Loading...
Minutes 09-24-13Roger Saberson, Chair Ryan Wheeler, Vice Chair James Brake Sharon Grcevic David Katz Brian Miller Mike Rumpf, Planning Director Ed Breese, Principal Planner James Cherof, City Attorney Stacey Weinger, Assistant City Attorney Stephen Palermo Chair Saberson explained he delayed the start of the meeting to accommodate technical difficulties and called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. Vice Chair Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Chair Saberson introduced the members of the Board. Mr. Miller moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Katz seconded the motion that unanimously passed. r Approval of Minutes Mr. Katz moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Mr. Katz thanked the City Clerk's Office for the update to the request that was made. E Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton _ • • _ V. Communications and Announcements: Report fr• Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, reported the text amendments to the Land Development Regulations regarding tasting rooms and the Conditional Use for a Daycare at 7th Day Adventist Church were approved by the City Commission. Attorney Weinger administered an oath to all those intending to testify. Chair Saberson expressed the City Attorney had comments to provide concerning the quasi - judicial hearing process. Attorney Cherof explained the items on the agenda were all quasi - judicial except the last two items on the agenda. During a quasi-judicial proceeding, all those who were sworn would have opportunity to speak as would staff. The applicant in all cases had the initial burden of proof that their project request meets the provisions of the City's Code. The applicant would make a presentation first and the public could make comments at the appropriate time. He noted there was a three - minute time limit for speakers. Attorney Cherof reminded all of the rules of decorum. The Board was to consider all comments and he requested the public allow business to proceed. Disruptive individuals who prevent business to proceed in a lawful manner could be removed from the Chambers. Mr. Katz requested the attendees silence their cell phones. A. Compson Place (a7 Renaissance Commons (AA 13 -003) — Approve Abandonment request for portions of a 12 foot -wide Utility Easement located at Compson Place at Renaissance Commons, 1831 Renaissance Commons Boulevard, zoned SMU (Suburban Mixed Use). Applicant: Anthony Comparato, Compson Place Apartments, LLC. Jeff Schnars, Schnars Engineering Corporation, 949A Clint Moore Road, Boca Raton, explained the request was to abandon a portion of a utility easement with the Compson Place Apartment project under construction in Phase 6 of Renaissance Commons on the southeast corner of Congress Avenue and Gateway Boulevard. The property is zoned SMU and is the last portion of the final phases of Renaissance Commons. This portion of the project was previously approved with a different site plan and water and sewer lines were installed based on that site plan. Recently, a new site plan was approved that conflicted with some of the water and sewer lines. As a condition of the current site plan approval, the lines had to be relocated, new easements made and easements that were no longer used were to be abandoned. The work to relocate water and sewer has been completed. New easements were provided to the City and they were present to finish the paperwork by abandoning the extraneous easements. There were exhibits in the meeting materials which showed the areas to be 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development B• • Boynton Beach, 1 abandoned, the new easements and existing easements to remain. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, explained the only issue is a dedication of a new easement for utilities. Most of the work already occurred in the field and the application was a housekeeping matter. Staff recommended approval. Chair Saberson opened the public hearing. No one coming forward, the public hearing was closed. ' • '' Mr. Katz moved to approve. Vice Chair Wheeler seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. Cross Creek Centre (PD 13 -001 / COUS 13 -002) — Approve request for Master Plan Modification approval to construct a freestanding restaurant (2,024 square feet) and related site improvements; adjust the parking layout; update the fagades of the existing buildings; and enhance perimeter landscaping, and Conditional Use approval for a drive - through facility in conjunction with the proposed restaurant, located at 1301 West Boynton Beach Boulevard, in the PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zoning district. Applicant: Michael Janoura of Cross Creek Boynton, LLC. Victor Yue, the Architect on behalf of applicant, 100 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2410, Ft. Lauderdale, presented the Master Plan Modification and Conditional Use for a free- standing restaurant on an existing parcel at 1301 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard. The existing plan is a 4.5 acre property, one block east of Congress on Boynton Beach Boulevard. The existing facility is dated. The owner's intention is to completely renovate the shopping center and upgrade its appearance to get better tenants. The shopping center is over 1,000 feet long. The limitation is the depth of the lot which is 180 feet. It is difficult for urban shopping centers because the parking distribution is not good and there is a lot of empty space. Successful urban designs create intimate space which is the intent of the design. The proposed site plan showed they are allowed to develop up to 90K square feet. The existing project used only 33K square feet, and they were adding a 2K square foot restaurant outparcel. It consumes some of the parking space, but it still meets and exceeds the parking requirements. It also provided more convenient parking. Aside from the architectural improvements, they are redoing all the landscaping and improving the environment. Mr. Yue reviewed the landscape plan, the entrances and the elevation of the shopping center. The architecture on the current building, which was very long and boring, so 3 Meeting Minutes r • !- •• �•. .I .rJ oynto n • • - 1' they tried to add variety and broke down the scale to allow for signage. They were updating the look in a retail development space. They were also adding a variety of awnings made of fabric, aluminum shutters or canopies to continue to provide pedestrian weather protection. The project would have a varied skyline. The traffic engineer and landscape architect were present for questions. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, commented staff recommended approval with the recommendations stated in the staff report which the applicant agreed with. There were no questions from the Board. Chair Saberson opened the public hearing. Bob Basso, Property Manager with the Villager Plaza, which abuts the Cross Creek Plaza commented the Janoura family has been an excellent neighbor and he supports their upgrading the property. He was concerned the restaurant with the drive - through window would impact the cross access agreement. Mr. Yue responded it would have no impact. There is a stop sign that would be added which would be an improvement. As to the cross access easement, he commented it was an agreement. Ms. Zeitler commented they are using the existing western driveway for ingress and egress and they are modifying one of the terminal landscaping isles to the north to separate in and outbound traffic. Staff anticipated when motorists picked up their order at the window, they will stop and turn left and exit the same driveway they came in, which would make the onsite circulation much safer. In response to a question from Mr. Brake whether they have a restaurant operator interested in the parcel. Mr. Yue responded they do not. Vice Chair Wheeler also commented he was pleased they were improving the entire shopping center and not just the one outparcel. Mr. Hagadorn, 1118 Lake Terrace, Leisureville, liked the improvements, but was concerned about the traffic as the area becomes congested. He suggested a traffic signal be used on the west end of the property and inquired if there were any plans to install one. Vice Chair Wheeler noted a signal there may be too close to the Congress Avenue intersection. He noted there is a setback requirement and that may prohibit installation of a signal. Chair Saberson also noted the Department of Transportation has strict requirements about what they will allow to be installed in terms of traffic signals, distance between signals, distance from intersections and other criteria. There were no further comments from the public. Mr. Katz moved to approve subject to all staff recommendations. Mr. Miller seconded 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development B• • B oynton the motion that unanimously passed. 7. New Business: A. Healing Grounds Veterinary Clinic (SP 13 -003) - Approve request for Major Site Plan Modification approval to construct a 3,332 square foot, one -story veterinary clinic for natural and holistic animal care, located at 222 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard, zoned C -2 (Neighborhood Commercial). Applicant: Nancy Keller, DVM. Annie Carruthers, Principal with In -Site Design Group, an architectural firm, 1609 Rodman Street, Hollywood, reviewed the project. There are two existing buildings on the site. Healing Grounds is owned by Dr. Nancy Keller, who has been practicing for over 25 years in South Florida. Her practice of Healing Heart is on 3rd Street and has been open for 12 years. Healing Heart practices holistic medicine for animals using homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, herbs and more. She has a two to three month wait list new patients. Healing Heart built its reputation from word of mouth. Their mission is to provide holistic wellness centers for animals and people along with a dog therapy pool. The west building will house the veterinarian practice and the east building will house the dog therapy and designated area for human wellness. The members viewed an aerial of the subject site and slides of the east and west building elevations. Photographs of the surrounding properties were viewed. Properties to the north, east and west were zoned C -2. Only the properties to the south were zoned residential. The applicant sought to renovate and convert two buildings to one which was reviewed. The renovation included an enclosed terrace and breezeway and there would be a new trellis to the north. The square footage of the existing building is 3,042. The new building would be 3,332 square foot. Including the enclosed area, the square footage would be 4,079. Sixteen parking spaces were proposed with 11 of them required. The project complied with all setback regulations and exceeded the minimums required. The new proposal is 16`5" to the new roof. They intend to build as green a building as possible. Years ago the project was proposed to be LEED certified but it was cost prohibitive. Reusing the building will be effective in that regard. They will use aluminum windows, have a natural - colored roof, natural wood trim and a stone finish with stucco in a light color. The project included a monument sign on the corner with a waterfall with a sign on it. The Art in Public Places feature will be the entrance gate designed by an artist and will be an iron gate leading to the breezeway. They want to combine both buildings . into a natural looking and inviting structure as it is part of the concept of Healing Grounds. A visual impact analysis was included in the meeting materials which were reviewed. The structure is compatible in height with residences and adjacent buildings. The project will have one roof made of tile covering the entire project. The trellis will have plantings above it. The landscaping will take advantage of existing plants and was 5 Meeting Minutes Planning • Development Board Boynton • - • - proposed to include indigenous plants. She noted the site plan established parking in order to preserve some very old Oak and Ficus trees in the back. Ms. Coarruthers stated she was in agreement with the staff recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Brake inquired about the timeline for the project. Ms. Carruthers explained they intend to be in permitting within the next few weeks after approval. Construction will begin immediately after they receive their permits. The building has been pre - demolished inside. Mr. Brake noted a year or two ago, they approved a different building for the site, with a shorter timeline. Ms. Carruthers explained completion of the building has been an urgent matter for the owner for many years. They intend to construct the building efficiently. This project was smaller than the previous building. Mr. Katz reviewed the schematic and noted the project backed to three parcels with one on the corner. Ms. Carruthers clarified the three properties were occupied single- family homes. In response to Mr. Katz's question, she explained they do not intend to board any animals. That area will be secured for the safety of the animals walking from the parking lot. They worked with staff to maintain some of the fence, build a new fence and wall for buffering. Mr. Katz inquired why preserve a ficus tree? Ms. Carruthers explained they sought to preserve as many trees as possible, and the tree was a beautiful tree, which enhanced the natural landscape. Mr. Miller inquired about the lighting in the parking lot. Ms. Carruthers explained the lighting meets the requirements. They proposed four posts and submitted a photometric plan so the lighting will not spill onto adjacent properties. Vice Chair Wheeler liked the plan including the green elements. He also liked that two access points were closed on Boynton Beach Boulevard which would limit stopping. Ms. Carruthers explained three access points would be closed: one driveway to the westerly portion of the building and a circular drive with two access point to the easterly portion of the building. The front will be green. Staff had no comments. Chair Saberson opened the public hearing. Sigrid Grimm, 4764 Foxhunt Trail, Boca Raton, owner at 219 NW 1 St Avenue, inquired about the tie in from the east side from the back of the property to ensure the two walls were connected so there would not be an access point through the parking lot. Ms. Carruthers agreed there would be a gate on the east side so Ms. Grimm could access the easement on her property if needed. Ms. Grimm liked that the applicant was keeping the trees. She also inquired about the pool. The prior plan placed the pool near to the south side and in a contained recreation space. Now there is a parking lot with a dog area. She wanted to know about the policy for pet waste removal. Ms. Carruthers explained this plan has the dog walk area as a designated enclosed area with a fence. It is not on the south part of the property at all. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach Bridget Keller, the applicant, 3`181 NE 165 Street, North Miami Beach, responded the pet owners and staff will ensure the area is kept clean. Ms. Grimm inquired how the dumpster would be sealed and if there would be any surgeries. Ms. Keller explained no surgeries would take place so there would be no disposal of animal parts. Additionally, there would not be a dumpster; there would be standard garbage cans that will be enclosed. Ms. Grimm expressed the plan was a vast improvement from what was currently on site. Chair Saberson closed the public hearing. Mr. Katz moved to approve with all staff comments and conditions. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. Holiday Inn & Suites (NSP 13 -003) — Approve request for New Site Plan approval of a four -story, 93 room hotel and related site improvements, located at 2001 W. Ocean Drive, on the north side of West Ocean Drive, approximately one -tenth of a mile east of South Congress Avenue, zoned C -3 (Community Commercial). Applicant: Hardial Sibia of Boynton Holdings, LLC. Mr. Katz acknowledged Commissioners Merker and Casello. Vice Chair Wheeler also announced, for the purposes of transparency, that his firm, a few years ago, conducted due diligence for the applicant on this project. The firm was not hired and there was no monetary gain, but he wanted to disclose the matter on record. Fred Griffin, the Agent for Boynton Holdings LLC, 3700 Max Place, Boynton Beach, explained the architect would make the presentation. James Gilgenback, 1239 E. Newport Center Drive, Deerfield Beach, explained the Board saw this project before in a different format. They were resubmitting the project as a four -story project which meets the zoning requirements. The facility has no bar, restaurant or banquet rooms. The only individuals coming to the project would be the hotel guests. The building was a Holiday Inn product, and a very popular line of Holiday Inn properties. There would be 93 rooms on 57,285 square feet on four floors. The building coverage on the lot is 15,874 feet, which was 13% of the site. The maximum allowed was 40 %. The green area would be 31.5% of the site and the minimum requirement was 25 %. The site is located on two sides by the same zoning which was C -3 and on the east by R -3. The Code requires a 12 -15 foot buffer and the project has a 15 -foot buffer. Within the buffer there will be a six -foot high masonry wall running from the north to south ends of the property. The wall will be landscaped on both sides and located five feet from the property line providing landscaping on both the residential and hotel side. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Bo • • ' There will be 119 parking spots, exceeding the required spaces by two. The site plan reflected two entrances off Ocean Drive and one at the shopping center from the west. A cross - access easement going north to the bowling alley was reflected; however, the owners did not agree to open their property to their access. The access is shown if, in the future, they decide to do so. The setbacks exceeded the requirements. The building will be 54'4" from the east property line, 271' from the rear property line, 63'5" on the west and the front was 83'2 ". In general, the hotel is a classy hotel. It is a good brand name and it will be run professionally. They do not want any riffraff. There is site lighting and along the east side, it will be provided via poles, but the light will shine away from residential properties. Chair Saberson asked if the applicant agreed with all staff recommendations of approval. There were no comments from staff. Hardial Sibia, 17825 Fieldrook Circle, Boca Raton, the developer, explained he builds medical buildings and hotels. He originally wanted a five story hotel, but Leisureville residents were opposed and said it was too big. They were concerned about noise and riffraff, so he eliminated the bar and restaurant and decided to build a Holiday Inn Express and Suites. He planned to construct a four -story hotel that will be beautiful. He has buildings constructed on Federal Highway and others in Boynton Beach, another on Jog Road and a Holiday Inn in Lantana was under construction. He advised the hotel will be a quality project with 93 rooms, many suites and a pool. There will be no noise. He tried to please the residents and he spent thousands of dollars on landscaping in conformance with City requirements. They provided everything that was requested and he asked the Board to approve the project. It will enhance the City and the property will be beautiful when finished. Ms. Zeitler explained the applicant worked with staff to address many issues to mitigate impacts on the neighborhood. Staff recommended approval subject to several conditions of approval. Mr. Katz requested the City Attorney describe what would happen with an approval or possible disapproval of the request, and what a "taking" is for this property. Attorney Cherof explained when a government agency imposes conditions on a property owner that are over and above the conditions outlined in the Code of Ordinances, those additional conditions can constitute a taking of the property and the City would have to pay damages to the property owner for "taking" the property because the property, in theory, could not be constructed where the property owner sought to do so under the Code. E The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: Bill Patton, 2392 SW Congress Boulevard, opposed the hotel based on safety issues for Congress Middle School students who walk to school; the location was inadequate for a hotel use; and the developer did not comply with the Land Development Regulations. Louise Farrell, 1909 SW 13 Avenue, opposed the hotel based on safety issues involving the widening of Ocean Drive where golfers park. The access road was inadequate, and she expressed it did not meet the provisions of LDR, Chapter 4, Article 3, Sections 1.A.4. and 2.C. She expressed the Leisureville residents, who have enjoyed the status quo for many years, should not be inconvenienced by building a hotel that would require a widening of Ocean Drive. Lori Accetura, 1801 Ocean Drive, opposed the hotel based on safety issues, it did not meet the provisions of Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 2.A and the project did not meet reasonable standards. Barbara Knutson, 2105 SW Park Drive, opposed the hotel based on safety issues for children and felt the project would violate Ordinances 05 -035 and 06 -048 regarding registration of sexual predators or molesters and the hotel's proximity to a school. Cheryl Rider, 1915 SW 19 Street, opposed the hotel based on their analysis of crime prevention and City services associated with crime at hotels; that the site is in an area with no attractions; and many local hotels have been sold or closed. She believed it conflicted with Ordinance 10 -025 and LDR Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 2.A Carmen Ann Powell, 1110 Lake Terrace, Apartment 105, opposed the hotel and opined it violated LDR Chapter 4, Article 3, Section 4.1.1, Section 1.A.5 and Section 4.B.1. She indicated the project would lead to a reduction in her property values; residents would suffer a loss of privacy due to the hotel and they would have to deal with noise from guest parking and using the pool. She felt the plan did not protect lower- intensity uses and the building would obstruct the sun from her backyard. John Hagadorn, 1118 Lake Terrace, opposed the hotel and expressed it would increase traffic on Leisureville Boulevard, Lake Terrace, and Ocean Drive as those roads would be used as shortcuts. Carole Beech, 1801 Ocean Drive, Building J, Apartment 105, opposed the hotel based on the building lacking harmony with the Leisureville community. She believed the project would violate Chapter 4, Article 3, Sections 1.A., 2.B. and 2.C. �9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 Dympna Fitzmaurice, 599 SW Golf Drive, opposed the hotel and requested the developer install gates at the east and west ends of Ocean Drive, and the entrances to Lake Terrace and Leisureville Boulevard at Boynton Beach Boulevard She requested signs saying local traffic only, a crossing guard for students to cross the hotel driveway, the hotel provide the names of guests to the police so they can monitor if they are sexual offenders, eliminate windows on the east side of the building or reorient the building, construct an eight -foot buffer wall, plant trees and pay $25,000 each to buildings U -3, I, G, H, F, E, N, O and J to mitigate dirt, noise and loss of property values. Marion De Jong, 2076 SW 14 Avenue, opposed the hotel due to an increase in traffic and trucks and based on the safety of students and seniors. She expressed the project was not fair to residents who purchased a home in a peaceful retirement community who expected tranquility. Larry Berman, 1107 Leisure Lane, agreed with prior comments. He commented on a statement made to the press if the residents gave too much resistance to the project, once it was constructed, it would be turned into a federal, state and locally subsidized low -rent indigent hotel to punish residents trying to save their community. He also thought there were potential drinking and driving hazards as the hotel has no restaurant or bar and guests would go out to do so. He noted there are evening activities at Congress Middle School. James Hart, 1005 SW 6 th Avenue, opposed the project based on the limited access and the property was too small. Cory Kravit, Kravit Law, 7000 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 201, Boca Raton, representing the property owners, explained the Board has a duty to determine conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. He explained the project fails for two reasons: the desirability requirement in the exterior building and site design standards, and the location standards for the C -3 Community Commercial District. The requirements of the LDRs mandate that local appointed and elected officials shall determine the basic aesthetic character to be achieved in the development of the community, maintain the contentment, tranquility, health and comfort of residents and attract new residents by contributing to a desirably built environment. Petitions with 1,000 signatures opposing the project were previously submitted and he contended the project did not conform to that provision or the purpose and intent of the C -3 District. Attorney Kravit asserted the Planning Board and City Commission are required to apply the published location standards which include projects abutting at least one major thoroughfare, defined as a main traffic artery connecting two or more municipalities. Attorney Kravit commented Ocean Drive was not a major thoroughfare. He referenced the Florida Supreme Court Case of Irvine versus Duval County Planning Commission pertaining to site plan applications governed by local regulations must be uniformly administered, and when competent substantial evidence the application does not meet 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 the published criteria or is adverse to public interest, the application must be denied. He differed with Mr. Katz's view there would be a "taking" because the project did not meet the published criteria. Chair Saberson asked Attorney Kravit if the requirement regarding the C -3 District abutting a major thoroughfare was in the Code when the property was rezoned to C -3 and Attorney Kravit deferred to staff. Mr. Katz also inquired if the comment about the project abutting an improper road was correct. Ms. Zeitler expressed she thought it discussed the requirement for a project to be zoned C -3 today and it would be appropriate that it would abut a major thoroughfare; however, the property was zoned C -3 for many years. She did not believe road, when the property was rezoned, required a major thoroughfare. The current Code was adopted in December 2010. Mr. Rumpf explained the verbiage has been contained in the Code for about three generations of regulations dating back prior to the 70s. At that point in time, the project was most likely in unified ownership. Mr. Katz sought to determine if the property was governed under the current Code or under the prior Code. Mr. Rumpf responded the criterion discussed was relevant for property proposed for rezoning. Origin is relevant, but the fact is the property is zoned C -3 and the developer has development rights under them. That was the criteria staff reviewed the project against. It did not mean that regulations were not applicable to the project because they were, but the location criteria was site specific. That was why staff wanted an interconnection between the properties. Mr. Katz inquired if it would be problematic for the applicant to develop the property. Attorney Cherof explained the staff testimony is the applicant is permitted to develop the property as proposed. Attorney Kravit differed from that view, but it was pointed out the Board had to weigh the evidence before it. Mr. Brake asked if the property was ever considered to be on a major thoroughfare or if any other provisions could be put in place to make the project more palatable. Mr. Rumpf speculated the property was unified at one time, abutting Congress Avenue. If that standard was in place, the project would have met that requirement. If the entire property were developed from scratch today, there would be interconnectivity and there would be a different project. Mr. Rumpf explained when the zoning was put in place, there was multi - family zoning on one side and commercial on the other. The project did not flank single - family or two- family districts. Those were in the vicinity, but they do not abut one another. Condominiums also abutted the property. Mr. Brake inquired about finished floor elevations and thought the strip mall on Congress had a higher elevation. Mr. Rumpf explained something constructed in the 60s would have a different elevation than the current Code. 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 Attorney Kravit commented the Code, as written, does not address inter- connectability. It says abut, and it did not address access easements. He thought it was clear when the regulations conflict with other provisions, the stricter provision shall apply and the Board had no choice but to deny the application, as it did not meet the published criteria. Chair Saberson commented that was not what they were referring to and it was not the same situation. He inquired of staff with the various allegations made about violations of City Ordinance and the abutting property, if it was staff's opinion the application complied with all legal requirements of the Code. Mr. Rumpf responded it did. He clarified it was important to understand the terms "grandfathered" and "legally non- conforming." It is a circumstance and not something that typically is associated with zoning districts. More so, it pertained to site designs, setbacks, buffer widths and parking. A comparison could be made with the parking lot design at the Leisureville recreation area. It is a legal, non - conforming design. At one point, it was approved whether it conformed to the regulations at that time or the regulations were silent. Today, parking would not be allowed to back out onto the right -of -way. The discussion held was pertinent to a zoning application, not in its status as a C -3 zoned property. Chair Saberson explained the project does not violate any laws. Mr. Katz commented he received emails from Leisureville residents and one blog indicated the City was removing 11 or 15 parking spaces. His understanding was no spaces would be removed. Jeff Livergood, Director Public Works and Engineering, explained there were discussions about widening the road and the pavement would only be widened in the vicinity of where the road tapered and moved to the east. No parking would be removed. Mr. Katz inquired about handicap spaces and noted there were three parallel spots by the recreational area. Mr. Livergood pointed out there are handicap spaces and no spaces would be lost. Mr. Katz announced he had received emails from the community. One indicated if the committee and Commissioners ignored their pleas, they would do so at their own political peril, which he thought was threatening and immature. He noted another resident's concern about sexual offenders staying at the hotel and pointed out in addition to the Sheriff's Sex Offender website, there were two offenders already living in Leisureville. As to providing the names of guests registered at the hotel to the police, he commented in America, individuals have the right to stay at a hotel. He felt those comments did not lend credence to their cause. Mr. Katz thought Renaissance Commons and local eateries would differ with the comment there were no attractions nearby and that the requests made by Ms. Fitzmaurice were tantamount to extortion. He was unsure all the hotel rooms would be occupied at the same time and that traffic from the hotel would be any more of a concern for students than the traffic emanating from Leisureville residents. He has lived in the City for 32 years and so far, no students have been hurt. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 201 He noted years ago, the Tradewinds development cost the City $16 million dollars because the residents of Leisureville did not want the project. The City Commission voted the wrong way and the City had to bond in order to pay the property owner. He advised he was voting on something that was proper and to protect the City as a whole, not just Leisureville. Mr. Brake and Mr. Miller inquired if the applicant would agree to add two feet to the six - foot wall already proposed and to add more landscaping, but the applicant felt what was included in the plan was sufficient. Chair Saberson also asked how the plan would mitigate the effects of a higher - intensity development on a lower intensity development and Mr. Griffin responded the landscape buffer east of the building had more trees than were required, higher trees than required and had more understory. Chair Saberson inquired if staff thought the developer should do more to offer protection to the residents and Ms. Zeitler responded the recommended conditions of approval would mitigate impacts on adjacent residential properties, which included reduced lighting, window tinting and increased landscaping. Once those conditions were put into place, the applicant will have sufficiently addressed the impact of the height difference. The upper -story windows would be screened by Palm clusters and there was already hedge material along the property line, taller than one of the property owners. Ms. Grcevic commented in 2007 when the application was before the Board, the Board opposed it and the City Commission approved it. She noted the owner volunteered, after he was approved to build the project the way he wanted to, to make changes to keep the peace and voluntarily decreased the height. It appeared the applicant was trying to accommodate the residents as much as possible for a property he bought that was zoned accordingly. Mr. Miller inquired how tall the building was and Mr. Griffin explained the roof was 41 feet and the parapet height varied. Mr. Miller addressed Ms. Powell, an abutting property owner, about the sunshine she enjoyed. She indicated she bought her condo for that reason and was told at the time of purchase the hotel was a dead issue. The distance from her backyard to the hotel was 54 feet and she had a hedge taller than she was. She felt her property was devalued as was a string of other homeowners. Mr. Sibia assured the Board a four -story building 54 feet away will not affect the sunshine in her backyard. Mr. Katz noted the hotel impacts about 20 units, not the entire community. He asked how the lighting would be mitigated and Ms. Zeitler explained no decorative lighting will be placed on the east facade of the building. The parking lot has lighting spaced 25 -feet apart and the Code requires lighting to be shielded and directed away from residential properties to avoid spillage. There will also be no wall signage on the east facade of the building. Vice Chair Wheeler inquired about the students crossing Congress Avenue and it was explained there is a crossing guard. 13 Meeting Minutes Boynton Planning and Development Board Chair Saberson commented the property is already zoned C -3. To that extent, the applicant has certain rights under property law under the zoning regulations. The applicant has demonstrated and staff has indicated the applicant complied with all Code requirements. Given those factors, he was very sensitive to exposing the City to a situation they may not want to be exposed to. He understood the residents did not want the project and wanted it stopped under any circumstance, but he did not feel that was a position the City was in, given the Code, the current zoning and the application's compliance with.zoning regulations. Mr. Brake agreed with the comments. Motion Mr. Katz moved to approve the project subject to all staff conditions of approval. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that passed 5 -1 (Mr. Miller dissenting.) The Board recessed at 8:53 p.m. and reconvened at 8:59 p.m. Chair Saberson noted Mr. Miller left the meeting at 8:59 p.m. C. T uscan Villas (SPTE 13 -003) — Approve request for an18 -month Site Plan Time Extension of the 22 townhouse -style condominium units, recreational amenities, and related site improvements on a 1.34 -acre site, located on the east side of Federal Highway, approximately 1,100 feet north of Gulfstream Boulevard, zoned IPUD (Infill Planned Unit Development). Applicant: Brian Cheguis of Cotleur & Hearing. Brian Cheguis, Principal Planner with Cotleur & Hearing, 1934 Commerce Lane, Suite One, Jupiter, Florida, was present on behalf of the owner and explained this was a project on the books for six years. They were requesting a Site Plan Time Extension and hoped it would be the last extension. He reviewed they currently have a Special High - Density Residential land use classification permitting 20 dwelling units (dus) to the acre and have an In -Fill Planned Unit Development (I -PUD) zoning designation. The request will not change anything and the plan was to develop approximately 16 dus per acre in a Tuscan -style townhome. There would be 22 townhomes in a two and three -story configuration. The project received all of its approvals in 2006 including annexation into the City receiving a land use change from Palm Beach County Commercial General with medium residential underlying land use to the SHDR designation. The project received an 18 -month development order, but the economy took a downturn. They requested and received two 12 -month extensions. The third and fourth extensions were granted through Senate Bill 360 and House Bill 7207. He believed this would be the last extension as the economy has taken an upturn and lending has improved. The site development requirements and conditions were up -to -date. They installed a water meter on site to water the grass and installed trees to beautify the property. They received several 14 Meeting :'' Planning and Development Board Boynton • - • - permits from the Florida Department of Transportation and other agencies and as of July 29, 2013, they were financed for the project. The project promotes the CRA and Federal Highway Corridor Redevelopment Plans. They are in agreement with all of the Conditions of Approval relevant to the development order. They were requesting an 18 -month extension, but using a best case scenario, they hope to only need 12 months. Mr. Brake inquired if there was a For Sale sign on the property. Mr. Cheguis responded there is a Broker's Sign on the property, but the property is not listed at the moment. Vice Chair Wheeler asked if the permits were extended. Whatever remained valid would carry forward. The others would be updated in conformance with the timeline. Mr. Brake moved to approve subject to all conditions. Vice Chair Wheeler seconded the motion. Chair Saberson opened the public hearing. No one came forward. The motion passed 5 -1, (Mr. Katz dissenting.) D. .V.U.s and Food Truck Assemblies (CDRV 13 -005) — Approve amendments to the Land Development Regulations Part III, Chapters 1 through 3, incorporating provisions for Assembly Mobile Vendor Unit (MVU) to include the review and approval authorities, approval processes, and corresponding standards & requirements. Applicant: City - initiated. Mr. Rumpf presented the item with Nancy Byrne, Development Director, and explained Eric Johnson, former Planner, worked on the item but left the City's employ. In 2007, the City introduced Mobile Vending Units (MVOs) prompted by inquiries if the use was allowed in the City. The use was normally seen in more populated urban settings. Staff took a more conservative approach to accommodate a new use, not knowing the ramifications. Food trucks were well received and more so than individual MVUs on a street corner selling hot dogs. He clarified this item pertained to groups of trucks that assemble together which have become very popular. Staff lessened some regulations applicable to MVUs to accommodate the new use activity. They have appropriate review levels based on the potential impacts and they wanted to accommodate food truck assemblies on public lands and regulate them more closely in those instances. Nancy Byrne, Director of Development, explained they approached the item after a food truck rally at Oyer Park. The trucks were interested in coming to the City and there were no regulations at that time. The City Commission requested staff extend the 15 Meeting Planning and Development B• r Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 special event permit, which was not the best way to bring that type of event into the City for the time period they wanted to stay. The City Commission accommodated the request at no cost to the rally. Staff studied the impact on residents and small focus groups were held that were very targeted. Staff sought a blend of input and included the Chamber of Commerce, land planners, mall management, and residents in favor and opposed to the use and food truck owners who participated in a survey. A new definition has been added. First, vehicles who want to do business in the City will be inspected by the City and registered. Each truck will be reviewed by the Fire Department and any other division that needs to see the trucks. Ms. Byrne noted there are food trucks and merchandise trucks in the City. Once the vehicle is registered, they need to have a site. An MVU application can be initiated by a property owner or an MVU owner who has permission from the site property owner. They will file a site plan reflecting how they would accommodate parking, how the vehicle will be used, and there is a distance separation requirement from like uses included in the Code. The next level of event that can occur in the City on a regularly occurring basis is an Assembly. Tequesta calls them a Pow -Wow, and Wellington calls them a Rally that occurs every Thursday. Because staff does not know what they will call themselves, they have termed them Assemblies, which was defined as three or more vehicles that want to come in on a recurring basis. It is not a special event as those are one -time events. Assembly permits are unique to the site and require approval by the City Commission, so if there are parameters the vendors are requesting, they can appeal to the City Commission for those uses. Under the current guidelines, the permits are issued quarterly. This will be examined after some come to the City. MVU permits are good for a year. The City is expanding the use to other zoning districts. They have a food truck at Due South in the M -1 District, and food trucks were allowed in the M -1 as there are no conflicting uses. Other districts that will accommodate the use are PU, Recreation and PID. It is currently permitted, under the Code, in C -2, C -3, C -4, CBD, PCD, SMU and all the Mixed -Use Low through High districts. They are restricted from residential districts. The size will be limited to a maximum width of nine feet and length of 25 feet. She thought 25 feet was sufficient to test the Code. The two classes of MVUs are carts and mobile trailers and mobile vehicles. They reduced the residential separation from 300 feet to 200 feet as a result of events held at Oyer and Intracoastal Parks as they are narrow parks. She noted a correction that if the vehicle is a merchandise vehicle, the language reads they are only allowed in 16 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board B oynton • • - 1 Recreation and Public Use districts which is the opposite of what was intended. A mobile boutique vendor came to the City at the request of a spa. There are different types of mobile vending units. Mr. Katz inquired how the food trucks are governed at Due South. Ms. Byrne responded right now they are not allowed and they could be cited. He also inquired how the CRA holds events on Ocean Avenue and Ms. Byrne explained those are under the special event process, but the CRA, as an agency of the City is exempt from special events. The City reviews those activities for Code and building inspections. Mr. Katz was concerned the trucks would pop up everywhere and was philosophically opposed to them. Ms. Byrne explained she received inquiries from the Mall, Boynton Town Center and Sunshine Square all requesting food trucks. The trucks have a huge following and they bring in individuals who normally would not come to the City. She opined the shopping center retailers were hoping it would expose different people to their establishments. Mr. Katz thought local establishments were shortchanged by special events. Ms. Byrne agreed, but noted it was a phenomenon. It arose as the result of the downturn in the economy. It was an inexpensive way for individuals to continue to earn a living. They have been all over the country a lot longer than in Boynton Beach and they are in the City in force. Ms. Grcevic noted when the LDR rewrites took place, she had concerns regarding food trucks with cleanliness, disposal, safety and contamination and them popping up anywhere. She thought it may be okay with special events or in Ocean Park. Mr. Brake had discussions with the Development Department on parts of the issue and part of it had to do with rules and regulations because he believed food trucks would be arriving in the City. It is better to have rules in place which is what they were doing instead of turning a blind eye. Chair Saberson opened the public comments. Gary Mehall, 1820 New Palm Way, Boynton Beach, lives next to Oyer Park and there were food trucks each Wednesday from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. They set up at 4 p.m. and stay as late as 10:30 p.m. There were 13 to 20 generators running for six hours. He understood food trucks are a business and the owners have to make a living. He noted Wellington has their trucks on a 10.5 acre site which was buffered on all sides. Oyer Park is 300 -feet wide and was designed for fishing. Two hundred fishing boats can launch without noise, but the trucks every week are difficult. The trucks that used the area broke all the rules in place at the time. The new rules have less buffering. Even with 200 feet, they could not physically be in Oyer Park. If the Board allowed them, they must be specific where they would be in commercial areas. There are single - family residences 27 feet away and the condominiums were 167 feet from the trucks. He 17 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Bo Beac Se 2 01 3 requested the Board choose wisely where the trucks could be situated and commented Oyer Park was not an appropriate location. Ms. Byrne explained if trucks were allowed in Oyer Park, there would be a maximum of three trucks per half acre of site. The City Commission can allow a food rally there as an Assembly. The feedback she received pertained to the use of generators. She thought language could be included barring generators or have a sound proofing box for them. One vendor spent $5,000 for one, reducing the sound to no more than 60 decibels. He did it because he needed a generator and individuals could not have a conversation around his vehicle. It was a customer benefit. Sixty decibels was the equivalent of talking. Chair Saberson was sympathetic to the generator issue and thought it should be addressed in some way. Mr. Mehall had an article indicating a generator will create 90 to 120 decibels and 140 decibels would cause damage to the ear. He noted with the new rules of 200 feet from a property line for single- family homes, due to the width of the park and the size of the trucks, they could not be situated in the middle of the Park and they would park in the circular drive on the south side which is 27 feet from a single - family home. If the other side is used, fisherman will be upset because it will block their parking and entrance to the three ramps to the Inlet. Statistically, a food truck rally could not be held in Oyer Park even with the new regulations, as it did not function. Mr. Brake inquired if the zoning was considered when drafting the language. Ms. Byrne explained they evaluated several sites and there is a requirement on the acreage of a lot where an Assembly can be held. There may still be food truck events at Oyer and Intracoastal Parks, but they will be special events. The regulations were meant to mitigate impacts on residents who experience recurring events with line -ups of trucks with generators running. Mr. Brake inquired if the City Commission could vote to allow an Assembly at Oyer Park on a weekly basis for the next season and Ms. Byrne responded they could. Commissioner Fitzpatrick, at the City Commission last week, requested funding, if they consider Intracoastal Park, for permanent utility hookups for the trucks at the Park in the Capital Improvement Plans. They were sensitive to the sound impacts and recognized not every food truck uses a generator. Chair Saberson requested a motion to recommend this to the City Commission with the requirement the Ordinance be drafted to address the issue in regard to the generators as the language drafted did not address generators. Ms. Byrne explained they can add language that if using an external generator, they cannot be within so many feet of the next property as there are calculations that could be used to establish a buffer. Mr. Katz thought the Board should deny the request and recommend to the City Commission they direct the City Manager to direct staff to enforce the existing Code. Chair Saberson commented even if they do that, they will still have special events at the Park. Ms. Byrne explained the special event process does not allow for Assemblies. The City Commission made an exception to allow them to occur to allow staff to come i? Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton 0 back with regulations on how to accommodate them. She commented there has been much pressure to host the events. Chair Saberson thought they should go with the Ordinance with the requirement staff redraft the provision in a way that addresses the issues raised by generators. Staff considered decibel levels, signs and other actions used to generate activity and they are prohibited by the language. Mr. Katz thought there should be no events at Oyer Park. Mr. Mehall noted Fire Rescue holds a fishing tournament each year at the Park from 10 a.m. to 5 or 6 p.m. There is one food truck there for charity. Residents do not mind the afternoons, but not every week from 5 to 10:30 p.m. He also thought the City should enforce its Ordinance because pets are not allowed, and they are there. The rules state no loud noises, amplified music or parking on grass, all of which occur. Cars that park in a parking area designed for boat owners could be ticketed. In Oyer Park, 99% of the parking spots are designated for boat owners and only 20 spots for residents, which are posted at the front of the Park. Chair Saberson did not want to get to extraneous issues and thought it should be approved with the requirement staff be directed to revise the language to address the issue of generators. Vice Chair Wheeler moved to recommend the City Commission approve the Code Amendment subject to the proviso that staff be directed to revise the Ordinance to address the issue pertaining to generators adjacent to residential uses. Mr. Brake seconded the motion that unanimously passed. E. Economic Development and Interim LDR Amendments Part IV (CDRV 13- 006 — Approve amendments to the Land Development Regulations to update the Zoning Use Matrix to include Showroom/Warehouses as a new principal use and provide definition and regulations. Applicant: City - initiated. Mr. Rumpf explained as part of the Economic Development program there are efforts to evaluate the zoning regulations, zoning map, Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan and be more sensitive to business inquiries about what uses are allowed and how the Code addresses them. The changes were part of a prior cycle of changes that were removed at the last minute and reviewed by the City's Economic Development Manager. The regulations distributed by Mr. Breese had additional tweaks made to them and was a merger of a type of retail use into an industrial environment with similar performance characteristics with regard to patronage, parking, trip generation, traffic, and similar building uses. This would prevent an unnecessary step such as a re- zoning, amending regulations or the master plan to accommodate the uses. Examples of the types of uses staff sought to accommodate usually have a single product line, such as furniture, mattresses, major appliances, flooring, etc. Those types 19 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL Se • ' of uses have dissimilar parking and patronage and trip generations than the other types of retail uses that carry those products along with other products or services. This was likened to a Sear's appliance store to a Home Depot. There are uses that handle a limited - product line. One new use added because of an inquiry, was recreational vehicles as they were comparable to the elements he had discussed. To adapt that category, staff had additional provisions they would add to the standards to regulate the uses, affect the performance of them and keep them compatible to such environments. Mr. Breese explained the developed standards were safeguards to the City and advantageous to business owners. Most standards pertained to where displays could be located and he briefly reviewed the provisions. He felt those would allow them to incorporate the RV sales into a warehouse /showroom single - product line concept. Mr. Brake asked about the definition of an RV. Mr. Breese responded they were large motor homes and trailers. Staff had definitions for other types of uses, but currently the City does not regulate RVs. Quads and wave runners were under a different definition. Mr. Brake moved to approve unanimously passed. 8. Other None. 9. Comments by members None. • . Vice Chair Wheeler seconded the motion that Mr. Brake moved to adjourn. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 93093 20