|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
MAY 20, 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 Commissioner Kelley. 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 May 6, 1997, meeting had been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #5 - Presentation: FDOT Concept Plans for Improvements to A1A Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, explained that two (2) design concepts developed for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) by Transportation Consulting Group regarding the A1A corridor study were provided in the meeting packet material. He stated it is requested that the City endorse either concept "A," which is a streetscape plan that involves more hardscape (brick pavers, statues, archways), or concept "B," which relies more on landscaping in its design. Mr. Ervin stated this agenda item is part of FDOT’s public participation process, and public comment is welcome at the end of the presentation. Ms. Diane Miller, FDOT Project Manager for the A1A Study, explained the Study is to beautify the A1A corridor from Dunlawton Avenue in Daytona Beach Shores to Granada Boulevard in Ormond Beach by using landscaping and streetscaping enhancements. She stated that since this project affects the appearance of A1A in Ormond Beach, FDOT is very much interested in the Commission’s input on which of the two (2) alternatives it prefers. Ms. Beth Lemke, representing Transportation Consulting Group, provided a newsletter to an overview of the project. She stated this project encompasses A1A from Granada Boulevard in Ormond Beach to State Road 421 in Daytona Beach Shores, and she explained the components of the project include pedestrian scale lighting, landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle safety, aesthetic improvements, such as streetscape enhancements, and underground utilities. Ms. Lemke displayed renderings depicting the proposed typical streetscape plans for Concepts A and B, and she stated that aesthetic improvements are proposed for all of the existing public beach access points, which are included in the concept designs. She stated the preliminary cost estimate for Concept A is $11.3 million and Concept B is $9.8 million, and she stated these figures will continue to be refined as the project progresses. Ms. Lemke stated the costs represent everything shown in the plans such as mast armed signals, underground utilities, beach access improvements, streetscaping, landscaping, and improved bus stops and bus shelters. Mayor Hood questioned if that projected cost is for the entire area from Granada Boulevard to Dunlawton Avenue, to which Ms. Lemke responded it is simply the Ormond Beach portion from Granada Boulevard to Harvard Drive and is approximately $2 to $3 million per mile. Mayor Hood asked how this projected is intended to be funded, to which Ms. Lemke stated funding will be one of the next tasks reviewed as part of this project. She stated that $366,000 is funded for design of the project in FDOT’s Work Program for fiscal year 2000-2001; however, construction is not currently funded. Ms. Lemke stated the next public meeting is July 9, 1997, at the Adams Mark in Daytona Beach, and the recommended plan will be presented as well as potential funding sources. She stated the recommended plan may be a blend of both plans mixed throughout the corridor and is dependent upon input received as well as other criteria being evaluated. Ms. Lemke stated that if this is a project that the Commission wants to pursue, it is important that the City aggressively look at funding and ways to solicit funding for the project. Mayor Hood stated he is vehemently opposed to spending $366,000 to design a project that is not funded; whereby, Ms. Miller explained the design of the project was approved through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) process. Mayor Hood stated he spoke against the project at the MPO meeting because he is opposed to funding engineers to design projects that cannot be built for three (3) or four (4) years, which lapse requires the projects to be redesigned. Mayor Hood stated he is opposed to the process of funding the design until the money is guaranteed for the construction of the project. Ms. Lemke stated that project phasing will be considered prior to presenting the recommendation on July 9, 1997, and she requested input from the City with regard to each component of the project. She stated it is important to divide the project into "sizable bites" that can be funded through construction, and she stated the purpose of the study is to create an entire plan, so as things are built incrementally, they will be consistent throughout the corridor. Commissioner Kelley expressed concern about the proposed beach access enhancements when there is uncertainty as to the status of the beach in 2001, and he voiced opposition to designing a project without having the construction funded. Ms. Miller stated that FDOT has enhancement funds remaining from the "ISTEA" (Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act) bill, and she encouraged the City to pursue obtaining those funds. She stated that the project will provide a basis for construction cost estimates. Commissioner Schecter stated the Zone 2 business owners in the A1A corridor from Granada Boulevard south to the City limit support the enhancement project; however, they have expressed concern to funding the improvements until they are assured they are a part of a grand scale. He stated FDOT has to do a better job of convincing him and the affected business owners that the Ormond Beach portion of the project is part of something that is bigger and better in which they can participate. Commissioner Boyle stated he shared the same funding and beach access concerns as expressed by Mayor Hood and Commissioner Kelley. He stated the County maintains the beach accesses--they are not under the City’s control. Commissioner Persis expressed support for the plan and stated the upgrade is necessary along A1A. He stated the City will have to invest the money at some point, and he encouraged them to do it now rather than at a later date. Mayor Hood opened the floor to audience participation. There were no comments. Item #6 - Audience Remarks Father Lopez Baseball State Championship Mr. Frank Henry, 193 Bosarvey Drive, stated that the Father Lopez baseball team is competing for the State Class 2A Championship this evening. He stated the team practices and plays games at the City’s recreation facilities on Airport Road, and many of the players participated in the City’s youth recreation programs. Mr. Henry requested that the Commission recognize the players and coaches; whereby, Mayor Hood asked that a proclamation be prepared and presented at the next meeting. Memorial Day Event Mr. Donald O’Lone, 1304 Northside Drive, stated that on Monday, May 26, 1997, the City will hold its annual Memorial Day event at 10:00 a.m. in the City Hall Plaza. He expressed appreciation to the City Commission for giving the citizens an opportunity to pay their respect to the American servicemen and women. Mr. O’Lone stated that this week’s edition of the Neighbor’s Section of the Daytona Beach News Journal will have an article relative to the Memorial Day event. He stated this event is a credit to the City, and he thanked Mayor Hood for keeping his promise in holding the yearly event. Orchard Street Sidewalks Mr. Brian Deising, 503 Cherrywood Drive, submitted a petition containing over 200 signatures to support the completion of the sidewalk on Orchard Street from Granada Boulevard south to Division Avenue. He stated the lack of sidewalks lessens the access to Central Park, Phase II, and creates a significant safety hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Deising stated he is aware of the lack of adequate right-of-way along Orchard Street; however, he strongly encouraged action be taken to construct the sidewalk. Mayor Hood asked when the Sidewalk Capital Improvement Program will be addressed, to which Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, stated the "kick-off" meeting is tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. for the Sidewalk Master Plan, of which the Orchard Street project is included. Mayor Hood asked that Mr. Deising receive notice of when the Commission will address the Plan, and he asked if staff can expedite the process so that it will be presented prior to September. Mr. MacLeod stated there is a contractual arrangement with the engineer to provide the Plan in September, to which Mayor Hood urged staff to ask the engineer if it can be completed in August. 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 Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of the Consent Agenda as submitted.
Item #8(A) - The Vin’Yard - Conditional Use Permit Mr. Clay Ervin explained this is a request for Conditional Use Permit approval for The Vin’Yard specialty retail shop, which deals primarily in wines, cheeses and other edibles, located at 1395 West Granada Boulevard at the corner of Water Oak Lane and West Granada Boulevard. He stated this site is an existing single-family home; however, when the City annexed the area, it changed the zoning to B-10, Suburban Boulevard, and designated the property as Office Professional. Mr. Ervin stated that specialty retail sales and services are allowed within the B-10 zoning district through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. He stated the applicant is working within the confines of an existing single-family home to develop it for retail sales. He stated a parking lot will be constructed; the building will be renovated; stormwater facilities and additional landscaping will be installed; and a six (6’) foot high masonry block wall will be erected at the north property line to buffer the shop from the adjacent residential development. He stated the Development Review Board (DRB) reviewed the application at its April 27th meeting and agreed with staff’s recommendation for approval; however, the DRB added three (3) stipulations: (1) the hours of operation will be limited to 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; (2) deliveries to the site must be after 10:00 a.m.; and (3) the applicant is to investigate the feasibility of a cross-access easement for the site immediately to the east. Mr. Ervin stated the applicant has agreed to items (1) and (2); however, he stated item (3) cannot be mandated by the City. Mayor Hood asked for clarification as to why the cross-access cannot be mandated; whereby, Mr. Fred Disselkoen, City Attorney, advised the applicant has adequate access, ingress/egress, for their site, and the adjacent property may or may not be developed. Mayor Hood stated it is an important concern to require that access for safety reasons. Mr. Disselkoen advised that access and a driveway already exist for the other site, and Item (3) would be taking an easement for the purpose of another property. He advised staff has recommended Item (3) as strongly as it may legally. Mr. Ervin stated that the adjacent property owners expressed concern about allowing a commercial business next to a residential area, the hours and type of operation, and the potential increased traffic. He stated the applicant is willing to work with staff, and is making exterior modifications to the structure to make the shop more consistent with the Mediterranean theme that has been established along that area. He stated staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit for the Vin’Yard specialty retail shop, subject to the comments and final approval of the Site Plan Review Committee and the above stated conditions recommended by the Development Review Board. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #8(A). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Resolution No. 97-90, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle stated that the value and the function of this current single-family residence has been lost; and with the recent annexations and amendments and the construction of the Blockbuster Plaza, this residence is now a non-conforming site. He stated this request is an extension of the Blockbuster development problem; whereby, a brightly lit, noisy, high-traffic center with late hours has seriously impacted a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Boyle supported the Office Professional designation; however, he stated that the traffic, noise and other concerns expressed by the nearby residents are valid and relevant, particularly in regard to the intersection of State Road 40 and Water Oak Lane. He stated established homeowners should always be defended against adverse commercial impact, and he urged each of the Commissioners to consider these impacts as if it were to their home. He stated this request should be weighed in the context of all the vacant commercial development that exists in this community. Commissioner Boyle stated that the Vin’Yard is a wonderful enterprise; however, this location is wrong, and he will vote to deny the request. Commissioner Kelley objected to the conversion of single-family residences for commercial use on State Road 40. He stated that with all of the effort expended converting a single-family residence to a veterinary office on State Road 40, the structure still looks like a house converted to a business; and if he had known of this result, he would not have voted to approve that request. He stated this type of development does not fit the theme of the gateway to the City, and he expressed concern about the number of similar requests that may be received. Mr. Ervin stated staff’s concerns mirror those expressed by Commissioner Kelley; however, this building meets the setback standards and other requirements for the B-10 zoning district, and staff cannot demand changes to the actual structure. He stated the applicant has complied with staff’s request to eliminate the driveway that existed for the garage, and the garage door has been converted to "carriage gate" doors. He stated the applicant is implementing other exterior modifications such as glass block window areas, accented with decorative ceramic tile, and stucco banding. Commissioner Persis stated he trusts the owners of The Vin’Yard to continue its reputation as an "upscale" business, and with the exposure at this location, he was certain the applicant would have a quality business. Mr. Ervin clarified that this request is not for a restaurant, but a specialty retail sales shop. He stated there will be no seating available, with only limited take-out food and certain operations such as wine tasting. Commissioner Boyle questioned if the proposed parking is adequate on those occasions when there are wine tasting events, to which Mr. Ervin stated the site meets all the requirements, and if violations occur, code enforcement action will be taken. Mr. Howard Smead introduced himself and Ms. Ida May Hornberger, co-owner of The Vin’Yard. Ms. Hornberger stated The Vin’Yard is not a restaurant operation and never will be. She stated the roof may be raised to a higher elevation to increase the capacity inside the building, and the raised elevation will enhance the other exterior improvements. Mr. Smead stated there is an average of six (6) or seven (7) wine tasting events per year, and the highest attendance in the past year was twenty-two (22) people. Commissioner Kelley complimented the owners on the quality and manner in which they handle their business; however, he could not accept the "house look." Mr. Smead stated attempts are being made, within their financial ability, to improve the exterior to give it a Mediterranean look to reduce the appearance of it being a residential conversion. Ms. Hornberger stated the entrance doors to the S.R. Perrott offices are an example of the type of doors and shingles she intends to install. Mr. Disselkoen advised this issue is a quasi-judicial function of the City Commission whereby the Commission is reviewing the evidence presented before them; and he stated the only evidence actually presented during the public hearing was the testimony of Mr. Ervin. He advised that while there are conditions that can be modified, there is no evidence to support denial of the request. Mayor Hood stated he shared the same concerns as Commissioner Kelley regarding the existing single-family residence in the B-10, Suburban Boulevard, zoning district along West Granada Boulevard that can be converted to businesses. He stated that if the current codes allow this type of development to occur, the codes should be amended to prohibit that development. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Disselkoen to restate his previous comments. Mr. Disselkoen stated the City Commission’s decision must be based on any substantial, competent evidence that any of the standards that are presented in the Land Development Code have not been met. He stated the only evidence presented was Mr. Ervin’s testimony, or presentation, which basically said the request meets City codes, and there is no evidence upon which that the Commission can base a denial decision.
Item #8(B) - Total Comfort Heat & Air Conditioning - Conditional Use Permit Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #8(B). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of Resolution No. 97-91, as read by title only. Commissioner Schecter asked if the motion to approve includes the outstanding comments and final approval of the Site Plan Review Committee, to which Commissioner Kelley stated that it does.
Mayor Hood stated he abstained from voting because his law firm represents Total Comfort Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. Item #8(C) - Christ Presbyterian Church - Development Order and Conditional Use Permit Mr. David Leete, Architect, representing Christ Presbyterian Church, stated he is available to answer any questions regarding this request. Commissioner Schecter asked Mr. Leete if he accepts staff’s recommendation for approval which incorporates the previously approved special exception for the child care facility, to which Mr. Leete stated he accepts that recommendation. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, to close the public hearing on Item #8(C). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Resolution No. 97-92, as read by title only.
Mayor Hood stated he abstained from voting because he is a member of Christ Presbyterian Church. Item #8(D) - Ormond Lakes, Unit VII and VIII - Final Plats Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(D). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-18, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(E) - Ormond Lakes Business Center - Final Plat Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(E). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-19, on second reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Schecter stated that complaints regarding garbage in front of Homac Manufacturing were received at the last meeting, and he asked if Code Enforcement has investigated the allegations. Mr. Miller stated the issue has been resolved.
Item #8(F) - Relative to Miscellaneous Fees and Standards Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to close the public hearing on Item #8(F). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-20, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(G) - Relative to Municipal Elections 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 Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-21, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(H) - Relative to Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(H). The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Kelley moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-22, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(I) - Relative to the Ormond Beach Municipal Airport 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. 97-23, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #9 - Removal of 704 Buena Vista Avenue from List of Historic Landmarks
Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Kelley, for approval of Ordinance No. 97-24, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #10 - Relative to Recreation - Adopting a New Fee Schedule Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, stated Mr. Bob Bentkofsky, Budget Manager, has been the staff representative to coordinate this comprehensive review of the City’s Leisure Services participation fees and to finally determine, at the City Commission’s request, the cost of the various services the City provides. Mr. Bentkofsky thanked the Commission for giving him the opportunity to introduce this issue and summarize its major points. He thanked the members of the Quality of Life and Recreation Advisory Boards for their time in reviewing and discussing this study, for making recommendations, and supporting staff’s recommendations. He thanked the Commission for having the foresight to initiate this study in order to give a better understanding of the full cost of all the Leisure Service activities and programs. Mr. Bentkofsky reiterated the intent and the purpose of the study is to determine the full cost of providing fee related Leisure Service activities, based on the current budget and current levels of maintenance and facility usage, and to identify the extent to which general revenues of the City subsidize Leisure Service activities. He stated that from those two (2) points, staff has been allowed to propose a more equitable fee structure that reduces the reliance on general revenues as the primary source of financial support and shifts a larger portion of the costs to the user. Mr. Bentkofsky stated the first purpose was accomplished, and even if the fee structure remains as is, valuable information has been gained about the costs of the activities that the City provides and how the resources and employees are allocated. Mr. Bentkofsky stated that David M. Griffith and Associates (DMG) conducted the study for the City and has conducted over five hundred (500) cost-of-service analyses nationwide, with approximately fifty (50) cities and counties analyzed in Florida. He stated the methodology that has been employed is standardized in nature, and he expressed satisfaction with the methodology and confidence that the costs and other data contained in the study fairly represent the full cost of the activities that have been reviewed. Mr. Bentkofsky stated that the Leisure Services Department has a budget of $2.4 million and approximately two-thirds of the activities or $1.5 million are fee related, which means the activity lends itself for a fee to be charged. Of that $1.5 million in fee related activities, he stated that approximately thirty-one (31%) percent is supported through fees and the balance of approximately $1 million is subsidized. He stated that in reviewing the entire Leisure Services budget, both the fee and non-fee related activities, approximately $1.9 million or about eighty (80%) percent, is subsidized through the general revenues of the City. Mr. Bentkofsky stated this process began in October, 1996; the study was completed in January, 1997, and on January 29, 1997, the Quality of Life and Recreation Advisory Boards held a joint meeting to review the study and to discuss staff recommendations. He stated the advisory boards took formal action to support all of the recommendations presented by City staff with the following modifications: (1) set a cost recovery target of 7.5% for all youth sports (a 25% target was initially recommended by staff, which would recover only 10% of fee related costs); (2) charge $50 per week for building rental to the Council of Aging for the congregate dining program in order to meet the cost recovery target of 25% (staff recommended $100 per week); and (3) phase-out, over a three (3)-year period beginning in 1998, the City’s current $15 per player subsidy paid to Ormond Beach Youth Baseball Association, Ormond Soccer Club and Ormond Beach Youth Basketball League (staff recommended eliminating the $15 subsidy in 1998). Mr. Bentkofsky stated that on February 17, 1997, the City Commission held a workshop to review the study, staff recommendations, and the actions taken by the advisory boards. He stated he has distinguished between the consensus issues versus those issues that remain unresolved on the memorandum provided in the Commission packet. As to the unresolved issues, he stated there are several: the fees and the cost recovery target for youth athletic activities; the Wendelstedt Umpire School agreement; phasing-out of the $15 per player contribution paid to three sports organizations; Jazz Matazz; and changes to the Joint Use Agreement with the Volusia County School Board. He stated of those five (5) items, the youth athletic activity fees is the only item that is fee related, and the others are not fee related and are not contained in the fee schedule or the resolution being considered. Mr. Bentkofsky briefly summarized that staff’s recommendation pertaining to youth athletics is to increase the fee that the City retains to $2.50 per player, with a $2.50 increase per year until the per player fee reaches $10.00; and he stated the new fees would increase the cost recovery from 5% to 10%. He stated another recommendation that is not fee related, is to defer a decision regarding elimination of the $15 per player subsidy presently paid to three (3) youth sports organizations until the budget workshop in July since this item is not a fee issue, but a budget issue. Mr. Bentkofsky stated the City contributes to numerous non-profit human services and other cultural agencies, and taken together, the City contributes approximately $150,000 per year, and staff feels it would be prudent to address these items in a comprehensive manner at the budget workshop. Mr. Bentkofsky stated the Wendelstedt Umpire School agreement is an outstanding issue, and the full cost of providing this activity over an eighteen (18) week period that the City spends preparing the fields and the time that the School is in session is $48,000. Although related, he stated the $48,000 is to be distinguished from the fee that may eventually be agreed upon. He stated the recommendation made by the consultant and by staff was not that a $48,000 fee be charged to recover 100% of the costs. Rather, he stated the recommendation is to reduce the level of the subsidy that the City presently makes. He emphasized that this issue is not fee-related and is a separate contract, and he recommended that the proper forum to resolve this issue is through negotiations held between the City Manager and Mr. Wendelstedt. Mr. Bentkofsky read the consensus issues as follows: (1) recreation center activities which include summer camp, summer trips, holidays, spring break and teacher duty days; (2) Casements, Riverbridge Gardens, and Memorial Art Garden rental fees; (3) congregate dining rental fee held at the Senior Center; (4) Performing Arts Center rental rates; (5) tennis fees; (6) standardization of the instructor/City revenue split at 70% for the instructor and 30% to the City; (7) elimination of the varying non-resident fees and replacement with an across the board non-resident surcharge of 50% that would be phased in over a three (3)-year period; (8) gymnastics fees for levels 4, 5, and 6; and (9) facility and field rental fees. Mayor Hood stated the list of consensus issues have been described and asked if anyone wishes to speak on any of these issues. Mrs. Alice Henry, 193 Bosarvey Drive, stated she is a 40-year recreation volunteer and a 23-year paid recreation professional, and she spoke against adopting a new fee schedule for parks, recreation and cultural facilities. She stated at the Commission workshop on February 17th, the City Manager stated "...that the City of Ormond Beach is fortunate to be in a financial position where it does not need to increase fees, and he noted that most cities undertaking a study of this nature are in a crisis position where they must find additional revenues." She stated he further stated, "Ormond Beach is not in this position, and the City Commission has directed staff to take a proactive approach to plan for the future in a fair and equitable manner." She read a statement from the Budget Manager, "...this study was not intended to be an operational analysis of Leisure Service, such as how efficiently Leisure Services is operating, the level of staff, the mixes of activities and the classes provided and the level of services provided." Mrs. Henry stated DMG did a fine job, but the study has some major flaws and only covers one component of the many needed before setting fees to bring equity to the Leisure Services participants. She stated the City now has a professional Leisure Services Director, a professional Recreation Manager, and a professional Athletic Director, and she requested that time be given for this team to determine ways to cut costs. Mrs. Henry suggested keeping the children busy, happy and safe, and she recommended building additional neighborhood playgrounds. She stated gymnastics participants pay higher fees compared to other athletic programs, and she urged the Commission to be fair to those who choose individual sports over team sports and to keep fees affordable. She expressed opposition to standardizing instructor fees and suggested the fees be negotiated. Ms. Henry stated "our youth is our future" and she recommended not raising the fees until all of the components are presented and reviewed by the Leisure Services administration. Mr. Harry Wendelstedt, 88 South St. Andrews Drive, a 35-year resident who served ten (10) years on the Recreation Advisory Board, expressed concern to the proposed fee increases which cover a range from the youngest children to senior citizens. He stated if the fee increases are based on the study provided by DMG, he is strongly opposed to its adoption because there are numerous inaccuracies and misinformation contained in the document. He stated he did not like the direction that Ormond Beach is going with this, and he stated the City needs to provide more youth, young adult and senior activities. He expressed opposition to having people unable to participate in programs because they can not afford the fees. Mr. Wendelstedt asked the Commission to table this item until accurate facts are received. Ms. Sharon Wuamett, 769 North Beach Street and 405 Main Trail, stated she has been the President of the Ormond Beach Soccer Club for the past two (2) years and is now the District Commissioner for Florida Youth Soccer. She stated that when this study was conducted, she was not asked what it costs to run the soccer program, and she provided information on registration costs for players and coaches, the subsidy fee to the City, and the various costs involved in the program. Mrs. Waumett stated that when a study is conducted, the people involved should be contacted to ascertain the costs of running the various sports organizations. Mrs. Ruth Horan, 675 Riverside Drive, stated she is a former Recreation Advisory Board member of eighteen (18) years, and she was chairman for ten (10) of those years. She stated that one of the things that has always differentiated Ormond Beach from other cities is its attention to detail to the quality of life. She stated the children must be protected, and she suggested the best way to do it is to provide programs and facilities at affordable costs. She spoke in opposition to the proposed fee increases, and she stated that contractual instructors depend on the number of class participants to provide the programs. Mrs. Horan expressed appreciation of the Commission’s endeavor to keep taxes down; however, she asked them not to destroy the quality of life for certain recreation participants. Mr. Norman Lane, 1314 Northside Drive, Second Vice-Present of the Ormond Beach Soccer Club, voiced support of the statements made by Ms. Wuamett, and he stated that a 7½% figure contained in the report "distorts the picture." He stated it appears that the percentage is based on the $1.50 portion of the fee that is retained by the City, which he stated is a tiny fraction of the costs of the program. Mayor Hood and Commissioner Kelley explained that the study addresses the amount that the City funds as a percentage, and not the amount other sources fund. Mr. Bentkofsky clarified that this study looks at the City’s costs, which primarily involves the costs, in terms of athletics, of maintaining the fields, and in terms of the other activities and programs, the costs of running the programs. He stated that since the City does not run certain programs, the study did not include what it costs to operate the program side of those activities. He stated there are costs associated, and fees necessary to offset those costs, and that is the reason the various sports organizations have established a fee structure--to offset those costs. He stated that area is separate and apart from the costs that the City incurs to maintain the fields and put on the program and does not involve the sports associations’ costs. Mayor Hood stated the sole issue becomes how much revenue the City receives that offsets the costs incurred to the City. He stated the costs associated with the Soccer Association from fees charged to the participant, which Ms. Wuamett very well outlined, is not relevant to the question of how much of the cost to the City is being recovered. Mr. John Connors, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, stated that if the City took into account the cost for the City to solicit specialists to run these type programs, it would be a very different situation being considered tonight. He stated the City has invested heavily in the arts and sports programs, and he believed such programs attribute to less crime being committed by youth. Mr. Connors stated that when the City reviews the funds it invests in these programs, it must consider all of the funds from other sources. He stated that the cost for his daughter to perform in the Children’s Music Theater is proposed to be increased from $60.00 to $100.00, and he asked the Commission to consider not only the children, but the parents and grandparents who also participate in these programs. Mr. Connors encouraged the City to continue to invest in the future of this community by way of standing behind these programs with solid financial backing. Commissioner Kelley questioned the source of the fee increase that Mr. Connors stated would increase from $60.00 to $100.00. Mr. Connors stated that the current fee is approximately $60, and the proposal would increase that amount by fifty (50%) percent because his child does not live within the City limits. Mr. Jeff Sweet, 124 Riverbluff Drive, appearing in his capacity as the American Legion Director for the Ormond Beach Youth Baseball Association, stated that based on information he received, City staff expends 3,260 labor hours maintaining four (4) regulation baseball fields. He stated that by using that figure, four (4) employees would spend approximately 815 hours per person on field maintenance, or five (5) solid months maintaining those four (4) fields. He stated that information is grossly in error. Mr. Sweet expressed the desire for a cost efficient government; however, he stated the City needs to be sure the numbers are correct. He stated that the Wendelstedt Umpire School operates from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for approximately five (5) weeks, and of that time from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Mr. Wendelstedt and his staff donate their time to work with children that play junior varsity or varsity baseball at Seabreeze and Father Lopez high schools. He requested that the City take that contribution into consideration when negotiating Mr. Wendelstedt’s contract. Mr. Corrado Gionfreido, 82 Lake Park Circle, stated he participated in the City’s youth programs as a child and strongly urged the Commission to not increase the fees. He stated that children need to be involved in these types of activities to avoid getting into trouble. Ms. Doris Katz, Chairman of the Quality of Life Advisory Board, stated that when the Board was requested to review the study, it was their understanding they were being mandated to review the study from a business point of view. She stated the Board felt that staff went a little too far in recommending certain fee increases, and the Board modified those recommendations. She stated the members are very proud of the quality of life in Ormond Beach, encourage the City to offer the programs at the lowest possible cost, and do not want the fee increases to negatively effect the users of any of the programs. Ms. Katz stated the Board does not support the elimination of any programs and would prefer that some of the programs be enlarged. She stated the Board is in favor of using funds from the operating budget, and if it is a viable opportunity, she suggested the Board revisit the study. Mr. Bill Hunter, 77 Magnolia Avenue, representing Father Lopez High School, voiced support of Mr. Wendelstedt and his various programs. He stated that no other community can buy the type of contributions that Mr. Wendelstedt, his school, and his devotion make to Ormond Beach. He stated the ability for children to interact with professionals of Major League Baseball is something that can not be bought anywhere else in the country. He stated that every time there is a national publication or national broadcast of a Major League Baseball game there is mention of the umpires’ name and hometown, and he stated Ormond Beach receives free national publicity because Mr. Wendelstedt is a resident of Ormond Beach. Mr. Hunter stated that Father Lopez urges the Commission to give every consideration to allow Mr. Wendelstedt to continue to provide all of the "intangibles" to the community and students. Mayor Hood stated his view of family value is watching the children playing sports at the Airport Recreation fields and the parents and grandparents, either coaching or watching. He stated this community has a long history of investing far more capital in its children and recreation facilities than any other community in Volusia County, and that is evident by not only the depth and breath of the recreation facilities, but by the quality of the ball fields. He stated it is apparent that this community has decided that it is important to have first-rate facilities for its children. Mayor Hood stated there is no argument that this community should continue to fund the investment it has in its children at the current rate. He stated the question is, "does the City need to recoup more of the costs for the various Leisure Service programs." He stated it is a disservice to everyone when all of the issues are combined into one consideration, as there is a very distinct difference whether the City funds youth sports and arts programs, or whether there is an increase in charges to rent the Riverbridge Gardens building and other facilities. Mayor Hood stated that he received a lot of criticism when he argued for privatization and required the City to go through the competitive process, but he felt it was important to ensure that the City is spending the taxpayers’ money as efficiently as it can; and as a result, the City has reduced the operating budget by approximately $3 million. He stated that government must do what it can collectively for the community that cannot be done individually. He stated the money saved through privatization should be invested to ensure that every child in this community has the ability to participate in every available program. Mayor Hood stated that he is fundamentally opposed to increasing the rates charged for participation in children’s programs and those senior programs for which there are no private or competitive programs that already exist within the community. He stated he is opposed to eliminating the subsidy, because there a number of people who spend a great deal of their time volunteering in the sports programs, and he stated that effort needs to be encouraged. Mayor Hood stated the Wendelstedt Umpire School item is unfortunate, and the consultant determined the City is subsidizing the School at $48,000 because the use of the fields is 1,000 hours, of which Mr. Wendelstedt uses 350 hours, which figure was multiplied by 35% of the cost. He stated in reviewing the figures, the real potential use for the field is approximately 10,000-15,000 hours, and the percentage of the cost to this community for the Wendelstedt School is far below $48,000. He stated, however, there has not been a reasoned argument on those facts; therefore, everyone in the community is better served by allowing the process where Mr. Wendelstedt and the City investigate the facts and determine a number to be dealt with in the budget. Mayor Hood stated that one of the great joys of being an efficiently run City is that there are times when the City can invest that extra money that it might not have otherwise. He stated it seems to him to be unwise, as it relates to children and youth activities, for the City to increase the costs, thereby prohibiting some children from participating. He supported higher fees for non-residents because they do not pay ad valorem property taxes and do owe a higher share of the cost to help the City pay the capital costs. Commissioner Boyle stated it is possible that the study is a good blueprint of where to go and how to get there, but the study takes the City there too quickly. He stated the City still does not have a demographic survey from this study that prioritizes the specific recreational needs of this City with recommendations on how to allocate funding. He stated there is a cost study and a resource allocation study, but there is not a blueprint on what the City should be doing and if more money should be invested in youth activities and other programs. He stated he preferred a more gradual line-item approach in restructuring these fees which currently have public acceptance. He noted the consultant has stated that this City’s subsidy for Leisure Services is average for a city this size. He stated this City has expectations and an inordinately high quality level of service as referenced by Mayor Hood. He reminded that a fee is still a form of a tax. Commissioner Boyle stated the recovery targets seem high, and there is some doubt about the accuracy of the projections that can be made on the basis of a new fee structure. He referenced a previous comment that there are costs on the "back end" if the City does not have a strong youth activity program, and law enforcement costs may increase. He stated that raising certain fees may reduce the number of participants; therefore, it is a fallacy that the fee increase will guarantee a revenue increase. He stated the message he receives from the items described as "high demand" is not about increasing fees, but expanding the facilities and programs. He stated that in some ways the City has been a victim of its own success, since the great level of service, attracts people from other cities, and he agreed to higher fees being charged to non-resident participants. Commissioner Boyle stated that the total number of the proposed fee increases only adds up to $120,000. He stated price increases can result in lower total revenues, and he gave the beach toll as an example. He questioned the City impacting wholesale changes upon a system that has been successful, has a structure that has been in place for years, and enjoys public support. He stated the fee increases may be hard to explain to a community that only recently learned about all of the savings that an efficient and wise government has realized through the privatizations and previous policies. Commissioner Boyle questioned that if the City realized so many savings through privatization, why there is a need to increase the fees for leisure services. He voiced objection to adopting a new fee schedule. Commissioner Schecter stated that if the City treated itself like a business, it would have a public relations arm, and this issue has brought to light the fact that staff has not done as good a job as it could in getting the information out to the public. He stated an article appeared in Florida Trend magazine last month that explained that the subsidy for colleges in this State system is 75%. He stated that a community decision needs to be made in regard to recreation programs, and he stated that it is a good thing that at the State level that it has been decided that education is one of the things that it is going to have to deal with. Commissioner Schecter stated that he is as surprised as anyone on the recreation numbers and the extent to which the City is subsidizing so many of the programs. He stated the City needs to do a better job of explaining to the public exactly to what extent government is useful and is helping with a lot of these programs. He stated that he hoped the Commission, who at times has taken a position that we need to make government "work more and be around less," will use this as an example in the future of exactly what the government’s purpose is in trying to organize those things that the citizens need and find important. Commissioner Schecter expressed the need to continue to inform the public and to solicit feedback in each of these areas, and he stated he is always concerned that the City be firm and consistent when dealing with financial information. He stated it is obvious what needs to be done with the recreation services study, and he agreed with the comments to table this issue; however, he requested the City Manager to continue negotiations with Mr. Wendelstedt, as well as each of the youth activities groups, which was referenced as Option 2 in the City Manager’s memorandum dated May 15, 1997. Commissioner Kelley stated that he supports allowing any child who lives in Ormond Beach to participate in any recreation activity, and the various sports organizations are making an effort to ensure that happens. He supported reviewing certain proposed fees increases, such as the tennis fee which is proposed to increase from $4.50 to $4.75 per hour and the Casements rental fee increase from $510.00 to $600.00. He took issue with the statements that the figures in the study are flawed and stated he trusted the information presented by staff. Commissioner Kelley stated if the assumption is made that the figures the consultant produced are correct, then the City has a tool to work with, and he stated he has tried for four (4) years to have the City’s true costs ascertained. He stated he is in favor of further reviewing the study, and he stated there are certain fees that need to be increased and others that do not. Commissioner Persis stated that an investment must be made for the youth and activities need to be available for them to participate in, because if the City does not provide wholesome, safe activities, the children may find other undesirable activities. He stated this problem currently exists in some areas of the City. He stated while the City has organized activities, it does not reach out to everyone; since there are some families who cannot afford the current fees being charged and there are kids committing vandalism and doing things that they should not be doing because there is nothing for them to do. He stated there is strong desire among children and adults for a skateboard and in-line skate park, and because there is a lack of legal areas in which they may skate, children are forced to skate in prohibited areas. Commissioner Persis stated the Commission’s intent in authorizing the study was to determine the costs for each program and how much the City contributes toward that program. He stated that the comments made from people involved in the recreation activities tonight have convinced him that the information that was provided either to the consultants, or the information that the consultants provided, is inaccurate; therefore, he does not support the study. He expressed opposition to increasing the rental fees for certain facilities, and he supported attracting weddings to be held in Ormond Beach, as weddings promote the use of local businesses. He supported encouraging the use of Ormond Beach facilities which he believed would improve the City’s economy. Commissioner Persis thanked the individuals involved in the recreation programs for the work they have done for the betterment of the children in the community. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, stated focus of the study the City is dealing with relates to the direct cost for participant fee activities where the City knows absolutely what the costs are. He stated it was not the intent of the study to talk to the various association representatives that have recreation and cultural programs in the City, nor was there any intent to do anything to diminish the quality of the programming that is uniquely very high in this community. He stated his professional staff is proud of that fact and will assure that the trend continues and improves. He stated this subject was reviewed on a comprehensive basis, as was done for the stormwater and street resurfacing projects, whereby the City reviewed the information, a master plan was developed and a financing program was devised to implement that plan. Mr. Miller advised this study was performed to present a "snap shot picture" of what the City is providing to this community and to look at the methodologies of how that is funded. He stated the City has participation fees on all of the activities being addressed, and in most instances, the proposal represents a small adjustment to the current fees. Mr. Miller that prior Commission statements indicated there are items they wished to bring back for further review, such as the summer camp program where there is competition in the community and the City does not want to under price those competitors with fees subsidized by the general taxpayers. Mr. Miller asked for direction on how the Commission wants staff to proceed from this point, with the understanding that no changes are to be made that affect youth sports programs, negotiations with Mr. Wendelstedt are to continue. Mayor Hood agreed the general consensus of the Commission is that there is strong opposition to an increase in the fees for youth sports and regarding the subsidy. He stated items such as the Casements and Riverbridge rental fees need further discussion. He stated the most effective way to address these items is for staff to schedule them for discussion over the next two (2) or three (3) agendas. Commissioner Schecter suggested that notification be given to the groups involved, such as those at the Performing Art Center; whereby, Mayor Hood directed staff to provide such notification. Mayor Hood summarized that the consensus with regard to the Wendelstedt Umpire School is for staff to continue negotiations for presentation to the Commission for final action. The Commission took a five (5) minute recess at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was recalled at 9:10 p.m. Item #11(A) - Appeal of Planning Director’s Interpretation - 33 Seville Street Mr. Clay Ervin, Planning Director, explained this is a request to appeal his interpretation of Article IX of the City’s Land Development Code, which states that two (2) non-conforming lots contained under one (1) ownership that share continuous frontage, shall be considered as one (1) lot and shall not be subdivided unless they are able to meet all of the requirements for that particular zoning district. He stated in this situation, older lots are being dealt with that were previously platted sixty (60’) foot widths located at the corner of Seville Street and Alcazar Avenue. He stated the property has been under one (1) ownership for some time, with staff, as well as the tax records, indicating that this property is one (1) parcel. Mr. Ervin stated that the applicant, Mr. Simpson, is not stating that Article IX is wrong, but that staff’s interpretation of lot frontage is incorrect and that these two (2) lots do not share frontage. Mr. Ervin stated that in reviewing the information provided by Mr. Simpson and in researching the Land Development Code, he maintains that his interpretation of lot frontage is correct. He stated the property was originally platted as two (2) lots, but the parcel is now considered one (1) lot under the City’s current codes. He stated Lot 1 is a corner lot and has frontage on Seville Street and on Alcazar Avenue. He stated Lot 2, which faces only Alcazar Avenue, shares that same frontage on Alcazar Avenue, creating a corner lot which has double frontage. Mr. Ervin advised staff recommends that the Code language remain as is, and that his interpretation be upheld. Commissioner Kelley inquired as to the address for Lot 1, to which Mr. Ervin responded it is 33 Seville Street. Commissioner Kelley questioned what the address would be if Lot 2 were developed; whereby, Mr. Ervin responded it would be Alcazar Avenue. Mr. Ervin explained that the Code states that two (2) lots which have continuous frontage shall be considered one (1) lot if it is under one (1) ownership. Mr. Ervin stated this standard is uniform throughout the City and just because this is a corner lot it should not be exempt from the fact that it does share continuous frontage on Alcazar Avenue. Commissioner Schecter supported staff’s recommendation; however, he asked that a possible Code amendment be considered to assist the applicant. He questioned if taxes had been paid for one (1) parcel, rather than two (2) lots since 1992, to which Mr. Ervin stated that is his understanding. Commissioner Schecter stated the word "lot" is immaterial because at this point if the property is divided into two (2) lots, the minimum dimensions of the parcels will not meet the Code’s current requirements. Mr. Ervin agreed that the parcel cannot be divided into two (2) separate lots given the City’ minimum lot width requirement. Commissioner Schecter clarified that the argument then is that, if the lot is divided, the issue is not necessarily frontage, but minimum dimensions of that entire parcel, to which Mr. Ervin concurred. Mr. Ervin stated Mr. Simpson’s position is that there is separate frontage and that these two (2) lots do not share continuous frontage; therefore, the definition does not apply to this property. Commissioner Schecter asked what the time frame would be if staff amended this section of the Code to help this particular applicant, and Mr. Ervin responded that he and Mr. Simpson have met on this issue for approximately one (1) year and have not discovered a viable alternative. Mr. Scott Simpson, an attorney representing the property owners, Mr. & Mrs. George Craig, stated the Craig’s own two (2) lots, one (1) on the corner of Seville Street and Alcazar Avenue, and the other one fronting on Alcazar Avenue. He stated the zoning for this area is R-3, Single-Family Medium Density, and the minimum width for that zone is seventy-five (75’) feet, the minimum depth is one-hundred fifteen (115’) feet, and the minimum lot area is 8,625 feet. He displayed a copy of the property survey which illustrated that Lot 1 is their residence, and Lot 2 is a vacant lot with a width of sixty-three (63’) feet and a depth of one-hundred forty-one (141’) feet, for a total area of 8,883 feet. He stated Lot 2 meets the minimum total area requirement, but does not meet the minimum width requirement. He stated it is difficult to determine an accurate area of Lot 1 because of how the widths differ at either end of the property--sixty-seven (67’) feet to ninety-three (93’) feet, with one-hundred thirty-nine (139’) feet in depth. He stated that using the average width of eighty (80’) feet gives a total area for Lot 1 of 11,200 square feet, which it is substantially larger than the minimum lot area required in R-3. Mr. Simpson reiterated that Mr. Ervin has worked diligently on this matter and has tried to help his client as best he could and his effort is commendable. He stated a variance was initially considered for this property, but this request did not qualify for a variance. He stated he again met with Mr. Ervin and attempted to make Lot 1 conforming; however, that effort was also unsuccessful. He stated in a subsequent meeting, he and Mr. Ervin discussed the Land Development Code provision in that it is unique and requires the lots to have continuous frontage. He stated he asked Mr. Ervin how continuous frontage is defined, and the definition given, is the basis of the disagreement. Mr. Simpson explained that lot frontage is that portion of the lot that the building fronts; and it is clear from the survey that the front door, walkway, driveway, and address for Lot 1 are all on Seville Street; therefore, it is clear that the lot frontage is Seville Street. Mr. Simpson stated in reviewing the Code definitions for front, rear and side lot lines, the part of the property on Lot 1 that abuts Alcazar Avenue is the side lot line, and not the front lot line. He explained that staff states the property has continuous road frontage, which is not what is defined in the Code, which defines frontage as where the building faces. Mr. Simpson stated that the City has applied regulations to the property that have made it one (1) tax parcel. He stated if Lot 2 were buildable, it would have to comply with the City’s code and would have to be a conforming structure in terms of setbacks, etc., unless the owner applied for a variance. Mr. Simpson stated this request is completely consistent with the neighborhood and will not adversely impact the area. Mr. Simpson requested that the Commission reverse staff’s interpretation and rule that Section 9.01, as written, does not apply and does not require his client to combine Lots 1 and 2. He advised an alternative had been discussed relative to establishing a plan whereby property owners could apply for a variance from the combination of lots requirement, granting relief in lieu of taking away property rights. Mr. Simpson stated the intent of the Code, as explained in the City Attorney’s proposed order, is to bring old platted lots to current standards, and while he agreed that is a good theoretically, in practice the lots in question are the only ones that the provision is applicable to. Commissioner Kelley stated if Lots 1 and 2 had not been combined into one (1) parcel, Lot 2 would be a separate lot that faces Alcazar Avenue with Lot 1 facing Seville Street. Mr. Ervin reiterated that the County tax appraiser determined the lots to be one parcel based on it being under unified ownership, and at one point, an owner requested it to be classified as one (1) parcel, taxed as one (1) single-family lot rather than one (1) single-family lot that is developed with improvements and a separate lot that is not improved with the potential for improvements. Mayor Hood stated that he interprets the proposed Order prepared by the City Attorney, he interprets to legally mandate that the Commission rule in the applicant’s favor. He stated the language reads "... two (2) or more lots or combination of lots with continuous frontage..." He stated that the law requires that the plain meaning of words be used, and according to Webster’s Dictionary, frontage is defined as the point between the front of a house and the street. Mayor Hood stated the proposed Order does not comply with the plain meaning of the language that there is continuous frontage because the frontage on the corner lot is on Seville Street and the frontage for Lot 2 is on Alcazar Avenue, and hence, there cannot be continuous frontage. Mr. Ervin explained that the definition of lot frontage has an exception for double frontage lots where rear yard access is prohibited unless specifically approved by a development order by the City Commission. He explained the reason for this provision is that corner lots typically can access from both streets, in other words, corner lots have double frontage, both side and front yards front on a street which can have driveway access. He stated it is staff’s contention that the property has continuous frontage along Seville Street and Alcazar Avenue. Mayor Hood stated that "frontage" is a term of art, and in itself, is defined as something between the front of the house and the street, not the side of the house and the street. He stated "frontage" is the word used in the Code, and if the words "contiguous" or "adjoining" lots, or similar term had been used, then he could agree with staff’s position. Mr. Ervin stated according to the terminology used by planners--frontage applies to the portion of a lot that "fronts" on a street and provides access to that site. Mr. Disselkoen advised that his reason for using the Webster definition in the proposed Order is that the Code says that if a term is not defined within the Code, Webster’s Dictionary must be used to define it. Commissioner Schecter stated that Lot 2 does not meet the City’s minimum width requirement; however, it does have adequate square footage. He questioned how this situation can be addressed to accommodate the applicant. Mayor Hood stated the solution is to revise that portion of the Code to use language that is more clear, to which Mr. Ervin concurred. Commissioner Kelley expressed concern that the property has been taxed as one (1) parcel, therefore avoiding taxes, and it was technically not considered two (2) lots. Mr. George Craig, owner of the property, stated he receives two (2) tax bills, to which Mayor Hood stated, based on that information, the property is considered to be two (2) lots. Mr. Ervin displayed the County’s tax map which illustrated that the property is considered as one (1) parcel. Mr. Disselkoen advised that information provided on the TRW Redi 1996 printout indicates two (2) parcel numbers with separate tax amounts for each parcel; however, the deed states one (1) single tax identification number. Commissioner Kelley stated that since it has been determined that the property is two (2) separate parcels, with separate tax numbers, he moved, seconded by Commissioner Schecter, to rule in favor of Mr. Simpson.
Item #11(B) - Request by Royal Petroleum Inc. - Striping Texaco Station Canopy Mr. Ervin explained this is a request to approve the striping of a Texaco Station canopy, and according to Section 5.04 of the Land Development Code, stripes, geometric patterns, etc., are prohibited on non-residential buildings. He stated the owner of the Texaco station located at 530 South Atlantic Avenue was cited by the Code Enforcement Division for a violation to the City’s sign requirements with the addition of the stripe. Mr. Ervin stated a waiver could be granted if the Commission determines the stripe to be a unique architectural element that enhances the overall aesthetic theme. He stated the Commission has approved similar requests, i.e., the HandyWay at US#1 and Airport Road; however, it has modified or denied similar requests, i.e., the 7-11 at Tymber Creek Road and SR40. He pointed out that this is one (1) of four (4) Texaco stations located in the City, and he stated staff is recommending denial of the request. Commissioner Boyle commented that he has stated his opinion in the past that the City’s color limitations and stripe requirements are ridiculous and not relevant to the community. He stated that on principal he is in agreement with denying these types of requests until the small business owner is on a level playing field with the large business owner. Mr. Ernest Popplein, representing Royal Petroleum, Inc., stated that Royal is a small distributor of Texaco products and the stripe is a Texaco marketing scheme that is tied into a rebate program which will result in $50,000 over the next three (3) years. He stated there are twenty (20) locations in a four (4) county region and only complimentary remarks have been made about the stations, with not one (1) complaint received. Commissioner Kelley moved to approve the request for a waiver to allow the stripe. The motion failed for lack of a second. Commissioner Schecter moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to deny the request to allow the stripe to be applied to the canopy at the Texaco station.
Item #11(C) - Southwest I-95 Complex Code Enforcement Mr. Clay Ervin stated that at the May 6, 1997, City Commission meeting, there was a request by Ms. Harriet Damesek, representing Citizens for Ormond Beach, Inc., for staff to address three (3) specific concerns relative to the Southwest I-95 Complex, a 32-acre commercial development located at the southwest corner of I-95 and State Road 40. Mr. Ervin advised that prior to development occurring on the site, there was an eight (8)-acre lake that had to be drained (dewatered). He stated that the developer of the site utilized a pump system which removed the water from the lake and pumped it into the Tomoka River, an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). He explained that by the Tomoka River having the OFW designation, the developer is subject to additional requirements for protecting against pollutants, particularly turbidity. Mr. Ervin stated the first issue presented by Ms. Damesek questioned if the City was aware that the dewatering was going to be required; if the St. John’s River Water Management District (SJRWMD) had issued a permit for the activity; if the pumping was being done under the direct supervision of the City and SJRWMD; and if everything was "above board." He stated that in reviewing the files, there was a bit of a confusion. He stated there was a permit issued by SJRWMD on May 2, 1996, that referenced a variety of items pertaining to the dewatering process, and SJRWMD staff is currently reviewing their files to determine if the developer obtained every required permit. He stated that, as it was explained by SJRWMD, an overall permit is issued, and when the dewatering takes place, a second permit needs to be pulled by the contractor, with the type of permit required based on the type of equipment being used in the process. Mr. Ervin stated that SJRWMD records are not updated as yet to determine if the second permit was applied for and/or issued; and he advised that based on the information received by SJRWMD and from what City staff has observed on the site, the dewatering met most of the criteria. He stated there were two (2) dewatering occurrences on the site, and staff was aware of this throughout the processing of the plat. He stated the actual dewatering implementation is deferred to SJRWMD. Mr. Ervin stated the second main issue presented by Ms. Damesek relates to the construction of the temporary access road off Old Tomoka Road. He stated the access road was constructed across a three (3)-acre parcel that was not included in the plat or the Planned Business Development, but was annexed with the property. He stated the road cut across a .5-acre Class III wetland, and no permits or plans were submitted to staff prior to that work taking place on site. He stated once staff was made aware that the road had been constructed, they contacted SJRWMD and asked how to proceed, and the developer was contacted and informed that the construction activities were in violation and that proper tree and wetland mitigation must be provided. Mr. Ervin stated staff is waiting for a response from SJRWMD on this issue, but it is his understanding that the applicant did meet the permit application deadlines. He stated if the applicant wants to proceed with getting approval of the project and submits an independent wetland protection permit and tree mitigation plan for this site, staff will accept those items in addition to what SJRWMD approves. Mr. Ervin stated the third issue pertains to the construction of a nursing home structure without proper permits, and he stated staff was in error in issuing a permit before all of the issues were addressed. He stated an ordinance was adopted in December allowing construction to occur on site prior to all plat improvements being obtained, which lent to the confusion of two items: (1) was there the ability to provide sufficient fire flow on the site; and (2) was a proper bond amount submitted. He stated that once staff realized that these items were not in place, staff asked the developer to stop work on the site. The developer complied and immediately addressed the requirement for adequate fire flow by creating a temporary line off of the Southern Trace subdivision hydrant. He stated the developer has provided the additional fifteen (15%) percent bond amount, and the City is allowing for further development of the site. Mr. Ervin stated the main concern expressed by certain residents is whether the City is properly enforcing its codes and is making sure that developers are complying with the City’s requirements. He stated that in the majority of the issues, the City is being very successful; however, there are inadvertent errors made by staff, and there are developers who violate the Code to which code enforcement action is taken. He stated staff’s primary focus is to ensure code compliance, to prevent future violations from occurring, and to take action to correct any damage that results from the illegal action, and if the damage cannot be corrected, that proper remedial action be taken. Mr. Ervin requested that staff be allowed to continue with the inspection of the site and proceed with any necessary code enforcement action after the City and SJRWMD make their determinations. Commissioner Kelley inquired if the City was aware of the problems relating to the Southwest I-95 Complex project prior to them being presented at the May 6th meeting. Mr. Ervin responded that staff was aware that the dewatering was occurring, the access road was constructed, and the correct bond amount was being calculated prior to May 6, 1997. Commissioner Kelley thanked the Citizens for Ormond Beach, Inc., for bringing this to the Commission’s attention although staff was aware of it at that time. He concurred with the recommendation by Mr. Ervin to enforce action for the violations that occurred, to take the necessary action to ensure that this type of activity does not occur, and to possibly revisit Ordinance No. 96-86. Commissioner Boyle stated he had not located one (1) reference to dewatering in any of the material provided to him on this project since 1995, and he questioned why information was not provided during the permitting process to indicate where the water from the barrow pit was going. Mr. Ervin stated that level of detail is not provided in the staff report because it is an engineering type of permit; however, the staff reports did state that an eight (8)-acre lake was to be filled to accommodate development of Lot 4 and the construction of Interchange Boulevard. Mr. Ervin stated that dewatering is a common practice. Commissioner Boyle noted the developer has stated that the access road was constructed with the expectation of getting the permit, and he asked if the City would have permitted that road. Mr. Ervin responded that because of the location of the access road, staff would not have allowed that road at that location, and he advised there were other viable alternatives. Commissioner Boyle stated in an article that appeared in the Daytona Beach News Journal and in the letter received by the developer, the road was represented as being twelve (12’) feet wide, and he questioned the actual width of the access road. Mr. Ervin responded that according to Mr. Todd Herget, Chief Building Official, there are sections of the access road that vary from thirty-seven (37’) feet wide to twenty-four (24’) feet wide. Commissioner Boyle questioned if the minimum width was twenty-four (24’) feet wide, to which Mr. Ervin replied that the minimum width averages twenty-four (24’) feet. Commissioner Boyle stated there was an after-the-fact permit issued on April 1, 1997, that indicates the twelve (12’) foot width, and a diagram submitted by the developer dated February 27, 1997, represents a fifteen (15’) foot width. Commissioner Boyle stated that Citizens for Ormond Beach, Inc., submitted a video of the site, which he asked to be played. He pointed out the borrow pit, the second dewatering site, turbidity curtains, access road, and various portions of the site. He stated the scene with the truck driving down the access road demonstrates the width of the road. Commissioner Boyle disagreed with waiting for a response by SJRWMD instead of the City taking immediate code enforcement action. Mr. Ervin responded that the City does not have the capability of issuing a code enforcement "ticket," and the existing code enforcement procedures would have to be followed. He stated the City was not in a position to respond directly regarding the dewatering for SJRWMD; however, as far as the clearing of the trees and the impact to the wetlands, the City was able to respond that the activities were not permitted and required mitigation and reclamation. Mr. Ervin stated that the City does not have to wait for a response from SJRWMD; however, staff is proceeding in that manner because if the SJRWMD concerns are addressed, the City can work with the developer to have the additional concerns taken care of, which lends itself to a smoother process. Commissioner Boyle clarified if Mr. Ervin had stated that the City wants to wait to see what, if any, penalties SJRWMD would imposes and those penalties would count towards the City’s penalties. Mr. Ervin clarified that he did not use the word "penalties," and he stated the City has certain requirements for mitigation and tree replacement ratios and would require that certain actions be taken. Commissioner Boyle stated the width of the road is vitally important because the mitigation calculations are based on the width, and what was represented to the City is not the actual width. He advised the staff report stated that based on the actions taken by SJRWMD, the dewatering did not violate district regulations. He stated that he had read that statement to a SJRWMD official this afternoon who responded that the statement was incorrect, and that in their view, there was a clear violation. Mr. Ervin stated a SJRWMD representative is in attendance and can address this issue. Commissioner Boyle questioned the final calculation amount of the additional bond requirement, to which Mr. Disselkoen advised the additional bond amount was $48,000. Commissioner Boyle stated that, based on an ordinance adopted in December which the developer assisted in writing, the City forgot to collect $48,000 for ninety (90) days and by coincidence, the developer forgot to pay the amount. Mr. Ervin clarified that the City does not collect a bond from a developer until the plat is ready to be recorded; and in this situation, the plat had been recorded and in processing the permits, the Building Department staff saw that and assumed the bonds had been received. Commissioner Boyle stated the amount has now been collected. He questioned the length of time that development was stopped while these items were being addressed, to which Mr. Ervin explained that the shut down to construction of the building was continuous, but clearing, grubbing, and excavating was allowed on the site. Mr. Jim Morris, an attorney representing the developer, stated that, in terms of priority and significant in the newspaper articles and general public sentiment, the issue is the temporary road construction and whether or not it was illegal or improper. He stated the road is permittable; the City has issued a permit for the temporary road in place; and he understood from previous comments, that there is a discrepancy regarding the width that was submitted in the permit and the actual width. He stated the sides of the road are basically a turbidity barrier which support soil and are not meant to bear a structural load, so the road may vary in width from what is required. Mr. Morris stated that the contractor constructed the road without the authorization of the developer; the developer cannot run from the fact that the road should have received a permit prior to construction; and as it was, the road was built and permitted after-the-fact on March 26, 1997, and a double permit fee was charged. He stated that according to the permit, the road is scheduled to be removed in part and for remediation to follow that. Mr. Morris stated that on May 6th, comments were made that the road created permanent damage to a connected wetland; however, the fact is, the damage is not permanent; there will be remedial action taken, and the wetlands is not a connected wetland--it is an isolated wetland surrounded by Old Tomoka Road, a couple of residences, the present construction of the Sterling House, as well as the access road for the property. Mayor Hood stated that on May 6th, Ms. Damesek stated the affected area in question is 2.06-acres, and he questioned the actual size. Mr. Morris responded that the actual size, as best as can be estimated, is .12-acres, and the position taken by Ms. Damesek is that there is permanent damage to a 2.06-acre wetland by the imposition of the .12-acres of fill. He stated based on his field inspection, the road is butted by Old Tomoka Road on one end and the other end is butted by construction of the Sterling House, with palm scrubs abutting the entire length of road. He stated it should be considered whether or not a permit can be obtained to fill that isolated wetland, and it is his contention that a permit can be obtained to fill it and implement it as a part of the construction. He stated that has not been done; however, the developer has submitted mitigation plans to SJRWMD regarding the required mitigation for filling the entire wetland in the event it is incorporated into a construction site. Mr. Morris stated that as to the City permit and the dimensions of the road as constructed as compared to the sketches, he stated the road was in place when the permit was issued; and the fact remains that the road is there with a permit, although the way the road was constructed was not proper and no one of the side of the developer is trying to take the position otherwise. Mr. Morris stated that Ordinance No. 96-86 did not cause this particular problem and the problem was caused by the construction process and the lack of access by any other way to get to this property. Mr. Morris stated with regard to the concerns expressed relative to whether staff has done what it should in order to enforce the codes and ordinances, City staff identified the problems and took action. Mr. Morris stated that reference has been made to the additional bond requirement not being paid, and he stated the bond for the subdivision was $693,000, and the additional fifteen (15%) percent which was miscalculated, was $48,000 and was delivered upon request. He stated the developer has been cooperative with staff during this entire process. Mr. Morris stated there is a miscommunication in the packet from Deirdre Irwin, SJRWMD, indicating that an application had not being received, when, in fact it went to another SJRWMD office; and he stated Ms. Irwin in present, in part, to correct that miscommunication. In regard to the reference of a lake, he stated it is not a lake--it is a borrow pit and the water within the borrow pit has been in place at least since the construction of I-95, perhaps longer. He stated it is important to understand that the OFW standards are water quality standards; and a memorandum from Mr. Joe Jaynes, Environmental Engineer, dated May 9th, contains a statement that the discharged water quality had very little turbidity or sediment. He stated that St. John’s staff, upon coming onto the scene, did not order that the dewatering cease, and in fact, indicated what additional permit requirements would be made. He stated that in regard to the piping of the water from the borrow pit to the Tomoka River, the water did have good quality, haybales were in place, and the only additional requirement by SJRWMD was for additional haybales. Mr. Morris stated the secondary dewatering was conducted after the water level of the pit had been reduced to the level necessary to place the fill, as permitted by the approved site plan. Mr. Morris summarized that permits have been issued for the construction and dewatering, the additional bond required by the City was paid; and in regard to the temporary access road construction, an after-the-fact permit was issued and steps will be taken for mitigation. Commissioner Boyle questioned the statement by Mr. Morris that the temporary road will be removed and disked on site, to which Mr. Morris referred Commissioner Boyle to the requirement contained in the memo prepared by Mr. Bill Butler, Landscape Architect, dated May 9th. Commissioner Boyle stated he faxed Mr. Butler’s memo to SJRWMD, and a representative advised the disking would not be allowed. Mr. Morris responded that staff has stated that they will insist that all City and SJRWMD requirements be met; whereby, the applicant has agreed to meet both sets of regulations as required. Commissioner Boyle inquired if the permit penalty was $100.00, to which Mr. Morris clarified that a double permit fee was charged totaling $100.00. Commissioner Boyle stated the length of the access road is approximately three hundred (300’) feet long, and he noted that Mr. Morris mentioned scrub pines in his presentation. He stated it was his understanding that the permit application referenced either two-hundred and sixty five (265’) feet or two-hundred and forty-one (241’) feet because that is where the wetland ended and where the scrub pine area began. Mr. Morris corrected that he mentioned scrub palmettos being on the building site; however, he did not give dimensions nor take measurements during his site visit. Commissioner Boyle stated he assumed that the different character of the vegetation was the explanation for the length discrepancies in the different permits. Commissioner Boyle stated that Mr. Jayne’s memo references the fact that when SJRWMD representatives were on site, the filters were not properly in place, and he questioned if that is the reason the citizens who live in the Twin Rivers area reported turbidity. Mr. Morris disagreed with that statement and stated that Mr. Jayne’s memo states that a crude haybale filtration device had been constructed at the discharge point, essentially in the Tomoka River; the device was functioning poorly; and district staff required several modifications be made to enhance the device and help protect water quality. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Morris if it is fair to state that adjustments had to be made when the SJRWMD officials visited the site, to which Mr. Morris agreed. Commissioner Boyle stated that both Mr. Morris and the letter from the applicant stated that an order was not given to cease the dewatering, and that according to a SJRWMD office, the developer was told to either cease or get the proper permit with the understanding that while that permitting process was ongoing that the dewatering operation would be shut down. Mayor Hood asked specifically to whom Commissioner Boyle had spoke at SJRWMD, to which he replied Mr. Kimmel, who is one of the officials that deals with this aspect of the St. John’s regulations. Mr. Morris referred to Mr. Jaynes’ memo and read that District staff said they would allow the discharge to continue subject to an immediate review of the project permitting. Mr. Morris stated there is no correspondence contrary to that point of view. Commissioner Boyle stated in this situation where there are millions of gallons of water pouring into an Outstanding Florida Waterway, he would think that the District would quite rightfully verbally give a cease order and then process the paperwork. Ms. Deirdre Irwin, SJRWMD, stated that SJRWMD does not have a cease and desist order and does not have the authority to tell someone to stop working; however, if SJRWMD believes that violations are occurring, it can suggest they stop work and if they do not stop, penalties can be assessed. Mayor Hood asked if SJRWMD suggested a stop work order in this case, to which Ms. Irwin stated they did not. She explained that SJRWMD discovered that the permit issued was not the correct permit and advised Mr. Holub that a higher level permit would be required, and the process was started to which Mr. Holub immediately complied. Mayor Hood asked if there is any evidence that there has been any adverse impact upon the Tomoka River. Ms. Irwin responded that there was no significant turbidity that she observed at the site, and she explained that hand-drawn water samples were submitted by Mr. Joe Young that indicated an insignificant amount in terms of harm to the resource. She stated SJRWMD would not have pursued an enforcement case based on that evidence. She stated that she did not observe turbidity and that the haybales were in place. Commissioner Boyle stated the dewatering occurred on February 21st and had been ongoing before SJRWMD staff went to the site, and the residents in that area stated they observed large clouds of turbidity in the water, well down stream from the site. Mrs. Irwin stated that if she had visually seen obvious turbidity she would have suggested to stop the pumps. Mayor Hood clarified that she did not see turbidity, and Commissioner Boyle agreed that no one saw the turbidity after SJRWMD staff visited the site. Ms. Irwin clarified that with regard to the dewatering permit, SJRWMD required a higher level permit and chose not to take enforcement actions because there appeared to be a genuine misunderstanding about the fact that the developer could not dewater with the existing permit and Mr. Holub was very quick to cooperate with all of the criteria that SJRWMD required. Mr. Morris added that the secondary permit requested by SJRWMD was submitted within two (2) days with a $3,500 application fee. Mr. Morris expressed concern to the tone of the newspaper article and stated the facts do not support the accusations that are contained in the citizen comments or in the tone of the meeting tonight. He commented that Mr. Miller’s memo fairly summarizes the situation and indicates that the process did not go perfectly, but there was not wanton disregard for the City’s rules and regulations. He stated it is his understanding that was the issue of concern tonight, and the reason for the discussion is to determine whether or not the City’s rules permitted wanton disregard and whether or not that even existed. Mr. Paul Holub, General Partner representing Southwest Interchange Partnership, expressed appreciation for the time afforded to respond to the comments made by the Citizens For Ormond Beach, Inc., at the May 6th City Commission meeting, and he stated if he had received advanced notice he would have appeared at that time to participate in the discussion. He stated that there is no question that the premature clearing of the temporary access road occurred, and Southwest Interchange Partnership takes full responsibility for that action. He stated that subsequent to the action they have met with staff, provided the necessary plans, agreed to the staff’s recommended mitigation and restoration requirements for the clearing portion, and received a permit issued on April 2, 1997. He stated the project is currently in compliance with that permit, and they have every intention of providing the restoration and mitigation as outlined in that particular permit for the temporary road. Mr. Holub reiterated it is a temporary road, and portions will be removed in the next forty-five (45) to sixty (60) days. He stated that aside from the aesthetics of the road, full mitigation is being pursued with SJRWMD. He stated that with regard to the three (3)-acre parcel in question, it contains a .48 acre wetland, and when the original permits were applied for the parent tract of Southwest, SJRWMD recognized that the wetland was .48 acre and would, in effect, be lost because it is under their one half-acre rule. He stated that SJRWMD requested, and he agreed, to raise the size of the wetland to .51-acres to provide SJRWMD full enforcement capability with mitigation required in the future when this property is ultimately developed. He reminded the Commission that when this project was approved, a road was to be constructed to Booth Road through this three (3)-acre parcel and through the wetland, and he recalled that the road was required by staff and some of the Commissioners. Mr. Holub stated the formal application for mitigation of the wetlands has been submitted, and SJRWMD staff is in the review process. He stated the developer will be providing a twenty-to-one ratio for the wetland, which exceeds the City’s ratio requirement, and will also be providing aesthetic restoration to the area. He stated in the very near future, development will be occurring on the three (3)-acre parcel, and the developer will be submitting a site plan with every intention of developing this site. He stated SJRWMD recognized that this wetland would be impacted in the future, and that is the reason for the restrictive language in the original permit. With respect to the dewatering issue, Mr. Holub stated a general permit was obtained by the general contractor, and he stated that after having read the permit, it is understandable why there was confusion as to the type of permit and the dewatering activity allowed. He stated he met with Ms. Irwin and Mr. Jaynes, and they inspected the discharge area. He advised there was a floating turbidity curtain, a silt fence, and haybales in place at that time. He stated that daily turbidity monitoring was performed by Biological Consulting Services, Inc., and those reports were submitted to SJRWMD upon completion of the discharge. He paraphrased a Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc., internal office memorandum dated March 10, 1997, that states that Mr. Kimmel at SJRWMD stated he received notification that the dewatering is complete, and Mr. Kimmel also stated that SJRWMD will be inspecting the site March 11, 1997; and at this time, no further action is required. Mr. Holub stated the memo states that should there be any outstanding issues, Mr. Kimmel will contact the writer, Sue Littrell, Project Manager. He advised that to-date no communication has been received. Mr. Holub stated it is unfortunate that this item is being discussed; and he had offered to meet with representatives of the Citizens for Ormond Beach, Inc., and the offer was refused. He stated that Joe Young of Biological Consulting Inc., and Dwight DuRant of Zev Cohen & Associates, Inc., are present to answer any technical questions. Mr. Holub stated he is in compliance with the dewatering process and accepts fault for the clearing of the road. He assured the Commission that the wetland mitigation will be forthcoming and that the developer will comply with whatever SJRWMD imposes with regard to mitigation. Commissioner Boyle stated that Mr. Holub’s letter dated May 12, 1997, explains that the contractor cut the road before a permit could be issued, and he asked if a City official led him to believe that a permit would be approved as the language in his letter implies. Mr. Holub stated that he advised the contractor of the need for an alternate source of ingress and egress to the Sterling lot. Commissioner Boyle questioned why Mr. Holub represented that the road width was twelve (12’) feet, to which Mr. Holub responded that he did not personally measure the road and understood that was the width of the road. Commissioner Boyle asked where the twenty-to-one mitigation will occur, to which Mr. Holub stated it will occur at the same location as the parent tract mitigation and in the cypress hull swamp area to the west. Commissioner Boyle questioned if that was in Flagler County; Mr. Holub did not agree that the swamp area is in Flagler County. Commissioner Boyle asked if the haybales and filter were in place from the very beginning of the dewatering process, and Mr. Holub stated it is his understanding they were in place from the very beginning of the discharge. Commissioner Boyle stated if there is confusion about the width of the road, what width is referenced on the after-the-fact permit for the access road issued by SJRWMD. Mr. Holub responded that the width of the road with regard to SJRWMD is irrelevant, because the developer is mitigating the entire one-half acre of land. Mr. Holub stated if the developer was going to restore the wetland, then the width of the road may be relevant, but the application to SJRWMD represents that the development will impact the entire one-half acre wetland. Mr. Holub stated SJRWMD may have additional requirements for impacting the wetland prior to permit, and that might be when the width of the road becomes relevant. He reiterated that for mitigation purposes, the developer has proposed a twenty-to-one ratio to SJRWMD. Commissioner Persis referred to Mr. Jaynes’ memorandum which states that a site inspection occurred on February 25th and Mr. Holub was requested to submit information to SJRWMD and the City regarding the temporary road construction, impacts to the wetland system and a mitigation plan for the road impacts. He noted that Mr. Jaynes further states that, as of the date of the memo, May 9, 1997, he has not received any information regarding the requested information. Commissioner Persis asked for clarification as to the reasons why the requested information had not been received by the May 9th date. Mr. Holub stated a letter dated March 3, 1997, was received by SJRWMD identifying that the wetland area required future mitigation, and on March 18, 1997, Mr. Holub submitted the first package to SJRWMD which included the proposed mitigation. He stated that subsequent to March 18th, he received a second letter from SJRWMD stating the proposed mitigation seems to be appropriate, but that SJRWMD required that formal application be made as a matter of technicality. He stated a formal application was forwarded to SJRWMD, and he is unaware if the City was copied. He stated there was ongoing correspondence between SJRWMD and the developer during the time Commissioner Persis referenced. Commissioner Persis agreed with Mr. Morris that the adoption of Ordinance No. 96-86 did not cause this problem. He referred to a statement made by Mr. Ervin where he stated that if the developer requested a permit to build this road in its present condition, it would not have happened. Commissioner Persis asked for clarification on how a permit was issued after the road was built. Mr. Ervin stated that remedial action to bring this wetland back to its original state is going to be limited, and that being the case, the site is already impacted, so staff decided to focus on damage control and make sure that proper code enforcement action is taken. Commissioner Persis questioned if the developer had been in compliance with Ordinance No. 96-86, if approval of a temporary road would have been granted. Mr. Ervin responded that it is staff’s opinion that there could have been alternative locations for the road that would not have impacted the wetlands as dramatically. Mayor Hood stated that Citizens for Ormond Beach, Inc., brought this matter to the Commission’s attention, and he stated the ultimate question is what action should be taken short term, and is any action necessary long term. He stated it is his understanding that staff’s recommendation is to allow SJRWMD to complete their process, after which, staff will present the recommendations for all of the remedial actions, if any, that need to be taken. Mayor Hood asked if any member of the Commission opposed that recommendation. Commissioner Boyle stated that Citizens for Ormond Beach, Inc., formalized ten (10) recommendations that relate to this issue as well as other development issues, and he submitted their list for consideration by staff in its review of the City’s current procedures. Mayor Hood suggested that these items be addressed under a separate agenda issue, to which Commissioner Boyle stated that all of the recommendations are for future agenda issues and can be presented over an extended period of time. Mr. Ervin emphasized that staff is not depending on mitigation in Flagler County; and in order for any mitigation to qualify, it has to be on-site or adjacent to that particular wetland basin. He stated the ability to proceed through the Planned Business Development process to allow for the elimination of the wetlands requires that the mitigation be within the City or a fee paid into the Development Opportunity Fund to allow the City to purchase additional wetlands. Mr. Ervin stated that the tree mitigation requirements that were originally approved as part of staff’s permit which was issued after-the-fact accounted for a twelve (12’) foot wide road, and the fact that there was additional land that may have been cleared, may require additional tree mitigation. Mayor Hood stated that the consensus is to allow SJRWMD to complete their process, include the SJRWMD conclusions with staff’s recommendations, and advise the Commission as to what has occurred. Mr. Ervin questioned if the Commission wants the item presented bef |