Planning Board March 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes Commission Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Angela Usher, Vice Chairperson Caroline Forrest, Member Steven Mayans, Member Gregg Weiss, Member Keith Williams, Member Keith Spina, Alternate Todd Bonlarron, Chairperson Bernard Jones, Member Angella Vann, Planning & Zoning Administrator Friederike Mittner, City Historic Preservation Planner Samuel Thomas, Senior Assistant City Attorney Laura Aral, Board Secretary

MEMBERS ABSENT:

STAFF PRESENT:

I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Planning Board (PB) was called to order at 6:01 p.m., by Ms. Angela Usher, Vice-Chairperson, in the Commission Chambers on the first floor, 401 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. Laura Aral, Board Secretary, called the roll and it was determined that a quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Ms. Carolyn Forrest made a motion to APPROVE the February 16, 2010 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Keith Williams. Approved 6-0. No opposition. III. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING STAFF Mr. Gregg Weiss asked for an update on Code Revision Case No. 10-03 regarding chain link fences. He wondered how many people in the City filed permits for chain link fences in 2009. Ms. Angella Vann, Planning & Zoning Administrator, stated that she did not know the number offhand, but said she would provide it to Mr. Weiss. She noted that the discussion of chain link fences will go back to the Beautification Committee in April.

IV. REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON

Ms. Angela Usher, Vice-Chairperson, explained the rules and procedures of the meeting.

V. DECLARATION OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION Mr. Steven Mayans stated that he spoke with a resident of El Cid. He said the conversation will not affect his ability to make a decision. Ms. Caroline Forrest stated that she spoke with City Staff about Planning Board Case No. 1582, and she attended some of the related work sessions over the last four (4) years. Ms. Angela Usher stated that she spoke with City Staff about Planning Board Case No. 1582. Mr. Gregg Weiss disclosed that he lives within a historic district in a historic home, and he attended a number of public work sessions. Mr. Keith Williams stated that he spoke with City Staff about Planning Board Case No. 1582, and he disclosed that he lives within a historic district.

Mr. Samuel Thomas advised that any change in the Zoning and Land Development Regulations affects the City as a whole. He said there is no particular benefit to individuals who live in a historic district, and therefore there is no conflict of interest.

VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. SWEARING IN OF THE SPEAKERS

Mr. Samuel Thomas, Senior Assistant City Attorney, advised that a swearing in of the speakers was not necessary.

B. CONTINUED CASES
None.

C. PLANNING BOARD CASES

Text Amendment, Building Size, Scale, and Mass Regulations for Historic Districts - Planning Board Case No. 1582

A City-initiated text amendment to Chapter 94 of the City's Code of Ordinances (Zoning and Land Development Regulations) revising and implementing new zoning regulations for building size, mass and scale of buildings within residential historic districts. The amendment will apply to all properties within the residential historic districts.

Ms. Friederike Mittner stated that this case is a text amendment to revise and implement new zoning regulations for the size, scale, and mass of buildings within the City's residential historic districts. She said residents have expressed concerns about tear-downs followed by new construction that is inappropriate for the historic neighborhoods; in response to these concerns, the City initiated a systematic resurvey of historic districts. Ms. Mittner explained that historic districts differentiate between: 'contributing' properties, which consist of buildings and structures which are architecturally significant and are fifty (50) years old or older; and 'non-contributing' properties, which fall within the geographic boundaries but are either not yet fifty (50) years old, or have been modified significantly over time. She said non-contributing properties are more often targeted for demolition; she noted that the resurvey has resulted in the addition of a significant number of properties to the contributing list. Ms. Mittner said in 2007 the City hired a firm Winter & Company which specializes in developing regulations for historic districts in regard to building size, scale and mass. She said the consulting process included: data collection of building and lot sizes throughout all of the historic districts; field visits to examine the qualitative characteristics of the districts; and public workshops to gather feedback from residents within the districts. The resulting recommendations were to: 1) improve the design guidelines for additions and new constructions within historic districts; 2) improve district descriptions; and 3) implement new zoning standards for historic districts. Ms. Mittner stated that the process in regard to historic structures will not change. She said applications must still be filed for additions and new construction, and applicants must still adhere to the Historic Preservation Ordinance based upon the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, must still abide by the design guidelines, and must still go for a Board review where required. Ms. Mittner said after analyzing the data, the consultant grouped the historic districts into five (5) contexts based on lot size and building size. She said neither the density nor the use will change, but a context will be added to the existing zoning designations (e.g. SF7-C4). She identified three (3) major tools that will be introduced in the proposed regulations: 1) Floor Area Ratio (FAR), calculated as the total square footage of the structure divided by the lot size; 2) Lot Coverage, calculated as the footprint of the building divided by the lot size; and 3) Wall Plane Height, defined as the maximum height a wall can reach before it must step in. Ms. Mittner said during the four (4) year process to develop the proposed regulations, there was a major public outreach program, including advisory groups, neighborhood meetings, context meetings and direct mailers. She said the feedback was generally positive, although there were some concerns about houses that are already above the proposed FAR. Ms. Mittner said such houses would become a non-conformity, but in the event of a natural disaster, those houses could be rebuilt to their previously existing FAR and lot coverage. Ms. Mittner stated that the text amendment was approved by the Historic Preservation Board by a vote of 5-2. She said the Downtown Action Committee (DAC) also approved the amendment, 3

but made a recommendation that the FAR be increased slightly for the Northwest District, and that a definition be provided as to how wall height is measured. She mentioned that one administrative change is proposed: She said currently any waivers from numerical and dimensional standards go before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA); however, because the proposed standards are context-based, Staff is recommending that numerical and dimensional waiver requests be heard by the Historic Preservation Board, and if appealed, by the Circuit Court, as is the process in regard to decisions made by the ZBA. She said the design review portion of HPB decisions would still be appealed to the City Commission.
See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining

to this case. Board Questions to Staff

Mr. Keith

Williams:

Mr. Williams asked for clarification of the proposed side yard setbacks. Ms. Mittner stated that the setbacks are based upon context and lot size. She said the regulations provide the minimum setback for each side, and the minimum combined setback for both sides. She cited as an example a six thousand (6,000) square-foot lot in SF14-C3; she said the minimum side setback would be five (5) feet, and the minimum combined side setback would be fifteen (15) feet. Mr. Williams asked if there will be amendments to the landscape code as well. Ms. Mittner said at this time no changes to the landscape code are proposed. Mr. Williams asked about a reference to credit for patios and porches. Ms. Mittner stated that covered patios and porches are incentivized to the extent that only fifty (50) percent of their square footage is counted towards the FAR. She said uncovered areas such as pool decks are not counted at all.
Mr. Gregg Weiss:

Mr. Weiss asked if the ratios would apply to such things as a swimming pool. Ms. Mittner said only solid roofed areas count towards the FAR, and those areas that are open on two (2) sides or more are counted at only fifty (50) percent of their square footage. She noted that FAR is discussed on page 32 of the Staff Report. Mr. Weiss asked for an estimate of how many people attended the public workshops. Ms. Mittner said there were probably one hundred (100) people at each workshop.

Mr. Weiss said it appears that this amendment was initiated by concerns expressed by residents to Staff, the City Commission, and the Historic Preservation Board, and asked if Staff had an estimate of how many people expressed such concerns. Ms. Mittner said perhaps a dozen people.

Ms. Caroline Forrest: Ms. Forrest asked what issues were addressed by the Historic Preservation Board and Downtown Action Committee. Ms. Mittner said the two (2) dissenting members of the HPB wanted to see some adjustments in FAR and some clarification of administrative items. She said the DAC recommended an increase in FAR in the Northwest District. Ms. Forrest asked if Staff agrees with the suggestion made by the DAC in regard to the Northwest District. Ms. Mittner said the Northwest District would be Context 1, which includes the Multifamily portion of Grandview Heights, the Northwest, Central Park, the Multifamily portion of El Cid, and the Multifamily-32 portion of Mango Promenade. She said those areas could probably accommodate the .05 increase in FAR. Mr. Steven Mayans: Mr. Mayans stated that he spoke with a resident who wondered why Staff would care about a setback that is not visible from the street. Ms. Mittner indicated that although a structure may not affect the streetscape, it does affect neighboring residents who may be exposed to a massive wall which allows people to look down on their property. Mr. Keith Spina: Mr. Spina asked how the maximum wall height is determined. Ms. Mittner said wall height is measured to the top plate; she said basically the eave line is the maximum height to which a wall may be built at the minimum setback. After that height, the wall must step in from the minimum setback. She referred to a chart on page 35 of the Staff Report. Mr. Spina asked if the Zoning and Land Development Regulations would currently allow the maximum overall height to be built at the minimum setback. Ms. Mittner said yes. She said the intention of the proposed regulation is to discourage a straight wall right at the minimum setback because of the impact on neighboring
properties. 5

Mr. Spina said he understood that the Historic Preservation Board is currently able to review both contributing and non-contributing structures in historic districts. He asked what is lacking in the current process, such that new regulations are required. Ms. Mittner said the current process is not working. She said the existing language requires 'compatibility' in size, scale and mass, but the interpretation as to what is `compatible' is subjective. She said the proposed standards have a quantitative portion that brings the zoning regulations into alignment with the actual built character, so that what is permitted is more predictable and less subject to the make-up of the Historic Preservation Board. She said Staff has the support of the Builders Association, the Realtors Association, and architects in this effort.

Mr. Spina said he lives in a house that was built in the 1920's, but does not lie within a historic district. He said he would do everything possible to prevent his neighborhood from being designated, as he would not wish to deal with these regulations. He wondered if that sentiment has been discussed. Ms. Mittner said no, that sentiment had not been raised, but she said there are incentives for becoming a historic district; she does not foresee that these regulations will deter other neighborhoods from becoming designated as a historic district.

Mr. Spina said the problem is that people spend a lot of money for a home in a beautiful neighborhood and then find out that they cannot double the size of a two thousand (2,000) square foot home. Ms. Mittner said that may be, but that is part of preserving the character. She said the property values of the whole district increase because of the charm and character of a neighborhood.

Mr. Spina said that is true, but there is a balance between being able to build enough to fit your four (4) children in the house and preserving the quality of the historic districts. Ms. Mittner said she believes there are enough cushions in the regulations to achieve the balance.

Mr. Spina stated that he was on the Historic Preservation Board about ten (10) years ago and at that time the Board was pro-development. He said he has heard that expanding a historic house is much more complicated now. He wondered if these regulations are adding another level of complexity. Ms. Mittner said the predictability should reassure people.

Mr. Spina asked if the Historic Preservation Board currently has an architectural review. Ms. Mittner said no, the review is based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.

Ms. Angela Usher:

Ms. Usher asked if it is correct that City Staff can administratively approve only one (1) story structures and accessory structures within the Special Exceptions standards. Ms. Mittner said Staff has the ability to approve projects that fall under the approval matrix. She said the HPB already has an approval matrix normally based on square footage of what may be approved by Staff. She said anything complicated must go before the HPB.

Ms. Usher asked if it is correct that no Comprehensive Plan amendment or Future Land Use amendment is required because no change in density is being proposed. Ms. Mittner said that is correct. She said Staff has already added language to the Comprehensive Plan indicating that the historic districts are becoming more contextsensitive, but she said no further changes to the Comprehensive Plan are necessary at this time.

Public Comment

Ms. Angela Usher read into the record a letter of support from James and Lila Young and a letter of support from Ms. Rhea Doran. Mr. Rick Rose, of 1608 Lake Avenue in the Grandview Heights Historic District, stated that the biggest difficulty he found when he made an addition to his home was the unpredictability of the Historic Preservation Board. He said the way things work now, everything is open to interpretation. He said the proposed regulations should make it easier to build an addition, because what is permitted can be calculated in advance. Ms. Theo Hayes, of 282 Barcelona Road in the El Cid Historic District, stated that it took her three (3) years to do a small addition to her home. She said the proposed regulations provide something definite that can be calculated in advance. In reference to a question raised by the Board about living next to a McMansion, Ms. Hayes said the house next door to her used to be a two (2) bedroom house with a one-bedroom, one-story guest house in the rear. She said today it is an eight (8) bedroom home with a swimming pool it is overwhelming. She said she does not believe a house of that size and scale is appropriate for the neighborhood. Ms. Nancy Pullum, of 215 Belmont Road in the El Cid Historic District, said the group that the City put together to work on this effort over the past three (3) years was extremely diverse; there were builders, realtors, preservationists, and architects. She said everyone became familiar with everyone else's issues, and everyone gave a little to come up with a highly usable product. She stated that the regulations provide predictability, but they are not etched in stone no doubt there 7

will be adjustments. She said this City is wonderful; it has a spot for everyone, and there are opportunities for people to seek lovely homes without imposing their wishes on others. She noted that one of the threads that came out consistently is that people have property rights; she pointed out that the people next door have property rights as well. Ms. Joyce Raymond, of 2400 Medina Way, identified herself as a member of the Historic Preservation Board. She agreed with the points raised by others who spoke. She stated that when the Board took up this matter, no one was completely satisfied with the regulations and there were two (2) dissenting votes, but she said she believes that every member of the Board considers the proposal to be better than what is currently in place it is more quantitative and more predictable. She asked the Planning Board to approve the amendment without change. Board Discussion
Mr. Williams asked how often Staff reviews the designated historic homes.

Ms. Mittner said the goal is to do a review every five (5) years, but that has not happened in the past.
Mr. Williams asked how many homes are designated as historic.

Ms. Mittner said there are over four thousand (4,000) properties in the historic districts, and probably about three thousand (3,000) are contributing. Ms. Usher said she believes that the study is very good, and it will provide flexibility within the guidelines. She thanked everyone who worked on it. Ms. Forrest commended Staff, the residents, and the Historic Preservation Board for their efforts. She said this is something that West Palm Beach has been lacking as a community with so many historic properties. She said the guidelines will be useful to the owners, the HPB, and architects. Mr. Weiss said he was involved in this process before he was appointed to the Planning Board. He said the effort was very professional everyone's voice was heard. It was a well-though-out process.

Executive Session Mr. Keith Williams made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1582, a Cityinitiated text amendment to Chapter 94 of the City's Code of Ordinances (Zoning and Land Development Regulations) revising and implementing new zoning regulations for building size, mass and scale of buildings within residential historic districts. Seconded by Mr. Gregg Weiss. Approved 6-0. No opposition.

D. CODE REVISION CASES E. OTHER BUSINESS VII. VIII. IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Please be advised the minutes are not verbatim. An audio taped copy of the meeting may be requested through the City of West Palm Beach City Clerk's office at 822-1210. There is a fee.

This signature is to attest that the undersigned is the Chairperson, or designee, of the Planning Board and that the information provided herein is the true and correct Minutes for the March 16, 2010 meeting of the Planning Board, dated this / day of

cm/

, Ow.

erson, Angela Usher

t designee)