Loading...
11-01-1994 - Workshop CITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER WORKSHOP NOVEMBER 1, 1994 7 :00 P.M. INDIAN RIVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice Mayor Martin called the Workshop to order at 7 : 00 p.m. at the Indian River Elementary School . ROLL CALL Mayor Jack Hayman Arrived Late Councilman Kirk Jones Excused Vice Mayor Louise Martin Present Councilman Michael Hays Present Councilman David Mitchum Present City Attorney Krista Storey Present City Manager George McMahon Present City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Excused Police Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present The Council excused Police Chief Schumaker from the Workshop. MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of the workshop was for the City Council to review the Land Development Regulations . Mark Karet made a staff presentation. He referred to a memo prepared by City Attorney Storey that had been handed out. Last week he, City Manager McMahon, City Attorney Storey and Mayor Hayman sat down to discuss some of the comments Mayor Hayman had with regard to the land development regulations in order to facilitate this meeting. Mr. Karet informed Council there was some language that staff thought it would be appropriate to change, which were very minor in nature, that were inadvertently left out of sections, including additional definitions . Most of the changes in Chapter 2 related to legal items and identifying certain individuals mentioned in the Code. Mr. Karet identified the changes in Chapter 3, Pages 3-1, 3-2 with regard to Mining Permits, Pages 3-3 and 3-8 with regard to the Code Enforcement Board, Page 3-6 with regard to an architect who is not a landscape architect being able to serve on the Construction Regulation Board, Pages 3-10 and 3-13 also with regard to Mining Permits, Chapter 5, Page 3-15 with regard to motions to reconsider, #6 related to the Code Enforcement Board, #7 correcting substantial comp and evidence to 1 Council Workshop November 1, 1994 read competent substantial evidence, Chapter 6 under Applications with regard to additional language, Chapter 8 under Guarantees & Sureties, and Chapter 10 was dealing with Hardship Relief. He informed Council they could insert the pages into the draft that was presented to them. Mr. Karet referred to the handouts of processes for site plans, subdivisions, and building permits that he provided to Council. Mr. Karet and City Manager McMahon addressed one of Mayor Hayman' s concerns with regard to wanting a dollar limit associated with an approved agreement that could be handled by the City Manager as it related to Chapter 8 - Guarantees & Sureties . He informed Council language was inserted identifying a form would be approved by Council so they would know exactly what type of agreements the City Manager was approving. Councilman Hays confirmed he would be approving similar type agreements . City Attorney Storey commented on the format for the agreement and the process being established in a form resolution where there would be a matter of filling in the dollar amount or time frame. Councilman Hays would rather look at more of these personally. He expressed concern with development agreements having little differences and they may have something exactly like something else that may not fit in a different neighborhood. Councilman Mitchum questioned how often this would take place. Mr. Karet identified it would be relatively rare and presented some examples . Mayor Hayman arrived at this time. City Manager McMahon identified the City' s policy and criteria would be set up in a contract format, which became the criteria for every type of contract that they would go through. He further identified things that may vary but the policy would have to be followed for each one. Any potential problems would be discussed with Council . Councilman Mitchum didn' t see where this was a problem or everyday occurrence and felt it could be put on an agenda and looked at. City Manager McMahon spoke of holding up small developments by making them wait to be put on the next agenda. City Attorney Storey commented on her experience in St. Lucie County and doing these types of agreements that were taken to the County Commission every time which meant holding up development. They created a standard form where all that changed were the name of the project, the dollar amount, the value of the improvement and the time frame. Everything else was standard. She further commented on the City establishing a policy that could facilitate the development process . City Manager McMahon spoke of people having commitments with 2 Council Workshop November 1, 1994 banks and having to be ready to go without a lot of red tape bureaucracy. Councilman Mitchum wanted to see agreements that were black and white with no room for deviation from the agreement. Mr. Karet identified they were going to give Council the form for their approval . City Manager McMahon saw no reason why Council should not at the time the agreement is consummated be sent a copy of the agreement. City Attorney Storey explained for Councilman Mitchum what would happen if Council didn' t approve of an agreement. Mr. Karet informed Council if they wanted to hear all of them or eliminate certain types of security that would be appropriate and that they would only deal with security the Council felt confident with. Mr. Karet commented on the evidence building and there being a bid bond and performance bond as well as other sureties which they checked the quality of. Councilman Mitchum had no problem with this as long as the checks and balances were in place. If there was something wrong with the system after they use it then they need to fix it. He expressed his confidence in the staff. He also felt there was no need to bog it down with too much. Councilman Hays commented on the goal of moving the process along. City Attorney Storey informed Council of another safeguard in the Code. Mr. Karet updated Mayor Hayman where they were with the presentation. Mr. Karet identified VCARD was there. Councilman Hays referred to Page 8-3 with regard to the different securities . He had no problem with striking Item 5 with regard to the letter of credit. Councilman Mitchum felt that was one of the better ones and that a bank letter of credit was like cash. Mr. Karet identified Item 6 was the weakest if they didn' t check out the company. There was further discussion regarding whether or not they should strike Item 6. A representative from VCARD referred to Section 4-1 with regard to Exceptions to Site Plan Procedures . He felt they might want to consider giving the Director or TRC some discretion, which he felt might be one of those unanticipated problems that come up. 3 Council Workshop November 1, 1994 There was further discussion regarding someone wanting to expand the footprint of the building and having to get a site plan. Mr. Karet identified for Exceptions A & B there was another process established and Exception C was the criteria they use today. He identified from staff' s perspective while staff in general likes to have a lot of discretion this was not an area where staff wanted a lot of discretion. City Attorney Storey explained they didn' t want to give staff discretion about criteria because then they run the risk of someone saying they liked someone so they let him do it. A representative from VCARD expressed concern with the non-refundable fee and having to reinitiate the review process and pay the fee again because of failure to respond within 120 days . Mr. Karet addressed his concerns by identifying as long as someone "responds" and lets them know they are hung up somewhere else in the process they work with that. This was more for people that just go away for a couple of years and then come back. There was a brief discussion regarding losing money in this process . If the Department Head review goes more than a half hour, they haven' t covered the cost. There was also a discussion regarding there being a standard review process for extensions through the LDRA. A representative from VCARD suggested having a catch all under the exceptions . Mr. Karet explained this was a matter of discretion and that this level and the site plan level had to be real specific. There was then a discussion regarding the City requiring topographic information and not a topographic survey, which would be a lot less expensive. A representative from VCARD referred to Page 4 and expressed his concern with regard to Time Limitation under Section 6. 03 and Page 8 with regard to a non-refundable fee to appeal an LDRA decision. Mr. Karet addressed his concerns . Councilman Hays suggested maybe a resubmittal should have a different fee. Mr. Karet informed him technically each application is "new". A representative from VCARD then asked about an applicant' s credentials . Councilman Mitchum pointed out where it said an owner/builder who meets all the criteria established by law shall be excused. A representative from VCARD asked about the Competency Card as it related to unlicensed contractors . Mr. Karet identified the Competency Card was used in every municipality he has ever heard of. 4 Council Workshop November 1, 1994 Fire Chief Vola commented on how the Competency Card is issued, which had been on the City' s books for years . City Attorney Storey questioned it being in the Zoning Code Chapter of the Code of Ordinances . Mr. Karet identified this was established by State law. Councilman Hays suggested putting a subparagraph identifying the criteria to obtain a Competency Card. Councilman Mitchum pointed out they already had a definition for Competency Card, which was determined to not identify what the requirements were in order to get one. Fire Chief Vola identified there were restrictions on owner/builder, which were established by State Law. Councilman Hays felt once they started using this they would find out where the bugs were. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Councilman Hays moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned around 8 : 30 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Lisa Bloomer, CMC 5 Council Workshop November 1, 1994