HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 11 04 City Commission Workshop Minutes
.
.
.
CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP
NOVEMBER 4, 1991
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Kulbes.
Ro 11 Call:
Mayor Philip A. Kulbes, Present
Commissioner Cindy Kaehler, Present
Camnissioner Don Jonas, Present
Commissioner John Langellotti, Present
Camnissioner Terri Donnelly, Present
Commissioner Paul P. Partyka, Present
City Manager R. Rozansky, Present
City Attorney F. Kruppenbacher
Attorney Kruppenbacher reviewed with the Camnission what happens next since the
City received the letter and camnents for DCA. The City has 60 days
statutori ly fl~cm the date received which was 10-12-91, to adopt the
Comprehensive Plan. You can opt to adopt the plan that you have already done
or you can opt to adopt the plan as amended taking into account the objections
and camnents from DCA, and that would take us to Dec. 11, 1991, and that would
be the date it has to be filed, so actually you would probably have to do it on
Dec. 10, 1991 and get it there for the 11th.
Kruppenbacher stated that DCA has a 45 day reVlew period, and during that
review period, they will issue a notice of intent; and they can do one of two
things with that notice of intent; they can issue a notice of intent to fine
the plan in compliance, and if they issue that document there is then a 21 day
per i od any member of the pub 1 i c can cha 11 enge the i r intent i on, if the 21 days
expire then the plan is accepted. If DCA issues a notice of intent that our
plan is not in canpliance the matter is immediately sent to a department of
Administrative Hearing Officer from Tallahassee. They are lawyers hired by the
State who do nothing but go around and hear hearings on revocations of teachers
licenses, medical, dentist licenses, etc. During that period of time the City
also engage in negotiations with DCA in an attempt to settle the matter.
AssLrning the City takes the process out fully, the DOA hearing officer enters a
recamnended decision that is then forwarded to the Governor and Cabinet for a
decision as the Board of Administration and the Governor and Cabinet can make a
decision to withhold some or all of your public dollars and/or direct that the
plan be written for the City and take the City out of the process and/or
withhold pending cal~liance, etc.
Kruppenbacher stated that there is no reported case at this point where anybody
has gone through that entire process.
Jonas asked what type of funds are we talking about. Rozansky stated probably
State Revenue Sharing, State Sales Tax, and Beverage.
Kruppenbacher also stated block grants if the City has any. Rozansky stated
that it could also affect the park grants, the one we have and the one we think
we will get.
Mayor Ku 1 bes stated that look i ng at the 1 etter fl~an DCA, the first read i ng of
the ordinance adopting this comprehensive plan is on Nov. 11, 1991, and the
18th of Nov. would be the second reading and the adoption of that ordinance
City Commission Workshop
November 4, 1991
. Page 2
adopting the ccmprehensive plan, we then must submit five copies to DCA by the
23rd of November. Kruppenbacher stated that it was his understanding that the
second reading of the ordinance is planned for Dec. 9, 1991, and then the plan
would go to DCA right after that meeting.
Kruppenbacher stated that the rough draft of the plan will be needed when the
advertisement goes in the paper. He stated that if a citizen wanted to look
over the plan, we would need to have a copy for review or we would have a
faulty approval process.
Rozansky stated that the City's Charter states that at the first reading of an
ordinance there is a period of 30 days before the second reading to give the
citizens a chance to look it over before adoption, does this include the
Comprehensive Plan also. Kruppenbacher said that he would look into that, but
he believes the Comprehensive Plan law supersedes the City's Charter.
.
Kulbes said that it states in the introduction of the DCA report, in the third
paragraph, that each object ion must be addr'essed by the local goverrment and
corrected when the plan is resubmitted for the compliance review; objections
which are not addressed may result in a determination that the plan is not in
compliance. He asked the Attorney how detailed are we required to be to
respond to all the questions; suppose we feel that scmething is not applicable
to our City, can we say that is not applicable to this City?
Kruppenbacher stated that every CC!1Tnent is va 1 i d fOt~ the standpo i nt that it has
to be answered. You may state that based upon professional planning advice
based on these factors, which you need to state, can be sent back in that form
to DCA , and they may agree or they may not agree. if DCA does not agree, then
we end ~p in litigation over that particular issue, but you have to treat every
objection as requiring a response. Unless the City has a letter fran DCA
stating they are specifically backing off of that particular objection, you
need to respond.
Kruppenbacher stated that in terms of replying to DCA's objections, you should
reply in the exact order that they gave them to YOL;o
Kruppenbacher stated he recoomends the City Manager accompany Koch to
Tallahassee when she goes there for an informal review of the City's comments.
Koch gave the Ca1Ti1ission a list of policy decisions that they need to go over
before we can put out a rev i sed plan. She stated that MI~. Tipton is present to
give insight into what DCA IS doing with regard to concurrency and allowing
communities to vary somewhat so that each facility is concurrent.
.
Koch stated that the first pol icy decision undel~ traffic circulation is as we
build our collector road system, we thought we should get credit for that
capacity we create to use toward meeting concurr~ency fot, SR 434, that is
shouldn't be our responsibi 1 ity to defer development because othef~ traffic is
increasing on the highway from other development outside the City.
City Oannission Workshop
Novenber 4, 1991
. Page 3
Koch stated that Mr. Tipton will bring us up to date on DCA and DOT proposed
rule changes, and whether he thinks the City should maintain their proposition
that the City should be able to count this capacity regardless of what is wrong
with SR 434.
Bill Tipton, Tipton Associates, stated that recently DCA and DOT had a
conference in Orlando requesting input on the rule changes. One of the things
that there may be a possibility of getting some r~elaxation on is the link by
link capacity analysis and bring into account what Koch has described in terms
of looking at corridors and areas as a whole as opposed to just looking at
individual roadway segments. He stated that certainly for both the City's
north/south and east/west flow through the City, he reccmnends that the City
continue to stay on the path that we are on in looking at a corridor approach.
He also stated that Orange County is following this same path with their
transportation concurrency and looking at corridors as opposed to individual
pieces of individual roads.
.
Tipton .3tated that he thinks the second thing IS the viability in the
north/south and east/west direction where the City has only one facility at
the present time through the City; there are a number of reasons for there
being a second facility; in particular the east/west one is more impact in
terms of the wetlands and this is also the one that would serve the school. He
stated that he feels that is another tie in that would catch the ak of DCA,
and feels the City will end up getting positive results from thffil in the long
run on both those issues.
Koch asked the Attot~ney what would happen if the City said that we would 1 ike
to leave our policy as is and they still didn't agree with it. Kruppenbacher
stated "':.hat they wou 1 d give you theit~ thoughts en whether they wi 11 accept it
or not when you go to Tallahassee for the informal review. If they say they
will not accept it then you can come back to the Corml i ss i 01-, and ask the
Commission to glve that insight and then the Commission can decide.
Kaehler asked how can a pol icy decision be made if they ar'e in the process of
changing some of the rules. Kruppenbacher stated that they know which way the
rules are going to change, they probably will tal:( with you in terms of working
in that direction. Kaehler~ stated that in other words we have to anticipate
what the rule changes will be and guide our pel icy in that direction.
Kruppenbacher stated yes.
~
Tipton said that at the last meeting he attended he felt better because the
people from DOT were saying give thffil reasons why they should be considering
something different other than the specified nu~bers and levels of service that
they are calling for in their rule, and if you have reasons for that they will
listen to the reasons, and they may grant you relief in certain itffils, but they
are saying on the other hand they really think that those levels of service
that we have established are what we ought to be reaching for and maybe we can
not always get thffil, but if you can't give than the reasons why and then they
will give you some relief. DOT also indicated that their review of the City
Corrnlission Workshop
November 4, 1991
. Page 4
transportation situation was really only a l~ecorrmendation to DCA and that DCA
would we making the final decision and could take apart their (DOT)
reconmendat i on.
Kl~uppenbacher stated that one of the th i ngs they have seen done is some of the
entities have stated that they were going to a tiered approach plan, if the
rule is adopted they will do "X", if it is not adopted they will do "y".
Partyka stated to Tipton that there is one objection they talk about and that
is our figure is based on projection l~oad capacity, and that it is different
from DOT. He asked Tipton how do we so 1 ve that bas ic d i 1 emna, that the i t~
assunptions are different than ours.
Tipton explained that the reviewers at DCA are reading the latest papel~ that
DOT has put out and the work we did was done alnust two years ago. We used the
latest paper that was available at that time.
Thera was discussion on the process of the reV1ew.
.
Kaehler asked what is the question or policy decision we need to make
concerning traffic circulation.
Koch stated should we continue our proposal that we should get credit for~ the
collector road systern we build and be able to per~mit up to the capacity we
created even though the state road may be over its level of service. We are
not doing anyone else any harm, the situation is SR 434 is over its level of
service, and if we build this by-pass road we are not creating any nure traffk
on SR 434. I f we on 1 y permi t :"'ip to the capac i ty that we acconmodated by
building that road.
Kruppenbacher asked Tipton what is his recorrmendation.
reccmnends we continue to maintain the position we have.
City need to give more reason for their proposal.
Tipton stated that he
He did state that the
The Corrn1ission was in agreement that the City maintain the present proposal on
traffic cil~culation but 91'v'e more reasons VJhy.
Koch spoke on potable water. She stated that nust of the issues they address,
we have already addressed, we just need to show them where the data is in the
study, and make some nud i f i cat ions in the 1 anguage. Thet~e is one part i cu 1 al~
issue that is a policy issue and that has an affect on half the popL<lation and
could be expensive.
.
Ten~y Zaudtke, Conklin Porter & Holrnes, stated that what was reported in the
documents to DCA was the amount of 500 gpd, which is in the ordinance, which 1S
a reflection on the average consumption on the Tuscawilla side of town.
There was discussion on getting the east side of town's consumption down fnxn
500 gpd to 350 gpd.
.
City Commission Workshop
November 4, 1991
Page 5
Kruppenbacher asked Zaudtke what h -j s reccnmendat ion is on th i s par~t i cu 1 ar
lssue.
There was discuss i on on th i S j SSLje.
Zaudtke stated that his base reccnmendation would be to defend the 500 gpd as
an existing level with goals with a conservation effort to attempt to reduce it
to the 350 gpd but to rely more on the new growth reduction of new growth to
get to that level rather than trying to reduce oU1~ existing custaner base, and
I feel that the merger that the City Managet~ brought up about canbining the two
systems we are going to get there much quicker~.
Zaudtke stated that the big issue on sanitary sewers, lS septic tanks; he
stated that he feels part of the problem they had with our sep-:ic tank
explanation we did not refer to a specific State law that requires subdivisions
within a quarter m~'e to cOi....nect to a collection 3ystan. He stated that if the
City amends that that will helj:) that situation, there are only a few areas left
which are the undeveloped lots in the Ranchlands that are even open for septic
tank use. The big issue is whether or not we would require the existing septic
. tank peop 1 e to get off sept i c tanks.
Discussion.
The consej',SUS on sanitary Sewer was to modify the ct~dinance according to state
standards.
Kulbes said let's go on to conservation.
Koch stated that a big part of our conservation push is to try to have all
envirormentally sensitive areas within the developments dedicated to the
pub 1 i c, or at 1 east covet~ed by easements. There was a concern on that statement
because if we stake a claim to private property based on the fact that it is
sensitive and environnentally significant, that any property owner could cane
in and d~iand that we buy that part of their property that we classified as
conservation. DCA is suggesting that we strengthen the language.
.
Kruppenbacher stated that he feels the easiest way to do this is to call DCA
and ask them to give us the easiest way that they think 1S the workable
1 anguage. He stated that thel'e are two prob 1 elliS, we can not affoi~d to back
into an argument that we have taken property econanicallyand we can't fall
prey to an argument that we have to mainta-in the property; both of which Clil.
have major econanic ramifications to the City. He stated that since DCh
doesn't 1 i ke our 1 anguage, we shou 1 d ask thelTI ::0 te 11 us what they do 1 i ke,
because if what they like 15 that we are going to take property, my
j~ecOllmendation to you wi 11 be that we have a major fight with them on that
lssue.
Koch also stated getting into the specifics on how we are going to protect what
areas of the environnent, they are asking fo:~ more specific detail about what
.
City Commission Workshop
Noven~~er 4, 1991
Page 6
exactly we are going to do on each of the different areas of the City. Our
plan is to have an environmental consultant draft our land development
regulations that will include ":he protection of the wetlands. She stated with
talking with the people from DCA, we came up with the idea of temporally
adopting the references that we had added in our suppor": studies which are
guidelines drawn up by the Planning Counc~l and other agencies that are
involved in creating the standards for ":he protection of wetlands, lake shores,
vegetative wildlife habitats, and native vegetation.
Koch said an option is to adopt by ,~eference the best available standards for
this area to use as a guideline if we have some development plans come before
our official regulations are drawn up; and she asked if there was any problem
with that.
Discussion.
Kulbes stated that the state Legislature a few years ago was prohibited from
mandating regulations without providing funds; DCA can't mandate sanethin:j
without providing funds either.
.
Kulbes asked if we make a comment to the effect
federal ana state j-equirernents that tha": is r,ot
that the City wi~l
suff i c i ent.
adhel~e to
Koch said yes, we did state that and they are aware that all governments do
that but what they are saying is the local goverrment needs to go beyond those
and set up additional regulations of their own adding tc those that they
r~equire. they don't give us any idea cf what else they want and how far they
want us to go.
Kulbes asked Koch what is her recommendation.
Koch stated that as she mentioned they are agreeable to adopting as an interim
measure the P 1 ann i ng Counc i 1 ' s standards ~l other 1 oca 11 y dr~ awn gu i de: i nes
until we have our new development regulations dr'awn up; which will only be less
than six month.
Kruppenbacher stated that nothing precludes us
County environmental regulations. We can say we
state can enforce them, and if they don't agree,
we need to put the burden on them. He also
essence what is in the state's rrodel, so I would
if we adopt st. John's we are deficient.
fran adopting the state and
will adopt the State's and the
find out why they don't agree;
stated that st. John's has in
like the state to ":e~l us whj
The Canmission was in agreement to state that the City adopts the state and st.
John's Water Management District's regulations.
. Kulbes said we wi 11 not go over lar,d use.
Koch sa i d that DCA is bas i ca 11 y say i ng that we are show ns too much 1 aiil! to be
developed. We could leave some areas at the one dwell ng unit per acre during
.
.
.
City Carmission Workshop
Nov~ber 4, 1991
Page 7
the short term planning period and in the il,ean time the County has a task force
for economic studies. I think one thing I can go back to them with is what we
are propos i ng is not near 1 y as intense as CCfnllerC i a 1 deve 1 opment norma 11 y is.
We are planning on it being spaclO:Js and compatible with residential.
Koch explained that until we have the economlc study it is hard to say what
will be feasible in this area. We could say that we are leaving it as it is
until we have more information and once we get the study we will revisit the
map. We will give them more information to support our statements.
The Commission was in agreenent.
There was discussion on the timetable as to when the carments and objections
from DCA will be address.
Rozansky stated that starting tOfl1crrow (Nov. 5) he is meeting with appropriate
staff and will go ovet~ each objection CI-Ie by one and assign duties and dates
these are to be canpleted.
There was discussion on other 'dCl~kshops. :::,::"za:~isky stated he
Cannission abreast on the progress and wi 11 get with the Mayot~ if
need for additional workshops for' pol icy decisions.
will keep the
he feels the
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
Respectfully Subnitted
Margo Hopkins
Deputy City Clerk