Loading...
Minutes 05-24-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, MAY 24,2005, AT 6:30 P.M. Present Lee Wische, Chair Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair Sergio Casaine Shirley Jaskiewicz Diana Johnson, Alternate Joseph Baldwin, Alternate David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Ed Breese, Principal Planner Eric Johnson, Planner Absent William Cwynar Jose Rodriguez Roger G. Saberson 1. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. Ms. Johnson led members in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Chairman Wische introduced the Board and the Recording Secretary. 3. Agenda Approval Chair Wische stated he wanted to move item 7.B.1. under New Business to item 7.D. under New Business. He also wanted to move item 7.G.1 to Item 7.B.1. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the agenda, as amended. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Hay and carried 6-0. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 4. Approval of Minutes Motion Mr. Casaine moved to accept the minutes. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Hay and carried 6-0. 5. Communications and Announcements A. Final disposition of the April 26, 2005 Planning and Development Board meeting Agenda items. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, reported on the following items from the City Commission meeting held on May 3, 2005: 1. The Code Review Item to allow carwashes in the M-1 Zoning District was approved under public hearing. 2. The Notice of Intent was approved to temporarily and to a limited degree hold use or development in the M-1 Zoning District, over a 180 day period, while a study is conducted. They are in the process of hiring a consultant to do that study. 3. A Future Land Use Map has been prepared by staff using a GIS system for formal processing in connection with DCR requirements, which have to be fully adopted by ordinance, and sent to Tallahassee. Once it is finalized, copies of the new Future Land Use Map will be provided to the Board. 4. The Commission at the June meeting will be reconsidering the Quantum Park Height Code Amendment for the PID Zoning District, which was denied on first reading. Mr. Rumpf reported on the following items from the City Commission meeting held on May 17, 2005: 1. The two Land Use Large Scale Plan amendments for High Ridge Road and Knollwood Grove sites were approved. 2. The Knollwood Project land use was approved, but rezoning will be heard at the June meeting. 3. The second reading of the carwash item, the GIS Future Land Use Map ordinance and the first readings of the Florida Public Utilities abandonment will be heard again in June. Chair Wische asked what date the items would appear, and Mr. Rumpf stated they would appear on the June 7, 2005 meeting. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Ms. Jaskewicz thought the car wash item was on the July agenda. Mr. Rumpf stated he would have to confirm that. Assistant City Attorney Tolces swore in anyone who wished to speak on the agenda. 6. Old Business None 7. New Business A. Zoning Code Variance 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Jeffrey Smith Variance (ZNCV 05-001) Jeffrey Smith Jeffrey Smith 2525 Southwest 14th Street Request of relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2, requiring a twenty- five (25) foot rear yard building setback to allow a 10-foot variance, resulting in a 15-foot rear yard building setback for an existing hard roof screen enclosure within the R-1-AA Single family Residential zoning district. Chair Wische indicated Staff recommended approval of the project, and Eric Johnson, Planner, said he had nothing further to state. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2, requiring a twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback to allow a 10- foot variance, resulting in a 15-foot rear yard setback within the R-1-AA Single- family Residential zoning district, subject to the conditions of approval. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Hay and carried 6-0. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida B. Code Review 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: May 24, 2005 Stealth Towers in SMU (CDRV 05-008) Kim Glas-Castro, Ruden McClosky Compson & Associates of Boynton, LLC SMU Suburban Mixed-Use Zoning District (Citywide) Proposal to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.H.3 and Chapter 10 (Telecommunication Towers and Antennas) to allow cell towers within the Suburban Mixed-Use zoning district as stealth facilities, integrated into the architecture of a mixed-use project. Carl Clepper, Vice President of Compson Associates, 980 N. Federal Hwy, Suite 200,Boca Raton, FL, assumed the podium. Chair Wische pOinted out staff recommended approval, and there were no staff comments. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Bob Brown, 800 NE 7th Street, assumed the podium. Assistant City Attorney Tolces swore in Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown complimented the idea of incorporating the towers within the Mixed Use zoning, however, he noted there were lots of towers going up and felt they were eyesores, but understood they were necessary. He said he heard of thirty or forty different wavelengths that could be used with each of the towers, and felt the applicants or owners of the towers were probably making a substantial amount of money. He was concerned in certain cases where an owner would have to apply for a variance or conditional use to build a home, a lot of the towers may be going on small parcels, and given special provisions that would not be advanced to a single-family or multi- family home residence that would abide on the same parcel. Since the heights are changing drastically in the City from 25 feet to 35 feet for single-family homes, he would like to see Planning & Zoning consider a sunset of 30-40 years, and if at that time they decide it is not conducive for the growth of Boynton Beach in the year 2045, they could re-address the issue. Chair Wische noted what Mr. Brown discussed was not on the agenda. The Stealth Tower is well concealed and therefore you would not see it. The nearest residential property is 900 feet away from it. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Mr. Brown stated in the last 10-15 years in Dade and Broward counties, the residents were concerned about the electro-magnetic rays or radiation that come off of towers. He stated he was thinking about the future, and hoped the Commission may want to re-visit the issue in the future. Chair Wische thanked Mr. Brown for his comments, and asked if there was anyone else in the public audience who wished to address the item. There being no one else, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Jaskiewicz stated she had no problem with the tower, because it was replacing an unsightly one with something that would be esthetically pleasing. She asked if it would be necessary to approve the project subject to a blanket approval of Telecommunication Towers in the Suburban Mixed-Use district. Eric Johnson, Planner, noted in order to remove the non-conforming tower from its current location, you would have to apply it to the entire Suburban Mixed-Use zoning district. These would be to allow it as a conditional use within that zoning district, and has nothing to do with the other Mixed-Use zoning districts. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked if it was just applicable the particular Suburban Mixed Use or to Federal Highway also. Mr. Johnson stated Federal Highway had other Mixed-Use zoning districts that could be applied to it, mainly the Mixed-Use High and the Mixed-Use Low. Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the proposal to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.H.3 and Chapter 10 (Telecommunication Towers and Antennas) to allow cell towers within the Suburban Mixed-Use zoning district as stealth facilities, integrated into the architecture of a mixed-use project. Motion seconded by Ms. Jaskiewicz and carried 6-0. B. Conditional Use 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Grove Plaza Parcel D (COUS 05-006) Lution Hill, KMA Investment Properties KMA Investment Properties 3920 Hypoluxo Road Request for Conditional Use approval to convert approximately 3,500 square feet of an 11,973 square foot retail building in a C-3 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 zoning district for a minor automotive repair esta bl ish ment. Jason Mankoff of Weiner and Aronson, 102 N. Swinton Ave., stated he agreed with the staff report and the conditions of approval. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, noted the building was previously approved on Parcel D, but the owners are requesting to take the north portion of a retail building and place the minor automotive repair establishment. They would be oriented in an eastward direction, so they would not be facing Hypoluxo or any residential area to the south. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chair Hay asked about the staff comment, which stated no building permits may be issued after the 2007 build-out date. Mr. Breese stated Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering establishes the build- out dates, when a traffic study is done for a particular project. Ms. Jaskiewicz pointed out there was a service road to the rear of the property and a retaining cement wall. She asked if there was landscaping on the wall that would be visible from the residential area. Lution Hill, owner of the property, stated there was a canal at the front of the property, and a service road behind it with a wall between the service road and the neighborhood. He said there was a retaining wall at the rear of the property, and within the past 60 days, that area had been re-Iandscaped. Ms. Jaskiewicz stated she did not see that on the plans, and Mr. Hill stated that was because the original developer of the property was instructed by the City to redo the landscaping. Mr. Breese noted they were looking at the individual parcels within a sub-divison but the master plan does have the wall and landscaping. He noted some of it was damaged during the storms, but some new landscaping was placed, as per the City's instructions. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida Motion May 24, 2005 Mr. Casaine moved that the request for Conditional Use approval to convert approximately 3,500 square feet of an 11,973 square foot retail building in a C-3 zoning district for a minor automotive repair establishment be approved with all conditions as proposed by staff. Motion seconded by Ms. Jaskiewicz and carried 6-0. D. Master Plan Modification 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Grove Plaza (Parcel B) (MPMD 05-009) Lution Hill, KMA Investments Grove Plaza B, LLC 3960 Hypoluxo Road Request for Master Plan Modification approval to convert parcel "B" from a proposed 3,800 square foot bank to a 14,291 square foot office building. Mr. Wische noted there were only three staff comments, and staff had nothing further to add. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved that the request for Master Plan Modification approval to convert parcel "B" from a proposed 3,800 square foot bank to a 14,291 square foot office building be approved, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Hay and carried 6-0. E. New Site Plan 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Grove Plaza Parcel B (NWSP 05-012) Lution Hill, KMA Investment Properties Grove Plaza B, LLC 3960 Hypoluxo Road Request for New Site Plan approval for a 14,291 square foot, two (2) story office building on a 1.U6-acre parcel in a C-3 zoning district. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Chairman Wische pointed out there were 28 staff comments. Jason Mankoff of Weiner and Aronson, 102 N. Swinton Ave., stated they agreed with all staff comments. Mr. Breese stated he had nothing to add. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the request for a New Site Plan approval for a 14,291 square foot, two (2) story office building on a 1.U6-acre parcel in a C-3 zoning district, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by Mr. Baldwin and carried 6-0. F. Site Plan Time Extension 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Pylon Interstate Plaza (SPTE 05-002) Mr. Steven L. Cohen Chambers Properties, LLC 1501 Corporate Drive Request for a nine (9) month site plan time extension for the construction of a 29,419 square foot, two (2)-story office building, approved on February 3, 2004 (an extension to November 3, 2005). Steven Cohen, Architect, 2941 W. Cypress Creek Rd, Fort Lauderdale, stated they were requesting a 9-month extension. Mr. Johnson stated the 9-month time extension would extend the site plan to November 3, 2005. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Roy Mubow, 1397 SW 17th Ave., informed the Board he resided across from the project and was concerned about the landscaping that would be done. Mr. Wische noted the landscaping issue was not on the agenda, and they were just voting on whether the Board should grant the 9-month extension. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Ms. Jaskiewicz suggested he look at the plans, which depicted the rear end of the property. Mr. Cohen stated they previously met with the Homeowners Association, and reviewed all the plans when they initially went in for site plan review. He explained that because they just got the financing completed, they asked for an extension of time to start the construction. Warwick Houston, 1712 SW 18th St., noted he was President of Boynton Leisureville, and had no problem with the extension. Robert Vaniguerre, 1393 SW 17th Ave., noted he resided near the canal where the building would be. He stated he had no problem with the construction, but was concerned about the landscaping plan. Roy Mubow, 1397 SW 17th Ave., noted he had no problems with the extension. Chair Wische asked if there was anyone else in the public audience who wished to address the item. There being no one else, the public hearing was closed. Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the request for a nine (9) month site plan time extension for the construction of a 29,419 square foot, two-(2) story office building, approved on February 3, 2004 (an extension to November 3, 2005). Motion seconded by Ms. Jaskiewicz and carried 6-0. C. Master Site Plan Modification 1. Project: Quantum Park & Village South Commercial (MSPM 05-003) Steve Fike, Olen Development Quantum Park and Village, LLC Southwest corner of Gateway Boulevard and High Ridge Road Request for Master Site Plan Modification approval for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of an additional 115 multi-family dwelling units (for a total of 349 dwelling units) and 71,708 square feet of commercial/office space on a 26.165 acre- Agent: Owner: Location: Description: 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Mixed Use POD in the Planned Industrial Development (PID) zoning district. Chair Wische inquired about tabling the Quantum Park & Village South Commercial Master Site Plan Modification. Mr. Johnson noted that staff received a fax from the applicant on the date of this meeting, stating they would like to postpone until the next Planning and Development Meeting. Ed Breese pointed out there were some issues, which they wanted to resolve with staff before coming before the Board. Motion Mr. Casaine moved that the Master Site Plan Modification for Quantum Park & Village South Commercial (MSPM 05-003), be tabled until the next Planning and Development Meeting, to be held on June 28, 2005. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Hay and carried 6-0. G. Code Review 2. Project: Building Colors along Major Roadways (CDRV 05-009) City initiated N/A Proposal to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapters 4 and 9 to limit building colors, and require the review/approval for changes to building colors for buildings located along Boynton Beach Boulevard, Federal Highway, and Congress Avenue. Agent: Location: Description: Chair Wische asked why Woolbright was left out of the proposal. Mr. Rumpf stated that in some conversations with Commissioner Ensler, who was instrumental in bringing the item forward, he suggested trying it on the three roads, which had the greatest exposure to the public. Vice Chair Hay stated Gateway should also be included. Mr. Rumpf explained the project was to address color changes for existing buildings, and not for new construction, because the Board would get to review those colors. Mr. Rumpf noted he prepared a PowerPoint presentation, and hoped the Board could give comprehensive recommendations to the Commission. He pointed out 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 the goal was to bring the major roadway corridors of Boynton Beach Boulevard, Federal Highway and Congress Avenue, up to a greater quality or appearance standard, by addressing paint colors. Mr. Rumpf started his PowerPoint presentation, which is available on file with the minutes of the meeting. Mr. Rumpf expressed that staff hoped to clean up the corridors through attrition, and the building colors project is not something that would be mandated. He said there would be no color police citing projects that do not conform. Mr. Rumpf pointed out their challenge would be to establish a regulatory system that accomplishes the objectives on: · The varying opinions on acceptable colors; · The subjective nature and inconsistent use of terminology in describing colors by the industry; · The need for regulations to be clear, concise and defensible. Mr. Rumpf noted the objectives of the presentation were: · To show samples of built environment, and the consistency of colors which are out there now. · Identify preferences. · To discuss the alternatives to writing regulations, or regulatory schemes. · Learn the basics of the Munsell Classification System · Obtain consensus on color limits for color groups and color thresholds. · Consideration of staff recommendations. As part of his presentation, Mr. Rumpf showed photographs of some buildings and their existing colors. He described the base and secondary colors used on the buildings. Mr. Rumpf stated that on the first page of the report submitted, there was a simplistic summary of the general regulatory option, which other cities use in their system. He noted they did not have specific regulations pertinent to colors, and the language in the code spoke about the design, form and architecture. In the absence of color standards, staff used the paragraph in Chapter 9 of the Design Plan, to include colors. Mr. Rumpf stated the existing regulations were located in Chapter 9 of the Community Design Plan, which talked about the architectural pattern, which was construed to include colors. The language in Part 111 of the LDRs, Chapter 4, 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 for minor or major site plan review, did not relate to the façade and colors, but did address the affect on elevation designs. For discussion, Mr. Rumpf passed around some samples of colors to the Board. He noted the Munsell System was a three-digit number that described a color. The system uses hue, value and chroma, which are the three attributes of color. He noted hue is the basis of a color, referred to as the color family using the primary and secondary colors. Value is the lightness or darkness of a color, also known as the gray scale. Chroma is the intensity of a color, also referred to as its strength or saturation. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked if staff discouraged high chroma colors. Mr. Rumpf stated he had some proposed numbers to work from. He said from staff's proposed regulations, they want to regulate trim and accents, which represent the smallest portion of the building, and have the greatest potential for adding complementary colors and character. The base color would represent the greatest portion of the building, and give the building its signature. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked if staff would aim toward the white, grays and beiges for the walls. Mr. Rumpf expressed that was the direction they were going. The Board would see how staff proposed to regulate the secondary color. A secondary paint color could be a small portion or a large portion. Staff purchased the least expensive learning tool for the Munsell system that cost $65.00. Mr. Rumpf explained you could spend over $600.00 on complete sets with 1500 different identified colors, but what they had was a small range to give the Board an example, and to teach the system. Mr. Rumpf expressed that as an incentive for an applicant to meet the ultimate regulations, staff proposed the regulations should read that where there is a discrepancy or uncertainty, or where staff deems the color is not in compliance, the applicant would be responsible for proving its compliance, by providing staff with the Munsell code. Mr. Rumpf stated the objectives of their proposed regulations were: · Make it mandatory for change to be reviewed for color changes on the selected corridors. · Efficient and user-friendly for both staff and the applicant. · Fits into current code structure. · Set its purpose; establish process, limits and penalty. He noted he was awaiting the standard language from the City Attorney's office. · They want it to be defensible. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Mr. Rumpf also noted staff would like to accomplish the following at the current meeting: · Identify color preferences and dislikes (if any). · Confirm or adjust color categories. · Other code provisions/changes · Discuss color limits (chroma and value) · Other - anything that may be necessary for the code. Mr. Rumpf said he attended some sessions on writing codes at the National Planning Conference in San Francisco. One of the things stressed at the conference, was to support your comprehensive plan and be clear. State the objective and the base of the plan. He noted he called this procedure the preamble, and the following text is proposed for Chapter 9, Section 11 (subsection "K"), and would provide the basis and importance of new color regulations: "K. Building colors. Boynton Beach recognizes that project architecture and colors can positively and negatively impact its aesthetic environment, image, and property values. Building colors should be carefully selected to be compatible with and compliment project architecture, colors of fixed elements such as roof materials, and colors of adjacent projects. Project colors will be selected to provide appropriate proportions of, and coordinated base, secondary, trim and accent colors. Project colors are intended to complement and contribute to the surrounding area and city, rather than primarily attract attention to a single project from a distance. The intent of this section is not to require identical colors, but to require the careful selection of colors that will contribute to the overall appearance of the city". Mr. Rumpf stated under the applicability section of Chapter 9, Section 4 (new criterion #5), the new requirements are applicable to changes proposed to approved or existing project colors, for projects that are located along any of the three target roadways. The new criterion would read: "5. When exterior paint colors are to be changed on an existing building located as described in Section 11.K.l (only Subsection l1.K applies to proposed improvement unless project also includes other modifications as described in this chapter). Changes as described in section l1.K.l shall be processed as a major or minor site plan modification, and in accordance with Section l1.K of this chapter". Mr. Rumpf explained under the color standards, the proposed standards would read that due to the high visibility of buildings located along Congress Avenue, 13 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway, the following regulations would apply: a. Commercial/office/industrial projects. Base/main wall color will be light (high "value'') colors limited to whites, grays and beiges. Atypical building colors such as purple, pink, blue, green and teal, should be substituted with more common pastels or hue categories such as yellow or peach. Secondary colors will not cover greater than 25% of each individual wall area. Secondary colors will be consistent with the wall color standards, or can be a moderately saturated wall color or a moderately saturated complimentary color. Trim and accent colors may be the most saturated colors allowed, and are encouraged to be complimentary earth tones and/or pastels. The magnitude of saturation will be proportional to the saturation of the wall and secondary colors. If proposed colors are determined by the Planning & Zoning Director to be inconsistent with the intent of this section, applicant shall verify compliance using the Munsell Color Classification System, with eight (8) being the minimum value, and six (6) being the maximum chroma. The maximum allowed difference in saturation between the base color and secondary color is three (3) whole increments. The applicant may be required to provide exact color notations from the Munsell Color Classification System, to confirm compliance with these standards. Ms. Jaskiewicz pointed out that in warmer climates, lighter hues reflect the heat, and the darker colors absorb it. She felt it would be wise for the Board to suggest the lighter chromas. Mr. Rumpf noted there was a trend now, where you are finding darker colors in residential areas. b. Residential projects (excluding one and two family structures). Colors for residential projects are allowed to include a greater gamut of colors, to include whites, beiges and other earth tones, consistent with paragraph "K" of this section, with secondary, trim and accent colors consistent with paragraph "a" of this section. Mr. Rumpf said there were fewer residential projects in some segments of the proposed corridors, but it was necessary to acknowledge it. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked if there was a design specialist with regard to color on staff. Mr. Rumpf stated not at the time, but they have two vacancies, so there was potential to do that. 14 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Mr. Rumpf referred to Exhibit B in the proposed document, which related to Munsell - Chroma and Value. He asked the Board if six (6) and eight (8) were sufficient value limits or if they should go to nine (9). Mr. Casaine felt they should go up to nine (9) in value, and up to eight (8) in chroma. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked if the value and chroma did not depend on the proportion of accent parts of the buildings. Mr. Rumpf agreed with Ms. Jaskiewicz that buildings are more attractive when they have complimentary colors. There was a discussion about some of the photographs of the buildings and their colors on the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Rumpf said there was a new office/ industrial building on the southeast corner of Hypoluxo and Seacrest, which had beautiful colors, but they added a deep blue awning. He noted they were not taking all creativity away, but rather putting it where it would accentuate the building. Ms. Jaskiewicz said years ago there was a Community Appearance Board that could take on those issues. Mr. Rumpf noted that when a project is deemed minor, it is processed as a minor change through staff and the permit system. It does not go through the formal review process before the Planning and Development Board and the Commission. He expressed that the way the code is written for Chapter 4 of the Site Plan Review, Section 9 states the "Modification of approved site plan", implies that only the modern projects, which have an approved site plan, would get reviewed for this. He proposed the language be changed to read, "Modification of the site plan", so everything is reviewed. With the exception of a couple members from the CRA Board who felt a Design Review Board should handle the building colors project, Mr. Rumpf pointed out that both the Planning and Development Board and the CRA Board indicated a desire to playa role in it. He stated when staff and the Planning Director make a final decision that a color does not comply, but the applicant says they want the color, and appeal the administrative decision, the case would go to the Commission as an appeal and the staff would present their argument. The case should go before the Planning & Development Board and the CRA Board, because the code defines those Boards as the Technical Boards, defying the standards. The minor site plans are reviewed under consent on the Commission agenda. 15 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Mr. Rumpf concluded the slide presentation, and stated the Board had not shared a lot about preferences. He pointed out the Board suggested staff increase the value limits to nine (9), and asked if there were any other discussions. Ms. Johnson asked why the proposal was restricted to the three corridors. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that was the mission of the Commission. Boynton Beach Boulevard, Federal Highway and Congress Avenue are the principle entrances into the City. Ms. Johnson noted Part 111 of the LDRs, Chapter 9, Community Design Plan for Exterior Building Design, section J. stated: "due to the high degree of visibility of buildings located on Hypoluxo Road, Miner Road, Congress Avenue, Lawrence Road, Gateway Boulevard, Quantum Lakes Drive, Old Boynton Road, Knuth Road, Woolbright Road, Boynton Beach Boulevard, Winchester Boulevard, High Ridge Road, Seacrest Boulevard, Golf Road, Ocean Avenue, Federal Highway, Old Dixie Highway, N.E. 10th Avenue and S.E. 36th Avenue; most of which are considered entrances to the City", and questioned why they limited the proposal to only three corridors when development and growth is rampant all over. Mr. Rumpf stated if that was the Board's conviction, it could be recommended to the Commission. Ms. Johnson was concerned it would be detrimental to just have the plan for three streets, when there is tremendous growth on all the streets, and felt it should be consistent. Chair Wische asked if that pOint could be recommended to the Commission, and Mr. Rumpf noted the Board could recommend anything they felt was important to the project. Ms. Johnson asked the location of S.E. 36th Avenue. Mr. Rumpf stated it was Gulfstream Boulevard. Mr. Casaine felt the industrial areas should be subject to the decision on the colors. Mr. Rumpf noted he did not have the design guidelines proposed for the Heart of Boynton Plan, but stated if they were looking to allow design or character based upon Floribbean, which might be getting a little Caribbean, they may want brighter colors. 16 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Ms. Johnson asked if adding the proposed language to cover Martin Luther King Boulevard and Heart of Boynton would be the responsibility of the Community Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Rumpf stated it is within the CRA, but the Planning and Development Board did not have to limit their comments. Ms. Johnson pointed out when the paragraph was written, Martin Luther King Boulevard probably was not Martin Luther King Boulevard, or considered an entrance to the City. She definitely thought Martin Luther King Boulevard should be added. Mr. Baldwin pointed out N.E. 10th Avenue was Martin Luther King Boulevard. Ms. Johnson suggested the text be changed to state Martin Luther King Boulevard. Ms. Jaskiewicz noted it was both, because one side said Martin Luther King Boulevard and the other said N.E. 10th Avenue. She also noted one side of S.E. 36th Avenue was Boynton, and the other side was Delray. Mr. Rumpf noted the Commission and the Boards specifically stated they would not want to regulate single-family, duplex dwellings - which are typically exempt from site plan review process. He pOinted out S.E. 36th Avenue, N.E. 10th Avenue, and Martin Luther King Boulevard have a higher percentage of residential structures. Ms. Johnson asked if Floribbean colors meant the Board should increase the Munsell value to nine (9). Mr. Rumpf clarified the Board recommended the Munsell value to be nine (9), and a chroma of (6). Ms. Jaskiewicz questioned if that was a finite statement or a strong suggestion. Mr. Rumpf stated it was currently drafted not to be a suggestion but a standard. If they want to accommodate on a certain corridor a greater variety of the hues, and not limit those groups, then they would need to revise that text for those corridors, because right now they were looking at whites, grays and beiges. That would restrict the Floribbean colors. Ms. Johnson clarified that would not apply to single family dwellings and duplexes and Mr. Rumpf agreed. Ms. Jaskiewicz noted a good example of the Caribbean colors would be in the Delray Commerce Center. 17 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Mr. Rumpf said Mr. Breese suggested the group category that would help would be pastels, which was allowed under residential projects. He felt they could make a provision to make them pastels but still limit the chroma and the value extents. Ms. Johnson clarified Mr. Rumpf stated legal was going to review the proposal, and Mr. Rumpf agreed. Ms. Johnson felt there was a lot of room for someone to come back at them and ask why is this okay in one part of the city and not in another part of the city. She stated she would defer to the CRA and staff to identify what works for the Heart of Boynton Beach. Ms. Johnson felt the words "should be"; "may be"; and "encouraged to", used in section lA and IB of the Color Standards, left a lot of room for flexibility. Mr. Rumpf stated that was his intent. He said if there was an area where they would not want the flexibility, it should be addressed. If they want to exclude purples, pinks, greens and reds; then the language should state "shall be substituted with more common pastels or hue categories", which would replace the word "should" with "shall". That does not mean you could not have a tint in the white because the base would be white. Anything that meets the nine (9) value would probably be a white base or very light primary base paint. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked when Mr. Rumpf anticipated it would be in effect. Mr. Rumpf stated it was scheduled to go to the CRA meeting in June, and then to the Commission. It could be converted into Ordinance form very quickly. If it goes to the Commission meeting in June, it could be adopted in July or August. Mr. Rumpf said that was assuming there are not major changes. There would also be a review with the City Attorney's office in that schedule. If there were major changes, staff would recommend coming back to the Planning and Development Board for their thoughts on it. Ms. Jaskiewicz referred to the plans Mr. Rumpf submitted to the Board, and noted they would be inconsistent with what they were discussing. Mr. Rumpf stated it was difficult, and he would be agreeable to allow more time. The wording was intended to allow more flexibility. There is a trend to use darker colors on residential projects. He noted the Starbucks building at Congress and Boynton Beach Boulevard was unique. Mr. Rumpf noted if it was something they wanted to limit, then they could do it with the same structure that they were using in Paragraph A for Commercial and non-residential buildings. 18 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 24, 2005 Ms. Johnson referred to the same plans, which Ms. Jaskiewicz referenced, and asked if that site plan was not already approved for Quantum Lakes. Ms. Jaskiewicz did not think so. Mr. Rumpf clarified there was a master site plan that had been approved, but they were just asking for a modification. Mr. Rumpf noted it was his intent to use the language, "trim and accent colors may be the most saturated colors allowed", to allow that flexibility. 8. Other Mr. Rumpf noted he wanted to answer an earlier question regarding the time extensions for the carwash project. He said they were extended until July because of new advertising requirements. 9. Comments by members None 10. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ((XiQ-CL~) Catherine Wharton Recording Secretary (May 27, 2005) 19