Loading...
Minutes 09-24-01MEETING MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD HELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT ALSO PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman Robert Ensler Maurice Rosenstook (ardved 7:45 pm) Edward Currier, Alternate Michael Friedland, Alternate David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Dick Hudson, Senior Planner Eric Johnson, Planner Maxime Ducoste-Amedee, Planner Jose Alfaro, Planner ABSENT William Cwynar Michael Fitzpatrick Woodrow Hay Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Lee Wische called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. II. Introduction of Board Members Chairman Wische introduced the Board members and City staff. Assistant City Attorney Tolces administered the Oath to all who planned to offer testimony at the meeting. II1. Agenda Approval Mr. Friedland extended a warm welcome to Chairman Wische, who had been absent for a lengthy period due to illness. Motion Mr. Friedland moved to accept the agenda as written. Mr. Currier seconded the motion that was carried unanimously. IV. Approval of Minutes of the August 28, 2001 Meeting Motion Mr. Ensler moved to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2001 meeting as written. Mr. Currier seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 V. Communications & Announcements Mr. Dick Hudson, Sr. Planner, distributbd nametags and advisory board t-shirts to the Board members. The Board expressed appreciation for both items. A. Planning & Zoning Report - Dick Hudson, Senior Planner (1) Ratification of Planning & Development Board Actions: Kervern Swimming Pool Variance was approved Boynton Beach Medical Pavilion parking space variance and height exception was approved Master Plan modification for BJ's was approved Applebee's Restaurant Site Plan was approved Boynton Beach Medical Pavilion Site Plan was approved Woolbright Professional Plaza was given a time extension for its Site Plan approval A Code review will be held for the height exception and parapets exemptions from building height limitation Mr. Hudson reminded the Board members of a special Planning & Development Board meeting on October 10, 2001 for Quantum to meet State-mandated schedules for the DRI. VI. New Business A. Public Hearing Variance Project Name: Agent: Owner Location: Description: Showcase Contractors Variance Vince Zabik Showcase Realty & Contracting, Inc. NE corner of SE 1st Street and SE 24th Ave. Request relief from Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section C.2.a, to allow a single-family house on a sixty (60) foot wide lot in lieu of the minimum seventy-five (75) feet of frontage required by Code in a R-l-AA zoning district. Chairman Wische announced the Public Hearing and Assistant City Attorney Tolces administered the Oath to the following individual. Nancy Joy Diamond, 207 S.E. 24t~ Avenue, Boynton Beach, objected to the variance, believing that it would create more traffic and present a hazard to her son who played in the vicinity. She lives right next door to the proposed home. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 Since no one else wished to speak, Chairman Wische closed the Public Hearing.. Vince Zabik, Showcase Realty & Contracting, Inc., 505 N.E. 3rd Street, Delray Beach, stated that the house would be 45 feet from the front corner and 15 or 25 feet from the side of the lot. Mr. Hudson confirmed Mr. Zabik's setbacks and said they would provide adequate separation. Motion Mr. Friedland moved to grant relief from Land Development Regulations Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 6,C.2.a to allow a single family house on a sixty (60) foot wide lot in lieu of the minimum seventy-five (75) feet of frontage required by Code in a R-l-AA zoning district on the N.E. corner of S.E. 1st Street and S.E. 24~h Avenue. Mr. Currier seconded the motion that carried unanimously. B. Site Plan Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Castenada Medical Building Kres Mihelich Jose Castenada, High Point LLC 250 S.E. 23rd Avenue Request site plan approval to Construct a 4,800 square-foot Medical office building on a 0.52- acre parcel Chairman Wische announced the Public Hearing. No one wished to speak. Kres Mihelich, representing Castaneda Medical Building, reported no objection to any of the Staff Comments. Mr. Currier questioned the one handicapped parking space for the project. Mr. Mihelich stated that the building housed a gynecology and obstetric practice and that, therefore, they followed Code and allowed the minimum number of handicapped spaces. He also stated that the building would be 4400 square feet and not 4800 square feet and that they would have a total of 22 parking spaces. Mr. Ensler asked to see the elevations and color sample of the exterior finishes and Mr. Ducoste-Amedee displayed them. Mr. Ensler asked about signs and Mr. Mihelich showed him that the sign was a Iow wall sign and that they did not anticipate any further signs for the property. Mr. Ducoste-Amedee stated staff's belief that the building would serve as an anchor and be a positive addition to the district and for these reasons, they recommended approval of the Site Plan. Motion Mr. Ensler moved to grant site plan approval for the Castaneda Medical Building, subject to all Staff Comments. Mr. Currier seconded the motion that carried unanimously. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 C. Use Approval Project Name: Quantum Park PID Agent: Robert Motchkavitz Owner: Premier Asset Management, Inc. Location: Quantum Park, PID, Plat 6, Lots 32- 38, 68A-70, 72, and 73A-76 Description: Request use approval to include outdoor storage in the list of permitted uses in Quantum Park. Chairman Wische announced the Public Hearing. No one wished to speak. Winston Lee, 1531 Old Okeechobee Road, West Palm Beach, did not disagree with either of the two staff conditions. On Friday they got a call from Mike Rumpf asking them to show the maximum potential outdoor storage areas on all three sites owned by Premier in Quantum. Clarification was needed, however, on the total allowable amount of outdoor storage space and whether the 15% rule applied to the total site or to the building.. They had been asked to observe a maximum of 15% of the overall site area, as contained in the City Code of Ordinances, which Mr. Lee read, but the Staff Report stated that it was 15% of the total square footage of the building. They would never approach that amount of storage but they wanted the flexibility of having the City's approval. Any new tenant would still go before staff for review to make sure the trucks can maneuver. They plan to take spaces where the trucks would normally be parked. They would have space for one semi and a fenced in storage-area for the rest. Mr. Lee showed drawings of the potential storage areas in all three of the areas owned by Premier in Quantum. Mr. Hudson responded that there was a difference of interpretation as to whether it was 15% of the site or of the building. Mr. Rumpf's interpretation had been that it is 15% of the building area. Chairman Wische asked if Mr. Hudson thought this could be worked out between the applicant and Mr. Rumpf's office and he replied that it could. Mr. Rumpf suggested that if the BOard wanted to put a condition on this, that final approval could be contingent on staff obtaining acceptable figures for potential outdoor storage areas. Chairman Wische asked Mr. Hudson if the Code, as read by Mr. Lee, was correct in stating that the percentage of square feet applied to the site and not the building and Mr. Hudson replied that the Code was correct. Motion Mr. Friedland moved to approve the Quantum Park PID, Plat 6, Lots 32-38 request to include outdoor storage in the Fist of permitted uses in Quantum Park PID, subject to ail staff conditions. Mr. Currier seconded the motion. Mr. Hudson interjected that there were three separate parcels. Mr. Tolces said that for purposes of clarifying the motion it also included 68A, 70, 72, and 73A-76. Mr. Friedland amended the motion to include the additional lots. Mr. Ensler asked Mr. Hudson to elaborate on his point of view concerning the 15% rule. Mr. Hudson said he was concerned about the magnitude of what it could mean on 4 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 properties. For example, on the first group of lots, 32-38, the gross square footage of the building was some 336K square feet. If you took 15% of the site there would be 153,921 square feet. That is 50% of the size of the building and that would be a little overpowering for outdoor storage. That is the maximum they could have and that was one reason staff wanted a calculation of how much they were potentially adding to these buildings. Mr. Ensler asked for comment from Mr. Lee. Mr. Lee stated that as a practical matter, they had no intention of having that much outdoor storage and that if they did, it would mean eliminating landscape areas, driveways, parking lots, and so forth, any of which would have to come before the Board. It was built primarily for truck distribution. Some of the people who wanted to lease the spaces would need outdoor storage. Mr. Lee would be happy to convert the exhibits he had been showing to the Board to square footage numbers of the overall site. The City wanted to know how large an amount of square footage they planned to build and they did not know that until tenants appeared and requested outdoor storage. Chairman Wische advised Mr. Lee that he would still have to come before the Board when he got new tenants and it would have to approve the square footage. Mr. Lee's understanding of the matter from Mr. Rumpf was that this is why they had made up the exhibits of the potential use of outdoor storage at all three locations and that once approved by the Board, any further approvals would be made by staff, administratively. Chairman Wische said they were approving the lots right now with the percentage that Mr. Lee had quoted from the City's Code; if there were any difference, an appearance before the Board would be required. Mr. Lee asked if this meant if they went above the 15% and Chairman Wische said yes and Mr. Lee agreed. Mr. Ensler asked Mr. Hudson if there would be any way that the motion could be amended that would satisfy the Planning and Zoning administration? Mr. Currier suggested stating 15% of the building itself. If 15% of the entire lot were the criteria, they would be talking about a possible three acres of storage, which would be ridiculous. A notation could be made to clarify the Code to read 15% of the actual square footage of the building. Mr. Friedland said that was not the Code and he would be very much against it. He tried to follow the Code and he believed Quantum would act appropriately. Mr. Ensler asked Mr. Hudson again if there would be some way the Board could frame the motion that would satisfy the City's concerns. Mr. Hudson's suggestion was that they put in a condition that staff be able to confirm the total potential square footage impact of outdoor storage areas prior to going to the City Commission. They have the drawings now and it would be a simple matter for them to calculate the square footage on it. They had asked them to do that but somehow it was not done. Mr. Friedland accepted that amendment. Mr. Hudson asked Mr. Lee to give the City an oPportunity to assess the total impact of the outdoor storage. Mr. Lee said it was a matter of interpretation of the Code. He thought the Code was very clear and that it was based on the overall site not the building. Mr. Hudson said he would be glad to take the direction of the Board back to Mr. Rumpf and follow it through. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 Mr. Ensler asked Mr. Lee if there would be a problem with tabling this until the October 10 meeting, Mr. Lee preferred to go forward now. Premier was trying to lease the buildings and they had prospective tenants that were deciding if they could have outdoor storage. Mr. Lee thought that the three acres of potential storage mentioned by Mr. Currier and others would never be a reality and that there was not that much space available for storage. Late Friday they were asked to prepare the drawings that had been presented to the Board at this meeting. They did not have an opportunity to compute the square footage to see what the actual percentage of the overall site the outdoor storage comprised, but he knew that it would be well under the 15% allowed by Code. Mr. Friedland believed that there would be time to resolve this matter before it went to the City Commission and if it were out of line, the City Commission would not approve it. He asked for a vote on the motion. Mr. Ensler still had reservations and Mr. Lee offered a possible solution. He said the graphics would be left with Mr. Hudson. Mr. Lee would go back and have the exact area computed of the fenced-in areas, and they could come back before the Commission with the exact percentage of the maximum overall outdoor storage, and this could become a third staff condition. The motion carried 3-1, Mr. Currier dissenting. Chairman Wische asked Mr. Hudson to clarify this matter before the City Commission meeting on the topic. D. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: School Concurrency Staff-initiated N/A Citywide Request to incorporate School Concurrency provisions into the Comprehensive Plan including a Public School Facilities Element (Element 10) and support document, new goals, objectives and policies to the Capital Improvements Element (Element 9), and corresponding amendments to the CIE support document. Mr. Hudson related that in 1998 the Florida Legislature enacted legislation that established requirements for local governments who wanted to put an optional school concurrency element in their Comprehensive Plans. Chairman Wische announced the Public Hearing. No one wished to speak. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 Motion Mr. Ensler moved that staffs request to incorporate School Concurrency, as defined, in its Comprehensive Plan be approved. Mr. Currier seconded the motion that carried unanimously. E. Code Review Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Gymnastics Centers in M-1 Marcy Martine N/A Citywide Request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 8.A.1.d(9) to allow gymnastic centers as permitted uses in the M-1 zoning district. Chairman Wische announced the public hearing. No one wished to speak. Chairman Wische announced that staff had recommended denial of the request. Marcy Martine, for Flip City Gymnastics, 6240 South Congress, Lantana, Florida, stated that while it was a change for Boynton Beach to consider this type of zoning, it was not a new concept. She has operated a gymnastic center in the city of Royal Palm Beach in an ~ndustrial park for the last twelve years. Also, she polled 83 gymnastic centers in Florida and 74 of them were located in industrial zones. She realized that one of the concerns was the potential hazard(s) to which children might be exposed in an industrial area. She said the children came in to the building, took their classes, and left. To extend this philosophy logically, children should not be allowed in restaurants because they might run into the kitchen where there are hot ovens and big knives. She had operated next: to a plastics company without incident for the last twelve years. Gymnastics requires higher ceilings than are offered in the normal commercial establishments and where they are offered, they are so expensive that for a class they now charged $12.00 an hour for, they would have to charge $29.00 an hour. They did not feel that a gymnastics training center had the same parking requirements as a fitness center or gym since the children are usually brought by their parents, dropped off, and picked up again. Dick Hudson of Planning & Zoning stated that staff realized that the City's Code was not moving as fast as it should; however, they still felt that there are requirements for parking for gymnasiums, whether they use them or not, and that those requirements must: be met. Also, the increased traffic that will occur from the drop-off and pick-up activity is a concern as is the heavier type of vehicles used in industrial areas. If a need for the subject use is substantiated, one option could be to allow them conditionally, but with additional restrictions such as distance separations from selected uses or prohibiting them from multiple-use buildings. Also, the Code is due to be updated and it is possible that industrial zoning could be broken down into heavy and light and that this might open up an avenue for this type of use. He was not sure when this Code update might take place. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning & Dev~elopment Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 Mr. Friedland disagreed with staff, considering the study in support of it in other parts of the state, the fact that he had lived in other areas that had this use in such areas, and the belief that the benefits to the City's children from such a program would outweigh any other considerations. He noted that the gymnastics center would operate primarily during the after-school hours, when most industrial places would be closed. Mr. Ensler stated that one of the main responsibilities of the Board was to be concerned with the welfare of the City's children. He did not know if the applicant's study had been validated. He did not feel that calling it a study was appropriate in this setting, as it was simply information given by the applicant. He did not know if the zoning the applicant referred to was comparable to the City of Boynton Beach's zoning or whether there were multiple levels of zoning. He preferred to wait until the City reviewed the Zoning Codes to determine how to integrate this type of facility. Mr. Currier believed that the Codes are slightly antiquated and that a gymnastics center could be a use ~n an industrial area. Chairman Wische asked what the actual hours of the gymnastics center would be. The applicant responded that the hours would be 3:30 p.m. to 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. and Saturday mornings. Attorney Tolces administered the Oath to Don Johnson, who wished to speak. Don Johnson, Building Department, City of Boynton Beach, stated that he wished to address the applicant but that it did not have anything to do with the zoning decision. He pointed out that as part of her due diligence, she should consider that locating in an industrial area in Boynton Beach would involve a change of occupancy and more than likely there would be a cost for tenant separation, of walls to be changed, ventilation to be changed, and depending on the number of children who would be in attendance at a given time, possibly restroom facilities to be changed. So with the cost of the commercial property per square foot being high, it probably would have these things already and he thought she should take this into account. He stated that Boynton Beach did want more businesses. Ms. Martine responded that this was her livelihood and that she operates two gymnastic centers in Palm Beach County and was familiar with the requirements of operating in industrial parks. Chairman Wische wanted reassurance that Ms. Martine was aware of the changes that might be required and the costs involved and she replied that she was aware. Motion Mr. Curder moved to approve the request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 8.A1 .D (9) to allow gymnastic centers as permitted uses in the M-1 zoning district. Mr. Friedland seconded the motion that passed 3-1, Mr. Ensler dissenting. Discussion Item Canopies for Cars and Boats 8 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 Mr. Dick Hudson, Planning & Zoning Department, stated that City staff had recently issued a number of citations for erecting shade canopies throughout the City without permits. By circumventing the normal channels they have not been reviewed for compliance with wind load and other structural requirements, nor have they been reviewed as components of setbacks. The Board had been asked to review the issue and give their input to City staff with an emphasis on zoning and aesthetics. The Building Official, Don Johnson, and the Code Compliance Administrator, Scott Blasie, were present and would respond to questions from the Board and the public. Mr. Hudson stated that most of the canopies are used for shade for cars and boats. They are also used when people use the r garage for storage. Many of them are on single family and. dupex ots Where space ma~; be :limited and they are encroaching On setbacks. One of the problems with not being reviewed for wind load is that in spite of assurances that they Will be t ~g. storms, history has shown that only a small number of oWners actually take them During Hurricane Andrew, this kind of structure ended up blowing around and acted as missiles, which could be quite dangerous. Mr. Ensler heard that the wind load had been changed to 140 miles per hour and Mr. Johnson responded that this would begin on January 1, 2002. Mr. Ensler recalled his early engineering training where he saw the damage a straw could do when propelled into a tree by wind, and how much worse the metal pipes of the canopy structures could be. Mr. Ensler believed that south Florida had a history of hurricanes and the potential for human damage from these devices was real. From a way of life standpoint, having them infringe on setbacks next to someone's home is not what was intended when the Code was developed. He did not want to see canopies in use and did not want to live next to a neighbor who had one. He understood why people wanted them but thought that the liability was too great. Chairman Wische introduced an individual who wished to speak on the subject. James Baker, 1216 N.W. 8th COUrt, Boynton Beach, stated that he had one of the canvas canopies and had it for five years and that he takes it down for every storm. He commented on the fears of the Board that the canopies would become missiles during storms. He noted that patio furniture was the same thing and he doubted seriously that everyone brought patio furniture in during a storm. When he put up his canopy he called Planning & Zoning and other departments at the City to find out if there were any requirements for canopies and the Planning & Zoning Department stated that there were no requirements. He just bought a $15,000 boat and he wanted to protect it from the sun. He had a mango tree in his back yard that produced lots of sticky syrup and leaves and he could not park the boat under it. When he put a 25-foot long driveway in his back yard, he asked the City if he could put up the canopy and the City agreed. There was no mention of setbacks. His canopy is anchored down. Any time a storm comes he takes it down and puts it in his one-car garage. The canopy is not visible from the front yard or street due to a six-foot fence. He did not want to have to take it down after being told by the City that he was allowed to have it since he paid $200 for it. If the canopies could not be allowed, he hoped that the:City could either permit canopies or at least allow the people who had them now to be somehow "grandfathered' in. He was willing to sign a letter stating that he would take the canopy down during hurricanes or high winds. 9 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 Don Johnson, Building Official, City of Boynton Beach, stated that he wished every citizen in Boynton Beach would display the conscientious attitude of Mr. Baker. Mr. Johnson apologized on behalf of the City for the "mis-information" given to Mr. Baker. The canopies started appearing in the City in the late 1980's and the City responded to complaints about them. Most of them complied by removing them. Mr. Johnson stated that he was charged with protecting life, health, and safety and believed that the canopies were a serious impact to the health and safety of the population. Under Chapter 16 of the Standard Building Code, all buildings and structures (and canopies are considered structures) must meet applicable wind loads. The way the City hears about these canopies is through complaints from neighbors. The neighbor comes home and discovers that the buffer area, the:setback area, between :his house and that of his neighbor has now been filled with a canopy. When Mr. Johnson went down to south Florida after Hurricane Andrew, he saw many of the canopies wrapped around trees, fences, and houses (inside and out), as well as fences and sheds. Mr. Johnson referred to a request from a ~tzen for the Cty to Cite eVeryone who. has a canopy but the City does not work that way. The City neighborhood inspections. He was sy but if they had called the Building permit one, they would have beer wind loads. If a canopy is put up that structural and wind load requirements d receives and its own routine ~p!e who had gotten citations they needed to do to legally the aPPlicable setbacks and and meets all ~ppY to permit it. Mr. Rosenstock believed that the setback issue could be dealt with through variances. He was very concerned, however, with the creation, of a missile that could kill him, his family, or destroy his property by not meeting the required standards. He thought it was imperative that ail structures erected in south Florida meet wind load standards. He felt it was important that the Commissioners recognize the danger of not only losing one's home, but of creating a hazard for the neighbors. He had also seen canopies wrapped around trees. Therefore, he recommended that the Board strongly suggest that all applicable structural and wind load standards be met for canopies. Scoff Blasie, Code Compliance AdminiStrator, City of Boynton Beach commented that the canopies were becoming quite popular and that his department was charged with upholding aesthetic values in the community. For every canopy that is well taken care of like Mr. Baker's, there are a great many more that become eyesores. The Code Compliance Department already has a full load with their normal duties and policing the maintenance of canopies would be an added burden. Approximately 70 canopies had been cited this year and most had complied by dismantling them. The remaining citations are being held up until his office receives further instruction from this Board and the City Commission on the matter. Mr. Friedland agreed that canopies were not beautiful or safe and that history supported this. He suggested, however, that the City consider allowing them because they were necessities but only if they met the rules and regulations of the City and its Code of Ordinances. The Board was united in its desire to see canopies 'meet all structural and wind load standards before being permitted. 10 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2001 Motion Mr. Rosenstock moved that the Board strongly recommends to the City Commission that they have the staff review all of the Code requirements with regard to canopies, carports, or similar type structures to be sure that they meet all requirements, including setbacks, necessitated by potential wind and other natural elements, so that the City residents can be protected from these structures in case of any of the items that he mentioned occur. Mr. Ensler seconded the motion. Mr. Ensler asked if it would be possible to design a canopy that could withstand the upcoming 140-mph wind load requirement? Mr. Johnson stated that they could be designed anc~ engineered to meet that requirement but that they would probably be rather expensive. The canopies available at standard home-improvement stores do not meet the existing 110-mph requirement or the 140-mph requirement that will be instituted on January 1, 2002. There is one on the Senior Center that was designed and engineered for the purpose. On every canopy that has been permitted, the engineer puts a caveat that during times of high winds and hurricanes of more than 75 mph, the canvas must be removed. What he is certifying is that the structural framework will stay in place during a 110~mph wind. Naturally, going to 140 mph would be more of a challenge. Mr. Friedland asked if they should change the wording of the motion? Mr. Rosenstock asked staff if they wished to change the wording of the motion of if he left anything out. Chairman Wische said he had not left anything out and that they had recommended that canopies be able to withstand winds of up to 140 mph and also that the setbacks should be a certain amount so everything that staff asked for had been recommended. Mr. Johnson reminded them that the 140-mph wind load requirement would not take effect until January I 2002. Mr. Ensler stated that the motion went beyond the request that was made, stating "all" kinds of structures. Mr. Johnson said that was what they enforced. Chairman Wische asked if everyone understood the motion? Chairman Wische asked the Recording Secretary to read the motion to clarify what it said and she did so. Chairman Wische asked Mr. Johnson if this was sufficient and he replied that it was. The motion was approved 5-0. VII. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (two tapes) (9/25/01) 11