Loading...
Minutes 02-23-03MINUTES OF THE COMMUNXTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C' I~N THE WEST WING, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003 AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT Larry Finkelstein, Chairman Jeanne Heavilin, Vice Chair Jos~ Aguila Alexander DeMarco Michelle Hoyland Absent Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Michael Rumpf, Planning Zoning Director Lusia Galav, Principal Planner Dick Hudson, Senior Planner Eric Johnson, Planner Don Fenton Henderson Tillman Also Present Russell Moore, Principal, The RMPK Group Jody Rivers, Senior Project Manager, The RMPK Group Chair Finkelstein opened the workshop at 6:30 p.m. and introduced the Board members to the consultants from The RMPK Group, the firm engaged by the Planning & Zoning Division to assist with the rewriting of the Land Development Regulations (LDR). The purpose of this meeting was to determine the issues and concerns with the existing Zoning Code on matters of redevelopment, the development approval process, and the organization of the Code. 3ody Rivers, Senior Project Manager, The RMPK Group, stated that they had begun meeting with staff in December and had divided the project into four phases. The first phase is data gathering; the second is analysis of the data including the information they obtain from this and other groups; the third is the Code framework and format; and the fourth is to actually rewrite the plan. Staff had thoroughly acquainted them with the current Land Development Regulations. They had met with the City Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, various developers, and various neighborhood groups as well. During the phase in which they are working on the framework of the Code, they will return to the CRA and ask for input once again. They want to make certain that Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 13, 2003 everyone who would be affected by the Code had an opportunity to look at how it would actually work. During the summer, they will develop a draft of the Code and come back to staff for approval. They hope to bring it to the City Commission in the winter and codify it soon thereafter. Russell Moore, Principal of The RMPK Group, stated that the investigation so far had led to these findings: 1) The chief complaint with the LDR is the way it is organized. ]~t is hard to find things in it. 2) The approval process needs to be expedited. 3) The City Commission believes that more cases should be handled at the administrative level and not passed on to the City Commission. He stated that they would also be looking at ways to create new zones or fine- tune existing zones to help expedite the goals of the CRA. Ms. Rivers commented that one of the other major focal points of the project was to facilitate redevelopment because the current Code was written for regular suburban development. IVlr. Hutchinson summarized some points of concern that had developed from discussions with the Board: 1) strengthening mixed use and making it more focused; 2) IPUDs - getting more teeth to it to avoid so much discussion and dissension after the fact; 3) height nodes at Gateway, Woolbright, and Gulfstream; 4) density issues; and 5) the staggering of the height on Federal Highway. Height :Issue Ms. Galav stated that many people were not in favor of the increased height downtown for the IVlixed-Use High. Mr. Hutchinson added that another problem was that there is no setback provision for that height. Therefore, in theory, :[50' monoliths could be built. Chair Finkelstein thought the Visions 20/20 Plan and the Federal Highway Corridor Plan discussed setbacks. However, Mr. Russell indicated that this was never codified. Mr. Hutchinson explained that Visions 20/20 was never accepted thereby making it only a guidance document with "no teeth to it." :In discussions with three developers, all of them asked for the location of the footprint including the line they could come up to with 75' or :[50', where it tapers down, and where it comes into massing. This information is not 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 13, 2003 addressed. Developers buy properties based on density. Changing heights and setbacks affects the economics of the price per square foot. Ms. Galav stated that the height issue would be coming up with the new Marina Plan where they were looking at two towers, fifteen stories, and 150 feet of sheer wall off the road. When the current CRA began to meet as a Board, this issue was discussed and it was felt that fifteen stories would be more appropriate in West Palm Beach than in Boynton Beach. Mr. Hudson stated that as the Code was originally written, there were step-back provisions. He did not recall when or how they "went away." Ms. Galav stated that when they were going through the last revision of the Marina, they were developing the two categories: MU-H and MU-L and they were coming through at the same time. They made revisions to MU-H just for the Marina, which was now not going to be built and they were looking at another version of it. Mr. Hutchinson said that the bigger the project, the more you could mass the heights in the middle. A variety of building heights and setbacks would allow a nice urban landscape. There are architectural companies that understand infill and have had a long track record that we can learn from. However, there were people with money who wanted to purchase less than a full block and had to compete with property owners with larger parcels and higher densities. They have a difficult infill going in with the Masonic Lodge and the old Shipwreck site and it was now going to have to try to fit into a Master Plan somehow. They were working to get both architectural firms together to resolve the issue. Part of the March 8 workshop is to see how some of these bigger firms are looking at the edges and how it is going to affect massive redevelopment on not just one block but five or six blocks at a time and what Boynton would end up looking like. That is what generated the need for the March 8 workshop. Design Guidelines Mr. Johnson asked whether the Federal Highway Corridor Study addressed any of these design issues? Ms. Galav indicated that it did not. Chair Finkelstein stated that there was a start in the Visions 20/20 Plan but it was never codified into a design document for the redevelopment area. The Board had been talking about having a workshop on design guidelines in the downtown and surrounding area. Ms. Hoyland thought that the CRA should hire a design guidelines group to do it. She felt that when the design guidelines were completed, Code revisions would be required. It may not be specific Code revisions with respect to height, and so forth, but the desired appearance issues would affect what is allowed in a specific zoning district. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 13, 2003 IVlr. Hutchinson met with Delray Beach about design guidelines. Delray Beach is building guidelines into their LDRs to ensure enforcement. Ms. Hoyland stated that this was not the only issue. Part of the issue was the overlay district that had been created. There is a CBD core area, which is the downtown, and another district that must be referred to in addition to that, and so on. When a developer comes in, you do not have a user-friendly guide to hand out. Part of the reason why it is all being incorporated into one is to consolidate and make it easier for staff and the public to use. Mr. Hutchinson indicated that the initial idea was to piggyback on Delray Beach's design guidelines. He had come up with five major design guidelines that Delray Beach selected as being the most important out of about 100. Mr. Hutchinson explained that development of design guidelines would be an all-consuming project that would take a company six to nine months to complete. While staff could adopt some very good guidelines, they could not write them into the actual Code and do the CAD drawings to include them in the LDRs. Although he had some examples for the Board's review, he suggested that the Board might want to track Delray Beach's progress and revisit piggybacking their contract. Chair Finkelstein noted that the Board had previously approved a piggyback contract for this project. Chair Finkelstein asked for specific comments about the LDR. Mr. Aguila was concerned about the format. He wanted to see graphics and matrices. Delray Beach has one particular matrix that talks about height and setbacks and all the zoning is in one column and issues are in another column and basic information can be found in it. The graphics could have annotations that would lead to the text, if desired. Mr. Aguila was also concerned about improving the aesthetic nature of the area. He spoke of a conflict between hard and fast rules that state that your building must have landscaping if you are on the street versus whether the building is compatible, even without landscaping, in the context in which it would be placed. He thought that the current Landscaping Code was weak. He believed that more landscaping, buffers, and open space should be required. He also wanted to see trees of larger caliper at the time of installation. IVls. Hoyland suggested creating a color palette so that people could use it and only come before the CRA if they wanted to deviate from it. The early history of the Community Redevelopment Advisory Board (CRAB) was discussed. Applicants came before them for color approval, signage, and painting issues. Jose Aguila detailed the Commission's decision to combine the 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 13, 2003 CRAB and the Planning & Zoning Boards into the current Planning & Development Board (P & D Board.) Their scope was dual: planning, zoning, and appearance. The problem was that since so few people on the Board had technical expertise, they began to ignore the whole issue of colors and appearance and leaned on staff's opinion. Hs. Hoyland believed, and several members agreed, that the P & D Board should be made up of representatives of real estate, planning, architecture, landscaping, and banking backgrounds and that these requirements should be codified. She also thought that the requirements for the CRA members should be codified. There was an apparent consensus on the part of the participants about this issue. Former Commissioner Bruce Black was in the audience and agreed with this point. Mr. DeMarco commented that he was very much in favor of increased landscaping requirements. He was concerned about the appearance of properties on the main streets of town. He was against dark colors in general because they faded fast and looked unkempt in six months. He was in favor of having color schemes brought before the Board for approval. He thought that setbacks were important and did not want developments in Boynton Beach to mimic those in Delray Beach that were so close to the sidewalk with practically no landscaping. He favored a uniform Sign Code. He brought some manuals to the City as a result of his involvement with the Palm Beach County Landscape Committee and an architect. He thought they contained some good ideas. He was not sure if the Planning & Zoning Division had copies of them. He was in favor of quality developments and uniformity in atmospheres and styles, and suggested following the County's guidelines. The County suggests but does not force these guidelines. He also wanted to see more open space. Doug Hutchinson stated that developers were coming in with landscaping with new technologies that were on the border between hardscape and softscape. There were pavers in which grass can be grown and new lighting options. He recommended that consideration be given to the new conservation technologies so that the Board could accomplish its goal of having a greener, solter area. He cautioned the Board members that in an urban setting, open space, if not within certain ratios, was a deterrent to public interaction. There could actually be gaps that would be like putting up walls for pedestrians. Delray Beach is looking at the ratios between setbacks and layers of buildings and how big a gap to allow between buildings and pedestrian engagement. Pedestrian engagement in an urban setting is paramount to having a linear street that works. While he agreed with having a "sense of place," which is what they were trying to get to with open space, and public areas that everyone could enjoy, they needed to come up with some regulations to avoid gaps in the downtown. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 13, 2003 Ms. Hoyland stated that when she referred to open space, she meant greenery and not pervious concrete. She stated that in the downtown they did not have much of a setback. They had a streetscape, but not much of a green area between the building and the sidewalk. Ms. Hoyland stated that most downtown CBD areas had a 0 - 10% open space requirement, which was next to nothing. Often, if any is left, it is in the back of the building and is meant to screen or shade the building from adjacent properties. She felt that squares and open areas would have to be created because they could not be imposed upon developers. She stated that they were redeveloping areas that were originally developed some 70 years ago. There was no landscaping back then and the main streets had parallel parking. There was concrete everywhere. They were now trying to soften that so they did not deter pedestrians. Mr..lohnson stated that the Code was set up for a suburban development pattern with one style to fit the entire city. This worked all right when the western area was being developed but was inappropriate for a redevelopment area, which would have a completely different style. IVlr. Hutchinson mentioned that the CityPlace developers had admitted that lack of convenience parking was killing their retail sector. Mr. Russell indicated that the point of this exercise was to be able to come up with styles that fit these patterns. If you want to have a public square that fronts five different parcels, there is no way you can have the developers contribute to that. The CRA will have to do that in conjunction with the City. Tt is like a shopping center plan where you are looking at the whole area in one project and you have to figure out which pieces are going to be done by the private developer and which pieces are the public pieces. In the suburban Code, you are saying that the developer has to do everything on their site. They could not make everybody put retention ponds on 50-foot lots. The participants did not see a successful downtown with all or even part of the parking in front of the building, with the exception of on street parallel parking. IVlr. Hutchinson stated that a lot of towns had eliminated all on-street parking. IVls. Hoyland thought that perhaps the garage needed to be closer to the front of the property. Mr. Hutchinson suggested valet parking stations. He then stated that the ratios in the projects they were looking at now were only about 10 to 25% retail - most of it was very high residential counts, which gets the volume up. The reason small businesses cannot afford the space is that they are not doing enough business to support their rent. In Boynton Beach, we are going to have a much higher ratio than CityPlace, which is only five stories high. Boynton was not looking at buildings that were ten to twelve stories high. 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 13, 2003 Mr. Johnson asked how the Codes should be changed to meet all these demands. Mr. Aguila was opposed to creating a "menu system" with design guidelines that specify design criteria for different sections of the City. He felt that design professionals should have the opportunity to provide a quality design that works and fits in a certain context, even though it might not appeal to every individual taste. Ms. Hoyland agreed. Ms. Heavilin thought that it was important to have something in place that would allow the City to have some integrity in the redevelopment area. If a project did not fit in with what was around it, it would need to be modified so the City would not have to face an eyesore that met Code but looked terrible. Eric Johnson stated that the only part of the Code that had graphics was in Chapter 9 where it showed a picture of a fiat roof versus a pitched roof and the admonition to strive towards the pitched version. Ms. Hoyland did not think the picture was appropriate in the LDR. Mr. Aguila stated that it would be appropriate in a discussion about where building height was measured from, for example. Ms. Hoyland stated that there could be a requirement that talked about design things like massing or designing. On Seacrest Boulevard you could talk about massing in context and it should say that it does not fit with the scale of the existing pattern on the street. Mr. Russell stated that when he talked about graphics, he was not talking about aesthetics at all. He meant things like parking standards and requirements. Ms. Galav stated that this already existed. The Engineering Division has a utilities manual and was in the final draft stages of an Engineering Design Handbook that contains all of those details. The book will be referenced only in the LDRs. They did not want it in the LDR because they did not want to have to do a Code review or ordinance to change engineering requirements. Ms. Hoyland thought that if she were a new architect, she should be able to come to the Planning & Zoning Division and pay to get one book. Ms. Galav stated that the Planning & Zoning Division wanted that architect to look at the LDRs on-line. Host municipalities are getting away from an off-the-shelf reference standard. Mr. Johnson stated that when people are serious about doing a project in Boynton Beach, the Planning & Zoning Division strongly recommends that they attend a pre-app meeting and at that meeting, gives them a laundry list of engineering standards. Engineering is present at the meeting and it is working. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 13, 2003 Ms. Hoyland thought that this was a great process. They call it a courtesy review in Delray Beach. Chair Finkelstein asked the Board members if there were any specific issues they wished to see addressed. Ms. Hoyland felt that there should be a single approval procedure. She was in favor of shortening the City Commission agenda length. Ms. Payne mentioned that there were cities where site plans and even variances did not go to the Commission at all. Mr. Aguila felt that one should be able to appeal to the Commission. Ms. Hoyland asked what happened to the conditions put on a project by the CRA. She asked if there were a certified site plan that was kept on record or whether the conditions were forwarded with the building permit. She was advised that they were forwarded with the building permit and addressed at that time. Mr. Hutchinson spoke of some projects that had so many conditions that it would be more efficient to start over and bring it back to the CRA after reducing the number of conflicts with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. DeMarco complimented the Planning & Zoning Division for their fine work, especially with all the new projects coming in. He had brought many people to them and they were very satisfied. Mr. Russell felt that formatting the LDR and making process and procedural changes would be the easier part of their task. They had gotten great input from their work sessions. Their biggest challenge was to come up with the Code framework for the CRA area. Mr. Hutchinson had several projects ready to go and the review process was not adequate for these projects. They hoped to have a draft by August or September of this year and would then embark on a six-month review and analysis phase. This would cause the need for some "hip- shooting" development negotiations for the next year that he knew would be really challenging. ]:n a perfect world, they would start with a visioning process (which the City had already done) and then the redevelopment plan. A redevelopment plan typically says that in the future, you want "X" sorts of land uses and mixes in "X" kinds of areas. That could mean reinforcing existing historical neighborhoods and leaving others alone, which would be difficult. Their task would be to design the idealized districts that would have guidelines for development in those zones. :In order for them to do a good job of setting the zones up, they were going to need a good idea of where the CRA wanted to go with the downtown. There were some pieces of this in the Federal Highway Corridor report. Mr. Hutchinson thought that Visions 20/20 had covered most of what Mr. Russell was looking for already. The street light placement might be a little different in a 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida February 13,200;3 new project, but otherwise it was "dead on" to what was happening. Chair Finkelstein indicated that staff led people to the Visions 20/20 Plan also. Mr. Hutchinson thought that it might be necessary to officially adopt the Visions 20/20 Plan so that it would be more recognized. Even though it was written in 1998, it seemed to be on target. Chair Finkelstein said that Visions 20/20 was supposed to be the original "global" view and they were supposed to narrow those districts down into overlays and define areas. Lots of public input went into that. Mr. Hutchinson stated that he had been asked to look into that and had determined that the ordinance that adopted it had no backup. Attorney Payne stated that this was a technical issue but they could repair it. She also understood that it had no "teeth." Chair Finkelstein said that it was not supposed to have teeth. It was supposed to be a master redevelopment plan that would act as a general guideline and then they were supposed to start putting it in the Code and making overlays and so forth. That is the part that had been drifting. Mr. Hutchinson asked for a consensus on the Board that Visions 20/20 was the direction in which they wished to proceed. Chair Finkelstein and Vice Chair Heavilin agreed that it was basically their vision. Ms. Galav stated that it had been used since she came here three and a half years ago. There seemed to be consensus that Visions 20/20 was an accurate vision for the CRA area. Mr. Russell stated that they could use Visions 20/20 as a starting point. Chair Finkelstein stated that the piece that was missing was the design guidelines. What he meant by design guidelines was massing, setbacks, parking organization, and that type of thing. There is a section in Visions 20/20 that talks about massing and the "wedding cake" theory. Mr. Russell indicated that their next step would be to analyze the Code and point out its shortcomings. They will come back to the CRA at a workshop to reveal their findings, including their understanding of the CRA's vision. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (021403) 9