Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 06 10 Consent I Approval of the May 6, 2002 City Commission Special Meeting Minutes COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM I Consent X Informational Public Hearings Regular June 10. 2002 Regular Meeting Mgr. / Dept. Authorization CONSENT I. Office Of The City Clerk Requesting Approval Of The May 6, 2002 City Commission Special Meeting Minutes. ,C CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MAY 6, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER The Special Meeting of May 6, 2002 of the City Commission was called to order by Mayor Paul P. Partyka at 6:31 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708). ROLL CALL: Mayor Paul P. Partyka, present Deputy Mayor Cindy Gennell, present Commissioner Robert S. Miller, present Commissioner Michael S. Blake, present Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr., present Commissioner David W. McLeod, arrived at 6:35 p.m. City Manager Ronald W. McLemore, arrived at 6:33 p.m. City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese, arrived at 6:35 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Community Development Department Requests The City Commission Consider The Objections, Recommendations And Comments (ORe) Report Received From The Department Of Community Affairs (DCA) And The Recommendations Of Land Design Innovations (LDI) For The Evaluation And Appraisal Report (EAR) Based Amendments To The Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ensued whether Public Input would be heard at tonight's Special Meeting. City Manager Ronald W. McLemore arrived at 6:33 p.m. Discussion. City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese arrived at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner David W. McLeod arrived at 6:35 p.m. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COJ"tMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MA Y 6. 2002 PAGE20FII Mr. Earnest McDonald, AICP, Advance Planning Coordinator Community Development Department introduced this Agenda Item and gave an overview of the related timeline. Discussion ensued on whether this was an Adoption Hearing. Attorney Garganese read Ordinance 2001-55 by "Title" and stated, "The City Commission previously transmitted this Comprehensive Plan in its entirety to the Department of Community Affairs. The Department of Community Affairs reviewed it and issued an aRC [Objections, Recommendations and Comments] Report. That aRC [Objections, Recommendations and Comments] Report sets forth only the only 'Objections, Comments and Recommendations' that DCA has on this entire document - that aRC [Objections, Recommendations and Comments] Report if you really look at it is very limited to certain areas - clearly it is within the Commission's right to delve further into other areas of this Comprehensive Plan if you choose tonight, at the adoption hearings, but from DCA's standpoint the only matters that are at issue are in that aRC [Objections, Recommendations and Comments] Report." Discussion followed on the only "Objections, Recommendations and Comments" from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Regarding the "General revision to the Future Land Use Map," discussion followed on the Minter, Weaver, and Carroll properties. Attorney Garganese stated, "Ultimately, when the Courts decide that the property is clearly within the City of Winter Springs, the City of Winter Springs will then impose a Future Land Use designation and a Zoning designation on the Weaver, Carroll, and Minter properties - which would then be submitted to DCA [Department of Community Affairs] for approvaL" Mr. McDonald noted the next "Objection" as the "Mix of Uses." Discussion followed on the Greeneway Interchange District. Commissioner Michael S. Blake stated, "When we originally created the Greeneway Interchange District, we were required to complete a 'Comp Plan' Amendment - for that process, send it to DCA [Department of Community Affairs], go through the Large-Scale Amendment. As I recall, I believe there is an aRC [Objections, Recommendations and Comments] Report on that, I do believe we responded to those questions at that point in time and went forward and it was adopted and found to be in compliance. My question is if we haven't changed it since then, which I believe we have not, why wouldn't our response be at this point in time, any questions they have on that - it is no different now than it was when you found it in compliance previously? Is there something that has changed that caused that question?" Attorney Garganese asked Ms. Tracy Crowe of Land Design Innovations, Inc., "Did you make any amendments to the previous Greeneway Interchange designation?" CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MA Y 6. 2002 PAGE 3 OF II Ms. Tracy Crowe, Principal Planner with Land Design Innovations, Inc., 140 North Orlando Avenue, Suite 295, Winter Park, Florida: explained to those in attendance that "It's staff. It's basically a reviewer right now - different reviewers have very different pet peeves at DCA [Department of Community Affairs], and right now the 'Mix of Uses' - they are really requesting a range of uses." Commissioner Blake said to Ms. Crowe, "The one thing that we did want to limit, is we wanted to limit the amount of residential development that can occur in that residential, but on the other side which we discussed, it specifically stated that it could be one hundred percent (100%) commercial, and that was done very deliberately by this Commission." Further, Commissioner Blake added, "In terms of the mix of that developable portion, one hundred percent (100%) of that could be commercial or no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of that developable space could be residential. We had a long discussion on this, and that is why if we are changing this here - that is why I am bringing it up, that concerns me - it is a very material change to what we spent a lot of time doing." Ms. Crowe then stated, "I apologize - I didn't actually work on this, on the language and I don't have the original copy of the Greeneway Interchange with me. My preference would be when you write your actual descriptions or guidelines for this, that they are going into Land Development Codes that the City controls and you can amend." With further brief discussion, Ms. Crowe stated, "Do you want to just - go back to whatever the original was?" Commissioner Blake stated, "I would like to, and my response to the question would simply be the approval that we received before." Additionally, Commissioner Blake stated, "On this particular item, I think we should come back to it and revisit it and ask Staff to bring us the original language that was approved and look at supplying that as our response to this 'Objection. ", Regarding "Does it conflict with the original Ordinance," Commissioner Blake stated, "The Manager's question is did the EAR [Evaluation And Appraisal Report] language that we put together, did that create a conflict in this language that created the 'Objection,' I think that is a good question." Ms. Crowe inquired, "Am I going to be preparing this next time for the next Meeting, because I was directed to not work on the Greeneway Interchange for this Meeting?" Attorney Garganese suggested, "I think we need to get a copy of the original Interchange Policy, ifit exists and then just evaluate it - take a look at it, and then go from there." Attorney Garganese left the Commission Chambers at approximately 7: 1 0 p.m. Further discussion followed on "Mixed Use." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MA Y 6. 2002 PAGE40FII Commissioner Blake inquired of Ms. Crowe, "The seventy-five percent (75%) cap of the single use in "Mixed Use" area, is that new? Did we add that or was there some level existing in the past, or did we throw that in?" Ms. Crowe responded, "Residential before was already allowed to go up to seventy-five (75)." Commissioner Blake then said, "1 believe that was superceded Ron [McLemore] - that was the purpose of the Greeneway Interchange District when we adopted that." Manager McLemore stated, "I don't remember. Let me go back." Regarding the Greeneway Interchange District, Commissioner Blake stated, "We're clear on we don't have a resolution." Tape I/Side B The next "Objection" was related to "High Density Residential" or High Residential Density. Brief discussion. Next, the Commission discussed the "Objection" to the "Density Bonus" as proposed. Ms. Patricia A. Tyjeski, AICP, Senior Planner of Land Design Innovations, Inc., 140 North Orlando Avenue, Suite 295, Winter Park, Florida: commented on the use of "Density Bonus,' caps, clustering and withdrawal. Regarding these concepts, Manager McLemore asked, "Is it the intent of the Commission to come back at a later date, after we have the time to do the analysis - one (1), do you want to invest in this?" Commissioner Blake said "It's too complex a question to answer like that off the cuff tonight. I think it is something we can certainly look at and Staff can bring it back to us, but she is right, it is a major undertaking to provide all the detailed analysis required to get something like that through. It's just an excellent technique that is being used in many areas and it's a shame that we can't use it as well without jumping through all of these regulatory hoops." Manager McLemore then stated, "We will have a consensus to adopt without that provision, but then is it your direction to us then to come back with information that would tell you - it's going to cost us 'x' number of dollars to pursue this policy? Do it or don't do it?" Mayor Partyka stated, "I don't think we are prepared to discuss that at this point in time." Commissioner Edward Martinez, Jr. stated, "If we want to do it in the future, we will bring it up." Mr. McDonald continued with a comment from DCA [Department of Community Affairs], regarding Policy 1.4.3 ("Intensive Developments" and "Alternative Service Delivery Systems"). Commissioner Blake stated, "Does this mean that we have to discourage any development in our Town Center area, which is currently not served by water and sewer?" Mr. McDonald stated, "No, I don't think it attempts to - I don't think the intent is to do that." Commissioner Blake then asked, "Can we clarify this language somewhat to make sure it's clear that it's a matter of what our facilities capacity is, not necessarily where it is located at the time. I am just concerned about there being a challenge somewhere that says - per your own 'Comp Plan,' you can't issue that permit or review that project for property that happens to be located geographically in the center CITY OF WrNTER SPRrNGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MA Y 6. 2002 PAGE 5 OF 11 of your City because there is no water or sewer infrastructure today, and to do SO, would be a violation of your 'Comp Plan.'" Manager McLemore stated, "I think what they are referring to is your designated Utility area, not where you currently have lines." Commissioner Blake then said, "So, we can designate anything as our utility service area - then legislatively is what you are saying - and that should take care of it?" Manager McLemore responded, "Yes." Commissioner Blake added, "Then, let's make sure that we do that." Further, Manager McLemore advised the Commission, "Typically, you would have a map designating your utility service area, and it is generally understood to be certainly within your municipal limits - to go outside of your municipal limits, you should definitely have a designated utility area. Additionally, Manager McLemore stated, "We have not formally designated a utility service area outside of our boundaries." Proposed Policy 1.8. and specifically 1.8.1 was discussed next with Commissioner Blake stating, "I would absolutely not want to adopt the new language." Attorney Garganese returned the Commission Chambers at approximately 7:45 p.m. Policy 1.9 was covered next. Commissioner Blake said, "I would just like to know, who is going to write the check." The protection of historical buildings was discussed next and Manager McLemore stated, "The language needs to be qualified a little bit to say, no it is not totally open, it's going to be - as determined in a future regulation that this Board will adopt. It doesn't have to be the State's - they can set another policy, arIother guideline, but we need to say in here that that is what s going to happen." Mr. McDonald agreed and stated, "You are right, I think we can quantify it a little better by simply adding in a date, by which time that would be done, in order to make that a practical approach." Manager McLemore added, "The Commission needs to have a control over this situation, in the way it is written." Deputy Mayor Cindy Gennell stated, "I agree with Mr. McDonald's suggestion to put a date there." Manager McLemore suggested, "Or you can say, we will adopt the State's until such other time as the Commission adopts a new standard." Deputy Mayor GenneUliked this idea also. Manager McLemore summarized, "Are you comfortable with that - say we will adopt the State's until such time as we adopt another standard." Further discussion ensued on historical and archeological sites. Commissioner Martinez stated, "I would like the City Attorney to provide the Commission with the latest Congressional legislation regarding property owners rights to develop - the same as we got the last court decision where the City had to pay large sums of money for denying an owner the right to develop. I think we are entitled to get a copy of this recent legislation that came up and was shown in the Orlando Sentinel last week, so we know exactly where we stand as far as developers are concerned." Attorney Garganese stated, "I will be happy to look into that." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MAY 6. 2002 PAGE60Fl! Water Resources was discussed next regarding "Areas where public drinking water - are located;" required distances; and concerns with the word "Field." Commissioner Blake stated, "Ifit is 'Wellhead' that's fine. Now we know what that means, I agree to take the word 'Field' out, then we do have something that is better defined. Then my comment would be, I don't think 500 feet is enough." Further, Commissioner Blake stated, "I am concerned with the distance around the 'Wellhead,' and I don't think 500 feet is enough. I have no science or anything like that, just intuitively, it seems to very, very close. And I don't know that 1000 feet makes me feel better or what it is but - I wish someone had some information on that." Manager McLemore stated, "I've got it noted." Attorney Garganese suggested, "1 don't think this Policy is intended to address private drinking wells, so if you don't have water in an industrial area, the property owner has one choice - to put a private well in. This Policy would protect public drinking sources like sources generated by the City of Winter Springs." Ms. Tyjseski added, "Yes, it is just public." Mayor Partyka polled the Commission for their preferences. Commissioner Blake stated, "I would try to do something about the 500 feet, otherwise I would like to see 1 000 feet." Commissioner McLeod said, "I think we should check and find out where the 500 comes from. If it comes from the State, St. John's Water Management, then I don't know that we can change that. I think that is the issue, where did it come from, and could you have that information at our next Monday Meeting." Deputy Mayor Gennell stated, "Same." Commissioner Martinez responded, "According to what he read before, it says it comes from the St. John's Water Management, so I am okay with what the St. John's Water Management says." Commissioner Robert S. Miller stated, "1000 feet." Commissioner Blake said, "1000." Mayor Partyka said to the Commission, "Is everybody happy with that then - it is St. John's based on 500?,' Deputy Mayor Gennell further remarked, "If we are going to bring this back, I don't mind leaving it at 500 tonight, but if we are going to bring back any other information relative to this, I think it would be nice to hear from Kip [Kipton D. Lockcuff, P.E., Public WorkslUtility Department Director] on a little bit of background." Mayor Partyka added, "All right, but we will leave it as based on this Commission -leave it at 500 until we get more information." Commissioner McLeod left the Commission Chambers at 8:00 p.m. Discussion next encompassed wetland buffers. Commissioner McLeod returned to the Commission Chambers at 8:02 p.m. Tape 2/Side A Objective 1.4 was discussed next which included discussion on the minimum required for buffers. Ms. Txi seski stated, "The second one is the one that you had as .1, now is .2 - the 15 and 25." Commissioner Blake asked Ms. Tyjseski, "When did we add - in the language to go down to fifteen feet (15'), because it doesn't show up in either one of my areas, and I don't recall doing that." Mr. McDonald commented, "These changes are the result of either directives from the series of Workshops, because this was the copy of the Comprehensive Plan that was transmitted to DCA [Department of Community Affairs], '. CITY OF WfNTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETfNG - MA Y 6. 2002 PAGE 7 OF II and this is in fact a copy that was reviewed, upon which the aRC Report is based." Commissioner Blake stated, "I've got to tell you, I would like to see the Minutes to find out when that occurred. I was here for everyone of those Meetings and I don't remember adding a provision to go down to fifteen feet (15'). In fact, I think if it would have been discussed, that there would have been some opposition to that from this Commission." Additionally, Commissioner Blake asked, "How did this get in there." Mr. McDonald advised Commissioner Blake, "We will be happy to produce the Minutes to clarify any oversights." Members of the Commission briefly discussed this with Mayor Partyka stating, "Let's look it up in the Minutes." Then Mayor Partyka inquired, "Does this Commission agree with the twenty-five (25)?" Commissioner Martinez stated, "Yes." Furthermore, Commissioner Martinez spoke on the wetlands and the acquifer and stated, "I think twenty-five feet (25') is the minimum we should establish as a rule." Mayor Partyka summarized that "Right now, this Commission is saying twenty- five (25) minimum is what they want." Transportation issues and comments from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) were discussed next, followed by the Future Transportation Map. Discussion. Commissioner Blake asked for an update from Attorney Garganese pertaining to his review of the records regarding the Greeneway Interchange District. Attorney Garganese advised the Commission that no "Goals, Policies, and Objections" could be located for the Greeneway Interchange District. With discussion, Manager McLemore stated, "If their objection was you did not write any Goals and Policies, then we should go back and write Goals and Policies." Manager McLemore then inquired, "How do we cure the current problem to get this plan adopted, because if we do that - can we write those now? Can that be our response now?" Attorney Garganese stated, "Your response can be Attachment' A,' which is part of the Agenda package." Mayor Partyka asked, "What are you suggesting?" Manager McLemore stated, "I would agree with Anthony [Garganese] if they will accept it knowing that it is not law here yet, that it is a proposaL" Attorney Garganese added, "It could be adopted next Monday, as part of the EAR [Evaluation and Appraisal Report] Based Amendments." Further, Mayor Partyka asked, "What are you suggesting for this Commission to do, to in effect answer the question from DCA?" Manager McLemore replied, "Submit the proposed changes as your answer." Attorney Garganese concurred and stated, "It is Attachment' A,' it is Goal 3 of the Future Land Use Element." Mayor Partyka then stated, "This Commission could ultimately decide to move this on now, but potentially they may say, let's bring it back on Monday." Attorney Garganese stated, "Correct." Mayor Partyka explained to the Commission, "The action for this Commission, next step is either to approve this today - or to come back to a date certain, being next Monday potentially with any of the changes or anything else that we want." Attorney Garganese stated, "Yes - we have to come back with some information for you to make a final decision." Mayor Partyka opened the "Public Input" portion of this Agenda Item. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MA Y 6, 2002 PAGE 8 OF II Mr. Jim Logue, 3205 Elm Street, Oviedo, Florida: handed out information which he noted was the same in 1998, and spoke about his concern with land use; water and sewer; and suggested working together. Commissioner Blake said to Mr. Logue, "I would ask him to talk to his Elected Officials at the County level and also his neighbors to the south in Oviedo and ask them to come to the table as we have invited them to on various occasions to have a discussion on a Joint Planning Area. We have initiated those discussions, the door has not been opened." Brief discussion ensued regarding a possible deannexation of properties. Commissioner Martinez mentioned that a recent article in the Orlando Sentinel was unfair to the City of Winter Springs. Further brief discussion ensued on the criteria required for deannexation. Mr. Richard Grogan, 1 North Fairfax Avenue, Winter Springs, Florida.' commented on a high density area proposed for the Highlands subdivision and asked the City to close a "loophole" regarding high density in this area of the City. Ms. Gracia M Smith, 1114 Ocelot Trail, Winter Springs, Florida: Ms. Smith advised Members of the Commission about a letter written by Mr. Robert King that was just handed to them. Ms. Smith explained that as Mr. King could not attend this Meeting, she asked to read it into the record. Mayor Partyka stated, "Let the record show that this is a comment from Mr. Robert King, 2211 Black Hammock." Attorney Garganese stated, "Point of Order" and explained that "The Commission should just accept this into the record as being part of the record of this Public Hearing process. " Mr. Tony Matthews, Principal Planner, County of Seminole, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, Florida.' spoke on behalf of Mr. Kevin Grace, County Manager for the County of Seminole and said that the removal of the Carroll, Minter, and Weaver properties from a Land Use designation was a good idea; and commented on Policy 1.4.3 saying "This is the proposed Plan Policy that you all are - that Staff is recommending that you amend to say that intensive development proposed for areas outside the established utility service area shall be discouraged, and I think again - the County thinks that is a good idea, we support that." Mr. Matthews also commented on a letter written by Mr. Grace to the Department of Community Affairs regarding a Joint Planning Agreement and added, "I understand from tonight - you chosen not to do that, so I would like to go on record to state that again, we would encourage you to adopt the language that's in the letter that is also in the Department of Community Affairs ORC [Objections, Recommendations And Comments] Report." Tape 2/S ide [3 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MA Y 6, 2002 PAGE 9 OF II Discussion ensued on a Joint Planning Agreement. Commissioner Blake said to Mr. Matthews, "I have been a proponent and others on this Board have been a proponent for some time for the County to come together with us and have discussions." Commissioner Blake added, "I am just trying to make sure that you deliver back to your boss and then he can deliver it to his bosses what the issue is here. We are ready, willing and able I believe to sit down and begin having substantive discussions in this area." Mr. Matthews said, "I have been making notes earlier Commissioner Blake about getting back with Commissioner [Randy] Morris and actually mentioning it to him that I have been here tonight and let him know of your feelings on all this." The "Public Input" portion of this Agenda Item was closed. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THE VOTE ADOPTING AGENDA ITEM 'A' AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 20ot-55 TO A DATE CERTAIN, THAT BEING MONDAY, MAY THE 13TH AT WHICH TIME AND BEFORE THE ADOPTION VOTE IS TAKEN, THE STAFF AND ALL CONCERNED WILL PROVIDE US WITH THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS DISCUSSED TONIGHT AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED TO. BACK THIS ITEM." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER MILLER STATED, "I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER, ANY ITEMS THAT HE COULD POSTPONE FROM THE 13TH UNTIL THE COMMISSION MEETING AFTER THAT, PLEASE DO THAT." COMMISSIONER BLAKE ADDED, "JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MOTION IS CLARIFIED AND IT ALSO PRESERVES ADVERTISING FOR ALL THOSE - TONIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNOW THAT WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING." COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ SAID, "SO STATED." ATTORNEY GARGANESE ADDED, "I JUST ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS MONDAY, MAY 13TH BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M. - THE NORMAL REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COMMISSION MEETING." VOTE: COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE MOTION CARRIED. . ,... CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MA Y 6, 2002 PAGEIOOFII Mayor Partyka called a break at 9:05 p.m. The Meeting reconvened at 9.'12 p.m. .:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: AT THE REQUEST OF MANAGER McLEMORE, THE FOLLOWING MATTER WAS DISCUSSED NEXT, PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. .:. .:. Manager McLemore advised the Commission about his performance review and commented on information outlined in a Memorandum written to the City Commission. Discussion followed on accomplishments, suggested compensation, and a survey of the "Metro-average. " Commissioner Blake stated, "As far as any final action, I would request that it be placed on the Regular Agenda for next week." Mayor Partyka agreed with Commissioner Blake and said, "We ought to put this on a Regular Agenda, handle it quickly." Commissioner McLeod stated, "I would like to see a copy of last year's - the same chart as you have given us here - I would like to see where these other Manager's were a year ago." With further discussion, Commissioner McLeod added, "Matter of fact, I would like to see the charts over the last two (2) years." Deputy Mayor Gennell commented on considering the pay from the appropriate time period and the respective economic conditions. Commissioner Martinez added, "From our conversations and as a result of an article in the paper, what I would like to see - if this Commission approves an increase that you are requesting, some assurances that you are going to stay and continue managing the City where you have, up until now for at least another couple of years." Manager McLemore responded, "There is no question that my intent is to stay through the full period of the contract, which I hope renews for another - the way it is unless you notify me on July 22nd that you don't want me here any longer, then it will renew another three (3) years." Mayor Partyka commented that regarding one looking for other employment, "I don't want to be surprised and hear about it through secondary sources, and lately, I have been surprised - and I think this Commission deserves that kind of consideration - that if there are opportunities for you elsewhere, that we are not surprised." VIII. ADJOURNMENT "MOTION TO ADJOURN." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Partyka adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:37 p.m. ASP. ECTFULLY ~UBMITTED: nl~, ~REA Nio-LUACES, CMC CITY CI::ERK PAULP. PARTYKA MA YOR NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the June 10,2002 Regular City Commission Meeting. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - MA Y 6. 2002 PAGE II OF II