Loading...
Minutes 03-25-08 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2008 AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Shirley Jaskiewicz, Chair Roger Saberson, Vice Chair Sharon Grcevic Candace Killian Jeff Lis Steve Myott Roger Saberson Amber Barritt, Alt William Poznak, Alt Mike Rumpf, Planning Director Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Attorney Absent: Matthew Barnes Chair Jaskiewicz called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Mr. Lis. 2. Introduction of the Board. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, advised Matthew Barnes called to advise he would not be present for the meeting. Chair Jaskiewicz introduced the members of the board. 3. Agenda Approval. Motion Mr. Saberson moved approval of the agenda. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 1 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 4. Approval of Minutes. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Saberson seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 5. Communications and Announcements. A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the February 26, 2008 Planning and Development Board meeting Agenda items. Mr. Breese reported the following items were approved by the City Commission: . Seaview Park Club Site Plan Time Extension . Sunshine Square Major Site Plan Modification and Zoning Code Variance . Brickhouse Billiards, Conditional Use . Land Development Regulations, Group Four Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all who would be testifying. 6. Old Business A. Hotel I Motels in PID Code Review 1. PROJECT: AGENT: DESCRIPTION: Hotel I Motel Density Regulation in the Planned Industrial District (PID) (CDRV 08-002) City-initiated Request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2. Zoning, Section 7.H.4., to eliminate the density regulation exclusive to hotels/motels within the Planned Industrial District (PID), thereby establishing a consistent treatment of such uses throughout the zoning regulations. Mr. Breese advised this item was reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Board at the January meeting; however, the City Attorney's office determined it should have been legally advertised. Subsequently, the item was advertised for hearing at this meeting. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one coming forward, Chair Jaskiewicz 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 closed the public hearing. Since this item was previously heard, it was determined that no staff presentation was necessary, and there were no comments from the board. Motion Mr. Saberson moved approval of staff's recommendation. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 7. New Business A. Quantum Park Charter School Use Approval OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Charter Schools of Boynton Beach, Inc. (USAP 08-001) Douglas B. MacDonald, Managing Member of 1425 Gateway LLC 1425 Gateway LLC 1425 Gateway Boulevard Request for an amendment to the list of approved uses for the Quantum Park Planned Industrial Development (PID) to include "Charter Schools" on Lot 21 . 1. PROJECT: AGENT: Mr. Breese explained the agent for the Charter School submitted an application to amend the use approval list for permitted uses within Quantum Park PID to allow a charter school on lot 21. The Charter Schools of Boynton Beach received its charter in 2002 and began operations at Boynton Beach Mall. They are currently operating from a temporary location in Boca Raton and they are an A-rated school. The building on lot 21 could accommodate about 500 students. The lots in Quantum Park PID have a use designation of "0" and "I" (Office and Industrial), or a combination thereof, and would allow for a standalone building. In the application, the applicant certified the charter would not violate performance standards in the LDR such as noise, water, odor generation, etc. The approved site plan shows a building constructed as a two-story building in 2004 and having about 28K square feet. The applicant would not make changes to the exterior of the building; however, staff noted if they did in order to better accommodate a better stop and pick up area, it would require staff review. The review of the permitted uses for lot 21 across Gateway Boulevard showed Boynton Beach Community High School on lots designated G and I (Governmental and Institutional. ) 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 Lots 18 and 19 are designated 0 & I. Survivors Charter School is located on those lots which are east of Lot 21. Staff viewed the proposed charter school as consistent within Quantum Park, but given the prevalence of the 0 and I lots throughout Quantum Park, staff recommends charter schools be approved on a case-by-case basis for individual lots, rather than be open to the lots with the 0 & I designation. Staff recommends the request be approved. Lots 18 and 19 were previously approved as a charter high school, and now lots 21, 19 and 18 together should be approved as charter schools with no designation of high school, middle school, etc. The proposed school would accommodate elementary and middle school students. It was noted the lot is adjacent to a deep water canal and there was nothing to prevent a student from entering it. Wayne Owens, Principal of the school, explained they are planning to install a permitted fence in the back, away from the canal, to allow for the easement, and to protect the children. The fence would be a 10-12 feet fence installed from Gateway Boulevard, going to the back of the property and then all the way up. Mr. Owens gave a history of the school. They were the first charter school in the City. The school was an A-rated school and current school enrollment was 175 students. There is room for a playground at the school and that would be part of phase II. The school owns four school buses and when the school was located in the mall, they would bus the students to Meadows Park for physical education. The new facility would be acquired through a lease with a purchase option. Any changes to the site would be brought before the board and made to Code. The school is a 501 (c)3 non- profit, and as renters, they were not responsible for paying taxes. They were trying to work out what their responsibility would be for taxes with the current owner of the building. Staff had no further comments. The Chair had no objections to the school but preferred to see them remain on the tax roles because that is what the PID was designed to do. The school was initially signing a 10 year lease. Motion Mr. Myott moved to request an amendment for a list of approved uses for the Quantum Park PID, to include Charter Schools on lot 21, only with all comments, and to include lots 18 and 19 and to have the list amended for those lots to be for charter schools only. (They would be the only lots within Quantum where a charter school would be approved.) 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 Mr. Myott amended his motion for lots 18, 19 and 21 to have approved uses for charter school or the use designation of 0 & I in addition to that. Ms. Killian seconded the motion that unanimously passed. This item would be heard at the April 1, 2008 City Commission meeting. B. EAR-based Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. PROJECT: AGENT: DESCRIPTION: EAR-based Comprehensive Plan Amendments City-initiated Request to transmit Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) - based amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and the Future Land Use Map. Hanna Matras, Economic Development Planner, presented the text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and explained this was a process that is repeated every seven years. The process begins with the Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, (EAR). The EAR for the City's Comprehensive Plan was sent to the Department of Community Affairs on December 5, 2006, and was deemed sufficient on February 16, 2007 consistent with Florida Statute (F.S.) 163. The EAR amendment must be adopted by the City within 18 months; a date of August 19, 2008. The board would be voting to recommend the transmittal of the amendments to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). If no comments are issued, then the City Commission would hold a second hearing, which would be the adoption hearing, held, preferably, prior to the August 19, 2008 deadline. The City contracted with Dick Hudson, former Senior City Planner, to complete the process. Dick Hudson, City Planning Consultant, explained he believed the cover letter was fairly in-depth and explained when they worked on the Comprehensive Plan, they tried to follow the requirements of F.S. 163 as closely as possible. Three of the elements were completely rewritten. These were the Future Land Use Element, the Recreation and Open Space Element, and the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. There were no changes to the Capital Improvement Plan Element or the Public School Facilities Element. The Capital Improvement Element was recently adopted and accepted by the DCA without comment. The other five elements had minor changes. Some were to change names, and update and eliminate antiquated entities that no longer exist. Dates were also updated. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 The support document for the Coastal Management Element had many changes due to the change in the definition of the Hurricane High Hazard areas. The change necessitated staff go back and review those areas and as a result, staff removed some of the areas that were far west of the FEC tracks. Mr. Hudson explained when changing objectives is discussed, it would mean the objective and policies that followed were correlated. Additionally, staff added measurements in response to the State's mandate that each objective had to be able to be measured. Future Land Use Element Mr. Hudson reviewed the Future Land Use Element and advised it was completely rearranged. Most objectives were carried over from the previous elements but were located in a different part of the amended element. In the new element, Objective 1 deals with the provision of services concurrent with development. These were for water, sewer and roads, and each one had different objectives. This was a subject of great import to the DCA so it was listed first. Objective 1.16 outlined all the land uses and contained the different densities and intensities, which was also very important. One change involved the Single-Family Residential Land Use Classification which was grouped into one category. It presently included low and moderate density, and there are two zoning districts in the low density designation; the rest were in the moderate density designation. This meant that if accepted, the highest density for the low-density residential district would be 7.5 units per acre. Medium density, which currently was for duplex only, would become 10 units per acre instead of 9.68. Mr. Hudson explained many Comprehensive Plans allow density in groups. He clarified some of the unit per acre numbers were not whole numbers. This occurred because the formulas were based on minimum lot sizes and on zoning codes; and when calculated out had fractions. He explained it was easier if they made these whole numbers and let the zoning code determine the breakdown to the finite degree. Mainly staff was outlining what could be done in the land use, and the Zoning Code would specify how it was done. Objective 1.24 was eliminated, which defined Development of Regional Impact's (DRI's) as a land use category. Staff has incorporated that into Objective 1.3 which was moved to the end. Throughout the existing plan, reference was made to the Boynton Beach 20/20 Plan, which was the basis for all the City's activities. There are other redevelopment plans that have taken the place of the 20/20 Plan and they are more up to date. There was some direction in the 20/20 Plan that the City conduct local planning studies. These were outlined in the plans and they were done, so they were removed. There were three new objectives. One of the objectives was regarding workforce housing, the second pertained to annexations and the third pertained to economic development which was not addressed before. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 A comment was made which pertained to the proposal in the Future Land Use Element and was thought to be a mistake. The City was proposing to take two density categories which were the low and moderate density land use classifications and combine them into one category. The low density classification was currently at 4.84 units per acre but it would not be low density residential at 7. 5 units per acre. It was thought the City should be planning for areas where land should be developed at approximately a single-family density, and they should put a commensurate land use designation on it. If low density was eliminated and there is a moderate density, developers looking at the land use plan for a designation, would be viewing it with an eye toward being able to develop it at 7.5 units per acre, having an expectation they could. It was noted there were legal arguments why the land should not be developed at that density. It was encouraged if the City wanted certain parcels to be single-family, then the City should say it, and not have various parcels zoned in various categories of land uses. It was thought it would create an inconsistency because when developers looked at the land use, it would be thought that some parcels were developed at a higher density than the current land use classification designation allowed for, which was low density residential. It was suggested instead of putting a land use designation on the property, consistent with the current designation and labeling it moderate, to make the zoning and land use designation consistent instead. The City was trying to cure the problem by increasing the density of the low density category. It was thought this was a step backward and not something the City should be entertaining. Mr. Hudson explained the affected properties proposed for the change were already developed. There was further dialogue about the City designating land in the annexation program and how the change encompassed those parcels. As an example, there was a five acre parcel of land adjacent to the City, currently in the County, bordering on three sides of City property which would not create an enclave for the City to annex. The question posed was what land use designation would be on the property. It was thought the land use designation was probably the same as it was to the south which was 4.84 units to the acre. The land to the south of the subdivision was County property when the developer proposed the development and annexation into the City. At that time, the City had a recommended land use for that property when it would be brought into the City. It was important because there are vacant parcels to which the concept would apply. It was thought the City should plan for areas that would be near single-family density and the City should say what it meant and put a designation on it that reflects that decision. Mr. Hudson explained the properties are zoned single-family residential, R-1. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 The difference was single-family density usually would not exceed 5 units per acre. It was clarified this would be for single-family detached homes. If there is a land use designation of 7.5 and a zoning designation that says 4.84, the zoning would control. The point was the land use designation was the constitution and the zoning falls under it, not the other way around. Under existing law, just because there is a higher classification in the land use, it did not automatically entitle the owner to the higher zoning. It was thought it was not appropriate to put a higher land use designation on property than was expected or wanted at that density. It creates an unreasonable expectation to property owners. Discussion ensued the City was heading towards a more compact scenario and increased future density might be appropriate. The 7.5 units per acre density was the maximum. It was noted, in the future, it may not be that there are many new single-family homes developed. It would require zoning changes and site plan approvals to do so or the zoning requests for annexed land would be considered on that basis at that time. The board inquired, from a planning perspective, why the City would want to consider changing the density from 4.8 to 7.5 units per acre. Mr. Hudson explained there were many inconsistencies between the land use map and the zoning map. Many properties were given low density but the zoning was R-1 and single-family. This was found in many older areas, and the land use was inconsistent with what was constructed on the property. It was also based on lot size. In those instances, the City put a low density classification on it, and then they review and conduct an analysis during a process such as the EAR, learning what areas had a low density residential land use on it. The existing land use showed an inconsistency. One way to address the issue was through the moderate density designation. The question was how and what effect doing so would have on other areas, and whether they should change the density to 7.5 units per acre to address the issue, or should they review the land, parcel by parcel, and then propose properties to be developed with the lower density classification and not the higher. There may be instances where there would be a parcel that was wanted to be developed at a higher density, and maybe the City would agree, but often the land use and zoning are changed at the same time, as opposed to creating a false expectation of 7.5 units per acre throughout. The board had spent the last several months reviewing changes to the Land Development Regulations based on the existing Comprehensive Plan without these amendments. If the Comprehensive Plan was changed to accommodate the amendments, the Zoning Code would have to be changed. Accordingly, it was noted in regard to compatibility issues, the changes would be appropriate for areas that did not have a unified development plan supported by an HOA, or having a developer assembling single-family residences and then increasing the density of those lots to the higher density. It might also be appropriate in areas where there is no unified development plan and there are lots platted prior to a point in time when single-family was wanted. A developer would have the ability to acquire 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 single-family lots, assemble them and then take that single-family zoning into a multi-family environment. In that context it was fine, but in regard to the other comments made, there was not enough clarification in the context of compatibility as it pertained to the existing Comprehensive Plan, what was being proposed as new and what would have to be done to support it. Mr. Hudson pointed out the R1-AAA zoning designation was being abolished leaving only one single-family district that would have the land use designation of Low Density Residential. In regard to having one specific single-family zoning district, it was noted many projects that are developed under low density residential land use are not developed under a single-family zoning district, rather they are developed under a PUD. A PUD does not have a zoning designation; rather, the density must be approved. Anyone could propose a PUD on any piece of land at any time if they have the low density residential classification they can develop at that level. If the City conducted an analysis on areas, it would be different than looking at an area that should be redeveloped. The City should promote redevelopment in areas and allow for the potential for a developer to come in and apply for a higher density because they want the area to be redeveloped. It was also thought that currently, those lots would be non- conforming lots. Applicants have applied for density changes, and the density increase would alleviate those applications. It appeared the changes were more of a downgrading rather than upgrading. The board inquired with the proposed changes how staff contemplated it would be applied to the zoning change and what was the thought process behind how the zoning code change supported the land use map change. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, clarified Mr. Hudson summarized two land use changes affecting the Land Use Map. One was rounding of the numbers due to the density and lot size calculations, and the other pertained to the grouping of the zoning districts which currently coincide with the two lower end density land use classifications. He explained they were almost administrative house cleaning measures. If the City groups more, there is less of a potential need for a land use amendment in connection with a development or redevelopment project that currently a developer would need. In regard to the zoning, except for adjusting densities, there is an intended impact except for language. In the preamble for each of those zoning districts, which describes them, they will say if necessary, which land use are affected. Otherwise, there is an intended impact on the zoning structure, limiting the land use category so that you are grouping all the single- family detached districts under one land use. The range is being increased, and there was a wider range of densities, but the City was consolidating single-family detached parcels. Additionally, instead of land use classifications calculating out to densities that result with a figure having a decimal point, they were being rounded since the depth of that does not 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 trickle down into the zoning structure itself. The changes were kind of automatic. There were 7.5 units per acre on the moderate density land use classification, and then any zoning classification that equals that or less is deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan change would not be needed to develop the land. This was part of the board's concern that the City was creating an expectation by having 7.5 units per acre on those properties even though the City, in its planning, may intend for it be a single-family density. Seven and a half units per acre is not single-family density. It was thought it was much easier to obtain a zoning change to increase density if one is in a land use classification that already recognizes the higher density. Mr. Hudson explained 7.5 units per acre were still single-family and attached dwellings could not be put on it and sold. Most townhouse developments were at least 15 units per acre. The board discussed the density of different projects and felt it was not possible to develop an acre of land with seven homes on it. Mr. Rumpf explained the future land use is based on gross density, and includes retention, recreation areas, easements, etc. The 7.5 units per acre was also gross. Calculations for pervious areas and other aspects of development were also discussed in a PUD development, and with the 7.5 units per acre, the development would be speculation or random homes. Mr. Rumpf explained it was an overall development. The land use classifications are being applied across the City. Mr. Rumpf announced he would forward the board's comments to the City Commission and they could recommend changes be made when the map amendments are described, but in summary, there would still be a zoning analysis which considered compatibility with surrounding areas. The amendment would remove a review element to amend the Comprehensive Plan which is an important step. The land use is a cap on the overall gross density. Mr. Hudson duly noted the board's comments and explained the board could recommend that change not be included, but suggested waiting to review the land use amendment itself to make that recommendation, because it refers to the language that is in the Comprehensive Plan. Transportation Element Mr. Hudson addressed the Transportation Element and explained there were two policies changed to be consistent with County changes with the Traffic Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) designation and a series of maps from GIS to replace the hand-drawn maps. Utilities Element Mr. Hudson explained the City would receive in the next few months, the 10 year Water Supply Facilities Plan, which needs to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 When the plan is received, it would require amendments to the Utilities Element. Conservation Element The only changes to this element pertained to program dates and agency name changes. Recreation and Open Space Element Recreation & Open Space Element was a totally new element. The Recreation and Parks Department Strategic Master Plan was adopted by the City a year ago. This was the first time the support documents were updated since the plan was written in 1989. There was an explanation of a blueway being a water path for boating and for kayaks. One member found it was not defined in the element. He found nothing addressing it anywhere except in title, or a plan for it. He found it was not addressed as part of the Coastal Management Element or in the Capital Improvements Plan element, nor was its impact. He did not find any boating access to the waterways addressed in the Capital Improvements Element in terms of per capita. He explained the City went to great lengths to create per capita relationships in policy 9.27 for a number of other uses within the City, but it does not address boater access to water on a per capita basis and he thought that was a mistake and it should be addressed. He added he found it was lacking for a water community and the City should embrace that. If population projections are correct it would be more of a problem in the future, and if the City does not address it now, they would not be acting responsibly. Housing Element This element had minor changes to it. The Housing Needs Assessment was added to the element support documentation. Coastal Management Element Mr. Hudson noted there were changes regarding the maps for the element. There were many changes due to the changes in the definition of the Hurricane High Hazard areas and staff removed some of those areas originally in the coastal management area. The members engaged in general comment and noted in reference to the Recreation and Open Space Element, currently in Broward County, there was an item pertaining to a land use plan amendment regarding conversion of open space to residential uses. There was language proposed that discouraged the conversion of open space for residential uses and then caveats were placed in relation to the strongly discouraged language. It went to the Regional Planning Council which voted to support the proposed language. But there was also a movement by the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the language that was proposed by the League of Cities with regard to tying it back to the Comprehensive Plan for 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 park open space already on the register subject to the conversion; not private properties. The issue was between public parks and private property being used for public purposes, such as a golf course that was not deed restricted to being a golf course. It was a private property taking, Harris Act conversation, that was going on and legal recommendations on how to deal and address the issue were wanted. The member did not see anything occurring to address that and there are facilities in the City that could be affected in the future. The issue was being brought to the staffs attention, that if the City does not take the initiative to control things within its own community, the County Commission might do it for the City. He explained he brought it to the board as a current topic of information, but he noted the issue was not specifically addressed. The population projections for five to 15 years showed the Boynton Beach Mall could be remade into a mixed use project with the addition of 1,000 multi-family units to the mall. It was thought with the closing of Palm Beach and Wellington Malls, the Boynton Beach Mall should be able to prosper with the right tenants. Additionally, destinations were needed for the residential units. Mr. Hudson agreed but explained there is a trend across the nation to add residential units. Many enclosed malls are now removing the roof and becoming open markets. Ms. Matras explained that possibility was taken into consideration with the Constrained Roadway at Lower Levels of Service (CRALLS) designation. Staff looked at the possibility of development in the Congress Avenue Corridor and this was one of them, which is driven by a private market. Given the market situation, nothing would happen for quite some time The discussion turned to areas in reference to annexation, and it was mentioned the City needs to pay more attention to the enclaves. The City's borders are convoluted and in the 1990s, the City tried to annex to Military Trail. The City would be trying to annex undesirable enclaves but also the desirable. The process to annex and whether the City was working with the County to get landowners to agree was questioned. Mr. Hudson explained there were a number of ways to annex such as via a vote or referendum of the people. Additionally, many water service agreements have an annexation agreement. If the agreement is well written, the land being serviced would become part of the City. Also there must be a certain percentage of signers. There was one enclave that had four vacant lots and because they were vacant lots, there was no water service agreement. The County rules prohibit the City from arbitrarily picking where to annex and sometimes it is cost prohibitive. Mr. Hudson explained the City could enter into an interlocal agreement with the County for annexation of properties, but if one property owner objected to it, the County would not allow it to move forward and that was part of the hindrance. It was noted the borders should be evened out. Discussion turned to consistency in terms of the Lake Worth Lagoon Management Plan and coastal hazard areas and their consistency with the widening of the inlet and the 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 impact of the storm surge to all of the above. This issue was contained in the Coastal Management Element. Mr. Hudson explained Boynton Beach proposed the study and supports the widening of the inlet. Mr. Hudson explained there was a policy in the Conservation Element, but it was removed. The board members further discussed the text amendments. A comment was made on the Housing Needs Assessment and there was a lot of value stated from 2006; however, those statistics were probably from 2005. It was thought a disclaimer that the statistics may not be accurate in the changing environment would be appropriate. Ms. Matras discussed the Capital Improvement Element access as it pertained to the blueways and water access. She explained the City is working on the element and they would be doing the update within the next few months. This would be extremely challenging as the fiscal environment is deteriorating and there would be many claims on those dollars. Her suggestion was to leave it for now although it is a continuous process. They meet once a month on it. The legislation going on the ballot in November may further restrict the City's revenues and perhaps the City's expenses as well. They would have to add the level of service and then in terms of dollars on any other boat access, given the situation, they could only put forward their best efforts to do what was best for the City. She suggested taking the suggestion to the Capital Improvement Task Force in the City and see what developed. It was felt if the blueways would be addressed as part of the element, they should have a way to support it and have a way to better define it. If kayaking is going to be a sport in the City, there needed to be a way to get the kayaks from the car to the water, and a place to do it. If per-capita ratios are being created for all the other recreational services in the community, kayaking is also one that should be addressed, budget issues aside, or taken out of the element. If blueways would be referenced, it should be supported. A suggestion was made to list the activity and then in parenthesis add the word blueway. The City was spending a lot of money on the Intracoastal parks but it was not known how the City was promoting it through the capital expenditures? Ms. Matras explained the reason why DCA raised the visibility of the Capital Improvement Elements was to prevent the cities from creating a pie in the sky wishful thinking plan without any reality. She thought the Recreation and Open Space Element was created by a consultant two years ago and the Recreation Department had high hopes for the plan. Many activities were planned for the future. She would go back to the Recreation Department and Capital Improvement Task Force to see what could be done. The consultant, most likely, took the strategic plan for Recreation and Open Space. The plan was drafted and approved by the Commission as part of the whole package last year. That was why they planned to take it and use it. An example of ways to support a blueway would be to promote no wake zones. There are areas in the City that have no wake zones. Prime Catch does not have a no wake zone 13 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 and individuals do not dock their boats there because they will get slammed against the dock. The City needs to promote and regulate those types of activities. Concurrently, the City spends funds for a police boat and through the element, proper etiquette on the water could be tied to rules and regulations the police force could use to enforce them. There is more to the issue than just saying blueways. The City does it with sidewalks and other items and activities. They have checks and balances, and how they are managed, how they are maintained, how they get replaced, repaired, and patrolled should be outlined. Ms. Matras explained the Recreation Department Strategic Plan is supposed to be updated annually. She did not know when it would be updated next, but she thought those comments would be better placed in the Strategic Plan as opposed to the Comprehensive Plan because they are detailed regulations. Comprehensive Plans tend to have general policies. The Strategic Plan is a support document. Mr. Hudson explained the strategic plan is scheduled to be updated in May, but they cannot use a document that is adopted after the transmittal date. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to transmit the Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the City Commission with the recommendation that they adopt it with two exceptions; one being that at this time there be no change in the low density residential land use classification and two; that blueways be addressed more appropriately, consistent with the comments made in that regard. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion. Mr. Hudson requested a language change. Mr. Saberson amended his motion to reflect the transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan amendments implementing the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, with the recommendation that they adopt them with the exception that there be no change in the low density residential land use classification, it remain at 4.84 units per acre and that the comments made in regard to blueways be more appropriately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan amendments that will be adopted. Ms. Grcevic had no objections to the change and the motion unanimously passed. Mr. Hudson reviewed the Land Use Map amendments. The first amendment was for Quantum Park. Quantum Park was always troublesome for the City in figuring land use because the entire area is designated Industrial and now it has residents and schools. It is no longer considered an Industrial Park, but it is designated Industrial on the Land Use Map. In keeping with what was done with the Renaissance Commons DRI, they would put in the a range of percentages giving a leeway of 20% with the various uses in the Comprehensive Plan. This is permitted under State law for DRI's, and it allows for changes to be made without having to go through a major amendment to the DR!. All is governed by the trips generated, which was the control mechanism for 14 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 DRI's, and they cannot exceed the threshold. The uses could be moved or changed but they cannot add more trips than they were originally given when the DRI was approved. Motion Mr. Myott moved the designated future land use for the Quantum Park of Commerce be changed from the current land use of Industrial to a DRI and the accompanying language be placed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The Boynton Beach Mall Map Amendment was reviewed. Mr. Hudson explained the use is all commercial. He explained if it were necessary, they could remove some of the commercial uses and shift it to residential. The designation was still regulated by the ADA, allowing 3,306 trips during peak hour. The map amendments were all City initiated. Motion Mr. Myott moved that the Boynton Beach Mall Map amendment be classified as a DRI. It was confirmed that the intent of the City's map amendments was to classify the land as a DRI, and the uses and limitations are what the City currently has. Vote Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The Map Amendment for the residential zoning districts was reviewed. Motion Mr. Myott moved to reject the change from the all residential zoning districts to Moderate Density Residential. Mr. Saberson seconded the motion which unanimously passed. The Sunshine Square Map Amendment was reviewed. Mr. Hudson explained the City has already rescinded the zoning on it. The land use needed to be made consistent with the zoning. This would change from Mixed-Use, to Local Retail Commercial. Motion Mr. Lis so moved. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to reconsider the City Code motion previously made. Ms. Grcevic 15 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 25, 2008 seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Motion Mr. Saberson explained Mr. Myott's motion addressed the issue of not designating the moderate density parcels in the City where it says all land in the City currently designated Moderate Density Residential would be changed to Low Density Residential, which they rejected. He wanted to modify his prior motion to be the board rejects this proposal, that all land in the City currently designated Moderate Density Residential be changed to Low Density Residential, (which is the proposal) and he noted the paragraph goes on about increasing the density in the low density from 4.8 to 7.5, so his motion would be also to reject that and leave the Low Density Residential at 4.84 or whatever it currently was at. Mr. Poznak seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 8. Other None. 9. Comments by members None. 10. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, there was consensus to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m. .l~. _', ,,/1' ,--ltt}.o\.. .L'\..A ; J..' {. . I J Catherine Ch~r~ "c. l.'~r Recording Secretary 032608 16