Loading...
Minutes 05-22-12 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2012, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE CHAMBERS, AT CITY HALL 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Roger Saberson, Chair Sharon Grcevic, Vice Chair James Brake Cory Kravit Brian Miller (arrived 6:31 p.rn.) Mike Rumpf, Director, Planning and Zoning Stacey Weinger, Board Attorney 1. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Saberson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Grcevic led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board This item was not addressed as there were no members of the public present. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Brake moved to approve the agenda. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 4. Approval of Minutes from April 24, 2012, meeting Chair Saberson pointed out the minutes did not reflect he opened the floor to public comments regarding the Publix Liquor Store and JL Vending MVU Public Hearing Items. Motion Mr. Kravit moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, reported the Conditional Use request for the Publix Supermarket Liquor Store on the corner of Congress Avenue and Hypoluxo was approved at the May 15, 2012 City Commission meeting. 1 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2012 6. New Business A.1. Mobile Vending Unit (MVU) Amendments (CDRV 12-004) - Approve Amendments to the LDR to: 1) decrease the required removal frequency from daily to weekly, limited to those MVUs meeting minimum setback requirements and classified by the State as Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicles (MFDVs); and 2) to accommodate limited connection to utilities. Applicant: City Initiated Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, explained the City's MVU regulations apply broadly to all types of vendors whether selling merchandise, food or a service. They were also regulated by the Florida Department of Professional Regulation. The State regulates and licenses them as either a Hot Dog Cart (HGVD) or a Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicle (MFDV). The State requires an MVU for a licensed hot dog cart to return daily to the commissary for cleaning and requires an MVU for a licensed mobile food dispensing vehicle to return weekly to the commissary for cleaning. Staff was proposing revisions to conform the regulations to the State requirements to apply mainly to mobile food dispensing vehicles, and food vendors located on parcels like big-box home improvement stores located in close proximity to the building with a very large setback from the road. This was a City-initiated amendment to modify the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to allow the mobile vending units to be removed once a week rather than daily from an approved location provided all of the following apply: '" The approved and assigned location for the MVU was on private property; '" The MVU is a Class-B, greater than 72 square feet in size and licensed by the State as a Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicle; and '" The approved location was a minimum of 250 feet from any right-of-way. Staff was also proposing to modify the LDRs to allow utility service connections, which are currently prohibited, when: '" The connections were between buildings and the MVU; '" The connections would not extend more than 5 feet from the building wall of the principal use on site; and '" The external connections were placed in such a manner so as not to cross any pedestrian pathways. The modification acknowledges the needs of the larger MVUs and the benefit of them using an available power source as opposed to using a generator that makes noise. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2012 Staff recommended approval of the amendments. Overall, the amendments meet the purpose and intent of the MVU regulations and would help business and economic development. Staff also requested this be expedited to minimize the delay of setup and operation of a Mobile Food Dispensing Vehicle that was approved for the Lowe's Home Improvement Center. The unit was constructed and purchased, but overlooked the requirement of daily removal. Due to the design, daily break down was not cost effective. Given the location, adjacent land uses, property size and distance from the right-of-way, no negative impacts were anticipated and benefits would be realized by employees, customers and the small business industry. Staff would inform the City Commission of the Planning and Development Board's recommendation at the meeting on June 5th. Mr. Brake inquired if, under the amendments, it was foreseeable that a larger MVU could park at the mall. Ms. Zeitler responded it was possible they could locate there if they had an MVU permit approved for that location, the landowner's approval, and an electrical connection. Motion Mr. Miller moved to approve the Mobile Vending Unit (MVU) Amendments (CDRV 12- 004). Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B.1. LDR Amendments - NOI #2011-01 (CDRV 12-003) - Approve amendments to the LDR that implement recommendations of a Zoning Study (NO I #2011-01) which further the Economic Development Program and Initiatives through appropriate zoning of Not For-Profit (NFP) tax-exempt uses, and application of the Zoning Matrix to the Planned Industrial Development Zoning District. Applicant: City Initiated. Mr. Rumpf explained this item was initiated by the City's Economic Development Initiative. A modified PowerPoint presentation given at the City Commission meeting was viewed which reflected the results of a zoning study conducted by City staff. The Economic Development Initiatives were initiated and adopted in late 2011. The City Commission issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to consider locations of Not-for-Profits (NFPs) and uses allowed in Planned Industrial Uses. The objectives were to maximize contributions to the City's tax base, maximize land available for "For Profit" businesses, maintain a defensible Code, identify locations for NFPs, avoid creation of non- conforming uses, and preserve priority land. He explained over the years, a great deal of acreage intended for industrial use has been lost due to NFPs, charter schools and more recently, religious uses. Not-for-Profits were defined as churches, schools, social service agencies and civic and fraternal clubs. A matrix was presented reflecting what was allowed for the four different 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2012 uses. A definition for Social Service Agencies was added. They were listed in the zoning regulations but they were currently under the Office Category, which is allowed in nearly all commercial and mixed-use districts. By having the definition, staff could distinguish the use between a social service use and an office use. They would now be limited to the C-1 and C-2 districts as permitted uses, and the R-2 and R-3 districts, as conditional uses. Mr. Rumpf explained this was significant because it narrowed down the NFP uses. He noted there are only 71 vacant parcels in the Commercial and Industrial districts and eight in mixed-use districts. It excludes NFPs in these districts. A recent Code amendment was approved which permitted schools in Planned Unit Developments, where they were prior to 2010. To maintain a defensible Code, staff cannot zone out uses. All uses have to have an allowable location, and staff seeks to avoid creating non-conforming uses. Staff redefined the definition of non-conforming. They would be defined as conforming, but any expansion would be limited to no more than 20%. Mr. Rumpf referred to the matrix and explained one only had to find the use, the district, and lookup the footnote number to see the criteria. The matrix was more user-friendly The next change involved PIDs. The district was analyzed from the perspective of NFP uses, maximizing the value, and eliminating the use approval list. There were lists of approved uses for each of the three PID. The former language stated that uses would be approved by the Board on a case-by-case basis. Now, the concept was the uses in each of the three PIDs were combined, so anyone who had a PID could view any of those uses by viewing the matrix. The intent was to eliminate the use approval process which was a separate step in the development approval process. An inquiry was made if there was anything else addressed that would only affect one district. Mr. Rumpf responded the notes explain the specificity. He noted Quantum was unique. It was not only an industrial park but it had many other use items, which was why there were so many notes. Not every property zoned PID has all the uses formerly contained in all three PID. The footnotes on the matrix indicate the corresponding restrictions. As to schools, they were allowed in PIDs and it was specific to one type of property. Mr. Brake wanted to ensure decisions similar to that would not be allowable in three districts. Mr. Rumpf explained under the changes, schools were allowed under one use option but not in the other PIDs. The use approval cases that had specific site restrictions were the NFP uses. The third component of the changes pertained to economic development. Staff put strict rules in place for NFPs. Mr. Rumpf anticipated it would not be long before the City Commission and the Planning and Development Board would be confronted to rezone a property to allow a use. Staff developed criteria to review those requests in order to preserve the integrity of the Economic Development Program. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2012 The proposed autistic school went through the process. Staff wanted to give the City Commission the criteria to support a project if the benefits exceeded the cost in terms of lost property tax revenue. These would be projects that were regional, significant, unique, or regionally in demand. The criteria could be used and weighted, based on the characteristics of the type of use. Chair Saberson noted the language pertaining to rezoning. He inquired if a developer came to the City to construct a residential project and due to the input of the neighboring communities, agreed to reduce the project's density, if the new language would force the developer to adhere to the higher density. He acknowledged it was unusual and perhaps overly restrictive, but thought it was one thing if it pertained to commercial and industrial and another if it pertained to residential. Mr. Rumpf explained subsequent tasks were taken from additional Economic Development Program initiatives. The majority of the work done under the moratorium emphasized the Not-For-Profit uses and everything listed on the matrix could take up to two years. The goals were a mix of short to long-term tasks, with a long-term task being the development of an Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff would be conducting a review of the zoning regulations, focusing on commercial districts and mainly the C-4 District. The City is involved in a program with the County's Business Development Board evaluating shovel ready properties. Chair Saberson referenced page 38 and noted there were several places in the Code referencing the Ocean Avenue Overlay Zone. The language indicated the use was allowed in the zoning district only when the use was proposed on a lot or leased parcel. He commented zoning controls the use of the land regardless of how it was owned or whether it was leased or not. He questioned why the language was in the Code. Another item Chair Saberson questioned was on page 85 of the materials. He agreed it was best to avoid non-conforming uses, but it appeared two categories of non- conforming uses were being created. He inquired if there was a non-conforming use prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, if it, along with the other uses made non- conforming as a result of the adoption of the Ordinance, would both be limited to the 20% expansion. Mr. Rumpf responded non-conforming uses in existence prior to the Ordinance's adoption would not be subject to the limitation. Chair Saberson questioned the fairness of the standard. Mr. Rumpf explained staff was dealing with a unique set of uses which were potentially desirable. Creating non-conforming uses was problematic. Staff was also dealing with federally-protected and State-recognized uses. He explained, other than the uses with the separation standards, they would have to apply the same uniform requirements. If it was a use that was narrowed down in the matrix, then there would be lot and distance separation requirements as well as review process requirements. Chair Saberson thought it warranted consideration if he had a conforming use as of today, but had a non-conformity that was unrelated specifically to the category of use that he would not be affected. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 22, 2012 Chair Saberson asked about hurricane damage to non-conforming uses and the ability to rebuild under the new regulations. Mr. Rumpf explained the issue was when someone was trying to refinance or obtain insurance; however, Chair Saberson thought the matter was something the Board should consider. Mr. Rumpf agreed to analyze the changes against Chair Saberson's comments pertaining to non-use, non-conformities. Chair Saberson also inquired about page five as it pertained to zoning letters, certificates of appropriateness and zoning permits. He inquired what a zoning permit was. Mr. Rumpf explained a zoning permit came about when the building officials started removing application types from the building permit process which were unrelated to the building codes. In the past, they issued permits for fences, slabs and driveways. These items did not have a building code standard or reference. Those items transitioned to a zoning permit because the only issues staff verified was the zoning. Mr. Rumpf defined a Certificate of Conformity and explained the City was anticipating changes on the State level involving Business Tax Certifications. In the prior cycle, there were attempts to eliminate them. The City was now transitioning to a Certificate of Use process, which was everything except the Business Tax Receipt. It was the zoning approval and property evaluation. He noted a Business Tax Receipt used to be called an Occupational License, but the State viewed it as a tax. If the City lost the Business Tax process, the City would not have a methodology in place to review a use against the zoning requirements. If a business came to town, a Business Tax Receipt would be applied for and issued. Staff was proposing the Business Tax Receipt process be taken over by Finance. Zoning confirmation, as part of the new process, would occur first. Once it was approved, it would go to Finance. It would be an additional step, but everything labeled a Business Tax Receipt would change to a Certificate of Use. Mr. Miller thanked Mr. Rumpf and Hanna Matras for their time spent reviewing these changes with him the day before. Motion Mr. Brake moved to approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 7. Other There was brief discussion about the church at the Mall. It was possible after services, members of the congregation would frequent the different establishments which would increase revenues. In lieu of the taxes, the church volunteered an annual donation of $25,000, with the expectation it would be used for a given purpose. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 22,2012 8. Comments by members None. 9. Adjournment Motion There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Brake moved to adjourn. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m. JLlll^_Q,,_ Catherine Cherry Recording Secretary 052312 7