Minutes 09-25-07
<! /
..)Cd YiHC(1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR
MEETING HELD IN ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2007, AT 6:30 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Present:
Lee Wische, Chair
Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair
Jon Blehar
Sergio Casaine
Shirley Jaskiewicz
Jeff Lis
Roger Saberson
Sharon Grcevic, Alt.
Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director
Jamila Alexander, Esq.
1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance
Chair Wische called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Mr. Casaine led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
2. Introduction of the Board
Chair Wische introduced the members of the board.
3. Agenda Approval
Motion
Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Casaine seconded the
motion that passed unanimously.
4. Approval of Minutes
Motion
Vice Chair Hay moved approval of the Minutes of the August 28, 2007 meeting. Ms.
Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that passed unanimously
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
September 25, 2007
5. Communications and Announcements
A. Planning and Zoning Report
1. Final disposition of the August 28, 2007 Planning and Development Board
meeting Agenda items.
Mike Rumpf, Planning and Development Director, reported the following items previously
reviewed by the board were approved by action of the City Commission at the September
18, 2007 City Commission meeting:
· The Di Nizo variances were approved for the fence height and accessory building
within the side corner setback. This item also filed as 444 SW 7th Court.
· The Early Learning Center conditional use application was approved for Dr. Go's
property on Boynton Beach Boulevard.
· The Land Development Regulations Rewrite Group 3 was endorsed, and the board's
recommendations were conveyed to the City Commission regarding staff's continued
work pertaining to parking space surpluses for retail uses, and parking requirements
for temporary needs, such as construction activity.
· Also approved were the mobile vending unit and chickee hut ordinances reviewed
by the board pertaining to two text items in the zoning regulations.
6. Old Business
None.
Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all who would be testifying.
7. New Business
A. 2514 SW 12th Street (Brisson)
ZoninG Code Variance
1.
PROJECT:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
2514 SW 12th Street (Brisson) (ZNCV 07-006)
Mark and Holli Brisson
Mark and Holli Brisson
2514 SW 12th Street
2
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
September 25, 2007
DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 2. Zoning, Section l1.E. Swimming
Pools, requiring a minimum rear setback of 8 feet from
the property line for the construction of a swimming
pool, to allow a rear setback of 2 feet, a variance of 6
feet within the R-1-AA single-family residential zoning
district.
This item was postponed to the October 23, 2007 meeting at the request of Mark and HolIi
Brisson.
B. Makrista Baby
Administrative ADDeal
1. PROJECT:
AGENT:
DESCRIPTION:
Makrista Baby (ADAP 07-002)
Michael S. Weiner, Weiner & Aronson, P.A.
Request for appeal of the administrative determination
that the subject use, Makrista Baby, is not similar to a
tailor and dressmaker, and therefore not an allowed use
within the C-1 office and professional commercial
zoning district.
Chair Wische read the appeal and advised the applicants were present.
Jason Mankoff, attorney with the firm of Weiner & Aronson, P.A., 209 N. Seacrest
Boulevard, advised he was appearing on behalf of Michael S. Weiner, Esq. and Makrista
Baby.
Mr. Rumpf advised the appeal was filed by Mr. Mankoff. The appeal was to the zoning
interpretation of the subject use, Makrista Baby, a retail/wholesale line of baby clothing. It
was not similar to a tailor or dressmaker, as intended for the C-1 office and professional
district. Therefore, the subject use was determined not to be allowed in the C-1 zoning
district. Mr. Rumpf noted such appeals were rare, as the City's zoning regulations were
based on model ordinances used nationwide, recognizing the standardized method of
arrangement and enforcement of zoning regulations and uses. The zoning regulations were
also enforced uniformly and consistently. Appeals for variances were requested when a
party found themselves under contract or as a new owner of property, before confirming
the subject property was zoned for their business plan. Then, backing themselves into the
process, an argument would be attempted to connect the proposed plan with the adopted
zoning regulations.
3
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
September 25, 2007
Mr. Rumpf pointed out, in this case, the argument presented in support of the appeal
pertained to the preparation of the clothing line for sale, similar to tailor and dressmaker
uses, currently conditional uses in the C-1 zoning district. The argument was specifically
that the subject use utilized similar equipment and processes in preparing its clothing line
products. Photography equipment was also referenced as being used and, therefore,
argued to be similar to another use allowed in the C-1 zoning district, photography studios.
A few points clearly distinguished between the allowed uses under C-1 zoning and the
subject use that sold baby and toddler clothing. The C-1 zoning district utilized a unique
set of uses involving primarily office, professional and financial uses, medical uses and
facilities, churches, schools and personal services. The personal services were limited to
customer care with retail sales as subordinate and accessory. It was the C-2 zoning district
that clearly introduced retail sales as a principal use into the zoning regulations as a zoning
district, including uses carrying specific lines of merchandise, such as clothing. It was
traditional for such uses as barbershops and tailors to be in close proximity to professional
offices. Given the nature and characteristic of the category to provide one-on-one services
to patrons, a dressmaker excluded larger-scale textile operations which were otherwise
limited to districts allowing manufacturing.
Mr. Rumpf commented that any equipment used by tailors and dressmakers were usually
intended for performing a service on the individual materials brought by the customer. In
contrast, the subject use, Makrista Baby, was described as a company whose primary
business was that of a small children's clothing line. Further, the operation was described
as using equipment that was normally a part of Iight-to-heavy commercial operations
allowed in the C-3, C-4 or M-1 districts for similar product handling.
The narrative provided in the justification, and on the company's website, described what
was characteristically known as a boutique retailer, which provided a special retail product
unique to that provided by national or other larger retailers.
Staff recognized it was common today for many uses to have increasing electronic business
using the Internet. However, the subject business also accommodated walk-in customers
and did not operate to reduce walk-in customers. Therefore, this review had not
accounted for e-commerce or any suggested reductions in site impacts or performance. In
the past, staff had been requested to consider that aspect of a business. Staff still reviewed
this, the product to be handled, the processes to be used, and whether walk-in traffic was
allowed.
In conclusion, staff recommended the appeal be denied and that the staff determination
regarding the dissimilarity between the proposed business and the use "tailors and
dressmakers," as allowed in the C-1 zoning district, be upheld. This recommendation was
based partly on the following: (1) the subject use, Makrista Baby, consisted of a principal
4
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
September 25, 2007
use that was clearly a retail operation marketing a product line consisting of baby and
toddler clothing; (2) except for commercial or industrial businesses, to accurately access
compatibility with adjacent businesses, uses were evaluated based on the service of
products provided, rather than solely on the equipment or processes used; (3) the C-1
zoning district was not intended for retail businesses, except for those uses related to the
medical or health industry; and (4) there were other districts clearly intended for the
subject use including the C-2, C-3, C-4 and PCD zoning districts.
Mr. Mankoff distributed a handout pertaining to Makrista Baby, a small business owner
desiring to establish its operations in Boynton Beach. Mr. Mankoff disagreed with staff's
conclusion, as he believed staff was overly concerned if the appeal were approved, similar
appeals would be filed. These appeals would continue to be rare. In the event additional
appeals were filed, it would be unlikely there would be a similarity of use request in which
there was a synonym to the proposed use already included in the Code. In this case,
"garment maker" was listed in Roget's Thesaurus as a synonym for tailor and dressmaker,
which were both conditional uses in the C-1 zoning district. Makrista Baby's use was
classified as a garment maker and he believed the similarity of use should be approved.
Applicants believed staff's concern for setting a precedent was unfounded in this case. Mr.
Mankoff circulated the product being used, opining the baby garments did not appear to be
a final product which would result from heavy industrial uses and he did not believe the
business should be classified in M-1, C-3, or C-4 zoning districts. The City's June 15, 2007
letter indicated the proposed use utilized similar equipment as a tailor or dressmaker.
Although there currently was no intent for walk-in customers, the applicants would like to
have walk-in customers, but this was not critical. Therefore, they would agree to a
condition indicating there would be no walk-in customers.
Notwithstanding regulations and the City's correspondence, the applicants believed the
proposed use was similar to the conditional use of tailor or dressmaker. He contended they
had not brought the tailor in as they did not wish to attract traffic to the site.
Mr. Mankoff contended Makrista Baby, a high-quality baby-garment maker, had a niche in
the market, was highly respected and would benefit the City. There would be no density,
height or traffic issues associated with the relief requested. Even if the board agreed with
the applicants as to the similarity of use, they would still be required to proceed with a
conditional use. They hoped the board would allow Makrista Baby to establish its operation
in the City of Boynton Beach.
Chair Wische opened the public hearing. No one having come forward, public hearing was
closed.
5
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
September 25, 2007
Stacy Beck, Makrista Baby, 4310-D Village Drive, Delray Beach, commented the products
were custom made. As the garments were requested, the patches were applied. The
requesters were customers as well as stores. She commented it would be fair to conclude
the business included walk-ins requesting custom-made garments, while also
accommodating requesters from out of state requesting 10,000 custom-made garments.
Kristy Golden, Makrista Baby, 4310-D Village Drive, Delray Beach, pointed out the
business could not accommodate 10,000 pieces at the site.
Mr. Lis discussed possible manufacturing aspects of the business and his concerns, as C-1
was not a manufacturing district. In addition, tailors and dressmakers attended to the local
community, not the country or the world. The Internet had opened up the business to the
country and the world. The business was already marketing to the country and the world,
yet requested the City allow the business to operate in the C-1 zoning district.
Mr. Casaine did not believe the business operated as a manufacturer in terms of quantity
and expressed disagreement with staff, as he believed the proposed use was similar to a
tailor and dressmaker.
Ms. Golden indicated they had no long-term plan for the business, and just "fell into the
business." If the business were to increase substantially, the work could not be done at
the site, which was a converted house with small square footage.
Ms. Beck indicated the business might be hiring four or five employees, most of whom
were family members.
In a discussion pertaining to tee-shirts featuring sports logos, Mr. Blehar inquired whether
any such firms were located in the City. Ms. Grcevic advised "Embroider Me" was located
in the City. Mr. Rumpf indicated years ago staff processed a request for tee-shirts using
printed or silk screened logos for a business located north of Boynton Beach Boulevard,
east of Seacrest Boulevard, and west of the FEC tracks, which would be C-4 or M-1, and
that was all they did. They had silk screen presses and the necessary equipment on the
premises.
Ms. Jaskiewicz pointed out, in the rewriting of the Code, C-3, and possibly C-2, would be
appropriate locations for the business, as the products were being made to sell locally, and
the business would therefore be a retail operation, which was not permitted in C-1.
Therefore, she would vote consistent with the recommendation of staff.
Quintus Greene, Development Director, advised City staff was supportive of incubating
new businesses and would be supportive of this particular business, provided it was in a
proper zoning district. The C-1 zoning district emphasized personal and professional
6
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
September 25, 2007
services. The personal services listed were those that supported the professional services
listed. This particular use was not a personal service in support of professional services.
Therefore, based on what was allowed in the district, staff had no choice but to determine
this was not an appropriate use for this district.
Discussion ensued as to whether personal services were being provided within the C-1
district that were not supporting professional services, and the manner in which this
applied to Makrista Baby.
Mr. Lis commented on the limited uses within the zoning district.
Mr. Rumpf pointed it was his responsibility to determine whether uses conformed to the
different categories. He pointed out Mr. Mankoff noted a certain degree of difference was
acceptable in determining similarity. The issue of difference between the C-1 district and
the C-2 district was retail sales. While a function of the business might be similar to what
someone might do as a tailor, this would be just one component of the business. Mr.
Rumpf set forth the criteria for determining whether a use was allowed.
Discussion ensued as to whether an exception should be considered for Makrista Baby in
the event the Code was not followed consistently.
Mr. Rumpf indicated, if a variance application was supported by the City, and there were
other lots for which the City would have approved the same request, a policy issue might
exist, which would require the zoning to be amended. In this case, unless there were a
niche or characteristic in this business that differentiated it significantly from other retail
establishments, a Code amendment might be appropriate.
In response to Vice Chair Hay's inquiry, Mr. Rumpf advised if the appeal were denied, the
applicants would be in violation of C-l zoning ordinances.
Mr. Saberson believed the distinction referred to was between services and retail.
Although the Code provided for services that supported professionals in the district, these
services were provided not only to professionals, but to the public at large as well.
Motion
Mr. Casaine moved that the request for appeal be approved. Mr. Lis seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote
The Motion failed 2-5, (Chair Wische, Vice Chair Hay, Ms. Jaskiewicz, Mr. Blehar, and Mr.
Saberson dissenting).
7
Meeting Minutes
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
September 25, 2007
Mr. Mankoff thanked the board for considering the appeal.
8. Other
None.
9. Comments by members
None.
10. Adjournment
Motion
Vice Chair Hay moved to adjourn. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed.
The meeting property adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
"JZ;;-L"~ D )
Stephartle D. Kahn
Recording Secretary
092607
092607
8