|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
JULY 20, 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. 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 Mayor Hood asked that a moment of silence be observed. 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 July 6, 1999, regular City Commission meeting have been sent to the Commissioners for review and asked if there were any corrections, additions, or omissions. Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Item #5 - Audience Remarks Rodent Problem on Vacant Lot Mr. John Borman, 825 John Anderson Drive, stated that rats have been coming
from a vacant lot adjacent to 820 John Anderson Drive onto his property. He contacted the
Code Enforcement office and then Commissioner Boyle and was told if the lot had never been
cleared, it did not have to be cleared now. Mr. Borman stated Code Enforcement
informed him that the Health Department explained that if the rats were not around a
restaurant, a rat bite would be no worse than a squirrel bite. He asked if the Land
Development Code, Section 15.01 which states, Commissioner Irvin stated this complaint is regarding one lot, but there are many lots like it on US #1, and she was told the same things Mr. Borman was told. She asked that this issue be studied more carefully, and a remedy for the other overgrown lots be derived. Mayor Hood asked staff to study possible amendments to the Ordinance to solve this kind of problem and to place it on a future agenda. Commissioner Boyle advised he was told that Volusia County had previously been doing something along the shoreline of the Halifax River to help the rat problem, but as of this fiscal year, this practice is no longer being done. He asked staff to contact Volusia County and determine if this is true, because this may be a contributing factor. Baseball Tournament Funding Mr. Ed Kelley, 53 River Ridge Trail, read a letter from the Ormond Beach Waves AAU 13 and under baseball team that expressed their appreciation for the extremely generous contribution which will assist them to attend the national tournament in Kingsport, Tennessee, next week. He stated the Waves will represent Ormond Beach as ambassadors while in Tennessee. Mr. Kelley gave each Commissioner a pin with the words "City of Ormond Beach" engraved on it. He noted these pins will be exchanged with representatives from other states at the tournament. Fish Odor Permeating Neighborhood Ms. Tina Share, 1317 Overbrook Drive, expressed appreciation to Police Chief Larry Mathieson, his secretary, Joanne Sciulara, and Randy Hayes, City Attorney, for their personal attention to the matter of the odor permeating the neighborhood from the fish smoker. She stated, hopefully, with the help of Robert Dunn, Chief Building Official, swift action will be taken the next time the flame is lit. Countywide Trails Program Ms. Harriet Damesek, 4 Sandpoint Circle, stated that when the 5¢ gas tax was first proposed it was to go toward trails, but this did not occur. She stated that since the cities can decide how to utilize their share, she recommended Mr. Miller urge the other cities to participate in the proposed Trails Program so there will be interconnected trails between the cities. #6 - 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 Persis asked that Item No. 6(F) be discussed separately. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of the Consent Agenda, minus Item No. 6(F).
Item #6(F) - User Policy Regarding Protective Gear at Skateboard Park Commissioner Boyle noted the staff report indicates the skaters self-police themselves in a responsible manner. He noted he received a letter where the writer observed that on July 8, 1999, at 3:00 p.m., there were 15 children using the facility, and of these 15, only two (2) were wearing helmets and only one (1) was wearing leg pads. The letter continues to state that three (3) were riding prohibited bicycles along with the skaters and trash barrels had been placed on the court to make the jumps more challenging and also more dangerous. Commissioner Boyle noted that clearly the children are not policing themselves, and he recommended the City find a way to enforce the rules. He stated, at this point, he is not ready to approve the City Manager’s report and recommended more study, such as random observations, to determine if what was reported from July 8th was an aberration, or a chronically recurring experience. Commissioner Persis indicated he was at the skatecourt last week around 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. and there were 20 children skating: one (1) on a bicycle, three (3) or (4) with helmets, ten (10) on inline skates, and 14 on skateboards. He noted there were parents present observing the children. Commissioner Persis stated concern regarding the trash barrels, but noted he goes every week to ten (10) days, has not received any complaints, and is satisfied there are no major problems. He asked Mr. Burton if he had received complaints. Mr. Alan Burton, Leisure Services Director, advised he goes to the skatepark daily and has not received any calls of complaint. He stated periodically trash cans are put out to jump over, but this is the exception, not the rule. Mayor Hood stated children on baseball fields catch without catcher’s gear at times, and no matter what rules are made, it is up to the parent to be responsible for their child. He stated if it is made any more onerous by creating more rules, there will be more problems than currently. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, noted one of the initial goals was to have an alternative for the children, and the skateboarding at City Hall has been greatly reduced since the skatecourt has been operational. He stated research has found that, over time, there will be self-policing. Commissioner Persis moved to accept the City Manager report. Mayor Hood passed the gavel to Deputy Mayor Gillooly to second the motion.
Item #7(A) - Jameson Inn Hotel Wall Signs Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #7(A). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 118
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 99-118, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle advised the recommendations are appropriate, but he would be more comfortable voting if the Development Review Board minutes of the June 24, 1999, meeting were available. He asked if it were possible to include in the staff report, a very brief summary of the voting comments of the board members. Mayor Hood recommended placing a separate discussion item at the next City Commission meeting on how the City Commission wishes to handle minutes from other boards relating to each item. Commissioner Persis noted agreement with Commissioner Boyle that these minutes would be helpful. He asked if, by approving this resolution, the Jameson Inn would have an advantage over Hampton Inn or Cracker Barrel; whereby, Mr. Don O'Donniley, Planning Director, explained this request is limited to height, not an increase in sign square footage and is principally driven by the design of the structure.
Item #7(B)- Southern Pines Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to continue this item to the August 10, 1999, City Commission meeting.
Item #7(C) - Scottsdale Drive Vacation Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #7(C). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 33
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-33, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #7(D) - Calling a Special Primary Election for Zone 3 City Commissioner Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #7(D). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 34
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-34, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8 - Save Our Seniors ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 35
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-35, on first reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Persis pointed out the City Manager memo stated there would be a tax reduction of $72.00 per year, but his computation indicated the reduction should be $91.30 per year. He asked that this be corrected before the second reading.
Item #9(A) -Historic Landmark Preservation Board Appointments RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 120
Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Resolution No. 99-120, adding the names Betty Porter and Minnie Wade.
Item #9(B) -Adopting Proposed Millage Rates RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 121
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 99-121, as read by title only.
Item #10(A) - Commemoration for Mayor Charles E. Bailey and Ms. Derringer Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to place a coquina rock with a plaque on the corner of Granada Boulevard and Beach Street where Ms. Derringer’s office was located to honor Betty Derringer, and to rename Riverbridge Gardens Park to Bailey Riverbridge Gardens Park to honor Mayor Charles E. Bailey. Commissioner Persis commended staff for the creative way they were able to honor both Mayor Bailey and Ms. Derringer without setting a precedent for other deserving citizens. Commissioner Gillooly asked the Historic Landmark Preservation Board take on the project of nominating one (1) or two (2) people per year, honoring the significant contributions some of Ormond Beach’s citizens have made.
Item #10(B) - U.S. Airship Leasing, Inc., Lease Agreement Mayor Hood reported Randy Hayes, City Attorney, has advised a reconsideration of the lease with U.S. Airship Leasing, Inc., is not legal. Commissioner Boyle stated agreement with Mr. Hayes’ legal opinion, and while he has questions, he is ready to move on. Item #10(C) - Establishment of an Airport Advisory Board Commissioner Boyle noted the staff report indicated the impetus to reinstate the Airport Advisory Board came from the lease agreement with U.S. Airship Leasing, Inc. He denied that this is true, and added it is unrelated. He stated the true impetus was the question of the radio, then the AWOS system, and then the control tower question. Commissioner Boyle noted in 1979 the FAA recommended that all cities with airports the size of Ormond Beach should have citizen airport advisory boards. Commissioner Boyle concurred with staff that the aviation issues are separate from the economic development issues; thus he agreed the board should be called the Aviation Advisory Board. He recommended each member of the City Commission appoint two (2) citizen advisors from anywhere in the City. Commissioner Boyle noted he recognizes that by the terms of the lease agreement with U.S. Airship Leasing, Inc., that they would be permitted to sit on any advisory board; therefore, he recommends a total of 11 members for the board. He stated while staff recommends quarterly meetings, he amended this to call for monthly meetings as needed which would afford more flexibility. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to establish an Aviation Advisory Board made up of 11 members, two (2) to be appointed by each member of the City Commission from anywhere within the City, and for the board to have monthly meetings as needed. Commissioner Irvin asked that these appointments be made after the election. Mayor Hood asked the rational of creating a board now, but not appointing the members until after the election; whereby, Commissioner Irvin explained that there may be a relatively new Commission elected, and those people should make the appointments. Commissioner Gillooly concurred with Commissioner Boyle that U.S. Airship Leasing, Inc., was not the impetus for this board. He stated that since there is no pressing need for the board right now, he concurred with Commissioner Irvin that it is best to wait to appoint the members after the election. Commissioner Persis stated this Commission will be discussing advisory boards at an August City Commission meeting. He stated of the 16 current advisory boards, the span of terms are anywhere from two (2) year to six (6) years. Commissioner Persis agreed this Commission should not appoint members that may be seated only two (2) months before a new Commission is seated, and then the new Commission appoints different board members; therefore, he recommended tabling this issue until after the election. Commissioner Boyle stated in the past five (5) months there have been three (3) sudden and pressing needs for this board, and it is very possible something unknown at this moment could come before the Commission where the board’s advise could be beneficial. He noted the board is needed now; thus the City Commission needs to act now. Mayor Hood advised he opposed the creation of this board because he considers it a complete waste of time and added that the City’s Airport Manager is doing an excellent job. He stated every time a board is created, a new bureaucracy is created where staff must prepare for meetings, attend the meeting, and prepare the minutes. Mayor Hood explained a "yes" vote is to adopt the board, where each Commissioner appoints two (2) members, and the board will have monthly meetings as needed. Commissioner Persis moved to amend, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to delay the appointment of the members until after the election.
Item #10(D) - Relaxing Streetscape Overlay District Requirements Mr. Don O'Donniley, Planning Director, stated there have been public and private improvements that have occurred within the Streetscape Overlay District. He stated specific problems within the district have been identified such as signage on the small storefront, zero set back structures, and smaller lot size, because they generate less signage than larger tracts in the more suburban districts. Mr. O'Donniley stated signage square footage is driven by street frontage. He recommended the district be retained due to the clear evidence of the job it has done for rehabilitation and encouraging redevelopment without undue burdens. Commissioner Gillooly stated the City spent months reviewing facades, color, styles and the Commission was in agreement. He stated many businesses came into the downtown and complied with the Streetscape regulations without difficulty, and he questioned why this item was placed on the agenda for discussion. Commissioner Boyle stated he was not aware that the Main Street organization had endorsed the Streetscape regulations. Ms. Lori Gillooly, Executive Director of Ormond Main Street, stated Ormond Main Street had a meeting July 12, 1999, where the consensus of the Main Street Board, and the board president, was to support the Streetscape Overlay District. She stated the regulations define the district and set it apart. Commissioner Boyle explained that this 1986 plan established higher standards and greater restrictions on businesses regarding signage and color, as well as establishing a Mediterranean theme for the downtown. He noted the new structures were able to conform to that edict easily, yet the rules have hindered redevelopment and placed the downtown business owners at a disadvantage. Commissioner Boyle advised ten (10) businesses have encountered difficulty in trying to establish their business in the downtown; two (2) of those ten (10) are out of business, and the stricter restrictions were a factor. He stated the report predicts that smaller businesses in the district will ultimately be eliminated and replaced by larger businesses that are able to assemble larger parcels of land from the smaller parcels. Commissioner Boyle explained the reason this was placed on this agenda was to ask the Planning Board to amend the Land Development Code and delete any development rule that is currently stricter in the district than in the community at large. He questioned if there has been any effective improvements in the 13 years this plan has been in place. Commissioner Boyle reported the national trend in core areas is to build more flexibility in the restrictions, while Ormond Beach is adding regulations in the core areas. He advised the rules for redevelopment cannot be the same as the rules for new development in the western growth areas, yet Ormond Beach has more flexibility for new development than in the older developed areas. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to amend the Land Development Code by deleting any development rule that is currently stricter in the Streetscape Overlay District, than those in the community at large. Commissioner Persis stated there has not been a massive improvement in this district in the past 14 years when these regulations were in effect. He advised the City is saying the downtown has to follow tougher rules than those imposed in the rest of the City, which does not seem fair since the City is trying to help those struggling businesses, not place a bigger burden on them. Commissioner Gillooly asked which businesses are "in trouble" as Commissioner Boyle and Commissioner Persis alluded. Commissioner Boyle specified Ormond Central Perk, Southwest Gift Shop, Volusia Office Supply, the Cuban Delicatessen, Benjamin Moore Paints, and the Fina Gas Station are a number of businesses who have had problems, and some are gone from the district. He stated there are other business he could name at a later date. Ms. Gillooly offered one of the problems is a matter of semantics, and using the word "tougher" is unfair, as the restrictions deal with aesthetics and theme and what is envisioned for the district. She stated she attended meetings the Planning Department has held with the specific businesses mentioned by Commissioner Boyle where staff has worked hard for these businesses and were completely professional, offering suggestions and alternatives that fit within the plan. Ms. Gillooly advised Ormond Main Street has taken on the role of mediator to help the businesses and the City. Commissioner Persis indicated he wasn’t criticizing the Planning Department. He stated the Gateway 2000 is being studied, and this should be completed before any rules are changed or additional regulations imposed. Commissioner Persis added he does not want any business to incur any costs unnecessarily. Mr. O'Donniley admitted there were specific sign related problems, which will be addressed in the next agenda item, but these considerations have broadened from its original consideration. He noted concessions have been made in this district which are not permitted in other parts of the City, such as reduced parking, the use of remote parking, and color of structure leniency. Mr. O'Donniley reported no one suggested tougher standards at this time. He stated there is legitimacy to the complaint that signage is too limited and needs to be approached in a more comprehensive investigation and tied to some other matters to be discussed in the next item, but there is no question as to the progress that has been made in implementing a theme. Mr. O'Donniley noted the downtown is not going to successfully compete with stores in the western portion of the City based on automobile accessibility, but is emphasizing a more aesthetically pleasing pedestrian district. Mr. Gary Connors, 305 West Granada Boulevard, noted he was a member of the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force and a report was prepared indicating the purpose was to promote business in the downtown area. He stated signage, parking and colors were three (3) items where flexibility was recommended. Commissioner Boyle noted the Benjamin Moore Paint Company has a sign on US #1 and would like to move downtown, but that same sign is not permitted downtown. He stated this sign is a standard sign permitted throughout the country. Commissioner Boyle pointed out the Fina Gas Station is attempting a $250,000 rehabilitation project using the same color tile to match the Mediterranean style in the district, using metal tile which is much safer and stronger, but they are unable to use it for their roof. He advised these are two (2) stricter rules which are inhibiting growth. Commissioner Boyle noted theme is easier to achieve in newer communities, but with Ormond Beach’s old vernacular buildings, it is much more difficult to impose a theme, unless the purpose is to eliminate these structures, and build newer and bigger. He explained that if a certain percent of rehabilitation of a property is done, new rules are triggered; therefore, businesses who would rehabilitate the entire building are now scaling back so they do not exceed that threshold. Commissioner Gillooly noted it is unfair to stated businesses fold because of streetscape requirements, when there are a variety of reasons businesses fold. Commissioner Irvin advocated the downtown retain its historic distinction and beauty, but advised she does not want to create hardships for the businesses. She stated she has noticed a large turnover of businesses on Granada Boulevard, but why they do not succeed is unknown. Mayor Hood clarified Commissioner Boyle’s motion is to articulate all the additional burdens placed on the downtown district and send those through the Planning Board process to have them deleted. He further clarified this includes any regulation that exits for the downtown area that does not exist for those areas outside of the downtown. Commissioner Boyle concurred. Mayor Hood noted he will oppose this motion because the City cannot govern everything that goes on in Ormond Beach. He advocated dealing with the entire code, not merely this section of the code. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, requested delaying a vote on this item until after the next item is discussed. Mayor Hood explained Commissioner Boyle’s motion is not strictly related to signage, but to every difference in the regulations; therefore, he called for a vote on the motion.
Item #10(E) - Sign Regulations Mr. Clay Ervin, Ghyabi-Lassiter, reported in February Ghyabi-Lassiter was instructed to focus a study on non-conforming signs in the City, but a problem arose because of the different amortization schedule for the Streetscape Overlay District and the rest of the City. He noted the options recommended were to keep the amortization schedule, determine a unified amortization schedule and grant program, or eliminate the amortization schedule and allow non-conforming signs to stay in place until 75% of the value is destroyed, removed or otherwise changed, when they would be removed and conforming signs replace them. Mr. Ervin advised the scope was expanded to include a designation for historic signs, variance procedure, and a master sign program. He stated the Planning Board deemed the recommendations made did not protect all items that should be protected. Mr. Ervin stated the amendment can be processed if the City Commission agrees, but this has been strongly disagreed to by the Planning Board. He advised a specific disagreement is in the variance procedure where staff recommended the variance go before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals while the Planning Board advocated it go to the Development Review Board. Mr. Ervin recommended the term "landmark" be used instead of "historic" when referring to certain signs to avoid some of the regulations making a structure historic. He noted an additional issue is a Citywide appeal process and allowing for wider ranging powers and changes. He stated further study may possibly avoid future problems. Mr. Gary Connors, 305 West Granada Boulevard, noted this issue was discussed in 1978, 1981, and 1991, and each time the business owners who were non-compliant were told they would be grandfathered in; therefore, they never complained. He urged the City Commission to bring this issue to an end and take the vote. Mr. Connors stated the merchants would have objected to some of the changes had they not been assured they would be grandfathered in. Ms. Rita Press, 875 Wilmette Avenue, replied to Mayor Hood’s comment that developers do not want to come to Ormond Beach because of their regulations. She noted that while it may be easier to get permits in Daytona Beach, which is better for the developer, it is not necessarily better for the people who live in the community. Ms. Press stated strict standards were imposed on Office Depot, yet they chose to come to Ormond Beach. She used Shurgard as an example, who got concessions yet had to comply to regulations such as setbacks, saving the historic trees, and aesthetics. Ms. Press summarized by stating strict regulations are good. Ms. Press advised government’s role is to place mandates, but it also has the responsibility to provide assistance where possible; therefore, she advocated funding be made available for the businesses to aid in changing the signs. She also advocated flexibility from a variance board. Ms. Press concluded by stating that a downtown that looks good, is good for everyone. Ms. Gillooly restated Main Street’s position that there is a definite need for an appeals process and greater flexibility and creativity in the signage. She pointed out that speaker after speaker in the February workshop noted that while the monument sign has its application, it is not always the best answer and is often an impossibility for the Main Street merchant, and alternative signage is essential. Ms. Gillooly urged the Commission to extend the amortization schedule for the Streetscape district so the deadline matches the December 3, 2001, date. She added Main Street supports the grant program as proposed by Commissioner Boyle where the signage fee may be used for some type of matching grant program. Ms. Peggy Farmer, Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, reported 35 business would have to meet the December 1999, deadline if nothing is done. She stated the City’s vision is correct, but there are situations where some of the signs cannot meet the requirements on the books today, and these should be grandfathered in. Ms. Farmer noted there are instances where monument signs are not appropriate for a particular parcel and advocated an appeals process. Ms. Farmer noted if small businesses are not permitted signage, they will not grow and may fail; for example, if the LaGourmandise French Bakery’s sign must be taken down, no one will know the bakery is in that shopping center. She noted businesses need exposure on the main arteries to survive, and if the monument signs cannot provide this exposure, there needs to be an appeals process. Ms. Farmer advised that in the process of changing the sign at the Ormond Beach Chamber of Commerce, she discovered the cost for a sign is $4,000 just to remain in compliance, and this is a large expense for small businesses. She noted the Granada Goodyear sign is an attractive sign, but the owner would have to spend money to take that sign down and then another $4,000 to replace it. Ms. Farmer made an appeal for the City Commission to give direction to the small business on where they stand on this issue. Mr. Jean Jenner, 11 Pine Valley Circle, and owner of LaGourmandise French Bakery, stated the business owners are not asking for anything extraordinary, all they want is to be permitted to keep their signs. He added he has been in business for 15 years, and the City should compromise with the small business owners as they have previously done for the large business owners. He added that when businesses replace their signs and the rules change again in five (5) years or so, will they have to change them again at a cost of $14,000 to $16,000. Mr. Jenner stated that if no changes are made, he will have no sign as of December 1999, and at which time he pledged he would not renew his lease. Commissioner Gillooly stated his opposition to grandfathering and asked the Commission to consider those who have complied with the regulations. He noted the appeals process would handle problems such as Mr. Jenner’s. Commissioner Gillooly advocated a three-fold plan: no grandfathering, special signs permitted in the historic district, and established an appeals process. He also advocated a grant program to assist merchants in complying. Commissioner Gillooly moved to not allow grandfathering, permit special signs in the historic district, establish an appeals process to the Development Review Board, and establish a grant program funded through the sign fees. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. O'Donniley stated a uniform amortization date is needed, so a definite deadline is set to get these problems resolved. He explained the difference in a landmark sign and addressing a sign package in an overlay district may be significant, but has not yet been thoroughly explored at this point. Mr. O'Donniley noted another significant issue is if these matters should go through an appeals board or the Development Review Board. He reported developing sign packages for centers or districts may have relevance, as well as studying the best method to establish a grant program. Mayor Hood indicated this has been discussed for eight (8) years, and it is time a decision is made. He advocated giving a two (2) week time period to have staff present an ordinance for the City Commission to vote on. Mr. O'Donniley stated the non-conforming sign issue can be resolved, but some of the other issues are new concerns that need study. Mayor Hood instructed staff to make the first or second meeting in September a light agenda and have an ordinance on the agenda for a vote. He stated all issues have been discussed. Mayor Hood noted that if anyone on the Commission has any particular issue they expect staff to address, it is their responsibility to inform staff so they have sufficient time to prepare for the meeting, and then anyone can come to the meeting knowing there will be a vote that evening and it will not go back to another board or staff for further study. Mr. Miller stated all the regulations in general in the Land Development Code should be investigated in a comprehensive manner, which includes attaining community involvement. He noted this comprehensive study cannot be done with existing staff. Mr. Miller stated the regulations interrelate; therefore, bringing one item at a time for consideration does not work. He recommended a consultant work with a "blue ribbon committee" and have the time to properly work on these issues. Mayor Hood agreed a global reworking of the Land Development Code is needed, but he is not prepared to wait another six (6) months to have closure on the sign issue. He noted he does not oppose the consultant recommendation and agreed it should be discussed at the next meeting, but he does not advocate postponing this issue any longer. Commissioner Boyle agreed closure is needed for the 72 signs that are currently non-conforming. He noted most, if not all of those 72 signs, when erected, met the exact specifications of the City and the City’s new rules made the signs non-compliant. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to: (1) grandfather the 72 non-compliant signs subject to the 75% destruction or change in use of the business; (2) establish a variance appeal through the Development Review Board with ultimate appeal to the City Commission; and (3) increase the sign fee from $3 to $10 - $15 to be used for a grant fund to be administered by the Main Street organization, or another organization. Commissioner Boyle recommended this grant fund begin with the worst offender first, where they are offered a small amount of money to bring their sign into compliance. He contended this method will bring all signs into compliance within four (4) years, painlessly. Commissioner Boyle stated Commissioner Gillooly pointed out that the Planning Board rejected this motion, which is correct, but the Planning Board did not receive three (3) important documents. He noted the minutes of the February meeting where 18 business owners addressed the Commission were not given to the Planning Board. Commissioner Boyle added the Planning Board did not receive the list of the 72 non-conforming signs, along with the reasons they were non-conforming, nor did they receive the minutes of the previous City Commission discussion. Commissioner Boyle agreed with Mayor Hood this needs closure. Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to amend the motion to add verbiage where different signs would be permitted in the historic district, to be administered by Main Street. Commissioner Irvin suggested more flexibility is needed in the historic downtown district. Mr. O'Donniley asked why a variance procedure is needed if the signs are grandfathered in; whereby, Mayor Hood explained the variance procedure is for a sign anywhere in the City which would need a minor change to comply such as if a sign needs to be moved only an inch or so. Mr. O'Donniley noted Commissioner Gillooly’s motion is outlined in option 2, which is a sign plan for an overlay district. Commissioner Gillooly clarified his amendment to add a sign plan for the overlay district be created. Commissioner Irvin accepted Commissioner Gillooly’s assessment of the amendment. Commissioner Persis concurred with the grandfathering portion of the motion, but advised the motion stop at that proviso. He agreed with the concept of a grant, but would like to investigate the exact details of the grant first. Mayor Hood advised tonight’s vote would let staff know the direction it is to take, but it would be up to staff to draft an ordinance, and the details can be discussed further at that time. Commissioner Persis informed staff he favors the 72 signs being grandfathered in until there is a change of use or 75% or more of the sign is destroyed. Commissioner Irvin asked if option 2, minus the amortization schedule, and adding the grandfathering would be the same as what is being proposed; whereby, Mr. O'Donniley agreed it was, and he would prefer it because it is more easily understood.
Item #10(F) - Acquisition of several properties on Dodson Creek Mr. Tom Lipps, Assistant to the City Manager, stated the City Commission recommendation is to either acquire the Dodson’s Creek property or revise the Land Development Code to address stormwater runoff to minimize wetland encroachment and improve the landscaping requirements on US 1. He noted in the early 1990’s, these properties were rezoned from B-5 to B-8, which made the land effectively non-developable due to setback requirements. He stated two (2) issues are predominant—the acquisition issue and the Land Development Code issue. Mr. Lipps advised that some of the environmental issues are not just related to these properties but have Citywide implications; therefore, staff recommends these wetland issues be looked at Citywide, not on the context of these particular parcels. Mr. Lipps reported the primary recommendation of the Environmental Advisory Board is to acquire these properties. He stated the range of cost to acquire the land would be from $750,000 to $1,235,000 which is not included in the budget. Mr. Lipps explained to acquire these lands, the City Commission would need to expend all of the excess reserve funds and go into the 15% as well, raise the millage levy, or seek a bond issue similar to that used in purchasing the River’s property. He recommended staff pursue the possibility of funding by other agencies, and noted there is interest on the part of St. Johns River Water Management District (St. Johns); therefore, if public ownership is to be pursued, staff recommended ownership be deferred to St. Johns. Mr. Rudy Dubovec, Arthur Kowitz Real Estate, 1501 North US 1, stated he represents Fidelity Bank who is trying to provide a way for the City to acquire this parcel. He noted Fidelity Bank has authorized him to propose that the bank would underwrite a bond issue if necessary to facilitate the acquisition. Mr. Dubovec stated if this is not possible, they do have several persons interested in developing this parcel in its limited use; thus they would request a speedy decision. Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to pursue the possibility of St. Johns River Water Management District acquiring this parcel. Commissioner Gillooly recommended if St. Johns does not acquire the parcel, staff come back to the City Commission to discuss searching for grant funding for the City to acquire the property.
Item #10(G) - Riverside Drive Improvements Mr. Rob Merrill of Cobb, Cole and Bell, 150 Magnolia Avenue, stated he is representing some of the Riverside Drive property owners. Mayor Hood reported Ms. Jamie Hawthorne asked the City cease the scheduled improvements, but he informed her that he would ask staff not to cease these improvements until a meeting was held to discuss the matter. He explained he had told Ms. Hawthorne he would have staff inform her of that meeting, but inadvertently forgot to do so. Mayor Hood explained that at that meeting, the City Commission was informed staff had met with the citizens twice, and this recommendation was derived from those meetings; hence, it was approved. He noted this item is on the agenda to hear anything the Riverside Drive residents have to say and revisit the issue, if needed. Mayor Hood explained the City Attorney advised the Commission is not to deal with the question of closing Riverside Drive, rather the question of whether to remove the bulbout and striping, and if the sidewalk should be constructed. Mr. Merrell reported staff has appropriately taken this matter very seriously, and the residents of Riverside Drive appreciation the attention given this matter. He stated while no one is certain these improvements will alleviate the problems, the residents are willing to wait six (6) months to judge their merits. Mr. Merrell advised the residents have hired a traffic consultant who will continue to monitor the situation in the interim. He replied the residents would prefer not to have the striping, but the bulbouts may be an appropriate safety measure. Ms. Judy Sloane, City Engineer, noted the main issue that came out of the public hearings is safety concerns, more particularly the speed of the traffic, the lack of a safe area for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the volume of traffic. She advised that after review of traffic counts taken in 1983, 1988, 1992, 1998 and 1999, there has not been an increase, and some counts are even less than the historic counts. Ms. Sloane reported the City has spent time and funds for consultants and improvements, and Phase I has been implemented to make this road safer. She advised Phase II would be to construct two (2) additional bulbouts near the intersections of Willis Drive and Ormond Parkway and to construct a sidewalk on the east side of Riverside Drive. Ms. Sloane indicated the sidewalk would provide a safe zone for pedestrians and bicyclists. She stated there are areas where easements will be required to avoid the trees, but most of the sidewalk can be built on the existing right-of-way. Ms. Sloane explained the sidewalk contract previously awarded would run from Fluhart Drive to the south City limits on Riverside Drive, and through the Capital Improvement Program, from Granada Boulevard to the north City limits. She urged the City Commission to accept the recommendations of the professional staff and consultants, allow the existing improvements to remain in place, and authorize staff to proceed with the design of the sidewalk and additional bulbouts. Mayor Hood asked if the sidewalks were approved in the Capital program; whereby, Mr. Miller stated it was not in the Capital program pending the consultant’s report. Mayor Hood indicated all the residents of the entire street must be notified that a meeting will occur in which the consultant will discuss the sidewalk before the sidewalks are constructed. Commissioner Irvin recommended a workshop for this purpose. Mayor Hood indicated the meeting will be held at a regular City Commission meeting so the Commission can vote. Commissioner Irvin agreed that as long as the residents are notified and have the opportunity to voice their opinion, she would agree to discuss the sidewalk at a regular City Commission meeting. Mr. Ken Hawthorn, 70 Riverside Drive, advised the residents favor constructing the remaining bulbouts as requested by staff because the bulbout that has been constructed has noticeably slowed traffic. Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, noted the bulbouts would be constructed in conjunction with the sidewalk; therefore, the plan is to design the sidewalk and then provide the plans to the neighborhood. Mayor Hood agreed this should be done in preparation for the City Commission meeting in which the decision is ultimately made. Commissioner Persis agreed the bulbout does slow traffic, but pointed out the first block of Riverside Drive from Granada Boulevard to Casements Drive has "sign overload." He recommended the Public Works Department remove some of these signs that are serving no purpose, and this would improve the aesthetics of the street. Ms. Jamie Hawthorn, 70 Riverside Drive, thanked Commissioner Persis for noticing the "sign overload" problem. Mr. Mitch Mentor, 331 Riverside Drive, indicated that since the sidewalks are to be designed, he requested an alternate plan that includes the bulbouts without the sidewalks be prepared. Mayor Hood agreed this should be done. Mr. Eugene Miller, City Manager, explained that the "stop ahead" sign is a temporary installation, and a common practice. He stated the second "stop" sign was placed in response to the neighborhood request, and is also not permanent. Ms. Frances Massey, 3 Riverside Drive, asked if the striping has to remain while these decisions are being made; whereby, Mayor Hood advised it had been stated that the residents would wait six (6) months before a decision is made regarding the improvements. Ms. Massey expressed appreciation for the mirror on Riverside Circle and the bulbouts, but stated she considers the reflectors a hazard. Ms. Hawthorn requested ample notification be given and the residents provided with a copy of the plans well in advance of the meeting. Mayor Hood asked staff to give the residents seven (7) days notice and include a statement in the notice indicating the plans are on file at City Hall for inspection rather than provide a copy of the plans to each resident. Ms. Rae Mastropierro, 595 Riverside Drive, stated the sidewalk construction starting at Fluhart Drive was to begin in August or early September. She asked if the sidewalk project from the south boundary to Fortunato Park is being postponed; whereby, Mayor Hood stated it is not being postponed, and further explained that the sidewalk project from Granada Boulevard to the end of Riverside Drive is not in the Capital Improvement Program, nor has it been designed, but the process is being started. Ms. Mastropierro recommended the City Commission, members of interested boards, and concerned citizens review the sidewalk proposal and see the slide presentation prepared by the consultants, Vanesse, Rangen & Bustlin, Inc. She noted she suspects the residents will oppose the sidewalks, to which Mayor Hood stated it is part of the democratic process to listen to all sides before the City Commission makes a decision. Ms. Mastropierro advised it is common sense, and is in the Master Plan, that since sidewalks are already being installed on the rest of Riverside Drive, the project should be completed. Mr. Miller advised that the sidewalk is not in the Master Plan which was recently adopted, but is in the Comprehensive Plan. Item #11 - Audience Comments On Agenda Items Southern Pines Mr. J.D. McCraney, 340 Endora Street, requested notification as to when Item 7(B), regarding Resolution No. 99-119 (Southern Pines), will be discussed in order for him to attend the public hearing which was continued this evening. Mayor Hood requested Mr. O'Donniley notify Mr. McCraney prior to the meeting where this item will be discussed. Mr. Glenn Jaspers, 160 Ocean Terrace, indicated the Development Review Board discussed this issue and questioned why this item was being continued; whereby, Mayor Hood answered it was requested that the item be continued. U.S. Airship Leasing, Inc., Lease Agreement Mr. Jaspers reported several memos were supplied to the City Commission, but he was unable to rebut them or make comment about them regarding Resolution No. 98-63, the Lease Agreement with U.S. Airship Leasing, Inc. He noted Resolution No. 98-63 cannot be reconsidered, but many months ago it was appropriate and it is not illegal, as stated in the memo from Mr. Miller. Mr. Jaspers congratulated the Commission for reinstating the Aviation Advisory Board. Item #12 - Reports, Suggestions, Requests Donation to the Riptides Commissioner Boyle noted two (2) of the children from the Riptides came into his business to thank him for the donation made by the City Commission upon their returning from Cooperstown with a record of seven (7) wins and two (2) losses. He stated the team finished tenth in a 48 team field. Commissioner Boyle added they raised $11,000, and the $1,000 donated by the City helped them meet their goal. He thanked the City Commission for allocating these funds for this worthy cause. Pet Park Commissioner Boyle reported Mr. Jack Schwartz has contacted him and three (3) other members of the Commission regarding a special park for dogs without leashes. He stated this has received extensive media coverage, and he requested a discussion item for a future agenda with a staff feasibility study of this concept. Environmental Advisory Board Appointment Commissioner Boyle stated there has been great public controversy subsequent to Mayor Hood appointing Mr. Paul Holub to the Environmental Advisory Board. He noted the facts of this issue have been extensively covered in the media, along with questions regarding the City Commission’s decision to place this person on this board. Commissioner Boyle noted that this appointment was made prior to the controversy becoming public, yet it may be necessary for the Commission, in light of the controversy, to revisit this appointment. He stated since Commissioner Gillooly publicly stated he has a very strong opinion about this appointment, he should make a motion for removal for cause, which is what the ordinance calls for. 1999 Legislative Session Commissioner Irvin advised that she attended the 1999 Legislative Session where she lobbied for Ormond Beach. She stated last week the Volusia League of Cities had a workshop where she was presented a certificate for attendance and a plaque for the City of Ormond Beach. Commissioner Irvin presented the plaque to Mayor Hood. Environmental Advisory Board Appointment Commissioner Gillooly asked the City Attorney if he is permitted to make a motion for removal of Mr. Holub for cause since he is the only Commissioner who opposed Mr. Holub’s appointment. Mr. Randy Hayes, City Attorney, stated this would not be a motion for reconsideration. He recommended if the Commission would like to visit this issue, it be done at another time, giving Mr. Holub notice, to give him the opportunity to speak on his own behalf. Commissioner Gillooly indicated if the Commission is to reconsider Mr. Holub’s appointment, he should not be the one to bring it up, rather that someone who voted for his appointment should introduce the motion to reconsider. Airport Master Plan Commissioner Persis asked if the City is about to begin a ten (10) year Master Plan at Ormond Municipal Airport. Mr. Fred Baughman, Economic Development Director, indicated a ten (10) year Master Plan is in the Capital Improvements Program. Commissioner Persis noted this would be a project to give to the Aviation Advisory Board. Preliminary Millage and Budget Preparation Mr. Miller thanked the Commission for their comments regarding the approval of the preliminary millage and budget preparation. Environmental Advisory Board Appointment Mayor Hood advised he has been out of town until last Sunday evening and has merely glanced at The New-Journals delivered in his absence. He stated while Mr. Schlub is a fine reporter, he does not take everything in The New-Journal as fact; therefore, he has a call in to speak to Mr. Holub to determine the actual facts. He suggested debate be withheld until the actual facts are known. Item #13 - Close The Meeting The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. |
|
|
