Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_2009 04 20 City Commission Special MinutesCITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 20, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The Special Meeting of Monday, April 20, 2009 of the City Commission was called to Order by Deputy Mayor Joanne M. Krebs at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). Roll Call: Mayor John F. Bush, absent Deputy Mayor Joanne M. Krebs, present Commissioner Jean Hovey, present Commissioner Rick Brown, absent Commissioner Gary Bonner, present Commissioner Sally McGinnis, present City Manager Kevin L. Smith, arrived at 6:02 p.m. City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, arrived at 6:01 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance followed a moment of silence. City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese arrived at 6: 01 p. m. Deputy Mayor Krebs spoke for the Record about the City Commission being in attendance. Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Charles Lacey introduced the other attending Members of the Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency: Vice Chairman Bill Poe, Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Board Member Rosanne Karr, and Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Board Member Justin Reviczky. City Manager Kevin L. Smith arrived at 6: 02 p, m. Discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 2 OF 13 PUBLIC INPUT No one spoke REGULAR AGENDA REGULAR 600. Community Development Department -Planning Division Requests That The City Commission Review The Recommendations Of The Local Planning Agency Related To The Draft Evaluation And Appraisal Report (EAR)- Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Provide Comment, And Give Direction On Desired Revisions. Ms. Eloise Sahlstrom, AICP, ASLA, Senior Planner, Community Development Department began the discussion with a PowerPoint presentation. Discussion. The TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT was reviewed first. Further discussion. Mr. Brian Fields, P.E., City Engineer, Public Works Department addressed the City Commission and stated, "If we look at the State Roads, there are some roads that we would probably support widening -when it came up. (State Road) 419 which is a two- lane arterial; and (State Road) 434 east of the (State Road) 417 -both two-lanes; they probably would need to be four-lanes. For the four-laned section of (State Road) 434, that's where I think there might be some concern - do we want asix-lane arterial roadway essentially bisecting our City? Probably not. There are some Policies in here, this is one of them that would give us support to opposing such a project. Having said that, there are no plans in place on any of those State Roads to do any widening in the near future -just so the Commission and the Board is aware of that." Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Lacey said, "I would just emphasize that that is a Policy you might want to look at to make sure you concur with. I mean that was the recommendation of the Engineer and of the LPA (Local Planning Agency), and just for reference and cross-references, the more explicit statement in Policy 1.9.9: that says to discourage the widening of (State Road) 434 west of Vistawilla Drive. I think that is an existing Policy of the City, but since this is a new compilation of the Commission, you might just want to look at that and make sure you affirm that decision." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 3 OF 13 Discussion. Further discussion followed on bringing in more businesses and traffic. Ms. Sahlstrom commented on Policy 1.1.8: and asked, "Whether you would want to specify instead of just saying "West of Vistawilla (Drive), if you would want to specify, from (US Highway) 17-92 to Vistawilla (Drive); so it's clear that it is talking about a certain segment..." Deputy Mayor Krebs stated, "...I think that sounds clearer..." Ms. Sahlstrom continued, "Because that's not clear which segment you're talking about." With further comments, Commissioner Gary Bonner said, "Establishing this in our Comprehensive Plan is sending a message. I just don't know if it's a message that we will win -the day with. I think the answer is really addressed in - 1.5: where we talk about multimodal transportation. I wonder if there needs to be a reference in 1.1.8:, that our vision for the -alternative - to widening is to really encourage regional thinking and multimodal as the alternative to simply putting down more asphalt. And I don't know if that is the right place in the document to -put such a statement in the ground." Continuing, Commissioner Bonner said, "Not only do we not want to put down more asphalt, but we really would like to partner with our neighbors to really go more aggressively in a direction of multimodal." Deputy Mayor Krebs referenced Policy 1.1.8: and said, "Do you want to change the language to say (US Highway) 17-92 to Vistawilla (Drive), so that it is clearer?" Commissioner Bonner remarked, "I support that." Commissioner Jean Hovey commented, "Yes." No objections were noted." Deputy Mayor Krebs then stated, "Please change that." Ms. Sahlstrom then added, "And that would also affect Policy 1.9.9:" Deputy Mayor Krebs said, "So we'll take out the west of Vistawilla (Drive) and substitute (US Highway) 17-92 to Vistawilla (Drive)." Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Lacey added, "That would be in both Policy 1.1.8: and 1.9.9:?" Deputy Mayor Krebs remarked, "Right." Discussion. Tape 1/Side B Attorney Garganese suggested, "Give some examples rather than using `Absolutely warranted' -one example Brian (Fields) mentioned is that the Property Owner doesn't have any access to local roads so in that case; they would be entitled to a driveway cut on a collector road because that is what the law would require." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 4 OF 13 Furthermore, Attorney Garganese noted, "The other issue would be `What if someone that had one (1) driveway cut on a collector road wanted to redesign that driveway cut on the collector road, so they had one before and then one after, and they didn't have access to a local road, would that be allowed -they wanted to move it, they wanted to make it safer -would that be allowed?" Ms. Sahlstrom remarked, "That's a good point, because it does say `New' - I think we can add some additional language." Attorney Garganese noted, "Absolute means absolute. It's a very strong and harsh word; and I would recommend not using that term." Attorney Garganese suggested, "Unless necessary, because no other access to a local road is available, and then I think you may want to add another sentence that `This Policy doesn't prohibit redesigning an existing driveway cut on a collector road, providing there is no other access on a local road'." Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Lacey asked, "Does the Commission agree with that language?" Commissioner Sally McGinnis said, "I do." Deputy Mayor Krebs stated, "Yes." No objections were voiced. Attorney Garganese referenced Policy 1.3.3: and noted, "It says, `require anew development and substantial redevelopment to connect to existing adjacent roadways, bicycle facilities, and sidewalks...'; and we talked about that at the last Meeting -they're in place so it's reasonable to require the connectivity. Then it says, `or otherwise "stub- out" to future development sites...'." Attorney Garganese then explained, "I read that, if there are existing adjacent roadways, then they don't have to provide connectivity because there is an `or', they can just "stub-out" the future development sites? That doesn't read right to me." Continuing, Attorney Garganese recommended, "You might want to put a `.' there and then maybe have another concept there. Yes, get rid of the word `or' and then in addition, require "stub-outs" to future development sites, except when such connections would be..." Attorney Garganese further recommended, "You might just want to use a simple word like `unreasonable'." Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Lacey noted, "This would be an area where Commissioner Bonner's notice of the word `Require' might deserve softening where you're stubbing out for some future thing, to soften that from `require' to `encourage' might be appropriate." Commissioner Bonner suggested, "Require' where `existing', `encourage' where `planned', is that what you are suggesting?" CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 5 OF 13 Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Lacey stated, "Conceptually, that's the notion that I'm signing onto." Continuing, "I was also struck in this entire Element, the number of `require's'; when I went through my final reading of it, and I actually flagged this `requires' as one that I thought could be softened, and now that Mr. Garganese has pointed out this disparity, I think going to existing development should be required. I agree with that, but for the future, that is a pretty onerous burden." Commissioner Bonner said, "That is my concern, is the nature of that future burden." Ms. Sahlstrom said, "Our (State Road) 434 Overlay District requires within the Code Cross-Access Easements. But, because it is Code language, it can be very dependent on other things. Because Barclay Reserve was looked at -for being a gated subdivision, it was -more difficult to interconnect it with across-Access Easement. And of course at this point in time, we still don't know that that property to the west will become - so, there's some language in place. It just depends on what you want. I personally think that we need to require Cross-Access Easements to help to alleviate the traffic on (State Road) 434 and to support interconnectivity." Deputy Mayor Krebs said, "I think we need to `require' it as well. I think you can `encourage' it, but I think encouraging isn't going to get you there. I think requiring it will get you there." Commissioners McGinnis and Hovey stated, "I agree." Discussion. Mr. Kip Lockcuff, P.E., Director, Public Works/LJtility Department remarked, "From our experience, `require', you cannot negotiate away with Developer Agreements. So, I would suggest you maybe require it be adopted in the Code, which Staff can still enforce, but the Commission have latitude in a DA (Developer Agreement) to consider the merits. Because we get hammered time and time again, that if it's in the Comp[rehensive] Plan you cannot change it, you cannot negotiate it. Period -you have no latitude." Attorney Garganese stated, "There are a couple things going on here. The first one is connectivity to existing roadways and bicycle facilities, etc. and then the other part which appears we may break out into another -Policy or sub-policy, just talks about connectivity to what future adjacent development sites, right? That's two (2) different issues. Kip (Lockcuff) brings up a good point -about trying not to tie your hands in your Comp[rehensive] Plan Policy to provide some flexibility. I suggest you just break it out into two (2) separate Policies, or two (2) sub-policies, within 1.3.3: and the Commission can decide whether you want to put `encourage' or `require' connectivity to adjacent development sites." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 6 OF 13 With further comments, Attorney Garganese noted, "You want to provide some flexibility at times because you can't use a crystal ball and determine what the future holds for every single development." Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "I personally think that the -last part of the sentence gives that wiggle room that's being discussed. For example, if the adjacent property had conservation area, that would be inappropriate to have a connection. That would be an example of that -but rather than having it deferred to the Code. I think the Policy needs to be in place that doesn't defer to the Code." Discussion. Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Lacey suggested, "`patently' is just a vague standard. You should strike `patently' and call it `inappropriate'." Deputy Mayor Krebs noted, "`Patently' is out." Discussion continued. The word "required" was further noted throughout 1.5:. Much discussion. Attorney Garganese said, "Generally, the Comp[rehensive] Plan is Goals, Policies and Objectives, broadly written because they're Policies. Land Development Regulations are the implementing vehicle by which you implement the Policies. The more stringent you make the Comp[rehensive] Plan, the more difficult it is to change. It requires State review. Furthermore, there are organizations that are trying to get on the ballot - Constitutional Amendments that would prohibit local governments from amending Comprehensive Plans without going to the Voters for approval. The State of Florida legislature talks about limiting local government's ability to maybe amend Comprehensive Plans once ayear - so, Comprehensive Plan is broad Policies. There are instances where you want to probably be emphatic, because Comprehensive Plans actually hold more weight than local Land Development Regulations, because everything has to be consistent with the Comp[rehensive] Plan, but it's a judgment call on where you want to be emphatic and where you don't. If you really think you've got the answers and you want to be emphatic about it, then sure, put in here, a prohibition or a requirement. But - if you're not sure where this thing is going to go and you can't be emphatic, then you want to provide maybe a little bit more wiggle room; so, when you get around to addressing it in your Land Development Regulations, hopefully by then you'll have more of the answers and more flexibility to change it." Discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 7 OF 13 Commissioner Bonner noted, "Listening to our Engineer, I don't think it's a quid pro quo approach, where we are going to force Developers to go through the design process and then they can write us a check, for things they are already paying Impact Fees for, I think is what I heard said; so, I think we just need -either strike the word `require', and turn this back into `encourage', or we need to go back to some other methodology that gives an appeal process and/or the ability for our Code people to do what they do." With further comments, Attorney Garganese suggested, "So, if there are situations where it should be `required', put it in the Land Development Code; and if you don't think it's required, don't put it in the Land Development Regulations." Deputy Mayor Krebs said, "That is a good idea." Commissioner McGinnis stated, "Yes." No objections were voiced. Discussion. Quid pro quo was further addressed. Tape 2/Side A Ms. Sahlstrom suggested that a developmental process needs to be outlined. Further discussion followed on quid pro quo and sidewalks. Mr. Fields explained, "The question is do you want to have any wiggle room, either in the Comp[rehensive] Plan or by deferring it to the Land Development Code?" Mr. Fields added, "It's a Policy decision. Any wiggle room at all in sidewalks?" Manager Smith remarked, "I think I am hearing the Board and the Commission express a strong desire to have sidewalks; and I think 1.5.3:, the first part gives us that language. I think the -rub is the quid pro quo language and I think what Staff - what I am saying to you is that appropriate location for the quid pro quo language would not be in 1.5.3:, but perhaps for future discussion in some other mechanism, albeit a Development Agreement or other avenue." Furthermore, Manager Smith added, "The language is adequate as written except for the last paragraph that addresses the quid pro quo and I would recommend again, that not be there." Commissioner McGinnis commented, "Okay. I agree." Deputy Mayor Krebs noted, "Okay." Transit shelters and LYNX was discussed next. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 8 OF 13 On the issues of shelters, Mr. Fields suggested, "I would have the development build the shelter, whether it is at their site or somewhere else." Mr. Fields proposed some suggested language as, "Transit shelter or equivalent, multimodal facility at a location to be determined by the City." Commissioner McGinnis remarked, "That is good." No objections were voiced. Attorney Garganese noted "I don't even see anything in this TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT that provides any sort of incentive for someone to have a well planned multimodal project." Commissioner Bonner suggested, "Your point is, that the need for multimodal should be..." Attorney Garganese added, "...Clearly evident." Ms. Sahlstrom asked about the status of Policy 1.6.2: and said, "I heard Brian's (Fields) suggestion which -was construct a transit shelter or equivalent, multimodal facility at a location to be determined by the City." Deputy Mayor Krebs asked, "Commissioners, any problem with that?" Commissioner McGinnis remarked, "I have no problem with that." No objections were noted. Further discussion. Ms. Sahlstrom advised the City Commission, "In this document, we did not include the maps that go along with it. We're finalizing those and they will be part of the Public Hearing process, so you might want to particularly look at those during the Public Hearing process to make sure you don't have any changes at that time." Tape 2/Side B "I WILL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE IT WITH THE CHANGES." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOVEY. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR KREBS. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER HOVEY: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR KREBS: AYE COMMISSIONER BONNER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. The FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT was discussed next. Discussion ensued on F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) and net and gross acreage. Further discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 9 OF 13 Attorney Garganese suggested, "You may want to put a Policy in here that gross acre will be defined by the City Commission pursuant to Land Development Regulations and then that will force you if this gets approved, to actually come up with - a definition." Deputy Mayor Krebs stated, "I think we should do that." Commissioner McGinnis also said, "I do too." Attorney Garganese added, "Or you can change it - `per developable acre', and define `developable acre' ." Deputy Mayor Krebs asked, "Can we do that?" Continuing, Attorney Garganese suggested the wording as - "The City Commission will - adopt a definition for -gross acre in the Land Development Code; or maybe you want to just change it generically. Instead of -putting `gross' or `net', just put `acre' or `developable acre'; and then the City Commission will define `developable acre' in the Land Development Regulations." Discussion. Furthermore, Attorney Garganese suggested, "You want to strike `gross' and change it to `developable' and then put a Policy in here that you will establish what that means in the Land Development Regulations." Deputy Mayor Krebs stated, "That is perfect." No objections were voiced. Further discussion. Attorney Garganese noted, "There is a specific Statute that addresses -the requiring of sewer hook-ups -rather than bog the Commission down, I want to go back and look at that; because it may be incomplete." Policy 1.4.4: was discussed next and Commissioner Bonner asked, "Did the Committee feel it was necessary to really make it specific and have only one (1) Workshop as opposed to have the latitude to hold that Workshop periodically?" With discussion, Commissioner Bonner suggested, "It may just be a matter of striking the word `a' - striking the `a' out of there." On Policy 1.5.4:, Ms. Sahlstrom remarked, "Instead of `located along' would be `fronting onto'." Deputy Mayor Krebs said "Okay." Commissioner Bonner also stated, "Okay" and brought up the issue of "Compatibility." Discussion. Further discussion. Policy 1.5.9: was addressed next, and Attorney Garganese said, "I would prefer to leave the language, the City Commission may adopt Planning Agreements with Seminole County and other neighboring cities rather than the proposed language for the second sentence." Deputy Mayor Krebs and Commissioner McGinnis stated, "Okay." Related to 1.5:, Attorney Garganese recommended, "I think the original Policy makes sense." With further comments, Attorney Garganese suggested, "Future development must be consistent with -the adopted Future Land Use Map." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 10 OF 13 Additionally, Attorney Garganese thought, "You can put some language in there about - `Non-Conforming Uses shall be regulated pursuant to the City's Land Development Regulations' and leave all the Non-Conforming Use issues to the Land Development Code. That would be my recommendation." Deputy Mayor Krebs asked Ms. Sahlstrom, "Did you get that?" Ms. Sahlstrom responded, "Yes." Discussion. Tape 3/Side A On Policy 1.11.4:, Commissioner Hovey suggested, "I think `Seminole County' should stay in there." Ms. Sahlstrom stated, "Alright." Discussion followed on residential development/density and the number of stories to be allowed in the Town Center. Deputy Mayor Krebs stated, "I am recommending that you just recommend high density - what the Policy was." Commissioner Bonner noted, "Go back to how it was written." Discussion followed on references to the GreeneWay and the Greenway Interchange District and how two (2) different spellings would be confusing. Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Board Member Karr left the Commission Chambers at 9:22 p. m. Discussion. Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Board Member Karr returned to the Commission Chambers at 9: 27 p. m. With further discussion, Ms. Sahlstrom stated, on 3.2:, "At this point, the direction is to keep the F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) of 2.0 and then when DCA (Department of Community Affairs) asks for more studies we -start trying to put the studies together to have that available for them? Is that the direction, rather than to keep the 1.0 that we currently have?" Commissioner Bonner stated, "We are fine with the 2.0 in the Greeneway Interchange [District]." No objections were voiced. Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Board Member Karr departed the Meeting at 9: 36 p.m. On 3.3.4: and water taxi's, Manager Smith commented on State funds and noted a deadline of May 6~' which he did not feel that Staff would have time to reach. The City Commission did not voice any objections. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 11 OF 13 Related to 5.1.1:, Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Board Member Poe stated, "Page I-23, there is a Typographical error on (6) -the second line..." Deputy Mayor Krebs added, "...The th.n.-the font is even different." Discussion. Two (2) stories in the Town Center was discussed next. Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Lacey suggested, "We felt that two (2) stories going forward was the standard we were going to adhere to and we thought this language accomplished it. Having read it - I think being more succinct than just saying two (2) stories is the preferable way to do it." Commissioner McGinnis stated, "Good." No objections were noted. Attorney Garganese added, "Strike everything starting with the word `of - to the end of the sentence - so, two (2) stories could be faux, it could be occupied space. It gives you some flexibility." Tape 3/Side B With further comments on the original Vision, Commissioner Bonner said, "Make it two (2) story." Commissioner McGinnis noted, "Absolutely." "I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE FUTURE LAND USE [ELEMENT) AS AMENDED." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOVEY. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER BONNER: AYE COMMISSIONER HOVEY: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR KREBS: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Discussion on the time followed. With no objections voiced, Deputy Mayor Krebs stated, "We will extend fifteen (15) minutes." The PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT was addressed next. Ms. Sahlstrom explained, "There's a Policy that we tweaked slightly in the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT describing where our schools can be located, and that same tweak would need to occur in the PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT to be consistent." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 20, 2009 PAGE 12 OF 13 Commissioner McGinnis and Deputy Mayor Krebs stated, "Okay." "MOTION TO APPROVE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BONNER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOVEY. DISCUSSION. VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR KREBS: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER HOVEY: AYE COMMISSIONER BONNER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. The CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT was discussed next. Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Chairman Lacey said, "The only significant Policy change was the density of recreation open space areas and we had discussed that completely in the RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT. This just reflects that." Ms. Sahlstrom added, "The only other thing was the change of level of service for solid waste which was approved under the INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT." "MOTION TO APPROVE." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOVEY. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER BONNER: AYE COMMISSIONER HOVEY: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR KREBS: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. The INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT was then addressed. Commissioner Hovey noted, that on Policy 1.3.1:, "We need to include in there to (US Highway) 17-92, like we did in the other parts." Ms. Sahlstrom and Deputy Mayor Krebs said "Yes." Deputy Mayor Krebs added, "The (US Highway) 17-92 to Vistawilla (Drive)." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -APRIL 2Q 2009 PAGE 13 OF 13 "I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE - INTERGOVERNMENTAL [COORDINATION ELEMENT] WITH ONE (1) CHANGE." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOVEY. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR KREBS. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER HOVEY: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER BONNER: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR KREBS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. In other City business, Manager Smith asked the City Commission if they wished to purchase a corporate table for a May Leadership Seminole Event. As some of the individual Commissioners were already attending, the City Commission did not agree to purchase a Corporate table. Manager Smith added, "I think everyone would probably join with me in just giving Eloise (Sahlstrom) a little kudos..." Deputy Mayor Krebs added, "...The whole committee." Other Members of the City Commission also complimented the Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning Agency Members for their efforts. Lastly, Ms. Sahlstrom asked the City Commission if she could provide them with electronic copies instead of paper copies for the next approval. There were no objections to this. ADJOURNMENT Deputy Mayor Krebs adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:04 p.m. RE CTFULLY SUBMITTED: 7 LORENZO-LUACES, MMC CITY CLERK AP VED: .~...~ MA R JOHN F. BUSH NOTE: These Mirt~tes were approved at the May 11, 2009 Regular City Commission Meeting.