Loading...
07-11-07 Min LPA CITY OF LONGWOOD Land Planning Agency July 11, 2007 Minutes ATTENDANCE: BOARD: STAFF: Bruce Noyes, Chair Paul Sizemore, Interim Community Service Director Johnnie Richardson, Vice Chair Marveen Kelly, Recording Secretary John Prince, Member JoAnne Rebello, Member ' ABSENT: John Cardinal, Member 1. CALL TO ORDF,Rt Chair Noyes called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. 2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Regular Meeting April 11, 2007 ~ Member Prince made d motion to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Richardson. Discussion ensued with Member Rebello noting corrections needed. Motion failed by a unammous voice vote with Member Cardinal absent. Tabled until further review has been completed of the minutes of the April 11, 2007 meeting by staff and board members. Chair Noyes made a motion Seconded by Member Rebello carried by a unanimous voice vote with Member Cardinal absent. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT--NONE 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. LDCA 03-07 Longwood Development Code Amendment Article VI, Section 5..3.3 Fences Ordinance # 07-1833 MOTION/RF,COMMENDATiON; Mr. Sizemore stated the Community Development Division for the Community Services Department recommends the Land Planning Agency (LPA) recommend to the ~ City Commission approval on an amendment to the Longwood Development. Code (LDCA 03-07) by Ordinance # 07-1833. LPA 07/1 l/07- 1 - Mr. Sizemore states that the item is being brought forward as a result of coordination between the. Community Development Division and the Code Enforcement Division. Code Enforcement encounters situations where citizens did not realize that permits were required for fences. They are referred to Community Development to obtain the appropriate paperwork. Community Development noted that in several developments where the City's fence placement standards were written in Article 5 of the Development Code are an issue. The way that the fence placement requirements~now are oriented to a single family residential lot that doesn't. have any unusual variations in configuration ether in the lot or the building. The standards call for an up to 8 foot tall fence in the side or rear yards which are defined by the location of the front plane of the house. Forward of that front plane of the house, in the front yard fences can only be 42 inches tall. Both Departments realized that the City was having the most difficulty implementing that fence standard were 3 subdivisions. Danbury Mill, The Landings and Coventry. The reason that was an issue was that these subdivisions were created prior to 2002 when the City still had zoning. When that zoning layer was eliminated and the City went to an Underlining Land Use Designation. The Planned Unit Developments (PUD) classification and the standards that were in place during that time period were eliminated. These lots could have duplex's with units with a two doors facing in two different directions. The same with the right of way access. There could be two driveways each one going in a completely different direction. . It was impossible to take this blanket objective standard to apply it to a situation where you can't define a front yard by the front plane of the house. Mr. Sizemore noted that the item was brought to the. City Commission seeking some direction from them on the best way to proceed. The City Commissions recommendation was to use as a template an Ordinance which is already in effect. It requires Home Owners Association (HOA) approval to supplement fence regulations. The. intent is to exempt these 3 subdivisions from the standard fence placement rules and set up a system where Home Owners Associations would be responsible for determining the appropriate placement when fence permit are applied for. The Building. and Planning Departments would rely on that approval from the Home Owners Association appropriate to that subdivision even if it doesn't fit specifically to the code prior to permits being issued. The proposed amendment is here before. you this evening. Based on your direction it will go to the City Commission next for 2 public hearings where any amendments that you propose can be integrated. Chair Noyes moved to close the public hearing. Seconded by. Member Prince. Approved by voice vote with Member Cardinal absent. Member Rebello questions what happens ~if a Home Owners Association dissolves in any of these subdivisions. Is there something written in the Ordinance that would cover that. Mr. Sizemore stated that there isn't. any kind of specific clause to address that. The Development Code would have to be amended to address that situation and to remove that subdivision from the section.. LPA 07/1 1 /07- 2 - Member Rebello wondered if there was the ability to add to the Ordinance verbiage that in ~ the case of. _ Mr. Sizemore stated that it could certainly be added following Section 4. A new Section number 5 could be added that states that in the event of the disillusion of a Home Owners Association for one of these 3 subdivisions, The rules of the fence placement as defined above would then be implemented for the homes in that subdivision. Member Rebello requested addition information regarding the Longwood Green Subdivision. She questioned was it a PUD?. Mr. Sizemore stated it was a PUD, but, fence placement has not been a problem in that subdivision even though it was done as a PUD the lots tend to be symmetrical, they line up next to each other. The one that has the most issues is Coventry because of the way that it was designed. On almost every single lot you will run into a question offence placement. Member Rebello stated that she was under the impression that Teresa Roper the Acting City Attorney had reviewed the Ordinance. She questioned would this,be challenged in court by • say Devonshire or another subdivision like Longwood Groves if they have a Home Owners Association and they want to apply separate rules, is this something that will stand up in court because of the nature of the subdivision. Because they are PUD verses a regular subdivision. ~ Mr. Sizemore stated that it is a legal question. He was able to state that the attorney,was present at that discussion and he did not recall her having any discomfort because these were unique with their status as PUD's. He commented that is an important criteria when you do set up something that it's specif c to certain subdivisions in certain area's that there is something distinctive about them that sets them apart from the city at large. Vice Chair Richardson states that some of the communities in Longwood have Home Owner Associations Boards with membership composed of volunteers. That. Home Owner Associations have problems enforcing the rules in their own communities. This is partly due to the fact that a percentage of the residents do not pay dues. They are not forced to. It is not written into their deeds or coverage. He voiced concern that there could be double standard in the HOA's. Comparing the remainder of the City Ordinance verses that of the HOA's review committee process and an architect to make that determination based on certain standards. If they come with some amendment to what we would consider as a City as the Standard Fence Ordinance and allow that community to start erecting fences based on their own architectural review committee doesn't that defeat our planning purposes. Mr. Sizemore stated that he saw the concern of creating the possibility of a subjective implementation of fence placement standards. The reason that this amendment is being . proposed is because we are encountering enough irregularities in these subdivisions that the City has permit applications on hold. 'The City placed them on hold pending some kind of action by the LPA or the City Commission. Other wise the City would have to deny the permits based on our best implementation of the current language. The way that it is written there is no way to make a determination that this 6 foot fence is not in a front yard. By our definition it would look to be in a front yard even though there may already exist several LPA 07/11/07- 3 - fences from the time that the subdivision was a PUD. There is kind of a balancing act that we are trying to accomplish. The goal is to be fair to the people that own property in those subdivisions and not prevent them from being able to do things which were in keeping with the original intent of the development when it was. a PUD and with the fence placement that happened up to the elimination of zoning. While at the same time not. granting them some kind of special liberty that. they can do what. ever they want that would not be granted to people in the rest of the City and that was why it was placed in the hands of the HOA. The City Commission also expressed some similar concerns when this was brought before them . about the possibility of subjectivity. That if there was some kind of a personal dispute in a HOA it might impact someones ability to get a fence permit, so, they .included a section in the amendment for appeals. So that if a HOA refused to issue an approval which prevented the City from issuing a permit, then there's a process to put it in front of the City Commission and then the City Commission would apply standards that appear in code, any prior subjectivity would go away and they would take the standard as it is written in the code and hear the appeal and make a determination for any of those subjective interpitations that might take place. ~ . Vice Chair Richardson stated that he did not have issue with the way it was written. He has seen in HOA's that some of them go beyond the boundaries and they start doing their own thing and what recourse does the City have, he just has concerns having previously served on HOA's located in other cities. He has also served as the Chairman of the Architectural Committee and has experienced first hand that sometimes .political wrangling go on i:n communities with these associations are not always in the best interests of the community as ~ a whole sometimes only the group. He is concerned of it. Chair Noyes stated that it•was a valid point Member Prince agreed with Member Richardson. Member Rebello commented on Member Richardson's eloquence. Chair Noyes commented that the fact that these are PUD's is really just a coincidence, correctTIt is the nature of these particular developments which is driving this Ordinance change, correct. It is not the fact that they are PUD's. It really is the issue of applying the current restrictions,to these developments. Mr. Sizemore commented that that was correct: The fact that they are PUD's contributed to them being configured the way they are. If they hadn't been developed the way they were. It would not have resulted with this configuration. However it really is the configuration. Chair Noyes restated that it was the configuration that was driving the issue. Mr. Sizemore agreed Chair Noyes questioned Mr. Sizemore that in Item 3 where it talks about: the HOA shall evaluate each request, each placement of a fence consistent with the covenants and • ~ restrictions for the subdivision, has City staff reviewed the covenants and restrictions to these 3 subdivisions and find them sufficient in their language. i PA OZ/1 1/07- 4 - • Mr. Sizemore stated that City Staff has the covenants and restrictions for all 3 HOA's, but, ~ that he personally has not reviewed them. Chair Noyes mentioned that his subdivision has a HOA. He is aware of 2 houses in his subdivision that are not members of the HOA. If you have residents that are not a member of the Home Owners Association. Who would govern them when they want to do their own thing Mr. Sizemore discussed with Chair Noyes and with the board that solutions to that kind of situation would be in Section K, 1. It describes the applicability stating that the fence placement requirements of this section shall not apply to those properties that are members of the HOA .Chair Noyes read the fence placement requirements of this section shall nat apply except when the determination of the HOA is appealed by the applicant with the City staff. Mr. Sizemore suggested there are individual properties within the subdivision which for one reason or another, they are not members of the HOA something had happened which carved them out. They are not in the HOA. Then adding a small piece of language, so, that it reads: within the Subdivisions known as Danbury Mills, Wind Tree West also known as Coventry and The Landings. The fence placement requirements of this section shall not apply to those properties within the HOA, except, when the determination of the HOA is appealed. Then it would apply only to the properties that are subject to the rules of the HOA. In that case if you had a property like the one you are describing where for one reason or another it was not a member of the HOA, then, it would have to follow the same fence placement rules. as any ~ other property in the City would have to follow. Meaning, if we went out and looked at it and it had some strange configuration and according to our rules that's your front yard; you can not have a 6 foot fence there. We would approve or deny the permit. Chair Noyes stated that it always comes back to the City. Mr. Sizemore stated that they have to get a fence permit from the~City. Depending on how the applicability is drafted. That if they are in the HOA they have to obtain HOA approval if something is happening and' you are not in the HOA then you just go by the. same sta~idards that would apply to any other residential property within the City. Vice Chair Richardson commented that some of the subdivisions like Tiberon have a volunteer HOA and they try to get members to join but they don't want to join. There was no standardization. Is there anything that we can put into the language of this so that they understand even if they do get. a application. Will the City Staff, know that they have to have HOA approval? . Chair Noyes states that at that point they would. have to appeal the lack of decision from the HOA and apply to the City to have it approved. If this authority for lack of a better team is being given to a HOA he hoped that. there was clear language just to prevent. neighbors turning on neighbors. He voiced concern about someone getting on a power trip in these neighborhoods and communities. He felt that. is.why the City should be involved. To be the ~ bad guy for lack of a better term. It shouldn't be your neighbor down the street. He hoped that language was clear in the documents for these developments. Like, this is what we allow this is what we don't allow. If LPA 07/11/07- 5 - there is such language, it could work and it could work well. But without that it becomes ~ vague becomes opinionated and could cause more appeals as well as bad feelings. Member Prince stated that he thought that if it is a rental property it would go back to the original owner because they are paying the taxes on that property. They are the people that should be able to say, no, you can't build it or you can go to the City to get one, providing you don't have a HOA. Or they aren't active in a HOA. Chair Noyes questioned Mr. Sizemore as to the language. Is it in the PUD documents or is it in the HOA does the PUD spell out how fences would be placed. Some of them go into that kind of detail or is it more of a HOA thing Mr. Sizemore commented that it was likely there was language on fence placement in the original PUD documents but, unfortunately, PUD no longer exists. On City Zoning the City no longer has a zoning map so that layer is gone. These subdivisions are (MDR) Medium Density Residential. Just like any other MDR property without the zoning rules that would govern the placement of fences. Chair Noyes questioned that, the development. Do they state that if there is a fire or something like that the reconstruction of a structure or any type of improvement would it would fall under the existing PUD. Mr. Sizemore stated that it would fall under MDR Medium Density Residential Land Use ~ District. Chair Noyes stated that he was under the impression that. those documents were binding for the development. Vice Chair Richardson stated that it should be covered under the covenants and restrictions. Those are binding in some of the HOA's. Mr. Sizemore commented that could very well be how some of those elements have carried over. If there is a HOA-and they adopted elements of the PUD rules into their covenants and restrictions then they very well could be there. Vice Chair Richardson commented that as long as it is very clear language that the HOA has responsibility to manage these certain subdivisions and if there are due paying members and also address that those HOA that do not require legally a dues paying member but does reside in that subdivision. to comply with the rules of that subdivision. Some where along thE> line the City needs to make sure that the language is very clear not vague where folks can get out of it. He didn't know how the City can do that questioning Mr. Sizemore. • Mr. Sizemore suggested that maybe the City should get the Presidents of the HOA's to meet regarding their rules and regulations. Because there are. only 3 HOA's involved. It should be easier than attempting to meet with the entire Cities HOA's. LPA 07/11./07- 6 - - Vice Chair Richardson stated that it would ultimately impact on the rest of those subdivisions ~ if someone wanted to challenge them, if someone carne forth and challenged these 3 subdivisions, because they themselves have it written in their deeds restrictions and coverage. That's how they conduct business but with the other communities that have HOA they don't .have. a legal binding deed or restrictions or coverage that will legally tie your hands to the HOA approval: That's what is confusing, how are we going to word this in such a way that it does cover these folks as well as the people that are covered by HOA's approval and their contracts are binding. Where as some HOA contracts aren't binding its all volunteer. If you want to pay you pay if you don't no problem. No assessment no nothing. Vice Chair Richardson thinks this is one of those issues that the city needs to figure something out to complete that requirement. Concern was voiced regarding the issue at hand and that it would recur in the future and that the City didn't have any answer for it. Member Rebello stated that this particular section deals only with those 3 subdivisions. So, as it is written with items we asked to be added that would be fine but, you are talking about - adding anew section. Voluntary HOA. Vice Chair Richardson discussed the fact that a small hole could be used to someone's advantage. That a loophole could come back maybe years from now or maybe. the City would be challenged by something in the language that people don't understand. Chair Noyes mentioned that in the Columbus Harbor subdivision, there is a HOA. If he wants to put up a fence he has to get permission from his HOA and that they have to approve the fence that he is going to install. So he was thinking what differences there were other than his single family home falls within the city guidelines and it is pretty much straight forward within the city .guidelines. It is spelled out in his HOA what he can and can't do, he wasn't sure what the differences were between Columbus Harbor's HOA and the 3 HOA's in question. Mr. Sizemore referred to the fact of the model from which the Ordinance sprang Ordinance # Ol .15.98. It was adopted by the City Commission in 2001. That Ordinance gave HOA's the .option to participate in a program that would require their approval before building permits are issued. Those subdivisions that chose to .participate would be required to have their . covenants and restrictions on file with the City. That those HOA have to annually send a letter to the city stating that they are still an active HOA and that they still want to participate in the program. As far as Columbus Harbor: He didn't recall that they are a participant in the program which is part of Ordinance # 01.15.98. So every year we get a letter from a HOA like Columbus. - Harbor. Stating whether or not they still have a HOA and whether they still want to participate. That signals for the City that any time a building permit is applied for that impacts the exterior of a piece of property, it could be a fence, a re-roof, it could be a room addition. Before that permit could be issued by the City would have to have a letter from the participating HOA indicating that it is ok. For those citizens residing in the participating HOA's. They have 2 sets of rules that they have to abide by before they can get a permit. The first is their HOA's rules they -apply to get. ~ a letter. If they don't get a letter the city will not issue a permit. The second is the City's rules in which the City implements the Florida Building Code and then the City's own plaruung standards. The difference in the proposed process is that the City standards are insufficient in LPA 07/ 11 /07- 7 - addressing the needs of these particular subdivisions but the process is similar. You would ~ have to go to the HOA and get your approval letter before you can get a permit: It is _just that the city would not look at the plan and make a determination, that this is the front yard so the typical standard would be 42 inches. This process is modeled on the one that you are describing with just a small difference because the purposes are different. Member Rebello questioned Mr. Sizemore whether or not he has the pictures that. were brought by Staff to the City Commission meeting. Mr. Sizemore stated that he didn't have them with him currently. . Member Rebello stated that if you have been to any of these PUD's it is easier to see that it is strange how some of these are laid out. Chair Noyes stated that he would like to save some people some hard feelings and grief by taking the authority of the City and placing it on the Home Owners Association. The Ordinance states that the fence placement in this section should not apply. Except. in the situation where the determination of the HOA is appealed by the applicant. It doesn't. state whether it is the home owner or not, if you live in there you need a letter of approval from the HOA regardless of membership before getting a fence permit. If you can't get one then you can appeal to the City to make a determination. Mr. Sizemore stated that was the way that it was written to change the applicability. Then ~ that language discussed earlier could be added. which would be that it only be applied to properties that are members of the HOA. The way it is written is if you are in that subdivision whether you are paying. your dues or not, you are still going to be subject: to having to obtain an approval from the HOA. Chair Noyes stated that he preferred it being that way. As long as you can legally make someone get approval of a HOA that you are not a member of. He was not sure how these developments are se't up. Chair Noyes commented the President of the HOA wants to put up some goofy fence and the members are his best friends, so they say ok. It comes to you in the City, you still have the right to say no your not going to do this, don't you. Mr. Sizemore stated that not the way that it is written. It would fall upon the HOA to make the determination as to whether or not the fence placement is appropriate. Discussion ensued between board members and Mr. Sizemore regarding placement standards. Mr. Sizemore suggested that other parties could appeal. Currently the power to appeal is with the person making the application or with City Staff. City Staff could appeal to the City Commission. However ultimately it would be the Commission that makes that determination and says no. The board can add adjacent property owners, so, if City Staff doesn't appeal the decision then the adjacent property owner could appeal it, and then it would go to the City ~ Commission for a determination: That might help•eliminate the possibly that the board was discussing regarding doing something goofy with a fence. LPA 07/1 1/07- 8 - Chair Noyes stated in K 2 the City should not issue a permit for the instillation or ~ replacement of a fence without receiving a letter of approval from the HOA and City Staff approval. Or do you want to get out of it all together. He wished the city planners still had the final say before it goes to the appeal process. Mr. Sizemore felt that the problem is there has to be a very objective standard for us to apply now that is why we have a Board of Adjustments, City Commission and a Land Planning Agency. The'City Commission gives more decressionary authority to these boards to be able to make these decisions where City Staff is very confined by going by what is already ' written. Chair Noyes agreed and stated that it is their neighborhood. He doesn't like to be like that that is when bad. things potentially happen. All though these .are established neighborhoods Vice Chair Richardson commented that it would be very rarely that you have the residents of each subdivision just go out and be vindictive and do something way out of the ordinary. There should be some kind of guideline established somewhere along the line to deal with that kind of thing. He is being the devils advocate because he sec's another storm brewing within other communities that he feels will come. forth and say I don't have to do that those communities could possibly state that they are not required to do that because of being a ' member of a HOA. At that point does the City take president over that, he thought the City would come in at that.point and say because of the covenants and restrictions the City has the right to use their code. Mr. Sizemore stated that in the circumstance that you are describing. If this is adopted then the City Staff would reserve the right to appeal that decision. If something came through and it didn't look correct to City Staff. City Staff wouldn't be able to make a determination then and there and say we are not going to accept that determination by the HOA, What we could do is intercept the permit at that point. Put it on hold before it is issued, then appeal the decision of the HOA with the City Commission. Then let the. City Commission address it using the City Standard. This echo?s some of the concerns that the City Commission :had as well. That is •why we added in the appeal process to begin with. But, it sounds like it was an additional stop .gap measure. That the appeal process may even need to be expanded t:o the adjacent property owners. Or to property owners within 300 feet. So that in the event of something. what you are describing happening. Like a board getting taken over by a particular click of people who will approve anything for each other. Then the property owners are not power less. They could appeal the decision. They would take it to the City Commission and the Commission could put a stop to it. Based on the City's original standards. That could be accomplished as simply as adding in Kl, that, when the HOA is appealed by the applicant, City Staff, or a property owner within 300 feet of the affected property. You could expand that by saying another property owner in the subdivision. You could have anybody in the subdivision be able to appeal the decision if they see that. kind of thing happening. Member Rebello questioned Mr. Sizemore as to the Ordinance change. Is it only regarding placement not material or height? She questioned just placement? Mr. Sizemore stated that height will tie into it because ultimately height and placement will go together because of the standard way it is written is up to 8 feet in a rear yard, up to 42 LPA 07/1 l/07- 9 - inches in a front yard. It depends on where you define a front yard, as to where you can take the 8 foot fence to. Materials are not addressed. It is just an issue of how tall a fence can you put in what location. Chair Noyes asked anything else. Chair Noyes makes the motion that with the recommendation that City Staff review these 3 developments and that the board approve Code LDCA 0307 by Ordinance 07-1833, he requests a second. Member Rebello asks if that includes the other amendments that were discussed. Member Prince stated Mr. Sizemore would read them, into the meeting.. Member Rebello mentioned that it was not put into the motion. Chair Noyes adds to the motion: in addition the recommendations made by the agent>y. Mr. Sizemore asks to be able read back the 2 items that LPA would like to add, which were that if the HOA's were dissolved then it would revert back to the normal standards fc?r fence placement in that property owners would be included in the group that can appeal decisions of the HOA to the City Commission. ' Chairman Noyes questioned anything else. Member Rebello questioned is the language regarding properties not ~in the HOA, was it being removed. She stated that Chairman Noyes was comfortable with not having it i.n there. Chairman Noyes states that he is comfortable with the way it is written, it just says everyone. Vice Chair Richardson seconded the motion. Which carried by unanimous roll call vote with member Cardinal absent. 6. DISCUSSION AND SCHEDULE FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: i Next Regular Scheduled Meeting: August 8, 2007. Mr. Sizemore and the board discussed the fact that a quorum will be needed for the August meeting or that it would have to be rescheduled for later in August or September. 9. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. 10. AD.IOURNMENT: LPA 07/11/07- 10 - .Vice Chair Richardson made the motion to adjourn. Seconded by Member Prince and ~ carried by a unanimous voice vote with. Member Cardinal absent. Chair Noyes adjourned the meeting at 843p.m. ~ ~ ~ -'~x.e-L'.,~i~2 Bruce Noyes, Char ATTEST: ~ - Marveen Kelly, Record' ecretary LPA 07/ 11 /07- 1 1 -