Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 04 18 City Commission Workshop Minutes WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COMMISSION CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1988 The Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Winter Springs, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Leanne M. Grove at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Mayor Leanne M. Grove, Present Deputy Mayor Arthur Hoffmann, Present City Manager, Richard Rozansky, Present City Attorney Frank Kruppenbacher, Present Commissioners: Cindy Kaehler, Present Philip A. Ku1bes, Present William A. Jacobs, Present Martin Trencher, Present ALSO PRESENT: PLANNING & ZONING BOARD: David Hopkins John V. Torcaso David W. McLeod Mike Saporito The Workshop met at the request of the Planning & Zoning Board. Vice-Chairman Mike Saporito started the discussion. He stated that there is a question as to the 'mission' of the Planning & Zoning Board; what the City Commission expects from the Board. He summed up the role of the Planning & Zoning Board as two-fold: to examine applications with a view toward making a recommendation - with respect to land use, and to be a planning agency, which he believes has not been expanded to its full capacity. He explained that the Board feels to some extent that its efforts are perhaps misdirected, or that a lot of its accomplishments go unnoticed in terms of what its recommendations are. He said that he believes it >vould be beneficial to the workshop to discuss how they're utilized, and how they can improve them so that they are clear, and also how they can harmoniously undertake the task for which they have been appointed. The City Attorney, Frank Kruppenbacher, was invited to comment on the Planning & Zoning Board as outlined by the Code. The key word, he stated, is that the Planning & Zoning Board is advisory to the Commission. The Commission cannot delegate to the Planning & Zoning Board the decision-making power by law on these issues. The P&Z Board basically explores the facts, deduces the evidence, and makes recommendations. He advised against a member of the P&Z Board standing in a public hearing to speak on an issue and to explain a decision, due to the danger of being sued. After the written recommendation of the P&Z Board, the responsibility of the Board is discharged. Anything beyond that, places them in a position of jeopardy. Unfortunately, the applicant gets 'educated' after going before the P&Z Board, and before he goes before the Commission, prepares himself to answer the questions of the Commission, so that the Commission doesn't support the recommendation of the P&Z Board. The Attorney suggested that decisions and recommendations must be based on facts, and he gave an example of the traffic problem. If an opinion is given that there is a traffic problem, therefore a development cannot 'go in', the developer may have a differing opinion as to the traffic problem. The court will not sustain it based on opinion. Discussion. The City Attorney said that WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1988 Page 2 tile felt that the P&Z Board has the right to explain to the applicant that unless more information is provided, they cannot approve it. If the developer should say he isn't going to do what the Board wants, then they can send it to the Commission and explain the reasons why they cannot recommend it. Discussion. The observation was made that the P&Z Board needs to find out what they are doing wrong, if they are doing something wrong when their recommendations are consistently turned down. There was a suggestion of 'putting together' a "white sheet" with areas of consideration to look at, and basically to stay within the perimeters of this 'issue'. A check-list was suggested to be given to the developers to be accomplished before coming before the P&Z Board. A separate recommendation (as opposed to the minutes) was suggested to be drawn up. Commissioner Trencher stated that he felt that the P&Z Board has the right to ask any questions of the developer that they wish. He said that issues of negotiation and compromise fall within the purvey of the Commission and not the P&Z Board. He said that the decision of where schools, churches or homes go, is a political decision. That is a risk that the P&Z Board should not take, as they are not voted in and out of office. He feels that the P&Z Board should tell the developer that they cannot make a sound decision until they get the facts, and until then, will have to say no. He suggested that the staff give the P&Z Board more support, and present them with a more organized set of plans. It was stated that the only way a member of the Board could be held for punitive ...damages was if they went beyond their official position and intentionally tried ~to hurt. If they were sued, they would be covered, and if they were not covered, the City has taken the position that they would still be defended. One of the problems is making ad hoc changes either at the P&Z or the Commission level. It was suggested that perhaps they should consider an overhaul of the Code. Discussion. Commissioner Hoffmann summarized the issue at hand. He stated that we recognize that the Code is not perfect. We have agreed that the Board should work with the Attorney and the staff to come up with a 'white paper' or check list to use as a 'crutch' so that they are better able to concentrate on the things that they are required to follow. They should not be limited in their ability to ask questions, but they should be pertinent to the requirements, and should be passed on to the Commission to look at. We also should have better means of communicating their decisions to us by way of the minutes or 'whatever'. So, perhaps, working with the staff, make up a format for reporting some of the critical items of their decisions that will enable us to see at a glance, how they came to their decision. Discussion. Part of the problem between the Commission and the P&Z Board, is that when the P&Z Board tell the developer to do certain things in order to be approved, and the developer makes these changes and comes before the Commission, he is then approved by the Commission. Therefore, what the P&~Board has heard is different from what the Commission hears. The comment was made that the P&Z Board is to 'spot' an issue, and the Commission is to decide the issue. Therefore, it should be the job of the Commission to require a traffic study. ~The function of the P&Z is to gather information and make the recommendation ..,that the Commission either accept or reject it. It was suggested that when WORKSHOP MEETING CITY COMMISSION APRIL 18, 1988 4IJage 3 The Commission denies an application, the P&Z Board should find out why it was denied, and see if there is room for improvement. Instead of recommending to the Commission that it either be accepted or denied, it might be better to state possible problems that could occur by either denying or accepting an application, and recommend that the Commission consider these factors before reaching a conclusion. Then the problem of the P&Z Board's recommending that the Commission either accept or deny it, is alleviated. On the other hand, the comment was made that by not giving a definite denial or acceptance to a developer, the developer might be encouraged to come to the Board 'lightly loaded', and might negate the opportunity to pass the information. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Mary T. Norton City Clerk e .