Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_2001 11 19 City Commission Special Minutes CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The Special Meeting of Monday, November 19,2001 of the City Commission was called to order by Mayor Paul P. Partyka at 6:40 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). ROLL CALL: Mayor Paul P. Partyka, present Deputy Mayor David W. McLeod, present Commissioner Robert S. Miller, present Commissioner Michael S. Blake, present Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr., present Commissioner Cindy Gennell, present City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, absent Public WorkslUtility Department Director Kipton D. Lockcuff, P.E., present City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, present A moment of silence was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. II. REGULAR REGULAR A. Office Of The City Manager Presents To The Commission The Request Of The JDC Calhoun, Inc. (JDC) To Modify The Special Exception Approval Granted October 22, 2001, And Approve Design Conditions And Locations For Two (2) Town Center Decorative Entry Signs, Located On State Road 434 And Tuskawilla Road. Mr. Charles Carrington, AICP, Community Development Department Director introduced the Agenda Item. Commissioner Michael S. Blake said, "We spent several hours a week ago and we went through a very lengthy process and where we finished up was - a very specific agreement that would be put together on Friday, that we would come together tonight to approve." Commissioner Blake further stated, "The item that was discussed was, it included the language requested by the developer with those drawings to be attached and with some other specific language - to incorporate those drawings that any entranceway would be CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 19,2001 PAGE 2 OF 10 within substantial conformance to those drawings unless approved by both parties, and that was what we were to come together tonight to approve, wasn't that it? Where is that agreement, because that is what I am here to work on?" Mr. Carrington responded, "The agreement that we were presented Friday mid-day was this new sketch of the..." Commissioner Blake said, "...We didn't ask to see any new sketches though..." Mr. Carrington then said, "...1 know, but this is what was presented to us - this new sketch of the entry sign; and then we received around 4:30, the language. " Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr. concurred with Commissioner Blake's comments and said, "I want you Mr. Carrington to contact Boca or Pompano and ask Publix if they can do what they wish over there? They have - stricter signage Ordinances than we have and they have got to abide by their Ordinances." Mr. Charles (Chip) Carrington, Counsel to the James Doran Company: addressed the Commission and stated, "As I understand it from looking at the Agenda and the presentation tonight, the only area of discrepancy is the copy area size, but I think it's important that the reason we agreed to a four (4) foot height limitation on the sign was that it was an accommodation on the copy area, made by Ron McLemore. We would not have agreed to reduce it to four (4) feet in height had there not been that accommodation accompanying the discussions. What I understand happened is at five o'clock, focus was given to the four by seven (4 x 7) area and a question was raised about that and a decision was made that the Agenda would include a recommendation for support of our proposal with the exception of this copy area issue; and we have a situation involving the prior 'Special Exception' approval where we gave up the right to do monument signs. It is not our intention to do monument signs. But we need to close this deal in the next couple of weeks." r.1r. (Chip) Carrington further stated, "Our preference is that we come to agreement on the sign tonight. Commissioner Blake, your concern is that perhaps we might be dealing with a different design, I really think it is, is a practical matter. All that's really been done is to take the prior drawing that you all are looking at, and make sure that if traffic is moving either way that signage can be seen. The difference is that on the earlier drawings, remember it had the curved face, this is still a curved feature, but you end up with sign face areas that are perpendicular to the right-of-way, and in all other respects it's the same configuration as what we have been looking at for some weeks now and which you seem to feel is a good base. I think what I am hearing from you Commissioner Blake, is that if the final product is in substantial conformity with the one that was presented last time, that that's in keeping with your recollection of the discussions at the last Commission Meeting. Well, this drawing is certainly in substantial conformity with that, the shape of it though, instead of being a curved face to the right-of- way involves a curve and then sign faces that are perpendicular to the right-of way. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 19,2001 PAGE 3 OF 10 Ard there are specific reasons why we did that configuration, and that was you know, the direction of the Commission. We had some internal communications within IDe, some informal communications with Publix, and this is what we feel we can make work, from the standpoint ofPublix." Additionally Mr. (Chip) Carrington stated, "Ron had on Friday a strong inclination to keep the height of this thing to four (4) feet and I think he expressed something along those lines at the last Commission Meeting..." Commissioner Blake interjected, ".. .Forty-two inches (42")." Mr. (Chip) Carrington continued, "He had said forty-two (42), we arrived at four (4) feet at this meeting after a lot of discussion and again from our perspective at least, and I will acknowledge there could have been a misunderstanding, but our understanding was that an exchange for the four by seven (4 x 7) copy area, we would go with a four (4) foot height limit." DiscussIon. Mr. (Chip) Carrington then stated, "In terms of what we sent to Anthony, out of necessity, we need to close this deal. The 'Special Exception' approval relating to entry signs, it's been approved already, takes away any right to do monument signs whatsoever, and if we hadn't gone along with that, we would be in a position where we could at least assert that we have the right to do monument signs according to the original conceptual site plan which depicts monument signs. It is not our intention to do monument signs, but we have a closing that is pending and we have a checklist item which is to satisfy Publix' s requirement in terms of signage." Regarding the signage issue, Mr. (Chip) Carrington stated, "I am interested in trying to resolve it, but there is a thirty (30) day time period on that prior 'Special Exception' approval and if we are going to preserve our position which maybe we have to do, we have to within that thirty (30) day time period. So, and by the way, we would be pursuing that to preserve our position, and that would also allow us to close, that would not later preclude us from arriving at a proper configuration along the lines that you see here, at a later date." Furthermore, Mr. (Chip) Carrington said to the Commission, "We would like you to consider the language that you see on pages 1 and 2 which allows for a four by seven (4 x 7) panel. Keep in mind that it is a four (4) foot height sign and realistically the letters can't extend all the way to the foundation of the sign and realistically can't extend all the way to the top of the sign, so the copy area itself is necessarily going to be smaller than four by seven (4 x 7) feet, but we didn't agree to a reduction from four by seven (4 x 7) which is twenty-eight (28) square feet to merely eighteen (18)." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 19,2001 PAGE 4 OF 10 Mayor Partyka asked Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, "Do we have to act on this letter at all?" Attorney Garganese replied, "No you do not have to act on the letter. - He is asking the Commission to declare its previous approval on October 22nd, 2001 regarding the 'Speci:lI Exception' as 'Null and Void' - that is what he is asking you to do." Mr. (Chip) Carrington added, "I am asking you to do that in the event we can't come to an agreement tonight regarding the entry signs." Attorney Garganese added the Commission, "I would not advise you to declare the previous approval null and void, especially not at this Meeting." Commissioner Martinez then stated, "The colored drawings that were presented to us by the applicant much before the last Meeting, were supposed to have been adopted and attached to any agreement." Commissioner Cindy Gennell asked Mr. (Chip) Carrington, "Would you agree that the only issue here is between the twenty-eight (28) and the eighteen (18)?" Mr. (Chip) Carrington responded, "I would agree that that's the only difference, with respect to Ron's view of this and Staffs view of this and the view of this from James Doran Company's perspective." Mr. (Chip) Carrington spoke about the recent Meeting and what was accomplished and said, "There is a lot of good work in what you see here; it's unfortunate that we have a discrepancy on copy area." Commissioner Gennell then asked Mr. (Chip) Carrington, "On Friday, did you leave the meeting still in disagreement over the square footage on the face of the sign?" Mr. (Chip) Carrington stated, "No." Commissioner Gennell then said, "You did not?" Mr. (Chip) Carrington replied, "No. We had a complete agreement on everything with the exception apparently that - later in the day Ron felt that it wasn't a four by seven (4 x 7) area, but a four by seven (4 x 7) area with these two (2) panels you've seen." Furthermore, regarding pages 1 and 2, Commissioner Gennell questioned Mr. (Chip) Carrington, that this "Represents the work product of your meeting last Friday?" Mr. (Chip) Carrington responded, "Pages 1 and 2 - yes. The only difference is where you see me referring to a four by seven (4 x 7) panel, the only change is that Ron [City Manager, Ronald V\T. McLemore] feels that the copy area that is placed on that panel should be limited to eighteen (18) square feet per side. And what we understood is we could put the copy area within that four by seven (4 x 7) panel area, as space permits. Again, you can't have letters extending to the top of a four (4) foot wall; you've got to have some spacing around it, but that we would want to have more than merely eighteen (18) square feet. And again, the basis of the bargain there was that by giving in and limiting the height of the thing to four (4) feet, we would get that additional copy area." Commissioner Gennell then asked Mr. (Chip) Carrington, "Did you believe that you had a meeting of the minds - on Friday?" Mr. (Chip) Carrington said, "Absolutely, and Shane [Doran of the James Doran Company] did as well." Furthermore, Mr. (Chip) ~arrington stated, "I believe my father's recollection is that the four by seven (4 x 7) panel was discussed, but that from their perspective, they didn't feel that the copy area CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 19,2001 PAGE 5 OF 10 could be enlarged beyond the eighteen (18) square feet that originally had been discussed. " DiJcussion ensued. Commissioner Gennell said to Mr. Carrington, "You are telling me that what is shown here on our Agenda Item 'A' under 'Purpose' on page 1 and 2, was not drafted by this City?" Mr. Carrington responded, "It was drafted by the Attorney for JDC Corporation and faxed to us around 4:30 on Friday, after the meeting." After finding out that City Manager, Ronald W. McLemore and Mr. Kipton D. Lockcuff, P.E., Public WorkslUtility Department Director had seen the faxed document, Commissioner Gennell then said, "So then he [City Manager, Ronald W. McLemore] drafted his recommendation, is that it?" Mr. Carrington replied, "He didn't draft it, he told me that it was his understanding that the face of the sign would be eighteen (18) inches by six (6) feet and there would be two (2) signs on each side of the sign, like this shown here. The way it's worded under 'Purpose,' it would be like this, and that therein is the confusion. Then it is the difference as was stated, this is four (4) feet high by seven (7) feet across so it's a difference of the sign face area of twenty-eight (28) feet versus eighteen (18) feet; this is nine (9) and nine (9); so that is the issue." Discussion followed on the proposed height of the sign, and Mr. Carrington stated that "The maximum that he was willing to agree to was four (4) feet, and as a result the landscaping that they had along the bottom of the sign, and the brickwork and the flowers and so forth was eliminated, and - Chip agreed to limit it to four (4) feet." "Point of Order" by Commissioner Blake who spoke on signage size. Commissioner Blake spoke of the changes that he felt were "Not in substantial conformance with the drawings as we directed it to be: If you will look at the elevation drawing that we have, this would be exhibit 'E' in your packet, you will see a wall that incorporated the eighteen (18) inches high signage, that was either four (4) feet or perhaps forty-two (42) inches tall at that point in time. Our numbers were always forty- two (42) inches and if you will look, it does have the planter and the flowers that go around it, which I think are an element that is absolutely necessary in order for this to retqin its park-like amenity setting which is without question, one of the key factors that is utilized in allowing this substitute monument sign; and I think there was some word that somebody made up to call this a directional feature or something, but I think that is key. " Commissioner Blake then stated, "With changing the sign copy size - eighteen (18) inches high to forty-eight (48) inches high, you've completely redefined the look of this structure and you completely move to a definition that anybody who is in design work, I think would suggest we call it a monument sign. It is not at all in substantial conformance or conformance at all with the drawings that we had approved from the beginning. So you have a height difference from forty-two (42) to forty-eight (48) CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 19,2001 PAGE 6 OF 10 inches; you have an elimination of the landscaping that goes around and I think that the picture that is up on the screen now demonstrates that. You have a change in the sign copy size, which - goes from eighteen (18) inches to forty-eight (48) inches. That's two and half times the size, in terms of height. The signage that we were talking about, the copy area did not have a main tenant on top with &maller tenants listed below. We specifically excluded that as an acceptable type of sign, last time, and now it has come back again. - The signage on the other side, the adjacent which isn't really a sign, but the feature, the balancing feature if you will, that's across the street in this text, and is slated to be only about - one third of the size." Further, Commissioner Blake added, "And if you look at that drawing right there, it absolutely is not one third, in fact, the entire purpose was to have a balancing appearance and to show a park-like entrance, coming in on both sides - with the sign being a feature of those landscaping treatments. This doesn't even come close to what we discussed a week ago. Five (5) key points, anyone of which in my opinion is a deal breaker for me." Commissioner Martinez stated, "I have a problem with this document that we received today and a couple of other issues." Commissioner Martinez added, "I don't think it's fair for us to be sitting here discussing all these issues without him [City Manager, Ronald W. McLemore] being here to tell us exactly what he meant; because I would like to face him and ask him, "Did you go back on what you said here, the previous Monday aboqt the stacking of signs, one on top of the other below Publix." Commissioner Martinez reiterated, "I would like to have him [City Manager, Ronald W. McLemore] here to discuss these issues all over again." Commissioner Blake stated, "We did not give Staff the authority to negotiate any ofthese other items. We gave Staff very specific instructions on what the agreement would say, what we would approve." Commissioner Martinez added, "That's correct." Commissioner Blake then said, "So any changes were not authorized by this Commission. We did not give Staff in this particular case leeway to change copy area size; signage size; accompanying features sizes; stacking of signs, etcetera; removal of landscaping features. We did not give Staff any leeway on that whatsoever. The direction to Staff as I recall and I think the Minutes will show were to incorporate the language that is on the applications to incorporate the drawings that were received by the applicant; and to build into that the ability for in the future substantial - conformance to that, but the ability for both parties to come together and agree mutually on any alterations to those items. This agreement specifically was not to have this level of specificity in it - in order to give the developer the ability to close on the property, the ability to go to their client and give them what they needed, without having to worry at this point in time about this level of specificity, at the same time building in all the protections that the developer needed." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 19, 2001 PAGE 7 OF 10 Commissioner Gennell stated "I am a little displeased to see the landscaping disappear." Commissioner Gennell then said, "We probably need to have the City Manager here when we do this." Discussion followed on the changes involving the landscaping, the prevIOUS tiered arrangement, planters, signage, flowers and decorative pavers. Tape lI~ide B Regarding the signage issue, Mr. (Chip) Carrington said, "As it says here, intend to use our best efforts to get the tenants off to one side. It is to our advantage to do so. If we can do that, in terms of getting the tenants on the sign - there are advantages to us. We have a mutual interest there, but in terms of our approval with Publix, at present, Publix requires that they be at the top of the sign, until we negotiate a different deal with them; and so Publix's frame of reference is a more traditional shopping center, where they always appear at the top of a directory sign, and what you see is an effort to meet those requirements, but to contemplate us going back to Publix at a later date and working through with them a different arrangement, allowing us to move the tenants off to one side. Then if we move the tenants off to one side, if you read the very end of my language under that scenario, we could go back to the tiered arrangement because with the tenants off to one side the height of the upper level planter box can drop, and then we are right where everybody wants to be. And that is our present intention, to do just that." Mayc.r Partyka asked Mr. Carrington, "Is that correct, in terms of the City Manager agreeing to use the word decorative pavers or ground covers? Okay, so that's true." Deputy Mayor David W. McLeod added, "The partial agreement was to get rid of the lower planter being raised, but not necessarily getting rid of the lower planter itself." This was agreed to. Deputy Mayor McLeod then said, based on Mr. (Chip) Carrington's comments, "So, you have all agreed to four (4) feet with a planter being at ground elevation for the lower flowers, and to be a low type of flower; and did anybody come up with what they may be?" As for information pertaining to appropriate flowers for this area, Deputy Mayor McLeod said, "I think that kind of information needs to be somewhat worked out." Deputy Mayor McLeod then stated, "I think it is somewhat important - that all parties are here, being Mr. McLemore and perhaps yourself to totally discuss where this thing is. I would like to be able to spend some time with Mr. McLemore myself, to find out how we got to this point." Mr. (Chip) Carrington then said, "We might want you to go ahead and vote on the proposal - because again, we need to close." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 19,2001 PAGE 8 OF 10 "MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. DISCUSSION. VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: NAY COMMISSIONER MILLER: NAY COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER GENNELL: NAY MOTION DID NOT CARRY. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS, AND LET THE CITY MANAGER BRING IT BACK MONDAY NIGHT - NEXT MONDAY NIGHT AS AN AGENDA ITEM." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GENNELL. DISCUSSION. DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD STATED, "I DO WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ATTEND MONDAY EVENING." VOTE: COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER GENNELL: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE *MOTION CARRIED. * "Point of Order" by Commissioner Blake who asked that the City Attorney check on the 'Motion to Table. ' Discussion. *Note: Mayor Partyka stated that the previous Motion was ruled as "Out of Order. ,,* "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL NEXT MONDAY NIGHT AT WHICH TIME THE CITY MANAGER - IT WILL APPEAR AS A REGULAR AGENDA, THAT'S MONDAY THE 26TH." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GENNELL. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 19,2001 PAGE 9 OF 10 "MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO BE AN APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS AND JDC TO ALLOW THE TWO (2) SIGNS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED HERE ON NOVEMBER - 12TH, 2001." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER BLAKE CLARIFIED HIS AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY SAYING THAT ON "THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD, ONE WEEK AGO FROM THIS EVENING, THERE WAS IN THE AGENDA ITEM, LANGUAGE ON THE FRONT PAGE THAT WAS INCORPORATED FROM THE APPLICATION FOR THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO INCLUDE THE DRAWINGS THAT WERE ATTACHED AS I AM SURE THE MINUTES WILL SHOW AND TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT - DISCUSSED THAT THE AREAS WOULD BE IN SUBST ANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THOSE DRAWINGS AND THAT ANY ALTERATIONS WOULD BE BASED ON MUTUALLY AGREEABLE TERMS BETWEEN THE CITY AND' THE DEVELOPER. THAT IS WHAT WE HAD AUTHORIZED PREVIOUSLY." VOTE: (ON THE AMENDMENT) COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: NAY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: NAY COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER GENNELL: NAY .MOTION DID NOT CARRY. COMMlSSIONER BLAKE ADDED, "WE WORKED QUITE EXTENSIVELY TO GIVE THE APPLICANT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THEY ASKED FOR ON THE APPLICATION TO THE LETTER. YOU WILL REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION ABOUT 'MAY' AND 'SHALL.'" WE ARE GIVING THEM EVERYTHING THEY ASKED FOR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DRAWINGS THAT THEY SUBMITTED AND WITH THE FLEXIBILITY THAT ANY CHANGES, AND CHANGES COULD OCCUR, BUT ANY CHANGES WOULD OCCUR ONLY AS MUTUALLY AGREEABLE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY." "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE - MAIN MOTION THAT IN SPITE OF HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT, WHAT WAS DISCUSSED HERE ON NOVEMBER 12TH, BE BROUGHT BACK AS PART OF THE AGENDA ITEM, WHATEVER ELSE THEY WANT TO BRING OR ATTACH TO IT, BUT THAT BE BROUGHT BACK AS PART OF THE AGENDA ITEM ON THE 26TH." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - NOVEMBER 19,2001 PAGE 10 OF 10 VOTE: (ON THE AMENDMENT) COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: NAY COMMISSIONER GENNELL: AYE MOTION CARRIED. VOTE: (ON THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED) COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER GENNELL: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONERBLAKE: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: NAY MOTION CARRIED. III. ADJOURNMENT "MOTION TO ADJOURN." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: NAY COMMISSIONER GENNELL: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Partyka adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m. .~/1P - ""- NO'fE: These Ininutes were approved at the November 26, 200 I Regular City Commission Meeting.