Loading...
05-08-2001 Regular Meeting CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 1 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Clermont was held Tuesday, May 8, 2001 at Jenkins Auditorium. Mayor Hal Turville called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with the following Council Members present: Council Members Biddle, MacLauchlin, Mullins and Renick. Other City officials present were City Attorney Guthrie, Finance Director Van Zile, Planning Director Brown and Deputy City Clerk Studdard. INVOCATION The Invocation was offered by Council Member Biddle, followed by the repeating of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag by all present. MINUTES A motion was made by Council Member Mullins, seconded by Council Member MacLauchlin, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting hem April 24, 2001, and the minutes of the Special Council Meeting hem Ma¥ 1, 2001. COUNCIL MEMBER BIDDLE'S REPORT Council Member Biddle apologized for his absence at the last City Council meeting due to a death in his family and at the last City Council Workshop meeting due to a meeting of the Main Street Program Design Committee with an expert from the Historic Preservation Society. COUNCIL MEMBER MULLINS' REPORT Council Member Mullins stated that City Manager Saunders' absence was due to the fact that his daughter is receiving several honors tonight at South Lake High School.' NO OTHER REPORTS CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Turville read the listed Consent Agenda and asked if anyone wished any item to be pulled for discussion: Item 1 - Street Light Purchase Purchase of Additional Trail Lighting CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 2 Item 2 -Law Enforcement Block Grant Approval of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Block Grant Item 3 - Bid Award Police Handguns A motion was made by Council Member MacLauchlin, seconded by Council Member Mullins, and carried unanimous[¥ to approve Items One through Three Of the Consent Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolution No. 1197 Mayor Turville read the Resolution by title only and stated that this item is related to the next item on the agenda. Planning Director Brown stated that the applicant, Gray, Harris, Robinson, Hovis, Boyett and Crawford, P.A., on behalf of the owners, Daniel and Sara Hessburg, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a professional/medical office complex with C-1 permitted uses and a restaurant use limited to 1500 square feet. He stated the property is located at the southwest comer of State Road 50 and Citrus Tower Boulevard. Mr. Brown stated that the property was annexed into the City at the last City Council meeting, but will still operate under the County Future Land Use map until the City does a Comprehensive Plan Amendment recognizing the annexation and assigning a City Future Land Use designation. Planning Director Brown stated Staff recommends approval with the addition of the following conditions: Section 2, Land Use, Condition gl - Add: 'Restaurant space is allowed in as much as parking space will allow, up to 1500 square feet. Drive-through restaurant is prohibited'. Section 4, Transportation Improvements, add as Condition #9 - 'The connection to the east to Citrus Tower Boulevard shall be open and operational at the time that Citrus Tower Boulevard is constructed'. Section 5, Site Improvement/Landscaping, Condition #1 - Add: 'All signs on the property shall be monument signs'. Mayor Turville opened the public heating at this time. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 3 Jimmy Crawford, the applicant and legal representative for the property owners, spoke regarding the project and offered to answer questions at this time. Mr. Crawford stated that, since there is a pole sign directly across the street from this project, he is opposed to the added condition regarding monument signs only. He stated that the property drops significantly on the SR 50 side, therefore he is unsure ifa ground sign would be visible there. Mayor Turville asked if it had been considered that the applicant could provide the additional right of way necessary to make a functional road in regard to the adjacent streets. Mr. Crawford stated that the roads in question don't go anywhere, therefore the applicant is going to provide alternate access for the adjoining property owners, and that the site plan has been revised as a result. Council Member Renick requested that an additional condition be added to the Conditional Use Permit, in Section g4, as Condition #10, providing that signs be posted on major roadways stating 'To Helen Street' and 'To Hunt Street'. She stated that, particularly for emergency services reasons, she feels this is necessary because Hunt Street looks like an entrance to the new project and directional signs would be a great help. Council Member Mullins stated he would like to hear Planning Director Brown's reasons for the condition regarding monument signs. Planning Director Brown stated that the City is heading toward all monument signs, although the Code does not reflect that at this time. He stated that he is requesting this condition on several current Conditional Use Permits. He stated this would be a better look than pole signs. Council Member Mullins asked if something should be done about the sign issue due to the slope away from SR 50. Planning Director Brown stated that the height calculation for signage begins at the road grade. Mr. Crawford stated he understands the condition but that he does not understand the justification for imposing this policy beginning with this project. He offered to install a monument sign on Citrus Tower Boulevard and a pole sign on SR 50 as a compromise. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 4 Council Member Renick asked if the entrance to the site at SR 50 would be closed when the Citrus Tower Boulevard entrance is available. Mr. Crawford stated it would not be but that the entrance on SR 50 had been moved to provide a better site plan. Mayor Turville closed the public heating at this time. City Attorney Guthrie stated that, if the variance request coming up next on the agenda is approved, an additional condition should be added to the Conditional Use Permit under Section 4, as Condition #11, as follows: 'Since the variance requested by the developer for 10' side setbacks has been granted, the developer agrees to petition to vacate Helen and Hunt Streets. Developer further agrees to grant or convey its interest in the vacated rights of way to abutting property owners.' Council Member Renick asked if the final site and grading plan will be submitted to the City Council at a later date. Mr. Crawford stated that is correct. ,4 motion was made by Council Member Mullins, seconded by Council Member Biddle, and carried unanimously to approve Resolution No. 1197, as amended. Crawford Variance Request Planning Director Brown stated that this request is to allow a setback of 10' from Helen and Hunt Streets as opposed to the 25' setback per code for the Florida Executive Center project located on the south side of SR 50, west of Citrus Tower Boulevard. Mr. Brown stated that neither Helen nor Hunt Street will be a future City or County roadway, and that the properties to the east and west of the project will be provided alternate access. He stated that it is very likely that both the Helen and Hunt Street rights of way will be vacated in the future. He further stated that he believes the applicant has signed an agreement with the surrounding property owners stating that, when the streets are vacated, the applicant conveys its interest in the vacated rights of way to the abutting property owners. A motion was made by Council Member Biddle, seconded by Council Member MacLauchlin, and carried unanimously to approve the Crawford Variance Request. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page $ Mayor Turville stated that he is moving the introduction of Ordinance No. 426-M forward on' the agenda at this time. Ordinance No. 426-M - Introduction Mayor Turville read the ordinance by title only and stated that discussion will be allowed prior to the introduction of this ordinance due to the absence of the attorney for the proposed car wash project during discussion of the issue at the last City Council meeting. Ladd Fassett of Fassett, Anthony and Taylor, P.A., as legal representative for Micah Savelle of The Right Site, Inc., presented a copy of a letter and accompanying material that had been submitted to the City Council to be entered into the record. Mr. Fassett stated that the elimination of the access of Lakeview Drive to the parcel would result in severe limitation of access to the property and substantially diminished property value. .Mr. Fassett provided overhead display of the site and stated that Lakeview Drive is the only access that thb parcel has to a public street, although there is a cross-access agreement with the 7-Eleven store. He stated that, the owner's objections are that closing that portion of Lakeview Drive would be contrary to prior understandings and agreements of the property owner and the City, that closing that access would be deemed a legal taking of the property which would render the City liable for substantial damages and that it is an unsound public policy decision that is not in the best interest of the community, and could lead to accidents. Mr. Fassett referred to a letter from 1995 (Exhibit A of the packet submitted to the City Council) from the City to the prior property owner of the area of Lakeview Drive that is now being considered for closing, Gall Bohannon. He stated that in this letter the City had urged Ms. Bohannon to work with the City to facilitate the future development of that property and that Ms. Boharmon had been induced to contribute 10' of property along Grand Highway to allow for the widening of the road. He also stated that the letter referred to the vacation of Lakeview Drive and that it would allow for a cul-de-sac to allow a proper turn around for traffic not entering the commercial site. He stated that this letter acknowledges that there would be access to Lakeview Drive from the commercial site and that the property owner did deed property to the City, as requested (Exhibit B). He then referred to the written Agreement between Ms. Bohannon and the City regarding the owner's commitment to construct the cul-de-sac to serve those parcels around it (Exhibit C). Mr. Fassett stated that the property owner had greatly relied upon that access in the development of the 7-Eleven property as well as the current proposed one. He stated that, even without the Agreement, if access to a property is substantially diminished then a legal taking occurs, therefore you have to pay the value of the property as well as the owner's legal fees. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 6 He stated that the property is now valued at $450,000.00 and that the legal fees for his client would be approximately $750,000.00, therefore ifa determination was made by the court for the property owner the amount the City would have to pay could be over one million dollars, if the City's own legal fees are taken into account. He then referred to City Manager Saunders' memorandum to the City Council on April 17, 2001 regarding the upcoming City council meeting and the comment from City Attorney Guthrie regarding regulatory taking that Mr. Saunders had stated in this memorandum. Mr. Fassett then stated that the property owner had already made concessions in an attempt to meet some of the Lakeview residents' concerns, and that the size of the car wash has been significantly reduced with two bays removed in trying to accommodate those concerns. He further stated that a car wash is one of the least intrusive uses that could be on the site. Mr. Fassett stated that the neighborhood already has those blocks labeled #9 and #10 as commercial properties and therefore will have that development in the future whether this site has access or not. Mr. Fassett then pointed out that there is a median at the exit from the 7-Eleven at Grand Highway preventing a northbound turn onto Grand Highway. He stated that a lot of traffic fi-om both sites will ignore this and do an illegal U-turn on SR 50, which poses a safety threat to the neighborhood and the traffic. ' Richard Keith, 1333 Lakeview Drive, spoke on behalf of the residents of Lakeview Drive in support of Ordinance No. 426-M. He then gave a brief history of the area and the residents and stated that this is an established neighborhood, with some of the residents having lived in the area since the 1960'S. Mr. Keith then stated that the residents oppose the car wash project for several reasons: the possibility of it being a 24-hour, unattended operation with public restrooms located in the back and the type of clientele that might generate, trash in the area, noise generated from the stalls and particularly from the numerous vacuum machines, with doubles on the back side, as well as the dumpster located in the back, traffic leaving the car wash driving too fast and the safety of the children of their community. He then asked the City Council for help in preserving their neighborhood. Mr. Keith then addressed points in Mr. Fassett's correspondence to the City Council. He stated that Exhibit A, a letter fi-om the City Manager to the property owner, does not necessarily imply intent to provide access to the proposed car wash site, as Mr. Fassett had suggested. He asked if the City Manager has the authority to make such decisions. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Keith then referred to Exhibit C, the Agreement between the City and Ms. Bohannon to provide for the cul-de-sac and stated that the Exhibit is incomplete due to lack of proper signatures and notarization. Regarding the section of Mr. Fassett's letter where he states opinion regarding claim for damages, Page 3, Section I, Mr. Keith stated that if Lakeview Drive is opened then the residents of Lakeview Drive could also make a claim for damages, and on Page 4, Section III, Mr. Keith stated that the median at the exit fi.om 7-Eleven to Grand Highway is a traffic hazard but that heavy traffic would also pose a threat to the safety of the residents of Lakeview Drive. Mr. Keith then stated that, in Section IV, Mr. Fassett claims that The Right Site has tried to accommodate the community, but that there has been no ~ommunication between the Lakeview Drive residents and the Right Site. He further stated that City Manager Saunders has stated that The Right Site is not willing to work with the City to reach an agreeable situation. Mr. Keith stated that those lots on Lakeview Drive that are zoned commercial have right of way coming straight in fi.om Almond Street, therefore there would not be high traffic in most of the neighborhood as a result. He concluded by saying.that the residents welcome the opportunity to · speak to the developer about this issue. George Wood, 1260 Grand Highway, stated that commercial traffic should be directed back to a commercial corridor, not onto a quiet residential street. He stated that he had looked at commercial sites in the City and found that very few residential areas have secondary exits fi:om commercial sites and that the City would be setting a precedent by allowing the car wash to use access to Lakeview Drive as a primary entrance/exit. He further stated that by opening Lakeview Drive in this manner the City would be creating a conduit for the 7-Eleven where people (particularly the residents of the numerous subdivisions around the Citrus Tower area) could go fi.om there into the car wash lot, to Lakeview Drive, to Almond Street and back up Grand Highway instead of as it is designed now with the traffic fi:om the car wash going back to SR 50 and up Highway 27 north. Jim Chambers, 1335 Lakeview Drive, stated he is the owner of Lot tt35 and would be most affected by the allowance of the access from the car wash to Lakeview Drive and spoke in support of Ordinance No. 426-M. He stated that this neighborhood is accustomed to being able to get out and walk around, particularly the children, and that they would not be able to do so if the access is permitted. He further stated that the cul-de-sac as shown in the drawings he has seen would take up a great deal of his property. He further stated that he did not wish to see the City have to compensate the applicant a large sum but asked for the City Council's help in preventing this access. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL 'MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 8 JeffHowe, 1248 Lakeview Drive, spoke in favor of Ordinance No. 426-M and thanked the City Council for their obvious concern for the citizens of Clermont. He stated that he is concemed, as a father of six children, about the proposed access to Lakeview Drive from the car wash site in regard to safety. He stated that there are also elderly, life-long residents in this area and that the increased traffic problem would be a hazard to their health as well. He commented that earlier in the evening, regarding Resolution No. 1197, Jimmy Crawford had stated that the property owners had discussed the project with the neighbors and expressed his desire that the applicant for this project do the same. Mr. Howe then stated that he concurred with Mr. Wood's comment regarding traffic flow and stated that to open this residential street for commercial traffic flow does not make good sense. He stated that he was aware that the current members of the City Council were probably not in office at the time of the original agreement, but stated that he hoped they would do the right thing for the citizens of the area. Mayor Turville stated that this issue had begun when a request came fi:om residents of Lakeview Drive to place discussion about the access to the car wash on the next City Council agenda, and after that discussion had taken place the City Council had directed Staffto bring an ordinance to the City Council for introduction closing a portion of Lakeview Drive to eliminate access to the car wash. Mayor Turville stated that, normally, discussion does not occur at the introduction of an ordinance, however a representative for the applicant was not present when the direction to bring the ordinance to the City Council was given. Therefore discussion was allowed to insure that the applicant had opportunity to express his views. He stated that the final hearing for this ordinance would be on May 22, 2001, and that he hopes that the property owner and the residents of the area would find a way to discuss some of these issues and attempt compromise prior to that time. Council Member Renick asked if the City Council is allowed to have closed discussion regarding this issue. City Attorney Guthrie stated that closed sessions can only take place after a lawsuit has been filed, but that the Council Members can talk one on one with the City Attorney at any time. He stated that he cannot relay information regarding what others are asking or saying during those conversations. Council Member Renick asked if the final hearing for this ordinance must be heard at the next City Council meeting or could be postponed to allow time for individual discussion with the City Attomey. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 9 Mayor Turville stated that a request to table the issue could be made at the final hearing. Council Member MacLauchlin asked if the City Council could delay introduction tonight to allow time for the involved parties to meet and discuss the issue. Mr. Fassett stated that the applicant will be talking to the residents, but that the project has already been subjected to delay due to this process at a significant cost, therefore it would be in the best interest of the City Council not to delay any further to avoid a claim. He stated that two weeks is sufficient time for any discussions to take place and urged the City Council not to delay again. Mayor Turville agreed with Mr. Fassett's comment. ~1 motion was made by Council Member Renick, seconded bp Council Member Mullins, and carried unanimously bp roll call vote to introduce Ordinance No. 426-M. Variance Request - J. J. Dahl Planning Director Brown stated that the applicant, J. J. Dahl, is requesting a variance to allow the erection of a sign with a front setback of 5 feet for the sign rather than the 15 feet required by code at her law office located at 1001 East Avenue. He stated that the property has a circular driveway and that the applicant is proposing to place the sign in the middle of the property between the two driveways. He stated the only other location appropriate for the sign would be on the south side, which would require a variance for both the side and front setbacks. He stated that this is the most appropriate placement for the sign, and therefore Staff recommends approval. Mayor Turville opened the public hearing at this time. Deputy City Clerk Studdard swore in the following: J.J. Dahl, 1001 East Avenue, the applicant, spoke regarding the request and discussed the photograph that had been provided to the City Council showing the actual sign and location proposed. She stated that placing the sign in this location improves the appearance of the property vei'sus other placement on the property. Ms. Dahl then informed the City Council of the many improvements she had made to the property and that this sign would be very attractive and blend well in the area. She stated she plans to always be at this location. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 10 Dr. Barry Rubenstein, 1000.East Avenue, stated he had originally been opposed to the request but now understood that this variance would only be for the current applicant and any other occupants at a later time would be required to bring a variance request to the City Council as well. He stated that his biggest concern is that the area should not become too commercial. He stated that Ms. DaM had made numerous improvements to the property. Eric DaM, 1001 East Avenue, answered questions from the City Council regarding specific placement of the sign. Discussion followed regarding the future development of East Avenue and how this would affect it. A motion was made by Council Member Biddle ,seconded bp Council Member Mullins, and carried unanimously to approve the variance request, Variance Request - Fairbanks Construction Planning Director Brown stated that the applicant, Fairbanks'Construction, and the property owners, Edgar and Elaine Samuels, are requesting a variance to allow for a rear yard setback of 13 feet as opposed to the 25 feet setback per code for the residence at 1724 Presidio Drive. He stated that in February of 2000 Mrs. Sai:nuels was involved in an auto accident resulting in a back injury and that her doctor has suggested that a hot tub would diminish her discomfort. He stated that the request is in order to construct a sum'oom over an existing concrete pad and that the hot tub would be within this enclosed structure. Mr. Brown stated that a variance had been granted for this lot in June of 2000 prior to the construction of the home due to the lot being designed with a width at the building setback line of 62 feet as opposed to the 75 feet required by code. He stated that if the home had been placed as far forward on the lot as possible there would have been as much as a 35+ foot rear yard setback, but as it sits now there exists only 25 feet. Planning Director Brown stated that, while Staff is not unsympathetic to Mrs. Samuels' condition, the existing home does have a covered porch area where a hot tub could possibly be placed. He further stated that the Samuels had purchased the home in December of 2000, after the accident, and the need for this space could have been anticipated; therefore Staff recommends denial of the request. Mayor Turville opened the public hearing at this time. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 11 Deputy City Clerk Studdard swore in the following: Edgar Samuels, 1724 Presidio Drive, owner of the property, stated that in November of 2000 he and his wife had purchased their home, not realizing that the home had been set at the extreme rear of the lot. He stated that in February of 2001 they had contracted with Fairbanks Construction to add the suaroom and then became aware of their inability to add any type of structure to the rear of their home. He stated that when Fairbanks Construction advised them of the problem they obtained approval to add on to the home fi.om the builder and, per instruction fi.om Fairbanks Construction, applied with the City for a variance. Mr. Samuels stated that since applying for the variance they discovered that the builder had obtained a variance to build on this lot. He stated that, in the application for the variance, the builder had listed one of the reasons for the request to be that it created such a large front setback as to be an eyesore. Mr. Samuels stated that he does not understand how the home was not built according to the site plan that was approved or where the responsibility lies for that. Mr. Samuels further stated that the covered lanai on the home is not adequate space for the hot tub since the hot tub they have purchased is 6'7" and the lanai is only 8', leaving little or no room in that porch area and it would block the rear exit fi.om the home. Mr. Samuels stated that, in regard to Planning Director Brown's statement that they should have purchased a home that would accommodate a hot tub, they had been unaware of the particular problem with the home. He stated that they would be building an addition typical to the area that would not be detrimental to the value of the property, and that the back of the home faces a water treatment plant. He stated that, as far as he knows, none of his neighbors have protested this proposed project. Gordon Fairbanks of Fairbanks Construction, 1723 N. Pine Avenue, Ocala, the applicant, stated that the Samuels had purchased a home with a slab poured on the back and assumed they could build on that, as many homeowners do. He stated that the community approves the project as well as the City of Minneola, who owns the water treatment plant in back of the home. He stated that the home was not built as per the site plan that was approved for the home and that the Samuels had not been aware of the unique situation with the building of this home. Mayor Turville closed the public hearing at this time. Council Member Mullins asked how a Certificate of Occupancy was obtained if the home was not built according to site plan. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 12 Planning Director Brown stated that it was built according to plan, but that the builder did not take full advantage of the setbacks available. He stated that the builder had submitted to the City a site plan showing that those setbacks would be taken advantage of, but those were not the actual construction plans. Mr. Brown stated that if those setbacks had been utilized properly the applicant would not have to be here tonight with his request. Mayor Turville stated that this situation could happen to anyone and that the City should be careful in approving plats with substandard lots. Discussion followed regarding subdivisions and lot sizes. Council Member Mullins stated that, with the water treatment plant in the rear of the home, there was no question of obstructing any view. Council Member MacLauchlin stated that this couple should not be held responsible for others' mistakes. Council Member Biddle stated that since there is already a slab on the back of the house he approves the project. motion was made bp Council Member Biddle, seconded by Council Member MacLauchlin and carried unanimously to approve the variance request. Ordinance No. 425-M - Introduction Mayor Turville read the ordinance by title only. Planning Director Brown stated that the applicant, South Lake County Foundation, has requested a small scale amendment to change the Land Use to CBD-Central Business District and zoning for the Hammond property that they will purchase for their new home. motion was made by Council Member Biddle, seconded b¥ Council Member Mullins, and carried unanimously by roll call vote to introduce Ordinance No. 425-M. Mayor Turville asked if anyone wished to speak to the City Council on any other issues. Jim Purvis, 4206 Hammersmith Drive, spoke to the City Council regarding the irrigation issue at Kings Ridge. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 13 He stated that it had been discovered that Lelmar is providing irrigation to the new Publix shopping center and to the new fire station as well for plant survival. He stated that this came to the attention of several homeowners because apparently when the new hookup to this location was established it shut the system down to the Kings Ridge residents for two days. He stated that Lennar had informed the Kings Ridge residents prior to this situation that the system is maxed out, yet new parcels are being added. He stated that he feels there is a loophole that developers can slip through. He appealed to the City Council to consider refining the Conditional Use Permit process now being used to include what source of irrigation would be used. Mr. Pm-vis asked the City Council if it is aware that the current Conditional Use Permit system allows irrigation eouneetion to a system that is inadequate and unable to sustain its plant life. Elaine Tharpe, 2322 Twicldngham Court, voiced concern regarding quotes in the press fi.om Council Members on issues that have not come before the City Council. Mayor Turville stated that one of the things the City Council is working on is to advertise the pre-application hearing. He stated that the consensus of the City Council is to. not have discussion with prospective applicants. He further stated that sometimes newspapers will take quotes fi.om similar situations and move them forward to suit. Ms. Tharpe stated that she believes a prospective applicant would be upset to see an article with quotes about his project before being heard by the City Council. She further stated that she feels that the City Council should not hear applicants at workshops prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing the request. Mayor Turville stated the City Council does not hear applicants at workshops prior to the Planning and Zoning's hearing. City Attorney Guthrie stated that the City Council is on the right track by limiting the pre- application discussion and issuing generalized statements regarding what the Council as a whole is for or against. Council Member Renick stated that sometimes general comments or earlier comments are definitely used by the press at will. Ms. Tharpe then stated that perhaps some of the Council Members had been misquoted. Council Member Renick stated there is nothing that can be done about that. CITY OF CLERMONT MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MAY 8, 2001 Page 14 Council Member Biddle concurred with Council Member Renick's comments. Mayor Turville stated that most reporters typically are working on something for the next morning. Gail Ash, 3912 Pagan Court, spoke regarding the new Target store and commended the City Council for setting strict restrictions as to the physical appearance of the store. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Attest: Jo~ph E. Van~