Loading...
Minutes 03-24-86MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HELD IN THE CITY'S BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM ON MONDAY, MARCH 24, 1986 AT 3:30 P. M. PRESENT George deLong Marilyn G. Huckle Robert Wandelt Garry Winter Norman Gregory, Alternate ABSENT Simon Ryder, Chairman (Excused) Walter "Marty" Trauger, Vice Chairman John Pagliarulo William Schultz, Alternate Carmen S. Annunziato, Director of Planning Tim Cannon, Senior City Planner Jim Golden Assistant City Planner Mr. Annunziato called the meeting to order at 3:30 P. M. Councilman Carl zimmerman and city Manager Cheney were in the audience. Mr. Annunziato announced that he would not be at the meeting next month but a few things have to be on the agenda so they can begin to notify people. CONSISTENCY REVIEW - Proposed amendments to Section 19 of the Code of ordinances and to Section 9C of Appendix A, zoning, which provides for procedures for review and approval of proposed amendments to the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan State Mandate for Citizen Participation in Comprehensive Planning Process Mr. Annunziato said before the Board and the City Council can review plan amendments, etc., a public participation program has to be adopted. The Planning Department prepared a "Proposed citizen Participation Element" which Mr. Annunziato wants on the agenda for adoption at the next meeti~,~ Local Planning Agency In their tentative Comprehensive Plan adopted amendments schedule, it looked to the Planning Department as though the Board will be sitting as the Local Planning Agency and conducting hearings in June. The hearings will be on two aspects of the Comprehensive Plan: (1) Plan Amendment Requests which they will receive as of the 1st of next month. - 1 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 They are anticipating six or seven. (2) The Evaluation and Appraisal Report should be available for distribution the first week of April. Mr. Annunziato said both the Evaluation and Appraisal Report and the Plan Amendments have to be processed in the same form the Comprehensive Plan is adopted in, so the Board will be involved in workshops and public hearings as an Agency and with the Council. Mr. Annunziato asked the Members present if they also want to meet in regular session in June. The effect would be not having regularly scheduled Planning and zoning Board items on the agenda as opposed to just meeting as the Local Planning Agency. He suspected they would probably be meet- ing in public hearing sessions 2, 3, or 4 times in June conducting hearings on the various Plan amendments and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Mr. Annunziato asked the Members to think about that and to have it on the agenda for April 8th so the Board can make a decision. If the Board decides not to meet in regular session in June, it will give the Planning Department two months, more or less, to advise people that there will not be a regularly scheduled meeting in June, but the Board will be sitting as the Local Planning Agency (LPA) for planned amendment purposes. Mr. Gregory asked if anything would be coming up for the Planning and zoning Board. Right now, Mr. Annunziato had no indication that there would be anything for June, as nothing was pending, but someone could always file a request for rezoning, etc. He urged them to make a decision now so the Planning Department could advise people. Mrs. Huckle asked if these would be long meetings or what was anticipated. Mr. Annunziato replied that six of the requests involve changes from other than commercial land use categories to a commercial category. Two involve annexations of property which is currently zoned commercial in the County to commer- cial in the City. Mr. Annunziato said the Board could anticipate an evaluation of all of the impacts, notifying all of the people within 400 feet, and whatever input that will generate. He informed Mrs. Huckle he would schedule about four requests per evening, and that would happen about twice. They anticipate the Evaluation Report will be a technical document of some 200 pages plus a summary report of 20 or 30 pages. - 2 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Mr. Annunziato suspected there would be several workshops and probably some public input kinds of workshops starting in May and public hearings in June. Depending on how much input there is, they may do it all in one night, or it might be two or three nights. Mr. Winter suggested the fourth Tuesday of each month as an extra meeting date. Mr. Annunziato advised that may or may not be enough. Mrs. Huckle asked what the target date was for having this Evaluation and Appraisal Report ready for the Council. Mr. Annunziato was hoping for the week of June 9 to June 13 for the LPA and the week of June 23 to June 27 for the City Council. Mr. Annunziato did not think the Council would want to address these issues in a regular meeting and said the tentative schedule is as follows: April 1 - Last day for receiving requests from the public. Planning Staff transmits the draft of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report to the Council, LPA, City Manager, and Department Heads. April 15 The Planning Department hopes to transmit to the City Clerk for advertising all of the applications they receive from the public. That will give the Planning Department two weeks to check the applica- tions for completeness and to meet with the people. April 15 to June 1 - The Planning Staff will coordinate a re- view of the Planned Amendment Requests with the city Staff and prepare a final report. May 1 to June 9 The LPA and City Council will conduct work- shops and public hearings on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Mr. Annunziato suggested that the LPA could be in workshop sessions during the month of - 3 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 May 9 - June 2 - June 9 to June 13 - June 16 - June 23 to June 27 - July 1 - May and give themselves a good three weeks to read the document. It would take a couple of days just to get through the drafting of the technical document. Mr. Annunziato added that the Members may not want to read the entire document and may be satisfied to just read the summary report. The city Clerk mails out the 30 day Notice for Plan Amendments, if applicable. The Planning Staff transmits staff reports on the Plan Amendments to the Mayor and Council, LPA, and applicants, and the City Clerk will advertise the LPA hearings. The LPA conducts hearings on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report and Plan Amendment Requests. During this week, the Board will be spending as many nights as it will take to get through the Report and Requests on the basis that the Members will have worked out their questions on the technical report in work- shops during the previous month. Mr. Annunziato also recommended that they notice the workshop meetings and conduct two or three public workshops with presenta- tions by staff, informal input by the public, and informal statements by the Board. The city Clerk advertises the Council hear- ings. The Council conducts hearings on the Evalu- ation Appraisal Report and Amendment Requests. The packet of Plan Amendment Requests plus the Evaluation Appraisal Report is transmitted to the State of Florida. - 4 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNINGAND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Mr. Annunziato said the Council does not have to adopt any Plan Amendments or the Evaluation Appraisal Report. They do not even have to conduct hearings and only have to trans- mit, but he did not think the Council would transmit some- thing they would not feel comfortable with. October 1 - The packet should come back. October, November, December - Adoption of ordinances. Mr. Annunziato told Mr. Gregory he thought some of the amendments were controversial and would take a couple of hours, i.e., the property east of the Villager on Boynton Beach Boulevard and the Tradewinds Planned Commercial Development. There was discussion between Mr. Gregory and Mr. Wandelt as to whether the Board should have a regular meeting in June. Mr. Annunziato suggested it be at the end of next month's agenda so all of the Board Members could decide. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mr. Annunziato said the Amendments add several sections to Chapter 19 of the Code of Ordinances and amend Section 11 of the Zoning Code. They bring the City's regulations into consistency with the Comprehensive Planning Act with respect to procedures to follow for Plan Amendment submissions and procedures which are more or less dictated by the State. Mr. Gregory asked if they were consistent with what some of the other cities throughout the State were also doing. Mr. Annunziato did not think many of the other Planning Depart- ments were as organized as the City's Planning Department. The City's Planning Department has had many requests for its. Plan Amendment procedures. Also, the City's application leads them into the kind of review they had for the Trade- winds Planned Unit Development. It asks the applicant to evaluate what ~additional impacts there would be as a result of the request beyond those which would already be expected. If the State is asking the question, "Can you serve?", it seemed to Mr. Annunziato that they should be in the position to say they can or cannot serve. - 5 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Levels of Service Mr. Gregory asked if it was not true that some of the goals they outlined ought to be obtainable and, in some cases, such as the Tradewinds, they just simply are not practical and are not obtainable. He continued by saying the City is forcing people into a "no win" situation by stating that this may be a requirement, which puts them on a "hot seat", know- ing they cannot meet those goals. Mr. Annunziato thought there was truth in that but did not know what they should tell someone if the city cannot serve them and if it was not likely the City would be able to serve them. Mr. Gregory was saying there should be a mechanism to provide relief from that. Mr. Annunziato said you do not tell people they cannot develop, but you say something about the level at which they can develop. He thought the way the State was leaning with respect to the State Planning Act was that your elements have to be in balance with each other. (This was also the law in 1975.) You cannot have more land use than you have transportation, utilities, etc., and the decision makers (LPA, City Council, and County Commission) are the policy makers and set the standards. If the City Council says they are willing to accept as a level of service a peak, that can be translated into a level of intensity. If any of them say they are going to expend whatever dollars it takes to expand sewer and water plants to provide unlimited capacity, it will translate into a level of intensity in the land use. Six or seven years ago, the County Commission decided to have only six lane highways. That was a specific policy decision. All of the rights-of-way in Palm Beach County are based on six lanes. It would be impractical to change that policy now and go to eight lane highways because Palm Beach County has had several dollars of land development based on six lane highways and 120 foot rights-of-way: That is the kind of review this procedure asks for. It is a capacity analysis. Mr. Annunziato did not think anyone was as far advanced as the City in coming up with a procedure that they feel is consistent with the Statute and meets the criteria of the Planning Act. Mr. deLong asked what kind of capacity the City is looking at for land use. Mr. Annunziato replied that you can have different levels of service. Mr. Cannon advised that for recreation and parks, it was changed from 6 acres to 10 acres - 6 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 per 1~000 people. Mr. Annunziato informed the Members that right now, the level of service for transportation is "C" in the off peak season and "D" in the peak season. The City thinks it will provide utilities equal to the build out of its service system at the mid, range density for undeveloped land as shown on the County plan and the city plan. They have to have something like 4,000,000 gallons of sewer capa- city, and Mr. Cannon thought the water capacity was 21,000,000 gallons on an average day with a peak of about 33,000,000 gallons. Mr. Annunziato added that the city thought those were obtainable goals that they could afford to pay for. They will have to build a plant for $10,000,000 or $15,000,000. Mr. Gregory wondered what the alternatives were with respect to the traffic impacts and volumes of capacity and wanted to assume, as an example, that in some instances they were at a level "D" on some of the six lane arterials. If there is going to be any progress at all or any justification for expansion, he said there would obviously have to be some alternatives, and he asked if the city was looking at any alternatives. Mr. Annunziato replied that there are lots of alternatives, but he liked to believe in the short run. In the short run, you are limited to what you can say to that of what the public is willing to support. The basis for changing the Comprehensive Plan would allow you to review the technology of the willingness of the public to pay at certain times. In his past experience as County Commissioner, Mr. Gregory recalled where one section of land was given up so a developer could go forward with a PUD or something like that but, except for certain instances in the South County, they never allowed any arterials to run through any of the PUDs to connect north, south, east, and west. He wondered if there was any land available where the City may have that problem and might have to provide for some arterials through PUDs or large sections of property. Mr. Annunziato thought the answer was "No" in the city because the biggest development they have is the Park of Commerce with an arterial running through it and one running beside its north property line. Miner Road will eventually be built. As a City, Mr. Annunziato thought all they could do was make sure the rights-of-way are dedicated consistent with the County thoroughfare plan, which they have been - 7 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 doing, and then provide for enough public collectors to efficiently move traffic through the land. He gave examples and then said those are collectors, but the problem will be on the arterials, even at six lanes. If there are going to be changes, Mr. Annunziato thought it would be in mass tran- sit, which may take another 10 or 15 years. There was discussion about this and buses° Mr. Annunziato said the other alternative would be a balanced land use with the availability of services, and he asked if it was reasonable for a developer to expect an intensifica- tion beyond the current zoning when there is a capacity to serve. He thought the answer was that it was not. Mr. Gregory asked if Mr. Annunziato was saying a public transportation system for the City is about ten years away. Mr. Annunziato answered that it is a County regional issue, and he could not put a date on it. Challenges to Comprehensive Plan Mrs. Huckle said the Council was going to consider raising the zoning on parcels. There was more discussion. Mr. Annunziato told the Members that he did not think capricious decisions would be permitted any longer. You can practically ride through the County and sue somebody for non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. It has not been seen much in Boynton Beach, but Mr. Annunziato said plans are going to be evaluated and if they are not consistent with the Comprehen- sive Plan, anybody in the city of Boynton Beach can sue the City Council because they would have standing. That was a tremendous expansion in terms of who may sue. The law is no longer vague as a result of Phillip's Point, so those kinds of challenges can occur. CHAPTER 19 Mr. Cannon began going through the Sections of the Chapter. With regard to Sec. 19-7 (c), if a person, the City, or the Planning and zoning Board wishes to amend the Future Land Use Map, Mr. Cannon said they will also have to amend the zoning Map at the same time. This ensures that the affected property owners are notified. In paragraph (d), if the Comprehensive Plan is going to be amended to change the permitted uses of land, unless it is - 8 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 in conjunction with the adoption of the whole plan or an evaluation of the plan, Mr. Cannon advised that they would have to amend the Code at the same time. It prevents the City CoUncil from making changes to the Comprehensive Plan which would require changes to the Development Code as a result and allows the persons whose property is affected to be notified. (e) is the procedure we are already using. One thing the paragraph requires is findings as to consistency of Plan Amendments with the remainder of the Plan and consistency of rezoning applications with the Comprehensive Plan, which Mr. Cannon said they have not been doing. The Planning and zoning Board will have to make sure when they make motions that there be a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cannon explained to Mr. deLong that plans must be internally consistent. It seemed to Mr. deLong that if you propose a change, you would not be consistent with what you were changing. Mr. Annunziato advised that land development regulations must be consistent with the Plan. If the Board wanted to react to an application to intensify a land use and the land use has caused a reduction in the level of service, such as traffic, the Board would have to make a finding that the traffic element, which belongs to the County thoroughfare, has the capacity to serve that development or also recommend changes to the traffic ele- ment to require more roads or require a lesser level of service. That is the consistency issue. Mr. Gregory asked if the law was that one element would not be justification to override another element. Mr. Annunziato replied that the law says you cannot adopt an amendment to your plan which results in an inconsistency unless you go back and recognize that it may take a change in the level of service. Mr. deLong determined Mr. Annunziato was saying there could be no changes unless the changes were concurrent with internal consistency. Mr. Annunziato said they may find in the decisions the Board and Council make that there might be areas where there is room for increase and an ability to serve more. For example, if the trips on Miner Road were projected at 10,000 and there was a capacity for 50,000, they can increase the intensity of land use in the area without fear of overloading because the capacity would still remain available. - 9 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Mr. deLong asked how they could intensify the capacity. Mr. Annunziato commented that, for example, they may want to increase Miner Road to eight lanes. He advised that another thing that happened as a result of the Statute changes was that all capital improvements must have a number of dollars assigned to them and a solid fUnding source, so they cannot just deal in words. They have to amend the capital improvements element to provide for that improvement. This was a requirement in 1975 but there was no mandated veto power by the State. Mr. Gregory understood there was a move afoot to change the statistics for the different levels so that you would automatically have increased capacity. For example, level "D" could conceivably be a level "C". Mr. Gregory thought the problem they had in the overall Comprehensive Plan was a restrictive period of time so they could hold growth at a certain leVel. Mr. :Annunziato thought Mr. Gregory's point was well taken. Frequently, what it is all about is what policy the elected officials say they want to support. Mr. Gregory asked if Mr. Annunziato was saying they were not locked into a situation where there could be absolutely a stagnated growth period. Mr. Annunziato did not think it was going to stagnate growth because we know what is going to happen in Boynton Beach. Mrs. Huckle recalled that Mr. Annunziato said this language was basically all new. There was discussion. Mr. Annunziato informed Mrs. Huckle that the Members should already have a copy of the Comprehensive Plan. Pages 2 and 3, Section 9, C 1. Mr. Cannon said the conventional wisdom has been that contract zoning is illegal, that is, if you are in a certain zoning district or if you apply for rezoning and the rezoning is granted to C-3 or M-l, for example, you are entitled to build whatever that zoning district allows. Mr. Cannon referred the Members to the Sections cited in the first paragraph on page 3 and said that indicated to the Planning Department that the State now wants cities to engage in contract zoning. After the ordinance is adopted, Mr. Cannon said the Planning and zoning Board and the City Council will be free to impose conditions upon rezoning as to height, number of dwelling - 10- MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNINGAND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 units, and the uses that would be allowed on the property (uses that would go beyond the restrictions in the zoning regulations). Up until this point, the city Attorney has not allowed them to do that, but he is in agreement that the Planning and zoning Board and the City Council can now engage in contract zoning. Mr. deLong determined that Mr. Cannon was saying the Board can now impose greater restrictions than the zoning change would call for if it was granted. Mr. Cannon said the city Council would have almost unlimited ability to condition re- zonings if they tie those conditions into some Comprehensive Plan policy. Within the context of the policy framework of the Compre- hensive Plan, if a set of policies is put forward and they support a certain kind of position, it seemed to Mr. Annunziato that would form the basis for evaluating or imposing statements on a development. He added that there is a strong feeling among lawyers that unless something is a planned district, you cannot impose traffic construction requirements on them. Mr. Annunziato said the city has routinely done so. He thought the basis for them to do that was in the 1975 Act. Now it is clear that not only can you evaluate and assign mitigating impacts to the person creating the impact, but he thought you were supposed to. Mr. Gregory could see where there could be an abuse of that, based on the emotions of certain people who are indirectly involved in a situation like this, and he gave examples. Mr. Annunziato responded that the Comprehensive Planning Act works both ways. The policy framework was really what they were talking about. If the policy framework is not strong enough to support a position, they should not be doing it. There was discussion. Mr. deLong asked if all of these new situations were State mandated, and he questioned whether the Board had any flexi- bility in whether or not they wanted to have the ability to impose conditions on rezoning. Mr. Annunziato did not think they could approve a development the City could not serve. If they could make the development servable by telling some- one he has to put in a turn lane, etc., then he thought they would want that, but if the Board's desire is not to be in a position of imposing conditions on rezonings, they might be in a position not to improve on them. - 11- MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Mr. deLong thought there could be a lot of danger to inherent freedoms people have with their land. He was saying the Board could use that as an instrument of force and power to hold everything where they want to hold it until they decide what they want to do. Mr. deLong realized they do have the voting process and submitted that, in that respect, the public will have some control, but he had great apprehensions about creating a government master with too much power. Even without this language, Mr. Annunziato suspected that it was still there. Mr. deLong had seen it in many meetings they sat in. In effect, Mr. Annunziato said this language mimics what the Statute tells them. Even if it is not in the Code, it is still law. There was more discussion. Mr. deLong commented that they would be taking the personal feeling completely out of government, and that cannot be. Mr. Annunziato did not disagree. City Manager Cheney reminded everyone that the elected officials that they sent to Tallahassee adopted these laws, and they are reacting to a problem the people created. When he was on the Committee in Tallahassee, Mr. Annunziato found there was a real feeling among the State Staff, as they interpreted what they heard from the Legislators, that the State is fed up. It is a State policy, and they do not want it to fail any longer. Mr. Gregory gave examples of abuses in Martin and St. Lucie Counties and agreed with Mr. deLong that they have to be very prudent. Mr. Annunziato was not sure it mattered whether they were prudent because it was law. That was why Mr. deLong said it did not make any difference, and he wondered why they were sitting in the meeting if everything was pre- determined and mandated by the State. He felt he should take his packet home and go to Tallahassee next month and talk to some Legislators about things he did not like, such as people's rights being infringed upon. Mr. Annunziato emphasized that the bottom line is that no development can be approved if it cannot be served. All the language tells them how they arrive at the conclusion of whether or not the City can serve them. There was more discussion. Mr. deLong asked if the Members would be kept abreast of what their capacity is when they sit at the meetings. To the best of their ability, Mr. Annunziato replied that the City Staff is going to evaluate impact on systems. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that they will have the recommendations from the Planning Department. - 12 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Mr. Annunziato advised that oftentimes the Planning Depart- ment fully relies on the applicant to provide information for them, such as a traffic analysis. City Manager Cheney said their abilities are good but limited. The Planning Department is ahead of most cities, bUt it is probably the smallest staffed Planning Department. The Members praised the department, and Mrs. Huckle commented that they are amazed at what the department does and how they are able to substantiate it. Page 3 "2, General procedures, a, (1)" Mr. Cannon said this means the City does not have to go through that exhaustive and timely analysis for rezoning. Mr. Annunziato said the Evaluation and Appraisal (E&A) report is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and is how it must be treated. Anything that is finally adopted will go through an E&A report which, if it changes the plan, will become a new plan. Anything in the E&A which says the plan has to change in terms of the land development regulations, whether it is the zoning map, zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or whatever, in that year has to be amended to be consistent with the report. Mr. Cannon clarified that it is a Plan amendment. Page 3, (2) Mr. Cannon said this is specifically aimed at PUDs where you have a zoning change but the land use does not change. It may have been zoned R1AA. If it is changed to PUD, this paragraph says the city Staff states that the city Staff, on the assumption that the Comprehensive Plan has not been changed, does not have to do an exhaustive analysis of the rezoning. Page 6, h. Mr. Cannon skipped to this and explained that the require- ments he skipped over were pretty much as we now have. This paragraph sets forth materials the applicant has to provide with a rezoning. In effect, it is an impact analysis. Mr. Cannon said paragraph (2) was very important, as it would allow the applicant to state that he is not going to do something. - 13 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Market Analyses , With regard to paragraph (4), Mr. deLong recalled Mrs. *See A~dendum Huckle brought in a newspaper article relating to market and Minutes analyses and saying the Board has a right to keep a man from of 4/8/86. having a building with a lot of vacancies. He asked if the Board has the right to tell a man he cannot do something. Mro Annunziato advised that this is rezoning. Mr. deLong said they would be telling a person he cannot fail. Mr. Annunziato explained that they are using it as a tool in evaluating a request. There was more discussion. Mrs. Huckle said this is not to be used as a basis for denying a person rezoning. Reference was made to the Winn-Dixie on South Dixie Highway. Mr. Annunziato thought people had the right to go broke if they wanted to. If they do not think there is a demand for commercial zoning, it should not be zoned that way to begin with. There was discussion. People Within 400 Feet Of A Property Mr. deLong said there is a requirement that everyone be noti- fied within a distance of 400 feet but when they conduct public hearings, they never ascertain how close a person is to the property being changed. He thought they should know how far the person is from the property because what they say should be weighed. A person who has contiguous property should bear a lot more weight than someone who lives two miles away. City Manager Cheney pointed out that people are always asked to give their names and addresses. With all of these hearings coming up, Mr. deLong wondered if they should ask people if they are within a distance of 400 feet. Mr. Annunziato explained the procedure the Planning Depart- ment and City Clerk's Department goes through to determine who is within a radius of 400 feet, and he informed Mr. deLong that the City Clerk's Office keeps a record of the names, but it would be cumbersome to include them with the Members' agendas. City Manager Cheney suggested that the Members could aSk people what their interest is in the property and make them become specific as to why they are at the meeting. He thought those were legal questions they could ask. Mr. Wandelt thought anyone had a right to get up and speak at a public hearing. Mr. deLong reiterated his prior statements. Mr. Gregory brought up the question of whether impact studies should be required. After discussion, Mr. deLong pointed - 14 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 out that market analyses are costly. He thought they should say it may be required and let the staff make a decision. city Manager Cheney preferred to have the Board say that a market analysis may be submitted and they would look at it if the Board was not going to make it mandatory. Mr. Annunziato asked what they thought about an applicant submitting the number of his employees. Mr. deLong thought it was a good idea. Page 7, (5) Mr. Cannon said these requirements largely mimic the require- ments of Palm Beach County. They were saying in the para- graph that the applicant must use that data for the back- ground traffic. They want everyone to use the same back- ground traffic. Mr. Annunziato prepared an application which incorporates that because they thought it was something the Board wanted. If the market analysis gets deleted, the Members should not be surprised to see them in applications that are submitted before April 1. Pages 7 and 8, .paragraphs 6 and 7 Mr. Cannon said these paragraphs require that the applicant project what water and sewer demands there will be and make any improvements. If water is not within so many feet, Mr. Gregory asked if they will be required to bring it to the lot line. Mr. Cannon answered that connection to the city water and sewer is required. Mr. Gregory asked if the City had an obligation to bring it to a neutral line. Mr. Annunziato answered affirmatively and said the city has completed almost all of the water lines it is going to build. Almost all of the water improvements have been privately funded, and the city will be spending substantial numbers of dollars on a plant. Mr. Annunziato said this talks about how much water there is and how much you can bring to the site. Page 8, paragraph 8 In this paragraph, Mr. Cannon said the question comes up as to how many people will be living there . - 15- MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Page 8, paragraph 9 This paragraph ties in with contract zoning and allows the applicant to make specific statements about how the site will be designed. It also allows the Planning and zoning Board, City Council and Staff to require that. Page 9, "5. Fees" Mr. Cannon said the City Council adopted a new fee schedule last week. As part of the preparation for last year's budget, Mr. Annunziato said they prepared an analysis of costs, including the costs for a Recording Secretary, city Attorney, and the number of hours. The City Council agreed fees should be imposed. They went back to the ordinances and took out all of the fee schedules. At their last meeting, the city Council removed all fees from all ordinances and just put in, "Fees to be set by Resolution." Mr. Annunziato informed Mrs. Huckle that the site plan fee went from $200 to $250. Page 9, 6 and 7 These paragraphs summarize what the Planning Department has been doing all along. Mr. deLong asked if paragraph 6 was saying they had six months after submission of an application. Mr. Cannon replied that they do not have any particular requirement now. Mr. deLong asked if he was saying that presently there is no limitation. Mr. Annunziato clarified that they put it on the next available agenda. The Planning and zoning Board meets on the second Tuesday of each month. The city Clerk has to have the application for at least a week. Right now, it takes about seven weeks minimum from when they get it to when Planning and zoning has a public hearing, and it could take longer. Mr. deLong thought six months was more than reasonable. Mr. Annunziato informed him that it was reviewed by the City Clerk's office, City Attorney, and the Planning Department. Mr. Cannon thought it came down to how they want to re- schedule the zoning hearings. The major constraint is that the State Department of Community Affairs will only allow them to submit applications twice a year. - 16 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 * If applications are submitted on April 1, Mr. Annunziato said they will be conducting hearings in June and July, Mr. deLong said the Board was made aware that there was a big backlog in the Building Department. If they did not need the six months, he felt they should change it to four months. Mr. Annunziato thought it should be no fewer than four months because there can be periods of the year when they will be very busy for their routine zoning. Mr. Gregory remarked that April 1st would put them into July. Mr. Annunziato said October 1 will put them in a transmittal period of around the beginning of 1987. *See Addend%m~ and 4/8/86 Minutes. Page 9, Paragraph 7. a. Mr. Cannon emphasized that in this paragraph, the Planning Department may, in certain cases, be recommending limitations and requirements on a development of property. They will attempt to tie the limitations into specific Comprehensive Plan policies so that When the Board or City Council moves to approve a rezoning, the motions of the Board and Council will be pretty much formalized by the Planning Department at that point, and he explained. At that point, the consistency issue will be largely resolved before it gets to the Board or the Council. If they want to formalize mitigation, Mr. Annunziato said it would give them the policy basis for doing the kinds of mitigation they think is necessary. If the plan changes, Mr. Gregory asked if they can change the policy. If they want to formalize mitigation to the extent that it is tied back to the plan legally, Mr. Annunziato said this would give them the policy basis for doing the kinds of mitigation they think is necessary. Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. Gregory that the policy can be changed if the Plan changes. The State is making everybody adopt a set of policies with standards. Everything will have to have a standard, and if an applicant cannot meet the standards, he cannot do the deal. Mr. Annunziato gave examples and there was discussion. Page 11, Paragraphs 10 This formalizes the procedure the Board and Council have to comply with. - 17 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 When the Board recommends approval of a rezoning, Mr. deLong thought the Board now recommends that it be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Annunziato answered that the Planning Department always provides the language that, in their opinion, it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In the future, he thought they were looking at the Board, acting as the LPA, making a determination of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan~ which is required by the Statute. The motions that the Board makes will have to be more formal. Mr. Annunziato added that the Planning Staff may recommend that an application be approved because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or that it be denied because it is not consistent with the Plan. Mrs. Huckle noted that the City Council is to make a statement that the zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. deLong called attention to the bottom of page 10, and there was more dis- cussion. *Mr. Annunziato said the basis for the decisions *See A~dendum will be the Comprehensive Plan, which is mandated by the and 4/8/86 State. It will be a very difficult argument for someone to Minutes. overcome and is really loaded in favor of the City because who is better equipped to see if there is consistency with a plan than an elected, appointed official? Mr. Annunziato told the Members they are representing the City of Boynton Beach and are interpreting their Comprehensive Plan. The City Staff can only do a technical analysis, but they are the policy making body. Mr. Gregory asked if a development order is issued, based upon an ordinance. Mr. Annunziato replied that the Ordinance is the order. Mr. Gregory commented that it would require two readings. He thought the Tradewinds development had really opened the eyes of a lot of people as to some of the shortfalls and positive things the City has done. Page 11, Paragraph 11 Mr. Cannon said this should be an area of interest, particularly to the City Council. They were stating that if a zoning application is submitted and if the application is denied by the City Council or withdrawn by the applicant, the applicant cannot resubmit it within one year unless he brings in a new application which makes it less intensive than what was previously submitted. Up until this point, - 18 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Mr. Cannon said they have allowed the applicant to withdraw his application if things are not going his way and he thinks he is going to get a negative vote by the City Council and wait until "the heat dies down" and bring it back in again. This will prevent that kind of attitude on the part of the applicant, and he is boxed in. If it looks like his application will be disapproved, he still has the one year limitation. In talking to the City Manager, Mr. Cannon said they arrived at a general figure of 25% reduction of intensity develop- ment, such as water and sewer, number of units, and traffic generation. Where it seems the height is the only issue, the applicant can bring in an application where he has decreased the height by not less than one story. Mr. Annunziato explained that the zoning Code says you cannot submit within one year. The city Staff said they would make an interpretation of what a different application is. They cannot resubmit the same application, but the intent is that they d° not get repetitive applications. Mr. Annunziato asked, "WhO is to judge if it is the same appli- cation?" Mro Gregory asked if there was a method they could use whereby if there was a controversy and the applicant agreed to reduce the zoning to a particular level or make a substan- tial change, the Board could approve that rather than having the applicant resubmit an application and go through the process of waiting six months to resubmit a totally new application. Mr. Ann~nziato thought there would be the ability to discuss a way for the applicant to change his plan so that it might work. Page 12, Paraqraph 12 Mr. Cannon drew attention to this paragraph and said it allows the kind of leeway Mr. Gregory was talking about. Another issue that has come up was if the applicant asks for C-3 zoning and the City Council, in the course of a hearing, indicates that they are not in favor of C-3 but would go with C-2. The applicant may consent to that, but the appli- cation has already been advertised as a proposal to change to C-3 zoning. Mr. Cannon said this allows the applicant and City Council to bargain down and conversely prohibits them from bargaining up. In other words, if it was adver- tised for C-3, they could agree on C-2, but they could not agree on M-1. - 19 - MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 Mr. Annunziato asked whether a person has to meet each of the criteria or any of them to be substantially different. Mr. Cannon replied that the language is "either/or". Postponement of Application When an individual requests a postponement, Mr. Gregory thought there should be some language that would afford them to do that. Mr. Annunziato informed him there is Robert's Rules, and he did not know if that was in the Ordinance. In any case, Mr. Gregory said the decision of any Court would lie with whether any Judge would want to grant a postpone- ment to the client of an Attorney. Because of mitigating circumstances, Judges often allow someone to postpone or re- establish a case, and Mr. Gregory did not see why they should not allow the same latitudes. Mr. Annunziato answered that there are rules for postponement that govern public procedures. He thought postponement had to be governed by the general rule, and informed Mr. Gregory that the City Council now has the flexibility to grant or not grant a postponement. Mr. deLong thought what was happening was that in the absence of an ordinance, they had Robert's Rules of Order. They could eliminate Robert's Rules and put it in an Ordinance. Mr. Gregory agreed and said you can override Robert's Rules, and he was saying maybe they should have it in the Ordinance to give people a reasonable postponement. Mr. Cannon thought perhaps they should have another clause that would require that the application has to be readver- tised if they postpone it beyond a certain period. Mr. Annunziato preferred to leave the postponement issue with Robert's Rules and the Council. If the Board wanted to take it up with the Council, he thought that could be done. Mr. Annunziato added that it was really the prerogative of the LPA doing the review because when they advertise for a public hearing, the applicant better become ready to come to that public hearing. There was discussion. Mr. Annunziato could only think of three or four instances where post- ponements had not been granted when requested and said a large number of people come prepared to speak at public hearings. Mr. Annunziato suggested they bring this up on April 8th, when the Board can take action. Mrs. Buckle felt it could be abused too. Mr. deLong added that they would also have to have ready a series of criteria for granting the postpone- - 20- MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 ment. If they do go that route, he said they should set a time restraint on when the applicants come back to the Board again. Otherwise they would have to refile and go through the process. It would be very costly for them if they would arbitrarily say, because things were not going their way, they want to withdraw. Unless they have criteria for granting a postponement, they can have people playing games at a loaded meeting. If they get into an ordinance for granting postponements, Mr. deLong reiterated that they should have a set of criteria for which the postponements. can be made. He thought they should leave it the way it is. It seemed the Members were in agreement that Mr. Annunziato was right and it should stay the way it is. Mr. Annunziato told the Members that almost any genuine request for postponement has been granted. Mrs. Huckle recalled one last week and added that an applicant should always be prepared. There was more discussion. Page 12, Paragraph 13 Mr. Cannon said the zoning Regulations already have a pro- vision similar to this that specifies that if a property is not platted within 12 months, it will revert to its former zoning. They lengthened the period to 18 months and have made this particular clause apply not only to platting but to cases where only site plan approval is required and a site plan has not been submitted. It will also apply where a site plan is not submitted and a conforming use has not been established. Mr. Cannon gave an example of a building already on the property. If it is rezoned to Commercial and there is not a commercial use within the building within 18 months, the City Council could then review the zoning of that property and either extend the zoning for a period of a year or more, extend it indefinitely, or request that the City Manager file an application to rezone the property back to its former zoning. Mr. Gregory asked if the 18 months was arbitrary. Mr. Annunziato replied that the zoning Code now provides for a year. Generally speaking, the planned districts require platting in 18 months. There was discussion about a church, different projects and properties, zoning, and ordinances. - 21- MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 24, 1986 For modifications to other types of zoning districts, Mr. Cannon said we have a criteria of 10% with respect to water and sewer generated or traffic generated and intensity of the use of the land. Where the applicant would exceed that 10% or other criteria there, he would have to apply for re- zoning. The City Council would have the flexibility of approving any changes that are under those criteria, but the changes would have to be reviewed by City Staff and the Planning and zoning Board prior to being transmitted to the Council. CONSISTENCY REVIEW Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. Gregory that this will be reviewed by the Board at their meeting on April 8th and then go to the city Council. April 8th will be a regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting properly adjourned at 5:50 P. M. Patricia Ramseyer Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) - 22- CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING HELD MARCH 24, 1986 Page 14 Mr. deLong called attention to page 14 of the minutes and said he brought to the attention of Mr. Cannon, in talking about market analyses for anything over an acre, that it was an exceedingly high expense. Judge Mary Lupo had made a ruling that the County could not reject zoning, based upon how much commercial development is existing or zoned in an area. As a result of Judge Lupo's ruling, the County Commission can consider a market study, but if it den~es ~ project, it must cite other factors. Mr. deLong read that Assistant County Attorney Sandy Sprague has repeatedly told the Commission that ever since. At the time of the Workshop Meeting, Mro deLong's point was that it is not an expense to be treated lightly. The verbi- age should be that the Board may require a market analysis and not that a market analysis was mandatory on anything in excess of an acre. The minutes did not quite reflect accurately what they discussed. Mr. deLong asked that the minutes say that a market analysis may be required PERIOD and that the reference to an acre or larger be deleted. While he has sat on this Board, Mr. deLong has said continually that it is not their job to ensure anybody's financial success. If a developer or private entrepreneur comes in and attempts to profit by the fruits of his labor and his expenditure, the Board cannot be concerned with ensuring his failure. The minutes reflected that Mr. Annunziato thought people had the right to go broke if they wanted to. The minutes should read that Mr. deLong made the statement that the Board should not be looking to guarantee against a person's private entrepreneurship and his God given right to fail as well as to succeed. Mr. Ryder asked if Mr. deLong maintained that was what he said. Mr. deLong answered affirmatively. Page 17 At the top of the page, Mr. deLong said it indicates that the Planning Department would have six months in order to bring an application to some sort of fruition. At that point, Mr. deLong thought it was an inordinate amount of time and advised the Director of Planning at the meeting. He wanted the minutes to reflect that he specifically asked Mr. Cannon what he thought of the timing, and he suggested two months would be adequate, at which time Mr. Annunziato thought that four months would be better. At that time, Mr. deLong said he thought three months would be sufficient. The minutes make a statement about a backlog in the Build- ing Department like it is present tense. What Mr. deLong did say was that he would hate to see a backlog of work that they have to do begin to build up as it did in the Building Department with all of the construction~duress they have been under. He understood the Building Department had cleared it up considerably and did not want that to express past tense but wanted to avoid giving the Planning Depart- ment that much time so that too many of these things can be backllogged. Mr. deLong still felt three months was a sufficient time for them to bring to some sort of fruition the initial hearing or whatever on applications that are submitted. Pa_~18 Mr. deLong read from the second paragraph, sixth line from the bottom, "Mr. Annunziato said the basis for the decisions will be the Comprehensive Plan, which is mandated by the State". It was Mr. deLong's understanding that there was no Comprehensive Plan mandated by the State. There is a mandate to have a Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is this City's and not State mandated. Chairman Ryder agreed that Mr. deLong was right. The State mandated that each City have a Comprehensive Plan. In their constant talking about the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. deLong said it gives the impression that the State has a plan, and the City is to adopt it. Mr. deLong wanted the general public to know, especially since they will be con- ducting hearings in June, that it is not a plan that is man- dated. It is to have a plan that is mandated. ~~ing Secreta y ~ ADDENDUM