Loading...
Minutes 03-19-96 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1996, AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT Gerald "Jerry" Taylor, Mayor Shirley Jaskiewicz, Vice Mayor Matthew Bradley, Commissioner Henderson Tillman, Commissioner Jamie Titcomb, Commissioner Carrie Parker, City Manager James Cherof, City Attorney Sue Kruse, City Clerk I. OPENING Call to Order - Mayor Jerry Taylor Invocation - Reverend John Block - St. Mark Catholic Church Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Mayor Taylor Mayor Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Reverend Block offered the invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Taylor. D. Agenda Approval 1. Additions, Deletions, Corrections Commissioner Bradley suggested moving Item X.B.17 up on the agenda. He mentioned that some incorrect information was printed in the Boynton Times. It stated that the Commission was going to vote on boats and recreational vehicles. He advised that we are not going to vote on those items tonight. However, we are going to vote on the portion of the Appearance Code that was brought forward thus far. Mayor Taylor moved this item up for discussion after Item V (Bids). 2. Adoption Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to adopt the agenda as amended. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. II. ADMINISTRATIVE None. MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Ill. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes 1. Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 1996 No changes were made to these minutes. 2. Special City Commission Meeting Minutes of March 13, 1996 No changes were made to these minutes. B. Bids - Recommend Approval - All expenditures are approved in the 1995-96 Adopted Budget 1. Renewal of Co-op bid for Liquid Chlorine, Calcium, and sodium hypochlorite from Jones Chemical (per Palm Beach County Purchasing Co-op meeting of March 21, 1995) Utilities and Purchasing requested approval of a one year extension of this bid. 2. Award bid to Robiyn Manufacturing for Annual Supply of Manhole Adjustment Rings in the amount of $10,000.00 The Tabulation Committee recommended awarding this bid to Roblyn Manufacturing, the overall Iow bidder who submitted the most responsive, responsible bid meeting all required specifications. C. Resolutions 1. Proposed Resolution No. R96-32 Re: Water Service Agreement - Jeffrey and JoAnn McFadden for property located at 4462 Redding Road 2. Proposed Resolution No. R96-33 Re: Authorization to apply for the Children's Services Council Grant (Latchkey Program) for the 1996-97 fiscal year MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Proposed Resolution No. R96-34 Re: Reduction of surety for the Vinings PUD m Proposed Resolution No. R96-35 Re: Authorize execution of agreement between Innovative Leisure Services and the City of Boynton Beach to operate the Golf Course Concession Proposed Resolution No. R96-36 Re: Authorize City to procure services of real estate/economic consultant to provide advice regarding the Marina Development Project D. Approval of Bills A copy of the bills is attached to the original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office. E. Payment of Bills - February 1996 A copy of the bills is attached to the original copy of these minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office. F. Approve Change Orders Change Order #8 in the amount of $105.00, and Change Order ~3 in the amount of $1,085.00 for additional work on the West Wing by Cassidy Air Conditioning Change Order #8 involves the rerouting of the dedicated circuits from the present tracer control system to the new BCU. This change is being made to insure power quality to the computer equipment controlling all City Hall HVAC equipment. Change Order #9 is for the rerouting of ductwork and electrical conduits from design plans to clear steel roof joists and to provide access to air handler for service and repair. Change Order #10 in the amount of $357.00, and Change Order #11 in the amount of $1,087.00 for additional work on the East and West Wing by Cassidy Air Conditioning MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Change Order #10 is necessary because the new ductwork arrangement in the mechanical room blocks the existing lighting. Therefore, it had to be relocated along with all the associated conduit, wiring, and switching. Change Order #11 is essential because as part of the control changes to the first floor West Wing fan coils, four new temperature control units were added. The design drawings did not include any electrical supply to these units. Therefore, they had to be added. a Change Order #1 in the amount of $4,964.71 for the rehabilitation of Master Lift Station No. 317 This change order is necessary due to unanticipated field conditions that were encountered during the construction process. GE Authorize purchase of Santana POLY-MAR/POLY-MARBLE restroom partitions for the Wilson Pool in the amount of $6,396.00 Per Facilities Management Memorandum No. 96-33, part of the approved C.I.P. Budget for the remodeling and renovation of the Wilson Pool site is to replace the restroom partitions. The existing partitions are unsightly due to their age and graffiti. Authorize replacement purchase of a Toro Greens Aerator (off GSA contract) for the Golf Course in the amount of $9,459.45 Joe Sciortino, Golf Director, recommended the replacement of the Ryan Greens Aerator, scheduled for replacement this fiscal year. The present aerator is worn out and is no longer dependable. Authorize purchase of various fire equipment and tools from Clarey's Safety Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $27,095.50 and Ferrara Firefighting Equipment, Inc. in the amount of $865.89 The purchase of this various fire equipment and tools was recommended by the Insurance Services Office as a result of their recent analysis of Boynton Beach. 4 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 J. Transfer of cemetery lot 164A, Block N, Boynton Beach Memorial Park Raymond E. Weeks requested permission to transfer this lot to Louis Revolinski. K. Authorize Task Order No. 26 with CH2MHill for design, permitting and construction services - Phase II - West Water Treatment Plant Pursuant to Utilities Memorandum No. 96-069, this Task Order was recommended for approval by John Guidry, Utilities Director. Motion Commissioner Bradley moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Announcements 1. Boynton's Great American Love Affair - March 22, 23, 24, 1996 Mayor Taylor announced that the G.A.L.A. will be held this weekend. He hoped all would attend and have a great time. 2. First workshop meeting reference Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for Comprehensive Plan - Monday, March 25, 1996 - 7:00 p.m. - Commission Chambers Mayor Taylor made this announcement. 3. Boynton Beach Night at Miami Heat - March 29, 1996 - Tickets may be purchased at City Hall Customer Service in the lobby Mayor Taylor made this announcement. City Manager Parker advised that these tickets are being offered to Boynton residents at a reduced rate. Those who are planning to attend must provide their own transportation. Commissioner Bradley asked if the Commission is going to be represented at this event. City Manager Parker advised that MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH19,1996 an announcement will be made that it is Boynton Beach Night, and our name will appear on the scoreboard for the evening. Commissioner Bradley said he attended Boynton Beach Night at the Marlin game, and it was a lot of fun. You got to go on the field and meet some of the players. Aisc, it is nice exposure for the City. He cannot attend the Miami Heat game, but encouraged everyone who is able to attend to do so. Town meeting on Thursday, April 18th at 7:00 p.m. in Commission Chambers Mayor Taylor made this announcement. He advised that this will be an old town type of meeting for the citizens to discuss any subject they desire. The Commission and department heads will be present. Mayor Taylor said this would be a good time for the citizens to make their views known because this meeting will be held prior to the Visioning Conference which will take place in May. If there are some issues in the community, they could possibly be discussed at the Visioning Conference. B. Presentations 1. Proclamations a) National Records Management Day - April 2, 1996 Mayor Taylor read a proclamation declaring April 2, 1996 as National Records Management Day. b) International Building Safety Week - April 7-13, 1996 Mayor Taylor read a proclamation declaring April 7 through 13, 1996 as International Building Safety Week. V. BIDS NODe. 6 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 X. LEGAL B. Ordinances- 1st Reading 17. Proposed Ordinance No. 096-25 Re: Appearance Code Mayor Taylor reiterated that some misinformation was printed in one of the local newspapers. He advised that this proposed ordinance does not address boats and recreational vehicles. However, the Commission will be addressing them in the future and would like the public's input. City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 096-25 by title only. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz explained that the Community Appearance Code, including boats, was discussed at open hearings at which the residents gave their input. We took their input and devised this Community Appearance Code. This ordinance only addresses rotten wood, paint, and height of grass. Boats and swales will be discussed in the future and will be part or another ordinance. She said numerous homeowner groups have been formed and want to revitalize their neighborhoods and to bring about better home conditions and yards, etc. However, they wanted some basic guidelines to deal with the people who do not maintain their property. She said this ordinance would be a vehicle to help address neighborhood revitalization and a way to start to change the image of the City. This ordinance defines nuisance as any condition or use of property, or of the exterior of buildings, which is detrimental to the property of others or which causes or tends to cause substantial deterioration in the value of the subject property or other property in the neighborhood or area in which such property or building is located. This ordinance would prohibit grass and trees from being allowed to grow on streets or sidewalks that abut real property. Grass cannot be more than 12 inches high. Trees will be prohibited from extending over swales or interfering with the drainage system. They must be 10 feet above the water surface if you have a home on a waterway. You would not be allowed to keep junk in your yard. You would have to maintain your yard to the right-of-way. This ordinance addresses excessive cars in yards, badly chipped and/or peeling paint on the front of homes, trash and debris in front yards, and untrimmed hedges and grass. If your house is missing 25 percent of the paint, or all of your fascia boards are rotten on the front 7 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 and affect the aesthetics of the area, you would be cited. If people cannot afford to paint or fix up their homes, we have a group of volunteers who will help out, and some stores have offered to donate paint. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz pointed out that these things cause the property values of the homes around them to decline. She did not think it was unreasonable to try to enforce these guidelines. She stated it is the very minimum, and it is enforced all over the County. We were one of the few cities that did not have anything like this in our code. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz advised that the biggest offenders in the City are absentee landlords. They cause the City to deteriorate because they do not maintain their property. With this Community Appearance Code, we can at least compel them to clean up their property to a large extent. She advised that the Commission has reviewed the codes of 15 other communities throughout Palm Beach County. Thirteen of these cities have a neighborhood enhancement program. In most cities, boats are required to be kept in betWeen the houses or shielded to some extent in a driveway. However, when we looked at our City, we found that you cannot fit a boat between many of the houses. In Lake Worth, you can get a variance if you cannot fit your boat on the side of your house. She pointed out that some people keep boats that do not belong to them in their yards. Also, our current code does not require anybody to paint their buildings or replace their roofs. The parking of vehicles in swales is another problem. A swale is used as a collector for rainwater; however, when people park their vehicles in them, they become a cement-like surface. A workshop will be scheduled in the future to discuss boats, recreational vehicles, and parking in swales, at which time the public will be asked for their input. Trish Olson, 719 S.W. 25th Avenue, read a speech she had prepared based on the misinformation from the media. She opposed the Appearance Code because it would eliminate boats and trailers from residential areas. She knows there is a problem with deteriorating neighborhoods; however, her neighborhood is not one of them. She did not think the deterioration of neighborhoods or declining property values is due to boats in residential areas. She stated that Boynton Beach has continually encouraged boaters and fishermen to move to their coastal community, and has supported the improvement of the ramps and trailer facilities at Boynton Inlet Park. Catwalks have been built. The inlet has been refurbished. Dredging continues for safe ocean access by boaters. Charter boat 8 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 fishing has been allowed, and fishing tournaments take place at City parks. She said there must be a great revenue for Boynton Beach from the boating industry. She felt other cities do not compare to what Boynton Beach has to offer its residents. Many residents of Boynton Beach own boats and will be affected by this ordinance. They use the facilities and waterways of Boynton Beach for pleasure. Ms. Olson felt the real problem is deteriorating neighborhoods, which could be caused by poverty; one's inability to maintain the property because of finances, illness, or aging; slum landlords; or one's standard of living. She did not think this ordinance will resolve the problem. She felt it will anger a part of the community that works hard to finance and maintain their property. She felt the Commission is off to a good start with some of the proposed ordinances. She stated that the deteriorating communities should be helped, but all of the residents of the City should not be oppressed. Michelle Constantino lives in the north end of the City. She understands what the Commission is trying to do. She owns two boats and a recreational vehicle. She keeps them behind a six foot privacy fence in her side yard. She said most of the people are content with the way things are, but are willing to work with the Commission and have their vehicles blockaded on three sides. Robert Renault, 1016 N.W. 8th Street, stated that many of the residents do not have side yards or facilities to put a boat. He lives in a section of Boynton Beach which does not have a homeowners' association. This is by choice because the residents want the freedom to do as they see fit with their property. He was opposed to the City telling people that they cannot park a boat, camper, or registered motor vehicle in their yards. Mayor Taylor said the Commission does not have all the answers. The Commission is just reacting to what they have been told, which is that the people want their neighborhoods upgraded. He said the Commission looks to the people for the solutions. Sandra Geil, 1056 S.W. 25th Way, supported an appearance code. She wants to maintain the standards in her community, and she wants her property value to increase. She stated that she has had to call Code Enforcement on several occasions because one of her neighbors has continued to let her property deteriorate for over 20 years. Some of these things, which cannot be enforced by Code, are as follows: The once asphalt driveway is now mostly dirt with sprinkler pipes sticking out. There are brown weeds and dirt where grass used to be. 9 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 A car is parked on the side of the house, and every time this neighbor is cited, she slaps a sticker on it so that it is legal. A trailer, which is full of aluminum cans, has been parked on the side of the house for six years. The screened porch contains a pool. The screen is falling down, and it is easy to get onto the porch. When cited, the neighbor merely ties it up with string or props boards up against it. The door does not latch. There are newspapers and furniture in the swimming pool. Ms. Geil felt a; standard needs to be maintained. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz advised that this ordinance would affect commercial areas as well as residential areas. Daniel Blanchard, 719 N.W. 7th Court, asked if this would affect his brand new, 10 foot, enclosed trailer, or jet skis. He said he cannot put his trailer behind his house because there are too many trees. If trailers are not allowed, he would be forced to rent a facility, which would cost a minimum of $30.00 a month. Mayor Taylor stated that this has not been addressed yet; however, he was sure that everything sitting in front yards will be addressed. However, this ordinance only addresses what Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz spoke of, such as grass and paint. Mayor Taylor felt these are very minimal standards that any community would want. He stated that some properties are very deteriorated and we have been powerless to do anything about it. Michael Dean, 824 N.W. 6th Avenue, said he uses his yard as a circular drive. It is not paved, but he keeps the grass watered and he does not have a dirt pile in his yard. He said he might keep his boat in his front yard for a day er two before he moves it in back of the house. He does this to keep the grass green. He does not keep the boat in one place because he does not want a dead spot in his yard. He was not in favor of the Commission telling him how to live. He said when he first moved here after Hurricane Andrew, he was cited because his trash pile was too high. He explained that he just purchased the house and cleaned out scrub behind the house and cleaned up the yard. Commissioner Jaskiewicz reiterated that when the Commission first started working on the appearance code, they realized they cannot go by what all other communities do, and input from the public is going to be needed. She asked the people to call her if they have any 10 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 suggestions. She reiterated that a workshop will be held on this topic, and it will be advertised. Mayor Taylor stated that the Commission is not trying to tell anybody how to live. However, there have to be some reasonable guidelines that we all can live with. He told of a neighbor of his who parks a truck on the road where he lives. This truck hauls about eight cars. Commissioner Titcomb would like to make sure that the formulas that determine wood deterioration or yard deterioration, applies to the visible areas. He referred to Section 2C, which deals with personal mailboxes, and hoped the measurements would not preclude people from having personal taste such as a manatee mailbox. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz believes these regulations are set by the post office. Mayor Taylor believes those measurements pertain to the mailbox itself, not what it stands on. Commissioner Titcomb also wanted to make sure that there is adequate protection for the citizens to avoid any kind of harassment in this type of situation, and that it is handled correctly so people have adequate notification and due process to take care of these problems, or get help in the case of hardship cases. Motion Commissioner Bradley moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 096-25 on first reading. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion. Mayor Taylor explained that the reason this is before the Commission on first reading is because it was decided to include commercial areas in this ordinance. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. VI. PUBLIC HEARING Project Name: Applicant: Location: Enclave #6 City of Boynton Beach Two pamels totaling 1.89 acres located on the east side of Lawrence Road approximately 800 feet north of Gateway Boulevard 11 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH19,1996 Description: Future Land Use Amendment/Rezoning - Request to amend the land use from MR/5, Medium Residential/5 (County to Low Density Residential (City) and rezone from RS, Residential Single-Family (County) to R-I-AAB, Single-Family Residential (City) City Attorney Cherof advised that all the items under the Public Hearing are quasi-judicial in nature and anybody who wishes to speak on these items needs to be sworn in. All of the backup material with the Commission agenda will be automatically made part of the record this evening. If anyone has other documentation that they want to be part of the record, they must identify it and leave a copy of it before the conclusion of the hearing. At this time, he swore in all those who wish to speak on any of the items under the Public Hearing. No one wished to address Enclave #6. Motion Commissioner Bradley moved to approve the future land use amendment/rezoning on Enclave #6. Commissioner Titcomb seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. Project Name: Applicant: Location: Description: Enclave #7 City of Boynton Beach A 0.41 acre parcel approximately 250 feet west of Winchester Park Boulevard on the south side of Old Boynton Road Future Land use Amendment/Rezoning - Request to amend the land use from CH/8, Commercial High Intensity/8 (County) to Local Retail Commercial (City) and rezone from AR, Agricultural Residential (County) to C-3, Community Commercial (City) No one wished to address Enclave #7. 12 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Motion Vice Mayor daskiewicz moved to approve Enclave #7. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. Project Name: Applicant: Location: Description: Enclave #10 City of Boynton Beach Two pamels totaling 4.36 acres located on the north side of Mission Hill Road, east of 1-95 and west of the LWDD E-4 Canal Future Land use Amendment/Rezoning - Request to amend the land use from INST Institutional (County) to Public and Private Governmental/Institutional (City) and rezone from AR, Agricultural Residential (County) to PU, Public Usage (City) No one wished to address Enclave #10. Motion Commissioner Titcomb moved to approve Enclave #10. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. Project Name: Applicant: Location: Description: Enclave #11 City of Boynton Beach A 3.72 acre parcel approximately 200 feet east of Lake Drive Extension between S.W. 38th Court and Pine Ridge Road (protrudes into northeastern portion of Lake Ida). Future Land use Amendment/Rezoning - Request to amend the land use from LR/2, Low Density Residential/2 (County) to Low Density Residential (City) and rezone from AR, Agricultural Residential (County) to R-1-AAB, Single-Family Residential (City) No one wished to address Enclave #11. 13 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Enclave #11. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. Project Name: Applicant: Location: Description: Enclave #13 City of Boynton Beach Two parcels totaling 0.57 acres approximately 750 feet north of Gulfstream Boulevard on the east side of Old Dixie Highway Future Land use Amendment/Rezoning - Request to amend the land use from C/5, Commercial High (County) to General Commercial (City) and rezone from CG, General Commercial (County) to C-4, General Commercial (City) Thomas Mahady, 2408 S.W. 5th Street, owns the two parcels in Enclave #13. He asked if the zoning is going to be changed. Tambri Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director, explained that the City is classifying this enclave under a general commercial land use and rezoning it to C-4.. Mr. Mahady's business, a welding service and paint and body shopl would continue as a legal nonconforming use. City Attorney Cherof further explained that the business would be permitted to be continued as a nonconforming use. It is permissible because it has been in existence. The change in zoning would have no effect on Mr. Mahady's current operation. Mr. Mahady asked what would happen if he put it up for sale. City Attorney Cherof advised him that he would be able to transfer it as long as there was not a discontinuation of the business itself. However, he would not be permitted, nor would the future owner of the business, after transfer, be permitted to expand the use. Mr. Mahady has an approved well and did not see why he has to be hooked up to the City's system. Ms. Heyden explained that the City is not requiring that this be done at this time. However, the Palm Beach County Health Department has been approaching property owners regarding connecting. At this time, there is no change in the utility service. The well and sewer system that is being used is acceptable and can continue in that fashion. 14 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Mr. Mahady inquired why this enclave is being annexed into the City. City Attorney Cherof explained that this comes via an agreement with Palm Beach County to take this small enclave into the City. Ms. Heyden pointed out that the annexation took place last November. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Enclave #13. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. Project Name: Applicant: Location: Description: Enclave #14 City of Boynton Beach One 0.06 acre parcel approximately 800 feet north of Gulfstream Boulevard on the west side of U.S. Highway 1 Future Land use Amendment/Rezoning - Request to amend the land use from C/5, Commercial High (County) to Local Retail Commercial (City) and rezone from CG, General Commercial (County) to C-3, Community Commercial (City) No one wished to address Enclave #14. Motion Commissioner Tillman moved to approve Enclave #14. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. Project Name: Applicant: Location: Description: Enclave #15 City of Boynton Beach Numerous lots totaling 3.86 acres located between the F.E.C. Railroad tracks and Old Dixie Highway, approximately 850 feet southwest of U.S. Highway 1 Future Land use Amendment/Rezoning - Request to amend the land use from MR 5, Medium Residential 5 (County) to Medium Density Residential (City) and rezone from RM, Residential Multi-Family (County) to 15 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 R-l, Single-Family Residential-east of Sunset Road; R-2, Single and Two Family District-west of Sunset Road (City) Alan Kanouse, 3805 Periwinkle Lane, Delray Beach, wanted to clarify that this enclave will remain as is for a long time into the future. He is on a septic tank and a well and sees ne need to change. Aisc, he asked if this will help get the road fixed and graded. He explained that the road at the end of the street was torn up by heavy equipment from the lawn service business that was there. Mayor Taylor reiterated that there is no requirement at this time to be connected to the City system. He also advised that the road will be put on the City's overall road plan, and under a regular maintenance schedule. Mr. Kanouse asked what the plans are for the 10 acres northeast of the property, at the corner of Old Dixie and Federal Highway. Ms. Heyden advised that that property is zoned commercial. Eight years ago there were plans for a shopping center on that property. Some of the infrastructure was put in. There was some interest in rezoning it to residential. However, at this time, it is commercial and there are no active plans on the property. Motion Commissioner Tillman moved to approve Enclave #15. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. Mr. Mahady asked about the criteria for annexing these properties. He asked if any properties on the east side of Federal Highway are going to be annexed. Ms. Heyden explained that this was part of our overall annexation program that we have been working on for about three years. We took a look at all the enclaves that were either totally surrounded by City property or properties that were contiguous er surrounded on a couple of sides by City property. We also took into consideration how one accesses a piece of property; if it is a right-of-way that was already in the City, or if it was accessed through a County right-of-way. Aisc, pursuant to State law, we had to look at the size of the enclave and whether or not it was developed or vacant. Most importantly, we looked at whether or not there was a water and sewer service agreement with the property. We had proposed to the County that seven out of ten enclaves be annexed into the City. MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Mr. Mahady asked if the enclaves on the east side of Federal Highway will be annexed into the City. Ms. Heyden advised him that they are not being annexed at this time; however, the City is looking at some of those properties in that area for annexation in the near future. Mayor Taylor added that in order for the City to be able to annex enclaves, they have to be under 10 acres. Mr. Mahady pointed out that many enclaves on the east side of Federal Highway are 10 acres or less. Ms. Heyden stated that all the enclaves on the agenda this evening represent all that the City could possibly annex under this particular law. Mr. Mahady wondered why his property was annexed, but not the property north of him, which is under 10 acres and on the same road. Ms. Heyden explained that Mr. Mahady's property was an enclave. Commissioner Bradley explained that the main reason for these annexations, and the reason that the County supports these annexations, is because of public safety. He explained the importance of having some continuity within boundaries so that when a fire truck or police vehicle goes out, there is no question as to whether it is a County parcel or a property that is in a County enclave. Public Hearing and Proposed Resolution No. R96-37 Re: Downtown Marina Development and the City's intent to designate T & J Equities, Inc. as developer of the Marina Project City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Resolution No. R96-37 by title only. No one in the audience wished to address this item. Commissioner Bradley felt it is very important to get as much pedestrian traffic as possible to this project. He realizes a hotel may be one way to do this. He felt very strongly about this being a destination; that not only would people be drawn to the western end of Ocean Avenue to visit the Children's Museum, the playground and the plaza, but that the bridge and marina project would have destination appeal. He felt we should strive as best we can for a project with that pedestrian destination appeal. 17 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 197 1996 Mayor Taylor agreed with Commissioner Bradley. He said our goal is to make that area as user friendly as possible and attract as many people as we can. The developer is trying to determine if a hotel or additional retail is the best way to do that. Commissioner Bradley felt it was important to discuss what progress is being made, what issues have been overcome, and where we are in the progress of eventually getting what we want down there. He felt the right kind of retail is important. He did not think we should give up on the mixed use idea, not just residences above retail shops, but shop owners and shopkeepers living above those shops. He felt this was the ideal mixed use. However, he did not know how realistic this is if we are also talking about upscale retail. City Manager Parker stated that the Commission authorized her to secure the services of a real estate consultant last month. She had provided the Commission with a report which summarizes some of the facets of the T & J Equities proposal. Also, we have secured the services of Holland and Knight to assist us with any legal situation that may arise. She advised that we are trying to finalize the proposal. The current agreement with Mr. Garcia expires on March 31st. We have been successful in negotiating a conceptual extension for 30 days at no cost, and an additional 45 to 90 days, if needed, at an additional cost. She anticipated that we would be finalizing that language by the end of the week, and she will request a Special City Commission meeting to approve the extension of the contract with Mr. Garcia. She explained that we cannot work through the development agreement with Mr. Simons in two weeks. Discussions with Mr. Simons are focusing around the types and timing of the City incentives. Mr. Simons has done some feasibility studies on the hotel and a full service hotel does not appear market feasible on that property. She reminded everyone that this property is only seven acres, and some of that acreage is included in the water. Therefore, a full seven acres is not available for development. Hence, the proposals that were previously shown to the Commission have been modified slightly to a second phase with no hotel, a parking garage, an additional 20,000 square feet of retail space, a banquet facility to encompass public use as a meeting room that would hold up to $00 seats, and two restaurants of 7,500 square feet each. The mediation report has been received and accepted by the Oounty, and the mediation has been identified as very minor. The estimated cost for mediation is under $40,000. Mr. Garcia is proceeding with the next steps to remediate the site. There was a leak in one MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH19,1996 of the older gas tanks, and because the soil is very heavy muck, all the petroleum was contained in a very small area and did not seep through the property. City Manager Parker stated that the two proposals contain a hotel; however, there may not be a hotelier who wants to come in on this deal. City Attorney Cherof stated that the adoption of this resolution is the first of two steps. Section 4 of the resolution provides expressly that what the Commission is doing tonight is authorizing the administration, the negotiation team that we put together, to negotiate an agreement. However, the agreement is not the conclusion. The agreement is required to come back to the Commission as the Community Redevelopment Agency for approval before the second step is complete. Therefore, when the negotiations are completed and the agreement is prepared, the Commission has one more chance to look at the project that has been negotiated. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz said she heard something about an eight story parking garage. However, the most recent plan was for a five story parking garage. City Manager Parker believes the second phase contains four or five stories, depending on the final parking count. The eight stow garage was the Original proposal. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz preferred the lower parking garage so that it does not obsc. ure any of the beauty of the project. Mayor Taylor felt the second proposal depicts more of a destination oriented type project than the proposal that contains the hotel. It contains more shops and is more open and more functional. He felt the Commission will be pleased with it. Jack Simons, Principal of T & J Equities, stated that not only does the Commission have a right of rejection after the negotiations on the developmental contract, but he also has to come before the Commission after that developmental agreement with a conditional use permit request for the entire site. Accordingly, the Commission has two different rights of approval or rejection on this site if the Commission should go forward tonight. Mr. Simons stated that we have had extensive discussions with respect to the hotel for a number of different reasons ranging from economics through ongoing interaction on future projects. He pointed out that the market will dictate what this project will be, not him or the City. He stated that the current orientation is twofold. He strongly desires a full service, Class A hotel with banquet facilities for social and professional utilization. However, that may not be possible. Accordingly, we have gone to an additional conceptual site plan, 19 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 which increases the amount of retail and restaurant space by 50 percent. It also provides for a traffic flow that makes it easier to get through the entire seven acre parcel than it would be if we had a hotel on the site. There are pluses and minuses for the hotel, as well as the alternative plan. When all is said and done, that primary utilization of the hotel by the public and the business community will probably be just as easily facilitated by the banquet facilities that are planned if we do not have the hotel. The site is extremely tight, not only with respect to acreage, but also with respect to its physical configuration. The land on the south side of the canal is extremely narrow. Mr. Simons advised that we are working closely with the City, as well as our engineers and architects, to try to make sure that this is in fact a point of destination. Aisc, he is working a couple of alternatives to ensure that we have sufficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Simons if renderings of the two different options would be available in time for the town meeting on April 18th for the public's view. Mr. Simons answered affirmatively. Commissioner Titcomb reminded everyone that Boynton Beach is the gateway to the Gulfstream. We have some of the best diving in the country off our shores, a wonderful advocacy for the marine industry, an inlet, boat parks, and a future that may be marine oriented. He said many people are in support of this project, and he thinks that in spite of some of the standard schools of thought on what might happen with this project, that Mr. Simons has some things working in his favor that would advocate him going the extra mile to trying to find the right solution. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Resolution No. R96-37 to appoint T & J Equities as the developer of the marina project. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC AUDIENCE Eddie Mitchell, President of the Advisory Council on African-American Affairs for the City of Boynton Beach, congratulated the Commissioners who were reelected and elected to the City Commission. He said the Council appreciates everything that the Mayor and Vice Mayor have done in the past year, and is looking forward to working with the Commission in trying to continue to move Boynton Beach forward. He thinks that this previous year, the 20 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Commission has done an outstanding job, and looks forward to them doing an even better job. Mayor Taylor appreciated Mr. Mitchell's kind words. He stated that we have a lot of things that we want to accomplish in the year ahead. He was sure the new Commissioners will bring even more projects to the table. He looked forward to their additions and all of us working together to make them happen. No one else in the audience wished to speak. VIII. None. IX. None. X. DEVELOPMENT PLANS NEW BUSINESS LEGAL A. Ordinances - 2nd Reading - Public Hearing 1. Proposed Ordinance No. 096-03 Re: Amending Zoning Code to allow nonprofit/Community Centers in M-1 Zoning District City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 096-03 by title only. No one in the public wished to address this proposed ordinance. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 096-03 on second reading. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 2. Proposed Ordinance No. 096-08 Re: Rezoning - Hills of Lake Eden City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 096-08 by title only. 2] MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 No one in the public wished to address this proposed ordinance. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 096-08 on second reading. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. B. Ordinances - 1st Reading Proposed OrdinanCe No. O96-09 Re: Abolishing the position of Mayor Pro Tem City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 096-09 by title only. Motion Commissioner Bradley moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 096-09. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. Proposed Ordinance No, O96-10 Re: Future Land Use Amendment - Enclave #6 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-10 by title only. Motion Commissioner Tillman moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-10. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 3. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-11 Re: Rezoning - Enclave #6 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-11 by title only. 22 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Motion Commissioner Titcomb moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-11. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. K Proposed Ordinance No. O96-12 Re: Future Land Use Amendment - Enclave #7 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-12 by title only. Motion Commissioner Tillman moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-12. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 5. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-13 Re: Rezoning - Enclave #7 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-13 by title only. Motion Commissioner Titcomb moved 1o approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-13, Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-14 Re: Future Land Use Amendment - Enclave #10 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-14 by title only. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-14. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion, A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 23 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 7. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-15 Re: Rezoning - Enclave #10 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-15 by title only. Motion Commissioner Titcomb moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-15. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. = Proposed Ordinance No. O96-16 Re: Future Land Use Amendment - Enclave #11 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-16 by title only. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-16. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 9. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-17 Re: Rezoning - Enclave #11 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-17 by title only. Motion Commissioner Tillman moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96~17. Commissioner Titcomb seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 10. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-18 Re: Future Land Use Amendment - Enclave #13 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 096-18 by title only. 24 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-18. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 11. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-19 Re: Rezoning - Enclave #13 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-19 by title only. Motion Commissioner Titcomb moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-19. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 12, Proposed Ordinance No. O96-20 Re: Future Land Use Amendment - Enclave #14 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 096-20 by title only. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-20. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 13. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-21 Re: Rezoning - Enclave #14 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-21 by title only. Motion Commissioner Tillman moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-21.. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 25 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 14. Proposed Ordinance No. 096-22 Re: Future Land Use Amendment - Enclave #15 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. O96-22 by title only. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. O96-22. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 15. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-23 Re: Rezoning - Enclave #15 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 096-23 by title only. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 096-23. Commissioner Bradley seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 16. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-24 Re: Amending Section 6-11 Regulating Sales in the Boynton Beach Mausoleum; Amending Section 6-16 regarding transfers and resales of lots, crypts, or niches; amending Section 6-19 regarding disinterments City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 096-24 by title only. City Manager Parker advised that the owner of the mausoleum has requested an amendment to this ordinance. He would like the word "original" deleted from Section B. The City has no objection to this request. City Manager Parker further advised that the Cemetery Board has approved the language in the ordinance and rules, with the exception of the amendment tonight. She stated that the main issue was resales of crypts and niches after someone had bought them. Prior to interment of a body, the owner can resell a crypt or niche to whomever he wishes at whatever price he desires. However, the City has to be notified of the sale. The only cost involved is an administrative fee equal to the cost of relettering the crypt or niche. 26 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 After interment of a body, the only resale or transfer that will be allowed will be to the City at 80 percent of the original purchase price. The body would have to be disinterred by the proper authorities before the City repurchases the crypt or niche. This. is the same methodology that we utilize for cemetery lots. Therefore, this brings into conformity the mausoleum crypts or niches with tlie policy that has been in effect for many years for cemetery lots. Commissioner Jaskiewicz asked Mr. Osborne about expanding his selection of emblems. (She alluded to Christine Liberti's request to be allowed to place a photo emblem on the front of her daughter's crypt.) Brady Osborne, President of the Boynton Beach Mausoleum, stated that one of the members of his staff met with Mrs. Liberti, and she was not interested in looking at the emblems that we offer. He had empathy for Mrs. Liberti, but he said if he allowed her to do this, in fairness, he could not refuse the next person who wanted to do something entirely different. He has been in this business for 17 years and has had many requests for different things. He is attempting to retain some amount of dignity for the people who wish to place their loved ones in the mausoleum. He felt it was in the best interest of the mausoleum and the people who have already purchased a crypt or niche and were told what they can and cannot put on the front of a crypt or niche, to maintain the policy that has been in force for all these years. Mayor Taylor felt there had to be some standardization. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 096-24. Commissioner Titcomb seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the City Clerk. The motion carried 5-0. 17. Proposed Ordinance No. O96-25 Re: Appearance Code This item was dispensed with earlier in the meeting. C. Resolutions Proposed Resolution No. R96-38 Re: Adopting and approving revised rules and regulations for the cemetery and mausoleum 27 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 City Attorney Cherof read Proposed Resolution No. R96-38 by title only. With regard to the mausoleum rules, City Manager Parker advised that Item 15 contains new language. This language is repeated in Ordinance No. O96-24. We repeated this language because a copy of the rules is mailed to each purchaser, whereas the ordinance is not. Item 20 is a new rule which addresses the providing of the Certificates of Ownership to the City. Previously, Item 21 allowed only sealed metal caskets. The agenda packet contains new language. However, instead of the detailed items City Manager Parker enumerated to be included in the audit, the Cemetery Board suggested that the City receive a copy of the sales contract for every crypt and niche, as well as a copy of the document signed by the purchasers, so that we will have all the necessary information. After discussion with Mr. Osborne, the City recommends that this new rule 21 be substituted for what is in the backup packet. Mayor Taylor asked how we will know if we receive all the contracts if there is no audit. City Manager Parker advised that the City issues the Certificates of Ownership. Therefore, if the citizens do not get a Certificate, they will call the City, which would mean that Mr. Osborne has not sent the contract to the City yet. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz asked if the date that the preconstruction period began was included. City Manager Parker answered affirmatively. She advised that the preconstruction language and rule 17 regarding the two emblems is in larger print in the contract. Also, at Mayor Taylor's suggestion, there will a separate sheet indicating that these two provisions were explained to the purchasers. Eleanor Guenin said she is still waiting for the deed to the crypt she purchased in August. She asked how long it takes to receive a deed. City Manager Parker said the new rules state that Mr. Osborne will provide the Certificates to the City within 30 days, and the City shall issue them within 14 days. City Attorney Cherof advised that the City issues the Certificate of Ownership as soon as Mr. Osborne provides the City with a copy of the contract. A dispute arose and delayed the issuance of the Certificates. Mr. Osborne withheld the contracts for a period of time. As soon as he provides us with those contracts, we will prepare the Certificates. City Manager Parker explained that there has been a debate for approximately the last three years. These rules address all those issues, and Mr. Osborne has agreed to provide 28 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 the contracts. She said he has a backup because he has not been processing them. As soon as he provides them to the City, the City will issue the Certificates. Mayor Taylor did not understand why it takes 30 days to bring a contract over to the City. City Attorney Cherof stated that we need less than 24 hours to prepare the signature and deliver it to Ms. Guenin after we receive the contract. Mr. Osborne said he will attempt to get Mrs. Guenin's information to the City tomorrow. Motion Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Resolution No. R96-38. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. D. Other 1. Code Enforcement Lien Reduction for Ronald L. Taylor, et al. Scott Blasie, the Code Enforcement Administrator, stated that the only address the City had for Mr. Taylor in its records was the address at which the violations existed. Members of Mr. Taylor's family live at that address. However, Mr. Taylor does not, and claimed to have no knowledge of what was going on. Code Enforcement discovered that he worked for the City. Once Mr. Taylor found out about the violations, he took care of them in a couple of days. Mr. Taylor advised that his sister, who lives at the address in question, is blind and did not know what she was signing for when she signed the return receipt for the certified mail sent by Code Enforcement. Mayor Taylor asked if anybody else lives at this address. Mr. Taylor advised that his sister's 16 year old daughter also lives there. Commissioner Jaskiewicz asked who was doing the automotive repairs on the premises. Mr. Taylor said that was his sister's boyfriend. Mr. Tillman inquired about proper service of the Notice of Violation. Mr. Blasie explained that this is governed by Florida Statute and City Ordinance. A family member over the age of 16 has to sign for the certified mail. Mr. Blasie stated that one of the Code Enforcement 29 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 inspectors spoke to Mr. Taylor's sister in person. Also, the Notice to Appear at the original Code Enforcement Board hearing was hand delivered to Mr. Taylor's sister. Commissioner Jaskiewicz suggested that due to the extenuating circumstances, that the lien be reduced to $580.00 to cover the administrative costs. Commissioner Bradley did not feel right assessing anything in this case. It seemed to him that there was a breakdown in communication, and it was not deliberate. Mr. Blasie advised that Mr. Taylor's sister signed for some of the mail, and another member of the household signed for some of the mail. Mr. Taylor advised that that other person was his sister's daughter. Motion Commissioner Bradley moved to reduce the fine to $150.00. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion, which carried 4-1. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz cast the dissenting vote. Code Enforcement Lien Reduction for Church of God at Boynton Beach Commissioner Bradley asked Mr. Blasie to elaborate on the involvement that the State had with the building permits and tie down. Mr. Blasie advised that State regulations and the structures are a Building Department issue, and he was not aware of the rules and guidelines that govern that. Pastor Ronaid Sanderson advised that Pratt Whitney donated five modular buildings to the church. Prior to the buildings being moved to the church location, he had submitted plans for the original review. Prior to that, last April, he first approached Al Newbold pertaining to the buildings. From the very beginning Mr. Newbold told him that no matter what, if the buildings were not being used for what they were rated for, they could not be used. Prior to the buildings being moved to the church property, Pastor Sanderson applied for a permit. When he came before the Code Enforcement Board the first time, he asked if he could secure the buildings temporarily by tieing them down. However, the City Attorney informed Mr. Blasie and the Code Enforcement Board that they could not tell him to tie the buildings down because there was no permit to have them on the property. The buildings are currently in place and have been approved. He stated that he paid $200.00 for the lien reduction hearing, and offered another $50.00 for the rest of the administration costs. 30 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Based upon what he had to go through, he requested that the lien be reduced to $250.00, which equals the administrative costs. Mayor Taylor asked if the original problem was that the buildings were brought in prior to being permitted on that property. Pastor Sanderson said his plans had been submitted for cursory review. The buildings were brought in because Pratt Whitney could not store them. Motion Mayor Taylor passed the gavel and moved to satisfy the lien with an additional $50.00, for a total of $250.00. Commissioner Tillman second the motion, which carried 5-0. 3. Minor Site Plan Modification for Clear Copy City Attorney Cherof stated that in September of 1995, the Commission approved a site plan submitted by Clear Copy. An adjacent property owner, Dr. Mark Roberts, appealed the Commission's approval of the site plan and raised a number of technical issues with respect to compliance with the Code. That matter is still pending. A few weeks ago, Clear Copy indicated that they wished to submit a modified site plan. There is a specific procedure set forth in Chapter 4 of the Land Development Regulations (Section 9) that deals with how the City evaluates a request for modification of a site plan. It either makes a determination that it is a minor modification, which is handled administratively, or it makes a determination that it is a major modification, in which case it is treated as an original site plan. Under the terms of our Code, the determination of whether it is minor or major modification is left to the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Director. In the backup, there is an analysis made bythe Planning and Zoning Director, and the conclusion that this is a minor modification of the site plan and it is to proceed administratively. The reason this is before the Commission is because the matter is pending in the Courts on appeal, and the adjacent property owner, through his attorney, made a request that if there was to be a determination of a minor versus major modification, that they have the opportunity to come before the Commission in a public fashion and state their opinion and have the opportunity to express their opinion to the Commission, perhaps to persuade the Commission that staff had made the wrong determination in that regard. Additionally, there was an issue with respect to interpretation of the Code, which is usually not a matter left to the discretion of the Commission. Rather, the interpretation of the Zoning Code is left to the Planning and Zoning Director. That involves an interpretation of 31 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Chapter 2, Section 4, Subsection J of the Code, which provides with respect to structures that house eaves shall not overhang or exceed the setback lines for more than two feet. The beginning part of that section indicates that they are talking about structures in all zoning districts, not specifically residential: Therefore, we construe the words "house eaves" to mean structure eaves. In fact, Tambri Heyden or William Hukill will explain that that interpretation has been consistently applied, or at least applied to some degree, by the Building and Zoning Departments from time to time to include all structures, not simply residential or house structures. City Attorney Cherof stated that this matter should be treated as a quasi-judicial proceeding. At the conclusion of the presentation, all that the Commission is asked to do is to acknowledge and ratify or endorse the interpretation by Tambri Heyden, or if the Commission does not agree that the interpretation is correct, to direct her to reconsider it. Additionally, with regard to the interpretation of the section of the Code that City Attorney Cherof described regarding the eaves overhanging the setback lines, if the Commission does not agree with his interpretation, he should be directed to provide an amendment to the Code to clarify that. At this time, all those who intended to testify this evening were sworn by City Attorney Cherof. Ms. Heyden stated that she has been a municipal planner for over ten years. Prior to coming to the City of Boynton Beach in 1987, she was a planner for the City of Williamsburg, Virginia: She reviewed Section 9 of the City Site Plan Review Qrdinance. She said there are seven criteria that are spelled out in the Code that are used as guidelines in making that determination. Using the overhead projector, she displayed an overlay of the site plan that was approved in September of 1995. She reviewed each criterion and compared the two site plans to show how she came up with this determination. In making a minor/major modification determination, the planning and zoning director shall consider the following: Does the modification increase the buildable square footage of the development by more than 5 percent? Ms. Heyden displayed the approved site plan and stated that there are two driveways that were proposed (one an ingress only and one an egress only). The egress only was on 7th Street. She pointed out the location of the building. It faces Boynton Beach Boulevard. 32 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 The square footage of the building has not changed. The parking that is provided is exactly what is required by Code. There are no surplus parking spaces. Does the modification reduce the provided number of parking spaces below the required number of parking spaces? Ms. Heyden advised that there are no changes in the number of parking spaces; just the location of the parking spaces. Does the modification cause the development to be below the development standards for the zoning district in which it is located, or other applicable standards in the Land Development Regulations? Ms. Heyden stated that this modification does not change, and continues to meet, the C-3 zoning regulations (the building and site regulations). She provided the staff comments that have been generated on this request, and she used the Technical Review Committee form to generate these comments, which is unusual. However, in light of the pending litigation, this was the quickest and most effective way of obtaining those comments for the Commission this evening. Once compliance with those staff comments has occurred, this will ensure that all safety and technical concerns, as well as the Code requirements, have been met. Does the modification have an adverse effect on adjacent or nearby property, or reduce required physical buffers such as fences, trees, or hedges? Ms. Heyden stated that the modifications include replacement of the N.W. 1st Avenue ingress only driveway for a N.W. 7th Street ingress only driveway. Instead of one driveway onto 7th Street and one driveway onto 1st Street, there is an ingress only driveway onto 7th Street and an egress only driveway onto 7th Street. Therefore, both driveways are now on 7th Street. (There was a change in the driveway locations.) There has also been a flip-flop of the location of the row of parking spaces with the access aisle to the spaces. The access aisle was on the east side, and the parking spaces were on the west side. They have now been reversed. There has also been a switch of the handicap space location, and window sills have been added to the building exterior. Regular parking spaces have been switched as well. 33 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 The driveway change meets the Iocational requirements of the Code, and does not negatively affect adjacent properties. The changes to the parking lot and handicap space are internal to the development and have no affect at all on the adjacent properties. With regard to reduction of physical buffers, this is consistent with the September approval wherein the City Commission determined that the existing landscape buffer between Dr. Roberts' property and the Clear Copy property was acceptable. Does the modification adversely affect the elevation design of the structure below the standards stated in the Community Design Plan? Ms. Heyden advised that the windowsills are consistent with the Community Design Plan. In fact, she felt they enhance the elevation design. 6~ Does the modified development meet the concurrency requirements of the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan? Ms. Heyden advised that the modifications have no impact at all on the previously granted concurrency certification. Does the modification alter the site layout so that the modified site plan does not resemble the approved site plan? Ms. Heyden said this really boils down to assessing magnitude of change, and the Department has consistently applied this criterion, as evidenced through its quarterly reporting to the Commission. Ms. Heyden stated that when you compare the original site plan with the modified site plan, you will notice the following: There has been no change in the building location. The same building to parking relationship occurs. (The building is still in the front, and the parking is still in the rear.) There has been one change in the number of driveways or type of driveways (two-way versus one-way and ingress versus egress). The service areas are in the same general location and the method of refuse collection has also not changed. We are continuing to allow curbside pickup for the trash as well as the recyclables. 34 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 The degree, quality, quantity, and location of landscaping has not been changed. The type of parking spaces (90 degree, angle, parallel) has not been changed. The location of impervious areas (parking lot, sidewalks, structures) has virtually not changed. The building height, style, type, and use have not changed. The utility service modification is to the extent that it has no effect on other site improvements. In addition to ratification of her determination of minor modification, she sought a determination from the Commission regarding the legislative intent when the house eave section of the Zoning Code was adopted. She asked if it was the intent to allow this section to apply to commercial buildings. Historically, overhangs on commercial buildings, if they are detected at the inspection stage, have been allowed and have ranged between one inch and four inches. They have included such things as the stucco on the buildings that adds a little volume or depth to the exterior, windowsills, and cornices. The Clear Copy building's windowsills, cornices, and stucco extend beyond the setback lines on the north, which is the front, and also the side property line on the east. Her report indicated three inches, one and a quarter inches, and ten inches, respectively. However, the applicant has submitted a package to the City Commission this evening. This package shows some photographs and drawings of the overhang. There is a little confusion about what the maximum encroachment or overhang is, ten inches or six inches. On the permit plans, the section drawing was labeled a ten inch overhang. When we scaled it, it showed six inches. She believes Mr. Feldman is going to tell the Commission tonight that it is approximately four inches. Ms. Heyden requested ratification of the minor modification determination, and a determination of the Commission's legislative intent on the house overhang application. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz asked if there are any other buildings in the area that have a similar overhang. Ms. Heyden advised that the adjacent building has a similar overhang situation for gutters. It seemed to Bob Feldman, the co-owner of Clear Copy, that Dr. Roberts brings up minute things and makes them major. He reiterated that the original agreement showed a ten inch overhang. He measured the overhang, and it is six inches. With regard to the parking lot, 35 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 the handicap spot was too much of a slope at that point. For safety purposes, it was flip- flopped back to make it a little more accessible. With regard 1o the color of the building, Mr. Feldman stated that a tangerine color was approved by the City Commission. However, after the building was painted, it looked a little more pink than tangerine. He is currently trying to get that toned down a little. With regard to the color of the windows, they were painted bronze because the windows on Dr. Roberts' property, Wendy's, etc., were bronze. He later found out that they are supposed to be white. He has a choice to paint them white, which he feels will peel off in six months because the windows are metal. He has bent over backwards since day one to meet City Code. Even though staff determined this to be a minor modification which could be handled administratively, it is before the Commission because of Dr. Roberts. He has been here 21 years. The City has been excellent to him, but because of litigation involving Dr. Roberts, we are going back and forth on every little item. Mr. Feldman said he will do whatever the City wants him to do. He said he originally wanted a flat roof. There would have been no overhang at all. However, the City required an S-tile roof. Therefore, it has to hang over a little. Reginald Stambaugh of Miller and Woods, the attorney representing Dr. Mark Roberts, advised that Dr. Roberts asked him and his mother, Commissioner Carol Roberts, to speak on his behalf. He said Dr. Roberts could not attend this meeting because he was only notified of this minor modification on Friday and already scheduled an appointment out of State. Mr. Stambaugh said practically everything that could be changed was changed, except the building itself. He said this is a major modification. He did not think there was good enough notice for him to be prepared to address everything as it has been presented. He said all we are trying to do is follow the Land Development Regulations. He introduced Commissioner Roberts. Mayor Taylor welcomed County Commissioner Roberts to Boynton Beach. Commissioner Roberts read a letter, dated March 19, 1996, from Mark E. Roberts, D.D.S. to Mayor Taylor and Commissioners. In this letter, Dr. Roberts states that he believes this is a major site plan modification. A copy of this letter is attached to these minutes. Mr. Stambaugh focused on the key points in this letter which he believes would persuade the Commission to ask staff to reconsider its determination of a minor modification. Mr. Stambaugh said proper procedure is not being followed in this case. He said if we are not going to follow the Land Development Regulations, then we should not have them. The purpose of the Land Development Regulations is to deal effectively with future problems which may occur as a result of the use and development of land. In the instant 36 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 case, we are finding that there are problems being created. We are not following the purpose in this instance. Mr. Stambaugh reread the portion of Dr. Roberts' letter which lists the ways in which the new site plan alters the approved site plan se that it does not resemble the approved site plan. He stated that the new plans show the need for a land dedication to the City. He asked if the City staff, by mere determination of a minor modification site approval, is approving the City's acceptance of a land dedication. He asked if the City Commission allows this. He said this is a major modification. He stated that two other points have not been remedied with this new modification. They are as follows: The fire truck cannot legally access the property. LDR requires safe and efficient access to be provided for emergency and service vehicles to this property. This standard has been required of all commercial developments in the past. City ordinances governing garbage pickup require containerized garbage pickup. There is a requirement for containerized receptacles for commercial properties. Section 10-25 states as follows: "Containerized refuse service shall be carried out by the city at commercial or multifamily residential establishments in the promotion of improved sanitary conditions...." Mr. Stambaugh said there is no more containerized commercial collection. Mr. Stambaugh stated that there has not been an environmental review. Section 11.3 of the Code states as follows: "... in all cases approval of the environmental review permit shall precede approval of the site plan." Mr. Stambaugh advised that the new plan has not submitted the required irrigation plan. He was in possession of a report from Gee & Jensen stating that Chapter 481.321 of the Florida Statutes requires that a licensed landscape architect prepare and sign all landscape plans unless for a single-family home. The landscape plan was submitted by an architect and this is contrary to State law. Therefore, the required landscape design is incomplete. In Gee & Jensen's March 14, 1996 letter to Ms. Heyden, it states as follows: There is no landscape buffer proposed at the east side of the parking lot requiring a variance. The dimensions of the parking lot are inconsistent between the site plan and the construction drawing. In either case, a variance would be required. 3? MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 · These changes are indicative of major plan changes. Mr. Stambaugh read Dr. Roberts' March 19, 1996 letter addressed to Mayor Taylor and the Commissioners regarding determination of the legislative intent of the zoning code. A copy of this letter is attached to these minutes. Mr. Stambaugh advised that Dr. Roberts wants City staff to take a close look at the Code and comply. Mr. Stambaugh focused on the following three criteria when determining if a modification is minor or major: Does the modification cause the development to be below the development standards for the zoning district in which it is located, or other applicable standards in the Land Development Regulations? Mr. Stambaugh stated that we already have gone over some of the below standard requirements. It does not meet the Code sections. Does the modification have an adverse effect on adjacent or nearby property or reduce required physical buffers, such as fences, trees, or hedges? Mr. Stambaugh stated that there is no buffer. Therefore, a problem exists. Does the modification alter the site layout so that the modified site plan does not resemble the approved site plan? Mr. Stambaugh referred to the changes in the parking and access, and the land dedication to the City without Commission approval. He requested that the Commission deem this to be a major modification. Ms. Heyden advised that many of the changes that Mr. Stambaugh mentioned this evening were necessary to meet the staff conditions of the original approval. Nine times out of ten, when you approve a site plan, the site plan that gets submitted as part of permitting, approved subject to staff comments, does not look like the approved site plan. That in and of itself does not constitute a minor site plan modification. The site plan was approved subject to staff comments, which included the change in the dumpster to can pickup. Light pole changes oftentimes change between site plan approval and permit review because the photo cell illumination plans are not required until time of permitting. Oftentimes that 38 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 requires some adjustment in the light pole locations. The buffer between Dr. Roberts' property and this property continues to be the same buffer design that was approved as part of the original approval, which was knowing that the width of the landscape strip was less than two and a half feet. The loading zone was barely shifted in an east/west direction, but is basically in the same location. This is a very insignificant change. The driveway has changed from 15 feet to 12 feet. This still meets Code and is a very insignificant change. Cans are considered containerized pickup. An environmental review has been approved, subject to certain conditions. The conditions and the permit are not issued until just prior to an occupational license being issued. Irrigation plans are not required as part of a site plan. They are required as part of the permit review. In conclusion, Ms. Heyden said the Legal Department informed her that they had notified Dr. Roberts' personally via a telephone call on March 5th that this was considered a minor modification and that it would be going before the City Commission on March 19th. · Commissioner Bradley inquired about the land dedication and the fire trucks. William Hukill, Director of Development, pointed out the land dedication. Sometime in the past, because of the vehicular traffic on 7th coming from the fence company on the other side of the tracks, the radius was made larger. As a result, there is a 21" triangular piece of land where the sidewalks come together. This has to either be dedicated to the City to make the sidewalk fit on City property, or an easement or waiver has to be granted. With regard to access, Ms. Heyden said the Fire Department feels they hav6 adequate ability to access this property for fire protection. With regard to accepting a piece of property of any size on behalf of the City Commission and City, Mr. Stambaugh asked Ms. Heyden if she takes this lightly. Ms. Heyden stated that that method of resolving that issue was not reviewed by her department. She felt it would be appropriate to address this question to the Building Department. Mr. Stambaugh asked the same question of Mr. Hukill. Mr. Hukill indicated that he does not take this lightly. Mr. Stambaugh felt the City Commission should make the decision regarding the donation of land, no matter what the size of the property. Mr. Stambaugh asked for the Code Section that deals with trash cans/containers. Ms. Heyden did not have a Code book in front of her. She stated that the City allows can pickup as well as dumpsters for trash collection. Mr. Stambaugh felt you need to take extra care with commercial properties. He said the Code spells out what a container is, and he left it to City Commission to make that determination. Section 10-25 states as follows: "Containerized refuse service shall be carried out by the city at commercial or multifamily 39 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 residential establishments...." Mr. Stambaugh said there is a contrast between 10-25 and 10-24 (residential noncontainerized collection), which appears to be regular garbage collection. With regard to the buffer zone, Mr. Stambaugh said just because the Code was not in compliance the first time, does not mean that it should not be in compliance the second time under an application for modification. Mr. Stambaugh requested the Commission to follow the Code and consider this a major modification. Ms. Heyden said the Commission has previously approved, in special cases, under certain circumstances, can pickup for commercial properties. Aisc, we have followed the Code, and by allowing this minor site plan modification in no way jeopardizes anything in the Land Development Regulations. Over the past five years, we have been very consistent in applying what is a minor modification and what is a major modification. This is nothing more than we have done in the past. Mr. Stambaugh stated that the Land Development Regulations spell out everything. City staff was supplied with Gee & Jenson's reports. If the City Commission does not feel that they have done any wrong, we are going to have to let the Courts decide this matter. City Attorney Cherof stated that Mr. Stambaugh has invited the Commission to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Director, and to make a determination that this is a major site plan modification. That would be in violation of the Code. One of the provisions of the Code gives the Planning and Zoning Director the discretion to interpret the Code. There is recourse to Dr. Roberts through the Code as well. There is a provision in the Code that states that if any aggrieved party does not like the interpretation of the Planning and Zoning Director on any issue, that they have recourse to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The aggrieved party may obtain a reversal from the Board of Zoning Appeals of the interpretation of the Code by the Planning and Zoning Director. The Code does not always address each and every issue specifically on point. That is why the Planning and Zoning Director has the power to make interpretation. The Commission does not have the power to override the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Director in interpreting the Code. The matter is before the Commission to listen to all of this and suggest to the Planning and Zoning Director that she may want to reconsider it, but the Commission cannot require her to do that and cannot override her. With respect to the other issue regarding the interpretation of the overhang issue, City Attorney Cherof said that is an interpretation that staff has made. The same recourse is 40 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 available to Dr. Roberts if he does not agree that that is the proper interpretation of the Code by the paid professional administrators of the Code. Dr. Roberts has recourse to the Board of Zoning Appeals. City Attorney Cherof stated that they are wrong with respect to telling you that their recourse is to the court. There is an administrative remedy available to them. It is built into the Code to specifically avoid putting people in the position where they have to go to court to make their points of interpretation known to the advisory boards then to the Commission. He suggested that if the Commission believes the Planning and Zoning Director has made the proper interpretation, or wishes not to interfere with that interpretation be it correct or incorrect, the Commission needs do nothing. The Commission can simply ratify her interpretation. With respect to the overhang issue, City Attorney Cherof stated that the only reason that is before the Commission is if the Commission does not believe that staff has been properly interpreting that in applying it to commercial properties, the Commission needs to tell him so that he can clarify that provision of the Code. Commissioner Bradley asked if the ratification is accomplished through silence or through a motion. City Attorney Cherof said it could be by either. Mr. Stambaugh had a difference of legal opinion on the interpretation of that clause. He believes a ratification constitutes an action by the City Commission which would essentially override any of the actions which the administration or City staff would be making. He said if this process is going to go through as a minor modification, then it should be treated as a minor modification. City Attorney Cherof took it from this comment that Mr. Stambaugh is asking the Commission not to take any action. Mr. Stambaugh said we have had an opportunity to speak on this issue, and we are requesting that the City Commission take the action of deeming this a major modification. City Attorney Cherof advised the City Commission that it does not have the power to do that. George Wasser, a practicing architect for 33 years, State Threshold Inspector, and Licensed General Contractor in the State of Florida, has been a resident here and in operation here for about 23 years. He stated that he was called in some time ago as a consultant for Clear Copy, to review some of the comments, look at the property, and see if there was anything of merit in these complaints. He checked the property and made a few recommendations. Later, he found out that the City had already made those comments. Mr. Wasser found the items that Mr. Stambaugh brought up to be the same kind of rhetoric that he read in Gee & Jenson's report. He said it ignores a lot of things. There is simple, logical reasoning behind all of the City comments and approvals. In his experience as a professional, he totally agreed with the Building Department and the 41 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Planning Department. He also agreed with City Attorney Cherof that there is a discretion involved in everything, and not everything is definable. That is. why we have staff to interpret and enforce the intent of the Code. He believes that has been done here. Ciro Gomez, President of Ciro Gomez Inc., is a general contractor. He had the opportunity to build Dr. Roberts' building, and found the City to be very cooperative. He said he was sure that if he was to go back and review Dr. Roberts' building and found that one of the setbacks was 15 feet, that he would have to shave off all the stucco because at the time when the surveys were done to determine setback requirements, only cement block is up, not stucco, bands, or any other exterior applications to enhance the building. He also said that an eave to him, as a builder and professional, is a projection from a building that will protect you from sun or rain, or could possibly be enclosed and enlarge the area of the building without getting a building permit. He said what we have here is something that was done within the original scale dimension by City staff and it was reduced by 40 percent and still accommodates a requirement of cross ventilation for this particular building. He has the task of building this building, but needs some direction. The eave was built. His trusses and overhangs were inspected and passed. It was not until an objection was raised in regard to the eaves that he was given a red tag. The projection from the stucco band out is only two inches to accommodate this particular screen venti'ng. We are not looking at rain protection. He cannot see them later trying to enclose underneath that eave. With regard to the color of the windows, the intent was to maintain a more traditiOnal, conservative, Mediterranean look. Bronzed window frames would enhance the building much more than white window frames. Vice Mayor Jaskiewicz stated that the word "house" in Section 4 seems to be causing a problem. She suggested changing that word to "building" to avoid any misinterpretation in the future. Mayor Taylor said this is about the third time he has been through this matter in detail, and he did not hear much that he had not heard previously. He said he has considered every single one of these comments over and over again. He felt the Commission addressed them adequately. He did not think anybody ever took it trivial. He felt staff were perfectionists. He respected Dr. Roberts' opinion. He felt that staff has addressed many of the items that Dr. Roberts had brought up. He felt a lot has been done to address some of Dr. Roberts' concerns. He said Dr. Roberts' made it clear the very first time he appeared before the Commission that he did not want this building to go up under any circumstances. Mayor Taylor was comfortable with staff's recommendation. He felt we are doing this within our Codes and in many cases, exceeding the Code. 42 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Motion Commissioner Bradley moved to ratify the Planning and Zoning Director's determination of minor site plan modification in this site plan review. Commissioner Tillman seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. The legislative intent of the house eaves was addressed next. Mayor Taylor and City Attorney Cherof felt this section of the Code was clear. However, to avoid any misinterpretation or confusion in the future, there was a consensus of the Commission that the verbiage be changed. City Attorney Cherof will rework that section of the Code with staff. Xl. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Xll. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Finalization of Contract Extension with Edward Garcia re: Property Settlement Agreement re: Meadows 300 Property Executive Session re: Fire Union Contract Marina City Manager Parker hoped to finalize the real estate extension agreement with Mr. Gamia by Friday. Therefore, next week, she will be requesting a brief Special City Commission meeting to ratify that extension as soon as possible. Aisc, she will be requesting a date for an Executive Session regarding the Firefighter Union negotiations next week. City Attorney Cherof also requested a special meeting on Monday. He advised that progress has been made on the language in the settlement agreement with the 300 Properties (Meadows Drive). He requested permission to bring this back to the City Commission for review in order to expedite the resolution of this matter. At Commissioner Bradley's suggestion, these items will be discussed at the March 25th meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Executive Session was scheduled for 6:30 p.m. 43 MINUTES REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MARCH 19, 1996 Xlll. None. XlV. OTHER ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Commission, the meeting properly adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ClTY OFBOYNTON BEACH ATTEST: Mayor Commissioner Cite'Clerk - Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) Com(niss~oner //Ce/mmi~sioner 44 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH CITY COMMISSION AGENDA APPROVAL OF BILLS MARCH 19, 1996 III. CONSM~T AGENDA D cc: Fin. ~til, Rec. e CH2M HILL .................................................. $ 24,297.87 Rate/Mgmt Study, TASK ORDER #25 Pay From Stormwater Util Fund -- 425-397-5-499-00, $8,099.29, Pay From Util Gen Fund -- 403-000-0-690-10, $8,099.29, 403-397-5-497-00, $8,099.29 JOHN C CASSIDY INC ........................................ $ 24,049.22 PO 9246. HVAC Modifications, Payment #9 Original Contract $ 861,703.00 Change Orders 6,135.50 Adjusted Contract 867,838.50 Payments To Date 586,801.39 Current Payment 24,049.22 Contract Balance 256,987.89 Pay From Public Service Tax Fund -- 301-194-5-634-12 DATA FLOW SYSTEMS INC .................................. $183,200.00 PO 11045. Remote Terminal Units. Pay From W & S Util Rev Fund -- 421-000-0-691-21 COMMISSION APPROVAJ.. 6e ge MBR CONSTRUCTION ........................................ $ 44,500.00 PO 11187. E Water Treatment Plant Project, Per Est #1, #2 Original Contract $ 44,500.00 Change Orders 0.00 Payments To Date 0.00 Current Payment 44,500.00 Contract Balance 0.00 Pay From W & S Util Rev Fund -- 421-000-0-690-21 PBC SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY .............................. $ 76,364.45 PO 10~16. Feb. 1996 Daily/Sweeper Landfill Use Pay From San/tation Fund -- 431-341-5-490-01, $75,734.45 Pay From Gea Fund -- 001-411-5-490-01, $630.00 S & S ROOFING SOUTH INC .................................. $17,967.50 PO 11437. Roof Replacement at Wilson Pool Pay From Public Service Tax Coast -- 301-192-5-629-51 SCRW~rD BOARD ............................................ $169,157.74 Feb 1996 User Charges/Wastewater Disposal & Treatment Pay From W & S Rev Fund -- 401-353-5-490-09 SCRWTD BOARD ............................................. $ 38,981.51 Capital Projects/Sinking Fund Pay From 1990 Coast Fund -- 409-000-0-691-20, $31,212.02, Pay From W & S Rev Fund -- 401-353-5-699-99, $7,000.00, Pay From Util Gen Fund -- 403-000-0-691-22, $769.49 CON/N/ sS ON AppROVAL 9. SOUTH FLORIDA UTILITIES INC ............................. $ 28,044.41 PO 9781. Lift Station Rehab Project, Final Pymt Original Contract Change Orders Adjusted Contract Payments To Date Current Payment Contract Balance $ 424,094.00 4,964.71 429,058.71 401,014.30 28,044.41 $ 0.00 Pay From 1990 Construction Fund -- 409-000-0-691-10 10. WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD ................................ $ 30,250.00 PO 10324. Mangrove Park/Design & Construction Pay From Federal Grant -- 105-722-5-630-12 COMMISSION MAR 19 APPROVAL THESE BILLS HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND VERIFIED FOR PAYMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT HEADS INVOLVED. DIANE REESE, DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR I THEREFORE RECOMMEND PAYMENT OF THESE BILLS. CARRIE PARKER, CITY MANAGER COMMISSION MAR 19 APi~t~oVAL R.H.S. Corporation 650 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Suite #2, Boynton Beach, FL 33426 * (407) 736-1700 March 19, 1996 Mayor Gerald Taylor and Commissioners City of Boynton Beach P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Dear Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners: I, Mark Roberts, President of RHS Corporation, am unable to attend this meeting tonight. Carol Roberts, has come to present this letter on my behalf. Since there are many issues involved with this application for the modified site plan, I will attempt to .cover the most relevant issues before your voting on this issue. The Planning and Zoning Department decided this site plan change is a minor change. Gee and Jenson, a well-respected engineering firm, after evaluating the new site plan states this is a major site plan modification. I also believe this is a major site plan modification, and therefore should be treated as such. The Land Development Regulations (LDR) specify the proper procedure for major site plan modifications. Should the City Commission decide tonight to vary from this lawful procedure, RHS Corporation will unequivocally, and without hesitation file additional litigation requiring the City to comply and enforce their own codes. As you are aware, unnecessary ~itigation for the City is very costly. The LDR, Chapter 4, Section 9.C state criterion to be used to determine whether a determination is minor or major. The following criteria establish the new plans are a major modification. a) This new site plan causes the Clear Copy development to not meet all applicable standards and regulations of the LDR, needing many variances to comply with the LDR, and therefore needs further review as required in a major site plan modification. b) This new site plan eliminates the required physical buffer to RHS Corporation's property, thereby adversely effecting RHS Corporation's property. The elimination of required buffers is indicative of a major site plan modification. The current approved site plans for which permits are issued indicate that Clear Copy will meet minimum landscape screening standards, which will be verified by a city inspector, and if the site doesn't meet minimum standards, the plans will be revised. c) The new site plan alters the approved site plan so it does not resemble the approved site plan. It does so in the following ways: 1) The ingress has changed from N.W. 1st. Ave to N.W. 7th Street. 2) Every parking space has been moved to a new location. 3) The requireddumpster area has been eliminated. 4) The required garbage truck access to dumpster has been eliminated. 5) Ail new drainage engineering has been submitted. 6) The locations of the approved lights have been changed. side of the 7) The required landscape buffer on the east property has been eliminated. 8) All new traffic flow patterns are changed. 9) The new plans show the need for a land dedication to the City. 10) The loading zone has been modified. tl) The driveways have been narrowed from 15 feet to 12 feet which will prevent access to the property by some vehicles. Any of those changes by itself should classify the new site plan as a major modification, but collectively they definitely are. One of the few site characteristics not changed with the new site plan is the location of the building. However, the unfinished building was built into the required setbacks in violation of the LDR, thereby requiring a variance. I believe it is apparent these new plans involve a major modification. The City's Staff's has recommended to classify this new site plan as a minor modification. Regardless of the classification, this site plan should be rejected for the following reasons: 1) The fire truck cannot legally access this property. LDR requires safe and efficient access to be provided for emergency and service vehicles to this property. This standard has been required of all commercial developments in the past. 2) The recyclable garbage truck cannot legally access this property. For this site plan, the City Commission previously approved curbside pickup of general garbage and onsite pickup of recyclable garbage. City ordinances governing garbage pickup require containerized garbage pickup. The City's garbage truck's cannot provide this service for this modified site plan. A variance is required for administrative regulations contrary to provisions of the City Codes. 3) The required dumpster areafor the containerized dumpster, as required per City ordinances has been eliminated. This requires a variance. 4) The access to the dumpster area has been eliminated. This requires a variance. It should be remembered that one purpose of the LDR is to prevent and deal effectively with future problems of this development. If and when Clear Copy no longer operates at this site, it is unreasonable to believe that that other businesses ocupying a building this large will generate small enough quantities of garbage not requiring dumpster pickup. 5) The Clear Copy property needs to be 53 feet wide to have all the LDR required site improvements. The survey shows the property is 50 feet wide. The LDR required improvements relating to this property are a 5-feet perimeter buffer, a 6 inch raised · curb, 27 feet backup space, 18 feet parking space, and a 2 feet six inch interior buffer, equalling 53 feet. This site plan requires a variance to meet the minimum standards. 6) The survey and. plans show the property to be 50 feet wide. Improvements shown on the plans total 50 feet 6 inches. They are the 5-feet buffer, a 6 inch raised curb, 27 feet backup space, and 18 feet of parking space. This clearly equals 50 feet 6 inches, and not the 50 feet available. Therefore, the site plan CANNOT be built if approved. 7) Most trucks will be unable zone without illegal encroachment parking space. to use the required loading into the required handicap 8) Although the positions of the parking lot lights have been moved, the required engineering has not been submitted. I believe the lighting will not meet the City's required lighting design criteria. The previously submitted lighting engineering, approved by the engineering department, but never shown to the City Commission, used offsite lighting going onto Clear Copy's property for its lighting calculations of illumination. It did not take into consideration that light cannot go thru a six foot high concrete wall, and therefore not meeting minimum lighting standards either. 9) The narrowing of the driveways in addition with the conditions of no swale area and only a five feet wide sidewalk will prevent many service vehicles and delivery trucks safe and efficient access to this property. plan. The new plan has not submitted therequired irrigation 11) The elimination of the required buffer zone next to RHS Corporation's property will cause irreparable damage to RHS Corporation's property. Gee and Jenson determined that reducing the existing nonconforming buffer to 19 inches will kill the existing hedge, thereby eliminating the buffer. They believe it is doubtful that a hedge of the required 4 to 6 feet could ever be grown. The required procedure to eliminate parking lot buffers defined in LDR Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.E and required by LDR Chapter 23, Article II, Section C. is thru variance, assuming the applicant meets the application criteria. 12) The required landscaping design is incomplete. 13) The dimensions of the parking lot are inconsistent between the site plan and the construction drawings. In either case variances are required. The above enumeration of changes and items of concern may not be all inclusive. However, they are indicative of major site plan changes which require a more indepth review than is normally 'required under minor site plan changes. The basis for the current law suit RHS Corporation filed against the City alleges that the City did not follow proper procedure as required by law. Restating RHS Corporation's current position, should you approve this modified site plan tonight, RHS Corporation will unequivocally and without hesitation ~ursue and file a new law suit to appeal the action of the commission. Respge~ull¥, Mark E. Robert-s, D.D. . President, RHS Corporation March 141 1996 GEE & JENSON Engineer s~Arch~tects-P]anners. Inc One Harvard C¢cle West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Teiec~hone (407) 683-330t Fax (,407) 686-7446 Ms. Tambd Heyden, Director Planning & Zoning City of Boynton Beach P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FI 33425-0310 Re: Clean Copy, Inc., Site & Construction Plans Boynton Beach, FI Dear Ms. Heyden: The site plan and construction drawings for Clea¢ Copy, Inc. located at West Boynton Beach Boulevard and N.W. 7th Street submitted to your office on March 6, 1996 and March 8, 1996 respectively, are substantially different from previously submitted plans. Among the changes made are the following: 1. Ingress ddveway to the property has been changed from N.W. 1". Ave. to N.W. 70, St. 2. The parking configuration has completely changed. 3. The parking lot grading has changed altedng drainage patterns and ddveway slopes. 4. The site plan indicates deletion of a dumpster, however the construction drawing indicates inclusion of a dumpster. In additiOn to the above noted changes, the following are items of concern, particularly where variances are required: 1. There is no landscape buffer proposed at the east side of the parking lot requiring a vadance. 2. The dimensions of the parking lot are inconsistent between the site plan and the construction drawing. In either case, a variance would be required. 3. No data was submitted indicating compliance with lighting requirements. 4. Access for emergency and service vehicles should be reviewed. City of Boynton Beach Attn: Ms. Tambri Heyden March 14, 1996 o Page 2 The above enumeration of changes and items of concern is not all inclusive, but is indicative of major plan changes which require a more in depth review than would normally be required under minor site plan change review procedures. Very truly yours, Harold T. Benoit, Jr., PE 96-105 cc: Mark Roberts, D.D.S. Reginald Stambaugh, Esq. · ~4arvard Circle. West Palm 8each, Florida 33409 · (407) 683-330~ * Fax (407) 686-7446 R.H.S. Corporation 6~0 West Boynton Beach Blvd., Suite #2, Boynton Beach, FL 33426 * (407) 736-1700 March 19, 1996 Mayor Gerald Taylor and Conunissioners City of Boynton Beach P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 REF: Determination of legislative intent of zoning code Dear Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners: I, Mark Roberts, am unable to attend this Co~u~ission meeting. -Since Staff is requesting from the commission a determination of their legislative intent on zoning code of Land Development Regulations (LDR), Chapter 2, Section 4.J.3., I researched the codes. I found the LDR addresses this issue. The code reads as follows: LDR, Chapter 2, Section 4. General Provisions J. Other Structures. The following structures shall be permitted in front, rear, or side setbacks as provided in this ordinance, in any zone, EXCEPT WHERE SO NOTED; taking into consideration existing easements: 3. House eaves shall not overhang or exceed the setback lines for more than two (2)feet. The LDR specifically addresses Staff's concerns as to whether commercial buildings are allowed to overhang into setbacks. The ordinance states that house eaves shall be allowed EXCEPT WHERE SO NOTED. Even if house eaves were the same as commercial building eaves, which they are not, the exception is clearly outlined in the LDR, Chapter, Section 6.B.3. It states that in a C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District that no building or portion thereof shall be erected, constructed, converted, established, altered, enlarged or used unless the premises and building comply with the required setback regulations of 30 feet for front yards and 15 feet for side yards. The code clearly establishes the exception for house eave overhangs in C-2 Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Overhangs which include building surface treatments, window sills and cornices, and roofs are clearly not allowed to be built into the setbacks. The Development Department states that in the past they have willfully overlooked enforcing the City's ordinances at inspections. I believe this is a bad precedent and the appropriate inspectors should be reprimanded for this unlawful conduct. As an official of the City, they have a fiduciary responsibility to obey and enforce all lawful ordinances of the City. In conclusion, Clear Copy project should be built to the required codes in force at the time of application for site plan approval. House eaves have nothing to do with commercial building eaves. The overhangs into the setbacks on the Clear Copy project are clearly in violation of the LDR. The City has the responsibility to enforce their codes and ordinances. Should the City choose not to enforce their codes and ordinances, RHS Corporation will unequivocally and without hesitation pursue and file legal action for compliance of all applicable zoning codes on 'the Clear Copy project. Respect~fully, Ma~k E. Robert , President, RHS Corporation Art. having the general responsibility for the conduct of a comprehensive planning program and the preparation, supervision and amendment of the comprehensive plan or elements or portions thereof applicable to the areas under the jurisdiction of the city as provided in said act. Section 6. Review of board decisions. Ail decisions of the planning and development board shall be advisory to the City Coranission..Disposition'of an application or request made through the planning and development hoard shall not be deemed final until acted on by the City Commission. Once final, a decision may be reviewed by the filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, and in accordance with the procedure and within the time provided by court rule and such time shall co,~nce to run from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. -Section 7. Co~preb---ive pl~, adopted; authority, purpose, preemption. Authority. Ordinance 'No. 89-38 is adopted in compliance with, and pursuant to, the Local ~overnment Co~0rehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. Section 163.3184, et.seq., Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. B. Purpose and intent. 1. It is hereby declared that the purpose of such Ordinance is to preserve and erahance the existing quality of life; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest; address current problems which have occurred because of the use and development of land; and deal effectively with future problems which may Through the implementation of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan and those elements adopted herein by Ordinance No. 89-38, it is the intent of the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, to preserve, promote, protect and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and 'fire prevention, end general welfare; to prevent the overcrowding of land end to avoid undue concentration of populations; to minimize urban sprawl; to encourage the development and redevelopment of the coastal co~,~mity; to ensure that the existing rights of property owners be preserved in accord with the Constitutions of the State of Florida and of the United States; to plan for and guide growth and development within the city by providing greater specificity and certainty in the 1.5-4 Section A. §8 Compliance with levels of service as stated in the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan is required. 9. Modification of approved site plan. Minor: A non-impacting modification which will hav~ no adverse-effect on the approved site and development plan and no impact upon adjacent and nearby properties, and no adverse aesthetic impact when viewed from a public right- of-way as determined by the planning And zoning director. Major: A modification which presents a significant change in intensity of use which, in turn, may have a significant impact upon facilities, concurrency; upon nearby and adjacent properties, or upon findings made at the time of approval of the site and development plan as determined by the planning and zoning director. In making a"minor/major modification determination, the planning director shall consider the following: 1. Does the modification increase the buildable square footage of the development by more than five (5) percent. 2. Does the modification reduce the provided number of parking space below the required number of parking spaces. 3. Does the modification cause the development to be below the development standards for the zoning district in which it is located or other applicable standards in the Land Development Regulations. 4. Does the modification have an adverse effect on adjacent or nearby property or reduce required physical buffers, such as fences, trees, or hedges. 5. Does the modification adversely affect the elevation design of the structure or reduce the overall design of the structure below the standards stated in the co~unity design plan. 6. Does the modified development meet the concurrency . requirements of the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan. 7. Does the modification alter the site layout so that the modified site plan does not resemble the approved site plan. When any determination of major/minor modification made by the planning and zoning director is challenged or 'contested by the applicant, the modification shall be processed as a new site plan in accordance with this chapter. Procedure: A site plan modification shall be processed as follows, pursuant to its categorization: 59 t. Minor: Administrative review and action by the appropriate city departments. 2. Major: Processing is the same as for the original site plan. Required information: The following information must be presented with a request for a site plan modification: 1. Minor: A letter which sets forth the requested changes along with an exhibi~ sho~ing that portion of the site plan whichis to be changed in its present condition and an exhibit depicting the requested change. 2. Major: A major modification shall contain the same information as required for a new site plan submittal. Upon approval of a major site plan modification by the City Conmtission, the applicant shall have one (1) year to secure a building permit from the development department. If an applicant fails to secure a building permit in that time, all previous approvals shall become null and void and the applicant will be required to resubmit the plan for site plan reviewl At its discretion, the City Commission may extend the approval of a major site plan modification for a one-year period. Minor modifications shall not extend the time limits of an approved site plan. H. The planning director shall file a quarterly report on minor site plan modifications with the City Commission. Section 10. Review of site p]~-- in the Cn~ central business district, zc~4-g district or the co~ity redevelops_hr agency area. For areas zoned CBD central business district or within the CO~L~Lunity redevelopment agency area of jurisdiction, all the sections of this chapter shall apply except that the functions of the planning and development board shall be performed by the co~L~nity redevelopment advisory board (CRAB) and the functions of the City Co~ssion shall be performed by the co~L~nity redevelop~m~t agency {CRA). Section 11. Maintm-~ce. Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy an improved site must be maintained in co~liance with the approved site plan. 4-10 o §11.3 ~nvironmenta! review permits and other use or development permits. No building permit or occupational license shall he issue~, and no site plan as set forth in Chapter 4 shall be approved, 9~ _any other use or development permit or approval shall be granted, for a use requiring an environmental review permit, until an environmental-review permit has neen grante~. Site plan review may ~roceed simultaneously wlt~ revxew ox an environmental revi~ perml~ application, and plans and'documents submitted for review of an environmental review permit may also .~.~e used for site plan review; provi~e~, however, ~nat in all cases, approval of the envxrorm~ntal review ermit shall precede approval oX t~e site plan. Environmental review permits and state pollution control regulations and permits. In the event that state regulations or permits would apply to emission of pollutants from a use, such regulations and permits shall govern in all cases provided that an environmental review permit is granted for the use. Where the level of pollution discharge which would be lawful under state regulations and permits would not meet the standards set forth in Section ll.3.D., such use shall' not be granted an environmental review permit. In no case shall the issuance of an environmental review permit be construed to relieve the applicant from complying with or obtaining applicable federal, state, or county regulations or permits of any type. Review procedure. In the review Of applications for environmental review permits, members of environmental review co~mmittee shall make written co,m~ents as to the desirability of the use described in the application locating on the site proposed, and modifications that are recormmended to the proposed use and development of the property in order to meet the standards set forth in Section 11.3.D. No application shall be considered to be approved until all members of the environmental review committee have approved the application. The environmental review cc~anittee may impose any conditions and safeguards necessary to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in Section 11.3.D. and shall not approve any application for an environmental review permit that does not comply with such standards. The environmental review committee may disapprove any application in whole or in part, or any characteristic of the use described therein, which does not comply with such standards. The co~nittee shall designate a secretary who shall be responsible for recording the findings of the conm%littee with respect to the conformance of the application with 2-133 '1 Art. II, §5 right-of-way, excluding dedicated alleys to the rear of building, there shall be provided landscaping between such area and such right-of-way as follows: A strip of land at least five (5) feet in width located between the abutting right-of-way and the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area which is exposed to an abutting right-of-way shall be landscaped, such landscaping is to include a minimum of one tree for each forty (40) lineal feet or fraction thereof. Such trees shall be located between the abutting right-of-way and off-street parking area or other vehicular use area and shall be planted i~ a planting area of at least twenty-five (2S) square feet with a dimension of at least five (5) feet. In addition, a hedge, wall, or other durable landscape barrier of at least three (3) feet in height shall be placed along only the interior perimeter of such landscaped strip. If such durable barrier is of nonliving material, for each ten (10) feet thereof, one shrub or vine 'shall be planted abutting such barrier along the street side of such barrier. The remainder of the required landscaped areas shall be landscaped with grass ~round cover or other landscape treatment. Perimeter landscaping relating to abutting properties. On the site of a building or structure or open lot use providing an off-street parking area or other vehicular use area, such area~l~.~provided with a landscaped barrier, preferably a hedge not less than four (4) feet nor greater than six (6) feet in height to form a continuous screen between the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area and such abutting property. Such landscape barrier shall be located between the CuLm~n lot line and the off-street p.arkinq area or order vehicular use area in a planting str=p of not lees than two and one-halt (2 1/2) feet in width. The provisions of this subsectxon shall not be applicable in the following situations: When a property line abuts a dedicated alley. Where a proposed parking area or other vehicular use area abuts an existing hedge, said existing hedge may be used to satisfy the landscape requirements' of this subsection provided that said existing hedge meets all applicable standards of this article. Accessways. The maximum width of an accessway (whether one- or two-way traffic) through the required perimeter landscape strip to an off-street parking or other vehicular use area shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The balance of such street frontage not involved with §4 property on which the use is located; or to contaminate any public waters or any groundwater. Fire and explosion hazards. No use shall be carried out in any zoning district so as to create a fire or explosion hazard to adjacent or nearby property or rights-of-way, or any persons or property thereon. Furthermore, the storage, use or production of flammable or explosive materials shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 9 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Heat, humidity, or glare. No use shall be carried out in any zoning district so as to produce heat, humidity orglare which is readily perceptible at any point at' or beyond the property line of the property on which the use is located. Artificial lighting which is used to illuminate any property or use shall be directed away from any residential use which is a conforming use according to these zoning regUlations, so as not to create a nuisance to such residential uses. o Liquid waste. No use shall be carried out in any zoning district so as to dispose of liquid waste of any type, quantity or manner which is not in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 26 of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, or any applicable federal, state or county laws or permits. Solid waste. No use shall he carried out in any zollln~ ~istrlct so as to a~low t~e accumulation or disposal of solid waste whzch is not in conformance w=tn c~ap=er 10 of ~-~e City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinance, or which would cause solid waste to be transferred in any manner to adjacent or nearby property or rights-of-way. 10. Electromagnetic interference. No use shall be carried out in any zoning district so as to create electromagnetic radiation which causes abnormal degradation of performance of any electromagnetic receptor of quality and proper design as defined by the principles and standards adopted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or the Electronic Industries Association. Furthermore, no use shall be carried out in any zoning district so as to cause electromagnetic radiation which does not comply with the Federal Co~L~u:nications Commission regUlations, or which causes objectionable electromagnetic interference with normal radio or television reception in any zoning district. 2-13 Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances ARTICLE II. REFUSE, GARBAGE AND TRASH* *Editor's note-Ord. No. 82-29, § 1, enacted Sept. 21, 1982, repealed former Art. II, §§ 10-22--10-39, relative to refuse, garbage and trash, and enacted in lieu thereof a new Art. II, pertaining to the same subject· matter. Former Art. II was derived from Code 1958, §§ 13-2--13-6, 13-9, 13-11, 13-13, 13-33--13-41, and Ord. No. 80-20, § 1, adopted June 3, 1980. Sec. 10-22. City to collect and dispose of garbage; supervision; regulatory authority. · All garbage and some trash and horticultural refuse accumulated in the city shall be collected, conveyed and disposed of by the city under the supervision of the public works director: The public works director shall have authority to make administrative regulations concerning .the days of collection, type and location of waste contmners ana sucia other matters pertaining to the collection, conveyance and disposal not otherwise set by the city commission or the city manager as he shall find necessary, and to change and modify the same after notice as required by law, provided that such regulations are not contrary to the provisions hereof. (Ord. No. 82-29, § 1, 9-21-82) Sec. 10-23. Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the following words and terms are defined as follows: Additionalpickup means a collection of garbage, combustible trash, noncombustible trash or yard trash required due to the inappropriate container, lack of containerization and/or size or type of material placed out for pickup. Commercial means places of business including, but not limited to hotels, motels, restaurants, offices, industries, stores and other locations which hold themselves out to the public as places of business or accommodations. Containers or receptacles: (1) "Noncontainerized" means the use of a standard thirty- three (33) gallon or less garbage can constructed of light gauge steel, galvanized metal or plastic with a tight-fitting lid; such receptacle to have two (2) handles upon the sides thereof or a suitable bale by which it may be 'readily lifted for the purpose of easily emptying into a sanitation vehicle. ' (2) "Containerized'' means a detachable metal container provided by the city designed and intended to be mechanically dumped into a packer-type sanitation vehicle an~- 3~ar~.~ng i_n_s~ from two (~)~fibi~ 3;ards to eigh~ (8) cubic yards adaptable to city eqmpment~. (3) "Containerized with wheels" are containers supplied by the occupants who choose to use them inside buildings and roll them to the designated outside location for pickup. CoDvrioht {ci t995, American Leqal Publishinq Corporation Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances (4) "Specialized refuse bag" means an approved waterproof paper or plastic bag designed to receive the equivalent of thirty-three (33) gallons of refuse. Dispose means to deliver to approved landfill or transfer station or other approved disposal method. Refuse shall mean any or all of the following: garbage, combustible trash, noncombustible trash, and yard trash. Such items are hereby further defined as follows: (1) "Garbage:" Every accumulation of animal, fruit, or vegetable matter that attends the preparation, use, cooking and dealing in or storage of meats, fish, fowl, fruit or vegetables, and any other matter, of any nature which is subject to decay, putrefaction and genemti0n of noxious or offensive gases or odors, or which, during or after decay may serve as a breeding or feeding material for flies or other germ carrying insects; and any bottles, cans or other containers, except recyclable containers, which due to their ability to retain water, may serve as a breeding place for mosquitoes or other insects. Garbage shall not include human solid waste. (2) (3) "Combustible trash:" Accumulations of-paper, rags or wooden or paper boxes, sweepings, and other accumulatiOns of a nature other than garbage which are usual to housekeeping and the operation of stores, offices, and other business places. "Noncombustible trash:" Materials that are not burnable at ordinary incineration temperatures, such as metals, mineral matter, metal furniture and auto bodies and parts. (4) "Yard trash:" Shall mean vegetative matter resulting from landscaping maintenance and land-clearing operations including accumulation of lawn, grass, shrubbery cuttings, dry leaf rakings, palm fronds, small tree branches not to exceed four (4) inches in diameter or four (4) feet in length. Yard trash shall be collected on scheduled pickup days. Residential means any structure or shelter or any part thereof used or constructed as a residence for one or more families. Sanitation supervisor means the director of public works and his duly authorized agents. Special pickup is a collection resulting from a call from residents to the public works department to arrange a "special pickup" for items not collected weekly. Such pickups include the following items: Washers, dryers, furniture (including mattress and springs), rugs and other household items. Horticultural refuse larger than one cubic yard will also have to be arranged by the resident with the public works department. Special pickups will be coordinated with the resident and the ~mitation supervisor as to time, place, date and items to be picked up. Items to be picked up will not be deposited at curbside prior to approval oftbe sanitation supervisor. Waste material means and includes sand, wood, stone, brick, cement, concrete, construction blocks, roofing and other refuse building materials usually left over from a construction or remodeling project also trees, tree stumps, tree limbs larger than four (4) inches Copyri.qht (c) 1995, American Leqal Publishing Corporation ~on Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances in diameter and longer than four (4) feet in length, except palm fxonds. (Ord. No. 82-29, § 1, 9-2t-82; Ord. No. 92-12, § 1, 6-2-92; Ord. No. 94-28, § 1, 9-9-94) Sec. 10-24. Residential noncontainerized collection. (a) The occupant of each household in the city is hereby required to provide refuse containers of sufficient capacity tO hold four (4) days' accumulation of garbage and loose trash from each household. (b) conditions: The city will collect noncontainerized residential refuse under the following (1) Garbage and combustible trash will be collected twice per week at curbside from residential units, in standard thirty-two-gallon garbage cans or sealed bags placed within five (5) feet of curbside. Maximum total weight per full container shall not exceed thirty-five (35) pounds. All containers shall be aboveground and shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from any obstruction that may interfere with routine collection. Underground containers may be used for storage of garbage, but must be placed above ground on collection days. Yard trash will not be collected with household' garbage, but will be picked up once per week on a scheduled trash pickup day. Yard trash capable of being containerized should be placed in a standard garbage can or disposable container. Yard trash must not be commingled with household garbage. Collection of yard trash should be piled separately from all other trash at curbside. Placing of yard trash in the paved area of the street or on vacant lots is prohibited. Construction debris, auto, truck or motorcycle parts and hazardous waste material will not be picked up by the city and owners must make arrangements for proper disposal. (2) All garbage cans shall be subject to inspection and approval by the public works director or his designate at all times. A container not approved by the public works director and which is set out for collection will have a notice placed upon the container, handed to the owner or occupant, or left at his residence and the occupant shall no longer use the container for collection. It shall be unlawful for any person to place, in such unapproved container, any garbage or other material and the owner or occupant of said premises shall provide a new container to take the place of the unapproved can. (3) All yard trash shall be. placed in approved containers or bundled for pickup. No loose' material, such as leaves,-grass clippings, hedge clippings, and yard sweepings shall be set out for collection. (4) Special waterproof disposable refuse bags or any other containers may be used. When such bags or any other containers are used, the responsibility for protection of either the bag or the container and the contents shall rest with the property occupants. Rupture of or damage to the bag or container from any cause resulting in the scattering of refuse prior to the arrival of collection personnel will obligate the user to reassemble all of the refuse and provide an undamaged bag or container prior to pickup by the city. Copyriqht (c) 1995, American Leqal Publishinq Corporation Boynton Beach, Florida Code of Ordinances (5) Yard trash too large for containers and consisting of tree branches, palm fronds, brush, trimmings, etc, shall be cut in lengths not exceeding four (4) feet and not more than four (4) inches in diameter. (Length limitation does not apply to palm fronds.) Accumulations shall be stacked in compact piles at curbside within the confines .of residents' or owners' side property lines. Deposits of refuse shall not obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The city will not collect yard trash produced from commercial tree trimming operations, landscape and lawn maintenance operators. No refuse shall be placed on property owned or occupied by others without permission. (6) Accumulation of waste material of any type shall not be permitted to remain in street right-of-way in excess of four (4) days. (7) All wet garbage matter shall either be wrapped in paper before being placed in refuse containers or bundled so that leakage from container is prevented. All garbage, after having been so cared for shall be daily deposited in the containers herein required. Tir~ cans, bottles and other containers shall farst be drained of all liquid. All refuse containers shall be kept tightly covered at ail times, except when it becomes necessary to lift the cover for the purpose of depositing refuse in the 'container or for the purpose of emptying such container into a disposal vehicle. (8) No refuse container shall be kept or maintained upon or adjacent to any street, sidewalk, parkway, front yard, side yard or other place within the view of persons using the city's streets or sidewalks, except that not earlier than 6:00 p.m. on the day preceding that upon which refuse collection are customarily made from such premises, such containers shall be placed within the required distance of the street for the purpose of permitting the collection of refuse therefrom, and which containers shall be permitted to remain in such places only for and during the period of the day upon which such collection is made. Protection of the conta'mers placed for collection is the responsibility of the resident. (9) Special pickup shall be coordinated with the resident and the sanitation supervisor as to time, place, date and items to be picked up. Items to be picked up will not be deposited at curbside prior to approval of the sanitation supervisor. (Ord. No. 82-29, § 1, 9-21-82; Ord. No. 92-12, §§ 2-4, 6-2-92; Ord. No. 94-28, § 2, 9-9-94) Sec. 10-25. Containerized commercial and residential collection. (a) ReguRttions governing Containerized service: (I)- Coatainefized refuse service shall be carried out by the city at commercial or multifamily residential establishments in the promotion of improved sanitary_ conditions for the prevention of health hazard. Containers are supplied by and shall remain theproperty 6ff~-~if3;YTti~u~r' iS responsible/hr the protecUon o~' containers placedto serve his premises. The user shall be liable to the extent of the cost of repairs or replacement of containers when damaged by fare, negligence, vandalism or other forms of abuse. (2) Free dumping access to containers at all times shall be provided by the user. All Copyriqht (c) 1995, American Leclal Publishinq Corporation ~'~'Boynton~ Beach, Florida*Code of Ordinances containers shall be located so that the collection vehicle driver can dump containers without leaving the vehicle. (3) Customers using garbage chutes or interior storage shall provide containers on rollers which will be the responsibility of the owner or occupant for maintenance. The owner shall be responsible for placing (roiling) them to the proper position for emptying and in time for emptying. (4) The size or number of containers shall be determined by the volume of refuse to be deposited and will be in direct relationship to the manner in which the user elects to utilize the space provided in said container or containers. Charges shall be assessed on the basis of cubic yards of refuse removed from premises whether manually compacted or loose. (Ord. No. 82-29, § 1, 9-21-82) Sec. 10-26. General regulation..s. (a) Predetermination of refuse storage sites required& Prior to the issuance of a · building permit by the city building department for the renovation, modification or erection of a new structure other than single-family dwellings, provisions must be made for the storage and handling of refuse. Such arrangements shall provide free access to containers by mechanized equipment at all times. Acting jointly, the public works department and the city building department and the builder-owner-occupant as applicable shall mutually arrive at a satisfactory arrangement to meet collection requirements. (b) [ItZhen refuse collected&] Refuse from commercial establishments will be collected daily or as necessary to meet sanitation standards. Refuse from containerized residential units will be collected twice a week. (c) Duty to record and bill users of city system. The sanitation supervisor shall cause to be kept, an accurate record of all persons using the services and facilities of the said municipal refuse collection and disposal system and make charges in accordance with the rotes and charges herein established. (d) [Burying refuse prohibited. J It shall be unlawful for any person to bm3, in the ground any refuse. (e) [Unlawful deposits.] It shall be unlawful for any person to deposit refuse upon any vacant or unoccupied premises in the city or upon any occupied property without the permission of the owner or upon any street, alley, park, parkway, or in any canal, waterway, rock pit and sand pit, pool or lake within the city. Cross references-Depositing litter in bodies of water, § 15-30; polluting park waters, § 16-26. (f) Mulch or compost piles permitted. Horticultural trash and refuse containing no combustible matter, or which will not, during decay, give off offensive odors, may be accumulated by the owner as a mulch or compost pile in the rear of the premises upon which accumulated. Copyriqht (c11995, American Leqa Publishinq Corporation COMMERCIAL DUMPSTER$ 4. Off-street parking ~reas shall be provided which adequately accon~nodate maximum vehicle storage demands for the proposed development and are located and designed in such a manner so as to serve the uses in the proposed development and not create incormpatible visual relationships. 5. Safe and efficient access to all areas of the proposed development shall be providedfor emergency and service vehicles. 6. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by the city regulations. 7. Conformance with the city and county throughfare plans is required. 8. Compliance with the Palm Beach Traffic Performance Ordinance is required. Do CoLLu~unity services: Ail proposed developments shall be designed and located in such a manner as to ensure the adequate provision of the following cure,unity services: 1. Fire protection; 2. Police protection. Buildings and other structures: Ail buildings and structures proposed to be located within a development shall be oriented and designed in such a manner as to enhance, rather than detract from, the overall quality of the site and its iL~l,ediate environment. The following guidelines shall be followed in the review and evaluation of all buildings and structures: 1. Proposed buildings and structures shall be related harmoniously to the terrain, other buildings and the surrounding neighborhood, and shall not create through their location, style, color or texture incuu~atible physical or visual relationships. 2. Ail buildings and structures shall be designed and oriented in a manner ensuring maximum privacy of residential uses and related activities both on the site being developed and adjacent property. 3. Ail permanent outdoor identification features which are intended to call attention to a proposed development and/or structures shall be designed and located in such a manner as to be an integral part of the development. 4. Ail buildings and structures shall comply with the c~,~mity design plan. Fo Concurrency and level of service standards: For the purgose of the issuance of development orders and permits, the City of Boynton Beach has adopted level of service standards for public facilities and services which include roads, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and parks and recreation. 4-8 §6 goods that are brought to the premises by retail customers. Any use listed under 6.B.1 or 6.B.1A, which uses, handles, s~ores, or displays hazardous materials, or which generates hazardous waste as defined by 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261. Prohibited uses. Within any C-2 neighborhood commercial zoning district, no building, structure, land or water, or any part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, in whole or in part, for any of the following uses: a. Any use not specifically allowed in accordance with the list of uses u~der 1., lA., and lB., above. b. Any use which is either specifically allowed or prohibited in another zoning district, which is not specifically allowed in accordance with the list of uses under 1., lA., and lB., above. c. Outdoor storage or display of any type. d. Sale of firearms or ~,Lunition. e. Sale of fireworks.~ f. Temporary employment centers, operated on a walk-in basis. g. Any wholesale establishments, storage as a principal use, or off-premises storage, or distribution. h. Sale of alcoholic beverages, other than beer or wine. i. Serving of alcoholic beverages, except for consumption on premises within a duly licensed restaurant and in conjunction with the serving of regular meals. j. Lumber yards or building materials stores. k. Sales bazaars, farmer's markets, flea or thieves, markets, swap shops and trading posts. 3. Building and site rep~lations. No building or Portion thereof s~all be erected, constructed, conve~ed,- established, altered, enlarged or used unless the . prem%%ses and b~ildings shall co~ly with the following r~--~lations: Minimum lot frontage Minimum lot depth Minimum lot area Maximum lot coverage Minimum front yard Minimum side yard (interior lots) Minimum side yard (corner. lOc- ..... 50 feet 100 feet 5,000 square feet 40 percent 30 feet 15 feet* 20 feet-on side street §11 Miscellaneous uses: (1) Taxi offices and bus stations: One (1) parking, space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. (2) Cor~znunications facilities, including broadcasting facilities and telephone exchanges: One (1) parking space per one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of gross floor area, plus re6/uired parking spaces for any floor area occupied by offices. (3) Greenhouses: One (1) parking space per two thousand (2,000) square feet of gross floor area, plus required parking spaces for any retail floor area. I. LOCATION OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES· Required parking spaces for all dwellings shall be located on the same lot as the dwelling to be served. Required parking spaces for all other uses shall be owned by the owner of the building or lot to be served, and shall be located on the same lot, or not more than three hundred (300) feet distant, as measured along the nearest pedestrian walkway. Parking space requirements of two (2) or more uses of the same or different types may be satisfied by the allocation of the required number of spaces for each use in a co~on parking facility. Joint allocation among several uses of a lesser number of parking spaces may be permitted in accordance with paragraph 13 of this subsection. OFF-STR~ET I~ADIN~:~ 1. ~pr the purpose of this ordinance, the term "off-street loading or unloading space" sh~!l mean a vehicular loading space constr_--ted of a hard surface and shall consist of a space w ~ dimensions not less than twelve (12) feet in width ~irty-five (35) fee-~ zn len~h and fourteen (14) fe in height, exclusive of access aisles, maneuvering ..~ace or alley right-of-way. The following spaces shall be provided for the uses indicated: Every hospital, institution, hotel, ~o~nercial or .industrial building, or similar us~, requiring the receipt or' distribution by vehzcle of materials or merchandise, shall have sufficien~ 2-110 permanently maintained off-street loading sDace s~as not to hinder the free movement ofvehicles and pedestrian~over, a~sCreet or sidewalk. Ail structures requiring~,t~ ' 'c~' of lar e quan~ or_ trash shall provide mm easlm¥ access~bme area ~or the p±ckuD and -delivery of a dumps~er or other trash receptacle; all such areas shall be so designed ~h~t ~arbaqe ~nd trash pickup can be accomplished without excessive maneuvering such as~turn~,~ ar~,n~ ~md backing up. PERMANENT RESERVATION OF SPACES. Area reserved for off-street parking or loading, in accordance with the requirements of this section, shall not be reduced in area or changed to any other use %u%less equivalent off-street parking or loading is provided in accordance with ~his section. L. COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ENGAGED IN THE RETAIL SALE OF GASOLIN~ OR GASOLINE PRODUCTS. Purpose. The purpose of these regulationsis to establish development standards for co~nercial establishments which engage in the sale of gasoline, or other motor fuels. These regulations are intended to cover businesses of any type, including convenience stores and automotive service stations. The development standards established by this section would overlay the development criteria stated in ~he zoning district in which these uses are allowed. Businesses, which engage in the sale of gasoline or other motor fuels, shall require conditional use approval. Definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, the following definitions shall apply: Automotive service station. The use of a building or other structure, on a lot or parcel of land which includes any retail sale of gasoline or other motor fuels. Convenience store. Any place of business that is engaged in the retail sale of groceries, including the sale of prepared foods, and gasoline and 3services. The term "convenience store" does not include a store which is solely or primarily a restaurant. Gasoline dispensing establishments. Any co~nercial enterprise, including automotive service stations and convenience stores, which engage in'the sale of gasoline or other motor fuels to the public. 2-111