Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout_1998 03 02 City Commission Regular Minutes CONTINUED MEETING FROM FEBRUARY 23, 1998 CITY COMMISSION MARCH 2, 1998 The continued meeting of the City Commission from the meeting of February 23, 1998 held on March 2, 1998 was called to order by Mayor Paul P. Partyka at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Mayor Paul P. Partyka, present Deputy Mayor Cindy Gennell, present City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, present Attorney Robert Guthrie, present COMMISSIONERS: Robert S. Miller, present Michael S. Blake, present Ed Martinez, present David McLeod, present Mayor Partyka announced that this is a continuation from the Regular Meeting of the City Commission from February 23, 1998, and stated that the Commission will continue from the point that the meeting was ended on February 23, 1998. Mayor Partyka stated that the Commission is on Regular Agenda Item C-2. C-2. Presenting to the Commission the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board as it relates to the Final Engineering for the proposed Hess Station. PURPOSE: to present to the Commission the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board as it relates to the Final Engineering for the proposed Hess Station. This project is located at the southeast corner of S.R. 434 and Vistawilla Drive. This property is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD): Charles Carrington, Community Development Director, gave his presentation. Mr. Carrington stated that this item deals with final engineering for Lot 1, of Tuscawilla Tract 15, ParcellB and is zoned PUD. The proposed use is for a mini-mart convenience store with automobile gasoline sales. The land use designations is further regulated by a settlement and annexation agreement that was adopted as Ord. 489 on July 23, 1990 and also a vested rights special use permit for commercial use dated June 8, 1993. The building signage for the gasoline convenience store is as show on inserts in the Commissions packet labeled Al and CE-I, the developer has added landscaping and berms as related to all five lots discussed in Item C-l. The variables and stipulations are outlined in a proposed Developers Agreement which is also included in the package and is Agenda Item D. The development review committee and the Planning and Zoning Board have reviewed this matter and have made recommendations for approval with specific changes. Mr. Carrington introduced Item D at this time. D. Presenting to the Commission the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board as it relates to the proposed Devleopment Agreement for Tuscawilla Tract 15, Parcel lB. PURPOSE: for the Commission to hold a First Public Hearing to consider the recommendation of the planning and Zoning Board as it relates to the proposed Devleopment Agreement for Tuscawilla Tract 15, Parcel 1 B. Parcel IB is located at the northeast intersection of Vistawilla Drive and S.R. 434, extends eastward on the south side of S.R. 434 approximately 2,160 feet, then south southwest approximately Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 2 900 feet, then westward approximately 2,100 feet and then north northeast to the point of beginning approximately 900 feet: Mr. Carrington said this is the first Public Hearing on a proposed Development Agreement related to Tuscawilla Tract 15, Parcel IB, which included five commercial lots, zoned PUD. The Development Agreement includes variances from S.R. 434 New Area Development Guidelines as related to decreased setbacks, increased signage and increased landscaping. Manager McLemore said the question was raised about the discrepancy in the amount of signage in the drawings vs. what Staff recommended and said we would amend this (the drawings that came in were representative of 192 sq.ft. of signage) Staff had recommended 148 feet and the developer had agreed to the change to 148 sq.ft. but was not able to get the drawings completed in time to show the 148 sq.ft. Manager McLemore said the Development Agreement will be amended (as per whatever happens tonight) to 148 sq.ft. and whatever else the Commission decides to do. Mjke Jones, Attorney representing the developer and Hess Oil Company, said he would like to point out again, that they have once again come back to the City and agreed to yet another reduction in the signage to 148 sq.ft. on the building, so we have met the City's request and requirement. Mr. Jones said to point out for the residents that were not present and for the Commission, when we were before the Planning and Zoning Board, there were a number of members that had been on the Visioning Committee, notwithstanding his personal position and notwithstanding that they feel they are not obligated under it, and pointed out the difference to what this development has done with relationship to what was required under the old Code and what is required under the 434 Vision Ordinance and how they have exceeded all of those requirements. Mr. Jones said it is very important that the Commission understand this because if they do not get this project, then the City does not get the extras and possibly do not get the Vision Ordinance. Mr. Jones said under the old regulations there was a five foot landscape area, under the vision ordinance there is a 15 foot landscape area - we have agreed to a 25 foot landscape area. We've agreed there is no sidewalks covered under the original ordinance, none under the vision ordinance, 5 foot - we've agreed to a six foot winding sidewalk. The signage under the City's old ordinance in effect when they asked to be permitted, there was no requirements and no restrictions; under the vision ordinance there is a 32 sq.ft., we've asked for a 55 on the sign and 25 sq.ft. on the remaining parcels, we've agreed to do that and that is what we just discussed that we've agreed to come down to. The signage on the building, there was no requirements under the old ordinance; there's a 16sq.ft. requirement under the vision ordinance and we've agreed to come down from what we asked for (192) to 148. The building set backs under the old ordinance was 35 feet, under the new ordinance it is 50 feet, we've agreed to meet that. The rear buffers, between the commercial and residential, there was no requirements in the old ordinance and there is no requirements under the new ordinance, but said they have agreed to put in a wall and to berm the area in the back. Mr. Jones said they asked for a liaison with some representative of Tuscawilla, which did not come about today, to discuss how we would possibly work with them in erecting our wall in conjunction with what they wanted to do, but having not heard anything from Tuscawilla, we will reserve that Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 3 until another time and another project. We will stand on what we presented to the Commission last time (2-23-98), we believe we've gone over-board in trying to meet what the City wanted and what we agreed to. Mayor Partyka opened the meeting to Public Input. 1.B. Altenhoif, 104 Redtail PI., stated that the Codes should not be changed by the first project and set a precedence for future projects. Carol Koza, 121 Goshawk Tr., stated her concern regarding the quality of life in their subdivision (Eagles Watch) and stated that there are eagles and said she is afraid they will go away from the noise from the car wash. John Misiano, 101 Goshawk Tr., spoke against the proposed car wash. Lee Jensen, 134 Nandina Tr., representing 22 homeowners in Howell Creek Reserve and Eagles Watch, asking that the Commission not allow the construction and operation of the car wash, construct a 6 foot brick wall between the development of Eagles Watch and the commercial property and to stay within the current sign limitations for the multi-tenant street and building signs. Greg Worley, 103 Marsh Creek Cove, spoke against the proposed car wash, and opposed the access road that is being proposed offofVistawilla for delivery entrance. Mr. Worley said the Commission also needs to regulate the delivery times for the Hess Mart delivery trucks and trash pick-up. Mr. Worley also asked that the Commission not grant a variance to the sign ordinance. Rande Thompson, 108 Marsh Creek Cove, spoke against the car wash and asked that the sign ordinance be adhered to. Jay Clay, 144 Peregrine Ct., representative for the Eagles Watch Homeowners Association, mentioned that he had a petition that was signed by 66 homeowners (representing 40 homes) in Eagles Watch, spoke regarding his concern of making sure the wetlands were protected and also stated that they don't want any signage variances and said they are anxious to keep the commercial properties separated from the residential community. John Croenen, 146 Peregrine Ct., spoke in opposition of the car wash and spoke regarding the trails being close to the Hess station and also children hanging out at that location. Bill Fernandez, 250 Panama Rd. East, mentioned that he is the Chairman of the P&Z Board and said that the P&Z Board had an opportunity to review this matter and said he is sorry that a lot of these citizens did not appear at their meeting so that their recommendation to this body would carry more weight. Mr. Fernandez stated that he is not here speaking on behalf of the P&Z Board, there has not been a decision made to authorize him to speak on behalf of the P&Z or LP A, and stated that he is Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 4 present as an individual citizen. Mr. Fernandez said that the P&Z Board did receive testimony and public input at their meeting and said they tried to take into consideration all of the factors and the fact that a development agreement does allow more control over a project and allows you to make changes within the existing PUD zoning and allows you to make certain minor changes that are still compatible. Mr. Fernandez said he feels that this project does meet and/or exceed the requirements that this City has put forth and the developer has made a favorable effort to meet those requirements and to go along with the City's 434 visioning project. Mr. Fernandez said there was a vested rights situation where this project is going to be commercial and one has to consider what the alternatives will be if the project is not allowed to go forward as it is. Mr. Fernandez asked the Commission to consider the recommendation of the P&Z Board as it relates to the unanimous decision in favor. Tom O'Connell, 1718 Seneca Blvd., President of the Tuscawilla Homeowners Association, and stated he is authorized to speak on behalf of the Board of Directors of the T.H.A. representing the membership. Mr. O'Connell said the Association has no problem with a gas station at that corner but they have concerns about the integrity of the land Devleopment regulation, which was put in place in December this past year for the entire 434 corridor. Commissioner McLeod said he talked with Mr. O'Connell and spoke about provisions that he thought might help, in hoping to work out some things that is maybe best for everyone. Brad Hermanson, 120 Redtail Pl., spoke regarding the sign size and spoke about crime with this development and also spoke about environmental issues regarding underground storage tanks. Commissioner Martinez said he feels that Staff should have told the developer that the 434 Visioning Design Guidelines was in effect and they would have to abide by them. Commissioner McLeod reviewed with the Commission questions he had of the City Manager and the answers he received from the City Manager. Commissioner McLeod said a multi-tenant store was never intended for the ordinance and said the Commission needs to study the multi-tenant store and put an ordinance in place for that type of store and to revisit the visioning design guidelines and change it to that every time a developer comes in we are not making concession. Commissioner Blake spoke regarding numbers from other Cities regarding sign sizes. Manager McLemore said that this type of power store is viewed differently than the typical store and therefore, when reading from Orlando's ordinance you probably will not find this under a normal gas station. Discussion. Commissioner Martinez said when Ord. 675 was approved the project in question, the Hess station, was in the midst of being presented to P&Z and the Commission; and it wasn't until February and now March that this happened, this ordinance was approved, discussed, amended, etc., all those things took place over a long period of time and this ordinance was in place when the P&Z Board Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 5 approved the project. In response to Commissioner McLeod, why wasn't this taken into consideration at the time the ordinance was being worked on and why do we have to revisit this ordinance that was just approved a couple of months ago. Are we going to get into the habit of revisiting each ordinance in this City every time someone asks for something and it doesn't fit the criteria that they want and we have to go back and visit and amend to please the people that ask for these things. Commissioner Martinez said why do we need to emulate other Cities, this is Winter Springs and we are the residents of Winter Springs, we can have anything we want; we have to do what is best for Winter Springs and the citizens of Winter Springs. Commissioner Martinez said that the Hess representative stated (last week) that it was one business with three or four outlets, but only one cash register, now it comes out it is three or four different entities and each has their own cash register so he said he doesn't know where we stand and said he will have to go with Ord. 675 in spite all the efforts put at him. Commissioner McLeod said this type building (usage) is not addressed in our ordinance and that is the only reason that he would want to "reopen" ordinances. Commissioner Blake said the City Manager's response to the question (if this type of business is addressed in our ordinance) was that the only ordinance that they could find that specifically addresses this new type store is in Naples, FL; Commissioner Blake said he thinks that this type of building is addressed in our ordinance and in fact in the Ordinance Section 20-454(a) it is called a ground mounted multi-tenant or project identification sign. Ifin fact it is a multi-tenant, but if we call it a multi-tenant signs 20-454(a)(7) it says signs shall be in accordance with the following schedule: building size gross floor area under 75,000 sq.ft., and stated that this building is well under 10,000 sq.ft., so it would fall in that category - maximum copy area 32 sq.ft., maximum height 12 feet, if you don't want to use the single tenant sign, then he stated that he is in favor of using the multi-tenant sign. But asked if it a multi-tenant operation. Commissioner Blake stated that Hess has the same operation in Casselberry and all the occupational licenses are in the name of Hess Express. Commissioner Blake said according to our Code, we can go either way as far as he is concerned, if you want to use a multi-tenant, that's fine, if you want to use a single tenant that's fine as well. Commissioner Blake said he would like to address what he thinks is the main issue, and that is what are we doing sitting here talking about these things, all these things are based on a developers agreement and in our Code does indeed have a provision for a developers agreement, Section 20-458 and it says: "...any developer may propose to enter into developer agreement with the City designed to set forth terms and conditions appropriate meet circumstances of the specific proposed development.." Commissioner Blake said it also states "...such consideration shall be based on building sites constraints or physical characteristic of the property.." We have put some controls on ourselves as a City to where we just can't hand out developers agreements to any body, there has to be a reason. Commissioner Blake read a portion of the proposed development agreement. "Whereas, sections 20-458 and 20-459 of Ord. 675 the S.R. 434 Visioning Corridor Visioning Plan New Development Area authorizes the City to enter into a development agreement for real property such as that described on Exhibit A and B, (A is the entire parcel and B is where the Hess station wants to go) upon a finding that the site is constrained..." It then goes on to say that We make a finding that Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 6 the site is constrained. Commissioner Blake went on to describe some gas station's site dimensions. Commissioner Blake also stated that the gas stations that he described also hold their own stormwater and that the proposed Hess station does not hold its own stormwater, they have to enter into an easement arraignment for the property that is across the street (behind the station) to hold their stormwater. In other words stormwater retention is not even accruing on this 60,000+ sq.ft., and asked how can this be a constrained site and how can we as a Commission make a finding that this is a constrained site based on this information and if it is not a constrained site, if we cannot make a finding that this is a constrained site, then there's not development there. Attorney Guthrie stated that that is the criteria that is set forth in the ordinance as a requirement. Commissioner Blake said so if the Commission can't make that finding, then all this is for not. Motion was made by Commissioner Blake that based on the fact that this Commission cannot make a finding of a constrained site, that the Commission approve the Hess station development in accordance with, a strict adherence, in every way with S.R. 434 New Devleopment Code, which is Ordinance 675. Seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Miller: nay; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Martinez: aye; Commissioner Gennell: nay; Commissioner McLeod: nay. Motion denied. Commissioner Gennell said in regard to the S.R. 434 Ord. 675, which sets forth the design guidelines for this corridor, stated that she maintains that the developers agreement is an option that we put in (at the end) in each of the three sections, and we did it with no small amount deliberation, because we knew that when we did these ordinances that they would have some imperfections, we knew that we were going to have to come back and revise them it's part of the public record, and said she said it and the other Commissioners agreed with her and said she is sure every other City that does this also has to revise theirs and fine turn them, we also realized that we weren't perfect and that we probably going to have some oversights, some areas that needed special attention and said she feels that this is the reason the we had that clause in there, and said it is in fact a part of each of those three guidelines for the three different sections of 434. Commissioner Gennell said she thinks the City has gained some very valuable considerations from the developers, not the least of which is a 2,180 ft. wall, 6 foot tall, that we would not have had this previous motion would have passed. The wall would have gone away and a lot of other things would have gone away. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell that the Commission pass Item C-2, including the representations made by the developers previously. Seconded by Commissioner Miller. Discussion. Commissioner McLeod said if this goes forward and passes, then he would like to ask that each Commissioner be ready and we sit down and take a look at our ordinance regarding this type of application, so in the future we're not at odds with each other and we're not at odds possibly with the community, but we have something that we can fall back on. Commissioner Blake asked why Commissioner McLeod is not comfortable with the ordinance, when for the last three years he had a firm creation of that ordinance and why does he believe this is a different type of business than what we have listed, when in fact that this type of business exists in many different areas. Commissioner McLeod stated that his reason is that Reeular Meetine: Citv Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Pae:e 7 he believes that this particular gas station is a new era of gas stations, it's a new era of businesses that we will see coming forth, not only in gas stations but other types, where there is more than one user of a building. Discussion. Commissioner Miller asked to call the motion. Vote on calling the motion: Commissioner Martinez: nay; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: nay; Commissioner Miller: nay; Commissioner Blake: aye. Motion denied. Discussion. Commissioner Gennell called the motion. Vote on calling the motion: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Martinez: nay; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Miller: aye. Vote on the Motion: Commissioner Martinez: nay; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Miller: aye; Commissioner Blake: nay. Motion passes. Mayor Partyka announced that the Commission will discuss Agenda Item D. Mr. Carrington restated his comments from earlier. Mr. Carrington stated that Item D is the first public hearing of a proposed development agreement related to Tuscawilla Tract 15, Parcel 1 B which included five commercial lots and are zoned PUD. The development agreement includes variances from S.R. 434 New Area Development Guidelines as it relates to setback, increased signage and increased landscaping. Mr. Carrington said if this matter is approved an announcement should be made that this matter would come back before the Commission at next Monday's meeting at 6:30 p.m. for a second public hearing. Commissioner Blake said in the development agreement under Item D, states that the Commission finds that this site is a constrained site, an asked Mr. Carrington if the site is constrained. Mr. Carrington said it is his opinion that it is not. Commissioner Blake stated to the Mayor that the Attorney has stated that he does not believe we can have a developer agreement ifit is not a constrained site, Staff has not told us, in his opinion, it is not a constrained site, and said he has offered evidence to that fact this evening, that it is not a constrained site. Motion was made by Commissioner Blake that the Commission does not approve Item D, because we are not legally able to do so because of the reasons already stated. Commissioner Gennell said point of order - we have not taken public input at a public hearing and this is a public hearing. Commissioner Blake said we only need a public hearing if we are going to approve an item. Attorney Guthrie said before a decision is made, we ought to have public Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 8 comment because this was announced as a public hearing and we would be making a decision, even if it were a decision not to go forward and said the safest route would be to have public comment. Commissioner McLeod Seconded the motion with discussion. Commissioner McLeod said there are things in this agreement, for instance 3.3, no longer applies in the agreement, the agreement has to be rewritten because 3.3 says that the developer has taken in lieu of a wall, has in fact added landscaping, so here we have the landscaping and the wall, so the agreement itself is flawed, as it is in front of the Commission at present. Commissioner McLeod said so far he has heard under Item C-l and C-2 that the developer actually has agreed to live up to everything within this agreement, and said he doesn't think there is anything in this agreement that he hasn't said he would do under C-l and C-2. Mr. Jones stated correct, we obviously are not going to do both, the agreement called for landscaping and we now agreed to drop that and do the wall. Commissioner McLeod said no you did not agree to drop the landscaping the other evening, you agreed to put a wall in. Mr. Jones said you can't put the wall and the landscaping in the same place. Commissioner McLeod said ok, you can't put the landscaping where the wall is, you can have six inches for the landscaping, but in the agreement, 3.3 stated the overall development you improved the landscaping and berms therefore you weren't going to put a wall; the other evening Commissioner Gennell asked the owner and you as the representative, agreed to also put a wall in. Mr. Jones said part of the enhanced landscaping was to do heavily landscape in lieu of a wall, so we are not going to do both the landscaping and wall, we will do the wall. Commissioner McLeod said that is not what was said the other evening. Mr. Jones said you are talking about enhanced landscaping, when we went from the two inch caliper to the eight inch caliper trees in front and from the 15 foot landscaping to the 25 foot landscaping. Manager McLemore said there was a proposed landscape buffer on the back of the property, which the wall will take the landscape's place, because you couldn't see the landscape buffer once a wall is up, but it does nothing to the enhanced landscaping of the front nor the side of the property, only that was proposed to be planted where the wall will now go. Mr. Jones said that was their understanding. Commissioner McLeod said the way he understood it the other evening was that no body had indkated to give up any landscaping for the wall, and said he heard very clear what was asked by the Commissioner, "would the developer put in a wall" and nt was said yes. Commissioner McLeod said if that's the case then, and that's how City Staff understood it, then why does he not have an agendum to item D indicating that. Mr. Jones said you don't have an agendum to any of the things, we made a commitment tonight to do additional signage, which is not reflected in there, what Ms. Gennell said was her motion was to approve subject to our agreement tonight and said he would assume that that would also make the understanding that Mr. McLemore and the Staff and he had would take the place of the landscaping along the rear. Commissioner McLeod said that he never heard that and the Commission never heard that, and said that was not presented to the Commissioner. Commissioner Gennell said she has listened to the tape and (if she is not mistaken) her exact words to Mr. Jones were "would your client agree to build a wall) and said her intent at that point was that all of our other building requirements required only a buffer, they didn't specify particularly what kind; Commissioner Gennell said she is quite satisfied in accepting a wall as the buffer. Reeular Meetine Citv Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 9 Commissioner McLeod said are you basically saying that there will be between the service road and the building parking lot there will be no landscaping or is the wall going on the other side of the service road. Mr. Jones said the wall goes between the subdivision and the property. Commissioner Gennell said she has a concern and wants to hear from the Attorney as regards treating this as a public hearing or not treating this as a public hearing. Commissioner McLeod asked for clarification as to what he sees on the plan for landscaping if it is still in effect. Mr. Jones said when you talk about constraint, and said Commissioner Blake is talking about the P&Z Board being confused and said he considered this constraint and this property in not being constrained and addressed the Hess station, the exhibit that was attached as Exhibit A, and Exhibit A is the subdivision itself, it is the five lots, the entire development, that is the site that is constrained, that is the reason that we asked for the waivers, because that site is constrained, as part and parcel of that, Hess came in and is asking to be approved on one lot in that subdivision, the lot, 1-5 - we do not consider to be constrained lots, those what will be later a platted lot, it doesn't have anything to do with constraint, constraint was on the total site itself, the constraint was the fact that we lost half of the back (south of the road) the entire area is a wetlands, and that's what you call constraint, we can't utilize the back part of that property, so we were forced to come with our road north of that wetlands and there was the constraint that Staff saw; and the question addressed to Mr. Carrington before may have been confusing also, there is no constrain nor any contention that there is a constraint on the Hess site or anyone of the five lots, there is a constraint on Exhibit A, the entire parcel because of the wetlands and because of the trail and because of the easement owned by the County going down to the trail, with that, for exhibit A, we are substituting the landscaping and it was going to be done along exhibit A back-line, for a wall. Commissioner McLeod said then what Mr. Jones is saying is that the wall is south of the drive, north of the retention. Mr. Jones said no, the wall will be on the property line. Commissioner McLeod said the landscaping that is to the north of the service drive landscape is still there, it's only the landscaping as the buffer zone is changed. Mr. Jones said that is correct, that is because the City initially required us to buffer that retention area and that is where Ms. Gennell wanted the wall, so instead of the landscaping buffer we have the wall. Commissioner Blake asked what is the depth of the property. Mr. Jones said he can't answer as he doesn't have the papers in front of him. Mr. Jones said according to the engineer it is 350 feet. Mr. Carrington stated 435 feet. Commissioner Blake asked what portion of the site is not buildable because of the wetlands. Mr. Jones said everything behind south of the road. Mr. Carrington said 125 feet behind the road is being used for retention ponds and to preserve the wetlands. Commissioner Blake asked for the location of the three retention ponds. Mr. Carrington said the first retention pond is behind Parcell, the second retention pond is behind Parcel 3 and 4; the third retention pond behind Parcel 5. Commissioner Blake asked if those areas buildable, not under the design, just as the dirt stands. Mr. Carrington said the portions behind Parcels 3,4 and 5 would appear to be but this does not show topography and said certainly the area behind Parcel 2 and probably all of Parcell is not developable. Commissioner Blake asked what definition is used to determine whether a parcel is a constrained site or not, since this is the main question he has. Mr. Carrington said a constraint would effect the configuration of the Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 10 building, the ingress and egress and the direct access from the arterial road or collector road into the site, constraints that would not make a general pattern of development and placement of the building in connections with the setbacks and requirements of the Code. Manager McLemore stated that the initial plans were initially pushed ten feet forward because of the constraint on the wetland. Manager McLemore stated that he made the call on the constraint because the lots for a legitimate use of that property relative to commercial use and its depth as it is related to the wetlands, has caused the reconfiguration or certainly a change in that lot where it cannot be used based on the retention pond requirements, which is a requirement of law in this State. Manager McLemore said that constrains a use of that lot relative to the choices that the developer might have for general commercial purposes. Commissioner Blake said to suggest that a site is constrained because it may not be large enough for every individual use said he doesn't think is being realistic; the use before us is a gas station, the size of the property that they want to put a gas station on is almost twice the size of other gas stations with the same type uses that hold their own water nearby on the same road and said he doesn't believe that's constraint. Commissioner Blake said he believes every site in the City is constrained based on the City Manager's definition. Commissioner Blake called the question. Vote on calling the question: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Miller: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Martinez: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Vote on the motion: Commissioner Blake moved that the Commission does not approve Item D, because we are not legally able to do so because of the reasons already stated: Commissioner Gennell: nay; Commissioner Martinez: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Miller: nay; Commissioner McLeod: nay. Motion passes. Mayor Partyka asked the Attorney what is the next step at this point. Attorney Guthrie said the Commission had approved C-l and C-2 contingent upon a development agreement existing, a development agreement that incorporated certain representations, including ones that would have been discussed and be debated tonight and maybe been refined and added to it, since we are not going forward with the Public Hearing he thinks that C-l and C-2 is not effective. Commissioner McLeod stated that he was confused on the motion and said that he was saying is that if it is covered already and the developer agreed to C-l and C-2, all the things that were in the agreement, then why is the agreement needed. Attorney Guthrie said the Commission made action on C-l and C-2 contingent upon the existence of the development agreement. Commissioner McLeod said he would like to pull his vote because he disagreed and did not understand the motion. Mayor Partyka asked Commissioner McLeod if he wished to change his vote. Commissioner McLeod stated yes he would like to change his vote and that is changing it to NAY. Mayor Partyka said that THE MOTION TO DENY DOES NOT PASS. Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 11 Attorney Guthrie said now the Mayor should treat that as going forward with the public hearing, not a decision on the definitive part of the development agreement but rather an indication to go forward with the public hearing. Mayor Partyka called a recess at 8:35 p.m. Mayor Partyka reconvened the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Mayor Partyka announced that the incident with Commissioner McLeod retracting his vote was not inappropriate and read a portion from Robert's Rules of Order. Attorney Guthrie stated that the developer has agreed to build a six foot wall, the hours of operation of the car wash would be from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m., six foot sidewalk and to reduce the sign to 148 feet. Commissioner Gennell said when she addressed the restriction on window signs from the last meeting, she said she was referring to signs besides the signs on the building, she was referring to advertising signs in the windows. Manager McLemore said he was addressing the building signage that they are allowed. Commissioner Gennell asked if they will be subject to the City's design guidelines as far as the amount of space permissible for window signs. Manager McLemore said the variance from the guidelines is only for the exterior building signage and on the master plan for the monument. Commissioner Gennell said she would like a clarification from Hess that they are going to abide by our window signage portion of the ordinance. Mr. Jones said in the agreement it is stated that if it is not covered by the vision ordinance they will fall back on whatever ordinance is in place. Commissioner Gennell said she has a question raised to her during the recess and can understand the concern regarding delivery vehicles and the hours of delivery. Ray Malave, Boyer Singleton, consultant for the property owner, stated that the delivery access will be off of S.R. 434 onto Vistawilla and then onto the roadway that will be behind all the lots and will be accessible to all the lots for deliveries. Commissioner Gennell asked if the City could restrict the hours for delivery vehicles. Manager McLemore said he doesn't think there is a need for it, the road has a capacity of providing ingress and egress for an entire industrial development park. Typically most of the types of traffic that "jam" traffic there at any point in time would be the large petroleum vehicles and said they typically do most of their deliveries late at night and said he would suggest that we could have in the agreement that if it becomes a problem we would have the right to constrain the hours. Commissioner Gennell said she would like to see that stipulation in the agreement. Attorney Guthrie said if we tied it to a standard such as traffic flows, traffic impact, would be legitimately a basis for regulation. Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 12 Commissioner Gennell asked if the agreement is specific and exclusive to a certain company or individual. Attorney Guthrie said the agreement is with the current property owner and is to be recorded and runs with the land; then separate actions that the Commission has considered address just one site, the Hess site. Commissioner Gennell asked if the wall will be built all at once. Attorney Guthrie said the way it is set forth in the agreement regarding the landscaping he said the wall unless the City directs otherwise will be built as each site is developed as was with the landscaping. Commissioner McLeod asked about the hours of operation of the car wash if they were 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. Attorney Guthrie stated that is what his notes reflect. Commissioner McLeod said item 3, at the present time does not speak the landscaping, it talks about putting the six foot masonry wall and said that a portion should be added. Commissioner McLeod asked the City Manager about the time of trash pick-up. Manager McLemore said he would have to check the Franchise Agreement and said each agreement for each business is a separate contract, therefore the developer would have to add that to the agreement. Donald LeBlanc said the hours of operations are not to commence until 7:00 a.m. Commissioner McLeod asked that the City Manager to negotiate with the hauler that as they start going into that zone regarding the time and asked that the Manager report back at the next meeting as to where the hauler would stand on this issue. Manager McLemore asked what time would be appropriate. Commissioner McLeod said he has been asked by residents that no pick-up before 8:00 a.m. Manger McLemore said he would check with the hauler. Mayor Partyka opened the Public Hearing. Jay Clay, 144 Peregrine Ct., read a portion of the petition he spoke about earlier: "A Petition Concerning the Hess Gas Station Mini Mart to be Located on the Southeast Corner of S.R. 434/419 and Vistawilla. While we appreciate the efforts of the Winter Springs City Manager, the Mayor and the Commissioners to coordinate the retail and homeowners needs of the land in question. The undersigned homeowners request the City Commissioners require of the developer of the Hess Gas Station Mini Mart, to remain within the restrictions previously established for signage along the 434 corridor.... We are also opposed to the construction and operation of a car wash at this location and request that a six foot high brick wall erected along the edge of the subject property to shield the wetlands and the residents of the property behind the commercial location. We understand we being given a six foot meandering sidewalk along side 434 vs. Five foot we are going to get 25 foot of frontal landscaping vs. The Codes] 5 again along 434, a four lane commercial road, there is going to be a car wash, we have nothing in writing as of this point of what the hours are going to be. They promised a wall, we heard six feet, one person refers to it as brick, another as masonry. We think there's going to be an access road with unrestricted hours of delivery at this point in time, although things are being tried to change that, we would like to ask that the residents of Eagles Watch have access to changes etc., through the City Manager's office, if that's possible at least three days prior Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 13 to the next meeting. So far no body on our side have gotten any idea what the plans look like, what was going forward with this. There still is nothing on the plan that shows where the wall is going to be; there is only reference to vegetation but then there's a wetlands there which is unprotected. What we are saying is we really don't want a car wash, it's noisy, it's polluting, noise pollution alone is exhausting. Mr. Clay said she would like to see these things addressed and put on paper. Mayor Partyka said this is an on-going process, when new things are coming on board, we have documents here, the best thing to do is always stay on guard, ask the Staff to give you things as fast as they get it and you have every right to get that. Every thing that you ask for you ought to get in black and white. Greg Worley, 103 Marsh Creek, spoke regarding his concern with the access off of Vista willa. Robin Hermanson, 120 Redtail PI., spoke regarding crime and increased traffic and asked that something be done regarding ~he traffic in the agreement. Mayor Partyka closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to approve Item D, developers agreement to go on to the second public hearing, incorporating all the representations made tonight. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Miller: aye; Commissioner Blake: nay; Commissioner Martinez: nay; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. Attorney Guthrie said as a reminder to the public that the Commission is under a problem that they are subject to the land use requirements of a prior ordinance that vested this property as far as the uses go, so they have some qualitative things that they can debate in the agreement but the underlying uses that include the gas station and car wash are grand fathered in and vested under a court order. Attorney Guthrie then announced that the next public hearing is on March 9, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. Community Development Department/Planning Division F. Requesting the Commission to appoint a Commissioner to represent the City on the Government Public Education Television Program Committee. PURPOSE: for the Commission to appoint a Commissioner to represent the City on the Government Public Education Television Program Committee: Motion was made by Commissioner Martinez to appoint Commissioner Gennell to represent he City. Seconded by Commissioner Miller. Discussion. Mayor Partyka said with due respect to Commissioner Gennell, that she is doing a lot of things and his thought would be is this is a time to spread out for some experience and said his suggestion would be to give it to one of the newer Commissioners so they get a little more experience in working out side things. Vote: Commissioner Blake: nay; Commissioner Martinez: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Miller: aye. Motion passes. Reeular Meetine Citv Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 14 Commissioner Gennell mentioned an alternate for this and stated that Commissioner Blake attends the CALNO meetings and moved that Commissioner Blake be an alternate. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Commissioner Blake declined the appointment. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to appoint Commissioner Miller to be the alternate. Seconded by Commissioner McLeod. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye Commissioner Miller: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Martinez: aye. Motion passes. City Manager G. Requesting the Commission to hold a Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 840 preserving the City's right to use the Uniform Method of Collecting Non-Ad Valorem Special Assessments for lighting and beautification improvements planned for the Tuscawilla PUD. PURPOSE: to preserve the City's rights to use the Uniform Method of Collecting Non-Ad valorem Assessments within the Tuscawilla PUD for planned lighting and beautification improvements: THIS ITEM NOT APPLICABLE. Community Development Department/Code Enforcement Division H. Requests the commission deny the request of the Home Builders Association to allow off-site, right-of-way signage during the weekends between March 22, 1998 and AprilS, 1998 during the "Parade of Homes". PURPOSE: to request the Commission consider the request of the Home Builders Association to allow off-site, right-of-way signage during the weekends between March 22, 1998 and AprilS. 1998 during the "Spring Parade of Homes": Mr. Carrington gave his presentation. Mr. Rick McKee, representative of the Home Builder Association of Mid Florida, said the Home Builders Association is asking the Commissions permission to use directional signs during weekends only from March 22 to April 5th. Commissioner Martinez mentioned the Commission wants to support stronger Code Enforcement. Commissioner Gennell said this has been done in years past and have waived restrictions on this and we did not allow them in the right-of-ways. Commissioner Gennell said this is a short term request and is done all over Central Florida and said if we don't permit this we will send a message to the home builders that they will be excluded from the Parade of Homes as we don't permit that in our City and stated she doesn't think that is the message we want to send out to the home builders in our City. If the signs can be done in such a way as they are not on the right-of-way, and said she is sure that Staff can figure out a way for this to be done, and said this has been done year after year in the past. Mr. McKee stated they will be most willing to work with the City on that and also only five or six signs go to each of the entries, so there will not be a sea of the signs. Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 15 Commissioner Gennell said she understands that the signs would be only used on the week-ends. Mr. McKee said yes the week-ends only. Commissioner Miller said he has some reluctance to approve this because he feels that everyone else could come in and do this also, and until we get a handle on it, said he thinks it is something we ought to stay away from. To send a message out that people can't just go around and put signs in the roadways, and said we have totally lost control of it right now. Commissioner Blake said he is confused by Commissioner Gennell's statement as to allowing the signs but not in the right-of-ways, and said the specific question in this agenda item is whether or not we will allow the signs in the right-of-ways. They already have some limited right to put them on private property as long as they follow the sign code that is out there; the question is whether or not to let them put them in the right-of-way. Commissioner Blake said to Mr. McKee, that if the City were to make this special exception, would the Home Builders Association be willing to put up a bond to assure that all the signs will be taken down at the appropriate times and be willing to forfeit that if in fact they are not. Commissioner Blake said one of the problems he has is that some of the signs are missed and remain up for a long period of time. Mr. McKee said as far as the bond, he would be willing to go back to their Board of Directors who have the authority to make that decision and ask if they will be willing to do that. Aside from the bond issue, the signs are not cheap, and said the signs can be recycled and said the smart business person would put these out and pull them out on time and said when he advises the entries, he'll make a special note to say that the City of Winter Springs has pride in their community and wants these signs taken up and if this privilege is abused then we will not get it in the future. Commissioner Blake said his second problem is as Commissioner Miller stated which is we have had this significant issue in the past with sign pollution all over the place. Commissioner Blake said he has a problem with this request and unless the Home builders Association is willing to put up a bond, he might reconsider. Commissioner McLeod asked what is off-site advertising. Mr. Carrington stated that off-site advertising would be advertising a product that is not particularly sold on the site of the sign. Commissioner McLeod could it be defined as it's being placed some place other than at the location that the home is for sale. Mr. Carrington said yes. Commissioner McLeod asked would that preclude him from taking this to somebody's property, that is along a roadway. Attorney Guthrie said yes it does. Commissioner McLeod said he has a problem with the right-o-way signage, from the standpoint that Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 16 even we as a Commissioner can not put our campaign signs in the right-of-way without having them removed and said we don't even allow homeowners associations to put signs in the right-of-way announcing their meetings. Discussion. Commissioner Gennell asked if the request has been amended that they are not requesting anything on a right-of-way at this time. Mr. McKee said they are willing to work with the Commission; if the Commission thinks that the right-of-way is unacceptable, then we are willing to work with the City. Commissioner Gennell asked how many builders will be advertised. Mr. McKee said there are six homes throughout the City. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell moved that this item be approved and Staff will work with the Home Builders Association to try to locate opportunities on private property for them to locate their directional signs, the signs are not allowed in the right-or-ways . Seconded by Commissioner Blake. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Martinez: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner McLeod: nay; Commissioner Gennell: aye. Commissioner Miller was absent when the vote was taken. Motion passes. City Manager - Add-On I. City Manager requesting the Commission to review the status of the Tuscawilla Assessment District and to provide direction relative to the implementation of the project. PURPOSE: the purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Commission with a status report of the Tuscawilla Beautification Assessment District and to receive Commission direction relative to implementation of the proiect: Manager McLemore said this is a request for the Commission to expedite the schedule in terms of tasks involved in Phase I ofthe agreement with our consultants to bring Item l-C forward into Phase I. Manager McLemore mentioned that he has provided the Commission with an amended schedule, moving the date for the mail ballot to the middle of April. This is for the purpose of allowing the proforma financial information to be available to the public during or before the actual ballot. As stated there is a cost involved to undertake, prior to the ballot, of $20,000 to do this, the people who are supporting this and promoting this in the community feel that at this point and time that it would be advantageous to the ballot to be able to give people more definitive information relative to the cost, thereby narrowing the ranges that would have to be established for the estimates and costs. Manager McLemore said if this goes forward and the vote then is acceptable to the public, then the additional cost will be reimbursable from the assessment district at a future date. This has come at the request of the community. Manager McLemore said the question at this point is does the Commission desire to authorize him to include step l-C, in this immediate or Phase I which is the phase prior to and including the mail ballot. Reeular Meetine Citv Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 17 Commissioner McLeod said when this was in front of the Commission before and it cost $10,000 and it was suggested that more information be gathered and more spent in the beginning, and would have cost less at that time then now, and was assured the community was behind this and it wasn't necessary at that time to spend the money for something that everyone thought would pass. Commissioner McLeod said now we are spending 300% more to do the same thing and is it necessary. Commissioner McLeod said the problem that he sees is that there is doubt in the community if this will pass (perhaps) and if that is the case, it seems that it puts the City at a little more risk, not loosing $10,000 but $30,000 because there would be no way to recoup this. Manager McLemore said he couldn't answer how important this would be relative to the success of the vote. Commissioner McLeod asked ifthere is a preliminary number that was going to be used at this time, there was a number that was going to be told to the residents and later broken down. Manager McLemore said we don't have that number yet, but initially we said we would take all the parcels and divide it into the cost and come up with a range and said he thinks what is desired now is to be able to say to the residents the costs in tier one and tier two. Manager McLemore said the request is for better definitive information and said he can't say if there will be a tiering based on this, that's what will come from the proforma analysis. Mayor Partyka opened this to public input. Joseph Genova, Adidas Rd., spoke in favor of the beautification district. Mr. Genova said in the City Manager's letter that appeared in the Tuscawilla Today, it is stated that the Board of Trustees will be a majority of Tuscawilla residents and said at the Homeowners Meetings, they were told that all Trustees will be all residents of Tuscawilla and asked the City Manager what is correct. Manager McLemore said he was trying to say that the Commission will appoint the members of the advisory Commission, and what needs to be decided is what happens with the Dyson Area, which is outside the City limits, but is part of the PUD and said the way he sees it is he thinks the Commission appoints the members of the advisory commission and said the thinks the Commission has stated that those members will come from the assessment district. Mr. Genova asked about the method of collection, would it be on the tax roles or mortgage payments. Manager McLemore said the bill will be from the tax collection but if an individual wants to have it on their mortgage can do so; with the exception of the first year, the first year it will come from the City of Winter Springs. Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 18 Mr. Genova said also in the Manager's letter it stated that details of the Ordinance will be worked out, and asked that the details of the Ordinance be worked out and made know to the residents before the referendum. Manager McLemore said if the Commission approves this tonight, details and cost will be worked out prior to the referendum. Gene Lein 1173 Winged Foot Circle, asked about the wording "paved streets and parks" being in the Ordinance and asked why is it in the ordinance. Manager Mclemore said the advertisement that was seen was purely to preserve the right under the Florida Statutes to use the uniform method of non-ad valorem assessment collection and the purpose of the ad was to not try and define the specific activities that would be in the assessment district, that comes later when the ordinance is created. The things that are in the ordinance, all the possibilities have all been covered by that which was in the intent, but when the ordinance is written it will be zeroed down to the actual items that will be in the assessment district. Manager McLemore said the ordinance is what controls not the notice of intent. The notice of intent has no control whatsoever over what will be in the day to day management of the assessment district, it simply preserves the right, because these things can be challenged, our consultants felt that it would be smarter and cautious to use a more expansive language. Manager McLemore said beyond that point the ordinance specifies what is there, specifies the structure, specifies the length of debt, it has nothing to do with notice of intent. Motion was made by Commissioner to approve agenda Item I and to move forward. Second by Commissioner Martinez. Discussion. Commissioner Blake explained to Commissioner McLeod about the extra expense. Vote: Commissioner Miller: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Martinez: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes. City Manager - Add-On J. Requesting direction for the Commission relative to City contributions to the Cross Seminole County Trail head site being located in Winter Springs. PURPOSE: to determine at what level the Commission is willing to participate in the Cross Seminole County Trail Head located in Winter Springs: Manager McLemore said we have been working with the County to try to make the opening event a success, there has been a lot of budget issues involved because the County was not really funded to do this in a way we felt would meet the goal. The goal was to, when we opened this trail site, was to make it very positive experience for people so it would have an effect with getting voter approval in the future. Manager McLemore said we were concerned about bringing the plans as close to 100% implementation as we could and the County has requested some help in doing this; the County has put in a large amount of money in this particular pilot project at this point in time, of which our portion is very small. One of the item that was noted was the County has agreed to put in a restroom Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 19 facility at about a cost of$60,000 and requested we enter into an inter-local agreement that the City of Winter Springs maintains the restroom. Manager McLemore said his suggestion is that the City does that to a period of time until the final method of financing is worked out for the trial and that we do not agree to it in perpetuity from the beginning but leave it open for negotiations on how the final system will work. Commissioner Blake asked when the opening will be. Manager McLemore said he thinks they are working towards the third week in April. Commissioner Blake asked if the City is planning a City-wide opening ceremony event. Manager McLemore said yes we are preparing for that. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to approve Add-On Item J. Seconded by Commissioner Blake. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Miller: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Martinez: aye. Motion passes. VI. REPORTS A. City Attorney - Frank Kruppenbacher No Report. B. City Manager - Ronald W. McLemore Manager McLemore said he handed out an item to the Commission regarding the Tuscawilla Assessment District and an answer that was finally received from the County, relative to the requested governance alternative. We have had several conversations with the County Commissioners and the Staff and basically what we are being told is the County Commission (some time ago) made a policy that they would not enter into an umbrella agreement, where they would in fact create the entire district on behalf of a City, when you have involved an assessment district that lays in partially in a municipality and partially outside the municipality in an unincorporated area. The instrument they have chosen to use in the past, in which they are telling us they want to use here also, is for the City to create the district inside the City and the County would create the district outside the City and enter into an inter-local agreement with the City by which they would transfer those funds collected in the unincorporated area into the municipal assessment district and allow the City to administer the entire district. Manager McLemore said it is going about it in a different way than what we recommended but said he thinks it does the same thing. Manager McLemore said the County wants to see the actual assessment ordinance, the final assessment costs and the results of the election before they make their final decision. Secondly, they have a policy that they have adopted in the past, where they require a 65% vote in order to approve that line outside the municipal limits; that part tends to complicate it a little bit, where we could wind up with a 55% or 60% vote in the City and not get 65% in the Dyson area and not be approved by the County. The other thing that complicates it a little bit but stated he thinks we can work around Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 20 it, is if we make the choice to include Dyson from the beginning, it could have some bearing on what the estimated costs are, when you drop out those parcels, but it would be fairly small. Manager McLemore said he thinks it would be very small and said that is something the Commission needs to think about in terms of making a decision whether to continue on and include Dyson or make a decision that it complicates it too much and can't get the information we need to get to the property owners to not include Dyson and said it is the Commission's decision at this point in time. Manger McLemore said if there is specific improvements that lay in the Dyson area that would not be build as a result of them not getting 65%, then that could change the parameters. Manager McLemore said it was the preference of the Homeowners Association to include Dyson but the County has chosen to take a different stance than we hoped they would. Commissioner Blake said share is probably close to the same, in terms of doing the math, the number probably would not be affected ifvery much at all. Manager McLemore said his suggestion is to move on as the Commission desires. It was the consensus of the Commission to have the City Manager move on with this. Manager McLemore said he will give the notice to proceed on this in the morning. Manager McLemore stated that we will be brining on a volunteer to work for about a month or so on grants and asked the Commission if they minded that this person used the Commission's office behind the dias. The Commission did not mind. C. Commission Seat V - David McLeod Commissioner McLeod spoke about cutting-off the Commissioners after five minutes of speaking. Mayor Partyka said we are trying to speed up the meetings, not to cut off anybody but to do it in a fashion set up in Robert's Rules and to a degree we're trying to get use to that and stated that he is doing the best he can with the goal of being more efficient. Commissioner McLeod said he understands that but if a Commissioner has a question of another Commission and that Commission wants to respond then that Commission should be able to respond as long as the response is not directed personally at people (maybe that's the guidelines). Commissioner McLeod thanked the City Manager for the fast response with complaints he gave him from residents. D. Commission Seat I - Robert S. Miller Commissioner Miller regarding his memo on traffic calming - things that could be introduced, thanked the City Manager for taking the time to send Staff down to Boca Raton to learn about traffic control and mentioned that someone will come and address the Commission on that subject. Commissioner Miller asked the Mayor to avoid making disparaging remarks about the western part of the City. Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 21 E. Commission Seat II - Michael Blake Commissioner Blake mentioned that he attended the Father/Daughter Valentines Dance at the Civic Center and stated that it was very well done and well attended. Commissioner Blake mentioned that the Orange Avenue gate at Central Winds Park was opened and that he had previously asked that it be closed. Commissioner Blake mentioned the Town Center Development Meetings and mentioned that the entrance way to the Senior Center, it has the big steal door, no over hand, no landscaping, and asked if there was something could be done, and said it would not take a lot to dress it up some. Commissioner Blake mentioned that in from of the Fire Station Site, the new one, there is a low spot there that has been holding water and said it is within a foot or foot and a half of the roadway and asked ifthere was something that could be done about that. Manger McLemore said we will get with D.O.T., and ifthere is something we can do quick we will do it ourselves. Commissioner Blake mentioned prior discussion on a workshop for the review of the Charter and asked when can a date be set for that workshop. Discussion on setting a date. It was determined that a date will be set at the March 23, 1998 meeting for a date in June. Discussion on the workshop for April 20, 1998. Commissioner Blake said the meeting for April 20, 1998 is a meeting for the Commission to determine evaluation criteria and how to communicate to the Manager what he will be evaluated on and what he ought to be doing. Commissioner Blake mentioned that he was not happy with the City Manager's style/approach when he presents issues to the Commission and that he has noted five instances. The City Manager's job is very clearly to take the Commissions policy and procedures and implement those in his duties. His position is clearly not to be a representative of the building or development community as a lobbyist to this Commission either publicly here on the dias or privately in his office or anywhere else. Commissioner Blake said he has been on both sides of the issue, there have been times when he has agreed with the issue and time he hasn't agreed with the issue, the issue is not the question. If a person who is not familiar with our meeting or our government or the personalities involved, were to listen to the tape at anyone of these five specific instances that he has noted, they would have thought that the City Manager was an individual working for the developer, representing a developer before this Commission. Commissioner Blake said this is not only his view point, he has had discussion with others who has seen this at each of the occasions and stated an individual has come up to him (who he did not know) and asked him who the City Manager works for. Commissioner Blake said he is not making any suggestions whatsoever that there has been wrong doing, what he is suggesting is that sometimes appearances of style can be misconstrued and said he believes that the City Manager ought to engage the Commission in spirited debate to come up with the best answers for a given question; which should not be the carrier of the message from a developer in order to get a project that he apparently takes ownership in, from an idea standpoint, through this Commission. Reeular Meetine City Commission March 2. 1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 22 Commissioner Blake said he would hope that we do not see that again. Commissioner Blake said if anyone has any questions, he will be glad to let them know which meetings they were specifically and get tapes. F. Commission Seat III - Ed Martinez Commissioner Martinez stated that the last two meetings that have taken place the Commission heard Attorney Mike Jones saying "in his discussions with the City Manager and Staff' that they had agreed and so on and so forth and said he thinks that the Commission should be informed every step of the way, so when we are here and have to make decisions we are not in the dark. Commissioner Martinez said the Commission doesn't seem to be able to get enough information on certain aspects of a question to be able to make an intelligent decision. Commissioner Martinez said that over three meetings ago the Commission requested from the City Manager and City Attorney that they provide the Commission with some format to amend the Code of Ordinances and mentioned that he asked about wetlands and flood planes and was promised an answer or something within 30 days and said the Commission still doesn't have an answer. Commissioner Martinez said he provided each Commissioner with a copy of a memo that he wrote in which he has selectively spelled out some of sections of Section 8 of the Code of Ordinances that has to do with wetlands and flood planes and some Sections of Chapter 9 Land Devleopment and some Sections of the Compo Plan 1990-2010 Land Use excerpts and said he is hoping that this will give us some direction and get an answer to his request. Commissioner Martinez said in addition to the excerpts in questions, he is asking the Commission to join him in requesting from the City Manager and Staff, that effective as soon as possible they be required to keep the Commission informed of every application for development within the corporate boundaries of the City on a minimum of a monthly basis, thus allowing the Commission to be informed, to be able to read and study all relevant material through final application process, in order for the Commission to be able to make a more educated and intelligent decision on such matters during the final presentation and decision making efforts. Commissioner Martinez said he is also requesting that each and every time the Commission has to face a difficult issue, such as Battle Ridge or the Hess station issue, that the Commission be supplied with the necessary documentation by the Wednesday preceding the City Commission Monday Public Hearings, and again so the Commission has sufficient amount of time to study and research facts necessary to make an intelligent decision. If for reasons beyond Staff control, this dead line cannot be met, make the necessary arrangements to table the matter until such time as Staff can comply with the requested dead line. Commissioner McLeod stated that he would like the Staff to provide the Commission with more information on the Sign Ordinance, with regards to the type of building that was before the Commission tonight so that in the future when another building of that type comes before the Commission the Commission is not in debate with each other. Commissioner McLeod said if there is another building coming on a site (in the near future) that may be different from our Ordinance, said he would appreciate that at this time also, the Commission can discuss it. Commissioner McLeod mentioned that he likes the Manager's style. Commissioner McLeod said to Commissioner Martinez Reswlar Meetine Citv Commission March 2.1998 - continuation from 02-23-98 Paee 23 that the request he asked for was asked for from his seat and said he didn't believe it was agreed to by the Commission as a whole. Commissioner McLeod said he finds that the Commission gets information fairly timely, and said he gets (normally) the information that he asks for, and said he looks at what the City is involved with overall compared to what he is asking for and tries to put a reasonable time frame to what he is asking. Motion was made by Commissioner Gennell to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. G. Commission Seat IV - Cindy Gennell Commissioner Gennell stated that she has had inquiries form residents with regard to direct billing for the utility bills. Commissioner Gennell said she has had residents concerned that the western end of the city is not getting as much attention as the eastern end and said she didn't want to see the redevelopment area put to the wayside. Mayor Partyka sated that this meeting will continue prior to the start of the Regular Meeting o the Commission on March 9, 1998. The meeting adjourned at 11 :00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~M_;;:~ /~~ Hopkins, City Clerk - -PAUL i~PAR'f'YKA, " ,--:- " .....: -, .... ... ...... -, ;:-...