PonceInletFL - 10/14/2008 Special Town Council Minutes

Town of Ponce Inlet

TOWN COUNCIL MINUTES

Special Meeting of October 14, 2008

1. Call to order: Pursuant to proper notice, Mayor Epps called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 4300 South Atlantic Avenue, Ponce Inlet, Florida.

2. Pledge of allegiance: Mayor Epps led the attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.

3. Roll call:

Council present:

Mayor Epps, Seat #1

Councilmember Goudie, Seat #2

Vice-Mayor McCormick, Seat #3

Councilmember Hinson, Seat #4

Councilmember Sturno, Seat #5

Staff Members present:

Ms. Cassady, Town Attorney

Ms. Clauss, Assistant Town Manager/Deputy Clerk

Mr. Gunter, Public Works General Manager

Mr. Joulani, Director of Planning & Development

Ms. Konchan, Planning Consultant

Mr. Marks, Chief Building Official

Ms. Richard, Development Review Clerk

Chief Scales, Fire Chief

Chief Thomas, Police Chief

Ms. Yoon, Planner

4. Additions, corrections, or deletions to the agenda: None.

5. Presentation of the background and plan of Pacetta Incorporated – requested originally by Mayor Epps and then by Vice-Mayor McCormick. Simone Johnson, representing Pacetta Properties, gave a presentation utilizing the attached PowerPoint (Attachment A). Paul Momberger, Zev Cohen - engineer, and Allan Watts, Cobb & Cole - attorney, also spoke on behalf of Pacetta Inc. Councilmember Goudie asked Mr. Momberger about the structure that was identified as boat stack storage on slide #11. Mr. Momberger explained that the entire footprint is 60,000, which includes two retail commercial areas that would be 5,000 each. He said that only the center portion is three stories. In response to Councilmember Goudie’s question about buffers, Mr. Momberger said that the northern buffer is 50’ and along the Sailfish lots is 50’ at its minimum. Mr. Momberger said explained that this is a preliminary site plan which complies with the current comp plan, to which Councilmember Goudie stated that the language currently under consideration includes only 5,000 square feet. Mrs. Johnson clarified that this is a preliminary engineering plan, and all state, county and town approvals must be complied with. She said that under the current comp plan, they could submit this tomorrow, which led to a discussion regarding what could be submitted under the current comp plan. Councilmember Goudie said he was getting at the fact that the building moratorium would prevent anything from being submitted and said that there is currently a limit in the comp plan of 5,000 square feet. Mayor Epps clarified that the size limit is in the LUDC not the comp plan, which Ms. Konchan further clarified. Councilmember Goudie then asked if the plans shown tonight were being presented for the first time, to which Mr. Momberger replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Goudie said that he has been asking for some time, and they were never presented. Councilmember Sturno asked what the conceptual plans show in lieu of the 100 condos that are being talked about. Mrs. Johnson replied that the plan shows 14 single family lots, spoke about the number of boat slips and explained that the parking for the boat storage is included inside the 60,000 foot building. She said that the customary size for these type of structures is 300-500 slips, but they are asking for less than that. Mayor Epps asked for clarification on the site data portion of the slide, which Mr. Momberger addressed. He also explained the parking numbers and how they were derived. Councilmember Goudie then questioned Mrs. Johnson about her information on the visioning, specifically about the lack of mention of dry stacks in the visioning report. He said that the community said we want managed, quality growth, primarily residential. He said that the dry stacks came out of subsequent Planning Commission meetings. Mrs. Johnson suggested that they were never going to agree, so asked that this discussion not continue. Councilmember Goudie then spoke about the Manatee Protection Plan and his belief that all parties agree that not everyone will happy. He said that it is really about density and intensity in an area around historic neighborhoods. Tami Lewis, 110 Ponce deLeon Circle, said her comment is more about a point of order, saying that she has never seen a presentation permitted at a special meeting regarding the comp plan and asked why it was allowed. Mayor Epps replied that it was at her request during the last meeting. Ms. Lewis again said that this is not the Planning Commission and felt it was completely out of line. Bud Solano, 67 Beverly Hills Avenue, said he came here with an open mind to see what the Johnson’s want to do and after the presentation he still does not know what they are planning. Two things stood out for him: boat storage size and the traffic pattern, which he felt was incomprehensible. He said that, as a businessman, when you purchase properties, the first thing would be to determine what they can and cannot do, and he feels that they want to change the ball game, but said that there is a difference between profit and greed. Gary Comfort, 85 Ocean Way Drive, commended Mrs. Johnson for her presentation, and commented on Mr. Watts’ statement regarding the size of buildings permitted in the current comp plan and future land use map. He then asked about the two retail buildings and the plans for boatels above and whether the floor area or ground area was 5,000. He said that as he recalls the original concept plan, he believes that there was a public walkway and it appears that it now stops just south of Beach Street, and that appears to be a substantial change between the two plans. He is concerned about the next revision being even more substantially changed and questioned the fact that there are no limits on boatels. He then spoke of his concerns about the number of residential units permitted on the site. Ginger Bayer, 55 Jennifer Circle, asked that Mrs. Johnson point out where the increased availability for the public would be. Julie Davis, 87 Jennifer Circle, said that her family has been here for 87 years. Her grandfather was the last civilian Lighthouse Keeper and owned the fishing camp and the first fishing boat. She is all for a small scale project and feels there will be problems with traffic. When looking at the conceptual plans she suggested that Front Street is gone, and said that the Council needs to listen to the citizens. She then suggested that there is a property perfect for boat stacks on the other side of the river in New Smyrna. Bob LaVelle, 4867 Sailfish Drive, said that when he travels the country, not a lot of people know where Ponce Inlet is, and he describes it as a small little fishing village. He enjoys boating up and down the river and does not feel he would appreciate seeing a 60,000 square foot building on Front Street. He then spoke about the 50’ buffer between the building and residential. He said he lives about 500 feet from Down the Hatch and can hear their music in the evenings, which he enjoys. He said it’s different than sitting at Inlet Harbor and hearing the machine moving boats, and does not understand how a 50’ buffer will help the noise. Naomi Riddle, 4620 Riverwalk Village Court, reminded the Council that they were voted in, they have studied the comp plan, weighed it, dissected it, had lawyers look at it, and hopes that they can put closure to this tonight and pass it through. She said that the plans shown tonight are some of the visions that the Johnson’s have for their property, and that the Council, state and county have the final say. She feels we have waited way too long to have this comp plan approved and again urged them to pass it tonight. Robyn Hurd, 4924 Sailfish Drive, said she came in late and is confused as to why the plans show a 60,000 foot building and asked if the Johnson’s are asking for that to be approved. Larry Fornari, 4926 Sailfish Drive, said his confusion is more of a point of order matter, said that Mrs. Johnson did a nice job, but that the phase one environmental should have been done before purchasing a property and is part of due diligence. He said that he thought the meeting was continued to hear back from DCA about whether or not putting off approval was a problem. He said that hotels are not the same as a 60,000 foot dry stack storage building. Barbara LaVelle, 4867 Sailfish Drive, said that at the beginning of the presentation Mrs. Johnson, spoke a bit about the history and she agrees that the waterfront has to thrive, but we need to have it grow responsibly. She spoke about Mr. Swanhart saying that we live in a tourist town and disagrees with that statement. She said that if we allow a 60,000 square foot boat stack, it’s going to be a stack and go town. She does not believe a building that size can be sustained by the residents. They will support the mainland, West Volusia and Orange County and does not understand how they can claim there will not be an increase in traffic. She wants to see more small scale developments, more homes, shops, businesses and said if those things don’t support the income that the Johnsons need, then they need to take their business elsewhere. Cheryl Cunningham, 4932 Sailfish Drive, liked the presentation because it gave us more of an idea of what is being planned. She said that the 60,000 square foot building is twice the size of what she imagined, and suggested that Beach Street would have to be widened to accommodate that, and asked who would have to pay for that. She said that traffic in town is increasing every year and we are reaching a maximum point for traffic. She said that she has almost been hit on her bike twice recently on Peninsula near the Lighthouse. She believes that the Johnsons will build a quality product and will make a profit without including such a large building. She said that Down the Hatch has been sustained for many years. Jack Ryan, 4530 S. Peninsula Drive, said there were a lot of compelling remarks tonight, but he did not hear anything explaining why zoning regulations should be changed for someone to make a profit. They should have to play within the framework that they bought into. He does not think our quality of life should be compromised. Mayor Epps said that the DCA response has not been discussed yet because we are not to that point on the agenda. Mrs. Johnson said that nothing has been changed on the river walk and pointed out the public access at the end of Beach Street. In response to comments, she explained that the boardwalk stops farther north than it did in the original plan and clarified that Front Street is shown on the plan. In response to Mr. LaVelle’s comments on the buffer, Mrs. Johnson said that the required 35’ has been expanded and said that the noise from the boat moving equipment will be enclosed within the building. In response to Ms. Hurd’s question, Mayor Epps said that no request is being made by the Johnson’s this evening. In response to Mrs. LaVelle’s comment about the size of the boat storage, Mayor Epps clarified that 50,000 of that would be boat storage. Finally, in response to Mrs. Cunningham’s comment about the widening of Beach Street, Mayor Epps stated that the studies show less traffic, so there should be no need to widen Beach Street.

6. 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. Citizens may submit written comments as well. Ms. Konchan introduced this item via the attached staff report (Attachment B). Ms. Konchan began with the section regarding the timeline for adoption of the plan. She explained that she has spoken with DCA staff, who indicated that there is no black and white answer; however, in the past it has generally been acceptable to adopt within one year of the ORC report and outside the 60 day limitation. She said that the bottom line is that she does not believe there would be any objection from DCA regarding delaying adoption until after the election. She then explained that she has spoken at some length with representatives of Mr. Brady and reviewed the two possible remedies to his concerns and the language suggested in the staff report. She said that the outcome would still be the same as agreed upon in the earlier agreement: one single family home, gate house and boat dock. She believes that the environmental concerns will be addressed while allowing Mr. Brady to build. Mayor Epps said she feels that that there is no point in voting to adopt tonight if the Council wishes to wait until after the election. With both Councilmember Hinson and Councilmember Goudie wishing to wait until after the election, no super majority would be met, so the Mayor suggested that a date be chosen and the hearing be continued. Ms. Cassady further explained the reasoning for waiting to discuss the Plan this evening. Mayor Epps then asked Council if they wished to discuss the Brady property. Vice-Mayor McCormick feels it should be kept in conservation. Councilmember Goudie and Councilmember Hinson agreed. Ms. Konchan clarified that the compromise would only incorporate designating only the portion of the property that is upland plus the additional 25’ buffer as residential. She will continue to work with Ms. Cassady to clarify the language. Vice-Mayor McCormick’s concern is that the conservation zoned area, if the designation were to be split, could still have one residence. Ms. Konchan said that the entire property is within the CHHA and it is very important that we not increase the density in that area. Mayor Epps believes the redesignation of the upland as residential and the inclusion of the language on lines 186-192would address this. Vice-Mayor McCormick and Councilmember Goudie agreed, and Ms. Konchan was directed to include that language in the Plan. Ms. Konchan then addressed the language proposed on lines 58-65. Councilmember Goudie moved to continue this adoption hearing, seconded by Councilmember Sturno. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Mr. Comfort said that the Johnson’s proposal is not an unreasonable one, having less density that previously discussed. He suggested they distribute a flyer prior to the election. He feels the referendum vote would be a referendum on their proposal this evening. Mayor Epps said that that would really not be a Council issue. Ms Clauss said that before flyers are prepared, those distributing them may have to become a Political Action Committee – she suggested they check the law first before doing so. Mr. Watts spoke about the moratorium being considered tomorrow night and after hearing Mrs. Johnson’s presentation tonight, and he cannot and will not promise that the Johnson’s are committed to that plan. They reserve their right to develop their property as is permitted. Gary Smith, 4526 S. Peninsula Drive, said he heard a rumor today relative to the vote: the judge has not ruled on the complexity or understandability of that particular vote, so even though the vote is taken, if it is defeated and it will go away, that the judge still has to rule whether it was worded correctly or not. We still will be in limbo, and asked if they will continue until a decision is reached or pass it and then have to go back and amend the plan. Bud Solano, 67 Beverly Hills Avenue, said that the decision is a final one and will not be overturned. Ms. Cassady responded that in the lawsuit, the judge decided that the measure can go before the voters, but reserved jurisdiction in four of the five theories of recovery. The four issues are: whether the Riverfront Overlay District is arbitrary; whether the measure is pre-empted by the Manatee Protection Plan; pre-empted by the Comp Plan; and she did not recall the last issue. Vice-Mayor McCormick said that we are not done yet, and suggested we hang on for the ride. Councilmember Hinson said that he is voting strictly to see what the citizens say, not to not adopt the Plan. This motion PASSED 4-1 with the following vote: Councilmember Sturno – yes, Councilmember Hinson – yes, Vice-Mayor McCormick – no, Councilmember Goudie - yes, and Mayor Epps – yes. Councilmember Goudie moved to hold the continuation meeting on November 18^th, 2008, seconded by Councilmember Sturno. Mayor Epps opened for public comment. Gary Comfort, 85 Ocean Way Drive, appreciates the Council’s frustration and disagrees with the path they are taking, and does not believe a lame-duck council should handle this matter when a new council has been elected. Julie Davis, 87 Jennifer Circle, agreed with Mr. Comfort. Kris Derr, 148 Bounty Lane, also agrees with Mr. Comfort and believes that this election will determine where the citizens want the comp plan to go, and they will have spoken one way or the other. Gary Smith, 4526 S. Peninsula, disagrees with the three previous speakers, saying that the issue of the boat stacks is such a tiny part of the comp plan and all of the knowledge, all of the issues, belong to you five people. He feels that having someone else make the decision is not right – that one issue is not the comp plan. Councilmember Goudie agreed that there are some rather fundamental issues driving this election and withdrew his initial motion to reconvene on the 18^th. Councilmember Goudie withdrew his motion. Councilmember Sturno agreed with Mr. Smith, and feels they probably should have voted already. Councilmember Sturno moved to hold the continuation meeting on November 18^th, 2008, seconded by Vice-Mayor McCormick. 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.

7. Adjournment. Mayor Epps adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:57 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by:

Jeaneen P. Clauss, CMC

Assistant Town Manager/Deputy Clerk