Loading...
Minutes 06-15-89MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD IN PRIME BANK PLAZA, 211 SOUT~ FEDERAL HIGHWAY, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1989 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Robert Walshak, Chairman Marilyn Huckle Gary Lehnertz Dan Richter Carl Zimmerman Murray Howard, Alternate Dee zibelli, Alternate Peter L. Cheney, City Manager Carmen Annunziato, Planning Director Don Jaeger, Building Official Tambri Heyden, Assistant City Planner ABSENT Harold Blanchette (Unexcused) Nathan Collins (Unexcused) Chairman Walshak called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Chairman Walshak remarked that this special workshop meeting was called specifically to review Chapter 19 of the Boynton Beach Code~ Planning and Development Generally. A memorandum was read from Mayor Gene Moore to City Manager Cheney, dated June 14, 1989. The memorandum stated that after conferring with the City Attorney, it appeared that the actions of the Commission in removing Gary Lehnertz from the Planning and Zoning Board were not legally effected. Mr. Lehnertz remains a duly appointed and acting member of the Board. Memorandums had been received from Don Jaeger and Kevin Hallahan dealing with Chapter 19. Chairman Walshak remarked that when the Board came to the specific paragraphs that were referred to, they would incorporate that discussion into theirs. Section 19-1. Planning and zoning board created; appoint- ment, terms. The Board agreed that reference in the second paragraph of this section to the terms of the alternate board members should be one year for both alternate members. Section 19-2. Fillin9 vacancies on board; removal. The Board agreed this language is acceptable. The only minor correction made to this paragraph and subsequent paragraphs in the Chapter, was that reference to City Council should be corrected to City Commission, throughout. - 1 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 Section 19-3. Board officers. The Board had no problems with this language. Mr. Annunziato remarked that the Board had never officially adopted Robert's Rules of Order and wondered if it should be codified. The Board felt it should be added officially as a subsection, 19-3.1, Adoptin_q Ru~es of Order and should spe- cify the same edition of the Rules that the Commission adopted. Section 19-4. Quorum for board. The Board had no problems with this language. Section 19-5. Duties, responsibilities of board. A minor correction needs to be made to the bottom sentence on page 1366. The phrase should be, "the board may consider and investigate any subject matter." Relative to paragraph (b), Mr. Annunziato made remarks that he didn't know that the material was as broad as the Board's interpretation may make it. He thought it referred specifi- cally, in the conduct of the Comprehensive Plan programming, that the Board shall have the authority and responsibility to review subject matters and do appropriate studies and so forth. He didn't think that relates to site plans at all. Mr. Annunziato remarked that he did think the site plan needed to conform to Comprehensive Plan policies but he thought paragraph (b) relates to the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan only. Chairman Walshak thought something should be added as far as sl~e plan review is concerned. After some discussion the Board agreed that a new paragraph (d) should be added which addressed site plans. Mr. Walshak felt that a statement which is broad in nature should be used rather than a spe- cific statement. The Board agreed that the new paragraph (d) should be called Site Plan Recommendations. "The Board shall in addition, review, consider and make recommendations to the City Commission concerning site plans." Section 19-6. Board designated statutory planning agency. The Board felt the attorney should check the statutory reference in this paragraph to make sure it's still accurate. - 2 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACh, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 Section 19-7. Comprehensive plant adoption and amendment. Mr. Cheney remarked that he felt the attorney should check this to make sure it~ttracts the new growth management plan. Mr. Annunziato thought perhaps something should be put in about concurrency. Mr. Walshak said the attorney might want to put something in there to address the other acts. Mr. Annunziato stated the concurrency program has to be codified sooner or later. It has to be tied into your Planned Development Regulations. This might be one of the places where we have to tie that in. *Should be tracks. See 7/11/89 ~inutes. The Board thought the attorney should check this section to see if it's current relative to the Statutes. Section 19-8. Position of planner created; appointment, tenure. The Board observed that City Planner should be changed to Planning Director. Section 19-9. Duties, responsibilities of planne~. The Board noted that City Planner should be changed to Planning Director Section 19-10. Compensation of planner. This could be eliminated since it's addressed elsewhere in the City Pay Plan. Mr. Walshak suggested deleting it as part of Sections 19-10 19-16. Reserved. The Board agreed. ARTICLE II. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL Section 19-17. Plan required. Discussion took place relative to requiring colored eleva- tions. Mr. Cheney remarked that if you don't have some tool to implement it, why look at it? That has been the problem over the years. Mr. Annunziato remarked that there's all sorts of aspects to the topic of colored elevations. He had asked Tambri Heyden to write a position paper stating the pros and cons and some potential different policy directions for the Board. Don Jaeger remarked that the CAB application requires that each exterior element have a color attached to it but there is no requirement in the Code for colored elevations for CAB review. Mr. Cheney noted that it gets to them because the Commission has in the past required colored elevations. MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 Discussion took place regarding changes on projects under $10D,000 and possibly tying this into Section 19-23. The question was raised as to whether you could require someone to do something voluntarily if the Code doesn't spe- cifically require it. Mr. Cheney and various Board members made comments on this topic. Ms. Zibelli personally does not require a color rendering. Chairman Walshak felt the same way. The other individual board members stated the reasons they would like to receive them. After some discussion had taken place, Chairman Walshak remarked to Mr. Annunziato that he thought he had their viewpoints on color renderings and could now come back to the Board with some affirmative things at the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Cheney remarked that Mr. Annunziato should still do the paperwork. Chairman Walshak stated that there's a tremendous amount of information that is required in Section 19-17 for site plan approval, ge feels it's excessive. He thought a lot of things could be relegated to the Building Dept. for the per- mit process. He felt Don Jaeger had touched on this when he addressed Section 19-21, where he referred to "Factors con- sidered by committee and review. It is the Building Department's belief that this section is too detailed for review for the site plan approval process. It could be handled more effectively through permitting." Mr. Jaeger responded that that was Section (e) which has to do with nuisances and performance standards. Chairman Walshak felt the way it was worded would also apply to Section 19-17 in many instances. He elaborated. Mr. Annunziato made remarks dealing with the level and quality of the review prior to the plans coming before the Planning and Zoning Board. If we're going to have a concep- tual review there isn't much that the technical staff can really say about it because you don't know if the plan as pre- sented conforms with the Code. Mr. iWalshak remarked that perhaps the TRB could be put on the end of the process also. A lot of time and money is spent on these applications coming through. He wondered how many of these big applications actually follow through to construction. He referred to several projects that never were constructed. He wondered if the technical review should be done on the frontend of the process. - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 Mr. Lehnertz asked Mr. Walshak if he was suggesting that the Board review and approve plans and then let the TRB say whether the technical matters are okay or not2 Mr. Walshak thought that was a possibility. Mr. Lehnertz stated that he felt more comfortable when he had the technical comments in front of him to consider. Mr. Walshak didn't think the Planning and Zoning Board was necessarily technically capable of making those technical decisions. Considerable discussion transpired. Mr. Walshak thought the process should be made a little easier up front for people to get their conception to the City Commission. He remarked that 99% of the time the Board is requiring them to have finished landscaping plans and the Code calls for preliminaries. Mr. Jaeger remarked that there needed to be a little staff leeway throughout this process. There needs to be rationale that enters into it. When you do require finished landscape plans or preliminary plans, there's always going to be problems with availability, heights, etc., so he felt staff needed leeway through the process in order to make deter- mination that, yes, this does meet the concept of what was originally approved. Kevin Hallahan's memorandum was referred to. Comments were made regarding what the CAB requires in the way of review. Mr. Jaeger said that the vast majority of developers that come through with landscaping plans far exceed the Code. There may be industrial projects that come through and meet minimum Code but most commercial and residential projects exceed the minimum Code requirements. He didn't see a problem with getting a preliminary plan and sticking to the concept of the plan and using staff discretion. Chairman Walshak stated he had a problem with Section 19-17 (k). Mr. Annunziato enumerated the technical types of information this would include. Chairman Walshak remarked that "this technical stuff should be handled by the tech- nical people." Mr. Lehnertz felt that they were qualified to read staff comments, ask staff questions and then make interpretations upon that. He felt the Board has a respon- sibility to take staff's interpretation of what is being presented on a technical mat~er and indicate whether they agree with it. Mr. Jaeger was asked if he thought the technical review should be up front or at the end? He stated that he felt it could work either way. He was not convinced that the Board - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 needs all of the technical data it presently gets. Chairman Walshak was thoroughly convinced that the Board doesn't need it because they are basically "rubber stamping" staff com- ments. Mr. Annunziato remarked that he feels quality developers prefer for the City to be specific because then they know exactly what is expected of them. Chairman Walshak referred to a letter from Hovnanian Builders which indicated they were not interested in any other projects in Boynton Beach. Any other area of the County was okay. Chairman Walshak thought our process was too cumbersome and was to blame. Mr. Lehnertz asked what the reason was behind the letter. He said perhaps it was for other reasons. Further discussion took place. Mr. Annunziato used an example of a developer coming in for conceptual review and perhaps there is a six inch water main in front of the property and he will need a ten inch water main for the project. This could be addressed by saying "water supply is insufficient." This would generate a lot of discussion from public bodies. As a conceptual plan, the person may not have thought in terms of having to put in a half mile of ten inch water main. Mr. Cheney remarked that at that point if he hasn't put that much thought into it and he comes down the conceptual road, and before he gets to the ~lanning and Zoning Board he is told he will need a ten inch line, he may decide not to proceed. Mr. Cheney felt that the developer needed to have that knowledge. It would be unfortunate for a builder to get excited about a project and then to find out later into the process that because of a technical reason, the project can't proceed. Mr. Cheney remarked that if Section 19-17 (k) is the thing the Board is most concerned about, then it should be modified and made less onerous at that stage. Chairman Walshak thought it should be pulled out and the technical people in the Building Dept. should be left to handle it at the building permit process. After some discussion had taken place it was remarked that the TRB would still be!reviewing the plan before the Planning and Zoning Board sees it, but with q~alified para- meters. Chairman Walshak said the Board wasn't eliminating anything in the process. Even the things listed in item (k), such as engineering and other technical data, have to be m~t to get a building permit. Ms. Huckle asked if they would then need to go back to TRB again? Mr. Jaeger - 6 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 remarked that they wouldn't need to. They would only need to go to those~agencies that would permit the specific ele- ments of the plan. The TRB's task would prove to be lighter. Discussion took place relative to requiring the minimum amount of informatio~ that is needed to determine feasibility of a project. The Board discussed the conceptual review processes used by Delray Beach and Boca Raton. Chairman Walshak stated that Boca Raton and Delray Beach do not require all of the tech- nical data up front. The plans go through quicker and the technical matters are handled on the back end by the building review process. He said they have their plans approved in 30 - 60 days. It may take six months to get the building permit, but in the interim they are looking for their financing. Conversation took place regarding Unity of Title. As the discussion moved along, Ms. Huckle remarked that traffic studies are very important to the Board in deciding whether they even want to give conceptual approval. Mr. Annunziato stated that any plan that would generate 3,000 trips per day would require a traffic impact analysis. The Board needs to decide if they feel it is important for them to have that information before them because lots of times it is the traffic impact analysis that generates the level of improvement. Chairman Walshak thought that kind of thing would be recognized immediately when the developer came in with his concept, because there are threshholds for that. Mr. Annunziato asked, "Are you saying that he would have to submit a plan at that time if it was obvious that he exceeded that level?" Mr. Richter answered affirmatively. If it was obvious, tell him that the City is going to want to know about traffic, because it is obvious that the concept is going to generate 400 or more trips per day. Mr. Cheney stated that you could tell him that it is obvious you are going to have to do that. He would make the choice if he wants to do it then or later. Chairman Walshak remarked that we have the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and we're pretty much mandated by the County level of service C. Will the traffic studies actually be necessary in the future? Mr. Annunziato responded affirmatively and stated all con- currency is going to do is it will be a "No" or "no go" situation. It will not relate to whether he has to improve the frontage in front of his property or install a traffic signal or put in turn lanes, etc. Those are the kinds of things that they've been relying on the authority of the - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACB, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission to impose. If we do go to a much more conceptual approach, Mr. Annunziato felt we would have to go back and adopt standards for every kind of mitigation, by Code. He elaborated. After considerable discussion, the consensus of the Board was that Section 19-17 (k) should be structured so that when plans are submitted, only if it's obvious that there's a "go" or "no go" situation~ that would be the information that we ask for. Mr. Annunziato thought the point on the traffic wo~ld probably be the one that would be the most important because that will really be the only "go" or "no go" decision. Everything else will be a question of money. Section 19-17.1. Fee to accompany plan. Mr. Annunziato remarked that there are similar regulations for what's required for a site plan in the zoning code. The presumption he was going to make is that whatever the Board ends up recommending, those adjustments would be made to all other regulations. The Board agreed. Section 19-18. Approval prerequisite to building permit. Mr. Jaeger thought we needed to add "except where exempted by Section 19-23." The Board agreed. Section 19-19. Committee established; membership. The Board thought this section is currently acceptable. Section 19-20. Duty of committee to review ~lans. Chairman Walshak stated that he would like to put something in this section regarding the plans for changes under $100,000, which are being handled administratively. He asked Mr. Annunziato if they could get a quicker review of those than once a month. Mr. Annunziato remarked that they had already implemented a twice a month review system. The Board agreed that scheduling of a meeting shouldn't be in an Ordinance. There were no other comments from the Board on this section. Section 19-21. Factors considered by committee in review. Mr. Cheney remarked that we need to put language in this section that separates that the first review of the TRB is something conceptual in nature. Mr. Annunziato commented that Mr. Jaeger had pointed out that paragraph (e) is too - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 detailed a review for the site plan approval process. It would be handled more effectively in permitting. There are aspects to (e) which exceed the permitting process, espe- cially as it relates to abatement of nuisances and hazards. Chairman Walshak expressed concern at paragraph (b) also. Further discussion took place. Chairman Walshak thought it should be spelled out that there are two reviews, one for site plan approval and one for building permit. Mr. Jaeger wasn't so sure that there needed to be two TRB processes. He thought there ought to be enough detail that if there is any conflict between departments it ought to come to light through the original review. On something like utilities, he thought there ought to be enough review of a schematic nature. They don't need finalized details on fittings, but they ao need to look at whether there are available utilities of sufficient size to serve the project. He thought this could be handled schematically rather than technically. Mr. Annunziato suggested that it might be a good idea to create a new section and then relabel Section 19-21 as Final Review. Then in Section 19-20.1 you conld talk about what · s the conceptual review. Mr. Cheney noted that the issue before the Planning and Zoning Board is that the City will not subject the developer to that elaborate process prior to coming to the Board with the conceptual plan. The Board agreed. Beyond that, it is an administrative problem of how to get it through. The Board was agreeable to having a Section 19-20.1, which would be labeled, Factors to be considered by committee in conceptual review. Section 19-21 would be Factors to be considered by committee in final review. Section 19-22. Matters to be determined and reported by committee, Mr. Cheney commented that the same issue affects this sec- tion. Mr. Annunziato and Mr. Jaeger looked at this section carefully and felt that it could probably be eliminated, since none of the information was really applicable. The Boardl agreed that instead of having the Section 19-20.1, they could just replace it with Section 19-22. -- 9 -- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 Section 19-23. Administrative processing of small projects. Discussion took place on whether the $100,000 figure should be raised to $250,000. Mr. Annunziato made comments regarding changes that could take place within the dollar amount, that could end up completely changing the site plan. Mr. Annunziato didn't feel that words like minor and major changes, make the issue very clear. Mr. Jaeger didn't feel that defining changes by dollar value was necessarily that valid because someone could change the project entirely, even moving the buildings around on the site, and yet incur no cost, because it's all done on paper. Major changes sometimes require minimal cost. Further discussion took place dealing with a developer agreeing to certain things initially during site plan review and then later cutting costs by making changes. Mr. Jaeger said the plans might come in showing trim on a building or additional trees, and then later he wants to delete it. It complies with all the Code requirements so he doesn't have to go back through the review process because it's under the threshhold amount. He stated that they have no recourse to approve that~ because it conforms with Code requirements, unlSss they tie them in with what was originally approved. Chairman Walshak stated that a developer might try to play games with the City~ by agreeing with either the Planning and Zoning Board or the Commission, to add something extra to the plan because he wants immediate approval. That is part of the site plan agreement and not subject to change, irre- gardless of what the dollar figure is. Extensive conver- sation followed. Ms. Suckle asked what Mr. Annunziato would recommend as far as the minor amount of money? He thought $25,000 would pro- bably be about right. Mr. Jaeger thought it would be hard to put a dollar value on it. He noted that $25,000, if it occurred daily, could mount up quickly as well. He thought they needed to quantify the number of times also. He wanted the minor type of changes left to staff discretion so that it doesn't keep bouncing a person back through the process. He thought $25,000 or $50,000 would probably be okay. Mr. Annunz~ato added, not to exceed five or six changes. The Board agreed that any project coming in under $250,000, would automatically be handled administratively and per- mitted. When it's a site plan change, anything under $50,000 would not have to come back through. The $100,000 would be raised not to exceed $250,000, which amounts to $50,000, five times. Mr. Annunziato remarked that in Section 19-23 it did not exempt review by the C.A.B. That would be one way to deal -- 10-- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 with the aesthetics ~ssue; by still having review by the C.A.B., to the extent that the addition is in harmony with structure. He elaborated. Chairman Walshak thought that Section 19-23 should have an "escape clause" for the applicant. If the applicant doesn't like the decision of the City's professional people, he has a right to appeal to the City Commission. Chairman Walshak thought that should be in this section. The Commission should have the final say in any appeal. It was agreed that PUDs and PIDs should be included in the $250,000 as well. Chairman Walshak brought up the topic of signage. Could they set a dollar figure on signage? He thought the technical people should be allowed to handle it. Mr. Annunziato said he thought the only place the Planning and Zoning Board should be involved in the permitting of signs is in the Planned Districts and then only to the extent that the Board would appzove the overall signing program like they did for Quantum, because that relates to the integrity of the project. Beyond that he just thought they should be permitted. Chairman Walshak agreed and remarked that Hunter's Run had been in four times on wall signs throughout that PUD. Further conversation took place regarding the CRA and the Downtown Review Board. Mr. Zimmerman referred to entrance signs that had been under consideration to be built on the road right-of-way in Leisureville which is a PUD. These are public roads not private. Mr. Cheney remarked that they couldn't be placed on a public road right-of-way. Mr. Zimmerman elaborated on signage that had been installed in various areas of the Leisureville development and further discussion took place. Chairman Walshak noted that the Board had been holding discussion for some time on Chapter 19 and they were not finished with their review. He suggested that the meeting be continued. Some of the other sections coming up in Chapter 19 address the Community Appearance Board and he thought it would be a good idea to invite the C.A.B. to a joint workshop. The next meeting was set for Thursday, June 29, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Annunziato was asked to invite the C.A.B. Mr. Jaeger remarked that he would like to suggest that they add that the C.A.B., Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission Should all three be exempt through the minor revision process. Chairman Waishak said he thought MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 15, 1989 Mr. Cheney had remarked that in SeCtion 19, this would apply to everybody to make it consistent. Chairman Walshak stated that he understood the edict from the Commission was that the Planning and Zoning Board, C.A.B. and TRB would all meet at one time and "hammer" this Section out before the CommisSion meeting, They would then submit it to the Commission. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting properly adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Shannon Burkett Recording Secretary (Four Tapes) - 12 -