Loading...
Minutes 11-08-94MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, HOVEtSER B, 1994, AT 7:DO PRESENT Gary Lehnertz, Chairman Stanley DubS, Vice Chairman Jim Golden Maurice Rosenstock Tom Walsh ABSENT Bradley Weigle (Excused) Pat Frazier, Alternate (Excused) Daniel Winters, Alternate (Excused) Tambri Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director Mike Haag, Zoning and Site Development Administrator Benjamin Aveni, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Lehnertz called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m., and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. INlltODUCTION O~F ~YOR~ CONMISSIONERSAND BOARD MEMBERS Chairman Lehnertz introduced the Board members and Assistant City Attorney, Benjamin Aveni. AGENGA APPROVAL Mr. Rosenstock requested the addition of an item under "Comments by Members". Mr. Rosenstock moved to approve the agenda as amended. Mr. Walsh seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairman Dub~ moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Rosenstock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. COMHUMICATIONS ANG ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department i. Final disposition of last month's agenda items Ms. Heyden advised that the Planning and Development Board addressed four (4} items at last month's meeting which went before the City Commission. They are as follows: - 1 m MINUTES - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Abandonment of a Right-of-Way at SE 2nd Street - The City Commis- sion denied this abandonment because they did not want the right- of way abandoned free, and they saw it as an extension of Gulf- stream Lumber. Master Plan Modification for Boynton Nursery - When the City Commission reconsidered this master plan, they approved the project with their original recommendation on the staff com- ments. Community Design Plan Appeal for Boynton Festlye Center - When this went before the City Commission, the applicant had added another window treatment above the entry, and added iron grate work to disguise the gable. The City Commission accepted their propsoal. Site Plan Modification for Boynton Festive Center - The City Commis- sion endorsee the Board's recommendation for use of non-Cypress mulch. They did not require any additional landscaping. They required that the rooftop equipment be screened so that it cannot be seen for a distance of 600'. Ms. Heyden distributed a memorandum to the members regarding a special meeting to be held next Tuesday at 5:30 p.m., to review a site plan ano master plan modification in Quantum Park for Motorola. Of the five (5) members present, three (3) members will be able to attend that meeting. Messrs. Rosenstock and Walsh are unable to ~ttend. The remaining members of the Board have been con- tacted. An information packet for Tuesday's meeting will be distributed on Thursday. OLD BUSINESS None A. PUBLIC HEARING PARKING LOT VARIANOE Project Name: Owner: Location: Description: Gulfstream Professional Building Robert Lake Southeast corner of Gulfstream Boulevard and Old Dixie Highway Request for relief from Article X - parking lots, Section §-142{h){3) - Distance from an intersection to a driveway. Mr. Haag made the presentation. The site is located at the southernmost limit of the City. It involves an existing 25,000 square foot office building. The - variance is for the driveway located on the Old Dixie Highway right-of-way. The distance required by Code is 180'. This driveway is only 140'. When this was -2- HIHUTES - PLANNING AHD DEVELOPI,IEHT BOARD HEETIHG BOYHTON BEACH, FLORII:)A NOVEH~ER 8, 1994 approved in 1981, there was no requirement for the 180' distance. The reason the location of the driveway is being reexamined is that a church wilt be moving into the building. That will require additional parking spaces. According to the Parking Lot Opdinance, that activates all of the requ}red improvements iden- tified in the parking Codes. All other aspects of the Parking Lot Ordinance required improvements will be complied with om the site. Staff reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval. Staff had no comments on this application. Rober~L~ke, 3757 NW 5th ~ Boc~ Raton~ advised Mr. Rosenstock that he anticipates not mo~'~ than a maximum of twenty~five (25) to thirty (30) cars on the site at any time on Saturday or Sunday. The reason for the request is that the property will not allow the 180' requirement to be met within the confines of the property. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr, Rosenstock moved to grant the variance. Vice Chairman Dub~ seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. B. SITE PLANS MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 1. Project Name: Agent: Owners: Location: Description: Gulfstream Profess~on~l Building Robert Lake Leopold and Phillip Ettinger Southeast corner of Gulfstream Boulevard and Old Dixie Highway Conversion of a portion of the existing office building to a church, including parking lot improvements and shared parking agreement. Mr. Haag made the presentation. Because the church is moving into an office building, there is an intensification of the building which requires additional parking spaces. During the process, staff evaluated the parking and found that parking spaces were deficient. Staff requested a shared parking situation, which is part of this package. A church use requires thirty (30) parking spaces based on the uses within the church. Those uses are a chapel, a Sunday school, and a church office. The 15,000 square feet of office space requires fifty-two (52) parking spaces, and the 5,000 square feet of medical office requires twenty-five (25) spaces. All ratios are based on Code. A total of 107 spaces are required for all of the uses which will occupy the building. There are only eighty-nine (89) spaces on the site. The existing building of 2S,282 square feet, if changed to office use, would only require eighty-five (85) parking spaces. Mr. Haag referred to Page 3 of the Site Plan Review Staff Report dated October 28, 1994, wherein there is a breakdown of the parking demand. Through this breakdown, a determination was made that there is 9,000 square feet of space for which there is no known use. Office use was applied to that area. The highest demand for parking spaces is seventy-seven (77). -3- MINUTES - PLANNING AND I)EV~LOI~IENT BDARI) ~ETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEHBEE 8, 1994 By adding the 10% buffer to the seventy-seven (77) parking spaces, staff arrived at a total number of eighty-five (85) required parking spaces. Since the appli- cant will be providing eighty-nine {89} parking spaces with some restriping, staff felt the shared parking was acceptable for this use. The Engineering Department, Building Department and Planning Department responded with comments on this application. Those comments are relative to bringing this site into compliance with the Parking Lot Ordinance. The Planning Department's staff comments indicate a recommendation of restriping the entire parking lot to be in compliance with the 9' x 18' spaces, At the present time, the applicant is planning only to restripe those spaces which he must bring into conformance. The existing striping is the old 10' x 20', single-line striping. The applicant is making minor landscaping additions, and improvements in the site lighting. Staff also has a comment about bringing in the required curbing. Staff recommends approval of the shared parking, as well as the major site plan modification, subject to staff comments. Mr. Rosenstock asked for clarification of Mr. Haag's remark that the applicant will onTy bring into comp}lance the number.of spaces that would meet the Code and not the balance of the spaces. Mr. Haag said there is a minimum requirement for the size of theparking space. The applicant wants to maintain the existing 10' x 20' wide spaces, Mr. Golden questioned the location of this building since he noticed a trans- former pad on the survey. Robert Lake advised that the concrete pad is for an FPL transformer. With regard to restriping, he said that when the church leased this facility, they were unaware of the amount of upgrades which would be required. They are attempti)ng to keep the costs down. They feel the parking spaces which are larger than the minimum required should not pose a problem. Vice Chairman Dub6 pointed out that the fence around the dumpster location is about ready to fall down and there is no gate on it. He did not recall any men- tion of this being repaired. Mr. Lake said that request has not been made of the app)icant, and he does not know if that is part the parking lot upgrades. However, he will talk with the landlord and feels certain the landlord will be happy to take care of that item. Vice Chairman Dub~ further pointed out that the concrete sidewalk which runs on the north side of the property toward Gulfstream Boulevard is at almost the same grade as the asphalt, making it look like one big parking lot. Mr. Lake said the parking spaces will be bumpered. Vice Chairman Dub~ inquired as to the location of the pump for the sprinkler system. Mr. Lake did not have an answer to this question since he is only the tenant, but the owner told him there is a welt on the property. -4- 141NUTES - PLANNING ANO DEVELOPI4ENT BOARD NEET~NG BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVFJ4B£R 8, 1994, Mr. Hang advised that there is a conflict with staff comments. He referred to the Engineering Department's comments on Page 5 of the staff report and said he would have to yield to the Engineering Department. He said the reason he made his comment was because when an applicant comes in to restripe the parking lot, he is able to restripe it to the existing striping. However, according to Engineering Memorandum #94-342, ~ll striping must meet City standards. Mr. Hang withdrew the Planning and Zoning Department recommendation listed on Page 8 of the staff report. Mr. Lake confirmed with Mr. Hang that the entire parking tot will have to be restriped, Mr. Hang suggested that Mr. Lake discuss this with the Engineering Department. In response to a question from Chairman Lehnertz about whether or not the 10' x 20' pa. rking spaces will meet the minimum standard, Mr. Hang advised that the striping must be double-line striping. The existing spaces are single-line striped. The applicant will have to restripe the entire lot to meet the double- line striping requirement, Mr. Lake said he can achieve comp]lance with this requirement by adding to the existin~ striping. He said there are ways to meet minimum standard without restriptng the entire, lot. Mr. Hang advised that the applicant will gain addi- tional spaces by restriping. Notion Mr. Rosenstock nmved to approve this pending the acceptance of the applicant of restriping according to the Engineering Department and City standards. Mr. Welsh seconded the motion. Chairman Lehnertz questioned Attorney Aveni to determine whether or not the Board could make a motion which is dependent upon action which is pending. Attorney Aveni said the Board can approve this request with conditions. Vice Chairman Dub~ inquired as to why the motion could not be for approval, sub- ject to staff comments. Mr. Rosenstock pointed out that there is a conflict in the staff comments. Vice Chairman Dub~ explained that Mr. Haag already withdrew the Planning Department's recommendation. Chairman Lehnertz was not comfortable with this motion. Mr. Hang suggested the Board make a motion to strike his recommendation. Mr, Rosenstock withdrew his motion, and Mr. Welsh withdrew his second. Motion Mr. Rosenstock moved to accept the applicant's request subject to approval of the Engineering Department's recommendations regarding the striping of the parking lot as specified in accordance with the City Code and other staff recom- mendations. Vice Chairman Dub8 seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. -5- H[NUTES - PLANNING AHD DEVELOPHENT BOARD HEET~NG BOYNTOH BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEHBER 8, 1994 C. OTHER CONSISTENCY RE¥IEW i. Amendmen~ to ~he Zoning Code, Section 4.H, - Satellite Dlsh Antenna Ms. Heyden advised that the Ordinance in the back-up package of information would supersede our current Ordinance. Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum #94-324 compares the major differences between the current and proposed Ordinances. The five aspects of the Ordinance are as follows: The proposed Ordinance would allow satellite dishes within eight (8) feet of the rear property line. The current Ordinance states that a satellite dish shall not encroach into a required rear setback. The current Ordinance requires landscaping in conjunction with wall screening. The proposed Ordinance allows any combination of landscaping and/or non-living screening. The proposed Ordinance addresses portable satellite dishes, advertising on the satellite dish, a limitation on number of residential satellite dishes per lot, a height limitation for the satellite dish, and specific restrictions for multi-family satellite dishes. The proposed Ordinance prohibits non-residential satellite dishes from being visible from public view and continues to allow approval administratively. However, non-residential satellite dishes mounted on a tower would require conditional use approval. 5. The proposed Ordinance sets forth specific grandfathering pro- visions. Ms. Heyden advised that with regard to #4, the City Commission intended to require conditional use approval for all multiple satellite dishes. This Ordinance has gone before the City Commission on first reading, and will go before them on second reading next Tuesday. At first reading, there were three very minor changes as follows: 1) downgrade the hurricane requirement to a Category 2 from a Category 5; 2) add specific references to the Boynton Beach City Code of Ordinances; and 3) a general discussion about commercial antennae and conditional use approval. Staff recommends that the Board find this Ordinance consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan. Mr. Rosenstock said he intends to speak on this Ordinance at the next City Commission meeting because he feels part of this Ordinance is totally outmoded. There is now new technology called DSS. It is a 23" antenna which is placed on a roof. It cannot be ground mounted because it would not pick up the signal. -6- MINUTES - PLANNING AHD DEVELOPHENT BOARD NEET1qiG BOYI, ITOH BEACH, FLOE1DA NOVEHBER 8, 1994 He directed the members to Page 6, Section b-b. This provision requires that the satellite dish antennae must be freestanding, ground mounted, and self- supporting without structural connections to any other structure or building. Hr. Rosenstock feels this section must be deleted because the entire antenna business is changing. It is now possible to receive 150 channels on DSS with a 23" antenna on the roof. Furthermore, Mr. Rosenstock referred to Page 5, Section M-4, wherein it states that satellite dish antennae shall be screened from off-premises view to the greatest extend practicable, except where it is certified that specific portions of the screening interfere with reception. He feels there will be places within the City with completely exposed antennae. He will not support this, and feels this defeats the purpose of what the City wants to do, He does not feel the language is specific enough. Chairman Lehnertz pointed out that the responsibility of the Board is to deter- mi~whether Or not this Ordinance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is not within the powers of the Board to make changes to the wording. He is agreeab!e~ however, that it might be worthwhile to bring up problems the members See in this Ordinance so that the City Commission is aware of the concerns. After discussion about downgrading the hurricane category from Category 5 to Category 2, there was agreement among the members that Category 5 might be too stringent, but Category 2 is too weak. Mr. Rosenstock referred to Page 6, Paragraph 2(b) regarding the installation of only one: satellite dish antenna in a multi-family complex. Because of this Ordinance, ma~y complexes in Boynton 8each with attached villas, will never be able to have the 23" dish on the roof. Chairman Lehnertz referred to Page 5, Paragraph M(4) which requires screening to the greatest extent possible. He feels this is very vague language. He further pointed out that there is a conflict because the requirement that "...the wall or fence, does not exceed six feet in height.,.", yet the total height has to be equivalent to the height of the satellite dish. Continuing on, under "Special Provisions" on Page 6, Paragraph b(1)(b), it spe- cifies that, "no part of any satellite dish antenna installation may extend beyond the height of the horizontal eave...". He pointed out that the height of the horizontal eave is more than six feet. This is conflicting language. Chairman Lehnertz also feels that Item M-i(B) on Page 5 does not belong in this Ordinance. Mr. Golden agreed that this item appears out of context. Ms. Heyden explained that this means you cannot have a vacant lot with only a satellite dish on it. Chairman Lehnertz feels this is unclear. Ms. Heyden advised that with regard to the "screening to the greatest extent possible", the idea was to allow the building to be one of the three sides to be screened. Bill Hukill, Director of Development, said a workshop meeting was held with the City Commission following the drafting of this revised Ordinance. The Commis- -7- MINU~E$ - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 8, 1994 sioners explained where they wanted changes made. With regard to screening, if someone can prove that they cannot obtain a signal because of screening on the side of the dish, they would be permitted to delete the screening on that side. He advised that this requirement has not been changed from the first Ordinance. This new Ordinance says the antenna will be screened on three sides and the fourth, unless the fourth side interferes with reception. The new Ordinance is more restrictive than the previous one. The second issue was relative to the Category 2 versus Category 5 wind speeds. The Ordinance was written with Category 5, but it was pointed out at the City ~ommission meeting that alt other provisiens of the Building Code refer to ategory 2 and this was too restrictive with respect to other provisions of the Code. Mr. Hukill feels Category 5 is too restrictive, but Category 2 is not restrictive enough. However, this was the consensus reached by the City Commission. Another issue which arose was the conflict between a 6' combination vegetative wall screening and ~he eave requirement on the height of the satellite. This Ordinance says there can be a combination barrier, but the wall itself can only go up 6', The screening above 6' would have to be plant material. Mr. Hukill explained that no one can argue that screening on three sides of the satellite dish will interfere with the signal because the dish faces the satellite in one direction only, The only place there can be an argument is where you can make a case that there is something obstructing the signal from the satellite to the dish. Mr. Hukill admitted that the wording with regard to lot size is somewhat con- fusing, but the intention was to prevent the isolated satellite dish from being placed on an adjacent vacant lot. Mr. Rosenstock directed Mr. Hukill to Page 6, Paragraph 2(b). He pointed out that DSS 23" dishes must be installed on roofs. Mr. Hukill said this was brought up at the City Commission. They used an 18" dish in their discussion. Theydo not want any satellite dishes of any kind on any roofs anywhere in the City. Mr. Rosenstock expressed his opinion that this Commission is giving the cable companies a monopoly. He feels this is "absolutely stupid" and "ridiculous", and shows no foresight whatsoever. Vice Chairman Dub~ advised that Barnett Bank on Congress Avenue has a satellite dish which they have moved. Once they moved it, they are no longer grand- fathered. Mr. Hukitl said that when such a situation occurs, Code Enforcement enforces through complaints. Mr. Haag advised that Barnett Bank's plans were approved, but they did not include the satellite dish. There will have to be a separate permit and screening provided for that dish. It was moved from its original location. Ms. Heyden referred to Page 5, Item M-1(4). If "to the greatest extent possible is removed", then the exception which will be allowed, where it is not practi- cal, is already provided for. -8- HINUTE$ - PLANNING AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD I~EETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEHBER 8, 1994 Hr. Golden questioned who will certify that specific portions of the screening interfere with reception. Mr. Hukill said the. manufacturer of the dish, or the installer would have to certify that the signal is being restricted by virtue of the screening. Mr. Rosenstock said he feels very strongly on this matter. He thinks the Com- mission is totally blind to new technology. There are 150 channels which can be received today and the Commission is giving a monopoly to the current cable television people. This City is opening itself ~o a lawsuit. He stated that the people in his community have no concern about this whatsoever because they supply most of the City of Boynton Beach with its television signal. This Ordinance is improperly drawn when they say the satellite dish antenna shall be %reestanding, ground-mounted, self-supporting without structural connections to any structure or building. He feels this would be correct if you are dealing with a 6' or 8' satellite dish, but not with a 23" or 18" dish, Vice Chairman DubA felt the Board should recommend that this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but attach the Board's comments. Mr. Rosenstock said that if the Board votes no on this issue, someone will have to pay attention. Chairman Lehnertz agreed. Mr. Golden agreed with Mr. Rosenstock's remarks about new technology, and issues raised by Chairman Lehnertz. He feels an Ordinance should be simple and straightforward. There are areas in this Ordinance which require clarification because the average citizen has to deal with this. Mr, Golden pointed out that there is a requirement in this Ordinance which bans writing on the dish which would be visible from a public right-of-way. He won- dered if that would be a problem if there was a name such as RCA on the dish. Mr. Golden also noted the provision for conditional use approval. In his opin- ion, that is an overall site type of approval. He feels it might be more appropriately approved under the authority the Commission has to grant height exceptions, etco Mr. Hukill agreed with Mr. Golden's last statement, but said the conditional use is a way to get this back before the City Commission for a decision. Hotlon Mr. Rosenstock moved to find that the consistency review required for satellite dish antennae does not comply with the Comprehansive Plan and, therefore, we reject it. Chairman Lehnertz passed the gavel and seconded the motion. Mr. Golden said these types of regulations are generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are appropriate for the City. These regulations need cleaning up. Although he is not comfortable with the wording, he feels they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. -9- MINUTES - PLANNZNG AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD NEET)NG BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Mr. Rosenstock took exception with this. He questioned why the Board members should vote a positive vote on wording when they do not know what it is going to say. He would prefer to see the wording first, and then determine whether or not it is consistent. Mr. Golden reiterated that he can find no reason why this Ordinance would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan even though he does not like the wording, and it needs work. Vice Chairman Dubs agreed with Mr. Gotden's remarks. Chairman Lehnertz said he has many problems with the wording of this Ordinance, and with what this Board is being asked to approve. He agrees that if the Board decides this is consistent, even though there are problems with it, it will be much easier to gloss over it. He feels it is better to say it is inconsistent. In response to Mr. Rosenstock's question, Ms. Heyden said the Comprehensive Plan is silent on satellite dishes. Mr. Rosenstock then feels that this Ordinance cannot be consistent, Mr. Watsh feels that any time an Ordinance is drafted, it must be straightfor- ward and not vague otherwise it will lead to inconsistencies, When the Ordinance is drafted, thought should be given to the future so that it covers all bases. The Ordinance should be consistent and considerate of neighbors. These dishes should not be eyesores. They should have screening. This Ordinance contains a great deal of vague wording. He suggested seeking guidance from the City Attorney. Vice Chairman Dub~ reiterated that he does not like the way this Ordinance is written, but he cannot find it inconsistent. Mr. Rosenstock read Paragraph t of Planning and Zoning Memorandum #94-324 which states the nature of the request. Mr. Rosenstock said that if this were really to the true test of Robert's Rules of Order, he would call for a point of order and ask that this be ruled out of order because there is nothing in the Compre- hensive Plan regarding satellite dishes. He questioned how this Board can determine whether or not this is consistent with something that does not exist. Mr. Rosenstock asked for an opinion from Attorney Aveni. Attorney Aveni said Mr. Rosenstock is correct in his statement of fact, but he was not sure Mr. Rosenstock was correct in his conclusion. Attorney Aveni said this is a point of logic. The motion carried 3-2. (Vice Chairman Dub~ and Mr. Golden case the dissenting votes.) Mr. Hukilt requested that the Board's comments be transmitted to the City Commission. Ms. Heyden advised that the Commissioners will receive copies of the minutes, and she will also summarize the Board's comments for them. - 10 - HINUTES - PLANNING: AND DEVELOPNENT BOARD HEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVENBER 8, 1994 DISCUSSION 2. Consideration of a revlslon of the platting process currently tn place Mr. Hukill said he has been reviewing the platting process because he found that applicants are driven away from this process. It is in the City's best interest to have everything platted since the plat is a sophisticated survey showing all easements, cross-accesses, and property lines on one document. He realizes that whenever a developer can opt out o7 the process, he wilt. The two reasons for this are time and money, The platting process is a due diligence. Whenmaterial is submitted, it must be reviewed in detail for technical compliance with recorded documents. This Board and the City'Con~ni~ssion are not in a good position to make a due diligence search of these documents. Mr. Hukill explained that the way the process is set up, the applicant enters the process with preliminary plats. They go to the engineer, who distributes them to all other departments for review. It eventually goes to the TRC where there may be two or more meetings if there are enough variations. It then goes before the Planning and Development Board and the City Commission. The prelimi- nary plat then is returned to the developer, who reenters the process to go through all the reviews, and back to the City Commission. They do not return to the Planning and Development Board on the second round. During this same period of time, the County Department of Health is performing a similar examination. With this Board meeting only once a month, the application cannot get to the Board and the City Commission in a week. If the Board is not meeting, the applicant must wait for the next Board meeting. Mr. Hukilt feels there must be a better way to handle this situation since it appears that the process is driving people away. Me is investigating the pos- sibility of shortening the process or making it possible for the developer to shorten the process. Mr. Hukill advised that he has had this same discussion with the City Commission in a workshop meeting. He pointed out that although at the end of the process the Mayor, City Clerk and Engineer sign off on the plat, the Mayor cannot sign off without the vote of the Commission. Mr. Hukill cannot recall the Commission ever discussing a plat. During the process of getting a development approved, a developer must get zoning, and enter a master planning process which is much like the platting process. The second process it goes through is the site sur- vey. Essentially, they are doing the master plan process, but with a little bit more information. It is possible that a project might come before the Board three times and the City Commission four times. The master plan is not a technical process, and it is not exactly a political process, but it is a process which needs to be aired by the Planning and DeveliOpment Board and the City Commission because these are issues decided for reasons other than technical reasons. This process cannot be shortened too much. - 11 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEHBER 8, 1994 Site plan review contains more information, but many times, the issues which came up at the Board level or the City Commission in the master planning process have already been resolved by staff with the developer. Mr. HukilI feels platting is a technical issue. It is lines on a drawing of things that have legally occurred and been recorded. The way to shorten this process is to try to double it up with the site plan process. When the devel- oper ends up with his approval, it would come at a City Commission meeting when everything was approved including the plat and the site plan. Mr. Hukill feels the route to get to this point is technical and it should be accomplished by staff. Mr. Hukill does not feel the plat should go before the Planning and Development Board at alt if it is following the site plan review process. He is suggesting a revision in the process so that when a developer comes in, he will only come in one time with a plat. That plat would have to have everything on it which is recorded. The technical review can begin, but cannot be completed until the construction drawings are available, cross-access agreements are done, and the n~w easements and abandonments are accomplished. The plats wilt then go to the City COmmission. This puts the entire burden of the length of time from start to finish on the developer. Mr. Rosenstock agreed with Mr. Hukill's suggestions, but he does not believe this will ever happen. He stated that he consistently attended TRB meetings. He did this because time after time, the Planning and Development Board members hsd to face thirty, forty or fifty recommendations made by the Departments which were not complied with by the developer. The developers and their representa- tives fail to comply and are brought into shape by staff. These same people complain to the Commission that it takes a lot of time to get their plans done. Mr. Rosenstock reminded the mem~bers that the Planning and Development Board is only an advisory board, and anything Mr. Hukill suggests to expedite this pro- cess should start with the developer complying with the Codes. If they do that, an application can get through the process in thirty (30) days. Until that hap- pens, he would object to anything bypassing the Planning and Development Board. Mr. Hukill said Mr. Rosenstock's comments relate to the site planning process, not the platting process. He feels that the developers prefer to bring their cases before the City Commission because they make their case in a public meeting and can usually get what they want. Mr. Hukilt recommended that the Board members attend the TRC meetings if possible. Tho,se meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month at 9:00 a.m. Mr. Rosenstock said he will attend. Mr. Golden feels the existing subdivision platting regulations are antiquated and cumbersome. He feels they need to be streamlined and updated. He questioned how this discussion fits in with land development regulations. Mr. Hukill said Ms. Heyden is reviewing and rewriting Appendix C. Mr. Hukill advised that in reviewing the Ordinance, he discovered that the definitions varied throughout the Code. He has sent that list of words to a group of people for review. - 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING AHD DEVELOPME)~ BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 8, 1994 Mr. Golden inquired as to whether or not this would be part of the overall land development Code. He also questioned what would happen to the existing Code. Ms. Heyden said the original intent was to take all of the Land Development Ordinances out of the book and put them in something separate. That intent still exists, Mr. Golden wondered if that would result in a more unified land development review process. Mr. Hukill said that with respect to the master plan and site plan, it is much like a preliminary site plan and final site plan. Mr. Golden said he is in favor of a streamlined process. Chairman Lehnertz pointed out that many times this Board reviews the site plan and preliminary plat on the same evening. He feels there is no reason why the Board should review the plat in one month and the site plan the following month. In response to Mr. Hukill's question, Ms. Heyden advised that the Planning and Development Board sees the plat to study the land value for parks and recreation. Mr. Hukill offered to bring a plat and site plan to the Board to see how they feel about it. He thinks it might be more helpful to staff if some of the tech- nical members of the Board would visit the office to review the plats to make sure they are right. Mr. Rosenstock feels this is staff work. When the package is presented to the Board, it will be reviewed and the appropriate recommendation will be made. He is not concerned about how the application gets to the Board. Mr, Golden feels there are many things that can be done at staff level that are currently being brought to the Board and City Commission. Mr. Hukill feels part of the problem is the fact that the Board meets only once a month. Mr. Rosenstock said he would be happy to meet more often if necessary. Vice Chairman Dub~ explained that this Board is on the calendar to meet twice a month if necessary. Mr. Hukill advised that he has a plat in his Department now. He asked if the Board would like to schedule a meeting in two weeks to review that plat. Chair- man Lehnertz was opposed to setting another meeting, since there i~ already an additional special meeting scheduled for next Tuesday. Mr. Golden suggested Mr. Hukill tie the plat to the site plan for one review. Mr. Watsh said that master plan, site plan and platting are three different things. The Board's function is in an oversight capacity. However that capacity works best for all parties concerned should be what is being con- sidered. If the process can be simplified without eliminating the oversight process, it will be to everyone's benefit. - 13 - 14ZNUTE$, PLANNING AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD I~EET~NG BOYNTOH ~CH, FLORZDA NOYEI4BER 8, 1994 COHHEHTSBY HEHBER$ Since this meeting is being held on Election Day, some members could not attend. Mr. Rosenstock recommended that in the future, consideration be given to reli- gious holidays and other holidays when scheduling the meeting. Ms. Heyden advised that she is currently working on next year's calendar. She will consider this suggestion when scheduling the meetings. AD~OURNI4ENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting properly adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Prainito Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) - 14 -