Loading...
Minutes 01-23-01MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman J. Stanley Dubb, Vice Chair James Barretta, Alternate Robert Ensler Mike Fitzpatrick, Alternate Mike Friedland Woodrow Hay Steve Myott Maurice Rosenstock Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Lusia Galav, Senior Planner I. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. I1. Introduction of the Board Members Chairman Wische introduced'the Board Members; Assistant City Attomey, Nicholas Igwe; Mike Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning; Lusia Galav, Senior Planner; the new Planning Technician, Maxime DiCosta; and the Recording Secretary. III. Agenda Approval MotiOn Vice Chair Dubb moved to approve the agenda, which was seconded by Mr. Hay and unanimously carried. IV. Approval of Minutes Motion Vice Chair Dub~ moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that carried unanimously. V. Communications and Announcements Chairman Wische acknowledged the presence in the audience of the former mayor, Jerry Taylor, and Commissioner Ferguson. He thanked them for attending. Meeting Minutes ' Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida Januaw 23,2001 Assistant City Attorney igwe administered the oath to all the persons who would be testifying at the meeting. Planning and Zoning Report, Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Final disposition of January 9, 2001 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. Mr. Rumpf reported on the disposition of the following items by the City Commission at their January 16, 2001 meeting: 2. 3. 4. The Gayhart variance was denied. The Boynton Terrace relief from minimum parking space regulations was granted, allowing a one space per unit reduction. New site plan approval was granted to Alta Chase (Wood Partners) Woolbdght Place PUD for a 216-unit apartment complex. On second reading, the following were approved: · Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment for Policy 1.9.5 and 1.16.1 · the plan amendment and rezoning for the Wood Partners project ° BJ's Wholesale Club master plan modification ° Boynton Shoppes PCD master plan modification ° Abandonment of the utility easement for the Grotto Bay project On first reading, acoustic analysis requirement for nightclubs, bars, and similar establishments, amendment to Conditional Uses Section of the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, was approved. VI. New Business A. PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE 1. PROJECT NAME: RIVERWALK PLAZA JOINT VENTURE - BUFFER WALL AGENT: Land Design South OWNER: Riverwalk Plaza Joint Venture LOCATION: 1532 S. Federal Highway DESCRIPTION: Request for a vadance from City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2 - Zoning Section 4.L Buffer Walls, to allow a six (6) foot high chain linked fence along the south property line in lieu of the required six (6) 2 Meeting Minutes ' Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 23, 2001 foot concrete block bUffer wall to separate the Riverwalk Plaza from the abutting residential district. Joe Lelonek, Land Design South, 1280 North Congress, West Palm Beach, agent for owner, approached the podium to answer questions. He gave some historical background on the project and mentioned its location near some undeveloped tracts along the Intracoastal Waterway in Boynton Beach. He said the Code required that commercial sites next to residential sites provide a concrete buffer wall to separate the properties. He said that in most cases that would be a logical requirement. In this case, he believed that the undeveloped properties to the south of them would probably never be developed. They are restricted in that they belong to F.I.N.D., the Florida Inland Navigation DistriCt, and have been established by them as conservation areas and spoil sites. He said most of the sites: had very little: spoil on them and contained heavy growth of wetland species, especially mangroves. Any development potential on the sites would have to overcome the requirements imposed on properties that have these desirable wetland species. He mainta ned that even though the .property was zoned residential, it was unlikely that they would be.developed in' tl~e foreSeeable future due to the cost of having to mitigate for those wetlands elsewhere. They now have a four-foot high chain link fence separating their property from' the neighboring property as well as a ficus hedge. The recently installed ficus was at the three to four foot range and the long-term existing ficus shrubs were six to eight feet high. They planned to keep all hedges maintained at the six-foot high level. They requested the elimination of the requirement for the concrete wall. 1) There is only one small area where the concrete wall would be required, about 300 feet in the rear of the property. The other abutting properties are commercial in nature and would not require such a wall. 2)There is only 2.6 feet of area between the pavement and the property line where it would be possible to construct a concrete wall. The wetlands area adjacent to the property is lower, so a severe grade differential exists between the properties. If they were required to put up a concrete wall, it would require some heavy stabilization to prevent problems between the two slopes and it may have some impact on the root system of. the wetland species on the adjacent lot. They believed that to require the developer to put the wall up and create a hard element between them and what would be considered a preserve in any other setting, would not make sense. With the limited 2.6 feet of area available, a thick ficus hedge for a vegetative buffer would make more sense. They asked that they be allowed to leave the existing four-foot high fence as well as the ficus hedge that was already planted. They would maintain the ficus hedge at a height of six feet for a visual buffer, and leave the fence that is there to discourage dumping. Vice Chair Dub~ remarked that in May of 1998 this request had been put before the Board and that he had just heard the same argument he heard in 1998. He did not understand why the request was back and why the wall had not been built two years ago? Mr. Lelonek was not able to answer this historical question because he was not the person representing the property two years ago. He did' know the negative effect a solid 3 Meeting Minutes ~ Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida Januaw 23,2001 concrete wall would have on a wetland area. He did believe the adjacent property was all but undevelopable. He referred to the City Forester's belief that the hedge and fence should stand as opposed to the wall. Staff made reference in their report that they were primarily concerned with how they could enforce the building of a concrete buffer wall if the adjacent property were to be developed at some point in the future. Vice Chair Dubb said he did not understand why the Board's earlier call on the matter had been ignored. He said the wall should have been up by now. Vice Chair. Dub6 asked if there were existing Code violations? Mr. Lelcnek was unaware of any. Vice Chair Dub~ said it could result in existing Code violations being wiped out and unpaid because the Board's order had been ignored. Vice Chair Dub6 then asked Mr. Rumpf if there were any Code violations? Mr. Rumpf was not aware of any. Vice Chair Dub6 said it did not make sense that the developer was not issued a violation at that time since he did not put up the wall as ordered. Mr. Rumpf said that in order to get a temporary CO at that time for the project, they put up surety for the wall, anticipating that this would return to the Board. Chairman Wische did not understand why it had been denied in the first place. The property to the south was a spoil site and he said he had been to visit the site recently with his wife. It was a wooded area with no residential homes near it. Staff stated it was probably undevelopable. With all due respect for staff, he stated he would go against staff's recommendation. Vice Chair Dubb said it had been denied by staff because there was no hardship. There was no hardship in 1958 and there was no hardship now. Chairman Wische said that to require the building of a concrete wall where it was not necessary would be a hardship. Mr. Ensler said they had approved Alta Chase next door to the Cracker Barrel and they approved that with a chain link fence. He wondered what was different between that approval and this request? Mr. Rumpf said that requirement did not apply to the residential aspect of the COntiguity. It was applicable to the commercial element, which generated that type of need. Mr. Ensler said it sounded like the Cracker Barrel should have been required, then, to erect a six foot high concrete wall. Mr. Rumpf said that was a good point but it was after the fact. He said that he believed the question was whether or not there was a non-conforming element on the Cracker Barrel property at this time because now the adjacent property had since changed to residential from commercial. He did not believe there was anything in the Tradewinds agreement that covered this. Mr. Fitzpatrick, Alternate, stated that he would agree with the chain link fence but not the ficus hedge. He believed Florida privet or coco plum would be the proper material for the hedge. He said that ficus should not be used if protecting the wetlands was a concern. Mr. Myott agreed with Mr. Fitzpatrick on this issue. He believed the hardship was to have to put in the wall when it did not protect it from anything. He felt there would be more damage with the invasive root system of the ficus than there would be with anything else. He believed it would be a waste to put the wall in. Mr. Lelonek stated that properly maintained ficus was not as invasive as if it were allowed to grow into tree form. He agreed that the native materials would undoubtedly be the perfect choice but they had decided to stay with what had already been planted. 4 Meeting Minutes - Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida Janua~ 23,2001 If it became a problem, they would certainly have to replace it and remedy any nuisance it may have caused, but they had not seen any problems yet. Mr. Friedland said he was concerned about whether the owners would be willing to make a commitment to erect the concrete wall if and when the property next door was developed? Also, he wanted to add that they had miles 'of ficus hedge where he lived and that there had been no problems with it. He thought the six-foot hedge would be good and he agreed with Chairman Wische. Commissioner Black arrived at the meeting at this point and Chairman Wische recognized him and thanked him for coming. Mr. Ensler said it seemed that a number of people believed that ficus was the wrong plant for the hedge and also that a chain link fence would be an alternative to consider. He asked the applicant if they would consider replacing the ficus hedge with native shrub materials if a chain link fence were approved? Mr. Lelonek said there was a definite possibility but he had mixed reactions since the ficus was already established. If that were the ultimate decision of the Board, they could replace the ficus on the 300 foot stretch next to the wetlands. They did not want to replace the entire hedge because there were areas outside that 300 feet that were well established at the six-foot height and would not cause a problem. Mro Ensler said he was only talking about the southern border and Mr. Lelonek agreed. Mr. Hay addressed this comment to Mr. Rumpf. If that property were to be developed, would the City wish to have the wall. put up there? Mr. Rumpf said yes, but in its existing state, a buffer wall would not accomplish too much. He said it was a future scenario they were dealing with. He said that was the point in time when it would apply but that the Code was not time sensitive. For the record, he also added that the Development Director, Quintus Greene, had confirmed that those types of restrictions typically applied to more intensive uses such as Alta Chase and the Cracker Barrel. He also added that zoning laws are typically not retroactive. If a situation is caused by the change in one use, that does not kick in those requirements on the adjoining use. Whatever happens in time is how the Code applies and a change in use on an adjoining property does not trigger that after the fact. It could be five or ten years before that property is developed, if it is developed. The Code requires it now. Mr. Rosenstock asked the agent if they planned to keep the hedge as a hedge? The agent stated that they planned to maintain it at the six-foot height on both sides, and that he knew that ficus was an invasive species but that they tended to restrict their growth when maintained at the six-foot height. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed. Motion Mr. Myott made a motion to grant the applicant's request for a variance from the Land Development Code, Chapter 2, Zoning Section4.L - Buffer Walls - to allow an existing six-foot high chain link fence (At this point Mr. Myott asked Mr. Lelonek whether the 5 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida Januaw 23,2001 existing fence was six foot or four foot and Mr. Lelonek advised it was now four, at which point Mr. Myott replaced six-foot with four-foot), on the south property line in lieu of the required six foot concrete buffer wall to separate the Riverwalk Plaza from the abutting residential district with the following comments: 1 ) remove the existing ficus hedge and replace with compatible native Florida plant material; 2) install the concrete wall upon development of the abutting residential property; and 3) the hedge material to be maintained by the applicant. Mr. Ensler seconded the motion. Vice Chair Dub6 stated that the applicant had requested and the variance was for a six- foot chain link fence and he wanted to know where the four feet came from? Mr. Lelonek stated that they had originally requested to let the existing four-foot fence remain. Staff had looked under the Code requirements where similar properties kept the six foot high requirement as the minimal Code. Their odginal request was for the existing four-foot high fence as referenced in the staff report. Staff interpreted the existing Code. Chairman Wische asked if he were saying that it was a typographical error? Mr. Lelonek said it was two different references. Their original request was for the four-foot fence. Staff had referenced other sections of the Code that required a six- foot high fence. Chairman Wische said that they would have to vote on what was before them which was a six-foot high chain link fence. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Igwe if he could change his motion to six foot?. Mr. Igwe said it depended on how it was noticed in the newspaper. Mr. Rosenstock said it was more restrictive in that a six-foot fence was more severe than a four foot one and he thought it could be allowed. Mr. Myott amended his motion to a six-foot fence from a four foot one. After considerable debate between counsel, the Board, and staff pertaining to the six- foot height vs. the four-foot height, it was decided that since it appeared that a six-foot high fence had been advertised, that would be all that the Board could vote on. Mr. Myott changed his original motion to six feet and Mr. Ensler, as a condition of amending his original second, asked the applicant if he were in accord with it? Mr. Lelonek said that the two added conditions were acceptable: 1)using native plant material for the hedge, and 2) installation of a concrete buffer wall if the adjacent property were developed. He hesitated to extend the height of the fence another two feet. It was not a simple matter of putting a pole on top of a pole. They would cause even more disturbance to the property to go out and rip the old concrete footings out, put in new ones and so forth. He said it was not impossible but that it involved more changes in grade than they had wanted to get into as part of their request. The reason they came before the Board was to try to keep a vegetative, natural buffer between their property and the adjacent property. The addition of the two feet of fence would be a logistical problem. Mr. Lelonek directed the Board's attention to the analysis portion of the back-up where it stated that the applicant said %..both an adequate four (4) foot high chain link fence and a ficus hedge had existed along the south property line for many years and that the 'fence and landscaping should serve as a reasonable alternative to create the required separation from the adjoining residential property." The applicant did not request a six-f Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida Januaw 23,2001 foot high fence. Staff requested the six-foot high fence. Vice Chair Dub6 did see the referenced statement but maintained that before the Board was a request for a six foot chain link fence and that this is what they would have to vote on. Mr. Myott changed his motion back to a four-foot chain link fence and the native plant material for the hedge. He said that this is what they were trying to do. We do not want to disturb the wetland area inordinately. He thought the easiest thing to do would be to leave the existing four-foot fence, replace the existing ficus hedge with native plant material and let it grow up. That was the intent of his motion. He wanted to change his motion to back to the way it was originally :stated, to keep the existing four-foot fence and install new landsca ping with native plant material. Mr. Ensler, the second for the motion, said he was in full agreement with the revised motion. Chairman Wische reiterated his understanding of the motion, which was that the four- foot chain link fence would be allowed to remain, that the ficus hedge would be replaced with native plant material, and that the concrete wall would be erected upon development of the abutting residentially zoned property. Mr. Rosenstock commented on the height of the hedge and the consensus was that the hedge would be maintained at six feet. Vice Chair Dub~ had a question for the attorney about the size of the fence as advertised and how that pertained to the Board's decision. Attomey Igwe stated that the Board could be more restrictive than what was published, but not less. Mr. Rumpf agreed that the notification had been for a six-foot fence. He read verbatim from the application: "We are requesting to eliminate the south wall requirement and replace it with a chain link fence and natural landscaped hedge." The backup mentions the fact that there is an existing four-foot fence but as the applicant had indicated, staff had construed that to be a six-foot fence instead of a six-foot wall. Mr. Myott asked if there had been mention in the newspaper advertisement of the height of the fence? Mr. Rumpf said, "not the existing fence, no". Mr. Myott said he would stay with the four-foot motion. Mr. Rumpf said it did not mention that it was a four-foot fence but it did mention that it was for a six-foot high fence rather than a six-foot high wall. He said the advertisement was to allow a six-foot high chain link fence along the south property line in lieu of the required six-foot high concrete buffer wall. Chairman Wische asked if that had been the way it was advertised and Mr. Rumpf agreed. Chairman Wische said this was not the way the applicant had applied. Based on this Chairman Wische said there were one of two choices, either put in a six foot high chain link fence or table it and come back for a variance on a four foot high fence. The agent said that if the Board were in agreement on the last motion, that staff should be allowed to re-advertise at the four foot height and he would come back in two weeks or thirty days, whatever it would require'to formally adopt this. Mr. Rosenstock said he would not support a four-foot fence. Chairman Wische said that was the opinion of only two members of the Board. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida Januaw 23,2001 Mr. Friedland asked if the Board were to vote tonight for a six-foot chain link fence with native plant materials for the hedge, would the applicant accept this? If~they would he would ask the maker of the motion and the seconding person to change their motion to six feet. Mr. L&lonek said that would constitute another set of problems. It was not impossible. It was not their preferred method. Mr. Rosenstock brought up a point of order. He said that there was a valid motion on the floor and a valid second. He did not have the ad before him. He did not know what the ad did or did not say, he only knew what Mr. Rumpf was telling him. If the applicant wants to have it tabled that would be fine. He did not think the Board had to commit itself legally until they had a legitimate motion based on what the advertisement said. If the motion is in accordance with the advertisement, then that is all right. If it is not in accordance with the advertisement then it is not a valid motion that can be put on the floor at the present time. Chairman Wische said they were not advised about the ad until after the motion was made. Mr. Rosenstock said that as a point of order he would like to have the motion withdrawn. Chairman Wische said that Mr. Rosenstock and Mr. Igwe's points were well taken. Mr. Myott withdrew his motion. Mr. Ensler, who had seconded the motion, withdrew his second of the motion. Motion Mr. Friedland made a motion that the request for the variance from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2 Zoning, Section 4.L, Buffer Walls, to allow a six foot high chain link fence along the south property line be approved in lieu of the required six foot concrete block buffer wall to separate the Riverwalk Plaza from the abutting residential district with a native hedge as agreed to and maintained at six feet. Mr. Rosenstock seconded the motion. Mr. Myott asked if the concrete wall would be installed if residential development occurred? Mr. Friedland added to his motion that if the adjoining pdvate property were to be developed, the owner would install the concrete buffer wall required by Code. Mr. Rosenstock, who had seconded the motion, agreed to the amended motion. The motion carded 7-0. CONDITIONAL USE/SITE PLAN 2. PROJECT NAME: SONNY'S BAR-B-Q AGENT: Colleen Carey with Interplan OWNER: James F. Moore, Jr. with Wal-Mart Realty Co. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Old Boynton Road and Winchester Park Boulevard. Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida Januaw 23,2001 DESCRIPTION: Request for conditional use/site plan approval to Construct a 6,103 square foot restaurant with 204 seats and an ancillary drive-through window on a 1.91-acre outparcel of the Wal-Mart Super Center site. Ms. Colleen Carey, Interplan Practice Ltd., 933 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida, was present to answer questions for the Board. Attomey Igwe administered the Oath to those who would be testifying and had not participated earlier. Chairman Wische said that there were 18 staff conditions of approval and asked that the agent confine discussion to those points on which the applicant did not agree or on which clarification was required. Ms. Carey stated that the applicant understood and agreed with all of the conditions. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. No one wished to speak. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Wische asked Mr. Rumpf if he had any comments he wished to make. Mr. Rumpf said that the applicant had worked cooperatively with the City and that he was pleased with the result so far. Mr. Rosenstock stated he had a problem with issues of ventilation and odor and asked what method they would be using to control this problem? Ms. Carey stated that they had hoOds with filters over the cookers to handle this problem. Mr. Rosenstock asked if they had any other method of reducing the odor other than the standard vent filter?. Ms. Carey said it was a standard system that was used by most restaurants. Mr. Rosenstock said he had taken a ride lately to five restaurants that used a lot of grease in their cooking. He wondered if the City's Engineering Department should take a look at this in future applications so recommendations could be made to reduce this problem. He felt that the odor emanating from certain restaurants was very unpleasant, especially when the humidity was high and the winds Iow. He felt that Chinese restaurants were particularly odiferous. James Beretta, Alternate, said that the drawings indicated a barrel style roof but the text stated it was a metal roof and he asked the applicant's agent for an explanation of this discrepancy. She said the type of material was noted on the sample board. The applicant said the roof was metal tile in the shape of barrel tile. Mr. Rumpf stated that they had asked for alternatives to that but the applicant thought their product would wear better and be lighter and staff went along with this. There was some barrel tile element in the area but no asphalt shingles so they believed thiS would be a suitable compromise. In response to a question about the color, the applicant said the rendering had an accurate representation of the color of the tile and that it was not red. Mr. Rumpf said that there would be no speckled pattern or diversity of colors as Spanish clay tile, but would present a flatter appearance. Mr. Baretta recommended that the Board make the following conditions: 1 ) that all rooftop equipment be screened from view; 2) that all 9 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 23, 2001 downspouts be concealed; 3) that staff approve a sample of the tile; and 4) that the color be terra cotta. Mr. Baretta said the downspouts should be concealed for aesthetic reasons and that they could be in the wall or enclosed but that most commercial buildings did not have exposed downspouts, as did residential construction. Motion Vice Chair Dub6 made a motion to approve the request for conditional use site plan approval to construct a 6,103 square foot restaurant with 204 seats and an auxiliary drive-through window on a 1.19 acre outparcel of the WalMart Supercenter site on the southwest corner of Old Boynton Road and Winchester Park Boulevard, known as Sonny's Bar B-Q Restaurant, subject to all staff comments. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. VII. Other None VIII. Comments by Members 1) Use of Recreation Fee Account Funds Vice Chair Dub~ thanked Mr. Wildner for his detailed and expeditious response to the Board's request on the issue of the use of recreation fee account funds. A report was distributed to the Board members in their agenda packets. As a resident of the City of Boynton Beach, Vice Chair Dub~ said he wanted to know this information and he suggested that it be put in the newspaper. 2) Proposed 2001 Schedule for Planning & Development Board Mr. Rumpf said that Quintus Greene, Director of Development, had attended this meeting for the purpose of assisting staff in the discussion of the proposed 2001 schedule for the Planning & Development Board. Mr. Greene said that the City Commission voted to create an independent CRA. As part of that action, the Commission decided that the CRA would have all the powers of the Planning & Development Board within the CRA boundaries. Right now, staff currently prepared agenda packets for two Planning & Development Board meetings a month. With the coming on of the CRA, staff would be in a position of having to prepare agenda packets for three meetings a month. He stated that at the moment, staff was stretched. He said that the CRA constituted about 16% of the City's total area and had a significant number of cases occurring within it. One of the two cases on tonight's agenda had occurred within the CRA. From a management standpoint, staff woUld be proposing to the Commission that the Planning & Development Board meet once a month and the CRA meet once a month. Under the provisions of Chapter 1.5, Sections 3B of the Land 10 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 23, 2001 Development Code, it is the City Commission that determines the meetings for the Planning & Development Board. He wanted to mention it to the Board first and answer any questions. Chairman Wische asked what day and time Mr. Greene would recommend that the Planning & Development Board have the meeting? Mr. Greene said he was recommending that the Planning & Development Board meet the fourth Tuesday of the month and that the CRA would meet the second Wednesday of the month. Messrs. Wische, Dub6, Rosenstock, Ensler, Friedland and Myott all expressed the belief that it would be better to keep the meetings at two per month for the expressed purpose of accommodating the developers and contractors. They all referred to historical conditions when they had met once a month and what a hardship this had put on the developers. They had been giving them a two-week wait for some time now and this had been a very successful arrangement. When items were tabled, the wait could now extend to a month and all agreed this would be unwise. It was brought out that the Planning Department and the Commissioners had been behind the two meeting a month schedule originally, due to dissatisfaction on the part of developers and contractors. They said that a way would have to be found to support the current two-meeting a month schedule if the City were to serve the needs of the people who wanted to do work in the City were to be met. Mr. Myott suggested: that as an alternative, if a project needed to follow a faster track, the Board could be called together to hear the case and if not, they could revert to the once a month schedule, The overall feeling was, however, that going to one meeting a month would be counterprodUctive to the long-term goals of the City. Mr. Greene appreciated the comments and said they had made a good point. He said, however, that what was driving the proposal was a management issue that came from staff, not the City Manager or the Commission. The staff recommended it but the City Manager concurred and understood the need being addressed. Mr. Greene talked about staff and said that the primary emphasis of staff was on current planning issues. They spent very little time on long-range kinds of planning because they did not have the luxury of doing that. He said they were primarily in a reactive mode, a responsive mode, and had very little opportunity to initiate. By adding an additional meeting a month and that additional meeting being right on the heels on one they already had, and one that required a separate agenda packet, was difficult. This increased staff workload by 1/3. In order for them to do the things that a Planning and Development Department was really supposed to do, they needed to cu! down on the number of agenda packets that needed to be prepared. He said they could not say they would not be able to generate the third agenda packet, just that they could not guarantee the quality of it. Mr. Hay asked if different methodologies could be looked at for the compilation of the information in the agenda packets. He asked how much was done manually and how much of it could be automated? Can we look at some other way of doing this? It seems to be a manpower shortage and maybe that can be resolved. Mr. Greene said he appreciated that and they had looked at it but that they would be making the proposal to the City Commission. He said the City Commission could turn it 'down. If it turned it down they would be have to do agenda packets for three meetings a month. He said that with his current proposal, there would always be opportunity for 11 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida Janua~ 23,2001 special meetings if, in fact, the need were to arise. Mr. Greene stated that with this proposal, staff would continue to take care of two meetings a month and that staff's workload was not being reduced by the proposal. There was some discussion and agreement that with the two boards doing the same thing, the CRA and the Planning & Development Board, that there was redundancy and that this created repetitive work for Engineering and Planning. This was not seen to be an efficient way to process the City's planning and development business. Also, it was believed that the newly formed group did not have the necessary historical perspective or background concerning past precedents and directions for the future. There was also some agreement on the fact that the Board could do much more than it was currently being asked to do. There was a feeling that more attention needed to. be paid to signage, parking and design matters as the Board had done in the past. These matters did not seem to be channeled through the Board at present and this fact was noted and regretted. At 8:20 p.m. Chairman Wische duly adjourned the meeting. Res pectfully submitted, Recording Secretary (two tapes) 12