Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 09 15 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes Planning & Zoning Board Minutes Wednesday, September 15,1993 Board Members: David McLeod, Chairman, Present Grace Anne Glavin, Vice-Chairman, Present David Hopkins, Present Thomas Brown, Present John Ferring, Present City Official(s): Keith Bricklemyer, City Attorney Donald LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coord. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Approval of the Minutes of September 01. 1993 Brown made a motion to approve the minutes of September 01, 1993, seconded by Glavin. Vote: all-aye. Motion carried. Proposed Revision to Vested Ri2:hts Ordinance LeBlanc explained that the City Planner will no longer be with the City after September 30th, and that he will assuming the City Planner's responsibilities. Therefore, LeBlanc asked for the Board's indulgence in going through tonight's agenda. LeBlanc said that Mr. Bricklemyer is here tonight and he is well versed on both topics to answer any questions the Board may have. Bricklemyer stated that the amendment to Vested Rights Ordinance is a result of a situation which occurs when there are more than one development parcels or more than one owner in a project. The real issue is what constitutes a substantial deviation when someone makes a change to the development parcel in the vested project. Ifthere are different owners within a development parcel and all parcels are governed by vested rights permit any of the owners could make a change that could potentially divest the others, that is the issue that was brought about in Tuscawilla. The approach that was taken was that if an individual could meet the requirements of the vested rights ordinance and could be vested by itself, then it should be judged based on its own project, based on its own changes, and the criteria should be concerned about it and not the remaining parcels. This is to ensure that if vested rights permit is issued to an individual, they are not part of the remaining parcels under the blanket vested rights permit. Bricklemyer gave another example of a shopping center with out parcels, the shopping center might have a vested rights permit, if one of the out parcel owners makes a change that could divest the other out parcel owner or the shopping center owner, what is to be dealt with each of these owners individually, if they meet the provisions of the ordinance. The potential of this issue arising is small except in Tuscawilla, however it needs to be dealt with nonetheless. Glavin asked why this change was coming before the Board when the original Vested Rights Ordinance was not brought before this Board for review and that she did not have Planning & Zonf Board Minutes Wednesday, September 15, 1993 Page 2 a copy of the completed ordinance. LeBlanc answered that he felt that this change is being brought before the Board because the Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Board signs the permit. Bricklemyer added that the Vested Rights Ordinance would be incorporated in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). LeBlanc stated that a copy of the original ordinance will be mailed out to the Board tomorrow. Glavin questioned the availability for discretion on the issues of findings of facts under the ordinance. Bricklemyer answered that some findings of facts are discretionary and some are not. Ferring added that the amended ordinance would reflect that the City Manager can only make a recommendation to the Board, the Board will make the determination. If the permit is denied there is an appeal process where this issue can go before the City Commission. -. LeBlanc asked ifperhaps the Board would request that this issue be deferred until the copy of the ordinance is provided to the Board for their further review along with this proposed revision. Glavin asked if this revision is a time sensitive issue. Bricklemyer answered not really, but it needs to be addressed. Glavin made a motion that this issue be tabled regarding the addition of subsection 9 of Section II(A) of Ordinance 534 until all of the Board members are provided from City staff with a copy of the Ordinance 534 as it exists, seconded by Ferring. Vote: all-aye. Motion carried. LeBlanc added that it should be on the agenda of the next meeting for October 6th, 1993. Review and Recommendation of Concurrency Mana2ement System Ordinance Bricklemyer asked if this item had been before this Board and what type of discussion took place. Bricklemyer outlined the purpose of this ordinance: The State Legislation Chapter 163 requires that within a year after the date the Comp Plan is submitted, that permits are not issued, if those permits would result in the reduction of the level of service (LOS) for a concurrency facilities below the LOS that was adopted in the Comp Plan as acceptable. If there is no capacity in the landfill and the issuance of this permit would result in solid waste, the permit can not be issued. If there is no capacity on the roadways to accommodate the development permit, then the permit can not be issued, it is the State Law. This law was incorporated into a rule in the Florida Administrative Code, the rule is more specific in how to adopt a Concurrency Management System, and it gave some details as to what is needed to have in the system. Basically the components of this ordinance meet that system. Some jurisdiction update their Concurrency Management System once a year and will issue permits for one year. Other jurisdiction have the information on a computer system and test each permit for every square foot. The important point is that there has to be a system. The system is intended to ensure that an applicant knows what it is they have to do to meet the test. The process of completing an application, this ordinance needs to tell them what they need on the application, what does the City have the right to ask them, in terms of determining if they meet concurrency. The standards are adopted in the Comp Plan, and it gives a set of circumstances by which they meet concurrency for each of the public facilities. The standards are different, water & \ \ .-. Planning & Zonin~Board J.._..nutes Wednesday, September 15, 1993 Page 3 sewer, the capacity has to be in place at the time the final development order is issued. Transportation on the other end of the spectrum states that if there is an improvement in the 5 year work program that is scheduled for construction within the 3 rd year, then they can count that as a completed improvement and use the capacity of that improvement in evaluating if the transportation system is adequate to accommodate the development being proposed. The requirements of what happens when they pass and when they fail, is where it gets difficult and that is where this ordinance is lacking. There is a distinction of when the test is applied, as compared to a final development order or a preliminary development order, the State Laws stated that prior to the adoption of a final development order, the concurrency test must be applied, then the City makes a determination, yeah or nay. On a preliminary development order, there is an option, to take the test or not, in making a decision to approve the preliminary development order. Even without a preliminary development order, if someone is looking at buying a piece of property, they want to know if they develop 100,000 square feet of retail, will they pass concurrency, they ought to be able to come to the City, give that information necessary to make that determination and get the City to say yeah or nay. One of the policy decisions that needs to be made is the reservation of capacity once the City makes a determination that an application meet the test, they ask for a permit, the City does the concurrency test, yes the applicant meets concurrency, what happens to the capacity that the developer has requested, it needs to be taken out of the system so it is not allocated to some other developer. How long does the City take it out for, does the City charge, how much does the City charge, those things are addressed with respect to final and preliminary development orders. Some jurisdiction do not charge for the reservation of capacity for final development orders, some do not charge for preliminary, some do not reserve for preliminary. If a developer's preliminary plat is approved, they get a preliminary test for concurrency, when they come in to get their final plat they may not meet the test for concurrency because another developer has already used the existing capacity. Those are the policy decisions that need to be made, this ordinance establishes a structure whereby a final development order is issued after concurrency is met, the capacity is reserved, provided that someone pays a capacity reservation fee. That same reservation system which requires a payment could be established for preliminary development orders. " ~ ! Brown added that a flowchart would be helpful as well. LeBlanc added that the LDRs have been sent to the City Attorney's office for their review and recommendation if a consultant will be hiring to write the LDRs. Ferring reminded the Board and staff about the previous workshop with the City Commission where a consultant firm was selected, and asked if staff knew if the previously selected firm was to be contacted to do the work for the City. LeBlanc answered that the decision has not been made at this point. Discussion ensued regarding the inconsistencies in the past drafts of this ordinance and that the Board felt that they should be making policy decisions and not making structural, grammatical, and legal decisions. Planning & ZOl. ~ Boar~"\1inutes Wednesday, September .1.5.1993 Page 4 Glavin suggested that a short list of issues & questions with alternatives would be useful in the Board making the policy decisions. BrickIemyer agreed and added that the staffs reactions to the alternatives would be necessary. BrickIemyer continued by saying that one of the best suggestions is to create a flowchart so that the Board can see the decision points and where to go after making those decisions. Brown stated that he had tried to do a flowchart himself and found it a very confusing task. BrickIemyer talked about the developer agreement for the water & sewer capacity as having the same technique that should be applied to all the services and should be incorporated in this ordinance. , Glavin eXplained how some documents were brought before this Board for review without written comments from the City Attorney. BrickIemyer suggested that the Planning & Zoning Board like the City Commission should never approve an ordinance without the City Attorney saying this ordinance is in proper form. The City Attorney should attest to the ordinance so that the Board has some comfort level with the ordinance. Glavin added that it would be helpful to receive the comments from the Attorneys along with the ordinance to know what the concerns were. McLeod added that perhaps a letter from the City Attorney stating that they had reviewed the document would suffice. Glavin made a motion to table this manner of the Concurrency Management System Ordinance until it is worked further by the City staff, seconded by Brown. McLeod stated that he was concerned about sending it back when as the City Attorney pointed out there are issues that need the recommendation of this Board, McLeod was understanding that this document would be returned to the Board still without the Board's recommendation on key policy statements. Discussion ensued regarding the best method to process with the task of incorporating the Board's recommendation into this ordinance. Brown withdrew his second, and Glavin removed her motion. Glavin restated her motion to table this manner of the Concurrency Management System Ordinance and requested staff to come before the Board with policy questions for discussion and decision regarding any choice that the City may have in terms of implementing the state requirements, seconded by Brown. Vote: all-aye. Motion carried. McLeod voiced his concern that the LDRs would not have the Board's recommendation and that there will not be amble time to review the document. LeBlanc answered that his assumption is that the LDRs will have to come before this Board for their recommendation, and that he knew that it was 7 months behind schedule. Hopkins added that he had contacted the City Manager regarding the time frame and voiced his concern several months ago. Hopkins was told by the City Manager that Mr. Kern had assured the City Manager that DCA had told Kern as long as the City was working on it, that was OK. Brown suggested having the consultants meet with the Board regarding what was previously discussed on the LDRs. BrickIemyer commented that the consultant will probably handle it in the following manner: Give the Board the large picture, they will tell the Board how they suggest filling in the little pieces, they will bring back the little pieces and let the Board discuss alternatives and make recommendations, and then they will produce the document. Planning & Zoning Board h~.nutes Wednesday, September 15, 1993 Page 5 . LeBlanc asked if the Board had any concerns that they would like to address to bring them to the next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~€K~ l{eanine Port"; 16 September 1993