Loading...
Minutes 08-28-07 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING HELD IN ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2007, AT 6:30 P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Present: Lee Wische, Chair Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair Jon Blehar (arrived 6:38 p.m.) Sergio Casaine Shirley Jaskiewicz Jeff Lis Roger Saberson Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director Jamila Alexander, Esq. Sharon Grcevic, Alt Edward Hillery, Alt. 1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance Chair Wische called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Ms. Jaskiewicz led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Chair Wische introduced the members of the board. 3. Agenda Approval Edward Hillery first recused himself from voting. He announced he knew the applicants for items 7 A.1 and 7 A.2; they were close friends of his. He then formally resigned from the board citing a State Statute pertaining to Police Officers and political office. It was important to him that he avoid even the appearance of impropriety given the current political climate in Boynton Beach. He wished the board well and left the meeting. Motion Mr. Casaine suggested Items 7A.1, 7A.2, and Item B.1, be heard first so the applicants would not be detained. Vice Chair Hay seconded the suggestion. There were no objections to the request and the suggestion unanimously passed. 1 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 4. Approval of Minutes Motion Vice Chair Hay moved approval of the minutes. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 5. Communications and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the July 24, 2007 Planning and Development Board meeting Agenda items. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Development Director, reported the following items previously reviewed by the board were approved by action of the City Commission: · Boynton Bay Land Use Amendment and Rezoning. This was a major modification to the project for infill for additional condominiums. · Childrens Services Council Height Exception and Community Design Appeal request which dealt with rooftop equipment not requiring screening. 7. New Business (Heard out of order) Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all who would be testifying. A. 444 SW 7th Court (Di Nizo - fence height) Zoning Code Variance AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: 444 SW 7TH Court (Di Nizo - fence height) (ZNCV 07-004) Philip and Dorothy Di Nizo Philip and Dorothy Di Nizo 444 SW 7th Court Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4,).1, limiting maximum fence height to four (4) feet along both road frontages on a corner lot when the fence is located in front of the building line, to allow a 2-foot variance, and a six (6) foot high fence on property zoned R-1-A Single-family residential. 1. PROJECT: 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 Chair Wische read the application. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, reviewed the request as presented in the staff report. She summarized the background and advised adjacent property owners would not be impacted. Staff believed there was a hardship and supported the variance request. Chair Wische asked for public hearing. No one coming forward, Chair Wische closed the public hearing. The board asked if the hardship was created from a pre-existing condition. Ms. Zeitler explained the Code changed in June 2005 and that was when the hardship arose. There was discussion when the fence was placed. Staff had received conflicting information; the applicant advised they were living at the location for 30 years and the record showed they were there since 2005. Dorothy Di Nizo, 655 Riviera Drive, advised she has lived at 655 Riviera Drive for 30 years. She purchased the house on 4/4/04. Her son now resides at the home. The previous owners put the fence up and they thought the fence came with the house. It was noted there were other fences in the area. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4,).1, limiting maximum fence height to four (4) feet along both road frontages on a corner lot when the fence is located in front of the building line, to allow a 2-foot variance, and a six (6) foot high fence on property zoned R-1-A Single-family residential. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Item 7...A.2, was heard out of order. AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: 444 SW 7TH Court (Di Nizo - accessory building) (ZNCV 07-005) Philip and Dorothy Di Nizo Philip and Dorothy Di Nizo 444 SW ih Court Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.B.1., limiting an accessory building to the side (interior) or rear yard, to allow an existing accessory building to be located in the side corner yard adjacent 2. PROJECT: 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 to the street; and, Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section D.2.b., requiring a minimum side corner building setback of 12.5 feet (not less than one-half the 25 foot front yard setback), to allow a 7-foot variance, and a side corner building setback of 5.5 feet for an existing accessory building on property zoned R-l-A single- family residential. Chair Wische presented the application. He elaborated the variance request could be avoided contingent upon moving the shed, and staff was recommending denial of the request. lody Di Nizo, 655 Riviera Drive, was present. Ms. Zeitler explained the shed was placed along the west property line, even to the house. She noted accessory structures should be incidental and unobtrusive. There were no permits and inspections obtained, nor was there a permanent foundation. She explained there was an area onsite on the SE corner of the property where it could have been placed, so there was no hardship; it was self-induced and staff recommended denial. Ms. Di Nizo explained they paid Pro-Built to install the shed. She explained they presumed the installer obtained the permit, and they did apply for one recently after the fact. She pled guilty to the permit and advised they would move the shed if they had to. Chair Wische asked for public hearing. No one coming forward, Chair Wische closed the public hearing. Staff was concerned the shed would set a precedence and there were no other cases where there was an accessory structure for the side yard. Ms. Zeitler pointed out where the shed could be moved to and it was further noted the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), in correspondence provided to the installer, clearly indicated all site related installation issues were subject to local jurisdiction. The board clearly agreed the installer should be pursued to rectify the matter. Ms. Zeitler advised the surrounding property owners were notified of this hearing. A phone call in opposition to the request was received by staff, wherein the caller advised the applicant was a swimming pool contractor and well aware the City had permit requirements. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 Ms. Di Nizo responded they serviced swimming pools, not install them and she took exception to staff accepting the word of a caller as opposed to a written letter. Vice Chair Hay assured Ms. Di Nizo as did the other applicants, their decision was not based on a phone call, but rather on the other issues involved. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to support the staff recommendation to deny the request. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. St. Therese of Liseux Early Learning Center (Heard out of Order) Conditional Use AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: St. Therese of Liseux Early Learning Center (COUS 07-002) Dr. Ka Hock Go Everett H. Jenner Dr. Ka Hock Go 3452 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard Request conditional use / major site plan modification approval to allow conversion of 7,098 square feet of an existing 13,170 square foot office building for a daycare use, on a 2.04-acre parcel in the C-1 zoning district. 1. PROJECT: Chair Wische reviewed the application and explained there were 15 conditions of approval. He asked the applicant whether he was in agreement with those conditions. Everett Jenner, agreed with the conditions of approval. Gabriel Weubben, Planner, summarized the background and advised staff reviewed the use and found no detrimental affects to the surrounding neighborhood. He explained Palm Beach County found this in compliance and noted there was adequate parking. Staff was supporting the project subject to the conditions of approval. Chair Wische opened the public hearing. No one coming forward, Chair Wische closed the public hearing. The board noted the Americans with Disabilities Act did not have fixed regulations and asked if he was gearing the interior facilities to young children. Mr. Jenner responded they were. Further discussion ensued regarding the appropriateness of recommending a conditional 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 use when other regulatory agencies were involved. The board was aware there were very specific needs for the facility, and Mr. Jenner indicated he had some homework to do on the specifics of the interior planning of the building. They would be subject to inspections and regulations. Mr. Rumpf explained this review was limited to City requirements and the review criteria for conditional use applications. The playground matting was discussed. Mr. Jenner explained the mats were interlocking and were made of a heavier and thicker material than the regular mats were. The mulch was for the soft areas. Motion Vice Chair Hay recommend approval of the requested conditional use/major site plan modification approval to allow conversion of 7,098 square feet of an existing 13,170 square foot office building for a daycare use, on a 2.04-acre parcel in the C-1 zoning district with all staff comments. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 6. Old Business A. Open-air Structures Code Review 1. PROJECT: Open-air Structures (CDRV 07-003) AGENT: City-initiated DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Land Development Regulations Part III, Chapter 2. Zoning. Section 4.B by the addition of provisions and regulations for "Open-air structures' that will include pavilions, gazebos, and tikijchickee huts, and corresponding setbacks and size criteria. Chair Wishe presented the request. Mr. Rumpf explained this item was reviewed by the CRA and was scheduled for Commission review in September. An ordinance has been drafted. He advised there were no substantive changes but they did not have an answer in reference to flammability. The matter was discussed with Fire officials, but given the fact it is a single-family zoning district, it is not given the same scrutiny of review its commercial counterparts would 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 receive. The structures were given exempt status by the state, from local permit requirements. Mr. Rumpf explained for structures in close proximity to tiki huts with thatched roofs, the roofs would require treatment annually. Staff also felt no new procedures were warranted to handle the non-conformities. Mr. Saberson asked whether the existing non-conforming structures in the single-family and single-family/two family zoning districts required a permit in order to retain the non- conforming status was adequately addressed in the Code. Mr. Rumpf responded it was. Ms. Jaskiewicz did not think the provisions were necessary with such small lots, but thought they were appropriate for multi-family districts. She thought preferential treatment was being given to a particular sect. Mr. Rumpf explained if the PUD does have provisions for the structure, the provisions of the master plan would apply. Mr. Lis thought residents who installed the huts installed them at their own risk. He explained the board was being asked to make a recommendation to sanction the change when there were life safety issues not being addressed. He could not support the changes without language being added to address the flammability issues. The board also discussed there would be food preparation and waste occurring under the huts and if the same criteria were applied as that being used in the mobile vendor ordinance to the tikijchickee huts/open air structures, there would be an area of concern. Mr. Casaine asked what type of security was being imposed to protect the health, safety, and welfare. Mr. Rumpf explained the application of a flame retardant material would add protection as would the prohibition of the use of flammable substances underneath the roof. Attorney Alexander explained the structures were allowed pursuant to State Statute. She clarified the City was now attempting to regulate the setbacks of these huts, and if they did not regulate the tiki huts, then State statute applied. Any type of planning decision made by the municipality would not create liability if it was considered and voted on by the board. She pointed out, however, that the implementation of the different rules, if one rule was implemented as opposed to another, then there could be an issue. She advised this would not create additional liability for something that is already allowed. Quintus Greene, Development Director, explained the State Building Code was primarily the Fire Code. State Law exempts these huts from the Building Code. The City was simply indicating they have the ability to regulate the placement and size of them. The structures are subject to local zoning regulations. He was unsure they could require a fire retardant 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 be used. There was additional discussion the City could not legislate common sense, as to preventing activities and uses that could increase the likelihood of a fire occurring under the hut; rather they were trying to amend the Code to establish zoning regulations for the huts. Mr. Casaine noted there were structures in Delray Beach that were constructed and had a prohibition on non-employees using the structure. The structure had distance requirements as to separation of the structures, fire prevention apparatus, and a location for food preparation. He thought the City could impose those regulations as well. Chair Wische opened the floor to public hearing. Harry Woodworth, 685 Ocean Inlet Drive, advised he lives next to one of the structures. He advised there are several poles, a floor underneath, a television and barbeque and bar underneath the roof. He explained it was an addition to his house, not a small hut. He explained if the structure burns, the house next door burns too. He thought implementing setback provisions would help. Motion Mr. Casaine moved the request to amend the Land Development Regulations Part III, Chapter 2. Zoning. Section 4.B by the addition of provisions and regulations for "Open-air structures' that will include pavilions, gazebos, and tikijchickee huts, and corresponding setbacks and size criteria be tabled until further studies can be made to secure the necessary security for everyone involved and everyone concerned by it. Ms. Jaskiewizc seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Saberson noted if the matter was tabled, the structures would continue to be constructed. He suggested passing this on to the City Commission with the recommendation that they not adopt it until they can address the fire issues with the Building and Fire Department. This way they would move it along and expedite the process. Ms. Jaskiewicz also thought the structure was a recreational outdoor facility and more of that concept would be encouraged. She did not see how it could be enforced or excluded. Mr. Rumpf explained what was suggested recognizes non-conformance and some of the boards concerns. If it was pre-existing and it passed the regulations, the ordinance allowed them to continue as legal non-conforming, but not above what was approved. Mr. Greene also pointed out if there is a floor under the chickee/tiki hut, it is not a 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 chickee/tiki hut and it does not fit the definition. This ordinance had a specific definition and they were only dealing with the structures that fit that definition. Mr. Saberson thought if the board had the authority to prohibit them, or if they could only regulate them, then they should do so with particular attention to the flammability issues raised earlier in the meeting. He thought moving the matter along with the provisions, as opposed to tabling the matter would be beneficial; it would regulate something that was previously unregulated. Mr. Rumpf would research how other muncipalities were handling the issue and bring back the information. Vote The motion passed 6-1. (Mr. B/ehar dissenting. The board recessed for a short break at 8:15 p.m. The board reconvened at 8:21 p.m. Mr. Casaine thought the board and the CRA should have a workshop to discuss many of these items and develop an understanding and then come back to them for action; he thought if they had the opportunity to collaborate, they could develop a good product. B. Mobile Vendors Code Review 1. PROJECT: AGENT: DESCRIPTION: Mobile Vendors (CDRV 07-005) City-initiated Request to amend the Land Development Regulations Chapter 2. Zoning. by the addition of a new section with provisions and regulations for mobile vendors including definitions, location restrictions, review And approval procedures and requirements, and operational rules. Chair Wische read this application. Mr. Rumpf explained this Ordinance was in final form and was scheduled for City Commission review. He pointed out the Ordinance was revised to accommodate multiple units at one vending site as recommended by the CRA. Design and location had wording changes in Section H-a. General Restrictions and Regulations changes allowed vendors to 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 request approval for more than one MVU within the allotted MVU operating area. Another change was increasing the width of the MVU. It was clarified these provisions only applied to mobile vending units on public property and rights-of-way. Those proposed for private property were not restricted to MVU size regulations. Mr. Rumpf explained the changes were underlined. One concern from an operator was about location of an MVU being situated close to an establishment selling a similar product or service. Ms. Jaskiewicz thought the Ordinance would have negative impact. She explained the City had many businesses paying taxes and thought it was not equitable for a similar operator to move in with a mobile vendor cart. She thought investigating how other communities handled the matter would be appropriate and advised she was not in favor of the measure. Motion Mr. Casaine moved to have the City staff express to the Commission the boards desire to have a joint meeting or workshop between the CRA, the Planning and Development Board, to go over this item in fine detail and come up with a product that would suffice. Mr. Greene explained staff had been directed by the City Commission to draft an Ordinance. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. Vote A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1. (Mr. Blehar dissenting.) 7. New Business Items 7.A.1. and 7.A.2. was addressed earlier in the meeting. Item 7.B.1. was addressed earlier in the meeting. C: Land Development Regulation Rewrite- Group 3 Code Review 1. PROJECT: AGENT: DESCRIPTION: Land Development Regulations (LDR) Rewrite - Group 3 (CDRV 07-004) City-initiated Group 3 deliverable, pursuant to the LDR Rewrite Work Schedule, including: Article 5. Minimum Off- 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 Street, Parking Requirements; Article 6. Parking Lot, Vehicular Use Areas, and Loading Standards; Article 7. Exterior Lighting Standards; and Article 8. Utility and Infrastructure Design Standards. These proposed sections will ultimately replace and enhance portions of the current LDR Part III, Chapter 2. Zoning, Sections 5, 6, 7, and 11; Chapter 2.5 Planned Unit Developments, Section 9; Chapter 4 Site Plan Review; Chapter 6 Required Improvements, Articles I, III, IV, and VII; Chapter 9 Community Design Plan, Section 10; Chapter 20 Buildings, Housing, and Construction Regulations, Articles VIII; Chapter 22 Streets and Sidewalks, Article I; and Chapter 23 Parking Lots, Articles I, II, and III. Chair Wische presented the rewrite. Mr. Rumpf reviewed the changes in Articles VI, VII, and VIII. He explained changes were made to Article II pertaining to lighting to meet safety objectives. Regulations were proposed to set maximum foot candles and illumination levels. Photometric plans were now being required to be submitted along with site plans and there would be an appeal process; utility and infrastructure design standards, handicapped provisions were changed in reference to State Code. There were updated parking provisions in the rewrite. There were changes in the payment in lieu of parking, which was a system which accounted for the current costs of providing parking. Exceptions to parking had provisions added. On street parking had changes made to it. Mr. Rumpf explained many lesser significant standards were incorporated in the currently existing engineering design handbook. This allowed for a consistent waiver process for staff and allows flexibility and the application of a variance process. Mr. Rumpf explained a community design section were being created for each section. Mr. Casaine announced the changes were more user friendly. The following questions and answers were received in response to the rewrite: ~ What methodology or standard was used for guest parking? The 2002 American Planning Association for parking standards. Staff also investigated communities referenced in the publication to determine comparables. 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 ~ Regarding parking garages, liner requirements and liner depths designated to be within zoning districts - were the platted lot sizes considered? Noting that parking garages were usually on a grid basis, were any test fittings conducted? Mr. Rumpf responded those issues were already included in existing text within the mixed use district. ~ Is there any methodology to keep the open space and land non-dedicated to parking and still accommodate the parking needs. Mr. Rumpf agreed and explained they have a safeguard to set maximum percents over the standard parking requirements and in some instances that could help. He explained that was a topic of significant discussion on the staff level. Other than having impervious or grass parking since the peak is only used for a certain amount of time per week or reduce down the requirement and set the maximum at that. Some places have out-parcels with shared parking. Mr. Rumpf explained they could use grass parking. Eric lohnson, Planner, explained even if they reduced the parking requirements, the big box establishments, such as the mall, provide the parking they want based on their needs. He explained that was why they wanted to institute the maximum. ~ How is temporary parking being addressed? Mr. Rumpf explained there were no provisions for temporary parking lots and they had been working through those issues on a case by case basis. He thought they should be looking and planning for that particular issue especially in reference to the marina project. He acknowledged there were underutilized parking lots nearby the marina. It was thought there was the potential to accommodate that need in the marina development and they probably could work out agreements with local churches or other establishments. There was the potential for doing something like that and negotiate for some accommodation. It was noted most retailers require on street parking. Publix is not doing real well because of that. Motion Mr. Casaine moved the Group III deliverables and the proposals adjacent to it be accepted with the recommendations made by the Planning Director. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 8. Other None. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida August 28, 2007 9. Comments by members None. 10. Adjournment Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to adjourn. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting property adjourned at 9:03 p.m. ~t2!eL~h~~~~~~llllall Recording Secretary (090607) 13