HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes P&Z 072605PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD
• REGULAR MEETING
July 26, 2005
MINUTES
•
The Regular Meeting of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board of the City of Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida, was called to order by Chair Craig Kunkle at 6:30 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.
REPORT BY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR
There was no report by the Growth Management Administrator.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Panczak made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2005 PZA meeting
minutes as submitted. Mr. Pennell seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous 7 -0
vote.
ROLL CALL
Betty Laur, Secretary for the meeting, called the roll for the Planning, Zoning and
Appeals Board:
Present
Chair Craig Kunkle
Vice Chair Barry Present
Randolph Hansen
Michael Panczak
Douglas Pennell
Charles Hereford
Jonathan D. Rubins (2nd alternate)
Absent
Dennis Solomon
Jay H. Bramson (1" alternate)
All those intending to testify in tonight's public hearing were sworn in.
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council:
Petition LDR -05 -03 10rdinance 27, 2005: Public Participation
Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council: An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida relating to neighborhood meetings
as part of the development review process; amending Section 78 -43, Code of Ordinance
entitled "Review of Applications for Development Order Approval ", amending and
renaming Section 78 -45, Code of Ordinances entitled "Mandatory Pre- application
Conference "; amending subsection (e) of Section 78 -46, Code of Ordinances entitled
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 2
• "Application Procedures" to require neighborhood meeting documentation; providing
for codification; and providing an effective date.
Senior Planner Brad Wiseman presented the staff report, and explained that the City
Council had expressed a desire to allow the public to play a larger role in the
development review process. Staff was proposing that neighborhood meetings with
applicants become a requirement. All affected residents would be informed and their
comments would be received before the public hearings. A meeting would be required
prior to submittal of the development application to the city, but after the pre- application
meeting with staff. All residents within 500 feet would receive notice, and this boundary
could be extended by staff. A sign -in sheet for the meeting, affidavit, and meeting
minutes would be submitted by the applicant.
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing open. Hearing no comments from the public,
Chair Kunkle declared the public hearing closed.
Vice Chair Present expressed concern that he didn't want to see this turn in to nimby or
exactions. It would be an added expense to the people representing the clients and to the
clients. Constructive comments would be helpful, but this would be a catch 22- -prior to
the development you would be asking them to come up with a conceptual plan which
would be changed during the process, and when the project was finished the public would
• say that is not what you promised. Vice Chair Present commented he would hate for staff
to go through hoops and create a nightmare, giving more opportunity to those opposed to
express dissention. Vice Chair Present inquired whether staff had asked any developers
for their input, since it might be good to get all sides to make this even better.
Mr. Pennell echoed Vice Chair Present's concerns, commenting the public would still
come to this board when these projects were proposed and give comments. Mr. Pennell
commented that he was unsure whether this would be a useful tool or if it was really
necessary.
Mr. Hereford commented one meeting would not resolve things, and asked if there would
be any obligation to go beyond one meeting. Mr. Benothman advised the requirement
was only one meeting, but they could hold multiple meetings, and would not be able to
drag out the process by doing so, since the applicant could submit after only one meeting.
Mr. Benothman confirmed that City facilities would be available for the meetings. In
response to Mr. Hereford's question whether other cities had this type of program, the
City Attorney advised that Sarasota had a very established neighborhood workshop
program, which staff had looked at, and concern had been expressed at the town hall
meeting that developers sometimes met with staff for up to a year before the public knew
about a project.
Mr. Rubins commented he could not imagine these meetings would be very effective,
is having experienced a bit of a war between Bent Tree and South Hampton, and he could
not imagine that anyone would want a development right next to them. Mr. Rubins
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 3
• commented he wondered how it would play out as to time frame. Mr. Wiseman
commented in the South Hampton case there had been a lot of dissention at first reading
but City Council had directed their HOA to work things out with the residents, and at
second reading things went smoothly. Mr. Rubins noted there was still a lot of dissention
within the community, that on paper this looked good, but he was not sure how effective
it would be.
Mr. Hansen stated he agreed with the previous comments, and questioned the
effectiveness of an ordinance. Without staff involvement a developer would go to a
neighborhood with probably a very sketchy design at that point, and it would be subject
to considerable change. The ultimate decision as to what would get built would still
come to this board and City Council. There would be nothing to really look at since it
would be a concept and subject to change. Mr. Hansen commented he could see political
reasons for doing this but from a planning standpoint and a project development
standpoint, he did not see it as an effective tool.
Mr. Panczak agreed with Mr. Hansen and Vice Chair Present, commenting; this would be
another hurdle for a developer to cross and for the neighborhood to hold the developer
hostage, and he was not sure how effective it would be.
Chair Kunkle asked how the boundary of the 500' was measured. Staff explained it was
is from the property boundary. Chair Kunkle stated he could not support this for all the
reasons stated, and he was afraid the City would look bad because the process was not
going to work well and would not give the desired results. Chair Kunkle stated he
thought this was flawed, and suggested advertising workshops, which was when people
should come. The board might direct the developer to meet with residents after they held
the workshop phase.
Vice Chair Present agreed with the workshop setting where the board could express their
comments and work together, commenting working separately could set up walls.
Mr. Benothman asked if residents would be allowed to make comments during a
workshop. Chair Kunkle advised that would need to be decided —he thought not, but this
would allow the residents to see what the board went through and the board could
encourage them to put their concerns in writing to the board. If it were opened up, the 10
p.m. deadline would never be met. The City Attorney expressed concerns over the
workshop process, although much more at City Council level since they made the
ultimate decision, and commented this process did not fit well into the quasi-judicial
process. If the board was going to allow people to speak, she thought that would bring
problems in the future. Attorney Tatum agreed with giving notice and advertising
workshops but suggested limiting comments. Chair Kunkle suggested setting aside 15
minutes for general public comments. Attorney Tatum advised if doing that, the way
workshops were conducted needed to be looked at, and a set of rules would be developed
is since the City Council was holding a workshop in August for Christ Fellowship.
Attorney Tatum advised that this board's rules would not have to be the same. Vice
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 4
isChair Present commented you would not know if there would be no public comments or
if someone would try to take up all the time, so this must be set on a case -by -case basis.
Everyone had a right to speak, and this must be thought through because it must be
sincere. If residents thought they could talk all night, that would not work.
Mr. Hereford asked if there was a way to monitor that the residents speaking were within
the 500', so that those outside that boundary could not form a group that would speak at
every meeting with their purpose being just to disrupt. Mr. Benothman advised that no
one could be shut out.
Mr. Hansen commented he thought the workshop suggestion was good and a much more
valid forum to try to answer questions early in the design process. Mr. Hansen suggested
the workshop be held early in the design process, before DRC. Mr. Hansen stated he had
no problem with people speaking so long as it was limited, because a lot of issues might
be taken care of before the public hearing. Mr. Panczak agreed.
Vice Chair Present noted this would not stop a developer from holding a community
meeting.
Mr. Hansen clarified that holding the workshop before DRC would allow the developer
to get the reaction of this board and the public before they went to a lot of expense.
• VOTE:
By unanimous 7 -0 vote, the Planning Zoning & Appeals Board voted to direct staff
to revise the proposed process in a workshop format, based on tonight's comments.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Pennell asked about the request made at the last meeting to discuss signage. Mr.
Benothman explained it was still under review by the City Attorney's office and as soon
as a first draft was ready it would be presented for a workshop.
NEW BUSINESS
The City Attorney reported the website had been redesigned and staff was putting all
pending projects on the site. This was another step being taken so that anyone in the
community could go in very early to see what was coming. Mr. Rubins requested that
Eric Holdt make a presentation on the website at the next meeting. Chair Kunkle asked
that Mr. Holdt be allowed ten minutes on the next agenda for a presentation.
•
Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board Meeting Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 5
•
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. The next
regular meeting will be held August 9, 200',
APPROVED:
Charles Hereford
1 st Alternate Jav-N. Bramson
onathan D. Rubins
•Bet 6 Laur, ScWretary for the Meeting