CITY
COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
CITY
HALL ANNEX
TUESDAY
7:00 PM
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Council
Members Present:
Mayor Pro
Tem Bob
Hoog
Council
Member Leo
Nicholas
Council Member Buzz Petsos
Mayor Rocky
Randels
Council
Member Shannon
Roberts
Others
Present:
City Manager
Building
Official Todd
Morley
Recreation
Director Robert
Lefever
Public Works
Director Walter
Bandish
Planning and
Development
Director David
Barry Brown
REPORTS:
City
Manager
·
Mr.
Boucher distributed requests from the Economic Development Commission [EDC] for
an appointee from the Council to serve as a liaison. Mr. Boucher stated that Mayor Randels has
served in that capacity up to this time.
Mr. Petsos expressed his interest in serving if the Mayor did not desire
to continue in the position. Mayor
Randels stated that he has been working on a Defense Infrastructure Grant;
however, Mr. Petsos could serve as an alternate liaison. Ms. Roberts also expressed her interest in
serving as an alternate. Mayor Randels informed
that the EDC meetings were held quarterly and were open to the public.
Ms. Roberts expressed her concern with
the anticipated Space Program transition which would impact a number of United
Space Alliance personnel and the EDC participation in support of that
transition. Mr. Petsos reminded of State
Representative
Sasso’s suggestion that the EDC communicate more cohesively which was also
a concern for Mr. Petsos. Ms. Roberts
stated that the EDC and Space
A
motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Hoog to Nominate Mayor
Rocky Randels as the Liaison to the Economic Development Commission and as
Alternates Council Members Buzz Petsos and Shannon. Roberts. The
vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr.
Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, For.
·
Mr.
Boucher informed that the
·
Mr.
Boucher announced the, “Fly Me to the
Moon,” Wednesday-Friendsday on July 2nd at the
·
Mr.
Boucher reported that the Proposed Budget was distributed and the First Budget Workshop was scheduled for
Monday, July 7th at 5:30 P.M.
There were no anticipated tax increases or personnel layoffs.
·
Mr.
Boucher reported that Governor Crist signed the
·
Mr.
Boucher announced that he would meet
with Mr. Phil Laurien, Executive Director, of the East Coast Regional Planning
Council, Mayor Randels, and Mr. Brown, on Thursday, July 3rd for
the purpose of obtaining photos and generating discussion for Mr. Laurien’s presentation
to the City Council on Tuesday, July 15th.
·
Mr.
Boucher introduced the City’s new
Planning and Development Director, Mr. David
STAFF
Public
Works Director
·
No
report.
Recreation
Director
·
Mr.
Lefever acknowledged the success of the Rock
and Skate Jam on Saturday, June 29th at the
Assistant
Public Works Director
·
No
report.
Building
Official
·
Mr.
Morley updated the Council on their extension of a previous Tree Mitigation due
to drought; however, Mr. Morley was notified that the drought was officially
over. Therefore, he notified the
respective party of the time to move forward with the Tree Mitigation plan.
City
Clerk
·
No
report.
City
Attorney
·
No
report.
CITY
COUNCIL
Council
Member Petsos
·
Mr.
Petsos inquired about Law Enforcement presence
on the beach during the July 4th weekend due to the cancelled
Ron Jon’s Fireworks Show.
·
Mr.
Petsos also inquired about parking
enforcement. Mr. Boucher replied
that he requested Community Policing Officers to cover weekend shifts due the
beach traffic.
·
Mr.
Petsos asked if the City had heard any response from
·
Mr.
Petsos requested to cancel the Tuesday, August
5th City Council Meeting in order to support the Law Enforcement
National Night Out. Ms. Roberts asked
for an alternative meeting on Thursday, August 7th. Council members
agreed to meet on Thursday, August 7th.
A
motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Ms. Roberts to Change the City
Council Regular Meeting Date from Tuesday, August 5th to Thursday,
August 7th. The vote on the
motion carried 5-0 with voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, For;
Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, For.
·
Mr.
Petsos recommended contacting our State Senator and State Representatives in
light of the Florida Department of Transportation’s reply that there was not
enough traffic to warrant a turn lane arrow at the
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog
·
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog inquired about the street
lighting on Thurm and
·
Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog informed that the Florida League of Cities has ten priorities on
their Agenda for Resolutions being forwarded to the Legislature to become Bills. He reported that Environmental Permitting, which originated in
Mayor
Randels
·
Mayor
Randels apologized to Ms. Joyce Hamilton
for his comment toward her at the previous City Council Meeting.
·
Mayor
Randels recognized the comprehensive
list of City Accomplishments that the Council received. He requested for this to become accessible to
the public. Mr. Boucher took note that
this could be placed on the City’s web site.
·
Mayor
Randels announced that Governor Crist signed Senate Bill No. 542 related to the
Florida Forever Program. This Bill was influential in the City’s
purchase of the 10-acre,
·
Mayor
Randels recognized that the new mowing
contractor had begun working in the City and he noted that the firm planned
to convert their mowers to propane.
·
Mayor
Randels informed that he spoke at a meeting in
·
Mayor
Randels acknowledged the informative
packet that he received from Ms. Roberts related to her attendance at the Senator
Nelson hearing entitled, “Preparing for the Workforce Transition” at the
Kennedy Space Center, on Monday, June 23, 2008 at the Canaveral Port
Authority.
·
Mayor
Randels announced that the School
Resource Officer would remain at
·
Mayor
Randels reported that all of the City’s reclaimed
water had been used this month which meant dumping in the river was
avoided.
·
Mayor
Randels related on a successful fundraiser
held for the Community Services Council,
the Meals on Wheels sponsors, in
Council
Member Roberts
·
Ms.
Roberts inquired about the anticipated
Annexation at the City’s south border which was introduced at the previous
City Council Meeting. Mr. Boucher
replied that the applicant has not yet submitted a formal letter requesting that
annexation.
·
Ms.
Roberts asked if there were any follow-up planned related to the Green Cities Presentation made at the
previous City Council Meeting. Mr.
Bandish stated that he would contact Mr. Robin Vieira of the
·
Ms.
Roberts asked the Building Official if he planned to make a status report on Resort
Dwellings at the Tuesday, July 15th City Council Meeting. Mr. Morley stated that he still planned to
forward letters to those properties facing the Resort Dwelling deadline. There
was Council consensus to have this information at the City Council Meeting on
Thursday, August 7th.
·
Ms.
Roberts informed of how pedestrians and cyclists were attempting to avoid
puddles that developed during rain downpours along State Road A1A which created a traffic hazard. Ms. Roberts sought consensus from the Council
for a Gutter/Curb Program in an effort to resolve the issue and also to seek
grant funding. Mr. Ratliff explained how
a feasible Gutter/Curb concept plan was a first step prior to seeking grants
funds from the Florida Department of Transportation. Mr. Boucher stated that this problem was the
second priority sent to the Brevard Metropolitan Planning Organization [MPO] for
their funding list. Ms. Roberts asked if
there were consensus to make this a higher priority on the list. Mayor Randels took note and stated that he
would obtain further information related to moving this up as a higher priority.
Council
Member Nicholas
·
Mr.
Nicholas questioned the consequences of
the City not agreeing with the St. John’s River Water Management District’s
mandates regarding reclaimed water enforcement. Mr. Nicholas also noted how the City of
AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD:
·
Mr. Tom
Garboski,
·
Mr. Ray
Osborne referred to the previous City Council Meeting in which he submitted his Green Agenda and a copy of the
County’s mixed-use Ordinance No. 62-2106.
He stated that the Planning and Zoning Board and Community Appearance
Board Meetings were both cancelled due to lack of business. However, he questioned why the meetings were
being cancelled when there was anticipated discussion on mixed use. Mr. Boucher explained that the Planning and
Zoning Board had received extensive education related to mixed use development through
the presentations from
·
Mr.
Osborne inquired about the reviewing status of Oral History Bid No. 08-03.
Mr. Boucher stated that he planned to place this item on the City
Council Meeting Agenda for July 15th.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. City
Council Regular Meeting Minutes of
Mayor Randels
asked if any Council Member, Staff, or interested party desired to remove an
Item from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
[Corrections for
the June 17th Meeting are attached.]
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Ms.
Roberts to Approve Consent Agenda Items No. 1 with Amendments to the Meeting
Minutes of June 17th. The
vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr.
Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, For.
ORDINANCES:
Second Public Hearing:
2. Motion to Adopt:
Ordinance No. 07-2008; Amending Chapter 70, Article III, Related to Local
Business Tax Receipts, Defining and Designating the Business License Official,
at Second Reading.
Attorney Garganese
read the Ordinance No. 07-2008 by title.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER
70, ARTICLE III, OF THE CITY CODE RELATED TO THE LOCAL BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS;
DEFINING THE TERM “BUSINESS LICENSE OFFICIAL” AND DESIGNATING THE BUSINESS
LICENSE OFFICIAL AS THE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF
LOCAL BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT REGULATIONS; MAKING MISCELLANEOUS CONFORMING
AMENDMENTS FOR CONSISTENCY IN CHAPTERS 6 AND 10 OF THE CITY CODE; PROVIDING
FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION
INTO THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
There
was no public comment.
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and
seconded by Ms. Roberts to Adopt Ordinance No. 07-2008 at Second
3. Motion to Adopt: Ordinance No.
08-2008; Amending Chapter 26, Elections, Changing the Qualifying Period for
Candidates for the Office of Mayor and City Council, Consistent with the
Requirements of the Brevard County Supervisor of Elections, at Second Reading.
Attorney Garganese
read Ordinance No. 08-2008 by title.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER
26, ELECTIONS, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; CHANGING THE QUALIFYING PERIOD FOR
THE CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICES OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BREVARD COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS;
INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
There was no public comment.
A motion was made by Ms. Roberts and
seconded by Mr. Petsos to Adopt Ordinance No. 08-2008 at Second
RESOLUTION:
4. Motion to Adopt: Resolution No. 2008-1415;
Removing a Member from the Planning and Zoning Board. (B. McNeely)
Mayor Randels
explained briefly that a Motion was made at the previous City Council meeting
to Table the Item, a Resolution to Remove Ms. McNeely from the Planning and
Zoning Board, in order for the City Council to examine, verify and make an
opinion related to this matter.
Attorney
Garganese stated that the matter before the Council was a motion which was
tabled to remove Ms. Bea McNeely as Chairperson from the Planning and Zoning
Board.
A motion was made by Mr. Nicholas and seconded by Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog to Remove from the Table the Item for Each
Council Member to Have the Opportunity to Examine, Verify, and Make an Opinion
at the Next Meeting on Mayor Pro Tem Hoog’s Request to Remove Ms. Bea McNeely
from the Planning and Zoning Board.
Mr. Nicholas stated
that the Council needed to deliberate the situation in light of the community
and Board members in the audience related to this item. Ms. Roberts stated that the more appropriate
action on the City Council’s part would have been to warn or advise any Board
Member of their concerns as opposed to this action. She stated that the fairness process would be
appropriate in this situation. Mr.
Nicholas brought out that the City employees were subject to Personnel Policies
and given progressive discipline steps and the same privilege should be
extended to the City volunteer Board members.
He related his concern with removing Board members recalling the removal
of Ms. Karen Hayes from the Community Appearance Board.
Mr. Petsos
stated that Board members and staff were given inconsistent directions related
to review from one meeting to the next. He
stated that Ms. McNeely, if there were any error, erred on the side of caution
on behalf of the City. Mr. Petsos stated
how everyone in the community should be allowed to share their beliefs and the
Boards should be allowed to share their opinions. He related that he listened
to the audio and did not find the Board out-of-control as was expressed. Mr. Petsos related that the Board was
inquisitive during Phil Laurien’s presentation; however, they did not behave inappropriately. He stated with regard to the anticipated
hotel issue, that the Council did not give the Board clear direction on whether
or not to hear the matter. Mr. Petsos
stated that Ms. McNeely had valid concerns over the City codes in the hotel
matter, and in the absence of the City Attorney, she was reluctant to hear the
matter. Mr. Petsos concluded that he would not support a motion for Ms.
McNeely’s removal. Ms. Roberts emphasized the importance for the Board and
Council members to behave respectfully toward one another.
Mayor Pro Tem
Hoog recounted previous Council and Board training. He related how he heard snide remarks from
Board Members; however, without apology, such as was done at this meeting by
the Mayor. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated
that the Council did not hear all of the remarks, for example, the June 14th
Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mayor
Pro Tem Hoog concluded that the snide remarks, comments, and belittling needed
to cease. Mayor Randels stated that he
was unaware that the Board Chair had the authority to refuse to hear an
application for a Planning and Zoning Board Agenda. Attorney Garganese explained how the
Chairperson assisted in setting the Board Meeting Agenda. Council discussion brought out that all Board
Agendas have a place for Public Comment.
Ms. Roberts
recounted how Mr. Porter conferred with the Building Official related to his
accessory use; however, Mr. Porter was found not ready at the time the Board was
scheduled to meet. Ms. Roberts stated
that, as she understood the matter, he was not ready for a full Site Plan review
before the Planning and Zoning Board.
Ms. Roberts stated that as long as presentation was in compliance with
the City code, then applicants would be allowed to make a conceptual
presentation before City Council, prior to review by the Planning
and Zoning Board. Ms. Roberts recounted Mr. Porter’s steps as:
1) to get agreement on the accessory use issue from the Planning and Zoning
Board, 2) then the matter would come to the Council as a conceptual
discussion, and 3) the matter would proceed to the Planning and Zoning Board
for a full Site Plan review. Mr. Morley clarified
that staff review requires a checklist. However,
Mr. Porter’s Site Plan was not complete and therefore not ready for staff
review.
Mr. Nicholas
brought out if the Council planned to continue review of “conceptual” plans, then
the Council would need to establish a policy related to conceptual plan review.
Ms. Roberts agreed with Mr. Nicholas and
stated that having a conceptual plan review process would allow the Council an
opportunity to review new plans and new concepts for the City. Mr. Morley clarified how if a development
application did not meet the Code or it was deemed to have been interpreted
incorrectly then an Administrative Appeal was the process. A new, unconsidered concept which was not
considered before would be noted at the staff level. He concluded that an Administrative Appeal
should have occurred for the Porter property; however, the applicant did not
choose that process. A Zoning Amendment or Variance was the venue for
Mr. Bill Mays’ property.
Ms. Roberts
stated how she thought the Council agreed as a full Council to hear concept
plans from developers. She did not think
that City code would constrain the Council from hearing the plan. Ms. Roberts stated that developers desired to
hear from the City Council early in the process. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he heard about the
project two weeks prior to the City Council hearing the matter; however, he
told Mr. Porter that he had to follow the City code related to accessory use. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog clarified that only the
Building Official has the authority to finalize the Agenda items for the
Planning and Zoning Board, not the Board Chairperson.
Mr. Petsos emphasized
that the new Planning and Development Director could handle any upcoming development
issues. Mayor Randels acknowledged the
Board’s exploratory function and their need for clear direction from the
Council. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated how
he had listened to Planning and Zoning Board Members, and some other Boards,
make undue remarks to citizens. Mr.
Nicholas stated that any citizen has the right to present an item before any
Board; however, no citizen could demand the right to be placed on an
Agenda. Mr. Petsos recommended having
the Planning and Development Director review the development process
plans. Mr. Brown took note and stated
that he would confer with the City Manager.
Mr. Pat Campbell asked the City to tread lightly on
its volunteers and not to make hasty actions toward their appointments. Mr. Campbell stated that the issue heard was
best served through review of the processes instead of eliminating a Board
Member.
Ms. Marilyn Rigerman,
Ms. Ruth Montgomery stated that this was not the time
to call people names and also said that Ms.
Rigerman’s statement was slander from her viewpoint.
The
vote on the motion to Remove Ms. McNeely from the Planning and Zoning failed 1-4
with voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr. Nicholas, Against; Mr. Petsos,
Against; Mayor Randels, Against, and Ms. Roberts, Against.
CONSIDERATION:
5. Motion to Approve: Bid Award for the
Construction of Stormwater Improvements to the Northern Portion of the Central
Ditch.
Mr. Ratliff
recounted that the City received and opened six bids on May 23rd
related to this project. The low bidder
was Gregori Construction and Engineering, Inc. at $327,544, and the next lowest
bid was Maxwell Contracting, Inc. at $371,000.
Attorney Garganese informed that the Contract threshold required a Labor
and Performance Bond which was not in the package. Ms. Roberts inquired if this were a cost
issue. Attorney Garganese affirmed. Mr. Ratliff stated this request was not
included in the Bid process. Ms. Roberts
asked if any of the other Bid packages included this required document;
however, Mr. Ratliff informed that they did not.
Attorney
Garganese clarified that, in the future, the City should include this
requirement since it was a statutory requirement for a Public Works projects
over $200,000. Mr. Boucher clarified
that the City Engineer prepared the Bid Documents. Ms. Roberts asked if Gregori Construction
would pay the Labor and Performance Bond amount now required and Mr. Bandish
assured that Staff would negotiate with the proposed firm. However, if they refused to post a Labor and
Performance Bond, then negotiations would proceed to the next lowest Bidder. As a result of a search through the Bid
documents, Mayor Randels found Gregori Construction’s Labor and Performance
Bond. There was no further discussion.
A motion was made by Mr. Petsos and seconded by Mr.
Nicholas to Approve Bid Award No. 08-04 for the Construction of Stormwater
Improvement to the Northern Portion of the Central Ditch to Gregori
Construction and Engineering, Inc. The
vote on the motion carried 5-0 with voting as: Mayor Pro Tem Hoog, For; Mr.
Nicholas, For; Mr. Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For, and Ms. Roberts, For.
DISCUSSION:
6. Building Height Referendum Ordinance.
Attorney
Garganese clarified that this was not a Public Hearing for the
Ordinance, but for Discussion purposes only which would proceed, at the
Council’s approval, to Planning and Zoning Board for review and then return to
the Council for Approval and subsequent Adoption.
Attorney Garganese read Ordinance No. 09-2008 by title.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CAPE
CANAVERAL, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A
REFERENDUM ELECTION AND BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THE
Attorney
Garganese clarified that a ballot question allowed only 15 words for a heading
and 75 words for the narrative explanation of its intent. Attorney Garganese explained if this ballot
question related to the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zoning District passed, then only
those districts would be affected.
Attorney Garganese stated that any future changes to these established designations
would be subject to the ballot question.
For other properties not zoned R-1, R-2, or R-3 the current zoning
applied.
Any future
height changes to these zoning districts, R-1, R-2, and R-3, could only be
changed by a voter approved Referendum.
If a property was re-zoned, then this maximum height restriction would
apply. He stated that the Charter
Amendment would also provide that the height shall be measured by the City’s
Land Development Regulations adopted by the Council. The Charter would make this as a reference to
the Land Development Regulations that were already established in the City
Code. Attorney Garganese informed that
annexed property would also fall under this requirement. He stated that the Council could not increase
the maximum height, but could reduce it.
Mayor Randels concluded that this Ordinance would establish a building
height requirement for the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts at 25-feet and 45-feet
for theR-3 zoning district.
Mr. Lamar Russell,
Ms. Roberts
inquired about the residential Special Exception properties on
Attorney
Garganese affirmed that these properties could be re-built. If the property change was voluntary, then the property had to
conform to the building height limitation as established for the Residential
Zoning District. However, in the case of
a “natural disaster” the property owner would re-build their property to the
same height. Mr. Russell referred to the
50 percent principle related to building damage and stated that a building
damaged in excess of 50 percent required re-building under the current
code. Discussion concluded that any
further changes would require discussion and amendment at a later time.
Ms. Roberts asked
for clarification on the proposed Referendum language which read, “Maximum
height restrictions will apply”. She
asked if the language meant just within those zones. Ms. Roberts stated that the sentence standing
alone was liberally stated and recommended, “Maximum height restrictions in
these zones.” Attorney Garganese
informed that the 75 word maximum was reached.
Ms. Roberts stated that she would take that sentence literally and found
it unclear. Ms. Roberts went on record for
the City Attorney to review the language.
Mr. Jay Petty asked if a Referendum was set to establish the Building
Height in existence. Attorney Garganese
stated that the City previously had an approved Ordinance related to building
height which was challenged and found invalid by the Court. He explained that the Council understands the
City’s previous history and was proposing an Ordinance that would provide the
voters something binding. Mr. Petty
stated that he found the Ordinance restrictive and it should encompass all
buildings commercial and residential. Ms.
Roberts referred to a Referendum in 1973 which acknowledged a 60-feet
designation in a Tourist Zone. Mr.
Petsos clarified that this designation, however, was not for State Road
A1A. Mr. Petty emphasized his point of including all building heights. Mayor
Randels explained that the Council received concern from residents on the
potentiality of having a 60-foot neighbor.
Mr. Pat Campbell,
Attorney
Garganese clarified that the Council has the discretion to establish maximum
heights in the City for those properties which were not R-1, R-2, and R-3. Two maps were included in the Council Agenda
Packet which clearly depicted those zoning districts over which the Council
could change the height; otherwise, a referendum would be required. Mr.
Campbell cautioned on not proceeding to Referendum and allowing the voters
to make a decision.
Ms. Lois Palmer,
Mr. David Shirtzinger, 314 Surf Drive, stated
that he attended many of the meetings related to the building height discussion
and expressed his concern with the expeditious nature of a Referendum to
establish residential building height; however, considerable deliberation was
given on the commercial building height discussion. He concluded that the City should be reviewed
in its entirety and not to address the concerns of residential properties owners
separate from commercial property. There
may be reasons why the City would want to consider different heights in the
residential zones, as well.
Ms. Marilyn Rigerman recommended not including language
for residential building height and commercial building height on the same
Referendum ballot question.
Ms. Ruth Montgomery stated that the Council could
approve two different referendums on the same ballot.
Mr. Petsos
stated that he could not support placing one Referendum on the ballot related
to Residential Zoning without a Referendum question related to Commercial
Zoning also.
Ms. Roberts recounted
that the Council was awaiting expert advice from Mr. Phil Laurien, Mr. Brown,
the Planning and Zoning Director when he came on board and for Ms. Laura Canady
to return to obtain an educated and informed strategy. Ms. Roberts stated her own favor with a
comprehensive plan for City and not a piecemeal approach. She emphasized the
need for expert advice in order to address this discussion as a whole.
Mrs. Patricia Petty, Puerto Del Rio, stated that she
attended the meeting with the interest of the residential building height item;
however, she took note of an Architectural Theme for the City and Community
Vision which was being discussed by the Council. Ms. Petty stated that the
20/20 Visioning and community involvement could take many forms to include
focus groups, town meetings, etc.
Mr. Mays referred
to Administrative functions and asked if a member of the Council could
facilitate at one of the Board meetings to ensure that Council’s directions
were correctly interpreted. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog clarified that Board
facilitation was the City Attorney’s function.
Ms. Roberts
recommended waiting until the July 15th City Council meeting
subsequent to Phil Laurien’s presentation.
Mr. Nicholas stated how waiting until July 15th would delay
the Referendum which had a deadline of August 22nd. Mr. Boucher clarified that the City Council would
meet on Thursday, August 7th and again on August 19th for
further discussion on this item. Mayor
Randels clarified further that the Planning and Zoning Board acting as the Land
Planning Agency could review the draft Ordinance at its July 9th and
July 23rd Meeting. Ms.
Roberts expressed her concern with lack of expert input. Mayor Pro Tem Hoog stated that he was in
agreement with a Referendum; however, only if it could be understood by the
voters.
Mayor Randels concluded that there was not
adequate support from the Council to forward the Building Height Ordinance
Referendum to the Planning and Zoning Board for their review.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
_________________________________
Rocky
Randels, MAYOR
________________________________
Susan Stills, CMC, CITY CLERk