Loading...
Agenda 01-24-12 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 TIME: 6:30 P.M. PLACE: Commission Chambers, 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Introduction of the Board 3. Agenda Approval 4. Approval of Minutes from November 22, 2011 meeting 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff 6. Old Business: A.1. Electric Vehicle lEV) Infrastructure lCDRV 12-001) - Approve request to modify the Land Development Regulations (LOR) 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. 7. New Business: A.1. Colonial Gatewav Veterinary Center lMSPM 12-002) - Approve request for major site plan modification to construct a 5,950 square foot addition to an existing 1,400 square foot veterinary office building for a total of 7,350 square feet on a 0.44-acre parcel located at 2235 North Federal Highway in the C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. Applicant: Dr. Robert Martin. 8. Other 9. Comments by members 10. Adjournment The Board (Committee) may only conduct public business after a quorum has been established. If no quorum is established within twenty minutes of the noticed start time of the meeting the City Clerk or her designee will so note the failure to establish a quorum and the meeting shall be concluded. Board members may not participate further even when purportedly acting in an informal capacity. NOTICE ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F.S.286.0105) THE CITY SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda January 24, 2012 Page 2 DISABILITY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (561) 742-6060 AT LEAST TWENTY (24) HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST. Documentl 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 Matthew Barnes, Vice Chair James Brake Sharon Grcevic Cory Kravit Brian Miller Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director Stacey Weinger, Board Attorney 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: ~ The Conditional Use and Major Site Plan Modification for the drive-through at the Publix Supermarket reconstruction at Sunshine Square; 'y The Site Plan Time Extension for the Timeless Life Care Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) project on S. Federal Highway; , 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 ,. 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 lots, 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 Johnson, 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 01 (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, (NOPe) 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 0.1. Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure (CDRV 12-001) - Approve request to modify the Land Development Regulations (LOR) 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.l. 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. C!.CLtA-ou/Jct QivLliL Catherine Cherry 0" Recording Secretary 112911 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND ZONING Memorandum PZ 12-004 TO: Chair and Members Planning & Development Board FROM: Eric Lee Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Planner II THROUGH: Michael Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director DATE: January 19,2012 RE: Electric Vehicle (BV) Infrastructure CDRV 12-001 UPDATE This code amendment, which would allow electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure in the City, was reviewed by the Planning & Development Board (Board) in November of last year; however, the item was ultimately tabled due to several concerns the Board had with some of the proposed provisions. The Board directed staff to address their concerns prior to returning for a recommendation. Staff has addressed each concern and revised the provisions accordingly. The questions raised by the Board and corresponding responses are provided as follows: Q: In single-family residential districts, does the City want to restrict BV charging stations to a garage only and/or screen them from public rights-of~way? A. Building and electric codes now require convenience outlets in garages of new single-family dwellings. These receptacles are capable of delivering Level 1 charging capabilities. Level 2 charging requires additional equipment (small wall mounted control box and electrical cord), and such equipment is typically installed inside a secure area (e.g., garage, carport) where the receptacles are installed. Level 3 charging stations are prohibited in connection with any residential use, and the proposed language has been revised to also prohibit Level 3 stations within any residential district, regardless of use. Furthermore, when vehicles are charging, the proposed ordinance prohibits the placement of power cords or other equipment across a sidewalk or in such a way so as to otherwise impede pedestrian movement. Therefore, wiring, outlet and other materials used for Level 1 and Level 2 stations would be innocuous within a single family environment, and therefore do not warrant special restrictions involving visibility and location. Q: What are we doing to make sure that the City isn't offering free charging within rights-of-way? A. Ultimately, usage of charging stations would fall under program or user provisions to be established in conjunction with a request for right-of- way permits to install such equipment. Similarly, if the City installs the charging stations, simple controls can be set in place to restrict or control accessibility. If electric receptacles are installed within rights-of-way or on other city lands, staff could install a switch (with or without a key) to turn off the electric current. On light poles, on/off switches may be installed eight (8) feet in height to make it more difficult to manipulate without the use of a ladder. Switches could be placed out of easy reach, or alternatively, the City may install durable, lockable covers, such as "Square D," that would be placed over the receptacle. If a lockable cover is installed, staff recommends against using plastic covers as they break easier than metal and are more of a maintenance issue. Currently, staff is unaware of anyone from the public accessing existing City electrical outlets. Q: Should the City have additional restnctIOns within single-family residential neighborhoods to ensure that the proliferation of EV charging stations does not have a negative impact? A. Every new home is required by the National Electric Code (NEC) to install convenience outlets in garages, which means that no local ordinance can restrict Level I charging. Staff finds no merit in restricting Level 2 charging in residential areas either, provided they are used in a safe and appropriate manner. Therefore, the provisions of the proposed ordinance would ensure that charging activity is conducted in an appropriate manner, and as indicated above, equipment for Level I and Level 2 stations are either common or compatible within the residential environment. With respect to Level 3 charging stations, however, the proposed ordinance does not allow them for residential uses. Q: Should publically accessible charging stations be allowed in connection with a non-residential use in a residential district? Depending how popular they are, wouldn't that change the use from being an accessory use to a principal use? A. The ordinance was drafted with the intent that public EV infrastmcture would be available for any non-residential use in residential districts. When drafting the original ordinance, staff was fully aware that only a handful of non-residential uses are allowed within single-family residential zoning districts and that in certain instances, providing - 2 - allowances for EV infrastructure would not result in any problems or negative impacts. For example, a school or church may desire to install public charging stations on their property, as a means to providing a convenience to its visitors, raise revenue, or to simply pacify those who have "range anxiety." These sites typically have extra parking, which is under-utilized during off-peak periods for most of the week, and such uses are typically secure and/or have physical or operational controls in place to discourage or prevent access by trespassers. The other cities in Palm Beach County that have EV charging stations on public property require that such spaces be utilized and occupied specifically by electric vehicles and not the general populations. The Boynton Beach version would contain no such restrictions. The reason is this- staff does not anticipate the frequency and duration of EV use to be an issue, particularly because it would be in the best interest of each business/property owner to self-police their own off-street parking areas to ensure proper use and turnover. It should be noted that the proposed ordinance contains provisions, which would allow property owners to post signage if they want to restrict the time that a vehicle may be left charging. Q: What are the criteria for a right-of-way permit (with respect to EV charging stati ons)? A. According to Part III (LDR), Chapter 2, Article III, Section 4.C, all work performed in public or private rights-of-way shall conform to the Florida Department of Transportation Manual of Uniform Control Devices (MUTCD) and/or the Engineering Design Handbook and Construction Standards, and be subject to review by the City's Engineering Division. Q: How can the City allow one (1) right-of-way permit request, but deny another? A. The proposed code has been amended to emphasize that the City Commission will be the ultimate and final authority of allowing EV infrastructure on public lands and rights-of-way (notwithstanding compliance with permitting requirements from all applicable agencies). Any vendor who desires to install EV infrastructure on the aforementioned lands would be allowed to commence construction, only after a contract/agreement with the City is secured and approved by the City Commission. Q: Is the City going to charge for installing EV charging stations for public spaces? On public lands and within the public rights-of-way, the decision to charge a fee would be made by the City Commission upon each request in - 3 - accordance with overall program policies to ultimately be established. Whereas initially, the City may choose not to charge a fee as a promotion of the program, ultimately a fee may be charged coinciding with implementation level and demand. Q: How can the extent of use of EV charging stations on public lands and within public rights-of-way be controlled? A. With respect to public lands, staff does not anticipate any issues with electric vehicle parking, at least in the foreseeable future; however, should a problem arise, the City can easily set a maximum timeframe limiting how long a vehicle can be parked and left charging. This can be accomplished through posted signage. Any EV charging station, owned and operated by a vendor, must have an agreement with the City, and such agreements will likely contain these controls. Q: Downtown Delray has two (2)-hour parking, those spaces were never intended for parking beyond that timeframe. How do we address long-term vehicle charging on our spaces? A. Part II City Code of Ordinances regulates abandoned cars within rights-of-way; however, no other limitation exists with respect to how long a privately-owned vehicle may be parked on public land, such as in front of City Hall or the library, or on public rights-of-way (except specific areas where parking is prohibited). Staff does not anticipate any issues with electric vehicle parking and charging on public lands, at least in the foreseeable future. Q: Do any other local cities have charging stations, and if so, how are they regulated? A. West Palm Beach and Delray Beach allow EV charging stations on public lands, but neither city has provisions in their respective code. Both cities installed the EV charging stations themselves or conducted an RFP to have a winning bidder (contractor) install them on the city's behalf. Q: What type of process does Delray Beach have with respect to EV charging stations? Have regulations of other cities been considered? A. The City of Delray Beach has no regulations or provisions which specifically address EV charging stations. The installation of any new charging station would have to go through Delray Beach's Building Division permitting process and comply with the Florida Building Code. Several EV charging stations are located on public lands, but they are owned and operated by the City and are available to the public at no cost. The City of Delray Beach has not been approached by anyone desiring to - -J. - install a charging station on public lands or within rights-of-way. The City received a donation from a not-for-profit organization to pay for the costs associated with the EV charging stations. At least one (1) EV charging station is located on private property within the city limits. Similarly, the City of West Palm Beach also has no regulations or provisions which specifically address EV charging stations. The installation of any new charging station would have to go through their permitting process and comply with the Florida Building Code. Several EV charging stations are located within the various downtown parking garages, but they are owned and operated by the City and are available to the public at no cost. The on-going maintenance of each EV charging station currently comes from an enterprise fund; however, in the future, it is the City's intent to charge a small fee for the usage, and revenues collected will help defray maintenance costs. Q: Should the City classify the public parking spaces differently? A. There is no need to classify the EV charging station spaces differently than the non-EV charging stations spaces. These spaces are open to the public and the EV charging station spaces would be identified with proper signage. Q: Would it be a violation or penalty for an electric vehicle to be parked in a non-electric vehicle space? A. No. Electric vehicles may be parked in any conforming parking space. Q: Would it be necessary to exclude golf carts or other non-street legal vehicles from the proposed definition of the electric vehicle? Is that addressed elsewhere in the code? A. There is no need to specifically exclude golf carts from the proposed definition of electric vehicles. Florida Statutes (Title XXIII, Chapter 320.01(37)) defines an electric vehicle as "a motor vehicle that is powered by an electric motor that draws current from rechargeable storage batteries, fuel cells, or other sources of electrical current." The definition is consistent with the definition being proposed in this ordinance. In addition, according to Title XXIII, Chapter 316.212 of the Florida Statutes, golf carts are prohibited on public roads and streets unless the street has been specifically designated by the municipality. Therefore, it is unnecessary to specifically exclude golf carts from the proposed definition. Q: Are there street legal electric golf carts? - 5 - A. Yes and no. As mentioned above, golf carts are generally prohibited on roads and streets, except in the instances when the responsible municipality designates certain roadways for their use. Where they are allowed, golf carts must be equipped with brakes, steering, headlamps, and anything else required by State Statutes to make them "street legal." Q: Have staff contacted any manufacturers ofEV infrastructure? A. No manufacturers were contacted; however, staff has had conversations with vendors, and information obtained from them as well as from professional publications and resources on trends and technology, was the impetus to creating provisions for EV charging stations. Q: Criteria for the permitting process are CRITICAL! Should the City consider postponing the draft language that introduces provisions for EV infrastructure on public property and focus more on introducing provisions for private property only? A. If a vendor proposes EV infrastructure on public lands or rights-of- way, the provisions of the code have been amended to require the vendor enter into a formal contract with the City, and such contract must be approved by the City Commission. - 6 - PROPOSED LANGUAGE Part III (LDR), Chapter 1, Article II AUTOMOTIVE, MINOR REPAIR - An establishment primarily engaged in minor automotive repair services such as oil change, lubrication, engine tune-up, battery replacement carburetor repairs, tire mounting and balancing, and the replacement and / or repair of external parts of engines. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) - Anv vehicle that operates, either partiallv or exclusively, on electrical energy from the grid, or an off-board source, that is stored on-board for motive purpose. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING LEVELS. Three battery charging are generally as follows: levels of LEVEL 1 - Considered slow charging. It requires a 15 or 20 amp breaker on a 120-volt Alternating Current (AC) circuit and standard outlet. This level of charging can fully recharge a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) between eight (8) and 32 hours: LEVEL 2 - Considered medium charging. It requires a 40 amp to 100 amp breaker on a 240-volt circuit. This level of charging can fully recharge a BEV between 4 and 6 hours: and LEVEL 3 - Considered fast or rapid charging (a.k.a. "DC fast charge"). It requires a 60 amp or higher dedicated breaker on a 480-volt or higher three-phase circuit with special grounding equipment. Charging time ranges from 25 minutes to 40 minutes. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATION - A public or private parking space located together with a batterv charging station that permits the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other storage device in an electric vehicle. PUBLIC - A publiclv accessible EV charging station is either 1) publiclv owned or publicly available (e.g., public library or City Hall lot) or 2) privatelv owned and publiclv available (e.g., shopping centec non- reserved parking in multi-family developments, etc.). PRIVATE - A EV charging station that is either 1) privately owned and has restricted access (e.g., single-family home, multi-family parking) or 2) publicly owned and has restricted access to the general public (e. g., fleet vehicle parking for police). - 7 - Part III (LDR), Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2.F.1.c c. Exemptions. The following work shall not be required to undergo site plan review as required by this chapter: (5) Installation of fire alarms; or (6) V oluntary life safety responsive projects when endorsed by the Fire Marshal, Director of Development or Director of Planning and Zonin8.,. ill Installation of Le';el 1 or Le';el 2 Eleetrie Vehide (EV) eharging stations at existing off street parking spaces. Part III (LDR), Chapter 3, Article V, Section 3.Z. Z. Electric Vehicle (EV) Chandn\! Station. Miscellaneous. 1. Permits Required. The installation of an EV charging station shall comply with all applicable regulations and permitting requirements required by life-safety/building codes and these land development regulations. 2. Allowable Location(s). EV charging stations shall be allowed in all zoning districts, but only in connection with a lawful principal use. In addition, the following restrictions shall apply: a. In residential zoning districts, EV charging stations shall not be available for public usage, except for where used in connection with a multi family or non-residential use: b. All EV charging stations shall be located within a conforming parking space or upon an on-site area that is specifically designed and designated for EV charging. For non- residential uses, any parking stall with EV charging is allowed to be used in the computation for meeting the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces. The preferred location shall be such that a single EV charging station could service two (2) parking stalls. - 8 - b. All EV charging stations shall be located within a conforming parking space, or in an area specifically designed and designated for EV eharging. L^.ny parking stall used for an EV charging station is allowed to be used in the computation of meeting the minimum number of required off street parking spaces. The preferred location shall be such that a single EV eharging sta-tion eould serviee tV{O (2) parking stalls. The provision for an EV charging station may vary based on the design and use of the primary parking lot: however in all instances, the proposed location must ensure the safe and efficient flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. EV charging stations, including its associated equipment and power cords, shall not traverse sidewalks, accessible routes, or other pedestrian areas. Likewise, the placement of each EV charging station shall not conflict with landscaping to the extent that the purpose and intent of the landscape code is no longer met. The pro','ision for an EV charging station may vary based on the design and use of the primary parking lot: howe','ec in all instanees, the proposed location must ensure the safe and efficient flow of ','ehicular or pedestrian traffie, partieular1y within the designa-ted parking stalL and that the placement of each (including associated equipment) would not impede or eonfliet with landseaping, wheelehair accessibility requirements, or other site elements. d. No EV charging station shall be installed within a designated handicap space unless it is specifically designed and intended for handicap use only: and e. Level 3 EV charging stations shall be prohibited in all residential zoning districts or in connection with any residential use: and f. A vendor may be allowed to install EV infrastructure on public lands or rights-of-way, but only contingent upon the granting of all necessary approvals and/or agreements with the City Commission and all applicable agencies. L^.n BV eharging station may be proposed within a public right of way: huwe','ec at minimum, a right of way permit shall be required in aeeordanee with Chapter 2, Article IlL Section 1. Each location shall be subieet to re','iew and appro','al by the City Engineer or designee. 3. Shwa2e. Also see Chapter 4, Article IV, Section 4.D for special signage that is allowed in connection with EV charging stations. - 9 - 4. Maintenance. EV charging station equipment shall be maintained in all respects, including the proper functioning of the charging equipment. A current phone number and other contact information shall be provided on the charging station equipment for the party responsible for maintenance and operation of the equipment. 5. Safety. Information on the EV charging station must identify voltage and amperage levels and time of use, fees, or safety information. When the EV charging station space is perpendicular or at an angle to curb face and charging station equipment, adequate equipment protection, such as wheel stops or bollards shall be used. 6. Data to be Available. To allow for maintenance and notification, owners of any new public EV charging station shall provide information on the station's geographic location, date of installation, equipment type and model, and owner contact information. This information shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works. 7. Restrictions. The property owner of a public EV charging station shall have the authority to place restrictions on the number of hours that an EV is allowed to charge, in order to deter indefinite charging/parking. AA. Miscellaneous. Continued next page - 10- Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article IV, Section 4.D. 5. Electric Vehicle (EV) Chandn2 Station Si2n. .!:. Each public EV charging station shall have at least one (1) posted sign, but no more than two (2) signs displaying operational information such as voltage and amperage levels, hours of use, fees, safety information and penalties related to misuse, and it must be approved by the City. +he size of each sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet. b. Directional signs for EV charging stations may be allowed, provided that each complies with Section 4.CA above, except that the size and style maximum allo"vable size shall not exceed that which is allowed in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2009 edition or latest supplement thereof tV{O (2) square feet. In addition, a maximum of two (2) off-premises directional signs located within public rights-of-way may be allowed. All signs associated with EV charging stations, if proposed within rights-of-way, shall comply with the Federal Highwav L^,"dministration's Manual on Uniform Traffie Control De'/iees (MUTCD) 2009 edition or latest supplement thereo( and with the permitting and processing requirements of the City and any other entity having iurisdiction over the subiect right-of-way. jRn EXCEPT FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING 1:1"x 12" · HOUR CHARGING 11''':0;.18'' 11":-:6" 7AM TO 6PM 11 CONCLUSION / RECOMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed code amendment to add provisions for EV infrastructure. This amendment would implement a CAP recommendation and encourages innovative ways for the City to be more sustainable. Also, it promotes business/economic development, and helps the City to keep pace with neighboring cities. S:PlanningSHAREDWPSPECPROJCODE REVIEWCDRV 12-001 EV Charging Stations Staff RepOli Update. doc 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND ZONING Memorandum PZ 11-049 TO: Chair and Members Planning & Development Board Eric Lee Johnson, AICP, LEED Green Associate t. Planner II 11 Michael RumPfUrfJ Planning and Zoning Director FROM: THROUGH: DATE: November 16,2011 RE: Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure CDRV 12-001 OVERVIEW The rewrite of the City's land development regulations (LDR) allowed staff to perform a complete review and analysis of each standard, regulation, and process. As part of the post-adoption process, staff anticipates the periodic need for, and is prepared to expeditiously process, updates and amendments to the LDR for one or more of the following reasons or initiatives: 1. Business and economic development initiatives; 2. Sustainability initiatives (to further general energy conservation and/or the Climate Action Plan); 3. Internal consistency (those amendments warranted to address identified internal inconsistencies or errors); 4. Regulatory compliance (responses to changes in State and / or county laws and regulations); and 5. Implementation feedback (those adjustments in standards, regulations, and processes necessary to meet original or current objectives and vision). The proposed request would further item #1, Business and economic development initiative and item #2, Sustainability initiatives. 1 NATURE OF REQUEST 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 replacements for electric vehicles; and 3) to create provisions for signs commonly associated with EV infrastructure. BACKGROUND Automobiles with internal combustion engines are by far, the most popular type of vehicles. However, the cost of operating them has steadily and often times, dramatically risen over the last decade due to increases in oil prices, leaving consumers searching for more fuel efficient and/or alternative-energy vehicles, such as hybrids and electric powered. Also, a significant segment of the consumer market is becoming more environmentally-conscious and desiring to reduce their carbon footprint, and thus electric vehicles are becoming a more popular solution to the traditional oil-dependent automobiles. An objective of the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) is to incentivize the use of renewable/alternative energy sources. The CAP contains an implementation strategy (4.3.8) that states the following: Support initiatives to increase the amount of, and access to, alternative fueled vehicle infrastructure such as fueling stations. An electric vehicle is any vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the grid, or an off-board source, that is stored on-board for motive purpose. 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 station. No greenhouse gases (OHO) are emitted directly from electric vehicle because no fossil fuels are burned and no tailpipe is required. This attribute is attractive to environmentally-conscious consumers. Critics will argue however, that the environmental benefit of electric vehicles is misleading, because the power plants that provide the electricity for the vehicles still emit OHG, particularly those plants which use coal as its main resource. An article in Discovery News (July 2010) reported there are no carbon footprint benefits from power plants using coal, and that up to 50% of the power plants throughout the country are fueled by coal. Proponents of electric vehicles quickly rebut that within any given area, it is much easier to control the carbon output from a single power source, such as a stationary power plant rather than from 100,000 vehicles. Generally, the overall consensus is in favor of electric vehicles as being the more environmentally-friendly choice. Also, from a national safety and homeland security 2 perspective, political leaders desire to be less dependent on foreign oil, and tapping into alternative energies is a means to that end. ANALYSIS According to a January 31,2011 news "ideo on SmartPlanet.com, analysts predict that up to 13% of all cars sold in 2020 (presumably in the U.S.) will be electric vehicles; and it is expected that sales will continue to rise, especially as the price of electric vehicles go down. Manufacturers typically extol the virtues of electric vehicle ownership, by highlighting the green aspects of them and the relative ease of refueling (charging) with simple low-voltage circuits typically found in residential and commercial buildings. However, when trying to mass market electric vehicles, industry leaders say a major hurdle is the lack of opportunities away from the home where vehicles can be recharged. This perception, they say, leads to what some have called "range anxiety." The term, which was first used in 1997 by the San Diego Business Journal, was commonly associated with electric vehicles and is now simply described as the fear of "running out of gas," due to either the lack of public places to recharge or because of faulty/deficient batteries. In sales, the public's perception, whether real or false, often becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy, and as a result, industry leaders had to quickly address the issue. To address this concern, companies have begun installing EV infrastructure (charging stations) at various locations for public usage. According to SmartPlanet.com, manufacturers of EV charging stations are currently evaluating commercial sites (e.g., Best Buy, Costco, and Cracker Barrel) throughout the country when planning for EV infrastructure. A 2009 press release by ECOtality North America, the manufactures of the Blink brand of EV charging stations, indicates their EV Project, which started in the winter of 2010, "will oversee the installation of approximately 14,000 commercial and residential charging stations in 18 major cities and metropolitan areas in six states and the District of Columbia. The project will provide EV infrastructure to support the deployment of 8,300 electric vehicles. The project is funded by the u.s. Department of Energy through a federal stimulus grant, made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)." In an article this year (June 2011), ECOtality North America claims to have installed 1,200 units in Tennessee alone and is aiming for 2,500 installations by the end of this year. Staff acknowledges that EV infrastructure is more popular in the western United States that in the east; however, there is growing evidence to show that technology and demand is slowly making its eastward manifest destiny. The Center for Automotive Research (Deployment Rollout Estimate of Electric Vehicles, January 2011) notes that Florida has shown a commitment to promote hybrid vehicle ownership through a number of government and private incentives. In 2009, there were 15,000 retail hybrid registrations, ranking Florida as one of the largest markets, along with California, New York, and Texas. In fact, during a three (3)-year period between 2007 and 2009, over 44,100 registrations were made, representing 5.3% of the total in the u.s. While electric vehicles are not as popular as hybrids, the sale of fully electric vehicles is expected to steadily rise within upcoming years, albeit minimally; but estimates are always subject to change, especially if oil prices spike or other incentives to ownership are available. 3 According to a Bloomberg Businessweek article published in January of2011, more and more companies are starting to use electric trucks (for their fleet), which they say are ideally suited for urban deliveries. The State of Washington is known to be a leader in planning for EV infrastructure. They recognize that support for electric vehicles is both an economic and environmental priority, so in 2009, the legislature passed a law encouraging the use of electric vehicles by supporting charging infrastructure. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), a metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Commerce created a model ordinance for EV infrastructure, and as of the date of this report, at least three (3) cities (i.e., Mountlake Terrace, Lacey, Kent, and SeaTac) have already adopted their version. Staff reviewed these ordinances and used them in drafting the provisions of the proposed ordinance contained herein. While staff notes that the aforementioned ordinances took effect in cities located across the continent, staff also recognizes that it is very important for the City of Boynton Beach to stay current on emerging trends and to serve as a leader in Palm Beach County and the South Florida area. As advances are made in EV technology and as more affordable choices are available, staff (and the City) must anticipate future demands and plan for EV infrastructure accordingly. In recent years, the City has been approached by vendors desiring to install EV charging stations on City-owned and/or public property. Staff researched the availability of EV charging stations within a 30 mile radius of City Hall. According to ChargePoint America and assuming their database is coordinated with others, the query revealed that few public EV charging stations exist near City Hall, the closest are located in downtown West Palm Beach, Delray Beach, and Deerfield Beach. This represents an opportunity for the City. PROPOSED LANGUAGE Part III (LDR), Chapter 1, Article II AUTOMOTIVE, MINOR REPAIR - An establishment primarily engaged in minor automotive repair services such as oil change, lubrication, engine tune-up, battery replacement. carburetor repairs, tire mounting and balancing, and the replacement and / or repair of external parts of engines. ELECTRIC VEHICLE lEV) - Any vehicle that operates. either partiallv or exclusively. on electrical energy from the grid. or an off-board source. that is stored on-board for motive PUfDose. ELECTRIC VEHICLE mY) CHARGING LEVELS. Three battery charging are generally as follows: levels of LEVEL 1 - Considered slow chareing. It requires a 15 or 20 amp breaker on a 120-volt Alternating Current (AC) circuit and standard outlet. This 4 level of chargim! can fully recharge a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) between eight (8) and 32 hours; LEVEL 2 - Considered medium chargine. It requires a 40 amp to 100 amp breaker on a 240-volt circuit. This level of chargine can fully recharee a BEV between 4 and 6 hours; and LEVEL 3 - Considered fast or rapid chareine (a.k.a. "DC fast charge"). It requires a 60 amp or higher dedicated breaker on a 480-volt or higher three-phase circuit with special grounding eQuipment. Charging time ranges from 25 minutes to 40 minutes. ELECTRIC VEHICLE lEV) CHARGING STATION - A public or private parkine space located together with a battery chargine station that permits the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other storage device in an electric vehicle. PUBLIC - A publicly accessible EV charging station is either 1) publicly owned and publicly available (e.g.. public library or City Hall lot) or 2) privatelv owned and publiclv available (e.g.. shopping center, non- reserved parking in multi-family developments. etc.). PRIV ATE - A EV charging station that is either 1) privately owned and has restricted access (e.g.. single-family home. multi-family parking) or 2) publicly owned and has restricted access to the general public (e.e.. fleet vehicle parking for police). Part III (LDR), Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2.F .1.c c. Exemptions. The following work shall not be required to undergo site plan review as required by this chapter: (5) Installation of fire alarms; er (6) Voluntary life safety responsive projects when endorsed by the Fire Marshal, Director of Development or Director of Planning and Zoning; or-;- ill Installation of Level 1 or Level 2 Electric Vehicle (EV) chareine stations at existing off-street parking spaces. 5 Part III (LDR), Chapter 3, Article V, Section 3.Z. Z. Electric Vehicle lEV) Chantine: Station. Miscellaneous. 1. Permits Required. . The installation of an EV charwng station shall comply with all applicable regulations and permitting requirements required by life-safetv/building codes and these land development regulations. 2. Allowable Location(s). EV charging stations shall be allowed in all zoning districts, but only in connection with a lawful principal use. In addition, the followin2 restrictions shall apply: a. In residential zoning districts. EV char2in2 stations shall not be available for public usa2e. except for where used in connection with a multi-family or non-residential use~ b. All EV charging stations shall be located within a conforming parking space. or in an area specifically designed and designated for EV charwng. Any parking stall used for an EV charwn2 station is allowed to be used in the computation of meeting the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces. The preferred location shall be such that a single EV char2in2 station could service two (2) parking stalls. c. The provision for an EV charging station mav vary based on the design and use of the primary parking lot: however. in all instances. the proposed location must ensure the safe and efficient flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. particularly within the designated parking stall. and that the placement of each (including associated eauioment) would not impede or conflict with landscapin2. wheelchair accessibility requirements. or other site elements. d. No EV charging station shall be installed within a designated handicap space unless it is specifically designed and intended for handicap use only: and e. Level 3 EV chargin2 stations shall be prohibited III connection with any residential use. f. An EV charwng station may be proposed within a public right-of-way: however. at minimum. a rililit-of-way permit shall be required in accordance with Chapter 2. Article III. Section 4. Each location shall be subiect to review and approval bv the City Engineer or designee. 6 3. Sie:nae:e. Also see Chapter 4. Article IV. Section 4.D for special signage that is allowed in connection with EV charging stations. 4. Maintenance. EV charging station eQuipment shall be maintained in all respects. includine: the proper functioning of the charging equipment. A current phone number and other contact information shall be pro\ided on the charging station equipment for the party responsible for maintenance and operation of the equipment. 5. Safety. Information on the EV charging station must identify voltage and amperage levels and time of use. fees. or safety information. When the EV charging station space is perpendicular or at an angle to curb face and charging station equipment. adequate equipment protection. such as wheel stops or bollards shall be used. 6. Data to be Available. To allow for maintenance and notification, owners of any new public EV charging station shall provide information on the station's geographic location. date of installation. eauipment Me and model. and owner contact information. This information shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works. 7. Restrictions. The property owner of a public EV charging station shall have the authority to place restrictions on the number of hours that an EV is allowed to charge. in order to deter indefinite charcinwparking. AA. Miscellaneous. Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article IV, Section 4.D. 5. Electric Vehicle mY) Charwe: Station Shm. a. Each public EV charging station shall have at least one (1) posted sign. but no more than two (2) signs displaying operational information such as voltage and amperage levels. hours of use. fees, safety information and penalties related to misuse. The size of each sign shall not exceed two (2) SQuare feet. b. Directional signs for EV charging stations may be allowed. provided that each complies with Section 4.CA above. except that the maximum allowable size shall not exceed two (2) square feet. In addition, a maximum of two (2) off-premises directional signs located within public rights-or-way may be allowed. All signs associated with EV charging stations. if proposed within rights-of-way. shall comply with the Federal 7 Highway Administration's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2009 edition or latest supplement thereof. and with the permitting and processing requirements of the Citv and any other entity having iurisdiction over the subiect right-of-way. CONCLUSION / RECOMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed code amendment to add provisions for EV infrastructure. This amendment would implement a CAP recommendation and encourages innovative ways for the City to be more sustainable. Also, it promotes business/economic development, and helps the City to keep pace with neighboring cities. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\SPECPROJ\CODE REVIE\V\CDRV 12-001 EV Charging Statjons\~taffRepOlt.doc 8 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 11-054 TO: Chair and Members Planning & Development Board THRU: Michael Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Ed Breese Principal Planner DATE: January 10, 2012 PROJECT: Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center / MSPM 12-002 REQUEST: Major site plan modification approval to construct a 5,950 square foot addition to an existing 1,400 square foot veterinary office building for a total of 7,350 square feet on a 0.44-acre parcel in the C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: Dr. Robert Martin Agent: Jim Rodgers, CPBD Location: 2235 N. Federal Highway (see Exhibit "A" - Site Location Map) Existing Land Use/Zoning: Local Retail Commercial (LRC) / Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: Expansion of Veterinary Office Acreage: 0.44 acre (19,247 square feet) Adjacent Uses: North: Right-of-way for NE 21st Avenue; still farther north is an existing commercial building (BMT Beverage Store) zoned C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial; South: East Ridge residential subdivision zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) ; East: Right-of-way for the FEe Railroad, still father east is right-of-way for Federal Highway; and West: Commercial building (VFW meeting hall), zoned R-3 (Multi-family Residential). Memorandum No. PZ 11-054 Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center / MSPM 12-002 Page 2 PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION Owners of properties within 400 feet of the subject site plan were mailed a notice of this request and its respective hearing dates. The applicant has certified that signage is posted and notices mailed in accordance with Ordinance No. 04-007. BACKGROUND Site Features: Located within the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) area, the subject property is a 0.44-acre parcel situated immediately west of the FEC Railroad tracks, one block south of Gateway Boulevard. According to the survey submitted with the application package, the site is generally square in shape, with 143 feet abutting the railroad and 146 feet of frontage along NE 21st Avenue. The site is currently occupied by a veterinary clinic operated by the applicant, Dr. Martin. Proposal: Mr. Jim Rodgers, agent for the applicant, is seeking major site plan modification approval to construct a 5,950 square foot addition to an existing 1,400 square foot veterinary office building, for a total of 7,350 square feet. The doctor currently employs two (2) full-time and one (1) part-time individuals at this location. He anticipates that between two (2) and four (4) individuals may be hired after completion of the project. The floor plans (as shown on A-2 & A-3) illustrate the proposed layout of the two (2) story facility. The first floor would house the daily operations of the veterinary clinic, including the exam rooms, treatment and surgery rooms, grooming area, animal ward and boarding area, doctor's office, and reception/check-out/administrative area, totaling 4,500 square feet of enclosed/conditioned space. Boarding is allowed in the C-2 zoning district if accessory to a veterinary office and would require conditional use approval if the area designated for boarding exceeds 25% of the total floor area or 2,500 square feet. Since the area dedicated to boarding is only 618 square feet and 12% of the total floor area, conditional use approval is not required. There is a covered dog run extending 7 feet off the rear (west) and partially along the south side of the building. The second floor is designed for training purposes and, as denoted on the plans, would not be utilized during normal business hours. ANAL YSIS Concurrency: Traffic: A traffic impact statement for the project was sent to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division for concurrency review in order to ensure an adequate level of service. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the traffic analysis on December 21, 2011 and determined that the proposed project meets the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. The County determined the project would generate 23 new A.M. peak hour trips and 27 new P.M. peak hour trips per day. No building permits are to be issued by the City after the build-out date of December 31,2015. School: School concurrency is not required for this type of project. Memorandum No. PZ 11-054 Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center / MSPM 12-002 Page 3 Utilities: The City's water capacity, as increased through the purchase of up to five (5) million gallons of potable water per day from Palm Beach County Utilities, would meet the projected potable water for this project. Sufficient sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment capacity is also currently available to serve the project. The existing water and sewer connections currently serving the existing building would be used by the new building addition. Police/Fire: Staff has reviewed the site plan and all comments have been addressed. Staff expects to provide an adequate level of service for this project with current or expected infrastructure and/or staffing levels. Drainage: Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City's review. The Engineering Division has found the conceptual information to be adequate and states that the review of specific drainage solutions will be deferred until time of permit review. Access: A driveway opening is currently located along the northeast side of the property, off of NE 21st Avenue. As part of this project, the driveway will be better delineated with a defined width of 24 feet, including the addition of curbing and landscaping islands along each side, in compliance with current code requirements. Parking: According to Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article V, the minimum off-street parking requirements for a veterinary office is based on a ratio of one (1) parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. The building is designed as two (2) floors, with the first floor totaling 4,500 square feet of enclosed/conditioned space, which would require 15 off-street parking spaces and 15 spaces would be provided. The second floor is designed for training purposes and, as denoted on the plans, would only be utilized after normal business hours, and therefore not add to the total project square footage for the purposes of determining the parking need. This request for major site plan modification would include a re-design to the existing parking lot, to create 15 code compliant spaces and properly landscape the site. The 90-degree parking stalls, excluding the handicap space, would be dimensioned nine (9) feet in width and 18 feet in length and include continuous curbing. The new 12 foot wide and 18 foot deep handicap space and adjoining 5 foot striped aisle will be located immediately adjacent to one of the building's new entrances/exits. All proposed parking stalls, including the size and location of the handicap space, were reviewed and approved by both the Engineering Division and Building Division. In addition, all necessary traffic control signage and permanent markings would be provided, in order to clearly delineate areas on site and direction of circulation. Landscaping: The site plan tabular data indicates that 7,183 square feet or 39% of the subject property would be pervious, consisting of landscaped and open space areas. The landscape buffers along the south and west property lines would consist of a six (6) foot masonry wall and trees closely spaced to provide the additional buffering above the six (6) foot wall. The Urban Landscape Code requires a Type 2 landscape buffer between 12 and 15 feet in width against incompatible uses, including a six (6) foot masonry wall and trees planted every 20 to 30 feet on center, depending upon degree of incompatibility. Since the properties to the south and west are residentially zoned abutting this commercial district, this was the standard utilized in the review. Memorandum No. PZ 11-054 Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center / MSPM 12-002 Page 4 The property to the south is a planned unit development residential project. The south property line has the six (6) foot masonry wall existing in place with a six (6) foot tall Silver Buttonwood hedge on the residential side. The landscape plan depicts the use of trees (gumbo limbo, live oak, clusea and sabal palms) planted every 12 to 15 feet on center, to provide additional buffering above the six (6) foot high wall. While the expanded building would be situated a minimum of 42 feet from the south property line, the pool and equipment enclosure encroach into the 12 to 15 foot buffer area. However, immediately south of the buffer wall in the residential community is the dry retention area for the development, placing the nearest residential structure approximately 60 feet from the buffer wall. The code allows for a reduction in the buffer requirements to account for existing landscaping on the adjacent property or increased screening material. As the applicant has designed the landscape plan to include buffer trees planted closer than the required 20 to 30 foot spacing, there is a six (6) foot tall hedge on the exterior of the six (6) foot high wall, and the buildings on the two properties are separated by approximately 100 feet, the impact of the slight reduction in buffer width by the pool and other mechanical equipment enclosure would be immeasurable. As noted earlier in the staff report, the property to the west, while residentially zoned (R-3 Multi-family Residential), is being utilized as the VFW meeting hall, which in essence, is a compatible use to the veterinary clinic. The proposed landscape plan provides for a 15 foot building setback from the west property line and includes the required six (6) foot high masonry wall. The applicant has agreed to plant the buffer trees every 12 to 15 feet on center to match the buffer along the south property line (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). As proposed, the landscape design would provide all the requirements of the buffer other than the hedge along the outside of the wall. As noted above, the code allows for a reduction in the buffer requirements to account for existing landscaping on the adjacent property or increased screening material. As the applicant has agreed to design the landscape plan to plant the buffer trees closer than the required 20 to 30 foot spacing, and given that the adjacent use is a meeting hall, the slight reduction (elimination of the hedge along the outside of the wall) appears justified. With these slight buffer modifications on the south and west side, and the applicant's proposed landscape design incorporating the closer spacing of the buffer trees to mitigate any impact, staff suggests that the approval of the project under the Alternate Landscape Plan guidelines per Chapter 4, Article II, Section 5 is warranted. This is not an uncommon practice in most jurisdictions and may also be known as a Betterment Plan, wherein a different design proposal offers design flexibility in meeting code requirements, as well as the opportunity to yield a superior design. The buffer along the NE 21st Avenue right-of-way is depicted as code compliant with the design incorporating the required two (2) layers of shrub material (cocoplum and pittosporum), along with pods of crotons and schefflera trinette, and groundcovers including beach sunflower and dwarf yew. The trees include silver buttonwood, clusea and yellow elder, along with sabal palms. The buffer along the railroad tracks to the east consists of cocoplum hedge and gumbo limbo trees. No sod is proposed on the site, however the rear yard area is to be covered with a synthetic turf (K9 grass). Memorandum No. PZ 11-054 Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center / MSPM 12-002 Page 5 The foundation planting area proposed along the east side of the building consists of sabal and alexander palms, cocoplum and pittosporum shrubs and dwarf yew groundcover plants. The foundation plantings for the north elevation are accommodated by the north perimeter landscaping along NE 21st Avenue, since the building is designed forward on the property, within five (5) feet of the property line at the closest point, in accordance with the Urban Commercial District Overlay Zone regulations. The irrigation plan complies with the Waterwise irrigation design guidelines as follows: 1) bubblers are installed on all newly planted trees; 2) low angle spray and Xeri XPCN Series Nozzles are utilized (pop ups only where required) directing water at roots of plants; 3) rain sensor/moister sensor devices are used; and 4) a well and pump system is utilized as the source of water, thereby conserving potable water. Site and Building: According to the survey, the lowest ground elevation is 9.7 feet, located along the west property line. The existing building has a finished floor elevation of 12.57 feet, and the proposed first floor addition would have the same. The proposed addition is designed to wrap around the existing 1,400 square foot veterinary office and add a partial second story for a total 7,350 square foot structure. The first floor would house the daily operations of the veterinary clinic, including the exam rooms, treatment and surgery rooms, grooming area, animal ward and boarding area, doctor's office, and reception/check-out/administrative area, totaling 4,500 square feet of enclosed/conditioned space. There is a covered dog run extending 7 feet off the rear (west) and partially along the south side of the building. The second floor is designed for training purposes and, as denoted on the plans, would not be utilized during normal business hours. Although the site is located within the C-2 zoning district, it is within a portion of the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) that is part of the Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan, which is subject to the Urban Commercial District Overlay Zone regulations. The regulations were designed to encourage development and redevelopment of commercially zoned parcels in a manner consistent with the pattern of development of parcels with a Mixed Use zoning classification, mimicking the forward placement of buildings on the parcels. Therefore, the required building setbacks are reduced to create more of an urban feel. As a result, the minimum setbacks for this project are as follows: Front - 5-15 feet (abutting NE 21st Avenue); Interior side - 15 feet abutting residentially zoned properties; Corner side - 10-15 feet; and Rear - 30 feet abutting residentially zoned properties. The proposed addition would comply with all the aforementioned minimum or maximum setbacks. The expanded footprint of the building will bring the structure to within five (5) feet of NE 21st Avenue and place the parking in the side yard and screened with landscaping along the road right-of- way and along the railroad right-of-way. The building will be located a minimum 15.5 feet from the west property line abutting the VFW meeting hall and between 42.75 and 51 feet from the East Ridge Planned Unit Development property line to the south, and about another 60 feet to the first residential structure on that property. As noted previously, 39% of the subject property would be pervious, consisting of landscaped and open space areas. The improvements associated with the re- Memorandum No. PZ 11-054 Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center / MSPM 12-002 Page 6 Building Height: Building Design: Site Lighting: Site Signage: Public Art: designed parking lot depict two (2) new drainage catch basins to adequately drain these impervious areas. The maximum allowable building height in the C-2 zoning district is 35 feet, and the elevation drawings (Sheets A-4 & A-5) indicate that the overall roof height of the two (2) story building would be 29 feet - 9 inches, with a mean roof height of approximately 26 feet. As illustrated on the elevation drawings (Sheets A-4 & A-5) the proposed addition will completely engulf the existing veterinary structure, so the building addition will give the outward appearance of a whole new building when finished. The exterior walls would have a smooth stucco finish, with blue standing seam metal awnings, new cedar beam pediment entry, decorative second floor balcony railing with decorative pre-cast pineapple decoration atop the terminal columns, and decorative pineapple wall sconce lighting. The proposed hip roof would be covered in a blue standing seam metal material. The proposed building colors are subtle and compatible with the surrounding buildings, including a dark tan base color (Sherwin-Williams SW6131 - Chamois), soft tan body color (Sherwin- Williams SW6127 - Ivoire), and cream trim color (Sherwin-Williams SW7012 - Creamy). The building design would resemble the coastal village style with the blue standing seam metal roof and ornate wraparound balcony railing. The project proposes four (4) freestanding outdoor lighting structures, installed within the parking lot at a height of 20 feet, with cut-off fixtures to prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties or abutting rights-of-way. All footcandle levels would comply with the minimum and maximum thresholds as regulated in Part III (LDR), Chapter 4, Article VII. The elevation drawings (Sheets A-4 & A-5) show the location of wall signs on the north and east fa<;ades, near the driveway entrance to the site. The applicant has also submitted sign shop drawings from Sign-A-Rama, which supersede the square footage information depicted on the drawings. As a result, staff utilized the Sign-A-Rama calculations in the review of signage in this report. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to submit revised Sheets A-4 & A-5 at the time of permit submittal (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). Each sign is proposed to have the business name "Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center" depicted in red, back-lit 15 inch letters, stacked for a total of 34.5 inches by 224.33 inches, culminating in 58.8 square feet each. Based upon the building frontage of 92.9 feet, a total of 139.35 square feet of signage would be permitted for this project. I ncluding the 12 inch building address proposed over the front door (3.125 square feet), all signs combined total approximately 120 square feet, which would comply with the sign code. No other site signage is proposed. The applicant has been in discussion with the City's Public Arts Administrator and is considering having an artist work with the decorative railing fabricator to meet the requirements of the public art component of the project. The final design proposal for the artwork is subject to review and approval of the Arts Commission. Memorandum No. PZ 11-054 Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center / MSPM 12-002 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for Major Site Plan Modification and recommends approval of the plans presented, subject to satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center\Staff Report.doc R-rlA 220 110 0 ~- 220 440 660 880 5 I Feet Page 1 1 produced by: papagis 1/1 2 1-2>U"1-S0C::>WOJ@USpJp! :1!OW2> \faIClO-':::1 'AlNno::> H::>\f38 V\I-,\fd seveB 1:::1 'HO'l:>'38 NO.LNA08 A'I:>'MHOIH l'I:>'l::I3a3::1 "N SC<:::<::: H31N30 M:l'VNIH313^ A'VM31.'V'O IV'INOlOO 1=10:::1 NOL.LIaaV M3N 'I:>' 660i:"C;OC~9C; -3NOHd SS17CB 1:::1 'aNnos 3130H 3,01=110 aN'I:>',1=I3BV'\InO 313 <:::SLS OSd8 '8l:13000l:l V'llr' ! , ~ II , , I I 1 I ! ~ , , , I ~ Ii ! ! , ! , , , , , 1 l "'I I- "- <( :;; ~ z o 5' UJ >- 55 (( W I- Z W o >- (( <( Z (( W I- W > >- <( ~ W I- <( (j ..J <( Z o ..J o o Z o (f) >-1.0> <((")0 :S:~OJ I(")=:> O--.J(f) ILLa:: _J --.JI:::::2: <(0<( ffi<((f) W OOJZ WZ:S: ~OO ZI-a:: I.OZOJ (")>-- ~OO ~OJ(") I- o --.J t2>U'tSOC::>WOJ@USpJp! :1!OW2> \faIClO-':::1 'AlNno::> H::>\f38 V\I-,\fd seveB 1:::1 'HO'l:>'38 NO.LNA08 A'I:>'MHOIH l'I:>'l::I3a3::1 "N SC<:::<::: H31N30 M:l'VNIH313^ A'VM31.'V'O IV'INOlOO 1=10:::1 NOL.LIaaV M3N 'I:>' 660i:'C;OC~9C; -3NOHd SS17CB 1:::1 'aNnos 3130H 3,01=110 aN'I:>',1=I3BV'\InO 313 <:::SLS OSd8 '8l:13000l:l V'llr' ~ ff "'1'1 \-+-- ~ ,l/ ~ I i'ol" ~ ~I ' 0 0 ~~ &~ _~!~".~ .c,. "1Ir" .,,' ---, co' I II I \ k-+-- ne = I m= e G r- _ .L,6 I .cs ~.~,L [l, '~j C ~V l~ 'I! r,' .. G,:' ~ ___ : ~ Tj~,::~. ~I! : I~ tl \..J I .,,- B . c U !-J I I ,II I I I ~Jil"-' I; .C-.' c~lolrnl,I,~,"'L~ )~ ~ . rr "11 -~; l --- :, ~Iii ~I: :; Ie- ~ 'I :: d!i wOIT Ie- 1!l!I- 'I " ~G'I' I: / k-~Ge --+ 'I c- :; nll~1Jnll I,~~II-\: U:1 '::: I!l!I=G ~~~ ,<: ~/!~ I ~I ~ . u u U 51 U U u"" [~O '.i==h I .eo ~Is ~~ . ~ 1 ~--,'ID- r--f-- ~,. ''"-BH\J! f---"'"-~ I 11 ,>~:II ~I!, ; -, ri~ II hi ~r I~_ I 8"- lL"u, wi .S.6 CL 'I I .If-- e I r-. . ~f- LL.- -- .3'== I ~~f- IliIlll ' ..'-." ~Id; ~I; \ .'00 ~I= I";> " "'" L)illS iC~ I 2 ;:: f-- ~ -EJ- \;~ ~ G', I~ ,is 1ft, =r ~I I~ II ,--,s--.J u -, D ~I: I r ~I_"'''~ ,. !I iU\," = ~ ~}J"" ..-..... co. ~ .e-.. J ..e-.. ~ ~I! 'c ~ \1'-" !I; G ~ .'-." .1 - I\_~ 11 : I (~ J = ~ I::J 8 lNd ~ J3S ~f~ CD ~'~gl~ll II /~ ~ (I LLCL~ ~~r-N, ~~~ I~ f ~I Die ~ ~-~ 'i 5: ~ ~ .- ~ ~ z . 0 j [[ tL C'\l I <( ..'-." o \w e r1:c II. ~~ ?~ ?~ 2~ ~~ ".. II ".'-.' ..'-.'.00 ! ; ; : '-." ! . .1 "1.0 '0,0 "l .111 "1 ~ :; ., .'-.' .co '<faIClO-':::1 'Al.Nno::> H::>V'38 V\I-'V'd seveB 1:::1 'HO'l:>'38 NO.LN.....oa A'I:>'MHOIH l'I:>'l::I3CJ3::1 "N SC<:::<::: H31N30 M:l'VNIH313^ A'VM31.'V'O IV'INOlOO 1=10:::1 NOLLIClCJV M3N 'I:>' 660i:'C;OC~9C; -3NOHd ~ a: z 8 8 j ~ [ tL C') I <( t2>U'tSOC::>WOJ@USpJp! :1!OW2> SS17CB 1:::1 'ClNnos 3130H 3,01=110 CJN'I:>',1=I3BV'\InO 313 <:::SLS OSd8 '8l:13000l:l V'llr' z <l .J "- a: o o .J "- Q z o o w (f) n ,O,99 ,9,9' T1 _0 .9~ -'," ,- ~ ,,~ i'" "" ~I ~I :~ u u U m I. .[ ,6~ CD f=; l 5.6 I l ,<.6 ~ ,- ~ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ G . . . . ,,~ / / / / - r:fl Dd,'~I~ ,'-m "C-," \ 1 " G 0 " 0 - w : , b , = I ~Ii C ~ : , ~, 0 G w" - -"I ,C-o I'C-" ~ Z" IO wO Od r~ CjZ ~ 'c r- 'mtfF ~ u~ u uc= ;;' 5 0 ~ ::J ~ \I~ ~ " - .~ o lU~I, _ __ L/.cJ - . ?CI 5 b " . ~ g , " ---'- k, ~III , ~ - P '8 0 ~ I , rn , " I "n J8 ,,0-,' - u ---I I >- .oo 1--- z I 0 ~:: I I u ~I " - . , ~ w I ~ rn I I ~ - CD ~ I o z I I ~ u w w c: . I :;s rn w " I T > 0 I 0 ~ I i 5 u " I C::S I ~ I u ~ ..L H . i ~ ~ z" I - cd c:: ~ .~ I ---r " r ~ ~ F" ~ I I . - I b - , I 0 I I I n.,,~~ .. I ,'-" I -,e, 0 - I c:~ L___ ___.J - I tli ~ J0~ L1 I ~w -~ c: ~~ r 0 I "'s . . . I c: ~ Cjl ;" - b I L I 8 .'-m u I 4 ----+ ;== ,- bi----------roo l) CD w(; im: i ~ c ,'- !!] ~I~ = ~ G >- ~I~I~ " J@ / - I-- cC - -, ~ "~ 5 b " " i G g I ~ :::::rtfl b "'- ~I ! , rn ~\~\,J . . 8 . . i's [I I lJ 1 I ~I rn "-- i'sl I~ ,'-," 0 ,[,6 _',0, ~I .[ ,6~ '; , u " , a aa ar . . . . . I .Joo~ MOONIM II .Joo~ MOGNIM II .JOOdMOONIM I" '0 - '/ I jOO~ IAOONI\\ J -, ,,'-,," -, ,'-," .0." ,C-," '<faIClO-':::1 'Al.Nno::> H::>V'38 V\I-'V'd seveB 1:::1 'HO'l:>'38 NO.LN.....oa A'I:>'MHOIH l'I:>'l::I3CJ3::1 "N SC<:::<::: H31N30 M:l'VNIH313^ A'VM31.'V'O IV'INOlOO 1=10:::1 NOLLIClCJV M3N 'I:>' 660i:"C;OC~9C; -3NOHd ""'" I <( ~: 1-2>U"1-S0C::>WOJ@USpJp! :1!OW2> SS17CB 1:::1 'ClNnos 3130H 3,01=110 CJN'I:>',1=I3BV'\InO 313 <:::SLS OSd8 '8l:13000l:l V'llr' ;1 01 01 ~I ~I 01 01 J ~I ~ .~ 't ~f ~ it t 't :r, "> "> " > ,0 "> " > "> >0 ,0 .0 .0 0~ :~ y ':I~ ~I~ ': ~ ':.i::s '~I~ ~~ oz 825 . rn 'ol~ , 0 T ' c T ~IO .~IC;: -(I] ~ zo ~<i .~ ~ T g;g ~ " ~b! z" ~g ~E I cu= ~i5 e ," :~ 3'~ ,~ I I~ 8bi I 0= Ie :~ ~d z I rn, I ~" ~~ z 25~ ~! z 0 00 0 ~ ~~ , ~ ~ > 3~ p W e~ g~ ~ ~~ ~G ~ w w ~ ~! ZO ~ ~ 0Z <(5 W W ~ en n ('.J ('.J o o o I , I , I , I cl~ ~I~ -~ o I~ cl'i "" <~;~ ~~ I" I Ie;:' I clLI~ ':.i:"-- ':.i:DJ <!;; '!;; ~i ~i I 0]'". ,~ : .0 c;: 1-2>U"1-S0C::>WOJ@USpJp! :1!OW2> \faIClO-':::1 'AlNno::> H::>\f38 V\I-,\fd seveB 1:::1 'HO'l:>'38 NO.LNA08 A'I:>'MHOIH l'I:>'l::I3a3::1 "N SC<:::<::: H31N30 M:l'VNIH313^ A'VM31.'V'O IV'INOlOO 1=10:::1 NOL.LIaaV M3N 'I:>' ;1 '~t'D 0> ';t:;:S '~I'~ n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I" I I j{ I I I Ii I I, Ie I el~ cl~ J: cl~ I ~ rn ~IC:: ern ~ ~I~ 1 'Ie ern ~I:s 1 'e .~ 'e .010 1 . e 00 Ot ~ 'of .~ "~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ ,n On .0 L: ";::,;? On "0 L: 660i:"C;OC~9C; -3NOHd SS17CB 1:::1 'aNnos 3130H 3,01=110 aN'I:>',1=I3BV'\InO 313 <:::SLS OSd8 '8l:13000l:l V'llr' J :~'D ^ > .~ ~ :~ ~ ~i~ I I ~I '~t'D. NO ~~ '0 " ~iD I I LO ~: I <( ;1 J J J J ~I I ~t ~ i :t :1 0> ^> NO '" ';t:;:S .';t: ~ .';t: ~ ':i; ';t;:S ~~ '~I~ ~i~ '0 n ~i~ '0 " -~I~ ' 0 :::'c;: Gn~ 01 n I~ I '" I I~ I I~ I I I I I I I I Z I I 0 ~ I W .J I I W ~ I a: 0 1 z ~I Gl CJl Ii " 8' m ::; n H <g: ~ z m Ii m (") ~~ H '" ~ ~ F: F: ~:; (") ~ ~ ;!1 ,I := ~ ~ " n " " z -; l! -; is Z z ,. Gl CJl i~ z ii 0 -; m CJl ~~ ~~ii ~ii~ in:;" ~ 1 r "'U I ~ ~ s COLONIAL GATEWAY VETERINARIAN CENTER 2235 N FEDERAL HIGHWAY, BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33435 "" MAJESTIC VIEWS Landscape Ar~gEf~fee- ~6~~fr~~tiJR'Management 4711 Cypress Drive South, Boynton Beach, FL 33436 Phone(561)752-9835 Fox(561) 752-4110 20r~1 ,fr~~:~t;d ;~~~' ,~~~R:~~r~ R~~~~:7;a~~~%~:;,:,:;;~',"r:~;' ~~~,n:~~,~~~go~~c~~i Oil ~ ~- n . N II <:, tI!. ; SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN tn ..... -I m r- )> Z C tn n~ )>5~ -a ~~ 'l m~~~ ~~ s: -a ~~ ~ r-~~ )>!:i Z (p O. V r )0> -\ -\ r'\ o '~ Exhibit "C" Conditions of Approval Project Name: Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center File number: MSPM 12-002 Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a Maior Site Plan Modification with a Januarv 3, 2012 Planninq and Zoninq Department date stamp markinq. DEP ARTM ENTS ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: 1. Prior to permit issuance, execute a maintenance agreement with the Engineering Department for the landscaping placed in the r-o-w. FIRE Comments: 2. No comments at this time. Any concerns will be addressed during the permit plan review process. POLICE Comments: 3. None, all previous comments addressed. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: 4. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional comments. Acceptance of these plans during the DART (Development Application Review Team) process does not ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the Commission and at permit review. 5. Indicate within the Site Data the type of construction of the building, as defined in the 2007 Florida Building Code. 6. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the proposed construction. 7. A water-use permit from SFWMD is required for an irrigation system that utilizes water from a well or body of water as its source. A copy of the permit shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S. 373.216. 8. If capital facilities fees (water and sewer) are paid in advance to the City of Boynton Beach Utilities Department, the following information shall be provided at the time of building permit application: INCLUDE REJECT Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center MSPM 12-002 COA Page 2 of 3 DEP ARTM ENTS INCLUDE REJECT A. The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and the Com mission-approved site plan. B. The total amount paid and itemized into the amount for each. 9. Pursuant to approval by the City Commission and all other outside agencies, the plans for this project must be submitted to the Building Division for review at the time of permit application submittal. The plans must incorporate all the conditions of approval as listed in the Development Order and approved by the City Commission. 10. The exterior walls of the building shall be fire rated In accordance with Table 602 of the Florida Building Code, based upon fire separation distance. Refer to north and west walls. 11. The percentage of openings permitted in the north and west exterior walls shall comply with Table 704.8 of the Florida Building Code. Place a note on the elevation view drawings indicating that the exterior wall openings and exterior wall construction comply with Table 704.8. Submit calculations that clearly reflect the percentage of protected and unprotected wall openinqs permitted per Table 704.8. 12. Submit an occupant load for the second floor. Refer to Florida Building Code Section 1004 and Table 1004.1.1. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None. FORESTER/ENVI RON M ENT ALlST Comments: 13. Shade trees are required to be installed along the west perimeter of the site to match that of the south perimeter, since the abutting property, although used for non-residential purposes, is also zoned residential. PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 14. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application requests are publicly advertised in accordance with Ordinance 04-007 and Ordinance 05-004 and an affidavit provided to the City Clerk. Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center MSPM 12-002 COA Page 3 of 3 DEP ARTM ENTS INCLUDE REJECT 15. For projects with a valuation of $250,000 or more, the applicant is responsible for compliance with Ordinance 05-060, the "Art in Public Places" program, and should indicate the proposed location of the art work on the site plan. Debby Coles-Dobay, Public Arts Coordinator may be reached at 561-742-6026. 16. Prior to permit plan submittal, correct signage details on the site plan drawings (building elevations) to match those on the sign shop drawings. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: None. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center\MPMD 12-002\COA.doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center (MSPM 12-002) APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Jim Rodgers AGENT'S ADDRESS: 8182 SE Cumberland Circle, Hobe Sound, FL 33455 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: February 21,2012 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for major site plan modification approval to construct a 5,950 square foot addition to an existing 1,400 square foot veterinary office building, for a total of 7,350 square feet on a 0.44 acre parcel in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) zoning district. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2235 N. Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, FL DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby _ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other DA TED: City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Colonial Gateway Veterinary Center\MSPM 12-002\DO.doc ~ i' ~E CD ~ . CD - I II - E.ECTR C VEH C-.E PARKING ON.. Y Other vehicles m~park in this space only if it is the last space available. . - .. _ . ',i-. ;x-' ~ ~:... . .~. -. o~ -- "". .,.'. ',',- .i#.". .'l~'o, . ~ ,..- ,ft. ~ · - ... .. - ~ -.... ..... -" Q;-~ '- - - 0- ,. - '\. -z,_ --- -- .Il _.. -... - .. ., . ----- .. . - - - ! . : I I I ~j .-. ' . ~ .- "'.:~~~ ~,:~'::ir . " :..,. ..' . '" ,...;. ,- , 1'.'_ ,!!:!Y;.'~ .'.f~"~'::"'("'" ,::1\; ; <,,~~,.::~ ~').~ .. ~ ~../ ':" . '.' ~~ .', . '. ' . . ," .. .. \:r-:;~'" - ~ ~. . _, ~,""_._ ,~-~=:"'r'" ~. ~ _. .' ,..... ' ~-;:-~ _ . ~ :'ioW'o.' ......,' r:\.'- " ':.--'" . ' " "~ '~.,. :< ,;':;,i, ~ :-', '.~ -;- ,:-.' ~ . '. --: ~~ - ~ "' I - - - ............ -. '..~:,.. ~~ .:. - ~ - '-~ .. ~ I / /' 1 , I , ~... ~ . ~l " ,. \,. ... · r ':. ~, , ~t · t , - -, I ~ , t- . . '\ . .. . I f ~1.N . . , . , , . . . ~ :,.~ ~ ~ . . .. PUD PUD ..' I' .....J ~j EXHIBIT "A" - SITE LOCATION MAP COLONIAL GATEWAY VETERINARY CENTER (MSPM 12-002) COLONIAL GATEWAY VETERINARY CENTER 2235 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY BOYNTON BEACH, FL 33435 LOT 30 / BROWN SAM JR SUBDIVISION