Loading...
Minutes 12-05-73MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF MEMBERS OF THE PLA~ING $ ZONING BOARD, COMMUNITY APPEARANCE BOARD, TECHNICAL COMMITTEE -- CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, HELD AT CITY HALL, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1975. (RECORDING BY R. B. VASTINE ) PRESENT Mrs. Frances Fry, Chairman, C.A.B. R. B. Vastine, Chairman, P&Z Board J. W. Barrett, Building Official Forrest L. Wallace, Councilman Ernest G. Simon, City Attorney Mrs. Marilyn Huckle Mr. Joe Kelly Mm. Simon began the meeting by explaining, that the City Council had requested him to meet with the Chairmen of the three boards -- Planning Zoning~ Community Appearance and Technical Review -- to determine what problems may be resulting from the Ordinances as they presently read. This would be a preliminary approach ~f the Council deems it necessary to amend any or all of these Ordinances. Mr. Vastine wished to ask a legal question of the City Attorney without any criticism against any of the Boards. Re Section 4 of all the Ordinances, specifically the Community Appearance Board, which reads, "Repealing Provisions: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed" -- does this mean that all ordinances in regard to Planning $ Zoning~ Technical Review Board, etc. are repealed? Mr. Simon said on the Community Appearance Board, it means it would repeal any other ordinances in direct conf~lict with this particular ordinance. Mr. Vastine asked for clarification of what it means in terms of what is repealed and what is referred to. Under Florida law, would it be necessary to spell it out so there is absolutely no a~biguity? Mm. Simon said he couldn't answer this except in the case of a specific question where he could render an opinion as to whether there was a dimect conflict or not. He didn't believe there were any areas in Ordinance 73-2 w~ich repealed anything in 75-1 unless specifics were discussed. Mr. Vastine referred to page 4 of the Community Appearance Board Ordinance under the heading of paragraph 6, wherein it refers to "plans and specifications". He wanted to know if this phrase conflicted with anything in the Technical Review Board or contravenes any ordinances that would eliminate these words exactly as they are. He felt this was acceptable if it pertained to plans and specifications regarding landscaping, elevations, etc. Mr. Vastine then referred to another section which appeared to be duplicated in both the Technical Review Board and Community Appearance Board ordinances -- page 5, paragraph 5 where a, b, c and d are e~act!y the same as in the P&Z ordinance. He felt there was an overlapping and asked for the purpose of the overlapping. Mrs. Fry felt this matter couldn't be resolved in a short period of time and described the research and efforts that went into making up the C.A.B. ordinance. She didn't feel, as the outgoing Chairman of the Board, that MINUTES - PSZ, COMMUNITY APPEARANCE & TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD~TCHAIP/qEN DECEMBER 5, 1973 she should make or consider the changes. Mr. Vastine said he just wished to get some information for explanation and Mrs. Fry said she would give the material to Mr. Simon that was used in putting the C.A.B. ordinance together. She noted that the methods used in site plan review and community appearance review were different and had comparisons with other cities, such as Boca Raton, Highland Beach and Delray Beach. She felt that Boynton~s ordinance coincides most closely with that of Boca Raton. The Technical Review Board in Boca is made up exactly as the one in Boynton, except that the Community Appearance Board Chaimman or other qualified member meets with the T.R.B. so that the plans can be looked at and immediately determined whether or not they would meet the qualifications of the C.A.B. Mrs. Fry noted that Boca has a Planning and Zoning Director and felt it was a problem to Boynton not to have a City Planner which was by choice at the time. At the time the Ordinance was drawn up~Boynton had a City Planner and it was drawn up so that the City Planner would be at the PSZ meetings and in close contact with all boards. She f~lt Boca~s Technical Review ordinance was very good and might help Boynton to have the Chairman or one member from the C.A.B. sit in on the ~.R.B. meetings to give an idea of whether or not it would pass the C.A.B. Mrs. Fry then referred to the Ordinance of De!ray Beach which is completely different from Boynton's because Delray~s is purely a beaUtifica~on board. The C.A.B. in Boynton was advised by the Council who created them to have members who were knowledgeable in the areas to be covered. This is the reason for having a registered architect, designers and people who can judge a building from an.aesthetic viewpoint. She noted that much of Boynton's ordinance is slated towards having a City Planner and felt it wouldn't be possible to make too many changes in an ordinance that hadn't even been effective for a year. Mrs. Fry also felt that the ordinances of each Board should be reviewed or changed slowly all together and said she would be glad to come back with all her material if it would be helpful. Mr. Vastine said he was mainly concerned with the overlapping of the items he had previously mentioned and Mr. Barrett said there are some things in the Ordinance which should in fact belong with the Community Appearance Board and some which belong to Planning & Zoning. However, there is a savings clause which reads "Any of the above requirements may be waived by the Technical Committee if such information is deemed to be non-essential by the Technical Committee." This would give him the right as Technical Committee Chairman to say which information should go to p&Z or C.A.B. In regard to the Lehigh Portland Cement situation, Mr. ~Vastine felt if flow charts had been firmly established, the Boards wo~lld have been in a better position to know which direction to follow . Mr. Barrett said when an application comes in for a building permit, either he or his staff reviews it and if there is any doubt about the zoning at this point, it is brought to him. If it is a permissible use, it goes through. If it's doubtful, Mr. Barrett said he has to decide whether it is or isn't allowed and he has to stand behind his decision. In the case of Lehigh he still felt it was the preyog~.~%ve~ of the Building Official to deny (on zoning) the permit. Mr. Barrett felt that some provision should be made if the Building Official denies the p~it, there is no sense in going to the other boards. This would eliminate the possibility of a Court order saying it - 2 - MINUTES - P&Z, COMMUNITY APPEARANCE $ TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD CHAIRMEN DECEMBER 5, 1973 has to go through the boards in an exercise of futility. After further explanation of his views, Mr. Barrett asked Mr. Simon's opinion. Mr. Simon felt the problem with Lehigh does not lie in any ambiguity in these ordinances, but rather in the ambiguity of the M-1 industrial classification. If~the same Lehigh situation was taken with the present M-1 classification there wouldnTt be the same problem even if these ordinances werelleft as they are right now. Mr. Simon felt the decision on whether something is permissive or not should be administrative, rather than discretionary on the part of the Building Official. The latter was the case with Lehigh. In talking to the former City Attorney, Gene Moore, Mr. Simon learned that the reason for the M-1 ordinance being so ambiguous was that at the time of its wmiting the ~elopment in Boynton Beach was so simple, this kind of complex problem arising was not foreseen. Discussion ensued regamding application for permit wheme the height of a stmucture was questionable and the duties of the Board of Adjustment in such a case. In discussion of flow~ Mm. Barrett felt an application has to go before the Building Department to determine whether or not the structure has to be reviewed by the Boamds, secondly is the zoning allowed, thirdly, does it meet the criteria of the zoning codes and restrictions set up by the zoning code. If not, the permit is denied. This foregoes all the boamds until a plan is brought in which does meet the criteria for it to flow before the boards. Mm. Simon pointed out that the first thing that has to be met is the zoning requirement. Mr. Barrett said the order of flow before the boards would be Technical Review first and then Planning & Zoning. Mr. Vastine asked if the Building Department would be completely off the hook if there was some question about zoning, by saying this would first have to be referred to Planning & Zoning for decision. Mr. Barrett felt zoning was very definite in its requirements and guidelines, particularly mn the new zoning code, so there would be no question. He asked the members if they saw too much discretion left to the building official in the code, to wipe it out. In a question regarding procedure, Mm. Vastine said if the Planning & Zoning Board makes a recommendation for denial of a pemmit to City Council (Lehigh) where does any Community Appearance Board comein as far as accepting something that the'Planning & Zoning Board has tumned down? Discussion ensued about the initial establishment and control of Planning $ Zoning as it relates to all the other boards. Mr. Simon then reviewed the incidents that t~nspired regarding the Lehigh Portland Cement case in which Mr. Barrett as Building Official was ordered to either issue the permit or show good cause why not. Mr. Simon enumerated the actions he had taken along with the views of the Judge and attorneys for Lehigh. Mm. Simon said he wanted to explain why no one should dwell too completely on the ruling made in this one case as the order is not a total application of the CityTs ordinances. Mr. Vastine noted that it wasn't well defined that one board was solely responsible over the other -- the ordinance is setsup for the Community -5- MINUTES - P&Z~ COMMUNITY APPEARANCE g TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD CHAIRMEN DECEMBER 57 1973 Appearance Board to report to City Council and the same is true of Planning and Zoning. Then the Council detezmines which of the two boards it is going to recognize in terms of the implication of any permit. Mr. Simon said he disagreed with the Judge in this case who said the plans and specifications had to be approved by the Boards and Mr. Simon felt they only had to be reviewed~ so that after their mecommendations had been made, the City Council could decide in its own'way.whether or not a permit should be granted. Mr. Simon then reviewed the procedure followed with regard to an application for building permit and specifically pertaining to site plan review before going to City Council. A separate review for aesthetic purposes is made by the C.A.B. As an example~ Mr. Simon explained with regard to ingress and egress into parking lots~ The Technical Review Committee is concerned with the practical movement of traffic~ safety~ etc.~ and the Community Appearance Board is concerned solely from the standpoint of appearance. Mr. Barrett explained how the Technical Review Board was formed and how they meet at one time and if individuals are in conflict with one another~ the plans and specifications must be revised by the applicant to meet qualifications under the ordinance. Discussion ensued as to possible overlapping because of the phrase ?'planssand specifications" in the C.A.B. ordinance. Mr. Barrett explained that these refer to the landscaping plans and specifications for same. They are not concerned with specifications for air conditioning~ etc. Mrs. Pry again suggested that a representative of the C.A.B. sit in at the T.R.B. meeting and pertinent information could be discussed as it is brought up. Mr. Barrett explained that he is already familiar with what the C.A.B. requires and he felt that the plans are being sent from the Technical Review Board in much better order because of this. He also noted that the T.R.B. meets on call at any time during any day in the week~ and members of P&Z and C.A.B. possibly wouldn't be able to attend. Discussion ensued with regard to the part of the ordinances that requires Council to review the plans and specifications. It was pointed out that Council made a motion to bypass this review and accept the minutes of the Boards as their approval or disapproval of same. Mrs. Fry noted that according to the ordinance, C.A.B. doesnTt just judge on landscaping -- that is the reason for the architect. The Board reviews the aesthetics also. Discussion ensued as to how this pertains to lighting and signs. Regarding the conflict that may develop between the various boards~ Mm. Vastine read Article 57 Section2~41 ~Page 108.6) of the Municipal Code. Mr. Barrett felt there would be no overlapping or conflict in this area as the above clearly outlines the functions of the Planning $ Zoning Board. The P & Z Board would rely on the professional opinions given by the proper individuals in each field within the City. Mr. Vastine asked if there was any area that subjugates the PgZ Board to any other Board and Mr. Barrett said he didn't think so. The P&Z Board is a recommending board and a reviewing board based upon compatibility and acceptability to the City for a planned development or a plan that fits in with the overall general planning of the City. Therefore~ since members of the PSZ Board are not experts in every phase~y must depend on employees of the City to give recommendations before the PgZ Board makes its own recommendations to Council. - 4 MINUTES - P&Z, COF~UNITY APPEARANCE & TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD CHAIILMBN DECEMBER 5, 1973 Mr. Vastine summed up his understanding that the specific responsibility of the Community Appearance Board is only to judge on the aesthetic or architectural set-up of a building and its landscaping. Mr. Barrett and Mrs. Fry concurred. Mr. Barrett felt until such time as the Boards can sit down and work out their recommendations to Council for any changes, the ordinances can be lived with as they exist for the time being. He agreed that there was an overlapping of responsibility, but as long as the three boards realize they don't want to in~ringe on eachs~ther, the ordinances can be used as a guideline, without accepting them as gospel. Mr. Vastine felt a great deal of this dependadgupon a common agreement of a flow chart that was acceptable to all of the Boards, because each Board can give different~ecommendatio~s to Council. Mr. Barrett pointed out that Council doesntt-Qant to get these recommendations -- they're willing to accept the minutes of each Board and base their approval on them. Mr. Barrett felt the flow should be the BuildingDepartment first, either the Building Official or a staff member as to zoning, and if there is a controversy~ it comes back; from there to Planning and Zoning and from P&Z to Community Appearance. He said the major changes that could occur would be imposed by the Technical Review Board where a complete revision of plans might be necessary -- so why put it before the others. Next, if everything is in order according to the T.R.B., any changes by P&Z would be minor. Regarding the C.A.B.~ the easiest thing to change on the whole plan would be landscaping, without going into detailed drawings, dimensions, etc. The landscaping plan can be completely separate from the main plans of the structure. Mro Simon asked if the Community Appearance Board would make a suggestion to a developer as to what portion of the property a building might be better situated. Mrs. Fry said yes, this has come up in the past and it was agreed to by everyone -- otherwise the architects aren't really needed. Mrs. Fry said the C.A.B. is supposed to do this according to its procedural mules and it is done strictly for appearance. Mr. Simon pointed out that Council wants this advice. If there are many people objecting to the decisions~ such as Lehigh, the City Council might want to look at the situation more closely, which is their prerogative. Discussion ensued concerning the location of a school where the C.A.B.'s recommendations for aesthetic reasons worked out better all around. Mrs. Fry said the C.A.B. doesntt want to get into any area where they aren't absolutely qualified. They only want to do aesthetics and landscaping where the members are knowledgeable. Mr. Barrett noted that there might have been some controversy, where two architects were involved -- the one who designed the building and the one acting in behalf of the Community Appearance Board. Mrs. Fry said in the case mentioned, the two architects worked in conjunction with the Technical Review Board. As a technical question~ Mr. Vastine asked if there was any valid reason why to develop a proper flow that the plans could go to the Technical Review Board who determines the zoning~ then to the Planning and Zoning Board~ then the Community Appearance Board and finally back to the Technical Review Board for review before final approval of Council. He felt there ought to be a beginning of the flow which should also be the end of the flow to the ultimate authority -- the City Council. - 5 - MINUTES - PSZ, COMMUNITY APPEARANCE & TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD CHAIRMEN DECEMBER 5~ 1973 Mr. Barrett disagreed and felt this would be a duplication of efforts. Mr. Simon said if this was done~ it might be better to abolish one of the Boards and thereby mske one Board large enough to do it all. Mr. Simon returned to his question about the C.A.B. recommending the re~location of a building on its property and Mr. Barrett said all the details of this were covered in the new Zoning Code. Mr. E~on felt the more these things were spelled out in the form of guid~!ines~ the less time had to be spent sitting around and talking about them. Mr. Barrett suggested that until the new Zoning laws went into effect~ the boards could live with what they have~ recognizing their respective responsibilities and avoid stepping on one another's toes and not infringe on each other~ rights or privileges. Mr. Simon referred to a case several years ago when he appeared before the City Council of Boynton Beach~ representing a client that the City didn't want because it would adversely affect the beautification plan of the City. He pointed out that there were no provisions for this. The Beautification Committee could only make recommendations but had no powers to do anything. In contrast~ the City now has a system that is stronger. Mr. Barrett noted that the new Zoning Code includes a provision that a plan must meet with the approval of C.A.B. Mr. Barrett reiterated his hope that each~6f the BoardS can live with the present ordinances for a while longer. He felt today's meeting was a clearing house of thoughts and recognition of the duties of each and every Board. Mr. Simon said communication always helps, and Mr. ~a$~in~ said he wished communications would be better . He asked if there was any reason why the Planning & Zoning Board and Community Appearance Board couldn't join together. Mr. Simon explained that when he was given drafts of the ordinances originally~ he asked for the reason in having two Boards and was told that the more input on site plans and plans and specifications~ the more tools the Council would have in making its decision. Mr. Vastine said he didn't necessarily think the two Boards should join together but he was interested in hearing the reasons against this. He asked how the communications system could be improved so that everyone was going in the right direction. He said if Jack Barrett had been here in January~ this P&Z regulation would have been done a long time ago and his help has been invaluable. They were given a Harvard dissertation that didn't mean anything as far as practicality is concerned. Mr. Barrett felt that communications were improved by this meeting and he wanted everyone to know his door was always open and he could be used as a sounding board. Mr. Vastine complimented Mr. Barrett's efforts very highly and suggested to Councilman Wallace that he could use an assistant to help with his work because he is so busy. Mr. Barrett said he's hopefully breaking india man who is a tremendous help right now. Mrs. Fry said it would be a great help to have someone with technicalknowledge meet with the C.A.B.~ not necessarily Mr. Barrett but perhaps Mr. Rubin or someone else. Mr. Barrett said he would try to work something out. Mr. Barrett felt that ~ime was needed so Mr. Vastine~ Mrs. Fry and their Boards could work out the conflictions in the ordinances. Perhaps the matter could be pursued in more depth early next year and the ordinances could be rectified. -- 6 -- MINUTES - P&Z~ COMMUNITY APPEARANCE $ TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD CHAIRMEN DECEMBER 5~ 1973. Mr. Vastine felt this had been an excellent exploratory session. He looked forward to future meetings of this kind~ and felt it would be a good idea to have a Coordinating Director instead of a City Planner. There was more discussion about finding the time to put everything in order. Mrs. Fry appealed to those present to look around the City and observe the work of the Comunity Appearance Board. She felt there wOuld be a decided difference in the City 'in the future and wished there was more publicity in this behalf. Mr. Barrett concurred. / m