Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 03 11 City Commission Workshop Minutes . CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP March 11, 1992 The workshop was called to order by Mayor Kulbes at 7:00 P.M. Mayor Philip A. Kulbes, Present John V. Torcaso, Absent Don Jonas, Present John Langellotti, Present Terri Donnelly, Absent Cindy Kaehler, Present City Manager Richard Rozansky, Present Keith Brickleneyer Fred Goodrow Qraf1_0RC~~onse fo~ Goa l?->- Object ive~_art<i-'?Qlicies~~_________________________________ Manager Rozansky stated that the purpose of the workshop is to go over the goals, objectives and policies that were sent. The reason is that Goodrow will be going to Tallahassee on March 24th and had asked that the Commission review these policies to be sure that they are all in concert with him. . Fred Goodrow stated that this 1S still an evolving process and some of the information that is given tonight will be incorporated in the next version of these. In addition we have set an appointment with DCA for March 24th and we will go over the proposals that you see before you now and discuss any changes that come out of tonight's meeting. As I go through these, there will be same more changes that I will relate to you, as we work through the data. We have determined that there will have to be some changes; one of the things is rather serious and we will discuss that when we get to that particular objective. i would like to go through and discuss only the new objections from DCA and our response that you did not see at the last mee~lng. Also, as we go through it, we will discuss those particular objections that we have changed based on comments and concerns and issues that were brought up at the last meeting. I want to make sure that you understand all of the responses, for the most part they are not that big of an issue, but j don't want anything to slip by and have you get a feeling later that you didn't know about that particular response. Mayor Kulbes said that he doesn't feel there is a need to go over the whole packet, and discuss only the new objectives. The Commission was in approval. Goodrow said that the first new response occurs on page 4, DCA objection #9 - there is an objective an policy change there. There were no objections for 9-2(C) and 9- 2(C)(1). Kaehler asked Goodrow said minor po 1 icy rewording it if these are basically reworded to make it more palpable for DCA. that yes they are, but those that are not, those that are major or changes I will point those out. He said that basically it is just so DCA likes what you said. . Goodrow - page 8, objection #16 - the objection was that we did not state how we were going to protect residential regions from any future commercial intrusion. Essentially the policy that is in the response, the first phrase of that policy was in the previous submittal. We are going on to say that "The revised land development regulations, to be adopted by the statutory deadline, shall provide standards for the placenent and regulation of hame occupations. These standards may include, but not be limited to the following:" Goodrow stated that there are . . . City Commission Workshop March 11, 1992 Page 2 five areas in which you will be writing 1n your land development regulations provisions for home occupation. My only concern is that those are appropriate for you and fall within the parameters of the way you presently approve home occupations or are at least acceptable should you rewrite your land development regulations. Donald LeBlanc stated that presently the City does not allow home occupational licenses that has visitation like doctors offices etc. The state dictates that there can be a home care facility which may include more than the occupant of the house as an employee. Also, HRS allows babysitting for less than 10 children in a home. There was discussion this response. C~odrow stated that he would check on the HRS policy on babysitting. The Commission decided to delete response #2 Goodrow - page 10, 19-A, DCA was concerned that the provisions for a m-ixed land use designation is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis and did not include the densities and intensities that are allowed within the mixed land use category. Response: "Mixed Use classifications are created to allow flexibility and efficiency to development design. The revised land development regulations, to be adopted by the statutory deadline shall contain specific standards relating to density and intensity provisions for each mixed land use category, minimum requirements for allocation of residential, carmercial, industrial and open space land uses, impervious surface ratios, and landscaping and buffering. Development standards for the Mixed Use classification shall include: (Goodrow stated this is where they tried to set minimal policy standards) Density: No mixed use development shall exceed a gross residential density of 10 dwelling units per acre. Proportion of Uses: No mixed use shall have a carmercial use exceed 50% Open space shall not be less than 20% and public, utilities or wetland conservation easements not less than 5%" There was discussion on the percentage of carmercial use. Goodrow stated that 50% seems to be a very fairly carmon used break point for carmercial that we have worked with and others that we have looked at. There is no real rhyme or reason it is going to be very hard to justify that from a data analysis stand point; we are still working on a lot of the data and analysis, we may have to come back and tell you that is too high a percentage. Right now we feel canfortable with that percentage. What will be the tipping point is when we get through with the data and analysis to see if we can justify the amount of carmercial development that we are now showing on the map as carmercial and then add to that a total of 50% for all the nlixed use areas, recognizing that most will not go the 50%. Greg Kern showed the Commission on the Inap what land was designated mixed use. Discussion. Kaehler asked if that was gross acreage or net acreage. Goodrow stated that is whatever you want to do when you do the land development regulations; it probably will be considered gross acreage. Kaehler stated that she has a problem with setting a density for a parcel of propet~ty when half of the property is wetlands and the developer comes in and uses the same density for the whole property on only the developable portion of the oroperty. Discussion. Kulbes stated that he agrees with that and it should be net usable land. Goodrow suggested that there should be some transferable rights for that area. Goodrow said that he would come back with some recommendations. Kaehler stated that she . City Commission Workshop March 11, 1992 Page 3 doesn't want the on 1 y comnet~C i a 1 to frontage of the property. Goodrow there, we were just trying not to be center would have to be defined. be something like a strip center across the stated that you can put some strip policies in too restrictive. Rozansky stated that a strip . Goodrow - subsection a of the objections - Our response talked about the town center land use category, we have determined to drop that particular category altogether, it was actually a subset of a mixed use category, we see no reason unless you feel there is a definite area you want to call your town center and you can actually define what the difference between town center should be from mixed use we see no reason to create a policy that sets another standard that you can probably better do in your land development regulations. So we are suggesting that that land use is going to change and just delete the town center as a land use category altogether. That would also delete the response on page 12. Discussion. Kulbes stated that he thought a mixed use category would be fine for the town center area. Bricklaneyer stated that ther'e is another alternative, and that is to delete the mixed use, designate the parcels that you think should be commercial- commercial and designate the rest as some residential use, then if someone wants to have commercial in the residentia' they would come in and ask for a plan amendment. Goodrow stated that the problan is that you will have to draw the line today, other wise you are leaving it up to the property owners to make the decision within the bounds of the flexible standards you provide. Brickleneyer stated that this needs to be decided because it is an important policy decision. Goodrow stated that he will come back to the Commission with a recommendation. Goodrow - page 13, B - DCA's concern is that you have a policy that specifies a program or activity that will be used by the City to protect environmentally sensitive land. We have written a policy statenent which reads "The revised land development regulations, to be adopted by the statutory deadline, shall contain specific provisions and activities to be used by the City to protect environmentally sensitive lands. These prOViSions and activities shall include, but not be liniited to the establ~shment of an Environmental Concern Overlay district containing specific criteria on densities and intensities of uses, storrrwater managanent and wetlands alteration and mitigation, water.front development and protection of unique upland vegetative comnlunities, endangered and threatened spec i es , and r'echat~ge areas." He stated that th i s po 1 icy st i 11 1 eaves it open as to how you are going to handle the densities of use on the environmental overlay district; right now the lack of any policy other than establishing in the LOR, means that someone can pretty much assume that they have the underlying density. That is the way your present plan is headed. Goodrow stated that this is something we will have to work on. . Goodrow - page 14, C - DCA is concerned about the public dedication of lands and the insurance of the protection of wetlands and water bodies. We developed more policies for those particular pu~poses, to say that the development regulations, to be adopted by the statutory deadline, shall contain standards and provisions to pl~otect the natura 1 hydro I og ica 1, b i 0 I og ica 1 and eco I og i ca I funct ions of natura 1 . City Commission Workshop March 11, 1992 Page 4 drainage features and wetland areas. These standards and but not necessarily be limited to the requiranent developrnent away from wetlands, requires a minimum of between the development and the natural feature. provlslon shall include of projects to cluster a twenty-five foot buffer Discussion. Kaehler questioned the twenty-five foot buffer, and asked to have someone check with the County to see what their setbacks are. Goodrow said that he would check with the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council on their wetland buffer zone and get back to the Commission on his findings. . Goodrow Environmentally sensitive areas shall be covered by an environmental easanent which restrict uses to passive recreational activities. Also, the minimum upland lake buffer shall be twenty-five feet and no fill shall be placed in lakes. Provision in the LDR of specific location standards for the construction of docks and other structures over the lake. No new individual lots or parcels shall be created aftef~ the adopt ion of th i s plan that cons i st of such a high proport ion of wet 1 ands that deve 1 opment of the lot is imposs i b 1 e without fill i ng or othel' disturbance of those wetlands. He stated that the City will be required to check everyth -j ng that comesi n to make sure that there is a developable upland tract on everything that is created. Bricklemeyer stated that he had a problan with that particular pOlley. The statanent that follows states that there may be a situation where you ignore that proh i b'j t i on, if the deve loper documents that he has to alter it then he can, so the prohibition has an exception, and the other probla-n is it 1S such a high proportion, what is that, it opens the door to a big argument. He asked Goodrow if there is a science to establish what the proportion is. Goodrow said that the problen is that if it is a single family lot, they would have to prove that they can build what is allowed on the lot with what is left on the lot. Bricklemeyer said so the objective is that it deals with someone bringing a subdivision in, not allowing thenl to create a lot that would require intrusion into the wetland. Discussion. The Conmission decided to define the word "fill" so there would be no misunderstanding. Goodrow stated that on page 16, the last sentence there is a typo, it should state "No septic tanks shall be permitted in the 100 year floodplain". Goodrow - page 16, E - a new policy;s created, Discussion. It was deterrnined to define "adjacent to lake". . Goodrow - page 17, obj. 21 - this lS residential land use, our response is what we believe should be done is what deleted and call it urban density, and on vested rights. a policy dealing with a predated density that we have determined how to handle this, was use to be called predated density is it is mostly areas in the PUD. Discussion Rozansky stated that the City wi 11 get a rnodel samp'8 of a vesting ordinance from Florida League of Cities. . City Commission Workshop March 11, 1992 Page 5 Goodrow - page 19, obj. 5 - our response: "Throughout the planning pet~ iod, the City shall maintain the level of service standard on all arterial and collector roads. Goodrow - page 22, obj. 8 - our t~esponse -- Policy C(2) - "Establish an interim level of service standard of D for SR 434 and SR 419 and no development orders will be issued that will regrade the level of service standard of D on all other roadways. Goodrow stated that what that says 1S that you can't issue any more permits that take access to 434; this only lasts for a year if the TIP stays the way it is, because concurrency is defined as "it is either ready to take the impact right now or it is within 3 years of the TIP if it is a state road." Discussion. Policy C(3) - Establish an interim level of service standard of E for Tuscawilla Road. Th i s 1 eve 1 of serv ice s; tandard sha 11 be changed through imp 1 Ementat i on of the Sern i no 1 e County Road Improvement Program. . Brick18neyer mentioned that therels an alternative to adopting FOOT's levei of serv i ce ; if you want to adopt a lower 1 eve 1 of serv i ce or- the current I eve 1 of service as an acceptable level of ::;ervice, for some volume of capacity r-atio, that will allow you to continue to issue permits, can be done under 9-J-5, you just have to provide a justification for doing that. If you don't like it the way it is, you don't want to issue permits then you can establish D and that will close down whatever sect-ion is below acceptation level of service you have establ ished for new development. The other issue goes back on page 20, and the language that 1S inserted there says "throughout the planning period the City shall maintain the level of service standard". He stated that he would prefer to see the word enforce. Discussion. There was discussion on vesting. Goodrow stated that the City should think about adopt i ng some kind of vest i ng ord i nance rather shol-t I y . We need to 1 et peop I e know who rlave permi ts where they stand as far as conCUi-rency issues. That way the Staff will know how to handle development at that point in time. Rozansky stated that he will get sample vesting ordinances Fran the League and put something together. Goodrow mentioned that the City needs to initiate inter-governmel:tal cool'dination or at least try. . Br i ck 1 Emeyer asked to go back to the hous i ng elEment. He stated the two po 1 i ci es page 26 and 27, on the botta1! of page 26, and on page 27 the stat8nent "... the City shall provide adequate sites with available infrastructure within each of the residential land use categories for mobile homes, low and moderate incOlle housing." He sa i d that th i s is a strong stat8nent; he sa i d his concern is whether- you want to say that you are going provide adequate sites or whether those uses are going to be permitted. Goodrow stated that the word "to" should be inserted between the words prov i de and adequate in that statffi1ent. Discuss i on. Br i ck I Emeyer stated that he would i~ather see the statEment "pr-oviding adequate sites". It was determined to add the word "to" between the words provide and adequate. Goodrow - page 30, pol icy C(4) - we have made a 1 ist that you may choose frclll -it . . . City corrmission Workshop March 11, 1992 Page 6 There was discussion on #d of the list. impact fees" from that statement. it doesn't say you have to do them al'. was determined to delete the words "and Goodrow - page 34, policy c(3) - we have added #3 - Waiving one or more application and processing fees for affordable housing projects." Which was discussed at the last meeting. Discussion. Goodrow - page 38, Sanitary Sewer~ Element. He stated that the City IS now working on that and doesn't fee 1 there wi 11 be a prob 1 em. Goodr"ow - page 39. # 11, Po 1 icy 39 - "The C i t y sha 11 adopt along with its r' ev i sed 1 and deve 1 opment regu 1 at ions to be comp 1 eted by the statutot~y dead 1 i ne, a Concurrency Management System that sha 11 imp 1 ement procedur'es i nsur 'j tlg that, a development or building permit is not issued unless adequate sewer facility 1S available, at the adopted level of service, concurrent with the impacts of development." Goodrow - page 41, obj. #12 - there was an object ion about the standar'd of 50' to having to connect, and we discussed the fact that State Statutes require a quarter of a mile, and the City requires 50' to have to connection for existing developments. So we wrote a policy that explains that in more detail. What it says is that any new development wi-:hin a quarter of a mile frOfI\ the system has to connect to that system. and an ex i st i ng deve 1 opment wou 1 d not fall undet~ the State Statutes, they will have to ccw:nect if within 50' of that system. Goodrow stated that in the solid waste element the goal is to coordinate with the County. Page 47 We changed the original recorrmendation sllghtiy, #10 - The City shall initiate, by october 1993, a stormwater management study to detet~mine existing and projected drainage facility deficiencies. Based on study results, the c'ty shall develop coordination mechanisms and implementation programs In o!~der to upgt'ade existing drainage ~acilities not meeting the adopted level of service in the Comprehensive Plan. Goodrow - page 53, #9 - response - There are cun'ently no deficiencies related to potable water facilities at this time, and none are projected based on demand through the year 2010. It is the City's objective to maximize L.;se of existing facilities. and... to insure that adopted levels of service are maintained. He also stated that they propose that another sentence be added to say "the extension of or increase in the capacity of the potable water faci 1 ities wi 11 be coordinated through the land use plan amendment and permitting process." Page 53, obj. 10 - We are suggesting that you strike the response to #10, because we adequately handled with that change under objection C. Page 54, obj. 11 - We have added new language. Discussion. It was determined that the phrase ".. .designated for urban development..." be deleted. . City Ccrml~ ss ion Workshop March 11, 1992 Page 7 Discussion on the use of septic tanks and about annexation associated with the use of septic tanks. It was determined that for now a new development within 1/4 ,"nile wi 11 have to connect and if a new developrnent is not within a 1/4 ;TJi 1e and a minimum of 20,000 sq.ft. lots, can have septic tanks. Goodrow said that they will check the figures and come back to the Comnission. Goodrow page 64, obj. A rev i sed as fo 11 ows: " . . . Th i s object i 'Ie sha 11 be accompl ished thr'ough: enforcemer:: of inandatol-y water use iesti~ictions.. . Programs shall be in effect from the time of adoption tht~oughout the planning time frame, except the Stormwater utility shal1 be implemented beg'inning in November, 1993. Discussion. It was determined to change the date to November 1994. Goodrow page 67, #14, Po'icy (C)2 Discussion on the pel~centage amount. Bricklerneyer suggested to leave the percentage issue to the LDR decisions. Page 68 - Discussion on it6n #15, policy (A) - It was determined that the date be changed to October. Goodrow page 70, Po 1 icy (E) 5 We are l~eC;Lll. mg that the 1 and deve 1 opment regulations be adopted by the statutory deadline, shall pt~ovide fo" additional development :~equirernents which shall be developed for lake f.ont development, . including protection of shorel ine vegetation and control of storrrrwatet' t'unoff. There was brief discussion on the t~emaining itelllS. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk .