Loading...
Minutes 05-20-04t4INUTES OF THE COHt4UNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP HELD IN THE LIBRARY PROGRAf4 ROOM, BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR/DA~ ON THURSDAY, HAY 20, 2004, AT 6:00 P.M. Present Jeanne Heavilin, Chair Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair James Baretta Alexander DeMarco Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director Quintus Greene, Development Director Dick Hudson, Senior Planner Hanna Matras, Economic Analyst Absent Don Fenton Larry Finkelstein Charlie Fisher I. Call to Order Chair Heavilin opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed the members of the audience. Evaluation and Appraisal Report for DCA Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, explained that the City was beginning work on its Evaluation and Appraisal Report, as required by the State, in preparation for updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. The State wants the City to look at the major issues facing the City, how it plans to deal with those issues, and what changes they would bring about to the Comprehensive Plan. A draft of those issues needs to be ready by early fall this year. The end product of this analysis will be presented to the City Commission before being sent to the DCA. This effort is expected to take two months. The input of the Planning & Development Board is being sought and various public meetings will be held as well. Workshops will be scheduled for this purpose. Mr. Hutchinson stated that he would get copies of the existing Comprehensive Plan, circa 1989, to the Board members as soon as possible. II. Workshop A. Infill Planned Unit Development (ZPUD) Mr. Hudson stated that the City now had an :[PUD in its Code, but there was a moratorium on using it. Several developers wanted to use it, and in order to avoid having another problem like The Harbors, the Planning & Zoning Division was trying to clean up the :[PUD and strengthen and add to the original language. They were seeking the Board's input and that of the public to make sure that all bases were covered when the Code amendment goes into effect. Meeting Minutes CRA Workshop in IPUD Boynton Beach, Florida May 20, 2004 Mr. Hudson distributed a draft of Chapter 2 Zoning, Sec. 5 Residential district regulations and use provisions, Exhibit A, L. ~[nfill Planned Unit Development (:[PUD). He also distributed a copy of the Federal Highway Corridor Redevelopment Study, "Boundary of Corridor Study Area" map, including Planning Areas #:~ and #5, on the extreme northern and southern edges of the City's Federal Highway Corridor, the target areas for implementation of this concept. Mr. Hudson stated that the IPUD District standards and regulations were created for the purpose of allowing flexibility to accommodate infill and redevelopment on parcels of less than five (5) acres in size. Parcels five or more acres in size would comply with normal PUD regulations found in Chapter 2.5 of the Land Development Regulations. IVlr. Hudson enumerated some of the recommendations from the Federal Highway Corridor Study that had to be taken into account when considering the :[PUD: encourage a variety of housing protect community character require a transition to existing gateway neighborhoods (Areas 2 and 4) require compatibility between uses enhance the visual appearance of the Corridor provide consistency between existing uses in the zoning and land use map emphasize major activity nodes consider a public presence What the Planning & Zoning Division is trying to do in the Corridor is to encourage redevelopment and the consolidation of properties to encourage larger projects. Planning believes that a one-acre parcel would be the minimum upon which a variety of uses could be accommodated. Mr. Hudson stated that PUD zoning had been misused in the past few years. Originally, when the idea came to planners 30 years or more ago, the idea was that it would provide an opportunity to develop land that did not fit into the normal development regulations for standard zoning districts where you have to have 25-foot front and rear setbacks and 10-foot side yard setbacks, and a lot of other limitations when you have all single-family in the district. The larger PUDs can develop a wide variety of housing. He gave an example of the Melear PUD south of Miner Road, where there were quad units, apartment units, and single-family housing. The densities vary within the PUD because it is so large. Their density is about 7 du/acre at the most. Through the use of a PUD, they can shift that density around and the apartment complexes are built at about 16 du/acre. Planning looked at the Land Use Map and considered a Land Use that would only be for the Federal Highway Corridor and Special High Density Residential that would be up to 20 du/acre. What they needed to do was draft this ]:PUD ordinance that would allow the City to apply to High Density Residential, which is 10.8 du/acre, and also have it apply to the higher density of 20 du/acre. One of the things in the original language was that most PUD ordinances are short on substantive standards to guide the Planning & Development Board and the City Commission when considering whether to grant permission for the PUD. The ordinance should probably set 2 Meeting Minutes CRA Workshop in IPUD Boynton Beach, Florida May 20, 2004 forth maximum permitted densities, height, and ground coverage and permitted dwelling types. In the end, however, the decision to grant or deny a PUD is discretionary. A Commission or Council may vote against a proposal simply because an individual Commissioner does not like the applicant's design, and it is all right to do that. :[t went on to say that if the standards were more specific, then the PUD would become nothing more than another zoning district like the single-family zoning that says there must be 5,000 square feet for a building lot, and so forth. Generally, with a PUD, the idea is that you get something more from the developer by giving him these relaxed standards. You say, "We want additional open space so we want special architecture, and then we are going to let you relax these other rules." The Planning 8~ Zoning Division is trying to address the fact that in the past, there was not enough strong language about protecting adjacent single-family development or just adjacent developments. The example that sticks in everyone's minds is The Harbors. They have always said that the setbacks in a PUD should match the setbacks of adjacent development. The Harbors did a good job of matching the setbacks with the Single Family on the north side, but there are no required setbacks for a Park, and this allowed that project to be put in place. While this Board and staff strongly recommended against that project being approved, the City had a use there that it wanted to eliminate. They were willing to let something through a little easier than if it had been somewhere else. Mr. Hudson said that they had gone back and added a statement to say that the City is not obligated to give a developer the density being requested. The City can ask for additional things that it thinks will provide a smoother transition between the proposed development and existing developments. Mr. Hudson stated that the City had made it very clear to developers applying for this zoning that common ownership or unified control was a must. On the second page under Maximum Density, where it says 10.8 du/ac, following Local Retail Commercial (LRC), it should say "and" because it is ambiguous. This will make it clear that it will be based on the land use that they have. Mr. Hudson stated that nothing would be rezoned to an :[PUD without a full site plan; it would not be automatically granted. Some developers have believed that the requirement for this zoning would be met if they had a Master Plan. Given that, however, that Master Plan has to show elevations on a full site plan, since the CRA would not rezone something without seeing exactly what it would look like when put in place. Building Design Elements Standards were added for Building Design Elements, but they still did not want to get dictatorial. They might say that they wanted articulation, for example, but they did not want to say, "no fiat walls more than 40 feet in length without at least a one-foot setback." Chair Heavilin asked if the Design Guidelines would apply to the Comprehensive Plan, and Mr. Hutchinson said that they would. Every use and zoning within the CRA area would be in the Design Guidelines. Mr. Hudson said that at present, the :[PUD had not been addressed. Mr. Meeting Minutes CRA Workshop in IPUD Boynton Beach, Florida May 20, 2004 Hutchinson agreed, saying that although it was benchmarked into it, residential had not been finished. The CRA wants the residential design guidelines, even though those projects did not have to come before the Board. Mr. Hudson said that it would apply because there were opportunities in some of the redevelopment areas to do single-family housing. Overall Design The proposed IPUD language states that the design should be tailored to a specific site. Mr. Hudson said that this was the big problem with The Harbors. They took a standard design that might work well on urban street blocks where you have a chance of an alley behind the row of townhouses, or a railroad track, and can have your garage entrance in the back. But, when you put that design in a back-to-back and front-to-front setting down a strip of land that is 900 feet long and is not really in City blocks, it does not work. If a developer comes in with something that does not "fit," the City does not have to accept it. Mr. Hutchinson said that this was something that had been missing that would be really useful. Prior to this, they had very little to stand on with the developers. The term "Usable" has been added to "Required open space." It is for active or passive recreational space. When feasible, it is desired to be in the center of the development where it is easily accessible, rather than 800 feet in the back of a lot. Chair Heavilin thought that a small, natural pond might have a recreational use. Mr. Hudson said that it could, but they did not want a developer to come in and call their retention area usable open space. If there were a natural area, he felt that everyone could agree that it could "count," but not if a developer wanted to use its required retention pond to count as its "passive open space." Chair Heavilin thought "private courtyards" should come after water bodies in the proposed language. Mr. Barretta thought that a retention area could be used creatively to make it a passive or active recreation area. Mr. Hudson stated that because of the small amount of space the City was requiring per unit, it did not want all of that passive or active recreation area to be the retention pond. Most good developers know the kind of amenities that are needed to make a project viable, but there are people who will try to get away with the absolute minimum. The regulations have to be written for the worst case. Chair Heavilin asked if there were a percentage equivalent for total usable open space, and Mr. Hudson responded that the requirement was 200 square feet per dwelling unit, which is the bare minimum amount. Mr. Hudson stated that the proposed language inserts a requirement that, along with the drawings that come in with a site plan, the City wants to see cross sections and elevations that go outside the planned project. ]:t wants to see what the heights are in the neighboring impacted areas. That would give the Board and the Commission a better idea of exactly what something would eventually look like when finished. If they could have seen the sheer drop from The Harbors to "nothing," it would have been helpful. Planning also proposed adding that if the City did not get enough vegetative screening or landscape buffering along the perimeter of projects, it might impose other requirements. For Meeting Minutes CRA Workshop in IPUD Boynton Beach, Florida May 20, 2004 example, it may require the developer to put single-story structures next to single-family residences to "step down," if it could not be screened in any other way. They are also using the criterion that there will be one extra foot of setback for every foot of height above 30 feet. This would not be imposed upon everyone. If a great design came in that worked well and looked compatible, this would not be imposed. Still, it gives the City another option. Mr. Hutchinson stated that having a building ~,5 feet in height next to a two-story single-family home was one thing, but having it next to a Florida-style home that had 12 foot at the peak was a different story. Report on INCA Workshop Previous Week Mr. Hudson reported that a workshop had been held with the Inlet Cove Association (INCA) the previous week and the suggestions received dealt with things such as late night noise that disturbs the adjoining development or single family homes, and light that is very bright and high - spillover, especially along the waterfront and docks. Planning would like to add some language that says that on docks, lighting should be no more than railing height. The City does have noise ordinances so some of it is a matter of policing. Planning will study the general Code to see what can be done about this type of thing. Mr. Hudson concluded his formal presentation and asked for suggestions, encouraging people to contact either Mr. Hutchinson or himself in the next week or two if they had any other thoughts on the matter. Public Tnput Harry Woodworth, N.E. 15m Place, Yachtsman's Cove, lives immediately south of the Sea View Trailer Park, which he felt would almost certainly fit into the proposed IPUD concept. He welcomed that and was a big supporter of the IPUD concept. He liked what the Planning & Zoning Division had done. He was speaking for himself and all of the adjacent property owners except one. Mr. Woodworth felt that the word "may" appeared too many times in the proposed IPUD document, especially in regard to screening and height limitations. He believed that setbacks, screening, and height limitations were important and should be dictated, to avoid having a 45- foot high structure next to a single-family home. Mirroring setbacks was not enough. His setback to his neighbor's house is 10 feet, side to side, and his house is 20 feet high. It would be a different thing entirely if that adjoining structure was 45 feet high and 10 feet away. He realized that single family homes could be 35 feet high, but a new single family home would not have ~,0 people living in it who are hanging out by the pool at all hours and have all their boats lined up on the dock out back. Noise levels are unbelievable across water. Mr. Woodworth suggested that the setbacks apply over submerged and sovereign land also. It did not have to end at the beach. If you go up the coast past Sea View to the development up above it, they have made T-docks, which give a great amount of docking for them, but the people who live across the shore now have to look straight out at the lights on those docks instead of across the Intracoastal like they once did. He doubted whether they appreciated that in light of the amount of taxes they were paying. He realized the view could not be regulated 5 Meeting Minutes CRA Workshop in IPUD Boynton Beach, Florida May 20, 2004 but wondered what gave people the right to have a setback on land and do whatever they could get a permit for from the Corp of Engineers on the water. Chair Heavilin stated that the :[PUD draft provided the City with flexibility, not the developer. Mr. Hutchinson echoed that, saying it would allow the City to dictate to the developer. Mr. Woodworth was not sure about what Chair Heavilin and Mr. Hutchinson said. After The Harbors, they were very nervous. Staff and the CRA Board denied The Harbors, for a lot of reasons, and the City Commission passed it with three votes. :if there were more "teeth" in the Code, it might help to protect the homeowners. Buck Buchanon, 807 ]:nlet Cove Drive, president of :Inlet Cove Association (TNCA), said that his concerns were similar to Mr. Woodworth's, but that if an ]:PUD were going into an area now zoned commercial or even multi-family, that would be quite different from going next to single-family residences. Also, Flexibility has a way of turning on people and who knows what future decision-makers will say, even though everyone in this room is pretty much on the same page. He felt that there had to be some strong safeguards for the single-family residents and that the City should always keep in mind the worst case. Mr. Buchanon asked about trash containers and dumpsters and whether they were allowed within the setback. Do they have to clear the setback? Mr. Woodworth stated that they had several examples where the dumpsters were in the setback and so close that if you tossed a paper cup out your back door, it would hit your neighbor's dumpster. He felt that the TPUD document should say that dumpsters had to be screened, designed, and set back so that there would be no confusion about this. Or, say something like, "Dumpsters are not permitted within the setback." Mr. Buchanon asked if the City were looking at any high-density residential projects that would be adjacent to single-family residential and if so, what they would look like. Mr. Hutchinson said that any project would now have to follow these guidelines. The density would be close to 20 du/acre. He said it would be like the Merano Bay project. Mr. Hutchinson explained that developers were coming in with 10.8 du/acre and then could not afford to pay for property here. There are some areas the CRA would like to see activity in and at 10.8 du/acre, the numbers just do not work. The City is holding tight on the 20 du/acre at a time when Delray Beach maintains 30 du/acre and 45 feet in height. He said that although it might seem incredible, 20 du/acre was a conservative figure and one that would tend to bring in the desirable developers that would provide such products as Merano Bay. He pointed out that at a recent meeting in West Palm Beach, a panel said there should be NO density limit and 45-foot heights in urban CRA areas. Mr. Hudson commented that townhouses were not getting much more than 15.5 du/acre because there still had to be places to park and people had to have yards. Planning felt that if the City could get the kind of amenities it wanted to make top-notch projects, then they would not max out the densities. Mr. DeMarco thought the City should encourage lighter colors if it could. He was concerned about the re-painting of the Holiday :[nn Express. :it was explained that the City Commission 6 Meeting Minutes CRA Workshop in IPUD Boynton Beach, Florida May 20, 2004 had changed this so that any new Development Orders would have a provision that any repainting or deviation from the colors or finishes that were originally approved would have to come back before the City for approval. A question to Mr. Hudson from the audience was whether this provision would apply on all new site plans. Mr. Hudson replied that it would apply from now forwards. The Next Step Mr. Hudson and the Planning & Zoning Division will incorporate the comments made at this meeting and begin re-writing the IPUD provisions. It will come back to the CRA for approval and there will be an opportunity for further input. Then it will go to the City Commission. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the CRA Web Site should be up and running in the next two weeks and it could be found in the same place as that of the City's Web Site. A question from the audience was whether documents would be on the server as well. Mr. Hutchinson replied that this would be next and that they were scanning things now in preparation for it. Ms. Matras stated that this had already begun and that all documents and backup for projects going before the CRA would be available on line. Mr. Hudson commented that they had started to ask for all drawings in electronic files so they could provide easier accessibility, but that small companies might not be able to do that. IV. Adjournment The workshop was duly adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (052104) 7