Loading...
05-22-2000 - WorkshopCITY COUNCIL OF EDGEWATER WORKSHOP MAY 22, 2000 6200 P.M. COMMUNITY CENTER MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Schmidt called the Workshop to order at 6:00 P.M. in the Community Center. ROLL CALL Mayor Donald Schmidt Present Councilman James Brown Present Councilman Dennis Vincenzi Present Councilwoman Harriet Rhodes Present Councilwoman Judith Lichter Present City Manager Kenneth Hooper Present City Attorney Scott Cookson Present City Clerk Susan Wadsworth Present Police Chief Lawrence Schumaker Excused MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of the meeting is to finish discussion with regard to the new proposed Land Development Code. City Manager Hooper informed Council they had would be picking up with Article VII. He further explained the process they will follow after they are done discussing the proposed Land Development Code. Councilwoman Lichter asked if they had a list of the recommendations from the Planning & Zoning Board. Ms. Plaskett agreed to make them copies. Councilwoman Lichter spoke about murals being placed on the side of an establishment and the code enforcement aspect of this. City Manager Hooper spoke about off-site signs. They are going to work on the definition and make sure that is clear. Ms. Plaskett described Article VII for Council regarding Non - Conforming Uses. City Manager Hooper informed Council that the taking of property by D.O.T. for S.R. 442 would fall under this section. .w Councilwoman Lichter spoke about Section 21-72.06 - Appeals from the Planning & Zoning Board. She feels it behooves the City not to say within a reasonable time after the hearing, the City Council shall issue its written decision. She thinks this is too vague and there should be a definite time commitment that they must get back to people. Councilwoman Rhodes agreed. There was a brief discussion regarding it being standard practice for the City to live up to its codes but technically, you can avoid your own zoning codes. That is not how we do it but there are ways to do that for city and County governments. Ms. Plaskett and City Manager Hooper went on to explain Article VIII - Administration. Councilwoman Lichter spoke about the procedures for the Code Enforcement Board and the time frame for mailing out notices. Ms. Plaskett explained the process Code Enforcement typically follows. Ms. Plaskett went on to explain Article IX - Application procedures. City Manager Hooper spoke about the only issue brought to their attention was the expiration date of a site plan. It was brought to his attention by F.I.N.D. Their attorney and their engineer have also gone over the proposed Code. Ms. Plaskett informed Council of the Planning & Zoning Board discussion about application notice requirements. Councilwoman Lichter feels Section (f), (k) and (m) on Page IX -23 need a time limit. There was some discussion regarding reference made to a City Engineer and the City not having a City Engineer. City Manager Hooper clarified the City has a City Engineer, Hans Wolfer, under contract. City Manager Hooper spoke about the developer agreement section being the main section used for future agreements for planned developments. City Manager Hooper went over Article X - Code Compliance Process. Councilwoman Lichter spoke about anonymous complaints and people being afraid to give their name for fear of repercussions from their neighbors. Page -2- Council Workshop May 22, 2000 There was further discussion with regard to people making complaints anonymously. Councilman Vincenzi suggested telling the people they don't have to give their name but that they would like the name in order to provide feedback. There was further discussion regarding the complainant's name being public record. City Manager Hooper went on to speak about the Code Enforcement procedures. Ms. Plaskett explained Article XI - Concurrency Management System. This is a requirement of the State and what this has to deal with is when cities and counties adopt comprehensive plans, the Department of Community Affairs requires them to come up with a Concurrency Management System. The purpose of that is to make sure that when development occurs they have water, sewer, paved roads and all the necessities to go along with development. City Manager Hooper explained this is an annual reporting that will come to Council that will describe if we have any deficiencies and what they need to do to correct those if they exist and concurrency management actually becomes a certificate the developers get if they are going through the system. This is brand new. Ms. Plaskett commented on Article XII - Telecommunication Towers and informed Council this is also brand new. Me. Plaskett commented on Article XIII - Subdivisions. She went over the changes made to make it more user friendly. Ms. Plaskett went over the steps a developer follows when development is started. city Manager Hooper added this will allow for more review time and more review opportunities. City Manager Hooper informed council they are trying to avoid or create no opportunities for duplication of permitting. Ms. Plaskett informed Council of the Planning & Zoning Board -s recommendations with regard to Article XIII. Ms. Plaskett went over Article XIV - Historic Preservation. This is also new. councilwoman Lichter would like this made a little bit clearer. Ms. Plaskett explained Article XV - Airports. This is also brand new. Page -3- Council Workshop May 22, 2000 City Manager Hooper then went over Article XVI - Fire 6 Hazard Prevention. Councilwoman Lichter asked why they didn't include the space between two lots, that they are trying to implement, the cutting back of vacant lots for dry seasons to avoid the spread of fire in this section. City Manager Hooper explained this section deals mostly with water, the pipeline, and the distribution network. He agreed to look at this and see if it makes more sense to put it all in one spot. Councilwoman Lichter suggested making reference to it under this section. Ms. Plaskett informed Council of the recommendation of the Planning S Zoning Board. City Manager Hooper informed Council what staff needs to know is should they advertise. They have gone through the Code with the appropriate boards and also with Council. He informed Council they had some time this evening, if they would like to, to have public input. He would schedule the two public hearings in June and go from that point. If there isn't major changes then and if Council would like, they could come back with the issue of the boats and the temporary carports, if there is a desire to think of any compromise, staff could draft some of those and lay out some alternatives and options. They have polled other cities to see what they are doing. There is a variety of options that are out there. Councilman Vincenzi asked if they had any feedback from the Code Enforcement Board. City Manager Hooper explained the attorney explained to them they were not the makers of the rules, they were the enforcers of the rules. He informed Council of the comments from the Planning 6 Zoning Board. Councilwoman Lichter would like more information on what other cities do with regard to carports. She would also like to have highlighted what they are saying about boats and recreational vehicles now. City Manager Hooper agreed to put council a table together showing what other cities do in volusia County. Councilman vincenzi asked to have a comparison of what we do now verses what they will do if these codes are in effect. City Manager Hooper agreed to get this information for Council. City Manager Hooper briefly spoke about aesthetics. They aren't to this point yet and he feels they have enough to deal with now. They will work on beautification later. Page -4- Council Workshop May 22, 2000 Councilwoman Lichter feels it will be a very big accomplishment to have everything in one place, not three places. Mayor Schmidt asked for public input. Pat Card, 3019 Willow Oak Drive, asked Council if they had any questions regarding his notes he left for them. There were no questions of Council. He read a prepared statement and presented copies to the City Clerk for the Council. (Copy attached) Paul Jenkins, Willow Oak Drive, presented some suggestions regarding the Code. He feels the renters should be cited before the property owner. He then spoke about R.V.'s, boats and campers, commercial vehicles, canopies, vehicle restoration permits, yard sale permits, parking on side streets, sheds and anonymous complaints. J. Michael McKay, 1717 S. Riverside Drive, stated he was present in the Code Board review of the proposed ordinances and one person felt this should be sent back and rewritten. Before the City goes and spends money to advertise this as it is written, he suggested rewriting it and get it to where people in the community can stand it. it really has some people upset. He asked if they could preempt advertising something that is obviously going to need to be changed. Mayor Schmidt feels no matter how many times they rewrite it or what they do to it, it's not going to please everyone. He thinks they should get the ball in motion and work on it as it goes. They know there's changes to be made. He thinks they are all up there listening to all the comments. But he thinks no matter what they do, they could wait six months and then someone else is going to get up and say they don't like something and that maybe they should wait to do that. He knows there are things that need to be changed but they need to work with the process also. They are going to hear things at the public hearings that are going to affect what goes in there too. Councilwoman Rhodes would like to get all the information, compile it, rewrite it and go from there. Mayor Schmidt stated he wants to hear from the 20 people that Mr. McKay mentioned as well as everyone else. Mr. McKay asked if they will have time for that. Mayor Schmidt stated it is their job to make the time to do that. Councilman Vincenzi stated unless they are all going to say the same thing. Councilwoman Rhodes suggested they all get together and pick a spokesperson. Page -5- Council Workshop May 22, 2000 1W Councilwoman Lichter stated she is hearing slightly different things being said. They have to get the trend of it and the professionals will have to abide by that trend, they will cement it. There have been comments and input from Florida Shores Homeowners Association, etc. that was different than what they are saying now. They have to weigh those things. Some want stricter, some want it like it is, and some want more fair. Those are the decisions they are going to have to abide by. Mr. McKay asked if people should write in and agendize their comments. Some of the discussion is going to run into a half hour or forty-five minute of just one person. Mr. Card and himself could take up some of Council's time. He doesn't want the Council to get worn out and then have twenty people come in and reiterate everything they have already said. Mayor Schmidt stated he wants everyone to come but he doesn't want them to all come in and say the same thing. Councilwoman Rhodes stated if someone in front of you says the same thing you are going to say, don't bother to get up and say it but you can let us know that you feel that way. Councilwoman Lichter stated in writing is good. Councilwoman Rhodes stated they may have to put a time limit on those that speak. Their job is to hear everyone and to represent everyone. She understands that all of the people that are here tonight are in pretty much agreement with each other but she has heard from people that are not in agreement with them. They want to hear from them as well and they want to abide by their civility so they want to listen to and hear everything and then they will go from there. City Manager Hooper stated if the public has specific comments, they can contact Lynne Plaskett or himself and they would be glad to meet with them. Joe Martin, East Volusia Engineering, spoke about Article 8, Administration, Section 21-84.03, and asked if the State mandates Sunshine for the TRC. This is just a question. He has never heard that before and he is not sure it does. For one, he is not sure why they would want to put that in there if it isn't. Section 21-85.04 Power & Duties. Item G - he asked what is the reason for including the Planning & Zoning Board and Site Plan Approval process for a buildable area and he assumes when it says buildable area it is talking about building area over 25,000 square feet. A few years ago the Industrial Development Board offered a report on the City. This report included twelve recommendations that in the opinion of the Industrial Development Board would enhance prospects for good economic development. One of the recommendations was to shorten the time it was taking to get site plan approval. At that time, all site plans regardless of project size, were required to go before the L.D.R.A. Page -6- Council Workshop May 22, 2000 v .,i Mr. Martin went on to explain that during one of his site plan presentations as an engineering professional to the L.D.R.A., he asked Krista Storey if the design professional has affixed his seal to the plans, thus affirming that the codes have been met and if the staff, the TRC has concurred by recommending approval of this site plan, then what authority does the L.D.R.A. have to require authorization of the site plan. Her answer was none. He then asked if the L.D.R.A. has no power to cause an alteration in the site plan, then why is it in the approval process adding at least thirty days to the time it takes to get the site plan approval and a development order. Her answer was to the effect that the L.D.R.A. should not be in the approval process for site plans. Sometime after this, regulations were changed to eliminate L.D.R.A. from the site plan approval process. Other municipalities have thresholds similar to the proposed 25,000 square foot. However, this does not change the conclusion of the former City Attorney. Please do not confuse site plans with other issues. Site plans are not like variances, development agreements, zoning requests, annexations and so forth which are mandated by the State to go before a Planning & Zoning Board. If this rule had been in effect a few months ago, he would not have recommended that the Dougherty project be annexed into the City. This is a 44,000 square foot project and the Porta project which consists of three buildings of 21,700 square feet each, would have been needlessly delayed quite possibly resulting in the cancellation of the project. He urged Council to take the Planning & Zoning Board out of the site plan approval process. Article 9 - Application procedures, Section 21-93.03. Is it possible, and this has to do with site plan process, to skip conceptual and go directly to final site plan approval process. It is not clear that this is possible. As a design professional, if he has a project and he can save his client a week or two weeks in the interest he pays on borrowing money and go directly to final site plan approval and omit conceptual then he would like to have that option. It is a risk. The advantages of the conceptual site plan is the staff brings a lot of things to their attention that they wouldn't normally realize. Section 21-93.04 Authority, Paragraph E. He feels this needs some clarification with respect to the language of Section 21-53.04. Section 21- 93.04 implies that all that is required is a St. John's River Water Management District permit, yet the language in Section 21.53.04 indicates otherwise. City Manager Hooper asked Mr. Martin to bring those comments in. He had F.I.N.D. do it and a couple of others, but things he is talking about are very technical in detail and he would like to go over them with him. Mr. Martin stated he would be happy to do that. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Mayor Schmidt adjourned the workshop at 6:49 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Page -7- Lisa Bloomer Council Workshop May 22, 2000 v y Proposed new language a The items described in section (a) may be parked or stored in a driveway or immediately parallel to the driveway and perpendicular to the front property line. No part of the vehicle may extend over a public sidewalk, bike path or public street. a The items described in section (a) that cannot meet the requirements of section (c) shall be stored at the side or rear of the property. c All items described in section (a) that cannot meet the requirements of section (c) or (d) shall be parked in a licensed storage facility. P, cW� 42x-7577 v me My name is Pat Card I live at 3019 Willow Oak. I would be happy to entertain any questions in regard to the notes that I left for you at your first work shop. I will summarize those notes for you briefly. The code changes in 21-34.06 dealing with boats, trailers and RVs will inconvenience many of the residents of Edgewater. It will single out a special class as a result of arbitrary length and height restrictions. There will be Hundreds of Vehicles and trailers that must be moved and no place to move them to. The financial impact on the citizens of Edgewater will be hundreds of thousands of dollars . There will be no significant demonstrable improvement in health, fire or safety considerations. The proposed code in it's current form will be questioned as to its constitutionality. It will attempt to solve the problems of a few by creating serious problems for many. Now are there any questions of me? Here are a few of my additional concerns: Drive way visibility was raised as an issue in other meetings. Cars are normally at least 17 ft long as are vans. When two are parked bumper to bumper in my driveway they are over the length restriction of the RVs that are allowed to park in the drive. Why restrict the RVs. Are the cars less of an obstruction to vision for someone pulling out of the drive next door? NO, a car or Van parked that way will obstruct view just as much as any other vehicle sticking out 34 feet from the house in the drive. Is it OK to park a car behind a small boat trailer in the drive? This code doesn't eliminate these problems and they are just as bad as the 34 foot RV in the drive. Is this really a safety issue. %W r/ It doesn't seem to be any worse than other "Drive Way" problems. We don't have street parking so why not allow a little easier restriction on the girls parking in my drive for mom's bridge club. You can't because it isn't right to treat the two cars differently than the RVs. Is it a fire Hazard? Would a car, truck, van or boat less than 24 feet be more of a problem for fire than an RV? I don't think so. If any vehicle catches fire in the driveway the chance of it spreading to the house would the same for the boats or the RVs. Height restrictions Are the height restrictions a safety consideration. In other words are those vehicles more restrictive to backing out of your neighbors drive than a truck or van. No. Unless you are backing out in a vehicle that has a height of over 6 feet at the eye level of the driver. The obstruction of view will be complete for both vehicles over six feet and under six feet. Is it our intent to limit all parking to 24 feet and 6 feet. If it is you must do so for all vehicles over 6 feet. Routinely pickup trucks and van are over 6 feet tall and should be eliminated from parking in driveways also if this is the purpose. Other communities have restricted the parking of RVs of all types. Most of the restrictive moves are done in deed restrictions or through the resident's association restrictions formed at the development of the areas. Here we are faced with a significant and very different problem. The people who purchased in Florida Shores realized there were few restrictions that limited there rights to the use of their own property. v ,, e We can have lawn sheds, chain link fences, plants of our own choice, lawn services we choose, park our RVs and boats in our drives, or in our back yards or side yards. If we would have wanted these rights restricted severely for ourselves and others who are our neighbors we could have easily bought somewhere else. There are lots of restricted communities all around us. We chose to buy where we did not have these restrictions. Or at least most of us did because we did the research necessary to know there were few restrictions. Perhaps some didn't know that we didn't restrict severely. It is not our fault if they chose badly. Neighbors and Neighbors Some people just can't get along with there neighbors. I'm really song about that because it isn't good to see neighbors unhappy with one another. Limiting my rights so they have to get along doesn't make sense to me however. If my neighbor has trouble seeing around my RV or boat I hope that my neighbor will say something to me. Neighbors come to a reasonable compromise." I won't park my RV in a location that always blocks your view. Sometimes it may block your view but I will respect your needs." "Please trim your bushes so when I try to back out I can see past them even if my cab eye level is 2 feet higher than your car". If we try to do these things with a code then it would sound like this: " no vehicles may be parked in driveways where any part of the vehicle extends further than 26 feet from the front of the house. Trim all plants, shrubs and trees so that no trunks, limbs, fonds, leaves boughs or flowers are less than six feet above the level of the street if located more than 26 feet from the front of the house. ' .w Sounds like there would be a problem with that to me. We could eliminate most of the decorative foliage that is used to screen the front of houses and cut down a lot of trees and not solve the problem. Wouldn't it be better if we encouraged the neighbors to compromise. Why make everyone do it to satisfy two hard heads or 4 people or thirty. We could have chosen to give up our rights to use our property as we choose by buying in restricted communities. We chose to retain our rights instead and we hope you will honor those decisions. What looks bad? I don't like way these things look; leaves on the ground, garbage cans where you can see them by the side of the house, untrimmed trees, old VWs, news papers left on the driveway, boats in drive ways, skateboard ramps, unkempt lawns with bare spaces, laundry on clothes lines, fixer upper homes, fixer upper cars, trucks, plastic real estate signs on front lawns, pink flamingos, plastic bird baths ------ I think all that stuff is tacky, tacky, tacky. Well not really but some one has said everything I just said and meant it. They are out there. But you don't have to listen to these people. Just because some one is unhappy doesn't mean that others are not happy with each one of these things. Who says the mantel of wisdom rests on my brow alone or on the complainers. Lets be reasonable -- limit the rights of others as long as it doesn't limit what I do-- THAT IS 1ZWHAT FREEDOMISALL ABOUT RIGHT? No it is all about exercising your freedom as long as it doesn't imperil the rights of others. The responsibility that stands beside the right is what fieedom is all about. I exercise my freedoms with responsible behavior. If I exercise my rights with consideration for others please don't limit my freedoms because a few others do not. What seems reasonable may imperil the rights of others without cause. I had the chance to ask a past secretary of the Army if there was one thing he would leave me as advice in my young career. He said For me to remember "that for every difficult and complex problem that there was one solution that was almost always immediately apparent to all reasonable people --- and that it was almost always wrong". The Code change seems an obvious and apparent solution. I and a lot of others think it is the wrong one. A better code change would to eliminate c,d,e and replace them with the following language a copy of which will be provided to each of you. Thanks for hearing me.