Loading...
CCMtg05-15-06MinL~NGW®O]~ CITE' COlVII~II~SI®N Longwood City Comimussion Chambers 175 West Warren Aventne Longwood, Florida MIlVIJTES 10~A~' 1~~, 2006 7:00 I'.li~. Present: Mayor John C. Mairngot Deputy Mayor Dan Andersoni Commissioner Mike Holt ' Commissioner H.G. "Butch" Bundy, Jr. Commissioner Brian D. Sackett Richard S. Taylor, Jr., City Attorney Sarah M. Mirus, City Clerk Tom Smith, Division Manager of Streets/Fleets Richard Kornbluh, Division r/Ianager of ITtilities Pat Miller, Director of Comrn~.unity Services Carol Rogers, Director of Financial. Services Paul Sizemore, Community Services Coordinator ~ Lieutenant Russ Cohen; Codes Enforcement Lieutenant Leonard Turner, ]Eire Department Ryan Spinella, Executive Assistant i Absent: John J. Drago, City Administrator (Excused) 1. CALL TO ORDER. Mayor Maingot called the meetuig to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. A moment. of SILENT MEDITATION was followed. by the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 3. COMIVI[JNITY ANNOYJNCEMENT~~. The following announcements were made: A. Senior Matinee will be meld on May 17, 2006 from 11:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m., Longwood CommumityBuilding, 200 West Warren Avenue. This month's feature isln Her Shoes. B. A Blue Grass Pickin' will be-held on May 20, 2006. from 7:00 p.m. ~ until 10:00 p.m., Longwood C~~mmunity Building, 200 West Warren Avenue. C. Rock the Park./ Skatewave 200G Demo Tour- Reiter Park,,301 West Warren Avenue, Tuesday, Ma.y 23, 2006, 5:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. CC OS-15-06/113 4. RECOGNITIONS. A. Recognizing Commissioner H. G. "Butch" Bundy, Jr, for his dedicated service to the City as Mayor, May 2004 to May 2006. Mayor Maingotsecognized Commissioner H. G. "Butch" Bundy, Jr. for promoting the well being of the City of Longwood and for his service to the City as Mayor. He then presented him with a plaque and photographs were taken. B. District #5 Nomination of the Business Person 'of the. Month Award for June 2006. Commissioner Sackett nominated Leroy Glen Wilson of Atlantic Plumbing of Longwood as Business Person of the Month for June 2006. Nomination carried by a unanimous voice vote. 5. BOARD APPOINTMENTS. A. District #4 Nomination to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Commissioner Bundy deferred the nomination. 6. PUBLIC INPUT. A. Public Participation. Shari Rosefelt, 278 Blackwater Place, said she wanted fo speak on the issue of the City's children. She stated the Commissionhas taken great strides to remedy the morass that is Mud Lake and she complimented them on it. She said there was another facet of the equation thathas possibly been overlooked. She stated this issue is the temptation that Mud Lake presents to our children to explore. She said it appears dry, but looks can be deceiving in certain areas. She declared they were mm~ing the risk of youth venturing out into the center where they may believe they are putting their foot on.ground, only- to discover too late it is sinking in mud. She stated a child could be in danger by the time a peer could get back to the road to get help: She requested the Commission do a study of this situation and find a remedy. She said some tragedies in life could be prevented and this was one of them. 7. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Mr. Sizemore reported on the new construction by Mr. Hattaway on North County Road 427. He said it has been staff's position that metal exterior finish is prohibited on all facades of buildings, not jusfithe front facade. He reviewed an illustration of the areas staff required be stucco in order to meet the requirement of the Longwood Development Code. He said the mansard that has been covered with the metal finish would be allowed because it'is recognized as part of a roof structure. He pointed out a wall panel above the mansard that would not be .allowed to be metal. He said the pictures were being presented at MI'. Drago's ._..~/ CC 05-15-06/114 ~, request to show the different elements of the building and to request direction . ;from the Commission if this line of interpretation should continue. Deputy Mayor Anderson expressed concerns with the City being able to intervene in the construction of this building; since it was duly approved by the County ;Commission while the County had jurisdiction. He said it would have been nice to coordinate this better with the County -and the City since it was being annexed. Mr. Taylor said he thought there had been meetings in terms of compliance prior to the building being constructed..He deferred to Mr. Sizemore regarding this issue. Mr. Sizemore advised,. at that point, the County had already approved the site plans .and building permits under their jurisdiction.. He stated there were sii:e plan reviews for site issues by City staff as well as an architectural review between Mr. Drago and the applicant during the annexation process. He reiterated it was approved by the County prior to movir.~g forward with annexation into the City. Mayor Maingot inquired if the. applica~it knew, in the process, that certain requirements had to be met as part of the annexation. Mr. Sizemore responded in the affirmative. i Mayor Maingot asked if this was form,~.lly communicated and there was ~. concurrence that this was accepted as a condition prior to moving forward. Mr. Sizemore advised he had the site plan review memo and all staff comments attached. Mayor IVlaingot inquired if the applicanrt was completely aware of all conditions. Mr. Sizemore stated he could not. speal: for the applicant. Mr. Taylor advised the Hattaways should be provided th.e opportunity to respond It was the consensus of the City Commission to provide the opportunity for the applicant to respond. James A. Hattawav, Esquire, 840 Waterway Place, said he and his father were present, but the actual applicant and ov~~ner of the property was. Firetower, LLC. He stated there had been some disagreements with staff over various interpretations of the LDC. He said the City staff had been professional and cooperative. He stated the City could only require any applicant to do on their property, that which the City's own Development Code empowers it to do. He said Mr. Miller's letter referenced Section 32.3.D.8 of the LDC. He affirmed this section stated "The following features and materials shall not be used on building facades." He said .the Florida Administrative Code defines facade as the front of the building. He declared the LDC was silent and could not tell an applicant what CC OS-15-06/115 to do on the sides or the back of the building. He respectfully stated any ~ discussion beyond that was'improper and- unenforceable.. He stated the LDC states block on a building was perfectly fine, so long as it was painted. He affirmed the only thing the LDC. governs was the facade of a building. They will comply 100% with the LDC as to the facade, everything else was beyond the scope of the City's powers. Mr. Sizemore stated staff's implementation of the definition of facade has been that it is the face of a building. He said the illustrations in the Development Code back this up, but the. illustrations appear to be the sides or rear of buildings. He referred to Section 3.2.4.C.f. that illustrates there is a distinction between primary facades and other types of facades. He declared the understanding of facade, that staff has uniformly implemented, was that a facade was a face that could apply to any face of a building. Mr. Miller stated, while this section was residential, the purpose was to point out the Code references facades in different ways. Commissioner Bundy inquired if the construction was started prior to the annexation process. • Mr. Mike Hattawav, 840 Waterway Place, said they did not fathom this property would be annexed in the City of Longwood. He advised they applied for zoning and site plan approval through the County. He said they knew if it ever became ~ contiguous to the City, they would have to annex at that time. He said the Discussion ensued. annexation came after the zoning, site plan approval, and awazd of the contract. He declared the. City must act within the law and could not put. requirements above and beyond the law. Deputy Mayor Anderson stated it first needed to be determined if the City has the authority to regulate the design standards on this property,. given all of the design standard approvals were issued by the County before the property came to the City. Commissioner Bundy suggested this issue be placed on the June Sa` meeting agenda. Mr. Sizemore reported they have been working with the developer on the Wildmere West project to work out the paving of Overstreet. He pointed outthe - location of the nine (9) single family homes where the site work was being conducted. He said they have been working with the applicants, as the Commission directed, to make sure the continuation of this paving project is . seamless. He said the applicant was going to have his. engineer design the entire segment to the City's specifications. He advised the City would assume the cost for the design and construction for the City's portion of the road and the developer would pay for the portion they are responsible for. He said the road was CC OS-15-06/116 ~ ~ approximately 1,100 feet and the City's portion was almost 700. feet. Both the design and the construction would result in the developer spending considerable more time on it that if he were just responsible for his portion. He stated they have been negotiating the possibility of allowing the developer to move forward, continue with his plat review process :~.nd move on with obtaining building 'permits for the homes by allowing hint to escrow the amount of $200,000: This amount has been reviewed by the City Engineer and determined to be sufficient to cover the full cost associated with the developer's portion of the road. He declared this gives the City afinancial guarantF:e and allows the developer to move forward. He requested direction from -the City Commission whether to proceed in this manner. Mr. Miller clarified that Wildme~re VWE;St would not be able to proceed unless they ,have all infrastructure in place. He advised this normally includes the road, but ,because it is a joint project, they are asking the Commission to consider allowing the developer to escrow $200,000 with the City and allow them to move forward. Discussion was held regarding the cost per linearfoot and increased construction ',costs. ;Mr. Taylor inquired if this was a fixed amount. 'Mr. Sizemore advised this was an escrow amount to .guarantee they would complete the road. Upon completion of the road„ they would be refunded the. ~ x$200;000. Deputy Mayor Anderson said the project needed to move forward. He stated it was originally planned for paving in 2009, but it was his understanding that with ;this approval, the road would be continued to County Road 427' when the developer finished his section. He declared this paving needed to be done prior to people moving into their homes. Mr. Miller said the development project would push.this forward. He reiterated the developer has offered to do the road designs to the City's standards and place the money in escrow. It was the unanimous concurrence of the City Commission to move forward with the Wildmere West Subdivision with t1~e $200;000 performance bond. Mr. Sizemore said the. County had approached the City regarding connecting the sidewalk on E.E. Williamson to existir~.g sidewalks on Myrtle Lake Hills Road. He said they have a current desilm for the sidewalk installation, but because of the location of the road within the right-of•way, the only position the sidewalks could go would be straight through where trees are planted. He advised the City owns a buffer area varying in width between 5 and 15 feet. He stated a number of years ago'the City granted a sidewalk easemf,nt to the County for another area. He said the County could do the design so as not to interfere with the trees if granted a ~.- CC 05-15••06/117 sidewalk easement in this area. He requested direction from the Commission on how to move forward. ' Discussion ensued. Commissioner Bundy moved to have staff move. forward with granting the easement contingent upon the City Engineer reviewing the final design plans and- engineering so as not to cause drainage issues and meander the sidewalk. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Anderson and carried by a four/one roll call vote with Commissioner Sackett voting nay. Mayor Maingot requested a copy of the letter to the County be provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Spinella reported an incident in the Coventry Subdivision damaging water meters located at 1067 and 1071 Crumpet Court occurred. He said Ms. Patricia Waters, 1071 Crumpet Court, called the City and was told it was her responsibility to repair the meter. He stated Mr. Kornbluh received an after hours call from Mr. Mark Repicky, 1067 Crumpet Court, blaming Waste Pro for the damage. Mr. Kornbluh advised him the pipes were broken on the resident side of the meter, thus making it the responsibility of the resident to repair. He reported the repairs to Ms. Waters' damage were done at a cost of $493.07 and approximately $250 for the repairs of Mr. Repicky's damage. He said the water meters were also moved closer to ground level. He reviewed details of the incident and said both residents were requesting a refund for the repairs and Vi overage of their water bills. Commissioner Bundy inquired if there was any evidence of the garbage truck .having run up on the grass where the meter was. Mr. Spinella responded in the negative. Discussion ensued with the Commission taking no action on the matter. Ms. Rogers reported in changing of the City's phone system, Time Warner approached Sprint to transfer the phone numbers. Sprint advised they were not the owner of record for that block of phone numbers. She advised the State of Florida was the owner of record for these phone numbers. The City was informed we would be required to have all new phone numbers. She advised Senator Lee Constantine was. the Chairman of the Communications and Public Service Committee of the State and she has contacted his, office. She confirmed they were investigating the situation. 8. MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' REPORT. District #2. Deputy Mayor Anderson reported CALNO had issued a proclamation supporting and honoring all dedicated emergency responders that work in Seminole County and the municipalities. I ~/i- CC OS-15-06/118 ~ 'District #3. Coinnussioner Holt reported five Commissioners were in attendance at the Reaching Out with Readvig at Longwood Elementary School. He thanked 'the City Clerk for the Board Apprecia~hon Dinner. He reported the Board of County Commissioners were having their Senior Leadership briefing through the ;State Division of Emergency Management. and suggested a representative of the 'City Commission attend. ;District #4. No report. ;District #5. Commissioner Sackett reported.he met with the Pool Committee iearlier the same day of the Reading Program at Longwood Elementary. He said he ;met with Dr. Vogel, Raymond Gaines„ Director of High School Services, and ' ;Frank Casillo, Principal of Lyman High School, and they were very excited about. ,doing something together and he would keep the Commission informed regarding future meetings. He declared this was an exciting time of the year with over 4,000 graduates in Seminole County and wished them well. He noted in the News Week report on-high schools in the nation th,rt Seminole County had every high school 'in the top 3% according to AP scores and LB programs. :Deputy Mayor Anderson said he has had very good conversations with several of the School Board members regarding 1'~uilding a pool. 'IDistrict #1. Mayor Maingot reported he attended the following events; Mayor ~Crotty's Prayer Breakfast on May 4~`, Board Appreciation Dinner May 6~', Police ~-- .Award Dinner May 8~', Reach Out with Reading on May 9`~, PBS Breakfast meeting on May 10~' and met Cindy Coto, Seminole County Manager, and on 'May 11~' he attended Envision Seminole Mayors and 1Vtanagers meeting, and on the same day he attended the opening of the Orlando Seniinal office in Sanford, sand addressed the gathering of the Cub Scout Pack 691 Blue and Gold Banquet Award Ceremony. He commended the Police Department for a prompt arrest regarding the bank robbery. 9. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Approve Minutes of the May 1, 2006 Regular Meeting. 1B. Finance Division of the Financial Services Department recommends payment of approved and estimated bills for.June 2006. C.. Finance Division, of the Financial Services Department recommends approval of the Monthly Fin~mcial Report for April 2006. Commissioner Holt moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 9 A-C, as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Bundy. Discussion was held regarding Item 9 B in regards to the Progress Energy Bill. Motion carried by a un~uumous roll call vote. CC OS-15-06/119 T0. PUBLIC HEARINGS. A. The Community Development Division of the Community Services I Department recommends the City Commission read by title only, set June 5, 2006 as the second public hearing date, and approve or deny the first reading of Ordinance No. 06-1793 to amend. (LDCA 01-06) the FIistoric District Codebook. Mr. Taylor announced having proof of publication for this and all public hearings listed on the agenda. He then read Ordinance No. 06-1793 by title only. Mayor Maingot opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor to the Ordinance: Ju Putz; 280 West Warren Avenue, said while she favored protecting the significant canopy trees, she had concerns aboutthe proposed tree protection policy. She stated there were two separate situations. covered, the first being when developing or redeveloping a property. The other relates to an established property where there is.no development activity. She said she was most concerned with the second area. She stated, first and foremost; before any ordinance can be .enforced, you have to identify the trees that it covers.. She suggested an inventory betaken for every property in the Historic District noting the location and size of every tree. v~ She said without documentation on file you could not prove a tree was illegally cut~down or whether- it even existed. She said the proposed ordinance requires a trimring permit for.significant canopy trees, complete with before and after sketches, and with a signed statement by a licensed azborist saying the trimming would not cause future harm to the tree, then approved by the City Commission. She declared this whole process was foo restrictive to be practicable. She questioned if an azborist would agree to sign their name to such a generalized statement. She said the language was. unclear for emergency trimming and whether a permit is .required for emergency trimming to a significant canopy tree. She pointed out, in one instance; the ordinance requires a resolution to be passed by the City Commission waiving the trimming requirements. This means there has to be a public notice given,, a meeting held, and pass the resolution prior to issuance of a permit. She declazed this took too long. In another area there is reference to an expulse facto approval by the Commission and does one risk the Commission not approving the trimming.. She stated she did not agree with having to replace every tree that is removed. She said the property owner should have some choice whether or notto replace a tree that is not a significant canopy tree. She disagreed with the section of the proposed ordinance requiring the property owner fo replace in trees the number of inches in diameter of a legally removed canopy tree or pay the City the cash equivalent. She further disagreed requiring the property owner to put up a cash bond when. replacing a.significant canopy tree. She 1 CC OS-15-06/120 ~, stated they already pay for the removal and the replacement tree. She declared this effectively takes -the ownership of the trees away from the Historic District property owners and gives it o~Ter to the City. She stated if the City feels the significant canopy trees in the Historic District are so ' valuable to the community that they needed to be protected, then the City should absorb the cost of their protection. No one spoke in opposition to the Ordinance. Commissioner Sackett .moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Cominissi:oner Bundy and carried by a unanimous voice vote. Deputy Mayor Anderson moved to approve the first reading of Ordinance 06-1293 ands set June 5, 2006 as the second public hearing date. Seconded by Commissioner Holt. Deputy Mayor Anderson referenced page four (4) of the Ordinance where it talks about rear fences may be a maximum of 42 inches high and said this should reference front fences. Mr. Sizemore advised this was in reference of a through lot that would have one side lot that fronts astreet. ~ Deputy Mayor Anderson suggested rephrasing this section. He referred to page six (6) where it required an arborist for trimming. He said this would preclude people from trimming; their trees. He stated he would not require an arborist for removal of a tree. He said they were imposing penalties for trimming the trees without permission. He suggested this language be reevaluated. Mr. Taylor advised to move fo~.-ward with the Ordinance, but based on the comments, remove Section 4 from the Ordinance and. brng this section back as a separate amendment. Mayor Maingot suggested planning a Work .Session to go in depth regarding the content ofSection 4. He requested staff to obtain information from the County, Lake Mary, and other cities. Commissioner Bundy moved to remove the Tree Protection section, Section 4, ni its entirety from the Ordinance to be discussed at a later date. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Deputy Mayor Anderson referred to page ten (10), Section 8, where it talks about repainting color schemes. He said.he understood Historic District buildings being paintedt according to the palette. He inquired if CC OS-15••06/121 touching up was the same as repainting and stated this needed to be ~ clarified. Commissioner Bundy suggested 25% of the surface area. Mr. Sizemore reviewed the Land Planning Agency recommendations and suggested they may want to consider integrating some of the recommendations in the Ordinance. Discussion was held regarding the LPA recommendations. Mr. Miller said they would research the height and. mass restrictions. Commissioner Bundy stated allowing the hedge to be on the outside'of fences -would defeat the purpose of having a 42-inch fence height limit. Mayor Maingot pointed out on page 3 of 14 the word "xerc"should be "xeriscape". He said underneath this; ``moisture sensor" should be a "rain sensor". He said, on the same page where it references the 50' o. c. for separation of trees, he would recommend using•the 50' separation for oaks, excluding the high rise of oaks and on others between 30'-50' on center. He stated, under "Mixed Use" where it states "They may extend to and be placed on property lines...." to change the wording to state "placed along property lines" to avoid any problems of placing them on someone's t property. ~{ Mr. Sizemore advised the LPA recommended eliminating the reference to l "shotgun style" units. Deputy Mayor Anderson suggested this was added so people could build that type of home in the District. He said they were very attractive when built well. Commissioner Bundy stated under page 9, under "Roofs" where it states "Dimensioned `architectural grade' five tab shingle on new construction" that this should be an option on new construction. He said they should be allowed to place a metal roof, or some other type and he did not want an interpretation in the future of only a five tab shingle roof could be placed on new construction. Commissioner Bundy moved to amend the original motion to include the recommendations brought forward. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett and' carried by a unanimous roll call vote. Main motion carried, as amended, by a unanimous roll call vote. B. The Community Development Division of the Community Services Department recommends the City Commission read by title only and CC OS-15-06/122 ~. ~ approve Ordinance No. OG-1'198 for a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land 1Jse 1Vgap ~?~mendment (SPA 02-06) from Coumty Commercial to City General Commercial (GC) for the property located at 1705 North Count3~ Road 427. Mayor 1Vlaingot announced this; item was quasi judicial. Mr. Taylor read Ordinance No.. 06-1798 by title only. M. ayor Maingot opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the Ordinance. Corrunissioner Holt moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Asidc:rson and carried by a unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Holt moved to approve Ordinance No. 06-1798, as presented, Item 10 B. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Anderson'and carried by a unanimous .roll call vote. ~C. City Administrator recommf~nds the City Commission read. by title only and adopt Ordinance N~o. 06-1802 amending the.. Fiscal Year 2005/06 budget. ' Mr. Taylor read Ordinance No. 06-1802 by title only. Mayor Maingot opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or in ' opposition to the Ordinance. Commissioner Sackett moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Holt moved to approve Ordinance No. 06-1802, as presented, Item 10 C for $255,000_ Seconded by Deputy Mayor Anderson. Commissioner Sackett requested more information on cost of the Hamlet Development Standards. 1VIs. Rogers explained with the: budget amendment the revenues must be recognized, then appropriate the expenditures. She advised the ladder truck was sold for $50,000 and this revenue was added. with the reserve funds for the supplemental $2;1'0,000. 'She advised $80,000 would be used for the ladder truck, $175,000 for engineering services for the Hamlet, and ' $5,000 to replace the fwzds given to Seminole County .for at risk children. CC OS-l:i-06/123 Commissioner Sackett said he would like to see the $175,000 itemized to show the cost. Ms. Rogers advised this was put to bid and this was the lowest bid Mr. Taylor stated the $5,000 was not mentioned with the advertisement or the numbers listed in the attachment for the ability to come to the City and review. He inquired when Exhibit A was changed. Ms. Rogers advised this was amended over the weekend. Mr. Taylor stated if this was reviewed during the advertised period, they would not have been able to see the $5,000 in the attachment. Deputy Mayor Anderson stated there was no labeling on the columns of the document. He said you could not determine what revenues were and what expenditures were. He pointed out the revision to Exhibit A was just piovided this evening. Ms. Rogers stated the revenues were on the left hand side. She reviewed the:revenues and expenditures.. She explained this budget amendment puts the items in place, and then the Commission would be presented with the item for discussion. Mayor Maingot asked the City Attorney if this should be tabled to the next ' meeting. Mr. Taylor advised he had concerns regarding the publication issue with the $5,000 being added in over the weekend and not being advertised. Deputy Mayor Anderson suggested moving forward with the original, leaving the $5,000 out of Exhibit A, and show $255,000 from reserves._. Motion carried .by a unanimous roll call vote: 11. REGULAR BUSINESS. A. The Community Development Division of the Community Services Department recommends the City Commission. appirove or deny a Lot Split (SD 03-06) in order to readjust a property line to establish two (2) conforming lots at 1287 South Oleander Street. Mr. Sizemore advised this was the existing condition. of the lot lines. He stated the property in question was at the corner of Oleander and Marvin. He said there were two (2) lots next to each other, one having an existing single family residence on it. These were low density residential lots. The applicant is requesting a lot split. He reviewed the applicants request, and two (2) proposals. He stated. staff recommends, if approving the first CC OS-15-06/124 proposal, it be subj ect to the granting of a utility easement over the flag portion of the lot. Commissioner Bundy ~.noved to approve Lot Split (SD 03-06) according to Proposal .~, subject to staff recommendations of a utility easement being ;ranted. Seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. B. The Community DeveBopm~~nt Division of the Community Se-•vices Department recommends th~~ City Commission approve or decay a Lot t Split (SD A4-06} in order to readjust a propeg•ty line to establish two (2) conforming lots at 466 ®range Avenue. Mr. Sizemore stated the current lot configuration was three (3) lots, b23, 625, and 627 as shown on the original plat. The applicant would like to split the. center lot directly dovm the center and attach the 25-foot sections to 623 and 627 respectfully with an end result of two (2) 75-foot wide lots. He advised the -lots would meet the dimensional criteria. Deputy Mayor Anderson moved to approve Lot Split (SD 04-06). Seconded by Cornrniss:ioner Holt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. C. The City Clerk recommend; the City Commission read by title only and adopt Resolution No. ~D6-1142,. which designates a depository, designates authorized signer; and facsimile signatures for the City. Mr. Taylor read Resolution No. 06-1142 by title only: Comrrussioner Sackett moved to adopt Resolution No. 06-].142, as presented, Regular Item 11 C. Seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. D. City Attorney recommends the City Commission read by title only, set June 5, 2006 as the public hearing date, and approve the first reading 06 Ordinance No. 06-105 amending Chapter 58, Planning and Special Uses and Events, Articlle 1[V rCemporaiy Uses, Section 58-193, Issuance of Temporary Use Permits.. Mr. Taylor read Ordinance No. 06-1 SOS by title only. Commissioner Holt moved to approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 06-180~~ and set June 5, 2006 as a public hearing date. Seconded by Corrunissioner Bundy and carried by a unanimous roll call vote. CC 05-15=06/125 Commissioner Holt moved to extend the meeting as needed. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Anderson and carved without objection. The Commission recessed at 10:01 p.rn. and reconvened at 10.:08 p.m. E. City Adminish•ator recommends the City Commission discuss a sponsorship .program for ~ the Fleroes Monument Pentagon Shape Reflection Pool and award a construction contract in the amount of $72,666 to Wesco Fountains, Inc. Commissioner Holt agreed with the recommendation and suggested moving forward. Deputy Mayor Anderson said when they started with the design concepts some time, ago he had talked about a pentagon shaped landscape that then became a reflection pool. He stated he was having a hard time with the $72,000. He said they have not seen.. a contract and would like to know what this includes. He referenced an article he read this past weekend about Prince William County, Virginia, -and they just dedicated a 9/11 Memorial that has the same shape. He reviewed a photograph of what they dedicated and said it was built through donations. He reviewed a rendering of what he suggested the City's could bear a resemblance to. He stated this was not that complicated and he suggested try. ing to obtain donations. He said this would be a beautiful addition to the City. He declared he had a hard time telling residents that Reiter Park was not done and there was no skate park, but they do have the money for this. He stated this was a public space expenditure and. he would like to expend funds on the parks and get them done for the families. He said it would be a shame for the 6a' grade class that petitioned the Commission for a skate park to graduate high school before it was built. He agreed the pool needed to be built and the plaza around it, but the rest. of the amenities in the site plan needed to come overtime. Commissioner Bundy stated the Agenda Item was misleading, in that he had stated the original site plan should be completed, then request. donations and set up various donation levels. He said if they wait for donations, it may or may not get built. He declared this amount covered the water feature and the hardscape. He stated the funds were available for Reiter Park that they were waiting for the permitting. He discussed setting up levels forsponsorships so everyone from large businesses to a school class could participate. Mayor Maingot said this was an important gateway to the City and they needed to move forward with the project. He outlined the benefits of sponsorship levels in developing a sponsorship program. CC OS-15-06/126 `--~ Comnssioner Sackett spud he supported the sponsorship program, but not the recognition. He said he would rather celebrate everyone who is able to .give. He stated they needed to :move forward. Deputy Mayor Anderson said he would like to support this, but cannot without seeing the constl-uctior~. contract. He stated he also had not seen bids from a bid process. Commissioner Bundy said this was the company with the low bid last year and he was negotiated with for the additional construction costs from last year. Commissioner Bundy moved to proceed forward and award the construction contract in. the amount of $72,666 for the completion of the reflection pool ar~d the hardscape. Seconded by Commissioner Sackett ;~.nd carried by a four/one roll call vote. with Deputy Mayor Anderson voting nay. 1F. City Administrator recommends the City Commission review and discuss the issue of reo~uiring individual water meters ,for commercial/industrial buildings and take the action the Commission deems appropriate. Mr. Kornbluh reported this carne about from the last Commission meeting ~ based on a letter received by N[r. Spolski. He advised the current code does require individual meters instead of a master meter for industrial and commercial buildings where there is more than one customer. He stated the letter Mr. Spolski wrote assumes certain things. He said there was no building code that requires waiver heaters. He stated there has not been a :set of building plans submitted to date from Mr. Spolski. He spoke to Mr. Spolski on several occasions a~zd stated they address the building as seven (7) different addresses. He advised they did their assumptions based on one (1) meter, three (3) meters,, and. seven (7) separate meters. He said the Water Management District tends to look at individual :peters as a water conservation tool and this was what they partially based the City's consumptive use permit on. ' ; Deputy Mayor Anderson declared this was due to a higher authority and was out of the City's hands. Mayor Maingot stated the Conupission should only make exceptions where there was an absolute requirement. He inquired ifeach meter would require a back flow prevention device. Mr. Kombluh responded ir3 the affirmative. Mayor Maingot asked if there 'was a possibility of installing one back flow prevention device on the major feed coming in, then split off to individual water meters. CC 05-1 `~-06/127 Mr. Kornbluh reiterated they have not seen building plans to date. At this time is not known how .many meters he will have. He said. if there was going to be individual meters he would need individual back flow prevention devices. Conunissioner Bundy said when deducting the cost of the hot water heaters the amount was only $14,000 and this was not an onerous amount to place on anyone. The Commission took no action on the matter. 12. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT. Mr. Taylor reported he would be out of town July 3`d, over the July 4`~ weekend. He said the calendar shows City Hall closed on Tuesday, July 4~' and a Commission meeting on Monday, July 3rd. He pointed out this was a month with five (5) weeks. He suggested the meetings for July be held on July 10~` and 24'~ which would be the second and fourth Mondays. Mayor Maingot asked the City Clerk for comments. Ms. Mirus said she would need to verify that this would not conflict with any of the budgeting schedules. 13. CITY CLERK'S REPORT. No report. 14. ADJOURN.. Manor Main~ot adi oumed the meeting at 10:48 p.m. ATTEST: SaraP:-M. Mirus, CMC City Clerk CC OS-15-06/128