City Commission Workshop Meeting

APPROVED:7/1/2021 MINUTES City Commission Workshop 4:00 PM -Wednesday, June 2, 2021 - City Hall CALL TO ORDER: 4:00 P.M. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF QUORUM AND PROPER NOTICE PRESENT: Commissioner Nan Cobb, Commissioner Willie Hawkins, Vice Mayor Emily Lee, Commissioner Karen LeHeup-Smith and Mayor Michael Holland 1. WORKSHOP ITEM WITH COMMISSION DISCUSSION, PUBLIC INPUT AND DIRECTION 1.1 Review of proposed amendments to Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan Lori Barnes, Development Services Director, introduced Heather Croney, the City's new Senior Planner. She noted that Ordinances 21-09 and 21-10 were tabled by the Local Planning Agency (LPA) to a date certain at the May 20th meeting so that a workshop could be held. She stated most of the proposed amendments to Chapters 110 and 115 are very minor and are intended to address discrepancies, inconsistencies between sections, and clarifications for practical application of the code. Ms. Barnes reviewed the various amendments beginning with Section 110-2 (b) (4) and the addition of "appurtenances/structures, and other similar structures as determined by the Development Services Director" to cover structures similar to those already exempted but not specifically mentioned. She then reviewed the proposed amendment to Section 110-2 (f) (2). She explained the proposal to clarify the language to remove "a non-ingress/egress easement" and add the following language to make it clearer "a deed restriction is recorded prohibiting vehicular access". She explained it would treat the secondary street as an interior common lot line and reduce the set back to 10 feet. She further explained that in order to have it considered as a side yard, they would have to limit their access to that side yard as long as the accessory structure remains. Ms. Barnes then reviewed the change to the lot width for duplex lots under Section 110-4.4. She stated that under Suburban Neighborhood & Rural Neighborhood design districts the duplex lot width is 90 feet but it is shown as 35 feet in Urban. She explained it would be impossible to put a duplex on a 35 foot wide lot. Therefore, staff is recommending the minimum duplex lot width be changed to 60 feet in the Urban design district. She then reviewed the Townhouse lot typology under Section 110-4.5. She said the section lists the minimum street setback at 10 feet; however, the footnote mandates that all garages in urban districts shall maintain a minimum 18-foot street setback. She indicated that did not leave sufficient room for stacking of vehicles. Therefore, staff is recommending changing the maximum setback in Suburban to 20 feet and the 18-foot minimum Eustis City Commission Workshop Page 1 of 6 June 2, 2021  for garages will be 18 feet regardless of the design district the townhome lot is located in. The Commission discussed how that would be applied. Ms. Barnes then reviewed Section 110-5 (b) (1) regarding accessory structures and inserting the phrase "or use". She stated that 110-5.2 (3) requires a minimum useable floor area of 450 square feet for an attached accessory apartment but did not include that minimum for a detached apartment. The Commission asked the purpose of adding the "or use" wording with Ms. Barnes explaining that any accessory structure or accessory use (such as a home occupation) should be incidental to the principal dwelling to insure that it does not become a full-fledged commercial activity. The Commission questioned how the City regulates home occupations with Ms. Barnes providing examples of regulations which limit home occupations. She noted that if the pending state legislation is approved, then staff will have to review the regulations to see what can be kept and what will have to be eliminated. Ms. Barnes then explained the amendment to Section 110-5.6 pertaining to boat houses. She explained that lot lines do not usually extend into the water so the wording is being changed to riparian lines. She indicated there are other regulations that govern setbacks for boat docks. Ms. Barnes reviewed Section 110-5. 7 regarding fences. She explained the current code requires permitting for all fencing regardless of how much. She stated staff wants to remove the permitting requirement when the sole purpose of the fencing is to screen trash cans, mechanical equipment or utilities and when it is not located within a setback. She then reviewed the section pertaining to the new regulations regarding the use of barbed wire as directed by the Commission. The Commission asked if there is industrial which could have barbed wire in close proximity to residential with Ms. Barnes responding affirmatively. Discussion was held regarding allowing barbed wire around any government property. Ms. Barnes then reviewed Section 110-5.13 which would allow the Development Services Director to approve alternate screening material when supported by site conditions rather than the currently required masonry or brick enclosure. She assured the Commission that if a business wants to not use the masonry or brick enclosure and it would be visible to the public it would have to come to the Commission for a waiver. Discussion was held regarding the poor condition of some "conex" boxes within the City with Ms. Barnes indicating that if they are replaced, then the City can require a screen enclosure. Discussion was then held regarding what could be addressed through code enforcement with Ms. Barnes stating she did not believe that the International Maintenance Code could be applied to metal storage boxes. She stated staff would research what can be enforced regarding those. Discussion was held regarding at what point does it quit being temporary storage and how the City could address those. Ms. Barnes stated staff would research what could be done regarding the storage boxes. Eustis City Commission Workshop Page 2 of 6 June 2, 2021  Ron Neibert, City Manager, noted that the ordinances are on the LPA and Commission agendas for the next night. Ms. Barnes added that staff can bring back information on the temporary, nonconforming, storage units separately. Mr. Neibert explained any that were put in prior to 2008 are grandfathered in and any put in after 2008 have to meet current code. Ms. Barnes explained that she is unaware of any nonconforming storage units put in after 2008. If staff became aware of a situation, they would make them go through the process to become compliant. Discussion was held regarding how the regulations apply to short-term storage containers versus long term storage containers and the difference between the storage units and temporary dumpsters. Ms. Barnes explained Section 110-5.15 pertaining to sheds and other accessory structures and the application of the regulations to both temporary and permanent structures. She then reviewed Section 115-4.3 pertaining to driveways and explained they are clarifying the difference between the requirements for residential and nonresidential and they are increasing the driveway widths to a minimum 18 feet on collector/arterial roads. She explained the intent was to reduce the number of curb cuts on a road and increase safety by requiring a minimum of 25-feet between driveways. Ms. Barnes then reviewed Section 115-3 regarding residential compatibility and design district transitions. She explained that these provisions have resulted in challenges to subdivision plan approvals. She noted that some definitions in the code were amended in November 2020 in an attempt to clarify the legislative intent of the Commission and the City in applying the regulations; however, even after the modifications questions were raised regarding the ambiguity of the language and differing interpretations of the code regarding practical application to a development plan approval. Ms. Barnes explained that the Comprehensive Plan provides for residential compatibility through the use of landscape buffers, natural areas and transitional development practices. It also provides that the City make development decisions that are fair, predictable and cost effective. She stated that the prior provisions of the code required that new lots adjacent to existing lots be 85% of the adjacent lot width. She commented on difficulties with how some subdivisions were built in the past and concerns regarding application of the prior code. She stated that in planning practices, comprehensive plan design and land development regulation design the goal is to make standards consistent and measurable. She added the intent is also to eliminate the possibility of ambiguous language, differing interpretations in order to clarify the Commission's legislative intent and protect the City from legal liability and challenges of subdivision plan approvals. Ms. Barnes commented on her discussion with the Commission back in April and then reviewed the proposed language to be added to the code: "The compatibility standards below provide standard and predictable measures for establishing and creating compatibility through landscapes, buffers, natural areas or transitional Eustis City Commission Workshop Page 3 of 6 June 2, 2021  development practices in an effort to lessen impacts and integrate development along the edges of properties where different land use districts or densities are present." She emphasized this is provided for in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and stated the purpose is to clarify the purpose of the regulations. She indicated the standards are also in addition to the City's design district standards in Chapter 109 and that call for compatible lot typologies. As an example, she noted that in the Suburban Neighborhood design district, they don't allow multi-family lot types adjacent to existing single family lot types. She emphasized these are added standards in addition to what is already in the City's form-based code to provide for compatibility. Discussion was held regarding how what is being proposed is to provide measurable standards and options for property owners and developers and helps to eliminate ambiguities about definitions such as abutting. Ms. Barnes explained the City's form-based code which uses urban, suburban and rural transects. She stated that where the design districts transition from urban to suburban and suburban to rural, the City wants to have a practical transition between the districts. She explained that what staff is proposing is standards that will create a flow between urban, suburban to rural. She stated that new lots adjacent to an urban district can't be more than 110% of the width of the existing lots unless the developer installs landscape buffering. She provided additional examples of width limitations and requirements for additional buffering. She emphasized they are not discussing residential versus commercial, they are talking about where different design districts abut. Ms. Barnes further explained the requirements will be set with flexibility to add landscape buffers or buffer walls in transition areas. She reviewed the transition language for areas between different districts. She emphasized that the intent is to keep the urban feel throughout the urban areas and a suburban feel in the suburban areas. She noted that if a new suburban development does not have central sewer then the lots may have to exceed the 150% width in order to accommodate septic tank and drainfield. The Commission asked for clarification of the additional allowable space to make up for sewer and Ms. Barnes explained it depends. She indicated they can have up to four units per acre if they have water but no sewer. She added that the City does not have very much vacant land in the suburban areas that don't have sewer available or that have substantial unplatted land. She confirmed that the design district standards were implemented in 2008. Ms. Barnes reviewed the rural district compatibility standards. She commented on the lack of measurable standards in the existing standards. She stated the standards need to be predictable and measurable and not subject to interpretation. The Commission asked how it is determined that a development is urban or suburban with Ms. Barnes indicating that the urban, suburban and rural districts are set. She explained that there is a design district map that shows where each district is located. She further explained that the code requires that a consistent development transect apply. She stated that when someone requests annexation into the City, staff brings to the Commission the request for annexation along with assignment of a land use designation and design district designation . If an Eustis City Commission Workshop Page 4 of 6 June 2, 2021  applicant asks for an urban neighborhood design district in an area already designated suburban neighborhood, it would not be consistent with the established development transect, then staff would recommend denial. She further explained how the intent is to transition development. She provided examples of inconsistency and lack of measurable standards within the current code that would be subject to interpretation. The Commission asked about the effect on projects already in process with Mr. Neibert stating any project already in process can develop under the current regulations . Ms. Barnes continued the review of the rural design district transition requirements stating the new lots may be no more than 200% of the existing suburban lots unless they are nonconforming. She then stated that where rural abuts an existing rural development, then the new lots cannot be less than 85% of the existing lots unless there is a landscape buffer of at least 15 to 25 feet wide which is wider than what would be required for urban or suburban. The Commission asked for further clarification with Ms. Barnes providing additional examples of what might occur in various situations. She emphasized that what is proposed is predictable, fair, and measurable standards. She stated while she cannot guarantee the City won't be sued based on the new standards, she can state it will minimize the ambiguous language and the possibility that differing interpretations could create arguments about whether the standards apply. The Commission discussed the benefit of addressing the common boundaries and how it will provide smoother transitions. Recessed : 5:30 p.m. Reconvened: 5:38 p.m. Ms. Barnes stated the last change is to the loading and off-street parking. She indicated there were a number of uses that did not have parking standards. She explained that the National Planning Association has distributed parking standards. She stated that staff has looked at varying cities and how they compare to the City of Eustis and how they determined their required parking. She explained the intent is to keep the City out of trouble. The Commission asked how the move to tiny homes would affect the City's standards with Ms. Barnes explaining none of the proposed amendments would directly affect tiny homes. She stated it would depend on where they were proposed. She explained that every other use in the code had set standards for parking; however, the uses in the ordinance only said the parking requirement would be determined during site plan review. Ms. Barnes then explained what was considered when the amendments were prepared. The Commission asked how tiny homes would be regulated with Ms. Barnes explaining that the cottage lot typology would apply to a tiny home. She added that they actually can be placed on any lot as long as it meets other regulations and it is not on wheels. She explained that, if they are on wheels , they are Eustis City Commission Workshop Page 5 of 6 June 2, 2021  considered mobile homes and must be within mobile home lots. She then explained the Fair Housing Act requirements. 1.2 Review of Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ms. Barnes announced that the comprehensive plan text amendment was also postponed to a date certain. She stated that, if the Commission wants to postpone to another workshop, then at the Commission and LPA meeting they would have to postpone the text amendment to a date certain to avoid re-advertising costs. She commented on a number of items that are currently in the comprehensive plan that should be in the land development regulations. She said the comprehensive plan is supposed to be a broad framework with the detail in the land development regulations. She compared the size of the City's comprehensive plan to Tavares and Mount Dora's plans. She further commented on the amount of duplicative language contained within multiple elements. She stated that is unnecessary and much of the struck-through language is just removing the duplicative language. She then stated there is also too specific language within the comprehensive plan which makes it impossible for the Commission to consider a waiver to address a very unique situation. She stated the majority of the changes are for the purpose of cleaning up language, eliminating duplicative language and clarifying confusing language. She stated the meat of the amendment eliminates the rural residential and agricultural land use designations and making the map amendments discussed at the retreat in January. She offered to either continue the review, schedule another workshop or meet with the Commissioners individually. The Commission discussed holding another workshop with a consensus to hold a workshop on the comprehensive plan text amendment on June 16th at 4 p.m. The Commission thanked Ms. Barnes for her work and explanation . 2. ADJOURNMENT: 5:57 P.M. 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 Clerk Mayor/Commissioner Eustis City Commission Workshop Page 6 of 6 June 2, 2021