word, would ascertain the practical effect of that decision, and would, within ninety (90) days, review that decision and revisit the matter. Mayor Hood objected to Ms. Press’ statement that the Commission simply ignored all the issues, when he has spent more time on this issue and has articulated concern about the practical effects during the meetings. He stated, however, that he felt the greater principle was to uphold the promise made by government on the condition that the issue would be revisited if the result did not make sense. Mayor Hood reiterated that the reason for this discussion is whether to revisit the entire issue in the ninety (90) days as previously discussed or revisit the issue in an earlier time frame. Ms. Press requested the Commission place the Wilmette Avenue/Nova Road intersection issue on the next agenda as a resolution item to be voted upon prior to the ninety (90) day period. Ms. Nadine Schantz, 29 Rio Pinar Trail, questioned the status of an additional entrance to the recreation complex directly off Nova Road which was to have been constructed by the City. Mayor Hood advised that entrance was planned to be constructed at the same time Nova Road is four-laned, and that project is scheduled for the year 2002. Ms. Schantz opposed allowing through traffic in The Trails. Mayor Hood called a recess at 10:06 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:14 p.m. Mayor Hood stated that the focus of this discussion is whether the Commission is to reevaluate the intersection of Wilmette Avenue, Nova Road and Main Trail after ninety (90) days as had been previously or consider the issue prior to that date. Commissioner Persis stated that reconsideration of this issue in (90) ninety days was the shortest period which the Commission considered, and he supported that time frame. He stated prior to the Commission making that decision, the road was not open and no one was using the road; therefore, it was better to monitor the road as it is now for the period of time specified rather than to go from one extreme, where there was no through traffic, to one where the intersection was wide open. Commissioner Boyle stated support for waiting ninety (90) days for reconsideration of this issue. He noted a great deal of information has been provided at this meeting, much of it new information, which needs to be considered. He expressed appreciation to the citizens who had voiced their opinions on this topic and hoped that once a decision is made, that everyone can move forward in unity from that point. Commissioner Schecter stated that waiting ninety (90) days would indicate a discussion in mid summer when many individuals are away. He expressed concern that all the people who wish to participate in this discussion have an opportunity to do so; and he suggested, as a compromise, that the issue be addressed at the May 6, 1997, City Commission meeting. He stated this would give staff time to prepare for the meeting and to notify the concerned individuals. Commissioner Kelley stated he had interpreted the ninety (90) day period as being from the date the resolution was heard on February 4, 1997; therefore, the May 6, 1997, meeting would adhere to that schedule. Mayor Hood stated this issue needs to be resolved, and he questioned if placing the item on the agenda for the May 6, 1997, City Commission meeting was satisfactory with staff. There was no disagreement from staff. Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to hold a public hearing on the question of opening the intersection at Wilmette Avenue, Main Trail and Nova Road at the May 6, 1997, City Commission meeting.
Item #10(B) - Ormond Main Street - Submittal of Business Development Proposal Mr. G. G. Galloway, President, Ormond Main Street Board of Directors, asked that presentation of the Ormond Main Street Business Development Proposal be postponed until the April 15, 1997, City Commission meeting due to the late hour. The Commission agreed to do so. Item #10(C) - Ormond Main Street Request to use City Lot at 34 West Granada Boulevard Mr. G. G. Galloway explained that Ormond Main Street, Inc., would like to beautify the City lot at 34 West Granada Boulevard as their "kick off" project on the enhancement of the Main Street area. He reported individuals have volunteered dollars to improve the lot; however, the lot is currently under the ownership of the City which is attempting to sell the property. He proposed that the City take the property off the market and allow Ormond Main Street volunteers to improve the lot as supported by the staff recommendation on this issue. Mr. Tom Lipps, Assistant to the City Manager, advised that the potential to develop this lot is limited due to the size of the lot; and if the City Commission chooses to remove this property from the market and dedicate it to a voluntary beautification project, consideration must be given to plans for the remainder of the lot and to City Hall parking. He advised that staff recommends that the balance of the lot be landscaped at a cost of $5,000.00 and that the lot be closed to parking. He noted the lot is currently being used for parking by three (3) of the adjacent businesses. He stated this project would provide access to City Hall and to the Library with a plan for a reconfigured walkway, for which he recommended approval. He asked that the Commission consider the requests as a package. Ms. Jackie Taylor, owner of Volusia Office Supply at 38 West Granada Boulevard, stated the fence currently on the property is a safety hazard as people are continually jumping the fence to reach Granada Boulevard. She supported beautification of the lot, with access provided from the City parking lot to Granada Boulevard. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to adopt the Ormond Main Street recommendation. Commissioner Boyle supported the staff recommendation to landscape the lot as the best use for the property, since that would provide a temporary use which would allow the City to utilize the property in whatever means it wished in the future. Commissioner Schecter noted that this proposal would move City cars to the westerly portion of the City Hall parking lot. He asked that every possible precaution be taken to highlight the crossing to the parking lot at Corbin Avenue for safety concerns. Commissioner Kelley expressed concern that beautification of the lot will lead to further expenditures on the lot and that this project might not be the best use for the lot.
Item #8(K) - Amended Development Order/Conditional Use Permit - Winn Dixie Marketplace Mr. Clay Ervin explained this request is for approval of the conversion of approximately 9,700 square feet of rental space to storage at the west end of the Winn-Dixie Marketplace building located at 353 West Granada Boulevard. He stated the modification to the approved Planned Business Development includes the addition of loading facilities in the existing parking area, with a loss of eight (8) parking spaces, and the proposed amendment includes an additional waiver for those parking spaces lost with the construction of the loading facilities. Mr. Ervin stated the Development Review Board recommended approval of the proposed changes subject to the following conditions: the chain link fence along Orchard Street must be removed; the canopy over the loading area is to be barrel tile, consistent with the remainder of the shopping center; and the landscape island located at the exit to Orchard Street by the entrance of the proposed loading area must be increased, resulting in the loss of one (1) additional parking space. Mr. Ervin stated the applicant has expressed opposition to the condition that the canopy be barrel tile and consistent with colors and design of the remainder of the shopping center and has proposed a 12 foot by 24 foot metal roof supported by guyed wires. Mr. Carl Garlington, Jacksonville, Florida, the architect representing Winn-Dixie Stores and Mr. Mark R. Lloyd, the owner of the shopping center, stated Mr. Lloyd accepts the recommendations by staff except for the conditions regarding the canopy. He explained the purpose of the metal roof is to protect merchandise that is being unloaded from delivery trucks during inclement weather, and the roof must be such that it can be seen by drivers of the trucks as they back into the loading docks. He stated a tile canopy would be very hard to support and would call too much attention to the loading dock area. He stated the covering to the loading dock should be painted the same color as the building to be less obtrusive, and there will be adequate landscaping in the area so that the metal roof will be less visible. Mayor Hood stated an excellent job was done in the development of the Winn-Dixie Marketplace, and he understood the concerns regarding the barrel tile canopy; however, the side of the building and the loading docks are easily seen from Orchard Street. He suggested a cloth type canopy be provided which would be more aesthetically pleasing than a metal roof but would not attract attention. He stated too much has been done to this building to make it attractive to now ruin it with an aesthetically inferior addition. Commissioner Kelley stated a wonderful job had been done in placing a generally nice building in this area as compared to what had been there previously, and he agreed with the Mayor’s comments regarding the canopy. Mr. Garlington stated that a cloth canopy would be acceptable but noted that such a canopy would last only six (6) years as opposed to twenty (20) years for a metal roof. He stated that staff had required the loading doors to be the same color as the building, and he asked that the color of the canopy also be a peachy/cream color to match the building rather than blue. Mr. Ervin stated that the color of the canopy needs to be such that it is visible to the drivers who will be backing up to the loading docks; however, he would be more than happy to work with the applicant if he submits a plan for a cloth canopy that is the same color as the building. Mayor Hood asked that Mr. Garlington meet with Mr. Ervin to resolve the question of the color of the cloth canopy; and if that cannot be accomplished, Mr. Garlington may come back to the Commission with this in two (2) weeks. Commissioner Persis stated the Winn-Dixie looks very nice, and he questioned if the remainder of the shopping center would be upgraded to match it; whereby, Mr. Ervin advised that the shopping center has plans approved by the Development Review Board to upgrade the center. Mayor Hood asked that it be noted for the record that the owner of the shopping center, Mr. Mark R. Lloyd, had called him and indicated that he would not complete the upgrades to the shopping center if the Commission did not allow the metal roof. He asked that Mr. Garlington relate to Mr. Lloyd that such statements are not conducive to good corporate citizenship. Commissioner Boyle indicated that Mr. Lloyd had also contacted him regarding this issue. Mr. Garlington assured the Commission that Mr. Lloyd would be happy to agree with the decision made; and Mr. Ervin reiterated if Mr. Garlington comes forward with a plan with colors for the canopy which are the same color as the building, he will be happy to look at it. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(K). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 97-60, as read by title only. Mr. Disselkoen clarified that the motion included that paragraph 5 of the conditions set forth in the Development Order will be changed to delete the requirement for a barrel tile roof on the canopy. Commissioners Kelley and Boyle concurred that it did.
Item #9 - Hours for Opening/Closing of City Parks
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-16, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #10(D) - Black College Reunion Commissioners Persis and Schecter expressed appreciation for the report. Item #11 - Reports, Suggestions, Requests Solid Waste Enclosure Commissioner Boyle expressed appreciation to Kevin Gray, Solid Waste Coordinator, and Mr. Miller for their very creative solution of using recycled materials to provide an enclosure to clean up the solid waste collection area on the lot previously discussed. Main Street Blue Grass Festival Commissioner Boyle stated the community has expressed appreciation to Ormond Main Street, Inc., for the Blue Grass Festival which was held last week. He advised Ormond Main Street did a great job, and the event was attended by approximately 300 people. Streetscape Sign Ordinance Commissioner Boyle stated there is a disparity between older businesses, new businesses, and nationally franchised businesses in the downtown Streetscape area, with some of the new, smaller businesses being deprived of the ability to have proper signage. He stated the sign ordinance rules should be applied fairly to all businesses, and that action will go a long way toward revitalizing the downtown. Mayor Hood asked Commissioner Boyle if he felt it would be prudent to first have Ormond Main Street, Inc., provide its recommendation. Commissioner Boyle agreed to that action. Halifax/Indian River Task Force Membership Commissioner Schecter thanked Mr. Kevin Denny, Planner, for his willingness to serve as the City’s representative on the Halifax/Indian River Task Force. Corporate Colors/Logos Commissioner Schecter displayed a photograph of a McDonald’s restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana, which depicted a nationally franchised facility that had been constructed without utilizing the standard McDonald’s franchise colors. He pointed out that the corporate "M" logo was black in color versus the typical golden color, and he stated this is a visual example to demonstrate that corporate colors can be modified. Item #10 - Close the Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 10:49 PM. |
|
|
