City Commission Workshop Meeting

APPROVED: 12/5/2013 City Hall City of Eustis, Florida 10 North Grove Street Post Office Drawer 68 Eustis, FL 32727-0068 Meeting Minutes - Final* City Commission Workshop Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:00PM City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Muenzmay ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QUORUM AND PROPER NOTICE Present: 5- Linda Bob; Albert Eckian; Michael Holland; Karen LeHeup-Smith; and Kress Muenzmay I. Workshop Item 13260 Review of Land Development Regulations: Chapters 98, 100, and 102 Dianne Kramer, Acting City Manager, explained that the workshop would cover Chapters 98, 100 and 102 of the Land Development Regulations. She noted that Chapter 98 was not reviewed or revised during the 2008 review. She stated the proposed changes to Chapter 98 are those sections that are now outdated. Mayor Muenzmay opened the floor for public comment. There being no public comment, the public input on Chapter 98 was closed. CONSENSUS: It was a consensus of the Commission for staff to revise Chapter 98 as proposed to remove the outdated provisions. II. Commission Discussion Ms. Kramer reviewed the proposed revisions to Chapter 100: Definitions noting the chapter will need to be revisited as changes are made to the other chapters to make sure it remains consistent. The following recommended revisions were reviewed: 1) Page 3 - Bed and breakfast inn - Removal of statement indicating all residential structures requesting a bed and breakfast conditional use permit must be an official historic structure; 2) Page 7 - "density, net" and "development". Ms. Kramer explained the net density is used to determine the maximum density and that development describes what types of activities require a permit. 3) Page 10 and 11 - Frontage Types - Removal of illustrations as those are elsewhere in the regulations; 4) Page 12- "historic tree"- She noted that the City has never designated an historic tree. The Commission discussed whether or not there are any trees that could be so designated within the City. Joan Bryant, Trout Lake Nature Center, confirmed that she is unaware of any historic trees within the City. CONSENSUS: It was a consensus to remove the definition of "historic tree". Ms. Kramer continued the review as follows: 5) Page 12 - Home occupation - Addition of "See Section 109-4 for limitations." and Impervious surface- Elimination of "including graveled driveways and parking areas". 6) Page 14- Level of service (LOS) standard- Elimination of "specifically in the policies under capital improvements element goal 1". 7) Page 15 - Master plan - Elimination of a portion of the definition due to it being overly wordy. 8) Page 15 - Open Space/ General- Recommended that a separate workshop will be held on this definition; and 9) Page 18- Professional service/office- Elimination of specified uses which are covered in Chapter 109. City of Eustis, Florida Page 1 Printed on 1112612013 City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final November 14, 2013 The Commission noted that "historic tree" should be removed from the list of protected trees. Ms. Kramer continued the page review as follows: 10) Page 19- Shielding- To be omitted as it is not a definition and the regulations are covered in Chapter 115; 11) Page 21- Ground sign- recommended eliminating- do not have anything in regulations that pertains to ground signs; 12) Page 22- Specimen tree- recommended eliminating; 13) Page 23- DCA has been changed to Department of Economic Opportunity and also recommended eliminating the graphics regarding street types and including a reference to Chapter 110-6; and 14) Page 25- Transect- Recommended eliminating as it doesn't pertain to the City's code. The Commission discussed the definition of "tree inventory" and "tree protection zone" with Ms. Kramer explaining the difference. Mayor Muenzmay opened the floor to public comment on Chapter 100 at 5:24p.m. There being no public comment, public input was closed on Chapter 100. Ms. Kramer explained Chapter 102 sets forth the types of information that applicants have to provide and sets the threshold for when permits, review and public hearings are required. The Commission questioned if there is substantial variance in regulations between other areas of the state and other municipalities. Ms. Kramer confirmed there are other places that are much more restrictive and some places less restrictive. She explained that what is required in the City's regulations is the information necessary for the City to conduct a good review to allow the Commission to make an informed decision. She stated that staff does try to assist developers with not requiring items that cost money if the information is not essential. She explained how a pre-application review is conducted and the flexibility that allows staff to determine if a particular requirement is unnecessary. The Commission asked if the previously approved housing developments had to go through the same process with Ms. Kramer stating the current process is very similar to what the City had before. She explained that the new process was divided into two steps to allow a developer to obtain preliminary approval from the City Commission before having to undertake the expensive engineering, grading and final planning. The Commission then asked if general information such as soil types and topography is available from other entities' geological surveys does the applicant have to repeat those. Ms. Kramer explained the soil information required for the initial review is readily available and does not require soil borings. She stated that most developers will already have their topographical, tree and boundary survey done as those will be needed to determine how the property will be developed. The Commission discussed not including regulations that are not required by statute with Ms. Kramer explaining why different requirements are included. Ms. Kramer reviewed the proposed revisions to Chapter 102 as follows: 1) Page 2- 102-1 (6)- (10) Correcting formatting only; 2) Sec. 102-2. Applicability- added clarification under subsection (a) and adding subsection (c) defining exempt activities and clarifying that a change in use will not require a development to come into total conformance with the City's development regulations. She explained that a change in use would trigger a review to make sure items such as parking are adequate for the new use but they would not be required to bring all items up to current code. The Commission discussed issues with various properties including "perpetual" yard sales and changes in use at various locations, when those issues should be addressed, having code enforcement be more proactive rather than reactive, the possibility of demolishing rundown buildings, enforcing the City's property maintenance code, addressing nonconforming uses, problems with properties in gateway areas and the possibility that the issues may be detrimental to the City's economic turnaround. City of Eustis, Florida Page2 Printed on 1112612013 City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final November 14, 2013 The Commission requested that code enforcement prepare a report with pictures of those areas that, if directed to become more proactive, they would pursue for violations particularly in gateway areas. Ms. Kramer noted some communities have programs which provide funds to assist individuals with refurbishing homes and businesses. She cited the funds currently set aside for economic development that could possibly be re-designated. She commented on the success of Kissimmee 's paint program. The Commission discussed the proposal with the suggestion that such a program would include an additional requirement for maintenance so if an individual receives funding, and they don't maintain the property, they will be cited. They also discussed requiring matching funds and the City's previous CDBG program that was used for downtown renovation. It was noted that when the County provides funds for home renovation they require maintenance for a ten-year period. Ms. Kramer indicated she would schedule a workshop to review the code enforcement report once completed. She continued the Chapter 102 review as follows: 1) Sec. 102-2.2- prohibiting conversion of a single family residence to a duplex or multi-family unit. It was a consensus to leave the section as is. 2) Cleanup changes in Sec. 102-3 and 102-4; 3) Sec. 102-5- Optional Review of Conceptual Plan - Removal of Development Review Committee due to applicants wanting preliminary plans reviewed by the Commission; 4) Sec. 102-6 (e)- Community Meeting Notice requirements- Removed due to inability of applicant to complete so it is completed by staff; and 5) Sec. 102-7 - Notice Requirements- Recommended changing from 14 days to 10 days to be consistent with all other requirements. The Commission discussed whether all development applications should go to the Commission with Ms. Kramer noting that before the 2008 update only applications that required waivers were taken to the Commission. The 2008 update changed it so everything goes to the Commission which slows up the process. Ms. Kramer noted that if an application meets all of the code requirements and, therefore, is approved by staff, it protects the Commission. She confirmed that, if an application met all criteria, the site would not be posted and notices would not be sent to the surrounding property owners; however, staff would notify the Commission of the approval of the project. The Commission discussed the use of manufactured homes, particularly in the Suburban Residential designation, with Ms. Kramer noting that manufactured homes are allowed by state law. She added that the Commission would not know about the use of manufactured homes when reviewing the preliminary subdivision plan. She explained that in the Brookshire (previously Las Fuentes) development, the developers agreed to include in their development agreement that they would not use manufactured homes but the City did not have the ability to restrict their use. She added they were requesting waivers so they would have come to the Commission anyway. Ms. Kramer reviewed the definition of a manufactured home and explained the difference between manufactured homes and mobile homes. The Commission further discussed use of manufactured homes, inability of the City to restrict the use of manufactured homes and the use of a community meeting with a proposal that it be made mandatory so the residents can discuss the project with the developer. A suggestion was also made that, if a project conforms with all requirements, the City could send out letters to the surrounding residents and post a sign announcing the project will be coming and that it meets all City regulations with information for residents to contact to ask questions. Ms. Kramer suggested that she discuss the issue of manufactured homes with the City Attorney and that the community meeting could be mandatory for any project that does not require any waivers since, if it has waivers, it will be brought to the Commission for a public hearing. CONSENSUS: It was a consensus of the Commission to leave the community meeting requirement as is and for staff to discuss manufactured homes with the City Attorney. City of Eustis, Florida Page3 Printed on 1112612013 City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final November 14, 2013 The Commission discussed Page 11 "other actions affecting real property" with Ms. Kramer explaining the section is very broad and includes everything including water service and the City buying or selling property. CONSENSUS: It was a consensus of the Commission for Ms. Kramer to provide wording to identify exceptions to the posting of property and mailing of notices. Ms. Kramer continued the Chapter 102 review citing the following proposed revisions: 1) Sec. 102-10 - addition to (a) for clarification; 2) Sec. 102-10. 1 Gated communities - Ms. Kramer commented on the previous review of the section and cited problems that arose with gated communities and homeowners associations. She recommended leaving it alone until new problems arise. The Commission discussed whether the City has authority to ensure homeowner associations have escrowed sufficient funds for maintenance with Ms. Kramer stating there is a monitoring provision within the section but the City does not have enforcement ability. Ms. Kramer continued the review noting the following revisions: 1) Sec. 102-14 (b) clarification of application of time limitation; 2) Sec. 102-16 - Time for amendments - statutory changes pertaining to small scale amendments; 3) Sec. 102-17- Design District Amendments- removal of "transect" as previously discussed; and 4) Sec. 102-23- Fees- Changed establishment offees by resolution rather than ordinance. III. Public Input -None Mayor Muenzmay opened the floor to public comment on Chapter 102 at 6:46p.m. There being no public comment, the public input was closed. IV. Commission Direction CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to proceed with revisions to Chapters 98, 100 and 102 as discussed. V. Adjournment - 6:47 p.m. City Clerk *These minutes reflect the actions taken and portions of the discussion during the meeting. To review the entire discussion concerning any agenda item, go to www.eustts.org and chck on the video for the meeting in question. A DVD of the entire meeting or CD of the entire audio recording or verbatim transcript of the meetmg can be obtamed from the office of the City Clerk for a fee . City of Eustis, Florida Page4 Printed on 1112612013