|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
APRIL 13, 1999 7:00 PM Present were: Mayor Dave Hood, Commissioners Jeffrey J. Boyle, Thelma B. Irvin, Frank Gillooly, Carl G. Persis, City Manager Eugene Miller, City Attorney Randy Hayes, and Veronica Patterson, City Clerk.
Item #1 - Call to Order Mayor Hood called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Item #2 - Invocation The invocation was given by Dr. Fred Fourie, Ormond Beach Union Church. Item #3 - Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hood led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #4 - Approval of Minutes Mayor Hood advised the Minutes of the March 16, 1999, regular City Commission meeting have been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #5 - Employee-of-the-Quarter Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, presented the Employee-of-the-Quarter award to Gary L. Hiatt, Plans Examiner, who has been employed in the Building Inspections Division since August 1996. Mr. Miller commended Mr. Hiatt for being an exemplary employee who is dedicated and has a strong work ethic. He noted Mr. Hiatt teaches at Daytona Beach Community College as well. Mayor Hood presented the Employee-of-the-Quarter plaque to Mr. Hiatt, along with a watch and a second plaque which will be on display in City Hall. He noted that if it were not for employees such as Mr. Hiatt, Ormond Beach would not be the quality City that it is presently. Item #6 - Audience Remarks Teen Advisory Board Update Mr. Jordan Schemmel, 14 Sandpiper Lane, updated the Commission regarding the Teen Advisory Board. He reported a meeting was held between members of the student governments from Seabreeze High School and a timeline was established. Mr. Schemmel explained the schools are to be committed to the Board by May 3rd, the members will be appointed by May 14th, and the organizational meeting is slated for May 20, 1999. He stated the schools are showing active participation and urged City Commission attendance at the organizational meeting. Faircloth Property Mr. Joseph Lipscomb, 22 Shadow Creek Way, reported that when there was a previous incident in the County, action was taken by the City and the situation was handled successfully. He stated a construction debris dump has been opened on the Faircloth property and this is the first thing a visitor sees when entering Ormond Beach. Mr. Lipscomb noted while he realizes this property is in Volusia County, Ormond Beach should be able to contact County representatives and have this situation remedied. Mayor Hood advised a Planned Business Development has been approved, the property has been sold, and it will be completely developed within the next four (4) to six (6) months. He asked Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, to request Mr. Faircloth clean the property before it is sold. Pesticide Usage Ms. Dawn Share, 145 Heritage Circle, advised the New Smyrna Beach City Commission voted unanimously to pass a resolution to end routine insecticide spraying for mosquitoes and use an alternative means of mosquito control. She stated Mr. Lee Bidgood’s article which was printed in the Daytona Beach News-Journal on March 29, 1999, spoke of the dangers of the over use of pesticides to both the environment and the people. Ms. Share requested the Ormond Beach City Commission study this issue and consider passing the New Smyrna Beach resolution as soon as possible. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Miller to place this issue on either of the agendas for May. Water Shortage/Annexation Mr. Don Ward, 1214 Parkside Drive, stated that after the last City Commission meeting Mayor Hood and others stated there is no water shortage, and there is plenty of water to accommodate the annexation of the Consolidated Tomoka Land Company. He noted fire is again a potential problem, and he opposes any annexation until there is sufficient water for the current residents without restrictions on its use for such things as lawn watering and car washing. Code Enforcement Regarding Trash Pickup Ms. Elizabeth Wilhelm, 12 Edgewood Way, asked the City Commission to drive to the 200 block of North Beach Street and notice the east side where a resident has piled up two (2) couches, three (3) mattresses, and other assorted garbage at the curb. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Miller to address this matter. Glenn Jaspers’ Remarks Mr. Glenn Jaspers, 160 Ocean Terrace, advised he attended a Planning Board meeting on March 16th and related that all personnel were clearly professional, dedicated and intent on enforcing Ormond Beach’s policies and procedures. Mr. Jaspers noted at the last City Commission meeting Mayor Hood stated too strict an interpretation was being used in applying the Land Development Code, and the Mayor suggested replacing it with a system that uses more common sense. Mr. Jaspers opposed this position, and related it is counterproductive to good order and misleading, since any organization needs checks and balances to assess their performance. Mr. Jaspers advocated greater involvement of the citizens in the City process, especially regarding the public dissemination of actions pending or contemplated by the City Commission or senior staff. He stated more public workshops and moratoriums on cloudy or contentious issues are advisable. Mr. Jaspers criticized the Daytona Beach News-Journal’s coverage of the annexation issue. Mr. Jaspers advised the citizens would like to be informed by the City Commission, not the News-Journal, of the economic package promised to US Airpships to locate at the Ormond Beach Airport. He stated the News-Journal indicated Mayor Hood is the lead negotiator on this project and asked two (2) questions: who are the other negotiators if Mayor Hood is the lead negotiator, and is Mayor Hood planning on completing this project before he leaves office? Mr. Jaspers noted he is concerned because the News-Journal reported this is a $4 million project with $30,000 per year being returned, which is less than 1% on the investment. Mayor Hood answered Mr. Jaspers by stating the News-Journal has previously printed a clear outline of the business benefits of this deal. He summarized that in this deal, the City will net $250,000 cash and US Airships will invest nearly $10 million. Mayor Hood advised US Airships was initially planning on bringing 140 to 175 jobs, but now is planning on bringing 300 to 400 jobs due to the purchase of two (2) Canadian companies which they plan to move to Ormond Beach. He noted this company is bringing their world headquarters to Ormond Beach and is going to have a joint venture with Embry Riddle on the design of their airships. Mayor Hood acknowledged he did help negotiate this deal at the beginning, but the deal is completed, the lease is signed, and he does not have any further involvement other than anything he can do to assist any business person in the community. He announced groundbreaking is anticipated shortly. Mayor Hood added the lease was signed in March 1998. Mr. Jaspers stated he has not read anything to indicated the deal was closed; whereby, Mayor Hood replied the News-Journal has extensively covered this issue, and the City Commission has had numerous heated discussions on the matter. Mr. Jaspers asked if Embry Riddle was a joint venture from the beginning; whereby, Mayor Hood explained Embry Riddle was part of the deal that brought US Airships to Ormond Beach; they were the "crown jewels" of the enticement of the community because of their outstanding reputation and the ability for them to do design work for the airships, and to provide students for joint educational opportunities. Mr. Jaspers expressed his appreciation for the Mayor’s enlightening information. Mayor Hood noted Paul Woesner is the managing agent for US Airships, and they have already hired full time employees to start the process. He stated this company perceives, because of all the questioning by the community, that this community does not want them here in Ormond Beach. Mayor Hood requested Mr. Fred Baughman, Economic Development Administrator, give Mr. Jaspers any and all facts relating to that particular transaction. Curbing South Ridgewood Avenue Mr. Donald Cassel, 254 South Ridgewood Avenue, reported a problem on South Ridgewood Avenue where motorists run off the edge of the road and spray dirt. He explained a truck with fill fixes the curb, but a year later the ground is piled up again and grass cannot grow. Mr. Cassel stated this area needs grading or curbing. He stated the dirt gets thrown into the intersection at Fairview and Ridgewood Avenue. Mayor Hood recommended Mr. Cassel meet with Mr. MacLeod to ascertain what can be done. Houses Slated for Demolition Mr. Cassel reported a house was to be demolished on the corner of Fairview and Ridgewood Avenue and was marked with orange fencing, but a stop order was placed and the house was not demolished. He requested the fence be removed if the house is not going to be demolished. Mr. Cassel asked why the house on the corner of Washington Avenue and Live Oak Avenue is slated for demolition when the owner was planning to fix it up. Mayor Hood noted Mr. MacLeod will address these issue, and if they are not remedied, report back at the next meeting. Item #7- Consent Agenda Mayor Hood advised that 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 Boyle asked that Items #7(D) and 7(N) be discussed separately. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of the Consent Agenda, minus Items #7(D) and 7(N).
Item #7(D) - Automated Weather Observing System RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 53
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Resolution No. 99-53, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle noted this item should not have been under the Consent Agenda disallowing public input. He clarified that $80,000 would be received from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and a $20,000 match would be required by the City of Ormond Beach. Commissioner Boyle asked why this system is necessary when Daytona Beach already has a similar system; whereby, Mr. Fred Baughman, Economic Development Administrator, explained that those aircraft that are flying by instruments are not allowed to land at Ormond Beach Airport unless they can get weather information from the Ormond Beach Airport. He stated Daytona Beach Airport is too far away for pilots entering Ormond Beach Airport. He stated Ormond Beach is trying to attract corporate aircraft to use the airport; thus the need for this weather system. Mr. Baughman stated this does not allow for lower visibility minimums, but Instrument Flight Regulation (IFR) standards as opposed to visual standards. Commissioner Boyle questioned if the City would incur maintenance costs. Mr. Baughman advised there would be maintenance costs, but maintenance has not been a major issue at other airports. Commissioner Boyle noted regarding the US Airships deal, the City signed the letter of intent in 1997, but Mayor Hood is the only member of this Commission to meet Mr. Wüllenkemper. He expressed a desire to meet Mr. Wüllenkemper in the near future.
Willis Drive Construction Report Commissioner Boyle expressed his appreciation to staff for the thorough report submitted. He noted that this report fully explained the reasons for delay, but in the future, when a project has a significant delay, it needs to be reported to the City Commission immediately. Commissioner Boyle requested these projects be more closely monitored and the contractors be under a greater responsibility to finish the projects on time. Commissioner Boyle showed a photograph of the drain in the middle of Mr. Holland’s driveway entrance and stated it must be a hardship for him to gain access to the driveway. He noted that when the drain becomes cluttered with debris, the entire area will probably flood. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to accept the report submitted.
Item #8(A) - Cable Franchise Agreement Transfer Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #8(A). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 62
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 99-62, as read by title only. Commissioner Gillooly asked if it were possible to note in the agreement that Palm Coast Cablevision will not increase rates this year; whereby, Mr. Tom Lipps, Assistant to the City Manager, replied this could be added to the agreement. Commissioner Gillooly asked if the site for the payment office has been determined. Mr. Lipps answered that representatives from Palm Coast Cablevision are not present at this meeting, but the site has not yet been determined. He stated staff is attempting to insure the site be located within City limits. Commissioner Gillooly requested the site be centrally located in Ormond Beach. He asked if a 24-hour toll-free access telephone number will be place; whereby, Mr. Lipps replied they do plan on having a 24-hour toll-free access line. Commissioner Gillooly recommended all these issues be addressed before a contract is signed. Mayor Hood advised he will not be present when this contract comes up for renewal and he will vote for this because it is similar to the Time Warner contract, but when this and the Time Warner contract come up for consideration again, the City needs to be far more aggressive in negotiating the franchise agreement. He recommended the City be willing to withdraw the franchises unless they provide a great deal more than previously.
Item #8(B) - Deferral of Required Parking for the Root Executive Park Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to close the public hearing on Item #8(B). The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis to continued this item to the May 4, 1999, meeting.
Item #8(C) - Wastewater Collection and Treatment System Requirements Mr. Rob Merrell, of Cobb, Cole and Bell, representing HOMAC Manufacturing Company, stated the City Commission should have a letter which was faxed this afternoon from his office and explains a few final comments regarding the proposed ordinance. Mr. Merrell explained his final concerns can probably be addressed and brought back at the next meeting for the second reading of the Ordinance. Mayor Hood advised that he needs information to be received at least a day or two (2) in advance before it can considered. He asked if postponing the vote on this issue would cause the City any harm and was advised it would not; therefore, he agreed to postpone it. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to continue this item until April 20, 1999.
Item #9(A) - Sanitary Sewer Standards ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 24
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-24, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #9(B) - Granting A Historic Preservation Ad Valorem Tax Exemption ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 25
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-25, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #10(A) - Consolidated Tomoka Land Company Annexation Update Mr. Don O'Donniley, Planning Director, explained staff has been working to respond to the proposed annexation by the Consolidated Tomoka Land Company (CTLC). He noted that the harvesting of trees would be a non-conforming use under the Land Development Code, but there has been some movement on resolving this issue. Mr. O'Donniley noted CTLC still has concerns relative to Ormond Beach’s tree ordinance. Mr. O'Donniley stated CTLC is not concerned regarding billboards, but is concerned regarding "for sale" signage. He noted additional discussions have been held regarding the density issue. Mr. O'Donniley reported wetlands is still a major concern. He stated staff has provided the 1996 Biological Consulting Services Report that compares Ormond Beach regulations with Volusia County regulations. Mr. O'Donniley advised that Mr. Miller has requested CTLC include the area east of I-95 in the annexation, and they are still actively considering this proposal. He noted signage is a more specific issue with CTLC in this area, and discussions on ultimate land use have just begun. Mr. O’Donniley requested the City Commission allow staff to continue this study, conduct public meetings, and solicit input from the community. Hearing no objections to this request, Mayor Hood indicated Mr. O'Donniley’s request was granted. Commissioner Boyle noted he agreed to the request, but this request indicates that this process is probably going to take several months or more, and by that time, the City will be in the middle of campaigning for a new Commission which will be seated in December. He stated the City Commission has yet to make a definitive policy decision as to what position it will take on this annexation despite the fact that the Commission has discussed this question at the last four goal setting sessions and at a specific roundtable discussion on the subject early last May with Mr. Allen. Commissioner Boyle advised some of the reasons for this delay in arriving at a decision can be summed up in a number of critical questions. Commissioner Boyle asked: how much of the Land Development Code would have to be changed to accomplish this annexation; what density and wetland impact would Ormond Beach have to have; what Code changes are non-negotiable for the landowner; what Code changes would be non-negotiable for Ormond Beach; even if the landowner agreed to the annexation without Code changes, would the annexation benefit Ormond Beach in the long term; do a majority of Ormond Beach residents favor such an annexation; would they still favor it if the City had to relax some of its development rules and what would happen to the land if the City of Ormond Beach didn’t annex it; what precedent would we set for other developers and other landowners if Ormond Beach relaxed its rules; what would Ormond Beach owe the previous developers who complied with all its rules before coming into the City in previous annexations; what will happen to the value of this land if the rules are changed and relaxed; what developers will buy this land from Consolidated Tomoka and how will the new owners develop the land; what rule changes will the new land owners come to the City and ask for; will annexation bring Ormond Beach more control of growth or will it actually accelerate growth and urban sprawl around our City; what is the status of the current interlocal agreements; what new interlocal agreements will be needed to prevent land development companies from leveraging one city against another, which seems to be happening right now; how does Ormond Beach get interlocal agreements with other cities that would prevent this; how can Ormond Beach establish a greenbelt and urban growth boundaries; will the proposed annexation push Ormond Beach to the point of requiring an additional water plant and an additional sewer plant which he was told today that it will; what will be the cost of such infrastructure, who will pay, and how will such costs be paid; how will such growth impact a county already millions of dollars behind in road construction and a school board that currently operates 750 portable classrooms; with water in short supply and water conservation measures in place, how can Ormond Beach justify more growth; in the event of annexation and growth, what would be the vulnerability of this area to wildfires; and how can any part of this land, or its wetlands be preserved if allowed to be developed? Commissioner Boyle noted the State government responded to the wildfire threat by mandating clearing of all land 300 feet within any new development. He reported a recent Sierra Club report identified urban Daytona Beach as the fourth most sprawl threatened area in the country. Commissioner Boyle questioned if a rapidly expanding tax base pays for itself, why did Orange County recently ask its voters to pass a one-cent sales tax to pay for roads and schools, and why did those voters reject the tax? He reported that in many Colorado cities, any change in the Land Development Code for development has to have unanimous approval of an elected commission or council. Further, he stated in Ventura County, California, any Land Development Code changes for growth require an automatic public referendum and voter approval. Commissioner Boyle noted the positive impact of greenbelt and urban growth boundaries on the tax base in Portland, Oregon, where they established clear cut urban growth boundaries with a greenbelt outside their city, and then they watched property values inside the city sky rocket. Commissioner Boyle urged that the Commission try to de-politicize this decision. He pointed out there are numerous complex questions that have never been answered. Commissioner Boyle noted there has been some significant movement already on some of the issues, but he requested at the May 4th meeting to put on the agenda for formal discussion, with staff input and reports, the consideration of two ballot questions. He requested a ballot question be placed on the upcoming City-wide election to simply ask the people of this City if the City should annex this land. Commissioner Boyle also recommended consideration of a charter referendum that would require voter approval for annexation of any land parcel of 2,000 acres or more, which is approximately 10% of the land area of the City. He advised Ormond Beach already has a stipulation in the Code that if the north peninsula requested annexation, which represents more than a 10% population increase, all the people have the right to vote on it; thus Ormond Beach needs to have a stipulation for a large land parcel annexation such as this. Commissioner Boyle also recommended any Land Development Code change for the purpose of annexation may need to be determined by the voters. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Miller to place these issues on the May 18, 1999, agenda for discussion. Mr. Bob Allen stated he has been president of Consolidated Tomoka Land Company for nine (9) years, and in that time, there have been many overtures regarding annexation—meeting with staff to discuss many aspects of the annexation question. He explained CTLC did not apply for annexation in a spirit of demanding Ormond Beach change any regulations to make the annexation a reality; their goal was to let Ormond Beach know what CTLC considered a reasonable expectation on the part of the company. Mr. Allen explained their requests include all they now have in Volusia County except for the density, which is reasonable considering the density of the surrounding areas is greater. He noted CTLC is content to stay in Volusia County, and he does not want to be responsible for causing the already overburdened Planning Department to do work unnecessarily. Mr. Allen noted Ormond Beach has wetlands rules he considers cannot be developed under. He stated Florida will grow; the question is to have responsible growth or not to have responsible growth. Mr. Allen admitted that the only way CTLC could develop in Ormond Beach is to develop the front end of the development under the development rules of the County and then come to Ormond Beach and annex in to hook up to water and sewer after the Ormond Beach wetlands rules have been avoided. He explained everywhere else that CTLC does business accepts St. Johns River Water Management District regulations, which are strict enough. Mr. Allen stated he cannot fairly represent his company if he disregards these rights or places the land on the western boarder into conservation and preservation to enable it to annex into Ormond Beach. He stated there is a greenbelt that the environmental community appreciates. Mr. Allen requested the Commission not waste the time of the Planning Department, unless it is possible to change Ormond Beach’s wetlands rules. Mayor Hood asked if anyone is willing to change the wetlands ordinance No response was forthcoming. Mr. Miller reported that developing in the County and then coming into Ormond Beach has been a concern for several years. He stated by negotiating directly with the City, these problems can be bypassed; therefore, he urged a delay so the analysis can be completed comparing the differences between the St. Johns River Water Management District rules versus Ormond Beach rules. Mr. Miller noted this report will be educational for staff and the general public, and it may be possible to come to a logical conclusion with the aid of this document. He stated this report will make all the ramifications more clear. Mayor Hood stated that considering the importance of this issue, the City Commission should avail itself of this opportunity. He advised that when this report is brought to the Commission, the agenda should be kept relatively short so sufficient time may be spent on it. Mayor Hood requested a legal analysis of the rights of CTLC to obtain water and sewer from Daytona Beach if Ormond Beach does not annex this parcel. Item #10(B) - Emergency Injunction Against the City of Daytona Beach RESOLUTION 99 - 64
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 99-64, as read by title only.
Item #11(A) - Results of Signage Workshop Mr. Clay Ervin, Ghyabi-Lassiter, explained the report given to the Commission summarizes the findings of a February 1999 City Commission workshop on sign regulations regarding non-conforming signs. He stated currently there are different ways of handing non-conforming signs such as allowing the signs to remain until they are damaged beyond 75% of the value of the sign before they need to be replaced, or Granada/Bovard Streetscape, or Citywide amortization schedules. Mr. Ervin advised some of the business owners expressed concern regarding signs with historic impacts. He noted another issue was trying to establish a single standard Citywide. Mr. Ervin reported the financial impact was discussed, and it was decided that even if the City pursues the amortization process, there should be some sort of mechanism to allow for appeal. He stated the recommendations listed are based on comments brought forth at the meeting. Mr. Ervin explained this is a Land Development Code amendment, and if any changes are to be made, staff needs to prepare the amendment and process it before the Planning Board at a duly advertised public hearing. He advised it would then be brought to the City Commission in an ordinance format for approval. He reported staff’s recommendation is to keep an amortization schedule and incorporate the financing process which could be spread over a number of years, using funds from the Tax Increment Financing District. Mr. Ervin added incorporated in this recommendation would be establishing an appeal process. Mr. Ervin offered another option which would indicate that if 75% or more of the value of the sign is destroyed, it would have to be replaced with a conforming sign, and also when there is a change of use within a particular structure, the sign would have to conform. He noted that if this option is chosen, the variance procedure or financial assistance is not recommended. Commissioner Boyle noted the option of what the business owners nearly unanimously requested was not given. He pointed out few cities impose amortization, and certainly not those with historic districts such as Ormond Beach. Commissioner Boyle stated this Commission has a record for allowing sign variances for new national businesses that appealed directly to the Commission, but smaller local businesses cannot appeal to the Commission. Commissioner Boyle stated he has two (2) motions that can be made together or separately. He explained the first motion is to abolish the amortization schedule, grandfather all non-conforming signs until they are either 75% destroyed or until the business is sold or changes hands. Commissioner Boyle stated the second motion is to establish an appeal and variance process as well as an abbreviated grant program. Commissioner Boyle recommended having a minimal grant program that would utilize the sign fees collected, which is currently between $2,500 and $2,800. He stated an 80/20 matching system may be incentive enough for business owners to change their signs and make them conforming. Commissioner Boyle noted the sign fee could be raised slightly to assist in solving these problems, and the goal may be reached in five (5) to ten (10) years without a major expense on the part of the City. Commissioner Boyle advised Ormond Main Street has offered to help administer a grant program. Commissioner Irvin seconded the motion. Mr. Ervin asked if the ordinance should indicate the sign needs to be brought into conformance when the business changes or when the use is changed; whereby, Commissioner Boyle clarified that the sign would need to come into conformance when a new owner takes over a business since this cost can be stipulated when the business is being purchased. Mr. Ervin replied the amendment can be done relatively quickly, but asked if the grant program could be tracked separately. Mr. Jim Morris, the attorney representing Lowe’s, a business that anticipates coming into Ormond Beach, as well as the Trails Shopping Center, asked if removal of a sign for maintenance would allow the sign to be re-erected. He explained that if this is not a valid provision, the signs would run down because the owner does not want to loose the sign. Mr. Morris stated that typically the building code has occupancy defined by the use of the property and also noted that losing a sign could be a deal breaker. He pointed out that if a business is owned by a corporation, they do not buy the business; they buy the corporation and the ownership stays the same. Mr. Morris stated Lowe’s would be erecting their sign when it would need to be changed if the codes were to stay the same; therefore, he agreed with Commissioner Boyle’s recommendation. He endorsed the variance procedure, but cautioned against the use of standard variance terms which would be used for zoning to establish for sign variance procedures. Mr. Morris stated these are two (2) very different type of variances. He offered to coordinate with staff regarding variance language. Mr. Morris advised the Trails Shopping Center has a very unusual design for a shopping center and recommended allowing for special circumstances where a sign agreement is utilized. Commissioner Persis commended the business people in the community who have voluntarily improved their signs. He noted he is in favor of the variance process and historical signs rather than changing the signs if the business changes or it is sold. Commissioner Persis stated he favors the grant proposal to encourage compliance, but that should not give the impression that the City approves of the present signs—some of which are deplorable and need to be replaced. He stated he would prefer a date certain that the business must be in compliance, but the City will help them achieve it rather than grandfathering them and allowing them to be out of compliance forever. Commissioner Irvin stated it is essential to have an alternate policy for the Main Street area and the Historic District. She questioned Mr. Ervin regarding the Fox Mattress sign; whereby, Mr. Ervin advised all billboards are prohibited in Ormond Beach, but based on previous legislation, billboards previously existing are allowed to be maintained until they are destroyed beyond 75% of the value of the structure. He stated that some billboards were destroyed by the fires last summer, but were replaced on the weekend without a permit, and the City stopped them, indicating they cannot be replaced. Mr. Ervin explained the difference between the term "repair" which is doing routine maintenance or changing the copy of the sign and is acceptable, and the term "replacement" which is defined as taking a sign down because it in not structurally sound and repair costs exceed 75% of the structure. Commissioner Gillooly agreed new standards for sign variances are essential. He also agreed on standardized sign regulations throughout the City with the exception of the Historic District and the idea of a matching grant. But, he noted, he opposes the grandfathering aspect. Commissioner Gillooly stated the variance procedure and historic district will give enough latitude to maintain the type of signs the City desires. Mr. Morris noted an alternative to grandfathering is to set a period of time from the date a permit is issued for a sign to have it come under compliance. Mr. Morris stated there are State statutes protecting signs located adjacent to federally aided highways where if local jurisdictions force a sign to be removed, they have to pay for the removal of the sign, and the cost of the sign as an income producer. Mayor Hood summarized the motion is to abolish the amortization period, grandfather those signs in until they are either 75% destroyed or the business is sold, the implementation of an appeal and variance process with criteria to be detailed, and a minimal grant program tied to the amount collected from sign permit fees. Commissioner Boyle stated the fact that staff suggested extending the amortization another two (2) years indicates they understand there are hardships and unique situations; therefore, he made another plea for grandfathering. He pointed out that whatever Commission makes the decision when Lowe’s requests a sign, it will be approved, and he requested keeping this in mind when making the decision for the other business owners.
Mayor Hood noted he voted "yes" because he believes the grandfathering will ultimately derive the City’s goals in a more painless method. Item #11(B) - Three Chimneys Grants Mr. Ceylon Barclay, 1239 Oceanshore Boulevard, President of the Ormond Beach Historical Trust, advised he is requesting three (3) grants be applied for by the City: a grant requiring financial participation by the City, another may require financial participation, and the last will not require financial participation. Mr. Barclay showed slides of the Three Chimneys site. He explained the first grant is for a walking tour with audio cassette and video tape of the historical and cultural resources of Ormond Beach to be shown at the Welcome Center. Mr. Barclay stated the Art Museum, Yacht Club, Ormond Main Street, Chamber of Commerce and Women’s Club have agreed to participate, in varying degrees, in a matching grant for this project. He reported this could probably be done with $20,000 and asked for City participation since other Ormond Beach historical sites would also be included. Mr. Barclay stated the Ormond Beach Historical Trust still owes the City $7,403 for the cupola, and he recommended the Trust pay this amount and the City specifically earmark the funds to be applied to this grant. He noted only $2,000 of new money is being requested from the City for this grant. Mr. Barclay explained the City received a $20,000 matching grant from the Division of Historic Preservation, $10,000 paid by the Ormond Beach Historical Trust and $10,000 from the State of Florida, to do renovations at the site and to fund a preservation plan. He stated in March, this project made the cut for funds from the Department of Environmental Protection or the Conservation and Recreational Land Use Plan (CARL), with a ranking of seventh out of fourteen projects. Mr. Barclay indicated it is possible the State would purchase the site and make it a park, but the City of Miami discovered Indian ruins they want preserved and are seeking the same funds. Mr. Barclay explained since it is possible Miami would receive the funds and Ormond Beach would not, he requested applying for one (1) or two (2) other grants as an insurance policy. He stated there is a Special Category Grant which would require a $50,000 match from the City of Ormond Beach, and another grant would not require any match at all. Mr. Barclay noted the $50,000 match can be met with moneys expended within the past five (5) years; and the $20,000 already given by the Ormond Beach Historical Trust and the labor counts in the equation, leaving almost half of the grant accounted for. He stated the grants must be in by June 1st, and it will be known if the (CARL) grant is approved by the end of July. Mr. Barclay stated if the project is not chosen by CARL, he requested either the Special Category Grant or the Preservation 2000 grant be moved forward. Mr. Miller asked if the CARL grant is for acquisition; whereby, Mr. Barclay replied on rare occasions CARL does approve acquisition grants. Mr. Miller questioned the $50,000 match, noting his understanding is that the match is 50% of the cost, which would be a great deal higher. Mr. Barclay stated the provisions of the grant start at $50,000 minimum, although the greater the match by the City, the better the chances are they will receive the grant. Mayor Hood indicated he would be willing to call a vote on the grant for the walking tour, but the City Commission does not need to approve the CARL application. He recommended the Special Category Grant be further investigated to be certain if a $50,000 match would be sufficient or if a 50% match is required. He noted the consensus is to come back at next week’s meeting, and in the mean time, he recommended Mr. Barclay and staff come to an agreement as to exactly what is needed for the grant. Mayor Hood stated that since Mr. Barclay will bring this issue next week, all the grants will be voted on at that time. Item #11(C) - Heaster/Moss Point Telecommunication Tower Update Mayor Hood reported the City Commission has received a memorandum from the City Attorney indicating there is nothing the City can do about this matter. He asked the attorney for the Moss Point residents if he agreed with the City Attorney’s interpretation; whereby, Mr. David Vukelja, attorney for the Moss Point residents, stated he does not agree with the City Attorney’s interpretation since the absence of notice is fundamental that the City can remedy the situation even though the problem was inherited from the County. Mayor Hood asked if Mr. Vukelja could present any case law or written analysis to dispute the City Attorney’s decision. Mr. Vukelja stated that if an oral argument for legal authority is required, he requested an opportunity to respond formally to this submission which has been recently forthcoming. Mayor Hood determined the consensus of the City Commission is to postpone this issue for a week to give Mr. Vukelja adequate time to address this issue. Mr. Jim Morris, representing Louis and Barbara Heaster, owner of the tower property stated under the present zoning the tower is permitted per Site Plan Review. He replied to Mr. Vukelja’s statement regarding notice, advising that it was given. Mr. Morris stated if the homeowners want to litigate the validity of the tower’s erection, that is up to them, not the City. He noted per Mr. Hayes’ memorandum, the most severe solution would be to move the tower 30 feet. Mr. Morris stated his client has invested money, they own the land the tower has been erected on, and they reside in Moss Point. He reported the plan was changed at the Site Plan Review process due to staff input and the Heasters’ acceded; therefore, they should not be delayed further. Mr. Morris opposed the delay, noting legal arguments are for purposes of a Court, and he recommended no action be taken by the Commission because there is no action for it to take. Mayor Hood stated that Mr. Vukelja is stating he did not have sufficient time to prepare a response; therefore, he stated he sees no reason whey this item cannot be postponed until next meeting since it will occur in only seven (7) days, unless Mr. Morris can show a particular financial penalty which will be imposed on his client if the delay is granted. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Vukelja to present staff with a written response by Friday. Mr. Morris questioned that he be given the opportunity to prepare an answer to Mr. Vukelja’s response. Mayor Hood noted most of Mr. Morris’ responses would echo Mr. Hayes’ report, to which he agreed. Mayor Hood requested that Mr. Vukelja have a copy of his response on each Commissioner’s desk and one for Mr. Morris at his home by Friday evening, and he asked that Mr. Morris’ reply be delivered by Monday evening. Commissioner Gillooly requested Mr. Vukelja discuss Mr. Hayes’ points individually. Item #11(C) - World Color, Inc., Service Mayor Hood asked that a letter be sent to Mr. Elston indicating he accommodated his request, but Mr. Elston did not attend the meeting. Item #12 - Audience Comments On Agenda Items AWOS (Automated Weather Observing System) Mr. Glenn Jaspers, 160 Ocean Terrace, explained he was confused that Ormond Beach was acquiring an AWOS system now since a control tower is not planned for two (2) years. He stated AWOS is not required for IFR operations at Ormond Beach Airport. Mr. Jaspers stated if Ormond Beach is anticipating traffic such as that at the Sanford Airport, this system would be justified. He explained once a tower is constructed, it is necessary to hire an operator to operate the tower, and this is not funded from the FAA. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Jaspers to discuss this with Mr. Baughman, and if the matter is not successfully answered, to bring the item back to the City Commission at a later date. Item #13- Reports, Suggestions, Requests Three Chimney’s Project Commissioner Boyle expressed his appreciation to the Ormond Beach Historical Trust for their efforts in the Three Chimneys Project. Budget Schedule Commissioner Boyle noted the budget will be distributed to the City Commission on July 14th, and on July 20th, the City Commission is to approve a tentative millage rate. He requested more than six (6) days he allowed for review before approving a tentative millage rate. Mr. Miller stated he overheard Commissioners considering going to a roll back rate, and if this is true, it would simplify the process to provide the entire document, unlike last year when the General Fund was submitted separately because of schedule conflicts. He explained one solution, which allows greater flexibility, would be to assume a roll back rate with the addition of the bond referendum millage necessary to retire the police facility debt. Commissioner Boyle advised he is not prepared to make any assumptions and does not know how the vacation schedules will affect this, but he is requesting more time to study this document. Tennis Court Fees Commissioner Boyle stated he had received a response to an inquiry made to the School Board regarding tennis court fees. He noted while this item has previously been decided by this Commission, he made the documentation available for the record. Commissioner Boyle advised of the eight (8) high schools in Volusia County that have tennis teams, three (3) schools have their own facilities, two (2) schools play at city facilities at no charge, two (2) other schools play at college and private facilities at no charge, and Ormond Beach is the only community where a high school pays a fee. He stated this information may be relevant to the City Commission for their upcoming Leisure Services workshop on May 18, 1999. US Airships Lease Commissioner Boyle thanked Mr. Jaspers for mentioning the US Airships newspaper article, as he is grateful for any information on the subject. He stated he certainly wants the CEO’s who represent this company to feel wanted in this community, and he regretted any questioning of the process that has been interpreted otherwise. Commissioner Boyle noted he was grateful for the new information received at this meeting since he just learned the company has expanded with the Canadian holdings, more jobs are now anticipated than originally anticipated, and he learned at a recent Commission meeting that this company made a $1,000 donation to the South Ormond Recreation Center. He stated he tried to contact the representatives of this company to thank them personally for the donation, but was unable to reach them through their office on A1A. He stated he hopes to reach them some time in the future to do so. Commissioner Irvin recommended the next time the representatives from US Airships are in the area, they meet with the Commission so the entire Commission can let them know they are welcome in Ormond Beach. Insecticide Danger Commissioner Irvin reported the News-Journal article by Lee Bidgood defining the dangers of insecticides, and clearly stated other options are available. She recommended Ormond Beach address this issue. Abandoned Houses Commissioner Irvin expressed appreciation to Mr. Robert Dunn, Chief Building Official, and the Code Enforcement Department for the great effort they are making in demolishing the abandoned eyesores in Ormond Beach. She stated these housed adversely affect the quality of life for the entire City of Ormond Beach. Legislative Sessions Commissioner Irvin thanked the City for the opportunity to attend the Legislative Sessions in Tallahassee. Recreational Vehicle Ordinance Commissioner Gillooly displayed a picture which he stated clearly indicated an abuse of the newly passed recreational vehicle ordinance. He requested this issue go on the agenda for the May 20th meeting to amend Section 2.09, C, 2, of the Land Development Code as follows: "No vehicle or equipment shall exceed ten (10) feet in height, plus one (1) foot for roof mounted air conditioning units and other accessories, such as, but not limited to, roof racks, satellite dishes or antenna. The ten (10) foot height requirement shall be determined as measured from ground level to the highest point of the vehicle, based on the normal operable condition of said vehicle with fully inflated tires." Commissioner Gillooly stated this amendment was initiated because it was brought to his attention that a resident placed a different axle on the vehicle and small "donut" tires to bring the vehicle into compliance. Daytona Beach Annexation Commissioner Persis thanked Mr. Miller for his efforts in trying to resolve the annexation problem with Daytona Beach before it had to be sent to the courts. He also thanked the City Commission for attempting to gather all the facts on this very important issue before reaching a decision. Moss Point Tower Commissioner Persis expressed appreciation to Mr. Randy Hayes, City Attorney, for his efforts in preparing a thorough document regarding the Moss Point telecommunication tower. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Workshop Commissioner Persis questioned the format for the CIP workshop scheduled for April 19th, at 6:00 p.m. He asked if the City Commission will be seated at the dais, in the audience, or if they are to be in attendance at all. Mr. Miller stated the intent is to have staff input, but the Commission is welcome to attend. Commissioner Persis asked if the time for the CIP workshop scheduled for May 25, 1999, could be changed from 7:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Mayor Hood requested that staff determine if Commissioner Persis can be accommodated. Recreational Vehicle Mr. Hayes questioned if it was Commissioner Gillooly’s intent that his request regarding recreational vehicles be placed on the agenda for discussion purposes. He stated that in order to actually make this change, the Land Development Code would need to be amended; therefore, it would need to go to the Planning Board before being considered by the City Commission. Commissioner Gillooly stated he would like to start the process. Mayor Hood asked that this be placed on the next agenda to determine if the City Commission wishes to start the process to make this change. Meeting Schedule Mayor Hood suggested the City Commission bring their summer calendars to the next meeting to determine if meetings need to be changed. Item #13 - Close The Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM. |
|
|
