Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 10 06 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES OCTOBER 6, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chainman McLeod. BOARD MEMBERS: Dav i d Mcleod, Cha i rman, Present Grace Ann Glavin, Present David Hopkins, Present Thomas Brown, Present John Ferring, Present CITY OFFICIALS: D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coordinator K. Bricklemyer, Attorney Approval of Minutes of September 15. 1993: Brown moved to approve the minutes of September 15, 1993. Seconded by Hopkins. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. Vested Ri~hts Ordinance (Revision): LeBlanc said that he feels this came about because of multiple ownership within the PUD settlement agreement. There were people worried that if they had vested rights and someone breaks it; they would be penalized for it. LeBlanc then stated that he and Bricklemyer met with Mr. Yeager on another matter but regarding the property in the PUD and reading the settlement agreement we determined that all this can be accomplished by an Ordinance approved by the City Commission as to what they wanted to do because they have vested rights through the settlement agreement. In reading through the ORC report one comment made by DCA on page 6 - Future Land Use Map, Annexation, Unnecessary Amendments etc., it states .....if the PUD is vested in terms of the settlement agreement none of these proposed amendments is needed in order to implement the settlement agreement in the Tuscawilla PUD." He then stated that he didn't know if it was relevant to change the vested rights ordinance to allow for a section in a group. Bricklemyer said that it is really two different issues, one issue is the amendments to the comp plan map to reflect the vested designations under the settlement agreement. My understanding of the objective there is to have the map reflect as accurately as possible what the potential development will be. The proposed amendment to the vested rights was to establish a procedure for people who came in and purchased a parcel (particularly in Tuscawilla) where we know there is an overall vested rights, special use pennit for the entire project. The developer canes in and purchases a parcel within that development can establish his own independent vested rights and wants to be protected against changes to the overall development plan that would potentially divest him from the overall vested rights permit; he would have a procedure to do that and that is what this amendment would accomplish. ,,-.. ~ Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 6, 1993 Page 2 Discussion on the understanding of the amendment to the vested rights ordinance. McLeod asked what is the actual revision at this time. Brick1emyer said that the amendment is to establish a process for an owner of a parcel within a larger project to secure an independent vested rights penmit as a result of which he would be excluded from coverage by a larger vested rights. Discussion on whether the amendment to Ord. 534 is needed. Brown moved to recommend approval to the proposed amendment to Ordinance 534. Seconded by Hopkins. Vote: Glavin: nay; Hopkins: aye; Brown: aye; Ferring: aye; McLeod: aye. Motion carried. Review of Concurrency Mana~ement System Ordinance: Brick1emyer stated that he has given the Board a package of four documents. Included in the package is the concurrency management system provisions from the City's comprehensive plan which has to be implemented with the concurrency management system ordinance. The second part of the package is the concurrency management regulations from the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 9-J5, which is the State Rule that you have to follow to ensure you meet minimum criteria for adopting concurrency regulations. The third item is a "decision tree", which the Board asked for at the last meeting, which consists of key decisions that need to be made in creating the ordinance. The last item is a paper that he (Brick1emyer) presented to the Florida Bar which deals with the Elms 3 Bill, which is new land development regulations, it is a narrative approach to the legislation to tell you what the legislation did on growth management. The Board went through the "Decision Tree" as follows: 1. Exceptions: a) vested b) De Minimis (Section 3) - 1. Present Law 2. Elms I I I . Brick1emyer said his recommendation would be that rather than using what is suggested in the proposed concurrency management system ordinance is to go to the newly proposed statutory De Minimis thresholds and incorporate those into your ordinance. What will happen is that the Statute says you can only have De Minimis thresholds of "X" arrount, they wi 11 adopt rules that wi 11 tell you how to implement those DeMinimis thresholds in your regulations. So you wi 11 have to amend these to aCCO'llTOdate those ru 1 es anyway. Many of the DeMinimis thresholds far exceed what the State Legislation allows you to do. Discussion. Brick1emyer said the Elms Bill takes a percentage of the capacity that is avai 1able and uses that as the minimum level; below that percentage you don't have to do a concurrency review, above that percentage. you do. Glavin asked how big of a percentage is the Elms Bill. Brick1emyer Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 6, 2993 Page 3 said it is .1 percent. Brick1anyer said that item "A" gives those mininuns and I suggest that you go with the statutory thresholds, "B" deals with vested projects which is fine, "c" deals with public facilities - the new law specifically says that public facilities have to meet concurrency just like anyone else, so that has to came out. Discussion. The Board was in favor of eliminating "C". Glavin excused herself from the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Brick1anyer explained the Elms I I I Bill. Discussion. The Board decided to go with Elms I I I, Article 5 in the concurrency management system ordinance. 2. Capacity Inventories (Section 5) a) Timing b) Reports c) Updating (staffing) . Brick1emyer said in the draft ordinance there is a provision that deals with monitoring public facilities, which is one of the things that State Law requires that you do. It was suggested in the draft ordinance that you do an annual report and establish for the coming year a level of service for each of the public facilities and that becomes your base line, as permits are issued you reduce that capacity on a theoretical basis, when you reach zero there will be no permit issued until a study is done (by the developer) which demonstrates there still is an exceptable level of service. Discussion. The Board decided that an annual review will be done and a report given to the City Commission on June 30th each year. 3. Applications (Section 6) - a) Final Development Order, 1. Mandatory, 2. Definition. b) Preliminary Development Order, 1. Optional 2. Definition. c) Tests (Sections 4, 10) per Camp Plan. d) Review (Section 7) 1. When is capacity reserved (a) Conditional Reservation (b) Duration of Conditional Reservation (c) Final Encumbrance (d) Duration of Final Encumbrance. 2. Small Project Review. 3. Large Project Review. Bricklanyer said that the issue that you have to deal with here is the distinction between a final development order and a preliminary development order. The general method of operation or the law is that you when you issue a final development order you have to have done a concurrency review. Discussion. Bricklemyer said that for Concurrency Review you have to make a decision as to whether you reserve capacity in the facilities while the application is being reviewed. Discussion. The Board decided that it will be on a "first came - first serve" basis, for reservation of capacity while the concurrency review is being determined; and a time frame of 30 days to hold the reservation after that time the applicant has to start over. .,-.. ,..-., Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 6, 1993 Page 4 Bricklemyer said that there will be one fonm that does what was previously outlined, it will have what the capacity is, what you are using, what is left and it will be signed at the bottom this is certificate of concurrency nuroer "X" - approved. The Board was in agreanent. . Bricklemyer said now is final encumbrance - assuming that concurrency is met, do you want to charge, how much will you charge and for how long. Discussion. The Board decided that they would charge and the fee would be 10% of the fees for the first year, 20% for the second year, 30% for the third year and the balance would be paid when the penmit is issued. Discussion on the length of time. The Board decided that the length of time to hold capacity would be anything beyond three years the developer would pay the whole fee and if the process is in development and more time is needed then the developer would pay the entire fee when they come to the City for and extension on the length of time to hold the capacity. LeBlanc brought up that the water impact fees and we need to reservation fee requiranents need Board was in agreanent. and sewer is independent from the other look into them independently to see if the to be more restrictive than this. The Discussion on small and large project review. Bricklemyer stated that the requiranent for a traffic study should be dictated by the circumstances of the roadway. The Board agreeded. Next will be Section 5 as the Board reviewed section 4 with the previous section. 5. Denial (Section 7H) A. Status proposal time to reapply. C. deficiency time allowed. D. Appeals by City Commission. of Reserved Capacity. B. Downsize Pursue Developer Agreement to cure (Section 12) 1. Deadline. 2. Hearing Bricklemyer if a developer gets denied and has capacity reserved etc., is that capacity held in reserve or put back into the system while the developer appeals. Discussion. The Board decided that the capacity would be held for 45 days so the developer would have time to downsize the project. Bricklemyer said what if the developer doesn't want to downsize the project, what if he wants to reach an agreement with the City to see what improvements can be made to meet concurrency. Discussion. It was decided that a developer will have to file an application within fifteen days and it goes before the Commission for a hearing within 30 days and at that hearing the Commission wi 11 either approve the agreement or the Commission will detenmine that there is more studies needed and the Planning and Zoning Board Minutes October 6, 1993 Page 5 Commission will grant more time, the Commission will then be in control of the time frcme. McLeod said he would like on the next agenda to discuss the views of the Commission regarding the pa~nt of the Boards. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk