Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
WEDNESDAY JULY 28, 2010
CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS,
HALLANDALE BEACH, FLORIDA
Members Present Attendance
Michael Butler Y
Terri Dillard (Alternate) Y
Seymour Fendell Y
Sheryl Natelson Y
Irwin Schneider N (excused absence)
John Hardwick Y
Eudyce Steinberg (Vice Chair) Y
Arnold Cooper (Chair) Y
Staff in Attendance:
Christy Dominguez
Georgiana Terrientes
Sarah Suarez
Mr. Cooper called the meeting to order at 1:40 PM
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Cooper: Asked the Board if he had approval of the minutes from April 28, 2010.
Mr. Cooper: Stated that he would like to see Vice Chair next to his name and Chair next to Ms. Steinberg’s name.
MOTION: MS. STEINBERG MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 28, 2010 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARING AS AMENDED.
MR. BUTLER SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE (7-0) FOR APPROVAL.
Old Business
None
New Business
1) Application #54-10-PA An Ordinance Of The City Of Hallandale Beach, Florida, Amending the City’s Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the Land Use Designation of the PBA Hall site located at 648 NW 2 Street from Community Facilities, Utilities to Community Facilities-Historic; Containing a Provision for Inclusion in the City’s Adopted Comprehensive Plan; Providing for Severability: Repealing Conflicting Ordinances and Resolutions and Providing an Effective Date.
Mr. Cooper: Opened the Public Hearing there were no speakers, therefore Mr. Cooper Closed the Public Hearing and asked Ms. Dominguez to explain what the application was about.
Ms. Dominguez: explained that the application was brought forth by the City in order to change the Land Use Designation of the PBA Hall. She informed the Board that by changing the Land Use Designation, it recognizes the historic value of the old School house. In addition, in order to use a grant that was provided by the County to the City, the City must have the school designated for Parks, open space, on historic for the next 25 years.
Mr. Cooper: questioned if the house was moved several times already.
Ms. Dominquez: confirmed that it had been moved several times. It is now sitting at the Public Works compound where they plan to do renovations to it in the next few months.
Mr. Cooper: Asked if it would be opened as a museum.
Ms Dominquez: stated that she was unsure what it would be used as just yet but it would be used for a public purpose.
Mr. Fendell: Asked if by making it historic would be contingent on the $50,000 received by the County.
Ms. Dominquez: Stated yes.
Mr. Fendell: Asked what made the house historic.
Ms. Dominguez: Informed him that it was the original school house built in 1910.
Mr. Fen dell: Asked what made it so historic and if it is historic and doesn’t have a solid foundation, why is the City moving it around so much.
Ms. Dominquez: Stated it was moved closer to the street away from the DPW compound so that it would be more accessible to public.
Mr. Fendell: Asked if the City foresees the building being visited a lot and why should they put so much money into it.
Ms: Dominquez: informed him that it has a lot of value to the City’s history.
Ms. Dillard: Stated that a couple years ago there was $50,000 allocated for the PBA Hall and an additional $25,000 from the County as well as funding from the local business. She questioned if that was on hold as of today.
Ms. Dominquez: Replied that she was unsure of the other funding Ms. Dillard was speaking of, however, the grant requiring the Land Use change was the County.
Ms. Dillard: Stated that it will probably be more than $50,000 to renovate.
Ms. Dominquez: Agreed that it would cost more.
Ms. Dillard: Confirmed that the City wasn’t sure what it would be used for.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated she was unsure of what its use would be, but that it would be used for something and available to the public.
Ms. Steinberg: Recognized that it was wonderful that the City had another historic building but she didn’t understand what it was for. She asked if it could be used for something useful i.e. meetings.
Ms. Dominguez: Responded yes, it would be another City run facility.
Ms. Natelson: Stated that the Board only knows anecdotally what it looks like and not how it is structurally sound and what has been done to improve it. She stated that just because the Board doesn’t know of the intentions for the school, doesn’t mean the historic Board and staff within the City haven’t determined what it would be used as. She informed the Board that she believes in preserving buildings, especially schools.
Ms. Dominguez: Agreed with her and informed them that the building is already recognized as a historic building and should be preserved.
Ms. Steinberg: Just wanted to clarify her concern that it be used for other things.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated that was the intent, that it would be used for public purpose.
MOTION: MR. BUTLER MOTIONED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #54-10-PA AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH, FLORIDA, Amending the City’s Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the Land Use Designation of the PBA Hall site located at 648 NW 2 Street from Community Facilities, Utilities to Community Facilities-Historic; Containing a Provision for Inclusion in the City’s Adopted Comprehensive Plan; Providing for Severability: Repealing Conflicting Ordinances and Resolutions and Providing an Effective Date.
MS. NATELSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE (7-0) FOR APPROVAL.
2) Application #56-10-TC An Ordinance of the City of Hallandale Beach Florida, Amending Chapter 32, Article IV, Division 8, Landscaping, of the City of Hallandale Beach Code Ordinances, the “Zoning and Land Development Code”, Providing for Conflicts; Providing for Severability: Providing for an Effective Date.
Mr. Cooper: Opened the Public Hearing. There were no speakers, therefore, Mr. Cooper closed the public hearing and asked Ms. Dominquez to explain their Ordinance.
Mr. Dominquez: Stated the Ordinance is long in coming because the City wanted to update the existing landscape Ordinance in order to be more progressive and in line with present conditions and provide more landscaping within the City. She informed the Board the Ordinance incorporates water conservation measures; promote the preservation of trees and also the use of native species. The purpose of the Ordinance is to increase the tree canopy of the City and as well as preserve water and regulate irrigation. She then went over the summary of the Ordinance in the Staff Report with the Board.
Mr. Cooper: Stated this was an extreme makeover for the Ordinance. He pointed out that he noticed there were some items that allow variances and changes with City Manager approval and some allow it with the Director’s approval. He wanted to clarify if that meant Mr. Cannone or Ms. Dominquez.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated that staff should have kept consistent with everything being approved by the City Manager, as director may be the City Manager designee.
Mr. Cooper: Stated that he would like to see all the allowances approved by the Planning and Zoning Director since they have more knowledge.
Ms. Dominguez: Replied that it was more appropriate to change all to City Manager as the definition of City Manager is “City Manager or his designee”.
Mr. Fendell: Stated that he was interested in what the City planned to do in order to go greener.
Ms. Dominguez: Informed him that adopting the Ordinance would require more landscaping.
Mr. Fendell: Stated that he would like to see more Canopy trees along A1A.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated the Ordinance before them regulates landscaping on private property and not county or state reading. She informed him the City deals with the public medians and streets and that the City is subject to FDOT requirements, there are certain trees that FDOT will not allow because the median is too narrow. She then asked Mr. Thomas Operle City of Hallandale Beach Superintendent Grounds and Land to explain street landscape maintenance in more detail.
Mr. Operle: Stated the canopy trees they are speaking about are not governed by different weather conditions within the City. He also added that those types of trees have very extensive root systems that can destroy our streets and avenues. He informed the Board that what the City is looking for in the new Ordinance is to go greener and have more sustainable landscape.
Ms. Steinberg: Questioned Mr. Operle if what he was speaking of was similar to what the Board had required Wal-Mart to do in maintaining big Palm trees instead of smaller ones.
Mr. Operle: Stated yes. He informed the Board that all landscaping plans come through him before being approved.
Mr. Fendell: Asked why Hallandale could not have trees the way Sunny Isles does.
Mr. Operle: Informed him that he was talking about something that was grandfathered as opposed to being in existence. He stated that everyone likes different trees and that he tries to promote a variety of trees.
Mr. Butler: Informed Mr. Fendell that the trees he was speaking of in Sunny Isles are also planted in Hallandale Beach.
Mr. Cooper: Asked if there was a list of trees that are prohibited in parking lots?
Ms. Dominguez: Stated that we did.
Mr. Cooper: Asked about the open decked parking garages in relation to the landscaping Ordinance.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated yes, they would get a 50% landscape credit by being above ground.
Mr. Butler: Asked what the definition of a shade tree was.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated that by definition a tree must have a minimum of a 5 foot spread at time of planting with a matured spread of 15 feet.
Mr. Butler: Asked about the reductions in landscaping requirements.
Ms. Dominquez: Stated the landscapes required are not being reduced. The amendment is to create consistency between the references in the landscape ordinance and the zoning districts. She informed him that, for example the actual landscape requirement for town homes in the zoning district rules is 40%. She stated nothing was changed, it was just clean up for clarification and that the zoning district supersede refers landscape Ordinance.
Mr. Butler: Questioned about the City giving 100% for ground level planters and asked if that was always consistent.
Ms. Dominquez: Stated that was the existing language and credit given. She stated that she would recommend the existing credit be reduced to 50% as architectural planters are not permeable and thus, inconsistent with the intent of the updated ordinance to provide more surface drainage.
Mr. Butler: Asked about the approving applications through the City Manager. He inquired if that could be taken out of the language.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated that would be something she would need to discuss with the City Attorney. Generally, the references to City Manager include his designees.
Mr. Butler: Stated that it seemed a little arbitrary to be opened for interpretation. He felt that for a homeowner they would feel overwhelmed and it would also be difficult to enforce.
Ms. Dominquez: That would be administered by the Director, not always the City Manager.
Mr. Hardwick: Stated he was concerned about the grandfathered properties and questioned how the City would encourage them to participate in going green.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated the City was encouraging property owners by receiving funds through the Neighborhood Improvement Program.
Ms. Natelson: Stated that there should be consistency in the Ordinance because if not it leaves the City with no room for flexibility. She also stated that it was not the Boards place to draft the Ordinance; it’s the City Attorney’s position.
Mr. Cooper: Stated the purpose of the Board is to recommend and advise the City Commission of what the Board feels is right or wrong.
Mr. Fendell: Asked how the City would monitor the Ordinance.
Ms. Dominguez: She stated it was monitored by Code Enforcement and Development Service Staff.
Mr. Cooper: Asked that when a new Ordinance is passed, does Staff send out notices to residents to inform them of it.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated that it was posted on the City’s website and advised of any new requirements during plan review.
MOTION: MS. NATELSON MOTIONED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #56-10-TC AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 32, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 8, LANDSCAPING, OF THE CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH CODE ORDINANCES, THE “ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE”, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY ON REFERENCES TO THE CITY MANAGER OR DIRECTOR AND TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE CREDIT FOR ARCHITECTUAL PLANTERS FROM 100% TO 50% CREDIT.
MS. STEINBERG SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED BY ROLL CALL VOTE (7-0) FOR APPROVAL.
Ms. Dominguez: Informed the Board of the Approvals of the City Commission meetings since the last Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
Mr. Cooper: Asked if the new expansion of Wal-Mart will come before the Planning & Zoning Board.
Ms. Dominguez: Stated no, because there is already a Property Agreement and that once it clears a community meeting, it will move forward to the City Commission.
Meeting adjourned at 2:40 PM
______
Christy Dominguez
Planning and Zoning Board Liaison
1