Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001 11 12 Consent J Approval of September 25, 2001 City Commission Special Meeting Minutes COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM J Consent X Informational Public Hearings Regular November 12.2001 Regular Meeting Mgr. / Dept. Authorization CONSENT J. Office Of The City Clerk Requesting Approval Of The September 25, 2001 City Commission Special Meeting Minutes. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 25,2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The Special Meeting of Tuesday, September 25,2001 ofthe City Commission was called to order by Deputy Mayor David W. McLeod at 6:32 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). CITY COMMISSION ROLL CALL: Mayor Paul P. Partyka, absent Deputy Mayor David W. McLeod, present Commissioner Robert S. Miller, present Comr:lissioner Michael S. Blake, present Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr., absent Commissioner Cindy Gennell, absent City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, absent General Services Department Director Gene DeMarie, present City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, absent Attorney JeffBuak, present LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ROLL CALL: Chairman Bill Fernandez, absent Vice Chairman Tom Brown, present Board Member Brent Gregory, present Board Member Rosanne Karr, present Board Member Carl Stephens, Jr., present The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. II. AGENDA A. Community Development Department Requests That The City Commission And Local Planning Agency (LP A) Conduct A Workshop To Review The Recommendations Of Land Design Innovations (LDI) For The Evaluation And Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments To The Recreation And Open Space, Conservation And Solid Waste Elements Of The City Of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25.2001 PAGE 2 OF 22 Ms. Patricia A. Tyjeski, Senior Planner, AICP, of Land Design Innovations, Inc. advised the Commission about a conflict with the planned October 2, 2001 Special Meeting date. Discussion followed. Ms. Megan Wimer, Planner, Land Design Innovations, Inc. stated, "After these Workshops are complete we'll be ready to go through the final approval. We're currently making changes based on the comments we've received so far, and we will have a final draft for P and Z on October 23rd - the P and Z hearing is scheduled for November ih, and the City Commission hearing is scheduled for November 26th. Upon approval by the City Commission, a Comp Plan will be due to the State within ten (l0) days of approval, which is estimated at December lOth at this point - an adoption hearing can be expected in May of 2002." Ms. Wimer then distributed a document listing the eight (8) Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. A brief overview of the Conservation Element was given by Ms. Wimer who stated, "We have suggested changing the minimum - upland buffer from fifteen (15) to twenty-five feet (25) feet for wetlands and that's as defined by the St. John's Water Management DiRtrict." Ms. Wimer stated further, "So we're suggesting that the City adopt the twenty- five (25) foot minimum establishing a Wellhead Protection Ordinance, which would regulate the land use in the vicinity of water supply wells - and also we suggest adopting an Aquifr.:r Recharge Ordinance, which has been laid out in Policies 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan." .:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. .:..:. Board Member Rosanne Karr stated, "I had an issue with the use of 'Should be' and 'Needs to be,' and I was wondering how the reviewers would take that coming from our City. Saying it should be this; it needs to be that. It sounds like we need to say we will do this, we will do that. Are you going to change that?" Board Member Karr stated in regards to page V-I 0, "At the very top it says 'To assist in the conservation or natural resources, Code of Ordinances should more strictly govern development' - 'Wetlands should be protected through mitigation' - and it says 'Surface waters should be proteded' and then - 'The IOO-year floodplain. needs to. be protected-'-- .Code-of- - ---- Ordinances should be drafted to protect these wetland habitats. '" Ms. Tyjeski responded, "That's the background data. So when you move to the Policy Section, that's when we're using the 'Shal1.' That's when we're saying, to do this you're going to have to adopt an Ordinance, or you're going to have to restrict something. We use - in the data analysis, we use general language and that's pretty much - setting it up so that when you get to the Policies, you know why you are doing that, because we recommended that before." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25. 2001 PAGE 3 OF 22 Vice Chairman Tom Brown stated, "I'd like to, whatever our decision is when we pass this Element on to the Commission, I'd like to make it part of our Motion on a recommendation to the Commission, that they highlight this. That it will be done after this i~ submitted - gets submitted to the State and then lay back like some of, if you look at the old Comp Plan, you'll see that some of this same terminology was used and it's ten (10) years later and nothing was ever done." Ms. Tyjeski responded, "We can either put in a date or just say that it's part of the Land Development Regulations update. This will be done." Vice Chaim1an Brown stated, "Well, I'd like the Commission, they're here, of course they can hear our recommendations to it. But, some sort of a plan that - these items would be followed up on. I know that everybody's busy and there's a million other projects that are going on, but at least there would be something structured with the City Manager. " Attorney Jeff Buak stated, "The way the procedure will work just for clarification, the City needs to follow through with its plan. The Staff will need to bring forward these Ordinances that are recommended in the Policies, to your Commission, to the P and Z, allJ the Land Planning Agency for review. You will forward those on with recommendations to the Commission to review down the road. I would recommend against setting any particular dates because we don't want to make this document inflexible. " Vice Chairman Brown said, "We discussed that and we're all okay on that. We haven't committed to any kind of dates or anything. Okay, so you'll make a note of that Mr. Carrington, and I'll make a note." Board Member Carl Stephens, Jr. asked, "Is there any type of Ordinance we can come up with to protect the existing - Recharge areas that have been developed, yet something that can still offer some more protection?" Ms. Wimer stated, "Right off hand I don't; but I know that this issue is very important to you and I will definitely look into that and see if we can add another policy there." Board Member Stephens added, "Because Winter Springs is already developed pretty much. I mean we don't have a whole lot left that I know of, and we're drawing from that water. I know I have a well and I am wondering - how much water is down there and the more people to come in and draw-off ,. . _.- ........ ... ..." that Aquifr~r, it is a concern." Vice Chairman Brown asked, "Do I hear a Motion on this Element one way or the other?" Board Member Brown added, "She did mention that you would possibly come up with some more - for the existing?" Ms. Wimer responded, "I' lllook into that." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25,2001 PAGE 4 OF 22 Vice Chairman Brown stated, "That's what you're looking for. Is that prior to submittal, after submittal? It's a strong issue with Carl." Board Member Stephens stated, "In a few years it will be a strong issue with everybody in Florida, I think." Vice Chaim1an Brown staled further, "I know there's been a lot of concern about them pushing the water back in prelt)' fast before it actually goes through so many years and so many cycles. And I am not familiar with the layers and all that anymore. So there is a concern." "I WILL MOVE TO RECOMMEND THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT WITH THE CONCERNS THAT THE - BOARD HAS NOTED - TO THE COMMISSION." MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER GREGORY. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER GREGORY: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN: AYE MOTION CARRIED. .:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE CITY COMMISSION. .:. .:. Commissioner Robert S. Miller said to Attorney Buak, "Rosanne brought up an issue which intrigues me a little bit, this going back to all of the other Policy statements in here, all of them - 'Shall.' What is the legal impact of changing all the 'Shalls' to 'Will?' I mean if it really is our policy to do this - draft a policy and approve an Ordinance. So are we restricting ourselves unnecessarily by using 'Will' instead of 'Shall?'" Attorney Buak responded, "I think so. I think you need to remember that this is the plan by which your Land Development regulations will be based upon. And your LDR's are, if you want to use the word, the hammer that you're going to use to run the City. So I'd leave your policies, your objectives, and your goal for each of these Elements with as much flexibility as you can, while still meeting the requirements of the Florida Statues and the Administrative Code,:'"... - Commissioner Miller said, "It's just that some of these, I think are more important than others. Especially - Mr. Stephens brought up 'Water' and there are some of these policy statements that I think really are very important, much more important than some of the other ones. We probably need to move more aggressively on and I am trying to figure out a way to accomplish that without having to go through every one of these and decide which ones have a priority - I noticed here Policy Y, 1.5.1 says, and this is on floodplains, it says 'Regulations for development within the floodplains will be maintained in the City's Code of Ordinance to prevent flooding.' That obviously is quite important I suppose, because 'Will' was inserted there." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 PAGE 5 OF 22 Attorney Buak responded, "At the same time it doesn't define what the regulations will be." Commissioner Miller stated, "I understand that but we will address it. 'Shall' is kind of - we will try to get to it at some point." Attorney Buak then stated, "My understanding of the word 'Shall' verses 'May;' 'Shall' is a mandatory obligatory type word, and 'May' is of more discretionary - provision. I would rank 'Shall' with 'Will' equally. " Discussion ensued regarding upland buffers. Commissioner Michael S. Blake asked, "Don't we already have a provision or wouldn't the newly revised Comp Plan have provisions for mitigation that would allow if the current or existing wetlands was less than twenty-five (25) feet and they wanted to still build there that they could use some sort of mitigation to retain a twenty-five (25) foot buffer? In other words, there are other options." Attorney Buak stated, "This particular Policy that we're talking about, and it's Policy 1.4.1, I believe it is stronger than the current Policy that we had in this proposed Comp Plan." Commissioner Blake inquired, "What is the current Policy, how is it listed? - Is there a buffer required at all?" Attorney Buak responded, "Twenty-five (25) feet." Attorney Buak then explained, "Vegetative wetland buffer of twenty-five (25) depending upon site conditions, shall be maintained between all structures in a wetland jurisdiction..." Commissioner Blake stated, "So the words 'Depending upon site conditions.'" "That's true. It's in the current one," stated Attorney Buak. Commissioner Blake stated, "Okay, and the elimination of that individual phrase makes the new Policy more stringent." "Yes," stated Attorney Buak. Commissioner Blake said, "Because the new Policy states, or would state the City shall require within its Code of Ordinances, minimum upland buffers for wetlands as defined by St. John's Water Management District: Which may also be more prescriptive because now we're creating a definition of what an upland buffer is by reference to St. John's rules to be at least twenty-five (25) feet from the edge of the wetland. I would agree that this new language does sound more restrictive - this still does not take away the opportunity for a landowner to provide some sort of mitigation to allow development closer to where an existing wetland is than twenty-five (25) feet. And through mitigation, stiil preparing a buffer of twenty-five (25) feet while providing mitigation elsewhere, may be on-site or off-site. That opportunity would exist under this." Attorney Buak stated, "1 believe it does, but this particular Policy will provide for a potentially stronger challenge for consistency. And - it was our recommendation that perhaps we could loosen up the language just a little bit to provide that the LDR's would provide specific characteristics. And there were three (3) characteristics that the City Attorney had provided previously. They would be 'The buffer should be reduced or eliminated as part of a mitigation plan that is approved by the St. John's Water Management District;' 'The City must determine that the site conditions reasonably CITY OF WINTER SPIUNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSiON SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 PAGE 6 OF 22 support the reduction or elimination;' and the third would be, 'That any determination by the City to reduce or eliminate the wetland buffer must be consistent with the overall 'Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comp Plan.'" Commissioner Blake said, "Commission, I do not like that language. l am in favor of keeping Policy 1.4.1 exactly as it's stated here. I think there are other provisions in the plan that would provide for a developer or a landowner to alter their plans somewhat. To still prov~de for the buffer and provide them use of the property, and stilI protect th,e wetlands and other areas through mitigation if that's what's required, But I would not be in favor of that language that was just read." Discussions followed regarding developing a Land Use Ordinance and striking out the words 'Industrial' and 'And.' Commissioner Blake stated in regards to the Tree Protection Ordinance, Section J. J ,3, "We already have an Arbor Ordinance, does this suggest that we have to develop a new Ordinance or does it allow for the existence of a preexisting Ordinance that would accomplish the goal? Because in the Arbor Ordinance, I believe there is discuksion of the air filtering properties of foliage plants and trees specifically. J guess what) a/f] asking, is this telling us to do something? That, and do we have to re..do what's already done, or i~ tJ]is just simply stating that we will maintain?" Ms. Wimer stated, "rt'~: stating - I guess the language should be changed from 'Shall require' to 'Shall D1.aintain the tree protection ordinance. ", Discussions ensued regarding the Cross Seminole Trail. Tape I/Side B The Commission discussed Policy 1.2.3 regarding high recharge areas. Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "I think our question on the thing is, 'Is this more restrictive than what St. John's presently is? I mean we presently go by the St. John's VVater JVlarlClgemeni on water retention on pervious surfaces. Is it more restrictive? Is it after the St. John's? Where did it come from?" Discussion followed. Deputy Mayor McLeod .stated further, "I think your other problem is when you start getting more stringent than St. John's, now you've got more management here, more rersonnel here that have to be educated in those areas to be able to govern what you put in here. Presently we can rely on the St. John's Water Management for a lot of the permitting and a lot of those entities. Once you put this in here you send - St. JoJ'.LlJ 'f: gel. a permit, but then you've go to come back to the City. The City looks at their perri1iJ and then goes beyond that. I have a problem with stacking government." Ms. Kimberley Hall, City Engineer/Stormwater Utility Manager agreed. Commissioner Blake stated, "Mr. Deputy Mayor, to try and move this on, what I wouJd recommend on Policy 1.2.3 is to have this re-characterized, not as a requirement but as an CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25.2001 PAGE 7 OF 22 encouragement. Let me look through here. I am not sure how to wordsmith it because they're actually several points within here. Now I think our Policy can be that that encouraging retention and high recharge areas, or retention and high recharge areas should he encouraged through developmental plans. Even perhaps to the point where we could allow some extraordinary or different type of development for a landowner who designs development on property that is favorable to recharge." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "I think you're better off to strike it personally." Deputy Mayor McLeod said, "Why wouldn't we turn this back or get rid of it and allow it to be governed by the St. John's Water Management who has much more resources and funds to do those things in this City?" Discussion followed. Commissioner Blake and Deputy Mayor McLeod stated their agreement to extracting Policy 1.2.3. Commissioner Miller stated, "Leave it in there." Board Member Karr asked, "Can we just change the Policy to read that 'The City shall encourage that all new development within the most effective recharge areas corresponds with that of the St. John's Water Management District?' Isn't that what you wanted to do in the first place?" Discussion followed. Commissioner Blake asked Ms. Hall, "What we want to do is try to protect the high recharge areas to the extent that we can. What we don't want to do is create another level of government or to provide a burden on Staff that we don't have Staff to do. How would you suggest we get to where we want to be?" With discussion with Ms. Hall, . Commissioner Blake suggested, "So why don't we just incorporate that in this policy statement and be done with it? Doesn't that take care of the issue of desiring that we try and protect recharge areas and also requiring that those people that do that type of work?" Ms. Hall stated, "I have a copy of the St. John's Codes and ifSt. John's misses anything I still enforce them because those, according to our Land Development Regulations, are our minimum requirements. So, I still look for the same thing 81. John's looks for. But you know again with this comment, we'd have to determine exactly what's a high recharge, and then exactly what you can and can't do. I mean obviously you don't want somebody not to build in an area just because they have wonderful soil. You don't want to prohibit them from building, so then you'd have to sit there and set the guidelines of what can and can't be done." Commissioner Blake stated, "Okay, that'd be my recommendation." Commissioner Miller stated, "That's fine." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "I agree." The Commission discussed Policy 1.2.4 regarding the development of an Aquifer Recharge Ordinance. Attorney Buak suggested, "One way to soften the language might be, in this particular case, 'Is the City shall explore the adoption of an aquifer recharge area and implement a feasible...' something among those lines." Commissioner Blake and Deputy Mayor McLeod agreed with Attorney Buak's suggestion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25.2001 PAGE 8 OF 22 Discussion ensued regarding Policy 1.2.6, Water Reclaim Systems. Commissioner Blake asked, "Is this saying we need to continue to expand our re-use System?" Ms. Wimer said, "Where possible, yes." Commissioner Blake stated, "Well, it doesn't say, 'Where possible,' it says, 'Shall continue. ", Commissioner Blake then stated, "My concern is in the language and the way it is written helt:. I do not want there to be anyway possible for somebody to construe this language as 1\1t.aning and being able to force us to expand the system, which we may not be able to expand for either of those two (2, or perhaps a variety of other reasons that I haven't thought of or don't know that exist at this point in time." Ms. Tyjeski said, "No, the idea is to just, to continue doing what you've been doing." Commissioner Blake suggested, "So how about 'We maintain' - how about 'Continue to maintain.' I would say 'Continue to maintain.'" Commissioner Miller said, "'Maintain' is fine." The consensus of the Commission was to have Policy 1.2.6 state 'Continue to maintain.' On Policy 1.3.2. regarding "Surface Water," Commissioner Blake said, "I'll be happy with just circling this one and if you can take a look at it and understand my concerns." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "At the next Workshop - have an answer." In Objective 1.5, the Commission spoke on the absence of a policy statement regarding floodway encroachment. Discussion. Commissioner Blake said, "We need a Policy Statement that goes along with that hand in hand also. So that would be my recommendation there." Attorney Buak stated, "Commissioner Blake before you leave - 1.5.3, 'The City's Code of Ordinance's shall ensure.' I am not sure I like - 'Ensure.'" Attorney Buak suggested, "Or Provide.'" Commissioner Blake said, "Why not just 'Require.' 'The City's Code of Ordinance's shall require that no hazardous materials or waste be stored within the 100- year flood plain.''' Attorney Buak stated, "That's fine. Just so long as we're not ensuring.'" Commissioner Blake then said, "I understand and I think it's an excellent point and I'm glad you brought it up. That would be my recommendation." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "Mr. Miller, do you agree with that?" Commissioner Miller stated, "Oh, absolutely." "I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT AS AMENDED." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HI A.KE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE MOTION CARRIED. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25. 2001 PAGE 9 OF 22 .:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. .:..:. The Local Planning Agency then briefly discussed Solid Waste. Discussion followed. Vice Chairman Brown stated, "I'll entertain a Motion at this time unless something new has come up." "I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE - SOLID WASTE ELEMENT AS SO DESIGNATED IN THIS DOCUMENT." MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER GREGORY: AYE BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN: AYE BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE MOTION CARRIED. .:..:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE CITY COMMISSION. .:. .:. Commissi')ner Blake asked, "This minimum 'Level of Service,' 7.1 or 7.12 pounds per capita pel' day, we have two (2) numbers, two (2) different places. Is there a specific reason vv'hy in Policy 1.1.1 it's 7.1, and on Policy 1.2.1 it's 7.12? I guess they're about the same but I mean for consistency purposes, maybe we want to do something there. Now, where did that number come from?" Ms. Wimer stated, "I didn't work on this Element, this was our Engineer as well. But I believe all the information he got came from the County." Commissioner Blake stated, "Where in our Comp Plan do we discuss for concurrency purposes, for a new developer coming in? When they have to be reviewed? As a plan comes into our Staff, and it has to be reviewed for concurrency, where does our Staff go to detern1ine whether or not there is capacity in Solid Waste for that new development?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "When somebody comes in to get approval for development, they nep.d to know if there's capacity in Parks, they go to the Parks Office. If they want to know about Solid Waste, then they would go to General Services and they'd refer them to the County." Ms. Tyjeski added, "I mean we don't specify in this Plan - where you get all that information. We're just forecasting what we think is going to happen in the future. " CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25.2001 PAGE 10 OF 22 Commissioner Blake then inquired, "Is concurrency required for Solid Waste removal?" Ms. Tyjeski answered, "I believe it is." Commissioner Blake stated, "Is there a requirement for concurrency in the Growth Management Laws for Solid Waste?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "I am not sure about it, I mean - Jeff do you know?" Commissioner Blake then asked, "And ultimately the question is if concurrency is required and it's administered through our Comprehensive Plan, where in here does it state how an applicant determines whether or not their project meets concurrency?" Ms. Tyjeski said, "Tnat would be part of the Concurrency Management Ordinance. That's where the system is ~,et up, where you say there is so much capacity, has to be updated, how often the City decides. And it states all the 'Levels of Service' standards that we have in the Comp Plan; and that's where all the details for concurrency would be." Tape 2/Side A Ms. Tyjeski stated further, ".. .At this point we're just setting the 'Levels of Service.' And in this case we're deferring it to the County's 'Levels of Service.'" Discussion followed on landfills. Next, Members of the City Commission discussed City population. Attorney Buak advised the City Commission that, "Policies 1.1.3 and 1.1.4. provide for the City to subcontract for their hauling service and may very well prohibit the City from changing to hauling themselves, if they City wanted to go into the business of garbage hauling; a lot of Cities do profitable business. You just you might want to loosen that language t:p too. Commissioner Blake agreed. Attorney Buak then spoke of Objective 1.3. and said, "Instead of having 'Ensure' again, do 'Required' or 'Provided for.' Something along those lines." Deputy Mayor McLeod asked, "Where was your first one?" Attorney Buak answered, "The first one Commissioner was at 1.1.3. In the first line, 'Contracted to be performed' and then I am just suggesting you, the Commission may want to add in 'Or performed by the City of Winter Springs.' And then in 1.1.4, I haven't really thought about the language but it talks about the City, within the City's corporate limits through the use of contracted haulers or through it's own services or something like that." Discussion. "I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE SUGGESTED CHANGES FROM THE ATTORNEY." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. DISCUSSION. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 PAGEllOFn VOTE: COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE MOTION CARRIED. .:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. .:. .:. Discussion followed on the Recreation and Open Space Element. Vice Chairman Brown stated, "The first question I have is on the list of tables that on the previous draft they were listed as 2000, the various tables, the facilities, and so forth were all 2000. They're 2001 now and that's just an update to the very latest?" Mr. Chuck Pula, Parks and Recreation Department Director stated, "Yes." Vice Chairman Brown said, "Okay, but yet on -6 and -7, it is until 2000. So you've got oranges and apples here. Let's make it all one, okay. Did you get that?" Mr. Pula responded, "Right, those need to be changed, yes." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "The reason why we were going back and forth is because the inventory reflects the current situation, but we only have the population figure from last year. We don't have an estimate for 2001. That's why we kept going back and forth. I think the best thing to do is just go with 2000 even if it shows - probably address that issue. We have to relate population to acreage." Further discussion. Board M\::mber Karr said, "I just had a question about the statement according to the City's EAR [Evaluation and Appraisal Report]. Another survey was conducted but there are no records of that, of those survey results and I wondered what value that statement adds to the Comp Plan?" Board Member Karr further stated, "On VI-6, it's under 'Types of Recreational Facilities' and it starts, it's the second to last sentence. In the second paragraph there, and it says 'According to the City's EAR, another survey was conducted in 1997, however there are no records of the survey results.''' Ms. Tyjeski stated, "We probably had a sentence that said - never got them." Vice Chairman Brown stated, "Page VI-15 is this chart and I spoke to Chuck earlier about that; this chart is the table for the 'Inventory of Private Recreational Facilities.' I spoke to Commissioner Gennell and she is not here this evening, but I know that she was looking into some of the - on the west side of the City like the Highlands and places like thc:t. This chart is incomplete now. I don't know - either going to have to get rid of this chart and not show this, but yet you want to show all the three (3) Elements like you said. You know, the Recreational - but like the Wedgewood Tennis Villas, they have a clubhouse that should be listed there. Greenbriar has a pool and they have a clubhouse also. Georgetown has a pool and a clubhouse that should be listed also. I don't know what all the other ones are in the City, but somebody that works for the City is going to CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25. 2001 PAGE 12 OF 22 have to tell you. And the reason for this is, I dug into it, is the fact that the City approves these places when a developer comes in and he puts in a pool. And just like we were talking earlier about the 'Waste,' and the 'Water,' and all these Elements, if the City approves these things, then the City should know that they're there." Board Member Brent Gregory stated, "I heard what the Consultant said and it seems to me that if they can include some of the Private Recreational Facilities as examples of what's in the City, there is no need to put in - an extensive inventory. To me, it's kind of - a waste of time to put every last thing, but I thought it was good to have a few examples in there." Discussion. "I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL." MOTION BY BOARD MEMBER GREGORY. SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KARR. DISCUSSION. VOTE: BOARD MEMBER KARR: AYE BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS: AYE BOARD MEMBER GREGORY : AYE VICE CHAIRMAN BROWN: AYE MOTION CARRIED. .:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE SPECIAL MEETING WAS THEN TURNED OVER TO THE CITY COMMISSION. .:..:. Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "You'll notice on one of your charts, if you'll look at Vl- 13, 'Opea Space,' - 'Mikes Land.' I don't think we want to call that 'Mikes Land,' do we? Why did we do that?" Mr. Pula stated, "It needs to be called something." Commissioner Blake suggested, '''Tuscawilla Green Space' is fine." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "Also you'll find that on one of your maps in here, I believe it's on most of the maps, those point that out calls us 'Mikes.' 'Open Space,' let's call it 'Tuscawilla Open Space,' okay." Deputy Mayor McLeod further stated, "I believe what the P and Z was trying to get to when they was talking here on VI-6, 'Other private recreational facilities are found in the residential developments within Winter Springs.' I don't know that you can say that Oviedo is in Winter Springs, or Lake Mary, or Altamonte as the addresses indicate on those particular pieces. Can we re-word that to maybe have 'Within the surrounding community of Winter Springs?'" CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25. 2001 PAGE 13 OF 22 Board Member Karr said, " ...It says 'Within and surrounding the corporate limits of Winter Springs:' and referenced VI-5." Deputy Mayor McLeod said, "Okay. I agree to that then we should do the same thing when you go to the bottom of the chart. .. if you flip the page and look on the very first sentence on the bottom of the Gold's Gym and - it says 'Other private recreational facilities are found in residential developments within,' - that's another separate statement then." Commissioner Blake stated, "It is...I think you're right." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated further, "Because you first look at those, it looks like it is, but you're saying there's other private recreational facilities. I think you're probably right." Commissioner Blake raised the question of whether the Cross Seminole Trail should be drawn on the maps that detennine the Park Service Area. Discussion ensued. Tape 2/Sidc B Commissioner Blake spoke of "Levels of Service" and stated, "I have some real concerns about how we get to that point of trying to figure that out." Discussion followed. Commissioner Blake stated further, "I'd like to see some prescriptive language of what the survey should attempt to detemline. Not necessarily decide what the question should be, but determine what kind of answers we're looking for. I don't know if that's being clear or not. But also associated with that, the surveys should include cost expectations. In other words it shouldn't be 'Do you want a pool?' It should be 'Do you want a pool if it's going to cost 'x' amount?'" Commissioner Blake then said, "I mean, I am concerned that we - every five (5) years - we've got to get the survey out. We put together a couple questions and send it out. And - surveys can be crafted to get just about any kind of input that you want to have. And I'd rather not have that type of survey. I'd rather have a real survey that could be utilized as a too1. And I think that should be prescribed. Not narrowly, but so that whatever kind of survey you're doing, that it's a fair survey that brings you results that you can use as a too 1." Discussion ensued regarding a public swimming pool. Commissioner Blake said, "I am very uncomfortable with the utilization of these types of 'Level of Service' guidelines, specifically this Element. Is this a plan to decide how the City has to provide Recreational Elements or is this Element, this is part of 'Growth Management.' Is this Element to detennine for new developments coming into the City? What level of these facilities do they have to provide, in order to provide for their growth?" CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 PAGE 14 OF 22 Ms. Tyjeski stated, "We have specific policies that address that issue. We're talking - a developer comes in, they want to build a large subdivision, they can either provide some of these Recreational Facilities or they can contribute in some other. It's mostly with parks, because Recreational Facilities are just guidelines, it's more difficult to control that way. But we're saying that if they want to provide some of the park facilities on their sites they can do that. If not, they will have to I guess, meet the standard; like the City wi II have to have enough acreage for them to develop. The City is going to have to be up-to-date on parks for them to develop; but they do have the choice of providing." Mr. Pula spoke on the "Levels of Service" guidelines. Commissioner Blake stated, "What are we trying to do with this Element? What is our ultimate goal? And again, this isn't a slam on you folks. I know you have been working trying to grasp just those issues, but I'm not sure we're there yet." Ms. Tyjeski provided the Commission with background information. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Blake spoke of having a 'Level of Service' for Passive and Active areas and stated, "And then have in conjunction with that, a City policy on parks that would then address either through an Ordinance or Resolution, that would then address all of these goals of 'Levels of Service' of these different types of individual Sub-Elements. Whether it be tennis courts - basketball courts, football fields, soccer fields, retaining that at the local control level, which then gives us the ability to make decisions based on what the public needs on a regular basis as opposed to having a huge Comp Plan thing, which could do several things. It could force us to spend money when we otherwise wouldn't desire to or the public doesn't want us to. It could force us to require a developer that has special circumstances that would be a benefit to the City to not be able to develop because of certain Comp Plan requirements in the Parks Element. I am just thinking of a variety of different things where this could handcuff us and doesn't necessarily get us to where we want to be." Mr. Pula stated, "I initially looked at that prior to when we really got involved in this, whether we should try to establish Active Parks and Passive Parks and 'Levels of Service' for each. Where the difficulty comes in is determining a particular Park, is it Active or is it Passive, or is it half Active and half Passive. When you look at our Parks, a lot of them are half Active "and half Passive :..:.. 'Sam" Smith 'is"a- good examplehofthat7'....., We've got the pine-treed area in the front, you've got the Active area with the playground and the - then you've got the lake too. And it's like is that an Active or Passive park and we've got the same thing at most of our sites. And that's where the difficulty came in and it's like I haven't really seen how other Cities have addressed it. Traditionally they've just arbitrarily, I think picked one." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25. 2001 PAGE 15 OF 22 Commissioner Blake stated, "Well isn't it also how you define Active and how you define Passive. I mean the 'Tuscawilla Green Space' J would consider it to be 'Passive;' and 'Sam Smith,' I would consider that to be Active - it's clear and it's developed as opposed to untouched like the green spaces." Ms. Tyeski stated, "And then you go to Central Winds Park and have to start questioning the whole." Commissioner Blake stated, "Again I don't necessarily agree with that. I think Central Winds Park is all Active. I mean the entire park space that's there has been developed for use of certain types; as opposed to say again, the 'Tuscawilla Green Space' which has been untouched, no one's done any clearing, there's been no surveying, no path building or anything else. It's clearly a Passive..." Ms. ri'yjeski stated, "... The City went in did some improvements so these people can go in and do something." Commissioner Blake said, "Right, and then maybe if you want to look at even a third way of creating a category called 'Facilities,' and assign point values to 'Facilities.' A basketball court gets so many points; a football field gets different kind of points; a softball field gets additional points. And your' Level of Service' is based on a point formula. I mean what I'm talking about is maybe complex, maybe it's been done, maybe it hasn't, I don't know. What I am concerned about here is if we're developing a Comp Plan Element, here we may have some unintended results when we're really trying to do the right things that actually keep us from being able to do the right things; or force us to do things we otherwise would not want to do." Discussion. Board Member Gregory departed the Special Meeting at 9:18 p.m. Board Member Karr departed the Special Meeting at 9:18 p.m. Board Member Stephens departed the Special Meeting at 9: 18 p. m. Deputy Mayor McLeod responded, "I agree with you. I think the problem is when we decided to get Consultants to do something, sometimes the Manager needs to come to us and give us some directions. Or at least allow the Consultants to come and give us the different types of ways we could go." Commissioner Blake stated, "I voiced my concerns and that really is the best I can do on it." Deputy Mayor McLeod referenced VI-I and the desires of the Local Planning Agency to add in Trotwood Park and Torcaso Park and make them Passive Recreation. He also stated, "I think if they'd have probably gone to the table, as noted on the table - VI-I, when you get to Torcaso, there and Trotwood they both say Active, and maybe that's where you just should show it. Because what you're referencing here is truly just a table. So I don't know that you want to list everyone." Deputy Mayor McLeod then said, "Okay, but when you go to the VI-12, which is the table, then I think you need to change the table." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25.2001 PAGE 16 OF 22 Ms. Tyjeski responded, "When you look at the Recreational Facilities provided you can see the type of Park that it would be, they have a picnic pavilion..." Mr. Pula stated, ".. .No. Torcaso shouldn't be strictly Active. The only Passive - is the pond really." Deputy Mayor McLeod asked, "How about Trotwood?" Mr. Pula stated, "Pretty much the same thing other than that one." Deputy Mayor McLeod then said, "If that's true then the statement they wanted you to add, some parts maybe both, then you would not add Trotwood or Torcaso back at that location on VI-I?" Ms. Tyjeski stated, "We were just going to say it as an example." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "Don't add anymore." Ms. Wimer then said, "But what you're saying is we wouldn't add Torcaso anyway." Deputy Mayor McLeod said, "Correct. Nor would you add Trotwood. So you'd leave it as it was." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "Adding examples - meaning it includes these three (3) Park~ but there may be others." Deputy Mayor McLeod read, "Some Parks may offer both, as i~, the case of Central Winds Park. They added Torcaso in there and Trotwood at that sentence." Attorney Buak stated, "Of course their Motion was only a recommendation." Deputy Mayor McLeod then said, "I understand, but they did take the notation and I am just trying to make sure they get rid of the notation because that will - to your chart." Mr. Pula stated, "I've got a couple other things. Based on my last Memorandum to L.D.I., one of the recommendations I made was on the 'Level of Service' for multi- purpose fields. That we also include the Amphitheater area of Central Winds Park which would list us as having two (2) multi-purpose areas within Central Winds Park. And I just wanted your thoughts on that or how you felt about that. I felt like there were two (2) distinct areas and yet they both met that classification of a multi-purpose area. I mean our Amphitheater area is used for special events, and we have people that come out there and fly kites, we have people that shoot rockets off out there. I mean it's used to run dogs out there even though they shouldn't, but it is - and that changed the impact, the "Levels of Service' all through the Element which basically show as not being deficient, until I think it's the year 2010 or 2020." Mr. Pula then advised the Commission, "I did have another comment on page VI-30 regarding Policy 1.5.3, which states that 'By January 2003, the City shall review the Recreation Fee Schedule and determine if there is a need to develop a scholarship program for low-income families-;-'-" We-currently have-that. in- place:" This' Commission..... - -- has adopted that scholarship program. We have a criteria, we have a budget account with money in it and we have met that and I'd just like to recommend that be changed to 'Shall maintain' like we had talked about earlier." Commissioner Blake stated, "I agree." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "Okay." Furthennore, Commissioner Blake stated, "One more thing that kind of came up this weekend, in our old Comprehensive Plan we did have a Policy which stated 'The City ",culd look to provide access to Lake Jesup,' because we currently have over 1,500 feet of lak.e frontage on Lake Jesup at Central Winds Park. I noticed in the paper that, 1 believe it's St. John's Water Management in coordination with Fish and Game, is looking CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25.2001 PAGE 170F22 to clean that lake up. Should that lake again become clean, I feel confident that our residents would really like access to that particular lake. And we may want to look at providing an access through a fishing pier area or even possibly a boat ramp at that location. Both of those types of facilities qualify for funding through the County's Funding Improvement Program." Commissioner Blake added, "But again, I wouldn't even recommend it until clean up has occurred and again it became a lake that was good to use for fishing and those type of activities. But I felt like it should be, if not in the Policies, it should be stated somewhere in here." Deputy Mayor McLeod added, "I don't disagree with that because one of your statements you do have in here is your hiking, fishing, swimming, or boating, and yet I don't know where you can launch a boat in Winter Springs at the present time." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "I would very highly myself suggest something regarding a boai ramp somewhere in the future, and also a pier. I think that's very important. - it's surprising, in the last year I probably have had a dozen people ask me why at that Park we do not have a boat ramp at present. Well, they're able to put their boat in and go from there and they can go out to the St. John's and up around to Sanford by water, if you want. So it is something that we probably ought to be taking a look at and consider." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "Back to the chart that the was spoke on VI-IS, which is 'Inventory of Private Recreational Facilities,' I don't think you necessarily have to list every one that's possibly here. But if there are additional ones that we're aware of, that we definitely should take advantage of - because I think it is to your advantage and the City's. So the ones that Mr. Brown had, if you can make sure you get those to them; especially if there's somebody that's up there on the Board and they know that they have in their community, a clubhouse, well, make sure that's listed." Commissioner Blake said, "No place in here did I see mention of, as of yet officially unnamed Parks, but Hickory Grove, or Magnolia Park, or Wetland Park. The City owns those three (3) areas and they're sizable in some respects. One is six (6) acres, another is an acre and a half, two (2) acres, three (3) acres, whatever it is. The other one is thirty (30) acres or something close to that. I don't see those listed in here as well as, but I don't know if, in fact I don't think that the other small neighborhood square Parks have been deeded to the City as of yet; and the Town Center from the Schrimsher's. We just have an agreement for that to happen. But those are certainly future park areas that the City has ownership rights to and those are not insignificant. They're not listed in here." Mr. Pula stated, "I was aware that we were in the process of purchasing them, but I wasn't aware that we even currently have them at the present time." Commissioner Blake said, "Hickory Grove we own. Magnolia we have, and Wetland Park we have. It's the other smaller ones, the five (5) - whatever they are, areas. Those aren't physically located and transferred yet but we own the right to them in the future." Mr. Pula stated, "I remember seeing that. We've got a total of thirteen (13) different parks and - twenty (2,0) some acres total and those, the ones that we own currently, I would recommend that CITY OF WINTER SPRlNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25. 2001 PAGE 18 OF 22 they be lIsted under 'Open Space' because they currently are only open space. We do not maintain them to any extent that I am aware of." Commissioner Blake stated, "If we're going to go with this type of framework, we have specific development plans for certain areas, so some of those that have already been determined; specifically with Magnolia Park for instance. We may not have engineered plans yet, but we know essentially what type of area that's going to be. Maybe it's still classified as 'Open Space,' I don't know. But if there is going to be an amphitheater or whatever there, then that's something I think we should address." Discussion ensued. Commissioner Blake stated, "Policy 1.1.6, the fourth bullet down, we do not have any forests for hunting and I think we should not have in here anything about forests for hU'lting. We do not encourage hunting in the City, we do not anticipate providing hunting in the City." Further, Commissioner Blake stated, "I'm not prepared to approve this document as it is right now; because I am very concerned about it's format and concerned about whether or not we have yet determined which road we want to go down." Tape 3/Side A Ms. Tyjeski asked the Commission, "Is there a way we can go through the points right now that concern the Commission at this point? Like what the problems are with what you see or what?" Commissioner Blake explained, "It's a question of which type of framework do we want this Element to be? Do we want it to be a level of specificity where we have individual types of llses listed with guideline level of services that we develop somehow? I mean, we say now we don't like this one because we don't want to play shuffleboard, but yes we like this one ,because welike to play frisbee..I mean.howdo we.go through and_do......_.... ____ that? Or do we want it to be, as I am leaning towards, a more general document here with a co~npanion document that is not part of the Comp Plan. That may be put together by Ordinance or by Resolution that states what our goals are in terms of levels of service for each of these smaller Sub-Elements." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "I would tend' to' agree' with your latter Commissioner. -1 would agree that this document could be left - I do not want to see it become something that's mandated as the L.O.S.'s I believe you said would be. I absolutely would not want to see that. I think some of your questions are answered by the fact that every five (5) years the survey is done. I think your question is how is that done and that's your sub document to go with this. How that would be done, and how those questions would be asked, and what kind of questions those would become I take is what you're looking for. I don't think I'd put that in this document." Discussion followed. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25. 2001 PAGE 19 OF 22 Commis~.ioner Blake stated, "But the document currently, just to make sure - the document currently does not have mandatory 'Levels of Service' for those individual items." Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "If we went to the L.O.S., we would then mandate..." Commissioner Blake stated, "...It has L.O.S. in it. The question is where are the 'Levels of Service?' I mean this has guideline 'Levels of Service' for the individual sub topics, but it does have a 'Level of Service' chart - VI-I8, VI-17." Attorney Buak stated, "That would be the data, but more importantly it would be Policy 1.2.1 on page VI-28." Commissioner Miller asked if the Parker Property would be added in. Mr. Pula stated that it would be. Discussion ensued on the level of specificity for provisions and whether there are any maudatory provisions. Ms. Tyjeski advised the Commission that acreage of Parks is mandatory. Commissioner Blake stated, "The entire burden of provisions for Recreational Elements is shifted to the current City population from any growth population." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "If you have impact fees, the future population is going to be paying for those too. I mean we're looking at the current 'Level of Service' - says that you're deficient in I think - two (2) items only." Commissioner Blake said, "No - there is no deficiency because these are guidelines. So it's not defined as deficiency then and you cannot deny a development permit because there is not deficiency. That's my point. " Ms. Tyjeski stated, "That's right. You're right. By having them as guidelines you're not forcing the City to provide one (1) field, one (1) court. But you are letting the City know that you should be providing these. That - you're going to have some money coming from the State - for a Park. Where should you spend that money, on a Tennis Court or a Soccer Field?" Commissioner Blake asked, "And does that type of analysis belong in the Comp Plan?" "I think it does," stated Ms. Tyjeski. Commissioner Blake said, "And I can understand why you can make an argument that it does. But if you take that a step further and look at the Comp Plan as the right kind of tool, which is to help you as a planning organization or as a governing organization to manage growth and encourage the right kind of growth and discourage what policy might suggest as the wrong kind of growth, then it may be that it doesn't necessarily belong there. Perhaps that's a separate type of document that you can use in a freer world, than you can under the'guidelines'of Comprehensive Plans." Ms. Tyjeski stated, "Use the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. If you do a Parks and Recreation Master Plan you're going to look at - tennis courts, maybe in two (2) years we should add another one (1) next to it. You go to that level of - and that's where you come up with the prototype of each park." Commissioner Blake stated, "Exactly, and maybe that's where I am trying to get to." Discussion. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 PAGE 20 OF 22 Commj.s~JOner Blake said, "And my feeling is that this Element ought to stay - required 'Levels of Service' for Passive park land, required 'Levels of Service' for Active park land. And that there should be companion document, if you want to call it a 'Parks and Recreation Master Plan,' I think that's a great title for it; that denotes the City's goals and objectives for the development of 'Levels of Service' for each of these sub categories. How many football fields, how many baseball fields, whatever." Ms. Tyjeski said, "You'll have to start by doing the survey..." Commissioner Blake stated, "...Exactly, thank you. But I see them as two (2) related but separate documents. That gives us the concurrency 'Levels of Service' that we can use with teeth to implement developmental decisions, growth related decisions, require payments, require contributions of Park Facilities or park land, or whatever have you. And it gives us the Master Plan as a management tool to decide with our limited resources, here's where we need to work; here's where we need to find Grants. Here's the kind of facilities we need to develop which is separate and aside from the Growth Management issue. For me, that's the kind of dOI.~ument or documents I think I want to see." Discussion developed regarding Impact Fee calculations. Attorney Buak said, "You could require a policy that would direct the City to put together a 'Master Recreation Plan,' and then that document would be more flexible in the sense that it'd be changed. That might be a way to go. So, you'd still have a policy, you'd still have an Objective and Policy within the Comp Plan providing for Recreational Facilities, but it would be more basic than providing the exact types of facilities. It would be providing a policy that a plan would be implemented and maintained and that plan could be adjusted." Ms. Tyjeski asked, "Would the City consider establishing an Impact Fee for Recreation?" Discussion followed. Commissioner Blake stated, "What I am looking for is a way to utilize this as a tool for us to help us get to where we want to be, as opposed to handcuff scores which keeps us from free decision making if you will, but have the flexibility that I think we need. And the way this could be done is if we have the requirement in here for those two (2) types, or miiybe it's three (3) types of 'Level of Service.' One (1) for Passive, one (1) for Active, and one (1) for Facilities and they have to meet each of those criteria. And an Impact Fee is developed to provide their appropriate share of Passive space at a certain dollar amount per capita; and Active space at a certain cost per capita; and Facilities space at a certain costpercapita~ Then-it's a fornmla .that could 'provide all -those 'three ..... (3) types of infrastructure in the Recreational Element to pay for the growth. And that's what I am primarily concerned with throughout this document, is to make sure that we encourage growth, that we make sure that growth doesn't erode the Facilities that everybody who already here has, and to make sure that it is paid for by the appropriate party." Discussion followed. Deputy Mayor McLeod stated, "I am looking for a Motion on this Element." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25. 2001 PAGE 21 OF 22 Commissioner Blake added, "My first feeling is r would like to have Staff re-work this, or to at least give the comments of the evening consideration. And give them time to think about it and bring it back to us with - their best judgement based on the discussion this evening. It may come back exactly as it is right now and they'll say why and that will be okay. Or they may decide to change it and go a different route and say why and that will be okay too. Whatever they bring back, I want to be defensible and say we considered your input and here's the best way to go and here's why. In other words, I am not trying to write this document. I'd like to give it to them to do, but based on our input, come back with what they feel is the best answer available." Deputy Mayor McLeod said, "I personally don't disagree that this probably should be in two (2) Elements. I'd be willing to look at this and have you look at it and bring it back to us, decide which way to go with it." Commissioner Miller stated, "I also have some questions about this alternate way of approaching it. However, r think we're going to have to just move on here this evening and adjonrn." "MOTION TO ADJOURN." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MILLER. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Deputy Mayor McLeod said to Commissioner Miller, "Do we want them to look at what was just discussed this evening, over the last hour and a half, and then come back to us whether it's left like or it's subdivided. I think that's the question. Me, personally would be to tell you to go look at it, bring it back to us after you reviewing it, and then define to us your reasoning and I think that gives them some direction." Commissioner Blake stated, "That would be my direction as well. Not prescribing how it should come back, but asking you to take the input from this evening and make a decision based on that." Commissioner Miller asked Ms. Tyjeski, "Is that clear to you?" Ms. Tyjeski responded, "'Yes. " Deputy Mayor McLeod asked, "Do you agree to that? Okay, in other words we all agree to it. Dc you want to make that as a Motion?" Commissioner Miller stated, "I just don't want to see it completely change. We're talking about some portions of it being..." Commissioner Blake stated, ".. .It's a framework issue." Deputy Mayor McLeod said, "I don't think all the verbiage is totally changed in here. I think it's where it's located, Commissioner. Would you like to make a Motion on that so that we can put it on record?" "I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. DISCUSSION. CITY Or- WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 PAGE 22 OF 22 VOTE: COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE MOTION CARRIED. III. ADJOURNMENT "MOTION TO ADJOURN." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR McLEOD: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Deputy Mayor McLeod adjourned the Meeting at 10:01 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: HO:::"'L Y PIERSTORFF ASSISTANT TO THE CITY CLERK, AND I! NZO-LUACES, CMC AP~, . \/!, ;1" / \1 tl-f;, PAUL P. PARTYKA. MAYOR NOTE: These minutes were approved at the November 12,2001 Regular City Commission Meeting.