Loading...
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