Loading...
Minutes 04-25-00MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD 1N COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman Quintus Greene, Director of Development J. Stanley Dube, Vice Chair Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney Larry Finkelstein Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Maurice Rosenstock Zoning Woodrow Hay Lusia Galav, Senior Planner Steve Myott Hannah Matras, Economic Research Michael Friedland Analyst Robert Ensler, Alternate Dick Hudson, Senior Planner 1. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: 2. Introduction of Board Members/Recognition of Visitors Chairman Wische introduced all of the Board members, staff, and welcomed the visitors to the meeting which included Mayor Gerald Broening and his wife, and Commissioner .Bruce Black. 3. Agenda Approval Vice Chair Dube moved to accept the agenda as presented, seconded by Mr. Hay, passed- 7-0. 4. Approval of Minutes Mr. Rosenstock moved to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2000 meeting, seconded by Vice Chair Dube, passed 7-0. 5. Communication&Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the March 16, 2000 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items; 2. ` Mr. Rumpf reported on the results of the March 21, 2000 City Commission meeting as follows: (a) The Hampton Inn site plan modification was approved. MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 (b) The Poly Plastic Packaging, Inc. new site plan was approved. The Commission has asked staff to involve the property owners at certain benchmarks during the project up through final permit stage. This will be accomplished through direct notices to, property owners or association representatives and/or visits to the property owners. (c) Under Ordinances, second reading on the text amendment for the Berry Veal Project to allow as a conditional use the cutting of sub - primal portions of meat was approved. (d) Final approval was granted to three abandonments as follows: - Two for Wal Mart, and - One for BAPS Temple Final disposition of the April 11, 2000 Planning and Development Board Meeting agenda items. Mr. Rumpf reported on the results of the Aprit 18, 2000 City Commission meeting as follows: (a) The site plan for the Quantum Business Center was approved along with its corresponding variance. (b) Lowes Home Improvement Center sign request was granted. (c) Master Plan Modification for the Shoppes of Woolbright PCD was approved. (d) Use approval for the Majestic Greeting Card Company in High Ridge Commerce Park was approved. (e) Dwight Braddy, the proposed amendment to the Land Development Regulations to allow vendor carts, was denied. (f) The text amendment brought to the Board by Staff for Above - Ground Swimming Pools was approved. Chairman Wische asked for questions or comments from the Board and Vice Chair Dube asked a question of Mr. Rumpf about a new sign he had seen near the Lowes development, which did not seem to have anything, to do with Lowes: Mr: Rumpf responded that it probably belonged to a new building currently under construction in the PID and that Lowes was proceeding: as planned. 6. Old Business 2 MEETING MINUTES. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON''BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 'A. Code Review Project Name: MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD OVERLAY DISTRICT Agent: Michael Rumpf, City of Boynton Beach Description: Request to amend the Land Development Regulation Chapter 2 Zoning to establish a new section for overlay zoning districts, the Martin Luther King Boulevard Overlay District, and setbacks. Mr. Rumpf said he was excited to bring this project to the Board and that it represented an incremental move forward in implementing the Vision 20/20 Redevelopment Plan. He stated that having the overlay and setbacks in place would enhance the implementation of the redevelopment of this district. It would also pave the way for the Site plan the Board had previously reviewed for this roadway. In response to a question from a Board member, Mr. Rumpf addressed the maximum height allowed in a C-2 district, stating that he had confirmed that as being 25 feet. Vice Chair Dube recalled some earlier applicants, who, had come before the Board asking for a variance to change the setbacks in anticipation of this proposed change, and that while the Board had approved it, the City Commission denied it. He wondered why the Board was now trying to go ahead with; the proposal. Mr. Rumpf said that the denial by the City -Commission had been an endorsement of the City Attorney's opinion that there should be some consistency in the use of variances. The applicant's request represented a non-traditional use of variances and was, therefore, denied. - Mr. Rosenstockasked Mr. Rumpf about the front setback requirements, recalling an earlierdiscussion of the Board of a store and in exhibit B, Item 5A, Front Setback. It concerned Mr. Rosenstock that Mr. Rumpf said "Parcels that have frontage along Martin L. King (MLK) Boulevard shaill have a minimum front setback of three feet and a maximum front setback of twelve feet." Mr. Rosenstock believed this would not allow any standardization on sidewalk widths and thought- a three-foot sidewalk seemed extremely narrow. He asked Mr. Rumpf to supply the reasoning behind this approach. Mr. Rumpf responded that there were various reasons that would warrant a particular project to be anywhere in that range depending on the use itself. Staff is proposing that that detail be left off until the Site Plan Review stage. For example there could be a small retail shop. They may_want to have their window abut the right-of-way and it may be warranted or appropriate. Whereas you may have a small restaurant or coffee shop that may want some seating out front for dining and may want some additional footage. The amount of sidewalk could ultimately be changed if the design recommendations call for that. Mr. Finkelstein stated that Mr. Rumpf had six of the nine items in Exhibit B as reserved and asked if he were waiting for the public input to address those items and Mr. Rumpf replied that he was. Mr. Finkelstein asked for a timetable and Mr. Rumpf stated that he 3 d i rmm�.. i ✓ �� _ i� �, I,I � i MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 was working with the Neighborhood Group to set up the meetings and that they were being planned to coordinate with the issuance of the first concept draft of the design plan. Motion Mr. Rosenstock moved that item 6.A.1, Martin Luther King Boulevard Overlay District, as presented by Michael Rumpf of the City Planning Department, be approvedto amend the Land Development Regulations Chapter 2 Zoning to establish a new section for overlay zoning districts, the Martin Luther King Boulevard Overlay District, and setbacks. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Dube. Mr. Myott asked if there were any new projects along the corridor? Mr. Rumpf said he had heard ideas but no concrete proposals had been submitted to his Department. Motion passed 7-0. T. New Business - Assistant City Attorney Igwe administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying at the meeting. A. Public Hearing Conditional Use and Site Plan 1. Project Name: KINGDOM HALL OF .JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES- Agent: Mark Montantes Owner: Boynton Beach Florida Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. Location: 1512 N.E. 0 Street` Description: Request for conditional use and site plan approval to construct a 5,917 square foot church on 1.001 Acres. Mr. Mark Montantes, agent for Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses took the podium. Chairman Wische commented that there were 18 staff' comments and asked the applicant to address only the items he did not agree with or that required clarification. The applicant said that they were in agreement ` with all 18 comments and were modifying their plans accordingly. They had no questions. Mr. Finkelstein commented that this property was currently zoned. R1A, single family residential, but it had a 3,325 S.F.building with parking on it. Had there been any 4 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTONBEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 existing variance or conditional use agreement? Mr. Rumpf's response was that this was the assumption. Mr. Ensler said that on Page A3 the drawing showed the platform as 15" high with a ramp on it. He assumed the ramp was to allow handicapped access. His understanding of the Federallawwas that the length of a ramp needed to be one foot for each inch of height. With a 15 inch height the length of the ramp would have to be 15 feet and the ramp shown is only 12 feet 10 inches. He stated that the length of the ramp would need to be modified to meet Federal Code. Chairman Wische stated to Mr. Rumpf that a few members of the Board with experience in that field had confirmed this. Mr. Rumpf noted the reference to the Federal Code and said that he relied on the Building Representatives to ensure that the Code was enforced Chairman Wische asked the applicant if there were any problem with this change and he replied that there was none. He further stated that the plans the Board was reviewing were not the final plans but the proposed one. Mr. Myott brought up the cypress mulch comment and wanted assurance that there would be no cypress mulch used in the project and the applicant agreed: The applicant showed the Board the renderings for the project. Applicant stated that the 3,225 S.F.. building would increase to 4,680 S.F.and that would be an increase in square foot Ne of 1,355 feet. Mr. Montantes introduced the architect, Aldo Paredes, of 345 S.W. 13 Avenue, Boynton Beach, who took the podium to respond to questions. Mr. Myott questioned the use of asphalt shingle roof material, something more commonly used in residential buildings. He also wondered about any additional signage that might be. near the street. He said that the signage appeared to be under -designed and rather plain. Mr. Myott commended the applicants for the quality of the improvements, which were substantial in scope. Mr. Paredes agreed that the sign was modest but said that because of the location the need for signage was not as great as it might be in another location. The ingress and egress leave no doubt as to the church's location. Also, he said, there will be some lighting that will accent the signage in the evening. There is a marquee in the front that indicates the time of the different meetings for the different congregations so applicants believed the signage was appropriate. Also, there was a constraint in terms of the location for the signage and they chose to go the modest route and make it as visible as possible Mr. Hay asked Mr. Rumpf the status of the written confirmation from the Palm Beach County Traffic Division as to the applicant's compliance with the traffic standards. Mr. Rumpf replied that those comments had not been satisfied to date, as the County has not responded. Mr. Rumpf assured Mr. Hay that this would be included in the City's requirements. 5 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON'-BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 Chairman Wische opened up the subject for the public hearing. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Motion Vice Chair Dube moved to approve the request for conditional use by Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witnesses, 1512 N.E. 4t' Street and Site Plan Approval to construct a 5,917 square foot church on 1.001 acres subject to all staff comments with the addition of changing the handicapped ramp to 15 feet from 12 feet 10 inches. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Applicant wished to make a correction on the square footage stating that 5,917 was an incorrect number and that the final number submitted was 4,680 square feet. The Board noted this correction for the record. Motion carried 7-0. 3. Land Use Amendment/Rezoning Project Name: BETHESDA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (PARKING LOT ADDITION) Agent: Russell Morrison, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Owner: Bethesda Memorial Hospital Location: Southeast corner of Seacrest Boulevard and S.E. 24th Avenue and extending south to SE 25th' Avenue Description: Request to amend the Comprehensive PlanFuture Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Office Commercial and rezone from Single-family Residential District (R-1AA) to Office/Professional Commercial District (C-1). Mr. Rod Wallen, 4431 Embarcadero Drive, West Palm Beach, representing the agent Russell Morrison, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. took the podium. Mr. Myott asked if this were a temporary use that would be changed into a building later and Mr. Wallen replied that if was not intended for use of a building at any time but was for permanent parking for the employees. Mr. Myott wondered why a parking garage was not considered and Mr. Wallen replied that it would be cost prohibitive. Mr. Myott stated that he lived near there and he did not see any provisions for pedestrians crossing the road. Mr. Wallen stated that thepedestrianswould come down Seacrest along the east to the existing signalized intersection. Mr. Myott asked if a trolley or golf cart could transport the employees to and from the lot to the main site. Mr. Wallen had no knowledge of a plan to do that. Mr. Myott raised a safety concern for the persons crossing the street into fast-moving traffic on a street that had a history of accidents. Mr. Wallen asked how the Board would feel about a traffic -calming device just east of the site. The Board said that aleft -turn only sign would be helpful. Mr. Wallen said 6 —�r MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 there was a signal with a push button at the main entrance to cross Seacrest and that there were four crosswalks. The single entrance to the lot was discussed at length. Mr. Wallen stated that the single entrance was in response to a portion of the Boynton Beach City Code that required a certain distance for drives to be set back off of a corridor road such as Seacrest. They had originally hoped to have two, entrances but in designing for the code, they lost an entrance. A comment came from the Board that variances had been granted for this type of thing in the pasta Vice Chair Dube said as far as the trolleys were concerned it was illegal to drive them on the streets so they could 'not be used in this instance. Vice Chair Dube said to Mr.. Rumpf that once the zoning was changed to C1 it was Cl -it is not restricted use. In other words, we would not be approving a parking lot, but are approving a change in zone to C1. So there would be nothing to prevent an office building from going in there if this were changed. Mr. Rumpf acknowledged and agreed, saying that the majority of the land was zoned for this project except for two adjacent single-family lots that were in the process of being settled. Mr. Rumpf stated that it was fortunate both issues were being looked at simultaneously as the Board was viewing the final product at this time. Mr. Friedland commented that while it was not a perfect solution to have a parking lot across the street from the hospital, the current parking situation was entirely inadequate with additional parking being a very real and present need of the hospital. He believed the parking lot was a positive thing. Mr. Ensler stated that his recent study on parking and much networking with industry professionals had led him to the conclusion that while 9' minimum width for parking spaces met the Code, the prevailing opinion among parking professionals was that 10' widths were much more desirable. Chairman Wische noted this comment for the record. Mr. Rumpf said that this would be a totallyseparatereview and that he would not want to hold this project at this time to such a requirement. Mr. Wallen stated that the existing parking space dimensions were 9'x 18' for a regular space. Mr. Rosenstock wanted to put in some sort of restrictive clause that would guarantee the parking lot use in perpetuity. He and other Board members expressed concern about the impact on the homeowners of such potential future uses as multi -storied parking garages and medical centers. Mr. Myott inquired about whether the parking lot would be used 24 hours a day and Mr. Wallen stated that it was for employee parking, daytime shifts only. Mr. Myott asked about site lighting and Mr. Wallen replied that the requirement for lighting came from the City of Boynton Beach Code but that with the proper design, existing trees and such that this could be mitigated. Mr Wall also said that the hospital would be willing to put the lights on timers and this met with general approval of the Board. 7 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON`-BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 Mr. Wallen was asked about the landscaping and if it was on the east side. He replied that for the majority of the footage there was existing landscaping and that they were going to infill with hedge material and trees. Landscaping also exists on the inside of the wall on the parking lot side. Mr. Myott questioned the queuing off of the street to the north and asked if there were a code > requiring stacking for the gate in a' C1 district? Mr. Rumpf said that had been a concern for Staff. Mr. Wallen replied that they were working with the fence company and electrical engineers to have a timer on the gate which opens at certain time slots during certain times of day so that employees could enter the lot and not have to individually operate the gate, which would alleviate the stacking concerns. Chairman Wische opened up the discussion for the public. Mr. Michael Zwerin, 124 S.E. 20 Street, took the podium. Mr. Zwerin lives in the vicinity of the proposed, parking lot addition. He had concerns of increased traffic, noise, congestion and lights.- He was also concerned about future uses of the land if the zoning were changed to commercial from residential. His questions were as follows: Will they build the wall first or the parking lot? • When will the project be completed if approved? • Where is the entrance? How will people get into the lot if they are working or leaving late? • Do you have any guarantee that this will stay as a parking lot What's to prevent a two or three story building being erected on this space in years to come? Messrs. Rumpf and Wallen answered Mr. Zwerin's questions. Mr. Wallen stated that the contractors would determine whether the wall was done first but he didn't foresee that as being a problem. Mr. Zwerin stated this as a specific request, that the wall be put up first, to cut down on noise, dirt and mess. Mr. Wallen stated that the entrance was on 2e Street, but that employees would be coming in off Seacrest and going directly into the lot and not continuing through the residential neighborhood. Mr. Rumpf added that there would not be constant traffic but two peak periods. Mr. Rumpf addressed Mr. Zwerin's concerns about the future uses by saying that in reference to a potential multi -story deck the maximum height limit was 25 feet. Also, structures of that type would have to meet certain setback requirements as well as mitigating measures Staff would require for the project. Mr. Rumpf did not believe it would be feasible to place a multi -story parking garage in that area. Mr. Rumpf addressed the lighting by saying that this was an issue with Staff and that the code requirement to prohibit glare would be adhered to by using certain fixtures, shields or baffles, orientation' and landscaping to buffer the lighting. Also, the lights would be dimmed or shut off at certain times of the day. 8 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 Mr. Myott asked if the hospital had a Master Plan to which Mr. Rumpf replied yes. Their Master Plan has to do with the buildout of the building itself and that there is an ultimate phase which will probably put a parking structure on the hospital's site in the future. Mr. Myott thought that would probably be on the north backside of the property which Mr. Rumpf confirmed as most likely. At this point Chairman'Wische closed the public hearing as no further comments were made. Mr. Ensler was concerned about queuing and the effect on traffic with only one entrance/exit and the effect of traffic at peak times. Mr. Friedland couldn't believe that all employees would come in at one time and even if they did he could not see a problem with it. Mr. Friedland expressed a desire to vote in favor of the project to support the hospital. He knew it wasn't a perfect plan but it was very much needed by the hospital Mr. Hay agreed with him and said it would relieve an existing situation to have an alternate parking site. Mr. Finkelstein asked if it would be appropriate to do a variance for the two lots in question as opposed to changing the zoning. Mr. Rumpf replied that the variance process does not apply to uses. Motion Vice Chair Dube moved to approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Office Commercial and rezone from Single-family Residential District (R-1AA) to Office/Professional Commercial District (C-1) for Bethesda Memorial Hospital Parking Lot Addition, subject to all staff comments. Mr. Friedland seconded the motion. Motion passed 7-0_ B. New Site Plan Project Name: BETHESDA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (PARKING LOT ADDITION) Agent: Russell Morrison, Kimley-Horn& Associates, Inc. Owner: Bethesda Memorial Hospital Description: Request for new site plan approval to construct an additional parkinglot opposite the existing hospital on 1,44 acres. Mr. Wallen remained at the podium to discuss the New Site Plan request: 9 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 Chairman Wische advised the applicant that there were fourteen staff comments and asked the applicant to confine his remarks to those points on which further clarification was needed or on which applicant had questions. Chairman Wische inserted a comment at this point in the proceedings in reference to Staff Comment #10, Cypress Mulch. Not Permitted, and applicant stated that had been addressed. Mr. Wallen questioned #3 under engineering, which called for a five-foot hedge along the right-of-way fence. Applicant believed this could be a safety concern for employees coming and going from the lot and would also negate some of the aesthetic properties of the fence. The applicant said they had initially wanted a chain-link fence and then had gone to a picket fence, all due to the visibility issues of the lot. Mr. Rumpf said that this was a standard Code requirement listed in the City's Land Development Regulations. After discussion the consensus of the Board was that the hedge would be four feet high and the applicant agreed, saying that this would allow visibility over the top of the hedges. Chairman Wische asked that the Staff comment be amended, accordingly; Mr. Finkelstein asked about Staff Comment #15 relating to the timer issue for the lights. Chairman Wische stated that this would be included as a condition. Mr. Rosenstock asked what would happen if an employee worked late and got raped and mugged because there were no lights in the lot. Mr. Finkelstein said that a zero cutoff could work, also a baffle or shield. Mr. Myott said this would help to keep light from the parking lot spreading to adjacent residential properties. The applicant stated his understanding then would be that the interior lights would remain on, perimeter lights would go off in, a staggered manner. Applicant believed that with baffling of the lights and the almost continuous fifteen feet or better of existing vegetation, no residents would be negatively impacted by the ,lights in the parking lot. Vice Chair. Dube stated that the existing employee parking lot is lit at night and is adjacent to residences and he did not recall receiving any complaints. Mr. Rosenstock stated that he did not know the number of foot-candles that would be involved in the lighting and that baffling, in combination with the proper number of foot- candles, could be controlled and applicant said the timing issue could be saved for any subsequent problems if any. The applicant stated that the lighting that would be in the proposed lot was far different than that which is on the hospital site itself. The main site has 40 to 50 foot tall poles with lights that generate a substantial amount of light. Mr. Friedland stated he was in favor of the baffling solution for the lights as opposed to the automatic cut-off switch. - Mr. Myott expressed concern for the traffic situation, saying that this plan was merely a Band-Aid on the parking issue at Bethesda. Applicant suggested a traffic -calming d 10 T- MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON-BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 device just eastof the site to mitigate the traffic concern expressed by Mr. Myott. Mr. Finkelstein suggested a left -turn only sign also. Applicant stated that having only one entrance came from a portion of the Boynton; Beach Code which required certain distances for drives to be set back off a corridor road. This forced them to go to the one entrance approach. Mr. Myott thought that variances had been granted in the 'past 'but was not sure that would solve the traffic problem. Mr. Rumpf recommended having the gates open during peak times to alleviate the potential stacking problem. The consensus was that a second entrance would help the traffic flow issue. Applicant said what he had initially planned was a one way in and one way out with a curved feature which directed the drivers directly back out onto Seacrest. He said the same thing could be accomplished at the north entrance with a traffic -calming device or a left - turn only sign. Vice Chair Dube asked Mr. Rumpf if there would be an objection from the Planning Department if they had a second entrance? Mr. Rumpf stated there would be no reason to be against it if they could meet the driveway distances, which he believed were. 30 _feet. Chairman Wische opened the subject up for public comment. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed Motion Vice Chair Dube moved to recommend approval of the request for a ' new Site Plan approval to construct an additional parking lot opposite the existing hospital on 1.44 acres for the Bethesda Memorial Hospital Parking Lot Addition subject to all staff comments with the change of #3 to be maintained at a 4 foot height and include all suggestions for lighting. Mr. Rosenstock amended the motion with a recommendation that the hospital be allowed to place a second entrance on the lot to facilitate an increase in traffic, pending approval by the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Myott added an amendment that signs be placed at the exits directing traffic towards Seacrest to discourage traffic flow through the adjacent neighborhood. Mr. Hay seconded the motion with all its amendments. Motion carried 6-1, Mr. Myott dissenting. 8. Other None 11 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 9 Comments by Members Vice Chair Dube thanked everyone for re -appointing 'him as Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Dube commented to Mr. Rumpf that the Board members were either not receiving the City Commission meeting minutes or were receiving them late and asked for assistance in the matter. Mr. Finkelstein asked Mr. Rumpf if the Overlay Zoning for Federal Highway would be done before the Comprehensive Plan amendments. He referred to the tattoo parlor and auto parts applicants specifically as examples. Mr. Rumpf said they would be moving ahead with the overlays but they may not coincide with the Comprehensive Plan amendments and would not be included in the EAR -based amendments now in process. They did not want to rush into justification without enough data analysis. The zonings would be done first and the land uses would have to "catch up". Chairman Wische brought up the non -conforming sign issue and that everyone involved had been given five years to conform and questioned why the City had done nothing about enforcing this. Many Board members mirrored this concern and a lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Rumpf stated that they had notified more than forty sign owners who had been given the five-year extension for compliance. These sign owners were given an opportunity to meet with the City to discuss the criteria. The meeting was not well attended but it could have been because individual owners could not leave their businesses. We did meet with those who appeared and are now reviewing- their comments. One of the things that came out of those meetings was the realization that they could modify their signs by as little as five or six feet and comply with the regulations. He went on to say that the Board was aware that there were changes to the sign code pending which couldput the maximum height to a 10 or 12 foot limit. The Planning Department is in the process' of determining if they should cite the ones that exceed the 25' limit and who have exceeded the five-year limit or change the law and give them a longer period of time to conform to new regulations. The consensus of the Board was that action of some sort was due and overdue on the issue of non -conforming signs. The Board discussed wall signs at length and expressed concern that they had not been a part of the approval process. Concern was also expressed that the Board did not have a greater part in the billboard issue. The general opinion was against billboards, either in the community or along 1-95. The Board wanted a greater voice in matters of signage and aesthetics and asked Mr. Rumpf to make their wishes known. Chairman Wische brought up the issue of Iwall signs. Mr. Rumpf stated that wall signs were not addressed in the sunsetting code criteria and that to his knowledge, no inventory of wall signs had been done. Mr. Rumpf also stated that mural regulations IF 1 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA April 25, 2000 were in the drafting process and that he hoped the regulations would meet with the Board's approval. Mr. Rumpf agreed to update the Board on the progress of the non -conforming signs, wall signs and the billboard issue at every meeting. Vice Chair Dube moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 P.M. Mr. Hay seconded the motion and the meeting was duly adjourned. Respectfully submitted, �1 Susan S. Collins Recording Secretary (two tapes) 13