Loading...
Minutes 04-19-78MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP ~ETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CiTY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA WEDneSDAY, APRIL 19, 1978 AT 3:00 P. M. PRESE~T Simon Ryder, Chairman Col. Walter M. Trauger, Vice Chairman ~rilyn Huckle John Jameson Richard Lambert Garry Winter Carmen Annunziato, City Planner ABSENT Ronald Arena Chairman Ryder called the meeting to order at 3:05 P. M. Buffer Walls Chairman Ryder referred to the members having received copies of the ordinance prepared for buffer walls and ad- vised that it was changed to give discretion to the Coun- cil. However, it does not outline the conditions on which the responsibility should be relieved. He referred to pre- vious discussions by the Board to possibly exclude residen- tial use and possibly exclude the C-1 zone because the type of development permitted would not need screening. ~. Lambert agreed that the concrete wall problem has been discussed, but he thought we agreed not to do anything with that issue until the site plan process is decided. If the process is changed, this stipulation will not cut down on the time as every application abutting a residential dis- trict would require review by the Council. Chair~n Ryder stated that evidently following the Lopez application, the City Attorney followed it up with this amended ordinance. He would like to hear how the members feel about the amended ordinance. He does not feel it is a solution because it brings it to the Council with no con- ditions to reach a decision and it will be an arbitrary thing. M~ Lambert explained how he thought it would be more proper for the Community Appearanc~ Board or Planning & Zoning Board to make this decision. He thinks it would be a mistake as it is worded. Mrs. Huckle replied that if they are trying to obviate the site plan review from us, it comes to this. Chairman Ryder stated that he was not in agreement to that. There was further discussion about necessary input being given. MINU~S - WORF~£HOP MEETI~G PL&NNINO & ZONING BOARD PAGE T~O APRIL 19, 1978 Col. Trauger expressed his agreement that the recommendation should be made by the Planning & Zoning Board or the Commun- ity Appearance Board. ~. Lambert referred to the wording of the proposed ordinance and explained how it meant that it would not be ~own if a wall was required until after review bythe Boards and Depart- ment Heads when it went to the Council and then would probably have to go back through the procedure ifa wall was required. He explained how this requirement at the end of the procedure would requ~e the builder to prepare a plan for structural work of the wall, check easements, etc. Mr. Annunziato agreed that it should be determined initially whether a wall is required and he would like to see performance standards established. They discussed further how the procedure would be affecte, d according to this proposed ordinance. It was stressed that there must be definite requirements for the plans to meet. Mr. Annunz!iato further explained how discre- tionary judgments not related to criteriawould probably be subject to challenge. Mr. Jameson added that there was ways recourse through the Board of Adjustment. Col. Trauger suggested adding reference to the Board of Adjustment on Page 16, so it is noted that relief can possibly be obtained. Chairman Ryder suggested exempting the C-1 zone and taking out residential use which would probably resolve a lot of problems. Mr. Lambert referred to a concrete wall not being allowed on easements and explained how this would limit the parking if the wall had to be 10 ft. from the rear property line be- cause of easements. Chairman Ryder told about the Building Department taking a realistic approach and allowing the walls to be built on easements. Discussion followed about the pro- blems which may be encountered with having to remove a wall for the installation or repair of utilities. Mrs. Huckle suggested discussing the C-1 zone and asked if anything would notbe appropriately screened, with a vegeta- tive buffer. M~. Annunziato stated he could not see any problem with this as the uses in C-~ are not of a retail nature, but are in the service sector and there are not a 10t of problems such as in the other commercial zones with trash, night hours, etc. Discussion followed about requir- ing a vegetative buffer for this zone and it was agreed to recommend that a dense vegetative buffer be planted at a minimum height of 2 ft. at installation. Mr. Lambert stated that it must be defined what comes under this particular ordinance - new construction, additions or alterations. He referred to the possibility of a utility shed being added at a commercial property and stated he thought it would be unfair to require a $10,000 wall s~ound MI~TES' - WORKSHOP ~ET!NG PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE APRIL ~9, 1978 the property. Chairman Ryder replied that this would be an exceptional case and M~. Lambert pointed out~ that the ordi- nance as stated does not say whether it applies to new con- struction or additions. Discussion followed about how this would apply and Mr. Annunziato suggested adding new construc- tion or major modifications and he explained how a major modi- fication could be determined by the percentage of work to be done. After discussion, Mr. Annunziato clarified that the first statement will say for new construction and major modi- fications a block wall is~.required adjacent to a residential district. Mr. Annunziato referred to not placing a wall on an easement over existing utilities and ?~. Lambert replied that this may bring in the concrete wall 5 to 6 feet and create a dead area, M~. Lambert suggested obtaining an opinion from the City Engineer about easements. He explained how there could be problems along 2nd Avenue with every parcel of land being commercially zoned with residential in the rear and there are easements in the rear being used, which means cutting off 5 feet of these properties, ~. Annunziato stated that he would prepare the recommendation in the form of a draft for the Regular Meeting with excluding the C-1 Zone and requiring a dense vegetative buffer at least 2 ft. in height must be planted and maintained where it abuts a residential district. ~, Jameson questioned if maintenance should be required on a permanent wall and told about a wall on Federal Highw~v having foul ~-,tanguage painted on it. Discussion followed about this and other examples and then Chairman Ryder stated that the Building Department has the authority to cite such violations or eyesores and he does not think everything can be spelled out. Site Plan Review Chairman Ryder referred to No. 4 on the first page on the memo written to M~ ~ohl from Mr. Howell regarding site plan review and stated that evidently this is the prime reason for feeling these things should not come to us. It refers to an undue hardship being placed on the builder by delaying permits and also refers to the Board members not being able to read plans. ~. Winter asked how many of the members could read plans and received affirmative replies. Mr. Lambert clarified that everybody here can read plans enough to determine parking sp~ees, lots sizes, heights of building and whether it meets codes. We do not have anything to do with the actual struc- tural plans. MINUTES - WORKSHOP ~ETING PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR APRIL 19, i978 Chairman Ryder stated that he doesn't agree that there is a delay. It is obvious that this Board is competent and we should kuow what is going on in new construction. If we don~, we are not doing the proper job to acquaint ourselves with development nor a proper job for the City. We also give the opportunity of public hearings. He thinks these are more important even if the statements were true. Col. Trauger agreed that the Planning & Zoning Board gives an additional view and explained how the conformity and context was considered. ~s. Huckle referred to this Board not having site plan re- view and referred to the City Council having to study the Plans at their meeting and hear the people. M~. Annunziato replied that he does not think that was the intent, but the intent was that there would not be any- Board or Council re- view. Mr. Lambert told about talking to ~. Howell and his opinion is that there would be no review by the City Council or Planning & Zoning Board with the exception of subdivisions or PUD, etc. When a plan comes into the Building Department, it would go to the Department Heads for recommendations and then a permit would be issued. Mr. Lambert pointed out that this was verified by Items 2 and 3 on M~. Howell's memo. ~. Lambert stated that there would be a lot of problems with such a system. The Technical Review Committee recommendations are in the form of provisos and who would have the ultimate decision of whether the provisos are legitimate or not; there would be no recourse for the applicant. Mr. Annunziato referred to there being a lot of doubt because of the lack of openness in government and stated he thinks decisions involving a development should be aired in public. He thinks development is the biggest game in Florida with a lot of money involved and deserves public review. M~r. Lambert referred to there being a question about the time element involved and asked since when is the City government supposed to bend over backboards to get a site plan approved in 24 ho~s? He does not think there is any hardship placed on the applicant with the site plan review system we have now. Col. Trauger questioned what causes the delay and Mr. Lambert replied that it has not been established that there is any. Col~ Trauger stated that the delay is built in to make sure the builder is complying with the~ code. Most of the time has been spent prior to applying and he can see no delay as far as passing through the Boards. This is verified by the dates of review. Chairman Ryder added that in checking, in many instances there are delays after City Council approval until the permit is requested. He explained how the purpose of site plan review was to be sure everything meets requirements before detailed plans are prepared. MINUTES - WORKSHOP MEETING PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FI~ APRIL 19, 1978 M~s. Huckle questioned if the Technical Review Board met regularly and ~. Annunziato explained how the individual members usually review the plans in his office, unless there is a problem then they meet together with the deve- loper present. He explains8 how generally there was not a problem as architects know the procedure and consult with him prior to preparing the plans. He e~plained how local builders were still not educated in the procedure and how their estimates were based on a time li~it with nct~ con- sddering the time for review and revisions. Chairman Ryder referred to discussing possibly exempting alterations and additions and Col. Trauger suggested hav- ing a value determination for these. M~. Lambert stated that he thin~ alterations and additions are important to go through review and explained how many problems arised with these with parking, eyesore problems, etc. He added that no time would oe saved by exempting them because C.A.B. approval is required. Mr. Lambert stated that he could not find any reason for changing our system. In his opinion, site plan review is part of the planning process with the public involved and the applicant given recourse. If this review is done away with, the next step is to eliminate the Technical Review Board and leave it up entirely to one Department Head to make all decisions. He explained how it Was important to have a check~ and balance system. He added that even more ridiculous was the argument that builders are not going to build in Boynton Beach because of the site plan review pro- cess. Are they going to move the property? This is as ridiculous as the time element. He cannot find any reason~ to recommend a change in the site plan review, l~. Winter agreed that he could not see arj reason to change anything. ~. Lamber~ stated that the General DeveloDment Plan pre~ pared by Candeub & Fteissig in t972 recognized the need a Planning & Zoning Board and stated that one of their recom- mendations is site plan review should rest with the Planning and ZoningBoard in cooperation with the Community Appear- a~ce Board. The only thing which should go to the City Council according to them are all the applications for land subdivisions. The Planning & Zoning Board should have an advisory role in the zoning process. The Planning & Zoning Board is the major informational source in the City. The Planning & Zoning Board should develop impact plans oriented towards solving high visability probler~. It is recognized that the Planning & Zoning Board resources are 1Lmited, but in structuring a program, they should consider a long range program. He read the responsibilities and stressed that the Board should strive to maintain a reputation as a non- partisan, non-factional, independent and unprejudiced agency. This is recommended by a planning agency ~ud is a recognized process. MINUTES WORKSHOP I~ET±~G PLA~ING & ZONING BOARD PAGE S~ APRIL 19, 1978 Chairman Ryder referred to the City Planner having made a big difference and Col. Trauger agreed and explained how the Build- ing Official had helped prepare the zoning map which has caused many problems today. M~. Jameson stated that he was in agreement with what was read by ~. Lambert. He referred to the members being appointed by the Council based on our judgment, knowledge, etc. and he sees no reason our decisions on site plans should come before the Council for their review. The public has had a chance to appear before us.. Mrs. Huckle agreed that the problems are ironed out by this Board. ~. Jameson continued that he did not see why the City Council, who are our major legislators, should even get involved in some of these site plans. He is not referring to large subdivisions or rezoning. However, if our decision is not favorably received by the applicant, possibly the rules should say he can bring it up to the City Council and have them over-rule our decision. Chairman Ryder agreed, but stated that this was a decision for the Council to make and he does not think we should make such a recommen- dation. Col. Trauger cle~ified that we should rebut the memo and keep site plan review by the Planning & Zoning Board. He suggested that our arguments be condensed from these minutes by Chairman Ryder and ~,~ Lambert and prepared in writing. Mm. Annunziato stated that ~. Howel_'s memo was from only one ~ember of the Technical Review Board and does not necessarily relate to the Technical Review Board. M~. Lambert suggested scheduling a meeting with the entire Technical Review Board to discuss this and then make a recom- mendation to the City Council. After discussion, it was agreed that Chairman Ryder would contact the City Manager to arrange for a meeting with the entire Technical Review Board on Wednesday, May 3, at 3:00 P. M. in the Council Chambers. An_~tenna Hei~ M~s. Huck!e referred to having discussed this and making final recommendations in the minutes of March 28. M~. Annunziato stated he would prepare this in final draft and include on the agenda for Tuesday night. Other ~. Jameson suggested that an ordinance be written to cover where the City Code does not specify parking requirements, that they be based on the Southern Standard Building Code. Mr. Annunziato informed him that the Southern Standard Build- ing Code does not specify parking requirements either, but MINU~S - WORKSHOP ~ETiNG PLA~ING & ZONING BOARD PAGE S~EN APRIL 19, 1978 does give maximum occupancy. Mr. Jameson clarified that he thinks a reconamendation should be made so there is no discus- sion necessary to make a decision. Mr. Annunziato referred to sending out copies of a court deci- sion involving Wall Corp. vs. Metropolitan Dade County involv- ing dedicating drainage easements through property. He ex- plained how this was a decision declaring your decision legal between the requirement. He suggested that they read this for informational purposes. Co!. Trauger referred to the proposed sports complex and sug- gested that this area be given consideration as probably small commercial establishments will want to be along Con- gress Avenue now. ~. Lambert asked why the City was exempt from planning pro- cedures? He thi~ms the City would want to submit their plans for review. Why are outside people required to go through site plan review, but the City does not think it is necessary for their new building and recreation areas? M~o Annunziato replied that to the best of his knowledge with respect to the EDA projects, the staff received permission from the Council to put aside the regular procedures owing to the time restraints. With respect to the sports complex, he does not think any final plans have been developed and does not .know if they will be reviewed. Adj.ournment M~s. Huckle made a motion to adjourn, seconded by M~. Lambert. Motion carried 6-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 4:55 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Mo Kruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes)