Loading...
Minutes 11-22-11 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2011, AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Roger Saberson, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director Matthew Barnes, Vice Chair Stacey Weinger, Board Attorney James Brake Sharon Grcevic Cory Kravit Brian Miller ABSENT: Leah Foertsch Vince Piraino, Alternate 1. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Saberson called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Ms. Grcevic led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Chair Saberson introduced the members of the Board. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Miller moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 4. Approval of Minutes from October 25, 2011 meeting Motion Mr. Miller moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 1 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, reported the following items were approved by the City Commission in November: r The Conditional Use and Major Site Plan Modification for the drive - through at the Publix Supermarket reconstruction at Sunshine Square; r The Site Plan Time Extension for the Timeless Life Care Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) project on S. Federal Highway; r The Stonehaven Planned Unit Development amendment to the Master Plan for Lot 112, to allow for a reduction to the rear setback for a home extension; and r The Use Approval for a wholesale dealer on Lot 70 in Quantum. Mr. Rumpf also advised Vince Piraino, Board Alternate, was unable to attend the meeting. There would be no December meeting, unless an emergency meeting was needed, and a few members of the Board had not taken the Ethics training. Those members should contact the City Clerk to obtain a CD and signature page, or obtain information to take the training online. Additionally, due to the Economic Development program, the City Commission was in the process of putting a moratorium in place. The City would be studying industrial and heavy commercial uses, opportunities and expansions, and reviewing the zoning maps and the Land Development Regulations to expand those opportunities. It will also include an evaluation of the Code regarding uses and locations where not - for - profit and tax - exempt uses are allowed. It would take two meetings to process, the first of which had already taken place. On December 6, 2011, the second hearing on the topic would be held, and the City Commission will determine whether to continue with the initiative or take no further action and end the moratorium. 6. Old Business: None. 7. New Business: Attorney Weinger administered the oath to all those intending to testify. A.1. Healing Grounds (SPTE 11 -008) — approve request for an eighteen (18) month time extension for the Healing Grounds New site Plan (NWSP 10 -002) Development Order approved on March 16, 2010, 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 at 220 & 226 West Boynton Beach Boulevard within the C -2 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. Applicant: Bridget Keller. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, presented the request as noted above. The project was originally approved as a one -story, 3,416 square foot holistic veterinary clinic, at the above location. The agent for the property owner, in its justification letter, indicated the construction bids were grossly overpriced at $300 per square foot. The applicant has met with an architect to value engineer the project and hired a general contractor to assist in reducing the cost of the project. The request for the extension, if approved, would extend the site plan to March 16, 2013, to allow time to refine the drawings, rebid the project, and secure a permit. Staff recommended approval of the request, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit D. It was noted there are vacant homes on both Tots, but the property was maintained. Bridget Keller, 3181 NE 165th Street, N. Miami Beach, stated they were working with both the architect and contractor to bring the project to fruition. Ms. Keller stated she was in agreement with the conditions of approval and identified the property for the members. The project was a work in progress. They did not want to diminish any services and hoped to have concrete information so they could begin to move forward within the next few months. Accordingly, there was no completion date, nor had they applied for any permits. Chair Saberson opened the public hearing. No one coming forward, the public hearing was closed. Motion Ms. Grcevic moved to approve the request for an eighteen (18) month time extension for the Healing Grounds New site Plan (NWSP 10 -002) Development Order approved on March 16, 2010, at 220 & 226 West Boynton Beach Boulevard within the C -2 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district along with all conditions. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B.1. Subway Regional headquarters (MSPM 12 -001) — Approve request for a Major Site Plan Modification to construct a 2,166 square foot addition to an existing 1,978 square foot office building for a total of 4,144 square feet on a 0.29 -acre parcel in the CBD (Central Business District) zoning district. Applicant: The Feldman Group — Subway of South Florida. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 Eric 3ohnson, Planner, presented the request as noted above. The property was located at 508 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard, and he identified the property for the members. The property was located within the Community Redevelopment Agency district and was zoned Central Business District (CBD) with an underlying land use classification of Mixed -Use (MX). The site was originally developed in 1958 and was renovated in 1999. The proposal was to construct an addition to the building, which employs five full -time and four part-time employees. Upon completion of the addition, an extra employee would be hired. The project meets the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards. School concurrency was not required. The City's potable water and sanitary systems could accommodate the project, as could police and fire staff. Drainage calculations would be reviewed at the time of permitting, and access from the site was from NE 4th Street on the west property line. At build -out, the project would require 14 parking spaces; however, the site already had 14 spaces. There was one handicapped parking space closest to the front entrance. The landscape plan reflected 18.3% of the site consisted of pervious area. The south landscape buffer had four mature canopy trees and a Palm tree. Of the trees, the Cabbage Palm and two Live Oaks would remain at their current location, and the other two Live Oaks would be relocated onsite. The site was a constrained site. A public sidewalk traversed the property rather than being located along the right -of -way, and the north property line had an existing parking lot. The landscape plan was reviewed as an alternate landscape plan, and staff determined it met the purpose and intent of the Landscape Code. The addition would result in the building becoming "L" shaped. A pergola feature would be installed on the north property line to achieve an urban feel as the building was close to the downtown. The height was within the allowable range and the site would have foot candle lighting. The sidewalk along NE 4th Street had an easement dedicated to a public use. It was not in the right -of -way, which was a small, grassy, swale. The project addition was not subject to the Art in Public Places Ordinance, nor would there be art added as part of the project. Dale Meaux, API Group Architects, 5921 Vista Linda Lane, Boca Raton, stated they were aware of the sight triangle and would have plantings below three feet, which would be maintained and kept low. Mr. Meaux reviewed the 18 conditions of approval and agreed to them. Agustin Amaro, Subway in Lake Worth, stated Subway was excited to remain at its location and expand as the space was needed. They planned to commence construction 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 as soon as the permits were obtained. Chair Saberson opened the public comment. No one coming forward, public comment was closed. Motion Mr. Brake moved to approve staff's recommendation subject to all conditions of approval. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C.1. Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Lots 75 (MPMD 12 -001) — Approve request for a Master Plan Modification to the Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Master Plan to convert the land use option on Lot 75 from OI (Office and Industrial) to OIC (Office, Industrial and Commercial), to accommodate a 94,000 square foot flooring showroom business. Applicant: Douglas B. MacDonald, Quantum Limited Partners. Mr. Breese reported the applicant, Mr. MacDonald, submitted a Notice of Proposed Change, (NOPC) to the Quantum Park Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Master Plan as noted above. The original DRI approved a master plan which was modified several times, with the most recent being NOPC 16 in August 2006. Staff held a pre - application meeting with the applicant, and both parties agreed the proposed modification was minor. A letter and proposed justification letter was sent to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council requesting a determination of the non - substantive nature of the proposed change. The Planning Council had no objections to the non - substantive determination. A second letter from the Department of Economic Opportunity also made the same finding. The Master Plan for Lot 75 was the only item that needed to be moved forward. Staff reviewed the request and determined there would be no impacts of a regional nature, nor did they expect any local impacts over those already permitted under the current use. The number of vehicle trips was capped with the DRI, and the changes associated with the lot would not significantly impact trip generation, or increase the approved building thresholds. Staff had consistently stated its opposition to land within Quantum Park being converted from Industrial to Residential /Mixed -use options which eliminates potential square footage that could be devoted to industrial warehouse and manufacturing uses. In this instance, the industrial option is retained in the Office and Industrial (OIC) designation, but it added flexibility to attract tenants to the site. The request to move the OIC boundary further south, to Lot 75, allows the use 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 boundary to more closely align with the wall of the north building, before it was connected to the buildings on Lots 73 and 74. It was noted the project would not impact the parking. Staff supported the addition of commercial uses to the Office and Industrial Land Use classification on Lot 75, but cautioned that further requests to continue the OIC designation further south onto Lots 73 and 74 could not be supported because it could lead to a reduction of the availability of potential industrial space. The owner was advised of the recommendation and was in agreement. Staff recommended approval of the Master Plan Modification and that it be considered non - substantial. It was noted Lot 76 also had the OIC designation. Eugene Gerlica, Agent for the applicant, Quantum Limited Partners, clarified the land owner was Duke Realty, and the request was to accommodate a flooring showroom. Forty -five to fifty -five jobs would be created of which 60% would be part-time jobs and 40% full -time jobs. Mr. Gerlica explained Quantum Park of Commerce was originally platted and instituted as a private development with a Property Owners Association (POA) and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. By virtue of ownership of land within the Park, they authorized the declarant of the POA to modify the Master Site Development Plan. Accordingly, the declarant must be the applicant for the requested action, and all land owners are bound by the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. There are other parts of Quantum Park that have the OIC designation, and it could return to more of an industrial use in the future. That fact was part of the reason staff was not opposed to this request. This project would not be affected by the proposed moratorium as the application was submitted prior the Notice of Intent. Mr. Gerlica thanked staff for their assistance and stated they agreed with all the conditions of approval. The tenants hoped to open the showroom on May 1, 2012. Chair Saberson opened the floor for public comment. Mark Karageorge, 240A Main Boulevard, Boynton Beach, commended Mr. MacDonald for attracting tenants that were for profit as it helps the tax base. No one else coming forward, Chair Saberson closed the public comment. Motion Vice Chair Barnes moved to approve the request for the Master Plan Modification. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 D.1. Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure (CDRV 12 -001) — Approve request to modify the Land Development Regulations (LDR) to 1) create provisions in the supplemental (zoning) regulations for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure; 2) create new definitions pertaining to electric vehicles and infrastructure and amend the existing definition of minor automobile repair to include battery exchanges for electric vehicles; and 3) create provisions for signs commonly associated with EV infrastructure. Applicant: City- initiated. Mr. Johnson presented the request as noted above. He noted the request would also address the City's business and economic development initiative and its sustainability initiative. Mr. Johnson explained an electric vehicle was, ". . . any vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the grid or an off -board source that is stored onboard for motive purposes..." "For the purpose of this staff report, electric vehicles will include hybrid vehicles and EV infrastructure is generally described as being comprised of 1) the electric vehicle; 2) infrastructure (charging equipment); and 3) signage commonly associated with such charging stations. " Electric vehicles and their infrastructure are considered "Green," and this action furthered the City's Green Initiative and Climate Action Plan Initiative No. 4.3.8. ". . . to support initiatives to increase the amount of and access to alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure such as fueling stations." Staff conducted research and a recent article on SmartP /anet.com predicted 30% of all cars sold in 2020 would be electric vehicles, and sales would continue to rise as the price of the vehicles declined. The vehicles are a good alternative to combustion engines. The State of Florida has taken steps to become amenable to EV Infrastructure. The Center for Automotive Research notes Florida has shown a commitment to promote hybrid vehicle ownership through a number of government and private incentives. Mr. Johnson spoke about "Range Anxiety, which was the idea that one would run out of power in an electric vehicle. The Code amendment would allow the private sector to install charging stations on the premises. He noted Best Buy, Costco, and Cracker Barrel in other locations were considering installation of these types of facilities, and since those companies are located in Boynton Beach, those services could potentially be installed. He pointed out the Puget Sound Regional Council, in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Commerce, developed a model ordinance which four cities adopted a version thereof. The Boynton Beach Ordinance could be crafted from them. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 Other ordinances suggest the vehicle charging stations were a principal use; however, staff envisioned them as supplemental to the principal use. The concept of going to a gas station strictly for electric vehicles was not imminent. There were three charging levels: Level 3 was a direct current (DC) fast charge, but Levels 1 and 2 would be the most likely to be implemented. The proposed language defined the terms: Automotive Minor Repair; Electric Vehicle; Electric Vehicle Charging Levels; and Electric Vehicle Charging Station. As an incentive, the proposal was to have the Level 1 and 2 Charging Stations be exempt from site plan review if it was located in an existing conforming parking space; however, it would still go through the permitting process. The staff report contained language for the supplemental regulations and included information on the required permits and allowable locations, if stations were not inside a home. If they were located within an existing, conforming parking stall, the preferred placement of the charging station would be such to service two parking stalls at one time. Regulations associated with charging station safety, the data that must be available, and the restrictions placed on the stations were included. A Sign Code pertaining to the stations indicated an EV station sign could be used, in conformance with the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2009 Edition or latest supplement, if the station was in the right -of -way. Mr. Johnson spoke with the Delray Beach Sustainability Team and learned they did not have any regulations about the service in their Land Development Regulations. Staff recommended approval of the language as submitted. Lengthy discussion followed about the stations. Consumers would pay to charge their car at the stations, and the stations, if on private property, would be located in areas where consumers would stay awhile, such as a movie or restaurant. If on public property within the City, the stations would probably be located at the beach or library. Chair Saberson asked if the City would charge for the service, and if so, what the charge would be. Additionally, there was discussion that Atlantic Avenue, has outlets for lighting every so many feet, and why pay to charge a car when users could charge it there for free. At some point, provisions should be in place the City was not offering free charging. There were no proposed regulations about charging stations in single - family residential districts and if they would be required to be housed in a garage or screened from view. Mr. Johnson responded homes could be designed so a charge could be given inside the garage, and a three - pronged plug could charge the car as a Level 1 station. No matter where it was located, it would have to go through the permitting process. Chair 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 Saberson thought language regarding the residential zoning district should be revised as it stated charging stations were not available for public use, except when used in connection with multi - family and non - residential uses. Mr. Johnson clarified it would have to be in conjunction with a commercial use or zoning. Chair Saberson thought it raised the question if a multi - family developer wanted to install a charging station on property in a conforming space, should the City prohibit them. He thought it would change the use from an accessory to the main use, with multi - family as the principal use. Chair Saberson questioned if a manufacturer wanted to put 50 charging stalls on Boynton Beach Boulevard, assuming there would not be any adverse vehicular impacts and it would conform to a normal parking use, how the City could control it if only a right -of -way permit was needed. Discussion followed if the manufacturer was charging for the service, it was a business, and they would need a Business Tax Receipt. Chair Saberson felt a license was not regulation. Mr. Johnson explained if a vendor requested a station in a right -of -way, it would be public property and the vendor would need a permit. The Engineering and Planning and Zoning Departments would evaluate it. As to the standards used to evaluate whether it was an appropriate location, he opined it would be in accordance with the engineering Green Book, as long as adequate and safe traffic flow was maintained. A suggestion was also made to classify publicly -owned spaces as on- street retail public spaces that are intended to be turned over quickly. Mr. Johnson noted some codes have restrictions on how long to park in the space. He understood the concern and stated staff could return to the Board with additional information. Staff's position, initially, was the stations would be an amenity to the public. Each user would pay for the charge and the City reserved the right to allow or deny the number of charging stations in public parking spaces. Chair Saberson inquired on what basis would the City permit some and deny others? The critical point was the permitting process and the permitting process criteria were not addressed in the Ordinance. From an engineering standpoint, the permit was easy to obtain, but if a vendor wanted to use 30 or 40 public parking spaces and the City wanted to deny the request, the vendor could say the provisions are on the books and they only have to obtain the permit from engineering. It cannot be granted to one vendor and not another. The Cities of Delray Beach, Deerfield Beach, and West Palm Beach have charging stations at select locations. Delray Beach has a permitting process requiring charging stations to comply with the National Electric Code. He could not comment if a site plan process was required. 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 Further discussion followed if it would be necessary to exclude golf carts, or other vehicles that were not street legal from the definition of electric vehicles, or if other provisions of the Code addressed the matter. Mr. Johnson agreed to research the issue. Some golf carts were allowed to be driven on the road. It depended on the posted speed limit. Mr. Rumpf stated installing stations in the public right -of -way would require permitting and an agreement with the City and those provisions would not be contained in the zoning regulations. They would be in Part I of the City's Code of Ordinances, as they were more operational. This amendment was only one component of the issue, but concurrent with, or following the approval of this component, staff would begin working on those other items. Chair Saberson preferred to see them presented together to avoid one component being adopted; however, Mr. Rumpf stated the City should address it because it could occur on private property. Chair Saberson suggested removing the public property use and then when they are ready to address the public property, bring it together. Motion Mr. Brake moved to table the item to January, and for staff to review comments and come back with more comprehensive comments. There was brief discussion the language did not indicate if the signs would be illuminated. Mr. Johnson explained each station would have no more than two signs displaying operational information such as voltage and amperage levels, hours of use, fees, safety information, and penalties related to misuse. The signs would not exceed two square feet. The intent was to have non - illuminated signs. If the Board wanted to add language to modify it, staff could review it. Ms. Grcevic thought it could easily be limited since the service would have to be paid for. The signage could indicate only two hours is allowed to recharge and the meter would turn off. Chair Saberson opened the public comment. No one came forward and public comment was closed. Vote The motion unanimously passed. E.1. Temporary Banners — "Feather Banners" (CDRV 12 -002) — Approve request to amend the Land Development Regulations (LDR), Article IV. "Sign Requirements ", Section 4, establishing provisions and standards for temporary feather banners for a one (1) year trial period. Applicant: City- initiated. 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 Mr. Rumpf stated the above request was City Commission initiated. In July, members of the business community requested they be able to use "Feather Banners." Staff was directed to draft regulations, which were presented to the City Commission on November 1, 2011, and additional information was presented on November 15, 2011, including the first reading of an ordinance. The banners would be allowed for a six month trial period, and the regulations would end after that period unless extended or modified by the City Commission. The members viewed a PowerPoint presentation. The banners allowed by Code do not move. They are mounted on two posts, usually by the road in a landscape buffer, behind the hedge row that made up the buffer, and they are not connected to trees. The proposed feather banner was also known as a bow, wing, or flying banner, all of which move. They usually have graphic illustrations, business names, or slogans associated with a business. They can be flown vertically and come in different shapes. The same standards in place for temporary banners, with the addition of a 10 -foot setback, applied to all permanent signs. It could be less if the buffer strip was less than 10 feet and it was placed in the buffer strip as required. Staff proposed a maximum height of 10.5 feet and the sign be no more than 30 inches wide. Banner signs could be placed every 300 feet along the property boundary or right -of -way. If there was a multiple- tenant building with 900 feet of right of way, three signs were allowed. The provision did not indicate whether the banners would be clustered or spaced, only the maximum number of banners that could be placed where wanted. If placed five feet away from the building, then it counted towards the density standard. If placed on the building, within five feet of the building or support structure, it did not need to meet the density standard of one sign per 300 feet. The fees were the same as the current fees. There is a $100 refundable deposit, collected at the time of permit issuance. Upon permit expiration, the deposit would be refunded and the permit turned in. If Code Compliance checked on a banner and saw the permit, the sign was permitted. If the permit was not produced, then the banner was a violation. The Commission was concerned with the administration of the process and how staff intensive it would be. The City of Largo has the same density standard, but relaxed them through an economic stimulus period, which was extended for another year. There were about 100 banner requests in their City and they relaxed the density standard of one sign to 300 feet of frontage. Examples of dos and don'ts were viewed. Language was added to address signs on private sidewalks which permitted them as long as they did not interfere with the public passageway. The current regulations allow new residential projects to display two banners at its entrance for one year. It does not allow signs, which include temporary 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 banners to move. A question was posed if the City would enforce banners over 10 feet. Mr. Rumpf noted there were 12 businesses displaying 19 banners which ranged between 8 and 16 feet. There has not been aggressive enforcement of it while staff was working on the amendment. After the amendment is approved, anything over 10.5 feet would not be permitted. Nine permits were issued in the past six months for static banners and there were nine banner citations issued in the past eight months. A table was included as an example of what was permitted and what the impacts were. Current regulations included provisions that during hurricane seasons, the signs would have to be removed. The proposed fee schedule was consistent with traditional banners, and the processing fee was the same. Currently, the provisions have a maximum period of 90 days which could be broken up throughout the year. The fee was tied to the permit for the expiration for each individual display period. The proposed provision was for one continuous period, to minimize the administrative burden. Most business owners apply for the 90 day period because it was the maximum allowed. Monitoring would occur through a combination of Development and Code Compliance staff. A spreadsheet would be maintained on the shared drive which could be accessed by both departments. Chair Saberson opened the floor for public comment. He acknowledged the Chair of the Code Compliance Board, Michele Costantino, was present. The members gave kudos to the Code Compliance Board and staff. The members and staff were wished a happy holiday. Motion Mr. Kravit moved to recommend the provision to the City Commission. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 8. Other None. 9. Comments by members None. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 22, 2011 10. Adjournment Motion Mr. Miller moved to adjourn. The motion was duly seconded and unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Oakk 'jug a 1. Catherine Cherry Recording Secretary 112911 13