Loading...
Minutes 10-27-09 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2009, AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Shirley Jaskiewicz, Chair Michael Rumpf, Planning Director Roger Saberson, Vice Chair Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Attorney Matthew Barnes Sharon Grcevic Candace Killian Jeff Lis Steve Myott Warren Timm, Alternate 1. Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Jaskiewicz called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Grcevic 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 Mr. Myott moved to approve the agenda. Vice Chair Saberson seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 4. Approval of Minutes. Motion Ms. Killian moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Planning and Zoning Director Mr. Rumpf reported on the outcome of items previously reviewed by the Board and the action taken at the City Commission meeting of October 20, 2009. 1 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 ?The Baywalk site plan extension was approved. Consistent with prior actions, the Commission added a condition requiring landscaping enhancements along the right-of-way. ?High Ridge Academy conditional use/major site plan modification was tabled per the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation. This would allow the additional time necessary for the Board to be provided with information regarding traffic congestion and stacking issues, as the School would be working closely with two other schools in the vicinity. ?The First American Bank Office Complex major site plan modification was unanimously approved. 6. Old Business: 7. New Business: Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all who would be testifying. A.1. Sunshine Square Phase I, (SPTE 09-011), Site Plan Time Extension located at 501 East Woolbright Road. Request approval for one (1) year site plan time extension for a major site plan modification (MSPM 08-002) and conditional use (COUS 08-001) development order that was approved on March 18, 2008, thereby extending approval from September 18, 2009 to September 18, 2010. Applicant: Jeff Zito, Land Design South. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented the request. Sunshine Square was comprised of 14.4 acres at the southwest corner of Federal Highway and Woolbright, zoned Community Commercial. The Phase I major site plan modification and conditional use were approved for the construction of a bank and conversion of an existing building into a drive-through restaurant. The shopping center had recently been upgraded to include parking lot and building façade improvements and new landscaping. The site plan approval was valid for 18 months. The extension would allow more time for the applicant to obtain a building permit for the project. The justification for the request was based upon economic conditions which affected the proposed tenants and delayed construction. Progress made by the applicant included the finalization of the construction drawings and right-of-way dedication requirements as well as coordination of the installation of a new traffic signal on Woolbright Road. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 The County had approved the traffic concurrency for this project, including the build-out year of 2010. No new Land Development Regulations were in place which staff felt should be applied to the project. Staff recommended approval, provided that all of the previous conditions would still apply. Jennifer Vail, of Land Design South, appeared on behalf of the owner and was accompanied by Michael Weiner, attorney. The applicant agreed to comply with all existing conditions of approval. Chair Jaskiewicz noted she was pleased with the progress made to date and looked forward to the completion of the project. Chair Jaskiewicz invited public comments. No one came forward, and the public comments were closed. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed unanimously. B.1. DeFilippis Pool Variance, (ZNCV 09-007), Zoning Code Variance, th located at 1006 SW 26 Avenue. Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations, E. Swimming Pools, requiring a minimum setback of 8 feet from any property line, to allow a setback of 1 foot from the rear property line, for a variance of 7 feet, for a proposed swimming pool within the R-1-AA Single-family Residential zoning district. Applicant: Andrew DeFilippis. Ms. Zeitler presented the request. The property was located in Golfview Harbour on a 7,500 square-foot lot that backed up to Big Bass Waterway. An 80-foot canal right-of- way was located at the rear of the applicant's property which included 8-9½ feet of grassed area between the residential rear property line and seawall. The pool plan reflected an average pool size of 14 feet wide by 28 feet long. A distance of 9-10 feet from the canal would still be maintained with a one-foot rear setback and a large separation from the property to the rear across the canal. Staff's research revealed that the developer of Golfview Harbour had been granted a blanket variance, reducing the 25-foot rear setback to 20 feet. This limited the ability of homeowners to construct accessory improvements without relief from setbacks. Variances for pools were previously approved for lots on the water in the area with a rear setback of one foot. Staff had analyzed the request based upon the criteria for granting a variance and found as follows: 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 ?Special conditions existed. ?The special circumstances had not resulted from the actions of the applicant. ?Granting the request would not confer any special privileges. ?Literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. ?The minimum variance requested would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Most variances would likely be denied if based solely upon all criteria. Staff noted that past variances had been approved based upon compliance with a portion of the criteria and/or upon the emphasis on potential impacts, precedence and the need for home expansions and improvements. Staff evaluated the current built characteristics in the area to determine whether a Code amendment was warranted. Few lots would require a similar variance if the homeowners proposed to construct a pool without a screen enclosure. Therefore, staff did not recommend a Code amendment. Staff recommended approval of the variance request based upon the following justification: ?The minimum intent and purpose of setbacks within the zoning regulations would be met, as the properties had been significantly separated by the canal. ?The granting of the variance would be consistent with previous approvals granted within the same neighborhood under the same circumstances existing on the property. ?Special conditions and circumstances existed which were peculiar to the land, structure or building which were not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. th Andrew DeFilippis, 1006 SW 26 Avenue, noted he requested the variance as he wished to provide a pool for his family. A letter received from Lake Worth Drainage District and included with the meeting materials indicated the District had no rights-of-way or interests adjacent to the property. Chair Jaskiewicz invited public comments. No one came forward, and the public comments were closed. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 Motion Mr. Myott moved approval of Item B.1, Zoning Code variance to require a minimum setback of eight feet to reduce it to one foot for a variance of seven feet, for a swimming pool within R-1-AA Single-family zoning district, subject to all staff comments. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that passed unanimously. C.1. Seacrest Surgical Center, (ZNCV 09-003), Zoning Code Variance, located at 2314 South Seacrest Boulevard. Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6(A)(3), requiring 39 parking spaces to allow the provision of 36 parking spaces, for a variance of 3 spaces, for a proposed medical office building addition within the C-1 Office professional zoning district. Applicant: Styperek Enterprises, Inc. C.2. Seacrest Surgical Center, (ZNCV 09-004), Zoning Code Variance, located at 2314 South Seacrest Boulevard. Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11(d)(19), requiring a 30-foot front setback, to allow a 23-foot setback, for a variance of 7 feet, for a proposed medical office building addition within the C-1 Office Professional zoning district. Applicant: Styperek Enterprises, Inc. C.3. Seacrest Surgical Center, (MSMP 09-006), Major Site Plan Modification, located at 2314 South Seacrest Boulevard. Request for approval of a major site plan modification for the construction of a 760 square-foot addition to an existing 7,040 square-foot building zoned C-1 Office Professional zoning district. Applicant: Styperek Enterprises, Inc. Chair Jaskiewicz requested the above three items be discussed simultaneously, but voted upon individually. There were no objections to the request. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, advised the applicant was requesting a major site plan modification in order to accommodate an ambulatory surgical center. The applicant was seeking two Zoning Code variances as well, in order to accommodate the proposed building expansion and reduced parking. The applicant had operated a successful medical practice at 2314 South Seacrest Boulevard for a number of years and would like to expand the services provided. The irregular shape of the building limited the direction in which it could be expanded without eliminating required parking. Each of the two proposed operating rooms could accommodate one patient at a time with three or four surgeries performed each day. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 The medical staff performed a week-long parking survey for the existing parking and its usage. Out of 39 spaces, the maximum amount of parking spaces occupied were as follows: ?Monday: 16, or 41% of the available parking. ?Tuesday: 12, or 31% of the available parking. ?Wednesday: 17, or 44% of the available parking. ?Thursday: 21, or 54% of the available parking. ?Friday: 14, or 35% of the available parking. Staff had visited the site on numerous occasions during the review period and had worked with the applicant on the proposed expansion for nearly two years. Staff also found the parking to be under-utilized, averaging between nine and 16 parking spaces. The applicant proposed to expand the building to the west, subject to a 30-foot front setback. The building currently maintained a 33-foot front setback from the front property line which would be reduced to 23 feet with the proposed expansion. The architect maintained building façade stepbacks to retain the visual interest in the west elevation. Of the 408 square feet associated with the operating room expansions, only 106 feet encroached into the front setback, roughly 25 linear feet of the building frontage and 11% of the lot frontage. Staff determined the applicant had generated the circumstances requiring the variance and recommended the request be denied based upon lack of hardship. Staff, however, was supportive of commercial and office redevelopment and business retention growth. Past variance requests had been reviewed by the City using criteria that placed greater emphasis on the economic potential, trends, needs of businesses and impact upon surrounding properties. If the Board supported the requests, staff proposed the following be considered: ?The parking survey indicated the parking lot was under-utilized. ?The proposed design minimized site impacts, promoted tree preservation and would not adversely impact surrounding properties. ?The ultimate design would not jeopardize the high-quality appearance of the building or the look of the Seacrest Boulevard corridor. ?The magnitude of the encroachment was minimal. ?The applicant's inability to provide the expanded services on-site might require the medical practice to relocate. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 Staff recommended approval of the major site plan modification, subject to the conditions of approval, which included the approval of the two Zoning Code variances. Juan Linares, Architect, advised the delay in the project was caused by a change in the Code requiring that only C-level operating rooms were to be built for the procedures to be provided by the applicant. While the original intent of the design had not changed, the applicant was currently required to comply with ACCA Health Agency requirements for larger operating rooms. Additionally, the required amount of handicap parking spaces had doubled. Accordingly, two additional parking spaces had been converted into handicap spaces. Mr. Linares agreed to comply with the 10 existing conditions of approval. Chair Jaskiewicz invited public comments. No one came forward and the public comments were closed. Dr. Eva Styperek noted her surgical practice provided plastic surgery services and breast cancer care. Surgical practices tended to produce a lower patient flow than a medical practice. Internal medicine and cardiology services were also offered. It was anticipated the internal medicine practice would decrease in volume while the surgical practice would grow to include the provision of ambulatory surgery services. The build- out was required to meet regulatory requirements and would not affect patient volume. As patients were picked up curbside, the handicap parking spaces would not be utilized any more than the general population might need them. Dr. Styperek explained trends in ACCA Health Agency requirements for ambulatory centers resulted in more stringent requirements. While the project commenced in 2005, irregularities in the review process were experienced. Key individuals had resigned before the process could be completed, which delayed the project. Had Dr. Styperek not run into difficulties in the first two years, she believed the project would have been completed. She contended a hardship arose from conditions beyond her control. It was questioned whether the City's Code included a waiver process for variances that met a specific threshold. Mr. Breese replied negatively, but noted a waiver process had been included in the draft LDR (Land Development Regulations). Mr. Breese believed the requested relief would meet the criteria of a waiver process. Chair Jaskiewicz had observed the parking lot at Dr. Styperek's facility as well as the ambulatory surgery complex across the street, and neither lot had been over-filled. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 Motion Mr. Barnes moved to approve the request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach LDRs, Chapter 2, Section 6(A)(3), requiring a 30-foot front setback, to allow 23-foot setback, for a variance of 7 feet. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Motion Mr. Barnes moved to approve the request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach LDRs, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11(d)(19) requiring 39 parking spaces to allow the provision of 36 parking spaces, for a variance of 3 spaces, for a proposed medical office building addition at 2314 S. Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. Saberson seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Motion Mr. Barnes moved to approve the request for a major site plan modification for an approximately 760 square-foot addition to an existing 7,040 square-foot medical office building in the C-1 zoning district. Ms. Killian seconded the motion that passed unanimously. D.1. Pro-Golf/Mega Mini. (ADAP 09-002), Administrative Appeal, located at 2951 SW Place. Request for appeal of administrative determination that a storage bay shall not be used to manufacture, fabricate or process goods in a self-storage facility bay in the M-1 Zoning District as indicated in Chapter 2, Zoning Section 11.O.1.c. Applicant: Michael Weiner, Weiner & Associates, P.A. Attorney Alexander announced a discrepancy existed between the City and the applicant relating to the Board's jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and she noted the City's objection. The language in the City's Code of Ordinances for the LDR (Land Development Regulations) provided that: "The Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals would hear and decide appeals of administrative decisions or determinations made in the enforcement or administration of LDR Chapter 20, Building, Housing and Construction Regulations, and the various Building Codes and ordinances adopted by the City. (See LDR Chapter 20, Article 7, Section 2D for detailed information.)" In reviewing the Land Development Regulations, the City Attorney's Office believed the section included LDR Chapter 20, as well as various Building Codes and ordinances adopted by the City. While the applicant's attorney interpreted the section differently, as the item was already on the agenda, the City would allow the issue to be presented to the Board. If the Board were to proceed with the matter, the City would 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 subsequently determine whether or not the Board had jurisdiction or whether the issue should have been brought before the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Maxime Ducoste, Zoning and Business Tax Manager, noted the City had denied the applicant's request to operate an assembly, repair, wholesale and distribution use in a self-storage facility bay in the M-1 zoning district. The property was approved and built as a self-storage facility. The denial was based upon the Supplemental Regulations of the Zoning Code, Section 11.O.1.c., which provided that the self-storage bays could not be used for fabricating, processing or manufacturing purposes. The City's Zoning Code also prohibited any type of processing and manufacturing within individual storage bays. The self-storage use was originally approved based on a specific parking ratio. If each storage bay were viewed as a potential business operation, each would require a minimum of four parking spaces. The use of the self-storage for a business operation would exceed the capacity of the site and represent a significant safety hazard. Photographs taken by staff in 2008 and 2009 reflected activities occurring in the self- storage bays that were prohibited by the Code. These included mechanics' shops that had been renovated without permits and landscaping operations which stored chemicals. These businesses had neither been recognized nor approved by the City. Staff recommended denial of the appeal. If the appeal were to be approved, it would be to the detriment of those businesses that abided by the City's standards and Building Codes. Michael Weiner noted his appearance on behalf of the owner of the property. The site had been owned by Glenn Friedt for more than 25 years. The site construction commenced in 1974, and the last addition had been completed in 1987. Mega Mini Ltd. had been consistent in its operation of the property since the original construction. The property had always been a combined self-storage warehouse with additional warehouse and industrial uses as allowed in the M-1 district. The property had 629 covered leasable spaces, 413 of which were dead storage. The appeal pertained to the 216 larger warehouse units that remained. One-third of the bays originally built and constructed were continuously operated for uses other than dead storage. While it might not be the intent of the City in 2009 to approve a property that had a mix of self- storage and business bays, the mixed-use style prevailed from 1974 through 1987. As such, Attorney Weiner believed the appellant had a right to rely upon the original approvals. Attorney Weiner contended staff's assertion that the use of storage bays was limited to dead storage was incorrect and did not preclude the operation of the remaining 216 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 units for uses other than self-storage. While the ordinance might govern the 413 bays, it did not govern the remaining 216 bays which were never intended to be used as self- storage. The ordinance in question was originally passed in 1996 and amended in 2004. The last submission for a site plan on the particular property was 1987, nine years before the date of the ordinance. Attorney Weiner contended the 1987 site plan demonstrated the physical location of the buildings and certain characteristics of construction to be completed and was not intended to establish zoning. The site plan was approved and grandfathered in under regulations in effect in 1987. Since 1999, 42 permits had been issued and it was only recently that the City decided not to issue permits. The consistent approach for the property since its original construction was to allow a certain portion of the bays to be used as business bays and the remainder for self-storage. Attorney Weiner contended the Code provided that a nonconforming use of the land or structure could be changed only to a nonconforming use in the district in which the land or structure was located. He provided several cases evidencing entities that had challenged other entities with regard to property rights. As the 42 businesses had been processed in error, it was questioned whether the Board was required to approve the appeal. Attorney Alexander explained the Code of Ordinances allowed the City to revoke a wrongly-issued Business Tax Receipt. As such, a business would not automatically be grandfathered in to allow reissuance of the Business Tax Receipt. Board discussion ensued. Highlights of the discussion were as follows: ?The appeal contradicted the current Code of Ordinances which limited the use of storage bays to dead storage of household goods, personal property or records for commercial businesses. ?Self-storage was an independent use and not intended to be interchangeable. ?The difference in the parking from 216 to 864 spaces was astronomical and beyond what would be considered an appropriate appeal. ?The question arose as to why the matter was brought before the Board, and it was believed the Board should not be rendering a final decision in the matter. ?It was questioned why the use of a property, which had been allowed for years, was no longer permitted. 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 ?Concerns were raised for possible challenges through the court system relating to property rights. ?Small bays were needed for uses other than for personal goods and household items. ?An operating agreement should be entered into between the owner and the City taking into consideration the issue of nonconforming uses. ?A disconnect existed between what the appellant believed he could do at the time the building permit was issued and what the Code currently allowed. ?Life-safety issues should be addressed. Mr. Ducoste maintained a clear distinction existed between a warehouse and an industrial bay. A warehouse was used for storage and not for the conduct of business. Staff's comments were requested regarding applicant's assertion that some of the bays were to be used for storage and some for industrial purposes. Mr. Rumpf noted Building Department employees familiar with the Building Code had been interviewed with regard to the applicant's assertion that a "man-door" would not be used on a storage facility. Staff's records indicated a man-door was required based upon the size of a bay rather than its use. At the time the building was constructed, the Code required the man-door because of the size and capacity of the structure. All records discovered by staff, including the actual name of the project, identified the unit as a storage facility and not as an active operation. With regard to life-safety issues, the Code currently required compliance with accessibility, circulation, fire access, safety, parking, and ADA (American with Disabilities Act) regulations. If it were the Board's desire to accommodate the appellant's use of the facility, the Code would have to be amended, and the site would be required to undergo significant upgrades in accordance with the City's site plan amendment process. Chair Jaskiewicz suggested the owner consider retrofitting one of the buildings for conversion to an industrial use. She opened the public comments. Bob Gaudio, of Pro-fit Golf Equipment, contended the appellant's land use and property rights had been changed unfairly. The appellant would agree to comply with the Code and asked that their rights not be taken away. No one else having come forward, the public comments was closed. 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 Chair Jaskiewicz inquired whether the Board had the jurisdiction to take action on the matter. Attorney Alexander reiterated the City's position was that the item should have been brought before the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. However, as the item was already on the agenda, the Board could grant approval or deny the appeal. Board discussion ensued with regard to tabling the matter. Mr. Lis felt tabling the matter might delay those wishing to be in business or put others out of business while the matter was being determined. In response to his inquiry, it was noted Pro Golf would be located in the portion of the structure built prior to 1986 which had been intended for use as incubator bays in the M-1 zoning district. Motion Mr. Lis moved that the Board approve the administrative appeal to gain a determination that the storage bay be allowed to be used for the manufacture, fabrication and processing of goods in an M-1 zoning district and that the Board grant the approval of the Pro Golf use in this facility, subject to it being located in that portion of the facility, and that before any additional uses were granted in the same area for businesses, the petitioner work out with staff a long-term plan for the operation of the entire facility. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion. Mr. Saberson advised he could not support the motion for the reasons set forth in the staff report. Even if the unit was used for the purposes alleged, it had not been used in that manner for more than six months. As such, the uses were prohibited based upon the current Code. Mr. Myott felt he did not have enough information to support the motion. Mr. Lis explained that his motion did not limit the space to Pro Golf, but did limit the use and was also subject to the petitioner working out a long-term plan with staff for the entire use of the facility before any additional uses would be approved. Attorney Alexander pointed out that Attorney Weiner represented the property owner, and he never articulated the matter was an appeal of the Pro Golf/Mega Mini storage unit. The issue before the Board was the appeal of the determination that a storage bay would not be used to manufacture, fabricate or process goods in a self-storage facility, and not to make a determination on the one unit. It was Mr. Saberson's position that the appeal pertained to all 216 units rather the one unit. If the Board were to determine the one unit could be used in the manner previously described, the Board would be determining all units could be used in such manner. As such, he could not support moving forward. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 Chair Jaskiewicz agreed the appeal would apply to all 216 storage bays. She indicated she would not want to assume the responsibility for anything that could happen with regard to a nonconforming use in the area until it had been brought up to the standard required. She would, however, favor converting one or two of the buildings to industrial bays. Mr. Ducoste noted staff's denial of the applicant's request pertained solely to Pro-fit Golf Equipment. The request for the administrative appeal submitted by Attorney Weiner included Pro-fit Golf and Mega Mini, and staff's memorandum had been prepared accordingly. Attorney Alexander indicated the Board could not make a recommendation if it were to address the City's determination for denial of the Business Tax Receipt as it related to Pro Golf. The Business Tax Receipt section of the Code of Ordinances specifically required that denial of an issuance of a Business Tax Receipt or license was required to be presented to the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The applicant's argument related to the City's determination as to the use of the property. The use was not the same as the approval, denial or issuance of the actual Business Tax Receipt. Mr. Lis withdrew his motion as he understood the matter would have to be brought before the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Ms. Grcevic withdrew her second to the motion. Mr. Weiner reiterated his reason for the appeal as it pertained to procedural issues. It was noted staff had limited records dating back to 1986 and had been unable to locate the original site plan review. A further search would be made for more detailed information to bring back to the Board. As such, the Board agreed to table the matter. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to table the matter until the next regular meeting. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed unanimously. E.1. IPUD Zoning District-Marine-Oriented & Water-Dependent Uses, (CDRV 09-008). Request to amend the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.L., changing the intent section to promote water access and recreational opportunities with accommodation of uses including marine-oriented and water-dependent uses, and establishment of development regulations for implementation. Applicant: City-initiated. 13 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 th Chair Jaskiewicz announced Ms. Killian would be leaving in order to celebrate her 30 wedding anniversary. (Ms. Killian left the meeting at 8:49 p.m.) Mr. Rumpf noted the Comprehensive Plan text amendments had been presented to the Board on August 25, 2009 under the title "Recreation Surface Water Policies." The proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments were approved by the City Commission for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on September 1, 2009. The amendments were drafted referencing portions of Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) of the Florida Statutes regarding manatee protection, protection of working waterfronts, public access, recreation and economic demands within the Comprehensive Plan. As to the LDR (Land Development Regulations) amendments, an excerpt of the proposed policy 1.3.1 stated: "The City shall also establish Land Development Regulations that maximize land use compatibility and protect residential neighborhoods from negative impacts of subject uses." The amendments focused on the IPUD (Infill Planned Unit Development Zoning District), based upon its intended application along the City's waterfront, its proximity to the "preferred" facility siting designation as adopted in the County's Manatee Protection Plan, the opportunity to combine uses within a planned project and to increase development or redevelopment of properties affected by the residential real estate crisis. Key aspects of the proposed amendments included development regulations. Staff proposed one change to the development standards: Single marine-oriented and water-dependent uses would require an additional minimum lot area of four acres for water-dependent, marina-type uses. Major repairs, boatels and residing on boats would be prohibited. Minor repairs, accessory activities and servicing would be permitted, but only in an enclosed structure. The City's Code was currently structured for active, multi-use marinas rather than private marinas. Operational provisions were crucial to maintaining land-use compatibility. The operational standards were also intended to further minimize noise and visual impacts and promote water quality and conservation. Provisions addressed included outdoor storage, post-use servicing of vessels, activities within enclosed buildings, pre-treatment of water and other environmental measures. Outdoor speakers would be prohibited, and the use of noise-generating equipment would be restricted to certain hours. Most of the proposed standards pertained to building design. Many of the buildings within a marina tended to be "big box" in nature, particularly if the storage of boats was involved. Several standards were drafted to address "big box" buildings. Section 4.g.11(d) required that buildings resemble a residential structure. Staff had visited a 14 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27,2009 marina to determine the impacts of the operational characteristics and based their recommendations accordingly. The proposed landscaping regulations were recommended in addition to the existing standards within the IPUD (Infill Planned Unit Development Zoning District) Code and required screening and buffering on large projects, buffer widths to be proportional to building heights and installation of a landscape barrier. Parking standards for marinas were currently based upon active facilities such as those for dive, charter fishing and rental boats, and were more parking-intensive than a facility that had boat storage as its principal use. It was staffs intent to have parking standards correspond to a particular type of use. With the application of the proposed standards, requirements and provisions, staff put forward the amendments as an improvement to the IPUD (Infill Planned Unit Development Zoning District) and corridor and to promote water-access policies as endorsed by the State. Chair Jaskiewicz invited public comments. No one came forward and the public comments were closed. Board discussion ensued, and Mr. Timm suggested the following items be considered with regard to marinas: . Outside storage of boats. . Whether it was necessary to treat washed-down water for a boat with a dry hull that had not been coated with paint on the bottom. . Flexibility in the height of a building used to store dry boats. 8. Other None 9. Comments by members None 10. Adjournment 15 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 27, 2009 Motion Mr. Barnes moved to adjourn. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. '" Ql ~}d~ Stephanie D. Kahn Recording Secretary 102809 16