Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-05-88 WS . MINUTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP HELD ON APRIL 5, 1988 The workshop was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Ison. PRESENT: Mayor Ison, Commissioners Johnson (arrived at 6:47 p.m.), Dabbs, Bateman and Hager, City Attorneys Rosenthal and Woodson, City Manager Ryan, City Planner Wagner and City Clerk Catron. ABSENT: No I"le DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED PUD ORDINANCE City Attorney Woodson explained that this was the second draft of the proposed PUD Ordinance. It included the comments and changes recommended by City Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. The changes that had been made were in legislative format; i.e., additions were underlined and deletions were struck through. He stated that sections 13.4 through 13.9 were fairly simple since they contained the standards and procedures for the PUD; but section 13.11 was more complicated as it set the site development procedures. He asked for comments from City Planner Wagner and the Commission. - Planner Wagner said that the process outlined in the proposed ordinance was basically the same as the one we had now, but we were asking for more detailed information in the beginning and the standards section was much more detailed and equal to, or a step above, what they were using for subdivision review. Mayor Ison asked the Commissioners if they had any areas of concern with the proposed ordinance. . Commissioner Dabbs questioned the origination of this proposed ordinance. Attorney Woodson explained that he had started with a draft which had been done by the former city attorney and was based on the Orange County PUD Ordinance. He also referred to the City of Orlando PUD Ordinance and had included some specifics that Planner Wagner had requested. Commissioner Dabbs then presented his areas of concerns. He asked on Page 16, Section 13.11 - 1 (i), why the 5~ had been reduced to 2~. Planner Wagner explained that this section only dealt with buffer zones and greenbelts, was Just one part of the overall open space requirement and allowed the reduction of the open space for one phase but the 20~ would still have to be maintained. Commissioner Dabbs asked if the 30~ figure in Section 13.11 - 2 (b) was standard and was told that it was. He also questioYled the "however" sel"lteYlce elf Section 13.11 - 3 (b) and Planner Wagner stated that they were trying to say that you still have to maintain the 20~ open space but this provision gave some flexibility on how the open space would be broken down. He asked the difference 1 . Page 2 City COMMission Workshop Apr il S, 1988 e on the setbacks mentioned in Section 13.11 - 3 (c) and Planner Wagner said that we already had setbacks for Local, Collector and Arterial Streets but we did not for an Expressway and the distance for the Collector Street had been increased from 30 to 35 feet. Commissioner Dabbs asked why they had added to Section 13.11 - 3 - Cd) (top of page 22) and Planner Wagner and Attorney Woodson explained that we had parcels of record and wanted to make sure they had right of access. Commissioner Dabbs and Commissioner Bateman both questioned the last sentence of Section 13.11 - 3 -(e) (iv) which dealt with landscaping and the Commission agreed to delete the entire sentence. Commissioner Dabbs also asked if the sign provisions had been deleted because of work on the new Sign Ordinance and was told that was the case. Commissioner Hager questioned the setback on the lakes being changed from 100 feet to 50 feet (Section 13.11 - 1 (c) and Planner Wagner stated that our current regulations were 35 feet and Orange County required 50 feet. Commissioners Hager and Bateman expressed concern with the 50' setback from the lakes and the Commission agreed to change it back to the 100' setback. Commissioner Bateman questioned the reductions in tree planting requirements for multi story structures in excess of 35' (Section 13.11 - 2 (g)). The concensus of the Commission was to delete that sentence. Commissioner Bateman said his other concerns were addressed by Commissioners Dabbs and Hager. There were no other comments. Attorney Woodson said he would incorporate the changes requested by the Commission and present for First Reading at the next Commission Meeting. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE .' Attorney Woodson stated that this was the third draft of the proposed ordinance and the result of meetings with City Staff. Meetings with the Homebuilders Association, Mr. Howell, attorney for the HBA and Mrs. Fitzgerald, attorney for ZOM Enterprises had been held but their comments had not been included as of this time. PEC, Inc. was doing a Master Transportion Study and it would be difficult to place a final impact fee until the study was completed. The monies collected from this interim fee would be placed in a trust until the study was completed and either substantiated the fee or showed the City could not collect the fee. The study was anticipated to be completed by December 1988. Attorney Woodson also stressed that the monies could D9i be used for repair or maintenance of existing facilities Q~! only for new construction needed due to the growth. He stated this ordinance was more complex and he had looked at others besides the City of Orlando and Orange County. He had spoken to an attorney with the Florida League of Cities, had contacted the University of Florida and looked at the . 2 ~J e Page 3 City COMMission Workshop April 5, 1988 ordinances of Seminole County, Lake County, City of Apopka and the City of Tampa. He explained that there were a lot of things that were required to be in the ordinance due to Judicial decisions. In Section 5 - Exhibit A, the fee was the same level as charged by Orange County but higher than some others. The level of fee was an important decision and the formula that was the basis for the fee was shown on Page 3 - Section 6. The percentage could go up or down depending upon what they wanted but he cautioned against changing the 7500 cap and the $600,600 cost as that would be determined by the study being done by PEC, Inc.. He pointed out Section 8 - Credits as another important part of the ordinance, as well as Section 9 - Vested Rights. These sections needed to be very clear especially for those people that had already signed development agreements and/or those who would not be required to pay the fee at all. e City Manager Ryan explained that this ordinance was a departure from any of the other ordinances on impact fees due to the fact that we would require the fee at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy and not the Building Permit. Mayor Ison asked that a workshop be scheduled for the proposed ordinance since they would not have time tonight for the review. John Howell, attorney for the HBA, expressed his concerns of legality with the proposed fee and that there were no exemptions. He also had concerns with the Vested Rights and asked the Commission to honor current Development Agreement!~. He also asked that a provision that the monies be spent in a certain number of years be included. Mrs. Fitzgerald, representing ZOM and Lake Bennett Ltd., asked that their existing Development Agreements be grandfathered. A workshop for the proposed ordinance was scheduled for April 19, 1988 at 6:30 p.m.. DISCUSSION ON HIRING OF CITY ATTORNEY . City Manager Ryan explained that we had received several letters/resumes from law firms that were interested in the position of City Attorney even though we had not formally advertised. He asked the Commission if they wanted to make public notice and advertise the position. Commissioner Dabbs said that if the position had not been advertised, he would like that done. City Manager Ryan asked if they wanted to advertise for a consulting attorney or an in-house attorney. The Commission suggested the position be advertised both ways. 3 . Page 4 Workshop 'ssion City COMMl . 1 5 1988 Aprl , adjourned at The workshop ATTEST: --- --- ------ --- CITY-CLERK e . 7.30 p.m.. ~~__~____ ---~ -MAYOR 4 ------04