HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019 05 06 City Commission Workshop MinutesThe Workshop of Monday, May 6,2019 of the City Commission was called to Order by
Mayor Charles Lacey at 6:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the Municipal
Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida 32708).
Mayor Charles Lacey, present
Deputy Mayor Kevin Cannon, present
Commissioner Jean Hovey, present
Commissioner Ted Johnson, present
Commissioner TiAnna Hale, present
Commissioner Geoff Kendrick, present
Interim Citv Manager Shawn Boyle, present
City Attorney Anthony A. Ga rga nese, present
City Clerk Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces, present
A moment of silence was held, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Referencing the Agenda, Mayor Lacey asked, "May I count it as approved?" Deputy
Mayor Cannon said, "No objection." Mayor Lacey then remarked, "Without objection,
the Agenda is adopted."
1:11111:111 tHaM
1) Draft Ordinance for Amending the Application, Notice, and Review Criteria Procedur
for Special Zoning Permits
Deputy Mayor Kevin Cannon referenced Sec. 20-27. as shown on page 2 of the draft
Ordinance and spoke of his concerns with the suggested Advisory Hearing Off icer.
Deputy Mayor Cannon stated, "My suggestion would be, that the last two (2)
sentences where it says, 'The city commission may decide the application based
upon the hearing officer's report, with or without taking additional evidence...' [think
that is a dangerous precedent." Deputy Mayor Cannon added that he recommended
removing the last two (2) sentences in [Sec.] 20-27. (b).
IN I M 1=12
City Attorney Anthony A. Garganese stated, "We can work around that." Withfurther
comments, Attorney Garganese then spoke of possible last minute scenarios and
noted that he could remove those two (2) sentences as suggested, Mayor Lacey
inquired as to what would be the effect if those two (2) sentences were removed.
Attorney Garganese explained, "You still go through the Hearing, you'd still get the
Hearing Officer's Report, however the Commission may find that after the Report is
issued and the Commissioners have saidOkay, we want to rely on it'; then you could
end up with more individuals showing up at the last minute to present additional
evidence and the Hearing goes on and on." Attorney Garganese further mentioned
some possible issues and said that there should be an orderly process.
Further, regarding the two (2) sentences in question, Attorney Garganese pointed
out, "That's in there just to protect the Commission if they wanted to rely solely on
the Report. Regardless if that language is in there, the Commission could still rely on
the Report as competent and substantial evidence."
Commissioner Ted Johnson suggested, "Would it be wise to wordsmith those last
two (2) to reflect that the City Commission will take into account all evidence
presented by such an Officer as well as the public prior to making a final decision."
Commissioner Johnson thought such wording would close out the section better.
Mayor Lacey asked if there were any more remarks. Hearing none, Mayor Lacey
commented, "I think we have got Consensus."
Deputy Mayor Cannon added that he thought Commissioner Johnson's transition
sentence would work. Attorney Garganese added, "I'll wordsmith
Much discussion followed on Applications, timelines, noticing the public, and related
logistics.
In terms of providing notice, Commissioner Jean Hovey asked Attorney Garganese
how manv days were legally required by Florida Statutes.
Attorney Garganese responded, "A lot of the Applications don't have a minimum
notice requirement. Rezonings and Comprehensive Plan Amendments do, but
Waivers, Variances, Conditional Uses - there are no statutory minimum notice
requirements."
Comments ensued on large projects and small projects for a homeowner and that
sixty (60) days may cause an undue burden in some situations. A tiered approach
was then suggested.
Remarks followed that some projects have been challenging, a suggestion from
Commissioner Johnson regarding thirty (30) days for lower level requests and sixty
(60) days for more complex projects, and that not all projects go to the Planning and
toning Board/Local Planning Agency.
Discussion continued that five (5) days was too short a timeline to which Attorney
Garganese said that he agreed and added that he thought sixty (60) days was too
long. Further, Attorney Garganese pointed out, "Keep in mind, we're building in
additional public notice in this Ordinance. One (1), the Applications are going to be
put on the website within five (5) days of being filed. In addition, before an
Application gets filed for certain types of complex Applications, which I revised the
language, a Developer will be required to have a Community Workshop before they
,--ven file the Application." Attorney Garganese mentioned that social medi7
language had also been added.
-MIT-Tr 7 a ry ,,ariese
mentioned it was typically ten to thirty (10-30) days. Remarks continued.
Commissioner Hovey then suggested twenty-one (21) days/three (3) weeks could b1-_
used. Commissioner Geoff Kendrick referenced staff deadlines/staff meetings, and
suggested perhaps a ten (10) or twenty (20) day timeline could be considered.
Commissioner Hovey recommended that business days could be specified.
Commissioner TiAnna Hale hoped that projects could be announced at Commission
meetings so people would know what was expected to be addressed at an
upcoming meeting.
Mr. Bryant Smith, III, P.E., CFM, City Engineer, Interim Community Development
Department Director referenced when Agenda Items were due to the City Manager
2nd said to that regard, a twenty (20) day timeline might work best. Mr. Smith then
noted, "Right around fourteen to twenty (14 - 20) days before a meeting, that project
is pretty much finalized if it is going to come before you."
Furthermore, Mr. Smith noted that the Planning and Zoning Board/Local Planning
Agency typically has a little tighter time for turnaround.
Comments ensued on not making the process more difficult for residential
homeowner projects.
Attorney Ga rga nese stated, "Let me go back a nd wordsm ith it a nd do maybe a tiered
approach, depending on the complexity of the development."
Deputy Mayor Cannon and Commissioner Johnson said they were agreeable to ten
(10) days and longer periods for more complex projects. Mayor Lacey and
Commissioner Kendrick spoke of their concern to not cause undue hardship on
homeowners. Attorney Garganese said he would look into this and suggested
perhaps for homeowner type projects around ten (10) days, and for a 300 unit type
residential subdivision, the timeline would be around twenty-one (21) days.
Continuing, Attorney Garganese noted, "Do you want that same notice both for the
P&Z and the Commission or do you want to have a different notice, because the way
the current Code reads, "Any public notice required by this Chapter 20 requires a
minimum of five (5) days is for P&Z and the City Commission'."
Mayor Lacey summarized, "Anthony (Garganese) has heard the comments; he is
going to try to draft it into some kind of a spectrum of things." Mayor Lacey added
that he would also include consideration of homeowners.
Commissioner Hovey spoke of the reference to posting on the City's website and
asked, "Can that be on the City's Facebook page also?" Attorney Garganese
responded, "Done. I added social media platforms."
Regarding Sec. 20-28., Commissioner Johnson asked about the reference to 1S0 feet
and inquired if Attorney Garganese changed it to which Attorney Garganese stated,
"I changed it to SOO." Comments followed regarding if that number was moved to
1000 feet. Attorney Garganese explained, "SOO is very common. If you wanted to do
an in lieu of statutory mailing for a Rezoning, the Florida Statutes is SOO feet on a
Rezoning."
Continuing, Attorney Garganese noted, "Some of the actions requiring a Special
Permit like a Rezoning actually require two (2) Readings of an Ordinance so there's
even more notice to that - I have got to take that into account when I rewrite this too;
then wait twenty-one (21) days before you have Second and Final Reading - that
doesn't seem to make sense." Attorney Garganese added, "I'll wordsmith it."
Commissioner Kendrick commented on his concern with not placing an undue
burden on residents and existing single-family homes,
Attorney Garganese mentioned he could craft some wording and suggested on
"Existing single-family homes, they want to come in for a Variance or - a Conditional
Use..." Commissioner Kendrick added, "...You want to encourage that..." Attorney
Garganese continued . .... Then maybe we have a shorter time period to actually put it
on the Agenda, keeping in mind that we're still going to provide notice to the
,urrounding neighbors in the neighborhood so everybody is going to know."
Deputy Mayor Cannon said, "I am okay with 500 feet for the notice." Commissioner
Kendrick added that he was in agreement. No objections were voiced.
Referring to Sec. 20-28. (b�c) L41, comments followed on courtesy notices. Attorney
Garganese explained the courtesy notice language and pointed out, "We do our best
to provide constructive notice and all these different notices."
Regarding Sec. 20-29. L71 e., Deputy Mayor Cannon mentioned he would like to
remove the words ".established level of service". With further remarks, Attorney
Garganese suggested the word "and" be placed in front of the words "established
level of service".
Attorney Garganese added, "The way I wrote it was to take into account previous
Commission meetings where some project may actually meet the adopted level of
service which is required by law to be put into your Comprehensive Plan, but may
have such an adverse impact on the neighborhood, shouldn't that be a separate
consideration; so, if I add the'andmaybe that clarifies it better. That was the intent
for the Commission to consider two (2) things relative..." Deputy Mayor Cannon
noted . ..... So you would remove'as well as' and just insert the word 'and'." Attorney
Garganese responded,
Commissioner Johnson referenced Sec. 20-29.1. and regarding the wording, "located
within 400 feet of the subject property ...... suggested that "500 should be used.
Attorney Garganese said, "I changed that."
In terms of 20-29. as shown on page 5, Deputy Mayor Cannon referred to paragraph
J81, "residential development..." and stated, "We need to be able to consider the
capacity of the schools in the City and in proximity or something. Do you have some
projected language on that?"
Attorney Garganese pointed out, "A school concurrency letter is great. It tells you,
whether the school district has adequate capacity at some school."
Attorney Garganese noted, "if you want to broaden that so you could consider the
proximity - your SCALD (School Capacity Availability Letter of Determination) letter
will tell you where the capacity is and what school they're most likely going to be
zonedfor." Deputy Mayor Cannon suggested, "Something where we can at least look
at the schools in proximity within the City and the existing capacity there, or
something like that." Further remarks continued.
Discussion continued that criteria should be tracked and should be reflected in Staff
Reports, to which Attorney Garganese said this had been included.
Deputy Mayor Cannon spoke of Sec. 20-31. (d) (4) as shown on page 8 and remarked,
"The proposed zoning change is not contrary to prevailing land uses and
characteristics and the land use pattern established by the City's Comprehensive
Plan. So, I just think we should insert 'prevailing land uses and characteristics' in
there because the Comp[rehensive] Plan is prospective and does not always take it
into consideration."
Mayor Lacey asked Attorney Garganese if there were any legal issues. Attorney
Garganese responded, "No."
Deputy Mayor Cannon then asked about incorporating aesthetics. Attorney
Garganese noted, "It's a separate Ordinance as you know for aesthetic review of
buildings. Typically, you don't tie aesthetics of a future building to the decision of
whether or not to rezone a property; because, once you rezone, and then
theoretically there's enumerated land uses that could be one or one of all of them,
right? You don't know and you don't know what the building is going to look like,
most of the time."
Comments followed on making sure the Commission was aware of what Rezoning
projects would look like, consistency with Master Plans, not restricting future
Commissions, and safeguards.
Attorney Garganese said, "I understand what your point is. Let me just go back and
think about it a little bit more because we have got the Application requirements to
tie into it."
Next, Attorney Garganese noted, "Subparagraph (e) is intended to deal with a
Rezoning request in conjunction with the proposed project, but it's not as broad as
to what some of your comments that you have made; so, let me go back." Attorney
Garganese added, "I'll try to tie it all together."
Master Plans were addressed next to which Attorney Garganese mentioned that the
Town Center started off as a Master Plan and that there was also a Master Plan for
the City's parks.
Regarding Conditional Uses, Deputy Mayor Cannon said, "Those numerous criteria
thatyou had from 20-29.Anthony (Garganese), those should be memorialized in hei-c-
again unless I'm missing something. It's one thing to have them in the Staff Report
but I think it's another thing for us to have all of those enumerated criteria for us to
consider when making our decision for a Conditional Use." Attorney Garganese
suggested, "It's the Application requirement that you seem to want to tie into."
Deputy Mayor Cannon agreed and mentioned school capacity as an example.
Attorney Garganese said, "Let me think about that a little bit. I know what you are
saying but the Application requirements are one thing, now that's the submittal of
information that you need in which to make a determination on the criteria in the
first place - maybe the criteria. I need to look at it a little bit more, maybe broaden
the criteria to make sure it clearly addresses consideration of the information that
you are requiring as part of the Application." Deputy Mayor Cannon said, "Exactly."
Referencing Sec. 20-35.LbIM, Commissioner Johnson mentioned the number of feet
and that he thought it had already been changed from 400 to 500 feet.
Then, in section (b�c), Commissioner Johnson noted that, "A number of days needs to
stay the same in that particular item or were there adjustments made," Deputy
Mayor Cannon added that his preference would be for thirty (30) days. Attorney
Garganese stated, "I could put it back to thirty (30)."
Commissioner Hovey commented, "in the last sentence, it says within twenty (20)
calendar days but the two (2) above aren't defined. Is it calendar or is it business or
does it matter?" Attorney Garganese stated, "We probably need to add the word
i calendar' so it's within thirty (30) calendar days and then we'll stick with that."
Commissioner Kendrick inquired, "Are we sticking with calendar days for
everything?" Attorney Garganese responded by saying,
Discussion ensued on Waivers, setbacks, dimensional requirements, Special
Exceptions, percentage ranges, and Administrative Waivers.
Attorney Garganese pointed out, "This type of Lted Administrative Waiver has to
go in conjunction with an overall package of information..." Deputy Mayor Cannon
added . ..... We are not tying our hands on fifteen percent (15%) anyway, right? It just
would be a more formal process above fifteen percent (15%)?" Attorney Garganese
explained, "Fifteen percentrequire separate Application for a Waiver and
then meet all the Waiver conditions." Deputy Mayor Cannon said, "I think we should
go to twenty percent (20%)." Commissioner Kendrick remarked, "Agreed."
Commissioner Johnson also noted his agreement. With further comments, no
objections were voiced.
With continued remarks, Deputy Mayor Cannon stated, "We still have the control
protection where we have got to approve the Site Plan." Commissioner Johnson
noted, "I think that is a good idea." Attorney Garganese pointed out this gave Staff
the chance to work with the Applicant and asked Mr. Smith if it would be helpful with
processing an Application. Mr. Smith said, "Yes."
Commissioner Kendrick spoke of preemptions, cellular applications, and asked that
Staff keep the City Commission informed. Commissioner Kendrick suggested,
"Whoever make those Applications, bring the to the next Commission Meeting."
Deputy Mayor Cannon added, "We need to know that." No one noted any
disagreement.
Discussion ensued on Neighborhood Street Sign Light Improvement Agreement[s]
(NSSLIA), decorative lighting, and signage.
Deputy Mayor Cannon then referenced signage in the Town Center and stated, "To
require every single sign for every business in the Town Center to have to come
before the Commission with a Special Exception or Conditional Use is a problem. So,
how do we fix that?" Attorney Garganese pointed out, "We have to modify 20-327.1.
which is just below that on page 22."
Discussion followed on signage, Neighborhood Street Sign Light Improvement
Agreement[s] (NSSLIA), opening up islands in front of the Town Center to
accommodate better signage, stipulations that Publix requires others to follow, and
why didn't any businesses take advantage of the City Commission's past offer for
help with improved signage.
Commissioner Hovey suggested, "Maybe we could look back and figure out why it
didn't get done or is there notification that needs to be sent to the businesses or
what, but we spent a lot of time and money on that." Deputy Mayor Cannon
mentioned that the roads were torn up to help with this effort. Commissioner Hale
thought that a lack of signage was a hindrance for businesses.
Commissioner Kendrick inquired, "Do we have some sort of on the clock provision
when it comes to permanent signs. We see temporary signs up and that is fine, I
completely understand that there is a lot going on; but I would like to see those
permanent monument signs, sooner rather than later. Sixty (60), ninety (90) days or
something like that. Do we have any time frame with when they need to get the
permanent sign up?" Commissioner Kendrick then referenced the new Starbucks
business.
Mr. Smith commented on that signage situation and pointed out, "We generally
don't have a timeframe. I think it would follow our standard Permit. I believe he has
got about two (2) years." Commissioner Kendrick then said, "I think that needs to be
tightened up somehow."
Deputy Mayor Cannon added, "I think that this sign issue really needs to be kind of
explored more thoroughly."
Attorney Garganese suggested a separate action could address this matter and
noted, "The only change that I made was procedural and that was because we
changed the nomenclature from Special Exception to Waiver and whether or not
you want to allow monument signs for businesses in the Town Center, as a matter of
right, would require you all to make that policy decision, but it's not really
procedural."
Commissioner Johnson stated, "So, the way this reads currently, we are okay for
now?" Attorney Garganese replied, "For now, it makes the proper procedural change
regarding monument signs in the Town Center; theywould be permitted by Waiver."
Commissioner Kendrick remarked, "I think we might all need to think about that and
figure out the best way to proceed on that."
Deputy Mayor Cannon added, "I think that probably from a signage approach, wt
really need to look along the entire commercial corridor - from one side of the City to
the other, that we ought to take kind of a holistic approach to it."
Interim Citv Manager Shawn Boyle commented that since he had been with the City,
he thought that tl�ls matter had come up twice before and remarked, "You guys gavt
us the direction to investigate. It's the chief complaint over in the Town Center from
the business owners. I think it would be prudent if Bryant (Smith) and I went back
and see if we can reconstruct what happened and then bring back some language
investigating, for the entire [State Poad] 434 corridor." No objections were voiced.
Next, Deputy Mayor Cannon mentioned some concerns he had heard and suggested
the City Commission should review the Master Lease for Publix. Mayor Lacey noted
he might have that document.
Discussion ensued on Conditional Uses, Special Exceptions, past historical
references, moms ment signage, clock towers, and signage.
Deputy Mayor Cannon asked if a roundtable Workshop could be held with the
landlords and businesses in the Town Center.
Interim Manager Boyle mentioned checking past records to see what had been
addressed previously.
Deputy Mayor Cannon thanked Attorney Garganese for his efforts with this
Ordinance.
Commissioner Kendrick added, "We have given Staff a little bit of direction; talked
about bringing back the signs specifically how we want it handled; and I think it's
aligned with what we have been talking about; the Town Center signage current and
future signage."
Continuing, Commissioner Kendrick added, "Along [State Road] 434just so we could
memorialize maybe a couple of specific - directives for anyone who's going to do it;
so, everyone understands what they're getting into when they do it. You have the
timeframe, setbacks, height, everything."
Attorney Garganese said, 1 have got some wordsmithing to do and if the
Commission is okay with this Ordinance. We'll put it on a Land Planning Agency
Agenda in the near future and let them take a look at it, and provide
recommendation and comments."
0
ANDREA LOPENZO-LUACES, M MC
CITY CLERK
y
MAY6kCHAPLES LACE7
NOTE: These Minutes were approved at the June 10, 2019 City Commission Regular Meeting.