Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 11 17 Planning and Zoning Board Regular Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES November i7, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 7:25 P.M. by Vice-Chairman Glavin. BOARD MEMBERS: David Hopkins, Present Thomas Brown, Present John Ferring, Present David McLeod, Absent Grace Ann Glavin, Present CITY OFFICIALS: D. LeBlanc, Land Dev. Coordinator K. Lockcuff, Utility Director Attorney Keith Bricklemyer Accroval of Minutes of November 3, 1993: Brown mentioned a grammatical error on page one and page two also Glavin mentioned an error on page three. Brown moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Hopkins. All aye. Motion carried. Vote: Glavin stated that LeBlanc asked to change the order of the meeting as the Utility Director will be late. Proposed Ordinance No. 551 - Discussion (Reimbursement for Meetings): Glavin asked the Board member if they had any other comments regarding this matter. Ferring said he was abstaining as he will be on the Commission when this item goes before the Commissioners. The other Board members had no other comments. Glavin summed up the feelings of the Board. She stated that most of our Board members are of the belief that they do not wish to sit on this Board because of the monies that they receive. They wish to sit on this Board because of the public service and they do not feel either the sum of $50.00 or $15.00 or however the various potential calculations for adequately reimburse us for our time or our effort therefrom. That it is very nice that the City seeks to reimburse us for some expense money or what have you. However the Commission decides how ultimately the expense money shall be paid, I believe that we (the Board) don't feel that it should serve as an incentive for any Board to have extra meetings when they are not needed or fewer meeting, or that it should not have any impact upon how the Board does what it does. The Board members present were in agreement with this statement. - -- Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 2 Concurrency Management Ordinance - Discussion (Tabled from Nov. 3, 1993) Meet in~): LeBlanc stated that the Board went over this pretty thoroughly in the past few meetings and was tabled from the last meeting to ensure that the utility Director had no comments and to have Attorney Bricklemyer present. Glavin asked Bricklemyer if it was under the understanding that the cover letter reviewing the draft for last time that you said with the exception of the input from the utility Director, which we have now, that you thought that the Ordinance was in acceptable form in terms of being recommended for approval to the City Commission. Attorney Bricklemyer stated that as far as he was concerned he had incorporated the comments made at the previous meeting but we need to address Lockcuff's concerns that he has expressed and get those resolved. Some of them I understand and I feel that I can fix those but I am not absolutely sure how he wants to deal with the fees and that is why I asked him to come tonight. Glavin said to Bricklemyer outside of Lockcuff's concerns, you have reviewed or prepared the draft of the ordinance. Bricklemyer stated no, not the Ordinance just the "meat" of the document itself. Bricklemyer then stated that he has edited the document and feels comfortable with it. Bricklemyer stated that the Ordinance will just be a cover document to adopt this section of the Code. Glavin asked if Bricklemyer has reviewed Lockcuff's comments. Bricklemyer stated that he has. Glavin asked if Bricklemyer could paraphrase what Lockcuff is saying - is he making a recommendation or asking this Board to make a decision. Bricklemyer said both, there are a couple of different issues. One issue from his memo of November 5, 1993, paragraph 2 - he made the observation that it was unclear of what happens to the fees in the event that a project folds or that the time expires for reservation. These are capacity encumbrance fees which are paid as essentially credits against future impact fees and they are paid in order to set the capacity aside; to reserve it for that particular project for a period of time, 10% for one year; 20% for two years, 30% for three years or in full for anything over three years. Bricklemyer said that he thought he had addressed that but he had not specifically said what happens to the fees. Page 9, Section 9 of the 11-02-93 draft deals with capacity encumbrance fees, we changed the name of those because it was in conflict with what they were called in the sewer fees in the Code as it currently exists. Bricklemyer said that his suggestion is that those fees should be non- refundable. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 3 Bricklemyer said that Section 9, #D - Could be stated as: The Capacity Encumbrance Fees paid pursuant to this section are non-refundable and shall be counted as credits against the total impact fee payments due in any. Discussion refundable. on the issue of having the capacity encumbrance fees non- The Board decided that the fees be non-refundable. Bricklemyer said the issue raised by Lockcuff is do we treat capacity charges or capacity encumbrance fees different for water and sewer than we treat for the other concurrency facilities. He said Lockcuff's suggestion is that we require payment in full for water and sewer fees and that that payment in full be required at the time the DEP construction permits are applied for and that is the reason I wanted Lockcuff here to discuss that so everyone will fully understands what the process is when you are dealing with water and sewer approvals. Bricklemyer said that he doesn't understand the point at which the City would take an action that they could then require the payment of fees. There was discussion on excess capacity from a development. Hopkins stated that regarding Lockcuff's memo in number 1 where it says the capacity charges be paid in full at the time the DEP construction permits are applied for, he said that it would be reasonable to him to say that those capacity charges be paid in full at the time final engineering is approved. Also, with regards to what we were just discussing, how about if we put same kind of stipulation in there that states once the capacity charges have been paid in full at final engineering and if no construction has occurred within a set time period; then the City has a right to buy that back, that way they wouldn't be able to hold on to the capacity for "X" number of years and if the City needed the capacity they could buy the capacity back. Glavin suggested why not have it just non-refundable after a certain period of time, it just expires that way the City doesn't have to buy it back. Discussion. Brown said that on our Oct. 20th meeting we discussed this issue and at that time the final decision was that LeBlanc talked to the utility Director and the utility Director said that this would be a good time to incorporate Ord. 509 and Chapter 19-102 regarding fees and whatever needs to be done at that time and Bricklemyer was to get with the utility Director to discuss this matter. Brown said that the Board was in agreement at that time that they would pay the fees. Discussion. Bricklemyer said that he thinks the approval of the final engineering plans is the point at which your water distribution plan and sewer collection plan would be approved and upon the City's approval then they could go to DEP and ask for permits. So that would be the time the fees would have to be paid before the developer applies for the DEP permits. The Board agreed that it would state that the fees will be paid in full at the time of final engineering plans approval. Bricklemyer then said the issue is how long would that be good for and is it - ......., .. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 4 refundable or not. Glavin asked what a reasonable time period would be before it would expire. Discussion. Lockcuff said that the practice now is that the developer pays a reservation fee annually and if this does not get paid then we revoke the capacity, refunded their money minus the reservation fees owed. Bricklemyer said that the reservation fees being paid is a stand-by service charge and is being paid because they are not hooked up to the system. Lockcuff said yes. Bricklemyer asked why are the monies for water and sewer collected up-front. Lockcuff said we require payment when a developer permits DEP because DE? will subtract that capacity from the available capacity. Lockcuff said that once it is subtracted and the development folds, DEP does not put that capacity back into our available capacity. Discussion. The Board discussed having some sort of consistency with the collection of monies. Glavin said the issue is a policy decision as to how much is going to be paid, will it be refunded, is it going to be permanent or not, is it going to be capable of assignment, shall there be rules as to whether the City will buy it back or not. Glavin asked Lockcuff if he could write down a policy preference with regard to whether it should be paid up front or not, how it should be paid, when it should be paid, when it should work, when it should be refundable and how long it should last etc. That way the Board will have something concrete that we can incorporate into the concurrency management ordinance; maybe the City Attorney can advise as to the water and sewer as to what ordinances the City has that it impacts upon so we can make recommendation to the City Commission that in the proposed concurrency management ordinance which we would like to adopt, there are certain factual things which are addressed here which might be inconsistent with factual things in other ordinances therefore we recommend amendments to those other ordinances as well so it will all be consistent and will supply some rules and guidelines for the utility Director. After much discussion, Hopkins moved to table the review of the Concurrency Management Ordinance until Staff can come back to this Board for consistency and answer the Board's concerns mentioned this evening with regard to time frames, percentages and questions that were brought up this evening in writing. Seconded by Brown. Vote: All aye. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted Margo Hopkins Deputy City Clerk " ,