Loading...
Minutes 02-24-09 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2009, AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Shirley Jaskiewicz, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning Director Roger Saberson, Vice Chair Shana Bridgeman, Assistant City Attorney Matthew Barnes Sharon Grcevic Candace Killian Jeff Lis Steve Myott William Poznak, Alternate ABSENT: Amber Barritt, Alternate 1 Pledge of Allegiance. . Chair Jaskiewicz called the meeting to order at 6:29 p.m. Vice Chair Saberson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2.Introduction of the Board. Chair Jaskiewicz introduced the members of the Board. 3. Agenda Approval. Motion Vice Chair Saberson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 4. Approval of Minutes. Chair Jaskiewicz noted a spelling error on page six, third paragraph, the sentence should read, “A building inspector would conduct an inspection to assure led lead lining, if required.” Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the minutes. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 1 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 24, 2009 It was also noted Ms. Grcevic was present at the meeting. 5.Communications and Announcements. A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the January 27, 2009 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. Mike Rumpf , Planning and Zoning Director, announced Board Alternate Amber Barritt contacted him advising she had a scheduling conflict and could not attend the meeting. He reported the following items were approved at the January 20, 2009 City Commission meeting: The two text amendments dealing with interim Code amendments ? The Boynton Beach Cancer Center, Zoning Code Variance and the Major Site ? Plan Modification, with the condition the subsequent tenants of the building be reviewed similarly to the medical tenant, as it pertained to parking deficiencies and relief against the Parking Code Learning Place II, Site Plan Time Extension ? Chow Hut, Site Plan Time Extension ? 6. Old Business A handout was distributed in response to discussion at the last meeting which pertained to interim conditions of approval imposed by the Board. The conditions pertained to landscaping improvements for Site Plan Time Extension requests, particularly on Federal Highway or a visible corridor. Of the previous projects approved, the Palm Cove project did not meet the conditions set forth by the date specified and the project expired. The Arches and Holiday Inn (Holiday Inn Express) projects had Code cases pending. The conditions were justified and validated, and the City was pursuing their enforcement. Staff would dovetail the process as part of the planning inspection process recently instituted for new zoning permits. Mr. Lis recalled a few months ago, the Board discussed Gulfstream Gardens had landscaping obligations. Mr. Rumpf did not recall any conditions attached, but would research the item. The Ticket Clinic was also complimented on cleaning up the property. 7. New Business ALand Development Regulations – Rewrite . 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 24, 2009 Group 6 Code Review Land Development Regulations – Rewrite 1. PROJECT: Group 6 (CDRV 07-004) AGENT: City-initiated DESCRIPTION: A portion of Group 6 deliverable, pursuant to the LDR Rewrite Work Schedule, which includes Chapter 4, Article IV. Sign Standards. Eric Johnson , Planner, distributed a handout of the presentation and explained Ordinance #’s 08-031 and 08-033 were approved and incorporated into the Code. Changes were proposed for Article 1, Definitions; Article 2, Planning and Zoning Division Services; and Article 4, Sign Standards. Section 1 contained General information, Section 2 detailed prohibited signs, Section 3 detailed actual standards and Section 4 detailed community design standards. Section 5 contained proposed language regarding the sign program, Section 6 detailed non-conforming signs, Section 7 detailed abandoned signs and Section 8 detailed penalties. A new objective in Section 1 added sustainability. Sign definitions were added, as was a permitting process for signs. Multiple severability clauses were added to the Code to make it legally defensible. Relief from the Code could be obtained through a variance process that required the applicant meet the hardship provision. Relief from the Community Design Standards could be obtained through a Community Design Plan Appeal. Provisions for all types of signs were established but they must be located on private property. Internally illuminated signs would be shielded and not exposed. The only exception would be on window signs, such as “Open” or beer brand signs. LCD or digital read board signs were outright prohibited. Section 3 contained general standards which applied to all signs City-wide, and encompassed temporary signs, permanent signs and special signs. General standards addressed sign content. Computation of sign area added a provision detailing if a sign were affixed to a wall painted the same color as the sign, staff could interpret it as all wall signage area. Free-standing signs would be located outside cross-visibility and safe sign areas, and would not create traffic hazards. All signs must meet wind-load standards as reviewed and approved by the Building Department. Maintenance and clearance heights over pedestrian walkways had to be a minimum of nine feet, and over vehicular areas, the height was reduced from 16’ to 14’ 6”, consistent with the State. Monument signs would indicate the property address. In residential areas, the addresses needed to be a minimum of four inches in height, and 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 24, 2009 for non-residential properties, a minimum of six inches in height. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited in residential zoning districts. Reference to crime prevention through environmental design was included. Temporary Signs were reviewed. Larger real estate signs would require a permit. A table and chart was contained in the Code, which detailed the allowable sign area for the different projects. The language was based on what sister cities in Florida have. A list of the cities contacted was included in the meeting materials. Project Development sign slides were viewed, as was a chart. Construction signs were also included and regulated. Other changes were political signs were only allowed on private property, and not within the right-of-way. The requirement that political candidates must register their signs with the City Clerk was removed. Small signs were not affected, only the political signs 32 square feet or more were required to obtain a permit. Mr. Johnson discussed permanent signs and explained in the proposed code, manual, changeable copy, was only allowed on monument signs; however, staff was seeking Board comments on the item. Permanent sign standards had a chart with information on zoning district, property size, number of travel lanes, signs for single and multi-tenant developments, and sign area. Directional and directory signs included a provision to allow a directional sign off premises if certain criteria was met. Menu board signs were allowed in conjunction with a drive-through facility. Awning and valance signs were reviewed. The text on awnings would be no more than six inches and staff was seeking the Board’s input on this item. Signs on awnings would count towards building wall signage. Covered walkway and arcade signs were in multi-tenant developments, as were blade signs. Window signs and rear door identification plaques were addressed. Provisions were created for mixed-use identification signs for mixed- use districts and neighborhood identification signs. Special signs were located throughout the City at certain intersections, attached to traffic poles. The Code for them wa expanded. Pennant signs were not allowed. Transit shelter signs were addressed, as the City has an agreement in place.. Murals were allowed, in conjunction with the Site Plan Review Process, and would require approval by the Arts Commission. Community Design Standards encompassed deviation processes through a Community Design Plan Appeal procedure. Purpose and Intent, Administration, Applicability and Relief section were added with the Planning and Zoning Director acting as the Administrator. The compatibility language was expanded as was sign style. The maximum number of colors other than those nationally registered were in Chapter 9. The size and style of letters was included as well as landscaping of monument signs. Logos and icons were addressed. If a company wanted a logo be more than 20% of the 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 24, 2009 sign, provisions were included, and the size of the logo would be limited. If the logo was on a wall sign, they would be limited to nine square feet, and window signs would be limited to three square feet. Window signs often were made of neon tubing. Staff tried to be consistent in the size of window signs, and limited them to three square feet. Other provisions for window signs, such as their location and size, were included. Signs located on windows next to the main entrance could be 20% of the pane, but any other signs could be no larger than three square feet. Any deviation from this Code would not require a variance. A Community Design Appeal could be requested instead, although the process has not yet been established and was contained in another area of the Land Development Code. Staff preferred to see Directory signs that contained multiple listings of different businesses on directory signs rather than on monument signs. Staff found traffic slowed to read the signs. It was staff’s opinion that it was appropriate to put the multiple listings on signs that were internal to the development rather than on a monument sign that was typically located on the right-of-way. Graphics on construction fences were referred to as lifestyle graphics, and provisions were included for them in the Code. The proposed sign code requires all multiple- tenant developments have a sign program. The current code only requires a sign code for all commercial developments in a Planned Development and the provision was expanded. A Purpose and Intent, Applicability, Permits, and Community Design Plan Appeal were incorporated. A provision was included that would allow an extra 10% for wall signs on rear facades visible from rights-of-way. This allows individuals driving on the spine road in Renaissance Commons and other areas that have rear buildings that lack signage to identify the establishment. The provision would accommodate business owners and still maintain the aesthetic integrity of the Sign Code. Non-conforming sign regulations, abandoned signs and penalties for the signs were reviewed. Mr. Johnson requested input about changing copy on wall signs, awnings, valances, logos exceeding 20% on awnings, and other types of signs. He also requested discussion whether there should be exposed neon tubing on wall signs or keeping them in window signs. A member inquired if the change in the Code meant there would be additional review by the Planning and Development Board or the City Commission? There would be no change in that respect. Under the proposed Code, the Planning and Development Board would review signs through the site plan review process. If a vendor wanted to deviate from the Sign Code, the Planning and Development Board would review the proposal. Additionally, a community design plan appeal could be requested if needed. In the past, a Community Design Appeal Board existed and a suggestion was made the Board may want to consider that option. Other suggestions 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 24, 2009 received were: Business vendors should be encouraged to use a sign company with graphic skill ? and design sense, when possible, to improve the quality of the design as much as possible. The ability to maintain flexibility in signage of a historic nature was important as ? part of the quaintness and historical flavor in the downtown area may be lost. The Mom and Pop establishments should not be negatively impacted in an effort ? to move the City forward. The new sign regulations should be included with the New Development ? Information packets, including color graphics. Branding and imaging was discussed. Comments received were the City needed to go further and look at the bigger picture. The only way to present an image was through signage; however, what was presented was similar to other communities. There was much opportunity to accomplish this through the Sign Code, but it was suggested it be taken to the next level. The City’s image was changing. Suggestions were made that new ideas should be brought to the Board for consideration; however, cities often hired consultants for that purpose. It was pointed out certain areas of the City have guidelines in place and the Community Redevelopment Agency has Community Design guidelines. A suggestion was made the best way to control the image of the City was through public rights-of-way. Items such as streetlights, street furniture, paving details, or sidewalks were a more appropriate way to brand the City. The Sign Code would upgrade the sign standards and there were illegal signs existing, and they would remain illegal after the Code changed unless it was enforced. Another suggestion made was it may be easier to brand by district, as was done in Mizner Park. While a sign program was good, a streetscape program could brand even better. The signage program at Las Olas provided the ability for each company to promote their own branding, logos and colors within a recognized format that allowed for creativity. It was suggested the City go a step further and brand on a grander scale as there would be a recognizable standard. There would not be grandfathering of window signs at convenience stores. Many of the existing window signs were non-conforming under the current code. Staff indicated if the provisions were approved, the signs would become legal, non-conforming signs. An inquiry was made if the City would systematically review different areas of the City to determine if the business initially obtained a sign permit. If they did not, it was suggested the signs should be treated as an illegal sign, as opposed to a non- 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 24, 2009 conforming sign. The owners should be made to comply with the Code, as it would detract from what the City was trying to adopt. Staff noted it would be a huge undertaking. Discussion turned to patron safety and signage at convenience stores since those establishments were the most prone to crime. If the windows were covered, a patron could unknowingly walk into an ongoing crime scene. If the Code were enforced, it would be a step towards creating a unified look. Most of the problem was what was posted was never permitted. The new Code could prevent this in the future. The window signs made of plywood, or cardboard were prohibited. Strobe, animated, or fluttering lights, were also prohibited. Vehicle display signs were discussed. The problem with them was two-fold; the vehicle display signs were on the trucks, and how the trucks parked. Vehicles with signs less than eight-square feet would not be considered by the Code. All vehicles, temporary or not, should be properly parked in a parking space. The vehicles staff referred to parked in multiple spaces and the signs they displayed afforded that business greater visibility than their peers. If the vehicles parked outside the parking spot, it was private property and the police could not cite them. The proposed code would not allow those vehicles to be parked for more than 24 hours. There were provisions added in the Code to require for Political Signs only on private property during the time period preceding any local, state or national election and only on private property. Some municipalities do not allow certain sign colors or any colors contained on Department of Transportation signs. Staff explained up to four colors were allowed by Community Design standards for general signs. A long-standing large wall sign existed in the City and an inquiry was made how that business owner could advertise his business on the wall, since it was a storefront establishment. Staff explained individuals had the right to advertise and to free speech. The Sign Code contained provisions for each type of sign. Staff was not identifying a sign by its content, rather they were doing so by its design, as the City had the right to regulate the way a sign looked, its location, size, type and illumination. It was also noted some buildings have historical significance. The only exempt window signs were signs with stenciled letters. Staff created permitting processes for all types of signs, and they would go through the normal process. The Planning and Zoning Department would be given more responsibility to issue planning and zoning permits, one of them being signs. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 24, 2009 Mr. Johnson clarified there was also a sign program for new development. Warren Timm , 26th Avenue, suggested there be a provision to allow a body, such as the Planning and Development Board, to approve exceptions. There may be projects in the community the City may want to attract individuals outside of the community to, and extra advertising may be needed. Having an exception in the Code would make this possible. Mr. Johnson responded if there was a special event, a business could display a banner on the exterior of the property if it did not cause problems for pedestrians, or interfere with landscaping. Interior displays within five feet of a window were considered a window sign. Special Temporary Sales Event signs would be valid for the duration of the temporary sales event; however, there was no maximum time limit given. Staff explained that language had not been finalized yet and would be obtained in Group 7 Rewrite, Planning and Zoning Division Services, which would detail the processes behind the various permits and applications. It was suggested when the language was finalized, a sentence be included in this section. It was further suggested a Temporary Sales event should not last longer than two months. Seasonal sales events were also noted as lasting 90 days. It was logical the sign should be valid for the length of the permit. The language should be contained in this section of the Code. He explained cross references were also added to make the document user friendly. The changeable copy on wall signs was discussed and it was mentioned it was not appropriate to list everything on sale for the establishment nor did it assist the image of Boynton Beach. Staff explained they were trying to create two processes for two issues, which were safety and aesthetics. Many of the older businesses were unaware they had too much signage, but it was thought that would correct itself over the next few years. Businesses should have enough individuality so they would be recognized, but not so much it was a detraction. The signs should be fair and tasteful, and the buildings and signs should not be identical. It is important something be on the books in order to regulate the signs. Staff sought the Board’s input on logos on awnings or comprising 100% of a monument sign. If a logo would be greater than 20% of a sign, the logo would be allowed on a wall sign or window. The Code indicated the text would be written over an awning that was over a public entrance. Additionally a valance was a sign and the lettering should not exceed six inches. Staff suggested removing the language regarding six-inch letters on the awnings from the General Standards and placing it under Community Design. By doing so, any deviation would come before the Planning and Development Board and they would not have to meet the traditional hardship standard. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 24, 2009 Discussion turned to logos, and he inquired if there should be a higher percentage than 20% allowed on monument signs, or 100% for awnings. The mix of logos and name was discussed. Mr. Lis suggested supporting the effort and having a consistent branding identity. Business owners would have to prove and promote themselves to the world, via the internet, physical establishment and other means. Window signs have a maximum of 20% on the pane closest to the public entrance. Windows thereafter were allowed three square feet. It was suggested no more than 20% of the total window space of the store should be obstructed. It was a life safety issue. All glass doors would have 20%. Windows should be open and clear. If the door were solid wood, signs would be considered wall signs. Window signs were treated separately than the wall because that was where the neon type lights were. Neon lights form an image. A glass door would be treated differently than a wood door. If the door were wood, electric “open” signs could not be used. You could not see through and the signs had to be on the outside of the door. Some doors have signs on the inside of the door and information stenciled on the door or were a graphic affixed to the door on the inside. Business hours posted on the door was not interpreted as being a sign. Address numerals are allowed to be a certain point size. It was Mr. Johnson’s observation that most businesses do not care about branding. Ed Breese, Principal Planner , explained when the new Code was adopted, a training session would be held with Code Enforcement to review the changes in the Code. There are new Planning and Zoning permits, which would require Planning and Zoning staff to be in the field. Additionally, if staff viewed a violation, it is submitted to Code Compliance. He expressed both of those factors would alleviate obvious problems. The Sign Code would be regulated and administered through the Planning and Zoning Division, and the Director. Code issues would be addressed by Code Compliance Officer. The Code Compliance Division would continue to enforce; however, the authority to interpret, coordinate and review the Sign Codes was a function of Planning and Zoning. A question was posed why the Code would be changed, if the way it was enforced was not. Staff was encouraged to do so as it would yield better results and a better appearance. The Board was in agreement with the statement. Motion Mr. Myott moved to pass the Sign Code with the Board’s suggestions to the City Commission. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 8. Other 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 24, 2009 It was noted some of the signs entering the City were in deplorable condition, particularly the sign on Woolbright Road, coming from west of Congress Avenue. Planning staff would notify the proper department. 9. Comments by members Mr. Myott inquired whether the renovation of Kentucky Fried Chicken should have come before the Board. Mr. Breese responded it was a minor site plan modification which did not require coming before the Board. The company was rebranding itself. 10. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting properly adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Lit " Q~ ~ 'L[ ., , j\" ( V 1 I il ,ct Lt.ILv\...C ',/ LliLJ j. Catherine Cherry i"j Recording Secretary 030309 10