Loading...
Minutes 09-26-06 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Lee Wische, Chair Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair Sergio Casaine William Cwynar Shirley Jaskiewicz Roger Saberson David Tokes, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Director, Planning and Zoning ALSO PRESENT: Sharon Grcevic, Alternate Matthew Barnes, Alternate I. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Wische called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Vice Chair Hay led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chair Wische introduced the board alternates, who sat in the audience and participated, but did not vote. II. Introduction of the Board Chair Wische introduced each member of the board to the audience. III. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve the agenda as presented. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that passed 6-0. IV. Approval of Minutes There were no changes to the August 22, 2006 minutes. Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve the August 22, 2006 minutes as presented. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that passed 6-0. V. Communications and Announcements A. Plannina and Zonina Reoort 1. Final disposition of the August 22, 2006 Planning and Development Board meeting Agenda items Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, reported that at the September 19, 2006 City Commission meeting, the Smokey Bones and Red Lobster items were undergoing fa~ade redesigns and would be considered at the October 3 City Commission meeting. The Boynton Village Condo 4 had been approved. Meeting Minutes Planning 8r. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 26, 2006 Vice Chair Hay asked for more detail about Smokey Bones. Mr. Rumpf responded each project had been reviewed by others involved in the Master Plan and there were concerns about possible deficiencies in the fa~ades. The developer/owner, Darden Properties, agreed and was adding some fenestration, illumination, and similar fixes in response. When re-submitted, staff would conduct another review to determine whether the changes were major and should be brought back before the board or minor and could be handled administratively. In the latter case, the projects would proceed on to the City Commission for the October 3 meeting. VI. Old Business None VII. New Business Attorney Tolces administered an oath to all who planned to testify. A. New Site Plan 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Ocean 95 Exchange Plaza (NWSP 06-020) Crockett Farnell Boynton Industrial, LLC 514, 516, and 518 West Ocean Avenue Request new site plan approval to construct 133,911 square feet of office/warehouse on a 6.77- acre parcel in the M-l industrial zoning district. Haime Mayo, H 8r. M Architecture, 3705 N. Federal Highway, Delray Beach, Florida, appeared. Crockett Farnell, representing Boynton Industrial, LLC, the development entity for the project, also appeared. Chair Wische asked if the applicant was in agreement with or needed clarification for any of the staff conditions of approval. Mr. Mayo responded the applicant accepted all staff conditions of approval. Eric Johnson, Planner, displayed a rendering of the subject site, a very long site with some dilapidated structures in place. The applicant proposed three separate office/warehouse buildings. There was one point of ingress and egress from West Ocean Drive over an existing railroad crossing. Staff recommended approval of the project, contingent on meeting the 34 conditions of approval. He pointed out condition of approval #1 had been met, because the developer had obtained a certificate of concurrency. Chair Wische asked the applicant's representatives whether they wished to make a report, and they did not. Chair Wische opened the floor for the public to speak. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning 8r. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 26, 2006 Wendy Franklin, 120 N.W. 6th Street, Boynton Beach, confirmed with Mr. Johnson the West Ocean Avenue railroad crossing would be the sole means of entry and exit to the proposed project. Ms. Franklin declared the neighborhood had experienced many traffic problems and there were children in the area. They had just gone through the Krispy Kreme disaster that was not supposed to cause the residents any problems and it caused them major problems with people parking on their streets, walking to Krispy Kreme through the back, and throwing their trash all over. Now, they would have this. It had been wonderful not having the steel business there because she did not have trucks backing up in her driveway any more to get around the corner. Her neighborhood just had a major meeting with the Police Department about keeping strangers out of the neighborhood and trying to keep the area safe. The Police said to report any suspicious vehicles. They could not tell who was suspicious because they would have so much traffic on their streets if this project were approved. Ms. Franklin wondered if a railroad crossing could be put in down by Home Depot on the road near the Expo Center. They wanted the West Ocean Avenue railroad crossing to be a quiet zone and if they were going to have more traffic, it would never become that. Mr. Johnson pointed out the subject property was zoned M-l, Light Industrial. As such, the use the developer was bringing forward was permitted. They were allowed to have this project by right, as long as they met the Land Development Regulations and they either did or would by the time a building permit was issued. As far as truck traffic was concerned, or traffic in general, it was always better to have two points of ingress and egress, but he deferred to the Senior Engineer to elaborate. Laurinda Logan, Senior Engineer, Public Works/Engineering, assured Ms. Franklin that one of the conditions of approval associated with this project had to do with the truck route, which was different than the one used by the previous businesses at this location. The preferred route was along S.W. 8th Street and West Ocean Drive. Ms. Logan declared the new route should diminish the amount of traffic in Ms. Franklin's immediate neighborhood. The developer had also agreed to make improvements to the roads to minimize the effect on the residents. Ms. Franklin commented that even though the traffic had been re-routed, it was still going right through a residential area. She realized the developer had a right to build on his property, but was hoping another railroad crossing would be put in place. No one else coming forward, Chair Wische closed the public hearing. Ms. Jaskiewicz commented she had visited the site and shared some of Ms. Franklin's concerns. She believed condition of approval #2 was very vague and wondered how they could force traffic to follow a particular route when all three roads were open to S.E. 8th Street. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked the developer what kinds of uses would be involved and how intensive the truck traffic was expected to be. She noted there was a children's park in the area and she was concerned about that. She had driven through the proposed routes and the one chosen was not necessarily the shortest route, nor was it the route that would impact the fewest number of residences. Actually, it was one of the longest routes. On the positive side, Ms. Jaskiewicz appreciated the fact that a project was going in to replace the existing dilapidated buildings, even though the proposed project was almost an over use of the property. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning 8r. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 26, 2006 Ms. Logan indicated they could only sign the project to direct trucks to use the preferred route, but the businesses should be involved in insuring their trucks used the correct route. The route was chosen because it had the widest right-of-way and the potential for making the most and best improvements to the roadway to minimize the impacts to the neighbors. Ms. Jaskiewicz believed Ms. Franklin's comment about moving the railroad crossing or building a second crossing was a great idea, because she knew there was a piece of property behind Home Depot and there had been talk of development of it. She wondered if a condition of approval could be added that the City Commission investigate adding a railroad crossing. Ms. Logan responded this could be added to the conditions of approval. Moving the railroad crossing was one of the alternatives they had the developer look at, including the cost. From Ms. Logan's past experience in dealing with the railroad, getting a second crossing would quite likely be a very difficult hurdle to get over. Ms. Jaskiewicz suggested the area businesses might contribute to it or be required to do so. Ms. Logan indicated this was a possibility and the Commission could consider it as an alternate to the various routes. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked if the City had to pay the full cost of maintenance on the railroad crossing at the present time, and Ms. Logan responded in the affirmative. Ms. Logan noted that in addition to the businesses, there were the people who used those businesses, so it was for a public use. Mr. Mayo spoke about intensity and the use of the land, saying they were proposing about 20% less than was allowed by Code in terms of floor area. It was not an intense industrial use and they expected to have smaller industrial users such as cabinetmakers. They were not expecting tractor-trailer users, as they had no dock height overhead doors. Mr. Mayo suggested the proposed building sizes, on-site design, and uses would informally discourage large tractor- trailers from coming to the industrial site. A tractor-trailer would have a hard time turning around and accessing overhead doors, for example. They had studied the truck route extensively and their primary consideration had been safety. The reason they chose the route they did was the safety factor and they would be taking measures to enhance safety around the park. Ms. Jaskiewicz responded their comments were generally true in relation to an industrial area; however, very rarely did an industrial project impact a neighborhood like this. Mr. Casaine asked the applicant to expand on the definition of Light Industrial. Mr. Mayo replied it was not like a large distribution center. They would not have tractor-trailers. The maximum tenant size would be about 4K square feet. One user would not come in and take a 60K square foot building, and that was the largest building on the site. Mr. Casaine wanted to know what types of businesses they intended to attract for the three warehouses. Mr. Mayo responded they hoped to attract an industrial use or uses from the list of 100 approved uses for this zoning district. Mr. Casaine understood his remarks to mean that the uses had not actually been defined, but would meet Code or regulations, and Mr. Mayo agreed. Mr. Casaine asked the applicant which residential uses they would be affecting with the specified truck route, noting they had identified light medium residential and high density residential. Mr. Mayo believed they would be affecting Single-family homes only. Mr. Casaine asked if there were any plans to improve the traffic conditions or roadways in order to accommodate whatever size of truck movement would occur in the area. Mr. Mayo responded 4 Meeting Minutes Planning 8r. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 26, 2006 affirmatively. He believed Ocean Avenue was a 70-foot right-of-way and it had recently been improved. Ms. Logan declared the applicant was being required to bring the road up to more of a collector-type road. The final design would address the width of the roadway so that it could handle whatever type of vehicles may go through it. She did not think any of them could say with absolute certainty that there would not be any tractor-trailers, but they would ensure the roadway was designed and constructed to handle tractor-trailers, the fire rescue vehicles, and the solid waste trucks that would continue to utilize that route. Mr. Casaine was concerned with the adequate preparation of the area for the type of traffic that it could potentially hold and felt that had to be part of a plan. He wanted to see industrial and even more than light industrial; however, since the project was in a residential area and people were concerned about traffic and railroad crossings, safety had to be a number one priority. The residents were concerned about these things, and rightly so. On the other hand, the selection of the area and the acceptance by staff was commendable because the site was apropos for this type of project. Crockett Farnell, agent for the owner, assured Mr. Casaine the roadways were designed for full capacity, including tractor-trailer traffic. Mr. Farnell believed Mr. Casaine was concerned about the roadway and whether it could handle the type of traffic to which it would be subjected. Mr. Casaine responded that was partially correct. When he said roadway, he did not mean the major ingress and egress roads, but the site itself: the entrance, the roads around the site, anything that would hold traffic or that would accommodate traffic to go in and out of the structures. The reason he said that was because the question had been asked about the type of traffic expected at the site. A comment had been made about 55-foot trailers and he declared they could put a 55-foot trailer on the site and turn around in that area very easily if they knew how to drive a 55-foot trailer. Mr. Farnell agreed, saying the paved sections of the site would all be designed to that maximum potential standard, to alleviate that concern. Their site would be designed to accommodate any loads such as tractor-trailers, fire trucks, utility service trucks, and so forth, including anyone who might show up by mistake or otherwise. His understanding from staff was that the existing roadways already had the capacity to accommodate tractor-trailers. The improvements they would be making pertained to the intersections. There were some oddball intersections now that could use improvement regardless of whether their project was approved or not. There was an odd five-way intersection that was very problematic for traffic, for example. It would be part of their plan to improve those areas to make sure that worst-case, a tractor-trailer could get in there. Mr. Farnell addressed the actual uses for their facility. From a pure marketing standpoint, he did not anticipate selling to a user with a need for daily or even weekly tractor-trailer traffic. The site did not lend itself to easy loading and unloading of tractor-trailers and did not lend itself to easy driving and turning around, although it would accommodate it. He understood a former business at the site, Four Steel, had regular tractor-trailer traffic in and out all the time with heavy loads of steel, dumpsters, and so forth, and that would no longer be the case if this project were approved. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning 8r. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 26, 2006 Mr. Casaine indicated he was hearing the design was more appropriate for lighter truck capacity than larger trucks because of the makeup and the limitations of the property. Mr. Farnell responded that was absolutely correct. As could be seen on the site plan, they had front-loading bay doors that were at grade height instead of dock height and that, combined with their available driving area, would not attract a shipping and receiving type of facility. It would not be a Fed-Ex transition area or a WalMart distribution center, for example. None of those functions could feasibly, practically, or efficiently function on such a site layout. The loading areas in the proposed facilities were designed for large parcel trucks such as UPS trucks, and maybe four- wheel box trucks. There would be no real accommodation for any kind of semi trucks, other than the capacity of the paved areas themselves. Mr. Blehar liked the architecture and usage, since it meant more jobs in the City, but had serious problems with the railroad crossing. First of all, it was at grade. If there were a fire at the proposed facility and the crossing were blocked, the Fire Department might not be able to get to the site. Also, about once a year, Amtrak caught on fire, stopped, and blocked the tracks. If the fire were on the west side of the railroad tracks they could fight it, but on the east side they could not. A second crossing mayor may not help, depending on the length of the train blocking the crossing. With regard to truck traffic, Mr. Blehar could accept it if it were on N.W. 1st Avenue, which already had commercial on one side and parking from the doughnut facility. It did affect one side of residential, but they were looking at it already. It would still affect the individual who spoke during Public Audience, but at least the number of houses affected, even if it were just box trucks or large vans, would be minimized. He could see truck traffic routed along N.W. 1st Avenue, but any other route would bother him due to having houses on both sides of the street. He realized the project met zoning but believed it was inherently unsafe due to the fire protection issue. Mr. Cwynar asked Mr. Farnell if the proposed buildings had a sprinkler system, and Mr. Farnell responded all three buildings were fully sprinklered. Mr. Cwynar thought sprinklers were 96% effective at putting fires out before the Fire Department got there so in his mind, that problem was solved. Mr. Farnell responded the largest building size would be 59,327 sq. ft. The central building would be 43,122 sq. ft. and the smallest building to the south would be 31,462 sq. ft. Mr. Johnson made further comments on the proposed uses, the site, and the M-1 zoning district in general. The City had a number of properties that were zoned M-1. An M-1 zoning study was underway and it might eventually call for a limitation on the kinds of uses for this type of site, but currently, the project fit the zoning district requirements. He believed that having truck travel go through a residential area was unfortunate, and that was why the developer and the City took pains to choose the best truck route. During project review, staff stressed the concern of truck traffic going through a residential neighborhood and the developer's response was that they would not sell the units to users that would require the large tractor-trailers. However, there was nothing in writing in the Code that would restrict tractor-trailers. Vice Chair Hay knew the project was within legal bounds, but was also concerned about the one means of ingress and egress and favored an additional railroad crossing. Attorney Tokes advised the City currently had zoning in place. There were uses that were currently permitted in that area and businesses had been operating for years there with the one railroad crossing. He did not believe the issue was necessarily germane to this site plan. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning 8r. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 26, 2006 Vice Chair Hay asked Attorney Tolces if they could add the stipulation about the railroad crossing to the conditions of approval. Attorney Tolces did not know because the railroad was operated by a private company and he did not know what jurisdiction the City would have over mandating that somebody enter into an agreement with the CSX Railroad to get a crossing when that property had been operated for many years with only one crossing. They could ask for it, but he did not know if it was something the City could require, legally. Mr. Cwynar commented the property did not go down as far as Home Depot and was still behind the residential area. Mr. Farnell noted they had tried to come up with a solution because they would much prefer having two means of ingress and egress to the project. They had the additional problem that the CSX Railroad would only allow intersections at certain intervals. As they understood it, they could only be within a certain distance and they were not within that distance to get over to their property on the other end. Also, it would cut across another piece of private property over which they had no control. Their hands were tied. Attorney Tolces pointed out they had to look at the comments City staff had provided as to the specific impacts associated with the development with respect to fire or traffic and if it was documented there were associated impacts, they would have the justification they needed to require the extra crossing. Mr. Johnson noted when the property to the south was redeveloped, there could be some kind of cross-access agreement for the two properties. Mr. Farnell would be happy to have the additional access if they could get it. They would have to look at it from a design standpoint, but the way they ran the parking lot out on that end of the property, it would not be at all problematic for them to allow for a connection from their neighbor to the south. If they could continue on with the roadway or allow them to adjoin from the south eventually, they would be amenable to leaving that open as a prospect, since that would probably help all the properties. Matt Barnes, Alternate Board Member, commented about the west side of the fa~ade, saying staff had made recommendations to vary the height of the west fa~ade, which was a great idea. He thought it had to be taken one step further. The materials on the east fa~ade looked great from I-95 but would not look so great to the residents. If some of the materials used on the east side were incorporated on the west, it would help improve the appearance of the property. Ms. Jaskiewicz concurred. Mr. Casaine addressed the additional railroad crossing or the moving of the crossing. He did not necessarily look at it from a legal point of view, but believed when a developer was interested in occupying land, regardless of the use, and residents were already located there, that there was a marriage, a partnership between the developer and the City as far as that interest was concerned. It was not a legal issue. It was a marketing or political issue. All of a sudden these residents were going to have more truck traffic than what they were accustomed to previously and they were concerned about it. If the concern was genuine, in the sense that further study showed a crossing should be considered, then it was something the developer and the City should discuss. He did not know where it would go, but it was something they should consider. Maybe they would share the cost. He did not know. If they did not legally have a right to force the developer into building another crossing, perhaps the City should do it since the City allowed the project to be constructed. He believed there were considerations that went beyond the project they were considering. If the residents were affected by the results of this project, they had a responsibility to address it. He was not saying they would force anybody to 7 Meeting Minutes Planning 8r. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 26, 2006 do anything. He was saying they should try to reach a happy medium where they could say they had considered the safety and the quality of life of the people living in the area that would be affected. It would probably be affected in a positive way as well. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked Attorney Tokes if they could add a recommendation to the conditions of approval to pursue the additional crossing? Attorney Tokes stated they could add the recommendation. His concern was that in light of the discussion about the crossing, it was not connected at all to this property. It may be a recommendation that the City look into creating it as opposed to imposing that requirement on the developer. Ms. Jaskiewicz believed it would primarily affect the industrial site to the south, but still, in combination with this, the City could start pursuing the possibility of constructing the additional railroad crossing. Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve the request for new site plan approval to construct 133,911 square feet of office/warehouse on a 6.77-acre parcel in the M-1 industrial zoning district, contingent upon all staff conditions and comments. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked Mr. Cwynar to consider adding an amendment to the motion, a recommendation to pursue closure of the existing crossing and moving it to behind the Home Depot area to accommodate that industrial site at the same time. Mr. Cwynar responded he would consider it but in this instance, the property under development did not reach down as far as the Home Depot and, therefore, that connection could not be made. He would not allow the amendment. Attorney Tolces advised Ms. Jaskiewicz could ask for a motion to amend the motion to provide for that recommendation. Mr. Saberson's understanding was that this would not be a condition of approval on the developer, but a recommendation to the City Commission. Motion Mr. Saberson made a substitute motion to approve the project subject to all staff comments and staff recommendations, subject to the amendment that was just suggested by Ms. Jaskiewicz. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. Attorney Tolces said there was the original motion that had been made and seconded. Now they had a motion to amend that motion, made by Mr. Saberson, seconded by Ms. Jaskiewicz, to provide for the attachment of a recommendation that the City look into providing that additional crossing to the south at some point in time, not necessarily associated with this specific project. The motion to amend, which was currently on the floor, should be voted on prior to consideration of the main motion. Mr. Cwynar did not see how that motion could stand, since this property did not even come close to the Home Depot. Vice Chair Hay responded it was only a recommendation to look into it, not make it a condition of approval. It was a recommendation to say, "If at all possible, do it." Mr. Saberson indicated this was correct and Ms. Jaskiewicz concurred also. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning 8r. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 26, 2006 Mr. Farnell stated if the amendment were specifically to close the crossing, the property to the north of them would be landlocked. Attorney Tolces advised the motion had not been correct in that regard. It was to look into creating a second crossing to the south by the Home Depot facility . The amended motion passed 5-1, Mr. Cwynar dissenting. Attorney Tolces declared they now had the original motion as amended. The motion currently on the floor was the motion to approve staff's recommendation to approve the site plan with all staff comments plus a recommendation to the City Commission that they look into providing for a second railroad crossing near the Home Depot site at some point in the future, but that it was not specifically a condition of approval for this project. The motion passed 5-1, Mr. Blehar dissenting. Ms. Jaskiewicz hoped the developer would also consider the comments made previously by Mr. Barnes and Mr. Blehar. Mr. Blehar announced he would not be able to attend the next meeting due to a trip that had been arranged for a long time. B. Code Review 1. Project: Agent: Description: Mixed Use Zoning Districts 9DRV 06-002) City-initiated Request for approval of proposed amendments to Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6.F Mixed Use Zoning Districts for conversion of Mixed Use-Low (MU-L) to Mixed Use-Low 1 (MU-Ll), amendment of Mixed Use-High (MU-H), and establishment of the Mixed Use-Low 2 (MU-L2) and Mixed Use-Low 3 (MU-L3) zoning districts. Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to table Item VII-B to the October 24 meeting. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that passed 6-0. VIII. Other None IX. Comments by Members None X. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 7:30 p.m. 9 Meeting Minutes Planning 8r. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 26, 2006 Respectfully submitted, ~MatA cmvf Susan Collins Recording Secretary (092706) 10