|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
SEPTEMBER 28, 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 The invocation was given by Reverend Clarence Drake, Alliance Community Church. Item #3 - Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Hood led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Item #4(A) - Establishing Millage Rates Mayor Hood opened the public hearing for anyone who wished to discuss the proposed millage rates for the 1999-2000 budget. He noted the proposed millage rate necessary to fund the budget is 2.79275 mills, which is the same as the rolled-back rate and a 0% tax increase. Mayor Hood asked if any member of the public if there were any questions or comments. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 154
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Resolution No. 99-154, as read by title only.
Item #4(B) - Adopting Annual Budget ORDINANCE NO. 99 -42
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-42 including the amendments to the Transportation Improvement Fund, on second reading.
Mayor Hood closed the public hearing. Item #5 - Approval of Minutes Mayor Hood advised the minutes of the September 7, 1999, regular City Commission meeting and the September 8, 1999, special 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 #6 - Audience Remarks Dog Park Mr. Jack Schwartz, 436 South Nova Road, noted that at a September City Commission meeting the Leisure Services Director was directed to investigate Strickland Park as a possible site for a dog park and was also instructed to come back with alternate proposals. Mr. Schwartz advised that a shooting range is the sole activity at Strickland Park which is open Wednesday through Sunday. Mr. Schwartz noted if a dog park were constructed at Strickland Park, the public would have very limited use of it. He advised Mr. Burton estimated the cost of the park at $30,000, which he felt was high. Mr. Schwartz recommended the park utilize a four (4) foot fence, significantly lowering the cost. Mayor Hood recommended discussing this item at the first City Commission meeting in November, giving staff the opportunity to work with Mr. Schwartz. Code Enforcement Complaint Mr. Lawrence Cook, 1529 North Beach Street, stated that at the last meeting he asked Mayor Hood if the City Manager had an obligation to be sure department heads are truthful with citizens, but he received no response. He stated last October he attempted to advise the City Commission that he took a letter written by a department head to the City Manager, and the Mayor insisted that Mr. Miller wasn’t even at the City at that time, but Mr. Cook contended Mr. Miller was present. Mr. Cook stated it was the Mayor’s obligation to make a factual determination if Mr. Miller was present or not present. Mayor Hood agreed that the City Manager, elected officials, and all employees owes the citizens the truth. He reported that staff and elected officials have met numerous times with Mr. Cook regarding a code enforcement problem that occurred before 1989, before Mr. Miller was City Manager or any member of this City Commission was elected. Mayor Hood requested the City Clerk ascertain how many times this issue has been brought before the City Commission and present that information at the next City Commission meeting. He stated there comes a point where the Commission will not tolerate Mr. Cook’s haranguing of the City Manager and himself. Appreciation for Mayor Hood and City Staff Mr. Tom Bourke, 422 South Halifax Drive, stated while he has not always agreed with Mayor Hood, but he is saddened to see him leave. He noted Mayor Hood has been an enormous intellectual asset to Ormond Beach and a stabilizing force on the Commission. Mr. Bourke also expressed appreciation to the City Manager, the Ormond Beach Police Department, Al Legg, and Randy Hayes for their assistance in resolving a conflict he had regarding an incident that happened on City property. Mr. Bourke stated that although comments were made during the last election that the Police Department is shorthanded, there is more police presence on the east side than at any other time. 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 Item No. 7(B) be discussed separately. Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of the Consent Agenda, minus Item No. 7(B).
Item #7(B) - 1999 Miscellaneous Sidewalk Improvements Bid RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 156
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 99-156, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle stated that while he appreciates the low bid by Saboungi Construction, Inc., there are a number of outstanding issues regarding this company. He noted there has been a question regarding the slope of the Northbrook sidewalk, where eight (8) location may not meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, and Saboungi is also being questioned regarding the work done at the Ames House and the MacDonald House. He stated Saboungi had a number of projects which they are working on throughout Volusia County. Commissioner Boyle expressed concern regarding Saboungi’s use of day labor when skilled employees may be needed, and he noted if all the sidewalks are awarded to one company, the sidewalk timetable cannot be accelerated. He advised he is fully confident that since Saboungi has done good work for the City in the past, these questions can be resolved; therefore, he recommended the Commission table this item until these questions can be satisfactorily answered by Saboungi. Commissioner Gillooly concurred with Commissioner Boyle’s concern regarding the use of day laborers. He noted the work done by Saboungi at the fire station on East Granada Boulevard was equally slipshod as that done at the Ames House. Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, stated the contractor has done a good job on the sidewalks he has previously completed, and he noted the City consultant has informed him that the Northbrook sidewalk slopes meet ADA requirements. Mr. MacLeod stated Saboungi has been responsive in answering citizen complaints; he is the low bidder; and he has confidence Saboungi will do a good job on the proposed project. Mayor Hood stated that, in the past, Saboungi has been below or on budget and has completed projects in a timely manner. Commissioner Persis stated the incident on the Northbrook sidewalks was an isolated incident. Mayor Hood noted that in the eight (8) years he has been on the City Commission, Saboungi has done numerous jobs and has consistently done first rate work; and if a problem arises, they are quick to fix any problems that come up. He stated that every construction company uses day laborers. Commissioner Boyle stated he is not proposing this contract be rejected, but that more information he obtained before it is approved. He stated the issues of concern regarding the Northbrook sidewalk are the eight (8) specific locations where the slopes are in question and the issue as to whether the sidewalks are allowed to have a steeper slope in the area of driveways. Commissioner Boyle concurred that Saboungi has done fine work for the City in the past eight (8) years, and explained he does not object to the use of day labor unless this help is assigned to do skilled work. Commissioner Boyle reiterated he is merely asking for a report from the company, and if the criticisms are unfair, they may respond to that. Mr. Miller noted that the complaints regarding ADA compliance at Northbrook are really complaints against the staff, not the contractor, since the contractor is performing under the direction of the engineering staff; however, Commissioner Boyle stated it is his understanding that a third party, a consultant, certified the slopes of the sidewalk. He noted he is questioning eight (8) specific locations which would probably take someone, under City supervision, about 10 minutes to go out to the sidewalk and certify that the slopes are correct. Commissioner Boyle requested these results be put in writing to the City Commission. Mr. MacLeod advised that the project engineer did go out and check all 18 locations, and the requirements were met. He stated the project engineer reported to him both verbally, and in writing; whereby, Commissioner Boyle stated that if he had been provided a copy of that document and a report of what Mr. MacLeod observed, he would not have raising the question. Mayor Hood clarified that the motion is to approve Resolution No. 99-156, awarding the bid to Saboungi.
Commissioner Persis asked if the Commission would be voting to table this issue; whereby, Mayor Hood requested that this item be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Miller advised that the next City Commission meeting is next Wednesday, October 6, 1999; therefore, staff is requesting that anything that is tabled be placed on the second meeting in October agenda. No objections to tabling the item were voiced. Item #8(A) - Outdoor Display and Sale of Products Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(A). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 40
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-40, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(B) - Florida Urology Land Use Map Change Mr. Don O'Donniley, Planning Director, explained the proposed small scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Long-range Land Use Plan is from Open Space Conservation to City Office Professional, a rezoning to B-10 (Suburban Boulevard), and the provision of a conservation easement for a 0.11 acre parcel is proposed. He stated the second parcel is a 3.02 acre parcel currently in Volusia County designated Urban Low Intensity and proposed to be amended to City Office Professional and be rezoned to B-10 (Suburban Boulevard). Mr. O'Donniley added the third parcel is 4.11 acres, which is essentially a wetland area with upland buffer designated Volusia County Urban Low Intensity and is proposed to be amended to City Open Space Conservation with zoning to be Special Environment. He noted there is also a request for approval of the addition to the existing building under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which would be triggered because the building is over 10,000 square feet. Mr. O'Donniley explained a parking deferment for a parking garage is sought for future construction in the second phase of this project. He advised staff recommendation is for approval of all the proposed actions. Mr. James Morris, attorney for the applicant regarding these four (4) items, stated he would not make a presentation, but rather answer any questions. Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to close the public hearing on Item #8(B). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 43
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-43, on first and only reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(C) - Florida Urology Annexation Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #8(C). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 26
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-26, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(D) - Florida Urology Rezoning Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #8(D). The motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 - 41
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-41, on second reading, as read by title only.
Item #8(E) - Florida Urology Conditional Use Permit Amendment Mr. Morris stated that a part of this Conditional Use Permit request regards modification of a conservation easement. He advised the City’s legal staff has made it clear there needs to be a finding of public interest and support of the public interest in order to support that vacation and to keep the Commission on proper precedent as they would proceed on other similar requests. Mr. Morris noted the various advisory boards have made adequate findings regarding the benefit; therefore, he requested the Commission move to incorporate, by reference, the findings of the advisory boards. Commissioner Boyle expressed appreciation to Mr. Morris and the applicant for their sensitivity to the wishes of the people regarding conservation and buffer zones and for the creative solution to the problems. Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to close the public hearing on Item #8(E). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 161
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Resolution No. 99-161, as read by title only.
Item #8(F) - RaceTrac Service Station Items Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Items #8(F)(1) and 8(F)(2). The motion carried unanimously. Item #8(F)(1) - RaceTrac Service Station Quitclaim Deed RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 162
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Resolution No. 99-162, as read by title only. Mr. O'Donniley stated subsequent to the action by the Development Review Board, the State has provided additional input and requested the actual location of the easement be moved 10 feet to the west. He noted the Site Plan Review Committee will set the final design on the driveway after the easement leaves the State right-of-way, but the State generally takes the lead in terms of the access from the State right-of-way. He explained the City is only allowing two (2) feet of the non-access easement, but is not accepting a design. Commissioner Boyle expressed appreciation to Mr. O'Donniley for the minutes of the board meeting, stating they were very helpful.
Item #8(F)(2) - RaceTrac Service Station Amended Development Order RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 163
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 99-163, as read by title only.
Item #8(G) - Vanguard South 40 Offices Mr. O'Donniley explained this Conditional Use Permit is zoned B-10 (Suburban Boulevard) which permits 10,000 square foot office development as a matter of right. He stated this is before the Commission because of the additional 3,289 square feet of office space proposed. Mr. O'Donniley noted on August 26, 1999, the Development Review Board unanimously recommended approval with a condition that a second access be provided to SR 40. He explained staff has been working with the applicant and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on a proposed joint access point with this property and the property to the west. Mr. O'Donniley advised FDOT informed him that a determination relative to that access will be forthcoming in approximately 45 days, and they have given the opportunity for City staff and the applicant to meet with them should they not look favorably on the request. He pointed out the proposal does meet all the requirements of the Concurrency Management System, and staff reaffirms its recommendation of approval based on access from Sage Brush Trail. Mayor Hood asked the City Attorney if he is correct in his understanding that because the applicant meets all of the terms and conditions of the Conditional Use Permit requirements, the City Commission has no legal authority to not approve the request; whereby, Mr. Hayes replied that as it relates to the secondary access on Granada Boulevard, the Commission may not disapprove the request without some finding that the criteria has not been met. He added that staff has a reported that all criteria has been met. Commissioner Boyle stated that due to the request for the larger size building, this project is before the City Commission for review. He stated this extra space would require additional trips, which could affect the Commission’s decision. Commissioner Boyle asked that if this property did not have the access to the residential street, if FDOT would not be making a determination on this issue and the project would automatically receive the access. Mr. O'Donniley replied he was not aware of this, but explained the original condition for limitation of access was set by the City Commission in a 1986 Resolution. He stated previously when this has been considered, it was initiated by private parties for a private party’s benefit, rather than for public access. Commissioner Boyle stated this was a different issue in 1983 when SR 40 was a two (2) lane road and the City Commission limited access. Mr. O'Donniley noted that FDOT has reviewed at this particular point of access twice in the past and rejected it, but the concern regarded FDOT land with a private access for private benefit. Commissioner Boyle questioned if the City knows whether FDOT took into consideration that less than one-half (½) mile west, a new traffic light was being installed which could have a bearing on the decision regarding what access FDOT would allow to eastbound lanes. Mr. O'Donniley replied he is under the impression FDOT was aware of this fact the last time access was sought. He explained a level of service (LOS) is adopted in the long-range plan and this area is considered LOS "C." Mr. O'Donniley stated the additional trips do not bring Sage Brush Trail below the LOS "C" designation. Mayor Hood summarized that this project complies with all terms, conditions, and requisites; whereby, Mr. O'Donniley agreed, but recommended the City Commission endorse staff’s efforts to seek the additional access. Mr. Hayes warned against the Commission getting into a position that a condition is imposed with which the applicant cannot legally comply. Commissioner Persis questioned what hope the residents could be given that FDOT will favor this access and if there will be a cost to FDOT; whereby, Mr. O'Donniley answered that the applicant would build the access, and the City would maintain it, costing FDOT nothing. Commissioner Persis noted the applicant, residents of Sage Brush Trail, and the City officials want the curb cut; and since the City has been successful in past endeavors, he contended a strong case could be made to allow the curb cut. Mayor Hood stated the developer and City should do all it can to get FDOT to agree to the access, but that is not the issue. He advised if FDOT approves or disapproves the curb cut, it has no legal relevance to whether the City approves or disapproves this application. Commissioner Gillooly stated that assuming FDOT does not give approval, he cannot, at this time, approve a building one-third larger than the basic 10,000 square foot allowed. He noted the extra one-third size of the building will generate more traffic on a residential area. Mayor Hood reiterated the Commission does not have the legal right to deny this application even at 13,289 square feet since the applicant has met all requirements. He stated approval must be given to avoid legal challenge and create liability on the part of the City. Commissioner Boyle disagreed, stating the reason this issue is before the Commission is because of the Conditional Use Permit for the larger building. He explained that even though staff has stipulated the larger building would not create an additional number of trips triggering a threshold, there will be additional trips generated; and on that basis, the Commission is on firm legal ground in denying the permit for the larger building. Commissioner Boyle stated the Land Development Code requires a six (6) foot masonry wall where commercial areas abut residential areas; but in this area, not only will there be no wall, but all the traffic is being routed through a residential area. He noted while he is sensitive to the fact that "time is money," he urged the City Commission to table this issue until after FDOT’s response. Commissioner Boyle added he was told that depending on if there will be a curb cut, the parking lot may be situated differently. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to table this issue until FDOT responds to the request for the curb cut. Commissioner Persis agreed that if the City Commission is not ready to approve it, the item should be delayed rather than denied. He noted the applicant has made tremendous effort to accommodate the City and the residents of Sage Brush Trail. Mr. Jim Cooksey, President,, Massie Cooksey and Associates, stated he represents Mr. Don Deal, owner of Lots 4 and 5 of the Trails South Forty Business Park. He reported the only access to Lot 5 is from Sage Brush Trail. Mr. Cooksey stated Mr. Deal is concerned these actions may constitute a taking of his property. Mr. Art Nustad, 204 Saddle Creek Trail, representing the South Forty Homeowners’ Association, urged the City Commission to support the residents in their effort to obtain ingress and egress onto SR 40. He stated nowhere else in the City of Ormond Beach is commercial traffic forced through a residential area. Mr. Nustad reported over 95% of the residents of South Forty are senior citizens, and with no sidewalks, the narrow streets would become an increased hazard. He stated traffic would have to go around a traffic island which is nearly impossible for trucks to maneuver. Mr. Nustad urged the City Commission to work with FDOT to allow SR 40 access. Ms. Rita Press, 975 Wilmette Avenue, stated the only reason the City Commission is being notified of this issue is that on October 19, 1998, the City Commission passed the 10,000 square foot ordinance. She stated checks and balances are essential to open, responsive government and orderly growth, and tonight it is apparent why this is important. Ms. Press asked Mayor Hood if there were any reason he should recuse himself from this vote; whereby, Mayor Hood replied he fully intends to recuse himself because he represents both Drs. Yoon who are developing the building. Mr. Willard Berg, 114 Horseshoe Trail, vice-president of the Trails South Forty Homeowners’ Association, stated the vehicle entrance from SR 40 to the sidewalk in front of KinderCare was installed during reconstruction when other like entrances were being constructed. He questioned why FDOT allowed the construction if it were illegal. Mr. Berg reported traffic on SR 40 and Saddle Creek Trail has already become a bypass to Clyde Morris Boulevard to avoid the Clyde Morris Boulevard and SR 40 traffic signal. He noted speeding has increased as have accidents and near misses. Mr. Berg repeated a quote made by Vanguard Realty which maintained that "the planned 61 parking spaces will not contribute to traffic problems once they are parked." He advised the proposed building will undoubtedly have an ongoing flow of customers entering and leaving, as well as an additional number of trucks servicing the building. Mr. Berg questioned where the heavy construction vehicles and workers would park during construction without egress to SR 40. He stated the 180 residents of the Trails South Forty Homeowners’ Association request this building be denied unless egress through SR 40 is approved. Mr. Russ Nicastro, 6 Mimosa Trail, stated the reason FDOT has previously denied the request for egress onto SR 40 is because it would interfere with the flow of traffic on SR 40, but FDOT doesn’t seem to be concerned regarding access on the southbound lane on SR 40 allowed in the earlier item. Mr. O'Donniley explained that Mr. Nicastro is referring to the RaceTrac project, but he clarified that access is a "right in only" with no exit onto SR 40. Mr. Nicastro urged the City Commission to place the full weight of the City of Ormond Beach into appealing to FDOT for this curb cut. Mr. Norm Bennett, 206 Sage Brush Trail, pointed out drainage will have an effect on the community. He stated there is a retention pond at South Forty which contains the water from the parking lot of two (2) commercial buildings plus KinderCare. Mr. Bennett stated the homeowners have been maintaining this retention pond since 1985, and the cost, which was $1,700 this year, is paid through homeowners’ association dues. He stated the pond is now filled to capacity; therefore, he stated it is possible the drainage system cannot accommodate this new building. Mr. Bennett also noted traffic a potential problem. Mayor Hood clarified the traffic count falls within the requirements of the code. Mr. Joe Hopkins, an engineer with the Performance Group and representing the applicant, Vanguard Realty, stated this subdivision was designed and approved in 1983. He noted Mr. Gerry Upson, the developer, and Mr. Bill Cross, engineer of this subdivision, informed him this parcel was designed to be a business park, with the retention pond creating an obscure shape for designing and permitting the commercial park; therefore, a residential area was added. He reiterated it was always the intent that this would be a commercial park. Mr. Hopkins advised the applicant met with the homeowners of the South Forty subdivision and tried to address their concerns, but they have no control over internal access. He reported the Performance Group approached FDOT early on and requested access to SR 40, but was adamantly denied, as was the prior owner, Mr. Bullard. Mr. Hopkins stated no changes to any of the planned improvements would be needed with regard to the building or parking if access were granted or denied. He stated the access would replace the dumpster pad if access to SR 40 is granted. Mr. Hopkins explained it appears the access constructed by KinderCare was constructed in violation of the Covenants and Restrictions of this subdivision, and it does not appear to have authorization from the FDOT. He added there has been consideration by the FDOT to close the access at KinderCare. Mr. Hopkins explained there is a pedestrian access connecting the ten (10) residents at the end of Sage Brush Trail to the recreational facilities within the overall subdivision, pointing out that this is an add on, not the primary portion of the subdivision. Commissioner Boyle pointed out that this City Commission is dealing with the problems of a previous Commission, approving a residential section with the only access through a commercial area. He asked if this is a common practice; whereby, Mr. Hopkins stated when the property was rezoned, it was rezoned from R3B to B9, and the residential portion was replatted. Mr. Hopkins explained that the increased trip generation would be between 11 and 16 depending on the use permitted in this zoning district. He noted the City Engineer stated in a letter that the project is prepermitted for 75% impervious area, while the proposal is for 65% impervious area, well within the limits. Mr. Hopkins pointed out that all conditions of the CUP have been complied with. He added the applicant will pursue the connection to SR 40; but independent of efforts to secure access, he requested the City Commission’s support since the rules and regulations have been complied with. Mr. Steve Bailey, 218 Sage Brush Trail, stated this was never brought to the residents’ attention when they were contemplating purchasing property on Sage Brush Trail. He stated motorists now cut through to reach Clyde Morris Boulevard, and he is concerned regarding the additional traffic generated by this use. Dr. Will McKillop, 222 Sage Brush Trail, expressed concern regarding additional traffic, especially delivery trucks parking on Sage Brush Trail further congesting the street. He stated the emergency and non-emergency vehicles bringing patients to the facility are also a concern. Ms. Sarah Vandagriff, Vanguard Commercial Realty, stated she has limited resources and is on a tight time schedule which, if not met, will be damaging to herself, her tenant, and the property owner. She noted the question before the City Commission is whether or not to approve the existing site plan, and to not approve it now damages the property, damages the value of the property, and sets a precedent for other properties. Ms. Vandagriff pointed out that the residential section was replatted as an afterthought of the developer and was always meant to be a business park which was stipulated in the name and title. She urged approval of the site plan and that the Commission pass a recommendation that the City Commission will back staff in applying to FDOT for the permit. Ms. Harriet Damesek, 4 Sandpoint Circle, questioned where the sewage from this building would flow. Mr. Hopkins assured there is adequate sewer as a condition of the subdivision plan. Ms. Damesek stated the sewer will flow through Coquina Point, along with the other new construction such as Lowe’s, the Southwest I-95 Interchange’s gas station, the Hampton Inn, and the Jamison Inn. She recommended a moratorium on all building until the sewage that is not properly flowing through Coquina Point is rerouted. Mr. Bill Olivari, 8 Creek View Way, with an office located at 141 Sage Brush Trail, pointed out this property was always intended to be accessed through Sage Brush Trail, and all the lots are platted so that none will have access to SR 40. He stated it was a mistake that KinderCare was approved access on SR 40, considering traffic safety and lack of a deceleration lane at this location. Mr. Olivari expressed concern regarding the size of the proposed building to the value of his property and other properties in the South Forty subdivision. He noted the larger concern is the next two (2) properties to be developed in the business park on the other side of Sage Brush Trail which will make the area more congested. He opposed allowing the building size larger than the 10,000 square feet that the City has mandated. Mr. Glenn Jaspers, 160 Ocean Terrace, recommended limiting the building to 10,000 square feet or allow 13,289 only if SR 40 access is approved which would be in compliance with the law. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #8(G). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 164
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to table this issue until the first meeting in November. Commissioner Gillooly expressed concern that this may not be enough time; whereby, Mayor Hood recommended that if more time is needed, the issue can be tabled to the following meeting. Commissioner Boyle requested staff, the applicant, and anyone else in the community do all that is possible to urge FDOT to allow this curb cut. He stated Ormond Beach has very effective and responsive State representatives, and when a community so solidly agrees on one point, this should be done quickly.
Mayor Hood advised he abstained because he represents both Drs. Yoon. Item #8(H) - Coastal (FINA) Service Station Conditional Use Permit Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #8(H). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 165
Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Resolution No. 99-165, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle asked if the motion recommended the 14.6 foot height and the eight (8) foot setback; whereby, Mr. O'Donniley explained the staff recommendation and Conditional Use Permit indicates a 12 foot height and a ten (10) foot setback. Commissioner Boyle noted he objects to number seven (7) on page three (3) of the Resolution which reads as follows: "….the proposed land use will not be aesthetically inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Granada/Bovard Streetscape Overlay District." He explained the applicant needs the 14.8 feet height because he currently has local contracts with diesel fuel buyers, as well as recreational vehicle fuel buyers, who have vehicles in excess of 12 feet. Commissioner Boyle advised that a main redevelopment problem Ormond Beach has in the downtown regarding gas station property is that the expense in converting a gas station to anything else is quite substantial. He stated Ormond Beach has a very eclectic downtown. Commissioner Boyle noted some of the Streetscape standards are subjective and arbitrary, primarily where redevelopment is concerned. He added the proposed redesign will improve the security of this building. Commissioner Boyle alerted the Commission that if this request is denied, the alternative is having boarded up abandoned property. Commissioner Boyle moved to amend, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to allow the higher canopy and an eight (8’) foot setback as the applicant had requested and to delete the aforementioned language which appears on page three (3), number seven (7), of the resolution. Mr. Hayes advised the language in the Conditional Use Permit also needs to be revised to reflect the motion’s amendments if it passes. Commissioner Boyle agreed to incorporate Mr. Hayes’ recommendation in the motion. Mr. O'Donniley stated that in the existing regulations, there are certain elements where the City Commission has discretion, but he pointed out the total height of the canopy is 17.6 feet with a clearance of 14.6 feet. Mr. O'Donniley pointed out the style is not a subjective judgment, as there are specific elements required in the guidelines of the Streetscape; and this project fails to demonstrate two (2) of the attributes that are spelled out in the code. Commissioner Boyle agreed there are minor elements in the code that may not be met by the architectural design, but they are so minor they are not aesthetically consistent with the purpose and intent of the Streetscape/Overlay District. Commissioner Persis asked if Mr. O'Donniley was referring to letter (c) on page four (4) when he stated the project fails to demonstrate certain attributes that are spelled out in the code. Mr. O'Donniley agreed that he was. Commissioner Boyle explained that according to Mr. Roger Strcula, the engineer, the requirements could not physically be accomplished; whereby, Mr. O'Donniley replied staff prepared an exhibit that demonstrated compliance can be met although it would cost additional funds. Commissioner Boyle revised his motion, splitting each aspect into a separate motion. Commissioner Boyle moved to amend, seconded by Commissioner Persis, to allow the higher canopy and the setback as requested by the applicant. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the height at the top of the canopy per the motion. Mr. O'Donniley explained the proposed height is 17 feet, six (6) inches, with clearance on 14 feet, six (6) inches. Commissioner Gillooly pointed out this canopy would be nearly two (2) stories tall. Commissioner Irvin questioned the height of the two (2) existing gas stations at the corner of Yonge Street; whereby, Mr. O'Donniley explained the Shell station has a clearance of 12 feet and the Texaco station has a 14 foot clearance. Commissioner Boyle asked if either station sells diesel fuel; whereby, Mr. O'Donniley answered that neither sells diesel fuel. Commissioner Boyle explained that the sale of diesel fuel is the issue at hand. Commissioner Gillooly noted that, aesthetically, the two (2) existing gas stations have more room around the canopies.
Commissioner Boyle moved to amend the resolution to delete the aforementioned language relative to architectural style which appears on page three (3), number seven (7) of the Resolution. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Boyle clarified that since his motion failed, the applicant must comply with the architectural requirements.
Item #8(I) - Discount Tire Development Order Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to close the public hearing on Item #8(I). The motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 166
Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Persis, for approval of Resolution No. 99-166, as read by title only.
Item #9(A) - Non-conforming Signs ORDINANCE NO. 99 -44
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-44, on first reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Boyle explained the first element of this Ordinance is to grandfather all non-conforming signs until they are damaged beyond 75% or there is a change in use. He stated the grants program he recommended was deemed to be too problematic to establish by staff, and he concurred with the decision to delete the program. Commissioner Boyle questioned the staff decision that the variance procedure be brought to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals rather than the Development Review Board as recommended by the Commission. He explained his concern is that after a decision is made by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, the only remedy the applicant has is through the court system; however, if the Development Review Board handles the appeal, the final decision would be heard by the City Commission. Commissioner Boyle recommended this procedure be kept in house rather than clogging up the court system. Commissioner Boyle moved to amend, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to route the variance procedure regarding signs only through the Development Review Board. Mr. O'Donniley asked the City Attorney to research this matter. He reported the Attorney General has issued an advisory opinion, which is not binding but us indicative of what is held in other states, that the delegation of this authority be limited to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mayor Hood asked if it would be illegal for the variance procedure to go anywhere but to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals; whereby, Mr. Hayes stated this is the State Attorney General Opinion and the most prudent methodology for the variances, but it would be possible to try to establish all the safeguards through the Development Review Board up to the City Commission and then route it through the circuit court.
Item #9(B) - Tymber Crossings Phase I ORDINANCE NO. 99 -45
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-45, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #9(C) - Chelsford Heights ORDINANCE NO. 99 -46
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-46, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #9(D) - Cost-of-Living Increase For Retired General Employees ORDINANCE NO. 99 -47
Commissioner Gillooly moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-47, on first reading, as read by title only. Commissioner Gillooly recommended increasing the three (3%) percent cost-of-living because it is spread over three (3) years and works out to be one (1%) percent per year. Commissioner Gillooly moved to amend the ordinance to change the cost-of-living increase to (4%) percent, which would cost approximately $9,000. Commissioner Boyle asked if the Commission wished to amend Chapter 16, Article I, of the Code of Ordinances, relative to the pension board review of cost-of-living adjustments because the current code calls for annual reviews, but the Commission reviews the adjustments only every three (3) years. He stated his decision on the percent of increase will be dependent upon how often it will be reviewed. Commissioner Boyle reported Mr. Paul Lane, Finance Director, advised that if automatic increases are to be established, they would need to be prefunded at a cost of $200,000. He explained he supports annual evaluation, but not necessarily annual increases. Commissioner Boyle stated it should not be necessary to make a motion regarding this, since the current law specifies annual evaluations, although the City has not been complying with its own policies. Mr. Randy Hayes, City Attorney, advised a simple motion to keep the Ordinance as it currently exists should be made, but he suggested the Commission consider the percentage of increase. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to leave Section 16-6 (C) (1) of the Code of Ordinances exactly as it currently reads, and not as proposed by staff. Mr. Paul Lane, Finance Director, explained that in the early 1980’s the stated review of ad hoc increases was not as stern as it became in the 1990’s. He noted in the 1980’s there were nine (9) increases given in ten (10) years; therefore, in the early 1990’s the actuary and plan attorney informed the City they no longer had the ability to give an annual increase under the guidelines of the present ordinance. Mr. Lane stated if an annual increase is desired by the Commission, it would be necessary to build it into the ordinance and prefund it so money would be set aside for current employees, while also funding for retirees. He recommended the City Commission make a decision in terms of how often they wish to offer an increase. Mr. Lane stated to offer an annual increase, an actuarial impact study must be performed, and it must be prefunded at approximately $200,000 annually. Commissioner Boyle pointed out that the ordinance, as it currently reads, requires the Pension Board to make a recommendation to the Commission, and this recommendation could be a recommendation for no increase, which would not trigger prefunding. Mr. Lane stated this would be ambiguous to the trustees. Commissioner Boyle agreed it may be ambiguous, but the wording does not promise annual increases, which is an important distinction. Mayor Hood stated this City Commission may not think an increase would trigger the prefunding, but it is up to the State, not the City Commission, who would make the decision. He stated any increase will trigger the prefunding mechanism. Mr. Lane explained that the actuary will look at the track record of the plan; and if there is an indication the City is moving to give increases on a regular basis, the actuary will advise the City they are not properly handling the liability accruing for the current employees. Commissioner Boyle noted cities have good years and bad years, and right now Ormond Beach has had a good year, but that may not be true next year. Commissioner Boyle pointed out the fund returned approximately $2 million in yield and paid out $900,000. He, again, advocated annual evaluations, and if, in the future, the State requires prefunding, the Commission would make that decision at that time. Mayor Hood clarified the motion was to amend by deleting the portion which states an increase be reviewed every three (3) years, leaving the Code in place. Commissioner Persis clarified that the City Commission will be the deciding authority on any increase.
Commissioner Boyle explained that the retirees have had no increase since 1996, and the 3% increase is less than 1% per year. He stated he is disappointed the actuary did not give a recommendation as to what percent is a "palatable" range of increase, but he explained the impact on the budget for a 3% increase would be $26,500 or approximately $9,000 per percentage point. Commissioner Boyle advocated a 4.5% increase, which would have an impact of approximate $40,000. Mayor Hood explained it would inappropriate to calculate the cost for this year alone, because it would compound in the future. Mr. Lane stated the assumption is to fund the increase over the average working lifetime of the employees, which is approximately 15 years. He noted for a 4.5% increase, the cost would be $40,275 per year for fifteen years. Mayor Hood asked if an analysis has been performed to determine if the City can financially afford this increase, and what rate of return would be needed to offer the increase. Mr. Lane stated the increase would be funded on an annualized bases; therefore, the assumption is that it would add that cost to the normal cost of the plan each year for 15 years. Commissioner Boyle stated that since there was no increase for the last two (2) years, the City was gaining over that period. Mr. Lane explained that it would not be prudent to compare what is being paid out to employees to what is banked; the entire liability of the plan, $22 million, with assets of $20 to $21 million must be calculated. He stated with a four and one-half (4½%) percent increase, the assets will not exceed the liabilities in the next couple of years, which does not mean the fund isn’t being funded properly, it is merely not fully funded. Commissioner Boyle advised that if there is a problem, Mr. Lane, as Chairman of the Pension Board, and two (2) other City employees on the board, can make a decision that no subsequent increases are warranted until the plan is corrected. He noted there are no retiree members on the board. Mr. Lane explained the composition of the board is the Finance Director, two (2) City employees, and two (2) members elected by the City Commission; therefore, if it is the desire of the City Commission to elect a retiree, it is within its power to do so. Commissioner Boyle noted no recommendation is available from an actuary specifying a certain percentage point that should not prudently be exceeded, nor does the Commission have the minutes from the Pension Board meetings which may be of assistance in the decision-making process. Mr. Lane advised the three (3%) percent increase is merely a recommendation from the board which is based upon the funding status of the plan, the actual rate of inflation for the past several years, and the record of what has been approved previously. He noted for the past 20 years, the normal increases have been in the two (2%) to three (3%) percent range. Commissioner Boyle asked what the total cumulative inflation rate for the past three (3) years was; whereby, Mr. Lane advised the cumulative rate was 6.23% from August 1996, to August 1999, and in the prior three (3) year period, the rate was 8.6%. Commissioner Persis stated he was considering a five (5%) percent increase. He noted government employees are good workers who do not make a lot of money, and if the City has good economic times, these workers should be able to reap some of the benefit of this prosperity. Commissioner Persis pointed out the City will not always be prosperous, but when there is prosperity, the retirees should share in it. Commissioner Gillooly noted that the five (5%) percent is not solely for this year, but is projected out for 15 years. He stated once it has been approved, it cannot be taken back in a year that is not as prosperous. Mayor Hood advised he supports giving a reasonable percentage increase, but the ultimate cost is the question; therefore, he is concerned with the recommended increases without benefit of an actuarial report. Commissioner Gillooly asked if this could be postponed until actual figures could be received; whereby, Mr. Lane replied the decision is solely contingent upon the discretion of the City Commission. Commissioner Gillooly recommended postponing this issue until an actuarial report would show the difference between the three (3%), four and one-half (4½%), or five (5%) percent increase. Mr. Lane explained the letter from Foster and Foster which was included in the Commission packet explained the increase would cost $8,950 per year, keyed upon the assumption that the assets would earn at least eight (8%) percent. Commissioner Boyle agreed he is uncomfortable without further information, but this same discussion with the same concerns was voiced in December 1998. He noted he expected that after that meeting the Pension Board was to meet, discuss these ideas, and report back to the Commission, but nothing was forthcoming. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to provide a five (5%) percent cost-of-living increase as recommended by Commissioner Persis.
Item #9(E)(1) - Firefighters’ Pension Trust Fund ORDINANCE NO. 99 -48
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-48, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #9(E)(2) - Police Officers’ Pension Trust Fund ORDINANCE NO. 99 -49
Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, for approval of Ordinance No. 99-49, on first reading, as read by title only.
Item #10(A) - VCOG Report Commissioner Boyle advised the current annual cost of membership in the Volusia Council of Governments (VCOG) is $12, 999. He noted Mayor Hood made his position known on a radio show which is to continue with VCOG for one (1) more year to determine if they are able to be of assistance to the cities, and if they are not, to make a decision at that time. Commissioner Boyle reported he examined the list of current and planned activities and was unable to find a single item that could not be accomplished through other offices, other organizations, or City staff. He noted the entire time he has been a Commissioner, he has not received a single report from VCOG or the City’s representative other than a newsletter which he received last month. Commissioner Boyle pointed out the following items that do not appear on the list, but are relevant to intergovernmental relations: there are no interlocal agreement initiatives for cities and counties on growth, development, rules, boundary disputes, wetland protection, and urban sprawl; there is nothing related to special events such as Black College Reunion; there is nothing regarding hurricane evacuations; and there is nothing regarding wildfire prevention. He noted Daytona Beach, Deltona, Daytona Beach Shores, and two (2) other cities are no longer members of VCOG, and Volusia County voted to stay in by a slim 4/3 vote. Commissioner Boyle stated VCOG has had its chance to improve, and the funds can be better spent. Commissioner Boyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Irvin, to drop out of VCOG. Mr. Miller spoke in support of continuing Ormond Beach’s relationship with VCOG. He stated that he and other City Managers are confident VCOG has turned around with the hiring of Mr. Greg Wood who is making contacts that will result in better, more visible efforts toward the need for intergovernmental cooperation. Mr. Miller stated VCOG must take over the effort of the Local Government Study Commission. He noted Daytona Beach is the only city that is not a member; Daytona Beach Shores has rejoined VCOG. Mr. Miller urged the Commission to be a leader and give VCOG another chance. Commissioner Gillooly agreed with Commissioner Boyle that in the past VCOG has been very impudent, but they may be on the right track now; and he lent his support to remaining in VCOG. Commissioner Boyle mentioned further issues such as beach issues and the gas tax dispute. He stated he might be willing to give VCOG a chance if he had had any communication from them. Mayor Hood took responsibility for the lack of reports received from VCOG since he is the VCOG representative. He stated if VCOG has adopted polices, he has brought them to the City Commission, but he did not necessarily articulate that they have been VCOG motions. Mayor Hood recommended staying in VCOG, and the next VCOG representative be asked to give monthly reports. He advised one of Volusia County’s main problems is the cities cannot seem to get together; therefore, they do not work together for a common goal. Mayor Hood agreed that unless things change within the organization with tangible results, he would also advocate leaving VCOG. Commissioner Boyle explained that based on Mayor Hood’s articulation of the issues, he is willing to fund membership in VCOG if he can be assured Ormond Beach will be able to have input into what VCOG does in helping facilitate interlocal agreements, and reports are received on VCOG’s accomplishments. Commissioner Boyle withdrew the motion. Mayor Hood advised Mr. Wood heard Commissioner Boyle’s request and assured him VCOG will comply with the request. Item #10(B) - Drainage Pond at 49 Pine Trail Mayor Hood reported the memo received from the City Attorney indicates the City has no legal responsibility and would have a legal liability if the City complied with Mr. Dean Reasy’s request to maintain the pond. Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, noted Mr. Reasy was sent a copy of the City Manager memorandum concerning this issue. Mayor Hood asked Mr. Reasy if his attorney has a different opinion from that of the City Attorney; whereby, Mr. Reasy advised he does not have an attorney and hoped to remedy the situation at the City Commission level, without the need of a lawsuit. Mr. Reasy stated if the pond were completely private, he would be willing to maintain it, but the City uses this pond. He pointed out that he has an agreement between the developer and the City of Ormond Beach. Mr. Hayes explained the City has the right to maintain the pond, and certainly to the extent that there may be any damage caused by the City’s easement to adjoining properties, the City may have an obligation; however, according to the engineering staff, the conditions at the pond are not created by the City. Mayor Hood advised there is agreement that there is a legal maintenance obligation; the dispute is the factual question as to whether the use of the City’s easement has created the erosion. Commissioner Boyle stated a City drainage pipe is draining into a private lake by an easement granted in 1976. He noted he agreed with the legal opinion that the City has the right, but not the obligation, to maintain the easement, which is the same language that applied to the prior Putnum and Warwick easement. Commissioner Boyle also agreed that the City does not wish to set a precedent so they would have to maintain every private retention pond in the City. He stated that while the City may not have a legal obligation to Mr. Reasy, it does have a moral and ethical obligation to Mr. Reasy due to the special and unusual circumstances in that the report by Kimberly Buck of Alann Engineering contradicts the opinion of the engineering staff regarding the degree to which the stormwater is causing the erosion. Commissioner Boyle stated if the pipes are leaking, the City would be liable. He noted concern regarding potential legal costs even though he is confident the City could defend the charges in court. Commissioner Boyle asked why the homeowners would grant the City the easement if they received nothing in return. Commissioner Boyle moved to have the City engineer the correction of this pond. Mr. Ted MacLeod, Public Works Director, explained that he spoke to the principal of the Alann Engineering firm regarding the letter by Ms. Buck and was informed they did not view the occurrence during a rainstorm. He stated a possibility for the erosion is the rise and fall of the lake. Commissioner Boyle asked if it were possible the cause of the rise and fall of the lake is the 23 years of accumulated silt and sediment raising the bottom of the lake; whereby, Mr. MacLeod replied that was very unlikely. Mr. MacLeod warned of setting a costly precedent for other similar properties throughout the City. He noted the reason the stones were offered to Mr. Reasy was because the City had a surplus of stones and offered them as "a good neighbor." Commissioner Boyle stated the City could shore up the banks of this lake as a unique public purpose without setting a precedent for all the other retention ponds in the City. Mr. Reasy suggested there may be a leak in the pipe causing the erosion. Mayor Hood stated the City’s engineer has made a determination that the City’s easement is not causing the problem, and Mr. Reasy’s engineer has made a determination that the City’s easement is causing the problem; therefore, he suggested choosing an independent engineer who does not do business with the City to make a determination. He stated if that engineer determines the erosion is caused by the City’s easement, the City will fix the problem; and if the engineer determines it is not caused by the City’s easement, the City will not fix the problem. Mr. Reasy asked who would hire the engineer; whereby, Mayor Hood explained that Mr. Reasy’s engineer and the City would agree on an independent engineer who would be paid by the City to perform the service. Commissioner Boyle commended Mayor Hood for his sound reasoning, but added that Ms. Buck is a highly respected engineer whose report does not equivocate in its determination; therefore, there already is a report from an engineer. He questioned the possibility of having the Legal Department rescind the easement and not allow the stormwater to be diverted into this private pond, which would unequivocally end the City’s liability. Mayor Hood called for a second to Commissioner Boyle’s motion. Hearing none, the motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Persis moved, seconded by Commissioner Gillooly, to hire a neutral engineer to make a determination if the City is responsible for the erosion of Mr. Reasy’s pond.
Item #10(C) - Remodeling of Ames House Commissioner Boyle stated he finds it interesting that staff places the sole responsibility for the quality of the work performed at the Ames House on the architect when there are three (3) oversight responsibilities: the architect, the City, and the contractor. He noted staff is suggesting a lot of the damage had been done prior to the remodeling work, but he witnessed evidence that damage occurred during the reinstallation of the wood. Commissioner Boyle added there are other problems with the work that have nothing to do with budget, and he questioned who in the City signed off on this, and how Mr. Saboungi could sign off on his own contract. He stated the work was not up to the normal expectations of the City and does not meet industry standards. Commissioner Boyle requested a more detailed communication to this Commission from Mr. Saboungi. He questioned what the City’s oversight system is, and recommended the City not entertain any more bids until this is resolved. Mayor Hood suggested when there are problems in the future, they not be voiced first at a City Commission meeting. He stated Mr. Saboungi is an employer and a good citizen who has done a lot of work with the City, and he deserves to be treated with dignity. Mayor Hood recommended a more appropriate way to handle the situation would be to take concerns to staff and ask that the staff and Mr. Saboungi respond to the issue, and then if the Commissioner does not get an appropriate response, that is the time to bring it to the City Commission. He stated Mr. Saboungi was livid at the way he perceived he was being treated since he didn’t have the ability to either rebut, nor did he have any notice that that was an issue that needed to be dealt with. Commissioner Boyle responded that had City staff, not an architect, exercised proper oversight, and had Mr. Saboungi exercised his own oversight, this would not have reached the point where it became a public issue; and if staff and the contractor do not exercise oversight, then he really had no other recourse but to make it a public issue and alert his fellow Commissioners and citizens. Mayor Hood reiterated he does not disagree with bringing an issue to the Commission if staff has failed to respond, but if somebody brings a concern that something was done inappropriately, then the Commission owes it to that person and to the staff to at least meet with them, describe the complaint, and receive an explanation. He stated if the Commissioner determines staff is not responding adequately, the Commissioner is perfectly within his rights to bring the matter up at a City Commission meeting. Item #11 - Audience Comments On Agenda Items There were no audience comments. Item #12 - Reports, Suggestions, Requests Economic Development Parameters Commissioner Boyle stated he and Mr. Miller discussed the economic development parameters question and concluded this would be best discussed at the goal setting meeting of the next Commission. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Miller for the meeting and for resolving the issue. Facility Fees to Schools Commissioner Boyle thanked Mr. Miller and all associated staff responsible for the successful negotiations with the School Board regarding facility fees to Seabreeze High School. Staff Performance During Hurricane Commissioner Boyle expressed appreciation to the Public Works Department, Mr. Miller, Mr. MacLeod, and the other City employees who serve and protect the citizens, especially during the recent hurricane threat. Cleanup of Abandoned Houses Commissioner Irvin reiterated Commissioner Boyle’s staff kudos. She commended Code Enforcement, Chief Building Official Mr. Robert Dunn, Mr. MacLeod and the Police Department for their efforts in cleaning up the depressing areas of Ormond Beach by demolishing many abandoned and neglected houses. Communications Between Citizens and the City Commissioner Gillooly recommended a citizen workshop to let the citizens voice their problems and to better enable the City to communicate the problems they face when a potential storm threatens the area. He asked this be placed on the next agenda as a discussion item. The Trails Variance Problem Commissioner Boyle asked for an update on the problems The Trails residents are having relative to variance appeals to zero lot lines. Mr. Miller replied staff members are diligently working on this issue. Mr. MacLeod noted the goal is to have a plan to resolve this issue for the next City Commission meeting. Development Review Board Minutes Commissioner Gillooly expressed appreciation for the Development Review Board minutes provided with Commission packet items. He stated they were extremely helpful. Arroyo Parkway Commissioner Gillooly asked if the City has received the questionnaires sent to the Arroyo Parkway area. Mr. MacLeod reported the questionnaires are coming in slowly. Mr. Miller stated a deadline had not been set because if there is a poor response, staff will make contact to gather a greater response to create a valid report. Annexation Meeting Mr. Miller advised Daytona Beach Commissioner Cherry cannot attend the meeting scheduled for October 7, 1999. He asked if October 12, 1999, |