The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes 01-09-97MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP BETWEEN THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HELD IN CITY HALL IN THE MALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 1997, AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Jerry Taylor, Mayor Shirley Jaskiewicz, Vice Mayor Matthew Bradley, Commissioner Henderson Tillman, Commissioner Jamie Titcomb, Commissioner Planninq & Development Board Stan 13ubb. Chairman Josh Aguila Maurice Rosenstock Lee Wische James Reed, Alternate Dale Sugerman, City Manager Sue Kruse, City Clerk William Hukill, Director of Development Wilfred Hawkins, Asst. to the City Manager Tambri Heyden, Dir. of Plnng. & Zoning Todd Kotas, Economic Devel. Director Mike Haag, Planning Coordinator Jerzy Lewicki, Assistant Planner Octavia Sherrod, Program Specialisl CALL TO ORDER Mayor Taylor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and everyone present introduced themselves. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONR Mr. Hukill distributec~ the attached packet and reviewed the material covering the Land Development Regulations from June 24 through December 23, 1996, including Code Section 7, Article II. He also referred to meeting with the City Commission in workshop session to discuss these amendments prior to the preparation of the proposed Ordinances in November. Surety Requirement Mr. Rosensteck referred to encountering problems with the surety provision with developers not completing required landscaping. He explained how certain requirements should be included in the surety at the time of development rather than being connected with the issuances of the CO. Discussion ensued about the infrastructure improvements being covered with a Letter of Credit, but private mprovements were not covered. There were comments made about the actual completion probably not being undertaken by the City upon default by the developer. After further discussion, Mr. Hukill clarified that it was the consensus to make a change with respect to landscaping and have the staff prepare a recommendation and come back. Mr. Hukill then referred to Mr. Aguila's comments and explainec~ how the Comp Plan must be taken into consideration as well as other laws from other agencies. Mr. Aguila replied that he believes strongly in local laws and agreea that he had not checked the Comp Plan, but did not like holding people back with outside agencies. MEETING MINUTES JOINT WORKSHOP BETWEEN CITY COMMISSION AND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 9, 1997 Paqes 2-85, 2-86, and 2-88 Mr. Aguila referred to the Hurricane Evacuation Zone and Mr. Hukill pointed out that the.subjects referred to were stated this way in the Comp Plan. Mr. Aguila continued that a developer should not be held back if the Cityis at fault, such as the water supply not being sufficient. He stressed that the City must keep up with projected development. Tree Survey Ms. Heyden questioned why the tree survey requirement was being removed, and Mr. Aguita explained that it was covered in another section. Mr. Hukill added that inconsistencies were being removed from the Code and this requirement should be left in Chapter 3 with the index being corrected. Paqe 6-2 Mr. Aguila referred to how a developer may not have any control over future development on adjacent properties, and Mr. Hukill explained how this followed the original Comp Plan and the purpose was to g~ve consideration to adjacent properties. Paqe 21-14 - Non-conforminq Si.qns Mr. Aguila asked if the date of December 31, 1999, applied to every non-conforming sign, and Mr. Hukill explained that he inserted this date as it kept changing with each amendment to the Code. He furtt~er explained that signs approved as part of a development order become a development condition which is part of a negotiated zoning approval and are not covered by this date. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz expressed discontent with it changing with each amendment and agreed that December, 1999 should be adhered to. Mr. Aguila added that the sign code is weakened with exceptions being granted. Paqe 22-1 - Sidewalks Mr. Aguila stated the section means every property owner in the City must build a sidewalk whether being developed or not. Discussion followed how this was not required on cider lots, infill ors or in certain circumstances. Mr. Hukill added that it is already in the Code and could be enforced. Mr Reed pointed out that the reference to Article 4, Section 10, should be Article 3, Section 11 Mr. Hukill agreed to try to revise this paragraph so that it would not read that sidewalks are required on properties with no activity. Paqe 23-7 - Curb Stops MEETING MINUTES JOINT WORKSHOP BETWEEN CITY COMMISSION AND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 9, 1997 Mr. Aguila expressed opposition to not requiring either wheel stops or raised curbs with landscaping in parking lots. Pros and cons were expressed by several participants. It was agreed to give this sub_eot further thought. Appeals Processes Mr. Hukitl referred to appeals processes being scattered throughout various chapters of the Code and he read how he had organized them in the first chapter. Conceptual Review Mr. Hukill told how developers request conceptual review by the City Commission and then believe they have received approval. He stressed the importance [o clarify that what they have received is an opinion with no rights and the developers must go through the entire process. Development Orders Mr. Hukill stated that the development orders have been very helpful and told how the City Commission acts on the composite document with all the conditions and it becomes a matter of record. Mayor Taylor referred to complaints being received from developers not getting the conditions back prior to the meeting, and Mr. Hukill replied that this has accelerated the procedure, but changes have been made different from what staff has reviewed. Major Drivewav Ms. Heyden asked if the threshold of 1,000 vehicles per day could be applied to public streets and private streets, and Mr. Hukill agreed it could simply state "streets". Monument Siqn It was agreed to include a definition for monument/ground sign. Development Review Commissioner Bradley referred to the C.R.A.B. reviewing projects in the C.B.D. area and Mr. Hukill pointed out that it states the C.R.A.B. assumes the Planning & Development Board responsibilities in this area. Mayor Taylor expressed concern about the qualifications of the members of the C.R.A.B. for this purpose, and Mr. Hukill stated that this was changed by Ordinance. Buildin.q Heiqht 3 MEETING MINUTES JOINT WORKSHOP BETWEEN CITY COMMISSION AND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 9, 1997 Ms. Heyden stated that a definition of building height is desperately needed and Mr. Hukill told about this being included in the departmental policy, but he will put this on the list for consideration. Site Plan Process Ms. Heyden referred to this orocess allowing multiple opportunities to amend plans and questioned whether the T.R.C. should be given this authority. After discussion about the potential of this, Mr. Hukill agreed to review this process. Commissioner Titcomb referred to upgrading partial areas and how additional things were required, and Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz addedthat properties in decrepit condition should be made to come into compliance. Discussion ensued about the extent of improvements and not restraining people or requiring too much. After a long discussion, Ms. Heyden suggested taking this out now and using it as a development incentive. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz continued with stressing that attractive landscaping was more important than parking spaces. It was agreed to have the consultant look at this further. OUTLINING THE CITY'S HUD ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS AND REVIEW THE ASSOCIATED CONSOLIDATED PLAN PROJECT Mr. Hawkins announcea that the City will be receiving $561,000 from the Federal government, and he will cover the rules and regulations for spending that money. He then introduced Ms. Dorothy El!ington, Community Development Coordinator for the City of Delray Beach, to tell about their experience with these funds. Ms. E/lington referred to the opportunities available with this grant and how other opportunities open for other grants but stressed the mportance of pub c c t zen part c pation She to d about EJ ' ' elray Beach being consistent with the use of one plan, [heir Comp P an, and explained creative budgeting. She told about not lowering their standards, but citing things and giving the people the money to make'the improvements. One incentive which has been very successful is having their C.R.A. pay interest on loans to businesses located in the C.R.A. She pointed out that the Federal money must benefit the Iow income neighborhoods. She stated that the majority of their ¢noney has been spent for housing, but they have done infrastructures, installed sidewalks, water and sewer lines. She also stressed the importance of the money being spent on house rehabilitations for o~vner-occupied units. She told about money given to landlords to improve their properties and als~improvements made at Pompey Park She told about a code enforcement officer going to a blighted area door-to-door citing people but then educating them. She referred to the grant having broad rules and regulations, but stated we must be careful not to exceed the 20% cap on administrative funding. 4 MEETING MINUTES JOINT WORKSHOP BETWEEN CITY COMMISSION AND PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 9, 1997 Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz asked if the entire amount is disbursed at one time, and Ms. Ellington explained that a Letter of Credit is received and the funds not spent can be carried over [o the next year. She explained how the City funded them and they were reimbursed. She added that the Finance Department billed the Community Improvement Department monthly. Commissioner Titcomb asked if private groups could access these funds, and Ms. EIlington informed him that 15% of the dollars could go for that type of:aotMty. She told about the tennis center rehabilitation of their building and paying salades at the day care center. Mr. Hawkins reviewed Page 2 of his handout. He added that he wanted to hire a consultant to write our consolidated plan. Ms. Ellington stated that they basically used their housing element from their Comp Plan, and Mr. Hawkins stated thatwe need to address some issues statistically since our plan was prepared in 1988. Aisc, the public must participate. Mr. Hawkins outlined the C.R.A. area and Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz asked if it could be expanded. Mr. Hawkins replied affirmatively, but guidelines must be met and Ms. Sherrod added that geography is a large part of it, but the income of the.people Jiving in the area must be considered. Mr. Hawkins then reviewed the consolidated plan, community profile, needs assessment, etc., and stressed the statistics of the document with the consolidated plan to be submitted by August 17. Mayor Taylor asked if we were being funded by the County prior to October, and Mr. Hawkins replied negatively, but we do have money for this year. Mr. Hawkins stated the Comm unity Redevelopment Division would be expanded and reviewed the three new positions recommended. Ms. Ellington added that they have expended general fund money at about $4,500 per unit for exterior improvements. Mr. Hawkins stated that we are using TIF dollars to fund the employees and the City put $57,000 into the Community Development budget. Ms. Eliington continued that they get about $150,000 from Delray Beach. Ms. Ellington told about rece~wng another Federal grant and having a developer build 256 multi- family units. Mr. Hawkins added that 15% of these funds can go to outside activities and we plan to have the CDC in Boynton Beach build infill housing. Commissioner Tillman referred to having a developer develop the entire area and Mr. Hawkins explained how there could ce a competitive application process with developers being partners. Mr. Rosenstock told about his concern of having people moving into the area into iow income housing, and Ms. Ellington told about the 256 units replacing demolished houses and how the emphasis was on owner-occupied single-family units. Mr. Hawkins agreed the emphasis has MEETING MINUTES JOINT WORKSHOPBETWEEN CITY COMMISSION AND PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JANUARY 9, 1997 been on infilt single-family housing and over 30 have been built already. Mr. Hawkins stated that we will not build multi-family rental property in our low income area. He continued that design is very important and duplexes and quadraplexes with garages and yards can be affordable. We are talking about upgraded high level construction emphasizing home ownership. Ms. Ellington added that they did not relax their code and the developer put in driveways, landscaping, etc., in a gated community. Commissioner Tillman agreed that things have changed, but stated if we build substandard housing, we will get substandard residents, ADJOURNMENT Mayor Taylor declared the meet ng adjourned at 10:10 p.m. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACt ATTEST: City~'Clerk Commissioner Co,.n~s-sio ner 6 DEPART1V~NT OF DEVELOPMFaNT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-035 June 24, 1996 TO: FROM: City Commissioners Carrie Parker, City Manager Sue Kruse, City Clerk Robert Eichorst, Director of Public Works Charles Frederick, Director of Recreation & Parks Marshall Gage, Police Chief Floyd Jordan, Fire Chief Diane Reese, Finance Director Date Sugerman. Assistant City Manager Joe Sciortino, Golf Course Director Virginia Farace, Library Director Tambri Heyden, Director ofPlannlng & Zoning ~r of Development LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The documem handed to you (or in a few cases your representative) at Friday's Goal Setting Session marked "Explanation of proposed LDR changes" is a draft of a number of additions, deletions, changes, etc. I am considering for submission to, and eventual consideration by, the City Commission. Your input is solicited, and needed. You may suggest additional changes; deletion of changes under consideration; modifications to proposed wording; grammatical changes including, but not limited to, syntax or spelling; or any other matter appropriate to the LDR. Please submit your input by phone (or fax) verbally or in writing by the end of July 1996. If you wish additional copies for yourself, your staff, or anyone else who may wish to contribute, they will be yours for the asking. If sufficient interest is generated, we will hold an open workshop(s). We know you are busy, but I remind you that this is an open mvi.tation to contribute directly to the betterment of the City, and we urge you to take advantage of the opportunity. WVH:bg LDI~WPD DEPARTMENT OF DEVE, I,OPMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-063 August 26, 1996 TO: FROM: Carrie Parker City Manager .~. Hukill, P.E. ~r of Developmem PROPOSED,LDR CHANGES - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The attached booklet contains numerous changes to the Land Development Regulations which I recommend be adopted. Following is a description'ofthe changes: A. Appeals~ variances, exceptions~ etc. Rationale. There are several dozen references in various places in the LDR dealing with this subject. Procedures outlined therein are sometimes conflicting, sometimes redundant and sometimes incomplete. For example, Chapter 2 outlines a procedure for appealing administrative decisions, but by inclusion in that chapter, Zoning, it is not clear whether the procedure applies to any other chapter. Chapter~ 5 and 20 also outline admin/strative appeals, but they are different than each other, and also different from Chapter 2. Recommendation. ~Ve have collected all types of appeals in Chapter 1, General Provisions, Article VII. The fzrst section of Article VII delineates the administrative appeals processes for all matters whether they go to the Building Board of Adjustment ,and Appeals, the Concurrency Review Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Commission. Note: Administrative appeals are not resolved by the Planning and Development Board because it is advisory, not quasi- judicial. Sections 2, 3 and4 outline where a second-level appeal goes. Section 1, paragraph C now requires an appellant to post surety to cover potential costs of delays and damages as a precondition to a stay of the work order. With respect to variances and exceptions, a new Article X has been added to Chapter 1, General Requirements. It is not significantly different than current widely disbursed sections of the LDR, but has been placed in Chapter 1 so as to apply equally to all chapters. M~mo 96-063 to. Carrie Parker. RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive summary August 26, 1996 Page 2 Otherportions of the £DR revised by th isrewrite: Chapter 1, Article I, Section I 1, pages 1-5 and 1-6 Chapter 1, Article I, Se¢fio~ 12, pages 1-6 and 1-7 Chapter 1, Article I, Section 13, pages 1-7 Chapter I, Article VII, pages 1-44 thru 1-47 - Chapter 1, Article X, pag~e~ .5232;mid 1.5-33 .5,34 UOnc~eptual f ~eff, baelc: a. often wish clarification from the Commission ' of a proposal prior to submitting the associated fees. The saves time and money. "conceptual approval" thus.makir~g future rulings by difficult. b. Re~O~d~ion. ! We ~¢e added a definition of"concentual feedback" to th~[~ ex~ Wt~t an apphcant has rece,ved when coming P~i~{~csp~ ~l~m~al; and perhaps more unportantly, what has not been.rec~ed. "M~mo 96-063 to Carrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Sunrmary- August 26, 1996 ~_ ~ Page 3 o Development order~s and develot~ment~perrnits. Rationale. The difference between development orders and development permits is unclear in the LDtL -Recommendation. Definitions have been rewritten for development orders ~d ~ ~de~ vel0Pr0ent: per[ai~s. Orders relate, to,,fmal action by the City Commission on:an application for general approvals such as a master plan, a site plan or a plat Permits relate to final action by staff on an application to construct. Development order procedures are,covered separately in Chapter 1, Article IX. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 1, Article II, pages 1-15 and I-16 Major driveway Rationale. Present definition does not define a threshold for volume of traffic associated with the word "major." bo Recommendation. We have established a definitive threshold of 1,000 vehicles per day as the line between minor and major. Portions of LDR revised: Chapter 1, Article II, page 1-23 Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5 F and H, pages 7.5-16 and 7.5-17 Sign, area of sign, sign contractor electrical and sign contractor not electrical Rationale. Not readable. b. Recommendation. We have slightly revised wording to hnprove readability. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 1, Article II, page 1-31 Memo 96-063 to CarrieParker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary August 26, 1996 Page 4 Rationale. LDR does n6t distinguish between a development site plan and a building site p!an even though many siibmissions (i.e. fences) do not require nearly as much detail as site plans for entire developments. Chapter ~, Article:II;~ge 1-31 si~e 6. Miscellaneous,definitions Rationale. Some defm/fions are ~ncorrec~, confusing or redundant. Some are missing. bo Recommendation. We have slightly modified definitions of"start of construction," "work" and "zoning code" and added a definition for "xeriscape." Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 1, Article II; page 1-32 and 1-37 7. F-tsual obstructions Rationale. Present requirement for maximum height obstruction to intersection visibility is too high for some vehicles. Recommendation. We have lowered maximum obstruction height at comers to 2'6". Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 2, Section 4E, page 2-6 Driveways Rationale. Some confusion has resulted fxom a zoning chapter reference to "accessways" when it is implicitly referring to driveways. M~mo 96-063 to Carrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary Augus~ 26, 1996 Page 5 Recommendation. We have replaced the word "accessways" with the word dri ars. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 2, Section 7H3, page 2-63 Recreation ad parks fees/dedieations 1. Rationale. This section contains redundancies, overwording, and incorrect references. Recommendation. We have changed a few words, eliminated redundancies and eorrectedreferences, but none of these changes is significant. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 1, Article V, pages 1-38 thru 1-43 Development reviews 1. Rationale. The entire process of development review has evolved over time, bm is not clearly delineated in the LDR. 2. Recommendation. We have institutionalized the development review process from technical reviews through issuance of development orders delineating final Commission action. Portions of LDR revised: Chapter 1, Article VIII, pages 1-47 thru 1-49 Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 4, pages 3~6 and 3-7 Chapter 4, Section 4, pages 4-2 thru 4-4 Development orders 1. Rationale. The formalized process recently developed for issuance of developmem orders has been successful, but is not covered in the LDR. M~mo 96-063 to Carrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary August 26, 1996 Page 6 R~commendation~:We.have institutionalized'the development order process from challenges to staff comments/recommendati0ns~arough final Commission action and distribution. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 1, Article IX, page 1-50 Group homes 1. Rationale. Group homes are not included in the LDR, but they must be allowed in some areas according to Florida statute. Recommendation. We have referred to group homes as community residential homes as required by law, and added them as an allowable use in residential districts. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 2, Section 5, pages 2-16 and 2-21 Suggested changes in comprehensive plan Rationale. Several requirements/modifications suggested in the comprehensive plan have not been placed in the LDR. Recommendation. We have added/revised/deleted wording suggested by the comprehensive plan. Portions of LDR revised: Chapter 2, Section 9, pages 2-85, 2-86, 2-88 and 2-89 Chapter 2, Section 11, page 2-115 Chapter 2, Section 11.3, page 2-140 Chapter 5, Article V, Section 1, page 5-5 Chapter 6, Article III, Section 4, page 6-2 Chapter 8, Article I, Section 4E, page 8-2 Chapter 8~ Article IV, Section F, page 8-5 Chapter 20, Article I, Section 6, page 20-3 Chapter 20, Article XIII, pages 20-31 and 20-32 M&mo 96-063 to Carrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary August 26, 1996 ~Page 7 Je Parking in residential driveways Rational~ No requirement exists for parking except ADA stalls and lot spaces. Lot spaces are 9 feet wide and under some circumstances can be 16 feet long. Recommendatiom We have established a minimum §ize for the first residential parking space on each prpper~~ as 12 feet w/de and t 8 feet long exclusive of fights- of-way. Portion of £DR revised: Chapter 2, Section 11, page 2-101 Drainage Rationale. Certification by design professionals is essential to establishing chain of accountability in the development process. It is not consistently established in the current LDR. Along with that, drainage requirements must be reasonable and readable. Recommendation. We have added a design professional certification to the application process for site plans, and completely rearranged drainage requirements associated with ir~astructure improvements. Portions of LDR revised: Chapter 4, Section 7F, page 4-6 Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5, pages 6-7 thru 6-10 SllF~ty 1. Restoration surety Rationale. No surety is currently required to cover the cost of damage to haul roads or restoration of a site to its original condition upon developer failure to complete. Memo 96-063 to Carrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary August 26, 1996 Page 8 Recommendation. A restoration surety requirement has,been added to plat submission requirements. ge o Chapter 5, Articl~e V, Section 1, page 5-3 Chap_ret 5, ~i~e V, Section 2, page 5-9 ~ Ghapte~-6~. ~elJe m~.~cfion~ 3, pa~g'e 6-24. Surety for required improvements Rationale. Surety' is currently required for all infrastructure improvements associated with development. Some of the improvements will be constructed, owned and maintained in perpetuity by the developer or his successors/assigns, and the City will never assume ownership or maintenance obligationS, for:them.: A surety is intended to protect the City, and should be i~ted to.thc/se improvements tobe ox~med and/or maintained by Me City. Recommendation. We have revised surety requirements associated with" construction of infrastructure to cover all work not constructed, owned and maintained in perpetuity 'by the developer and his: successors and/or assigns.---- Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 5, g~tiele V, Section 2A, pages 5-8 and 5-9 Surety for improvements subject to construction damage Rationale. The LDR contains no provision for allowing late construction of sidewalks and/or some landscaping subject to construction damage if installed up front. bo Recommendation. We have written a proxdsion m allow submission of a separate surety to cover the cost of improvements such as sidewalks and some landscaping which would be subjected m potential damage if constructed while heavy construction is still to occur. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 6, Article V, Section 7, page 6-23 M~mo 96-063 m Carrie Parker RE:' Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary Augus~ 26, 1996 Page 9 Points of access 1. Rationale. LDR is confusing and incomplete Recommendation. We have reorganized text to be more readable. In addition, we have added a minimum spacing (130 feet) for driveways not on local streets. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 6, Article,IV, Section 1, pages 6-5 and 6-6 Pavement Pavement width m Rationale. LDR did not delineate points of measuremem when valley curbs are present. Recommendation. We,have established the point of measurement for pavement width when a valley curb is present as centerline of the valley curb. We have also eliminated refereneeto marginal access roads because Boynton has none as defined by the County and State. Portion of I, DR revised: Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 10C, page 6-13 Pavement installation Rationale. The current LDR does not require placement of pavement in two lifts. The result is that often construction damages the new pavement and goes uncorrected, or is corrected by patching. bo Recommendation. We have included a requirement that pavement be placed in two separate lifts so that final result is intact. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 10F, page 6-13 Pavement construction Rationale. Actual construction requirements for pavemem are not included in the LDR. Memo 96-063 to Carrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary August 26, 1996 Page 10 bo Recommendation. We have written specific construction procedures into the LDR. Portions of LDR revised: Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 1 OF, page 6-13 Chapter 23., Article II, Section Q, page 23q0 Excavating, filling and ~dredging Rationale. Dredging wasSnadvertently omitted from thepresent LDR, and thresholds were not established for determining when permit approval by the City Commission is required. Recommendation. We have added dredging as an additional part of excavation and fill; we have added threshold amounts of dredged material as separate categories of activities; and we have established that at least 1,000 Cubic yards of excavation or fill must be proposed for moving on or off site before Commission approval is sought. That will obviate the need for obtaining apermit from the Commission for constrUctionofmost single family homes. Portions of £DR revised: Chapter 8, Article t~Secfion 2, page 8-1 Chapter 8, Article II, page 8-2 Chapter 8, Article III, pages 8-2 thru 8-4 So/l ~ting Rationale. Soil testing is not un/versally covered in the LDIL Recommendation. We have added wording allowing the Director of Development to require certified soil tests when soil bearing capacity is not known~ Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 20, Article I, Section 7, page 20-4 Recognition of neighborhoods 1. Rational~ Nothing in the LDR recognizes neighborhood associations. Recommendation. We have established the right of neighborhood associations to ~ receive the same treatment with respect ~o identification signs as residential subdivisions and residential developments subject to a license agreement with the ..... City. }Zemo 96-063 to Carrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary August 26~ 1996 Page I ~ Portions of LDR revised: Chapter 21, Article tH, Section 6C5, page 21-12 Chapter 21, Article IV, Section ID, page 21-15 Chapter 22, Article II, Section 70, page 22-5 Banners and signs Banners Rationale. Temporarybanners are, not specifically allowed in Boynton Beach. Recommendation. We have written conditions which will allow temporary (2 weeks) banners not larger than 20 square feet to be placed on pr/vate property other than setbacks, subject to removal within t2 hours of posting of a tropical storm or hurricane watch. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 21, Ar'dele IH, Section 6F, page 21-13 2. Non-conforming signs Rationale. Date of removal of non-conforming signs floats with every LDR change to Chapter 21; and definition of non-conforming sign~ was unclear. Recommendation. We have established December 31, 1999 as the date of removal for non-conforming signs, and modified the definition of non- conforming signs. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 21, Article III, Section 7, page 21-14 Interpretation of sign requirements Rationale. LDR meaning of residential zone sign regulations was unclear. Recommendation. We have limited the use of a sign on a permitted non- residential building in a residential zone to advertising only the main use of the premises; limited the height to 10 feet ilion a building and 6 feet if fi'eeslandlng; and prohibited protrusion of signs on entry walls above the top of the wall. Memo 96-063 to Caxrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary August 26, 1996 Page 12 Sidewalks 1. Portion of LDR revised: . Chapter'~t, ~cte:l:V~ S6etion ~!~,:pa~e21-15- Rationale. The process for meeting sidewalk requirements is corrfiasing and the waiver process is cumbersome. Recommendation. We have written the sidewalk construction requirements to include'all lots~platted~or ~latted, and simplifieffthe waiver process so that the Director of Development may waive the requirement under. Certain limited conditions. Portion,of ZDR r~vised: : Chapter 22, Article I~ S~cfiOn 5, page 22-1 Abandonments Rationala The City Attorney has pointed out that an ownership and encumbranc'e" report is not currently required as part of the abandonment procedure outlined in the .... LDR. Recommendation. We have written an LDR requiremem for providing an ownership and encumbrance report from a title company. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 22, Article HI, Section 21, page 22-6 lots 1, Maintenance Rationale. Reference to maintenance of parking lots does not appear in the current LDR. Recommendation. We have added the word "maintenance" into the purpose of the parking lot chapter to compliment the words "design" and Portion of I. DR revised: Chapter 23, Article I, Section lA, page 23-1 I~demo 96-063 to Carrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary August 263 1996 Page 13 o Application of parMng lot requirements Rationale. Many citizens including, but not limited to, participants in the recent Visioning conference have expressed outrage over the multiple design and co~truction requirements which are triggered when reconstruction is proposed at existing parking lots. ' Recommendation. -We have added twO additional conditions under which some 0~,'al~ of the 5mprovements reqm'~ed:b~ the LDR can be relaxed or waived. One condition e[igible for WaiVer'iS'for improvements of a maintenance aa~, and the o~tl~ condition eligible for waiver is for improvements ,.~h/ch upgrarle ~ existing' lot. Portions of LDR.revis~d: Chapter 23, Article I, Section 3A, page 23-2 Chapter 23, Article I, Section 4, page 23-4 Glare o Rationale: No reference is made to glare in the parking lot chapter. Recommendatior~ Proper reference has been added. Portion of £DR revised: Chapter 23, Article II, Section A, page 23-7 Curbs and car stops Rationale. Recent action by the Commission has allowed elimination of curb and car stops from the access aisles at the City's largest parking area (Boynton Beach Mail). bo Recommendation. We have writxen out the requirement for wheel stops or curbs in aiternate aisles in parking lots under the assnmption that if they aren't needed at the Mail, they aren't needed in much smaller parking lots. Portion of LDR revised: Chapter 23, Article II, Section E, page 23-7 Memo 96-063 to Carrie Parker RE: Proposed LDR Changes - Executive Summary August 26, 1996 Page 14 T. Boundary plats Rationale. The greater the portion of land in the City is platted, the better and more accurate submitting ~' cost of preparing in the LDR. simultaneously w R {to, ho md y plat m the LDR to,eng0urage,~5~o~y~gl~g~thu~!maProvmg C~ty permanent records and reducing, r~co~ ~e~ch~ ~to~!~P a, variety of recorded insmamants~ Most of these changes are driven ~y em-rem procedures, recent Commission action and/or common sense. Perhaps this summary can be di~tribfit~d fofebnsideration similar to a consent agenda. If any ..... Commissioner w/shes to di~quSS ~;p~eul~ gart, I~an do that in&'vidually, at a workshop, or at a Commission meeting. I recommend timel~ ~ursult of this in ordinance form so that final passage, if possible, can occur no later than October 15. WVH:bg LDR.WPD DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-101 October 30, 1996 TO: FROM: Carrie Parker Hill City Manager W liam V. H n, P.E. Director o£Development LDR REVISIONS-:.PROPOSED ORDINANCES A series of ordinances has been prepared by the City Attorney proposing consideration and adoption by the City Commission of suggested revisions to the City's Land Development Regulations. A separate ordinance has been prepared for amendments suggested for each chapter ofthe LDtL We present herewith a brief description of amendments proposed for consideration, chapter by chapter: .Chapter 1 General Provisions A standardized process for filing and processing appeals, variances, exceptions, etc. · New and revised definitions for clarification, correction or improved readability. A standardized development review process. Chapter 1.5 Planning and Development Generally Editorial corrections. · Relocation to Chapter 1 of portions dealing with filing and processing appeals, variances, exceptions, etc. Chapter 2 Zoning Lower visual obstruction at intersections from 3 feet down to 2 feet 6 inches. Reclassify satellite dish antennae to accommodate 18 inch devices. (Building permits will not be required for these 18 inch devices). o Identify regulations for commtmky residential homes (group homes) which are consistent with Florida Statutes. Reschedule Planning and Development Board consideration of master plan modifications to occur prior to City Commission action, not subsequent to action. · Relocation to Chapter 1 of portions dealing with filing and processing of appeals, variances, exceptions, etc. Add requirement that at least one parking space at a residential unit be at least 12 feet wide and 18 feet long. Memo 96-101 to Carrie Parker Hill RE: LDR REVISIONS - PROPOSED ORDINANCES October 30, 1996 Page Two Chapter 2.5 Planned Unit Developments · Reschedule Planning and Development Board consideration of master plan modifications to occur prior to City Commission action, not subsequent to action. Chapter 3 Master Plan Review ' · ~ · Relocation of technical review process t0, Chapter !- · Relocatmn to Chapte~ I '~po~ons dealmg~w~th fffmg and processing of appeals, variances, 'excel)~J/ons~ etc. Chapter 4 Site Plan Review · Relocation oftechr~cal review process to Chapter 1, Require ghrveys th-be,not older than six months. · Provide definitive drainage plan. · Require design professional certification of compliance with all rules, regulations, codes, etc. · Relocation to Chapter 1 ofportions dealing with filing and processing of appeals, variances; exceptions,, etc. Chapter 5 Platting · Creates a separate process (boundary plat) for simple subdivisions. Makes plat appeals filing and processing same as other appeals and relocates the process to Chapter 1. · Revises surety to eliminate requirement when improvements will not be constructed, maintained or owned by the City. · Adds surety to cover cost of restoring a site to its orig'mal condition when improvements ate not completed. Chapter 6 Required:Improvements Requires reclamation plan prior to grading, excavating and/or filling. · Establishes minimum driveway spac'mg at 130 feet on all streets except local streets. Completely reorganizes drainage and storm water section into understandable fc/rmat, without substantive changes in requirements. Requires two lifts of asphalt paving on all new streets. L Memo 96-101 to Carrie Parker Hill RE: LDR REVISIONS - PROPOSED ORDINANCES October 30, 1996 Page Three Chapter 7.5 Environmental Regulation · Relocation to Chapter 1 ofportions dealing with filing and processing of appeals, variances, exceptions, etc. Chapter 8 Excavation and Fill Regnlations o Adds dredging regulations. o Adds two categories of dredged materials to classifications of excavating and filling activities. Adds provisions regarding discovery of archeological artifacts. Chapter 9 Community Design Plan · Relocation to Chapter 1 of portions dealing with filing and processing of appeals, variances, exceptions, etc. Adds lift stations to devices requiting screening from public view. Chapter 20 Buildings, Housing and Construction Regulations ~. · Adds provisions for encouraging preservation of historically significant buildings. Chapter 21 Signs Adds neighbor associations to approximately equal status with developments, etc. with respect to s~gns. Allows approval of temporary banners complying with Chapter 21. Establishes December 31, 1999 as drop dead date for nonconforming signs. Chapter 22 Streets and Sidewalks · Adds neighbor associations to approximately equal status with developments, etc. with respect to signs. · Relocates sidewalk requirements to this chapter. Chapter 23 Parking Lots Provides additional conditions when parking lot regulations can be waived. · Eliminates curb stops now required on every other access aisle in parking lots. · Adds minimum vehicle stacking space where food is passed through drive-up openings. Memo 96-101 to Carrie.Parker Hill RE: LDR REVISIONS - PROPOSED ORDINANCES October 30, 1996 Page Four Numerous insignificant scriveneffs errors and the like have been corrected but are not listed berein.~ Other.modifications have been included to improve readability or recogniTe usual customs and practices, and they, too, are omitted from this snmmary. I do not believe any sigl~ificant and/or controversial amendments are included which are not described in this summary and/or submitted to you and the:Cit7 Commission atan earlier date. WVH:bg XC: James Cherof C:\WPWIN60\WPDOC~4.W'PD Boynton Beach December 23. 1996 Mr. Jos6 Aguila~ 800 SW 1st Court Boynton Beach FL 33426 Re: LDR Revisions - Comments Dear Mr. Aguila: Today we first received your handwritten notes concerning proposed LDR revisions. Our responses are as follows: Pages 2-85, 2-86, 2-88. You asked a series of questions, all of which relate to the City"s Comprehensive Plan. The changes on pages 2-85'and 2-86 were driven by Comp Plan Future Land Use Element Goal 1. Objecnve 1.12, Pol/cy 1.12.2 which reads as follows: ~'Subsequent to plan adoption, modify the Land Development Regulations to provtde that the C~ty shall reqmre that traffic impact statements for residential projects of 100 dwelling units or more which are located in the Hurricane Evacuation Zone, Include an evaluation of the affect of the project on hurricane evacuation times..." The change on page 2-88 was driven by Comp Plan Land Use Element Goal 1, Objective 12, Policy 1,12.1 which reads as follows: "Subsequent to plan adoption, modify the Land Development Regulations to provide that the City shall notify and shall solicit the comments of the Palm Beach County Division of Emergency Management and the City's R/sk Management Officer, prior to approving any increase in residential dens[ties in the Hurricane Evacuation Zone above the maximum densities allowed in the Coastal Management Element. if the ~roposed density increase would result in an increase of 50 or more dwellings..." Page 2-90. The change on page 2-90 wasdriven by Comp Plan Land Use Element Goal 1. Objective 1.4, Policy 1.4.5 which reads as follows: "Subsequent to plan adoption, modify the Land Development Regulations to provide that residential densities shall not be increased above those which were assumed in projecting water demand in the potable water sub- element..." A similar policy (1.5.5) relates to sanitary sewer systems. Am .ca Gateway to the Gu/. trtam Jose Aguila Re: LDR Revisions - Comments De~ember 30, 1996 Page #2 Page 2-140. The change on page 2-140 was driven by Comp Plan Conservation Element Goal 4, Objective 4.2, Policy 4.2.14 which reads as follows: "Subsequent to plan adoption, modify Land Development Regulations to be consistem, with ~he requirements,~ofthe TreaSUre Coast Region~. pP3ao~na~ aU~S~e.~. ~eV~ t,o, the management of hazardous waste to Page 3-6. Your question was "Why are we removing the requ',~ement of a tree survey and management plan? Is this wiSe? Ifthishasbeenrelo~ated~sh6wwhere." Our response is that a comp!ete description ora vegetation survey occurs in Chapter 7.5, Article I, Section 7, par~aph D, page 7-5-4, and the reference in Chapter 3 is both redundan~ ~ i~o~Pl~t~,~,i,~Ay, .the manage,ment plan is co~vered in Chapter 7_5, Article I, g~tibn Page 6-2. )/our statement was ~o add the words "if known" to "future grades". The change was driven by Co~p:PIan Future Land Use Element Goal L Objective 1. I. Policy 1.1.5 which ?cads as folio~ "Sub?equem to pl~n ad0pyion, modify the Land Development Regulations to.p.'~)~t~ th~/~ ~id~g ~f development sites shall t~ke into co~s~der/~[q ~n.,.~, ~ ~i~tin~ arid future grade of adjacent properties and ri~ht~kof_w~y. 3 ' · . Page .7.5~t 0. Yom' quest3on ~a~/Why is Section 26. t removed. I m not sure that s wise.'~ Our resp0ns~ is/hat the:eflti/'e administrative appeals process for all chapters was rewritten and Article VII for uniformity. Refer to newly written Articl~ which reads as follows: posting of acceptable sure~y (see Chapter 7) to 110% of the potential costs of by a design professional, all work on the ~ppealed fi.om. n the appeal was taken certifies that by reason of t. the certificate, a stay would cause imminent peril, of life or stayed wkich may begranted by, the board or by a on notice to the officer fi.om whom the app Page 9~4. S~?ment was:to:include.screens includes all I/f~ stiUons ~pu~l~ m3¢private around City owned.lift stations. This page Jose Again Re: LDI~ Revisions - Comments December 239 1996 Page #3 Page 21-14. The drop dead date for brin=~g signs in to conformance with the sign code was changed to a specific date (December 3 I, 1999) from a generalization tha_t read ?~withiq,5 years fi-omthe date this ~sign code rakes effect?' because each revision of the code couklbe:interpreted to mean the fiveyear exemption started over. You also asked whethez a non, Conforming sign approved by the Commission would continue to be exemptafter the drop dead date~. The:answe~is yes, it w0uld ~ontinue exempt because, as part 0fa de~elopment,order.'.tlie approval haSthe fozee and effect'of any ordinance. Page22-1. You have raised a question reg:m'~ng timing of the sidewall<construction req~red in Section 5., The answer is contained' ~the r~f~enced' Chapter 6; Article IV in general terms.. ~ concur; however; :that, flarthe? e~arificati0n wot~d'be ~,elpful~ which can be satisfied by adding these words ont,.the end of theftrst semence: ,;.prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy/completion anywhere on the lot." Page 23-7. The wording you have seen eliminated curb stops between alternate rows of parking, prlmarily on the basis of recem Commission approval 0fjust such an arrangement at the Boynton Beach Mall. This proposal was discussed at length at a Comm/ssion meeting, and has some support. Alternatively, a system requiring curbed landscaped areas between rows was suggested, and received some support. I, too, prefer the landscaping, but my vote doesn't count. A Commission consensus was not reached. This prowision should be advanced for discussion at the January 9 workshop so that it can be resolved. Chapter 1. Your final comment was very general revolving around the new appeals process found in Chapter 1, Article VII. Specifically, you asked who can appeal, what can they appeal, and who can'they appeal to~ .The ~rst sentence of Section 1, paragraph A clearly answers the first two parts of your question as follows: "Appeals of decisions of an administrative official" (part I of your question) may be taken by "any person aggrieved by any decision of an administrative official" (part 2 oi'your question). As for who takes the appeal, paragraph B stipulates that "appeals shall be filed.., with the official fi-om who the appeal is taken..." (part 3 of your question). You further commented that appeals should be looked at by the boards or commission. -Paragraph D stipulates that the City has "several beards/commissions which deal with a variety ofappeals...', then delineates those boards/commissions and exactly what appeals are considered by each board/commission, as follows: "1. The Building Board of Adju~xmem and Appeals will hear and decide appeals...made im,.Chapter 20 and the various building codes and ordinances." Jose Aguila Re: LDR Revisions - Comments December 23, 1996 Page ~4 "2. The City Commission wilt hear and decide appeals.., regarding ... environmental review permits: excavation, dredging and/or fill permits: ~ajor/minor site plan or nmst~plan modifications and height axceptions." . ' .... '2? Th~C~cnrrenCyt~eviexV. Bm~:d;.wi, lIhe!~r~.auc[deeide appealS.., denying a -, - ~.eeffifi~e<~of~concurrency and/o~.~ c~n~ ~ _di~o~ :certificate of COncUrrency.'' . in.~, atl;~o~ns~0f~erlmLDR'...n,ot,~in~e '~ctim~of, ":the mvioust ' · d~e . . .-~. : . ...... I . , ..... p y scribed boards/commission, Hopefully you will fi~l[~iS:~*gCn~e- h/elpful~ fam, s ~endlng:a -copy of km all Commissioners as well as Mr. Dub& as' they we1,1,~m'~ ha~fmil~.i :~t m~.knO,~ if,mu w6uldtike !additional Very truly yours, CITY OF BOY'NTON BEACH. FLO 'RtDA William HuldlL P.E. Director of DeVelopment -, WVH/ck Mayor Commissioners Stanley DubS, Planning & Development Board Dale Sugerman, City Manager James Cherofi City Attorney C:LDRJOSE A_--t. II, §6 material to be installed or, if existing, to be used in accordance with the requirements hereof. There shall be an application fee as adopted by resolution of the City Co~nission for landscape plan approval. No buildingpermit or certificate of occupancy ~hall be issued for such building or paving unless such landscapeplot plan complies with the provisions herein. Ail inspections-to determine compliance with the approved site plan shall be conducted by the development department. Section 7. Performm-ce surety. In the event that the landscaping requirements of this artic!s have not been met at the time that certificate of occupancy have been granted, am~ said permit or certificate the developer, the city may enter i~to an ~ by the city attorney with the o.wner or his and requ~irementsof this article will be In that case the owner or his agent shall post a performance bond or other city-approved surety in an amount equal to one hundred and ten (ll0) per Ce~t of the costs of ma labor and other attendant costs incidental to the insta~ of th? required landscaping based upon an estimate quaiifi~ landscaping~ contractor. The surety Run to the City CoL~unission~ Be in a form satisfactory and acceptable to the city manager. Specify the time for the completion of the landscapin~ requirements of this article as determined by the city manager. Section 8. Applicability of landscape ordinance and other regulations. This article shall apply concurrently and in direct relation to the requirements and regulations of the zoning code of Boynton Beach. The provisions of this article shall apply to new or redeveloped off-street parking areas, multifamily and cluster ~ousing development, and/or modifications which result in an zncrease o£ interior square footage or substantial changes in exterior design except for detached single-family homes or duplexes. Section 9. ~w""~istration a-d interpretation of code regulations and provisions. The interpretation and application of the regulations and provisions of this code by the development department shall be reasonable and uniformly applied to all property within the jurisdiction of Boynton Beach. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT METROPOLITAN CITY ENTITLEMENT STATUS WORKSHOP - JANUARY 9, 1997 Table of Contents Entitlement Status Information ---.-,..--..--.-.. ..... .,......,....... 1-3 City of Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Budget Summary ....... 4-8 City of Boynton Beach Proposed Reorganization of Community Redevelopment ....................................... 9-10 City of Delray Beach Community Redevelopment Organizational Chart and Budget ..................................... 11-14 A Competitive Application Process .................................... 15 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT MI ! CITY ENTITLEMENT STATUS Community Redevelopment 01/97 A. Define Entitlement Status. Status determined by the Secretary of the Department of Housmg and Urban Development whereby a Metropolitan City is guaranteed as determined by formula set forth by the Homing and Community DeVelopment Act of 1974 certain sums of money to assist states, counties, cities and towns in devising innovative approaches to improve the physical, econormc' and somal' condmons' ' in Iow-income areas. B. List Eligible Programs as Entitlement City. City activities that are taken on by a municipality must meet three national objectives. (i) Benefit low and moderate income persons. Address slum and blight. Meet a particular urgent community development need. The following is a list of types of eligible activities: Acquisition Disposition Public Facilities and Improvements Clearance Public Services Interim Assistance Relocation Loss of Rental Income Removal of Architectural Barriers Housing Rehabilitation Coustmction of Housing Code Enfomemant Historic Preservation C. & D. Define Consolidated Plan - Overview. Since the enaelment of the 1974 Housing Act, HUD has required local governments m prepare local housing planning documents as a condition to receive certain types of federal funding. Initially, a Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) was required under the CDBG Program. As a result of the Enactment of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, local governments were also required to prepare a Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Plan (CHAP). Three years later, the Cranston-GonT~lez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 mandated the preparation of the Comprehensive housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and the Community Development Plan. The CHAS replaced the HAP and the CHAP. In addition to planning documents, HUD also required the submission of applications in order to receive funds. On January 5, 1995, HUD published Final Rule 24 cFR, Part 91, et al, Consolidated Submission for Community Planning and Development Programs. This nde replaces regulations for the CHAS and Community Development Plan and consolidates the planning and application aspects of the CDBG, HOME and ESG Programs (among others) into a single, consolidated submission. This document, the Five Year Consolidated Plan, replaces the CHAS, CDBG Final Statement, ESG Application, HOME Program Description and Community Development Plan. The process to develop the plan involves interaction among private citizens, representatives of local government, various local, county and state agencies concerned with housing, social service and non-housing community development needs, non-profit and for profit housing providers and other representatives of various local institutions involved in the delivery of housing, supportive services and non-housing community development needs. The Annual Consolidated Plan is a component of the Five Year Consolidated Plan. The ~.ml~ P, lan se,n,, ~ ~ a~pplic, ation for funding for each program and must be prepared and suermaea armumiy m tauo. lne Annual Plan describes all of the activities to be undertaken during the next fiscal year that Utilizes formulagrants and program income. After a draft plan is written, comments are received through public meetings/hearings and as a result of advertisements. These are summarized and added to the annual plan. G. Explain HUD Approval Process. The Consolidated Plan is due 45 days before the fiscal year starts on October 1st. This yields a due of August 17th. An assessment of the Plan is due from HUD within 30 days after approval. OSS:dar SUMMARY OF CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BUDGET '96/97 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 1996-1997 ANNUAL BUDGET COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT FUND ESTIMATED REVENUE & EXPENDITURES REVENUE: Ad Valorem Taxes Investment Income Inlerfund Transler (TIF Funds) Inlerfund Transfer Fund Balance Appropriated $61,285 30,000 112,931 57,000 427,253 .... ~$688,46~_ ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: FUND: 621 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION ~11.30 TIF AD VALOREM TAXES 611 50 INTEREST INCOME * TOTALS FOR: INVESTMENT INCOME 699.10 MISC INCOME * TOTALS FOR: MISCELLANEOUS INCOMM 810.10 TRANSF FROM GENERAL 810.11 TRAMSF FROM GEN (TIF) 813.02 TRANSF FROM CAPITAL IMPR * TOTALS FOR: TRANSFERS IN 891.61 FIB APPROP-CRA * TOTALS FOR: FUND BAL/RET EARN APPROPR TOTALS FOR: COME IMPROVEMENT/CRA FUND 93-94 I 94-95 ACTUAL ~ ACTUAL REVENUE I REVENUE 44,596 [ 44,596 18,636 18,636 36 81,939 81,939 145,207 49.601 49,601 30,351 30,351 91,565 150,000 241,565 321,517 95-96 [ 95'96 I 96-97 CURRENT [ REV.AS OF [ ESTIMATED BUDGET [ 09/30/96 REVENUE 58,851 55,018 58,851 55,018 30,000 36,564 30,000 36,5'64 4,765 4,765 10,000 10,000 108,186 103,379 118.186 113 379 442,586 442,586 649,623 209,726 55,018 55,018 25,000 25,000 10,000 103,379 113,379 193,397 96-97 CITY NGR RECO~4ENDED 61,285 61,285 30,000 30,000 57,000 112,931 169,931 427,253 427 253 688,469 96~97 CO~4ISS[ON APPROVED 61.285 61,285 30 000 30,000 57.000 112 931 169.931 427,253 427,252 688,469 C I T Y O F B O Y N T O N B E A C H 1996 · 1997 ANNUAL BUDGET DEPARTMENT SU~I~ARy FUND: 621 COMM IMPROVENENT/CRA FUND DEPT: 136 COMNUNITy EEDEVELC PMENT PERSONNEL SERVICES MATERIALS ~ SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY 93-94 ACTUAL EXPENSE 84,780 524 72,780 51,743 94-95 ACTUAL EXPENSE 29,462 173 3,669 213,496 84,245 36.118 1,876 151,874 95-96 AMENDED BUDGET 83, 082 108,526 121,310 334,905 649,623 95-96 I 96-97 BUDGET[96-97 BUDGET[96-97 BUDGET EXP.AS OF [ DEPT. I CITY MGR [COI~4ISSION 09/30/96 [ REQUESTED 80,603 138.366 207 1,000 20,173 333,142 59,252 135,000 26,862 33,874 187.097 ] 641,382 IRECO~ENDED ]APPROVED 138.366 138,366 390,541 390.541 125.000 125.000 33,562 33,562 688,469 688,469 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PERSONNEL BUDGET YEAR 1996-1997 DEPARTMENT: CommunJly Redeve opment FUND: 621 DEPARTMENT NUMBER: t36 Position Title Full Time Positions: Development Coordinator Community Development Program Specialist Construction Coordinator Loan Specialist Part Time Positions: Seasonal Positions: TOTALPERSONNEL: 1994/95 1995/96 Grade Actual Current 36 0 28 0 27 0.5 25 1 1.5 1996/97 1996/97 1996/97 Department City Mgr. Commission Request Recommend Approved 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ! 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t.5 3 3 3 3 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PROPOSED REORGANIZATION OF COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT COMMUI~ ITY REDEVELOPMENT DIV SION i COMMUNITY iREDEVELOPMENTi~- DIVISION COORDINATOR I COMMU,~:~ CON~--~UCT,O~--~'] )DEVELOPMENT MANAGER ~ PRORGAM SPECIALIS~ ..... H.U.D. PROGRAM ANALYST CITY OF DELRAY BEACH COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DEPARTMENT Exhibit 1 Organizational Chart Exhibit 2 Community Improvement Administration Budget Exhibit 3 Community Redevelopment Fund Budget *Note General Fund Transfer RTMENT Stabilization CRoeo~r~l~nl~g j Neighborhood tar I ! Improvement Computer Horllcullurlst j Landscape I Inspector I L .............. Building Inspections ^dmlntslrator ZZ'..-EZZi Deputy L Official Building J Slgns/LI;';;;; Inspeclor 3'} J nspec or I J Reviewer II Inspector ~2J J Plan Slgns/Ucense j I J Communily Development Fund 001 General Fund 12-10 REGULAR SALARIES/WAGES [41,170 146,123 146,360 147,9t0 21-10 EMPLOYER FICA 10,653 10,748 10,560 22-10 GENERAL EMPL. RETIREMENT 10,500 22-30 ICMA CONTRIBUTION 4,000 4,630 4,590 4,550 23-10 LIFE INSURANCE 6,443 6,503 6,650 7,010 23-20 DISABILITY INSURANCE 520 380 380 670 23-30 HEALTH INSURANCE 1,510 1,510 1,540 1,580 24-10 WORKERS COMPENSATION 7,600 7,200 7,420 7,480 540 550 720 25-10 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 790 180 180 70 25-20 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 70 0 0 110 120 * PERSONAL SERVICES 172,616 177,824 178,400 180,680 31-20 MEDICAL SERVICES 70 214 0 0 31-90 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 770 1,200 0 40-10 TRAVEL AND TRAINING 0 41-10 TELEPHONE EXPENSE 1,644 2,648 906 1,200 41-15 PORTABLE PHONE/BEEPER 897 819 830 910 0 0 300 350 42-10 POSTAGE 79 106 100 100 42-20 EXPRESS CHARGE/MESSENGER 50 23 50 50 44-30 EQUIPMENT RENTAL/LEASE 0 0 3,540 44-45 VEHICLE RENTAL- GARAGE 3,580 45-10 GENERAL LIABILITY 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 46-20 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 4,990 5,000 5,530 5,790 46-30 VEHICLE MAINT.- GARAGE 1,475 1,435 1,760 4,190 I,306 1,343 1,760 47-10 PRINTI'NG/BINDING SERVICES 1,410 47-20 REPRODUCTION SERVICES 0 0 0 100 48-20 EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION AWARDS 565 341 529 600 48-90 OTHER ACTIVITIES COST 0 0 500 600 0 0 2,100 1,200 51-10 STATIONERY/PAPER/FORMS 7,782 10,318 51-20 OFFICE EQUIPMENT < $500 12,600 10,000 51-25 COMPUTER SOFTWARE < $500 257 1,378 800 720 0 953 834 0 51-90 OTHER OFFICE SUPPLIES 8,414 10,900 I0,000 52-10 FUEL/LUBE- VEHICLES 10,500 52-20 GE2qERAL OPERAI:ING SUPPLIES 147 270 200 300 2,757 3,439 54-10 BOOKS 8a PUBLICATIONS 3,000 3,100 54-15 SUBSCRIPTIONS 993 17 0 0 54-20 MEMB~ 404 72 110 120 90 50 150 600 54-30 TRAINIlqC-dE~UcATiON COSTS 549 896 3,390 4,480 54-35 TUITION RERvlB URSEMENT 190 0 0 * OPERA't'ING EZ~ENgF_~ 0 ...... 34,579 42,572 50,139 51,050 64-11 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0 3,499 0 * CAPITAL OUTLay 0 0 3,499 0 0 COlVlbI[J~l'y IM~PROVEMENT.a. DM __ 207, I95 223,895 ~,539 231,730 13 303.18 PRIOR YEAR ENCUMBRANCES RE VENUE 0 ,0 . 99,14] 0 0 99,141 0 0 331.03 HOPE 3 GRANT 0 164,554 697,876 355,000 331.04 HOME - GRANT 0 55,186 246,492 0 331.50 RENTAL REHAB PROGRAM 53,64] 31,666 0 0 331.51 COMM DEVEL GRANT FY 93/94 496,616 101,326 0 0 331.52 COMM DEVELOP GRANT 94/95 0 567,249 0 0 331.53 COMM DEVELOPMENT GRANTo96 0 0 1,026,765 654,000 331.60 DRUG FREE COMMUNITY PROG 28,375 26,170 0 0 334.69 SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM 0 14,318 39,859 27,580 337.45 CONTRI FRM~CRA LOAN PRGM 391,573 0 300,000 337.48 SHIP PROGRAM 300,000 337.58 RENAISSANCE PROGRAM~ 71,245 73,446 301,476 286,450 0 0 0 10,000 ' * iNTERGOVERaVMENTAL REVENUE 1,041,450 1,033,915 2,612,468 1,633,030 364 14 SALE OF PROPERTY-HOPE 3 0 53,530 0 0 364.15 SALE OF PROP-RENTAL REHAB 0 1,779 0 0 364.16 NEIGHBORHOOD IMP-BOOTSTRA 0 0 55,043 366.27 PROGRAM INCOME- CRA. 0 366.28 MISC CONTRIBUTIONS -384,150 3,634 8,000 8,000 ~ 0 750 0 0 =69 18 CITIZEN MATCH/RENTREHAB 81,785 28,064 0 369.19 CITIZEN MATCH/BOOTSTRAP 0 ~6~.99 0 778 I0,000 0 MISCELLANEOus REVENUE 0 215 0 A flSCELLANEOU$ REVEArUE 0 -302,365 88,750 73,043 8,000 REC'D FROM GENERAL FD ?,r 0 N- RE VENUES(TRANSFERS) 181,930 187,710 171,870 156,530 181,930 187,710. 171,870 - 156,530" 921,015 1,310,375 2,956,522 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,79%560 3.4 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS PROPOSED PROCESS FOR DISSEMINATION OF GRANT FUNDS A COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS 1. Establish a Housing and Urban Development qualified program (eligible activity) 2. Develop a standardized application to be submitted by organizations 3. Community Redevelopment staff reviews and scores applications based on Housing and Urban Development criteria :~'~F~ ........ -4. City Commission gives final approval on staff recomm~,~.,t..pns for funding 15