Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_2001 10 04 City Commission Special Minutes CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 4,2001 I. CALI.. TO ORDER The Spr-cial Meeting of Thursday, October 4,2001 of the City Commission was called to order by Mayor Paul P. Partyka at 6:32 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). CITY COMMISSION ROLL CALL: Mayor Paul P. Partyka, present Deputy Mayor David W. McLeod, absent Commissioner Robert S. Miller, present Commissioner Michael S. Blake, present Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr., present Commissioner Cindy Gennell, absent City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, present City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, arrived at 6:35 p.m. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ROLL CALL: Chairman Bill Fernandez, present Vice Chairman Tom Brown, present Board Member Brent Gregory, present Board Member Rosanne Karr, arrived at 6:47p.m. Board Member Carl Stephens, Jr., present II. AGENDA A. Community Development Department Requests That The City Commission And Local Planning Agency (LP A) Conduct A Spedal Meeting To Review The Recommendations Of Land Design Innovations (LDI) FOil" The Evaluation And Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments To The Capital Improvements, Intergovernmental Coordination, Housing, Recreation And Open Space, And Future Land Use Elements/Subelements Of The City Of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4, 2001 Page 2 OF 19 .:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. .:..:. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese arrived at 6:35 p.m. Chairman Bill Fernandez asked, "Did Staff get a chance to concur with L.D.L (Land Design Innovations, Inc.) - as to the necessary changes which we discussed at our Meeting last night?" Mr. Charles Carrington, AICP, Community Development Department Director stated, "Yes Mr. Chairman, all the recommended changes have been turned over to the Consultant and will be incorporated into the C.LE. (Capital Improvements Element), as well as the Capital Improvements Plan." Ms. Patricia A. Tyjeski, AICP, Senior Planner of Land Design Innovations, Inc. advised the Local Planning Agency that she would give an overview of each Element, to be followed by discussion. The Board discussed their prior recommendations to the Commission regarding the Housing Element and the Future Land Use Element. Ms. Tyjeski then gave an overview of the Capital Improvements Element and advised, "The changes that were proposed last night, I understand that some of the changes were brought up by the Parks and Recreation Director and the Utility Director. Originally the numbers came from them so we don't have a problem changing those numbers. We'll take care of those in both the C.LP. and the C.LE." Ms. Tyjeski stated that regarding "Other items in the Capital Improvements Program that would have to be reflected in the Ca;:,ital Improvements Element - we'll take care of that." Chairman Fernandez asked, "Again, I address the question of the changes, amendments that the Recreation Director and the Utilities Director made last night. Y au have coordinated with either Mr. McDonald [Mr. Earnest McDonald, AICP, Advance Planning Coordinator Community Development Department] or directly with those Directors?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "Mr. Carrington just gave me those changes so what we need to do is tomorrow sit down in the office, and go through all the changes; make sure that everything still makes sense and if we have any questions, we'll contact them directly. But like I mentioned before, the numbers originally came from them so; we're talking about the improvements that were just for the C.LP. Most of the improvements that were identified in other Elements, they would have to still be in that Capital Improvements Element. So if it was an improvement that was identified in the Parks and Recreation Element, it would still have to be in this Element." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 3 OF 19 Vice Chairman Tom Brown asked, "In the original Comp Plan they state, the Capital Improvement expenditures will be reviewed annually by the Planning Department, which we did last night. Is that still in effect - is it in here? I didn't see it anywhere in the new Comp Plan." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "Yes. The Capital Improvement Element is the only Element that you have to update every year to make the changes to the schedule of improvements." Vice Chairman Brown asked, "Is it necessary to be in the Comp Plan?" Ms. Tyjeski explained, "It would have to be in the Policy section. If it isn't in, we'll make a note to put it in - we'll just make a note - I didn't see it." Board Member Rosanne Karr arrived at 6:47 p.m. Chairman Fernandez stated, "Ms. Rosanne Karr is now with us." Ms. Tyjeski then said that regarding the first bullet in Policy 1.4.1, "It states that 'Major capital project requests shall be submitted' - 'By March 3151 of each year to be included' in the sehedule.' It just mentions when, but we need to put something that goes straight to the point that the Planning Department needs to update the schedule annually." Vice Chairman Brown asked Mr. Carrington, "Since we were just doing it October 3rd, is that March 31 sl date a realistic date? Do we need to eliminate that? Do we need to pump in some flexibility? When does Staff do their reviews?" Mr. Carrington responded by stating, "It should be early enough so that can be incorporated into the new Budget, so March 3151 should work each year. Yes, Sir." Vice Chairman Brown stated, "Chair's looking for a Motion to recommend or not recommend the Capital Improvements Element to the City Commission." "I RECOMMEND THAT PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD - RECOMMENDS TO THE CITY COMMISSION THE APPROVEMENT OF THE CAPIT AL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT ALONG WITH THOSE ADJUSTMENTS AND CHANGF":S PRESENTED - TO. US - OCTOBER 3RD P AND Z BOARD MEETING, LP A MEETING." MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KARR. DISCUSSION. "WE WANTED TO ADD IT IN THERE THAT WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING ALSO." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN. CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ ASKED, "WHAT'S TO BE REVIEWED BY PLANNING AND ZONING?" BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS STATED, "THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES." CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ SAID, "WHAT SHE JUST READ TO US, VIII-40 AT THE TOP, THAT ALL MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT REQUESTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW BY MARCH 31ST OF EACH YEAR. OKAY, MAYBE I NEED TO ASK MR. CARRINGTON THEN- AS THEY'RE SUBMITTED FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW - WHO CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4, 2001 Page 4 OF 19 REVIEWS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY MARCH 31ST OF EACH YEAR?" MR. CARRINGTON RESPONDED, "UNDER STATE STATUTE THAT WOULD COME TO THE LPA, THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, FOR RECOMMENDATION, THEN ON TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR ADOPTION." CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ STATED, "I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE THIS DOCUMENT A LITTLE BIT USER FRIENDLY. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THA T SAYING - 'SUBMITTED FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY BY MARCH 31 OF EACH YEAR?'" MR. CARRINGTON RESPONDED, ""EITHER WAY IS FINE. IT'S - IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE IT THAT SPECIFIC, THAT'S CERTAINLY NO PROBLEM." CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ SAID, "IT'S JUST MAYBE A LITTLE USER FRIENDLY AND ELIMINATES ANY PROBLEM. MR. CARRINGTON YOU CAN TELL ME FROM RIGHT THERE, AFTER OUR REVIEW, THEN WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION?" MR. CARRINGTON STATED, "YES. THE LP A WOULD RECOMMEND EITHER APPROVAL OR APPROVAL WITH - CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION; THEN IT WOULD APPEAR ON THE CITY COMMISSION AGENDA FOR ADOPTION." CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ ASKED, "ALRIGHT, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE FLORIDA STATUTE IS IF WE CAN'T IDENTIFY THE ENTITIES THAT ARE GOING TO CONDUCT THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW? CAN WE AT LEAST REFER TO THE FLORIDA STATUTE THAT YOU MENTIONED?" MR. CARRINGTON RESPONDED, "EITHER WAY WE COULD, YES." CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ ASKED, "WHAT'S THE CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATION?" MS. TYJESKI STATED, "I WOULD ASK THE ATTORNEY." CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ THEN ASKED, "WHAT'S THE CITY ATTORNEY'S RECOMMENDATION?" ATTORNEY GARGANESE STATED, "I DON'T THINK IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE MR. CHAIRMAN." ATTORNEY GARGANESE THEN EXPLAINED, "I AM PRETTY SURE CHAPTER 163 DOES PRESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN LP A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION." CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ SAID, "WELL, WE'VE MADE OUR COMMENTS AND I THINK THE CITY COMMISSION'S GOT THE IDEA." CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ THEN SAID, "DID YOU MAKE A MOTION MR. BROWN TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION?" VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN STATED, "YES, I DID. I STILL WANT IT IN THERE." SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRlNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 5 OF 19 VOTE: (ON THE AMENDMENT) BOARD MEMBER GREGORY : AYE CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN: AYE MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: (ON THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED) BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER GREGORY: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN: AYE CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ: AYE BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. .:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE CITY COMMISSION. .:..:. City Manager Ronald W. McLemore stated, "Pat [Tyjeski], I had gone over with you and Finance has gone over with you all those issues about debt administration. I think a quick look here, looks like you included all of those. Is that correct?" Ms. Tyjeski responded, "Yes, yes we did." Manager McLemore then asked, "The other issue I would ask, and I think it's in here, but I'd asked Chuck for you to make a determination based on the standards as set in here relative to concurrency - Neighborhood Parks. ArId is that in here based on that concurrency test - and it basically says that we're concurrent for out to 20 IS or something like that?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "No. Since we're changing the Recreation Element, we're going to talk about the changes later that will have to be reflected in this Element too. So before this Element, the Capital Improvements Element still shows baseball fields, softball fields, all that is going to disappear from here. So it's going to be consistent with the recommendation that we have for Parks and Recreation - we're going to address Active and Passive Recreation without getting into the specifics of one (1) football field per 50,000 population or something like that." Manager McLemore stated, "My main point is that basically on the numbers that we looked at, are we still concurrent through 2015, and I think almost through 2020?" Ms. Tyjeski responded, "For overall park lands, yes." Manager McLemore asked Ms. Tyjeski, "The most important policy is the Policy relative to concurrency based on what's in the Capital Improvement Plan, and where did we land up on that? The issue again is if you have, is concurrency based on what's in your Capital Improvements Plan as of the current year? Or is it one (1) year out, two (2) years out, thr0e (3) years out, ten (10) years out, remember that discussion?" Ms. Tyjeski responded, "You may have to talk to Tracy [Crowe] about that one." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4, 2001 Page 6 OF 19 Manager McLemore then asked, "The thing that I am particularly interested in is how have we defined concurrency in regards to issuing development orders relative to what is in your Capital Improvements Plan." Manager McLemore stated further, "This is one, Commission, we need to be very clear on. We need to have a very clearly understood set policy on how we make concurrency determination relative to what's in the Capital Improvements Plan." Discussion. Attorney Garganese stated, "There are times where the project doesn't become concurrent until several years after it comes on line. So it's not real cut and dry, you need to be concurrent at the time a C.O. [Certificate of Occupancy] is issued. There is some lag time. You want to be - because the Statute provides the lag time for schools, provides the lag time for transportation in some instances. So you don't want a more rigid Comprehensive Plan, you want some flexibility so when a project comes in you're not faced with telling the Developer, sorry we don't have water and sewer available, we're not. . . " Comr.1issioner Michael S. Blake said, "First off, excellent point. In fact, I know that the County for transportation purposes will deem a project to be concurrent, if capacity is on the five (5) year plan, doesn't even have to be funded." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "And we have that one in the Transportation Element. I am trying to find it because we need to reflect that." Commissioner Blake stated, "Exactly, and there are different time frames, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe we can have different windows for different Elements. Because quite frankly, some require larger expenditures of capital, design work, construction time, etcetera to put it in place than others." Commissioner Blake added, "So we should have windows in there, they should not necessarily all be the same distance. I've gone through here, while we were discussing it and currently we do not have windows for any Element. It is a snap shot in time at the time of application. I think it's an excellent catch and I think that that is, that puts an unfair burden on eVf,:rybody because you never really know what project is going to walk through the door on any given day. And we have to have some time to be able to react and compensate for that growth." Commissioner Blake said, "And again, that's only when concurrency is really built to provide it by the developer. How does a developer provide concurrency for Solid Waste? There are certain Elements where that simply can't happen. So we do need a window in there and how would you like to handle this?" Manager McLemore stated, "As long as we have the language, as long as this language doesn't pin us." Commissioner Blake stated, "My recommendation would be Mayor, that in the Section here where we talk about the Concurrency Certificate, instead of defining it as a snap shot, that we further refer it to the LDR's which we can then change much more easily, we can have more control over as the situation prevails at that time, with the prevailing situation at that time, so that we can have specific windows for each type of development CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 7 OF 19 through the LDR's. That way the plan is still set, it's fixed, it is referring us to another area which is another document that we have more control over. That's how I would recommend doing it." Attorney Garganese stated, "Great idea. In fact you've done that already with your Parks and Rec in the Concurrency Management Ordinance that you passed recently. It sets forth for Parks and Rec what that concurrency lag time is and it takes the concurrency lag time right out of the Statute. Which - as long as the property is dedicated at the time that the development is approved, or fees in lieu of are provided, you have - an additional one year for Parks and Rec to put it online for use. And concurrency is a big issue in the Legislature. They tried as part of the Growth Management recommendations to change how we handle concurrency that didn't make it through the last Legislative Session. It may make it through the next couple of Sessions as we re-Iook at the Growth Management Act. So you need the flexibility and the only way you are going to have the most flexibility is in your Land Development Regulations." "I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MAKE THOSE CHANGES." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Manager McLemore asked, "Can we put - a Policy that says that within three (3) years, unless otherwise specified in an LDR?" Attorney Garagnese stated, "From a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, you just simply state that you will do it in Land Development Regulations. You will adopt a Concurrency Management Ordinance. Yau have one now, you have the procedure, you just need to fill in certain Elements for Sewer, Water, and Transportation. Give yourself the flexibility to see if it passes muster with DCA and then come back and amend your Concurrency Management Ordinance to set fcrth the time periods." Mayor Partyka asked, "So at this point we don't need a time period?" "I wouldn't put a time period in the Comprehensive Plan itself," stated Attorney Garganese. Discussion followed. Tape IISide B Commissioner Robert S. Miller asked about page VIII-32 and said, "There's a note there, 'Note: (I)' says 'Maximum debt will not exceed 15% of the City's property tax base evaluation.'" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "Those numbers need to be revised. The debt capacity column, that has to be 15% of the second column." Ms. Tyjeski further stated, "It will be fifteen percent 15% of the taxable value." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 8 OF 19 Commissioner Miller inquired about Policy 1.4.2 on page VIII-40 and said, "It says 'City will develop an inventory of existing hazards within the City.' What is that? What are existing hazards?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "In the Conservation Element we talked about hazardou~ waste sites and things of that sort and basically it's just keeping an eye on those things. I think there was only one point source in the City - pollution." Mayor Partyka said, "If I may can I add to that particular point, by December 2003 seems very long to determine where your hazards are. That's two (2) years from now. Shouldn't we do that quicker?" Discussion followed. Commissioner Blake stated, "I agree with the Mayor on that." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "You can do it annually." Commissioner Blake added, "It's simple enough to do annually and frankly it ought to be done I think, on an ongoing basis whenever something occurs in the City. Whether there's a new business that comes in that's a hazardous waste generator or when one leaves. But I would think at least annually would be correct so I would agree with the Mayor." Ms. Tyjeski suggested the following wording: "That the City shall continue maintaining the inventory on an annual basis." Regarding a consensus, Mayor Partyka sta~ed that "We'll take it as the Commission is saying 'Yes.'" Commissioner Blake stated, "I think we need to understand and have in here that there are educc,tional facilities that are within the City and that those educational facilities have an impact on certain other portions of the infrastructure within the City. But to have in here listings of deficiencies, there is no school concurrency requirement in the Growth Management Act for cities currently; and for us to have deficiencies listed in here, I think can potentially hurt us if we have the new Growth Management Law come through this year, where it does discuss school concurrency and we have listed in our plan that there are deficiencies. Next thing you know, the School Board has stopped us from issuing any building permits because somebody else out there has noted - look, Winter Springs has a deficiency here. They can't issue any more building permits that have an impact in this area until such time that they are brought up to concurrency levels. So I have a real issue with this language being in here." Ms. Tyjeski said, "I believe it says you have to look at the schools and analyze the capacity." Commissioner Blake said, "I'd like to re-read it and see if - I'd like to suggest thai it's the capacity's - yes, they're under the purview of some other governmental entity." Discussion continued. Ms. Tyjeski suggested to Commissioner Blake, "So basically you're saying just follow - section of the Statutes that deals with schools at the minimum, don't go beyond - especially if it is going to be a negative." Commissioner Blake stated, "Certainly - yes, we have schools and yes we have capacities such that we actually educate people who don't live here." With further discussion Manager McLemore stated, "If we want to say something about impact, I think we need to have something in here that says, we need to go through that concurrency analysis with the schools, before they site schools, which in our case has meant providing student placement from outside our City." Commissioner Blake added, "This situation - I would like to have most of these details removed to the extent that we CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4, 2001 Page 9 OF 19 can." Commissioner Blake further stated, "What I would ask for is to allow Staff to go back and make the appropriate corrections here, if they feel they clearly understand what it i3 that I'm asking for, and if the rest of the Commission will go along with that." Mayor Partyka asked Members of the Commission, "Do you agree with the concept that Commis8ioner Blake is putting up?" Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr. stated, "In part, not all together." Commissioner Miller stated, "It's clear to me.. . and I think it's a good idea." Mayor Partyka then stated, "Why don't we hold this in abeyance until you [City Attorney] review what needs to be done." Mayor Partyka said, "Commissioner Blake is suggesting some kind of general language that says we're not deficient because we don't control this thing, and there may even be a case to say that we are actually fulfilling our needs to the point that we've got outside people coming in. And then, the City Manager is also bringing up a secondary issue in terms of - that School Boards ought to be conferring with us in terms of building any kind of school site." Commissioner Blake stated, "I think what the Manager is asking for, and I would agree, is another statement in the policy statements..." Manager McLemore stated, ".. .And I think it's consistent with law that's already there. So I don't think we've being doing anything unlawful." Commissioner Blake said, "I don't disagree. Perhaps in Objective 1.7, New Development, or 1.8, Concurrency Management, either one of those two (2) Objectives, is where that language might go and that is simply that we will implement the Interlocal Agreement with - it's an Interlocal Agreement that we have correct and actually it was a required Interlocal Agreement, it came down from DCA, and in fact wasn't it actually part of the School Siting Ordinance Anthony, that we had put together? It was actually a Comp Plan Amendment in and of itself." Attorney Garganese stated, "It was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Public School Siting, further your Intergovernmental Coordination Element should state a policy about cooperating with the School Board as wel1." Commissioner Blake stated, "Exactly, and I think that's what we, that's the Element we put here. It will be in two (2) places, it could be in Intergovernmental Coordination Element as well as in here; that 'We will continue to pursue discussions with the School Board on the impacts of School Siting on the Capital Improvement Plan and these Infrastructure Elements,' something to that effect." Manager McLemore stated, "We need to work through some language and bring it back to you." Ms. Tyjeski asked, "We're talking about an existing agreement, that we just need to implement that agreement right?" Commissioner Blake stated, "Yes - and just have in the Policies here, in Objective, and I'm thinking under either 1.7 or 1.8, either one of those two (2) sections and I'll leave it to the professionals to make that determination. But a policy that we will have those discussions with the School Board regarding the impact on our Infrastructure Elements and funding for such with School Sitings or the development of new schools. So Mayor that would be my recommendation." The CITY OF WINTER SPRlNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4, 2001 Page 10 OF 19 consensus of the Commission was that they were In agreement with Commissioner Blake. Discussion. On page VIII-6, under (1) Ad Valorem Taxes, Commissioner Blake asked, "Shouldn't we have the millage correct and up to date?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "Yes, and we got that information today from Staff." Also on the same page, Commissioner Blake stated, "We need to strike telephone and cable utilities from that. There are no longer franchise fees for telephone or cable utilities." This was agreed to. Regarding a. Debt Capacity on page VIII-13, Commissioner Blake stated, "The City is not included in any general obligation debt proceeds as a projected revenue source, well in fact we are going forward with the general obligation issue." Commissioner Blake then asked, "I am wondering how we should change this to provide for those changes?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "I think at this point what we can do is just a general statement but not getting into the details; and at a later date when DCA is reviewing it, you can come in and - amend that Section." Commissioner Blake stated, 'I'd rather not amend it if, we should change it now to make it as right as we can. So I agree we shouldn't - specifics of a Evnd Issue because it has not been issued yet. But also will you show me in the tables back ~lere where we list those revenues as well from that Bond Issue - 3.4 million dollars that are going to be spent for Parks Infrastructure." Ms. Tyjeski asked, "Where is it, are you sayillg that we're going to have to? No - when we did this we didn't know if that general Bond was going to be approved or not. So we were assuming that it wasn't." Commissioner Blake stated, "Okay, so my question is - is this going to be updated prior to approval of this or not. Because I think that's an important Element there because that's really adding considerably to the Infrastructure." Ms. Tyjeski then said, "I think it would take a lot of work from Staff to just give us those numbers, give us those projections. We can do everything possible to put them in but you know the limited time that we have." With further discussion, Commissioner Blake stated, "Mayor, I'd like to have that Section changed to at least update where we stand now and have that flow through to the Parks Element when we get there." Commissioner Miller stated, "I would agree with it." Mayor Partyka stated, "Commissioner Martinez?" Commissioner Martinez said, "Okay." Commissioner Blake then said to Ms. Tyjeski, "'Level of Service D' is what?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, " One to ten (1 - 10)." Commissioner Blake said, "Ten (10) years." Ms. Tyjeski added, Ten, it was a typo, not 100." Commissioner Blake added, "So, I was right. " Next, Ms. Tyjeski addressed the issue of Drainage and stated, "When we did this Element - we need to address that, the 'Levels of Service" and everything that has to go into that Section. We addressed Roads, Parks and Recreation, Water and Sewer, but we missed Drainage." Ms. Tyjeski added, "Last week we talked about the Drainage Element and we CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 1 I OF ] 9 talked about L.O.S. and all those issues. Now when we come to the Capital Improvements Element, the Concurrency Management System section should have addressed Drainage, and we skipped that one. We didn't put it in. So when you get your final draft for the Transmittal Hearing, you're going to have a section on Drainage there." With further discussion on the schools issue, Attorney Garganese stated, "I concur with Commissioner Blake's comments about the schools. I think school concurrency is another hot issue with the Legislature which we may see soon some big changes. But I don't think it's the City's business to start declaring school deficiencies." Commissioner Blake referenced page VIII-2 and stated, "Then Mayor, ifthis is in order, I would suggest that in section B. 1. a., the third paragraph and the sub-paragraphs, that we eliminate the majority of that language and just have Staff insert in the bare - language that would suggest that there are in fact schools in the City." The consensus of the Commission was that they were in agreement with this. Commissioner Martinez stated, "A Member of the Planning and Zoning Board brought to our attention the fact that on - page VIII-IO of the C.LE., in the middle is a paragraph there that says to 'Help fund future transportation projects, the Seminole County one cent local option sales tax was passed in 1990. The local option sales tax expires in year 201)2.' It .i.s not so, it was 2001, and 'The County will issue another voter referendum to continue the one cent,' which they did." Commissioner Blake asked, "Do we have any numbers from the new penny, the thirteen million dollars ($13,000,000.00) that we'll receive over the next ten (10) years. Are any of those dollars built into - the charts?" Manager McLemore stated, "No, we have not provided any sales tax revenues in these charts, on the one-penny sales tax? We've got some updating to do." Commissioner Blake stated, "We will be receiving some within the six (6) years that this plan will be in effect though correct?" Manager McLemore stated, "Within the six (6) months." Commissioner Blake then asked, "Why wouldn't we have that huge funding source listed in our C.LP.?" Manager McLemore answered, "I think probably by the time we were cranking all those numbers it was still not determined." Manager McLemore then said, "Yes, we should do it, no question about it." Mayor Partyka commented on page VIII-44, regarding Policy 1.8.4 Application Pwcedure. and asked, "Is there anything that we can do to speed up this process of review, getting things done right?" Commissioner Blake suggested keeping time records. Manager McLemore said, "What you're going to do is document the poor job the professional engineers are doing. Been through it, done it. I guarantee you, what you'll document is the poor work being submitted by professional engineers. And the other thing you'll document - again and it's been documented over and over and over. The biggest time delay has been getting though the Water Management District, not going through us. Keeping time records is fine - I don't have any problem with that." Further discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 12 OF 19 Manager McLemore stated further, "I don't have a problem putting language in there to say we shall try to expedite..." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "... There are some of those in the Housing Element - in the Housing Element we have that." Attorney Garganese said, "The comment I had on the Capitol Improvements Element imolves Concurrency Management. Not that I disagree with the language that's in here, but I think a lot of this language on Concurrency Management does not belong in a Comprehensive Plan. In fact, most of it is in our Concurrency Management Ordinance; so I would recommend that we delete beginning with - VIII-14. My recommendation would be to delete number 1., beginning on page -14, page -15, page -16, page -17, page -18, and page -19. And then with respect to the policies, my recommendation would be to delete Policies 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4, 1.8.5, 1.8.6, 1.8.7, 1.8.8, 1.8.9." Mayor Partyka stated, "And the main reason for that is they just don't belong here?" Attorney Garganese stated, "I don't believe they belong, in my opinion, they don't belong in the Comprehensive Plan. They're in your - most of them are in your Concurrency Management Ordinance already; and I don't think you want to put them in your Comprehensive Plan because it's going to require Comprehensive Plan Amendments to make changes to them. And I think the City Commission should have the control over the procedures and what goes in a Concurrency Application in the event something is not working and you want to streamline it, you don't want to go to DCA to have to change it; you want to be able to change it yourself" Mayor Partyka asked, "Is everyone in agreement with that? Commissioner Martinez? Yes." Commissioner Miller stated, "Yes." Commissioner Blake stated, "Yes, I am." "I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM LP A AND ALL THE AMENDMENTS, CHANGES, DELETIONS, AND WHATEVER ELSE WAS APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION, AND IT BE BROUGHT BACK TO US FOR APPROVAL." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. MAYOR PARTYKA ASKED, "IS THERE A SECOND?" COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ ASKED, "DID I LEAVE ANYTHING OUT?" COMMISSIONER BLAKE STATED, "JUST THE - VERY LAST STATEMENT ABOUT BRINGING BACK TO US FOR APPROVAL." COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ STATED, "TAKE OUT THAT PART." SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE MOTION CARRIED. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4, 2001 Page 13 OF 19 .:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. .:. .:. Ms. Tyjeski presented the Intergovernmental Coordination Element and stated, "We are recommending that a new Interlocal Agreement be drafted with the County and the other municipalities to specifically address the issue of Annexation, Land Use, Housing, Urban Services, and Transportation. My. Tyjeski then stated, "When we did the Housing Element we basically - we were saymg that the City should do everything possible to help assist developers if they wanted to pruvide. affordable housing in Winter Springs. The City Manager suggested that maybe the City and the County should work together so that the County would be responsible to take care of affordable housing issues and the City of Winter Springs would be focusing on maybe affordable housing for homeowner; projects similar to what you've been doing with Moss Cove but that he didn't see the City of Winter Springs committing to do everything possible to help the development of rental units in the City. That's something that we can discuss tonight and get some direction from the Commission." Tape 2/Side A Brief discussion followed on Fire and Police services. Chairman Fernandez suggested that the Fire Department's "First Response Agreement" be added to this Element, along with a similar law enforcement agreement, if such exists. Board Member Karr said, "It says Southern Bell - at the top of page VII-9." Manager McLf.more stated, "Okay, these are about Franchise Agreements - in c. and d. Is that what you're referring to?" Board Member Karr stated, "Yes." Manager McLemore advised, "'We do have some Franchise Agreements, but there are others that do not use our right-of-ways. We have Franchise Agreements to those that use our right-of-ways, there are other providers in the City that don't use our right-of-ways." Manager McLemore stated further, "We know at least Southern Bell - we need to check some..." Commissioner Blake said, "...1 think there is some fine tuning in there..." Manager McLemore stated, "...1 agree." Discussion. Vice Chairman Brown said that on page VII-9, "It says 'Time Warner Cable' - it's A.O.L. Time Warner now." Vice Chairman Brown also stated that on page VII-I8, "My question is that we refer to Oviedo but we do not refer to Longwood or Casselberry anywhere at all. When we have to, if we're going to talk to Oviedo because it goes in throughout the whole Objectives and Policies - about Land and St. John's and annexations and all these things; and it just states that we will review the Seminole County and Oviedo Comprehensive Plan - why not Longwood and Casselberry also?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "We had taken care of that one in a different place but missed this CITY OF WINTER SPRlNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4, 2001 Page 14 OF 19 one. We had this comment before. Yes, we can just put in and all the surrounding municipalities, adjacent municipalities." Chairman Fernandez commented about the statement on page VII-4, 'Regional growth will have a definite impact on the growth of Winter Springs on its infrastructure and delivery of municipal services' - 'Will need to be addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan.' Shouldn't it be an affirmative statement, 'Are addressed?'" Okay, that's the top of page VII -4, in the first unlettered paragraph, the third sentence from the bottom. Instead of 'Will need to be,' simply substitute the present tense' Are.'" Chaimlan Fernandez stated further, "I had a lot of trouble trying to find some of these maps and I believe you said they're not all in here or you'll correct them." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "I realize that we reference a map in the text but we didn't include the map. It was just a mistake. We need to put it in." Chairman Fernandez then stated, "What I am referencing here is on VII-6, under subparagraph b. Florida Department of Transportation, 'The roadways are depicted on map VII-3 in the Transportation Element.'" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "Yes, that one is a typo." Furthermore, Chairman Fernandez also suggested that on page VII-7, d. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, regarding the second sentence 'The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has no solitary control.' Would that be a little user friendly more nice if it said 'No exclusive control?' 'Unilateral control?' - that's a suggestion for the Consultant. On page VII-8, Chairman Fernandez asked about the map mentioned "Under 5. Utilities a. Electric. Then, Chairman Fernandez said that in subse~tion b., it states, 'The City of Winter Springs operates it's own utility for the purpose of delivery of potable water, the collection of sanitary sewer, and the operation of a water reuse program.' To me, that's three (3) programs and yet it continues to say 'Are served by both systems and the 'Utility Department operates and maintains both systems.' Shouldn't it be all systems?" Ms. Tyjeski responded, "Yes, you are right." Board Member Karr suggested, "You need to go through and do a search and replace for 'Ensure' - 'Rights-of-way.'" Board Member Karr also suggested replacing the words 'Council Member' with the words 'Commission Member' as shown on page VII-4. On page VII-I8, under Policy 1.1.4 there is an extra period - and then - Policy 1.1.5 is missing a period at the end. "I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR WINTER SPRINGS - AS AMENDED THIS EVENING." MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER KARR. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GREGORY. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRlNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 15 OF 19 VOTE: BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE CHAIRMAN FERNANDEZ: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN: AYE BOARD MEMBER GREGORY: AYE .:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE CITY COMMISSION. .:..:. Members of the Local Pltmning Agency departed the Special Meeting. Regarding Policy 1.2.6, Attorney Garganese stated, "I am rewriting this Policy along with another Policy that deals with the same subject matter that would be consistent with what I believe the law is in Chapter 163; and I believe what legal authority would also back me up on what I believe the law is on that issue and I'll just leave it at that." Regarding Policy 1.2.6, Attorney Garganese stated, "Take it out." Mayor Partyka asked, "Is everybody in agreement on that? Okay. Let the record show that." Commissioner Blake asked, "Do we want to, when we adopt this Section, to provide for the later inclusion of language for this purpose? We're going to have to do that at a Meeting sometime anyway." Attorney Garganese stated, "I am going to provide the language to the Consultant in the very near future. I have a draft - on my desk, I just have not transmitted it to them. So I would reserve some room for that Policy, it just would not be in the form that's stated it in the current 1.2.6." On page VII-18, Manager McLemore spoke of Policy 1.1 and said, "Again, I think Oviedo is enumerated and I think there was a recommendation to change other cities. The question is did we want to specifically refer to Oviedo, Sanford, and Casselberry because those are indeed the cities that touch us and Longwood." Mayor Partyka stated, "I believe P and Z said' All.'" Commissioner Blake stated, "My recommendation would be that we not say' All;' that we enumerate each one of them. And my purpose of that, and I actually mentioned this to the Manager, my purpose of this is I think it is helpful for us to retain specifically Oviedo in here. Since we have had issues, border issues previously, and well may in the future as well, I think it's helpful from our position to have Oviedo specifically listed in our Intergovernmental Coordination Element when it comes to these Joint Planning Areas or areas that adjoin interest. So that's why I recommend that we remain or maintain Oviedo listed as specifically, and simply add those other ones. It's just a matter of writing in Longwood, Casselberry, and Sanford." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 16 OF 19 Attorney Garganese stated, "What Commissioner Blake has stated would be appropriate. The term that is used in the Statute is 'Adjacent municipalities. ' You need to provide some principles and guidelines for coordination with adjacent municipalities." Mayor Partyka asked, "Should we specify all the cities involved? Commissioner Miller stated, "I would prefer to just put adjacent cities because we don't know who they're all going to be. There may be other ones in the future." Commissioner Blake stated, "I feel strongly that they should be enumerated." Commissioner Martinez stated, "I feel fine with 'Adjoining municipalities.'" Commissioner Miller added, "In that case I will join, I will amend my comment to say, 'We'll list the cities around us in alphabetical order. I think that takes care of Commissioner Blake, but I would not wanted to see Oviedo listed first. I think we should do it in alphabetical order." Commissioner Miller then said, "I'll go along with' Adjacent municipalities.'" Attorney Garganese stated, "Legally, it doesn't make a difference. How about 'Adjacent municipalities including but not limited to' and list them in alphabetical order?" The consensus of the Commission agreed. Attorney Garganese then commented about Policy 1.1.3 and said, "I recommend removing that Policy. Intergovernmental disputes and conflicts are governed by Florida Statutes if it involves litigation and this Policy would conflict with that in some respects." Attorney Garganese added, "It's inconsistent with Florida Law. It's also inconsistent with an Interlocal Agreement that you have with all the other Cities in Seminole County - which we're currently following with our litigation with Oviedo and Seminole County." Mayor Partyka asked, "Does the Commission agree with this - yes, everyone is agreed." Regarding Policy 1.1.5, Attorney Garganese asked why the first sentence was in there? Ms. TYJeski said, "When you say the policies, do you mean in the Future Land Use Element?" Attorney Garganese said, "Right. In the Town Center Code, the Land Use Element. I was just wondering why it's in there." With discussion, Mayor Partyka asked about having the first sentence removed and asked, "Is that in agreement with this Commissi.on." This was acceptable with the Commission. Regarding Policy 1.1.1, Attorney Garganese stated, "I would substitute 'Annual basis' with the word 'Periodically. ", Manager McLemore stated, "Yes, I agree." Members of the City Commission agreed also. "I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT AS AMENDED HERE THIS EVENING." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 17 OF 19 COMMISSIONER BLAKE STATED, "I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE ATTORNEY HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THEN I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE PORTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT THAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED TO BE PLACED INTO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT." ATTORNEY GARGANESE STATED, "I AM NOT FULLY PREPARED TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING ELEMENT. I HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS AND I REALLY W ANTED TO SIT DOWN WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO DISCUSS THEM BEFORE WE TALKED ABOUT THEM AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL." MAYOR PARTYKA ST A TED, "SO WE CAN ENTERT AIN ANOTHER MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ELEMENT?" WITH FURTHER BRIEF DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER BLAKE STATED, "THAT BEING THE CASE MAYOR, I'LL SIMPLY, I WISH TO CHANGE MY VOTE ON THE LAST MOTION." COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Partyka stated, "Let the record show that the Motion passed." The Commission discussed holding another Meeting to conclude these issues, but that a Special Meeting with the Local Planning Agency would not be needed. "MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MEET AT FIVE O'CLOCK ON MONDAY AND TRY AND GET THROUGH AS MUCH OF THIS AS WE CAN BEFORE THE - FIVE THIRTY - WELL, WE HAVE A MEETING AT FIVE THIRTY, AND THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING STARTS AT SIX THIRTY." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Attorney Garganese departed the Meeting at 8:49 p.m. "I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ASK STAFF TO GIVE US THE WORK PRODUCT THAT THEY HAVE AT THIS POINT IN TIME SO WE CAN STUDY IT; AND THEN SCHEDULE AN ADDITIONAL MEETING TO HANDLE THESE THREE (3) ITEMS, WHICH ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIRTY (30) MINUTES." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRlNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4, 2001 Page 18 OF 19 VOTE: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Tape 2/Side B With consensus of the Commission, a Special Meeting of the City Commission was scheduled for Wednesday, October 10,2001 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Tyjeski asked, "Before Wednesday, do you want us to distribute any changes?" Mayor Partyka stated, "Everything that you have that this Commission can review." Ms. Tyjeski asked, "How do you want to handle 'Housing?' Do you want me to go ahead and make all the changes that you suggested?" Commissioner Blake suggested to "Make a sheet of your changes that's being recommended or whatever; just hand us those - by page number, by section number, whatever it happens to be." Ms. Tyjeski distributed a document with corrections to the Future Land Use Element to Members of the Commission. III. ADJOURNMENT "MOTION TO ADJOURN." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Partyka adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:54 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: AND A LORE O-LUACES, CMC AND CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 4,2001 Page 19 OF 19 --PAT L P. PARq'YKA 1\71A YOR~' NOTE: These minutes were approved at the November 12, 2001 Regular City Commission Meeting.