Loading...
04/16/1990 SPECIAL WORK SESSION April 16, 1990 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met at City Hall with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Lee Regulski Commissioner William Nunamaker Commissioner Sue Berfield Commissioner Also present were: Ron H. Rabun City Manager M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Jim Polatty Planning & Development Director Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk The purpose of this special work session is to discuss the proposed concurrency management system. State statutes mandate that municipalities adopt a concurrency management system which ensures that certain critical public services are available to serve new development. The City of Clearwater must adopt this system by May 31, 1990. The concurrency system is to address the availability of water, sewer, drainage, solid waste, parks and recreation and roads. Clearwater's adopted level of service standards for five of these six services are not expected to be exceeded for the foreseeable future giving existing service capacities an anticipated growth and development rates. However, Clearwater does face concurrency problems with regards to roads. Clearwater's proposed concurrency management system consists of one major component, a concurrency management ordinance and three smaller components, a vested development rights ordinance, a development agreement ordinance and a traffic impact study ordinance. The vested development rights ordinance establishes conditions under which developments can be considered to be vested for purposes of concurrency and outlines procedures for processing requests for vesting determination. Vested development projects will be permitted to be constructed whether or not the projects meet concurrency requirements so it is extremely important to clearly and carefully describe what types of development projects are considered to be vested. The development agreement ordinance establishes a system for negotiated development rights. The ordinance sets out procedures to be followed to permit development projects to receive longer term commitments of local government approval than is provided under standard land development regulations. The ordinance provides a mechanism by which the City and a developer can negotiate appropriate development types and intensities for a parcel of property and these negotiated development rights can be locked in for a specified period. This provides the City and the developer with assurances that the property will be developed in accordance with an approval plan. The development agreement process is particularly useful for promoting annexations and for meeting concurrency requirements. The traffic impact study ordinance involves modifications to a previously adopted ordinance establishing a traffic impact study requirement for developments occurring on critical roadways. The proposed amendments include eliminating the requirement for a traffic impact study for development projects that effect roadways having a level of service of C or above as well as exempting vested developments from having to submit a traffic impact study. Under the proposed concurrency management ordinance, the City will add another step to its development review and permitting process. This step is called the concurrency test and involves analyzing development requests to see if adequate public services are available to serve the developments once they are constructed. An administrative fee to cover the staff review costs will be charged for developments receiving concurrency test reviews. If the concurrency test determines that there are adequate public services, a certificate of capacity will be issued and the developer will be allowed to obtain a building permit. If adequate public services are not available, no certificate will be issued and the developer will have four options. One, modify the request to meet concurrency requirements; two, arrange to provide the needed public facilities; three, reapply with the same project after a six month waiting period; or four, appeal the denial. Certain types of development projects are exempt from the concurrency test due to an imperceptible impact on public services. These projects include residential room additions and accessory structures, private swimming pools, fences, signs, public safety facilities, parking facilities open to the public and driveways. Other types of projects are exempt from paying the concurrency test fee as an inducement for development. These include affordable housing projects and projects in an enterprise zone or community redevelopment district. Vested projects and di minimus projects will be permitted to build regardless of available capacity. Michael Wright, Assistant City Manager stated that Randy Young, who has worked on comprehensive plans for other cities and counties in Florida, was hired as a consultant to assist the City of Clearwater in putting together its concurrency management system. Mr. Young indicated he had checked with the county regarding their plans. He stated concurrency requires for every issuance of a development order or permit, it has to be determined whether or not we have adequate public facilities to meet the needs of that development. He stated if the City does not have the facilities reserved for development available, all parties are liable has everybody as standing. In response to a question regarding what liability, he stated the City could be compelled to perform in order to provide the facilities it had stated would be available. As an example, the City could be required to build a four lane street if that is what is needed to meet the requirements of a development. Mr. Young indicated the City of Clearwater has two levels of development orders and development permits. At the preliminary stage are annexation, land use amendment, zoning atlas amendment, conditional use, variance, preliminary site plans, preliminary subdivision plats, clearing and grubbing permits and tree removal permits. At the preliminary stage, the applicant will have the option of whether or not to undergo the concurrency test. The final development orders or permits include developments of regional impact, final approved site plans, certified site plans, final subdivision plats and building permits. There is no option at the final stage and a concurrency test must be performed on these developments. If, the applicant defers the test at the preliminary stage, there will be an affidavit stating that they have no vested rights for this development. Concern was expressed that if an applicant asks for and passes a concurrency test at the preliminary stage, the project is vested. It was stated we will be issuing a certificate of capacity which will have a time limit on it. It was indicated that there are providers of facilities outside the city limits of Clearwater which will impact our ability to provide the necessary public services and it was recommended that agreements with these other entities, i.e. state, county, other municipalities, be entered into. In response to a question regarding which applications would have to go through the concurrency test, it was indicated most applicants would however, those developments that had no or insignificant impact would be exempt. In determining whether or not a development was vested all three of the following must be met: One, good faith reliance on an act or omission of the City; two, substantial expenditures or obligations subsequent to reliance on an act or omission of the City; and three, highly inequitable to deny development. A fourth issue is provided by Florida Statute which is that the development is commenced and continued in good faith. Concerns were expressed regarding vested developments "eating up" all future capacities. It was indicated that the City would be determining vested rights on a case by case basis upon application by the property owner. The major and maybe only issue would be the availability of roads as we are providing sufficient facilities in the other categories. In response to a question regarding why sign permits would be exempt from the test, it was indicated that no trips, water, sewer, etc. would be needed for signs. The di minimus concept of the county was explained in that if a development generates less than 140 trips per day, it will not be required to meet the concurrency test. These developments would be kept track of but development on these properties would not be stopped. Concerns were expressed regarding the cumulative impact of di minimus project and it was indicated this should not be a major problem as roads that already have a low level of service are pretty much fully developed. The City Commission will be getting reports regarding levels of service. In a response to a question regarding whether or not someone could use up all capacity, it was indicated that capacity can not be reserved and held onto for an extended period of time. It was indicated that the planning and development department would do the capacity test and they would be touching base with others involved in this process. In response to a question regarding the cost of the data base to track this process, it was indicated this would be included in the budget. In response to a question regarding how long an approved development of regional impact would be good, it was indicated this would be agreed upon between the City and the developer. It was indicated that minimum development orders would have no more than five years. In response to a question regarding how it would be determined what capacity is available, it was indicated that we will be maintaining a running balance and this will be updated once a year. It was also indicated that traffic impact studies would only be required for developments impacting roads with a level of service D or lower. Developers will be allowed to propose mitigation that would reduce the traffic impact. The City will have the right to either accept or reject these proposals. It was indicated that reserving capacity is extremely important and in response to a question regarding how this will be documented, it was stated the certificate of capacity will be recorded in the public records and give in detail what was reserved and the expiration date. Concerns were expressed regarding the ability to transfer capacity and the ability of a property owner to subdivide their property and the capacity that has been assigned to it. It was indicated that the subdivision of the capacity would be up to the owner of the property. It was indicated that with a subdivision, there would be the need to file an amended certificate of capacity. Discussion ensued regarding reserving capacity with concerns being expressed that individuals would come in and reserve capacity and then not follow through with the development. While staff is proposing a first come first serve basis there would need to be very careful rules established. It was recommended that as long as the first application continues an orderly process, they would remain first in line for the capacity. If the first one in should slow down for some reason, the second development in would have the ability to "Leapfrog". This specific rule still needs to be developed. Discussion ensued regarding the need to have contracts with other agencies such as the county and surrounding municipalities. Concerns were expressed regarding the possibility of the City unwittingly providing capacity that is not available due to developments in these other areas. It was indicated that if trips affect county portion of the road and the capacity is not available, the county would not allow a driveway cut. An interlocal agreement will be needed. The meeting recessed from 3:59 p.m. to 4:06 p.m. There is a provision in the plan which states the City can not stop development if a promised public facility has not been completed unless it is for public safety and health issues. Discussion ensued regarding the fees to be charged in connection with this system. The concurrency test fee is not refundable and a threshold needs to be established wherein an informal inquiry that is simple and not really a concurrency test would not require a fee. It was indicated the City Commission will adopt the fee by resolution. It was indicated that with a certificate of capacity fee, there would be the prepayment of impact and connection fees. A question was raised regarding whether or not these fees would be refundable and it was indicated the applicants need to understand that the money may be spent in order to provide the public facilities needed. The administrative portion of the impact fee is not refundable. We can not compel payment of traffic impact fees but if the developer volunteers to pay those fees, capacity will be reserved. If those fees are given to the county, the applicant would have to go to the county for a refund if they did not follow through with the development. The exemptions to the fees would be City Commission policy. Those areas being recommended for exemption are enterprise zones, the community redevelopment agency district and affordable housing developments. In response to a question as to how we would prevent a monopoly of capacity it was indicated the fees and time limit would be a controlling factor and capacity is not able to be transferred to another parcel. Any appeal of the concurrency test would be through the City Manager as it is technical in nature. In response to a question, it was indicated that these ordinances would become effective May 31, 1990. It was requested that an indication of who approves the issuance of the certificate of capacity be added. In regard to the section of the concurrency management system ordinance regarding fees, it was requested that in section one, a period be placed after the word refundable and the remainder of the section be deleted. The same was requested for section two. It was requested that there be included in the ordinance a provision regarding submitting money for impact fees to the county. It was indicated that in the ordinance regarding vested rights, there needs to be a definition for final approved site plans. A concern was expressed regarding the use of the phrase "unjust to destroy" in the vested rights ordinance the last line of the first page. This will be investigated. It was also requested that development of regional impacts be added as an exemption on page two. It was the consensus of the Commission to take out the requirement for extraordinary vote on page 4, 5 & 6 and that a three-two vote be allowed to take action. The City Manager requested direction regarding the July 5, 1990 City Commission meeting. He stated that due to the holiday the day before, many individuals will be out of town and have other obligations. He stated a special meeting will be needed to adopt the trim mileage rate whether we cancel the July 5th meeting or not. It was the consensus of the Commission to agenda for the meeting of April 19, 1990 an item to consider canceling the July 5th meeting. The meeting adjourned at 4:59 p.m.