HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 082201• CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY,
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMMITTEE, AND
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
ORIENTATION WORKSHOP
August 22, 2001
MINUTES
The Orientation Workshop Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Local Planning Agency,
Land Development Regulations Committee, and Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Palm Beach
Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Dennis Solomon at 6:35 P.M. in the Council Chambers
of the Municipal Complex, 10500 North Military Trail, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and opened with
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll.
Present
• Dennis Solomon, Chairman
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chairman
Barry Present, Chairman Pro Tern - arrived at 6:48 p.m
Dick Ansay
Joel Charming
John Glidden
Steven Tarr
Alternate Ernest Volonte
Alternate David Kendall - arrived at 6:37 p.m.
Absent
Also present were Growth Management Director Charles Wu, City Attorney Len Rubin, City Manager
Ron Ferris, Principal Planners Steve Cramer and Karen Carver, Senior Planner Edward Tombari,
Planners John Lindgren and Kara Irwin, Planning Technician Jackie Holloman, and City Forester Mark
Hendrickson.
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTORAND
CITY ATTORNEY
Growth Management Director Charles Wu noted this workshop was being videotaped for use in training
future Commission members and staff. City Attorney Len Rubin thanked everyone for their fine work
• and reported there had been no land use litigation since he had been with the City. Attorney Rubin
indicated the City was going to move towards being more formal in the meeting format. Mr. Wu
• Orientation Workshop Meeting
August 22, 2001
described the program. Attorney Rubin introduced guest speaker Trela J. White, Esquire, who
represented six municipalities in the County.
Role as a Public Official
Attorney White commented that the members of the Board had been appointed to the most influential,
powerful board in the City; that there was a lot at stake regarding any land development petition, and
they must conduct themselves almost the same as an elected official, avoiding even the appearance of
impropriety. The Sunshine Law, requiring that no two members could meet to discuss any issues that
might come before the Board, was applicable. Whispering to each other while seated at the dias and
passing notes was considered a violation of the Sunshine Law. Site inspections and exparte
communications were allowed, but must be reported prior to voting on that item and preferably at the
beginning of the presentation on the item. A disclosure form must be filed annually. The Board must
avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Chair Pro Tem Barry Present arrived at this point in the meeting, at 6:48 p.m.
Conduct of Meeting
Attorney White advised that Robert's Rules of Order did not have to be used but an orderly meeting
must be conducted, which would be difficult without any rules. Attorney White distributed a format that
could be followed for conducting the meetings, and recommended following the same format for each
meeting. The recommended format for quasi - judicial hearings was first to have the attorney swear in
those present who wished to speak, then to hear disclosure of exparte communication or any site visits.
Attorney White advised that after a public hearing had been closed it should not be re- opened except in
rare circumstances. Chair Solomon commented that the Board tended to hold their deliberations prior
to public comments; Attorney White recommended hearing all comments before Board deliberations.
Mr. Ansay asked what should be done if someone wanted to speak when it was not a public hearing.
Attorney White responded that was up to the municipality, and that the public did not have to be heard,
but it depended upon the policy of the City Manager and staff, and the number of minutes allowed for
speaking could be limited. Attorney White recommended swearing in witnesses each time. Attorney
White indicated court reporters were allowed. Attorney White advised that the Board was looking for
due process, essentially a fairness issue, and sometimes a person on the prevailing side would like to
make a motion for reconsideration and that according to the City Code at the Council level it must be
made at the same hearing or at the next succeeding hearing. The motion could be made and passed, but
if interested parties had already left the meeting it should be placed on the agenda for the next meeting
and advertised so that everyone could attend again. Attorney White advised that there were standards
in the City's Code that must be met and when the Board turned something down it must be done
according to the standards and not because the members did not like something.
Limitations on Conduct
Attorney White advised that a Board member could not vote if they had a conflict of interest and must
• fill out a form and file it within 15 days with the clerk. Attorney White advised that personal liability
N
Orientation Workshop Meeting
i August 22, 2001
only occurred when a member of the Board was outside their appointed role; that their role here was to
uphold the City's Codes and apply them and if they went beyond or outside that role they could incur
personal liability. Another time that personal liability could be incurred was if a Board member asked
the attorney a question and then did not adhere to the response because he did not like the answer, so
if a Board member did not want to hear the answer they should not ask the question in a public forum.
Applicable Case Law; Consequences
Attorney White advised that some cities had suffered lawsuits regarding zoning issues and Boynton
Beach had had a $9 million verdict against them because they turned down the Tradewinds Center for
no good reason, so they had to float a bond in order to pay the judgement. Highland Beach was another
city that had a multi - million dollar verdict in the $40 million range, reduced later by an appellate court
to some $20 million, because they turned down a zoning petition without following the standards in their
own code. Attorney White advised the Board to be careful, and that their role was very important.
Attorney White listed applicable cases: Jennings v.. Dade County 589 So. 2d. 1337 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1991)
on exparte communications; Board of County Commissioners of Brevard v. Snyder 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla.
1993) on site specific re- zoning (quasi -judicial); Martin County v. Yusem 690 So. 2d. 1288 (Fla. 1997)
on comprehensive plans being legislative; Conetta v. City of Sarasota 400 sd 1051 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981)
on zoning not a popularity contest; and Josephson v. Autrey 96 So. 2d. 784 (Fla. 1957) on use variances
not allowed. Attorney White distributed a booklet regarding the Sunshine Law and Code of Ethics.
Questions from the Board
Mr. Ansay requested a synopsis of a variance versus a waiver. Attorney White responded that both had
standards, but a waiver was a lesser burden to prove; that for a variance a hardship had to be shown that
was not self created. Mr. Kunkle asked if pre- meetings with applicants should be disclosed as exparte,
which Attorney White indicated should be done. Examples of incurring personal liability were requested
by Mr. Charming. Attorney White responded that an example could be not following the law, or not
following the Code, and she advised calling the City attorney with questions prior to the meeting.
Attorney White indicated critiquing architecture was subjective and that she doubted that an application
could be denied because Mr. Charming did not like the architecture. Attorney Rubin advised that it was
okay in a PUD or PCD application, where it was allowed by code. Mr. Glidden commented that on
standard site plan reviews when there was a project that was really sub -par architecturally, constructive
comments were given, and asked if the Board was out of line. Mr. Wu responded that the process was
to promote outstanding architecture, but it would be a different story if an applicant wanted to build a
big box. Guidelines for design standards were being developed for the Board to follow. Mr. Wu advised
the Board should understand the standards they were following. Attorney White advised if the design
standards were in the code they could be required; if not, they were suggestions. Mr. Glidden inquired
if a Board member was late and an alternate had been seated when they should take their seat; Attorney
White responded they should take their seat after the item was finished. Mr. Glidden inquired if a
member could provide written comments if they were going to be absent. Attorney White advised that
as a citizen the member could provide comments; however, if they were trying to assert themselves as
is an 8th member, that would not be appropriate.
3
Orientation Workshop Meeting
August 22, 2001
LOCAL APPLICATION - LEN RUBIN, ESQ., CITY ATTORNEY
Attorney Rubin announced that City Council Liaison Sabatello had been present but had to leave
because of back pain.
Powers and Duties of the P &Z Commission, LDR Committee, LPA, and BZA
City Attorney Rubin noted that all members of these Boards must be City residents, there was no
compensation, they were subject to State and local rules, conflict of interest, the Sunshine Law, exparte
communication, and served at the pleasure of the City Council. Missing meetings, conflict of interest
in 20% of cases, violation of State rules, ethics laws, or any requirement governing conduct all
constituted removal with cause. Attorney Rubin explained that a quasi- judicial hearing was when a set
of rules was applied to a particular situation, while legislative actions created policy to be applied in the
future. Another key difference was that if challenged, the Court would look at the record for competent
substantial evidence for a quasi - judicial hearing. In a legislative action challenge, the Court could hear
any evidence —not limited to what had been heard by the Board —but the fairly debatable standard was
used. The Planning & Zoning Board had final authority in minor site plans, which was a quasi judicial
procedure and must be challenged in Circuit Court. Most actions were recommendations to City
Council. Conditional uses had specific criteria outlined in the LDR's. Miscellaneous applications were
for such items as adding gates in already approved communities. The Board of Zoning Appeals held
40 quasi-judicial proceedings in which the Board had final authority on variances or appeals from
interpretations made by City staff. The primary actions of the Board of Zoning Appeals was to hear
variances, which must meet eight requirements. Attorney Rubin noted there were no land use variances
or variances from certain development standards. When sitting as the Local Planning Agency, the Board
was acting legislatively and their primary purpose was to act on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
and to assure compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Board when sitting as the
Land Development Regulations Committee was to hear text changes to the LDR's. Attorney Rubin
noted the LDR's needed to be changed and that would be coming before the Board, which was another
legislative function.
Special Considerations for Quasi - Judicial Proceedings
Attorney Rubin commented the re- zonings which came before the Board were re- zonings to PUD's and
PCD's, which was an overlying zoning district. According to City code, a PCD was like a super PUD,
a self contained neighborhood operating on their own, larger and more comprehensive than a PUD.
Attorney Rubin explained that PUD's and PCD's were essentially negotiable zoning districts, which was
where the waiver process came in. The applicant had to show they met a majority of the requirements
for a waiver and the whole purpose was to get a better product with better architecture to benefit the
City. In the give- and -take process waivers would be granted in exchange for something to benefit the
City. A variance was different in that all of the criteria must be met before a variance could be granted.
Attorney Rubin announced that the City would begin conducting more formal hearing proceedings. Lay
testimony was described as that of a citizen who spoke giving his or her opinion. Expert testimony was
18 testimony given by staff during their presentations, and the Board did not have to agree with staff, but
11
Orientation Workshop Meeting
August 22, 2001
their decision must be based on competent, substantial evidence. Attorney Rubin advised that citizens
could bring in their own experts, such as a traffic engineer, architect, etc., to support their position, and
the Board would act as a fact finder and make a decision, based on the required criteria rather than on
emotions. Attorney Rubin noted that exparte communications —any communication outside this room,
including site visits, oral and written communications - -would be disclosed in the future.
Legal Recourse
If a quasi - judicial case were appealed it would be by certiorari -- anything that had happened when the
case was heard and nothing else. If a legislative case were appealed it would be a de novo action, where
the Court could hear any evidence. Attorney Rubin answered questions from the Board. The attorney
advised that the code did not allow an applicant who had been denied to come back until after 12 months
had passed; and that an applicant might prefer to come back rather than take a denial. Also, that a
developer must abide by the development order for a PUD, and that a PUD approval was tied to traffic
impact analysis and expired after a certain time. Staff did review traffic analyses from time to time and
time extensions could be given. PUD's ran with the land. Attorney Rubin explained the City needed
to consider starting to swear in speakers to protect themselves in more contentious applications,
especially in BZA cases. Attorney Rubin commented that Sunshine law did not apply to past
applications.
• Mr. Glidden left at 7:35 and Mr. Volante was seated..
•
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
Growth Management Director Charles Wu introduced presentations by staff.
Comprehensive Plan and the LDR's
Principal Planner Steve Cramer explained that each municipality in the State had a comprehensive plan
as required by State Statute, which were required to be consistent with the State comprehensive plan.
Mr. Cramer explained that the regional planning council was Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,
which had jurisdiction over 4 counties, and their plan would address conflicts between, for example,
Palm Beach Gardens and Jupiter. The City's comprehensive plan, consisting of ten elements, had been
in place for many years and recently had been amended. Each comprehensive plan was required to have
a future land use map showing all the land uses at buildout of the City. Mr. Cramer reviewed the City's
land use map, and explained the process for amending the comprehensive plan. The amendments
became new laws. Mr. Cramer explained the intergovernmental coordination process with other comp
plans and the Boards which reviewed the amendments for consistency with other plans, including the
State plan. The policies of the comprehensive plan were required to be administered through Land
Development Regulations, so every comp plan amendment required amendment to the LDR's. Mr.
Channing asked if maximum density must be granted in a PUD if he did not believe it was proper;
Attorney Rubin explained that this could be corrected through the give and take process.
Wi
Orientation Workshop Meeting
August 22, 2001
Land Development Regulations
Principal Planner Karen Craver discussed the LDR's, intended to provide for the health, safety and
welfare of residents and providing regulations for all building within the City, as well as implementing
the comprehensive plan. Straight zoning was discussed. Planned Unit Developments were dependent
on the underlying land use. Planned Community Developments were described as large tracts, self -
contained identifiable neighborhoods with a mix of land uses, and they could convert to PUD. Mr. Tarr
questioned if the Board was right to address the architecture for the Wendy's restaurant at NorthMil
since that was straight zoning, to which Ms. Carver responded there was a condition of approval for
NorthMil that required the architecture for the outparcels to tie into the architecture of the main shopping
center. Attorney Rubin explained if that condition had not existed the Board had some leeway even in
straight zoning to come up with the best project possible by regulating aesthetics and visuals. Mr. Tarr
questioned where the standards were that should be followed. Mr. Wu explained that better guidance
would be given regarding standards in the future. This issue was discussed further.
The Vision Plan
Planner John Lindgren reviewed the vision plan, established in 1996. The vision plan was referenced
as an exhibit in the City's comprehensive plan. Uses shown on the vision plan were reviewed. Mr.
Lindgren explained that the vision plan was to preserve desirable types of land uses throughout the City
to encourage complimentary uses and to avoid conflicting uses adjacent to each other. It was a helpful
tool in analyzing land use petitions.
The City Code
Planner Kara Irwin reviewed the LDR's, which was something else the City enforced. Adopted
ordinances had been codified, and one section in the code provided for enforcement of those ordinances.
This gave the Board and Growth Management the power to enforce standards. Some ordinances that
were adopted were not codified, such as development approvals, the annual budget, and rezonings.
Article 3,Division 4 of the code created boards, committees, and commissions, one of which was the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Growth Management Department was responsible for enforcing
many sections of the code. The Building Division was responsible for enforcing storage of materials
on job sites, commercial and residential sites, and provided permits and certificates of occupancy for
development models, enforced swimming pool regulations, etc. The Southern Building Code had been
adopted by the City, and building inspectors assured enforcement. The Planning and Zoning Division
was also responsible for upholding some chapters within the code. Planners approved occupational
licenses, enforced subdivision regulations in regard to platting, stormwater management, enforced
regulations for adult entertainment establishments, etc. The Code Enforcement Division enforced
development orders, LDR requirements, adult entertainment, animals, environmental issues, water
shortage regulations, boat and RV storage, regulation of special events, and conducted site inspections
for occupational licenses.
Growth Management Department Organization
Principal Planner Karen Craver described the development review process and the submittal dates.
0
Orientation Workshop Meeting
August 22, 2001
Applications were reviewed for sufficiency, then when complete proceeded to the Development Review
Committee, where they were reviewed by various departments to assure technical compliance. After
the applicant had addressed all DRC comments the application was considered certified, and a staff
report was prepared for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Overview of the City of Palm Beach Gardens
Growth Management Director Charles Wu reviewed the organization chart and announced that an in-
house Engineering Department was being created.
Senior Planner Edward Tombari reviewed the history of the City, census data, major employment
centers, adjacent municipalities, and future direction.
Miscellaneous Projects
Growth Management Director Charles Wu explained that miscellaneous projects included annexation
discussions with other cities; the Northern Palm Beach Traffic Forum including southern Martin County,
which attempted to find a regional solution for traffic in this area; the Northlake Boulevard Corridor
Task Force, consisting of Palm Beach Gardens, Lake Park, North Palm Beach, and Palm Beach County,
whose purpose was to establish design criteria zoning standards for Northlake Boulevard and Military
Trail similar to the PGA Boulevard overlay. Mr. Wu explained that Karen Carver was liaison for the
• Military Trail Task Force. Steve Cramer was liaison to Northlake Corridor Task Force, and also for the
Design Guidelines committee, which Mr. Glidden chaired. A new task was to look at a comprehensive
traffic calming policy, with Steve Cramer as staff liaison. A comprehensive glitch list to fix LDR's was
in process, with Karen Carver as liaison.
•
Mr. Tarr requested a description from Mr. Wu of how the Board should prepare for meetings. Mr. Wu
indicated staff had done a comprehensive overview of the applications and addressed technical aspectsin
the staff report, and the Board could help with subjective items such as whether the application met the
vision plan, whether it was compatible with the area, whether it would negatively affect surrounding
properties, etc., and the Board should refer technical items back to staff. Mr. Wu advised that the Board
should pay special attention to deviations from the code, and discuss such items in the workshop; they
could read the summary to see if technical items and LDR's had been met. Mr. Tarr requested Board
members be contacted via e-mail or fax if an agenda item was pulled.
Chair Solomon thanked staff for a fine presentation.
7
Orientation Workshop Meeting
i August 22, 2001
•
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be held August 28, 2001.
APPROVED:
Dennis Solomon, Chair
Craig Kunkle, Jr., Vice Chair
V
Steven Tarr
Dick Ansay Q
Alternate FAest Volonte
Alternate David Kendall
Betty Laur, Secretary for the Meeting