Loading...
Minutes 05-22-07 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 22, 2007 AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair John Blehar Sergio Casaine Shirley Jaskiewicz Jeff Lis Roger Saberson Sharon Grcevic, Alternate Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Director, Planning and Zoning ABSENT: Lee Wische, Chair Edward Hillery, Jr., Alternate 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Vice Chair Hay called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Mr. Saberson. Vice Chair Hay advised that Chair Wische sustained an injury and requested everyone lift him up in prayer for a speedy recover. He also requested everyone lift up in prayer the family of Assistant City Manager Wilfred Hawkins on his passing. Funeral services would be Saturday, May 26, 2007 at St. John Missionary Baptist Church, 900 North Seacrest Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida at 11:00 a.m. 2. Introduction of the board Members of the board introduced themselves and summarized their backgrounds. 3. Approval of Agenda Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 4. Approval of Minutes Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2007 5. Communications and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the April 24, 2007 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda Items Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, reported the following items previously reviewed by the board were approved by action of the City Commission: (1) Progress report, proposed definitions and draft work schedule for the LDR Rewrite (2) Site plan extension for major site plan modification for the Healing Heart Veterinary Clinic 6. Old Business None. 7. New Business Assistant City Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all persons intending to testify. A. NW 7th Court (Homrich) Zonin9 Code Variance 1. Project: Agent: Owners: Location: Descri ption: NW 7th Court, Lot 211 (Homrich) (ZNCV 07-003) George Homrich, Homrich Construction Homrich Corporation Lot 211 ofthe Laurel Hills subdivision, 4th addition, West side of NW 7th Court, between NW 10th Avenue and NW 13th Avenue Request for a relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.1.C.3, requiring a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet, to allow a frontage of 50 feet; a variance of 10 feet within the R-1-AA Single-Family Residential zoning district. Vice Chair Hay read the request and noted staff comments. Kathleen Zeitler, City Planner, advised the property was platted in the 1920's as a 50-foot wide lot, in the same manner as the other lots in that subdivision, and had remained the same width. At least ten homes in the neighborhood were constructed on the originally platted 50-foot wide lots. The subject property was a non-confirming lot because of the width, and R-1-AA zoning currently required a frontage of not less than 60 feet in order for the lot to be developed. The applicant was proposing to build a 1,710 square-foot home similar in size to the other homes in the area, which would meet setback, lot coverage, height and all other requirements, with the exception of the width. Staff reviewed the variance request and believed it met the criteria for 2 Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2007 a variance to be granted. Staff found a hardship existed as the parcel was platted as a 50-foot lot and had remained as originally platted. Staff recommended approval with no conditions. George Homrich, 2706 SW 8th Street, applicant, advised it was his intention to build a single- family home, and he provided a picture of the model house. He previously built homes for the Land Trust of Delray, and believed his neighbors were impressed with the home he proposed to build. Mr. Casaine inquired whether other 50-foot wide lots in that area had been developed. Ms. Zeitler replied affirmatively, reiterating approximately ten homes in the neighborhood were constructed on a 50-foot wide lot. Staff researched other variances in the area and did not find any for lot width; therefore, it appeared these homes were built before a variance was required. Mr. Casaine inquired whether the distance, which separated each lot, was uniform. Ms. Zeitler replied the side setback was 7-1/2 feet and applied across the board to every lot. Ms. Jaskiewicz noted the actual square-foot area exceeded the requirements; however, the 50- foot width still exceeded the overall square foot requirements. Vice Chair Hay noted a typographical error contained in the last line of paragraph "A" of Exhibit C of applicant's response. The lot should be 50 feet, rather than 50 inches as indicated. Applicant agreed. Mr. Lis inquired whether the lot was platted of record prior to subsequent Code amendments that changed the width of lots in this subdivision. Ms. Zeitler replied staff did not find any other homes in the area that received variances for lot widths. Those homes were most likely built before the Code changed to require 60 feet for lot frontage. Mr. Lis inquired as to the date of the Code change. Further, the lot was platted in 1951 at 50 feet and the Code was amended to require 60 feet. He wondered whether a 75-foot frontage was currently required. Ms. Zeitler responded it was platted at 50 feet in the 1920's. The 60-foot frontage requirement for a non-conforming lot was established a few years ago; however, she was unaware of the exact date. Mr. Lis inquired whether there were homes situated on both sides of this lot. Ms. Zeitler replied in the affirmative. Mr. Lis inquired whether there would be any opportunity for this lot to be any wider than it currently was. 3 Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2007 Ms. Zeitler responded the lot to the south was on a 50-foot wide lot; the lot to the north consisted of several lots put together and developed. The applicant approached the property owner, and the property owner did not want to sell any of his land. The applicant currently owns the property on which he wishes to build a house. Mr. Blehar inquired of the applicant whether the garage was the most dominant figure observed from the street. Mr. Homrich replied the garage comprised approximately 20 feet; however, the entryway softened the view. Mr. Blehar inquired whether the applicant could bring out the recessed portion of the house. Mr. Homrich responded he was dealing with a 25-foot setback and the recessed portion created more depth to the yard. He discussed the issue of off-street parking and the construction of a two-car garage. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to approve staff's recommendation for approval of the requested variance. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion that passed unanimously. B. Land Development Regulations Rewrite Code Review 1. Project: Land Development Regulations (LDR) Rewrite (CDRV 07-04) Use Matrix and Notes City-initiated Group 2 deliverable as indicated on the proposed LDR Rewrite Work Schedule, including the Zoning Use Matrix and corresponding Notes and Restrictions to ultimately replace and enhance portions of the current LDR Part 3, Chapter 2. Zoning, Sections 5 though 8. Agent: Description: Mike Rumpf, Director of Planning and Zoning, brought before the board the second draft work product on the LDR Rewrite project. The board previously reviewed the Parks report, draft definitions and proposed work program. The board would review the Zoning Use Matrix, corresponding Notes and Restrictions. Mr. Rumpf advised the original objectives would continue to be furthered. Of the original objectives, user-friendliness and maintaining a flexible and dynamic approach were most addressed by the current work product. The original objectives included preserving and utilizing work efforts; maximizing user- friendliness; maintaining public involvement; using a dynamic approach in the rewrite effort; and continuing to deliver optimal customer service. 4 Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2007 The new LDR was proposed to cover four different chapters. The Use Regulations provided were contained within Article 4 of that Chapter. Mr. Rumpf provided a PowerPoint presentation. Attributes of the Zoning Matrix included the consolidation of uses into one table; the incorporation of terminology from the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS); new titles and descriptions; and continued implementation of ongoing projects, including the M-1 Zoning District Study. He provided an in- depth explanation for each of the attributes. The M-1 Zoning District Study targeted locations of districts, or the impact of the industrial zoning district upon major corridors, thoroughfares and adjacent residential zoning districts. Three key provisions added to the use provisions were: (1) exclude certain uses from the corridor; (2) allow non-industrial uses if located along such corridor; and (3) allow certain industrial uses in combination with particular commercial uses. Staff recommended this be treated as a draft product, that it be approved, and returned to the board and City Commission when all sections were drafted, tweaked and approved. Mr. Rumpf advised Eric Johnson, Planner, was one of the principal authors of this project and was in attendance to answer any questions. Ms. Jaskiewicz inquired whether the intent was to allow "Adult Entertainment" in only one district and in what district would the use be permitted. Mr. Rumpf noted the matrix indicated by district which uses were permitted, prohibited or conditional. As reflected in the matrix, Adult Entertainment was prohibited in all residential, mixed-use and miscellaneous districts; conditionally permitted in certain commercial districts and permitted in an M-1 industrial district. He discussed the manner in which to navigate through the matrix and the symbology contained therein. With regard to the history behind the Adult Entertainment use, the Code was written as a product of litigation, and staff was required to place the Adult Entertainment use in certain districts. At that time, text was written which restricted the use in terms of distance separations from residential uses as well as separation from each other. It was a permitted use in M-1 and not conditional. The general rule would be uses should not be zoned out. This would weaken the Code. A use such as Adult Entertainment should not be made conditional everywhere as in theory, it would have to be permitted somewhere. Ms. Jaskiewicz opined she believed the City was trying to do away with Adult Entertainment, which was a conditional use in the commercial district and a permitted use in M-1. Mr. Rumpf contended if the City provided for such uses, the City would be less of a target for those who would accuse the City of zoning out the use. If the location for the use and its distance separation provisions were combined, this could zone out the use. The zoning districts, while in close proximity to one another, were scattered throughout the City. Mr. Casaine inquired whether there would be an index, which would provide complete definitions for all the uses. 5 Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2007 Mr. Rumpf replied in the affirmative, adding the proposed definitions would define each and every use. Mr. Lis inquired as to the distinction between an "X," denoted in the matrix as a prohibited use, and an open box. Mr. Rumpf advised an open box indicated the possibility of a use. It did not indicate whether a use was actually prohibited or permitted. Not every use that was not allowed was prohibited; however, certain uses were emphasized with prohibitions. Board discussion ensued as to the confusion of intent where an open box was displayed and where a use was not specifically permitted, prohibited, conditional or defined. This must be made clear. If an open box indicated the possibility that a use would be permitted, it must be determined whether an ordinance change was required. Mr. Rumpf indicated staff debated the concerns raised by the board. He noted in the General Rules applicable to the Use Matrix, certain cells did not contain any symbols. A blank could represent an opportunity for someone who had justification for a Code amendment to make such request through the City's process. For those uses prohibited, there would be no opportunity to allow such use. For other designations, there could be an opportunity to permit the use and this would require a Code amendment. Staff was open to the board's recommendations and could include language in General Rule 1 dealing with the scenarios discussed. Mr. Lis requested clarification as to whether an Infill Planned Development (IPUD) and Planned Industrial Development (PID) were open to interpretation pursuant to General Rule 1, while the other designations were not. As such, he inquired whether an "X" should be inserted in all boxes with the exception of IPUD and PID designations. Mr. Rumpf replied the PID was unique in that the Code allowed uses in the three PIDS which were individually noted on the approved use lists. In order for a use to be added to the use approval list, an existing approval process would have to be followed. Mr. Rumpf concurred with the board the dilemma pertaining to unclear, blank designations would require clarification to provide clear and consistent symbols for all to understand. Assistant City Attorney Alexander administered an oath to Eric Johnson, Planner. Mr. Johnson advised staff would take into consideration the concerns expressed by the board. He discussed the City's Code amendment process by which an outside entity could have something approved as an allowable use, either permitted or conditionally, by obtaining the approval of 50% or more of all the property owners within that zoning category. Pursuant to staff's interpretation, an "X" in the use box in the matrix would indicate there would be no opportunity for an amendment process. Mr. Saberson inquired whether the 51% rule pertained to everyone in the C-2 district in the entire City. 6 Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2007 Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Saberson inquired if the 51% rule would also apply to requested changes in Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts. Mr. Rumpf replied that would be addressed in a later deliverable to the board as staff worked through the project. At present, staff conservatively interpreted the current Code to apply to landowners representing 51% of the "affected" properties. He requested the board's input as to the public's involvement in requesting an amendment to the zoning regulations. Mr. Lis inquired whether a box which did not contain any symbol, signified the use category was not allowed within the corresponding zoning district. Mr. Rumpf replied it was construed the uses were not permitted in the empty boxes. Mr. Johnson commented an empty box in the C-1 zoning district indicated the use was prohibited. If a private entity wanted to propose the use as a conditional or permitted use in that zoning district, they could request a code review, provided they received the consent of at least 51% of the affected property owners within the C-1 zoning district. They would also be required to pay a minimal fee of $500 to change the Code. This might need to be revisited. If an entity desired to go in this particular zoning district indicated by an empty box, and Planning and Zoning denied the request, a zoning interpretation could be requested in writing and a formal request could be made for an appeal to the City Commission. Mr. Lis suggested a possible solution might be to create a "use not allowed" definition in addition to the definitions previously proposed. Mr. Saberson contended the use of an "X" and vacant box were not appropriate, and created an amorphous situation. Symbols should denote whether a use would be specifically permitted or specifically prohibited. If an "X" indicated a use would be clearly prohibited, under no citcumstances should a property owner be able to file a request for a zoning or use change Ms. Grcevic contended that many uses identified by an "X," including safety and traffic issues," should be specifically prohibited. However, other uses left open, such as dry cleaners, gas stations and small grocery stores, were now going into PUD districts. If an "X were to be placed in these boxes, there would be no opportunity to change with the times. Mr. Casaine believed the "X' designation was clear and well defined. The empty box was not clear and should be fine-tuned. A definition of what was not allowed would also be helpful. Ms. Jaskiewicz suggested the lettering be consistent in every box by use of a "P" to indicate a permitted use, and an "NP" for "not permitted." She emphasized her belief that an automotive parts store or automotive dealer should not be permitted in any residential district and there should be no consideration of any change in that area. Mr. Johnson commented two letters would not fit into one box. 7 Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2007 Vice Chair Hay contended the empty box required clarification. Mr. Rumpf suggested a motion be made to be forwarded to the Commission representing the board's support, lack of support, or other direction. Motion Mr. Casaine moved approval of the steps taken thus far by staff with this project, conditioned upon the recommendations and observations presented by the board in order that the next presentation would address these recommendations and observations. Ms. Jaskiewicz requested Mr. Casaine include in his motion the land development regulations rewrite, with approval based upon the recommendations and observations of the board. Mr. Casaine agreed to the inclusion. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 8. Other Pamela Owens, Executive Director of the Charter School of Boynton Beach, at 7887 North Federal Highway, Boca Raton. She advised the school was located at the Boynton Beach Mall for approximately four years, and was forced out by an incident on Christmas Eve. The school then relocated to an existing facility in Boca Raton. She advised at the last City Commission meeting, the school requested a zoning amendment for a facility at 3200 South Congress Avenue in an industrial-zoned district in Boynton Beach. The zoning amendment was not approved. The school had submitted a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Old High School and received the highest score. The CRA voted against the school and selected Five Towns College, which had since abandoned the project. Subsequent thereto, she advised the charter school contacted the Commission for a reconsideration process, and would be providing a copy of their RFP to the Commission. She requested the board's assistance in identifying an appropriate location for the school. Vice Chair Hay advised while he sympathized with the school's plight, the board could only make recommendations to the City Commission. It would be the City Commission's ultimate decision as to the zoning. Mr. Casaine advised he attended the City Commission meeting at which the rezoning of the property had been denied. Nevertheless, based on the outcome of the meeting, Boynton Beach Charter School had a great deal of support. Secondly, the Commissioners noted they would explore other avenues and discuss their findings with City staff and the Planning and Development Board. Additionally, Mr. Casaine went to the agency in Washington that dealt with charter schools and they in turn went to the agency that dealt with charter schools in all of the United States. These agencies are awaiting word from Mr. Owens in order to meet and address the issue. Mr. Casaine had left four telephone messages for Mr. Owens; however, Mr. Owens had not returned the calls. As far as what would be an appropriate area in Boynton Beach for the charter school, the board did not have the issue before it at this time and could not take any action with respect thereto. 8 Planning and Development Board Meeting Minutes Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2007 Vice Chair Hay commented it appeared the Commission had not "closed the door" on this matter and would work with staff toward a resolution of the issue. Mr. Blehar inquired of staff as to the zoning districts in which the school could be established. Mr. Rumpf replied schools were allowed in most residential zoning districts, single-family, two- family, multi-family and public usage districts, PUDS, and others. There would be some location restrictions in zoning districts limited to single-family homes, limiting the locations to the exteriors of those neighborhoods, directly on an access road. Mr. Blehar believed any plans to put something in a residential district would be extremely unpopular. Mr. Rumpf commented State law encouraged municipalities to accommodate schools to assist local school districts in all residential zoning districts. 9. Comments by members None. 10. Adjournment Motion Vice-Chair Hay moved to adjourn. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m. I.~... 9-L -...-U ,. j. - '-7:....~ Stephanie D. Kahn Recording Secretary 5/22/07 9