|
Description |
Palatka City Commission |
||
|
Date |
7/20/2006 |
Location |
Palatka City Commission |
|
|
|||
|
Time |
Speaker/Item |
Note |
|
|
PRESENT |
Mayor Karl N. Flagg; Commissioners Mary Lawson Brown, Allegra Kitchens, James Norwood, Jr. and George E. Sanders |
||
|
ALSO PRESENT |
City Manager Allen R. Bush; City Attorney Donald E. Holmes; City Clerk Betsy Jordan Driggers; Asst. City Clerk Karen Venables; Police Chief Gary Getchell; Fire Chief James White; Planning Director Adam Mengel; General Service Director Ken Venables; WWTP Superintendent Platt Drew; Main Street Manager Cathy Butler; Weed & Seed Cord. Kandra Albury; WTP Supt. Melvin Register |
||
|
INVOCATION |
Reverend Phil Hagan, Associate Pastor, First Presbyterian Church Palatka |
||
|
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE |
As a group. |
||
|
APPROVAL OF MINUTES |
06-08-06 Regular Meeting; 06-22-06 Tour; 06-22-06 Called Meeting; 06-22-06 Budget Workshop - Commissioner Brown moved to approve the minutes as read. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
PUBLIC RECOGNITION - PROCLAMATION |
Florida Water & Wastewater Systems Operators Week - Mayor Flagg read a proclamation declaring the week of August 7 - 11, 2006 as Florida Water & Wastewater systems Operators Week. It was presented to WWTP Supt. Platt Drew and Water Plant Supt. Melvin Register. |
||
|
PROCLAMATION |
Firefighter Appreciation Month - Mayor Flagg presented a proclamation designating the month of August 2006 as Palatka Firefighter Appreciation Month on behalf of the Muscular Dystrophy Association 2006 "Fill the Boot" campaign. Members of the Palatka Fire Dept. were present to accept. |
||
|
PUBLIC COMMENTS |
Christy Sanford, 312 Dodge St. said a tree in front of the School Board offices was taken down, which is not unusual for an old tree that has reached its prime, but that was the last canopy tree on that street. This condition exists also on 7th, 8th and 6th Streets. The side streets adjacent to St. Johns Avenue that are really in the downtown business district are losing their canopy. These are the big trees, the trees that grow large and give us shade. She is concerned about the way our city looks and what she doesn't see is a replacement plan to replenish the trees. The tree in front of the School Board was shading the three redbuds that Keep Putnam Beautiful planted, which require filtered light, so they will probably lose that $300.00 worth of trees. She would like some committee, either through Parks, 5-Year Planning Commission or whatever; to take this issue on. This is a blighted area so it seems appropriate to use TIF Funds to replenish these trees. Also, Hwy. 20 is a State road and eligible for State Beautification Funds; the deadline may have already passed for this year. There is a row of dead crepe myrtles there due to drought. Mayor Flagg noted the City will follow up. |
||
|
|
Randy Braddy, 614 River St. said last week’s heavy rains caused flooding at his buildings at 706-708 St. Johns Avenue. He found there is only one storm drain for that entire city block. He feels certain the storm drain system has the capacity, just not the drain openings to handle this water. He is asking the City to examine the issues of capacity and additional outlets. When the water rises waves are created by the traffic moving up and down the street, and huge waves of water were coming into the front door of his businesses. It was all the way up to the front door of Jeansonne’s Coffee Shop. If there is significant rainfall in a hurricane type of situation where you had high winds and a sustained rainfall he can only imagine what that situation would bring to bare. Also, there is a property owner on the 700 Block of St. Johns Avenue who evacuates the rainfall from the roof of his building onto the sidewalk on that block. There is a huge gutter that evacuates water directly onto the front sidewalk, which exasperates the drainage problem. That water should be diverted off the back of the building where it can percolate down into the soil rather than dumping it onto the hard top and creating an additional drainage problem. Mayor Flagg thanked Mr. Braddy and noted the Public Works Director would follow up. |
||
|
|
Daniel Ziem, 401 Olive St., thanked the Commission for putting the one bench back by the Dairy Queen. He said the bus stop sign was not put back yet and there are still lights out at the Riverfront Park from the torpedo all the way down to the boat ramp. On Memorial Parkway there are three lights out. He asked why the bathrooms by the pier are closing early. The benches by the city dock need repair. There is a bus stop sign posted on a palm tree at the court house, which he thinks there is an ordinance against. The plants on St. Johns Ave. need work, especially around the electrical outlets. He would like to see benches on St. Johns from 11th St. down toward the riverfront so there are an equal number of benches per block. |
||
|
|
Kandra Albury, Weed & Seed Director, thanked the Commission for stopping by the Safe Haven facility during their recent facilities tour. She highlighted the Weed & Seed strategy, to ‘weed out’ crime in the community and sow and seed revitalization and restoration. The after school program is scheduled to start on August 15th. The Safe Haven will be designated as a school bus stop for after school academic and social services. They will also offer tutoring, college preparation, and ex-offender community re-entry support so that ex-offenders receive the support they need to make a smooth transition to become productive citizens. She is also excited about the Arts Program, choir program, dramatization team, and liturgical dance team. Her husband will teach the computer classes. She thanked the Commission for its support. |
||
|
CONSENT AGENDA |
a. Award Golf Course Air Conditioning Replacement Project to Palatka Heating & Air in the amount of $17,850 per results of a request for quotes, to be appropriated from Better Place Funds (unbudgeted item) b. Declare Water Plant mower as surplus for disposal per recommendation c. Declare Fire Dept. miscellaneous computer equipment as surplus for disposal as recommended d. Declare Fire Dept. “beverage truck” body as surplus for donation to Putnam County as recommended e. Authorize disposal of 1978 Chevrolet Step-Van Vin#2880 (declared as surplus on 6/22/06) as per Disposal Option No. 1. f. Reappoint Marcia Lane and Ellsworth Lowery Taylor to the Board of Zoning Appeals for five-year terms to expire July, 2011 (sole applicants) |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Sanders moved to approve all items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. |
||
|
|
Daniel Zeim, 401 Olive St. asked why Better Place Funds are being used to pay for the golf course air conditioner as the money is earmarked for streets and water & Sewer. The golf Course should be self-sufficient. |
||
|
Call on the Motion |
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unopposed. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Venables, Public Services Director, to ask churches, schools, Weed & Seed or some other non-profit agency if they could use the surplus computers. Fire Chief James White said these particular computers are not any good but he does have a couple that he got from Water Management that could be gotten up and running again for around $50.00 a piece. Commissioner Brown said she feels this would be a good idea. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush noted Better Place Funds were designed to be spent for capital improvements & grant matches to leverage funds. The City has used them for other items such as road paving, infrastructure and other building improvements, such as replacing or repairing the roof of a City facility, and has made a number of improvements to buildings which could not have been done without the availability of those Funds. They do not use Better Place Funds for operating costs. The Better Place Oversight Committee approves the yearly budgeted list of proposed expenditures prior to the adoption of the budget. |
||
|
|
Mr. Daniel Zeim, 401 Olive St. said he thought Better Place Funds were supposed to take care of streets, sidewalks, sewers and water exclusively. Mr. Bush said the Funds can be used for capital improvements but not operating costs. Mr. Ziem said it was not presented as such to the voters and he will have to look into this. Mr. Bush said it was presented in a way that it could be spent in this manner. All expenditures are subject to review by the Oversight Committee and Commission. |
||
|
|
Christy Sanford, Dodge Street, said that she did look it up and the mandate is bigger than what Mr. Ziem suggests, and is not just roads, bridges and sidewalks. It includes community centers, parks, and other infrastructure. |
||
|
TRIM CALENDAR |
Set tentative millage rate for 2006-07 budget year - Mr. Bush recommended setting the tentative millage rate at 8.65 mills, which is the same rate as last years and represents a 7.708% increase over the rollback rate. This is the rate he used when presenting a balanced budget for the 2006-07 fiscal year. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to set the tentative millage rate at 8.65 mills. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
CONVENE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY |
Mayor Flagg recessed the regular 7-20-06 City Commission meeting in order to convene the Community Redevelopment Agency. |
||
|
Call to Order - CRA |
Mayor Flagg called the 7-20-06 Palatka Community Redevelopment Agency meeting to order. Members present: Mayor Karl N. Flagg; Commissioners Mary Lawson Brown, Allegra Kitchens, James Norwood, Jr. and George E. Sanders, Main Street Manager Cathy Butler. Absent was Len Freeman, President of Downtown Palatka. |
||
|
REDEVELOPMENT LEGAL COUNSEL |
Request to accept proposal from Gray/Robinson, PA for Legal Counsel for Downtown Redevelopment "Development Agreement" and award contract to develop and negotiate agreement, per recommendation of RFP Award Committee, fees to be paid from Downtown Tax Increment Funds - Mr. Bush noted the RFP Review Committee met on Monday, July 17, 2006 for a final interview with the two top-ranked respondents. Both the Cardwell Law Firm and Gray/Robinson gave excellent presentations. The committee unanimously selected Gray/Robinson based on the overall strength of their firm. With the concurrence of the City Commission, Mr. Steven W. Zelkowitz, attorney handling the City's negotiations with the developer, will be contacted and asked to submit an agreement outlining the terms. He will be available to begin work immediately thereafter. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to accept the proposal of Gary/Robinson, PA for legal counsel for Downtown Redevelopment "Development Agreement". Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. Motion carried unopposed. |
||
|
ADJOURN CRA |
Mayor Flagg adjourned the 7-20-06 meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency and returned to the City Commission's 7-20-06 Orders of the Day. |
||
|
REVISED MURAL SITE AGREEMENTS |
Mr. Clint Snyder, 7300 Crill Ave., Villa Farms Community, was present to represent the Mural Committee. Mayor Flagg stated the Commission received a memorandum from the City Clerk (filed) regarding this issue but first he would like to get an understanding of why there is a need for a revision to the existing agreement, and asked what has changed or what has prompted the need for the change. |
||
|
|
Mr. Snyder said the City owns three buildings that have murals on them: City Hall, City Hall Annex (Building & Zoning) and Price-Martin Center. The mural on the Annex did have to be restored due to water damage from a leaking roof. The original agreements never spelled out anything to do with fire, smoke or vehicular damage, similar to the incident several years ago when a vehicle ran into the building and damaged both the building and mural. |
||
|
|
Mr. Bush stated that he met with Mr. Snyder and determined there were only two changes in the agreement. One indicated that if restoration cost could be included as part of an insurance claim, such as during a storm, they asked that the owner incorporate it as part of his/her claim. The other change was the language stating that said the mural “shall at all times be properly maintained by the Committee at its cost,” was deleted, but per the results of their meeting, that language was to be reinstated. Mr. Snyder concurred. |
||
|
|
Mr. Snyder concurred that there are a total of nine murals; 6 on the City Hall, 5 facing Reid and 1 facing the back; two on Price Martin Center and one on the Annex (Building & zoning). |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked if this was happening to every entity
that has a mural throughout the City or if the City needed to purchase
special insurance coverage on this.
Mr. Snyder said they have a wall agreement with every building owner
that has a mural on it. Mr. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown stated insurance renewals are going to be expensive, and said it may be expensive to add these murals to the policy. Due to the recent storms, some companies are not insuring buildings anymore. The League is requiring recent valuations on its insured’s buildings. It is getting extremely hard to keep insurance and costs are really going up. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said as he understands it, the Mural Committee is not asking that the city schedule the buildings on its policies, just if restoration costs can be submitted as part of a covered claim, that the City agree to do so. Mr. Snyder concurred that is also his understanding. Per Mr. Sanders’ question, these three agreements will only apply to murals on city-owned buildings. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Kitchens moved to authorize execution of the three revised Mural Site Agreements; one for 201 N. 2nd Street, one for 205 N. 2nd Street and one for 220 N. 11th Street (Price-Martin Center) with the stipulation that the motion include the addition of the deleted sentence specifying that the murals shall be properly maintained at the Mural Committee’s cost. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO PALATKA ART LEAGUE’S TILGHMAN HOUSE LEASE |
Arlene Huber, Esquire, 520 Oak St., Agent for Palatka Art League, said she speaks on behalf of the Palatka’s Art League’s very successful tenancy at the Historic Tilghman House. The house is on River St. and in the Southside Historic District each compliments the other. She thanked the Commission for providing the League with the Tilghman House in exchange for its maintenance and upkeep. They provide art class space, gallery space and retail space to the benefit of the entire community. She passed out revisions to the package included in the Commission’s agenda (filed) and one more petition supporting their position. The League would like the Commission to consider the merits of a lease with a 10-year term. They have occupied the Tilghman House for more than 10 years. The Palatka Art League has a hands-on working membership and want some assurance that they won’t lose the building they put so many hours and funds into. Their goals fit into the City’s goals. The existing lease expires December 31st. |
||
|
|
Terri Luke, President, Palatka Art League, said their membership is comprised of a large and diverse group of people who are dedicated to the promotion of art, artisans, the arts and art education in Putnam County at a time when the schools are cutting back on art education, they feel their roll is extremely important. They have 125 members. Ms. Luke said their organization was the first to commit to help with a renewal of the Azalea Festival. Other activities participation in Ravine Days, working with the Arts Council to provide art shows, they contribute to the Crescent City Women’s club and their women in the art program, contribute to helping with the Putnam County Fair, and various other art shows and community-based events that they try to support with their group. October Fest was created in order to set up a downtown sidewalk art show with the idea in mind of supporting downtown Main Street’s goals of promoting downtown and supporting local merchants. They are a member of the Chamber of Commerce and try to support them with their auctions every year and the things that they do. They have contributed their time and artist talents to the Conlee Mural Committee in providing a mural for the City. They provide scholarships each year to local students who desire to go to St. Johns River Community College. The Tilghman House is now open five days a week, Tuesday thru Saturday from 10:00 to 5:00. They have been working the last couple of summers on a children’s art program and are hoping this year to start an after school program one day a week for kids in the arts. There are adult classes in stained glass, ceramics, water color, acrylics and are working to make this a cultural center. They invite in community groups who need a place to meet to use their house, which is the city’s house, too. The League has occupied the house for many years and they are now ready to assist in the renovations and restoration of the house, and tirelessly worked to restore the building. They raise funds for grant matching through their calendar sales. She thanked the City Commission and its staff for their support. They are requesting a long-term lease in order to be able to continue the renovation project. It is difficult, if not impossible, to convince people to donate toward the renovation project, even difficult to make people sitting on the State Historic Preservation Grant Board understand that they are serious about making a long-term commitment to the City and to the House without having something in writing. She is always being asked for reassurance that the Tilghman House will survive the Riverfront/Downtown Palatka redevelopment efforts. She knows the leases contain clauses that can terminate the lease at any time, and knows the City needs to protect itself, but they have to protect themselves, also. That is why she is asking for this commitment. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg thanked Mrs. Luke and Ms. Huber and said they would need to some to consider the revisions to the original request. He asked Mr. Holmes to speak to the issue. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said in regards to Lease Terms, item #2, based on research it is generally held that when governmental entities make publicly owned property available to a group exclusive of other groups for a dollar a year, the lease term should be manageably short because the property is owned by all the citizens of Palatka. The concept of letting one group have it for an indefinite or long term at a dollar a year, or a nominal lease value, is one that the Attorney General calls generally improper, or at least not a good idea. The concept is one of maintaining control. It is not necessarily the length of the term of the lease that the AG’s office found to be a problem. The problem is that it is public property. The AG’s office offered the opinion that when you give it to someone for a long time, like 10 years, and you do not have any kind of ability to take it back, then you’ve essentially given control of public property to somebody else for a long time and you have no way of changing that. The AG's office in general offered the opinion that long-term leases are not good unless they contain some kind of an escape clause that gives the city or governmental entity a right to take the property back on short notice with or without cause. He understands the argument that was made regarding the need for development of funds, but it is not his place to get into the pros or cons of that. All he can do is tell them, in general, nominal value leases are limited in term to three years and if he had his “druthers” they would be a little bit shorter. In the AG's opinion, three years is mentioned as an ‘outside’ time frame, so that is what he recommends the City limit its leases to. He has not changed his opinion. They are already presuming the Art League is a quasi-public agency or public organization; if it weren't they couldn’t get a nominal lease, so the City has already acknowledged and accepted it’s public purpose, open to all members of the public. He has nothing against the organization and understands their argument in favor of a 10-year lease, but a 10-year lease is not favored by the Attorney General’s office and they note does not advocate the Commission’s responsibility for control of public property. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens asked if there is an escape clause in the contract that is still intact. Mr. Holmes said he assumed they asked for the permanency of a 10-year lease in order to convince people to contribute, and an escape clause would not be consistent with what they need, so he assumes they are asking that the escape clause be deleted. If they leave the escape clause, the AG’s opinion will likely be met, but it has to be a 30-day escape clause giving the city the ability to exercise without cause. You could even make it a 90-day clause, and he doubts the City would ever exercise it, but at least you have a nominal lease you can control. Commission Kitchens said there is similar ‘escape’ wording in the Concession Stand lease and that is not a ‘nominal’ lease, but leases for $200/mo. for the first year. In light of this, she would think they could give the Art League a 10-year lease for $10.00 and include the same clause. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said if they change this to a market value lease, they would have to determine the market value of the property, and doubts it would be $200/month. If the Commission leases it out on a market value basis they will likely have to open it up to bid by the general public. They are better off staying with the quasi-public side and going with a nominal lease. If they leave the escape clause in, they have satisfied his objection. Mayor Flagg noted the 2003 lease agreement contains an escape clause. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes read item #10 in the current agreement, which states, "This lease may be terminated if, in lessor's sole discretion, the lessee ceases to serve a purpose which the lessor determines to be public in nature.” He said that isn't a “pure” escape clause because that requires a showing of cause in order to terminate the lease. In a three-year lease this does not bother him. The City’s other nominal leases probably read the same way. If the City is going to a ten-year lease they need something stronger. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said the Commission spent quite a bit of time considering all nominal leases and getting them all to a uniform state, and if they are not going to change all of them from 3 years to 10 years, he is not interested in changing just one. Commissioner Kitchens suggested they look at them all again. Mayor Flagg stated he wanted to stay on course with the proposed amendments that the Palatka Art League is presenting to the Commission and requested the Commission move on to the term in item #3, Rent, and asked if there is a significance in the $3.00 verses the $10.00. |
||
|
|
Christy Sanford, Dodge Street, Art League member, asked the Commission to keep in mind there are very few tenants that are going to write a grant with Main Street and very few tenants that are going to try to get money from the State of Florida, and provide matching funds. There are few tenants who would spend a month of their time re-plastering walls, painting, doing needs assessments and doing all the things that they have done in terms of maintenance for this house. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said, as to the proposed revision to Lease Item #8, reading "Lessor shall actively assist Lessee in gaining funds for necessary major repairs at the Tilghman House, such major repairs including but not limited to the roof, the exterior and /or major electrical repairs and such funding assistance may include assistance with applications for grant monies, providing city funds when available, assistance with applications to public and/or private charitable funds", he is looking at this as a contract and he is sure Ms. Huber did too, so when he reads something that says the City is going to provide funds when available, it raises a few questions for him as to what obligation this poses for the City, and what the definition of “available” is. Theoretically, if you have extra money and they need it to put on a new roof, they could say under terms of this lease the City is obligated to provide it. The Commission may want to read that thoroughly and determine if they see a different or similar meaning. Commissioner Kitchens asked if the word "may" means there is an option, as opposed to the word "shall.” Mayor Flagg said the Palatka Art League is represented and this proposed amendment was drafted by their legal counsel, so they can say what that means. Mr. Holmes said right now, the clause reads “shall.” |
||
|
|
Ms. Huber commented that it says "and such funding assistance may include assistance with application for . . .". The “shall” goes strictly to the general thought that there will be assistance. This is only reciting what actually occurs, because it has in fact been a cooperative venture between the City and the Art League in attempting to gain grant funds and insurance monies. She believes the second verb may cover the specifics there and if that is not clear then perhaps it needs to be reworded. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said the idea and goal of conversations like this is to eliminate any ambiguities so that they don't have to argue about it later. He would feel more comfortable if it was reworded. He’d like to avoid having to interpret this down the road. Ms. Huber said she did not think there was a mandate under this language. Mr. Holmes said he wants to make sure that no one else thinks there is a mandate at a later date, and suggested changing the word “actively” to “endeavor” to assist, which implies good faith and has been there in the past. |
||
|
|
Ms. Huber noted it makes it somewhat meaningless. Mr. Holmes suggested taking it all out. Commissioner Norwood said when he reads "shall" in a permit or legal document, to him it mean that you will. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes stated the operative phrase here is "Lessor shall actively assist Lessee in gaining funds for repairs.” The rest of the paragraph is simply defining what major repairs can mean and that assistance is defined as including applications for grant monies, providing city funds when available. If they want to get technical about it, the operative phrase is "the Lessor shall actively assist Lessee in gaining funds." The rest of it is exclamatory in nature, it tells you what repairs are, but are not limited to. He feels the operative phrase is a mandate and that is what he is concerned about. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said the City just applied for a grant for the Tilghman House. They were not obligated to do so, but they did and have done these things in the past in good faith. She sees no reason to change. Mayor Flagg asked if there was a fear or reservation concerning the City’s good faith in the Tilghman House. |
||
|
|
Ms. Huber said she thinks it has to do with the need for reliance in the future. They know what the Commission has done in the past and that the premises has been available to them for these many years. Mayor Flagg said this document should not tie the hands of any future commission. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown noted an example is when the City took over the golf course and then discovered the building was not useable, and had to build a new one. They asked the County for assistance, and they voted to do so, and then an election was held and three people were voted out of office. The three new people said they weren’t going to participate, so the City was stuck with it. The City originally purchased this property to develop parking and other things for the riverfront. When they found the building was in such good shape, they thought it would be better for the community to let the Art League occupy it in order to promote culture. They did what they could to get it repaired and ready to use. The piece next to the House was also purchased for boat parking and the like. There is a lot of change going on, and a 10-year lease is a big commitment for the City to make. She does not know of anyone who would knowingly rush in and want to get rid of the Art League, because it is a great value to this community, but they have an obligation to all the citizens to not get into a place they can’t get out of. In the past when they have had problems to work out or repairs to make, they’ve found a cooperative way to do it. They are putting money into the building even now. She is not going to put money into it just to tear it down. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said the Tilghman House brings many people to Palatka, and they’ve talked about wanting to bring tourists into Downtown. A couple of years ago she read a report from the Art League that said over 7,000 people visited the Tilghman House that particular year. This will help revitalize downtown as well as use of the riverfront and this is a cultural service to the City. They provide classes for adults and children and meeting spaces for not just the Art League but also for any other group that wants to meet there. They also provide a service to the downtown merchants by bringing foot traffic into the Downtown. She is sure the number of visitors increases ever year. Ms. Luke noted on the night of their Christmas Open House Reception they counted over 400 people in the yard of the House just that one night. Commissioner Kitchens stated that those people also went downtown to the art gallery. Other times visitors frequent downtown businesses, also. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked the Commission to discuss the proposed revision to Item #18, Effect of Eminent Domain Proceedings. Ms. Huber said that had to do with shelving or cupboards or other things they had installed in the house or paid for by the Art League; they’d like to be compensated for the loss so they wouldn’t have to start from scratch somewhere else. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes stated the basic premise of leases is anything that you install and can't be removed without damage becomes the property of the lessor, and asked why there would be something that was condemned in an eminent domain proceeding that they installed that would belong to them and not belong to the city. Ms. Huber stated to the extent that there was an installation by this quasi-public group, they are just asking for some recognition by the city of that need. It is not as though this organization has lots of money; all of this is hard to come by. As the lease reads now that there is no possibility that could be any reclamation could be made. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said he basic premise of landlord-tenant law is that if you install a fixture that is permanently attached it becomes the property of the landlord. When they say they want eminent domain rights to recover whatever they attach as fixtures, the City is by implication agreeing that some how or other that will remain the Art League’s property. He does not wish to find problems with the lease, but these are concepts the City needs to understand. Ms. Huber said a lease is always subject to agreement between two parties and those terms are terms that are being proposed from one party to the other. She thinks everyone is aware of the law of fixtures. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Kitchens moved to accept the terms of the Art League as proposed but with an escape clause written in that gives the City 90 days to come in and take the property back with notice to the Art League. Motion failed due to lack of a second. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to deny the request for amendments to Art Council's Tilghman House Lease. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion, which passed by a motion of four in favor, opposed by Commissioner Kitchens. |
||
|
REQUEST TO APPEAL PLANNING BOARD CASE NO. 06-11 |
708 St. Johns Avenue - granting a conditional use for an alcoholic beverage license within 300 feet of a church and another licensee to J. Randolph Braddy – Rev. Dolly Harrell, Pastor; The Pentecostal Revival Association - Mayor Flagg stated agenda items 8 and 9 are related. For the record the City Attorney has provided a memo on legal and technical points, based upon case law. He asked Mr. Holmes to address his concerns. He noted each appeal would be heard separately. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes stated his memorandum has to do with “standing” to appeal. The matter that is before the Commission tonight stems from a City of Palatka Planning Board action in granting conditional uses under the City’s zoning code. The Code provisions state that the decision of the Planning Board in granting a conditional use is final unless someone seeks review of the decision or unless review of the decision is resolved by filing a request with the City Clerk within 30 days of the time the Planning Commission decision is made. The Code then speaks of the review that the City Commission makes as being one that could allow the City to modify, reverse or affirm the action of the Planning Board. Based upon that and upon the fact that the wording of the ordinance states that decision of the Planning Board is final unless review is sought, he is interpreting that the City Commission capacity’s during review of the Planning Commission decision as being one of an upheld capacity. If he interprets the Code in that fashion, which he has, then there is an issue of standing that has to be addressed, and standing means ‘who’ has the right to make an appeal. The Code specifies that any party aggrieved by the decision has a right to make an appeal of the City Commission’s action and that appeal goes before the circuit court. He thinks State Law and Case Law are similar in deciding or in describing who can make an appeal of the Planning Board’s action; it has to be a person aggrieved by the Planning Board’s decision. “Aggrieved by the decision” has been given a special meaning by the courts and specifically by the Supreme Court of Florida, who has basically said that when you are appealing an application of a valid zoning law to a particular case, as compared to challenging a zoning law or the validity of a zoning law, one is specific and one is kind of general. In this case you are challenging the way the Planning Commission applied the City of Palatka zoning law to the facts of these cases, that is one case scenario as compared to someone challenging the whole code or the code as it relates to special exceptions or conditional uses in general. When challenging the application of the code to a given case, but not challenging the validity of the code, you have to show that you have special damages, which are peculiar to yourself, as compared to those suffered by the general population. For instance, a clear case in this situation would be the church that was within 300 feet of these particular licensed premises, if the pastor or controlling board think the Church would have peculiar damages or alleged peculiar damages lead by the decision. He thinks this is a clear case because the City Code is designed to afford protection for a 300-foot zone and that contemplates that people within that 300-foot zone may suffer peculiar damages, and they are whom the code is seeking to protect. He does not think that somebody who owns property outside of the vicinity of the area, miles away, is someone who can claim peculiar damage from the particular decision of the Planning Board in this case. It is his position that these two cases stem on this rule, which stems from a case that the Supreme Court decided in 1958, in which they found somebody who was 60 feet away from a property didn't have peculiar damage because the code application in that particular case was one of side set backs, or set backs between your building and the property line. In that particular case, the Supreme Court said if you are 60 feet away, which in this case was across the street, you weren't among the class that would suffer peculiar damages, but the adjoining property owner might. The adjoining property owner was the person that might have benefited from the side set backs, but somebody across the street wouldn't. In later cases, particularly one that the court decided in 1978, they noted as zoning had changed they probably applied that rule more leniently, and that the 60-foot distance in that earlier case probably would be deemed sufficient to show peculiar damage now. If Ms. Harrell owned property 350 feet from the structure at issue he is not telling them his decision or opinion would be the same, because you have to apply this leniency factor as the code references it, and the application of that might suggest that the 300 feet is not a strict boundary. If you are totally outside the zone area and not within a quarter mile or mile of the area, he does not think you can fall within the category of peculiar damage. That does not mean Ms. Harrell or anybody else can't speak at a public hearing, that is a different issue altogether. Standing to file an appeal of a town decision is a different matter and, as the memo explains, the bottom line is it is his opinion that unless she owns property that he is not aware of that is close to the 700 or 708 St. Johns Avenue location, then he does not believe Rev. Harrell has standing to file the appeal. |
||
|
|
Reverend Dolly Harrell, Pastor; The Pentecostal Revival Association stated she is the sister of the Rev. McGriff, pastor of the church that is within 30 feet of these businesses, as they all have the same father and the same son, Jesus Christ, and they are linked together, and what affects him, affects her. She took this up because prior to the recent alcohol ordinance changes, the distance was 1,000 feet. She stood here with Harry's Bar when the commission denied Sister Thomas permission to build a church on Madison Street. Now they have shortened the distance to 300 feet, so she should have the right to come here and defend God and the Church. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes stated the City operates under a specific set of rules that provides definitions that might be a little bit different from hers as to connections. While he is not challenging or arguing her point that she has some relationship with that gentleman or some common goals or grounds, for purposes of filing this appeal, the courts have said that she doesn’t have sufficient standing to file that appeal. |
||
|
|
Sister Harrell said she wouldn't pursue the appeal but she would speak. The City Planning Board has made a big mistake. She believes that every one of the Commissioners on this board and the Mayor and the City Manager are God fearing people. This community has not prospered by taking the distances from churches to alcohol establishments from 1,000 ft. to 300 ft. The Commission should retract this and say this Planning Board cannot put the suffering they are going to put on her brother’s church. The Commission may not think she is close to the City, but they have moved the City mighty close to her church and she is concerned about this. The Commission has the right to allow all the bars they’d like, but not to take the Altar of God. It is a sacred place. When America takes away the Alters of God, the safety of the church and children at school, the decent people are in trouble. She will seek another opinion on whether she can appeal this decision or not. |
||
|
|
Russell Kohuth, 167 Fighting Town Dr., Blue Ridge, GA, concurred with Mr. Holmes and agrees that to have a say in City matters you should own property or be a resident. He agrees with the Supreme Court. To address the Braddy property appeal, he questioned the agenda notation “"license within 300 feet of a church and another licensee". He said it is within 300 feet of a church and within 300 feet of three other licensees. He respects Mr. Braddy’s zeal, ambition and his energy, and believes he is bringing to this town what it really needs. He asked that he be granted the variance, as he deserves the chance to fail. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg stated his is an appeal of a variance Mr. Braddy has already been granted. There was one person who met the time frame to file an appeal, and that is Reverend Harrell. As to “standing” it is not based on whether or not you own property within the City; even if one were inside the City Limits one would have to be within the specified area, and that is what they are dealing with tonight. |
||
|
|
Mr. Jeff Emerson, 1007 S. 17th St., Owner, Bible Book Store, said he agreed to come and speak in support of this appeal. Had he known they wouldn’t recognize Rev. Harrell’s appeal status, he’d have filed it himself as he is within 300 feet of the establishment. Mayor Flagg concurred he would have had “standing” and, per Mr. Emerson’s question, it is related to law. Mr. Emerson said the City should stay within the law when granting variances such as this. The Code says there will not be alcohol served within 300 feet of a church or other licensee. Mr. Holmes disagreed, saying the Code does not say that; it states you won’t have that occasion unless the Planning Board grants a conditional use, and in this case, they did. Mr. Emerson said the Commission can reverse that. Mr. Holmes said it could, upon a valid appeal. As to whether or not the Commission would amend the ordinance per an agenda item further down on the Orders of the Day, Mr. Holmes said he couldn’t predict whether or not it will be amended. |
||
|
|
Rev. Harrell said she knows Mr. Holmes is right by the law, but is she an outsider to Palatka. Mr. Holmes stated that he never said that and does not consider her such. Sister Dolly said she has an FCC tower that sits right here and her television station, WJGV, is in every home and business in Palatka, Florida and she is the president of it. She should have the right to bring her appeal to this Commission. Mr. Holmes said she has the right to speak on whatever agenda item she wishes. |
||
|
|
Reverend James McGriff, Pastor, Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, stated the church that he Pastors is the church in question as it relates to the 300-foot variance. He asked as to the definition of the term "peculiar damages." |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said, as the Supreme Court defines it, it is special damages which differ in kind as distinguished in differing in degrees, from damages suffered by the community as a whole, meaning the nature of the damage is different from the damage the rest of the community suffers, and not just that one would suffer more because they are closer, they would suffer a whole different type of damage than the rest of the community. They use that as a way of trying to explain how the insult, offence or possible problem that someone who has property right next to the property that is being rezoned experiences or suffers. They may be suffering an injury different wholly and in kind. He understands Rev. Harrell’s position that she is a reverend and minister just like Rev. McGriff, and that she is opposed to alcohol establishments close to churches, like Rev. McGriff’s, and in concept she is saying she is going to suffer because she is a member of the community, and what hurts him also hurts her. But Rev. McGriff is closer and the degree of his hurt is different from hers. In a case such as this one he believes Reverend McGriff's church would have qualified because his church is within the 300 feet. If this is going to prove a problem for any church, it's going to prove a problem for his church and really won't prove a problem for Rev. Harrell’s church, which is outside the City limits and miles away. She will not be dealing with the same nature of problem that he would be dealing with if a problem develops. The law seems to recognize that the type of offense or insult that Reverend McGriff might suffer is different in kind than a church located in the outskirts of Palatka. Had Reverend McGriff filed an appeal he would have had "standing". |
||
|
|
Reverend McGriff stated it is his understanding that at this point there has been no written appeal. Mr. Holmes stated the only appeal that has been filed to his understanding is from Reverend Harrell. Reverend McGriff said he is not in a fight with Mr. Braddy or anyone within the limits of the church as it relates to the type of an establishment they are putting on St. Johns Avenue but his concern is for those who are responsible for codes, laws, ordinances, and rules. He prays to God that they will look closely at their values. He understands it was the Planning Board that voted to allow the establishment to open up. Tonight he saw signs up that said “Ladies Night” and “Happy Hour” and such. He thanked Rev. Harrell for her concern for the Bethel AME Church. They have not had any "peculiar damages" to this point, but he does not know what is going to happen later on down the line. He stood before the Commission a few weeks ago saying he hopes downtown Palatka would not become like another Las Vegas or Dodge City, and he prays to God that those who are responsible take a close look at themselves and make the right decision. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said this affects her more than anyone else sitting on the Commission, as she lives a block away and has some concerns. Like Rev. McGriff she also drove down St. Johns Avenue and saw another establishment getting ready to open on Sunday. It is within 300 feet of 5 other alcohol establishments, which concerns her. She does not have a problem with people drinking but they should do it responsibly. The proprietors of these bars need to be good stewards. Other people have businesses in that area that have had their buildings vandalized and messed over by bar patrons, and it bothers her that there are that many establishments in that area. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said they are in an awkward position as the Planning Board has the authority to grant conditional uses. This does not come before the City Commission unless an appeal is made, and that is the nature of the City Ordinance and the law. Although the Commission is ultimately responsible for the decision, it was not in their privy to make it. |
||
|
|
Patrick Halloran, 416 N. 5th Street, said everybody seems to be comparing this gourmet food shop to a bar. The Conditional Use policy to him basically states you are allowed to use common sense. This isn't a bar. This is a gourmet food shop where they would sell wine. If they have a problem with this, they should have a problem with Publix or Wal-Mart because they also sell wine and beer. It is not the same thing as a bar. This is a tasteful establishment that John and Michelle Jeansonne want to develop that can only help the area. This is an establishment that can only help the area as far as he is concerned. He and his wife moved here a year ago from St. Augustine because they couldn't afford to live in St. Augustine. They chose Palatka because it was affordable and has character and potential. What Palatka needs is establishments like gourmet food shops, art galleries, theaters & things that people can go to on the weekends or weekdays that will draw other people from outside of the city to come downtown. In the newspaper he noted the Commission talked about cleaning up the downtown buildings by starting with soap and water. That is fine but no one is going to come here to see a clean building, they need an establishment that will draw young couples to come to this town. He and his wife are teachers that live here and they want to spend their money here, stay here and enjoy it, but there better be something here for them to enjoy. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg stated the request before them is an appeal of a granted variance, and Counsel has given advice that the appellant does not have standing to file an appeal. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens asked if there are any legal grounds for Mr. Emerson to file an appeal now, given that Rev. Harrell wasn’t aware that her appeal status was not legal. Mr. Emerson didn’t appeal because Rev. Harrell filed the appeal. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said he can't change the law just because he doesn’t like what it says. The Code says you have 30 days from the Planning Board’s action to file an appeal. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens asked if they can amend the Code to automatically bring future cases such as this to the Commission for a final decision so they don’t have to be appealed. She believes zoning revisions come to the Commission from the BZOA automatically. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said zoning revisions require an ordinance. A rezoning is an actually amendment of the zoning ordinance and zoning ordinances can only be passed by the City Commission. Traditionally, in most governments Conditional Uses are handled at the lower board level and only come to the commission on the appeal level; this comes just from the prospective of trying to minimize the number of cases that the City Commission can attempt to handle. The commission can change it but they will want to think carefully about doing so. Commissioner Kitchens asked that they think about discussing the prospect at some future meeting. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said if the commission accepts the recommendation he makes in his memorandum (filed), they should move to not hear the appeal based upon the grounds that the person who filed it did not have standing to file it. Rev. Harrell asked why she wasn’t told she did not have standing when she filed the appeal? If she had known that, she’d have given the papers to Mr. Emerson or Rev. McGriff to file. She feels she has been denied because she lives out of town. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes stated the issue didn't arise until it was brought to his attention that one appeal had been filed. He asked by whom and was told it was Rev. Harrell. At the time he was not sure if she had standing, but wanted to research it before he offered that opinion, as he knew there would be questions, and he wanted to rely upon something other than his opinion. The City Clerk didn’t know. Rev. Harrell said she feels she has been done wrong because the Clerk should have known she didn’t have standing. He should have known she didn’t have standing. Other people should have been given a chance to appeal. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Sanders moved that the appeal not be heard because the person that filed did not have standing. Commissioner Norwood seconded the motion. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes stated that he didn't intentionally try to keep Ms. Harrell from finding out that she didn't have standing. He stated he just dictated the memo today and it was just passed out tonight because that is when he got to the point of considering the issue that was at hand. The fact that she filed an appeal didn't mean everybody else on that block couldn't have filed one. There can be more than one appeal. It wasn’t a case of her ‘getting in the door’ to the exclusion of all others. Everybody in that area could have filed an appeal if they had wanted to; it's just that no one else did. They can only speculate about whether or not somebody else would have filed or not. The fact is if they wanted to appeal they should have done so within the 30 days. |
||
|
Call on the Motion |
There being no further discussion, a vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioners Brown, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, yes; Commissioner Kitchens, no. The motion passed with four in favor, and 1 opposed. |
||
|
REQUEST TO APPEAL PLANNING BOARD CASE NO. 06-12 |
700 St. Johns Avenue - granting a conditional use for an alcoholic beverage licensed premises within 300 feet of a church and another licensee to John Burns & Michelle Jeansonne, Jeansonne’s Coffee Shop – Rev. Dolly Harrell, Pastor; The Pentecostal Revival Association, Appellant. Commissioner Norwood moved to not hear the appeal based upon the reason that the appellant did not have standing to file an appeal. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. A roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioners Brown, Norwood, Sanders and Mayor Flagg, yes; Commissioner Kitchens, no. The motion passed. |
||
|
PUBLIC HEARING |
Cypress Mills Phase II - Northwest side of River Street, south of 722 River Street, together with 900 River Street - Request to rezone from City M-1 (Light Industrial and City C-1 (General Commercial to City R-3-PUD (Multiple-family Residential Planned Unit Development - Cypress Mills Phase II) --Case #06-004 - approximately 9.78 acres; LAN Associates, Inc., Agent for Cypress Mills LLC and Georgia Hall Terwilligar and R. Tumlin, owners. |
||
|
REZONING - ORDINANCE 06-35 |
The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING THAT THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA BE AMENDED AS TO THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY IN SECTION 42, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to adopt the ordinance on 2nd reading as read. Commissioner Sanders seconded the motion. Ron Brown, Esquire, was present to represent the Developer, Cypress Mills, LLC. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioner Brown, Norwood, Sanders, Mayor Flagg, yes; Commissioner Kitchens, No. The ordinance was declared adopted by a vote of 4 in favor and 1 opposed. |
||
|
PUD ZONING OVERLAY - ORDINANCE 06-36 |
The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CYPRESS MILLS PHASE II; PROVIDING THAT THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SHALL SERVE AS A CONDITIONAL USE OVERLAY ZONING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Norwood moved to adopt the ordinance on 2nd reading as read. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. |
||
|
|
Ron Brown, Esquire, stated that at the last meeting the Commission voted to include four conditions in the PUD document, and they want to make sure the record is clear as to the definition of those conditions, which the developer has set forth in a letter included in the Commission’s package. Condition #1 - The developer will pay for any upgrades to the River Street lift station up to and including building a new lift station, if the upgrades or new station are required as a result of Cypress Mills Phase II PUD. Mr. Brown said they would like to make it clear that any of costs that the developer may have to pay for this are proportionate to any impact that the development may have on the system. Condition #2 - Any required upgrades to the Osceola Street/Crill Ave. intersection, required by the city or the DOT as a result of Cypress Mills Phase II PUD, the developer will pay all costs. They will make sure these are costs incurred by the City, as he believes that is the concern. Condition #3 - The easement will run with the land. Condition # 4 has been discussed and handled. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg noted that letter serves as a memorandum of understanding to clarify and verify the agreements and revisions to the first reading of the Ordinance. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
Commissioner Kitchens, no. Commissioner Norwood, Sanders, Brown and Mayor Flagg, yes. The ordinance was declared passed and adopted on 2nd reading by a vote of 4 in favor and 1 opposed. |
||
|
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT |
Amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 10, Alcoholic Beverages, Section 10-3, Licensed Establishment Location Restrictions, related to distance requirements for licensed premises - 1st Reading. |
||
|
|
The Clerk read an ordinance entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 10 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PALATKA, FLORIDA; SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 10-3, LOCATION RESTRICTIONS, RELATED TO THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSED PREMISES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Sanders moved to pass the ordinance on first reading as read. Commissioner Kitchens seconded the motion. |
||
|
|
Adam Mengel, Planning Director, said he drafted a memo (filed) outlining the repercussions of this proposed amendment, based on discussions at the Commission level at the last few meetings. He believes the draft ordinance reflects the intent of those discussions. This amendment specifically will eliminate the conditional use that is particularly related to the appeals heard previously this evening. The revised language is present, which he read into the record from the ordinance (filed): “For purposes of this subsection, all distances shall be measured from the nearest property line to nearest property line. a) A licensed premises shall not locate within 300 feet of any established religious institution or school. b) A religious institution or school shall not locate within 300 feet of any established licensed premises. c) A licensed premises shall not locate within 300 feet of any established licensed premises provided, however, that a licensed premises may be granted a Conditional Use to locate within 300 feet of any established licensed premises, as it was in the original ordinance.” Mr. Mengel noted he provided a narrative of his understanding of those discussions in his memorandum (filed), noting what he feels the issues are. He particularly wants the Commission to understand the impact he believes this will have on any riverfront redevelopment plans due to the proximity of the redevelopment area to the First Presbyterian Church, which is within 300 feet. The passage of this ordinance would prevent any licenses premises from locating within 300 feet of any of those items he listed. He asked the Commission to proceed with caution, as they will be opening up other areas of the ordinance to change if this passes. At the request of Mayor Flagg, Mr. Mengel read the last paragraph of his memorandum into the record: "To eliminate the Conditional Use consideration from those uses seeking to locate within 300 feet of each other as it relates to licensed premises for alcoholic beverages would not only grandfather and effectively create a monopoly for existing uses closer than 300 feet to each other, but would also eliminate any future consideration of licensed premises for alcoholic beverages, religious institutions, or schools locating within 300 feet of each other. As Riverfront plans continue, this becomes a concern as approval of the proposed amendment to Chapter 10 would eliminate the ability of any hotel located on the Frank George Apartments site from being developed with a use that would include alcoholic beverages due to its proximity to First Presbyterian Church. I respectfully urge the Commission to move with caution in amending the Code's alcoholic beverage provisions due to the potentially far-reaching ramifications of any amendments to this Chapter.” |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said that, during discussion on the Cypress Mills Ph II PUD at the last meeting, Mr. Holmes said they couldn’t discuss conditions on Phase III because that was not under consideration. Tonight they are discussing amending the Conditional Use clause so bars and churches cannot locate within 300 feet of each other, and that is to protect the churches and the schools. She asked why they are having to consider a redevelopment that has not yet taken place? She believes tonight’s events have shown there is a problem with the conditional use clause. It gives no protection to the church or the schools as it stands right now. Apparently when the Planning Board moved to approve the conditional uses, there was no legal way to turn it down. If that is so, then there is no legal reason to turn down any conditional use to serve or sell alcohol within any distance of a church or school. You can’t turn down someone like Mr. Sharp or Mr. Kohuth if they wanted to build a bar and say that they're not a proper use, and then accept Mr. Braddy because he's selling wine out of his store. You cannot pick and choose between the two proprietors and discriminate between them and say one is worse than the other. The way the Code is written now, you can have an actual bar where people do nothing but drink and have entertainment right next door to a church or a school, if the conditional use parameters are met. Schools and churches should be their first consideration. The downtown churches represent several thousand citizens. Surely they could serve alcohol across the street from the hotel in the 100 Block and that would solve the problem. If they have to discuss what might or might not happen in the future, they don't actually know for sure where the proposed hotel is going; they’ve seen no concrete plans. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked for clarification on the Planning Board’s action on the 300-foot rule from the church, asking if it was based upon the proximity of one establishment to another establishment that is within the same distance. He did not think the Conditional Use was related to the church so much as it was to other establishments. |
||
|
|
Mr. Holmes said conditional uses do not have to be granted without consideration to the particular use that's in question. It is not like a zoning change. If you are making a land use decision on, say, as to whether or not C-2 is an appropriate designation, if the recommendation is that C-2 zoning is appropriate for this piece of land, any use that is available in C-2 can go there and it wouldn't matter whether or not it was a service station or a grocery store. If they are both allowable in C-2, they can go there. Conditional Uses are intended to be different in that on Conditional Uses, conditions can be placed upon the use and there is a set of fact-based criteria in the Code that the Planning Commission must consider when making their determination. One of those criteria is the degree of impact on surrounding properties that the “use” at issue would occasion. It would be possible to argue that you could put a high-end grocery store or beer & wine store at a certain place under Conditional Use, but you couldn't put a bar there. The Planning Board may argue that a bar would impact a church in a different fashion than a high-end grocery store. If they make that determination, they have a basis for denial. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens noted the churches have several thousand members and the churches have a problem with these conditional uses coming in. Their several-thousand members support the amendment to the ordinance deleting the Conditional Use provision. They are disrespecting these citizens and those with their establishments in downtown Palatka. Based upon what Mr. Holmes just explained, the Planning Board could have denied the conditional use for several reasons, but they didn't. Some adjoining business and churches protested, but the Board found that they didn't have any reason to turn it down. They need to change the ordinance and protect the current citizens. |
||
|
|
Russell Kohuth, Fighting Town Lake, Blue Ridge, GA, said Palatka has done dumb things, as have they all. One of the dumbest was the adoption of the current alcohol ordinance, which killed the bars. The bars went out of business, hospitality went out of business, and they want to blame the death of downtown on the shopping centers. The town was growing, but it atrophied because of the ordinance. Even the County is getting ready to move out, which will further kill downtown. He said he is very much in favor of the ordinance except he feels the 300 feet should not be from property line to property line, but from door to door, as is usual and customary. He gave away the Rainbow Restaurant because he couldn't put alcohol in. As to Commissioner Kitchens, he has watched her attend every meeting and heard the comments she made at each meeting. When he said he was giving away the Rainbow Restaurant to a soup kitchen, she said bring on the soup kitchen. He has done so. He has bought another piece of property that was a bar, and would like to open it. It was the DD Bar, once vibrant and busy; it catered to 49% of the population of this town, it catered to the blacks. This ordinance would kill downtown. Vic's bar, with many employees, went out of business. One of his tenants, Club 714, went out of business. Club Dumas went out of business and fired its people. Steamboat Willie's is in foreclosure now because of the service hours amendment. This is a poor mill town. It is a weekend town. The bars can only make it if they can stay open late. The Jeansonne's came from the New Orleans area with a dream. They opened up the cafe and are doing a good job. He applauds the Planning Board decision to allow Old Munich to open and Mr. Braddy to open his exquisite shop to accommodate the Jeansonne's. Let them try. If he can’t open the DD Bar then there will be more soup kitchens for Ms. Kitchens, who wants more soup kitchens. |
||
|
|
Mr. Emerson questioned what “religious institution” covered, such as if he bought a building and put in a Christian wedding chapel would he have to get a conditional use to place it within 300 feet of an alcohol establishment. Mr. Holmes said the definition is as defined in Chapter 10 of the Code. Mr. Emerson asked if a person could open a Christian Book Store in the Winn Dixie Center because Winn Dixie sells alcohol. Mr. Holmes read the definition within the code, which says it means churches or denominational organizations or established physical places for worship, which means non-profit religious services, where worship services are regularly conducted or carried on, and includes church cemeteries. |
||
|
|
Randy Braddy, 614 River St. said he was born into a Southern Baptist and very conservative household. He knows the principals along which residents of this city apply alcohol in their lives, and that runs to the term of total abstinence. The fear of that particular church body was that human beings had little capacity to suffer moderation in their lives. This is the reason he left the church and became a conservative Presbyterian. He does not want this to be a divisive issue in the way we relate to one another. He feels judgment is being cast on him as an individual because of an enterprise he wants to engage in. He would contend that much of his discussion in the church body has to do with sitting in the seat of judgment and the fact that each and everyone of us has to meet that judgment at some point, and it is only by the common denominator of salvation in Jesus Christ as far as he is concerned, that you achieve your salvation. He stands before them as a believing Christian who accepts Jesus Christ in his life, and as a business man who contends that his principals are much the same as theirs, if not identical. The difference would be that he doesn't contend to superimpose his personal convictions on any other human being. He is simply requesting to operate within the scope of the law, as they exist in this land. The laws and ordinances of this city provided for the establishment of the business that he requested. As a member of the City Planning Board he recused himself from this matter because of his particular interest, but he feels like the other members of that board took each and every point of the ordinance in due consideration – impacts on human values, children, schools, churches and the local economy – and rendered a decision. There are differences in degrees in all things in life, be a religious principal or personal belief, but tolerance and acceptance and love for that other person is paramount. When you lose that focus you end up divided and you fight over technicalities. They are a city looking for a way out of a problem. If someone can give him a specific business plan and assure him it will succeed on St. Johns Avenue, he will pursue it tomorrow. He thinks there are a lot of other business people in this community that will make that same commitment. He asked the Commission consider this when they consider ordinances they impose on their business people and entrepreneurs. The final analysis is they are all brothers and sisters, as Rev. Harrell said. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said Mr. Braddy is a personal friend of hers and she hopes he does not think that she is sitting in judgment of him at any level. He is operating within the law as Mr. Holmes stated. The Planning Board made their decision and the appeal could not become before them. She cannot say what would have happened had it been heard. She has never at any point judged him because he is her friend. Mr. Braddy said he was not critiquing any specific person or comments that were made, he is speaking to the proceedings as a whole and how we as a community survive issues that over history can become device issues and issues that lead to blood shed and war and failure. |
||
|
|
Reverend Dolly Harrell, Pentecostal Revival Association, said she was counting on them to change the ordinance because it is so important. She loves everybody but she is not going to be brainwashed. The church should be at minimum 300 feet from an alcohol establishment, as should a school. She loves the City Commission and she loves Palatka, Florida. They talk about stores that sell whiskey and beer but they are not by the church. This Brothers’ church was already there, it is 100 years old or so and it should be respected. She asks the Commission to pass this ordinance. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said when they talk about alcohol establishments they are talking about all kind of establishments that sell alcohol -- restaurants, grocery stores, Winn Dixie, Publix, gas stations, etc. The ordinance is already at 300 feet. They are talking about changing the conditional use provisions for many different kinds of businesses. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg said Commissioner Kitchens should speak to the request and recommendation, as this is on the agenda at her request. As he sees it, her request is to remove the Conditional Use option for distances between licensed premises and religious institutions or schools, going both ways, and to leave the Conditional Use option on the licensed premises distances between another licensed premises. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens concurred, that the proposal before them would remove the Conditional Use provisions to allow licensed establishments to locate within 300 feet of schools and churches and vice-versa. Any existing schools and churches would be grandfathered in; this will not apply to anything that is in existence today. It does not apply to distances between other licensed premises. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked Mr. Mengel to elaborate upon the far-reaching ramifications. Mr. Mengel said they went through considerable discussion last year to get this new ordinance passed. If they are now saying there are issues with the distances between locations, someone else can just as well come forward and say there are issues with serving hours on Sunday, or any other issue that was considered and passed after plenty of discussion. This is where the “far reaching ramifications” come from. As Commissioner Brown said, when this ordinance was adopted they took out the entire problem with the old ordinance pertaining to restaurants and meals. They called everything alcohol-licensed premises. This includes everyone who is issued a license by the Department of Business and Professional Regulations, Division of Alcoholic Beverages. There are different types of licenses for different types of businesses. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said based upon that logic, they could never change another ordinance. They don’t hesitate to change other parts of ordinances that aren’t working, even when they know someone will want to change another part of it, as that is the American way. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown said they have made changes to try to ‘fix’ an ordinance, which only created bigger problems that made it harder for the everyday citizen to function. They have jumped to band-aid one situation and created another. They have done things in haste when emotions have run high. They need to consider the complete picture and the ramifications of their actions. They need to be responsible and visionary enough to keep open minds to make sure they aren't slamming doors that would create a better life for somebody down the road. She does not drink but she knows other people do. The city gets tax money from bars and alcohol sales, money to do things with. They cannot legislate morals. They worked on this ordinance for some time to come to what they considered fair setbacks. The biggest objection she hears is having these bars open right in the church’s doorways. There are three churches in that block. They want to protect them but they need to also protect the area’s growth potential. They don’t want to slam the door on things that may be coming in before they get here. She suggested tabling this to another time until the waterfront developer tenders his plans. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Kitchens said she agrees to some degree, but this is not a moral issue. She has never broached this as a moral issue, but if they remove the moral issues altogether, she does not think people who own bars are wrong as opposed to those who don’t own them. She looks at this in terms of what the citizens want and support. The churches represent thousands of citizens and these churches are in support of this amendment. This commission makes the laws and can do something about certain things, and this is one of them. |
||
|
Motion |
Per discussion on tabling, Mr. Holmes stated a motion to table could be made at any time. Commissioner Brown moved to table the ordinance amendment. The motion failed due to lack of second. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote on the original question |
There being no further discussion on the main motion, the question was called and a roll-call vote was taken, with the following results: Commissioner Norwood, no; Commissioner Sanders, no; Commissioner Brown, no; Commissioner Kitchens, yes; Mayor Flagg, No. The motion failed by a vote of one in favor and four opposed. |
||
|
HUD GRANT AGREEMENT |
HUD Grant Agreement - $198,000 - Staff request to authorize a request for revision to scope of grant to fund City Dock improvements - Allen Bush, City Manager, and Jeff Norton, Parks Supervisor, with a recommendation from 5-Year Downtown Revitalization Planning Team. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Kitchens moved to approve the letter requesting revisions to the HUD Grant Agreement to request improvements to the City Dock. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion, which passed unopposed. |
||
|
REVISIONS TO RESOLUTION NO. 7-137 |
Creating the 5-Year Downtown Redevelopment Planning Team – continued from May 25, 2006 - Betsy Driggers, City Clerk, said the Commission received a memorandum recapping events leading up to this item coming before them. On April 27th the Commission heard a request from the Team to revise Resolution No. 7-137 enacting the 5-Year Downtown Revitalization Planning Team. Specifically, the Team asked the City Commission for certain revisions to their enacting resolution to address quorum, absenteeism and they also made a request to not to replace more than half the Team during reappointments and to extend terms to two years. Staff wrote a recommendation agreeing that changes to the enacting resolution to address these and other issues were necessary. The directive from the Commission was to call a staff meeting to discuss what options the Commission had and what changes may be appropriate. Staff held that meeting and the options were developed, which are before the Commission tonight. There are two primary options to be considered, and depending upon which option the Commission chose, there are other options to follow. Mr. Bush stated that primary option A is decommissioning the Team. Primary option B is to continue the existing Team, and make revisions to its enabling resolution. |
||
|
Motion |
Commissioner Kitchens moved to accept Primary Option “A” and decommission the 5-year Downtown Redevelopment Team. Commissioner Norwood seconded the motion. |
||
|
Roll Call Vote |
There being no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken with the following results; Commissioner Sanders, yes; Commissioner Brown, yes; Commissioner Kitchens, yes; Commissioner Norwood, yes; Mayor Flagg, no. The motion passed by a vote of 4 in favor and 1opposed. |
||
|
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS |
There were none. |
||
|
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS |
Commissioner Kitchens gave the City Clerk copies of DVDs of January, February and March City Commission meetings that she had recorded. She had given others to her already but she had copies of these and the June 8th meeting. |
||
|
|
Commissioner Brown stated that during the repairs of State Road 20 and 9th Street the FDOT did some things that were not good. There is water standing in driveways and they built the road too high. Mr. Bush said the Public Works Director went over and looked at it. Commissioner Brown said they requested the State to come and look at it, but they wouldn’t do it, and now she has suffered damages to her funeral home. As a Commissioner and citizen she would like to have FDOT come look at the situation, because during or after a rain, when cars travel on 9th Street you have to head for high ground or porch steps so you don’t get soaked. Their houses are getting dirty from the mud. Mr. Boynton has requested they come look at the situation twice. |
||
|
|
Mayor Flagg asked how many blocks of 9th Street this was affecting. Commissioner Brown said from Reid St. back to as far as Carr Street. Mr. Bush said he will get in touch with FDOT on the matter, and will have Mr. Boynton look into it. |
||
|
ADJOURN |
At 8:51 p.m. upon a motion by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Kitchens. |
||
Produced
by FTR Log Notes™
www.ftrgold.com