10-13-1998 - Joint Workshop
9HE CITY OF ED9EWA'TER
POST OFFICE BOX 100-EDGEWATER, FLORIDA 32132-0100
Mayor Randy G. Allman
District 1 Councilman James K.Gornto
District 2 Councilman Myron F. Hammond
District 3 Councilman Gary W. Roberts
District 4 Councilwoman Judith R. Lichter
Interim City Manager Kenneth R. Hooper
City Attorney Nikki Clayton
, City Clerk Susan J. Wadsworth
October 1, 1998
.PUBLIC NOTICE.'
The City Council of Edgewater will hold a joint workshop session with the Edgewater
Planning and Zoning Board and planning consultant Carl Gosline at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 13,
1998, in the Community Center. The purpose of the workshop is to discu,ss the direction, schedule
and goals for the creation of a new land development code.
:lizm
c:\meetings\wksj 10.138
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
104 NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE
(904)424-2404 FAX-(904)424-2409
City Council/Planning and Zoning Board
Joint Workshop
October 13, 1998
Staff has identified some of the following items to be addressed in new Land Development
Regulations:
• Concurrency Management
• Signage
• Parking Regulations
• Outdoor Storage
• Setbacks for Commercial and Riverfront Properties
• Communication Tower Locations
• Rural Land Use Categories
• Lot Coverage- Commercial Development
• Combination of Zoning Categories (if applicable)
• Development of Corridor Overlay Zones
2. Planning and Zoning Board and City Council to discuss concerns that have been voiced by
contractors, developers, attorneys, etc.
3. Mr. Gosline to discuss what conflicts have been found between the Code of Ordinance, Zoning
Ordinance, and Comprehensive Plan, in general.
Policy changes regarding zoning versus land use: Does the City want to make a change in the
method of regulating land development from prescribing how to get the end result(i.e., the current,
and widely used, conventional practice called zoning regulations)to a system that establishes the
end result desired without specifying how to get it(i.e., performance regulation system)?
The latter system provides far more flexibility for developers in their project design as long as the
potential off-site impacts are mitigated. The supporting argument is why should the City care how
a project is done as long as the end product mitigates off-site impacts. The performance system
virtually always results in better looking projects with less off-site impacts. The performance
system requires a huge leap of faith to give developers more project design flexibility. It is very
difficult for many people to visualize how it works and what the end results might be. It will also
require a longer period of time to become fully functional. Unless great care is taken in the
administrative processes it results in more subjective decisions by the City. Subjective decisions
can be more legally suspect. The conventional zoning system tends to result in more "cooking
cutter" appearing projects because the project design flexibility is considerably limited by more
rigid regulations. It does result in more objective (i.e., it either meets the requirements or it
doesn't)decisions by the City. However, a more objective decision process does not allow much
flexibility to respond to unusual situations. The current conventional system is in place and users
are comfortable with its requirements. Changes to the land development regulations that continue
the conventional system could be implemented immediately.
4. Staff to discuss returning site plans back to the Planning and Zoning Board for review including
threshold requirements.