5. Public Hearing for the Second Reading / Adoption of Ordinance 2008-01, amending the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Cassady read this ordinance by title, confirming that she had approved for legality and form: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR LARGE-SCALE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE TOWN OF PONCE INLET; AMENDING FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT; AMENDING TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND RENAMING: “TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT;” AMENDING
UTILITIES ELEMENT AND RENAMING: “SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, POTABLE WATER, AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE ELEMENT;” AMENDING COASTAL MANAGEMENT/CONSERVATION ELEMENT AND RENAMING: “COASTAL ELEMENT” AND “CONSERVATION ELEMENT;” DELETING CHAPTER X, “MONITORING AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES;” DELETING CHAPTER I, “INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW,” AND REPLACING WITH NEW CHAPTER I, “ADMINISTRATION AND INTERPRETATION;” REDESIGNATING PROPERTY KNOWN AS TOWN HALL, APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TOWN LIMITS BETWEEN ATLANTIC AVENUE AND PENINSULA DRIVE, FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL; REDESIGNATING PROPERTY KNOWN AS WILBUR BAY WETLANDS, APPROXIMATELY 26.4 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF PENINSULA DRIVE AT THE NORTH TOWN LIMITS SOUTH TO THE CANAL NORTH OF OLD CARRIAGE ROAD, FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION; REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 16.3 ACRES OF THE PROPERTY
KNOWN AS PONCE PRESERVE, LOCATED IN THE 4400 BLOCK BETWEEN PENINSULA DRIVE AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, FROM VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE; REDESIGNATING PROPERTY KNOWN AS RACING’S NORTH TURN RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 4511 SOUTH ATLANTIC AVENUE, FROM HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL; REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES KNOWN AS TIMUCUAN OAKS BOTANICAL GARDENS, LOCATED IN THE 4500 BLOCK OF PENINSULA DRIVE, FROM VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS AND CONSERVATION TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE; REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY .9 ACRES KNOWN AS WINTERHAVEN PARK, LOCATED IN THE 4500 BLOCK OF ATLANTIC AVENUE, FROM HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE; ELIMINATING THE HARBOUR VILLAGE PUD DESIGNATION AND REDESIGNATING THE AREA WITHIN THAT PUD, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS FISHERMAN’S HARBOUR VILLAGE, LOCATED EAST OF ATLANTIC AVENUE BETWEEN 4525 AND 4679 ATLANTIC, BETWEEN ATLANTIC AVENUE AND PENINSULA
DRIVE IN THE 4600 BLOCK, AND WEST OF PENINSULA DRIVE FROM THE HARBOUR VILLAGE GOLF & YACHT CLUB SOUTH TO THE 4700 BLOCK OF PENINSULA DRIVE AND INCLUDING THE COLLEY SUBDIVISION, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 200 ACRES, TO LOW-DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY AND HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, AND CONSERVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND USES THAT EXIST WITHIN THE PUD BOUNDARIES; REDESIGNATING THE APPROXIMATELY 5.57 ACRE COMMERCIAL AREA IN THE HARBOUR VILLAGE PUD KNOWN AS FISHERMAN’S HARBOUR VILLAGE, FROM PUD, APPROXIMATELY 2.82 ACRES ON THE EASTERN PORTION TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND APPROXIMATELY 2.75 ACRES ON THE WESTERN PORTION TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ms. Cassady announced the availability of the Citizen’s Sign-In book for anyone who would like
to be contacted by the Department of Community Affairs as this ordinance proceeds through the approval process. Citizen’s may submit written comments as well. Ms. Cassady then went over the rules of procedure whereby a citizen is limited to one appearance for five minutes unless the time is extended for all by Council. Those having spoken at prior meetings may speak again but should not be repetitive in their statements. Councilmember Goudie suggested they extend the time allowed for citizen comments to ten minutes and made a motion for such. No second was made. Councilmember Hinson moved to extend the time for citizen comments to 7 minutes, seconded by Councilmember Goudie. This motion PASSED 4-0 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – not present at time of vote. Ms.
Konchan introduced this item via the attached staff report (Attachment A). Ms. Konchan addressed the requested clarification to PWD mixed use standards as outlined in her staff memo regarding the use of lot area in lieu of floor area. She reviewed the proposed language discussed on September 10th and the background information on how that language was arrived at. She referred to the summary on page five of the staff memo and the information on page eight regarding automated technologies for dry boat storage. Councilmember Goudie asked for clarification in the staff memo beginning at line 155 regarding the size of boat storage buildings. He asked where she got the 213 slips mentioned on line 156. She replied that she tallied the number of slips in the Front Street area. Councilmember Goudie responded that the number received from a staff member today was smaller than that. Mr. Joulani responded that the answer given
included only the Down the Hatch property and confirmed that the number given by Ms. Konchan is correct. Councilmember Sturno asked about the number of parking spaces quoted and received confirmation that the ratio is 1:5. Mayor Epps said that we are not stating that the property could actually hold that many slips, to which Ms. Konchan replied that was correct, that there are other code requirements that would have to be considered as well. Councilmember Sturno reiterated that something is given as a maximum it does not mean it is doable. Councilmember Goudie showed a brief PowerPoint presentation (Attachment B), after which Vice-Mayor McCormick responded that the 2002 visioning was not the only one that has occurred. He said that in the last few years, meetings were held and new input given. He believes that the Comprehensive Plan under consideration includes some of those changes. Councilmember Goudie respectfully disagreed with
Vice-Mayor McCormick’s statement. Mayor Epps feels that there are things that have come up since 2002. She said that they never considered that there are other types of dry boat storage buildings, and that the adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan, a state requirement, became necessary since that time, and that plan is a proponent of dry storage. She said there is more than one factor involved, including the Working Waterfront initiative that was not a factor in 2002. She then spoke about working boat yards and their importance and the state’s taxation process that requires taxing on the highest and best use, which is not necessarily a boat yard. She said the marine industry is the third largest in the state and is important to protect. She realizes that the neighbors are not going to like it, and spoke about the history of the development of the town. Councilmember Goudie said he was not going to argue the Manatee Protection
Plan’s importance, but does not feel that the state regulations require us to provide dry boat storage. He suggested we revisit the visioning. Kimberly Comfort, 85 Ocean Way Drive, read the attached prepared statement (Attachment C). Roger Rondini, 4737 Riverglen Boulevard, thanked Councilmember Goudie for the background he has given and said he is concerned about this not being in concert with the vision statement. Tami Lewis, 108 Ponce deLeon Circle, also thanked Mr. Goudie for explaining the history of the visioning and Kimberly Comfort for suggesting that they wait. She said that there appears to be a high level of citizen involvement this evening and said they should pay attention. She spoke about the importance of having a road map for the future and working waterfronts are for big cities, not small towns like that. She then spoke about passing an amendment without having seen plans. She does not feel that a PWD has a place
here in town. Don Romanik, 4545 S. Atlantic Avenue, observed that for those present on Monday night, the Council outnumbered the citizenry speaking about the budget. He feels that the feeling is, “You can tax and spend but don’t mess with Ponce Inlet.” He said that only three people spoke at the budget hearing. The general election is less than six weeks away and what is being discussed is obviously sensitive, and he believes that compromise is appropriate at this time and urged them to wait before making a final decision on the comp plan. Jack Ryan, 4530 S. Peninsula Drive, thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak and for their hard work. He feels that the vision statement is clearly what the people want, and spoke about what he believes the Pacetta group wants to do on their property. He believes that they should be afforded the opportunity to build within the rights that existed at the time they bought the
property. He said Council needs to listen to the voice of the majority of the citizens. Ginger Bayer, 55 Jennifer Circle, said that tonight the Council has the chance to listen to the people and feels that this is probably the most important thing they are going to vote on because if they allow large buildings, they are changing the face of the town forever. She spoke about the proposed amendment and suggested they wait until after the election before making a decision. Russell Boner, 59 Beach Street, read from a prepared statement. He would like to see the history of the Council respecting the opinion of the majority of our citizens, and suggested that the vote be tabled until after the election. Alice Washington, 122 Ponce de Leon Circle, said she moved to town a little over 37 years ago and said that people in the town have always fought tooth and nail to keep large construction out of town. She feels we should stay with that. She
said she did a survey of surrounding cities and none of them address dry boat storage in their Comp Plan and listed cities that do not allow them. Kris Derr, 148 Bounty Lane, said that before Council tonight is a very big question: whether to adopt tonight or wait until the election. She believes that adopting tonight will not bring an end to this process. She spoke about the proposed Charter amendment, visioning, ROD, and said that it was contemplated to help save the working waterfront. She spoke about water oriented uses, mixed uses, high density residential, and said that what is being proposed is not appropriate for the area. If they choose to adopt tonight, there will be several issues, including more lawsuits. She asked if this is an attempt to adopt before the election given that three of those running have spoken against the boat stack. Pat Drum, 57 Oceanview, has been a resident for 18 years said she realized this week that a
majority of the councilmen live in condos and feels that unless we can change their minds, high density will remain. She asked them to visualize the roads, traffic impact and possible gridlock at our southern tip. She then spoke about all of the uses at the southern end of town and the increased daily visitors and asked that they listen to the residents. She addressed the “condo councilmen” and asked them to listen to the homeowners. She feels our whole southern tip will be full of frustrated visitors, overrun especially on weekends and holidays, and spoke about inadequate parking and traffic problems. She believes we only want progress that we can be proud of, not the same old same old Florida type commercialism. She said that the condo councilmen eradicated our parking regulations and spoke about the great expense to our neighborhoods and asked why they are having such trouble representing all of us. Vic McClellan, 4327
S. Peninsula Drive, believes that we all have an interest in what happens in Ponce Inlet and all want what is best for Ponce Inlet. He said that we have got to move forward with this Comp Plan, and said that if elected he will represent all of the people of Ponce Inlet, including the 70% non-homesteaded. He suggested the vote be held after the election. Al DiCostanzo, 56 Buschman Drive, thanked the Council for all of their efforts. He said that he agrees with most of what those before him have said, specifically regarding waiting until after the election to take a vote on adoption of the Comp Plan. He said that while he did not participate in the visioning, it is his impression that we do not want to look like Daytona Beach Shores. Julie Davis, 87 Jennifer Circle, said she was never involved in politics prior to the last year and a half. She has seen a lot of change, said there has been a lot of good change, but does not think that all of
the proposed changes are good. She asked that they listen to those who have spoken against the large-scale boat storage and increased density. She suggested they revisit looking at the property in New Smyrna for boat stacks. Ann Caneer, 4928 S. Peninsula Drive, has lived here for 29 years and said that the citizens have been treated terribly at every comp plan meeting. She then spoke about the 10,000 square foot buildings. Larry Fornari, 4926 Sailfish Drive, said he did not feel it necessary to reiterate the request to wait until after the election. He said that, regarding the other visioning, the EAR process was done after the Comp Plan, and to him that is the cart before the horse, and does not consider that visioning at all. In looking at the changes since the last plan, he said that he questioned the reference to retail space and anything not in excess of a certain size could not be supported by the town. He said that he does not
know of 213 residents of Ponce Inlet that need to put their boat in dry storage, which means there would be an influx of people from outside of town. He has no problem with development in that area as currently allowed. He then addressed the issue of highest and best use, and said that it is highest and best use as permitted by zoning regulations. He then spoke about the density question and the maximum number of units, specifically Mr. Sturno’s comment about the maximum not always being possible. He then spoke about the boat slip allocation process, again saying that was the cart before the horse. He said that the road that the boat stack shown in the staff memo is located on a road a little different that Sailfish Drive. He continued to talk about the possible development in the Front Street area and said that at some point the Council needs to realize that they are supposed to work for the people, not the developer. Robyn Hurd, 4924
Sailfish Drive, said she was going to say everything Mr. Fornari said, and said that she even met with Pete Grigas who wanted to take every marine use out of the ROD. She said they are not against virtually everything, but said that the boat stacks are the deal breaker, that you could fit four buildings on that property, and feels that it really would be more than 213 when all is said and done. She agrees that it is not Ponce Inlet’s responsibility to save every manatee, and asked them not to pass the comp plan tonight. Finally, she asked Ms. Cassady to explain what would happen if they pass the plan and the charter amendment is passed. Janet McSharry, 70 Rains Court, said she is from the silent majority and has not been at meetings. She works at the Lighthouse and climbs to the top. She does not see how these buildings are going to block the view of the river, and thinks there are enough people in town that do not object to the proposal. Frank Molnar, 103 Ocean Way, has
lived here for eight years and understands that things are going to change, feels that boat stacks a sensitive point, and is not too crazy about increased traffic on Ocean Way, expressing concern for his children. He thought that Council had decided to wait, and asked that they do so and represent the citizens. Simone Johnson, 4884 Front Street, said she would do her best to answer some of the comments, and addressed her concern about the painting of perceptions of the visioning. She said she and others have read through the visioning notes and found that only 30 to 50 people attended the meetings. She feels that the Manatee Protection Plan trumps the vision and spoke about state mandates regarding adoption of incentives. She said that they have never said they plan 100 condos on their property and said it is not going to happen. She said that they are willing to work with the town; that they are entitled to 80 units, but they are willing to
compromise and feels the town has to be reasonable if you think that honoring the vision means returning Front Street to the 1900’s and wants a reasonable compromise. She asked that residents come down and look and talk with them, and asked that the rumors stop. She wants to build her home here. In response to Ginger Bayer’s statement that they don’t live here, she said that there is a moratorium and she cannot build because of that. She spoke about the Timmons family heritage and their employees. She asked what the number of residences is that would make everyone happy. She said that they did not ask the town to change the comp plan and asked that the dirty waters stop being stirred because it benefits no one. She then spoke about the Working Waterfront legislation. Barbara Davis, 4871 Sailfish Drive, said it is obvious that we have a problem and that there is a lot of confusion about what is going on. She said
that the visioning cost a lot of money and a year ago Mr. Laurien suggested that we do it again. She said that right now, there are a lot of different parts of the Comp Plan, and what it really comes down to is the Future Land Use Element, with no controversy about the other elements. She feels we need more time to talk about this and suggested an open forum with no time limits so the appropriate development can be decided upon. She explained that she looked for other municipalities’ are doing, and found information on Port Orange’s Riverwalk development plans. She then referred to pictures and dialogue from those plans (Attachment D). She said the residential plans by Pacetta are beautiful, but feels the boat stacks are the problem. She said that Port Orange’s plans are much larger than what we might have, but feels the idea behind it is in line with what we want. She believes that before we enact a PWD with specific
parameters, we should discuss what uses we want at this point in time. Allan Watts, Cobb & Cole, 351 New York Avenue, submitted a letter to the Town Council (Attachment E) and said it’s hard to follow Mrs. Johnson, who spoke from her heart, and he must speak from his head. He said that in addition to citizen involvement, we have to deal with professional integrity, saying that he is not sure that their constituents understand that there is a difference between what they believe and what you have to do. He then spoke about the Council’s oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State of Florida in every decision that they make. He said that the Pacetta property is located on the federal Intracoastal Waterway and citizens of every state of the Union are entitled to visit and stay here. He said the town does not belong to only the people who sleep here at night, but also belongs to those who own property here and only come once
or twice a year and it belongs to those people who own businesses here, and cannot vote for you, and those people have the right to use their property for whatever it is well suited for in its natural condition situated by the Intracoastal Waterway. He respectfully suggested that a working waterfront is one of those uses for which this property is naturally suited, and for this town to deny to the Pacetta property the same rights that it accords to Inlet Harbor and Lighthouse, is not mandated or even contemplated by your comprehensive plan or your vision statement. He said that the vision statement says nothing about an ROD or dry stacks. He said that he knows and has worked with Herb Marlowe, and that there is nothing in the vision statement that is untrue. He said that there are people who are trying to do good things for and with this community. He believes the election may or may not end this. He then referred to a letter Mark Watts of his
office sent today and distributed a copy to the Council. With respect to the 10,000 square feet and the technology that lifts the boats, he said that it is unaffordable for buildings of that size. He then said that the building we are in tonight is larger than 10,000 and is unobtrusive. He spoke of a boat storage building the Hammock that is 50’ high and cannot be seen from A1A. Sabrina Wiggins, attorney representing Peter Brady who owns a property at 4627 Rivers Edge Village Lane. She said that his property is being reclassified to conservation and should not be reclassified, and that they have been working with the town to correct this. She then referred to the EAR, future land use and rezoning of the PUD designated properties. She explained that this property is not covered under the Harbour Village Development Agreement, the property does not fit into the definition of conservation, that the upland is not in its natural state and
was previously used as a water treatment plant. She said that the upland lands have been filled pursuant to town permits and has existing improvements and that there are existing easements for access to the property. She then stated her reasons for the property not being properly designated conservation, and referred to a long-standing agreement between the town and Mr. Brady. She is asking that the property be classified as either PUD or low-density multi-family, and placed his objection formally on the record, saying it will be challenged if not changed. She then submitted an affidavit (Attachment F). Jo Ellen Basil, 4740 S. Atlantic Avenue, said there have been 18 people speaking on the same topic, and in all of these speeches, she has yet to hear anyone trying to take any rights from the Pacetta group, but they are trying to keep the rights of the citizens of the town. She spoke about her time on the tree board and protecting the trees.
She asked them if they would be voting for this if it was happening in their back yard. She said that the working waterfront is a great idea and no one opposes it and feels that developing that property similarly to Halifax Harbor would be good. She objects to the end of Beach Street and Front Street being part of the development and her belief that the 100-year old Hasty Cemetery not even being on the development plan. She does not feel that large boat stacks would fit in there and spoke about the increase in traffic on Ocean Way if a second entrance to the property is placed on Sailfish Drive. She is concerned about the need for increased services. She feels the boat stacks are appropriate across the river at the old power plant, not here. Paul Baker, 79 Ocean Way Drive, said he sees about nine residents of Ocean Way Drive, and said they don’t need an increase in traffic on their street. He has no objection to changes, but
asked why not wait until after the election. Constance Hunter, 4329 S. Atlantic Avenue, has been here for thirty-two years and feels we are getting too much traffic. Gary Comfort, 85 Ocean Way Drive, read a statement into the record (Attachment G). He said he likes and respects the Mayor, the Johnsons and Allen Watts, but said that the vision was adopted by ordinance, and if it is to be changed, it needs to be placed on the agenda. He asked the Mayor why the numbers are included if she feels it is too much, and said she should put appropriate numbers in the plan. He spoke about meeting with the Mr. Johnson during his time on Council, said they have not presented a plan, merely a drawing. Talking about compromise, he said the town is not trying to take anything away from them, spoke about the purchase price of their property, concerns about the Coastal High Hazard Area and suggested that they have gained not lost, residential density. He said
he is baffled about where we are now; and spoke about the Planning Commission meetings at which revisions were suggested by the Johnson’s attorneys. He referred to other Council meetings and quoted Attorney Rob Merrill’s comments regarding plans for the property and Mayor Epps’ and Mr. Hinson’s comments in response to those comments. James Cunningham, 4923 Sailfish Drive, spoke about the past when the Lighthouse was derelict, the park at the end of town being brought back from development and the changes and growth of the town. He suggested that the vision needs to look 5, 10, 20 years down the line and if we concede to the request to enlarge the project and put unsightly buildings on that property, then we are not looking down the road. He believes we can at least wait until the election before making a decision on this. Mayor Epps closed public comment. Mayor Epps said that throughout this whole process, she has always
tried to do what is right and is not happy about the discomfort to the citizens. She is not happy that the turn in the civility that has occurred recently. She proposed that the adoption hearing be postponed until a later date. She spoke of her concerns about the density, dry stacks and consideration of compromises requested by the property owner tonight. Mr. Hinson agreed. Vice-Mayor McCormick stated that he has no objection to extending the hearing and said that we do have a silent majority in town that also needs to be heard. He said that if we really want to stop traffic, close the Lighthouse, and that condo owners have no where to store their boats. He feels we need to negotiate on this, see the PWD plan from Pacetta. In response to the Mayor’s request, Ms. Konchan said she feels confident that a short delay will not be a problem and does have calls pending to DCA staff. She will confirm their feeling about a longer
delay than two weeks. In response to the Mayor’s question, Ms. Cassady said that what would happen next whether or not the charter amendment passes depends, but either way the Comp Plan would have to be amended. She said that there is still pending litigation, that there were six counts and only one had been decided. She then read the five outstanding counts and said that she cannot be sure until that has been worked out. Councilmember Goudie said that given the fact that this is a subject of such concern and interest, that 99% of the plan is agreed upon and that we went before a judge because of the citizens’ petition, which is now going before voters on November 4th. As far as DCA is concerned, they are understaffed and most likely will not have a problem with the delay. Councilmember Sturno agrees that the density and dry stacks are the outstanding issues, and suggested that the 10,000 be revised to 5,000 and reduce the
density to where everyone will be happy so we can get the Comp Plan passed. As he understands it, the currently Comp Plan is a liability because it dates back to 1990. He feels that we should take the advice of the experts that we are paying to do the job. Councilmember Hinson said he was prepared to discuss the density and was ready to propose that we not exceed 6.7 units per acre, which would provide not more than 53 units and proposed amending Future Land Use Policy 1.2.2.G. It was decided that the discussion at this time is only regarding the continuation. Vice-Mayor McCormick moved to continue this public hearing until October 14th at 6:00, seconded by Councilmember Goudie. Discussion of possible dates ensued with the Mayor explaining that there are other issues to address other than the boat storage buildings and it would be prudent to have those settled prior to the election.
Ms. Cassady then stated that just because the comp plan has not passed prior to the election, there is still a problem with the challengeability of the measure that would have to be decided, and that in the meantime if you amend the comp plan to go with the voters ruling, you may still have obstacles. Mayor Epps opened for public comment on the motion. Gary Comfort, 85 Ocean Way Drive, said that a number of citizens are concerned about this and the vast majority of those present asked that this be postponed until after the election and asked for their assurance that they will not adopt at the next hearing, they will not hear another sound from the crowd tonight. Pam Jekyll, 4530 S. Peninsula, said the Mayor made the statement that DCA might not think that they are acting in good faith and feels it should be more important that the citizens believe they are acting in good faith. Barbara Davis, commented on Ms. Cassady’s comment regarding the ballot
measure and feels that Council should go by the results whether or not the outstanding issues have been resolved. Dave McConnell, 132 Old Carriage Road, said he was on the Planning Commission for several years and tried to negotiate with Pacetta for something that was palatable. He urged that they really get into negotiation on what is acceptable, suggested 68 residential units might be an acceptable number. Regarding the boat stacks, if five are really being planned, perhaps a couple of discreetly designed buildings would be the resolution. Mayor Epps closed public comment. Mayor Epps clarified her position and said that we should hear what DCA has to say and she feels we should use an abundance of caution, meet on the 14th and decide then how to proceed. She said we do need to talk about the density, and she would like to see an honest dialogue with between the property owners and citizens prior to that meeting and see if a compromise
can be met. She also said we need to address the Brady property. Councilmember Goudie stated that he would prefer to delay this until after the election. Mayor Epps stated that she did not intend that they adopt until after the election but right now they don’t know if DCA will allow that delay so she felt they should be prudent and schedule this meeting; and they have other issues to deal with as well. This motion PASSED 4-1 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – yes, Councilmember Goudie - no, and Mayor Epps – yes. |
