Loading...
Minutes 04-23-02 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002 Present Edward Currier William Cwynar Mike Fitzpatrick Mike Friedland Woodrow Hay Edward Hillery Maurice Rosenstock Bob Ensler, Alternate David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Michael Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director Lusia Galav, Principal Planner Hanna Matras, Economic Research Analyst Eric Johnson, Planner Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, introduced the Board members and staff to the public, including Bob Ensler, Alternate, who was sitting in the audience. Nominations for Chairman Mr. Currier nominated Mike Friedland as Chairman. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Hay stated that he had spoken to other members of the Board concerning the chairmanship position. Mr. Fitzpatrick nominated Maurice Rosenstock as Chairman. Mr. Rosenstock seconded the nomination. Since there were no further nominations, Mr. Tolces announced that the nominations were closed. The vote was polled for the nomination of Mr. Friedland as Chairman and the vote was 4-2 (Messrs. Fitzpatrick and Rosenstock dissenting - Mr. Hillery abstaining. Mr. Hillery cast his vote for Mr. Rosenstock when advised that unless he had financial or business reasons that precluded voting, he had to vote for one candidate or the other.) The vote was polled for the nomination of Mr. Rosenstock as Chairman and the vote was 3-4 (Messrs. Hay, Friedland, Cwynar, and Currier dissenting.) Chair Friedland said he was honored by the nomination and took pride in working with everyone on the Board. Nominations for Vice-Chairman Mr. Currier nominated Woodrow Hay as Vice-Chairman, seconded by Mr. Cwynar. There were no other nominations for Vice-Chairman. David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney, announced that a quorum was present and that the first order of business would be the election of a Chairman and ¥ice-Chairman. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2002 The vote was polled and Mr. Hay's nomination as Vice-Chairman was approved 6-0 (Mr. Rosenstock left the room prior to the vote.) Chair Friedland asked the Board members to think about appointing another Vice-Chair, since there had been times when both the Chair and the Vice-Chair had been absent for the same meeting. I. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Friedland led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. II, Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Mr. Cwynar. The motion passed unanimously. III. Minutes Approval Motion Mr. Hillery moved to approve the minutes of the March 26, 2002 meeting as submitted. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that passed unanimously. IV. Communications and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report - Final disposition of the March 26, 2002 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. Michael Rumpf reported on the following actions taken by the City Commission: 1. At the April 2, 2002 City Commission meeting, the Quarterdeck Restaurant new site plan was approved. 2. At the April 16, 2002 City Commission meeting, the CKS request for annexation, corresponding MAP amendment, and rezoning were approved. The Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Ordinance was amended to incorporate additional parking provisions, including a 50% reduction in required parking spaces in that overlay area. An Ordinance amending the PID zoning district to allow a residential project in a Mixed Use POD was approved. This was a pre-requisite for consideration of the residential project before the Board at this meeting. Mr. Cwynar asked if there would be any discussion on a letter the Board had received from the City Attorney's office. The letter is attached to the original minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Mr. Tolces responded that a letter had been distributed to the Board members and the Clerk in response to a question that was raised at the last meeting about the potential consequences of someone presenting testimony to the Board that he or she knew to be untrue. Mr. Hillery believed that the applicant had come forward to correct his mistake at the City Commission meeting. This was Mr. Friedland's impression also. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2002 Board Attorney David Tolces administered the Oath to all who planned to speak during the public hearing. V. New Business Public Hearing A. Abandonment Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Packaging Concepts Andrew B. Blasi, Esq. PJM & Associates, LC 4925 Park Ridge Boulevard Request for abandonment of a 10-foot water main easement. Eric Johnson, Planner, reported that during the process of assembling the construction documents necessary for building permits, an error in the title work was discovered. An existing water main easement was found in the proposed building expansion area. Staff recommended that this request to abandon and relocate the water line easement be. approved, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Johnson corrected Condition #1 in the Conditions of Approval, deleting the requirement for approval by the public utility companies. Joni Brinkman of Winston Lee & Associates, West Palm Beach, acting as agent for the owner, PJM & Associates, LC, stated that the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. She acknowledged that she was not the agent of record but that she had provided an agent's agreement to Lusia Galav on the day of the meeting. Chair Friedland opened the Public Audience. When no one wished to speak on this topic, he closed the Public Audience. Motion Mr. Hillery moved to approve the request for abandonment of a ten-foot water main easement located on the property at 4925 Park Ridge Boulevard, subject to all Conditions of Approval. Mr. Currier seconded the motion that passed unanimously. B. Site Plan Time Extension Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Packaging Concepts Joni Brinkman, AICP PJM & Associates, LC 4925 Park Ridge Boulevard Request for a one-year time extension to 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2002 April 3, 2003 of the site plan approval and concurrency certification originally granted on April 3, 2001. Joni Brinkman of Winston Lee & Associates West Palm Beach, acting as agent for the owner, PJM & Associates, LC, explained that the reason for the extension was that the water main easement had not been picked up in the original title work (see previous item). Because of this, the site plan permitting process was delayed. Chair Fried/and opened the Public Audience. When no one wished to speak on this topic, he closed the Public Audience. Motion Mr. Currier moved to accept the request for a time extension to April 3, 2003 of the site plan approval and concurrency certification originally granted on April 3, 2001. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that carried unanimously. C. New Site Plan with Waivers Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Quantum Town Homes East and West Julian Bryan and Associates Quantum Ltd. Partners, L.L.C. Quantum Boulevard Request for approval of a technical site plan with waivers for a 271-unit town home development in a mixed-use POD within the Quantum Park PID. Lusia Galav, Principal Planner, gave a brief overview of this project as it relates to the five hundred-acre Quantum Park PID, the Development order for which had been amended many times, the latest being amendment #12. This amendment designated Lots 7 through 11 and Lots 23 through 31 as Mixed Use. Mixed Use is a Master Plan designation for Quantum Park, not a zoning or land use designation. Prior to passage of the recent ordinance by the City Commission, Mixed Use meant that a combination of office, residential, and commercial had to occur within a POD. The ordinance adopted by the City Commission recently defines POD as the entire Quantum Park DRI. The developer intends to build a 271-unit town home development on either side of Quantum Boulevard. Quantum Boulevard is a four-lane road, divided, at this location. Part of the proposed project is to make it into two lanes, to consolidate both sides of the development. This was reviewed by the Public Works Director, Engineering, Utilities, and Planning staff, and all the technical requirements have been met. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council indicated that a Master Plan modification would not be required since it did not affect the regional roadway network. A traffic study has been done and approved for concurrency by Palm Beach County. Because this request is a technical site plan approval, the applicant is requesting three waiVers: setbacks, building separation, and width of parking space in a driveway. Staff recommends approval of all three waivers. In all other cases, the site plan meets the requirements of the Zoning Code and Land Development Regulations of the City. Two 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2002 of the Conditions of Approval were met on the day of the meeting: 1) written approval from the Quantum Park Architectural Review Committee and 2) colored elevation drawing of all proposed residential units and the clubhouse building. Mr. Fitzpatrick was concerned about the amount of land left for mixed-use if this project were to be approved and whether it might all be residential. Ms. Galav assured him that property having a Mixed Use designation must have a mixture of commercial, residential, and office uses. Quantum is limited to 1,000 residential units by the DRI. If this project is approved, they will have 600 units and there are 65 acres remaining. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired about the impact of this project on the parks. Ms. Galav replied that they would probably be paying park impact fees, but that the formula was in the process of being changed and would be discussed later in the meeting. Mr. Hay asked about the traffic impact of future residents and Ms. Galav replied that this had been taken into consideration in the traffic study. She stated that staff believes that traffic lights, as called out in Condition #16, would be needed in the near future. Chair Friedland asked that the Board members ask to be recognized before speaking. Julian Bryan of Julian Bryan & Associates, 756 St. Albans Drive, Boca Raton, stated that the applicant agrees with all the Conditions of Approval and that he would be happy to answer any questions. Chair Friedland opened the Pubfic Audience. Enrico Rossi, 625 Whispering Pines Road, Boynton Beach, stated that he was disappointed that the City was allowing the developer to make a two-lane road from a perfectly good four-lane road. He said that the present development was a "far cry" from what had been envisioned fifteen years ago as a place for people to work, Since no one else wished to speak, Chair Fried/and closed the Public Audience. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired about the status of the six-foot asphalt walkway along the lake. Mr. Bryan stated that the extreme easterly edge of the development encroaches on a Water Management tract, so they will be relocating some of the segments ten to twenty feet, but the rest will be retained in its entirety. It will connect to the sidewalk in Quantum Boulevard at the north end and to the internal sidewalk system as well. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that he hoped they were not going to use ficus for the hedge required to separate the development from the City-designated park area. Ms. Galav stated that the site plan shows a coco plum hedge in that area. Mr. Rosenstock asked City staff to elaborate on the steps they had taken that led to their determination to allow changing the four-lane road to a two-lane road. Ms. Galav stated that the City had several meetings with the applicant and staff, including the Director of Public Works, Engineering, and Planning, addressing this issue. The Director of Public Works, who is also a traffic engineer, reviewed all the documents and asked for Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2002 separate, additional traffic studies. He determined that it was feasible to allow the four- lane road to go to a two-lane road in this particular area because it brings the development together, creates a traffic-calming situation, and would generally prohibit larger vehicles from using the area. Mr. Rosenstock asked about the width of the two-lane street. Mr. Bryan stated that the roadway would be twenty-four feet of asphalt and two feet of curb on either side on a fifty-foot right-of-way. Mr. Rosenstock asked if, with full occupancy, this satisfied the City's criteria and Ms. Galav said that it did. Mr. Hay inquired about the circular area in the middle of the two-lane road and Mr. Bryan responded that it was for traffic calming and control. Mr. Hillery asked about stacking space and Mr. Bryan responded that there was 250 feet. Mr. Hay asked about the height of the shrubbery in the median and Mr. Bryan responded that it would be 30 inches maximum and a minimum tree canopy of six feet. Mr. Bryan understood the Board's feelings about the two-lane road but stated that upon looking at the overall Quantum Park site, the development was equidistant from Gateway Boulevard and Congress Avenue. Traffic that is generated internally has a 50% chance of going one way or another. Their plan will, they feel, more than adequately disperse the traffic, Mr. Hay was concerned about large, commercial trucks trying to make a turn in the area, and asked staff to comment. Ms. Galav said that this had been a major concern to staff but when they looked at the land use distribution in the area, the warehouse distribution people would generally come out at the intersection of Quantum Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. Because of the traffic-calming feature, they would probably not go out the other way. That is why staff is recommending that a traffic signal be located there as soon as possible. Mr. Hillery asked if they had considered a speed reduction in the residential neighborhood compared to the regular roads, within the two-lane section. Mr. Hillery stated that residential un-posted has a speed of 30 miles per hour (mph). Ms. Galav stated that the speed limit in the rest of the area is 35 mph. Mr. Hillery thought it might be a good idea to have a well-posted, lower speed limit in the residential section. Ms. Galav stated that the Board might wish to add this as a condition. The Board agreed, Motion Mr. Cwynar moved that the Board accept the new site plan with waivers for the Quantum Town Homes East and West as requested, for a 271 town home development in a Mixed-Use POD within the Quantum Park PID. The speed limit will be 25 mph at the north end of the proposed development, beginning at the residential area where it comes down to two lanes. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Bryan assured Chair Friedland that there would not be a problem with the 25 mph speed limit. Mr. Hillery stated that reducing the speed to 25 mph would have to be done by the City Commission per Florida Statute. Mr. Tolces stated that they could recommend that the City Commission consider adopting an Ordinance 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2002 requiring a 25 mph speed limit in the stated area. Mr. Cwynar and Mr. Hay agreed to amend the motion to that effect. The motion passed unanimously. D. Park Impact Fee Text Amendment Ms. Hanna Matras, Economic Research Analyst, explained that the existing ordinance had been in place for some twenty years, even though the Comprehensive Plan calls for it to be updated every five years. In recent years, nearly every developer that came before the City had a problem with the assessment of the land dedication or the fee-in-lieu of for land, requiring a lengthy negotiation with the City Commission. The old method was based on the value of the land and the proposed method is based on a flat impact fee, solely dependent on the type of residential development. Staff believes this new model would be simpler and more equitable. Land dedication would stay in the ordinance as an option that can be exercised at the request of the City Commission. Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Ensler shared a concern about whether the City still had the ability to require, not just accept, that developers dedicate land rather than give the City money. Mr. Tolces stated that the ordinance language could be clarified on this point if the Board wished to make that a condition of their approval. Mr. Rumpf expressed the belief that the City Commission could require many things as part of the regular development process and that this could easily be negotiated during that process. Mr. Fitzgerald questioned the deletion of Item 2.c, General Standard, in the existing ordinance that requires that six acres of property for each one thousand persons be devoted for neighborhood park and recreational purposes. Ms. Matras replied that the legal requirements surrounding impact fees were quite specific and that they prohibited holding the developer accountable for the gap between the City's actual provision of parks and the standard the City wishes to adopt. If the City wishes to adopt a higher standard, the gap between the actual provision and the desired provision has to be funded by the City, not the developers. Mr. Fitzpatrick saw the loss of the standard as a loss of quality of life and a reduction in the amount of natural land available in the City. He asked why the standard had been put into the ordinance in the first place. Ms. Matras could not answer that question but explained that staff had been working on this Code amendment for the last year and had talked to nearly every consultant dealing with these issues all over the United States, including other cities and many lawyers. The General Standard section of the existing ordinance is a major problem. The City can only ask each developer to pay what the previous developer paid; otherwise, it is not equal treatment. The issue has been raised in several court cases. She said the City was free to embrace a higher standard if it wished. Mr. Rosenstock and Mr. Fitzpatrick shared the concern that more and more rental apartments were coming into the City and yet the City declined an offer from Quantum for a large amount of land to develop into parks because the City could not afford to do so. He was deeply concerned about whether the impact fee would cover the park requirements and whether the City would be able to develop any land that might be donated~ even though the developer would meet the criteria. Quintus Greene, Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2002 Development Director, agreed that this was a legitimate concern but one that could not be answered at this meeting. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked that the nature preserves be broken out of the parks land as a separate component, since they need to be protected. ~ir. Fitzpatrick asked about giving the developer credit for private amenities and Ms. Matras stated that they had decided not to do this because the benefits of the amenities are only available to the people who live in a particular development. Also, the market situation is such that the City does not need to force the developer to provide these amenities because the natural competition that exists between developers forces them to provide them as a standard. Finally, the City is almost entirely built out. The infill development that will be done will probably not have enough land for any land dedication. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired whether Caloosa Park was included in the City's parklands and was told that it was a County park and subject to County impact fees, in spite of the fact that the City regularly uses it for recreational programs. Mr. Fitzpatrick believed that it was important to revisit the ordinance on a regular basis to keep up with the rising land values. Mr. Tolces stated that the Board could recommend a requirement in the ordinance that called for review on a time certain basis. Ms. Matras stated that the Comprehensive Plan requirement is that it be reviewed every five years. Enrico Rossi, 625 Whispering Pines Road, Boynton Beach, stated that the City acted on a matter of 42 units at Quantum Park and allowed approximately $125K in recreation fees to "go out the window" and gave the developer 25% credit, all because someone decided that this would be acceptable. When you look closely at the things that are being offered as credits, many of them do not apply. He wanted to know who makes these decisions and what guidelines they use. He believed the credits were misapplied in this case. Quantum maintained that the 3,500 feet of bicycle path and the existing preserves entitled them to the credit. It turns out that the bicycle path has been virtually destroyed from lack of maintenance. He also disagreed with the place the developer had put the 40 acre preserve because the developer never put in a boardwalk that would control access through it. Chair Friedman stated that the question could not be answered at this meeting but he believed that there were several people in the City who could answer Mr. Rossi's questions. Motion Mr. Cwynar moved that the Board support staff's recommendation to the Commission on the matter of the Park Impact Fee Text Amendment. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2 (Messrs. Fitzpatrick and Rosenstock dissenting). Chair Friedland recognized the presence in the audience of Commissioner Mack McCray. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 23, 2002 Mr. Cwynar commended staff on their new methodology for the impact fees. He thought it simplified matters to establish a value per living unit and that from there, other areas could be negotiated, whether land swap or whatever. At least there was now a set amount that would be the same for everyone. VI. Other · Mr. Hay asked for the status of a request he had made for hand-held microphones for the Board. Mr. Rumpf will investigate and report back on this. · Mr. Ensler asked Mr. Tolces to elaborate on the Florida Sunshine Law in reference to a comment made by a Board member earlier in the meeting. Mr. Tolces responded that members of the Board should refrain from discussing items that are before the Board unless it is at a properly noticed public meeting. Mr. Ensler asked if stating that one had spoken to other members and naming the members would suffice. Mr. Tolces stated that he was the Board Attorney and that if the members had individual questions as to their ethical, financial, or legal obligations, they should consult with their own attorney. However, it had always been his recommendation that if conversations have taken place outside of a properly noticed meeting, stating the fact that a conversation took place would be sufficient to satisfy the member's obligation. He did not believe that this would, in all cases, satisfy the requirements of the Sunshine Law. His recommendation to refrain from such outside discussions was to avoid an appearance that would be contrary to what the public wishes to see in their elected and appointed officials. Chair Friedland thanked the Board members and staff for their work and patience. He believed that the Board was going to do a lot of good work as time goes on. VII. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (one tape) (O424O2)