Loading...
Minutes 01-26-98MINUTES OF THE JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING HELD IN CONFERENCE ROOM "C", WEST WING, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1998 AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT Gerald "Jerry" Taylor, Mayor Jamie Titcomb, Vice Mayor Matt Bradley, Commissioner Shirley Jaskiewicz, Commissioner Henderson Tillman, Commissioner Planning & Development Board Members Lee Wische, Chairman James Reed, Vice Chairman Marshall Friedland Maurice Rosenstock Kerry Willis, City Manager Jim Cherof, City Attorney Sue Kruse, City Clerk CALL TO ORDER Mayor Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:43 p.m. Mr. Rosenstock noted that no representatives frOm the Chamber of Commerce were present at this meeting. Mr. Kastarlak reported that he had just left the Chamber of Commerce and they were in the midst of a Chamber meeting. Vice Mayor Titcomb advised that two of the Commissioners are Chamber of Commerce members. Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director, reviewed the agenda for this meeting. The issues include the following: Issue #1: Requirement for property owners to upgrade their property if it does not meet the landscape code, including screening service areas (raised by the City Commission) Desired Outcomes: An understanding of the existing landscape code. Agreement on whether to adopt an ordinance to require landscaping upgrades. MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 Issue #2: The criteria, set forth by code, that must be met to grant variances (raised by the Planning & Development Board). Desired Outcomes: Issue #3: Agreement on whether to revise the variance criteria to allow discretion. Generation and enforcement of staff recommendations not required by code (raised by City Commission and Planning & Development Board). Desired Outcomes: Set policy regarding whether to include staff recommendations in development orders. Agreement on policy enforcement method Commissioner Bradley recommended delaying discussion of Issue #1 (Upgrading properties to meet landscape code) in the hopes that a representative from the Chamber of Commerce would arrive for the meeting. Issue #2: The criteria, set forth by code, that must be met to grant variances (raised by the Planning & Development Board). Desired Outcomes: Agreement on whether to revise the variance criteria to allow discretion. Ms. Heyden advised that Vanessa Llera, Plan Review Tech, would act as recorder for this evening's meeting. Ms. Heyden said the existing criteria in the Code were included in the back-up packet of information. All of the criteria pertain to and relate to hardship. When this issue arose a few months ago, there was concern whether or not there was a common understanding between the Commission and the board with respect to how applications were being reviewed. Staff was asked to conduct a workshop on this subject. The back-up information includes research from cities with similar criteria that sets a very clear direction with respect to reviewing the criteria. In response to Vice Mayor Titcomb, Attorney Cherof advised that the courts have indicated that the concept of hardship means that a property owner is unable to develop his/her property. It is not a situation where it can be developed at a less economically beneficial manner. A hardship would exist when the refusal of a board or Commission to grant a variance means the property cannot be developed. Mr. Wische questioned whether or not we could require that a request for variance not be related to economic hardship. Attorney Cherof responded affirmatively and pointed out that if the application is clear, staff can make a determination at the time it is filed. If the application is MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 based on economic detriment, staff could advise the applicant that the request would not proceed. Commissioner Bradley confirmed with Attorney Cherof that a variance should only procedure forward if the property owner cannot get a permit to build anything without it. In Mr. Rosenstock's opinion, we are changing our Codes by granting multiple variances all over the City. While he does not believe everything should be strictly interpreted, we would encounter less problems if we complied more closely with the Code. Mr. Rosenstock recommends that the City Attorney provide an advisory to the City Commissioners on a regular basis that would describe case law decisions. Commissioner Jaskiewicz feels there is a need for flexibility. Commissioner Bradley pointed out that if the Code is strictly interpreted, we will be perceived as being unfriendly to developers. Mr. Rosenstock recommends adjusting the Code so that it is reasonable. Mayor Taylor added that it is not possible to write the law to cover every situation. Variances provide flexibility. In addition, common sense is necessary during a variance hearing. Variances should be few and far between. Attorney Cherof suggested that the Commission consider vesting more power in the administrative staff that evaluates these variance requests. There are a number of variance requests that should not be granted. Those requests could be screened out at the administrative level. In addition, the Commission could distinguish between variances in residential areas and variances in commercial areas. Variances in commercial areas could be more liberal. Attorney Cherof also suggested that the Commission consider the fee for obtaining a variance being fixed, or, being variable based on a percentage of the increased value of the property or project. Appeals could be to the board or to the Commission. If staff explains to an applicant why a request will be rejected, most of those requests will never move forward to the appeal process. Mayor Taylor expressed concern about charging a variable fee for variances. Commissioner Bradley feels the existing system is flexible. He asked Attorney Cherof to address the issue of whether or not precedent is being set. Attorney Cherof feels the decisions being made on variances are so diverse that precedence is not an issue. He does not believe a pattern has been set. However, he explained that the longer the Code is not followed, the less enforceable it becomes. When a test case comes before the court, we will lose that case. Mr. Rosenstock feels the City has set a precedent of granting variances on a regular basis. The individual variances are not the point, but if variances are continually granted, that creates precedent. 3 MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 Commissioner Tillman believes it is necessary to put safeguards in place. Attorney Cherof agreed that it is necessary to restate the criteria in simpler language in the Code. Once that is done, we must hold to that standard. Attorney Cherof said the concept would be that at the preliminary review by staff, there would be enough exchange that a good portion of variance requests would end at that point. The one or two applicants that do not believe what staff has done was proper would go through an appeal process. The applicant would have the burden of proving that staff's opinion is wrong. Consensus There was a consensus of the group that staff would work out options for redesign of the project with the applicant rather than have the applicant apply for a variance. The variances that proceed to a higher level would go through an appeal procedure. Vice Mayor Titcomb questioned how this process differs from the staff comments that attempt to steer a project in a certain direction. Ms. Heyden explained that if an applicant does not agree with staff's recommendations, he would appeal. Mr. Rosenstock would prefer to see the applicant state the reasons for the appeal. A review process would then take place to determine if those reasons are valid enough for an appeal. Attorney Cherof agreed with Mr. Rosenstock's remarks that the screening must operate as a screen. With respect to the issue of staff comments, Mr. Wische explained that the board members were seeing requests that contained 70 comments. However, 65 of those comments pertained to Codes and were items the applicant must comply with. He would like to see staff comments that are above and beyond Code. Mr. Kastarlak explained that up to this point, applicants felt free to apply for any reason as long as they paid the fee. No one pointed out the process to them and the requirements for variances. Through the process of screening, there will be less work for the board and Commission because only key issues will reach those levels. Staff recommendations will be included in ail applications. This is a function of the professional staff. Attorney Cherof explained that when the Commission or board gives staff more authority, there is a corresponding increase of the amount of accountability of staff. In response to Vice Mayor Titcomb, Attorney Cherof said an ordinance would be required to give staff more authority to make these decisions. The ordinance will spell out this procedure so that when someone wants a variance, they can find the procedure outlined in the Code. Issue #3: Generation and enforcement of staff recommendations not required by code (raised by City Commission and Planning & Development Board). 4 MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 Desired Outcomes: Set policy regarding whether to include staff recommendations in development orders. Agreement on policy enforcement method Mr. Heyden explained that this is an .issue that has been discussed for the past six months. Several months ago, there was a concern that the list of staff comments was and they caused a great deal of back and forth negotiations with the applicants at the board and Commission levels. At that time, there was direction to staff to only include comments that were Code requirements. However, staff has continued to provide staff recommendations because as professionals, staff can offer additional expertise in the areas of design and safety that are not covered in the Code. Staff feels it is important to provide to the board and Commission a recommendation of what the ultimate design could be. However, there is a legal concern with adopting staff comments and requiring the applicant to comply with those comments. We have had instances where the applicant agrees to a staff comment, and then changes his mind. Staff would like direction with respect to how the Commission wants to treat the staff comments. Mr. Wische feels the Planning & Development Board addressed this issue by having the applicant address only the comments he is concerned with or require clarification. Mayor Taylor suggested making the staff recommendations conditions of approval in the motion. Attorney Cherof explained that if the applicant agrees to the staff, and then only complies with the Code requirements, we would have a problem convincing a judge that staff recommendations were to be treated the same as Code requirements. He recommends putting language in the Code that if the applicant hears the recommendation and agrees to it, or remains silent on it, it riSes to the level of a Code provision for enforcement purposes. Mr. Rosenstock feels you cannot write everything into the Code. He explained that ten years ago, he recommended that when staff says a development is defective, the developer should sign the set of plans after changes are made and before he comes back to the board. Once the developer's signature is on a set of plans, he is committed. Attorney Cherof feels the solution is to change the Code and say that for a staff recommendation to be followed, it must be rooted in a professional base. If we saw more input from staff that we could rely upon at a public meeting, it would be more defensible. Language could be added to the Code advising that staff recommendations have a place. Mr. Kastadak explained that the purpose of staff recommendations is to exercise professional judgement by qualified individuals. He recommends generating a policy or ordinance that staff recommendations should come forward as conditions of approval. Removing the staff recommendations will weaken the position of staff during negotiations with the developer. Mr. Rosenstock would like to see a stronger effort on the part of staff to get the developer to agree to the staff recommendations in advance of a board or Commission meeting. 5 MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 Commissioner Bradley feels staff needs to know where the board or Commission stands on a particular project for the purpose of negotiating with the applicant. Attorney Cherof suggested that when an application comes to a Commission meeting with three or five recommendations still in dispute, that application should be tabled to allow staff to negotiate with the developer. This situation should not be resolved in an impasse process. Mayor Taylor offered the following language to be added to the Code: "Staff recommendations, which are accepted as conditions of approval, shall be construed as supplemental to and a requirement of Code compliance." Attorney Cherof advised that he would be much more comfortable with a section similar to the one recommended in the Code. In response to Commissioner Jaskiewicz, Mayor Taylor advised that the Commission would still make the final decisions. The Planning & Development Board would bring forward recommendations to the Commission. If the Commission accepts the recommendations, they will have the same authority as Code requirements. Attorney Cherof suggested removing the word "recommendation" once an application moves to the board or Commission level. These "recommendations" would be conditions at that point. Mr. Kastarlak spoke about the agenda memorandum that is included in the City Commission agenda. He feels the items delineated as "Program Impacts" and "Alternatives" should be eliminated because recommendations are provided. City Manager Willis agreed that on Planning & Development Board items, "Program Impacts" and "Alternatives" could be deleted. These items will be retained for other City business. Commissioner Bradley asked for Ms. Heyden's opinion with respect to the interplay between staff and the board, and staff and the Commission, with the applicant at the center. We want to be certain there is enough of an exchange of information so that the best possible project comes forward while still having firm boundaries in place. He questioned the amount of information staff needs about the overall direction with respect to design as they move forward with the applicant prior to the board meeting or Commission meeting. Ms. Heyden explained .that the only area staff has difficulty with is the Community Design Plan. The two major areas staff deals with with respect to staff recommendations are Community Design Plan and safety issues pertaining to traffic and better traffic flow in parking lots. She feels staff will have more confidence once we hire the Transportation Planner because we will have the back-up and justification that the Attorney's Office is requesting. Commissioner Tillman feels it is a fine line that must be walked with respect to staff understanding the position of the Commission. He felt Commissioner Bradley was referring to political issues, and he is not certain staff wants to move in that direction. He feels staff must be left alone to do their jobs professionally. Staff should be aware of the position of the Commission with respect to where the Commission wants to take the City. He does not feel the Commission can dictate to staff. 6 MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 individual has a different philosophy, he must get a majority of the Commission to change the Code to make a difference in the City. A two-year Commission should not change the imprint of where the City is going. Mr. Kastarlak feels the Comprehensive Plan should be followed. The policies in that Plan were translated into design guidelines. This Plan contains the long-range policy guidelines for the community. It is the only document that the Florida State administration accepts for the City. Commissioner Bradley believes staff has the expertise to provide recommendations that will end up making the project the best it can be. However, staff needs to understand how the Commission is planning to move on some of these issues. Mr. Wische suggested that staff meet with each Commissioner on an individual basis to explain what they are doing and to receive feedback. Mr. Reed suggested staff conduct a working meeting at the site before taking the projects to the board or Commission. Commissioner Jaskiewicz felt confident that most of the Commissioners visit the sites prior to an item coming before the Commission. Prior to moving on to Issue #1, Mr. Wische reminded everyone that this meeting was announced a few weeks ago. He questioned why the Chamber would schedule a meeting to be held at the same time as this meeting. City Manager Willis apologized for the delay in opening this building for this meeting. In addition, she advised that Kathy Shabotynskyj phoned her on Friday evening to advise her that she did not get notice of the meeting. City Manager Willis told her the notice was put out three weeks ago, and she was confident the notice was sent to the Chamber. She offered to work on better communication with the Chamber. Mr. Rosenstock questioned why the Chamber of Commerce is the only organization that was invited to attend. He felt other taxpaying organizations should have been invited. City Manager Willis reminded Mr. Rosenstock that inviting the Chamber was a joint decision of the board and Commission. The Chamber is the recognized representative of the business community. In Mr. Rosenstock's opinion, at the outset, the Planning & Development Board and the City Commission should meet to have a meeting of the minds. Then a notice should be posted for a public hearing to detail the points the board and Commission have arrived at. Following that public hearing, there should be a meeting to review input from the public hearing and finalize plans. Mayor Taylor also added that this meeting was set to address non-residential properties. The Chamber of Commerce was invited so that if a decision is made to require the business community to upgrade their properties, the Chamber can work with them. Issue #1: Requirement for property owners to upgrade their property if it does not meet the landscape 7 MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 code, including screening service areas (raised by the City Commission) Desired Outcomes: An understanding of the existing landscape code. Agreement on whether to adopt an ordinance to require landscaping upgrades Ms. Heyden reported that well over a year ago when we were going through the approval process of the Residential Appearance Code, the idea of improving the aesthetics of commercial properties was brought up. A decision was made to deal with commercial properties at a later date. In the fall, staff was directed to workshop this item to try to get nonconforming commercial properties to upgrade their landscaping without it being connected to any improvements. When Commissioner Jaskiewicz researched this issue, she found that Delray Beach adopted an ordinance in 1990. A copy was included in the back-up material. The ordinance requires mandatory upgrades of commercial properties, multi-family properties and investment properties with respect to certain parts of their landscape code that include screening of service areas, lot areas, outside storage, and perimeter buffering. The City of Delray Beach gave the business owners three years to comply with the requirement. They also provided technical assistance in the form of on-site assessments, and explained to the business community how they could go through the process without having to draw up plans or hire a professional. To date, they have received a large number of complaints, but there is a very visible improvement in that City. Staff studied Federal Highway and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Each property was ranked 1, 2 or 3. Ranking #1 indicates the property could be brought up to the Code through maintenance, or the addition of a minimal number of trees or shrubs. A ranking of #2 indicates additional landscaping was needed and it requires location of landscaping. There would be some tearing up of concrete or asphalt. However, the businesses would not lose parking spaces. A ranking of #3 is the worst-case scenario where requiring additional landscaping to be added would result in the loss of parking spaces and significant redesign of the property. A chart of the rankings was provided in the back-up material. There are 21 sites along Boynton Beach Boulevard that are ranked #1. Three sites are ranked #2 and 19 are ranked #3. On Federal Highway, there are 43 ranked #1, 40 were ranked #2, and 38 were ranked #3. When all sites are ranked together, 39% of the total sites ranked #1, 26% ranked #2, and 35% ranked #3. Sixty-five percent of the total sites could be upgraded without significant impacts to the design of the property. Delray's landscape code is more stringent than our Code. The number of trees per lineal foot of frontage is one for every 25'. We require only one for every 40'. In addition, there is a difference whether perimeter buffering is required where there is no vehicular area adjacent to the right-of-way. In our Landscape Code, landscaping must be provided along the right-of-way if there is a vehicular area that abuts the right-of-way. We also noted that Delray Beach requires the hedge height to be a minimum of 3' at the time of planting. We only required 18" at the time of planting. 8 MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 Mr. Rosenstock questioned whether any of the cities' Codes require the businesses to have irrigation. Ms. Heyden advised that all of the sample codes have requirements for irrigation. After viewing a slide presentation, Vice Mayor Titcomb declared that many of the properties depicted would benefit from the addition of landscaping even if there is a loss of parking spaces or accessibility. He feels it is important for the City to look at the issue because a particular site may be better served by beautification than having as many parking spaces as are required. Beautification has a higher public value. Ms. Heyden advised that in the criteria for Delray Beach, they stopped short of requiring anything that would result in the loss of parking spaces. Vice Mayor Titcomb explained that the number of parking spaces required is a product of our · Code. That can be countered by shared parking agreements or other criteria. In some cases, property owners may be willing to beautify, but cannot because it diminishes the Code requirement. Commissioner Jaskiewicz pointed out that a great deal of flexibility will be needed if the City decides to impose these landscaping requirements. She realizes that every one of the properties depicted in the slide presentation could aesthetically improved. Commissioner Jaskiewicz does not believe Delray Beach had a "hard and fast" rule because each property is unique. Ms. Heyden explained that even a property with a ranking of #3 could be aesthetically improved. A ranking of #3 does not mean nothing can be done. In Delray Beach, a landscaping compliance committee was assigned. If a property owner did not agree with the committee's recommendations, he went to the Planning & Development Board. Commissioner Jaskiewicz anticipates a problem with respect to irrigation. In Mr. Rosenstock's opinion, landscaping without irrigation is worthless. He reported that the consortium of golf clubs at Hunters Run, Quail Ridge, etc. are coming on-line shortly to water golf courses with effluent to ensure against a drought. Mr. Rosenstock feels we must start putting in an overall effluent usage for watering medians, lawns, setbacks and swales. He explained that in Naples, Florida, everyone is required to irrigate. Mr. Rosenstock recommended that the Planning Department review the best plans they can find, including Naples, synthesize them, and come back with a recommendation. He pointed out that he was pleased with the majority of Delray Beach's plan. He also suggested the use of vines and potted plants in places where landscaping cannot be planted in the ground. Since Boynton Beach does not have a parking problem, Mr. Rosenstock recommends allowing on-street parking where it will not affect the flow of traffic. That would eliminate diminution of parking places of the businesses. This decision could be made at the discretion of Planning. Commissioner Jaskiewicz reminded Mr. Rosenstock that the effluent project that is currently being installed has the potential for expansion. It is a $9 million project. Mayor Taylor reported that DOT is eliminating parking along Federal Highway. Therefore, we could not permit on-street parking. However, the City could allow the property owner to pay a 9 MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 certain amount of money in lieu of parking spaces that could be used at a later date for parking garages. Commissioner Bradley suggested involving the property owners and business owners along Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway in future meetings when this issue is discussed. Mr. Reed advised that there might be ways to use turf grass in areas that are infrequently used for parking. Commissioner Jaskiewicz also suggested being flexible with hedge depth in areas where parking is a problem. Screening of dumpsters is an extremely important item that should be addressed immediately. Vice Mayor Titcomb pointed out that a good case study would be Smith Brothers. There is a paved-over area that should not be paved since no one parks there. This would be a perfect location to better landscape the site. Mayor Taylor said the hedge around the Cemetery has gaps. We cannot demand that others upgrade their properties unless we set an example. Commissioner Bradley added that City Hall is another example of a property needing landscaping upgrades. Commissioner Jaskiewicz would like the business community notified of the meeting when this issue is discussed in the future in order to give them an opportunity to provide their input. Mayor Taylor would like to wait on this suggestion until the City has a plan to present to the community. Mr. Friedland questioned when a status report on signage would be provided. Ms. Heyden advised that Planning & Zoning is working with Code Compliance to develop a slide show and inventory. This information should be available at the next workshop meeting. Ms. Heyden reiterated that staff would work on developing a sample of our requirements for the next meeting. Mayor Taylor confirmed that once the board and Commission review the sample, other groups could be invited to offer input. Mr. Reed suggested setting up a demonstration site that could serve as an example to lead people. Vice Mayor Titcomb recommends prioritizing City-owned properties to become showcases of good landscaping, irrigation and maintenance. Ms. Heyden feels the old wastewater plant might be a good site to upgrade and show off. Mr. Reed advised that he learned of a commercial yard certification program through the Lake Worth Lagoon Steering Committee. He challenged the City Commission and board members to get their yards certified. He can provide information to anyone who is interested. Mr. Friedland would like Larry Roberts to talk to the group about irrigation. Mr. Rosenstock recommended that the City start making plans to begin implementing potential for irrigation in all 10 MEETING MINUTES JOINT CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 26, 1998 Mr. Friedland would like Larry Roberts to talk to the group about irrigation. Mr. Rosenstock recommended that the City start making plans to begin implementing potential for irrigation in all of our medians, swales and setbacks. He also talked about eliminating the rust from certain methods of irrigation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting properly adjourned at 9:00 p.m. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH ayor ATTEST: / ~ City Clerk C6m~ssioner /D/putY City Clerk '-~"r'h tee Tapes) 11