Loading...
10-08-13 Workshop MinutesWORKSHOP MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2013 A Workshop Meeting of the City Commission of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, was called to order by Mayor Cary Glickstein in the Commission Chambers at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday, October 8, 2013. Roll call showed: Present- Commissioner Shelly Petrolia Commissioner Alson Jacquet Commissioner Adam Frankel Commissioner Angeleta E. Gray Mayor Cary Glickstein Absent - None Also present were - Louie Chapman, Jr., City Manager Brian Shutt, City Attorney Kimberly Wynn, Acting City Clerk Mayor Glickstein called the Workshop meeting to order and announced that it had been called for the purpose of considering the following Items. WORKSHOP MEETING AGENDA 1. Beach Property Owners' Association Design Guidelines Mayor Glickstein stated that this item was requested by the Beach Property Owners' Association (BPOA) as a way to address technical gaps, inconsistencies and some substantive issues since the passage of the overlay regulations ten (10) years ago. He explained there was some dialogue between BPOA and a third party consultant. Mr. Paul Doling, Director of Planning and Zoning, introduced this item. He indicated there were two categories: 1) technical items and 2) more subjective design related items. Mr. Darling gave a brief overview of what would be discussed. Ms. Sandra Megrue, Planning Project Manager with Urban Design Kilday Studios (UDKS) explained that they have a number of items that have been identified over the years that have to be clarified. She gave the Commissioners a handout with a more comprehensive list of items that they had encountered while doing their technical review, and as questions came in from architects when they came in for applications. Mr. Ken Tuma, Principal with Urban Design Kilday Studios (UDKS) discussed some of the Processes that they had done such as having meetings with the groups and sending out emails to recruit responses. Mayor Glickstein asked if there had been a "meeting of the minds" of technical things that had to be done by staff, property owners and the architects. Mr. Tuma stated there was a consensus of the atcbitects and staff of the technical items that had to be addressed. He asked for direction from the Commission to hopefully engage more of the original working group. Mr. Tuma advised that it is technical and takes a long time to read the - changes. He explained that from UDKS perspective, it makes sense, but that they want everyone j who is involved to be a part of this including the architects because they would be the ones implementing this and they are counting numbers. He wanted to be sure that what he is creating would not create a new set of problems. Mr. Andy Katz, President of the Beach Property Owners Association (BPOA), explained that eight (8) years ago the guidelines went into effect but the process started closer to ten (10) years ago. He felt it was healthy for any organization to have a look back in the review process to see how well it had worked, where problems had been encountered and what was learned along the way. He stated that many attractive projects with considerable variety had been built; however, there had been a handful that caused concerns. The concerns were in two areas, style and scale (style was the lesser component because it was subjective and it changed with time). He explained that going by a more modern style is a natural process that happened house -by- house. Mr. Katz advised that scale was the more important issue for the BPOA. He briefly discussed his apprehensions regarding scales as it pertained to consolidated large lots as compared to small infill lots. He discussed the uniformity of their neighborhood with relation to the various styles, colors, houses built over a period of sixty (60) years. Mt. Katz advised that the BPOA is looking for creativity without having a jarring effect and having some harmony. He stated that the BPOA is looking for a 2 -3 month process.,.to clarify some of the technical points raised by UDKS, and to produce new guidelines for scale mostly, if not exclusively, for very large lots. He discussed the need for a mechanism for review and approval mostly subjective but with some objective element — which is tough to do. He explained the current scoring criteria and which projects would have to go before a recommendation (advisory) board like Site Plan Review and Appearance Board (SPRAB). He noted that this would only apply to single - family homes in the beach area. All projects zoned in the Medium Density Residential (R.NI) area automatically go before SPRAB. Mayor Glickstein gave the history of this, which started eleven (11) years ago. He explained that it took three (3) years to get this to the Ordinance that is in place currently, which involved extensive community involvement. He stated that the past Commission gave the directive that if they could get community buy -in then they would support it. Mayor Glickstein advised there was a lot of construction in the beach area and a lot of it was out of character with the existing scale, style and many characteristics of the neighborhood. He stated this was the second attempt to bring in mansionization; the first attempt failed because it started out as a beach area and morphed into a city --wide direction, which was too broad. When it came back the second time, it was confined to the beach area. Over three (3) years and a lot of community involvement, the current plan was produced. Mayor Glickstein stated that the current plan was intended as not only a starting place but a template for other neighborhoods like Lake Ida to use when they went through their process. Mayor Glickstein continued to discuss the background of this project. He asked the BPOA what they're doing to get the community buy -in on whatever it is that UDKS wants to do. Mr. Katz advised that short of the charette process is their annual meeting on December 12t Typically the turnout is 60 or 70 people out of a membership of 500. He stated it is just the nature of whether its elections or people coming to the Commission Meeting. He anticipated a wide array of opinions — which they will use to see if a charette is needed. 2 October 8, 2013 Mayor Glickstein discussed the process that was used by the board in the past to get a good turnout to the annual meeting including stuffing envelopes in mailboxes. He talked about the negative feedback initially received and how over a three (3) year period, they engendered a lot of support that consequently led the Commission to approve an ordinance. He explained why he requested that this be placed on the workshop agenda. Mr. Tuma advised that the "clean-up" items did not require a large elaborate process because they were things that were poorly worded or overlooked the first time around. He recommended that they identify 1 -3 substantial changes as compared to clean up items. The meeting on December 12d' would be a great place to have this presented. Mayor Glickstein stated that a focused chatette is the only way that realtors, architects, design professionals and homeowners can weigh in and understand the substantive changes. He suggested the fast -track of technical items be for staff. He explained this was no different from the ordinances in which Planning & Zoning had found inconsistencies and gaps. Mayor Glickstein said this can come before the Commission with staffs endorsement. He suggested that the BPOA come back with an action plan. It was the consensus of the Commission to have the Beach Property Owners' Association come back at a later date to discuss an action plan. Discussion ensued with the Commission Mrs. Petrolia stated there was a tremendous amount of support for the project about ten (10) years ago. Mrs. Gray asked if the mansionization includes multi - family or just single family homes. Mayor Glickstein answered that it included just single - family homes in two (2) districts. He discussed the engineering review requirement for plans and how this is an extra level and expense when the project is still at a level of uncertainty. He asked if BPOA would be ready in December. He stated nothing would be done on the subjective part of this until they were ready. Mr. Katz explained that he would like to dry -run this as to how many members would show up on December 12s`. Mayor Glickstein requested that Commission be invited to the meetings. Mr. Katz stated that Commission was invited; Commissioner Petrolia would be the speaker at the event. 2. Discussion regarding waivers to the Code of Ordinances for Special Events Mr. Brian Shutt, City Attorney presented this item. He stated that the City Commission adopted a Special Events Policy. He stated that sometimes waivers are requested in addition to special event permits that may require advertisement. Mr. Shutt requested a modification to the ordinance to allow the City Manager to approve certain special events and their waivers provided that they meet the requirements of the policy. He also added that based on comments from the Commission at the last meeting, fees for public schools' special events would be waived up to $1,500.00. 3 October 8, 203 Ms. Terrill Pyburn, Assistant City Attorney, discussed a First Amendment case that involved use of Old School Square Park when they suggested that the Special Events Policy was not clear and that it did not tie in with our Code of Ordinances. She suggested that a provision be added to the Code of Ordinances that referenced the Special Event Policy in that if you reach the threshold of 25 or more people then you would be required to get a special event permit. She cited the case studies that influenced her recommendation. Mr. Jacquet expressed his concerns that the Commission would lose some power in the decision of who would get the Special Event Permits. He discussed recourse for the applicant if their permit was denied. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff moves forward with a proposed ordinance at the next Regular Meeting. 3. Discussion of Commission Votes Mr. Shutt discussed this item. He gave a brief history of the 2 -2 vote, and how and why it arose based on a circuit court decision that was handed down in 2004 pertaining to the McKinney request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Frankel stated he wanted to have consistency with the rules. He questioned if there is a 2 -1 vote would the motion fail. Mr. Shutt confirmed that the motion would fail. Three (3) votes are required in order for any action to place. Mr. Frankel questioned if under Robert's Rules would a 2 -1 vote pass. Mr. Shutt explained that under Robert's Rules a 2 -1 vote would pass because it would be based on a majority. He explained Robert's Rules and discussed the Charter Review Committee's recommendation. Mr. Jacquet asked if the wording in the City Charter should be changed to concurring instead of in the affirmative so that a decision could be made in the affirmative or negative. If a motion is made in the negative or affirmative with three (3) votes — it passes. He clarified the circumstances when Robert's Rules would be used. Mr. Jacquet stated that he thought that a 2 -2 vote would fail. Mrs. Petrolia talked about the absence of a formal rule if there was a 2 -2 vote. She explained that it was automatically assumed to fail. She questioned the difficulty to add a rule in the absence of three (3) affirmative or concurring votes. Mrs. Petrolia requested a Chatter revision to clarify the ambiguous language. Discussion ensued among Mr. Shutt and the Commissioners on what the Charter actually read versus what is interpreted. 4 October 8, 2013 Mrs. Gray asked if three (3) votes ruled what would happen if Commission decided that they did not want to vote or if they were absent which resulted in a 2 -2 vote, would the motion fail or would it come back. Mr. Jacquet advised that Commission had to vote on an item, they could not choose when they wanted to vote. Mr. Shutt advised there would be no action. Mayor Glickstein stated that the item would be re- introduced as if nothing happened and continue to do so until there were three votes. Mrs. Gray asked for clarification regarding the 2--2 vote and when a motion would actually fail. She discussed Mr. Shutt's responsibility to interpret the Charter. Mr. Shutt advised that his interpretation is based on the Court's interpretation. Ms. Pyburn cited several court cases that involved language on the 2 -2 vote. She stated that if the City wanted to make changes, it would require a change to the Charter. Ms. Pyburn advised language that referenced a tie vote should be changed in the Charter rather than rely on Robert's Rules. Mr. Jacquet asked how the Court interpreted the first sentence of the Charter, Section 3.12 (C), "Voting ", if the Charter is the Constitution of the City and Commission must abide by the Constitution unless it expressly delegated that authority to somewhere else or it does not address it. He asked if the Local Rules would govern over the Constitution when voting. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the ambiguity of the Charter in reference to voting procedure. Mrs. Petrolia stated that there are two (2) separate issues. The first issue is that the Chatter governed; the second issue is with Board Appointments (which is clearly spelled out). Ms. Pyburn provided copies to the Commission of other cases with similar issues and discussed them. Mayor Dickstein stated that the larger issue is not with the board appointments but with items with "No Action ". He discussed how problematic the no action votes were and that there was an issue with clarity on something that was an- everyday situation for the Commission. Mr. Glickstein expressed his concerns that the recent referendum to the Chatter addressed the affirmative and non - affirmative votes. Mr. Shutt recommended that the language be removed from the Charter. 5 October 8, 2013 It was the consensus of the Commission that an ordinance be drafted to remove Section 3.12 (C) and that this is a referendum on the March 2014 ballot. 4. Discussion regarding Advisory Board Appointments Ms. Kimberly Wynn, Acting City Clerk presented this item. She stated that staff proposed a change to the process for advisory board appointments. Ms. Wynn proposed board appointments be placed on a Special /Workshop Meeting during the months of July and August, for the exception of the Code Enforcement Board which would be placed on the Special /Workshop Meeting agenda in January due to the terms on that board. She advised that a stricter deadline was being proposed to stop late application submittals. Mr. Jacquet asked why staff is suggesting board appointments twice a year. Ms. Wynn answered that this was in response to requests by the Commission to have their Regular Meeting agendas shortened and to limit the number of times staff would have to appear before the Commission. Mr. Jacquet responded that the appointment portion of the agenda was short and quick; he did not see the need for an extra meeting to do the appointments. He agreed with an enforced deadline to ensure that the City Clerk's Office has time to check whatever is necessary. Ms. Wynn responded that although the appointments were done quickly, over half of them are deferred to the next meeting. If all of the appointments are placed on a workshop, Commission would have time to review just board appointments. It would not be an extra meeting. It would be a regularly scheduled workshop meeting. Mrs. Petrolia discussed the need to keep the personal phone calls in addition to posting it on the website. She recommended a requirement that applicants attended a meeting for the boards) they applied for to understand how that board operated. Mrs. Petrolia agreed with the 10 -day deadline. Mrs. Gray agreed that personal phone calls should not be eliminated. She talked about how she took the opportunity to diversify the boards when she was appointed. Mrs. Gray asked how should a Commissioner that was just appointed handle not being able to make an appointment to an advisory board until July and August. She inquired how vacancies would be filled. Ms. Wynn advised that regular member vacancies would be filled with the alternate members from the board. In the event that there were no alternate members on the board, which we had 10 -11 advisory boards like this, if there was a quorum, the appointment would wait until July or August. If there was no quorum, there would be a Special Meeting to make the appointment. Mrs. Gray expressed her concern with an alternate member automatically being moved to a regular member. She liked the current process; she did not agree with a 10 -day deadline with all of the new residents in the town, the applicant should be able to submit their application. 6 October 8, 2013 Ms. Wynn stated that it was encouraged to bring in new applicants but it was not encouraged to have applications submitted the day before or the day of the meeting. Ms. Wynn advised that in the past applicants had come in on the day of the meeting and staff would like to discourage that. Mr. Frankel stated that he had no problem with the 10 -day rule. He concurred with Commissioner Gray that an alternate should not automatically be moved to a regular member. He asked if there were two (2) alternate members how would a regular member be selected. Mr. Frankel advised that limiting appointments to two (2) meetings would be a mistake. Mayor Glickstein stated that he supported the ten (10) day rule. He is neutral regarding having all of the appointments on two (2) meetings or having them throughout the year. Mayor Glickstein advised that the criteria and credentials should be consistent on the website for the boards. Mr. Frankel recommended that board applications for appointments be given to the Commission at least twenty -one (21) days in advance minimum. Mr. Jacquet stated the new process would make it easier for staff not necessarily for the Commission. Ms. Wynn advised that was incorrect, it is the same amount of work. The phone calls had been made so it is just a matter of moving the item from one meeting to the next. However, it extended the agenda because you had new board appointments in addition to the deferred board appointments. Ms. Wynn stated it did not make less work either way; it was preferred to be handled on workshop agendas instead of regular meetings. Discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the deadlines and recruitment of new board members. Commission discussed consistency with the criteria. It was the consensus of the Commission that the advisory board appointments remained on the Regular Agenda, personal phone calls to potential applicants be continued and that the website be updated to be consistent with the qualifications needed for each board. Mayor Glickstein adjourned the Workshop Meeting at 7:43 p.m. City Clerk 7 October 8, 2013 ATTEST: YOR The undersigned is the City Clerk of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of the City Commission held on Tuesday, October 8, 2013, which Minutes were formally approved and adopted by the City Commission on November 5, 2013. City Clerk NOTE TO READER: If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, this means they are not the official Minutes of the City Commission. They will become the official Minutes only after review and approval, which may involve amendments, additions or deletions to the Minutes as set forth above. October 8, 2013 Attorney Shutt 1. Waste Management "Pass Through" 2012 legal definition/opinion now costing Taxpayers legal fees to correct and monthly loss due to not bidding contract (est. $125K month) 2. Months to produce a list of contracts with 30 day out clauses. (Official Request was made during Beach Services RFP by Commissioner Frankel April 9th, numerous requests were made in the interim, months later a list is produced) 3. CRA Board Appointment: Roberts Rules of Order controversy caused this commission to screech to a halt on Commissioner Frankel's CRA appointment adding to confusion and weeks to get an appointment made to that board. 4. Beach Services RFP: Took over 4 months to get a simple RFP out on the Beach Service Contract (Original Request: April 9,2013, Date Out: August 18, 2013) 5. Specific Language Requested yet omitted in the Beach RFP (Letter dated May 15, 2013) pertinent to an outside bidder. 6. Tim Boucher wrongfully denied the opportunity to speak at a public commission meeting on September 3,2013. 7. Instructions given personally not to attend a public hearing /screening on Sept. 23 w/o reference to rule orlaw prohibiting or barring commission attendance. Confusion surrounding Commission Rules and Procedure as it relates to the 01 -13 Charter change on votes, 1 Comments from Commissioner Petrolia from the October 8, 2013 workshop Meeting