City Commission Workshop Meeting

APPROVED: 8/6/2015 City Hall City of Eustis, Florida 10 North Grove Street Post Office Drawer 68 Eustis, FL 32727-0068 Meeting Minutes - Final* City Commission Workshop Tuesday, June 16, 2015 5:30PM City Hall CALL TO ORDER: Acting Mayor Holland - 5:30 p.m. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QUORUM AND PROPER NOTICE Present: 4- Karen LeHeup-Smith; Linda Bob; Bill Brett; and Michael Holland I. Workshop Item 15123 Review of Land Development Regulations Dianne Kramer, Development Services Director, explained the history of the review of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and explained the need to eliminate inconsistencies, conform with current state statutes and eliminate roadblocks to development. She provided an overview of each chapter citing any changes made since the previous review as follows: 1) Chapter 98 - General Provisions - Ms. Kramer explained the chapter contains general provisions with no substantive changes and none since the last workshop. 2) Chapter 100 - Definitions - Ms. Kramer explained they tried to eliminate any duplications. She cited that "conservation area" was clarified to show that it was not referring to a specific designation but only to describe what a conservation area is. Regarding the "bed and breakfast" definition, the requirement for it to be an historic structure had been eliminated but previously that was not removed from the first sentence. The frontage type illustrations were supposed to be removed from the definitions as they are in another section of the regulations. She stated that "hand bills" were removed as they are covered in the Code of Ordinances. On Page 12, historic tree should have been eliminated from the definitions and in the tree section. She explained the removal of gravel driveways and parking areas from the definition of impervious surface. She noted they had never been considered impervious but it was included previously in the definition. She stated that the only change under the "open space" definition was referencing another section. She explained that the only change regarding open space in the LDRs was to the percentages required. 3) Chapter 102 -Administration and Enforcement- Ms. Kramer explained the chapter covers the administration of the regulations including advertisements and processing of applications. She commented on various numbering errors that will be corrected in the clean copies. She cited discussion in the first workshop to add a paragraph C under Section 102-2 Applicability She read proposed wording as follows: "The following activities are exempt from any requirement to bring an entire site or development into total conformance with these regulations if in conflict with a previously approved plat or plan: 1) a valid site plan or subdivision plan which was approved prior to the adoption of a regulation and was continuing in good faith; 2) an alteration of an existing building or structure as long as no change was made to the gross floor area, its use or the amount of impervious surface on the site; 3) the resurfacing of a vehicular use area; and 4) a change in use. " She noted a change in use of a building in other communities may be used to force the application to bring a structure into compliance. She stated the community meeting was changed to be encouraged and not required. She noted that most applicants want to have a community meeting particularly if requesting something controversial. She reviewed the recommended changes to Section 102-7 - Notice Requirements. She cited a portion of the notes at the bottom of the section pertaining to posting and explained the recommendation to remove that section from the notes. CONSENSUS: It was a consensus of the Commission to strike the posting requirement from the notes. City of Eustis, Florida Page 1 Printed on 113112015 City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final June 16, 2015 Ms. Kramer noted more specific wording added under Final Plats, typographical errors corrected under Gated Communities, additions to the PUD Overlay and guidelines for the approval process. She explained there probably won't be as many requests for PUDs because of having the mixed use districts and the flexibility of the form-based code. She explained the elimination of "transect" under Design District Amendment. She noted a change in language to clarify that a design district amendment could be processed when there was an annexation due to the property coming in without a designation. She added the language was changed so fees may be adopted by resolution rather than by ordinance. 4) Chapter 106- Concurrency Management- Ms. Kramer stated the chapter is now rarely used due to the elimination of transportation concurrency. She indicated the City has plenty of water and sewer capacity so there is no need for developers to prepay in order to reserve capacity. She added that in the future the City may need to change that if capacity becomes tight. 5) Chapter 109 - Land Use Districts and Design Districts - She noted the elimination of Local Convenience Center District, Neighborhood Commercial and Light Industrial District. She explained the addition of language to 109-3.1 due to not having a Conservation design district. She explained the elimination of the Development Patterns map. She noted the elimination of some labels on the graphics but the graphics are not being eliminated. Under Sec. 109-4 (b) Use Table -Adult Congregate Living Facilities was eliminated and the definitions clarified. On Page 17 - Warehouse and freight movement - She cited previous discussion to limit that use to under MCI. She explained the "limited" would mean that it has to be compatible and consistent with the adjacent building typologies. She cited the addition of a hotel use. Ms. Kramer then stated there were additional changes relating to code enforcement and reviewed the changes to the intensity chart on Pages 41 and 42. She noted the recommendation to reduce the minimum open space from 40% to 25% in the residential districts. She explained that if a site is within the Wekiva District and has the designated vegetative communities then they sti/1 must have 35% open space. She commented on the recent changes to the comprehensive plan future land use element and the density bonuses which wi/1 reduce the amount of allowable density bonuses for affordable housing. The Commission discussed the maximum density bonuses for affordable housing and why the recent applicants were coming to Eustis with Ms. Kramer noting they had been reviewed by the Commission as conceptual plans only. Ms. Kramer noted the barbed wire prohibition was changed to allow it in commercial districts making it consistent with what the Commission approved without leaving it open to additional uses. 6) Chapter 110 - Design District Standards - Ms. Kramer explained most of the changes are for clarification purposes. She noted on Page 5 - Paragraph f- was taken out of the urban design district standards because it actually applies to all design districts. On Page 4 - Yards (2) a. verbiage was added to remind people that if there is a lake in the backyard there are different rear setbacks. Regarding tree requirements, Ms. Kramer explained they were changed to make the required trees understory trees instead of canopy trees. Under the Rural Residential Compatibility, Ms. Kramer explained that the different density requirement for the land north of 44A was omitted; however they wi/1 still have to meet the residential compatibility requirement. She noted that some of the buffer requirements in the rural area were changed but there are still open space and impervious space requirements. Under the Jot types, the lot coverage was removed due to being inconsistent with the other sections. The building function was removed due to not being understood by the public. The maximum requirements for accessory buildings was also eliminated. She stated it was clarified that accessory structures are permitted in commercial areas as long as they are located in the rear and not visible from the front. On Page 60 the architectural design standards for single family residential was omitted. The garage requirements were changed in the urban areas to make them more flexible. She explained they put in a setback requirement from the right-of-way so there is sufficient room for a car but it would not be so far back from the building frontage. City of Eustis, Florida Page2 Printed on 713112015 City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes - Final June 16, 2015 7) Chapter 115- General Development Standards- Ms. Kramer indicated she did not receive any feedback from engineering so there will be some revisions that need to be made in the stormwater area. She stated the primary changes were for clarification. She stated it was clarified that grass overflow parking is permitted. She noted they removed the requirement for wheel stops from all parking areas. She explained the ADA requirements are now included by reference so the regulations don 't have to be changed whenever ADA requirements are changed. On Page 71 , she refe"ed to the conditional sign noting that an application for a conditional sign is scheduled for the June 18th agenda. She explained that when the conditional sign was added it was intended to apply to permanent signs, not temporary. II. Commission Discussion The Commission discussed "stick in" signs and how to address them for code enforcement purposes with Ms. Kramer explaining staff is developing a plan for enforcing the sign code. She stated their intent to notify businesses in order to give them the opportunity to address any issues. She indicated they would begin with one type of sign such as the "stick in" signs. She stated they will probably begin with those signs that are for businesses not located within the City. She noted that enforcing the sign code does take a lot of staff time. The Commission asked if off-site signs are the same as the "stick in" signs with Ms. Kramer explaining off-site signs are not allowed and that a business can only have sign age for their onsite business. She noted that no new billboards may be installed. Ms. Kramer summarized that the land development regulations needs to be a dynamic document which is changed as needed. She commented on the timing for adoption. She noted that the ordinance cannot' be adopted until the final appeal period has passed for the comprehensive plan amendment. She discussed options for adoption and indicated she would develop a schedule. She noted she had not yet received a receipt from the Dept. of Economic Opportunity regarding the comprehensive plan amendment. III. Public Input Steve Moulden asked about Chapter 102-6 and 102-7 and a possible conflict with Ms. Kramer explaining the change under 102-7 only states how the community meeting must be noticed if it is held. Mr. Moulden asked about more consistent enforcement of the sign ordinance with Ms. Kramer explaining that she and the Code Enforcement staff have discussed increasing the enforcement of the sign ordinance. She explained they will be sending out letters first reminding about the regulations and giving them the opportunity to address the issues first. Regarding the community meeting, she explained that any approvals that go to the Commission always have notice requirements. IV. Commission Direction CONSENSUS: It was a consensus of the Commission to proceed with first reading of the ordinance with second reading to occur after the comprehensive plan amendment is final. V. Adjournment-6:19p.m. MICHAEL L. HOLLAND \ ' City Clerk Mayor/Commissioner *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.eustis.org and click 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 meeting can be obtained from the office of the City Clerk for a fee. City of Eustis, Florida Page3 Printed on 713112015