Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04261988 City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 n SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 MINUTES OF MEETING AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD APRIL 26,. 1988 - 4:00 P.M. ' MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN EDWARD PALUCH AT 4:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: KENNETH MEGUIN ROGER COOPER EARL MASTELLER MICHAEL KENNEY 'tHEODORE AHNEMAN RENE VAN DE VOORDE (ARRIVED AFTER ROLL CALL) CHAIRMAN EDWARD PALUCH JOHN VAN ANTWERP, EX OFFICIO MEMBER ABSENT: ROBERT MORROW (EXCUSED) ALSO PRESENT: BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL ROBERT McCLARY, CITY MANAGER APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. MEETING OF 2/23/88 - MR. ROGER COOPER ATTESTED TO THE VER- BATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PART OF THE MINUTES. MOTION BY MR. COOPER, SECONDED BY MR. KENNEY, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23 INCLUDING THE VERBATIM EXCERPT FROM THE TAPE RECORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. B. MEETING OF 3/29/88 - MOTION BY MR. COOPER, SECONDED BY MR. AHNEMAN, TO APPROVE THE .MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 29. MR. MASTELLER QUESTIONED THE ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE SECOND MOTION ON PAGE 4 WHICH SHOWED A UNANIMOUS "AYE" VOTE. HE BELIEVE~ HE HAD VOTED "NAY". THE SECRETARY CHECKED BACK IN HER NOTES AND FOUND THAT MR. MASTELLER HAD VOTED "AYE", BUT STATED SHE WOULD CHECK THE TAPE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OPERATING STATEMENT FOR PERIOD ENDING 3/31/88: MR. MASTELLER REMARKED THAT AIRPORT FUNDS TOTAL $213,200. AND WONDERED IF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION USED ANY CRITERIA FOR REVIEWING WHAT AN APPLICANT HAS IN iTS COFFERS WHEN A GRANT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR. CHAIRMAN PALUCH FELT THAT IF THIS IS TO BE DISCUSSED, iT SHOULD BE UNDER NEW BUSINESS. THERE WERE NO FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE OPERATING STATEMENT. PUBLIC INPUT: JOHN EVANS, ATTORNEY SPEAKING FOR GROUP THAT WAS CALLED "CITIZENS AGAINST AIRPORT EXPANSION", RESIDING AT 11155 ROSELAND ROAD. MR. EVANS THOUGHT THE ADVISORY BOARD SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT FUTURE CO-EXISTENCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS WHOSE PROPERTY WILL ABUT THE AIRPORT AND THE EXPANSION OF THE AIRPORT.. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POSSIBLE RUNWAYS AND A NUMBER OF WAYS THE AIRPORT COULD BE APPROACHED OR POSSIBLY YOU COULD LIMIT THE RESIDENTIAL USE IN A WAY SO %HAT PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE SO EASILY AGGRIEVED. PEOPLE ARE ALREADY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NOISE. HE THOUGHT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHOULD ALSO BE MORE INVOLVED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE HAD BEEN ONE OR TWO JOINT MEETINGS BETWEEN THE AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, BUT AS MR. MASTELLER ADDED, THEY WERE NEVER DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ACTUALLY TO GIVE THEIR VIEW AND WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE MASTER PLAN. SHIRLEY KILKELLY, MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SINCE AUGUST, 1987, STATED THAT SINCE SHE HAS BEEN ON THE COM- MISSION, NOTHING WAS EVER PRESENTED ON THE MASTER PLAN. IT WAS AGREED THAT THE MEETINGS WERE HELD BEFORE THAT TIME. BILL MARKHAM, 238 MAIN STREET - HAVE HEARD THAT PLANS FOR THE COLLIER PUD INCLUDE A TEMPORARY PLANT FOR AFFLUENT TO BE DRAINED INTO~A LAKE AT THE GOLF COURSE. THERE ARE TWO LAKES ON THIS PROPERTY. WHY SHOULD ONE OF THE GOLF COURSE LAKES BE USED IF TIIIS IS~A..T:E~PORAR¥'-THING? MR. MASTELLER COMMENTED, FOR THE RECORD,- THAT HIS FIRM IS THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR COLLIER PLACE, THAT THE PROJECT IS BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN A CON- CEPTUAL FORM, AND IF THERE IS GOING TO BE ANY DISCUSSION OR DECISION MAKING BY THIS BOARD THIS AFTERNOON, HE WILL TAKE A POSITION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HE WILL CONTRIBUTE WHAT HE CAN FOR THE BETTERMENT OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT HE WILL BE CAREFUL NOT TO MAKE ANY KIND OF STATEMENT THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE THE BOARD. CHAIRMAN PALUCH SUGGESTED TO MR. MARKHAM THAT HIS QUESTION MIGHT BETTER BE ADDRESSED TO PLANNING AND ZONING RATHER THAN THE AIRPORT BOARD. FRANK DE JOIA, 11625 ROSELAND ROAD - THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF INCREASED ACTIVITY AT THE AIRPORT. MY NEIGHBORS AND I ARE GET- TING ALMOST CONSTANT TRAFFIC FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME, WITH NOISE FROM AN APPROACHING PLANE STARTING BEFORE THAT FROM A DEPARTING PLANE HAS DISSIPATED. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, CHAIRMAN PALUCH ASKED MR. VAN ANTWERP TO DISCUSS THE SITUATION WITH THE VARIOUS FLIGHT TRAINING SCHOOLS IN VERO BEACH TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM. - 2 - PUBI,IC INPUT: (Cont'd.) GEORGE METCALF - VELOCITY AIRCRAFT IS PRODUCING A PLANE WHICH APPEARED ON Tile COVER OF THE APRIL ISSUE OF POPULAR MECHANICS. DANNY MAHER, THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY, SHOULD BE ENCOURAGEDTO TO EXPAND }liS OPERATION. T}IIS IS TIlE KIND OF INDUSTRY WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE WtIICH WOULD HELP TO INCREASE OUR TAX BASE. NORMAN LINGARD, POINT OF WOODS - ASKED WHY LANDING FEES WERE NOT CHARGED. MR. VAN ANTWERP EXPLAINED TIIAT THIS PRACTICE WAS PRO- HIBITED IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT, AND IS THE NORM FOR MOST AIRPORTS. OLD BUSINESS: A. AIRPORT MANAGER'S REPORT: AS A FOLLOW-UP, MR. VAN ANTWERP ADVISED THAT THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINiSTRATiON tIAS APPROVED TIlE INSTALLATION OF A NEW TOWER AT ST. LUCIE AIRPORT, WIfICH IS 2~ LOWER THAN TIlE OLD ONE AND TtlUS DOES NOT PRESENT A HAZARD TO NAVIGATION'. TIlE RECOMMENDATION TO LIGIIT TIlE WIND TEE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY TIIE COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT. AIRPORT DRIVE WEST IfAS BEEN RE-GRADED. MR. VAN ANTWERP REQUESTED TO PLACE ON THE AGENDA TODAY FOR DISCUSSION WAIVING OF THE BID PROCESS, SPECIFICALLY FOR CLEAR- ING THE SITE FOR THE MAINTENANCE BIJILDING AT THE AIRPORT. MR. MASTELLER INQUIRED ABOUT THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE SITE PLAN. BRUCE COOPER, BUILDING OFFICIAL, STATED TttAT TItE PLAN WAS TURNED OVER TO THE CITY'S CONSULTING ENGINEER FOR }lis INPUT AFTER MR. COOPER PLOTTED THE PROPOSED BUILDING, THE DRIVEWAY AREA, ETC. MR. MASTELLER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT TtIE FACT THAT MR. COOPER TOOK HIS TIME TO DO THE WORK AND TI{OUGHT TIIAT lIE SHOULD BE COMPENSATED. HE ADDED IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR tIIM TO HELP CHURCIIES AND CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE. MR. MASTELLER WAS OF THE OPINION TttAT THERE SHOULD NOT Bg ANY FREE SERVICES GIVEN, NO MATTER WHAT GROUP IS INVOLVED. MR. MASTELLER THEN QUESTIONED IF IT }lAD EVER BEEN DETERMINED WHETHER TIlE BUILDING WOULD BE ON AIRPORT OR GOLF COURSE PROPERTY. MR. VAN ANTWERP ADVISED TItERE IS NO LEGAL DES- CRIPTION OF THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY, ONLY A BOUNDARY LAY-OUT AS PART OF A SURVEY. MR. MASTELLER THOUGItT TIlE GOLF COURSE SHOULD BE SURVEYED TO COME UP WITH ACCURATE FIGURES AS TO ACTUAL ACREAGE. BRUCE COOPER STATED HE HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO LOOK INTO LIGHTING OF TIlE RUNWAYS AND DRAWING UP SPECIFICATIONS, BUT DECIDED NOT TO DO SO BECAUSE OF TIlE LIKELIHOOD OF HAVING TO GO TO REFERENDUM, SINCE HE ESTIMATED THIS PROJECT WOULD COST $20,000.-25,000. - 3 - NEW BUSINESS: A. COLLIER PLACE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: SEE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING ATTACHED. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AIRPORT MASTER PLAN - ROGER COOPER MR. COOPER STATED HE HAD iNTENDED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT BOTH RUNWAYS BE COMPLETELY RE-SURFACED AND CONNECTING TAXIWAYS IN PHASE 1 IN CONTRAST TO THE EXISTING PHASE 1 WHICH SHOWS ONLY ONE RUNWAY AND A SLURRY SEAL ON THE SECOND RUNWAY IN PHASE 2. HOWEVER, SINCE STAFF HAS ALREADY REVIEWED THIS, HE WILL WAIT FOR THEIR COMPLETE LETTER TO REVIEW IT IN THE FUTURE. 1988-89 BUDGET: MR. VAN ANTWERP EXPLAINED THIS ITEM WAS PLACED ON THE AGENDA TO ALERT THE BOARD TO START THINKING ABOUT ANY PET PROJECTS THEY MIGHT WANT TO INCORPORATE. CHAIRMAN PALUCH ADDED THAT PERHAPS MR. VAN ANTWERP SHOULD START WORKING UP A TENTATIVE BUDGET AND CONSULT WITH THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND THEN OTHER ITEMS CAN BE ADDED. MR. MASTELLER WELCOMED MR. McCLARY TO THE MEETING AND SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS HE MIGHT HAVE SOME INPUT WITH REGARD TO LINE ITEM BUDGET AS FAR AS SCOPE AND SUBSTANCE. MR. McCLARY STATED THAT THE BUDGET PROCESS HAS BEEN STARTED AND HE WILL WORK WITH EACH DEPARTMENT HEAD AND EVALUATE EACH LINE ITEM. AT PRESENT, HE HAS NO SPECIFIC INPUT FOR THE AIRPORT. MR. MASTELLER WONDERED IF'AN OUTLINE WOULD BE AVAIL- ABLE BY NEXT MONTH AND MR. McCLARY SAID HE EXPECTED TO AND · WAS PREPARING DEPARTMENTAL REQUEST FORMS. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED UNTIL NEXT MEETING WHEN INPUT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FROM MR. McCLARY AND MR. VAN ANTWERP. MR. MEGUIN LEFT THE MEETING AT 5:55 P.M. CHAIRMAN PALUCH ASKED iF THERE WERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO MR. MASTELLER BRINGING UP ANOTHER TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. MR. VAN DE VOORDE REMARKED THAT HE WAS THE ONE WHO REQUESTED THAT IF THERE WAS AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA, IT WOULD REQUIRE THE FULL VOTE OF THE BOARD TO.DO SO. HE SUGGESTED THAT IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION, MR. MASTELLER SHOULD STATE WHAT IT IS SO A DECISION CAN BE MADE. MR. MASTELLER STATED THAT THERE WERE ACTUALLY TWO THINGS: 1. A MOTION CONCERNING THE NEED FOR A SURVEY OF THE LEGAL BOUNDARIES OF THE GOLF COURSE FOR PURPOSES OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT THAT WE PRESENTLY HAVE WITH THE GOLF COURSE. 2. A MOTION REGARDING THE MASTER PLAN AND THE FORTHCOMING LETTER FROM THE CITY MANAGER, THAT COPIES OF THAT INFORMATION'BE FURNISHED TO THE P & Z AND THE P & Z BE FORMALLY BROUGHT INTO THE DELIBERATION AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN. - 4- MR. VAN DE VOORDE OBJECTED, NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF THE CONCEPT, BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, HE DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS AN EMERGENCY MATTER THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED RIGHT NOW. AS FOR THE SECOND ITEM, HE ANTICIPATED A LENGTHY DISCUSSION AND DID NOT WANT TO STAY ANOTHER HOUR OR SO. MR. COOPER OBJECTED ON THE SAME GROUNDS. MR. VAN ANTWERP STATED HE NEEDED TO GET THE PROPERTY CLEARED FOR THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND REQUESTED THE BOARD TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL TO WAIVE THE BIDDING PROCESS. THE PROPOSALS HE HAS RECEIVED ARE JUST A LITTLE OVER $2000. AND HE iS ALSO HAVING TROUBLE FINDING SOMEONE WILLING TO DO THE JOB. IF THE BIDDING PROCESS WERE WAIVED, HE COULD PROBABLY NEGOTIATE WITH SOMEONE TO DO IT. MR. MASTELLER REMARKED THAT HE OBJECTED BECAUSE IT IS PREMATURE AND MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MR. COOPER SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. COOPER MR. KENNEY MR. MASTELLER MR. VAN DE VOORDE MR. AHNEMAN CHAIRMAN PALUCH NAYS: NONE. MOTION CARRIED. - 5 - VERBATIM EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING - APRIL 26, 1988 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. COLLIER PLACE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT B. COOPER - AS FAR AS COLLIER PLACE, I HAVE PUT THIS ON BECAUSE THEY ARE IN CONCEPTUAL PLAN. HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT ALL? I'LL BRING THE PLAN UP SO YOU CAN SEE IT IF YOU WANT. MASTELLER: WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO REPEAT FOR THE RECORD THE FACT THAT MY FIRM IS THE DESIGN ENGINEER OF RECORD ON THE PROJECT AND I HAVE A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST HERE. I WILL ADD WHATEVER INFORMATION I CAN IN THE SPIRIT OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE PROJECT, BUT BEYOND THAT I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DECISION MAKING CAPACITY. THANK YOU. B. COOPER THE AREA YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, OF COURSE, IS THIS AREA RIGHT IN HERE. THE IDEA IS THAT HE HAS A CONCEPT OF A PORTION OF THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY GOING ACROSS THE AIRPORT LAND. HOPEFULLY, IT'S AIRPORT LAND. I FELT THIS BOARD SHOULD GIVE SOME KIND OF COMMENT CON- CERNING THiS AREA HERE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT TO DEED OVER THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT'S A SMALL SECTION. ANYTHING CONCERNING THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC IMPACT, CONCERNING THE COUNTY ROAD, ALL THOSE WILL BE REVIEWED, BUT BEING THIS IS ON AIRPORT PROPERTY, I FEEL YOU SHOULD BE INVOLVED. PALUCH - YOU'RE RUNNING LOTS RIGHT UP TO THE GOLF COURSE? ~THAT'S ALL AIRPORT PROPERTY UP ABOVE AND TO THE RIGHT. B. COOPER - YES. THESE ARE ALL LOTS RIGHT IN THROUGH HERE. THIS IS A LAKE AND THIS IS A LAKE. PALUCH - I WOULD FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF THE SOUND PROBLEMS AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THAT MAYBE A BIG BUFFER ZONE WITH TREES AND STUFF LIKE THAT ALONG THE SURROUNDING EDGES - B. COOPER - WELL, THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE PLANNER. THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH OUR IDEA OF WHAT NOISE FACTORS AT THE AIR- PORT IS GOING TO DO TO THIS CONCEPT. I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IS THIS PORTION RIGHT HERE. AS FAR AS IMPACT, AS FAR AS THIS HERE, WILL BE LOOKED AT THROUGH THE CITY CONCERNING THE AIRPORT. PALUCH - I DISAGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AIRPLANES DOWN HERE RUNNING UP ENGINES GETTING READY FOR TAKE-OFF AND THE PEOPLE LIVING IN HERE ARE GOING TO BE SAYING THE SAME THING FRANK IS. B. COOPER - I UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT'S WHY OUR PLANNER HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED AND HE'S SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS WHAT HIS FEELINGS ARE ON THE NOISE FACTORS HERE. THE PROBLEM OF IT IS, WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IS, SAY THE PLANNER FINDS THERE IS A NOISE CRITERIA PROBLEM HERE, HE CAN REQUIRE SOUND BUFFERING AT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT PROJECT. IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE FIGURE THIS AREA IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, THEN WE CAN REQUIRE SOUND PROOFING AT CONSTRUCTION. CERTAIN METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION CAN BE LOOKED AT. WE CANNOT TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, PROBABLY, SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD IN HERE BECAUSE OF THE AIRPORT. SAME THING, THE AIRPORT WAS HERE FIRST. NOW, IF THE AIR- PORT WAS COMING IN, THEN WE COULD LOOK AT CONTROL FACTORS. - 1 - VERBATIM EXCERPT (Cont'd.) PALUCH - RIGHT NOW THIS BOARD HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACT FOR THESE TENANTS, IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN, NOT THE DEVELOPERS. FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE GOING TO LIVE HERE. THEY'RE GOING TO BE JUST LIKE FRANK. THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY: "MY GOD, WE'VE GOT TO LISTEN TO THESE ENGINES RUNNING UP". B. COOPER - WELL, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU AS A BOARD CAN MAKE SURE YOUR CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING SO THEY CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE PLANNER DOES ADDRESS THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THE ATTORNEY SAID, "WELL, IF THEY DON'T NECESSARILY, LET'S SAY.WE HAVE AN IDEA THERE IS A NOISE PROBLEM, AND WE ADDRESS THAT, AND THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T, WE COULD GO AS MUCH AS SAY LET'S PUT A DEED RESTRICTION AND SAY YOU'RE NEXT TO AN AIRPORT". THERE'S NO DOUBT IN OUR MIND THAT WHEN THEY BUY THEY KNOW THEY'RE NEXT TO AN AIRPORT. THE REAL WAY TO DO IT IS, IF THERE iS A PROBLEM, AND IF IT CAN BE CON- TROLLED, IT WILL BE THROUGH CONSTRUCTION METHODS. PALUCH - WE HAVE PROVIDED 100' NATURAL BUFFERS ALL ALONG ROSELAND ROAD. NOW WE HAVE A GOLF COURSE BET.WEEN US BUT THIS IS BASICALLY SOUND- PROOF VOID AREA BECAUSE THEY HAVE LITERALLY CLEANED IT OFF. I FEEL THAT WE NEED AN ABSOLUTE SOUND BARRIER AGAINST THESE~RESIDENTS BECAUSE AS I STAND HERE AND TALK TO YOU, WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING TO THESE PEOPLE IN 5 MORE YEARS. R. COOPER - MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD I HAVE THE FLOOR FOR JUST A MOMENT. I'VE DONE QUITE A BIT OF STUDY ON THIS AND I THINK SOME OF MY REMARKS COULD BE USED AS A STRAWMAN FOR TALKING POINTS LATER ON. NO. 1, I DONT'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS ROAD EGRESS, ASSUMING IT'S STILL ON OUR AIRPORT PROPERTY, EXCEPT TO REMIND THE P & Z COMMISSION THAT WE STILL OPERATE UNDER A COMPLETE MORATORIUM ON AIRPORT PROPERTY AND THE ADOPTION OF AN AIRPORT MASTER PLAN.. IF AND WHEN THIS MORATORIUM SHOULD EVER BE LIFTED, THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE PROPERLY APPRAISED AT THE COST OF THE DEVELOPER, EITHER FOR A LEASE OR FOR SALE AND, OF COURSE, WOULD REQUIRE FAA APPROVAL TO PUT THAT ROAD THROUGH THERE JUST LIKE OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL. NOT MENTIONED IN THE P & Z LETTER WAS THE PROPOSAL TO DISCHARGE ALMOST 100,000 GALLONS PER DAY OF TREATED SEWAGE AND WASTE WATER INTO THE GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION SUPPLY POND. NOW, I KNOW YOU'VE SAID THIS DOESN'T REALLY APPLY SPECIFICALLY TO THE AIRPORT. WE REALLY DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE, BUT WE HAVE'MR. EVANS UP HERE MAKING COMMENTS ABOUT ALL HIS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS - SCRUB JAYS, HYDRO-CARBONS, ETC., ETC., AND I DON'T WANT THE PEOPLE OF SEBASTIAN COMING BACK TO US LATER AND PINGING US FOR SAYING WE DIDN'T CONSIDER THIS. NOW, 100,000 GALLONS A DAY INTO A SUPPLY POND, THIS IS NOT A SCRUB-DOWN PROCEDURE. THIS IS ALL THEY SAY, THAT, "HEY, WE WANT TO DO IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS UNTIL WE GET A SEWAGE SYSTEM IN SEBASTIAN" AND MAYBE THAT'S GOING TO BE 1990 OR 1991. TO ME THAT'S LIKE BUYING A HERD OF SHEEP AND SAYING I WANT TO USE YOUR YARD FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS UNTIL I FIND A PLACE I CAN PUT THEM. I CALLED MR. JAMES FRAZEE FROM THE ST. JOHN'S RIVER AND WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. HE'S A HYDROLOGIST AND HE FELT THIS REQUEST FOR WASTE WATER DISPOSAL WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE TABLE TO OBTAIN MORE DEFINITIVE ENGINEERING STUDY AND A CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FROM DER. HE FELT THAT THINGS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LIKE THE CONFINING MATERIAL AND HOLDING POND, WHETHER STANDARD CLAY, THE AMOUNT OF PERCOLATION, ETC., THE WATER TABLE UNDER COLLIER CREEK AND ITS STORAGE FOR HIGH WATER PERIODS, AND ITS PROX- IMITY TO EXISTING WELLS, AND I WOULD THINK THIS WOULD BE A VERY DEFINITE - 2 - VERBATIM EXCERPT (Cont'd.) R. COOPER (Cont'd.) - AND MAJOR CONCERN TO PEOPLE IN SEBASTIAN WHO HAVE SHALLOW WELLS OUT THERE AND HEAR THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO DUMP 100,000 GALLONS OF WASTE WATER PER DAY iN A GOLF COURSE HOLDING POND. THERE'S NO CONTROL OVER THIS. YOU GET A 5 OR 10" RAIN AND WHERE'S THAT GOING TO GO. I CAN ASSURE YOU IT'S GOING INTO COLLIER CREEK AND SEBASTIAN RIVER AND WHATEVER. I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO ASK FOR ANY KIND OF INPUT FROM US UNTIL THERE'S SOME SORT OF CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL FROM THE DER. ALSO, WE'VE HAD A PREVIOUS REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY - SAINT SEBASTIAN - AND THERE WAS AN EXCELLENT ENTER INTO THE RESOLUTION WHICH CITES SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MR. COOPER POINTED OUT WHICH ARE CALLED AIRPORT CONSIDERATIONS AND I HAVE TAKEN IT UPON MYSELF TO MAKE COPIES OF THIS FOR ALL OF YOU AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ WHAT THIS SAYS TO THE AUDIENCE SINCE I DIDN'T MAKE COPIES FOR ALL OF THEM. THE ENTRIES INTO THE RESOLUTION WOULDN'T BE THE SAME AS.FOR SAINT SEBASTIAN BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY DOESN'T LIE OFF THE END OF A RUNWAY. HOWEVER, I FEEL THAT ITEMS 25, 26, 27, AND 28 ARE APPLICABLE AND COULD BE USED ALMOST IN TOTO FOR INCLUSION IN THE RESO- LUTION. (MR. COOPER THEN READ EXCERPT FROM CITY OF SEBASTIAN RESOLUTION NO. R-84-43 - SEE EXHIBIT 1 ATTACHED) I THINK THIS WOULD DO A LOT TO PREVENT A LOT OF THE HASSLE AND COM- PLAINTS WE'RE GETTING RIGHT NOW AND POSSIBLY SAVE US FROM FUTURE LITIGATION AND LIABILITY ACTIONS AGAINST THE CITY. THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. MASTELLER - MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LiKE TO COMMEND MR. COOPER ON HIS REMARKS. I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN HIM DO SUCH A DILIGENT JOB OF PREPARATION SINCE HE MADE HIS OBJECTIONS TO .THE COUNTY COMMISSION ON JET SKIS AROUND ORCHID ISLAND. CONGRATULATIONS. NOW, ON, TO THE FACTS. R. COOPER - ARE WE BACK TO ORCHID ISLAND AGAIN? MASTELLER - THAT'S WHERE YOU LIVE. R. COOPER - I THINK THAT'S OUT OF ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN. PALUCH - YEAH, I DO, TOO, BUT WHAT'RE GOING TO DO? MASTELLER - THE FACT IS THAT WHAT I SEE HERE IN THIS PACKAGE IS A CON- CERN ABOUT THE ACCESS. AS A POINT OF INFORMATION FOR.THE GUIDANCE AND EDIFICATION OF THIS BODY, I WILL INFORM YOU THAT AS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND AS MANY ELEMENTS IN THIS PLAN, THE METHOD OF ACCESS AND EGRESS OFF OF ROSELAND ROAD IS A MATTER OF CONCEPT AT THIS POINT. THE PROPOSED ONE, AS SHOWN, IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM POINT OF WOODS ENTRANCE OF ROBIN LANE. I'VE HAD JIM DAVIS' STAFF (THE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR) VISIT THE SITE. i'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH HIS STAFF IN AN EFFORT TO FIND IF THIS IS SATISFACTORY OR WHAT IS THE MOST SAFE METHOD OF ACCESS AND EGRESS OFF OF ROSELAND ROAD SINCE ROSELAND ROAD IS A COUNTY ROAD. TttIS STAFF WAS OUT THERE LAST WEDNESDAY. THERE IS ANOTHER MEMBER OF THIS BOARD THAT WAS PRESENT AND REVIEWED THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THIS ENTRANCE AND ALSO AN'ENTRANCE UP AT HART AVENUE SOMEWHAT TO THE SOUTH BY ABOUT 600' FURTHER AWAY FROM - 3 - VERBATIM EXCERPT (Cont'd.) MASTELLER (Cont'd.) THE BRIDGE. IN A CONVERSATION THIS AFTERNOON WITH JIM DAVIS HE INDI- CATED TO ME VERBALLY, TO BE CONFIRMED BY A LETTER, AT THIS CONCEPTUAL STAGE, THAT THE BEST MOST SAFE METHOD OF ACCESS AND EGRESS AS FAR AS HIS OFFICE IS CONCERNED, IS THE HART AVENUE ALTERNATE. THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY AIRPORT WORK, ANY AIRPORT MATTERS, AS CONSISTENT WiTH WHAT I SAID BEFORE BEFORE THIS BOARD AND THAT WAS THAT THE CONCEPT PLAN, MR. COOPER TRIED TO BRING THIS MATTER UP PREVIOUSLY AND MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT. AS HE SAiD TO ME, IT'S A TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT, SO IT'S A MOOT POINT AT THIS STAGE. ANY ACTION YOU CARE TO TAKE IS FINE WITH ME. THANK YOU. PALUCH - ANYBODY ELSE? VAN ANTWERP - I HAVE ONLY ONE THING. I HAVE LOOKED IT OVER QUICKLY AND AT PRESENT THERE ARE TWO POINTS OF DRAINAGE FROM THE GOLF COURSE, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR TENANTS AT THE AIRPORT, THAT DO DRAIN ACROSS SOME OLD EXISTING DITCHES THAT ARE IN THIS BLOCK OF PROPERTY AND I THINK THAT MAYBE IN PLANNING & ZONING OR SOMEPLACE DOWN THE LINE, THE FUTURE USE OF THAT DRAINAGE AND WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO WITH IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE GOLF COURSE IS GOING TO BE DENIED THEIR DRAINAGE ACCESS NOW, WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES, THE ALTERNATES WHO ARE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT? PALUCH - I HAVE A QUESTION. HOW IS THIS INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PUT ON THE TABLE HERE GOING TO BE TRANSFERRED OVER TO PLANNING & ZONING? WILL YOU DO IT? B. COOPER - WELL, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION AND PUT IT THROUGH P & Z, THAT'S FINE. THE ITEMS THAT MR. COOPER'S ADDRESSED AS FAR AS DRAINAGE IS GOING TO BE LOOKED AT. HOW HARD IS DEPENDENT ON WHAT THE PLANNER FEELS DURING THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT AND EVERY OTHER JURISDICTION THAT IS REQUIRED. THE PLANNER AT THIS POINT DOES HAVE CONCERNS JUST LIKE ANY- BODY ELSE. I WILL HAVE THE REPORT TOMORROW TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT HIS CONCERNS ARE, WHAT HE FEELS STILL IS LACKING CONCERNING INFORMA- TION FOR THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN. PALUCH - I'M JUST GOING BY THE COVER LETTER. YOU ASK FOR COMMENTS. B. COOPER - THE REASON I MAINLY ASKED FOR COMMENTS WAS I FELT THAT BECAUSE OF THE ROAD ACCESS GOING ON THE AIRPORT AND iF YOU WANT TO COMMENT CONCERNING THAT YOU FEEL THAT THIS COULD BE A POSSIBLE PROBLEM DUE TO NOISE FACTORS AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS ADDRESSED, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY MADE SURE THE PLANNER DOES ADDRESS, THEN BY ALL MEANS JUST GO ON RECORD AND MAKE A MOTION THAT YOU FEEL THAT THESE ITEMS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER BEFORE ANY BUILDING IS BUILT, AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED THEY WILL BE. AS FAR AS CONCEPTUAL PLAN, THAT AGAIN IS JUST THE WHOLE IDEA. IT'S A CONCEPT AND WHEN YOU GET TO THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT'S WHEN IT GETS A LITTLE MORE TOOTH AND NAIL, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST A CONCEPT AND THE PLANNER HAS TO LOOK AT CERTAIN THINGS FOR THAT CONCEPT AND HE MAY NOT FEEL THAT WHAT MR. COOPER'S ADDRESSED AT THIS POINT IS REALLY NEEDED. NOT THAT THEY ARE NOT VALID, NOT AT ALL, BUT, AGAIN, I CAN'T SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MR. SOLIN. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU HE'S ALREADY LOOKED INTO THEM AND WHAT HE FEELS IS NECESSARY FOR THE CONCEPT PLAN, I - 4 - VERBATIM EXCERPT (Cont'd.) B. COOPER (Cont'd.) COULDN'T TELL YOU UNTIL I LOOK AT HIS REPORT. VAN DE VOORDE - I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION, TOO, OF ANY COMMENTS. MY PROBLEM IS THIS. ANY MOTION OR ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THIS BOARD IS LIKELY TO BE MISCONSTRUED IN THE SENSE THAT THE P & Z, FORTUNATELY THERE IS A LADY HERE THAT'S A MEMBER OF THAT SO IF ANYTHING FALLS IN THE CRACKS PERHAPS SHE COULD BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD. MY CONCERN IS THAT I THINK, AS BRUCE HAS INDICATED, HE IS JUST ASKING THAT THIS NARROW QUESTION OF THE ACCESS BE COMMENTED ON. MY FEAR IS THAT ANY ACTION WE TAKE WILL BE LATER CONSTRUED AS AN APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AS A WHOLE AND SOMEONE IN ERROR WILL SAY "WELL, YOU ADDRESSED IT ON APRIL 26. YOU LOOKED AT THE WHOLE PLAN OR YOU LOOKED AT THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND THERE WERE NO COMMENTS. THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL ACTION." SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. I THINK IF WE MAKE A SPECIFIC MOTION, THAT WE MAKE IT VERY CLEAR AS TO THE EXACT BASIS FOR THAT MOTION SO THAT IT IS NOT LATER CONSTRUED AS A GREATER ADDRESSING OF THE CONCEPT. R. COOPER - I AGREE WITH RENE. I REALLY INTENDED FOR THEM TO BE PUT IN AS CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE FROM OUR EXPERTISE AND OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE AIRPORT PROBLEMS SUCH AS THE 'MORATORIUM AND BEING THAT IS AIRPORT PROPERTY, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FAA APPROVAL ON IT AND YOU SHOULD PUT PROVISION INTO THE RESOLUTION REGARDING AIRPORT CONSIDERATIONS BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT ADJACENT TO AIRPORT PROPERTY AND I JUST WANTED THE P & Z TO GET, YOU KNOW THEY SAY WE NEVER TALK TO THEM, SO I JUST WANT THEM TO GET THE BENEFIT OF OUR INPUT. I DON'T THINK IT EVEN HAS TO BE A RESOLUTION. PALUCH - DID I UNDERSTAND YOU, EARL, TO SAY THAT IT WAS DISCUSSED WITH YOU AND THE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT THAT EVEN A MORE DESIRABLE - HART AVENUE - WAS GOING TO BE THE SEDECTED ENTRY ANYWAY SO THIS WAS BASICALLY A DISREGARDING POINT? MASTELLER - JIM DAVIS CALLED ME VERBALLY TODAY AND SAID HE WOULD CONFIRM IT WITH A LETTER, HOPEFULLY BEFORE MAY 5, THAT HE PREFERRED FROM A SAFETY POINT OF VIEW ACCESS ON ROSELAND ROAD VIA HART AVENUE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT'S SHOWN OPPOSITE ROBIN LANE. B. COOPER - ALONG WITH THAT, EARL, IS THAT IN ITSELF, DOES THAT MEAN YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK AT CHANGES IN THE CONCEPT TO THAT BASED ON - MASTELLER - WHEN I GET HIS LETTER AND I KNOW THAT'S A FORMALIZATION OF HIS OPINION, CERTAINLY I THINK THAT'S GOING TO CARRY A LOT OF WEIGHT WITH THE DEVELOPER AS TO THE BEST PLACE TO COME OUT. THAT ALTERNATIVE ISN'T WITHOUT SOME OTHER PROBLEMS WHICH ARE NONE OF THIS BOARD'S CONCERN, BUT THAT WOULD MAKE THIS QUESTION, AS FAR AS ACCESS OVER THE AIRPORT PROPERTY, A MOOT POINT, AND, FRANKLY, THAT'S WHAT I TOLD THIS BOARD THE LAST TIME IT WAS BROUGHT UP. PALUCH - WELL, EARL, IN ALL FAIRNESS, THIS LETTER CAME TO US FROM P & Z. MASTELLER - I'M NOT FAULTING THE LETTER AND, AS i SAID, I JUST FOUND THIS INFORMATION OUT THIS AFTERNOON BECAUSE I'VE BEEN PURSUING MR. DAVIS FOR QUITE A FEW WEEKS ON THIS THING. I'M NOT GUARANTEEING THAT'S THE'WAY IT'S GOING TO COME OUT. IF WE CAN'T WORK OUT SOME OTHER PRO- BLEMS ON HART AVENUE, WE MAY BE BACK TO THIS, BUT MY PROPOSAL WAS THAT WHEN WE HAD A BETTER HANDLE ON WHERE WE WERE GOING WITH THIS ACCESS - 5 - VERBATIM EXCERPT (Cont'd.) MASTELLER (Cont'd.) ROAD FOR SURE, THAT WE WOULD APPROACH, THE DEVELOPER WOULD APPROACH, THIS AIRPORT BOARD, AND UNTIL THEN, AS I SAID BEFORE AT PREVIOUS MEET- INGS, iT'S PREMATURE. KENNEY - IF I MAY MAKE A COMMENT. IF THiS ROAD WASN'T PROPOSED TO GO ACROSS THE AIRPORT PROPERTY, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THIS WOULD NEVER BE BROUGHT TO OUR BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER IN ANY MANNER OR FORM. MASTELLER - I CAN'T SPECULATE ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE DIRECT' iNG THAT TO ME OR NOT. THAT'S A MATTER OF THE CITY STAFF AND HOW IT'S - KENNEY - NO, I WAS JUST MAKING A GENERAL COMMENT. PALUCH - WELL, THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING NOW, I'D HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE P &'Z AND THINK THEY WANT TO WORK WITH US AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD AVENUE OF HITTI'NG BACK AND FORTH. KENNEY - I THINK SO, TOO. I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY BOTH WORK TOGETHER ON PROPERTIES SUCH AS THIS THAT ARE ADJACENT - B. COOPER - JUST A POINT OF FACT.. I HEARD THE COMMENT BEFORE AND THE REASON WHY NOBODY'S EVER BEEN CONTACTED BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN'BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS A CONCEPT PLAN. EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN DIS- CUSSED. HAS BEEN INFORMAL SO THAT'S WHY NOTHING HAS REALLY BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD.UNTIL JUST RECENTLY AND ~{EN I TALKED TO MR. MASTELLER TO GET THE BALL GOING, BECAUSE THE PAST MEETING THAT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE WAS AN INFORMAL TYPE SITUATION. THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ME TO GO AHEAD AND CONTACT EVERYBODY THAT'S REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE AND WHETHER IT'S RE- QUIRED OR NOT, I FELT THAT IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR YOU TO'LOOK INTO ANYWAY BECAUSE OF THE AIRPORT, JUST WHAT YOU'RE POINTING OUT NOW, MAINLY, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, AS FAR AS NOISE FACTORS. I FEEL WE NEED THAT KIND OF INPUT, WHETHER IT'S REALLY GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT WITH THIS PROJECT OR NOT. I THINK THE PLANNER ULTIMATELY IS THE ONE WHO IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH THAT CRITERIA. KENNEY - YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING INTO A KIND OF HUMAN ENGINEERING, TOO, THE WAY THE'AROUND THE AREA POPULATION IS CONCERNED WITH PROPERTY AND HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTIES THAT ARE CLOSE TO. THE AIR- PORT NOW GIVING US PROBLEMS AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE PUTTING ONE IN THAT'S 1000' CLOSER THAN ANYTHING SO FAR THAT'S BEEN PUT ON THE GROUND YET AND THEY SAY ONE OTHER THING. 10 YEARS AGO WE HAD A SIGN ON U.S. 1 SAYING THAT WE HAD 1200 PEOPLE AND 6 OLD GROUCHES. NOW WE HAVE AT LAST COUNT I BELIEVE 10,000 PEOPLE AND 6 OLD GROUCHES. 10 YEARS DOWN THE LINE.YOU KNOW, AS THIS WAS BROUGHT UP BEFORE, THIS PROBLEM IS JUST STARTING. PALUCH - THANK YOU. ANY MOTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THIS? VAN DE VOORDE - EARL, DO I UNDERSTAND IT THAT AS THE PROJECT ENGINEER AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED AT THIS POINT, YOU INTEND TO RE-DIRECT THE ACCESS ROAD ALONG THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF JIM DAVIS, THE COUNTY ENGINEER? MASTELLER - IF WHAT I REPRESENTED IS CONFIRMED BY MR. DAVIS' LETTER, YES. - 6 - VERBATIM EXCERPT (Cont'd.) VAN DE VOORDE - BASED ON THAT THEN, I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE NO RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER BECAUSE WE ASSUME THAT THE ACCESS ROAD WILL BE OTHER THAN ACROSS AIRPORT PROPERTY. PALUCH - iS THERE A SECOND? MEGUIN - I'LL SECOND. PALUCH - NOW WE CAN DISCUSS. R. COOPER - YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD BE ADVISED OF OUR CON- CERNS IN REGARD TO - VAN DE VOORDE - NO, I DO FEEL WE SHOULD BE ADVISED OF THE CONCERNS BUT THE NARROW ISSUE THAT WAS PRESENTED FOR US TO ADDRESS AS I UNDER- STOOD IT WAS THIS ACCESS. R. COOPER - BUT DON'T YOU FEEL WE'RE OBLIGATED TO MENTION THE FACTS SINCE WE DO HAVE EXPERTISE IN MATTERS THAT THE P & Z COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE EXPERTISE IN? VAN DE VOORDE - YES, SIR, I DO AND I PROPOSE A MOTION TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE FIRST MOTION, BUT UNDER DISCUSSION, I WOULD PROPOSE A MOTION THAT THE VERBATIM TEXT OF THE DISCUSSION ON THIS BE PRESENTED TO THE P & Z, BUT THAT'S FOR A LATER MOTION. R. COOPER - CALL FOR THE QUESTION ON THE FIRST MOTION. PALUCH - ALL IN FAVOR SAY "AYE". MASTELLER - I'D LIKE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. PALUCH - ROLL CALL FOR THE FIRST MOTION. R. COOPER - WOULD YOU REPEAT THE FIRST MOTION? E. REID, SECRETARY - MOVE THAT WE HAVE NO RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MATTER BECAUSE WE ASSUME THE ACCESS ROAD WILL BE OTHER THAN ACROSS AIRPORT PROPERTY. PALUCH - IS THAT ACCURATE, RENE? VAN DE VOORDE - YES, BASED ON MR. MASTELLER'S REPRESENTATION. E. REID - DO YOU WANT THAT IN THERE? VAN DE VOORDE - YES. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. MEGUIN MR. COOPER MR. KENNEY MR. VAN DE VOORDE MR. AHNEMAN CHAIRMAN PALUCH MR. MASTELLER ABSTAINED FOR REASONS OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST NAYS: NONE. MOTION CARRIED. - 7 - VERBATIM EXCERPT (Cont'd.) PALUCH: IS THERE ANY OTHER MOTION? VAN DE VOORDE - I MOVE THAT THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE PORTION OF THE MINUTES ADDRESSING THE COLLIER PLACE PROJECT BE TRANSCRIBED AND PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. R. COOPER - SECOND. PALUCH - ANY DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: MR. MEGUIN MR. COOPER MR. KENNEY MR. VAN DE VOORDE MR. AHNEMAN CHAIRMAN PALUCH MR. MASTELLER ABSTAINED FOR REASONS OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST NAYS: NONE. MOTION CARRIED. - 8 - EXHIBIT 1 operation or maintenance or use of such clear zone open area. 25. Prior to the transfer of title to any of the property in the project the Applicant shall grant to the City of Sebastian easements for the flight of aircraft over the project to insure those rights of flight to and from the Sebastian Airport irrespective of who might be making such flights, including the United States Government, if necessary in the time of any such usage by the U.S. Government, The existence of such easements shall be referred to in all deeds of any portions of the project. 26. The following language shall be included in all deeds and leases of any parts of the Saint Sebastian Planned Unit Development: "Noise Warning: This property lies beneath or adjacent to the aircraft approach and departure routes for Sebastian Airport and may be subject to noise that may be objectionable, now or in the future; this property is subject to an Aviation Easement." 27. The Developer shall provide additional insulation and soundproofing as determined by HUD, to those areas, if any, which may fall within the airport noise zone or noise envelope as referred to in Table LU-3, Pg. V-12, in the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Assessment Report. 28. The Developer shall restrict the height of buildings and structures within the project area according to the current proposed airport hazard ordinances as if same were in full force and effect at this time. ~ 3.5-3 SEBASTIAN CODE relieves the city of any and all liability for any injuries damages to persons or property, including losses of any kind, regardless of the conditions or circumstances. (Ord. No. 0-80-25, § 1, 12-8-80) Sec. 3.5-4. Airport advisory board--Created. (a) Composition generally. The airport advisory board hereby created and shall consist of seven (7) voting members and one alternate member appointed by the council for three (3) year terms from among the qualified voters of Indian River County. The alternate shall attend all meetings of the board and may vote in the absence of regular member. The chairman of the board shall appointed annually by the council from among its membera (b) Ex officio members. The board shall also consist d two (2) nonvoting members who shall be the airp0~ manager (or the airport director, at such time as the council shall retain such a person) and one member of the counc~, as the city council shall from time to time designate. No. 0-80-25, § 1, 12-8-80) Sec. 3.5-5. SameBVoluntary membership; interest vacancies; qualifications. Members of the board will serve on a voluntary bas~ without remuneration. No member shall have an existin~ financial interest in or a potential gain from the airport, an/ upon acquisition of either must submit State of Florida CE Form 4-EFF, 1/1/77, Memorandum of Voting Conflic~ thereby being classified as a nonvoting member on al matters so related. Vacancies on the board shall be filled b~' public notice, to be posted or advertised for a period of less than thirty (30) days, or until filled. County residency. voluntary servitude, and airport/aircraft related experienc~ along with a sound business or administrative backgroun/~ should be prerequisites in the selection of a board memb~. (Ord. No. 0-80-25, § 1, 12-8-80) Sec. 3.5-6. Same--Powers and duties. The board shall have advisory authority in the drafting construction, improvement, maintenance, equipment, Ol~- Supp. No. 1 218 ation and proposed changes to of the airpo the city L2-8-80) Sec. 3.5-7. (a) cJmirman quorum sha] (b) All The board the vote of fa/ling to vo of its exami ahall be droll be a (c) The ct ~ay admini., (d) The b~ m it deems ~pproval by the office of ~ 3.5-8. Administrt th~ city cie ~ord. All ~he office ot wrtesponde~ to the See. 3.5-9. (a) The ai ~pproved operator or ~l~x No. I IAN CODE AIRPORT § 3.5-9 and all liability for any injuries property, including losses of conditions or circumstances. ~) visory board--Created. 'ally. The airport advisory board~ hall consist of seven (7) vo~ ~rnate member appointed by ar terms from among the qualif~ County. The alternate shall atte~ d and may vote in the absence 0~ chairman of the board shall he council from among its meml~' rs. The board shall also consis~ ~mbers who shall be the airp~ director, at such time as the co~ )n) and one member of the couna from time to time designate. (0~ ~ and regulation of the airport, including submission of ~x~osed leases, financial and funding programs, and ~axges to existing policies and procedures of the operation the airport. All recommendations shall be submitted to ~ city council for final approval. (Ord. No. 0-80-25, § 1, untary membership; intere~ qualifications. 'di~l serve on a voluntary b~ · -'~t0val by the city council Said rules shall be filed with N~nember shall have an exisqTM office of the city clerk. (Ord. No. 0-80-25, § 1, 12-8-80) potential gain from the airport, ~ t submit State of Florid~C~ ' · -- · er mus ~ ~.o o ~ame Aamlnlsl:ra~lon Memorandum of Voting Con~ .~iministrative services will be provided to the board by 3.5-7. Same--Proceedings. Meetings of the board shall be held at the call of the a~irman and at such time as the board may determine. A · ~m shall consist of four (4) members. ~b) All meetings of the board shall be open to the public. board shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing ~'0te of each member upon each question, or, if absent or ~ ~o vote, indicating such fact, and shall keep records i~ examinations and other official actions, all of which be immediately filed in the office of the city clerk and be a public record. The chairman, or in his absence, the vice-chairman, administer oaths. ~dl The board shall adopt such other and additional rules deems necessary to conduct its business, subject to 3.5-9. Airport manager. The airport manager, recommended by the board and ~toved by the council, shall be an existing fixed base ~or or another qualified person who shall administer 219 t as a nonvoting member on ncies on the board shall be filled. ed or advertised for a period of ~ ,s, or until filled. County reside~ airport/aircraft related experiem iness or administrative backgr0~ in the selection of a board meml~ 2-8-8O) ~ers and duties. .dvisory authority in the draftiv4, ,nt, maintenance, equipment, 0~ 218 city clerk, which office will be the official office of ~,d. All outgoing correspondence will be routed through office of the city clerk for proper signature. Incoming l~rmspondence will be addressed to the city, to be forwarded ~he board for necessary action. (Ord. No. 0-80-25, § 1, City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1988 - 4:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVE MINUTES OF MEETINGS: A. MEETING OF 2/23/88 (See Verbatim Excerpt from Tape of Minutes) B. MEETING OF 3/29/88 4. OPERATING STATEMENT - CASH POSITION FOR PERIOD ENDING 3/31/88 5. PUBLIC INPUT: 6. OLD BUSINESS: A. AIRPORT MANAGER'S REPORT 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. COLLIER PLACE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT B. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING AIRPORT MASTER PLAN - ROGER COOPER C. 1988-89 BUDGET 8. ADJOURN City of Sebastian POST OFFICE BOX 780127 D SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32978 TELEPHONE (407) 589-5330 NOTICE OF MEETING CITY OF SEBASTIAN 1225 MAIN STREET INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA The Airport Advisory Board will hold their Regular Meeting at 4:00 P.M. on Tuesday, April 26, 1988, in City Council Chambers, 1225 'Main Street, Sebastian, Florida. ~lizabetJ5 Reid, y NOTE: IF ANY PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE AT THE ABOVE MEETING, HE/SHE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSES, HE/SHE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED.