The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 10-22-13 Al CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH �k PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 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 September 24, 2013 meeting 5. Communications and Announcements Report from Staff 6. New Business A. NE 4 Avenue Abandonment (ABAN 13 -004) — Approve request to abandon a portion of NE 4 Avenue between Federal Highway and NE 4 Street, in the CBD (Central Business District). Applicant City- initiated. B. Reasonable Accommodation Application and Review Procedures (CDRV 13 -007) — Approve amendments to the Land Development Regulations Chapter 2, Article II establishing the necessary process to consider and act upon appeals for reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services to afford eligible individuals the equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and /or the Fair Housing Act (FHA). City- initiated. 7. Other 8. Comments by members 9. 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 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. Document6 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24,2013, IN THE CHAMBERS, AT CITY HALL 100 E. BOY ON EACH BOULEVARD, BOY ON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Roger Saberson, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning Director Ryan Wheeler, Vice Chair Ed Breese, Principal Planner James Brake James Cherof, City Attorney Sharon Grcevic Stacey Weinger, Assistant City Attorney David Katz Brian Miller ABSENT: Stephen Palermo 1. Pledge of Allegiance 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. 2. Introduction of the or Chair Saberson introduced the members of the Board. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Miller moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Katz seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 4. Approval of Minutes from August 27, 2013, meeting Motion 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. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development or Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff 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. 6. New Business: 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. 6. Old Business: A. Compson Place & Renaissance Commons (ABAN 13- — 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 or Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 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. Motion Mr. Katz moved to approve. Vice Chair Wheeler seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. Cross Creek Centre (MPMD 13-001 / CU S 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 Planning and Development or Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 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. Hagcorn, 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. Motion Mr. Katz moved to approve subject to all staff recommendations. Mr. Miller seconded 4 v w • • w w w w RP • •• ww • Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 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. Motion Mr. Katz moved to approve with all staff comments and conditions. Mr. Miller seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. Holiday Inn & Suites (NWSP 13- — 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 or Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 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 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. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development or Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 Chair Sa opened the public hearing. He understood Attorney Cory Kravit was present for the Leisureville community. Chair Saberson explained Mr. Kravit would be allowed to speak and the public would be limited to three minutes. 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 th 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, 1916 SW 19th 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 Hagcorn, 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 or 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 mail on Congress had a higher elevation. Mr. Rumpf explained something constructed in the 60s would have a different elevation than the current Code. 11 IF IP Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL September 2, 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 Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 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. Tuscan Villas (SPTE 13-003) — Approve request for an 1 8-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 Gulfstrearn 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 Minutes Planning and Development or Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 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. Motion 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. M.V.U.s and Food Truck Assemblies (CDRV 13-0051 Approve amendments to the Land Development Regulations Part 111, 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 (MVUs) 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 Minutes Planning and Development or 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 Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 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 NOW 91MIL • w w v • w • I • 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 9 0 0 0 0 • 0 • ♦ • ♦ • • • • • • .•• 0 • -0 -0 • • 0 • - 0 • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 ♦ v W V w 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2013 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 V. 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. Motion Mr. Brake moved to approve. Vice Chair Wheeler seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 8. Other None. 9. Comments by members None. 10. Adjournment Motion 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 93013 20 NEW BUSINESS 6.A NE 4` Avenue Abandonment (ABAN 13 -004) Right -of -way Abandonment DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMIORANDUM'NO, PZ 13-037 TO: Chair and Members Planning and Develop7nt Board T Micha el' , Rur Plannilng and Zoning Director FROW Ed Breese Principal Planner DATE: October 10, 2013 SUBJECT Abandonment request for a portion of NE 4"' Avenue between Federal Hig I hway and NE 4 Street, in the C80 (Central Business District). Appllcarrt, City-initiated. NATURE OF REQUEST Bradley Miller of Miller Land Planning, Inc. Is requesting the City abandon a portion, of the 25 foot-wide NE 4sr Avenue right-of-way between Federal Highway and NE 4' .11 Street, in the CBS (Central Business District). The portion of the right-of-way 'to be abandoned runs in an east-west dire0on for a distance of approxii 126 feet, A sketch and I description of the subject right-of-way is, attached as Exhibit '". Mr. Miller initially approached the City to determine if there was ain interest in abandoning the short street I segment, as the portion o f NE 4' In Avenue between NE 4"' Street and the FEC right-ut-way to the west had previously been abandoned. Staff WaS amenable to the abandonment and prepared the necessary documents and Mr. Mill er agreed to act as agent for the request and secure the necessary utility consent forms, The following is a description of the zuning districts and Wnd uses of the properties that surround the subject request: North: A vacant commermial building in which the owner intends to open a restaurant, with a Mixed Use (MX) land use cal ssffication and zoned Central Business, District (CBDY South A vacant commercial building approved for Cuthill's Bar (CODS 11-003 / MSPM1 1- 002), with, a Mixed Use (MX) land' use classlficofion and zoned Central Business District (CIBD)� East: Right-of-may for Federall Highway, then farther east is Casa Costa, a 318-unit condo yflniurn development with commercial spare on 3.975 acres, with a Mixed Use Core (MXC) Yard use cUssification and zoned Mixed Use High (MU- ')q arid West: I giht of-way for NE 4"' Street, !hen to the NVV is a commercial business (The Backyard) to the SW is a vacant commercial building, each with a General Commercial (GG) land use classificatilion and zoned General Commercial (C-4), Farther west is right -of -way for the Florida East Coast (FE C) railroad Page 2 Memorandum No. PZ 13 -037 ABAN 13 -004 BACKGROUND City and CRA staff have been promoting the revitalization /redevelopment of this area of the City for some time. Land Development Regulations have been adopted in an effort to promote adaptive reuse of existing buildings and redevelopment of vacant sites. There has been an increase in interest in this area as evidenced by pre - application meetings held and actual approvals. This particular right -of -way has been discussed due to the narrowness of the pavement combined with the closeness of the existing building on the north side, which slightly encroaches the right -of -way. The properties on the north and south sides are now under the same ownership and the property owner has devised a plan to tie his properties together and provide a safer pedestrian access point from Federal Highway to his and other properties along NE 4th Street (Exhibit "C "). Staff supports the property owner's redevelopment concept for the two parcels abutting this right -of -way and the conversion of the street to a pedestrian corridor to safely bring patrons of existing and future businesses into this portion of the Central Business District. The City, as applicant, believes this particular street would be better utilized as a pedestrian corridor due to the narrow nature of the right -of -way, which does not allow for the construction of a sidewalk. The fact that there are streets one block (300 feet) to the north and south that will provide adequate access to the relatively few properties located on NE 4 Street was an important factor in staff's determination to recommend abandonment of this 126 foot segment of roadway. ANALYSIS Owners of properties within 400 feet of the subject site were mailed a notice of this request and its respective hearing dates. The applicant has certified that they posted signage and mailed notices in accordance with Ordinance No. 04 -007 and the abandonment request has been advertised in the newspaper. A summary of the responses is as follows: CITY DEPARTMENTS /DIVISIONS Engineering - No objection Public Works /Utilities - No objection Planning and Zoning - No objection PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES Florida Power and Light - No objection AT&T - No objection Florida Public Utilities - No objection Comcast - No objection RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the subject street right -of -way would better serve the area as an improved pedestrian corridor, based upon improved vehicular and pedestrian safety, the presence of access roads 300 feet to the north and south for adequate access to those properties located on NE 4 Street, and the limited number of properties located on NE 4 Street. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends APPROVAL of the applicant's request to abandon this portion of the right -of -way, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, including the retention of a utility and drainage easement for the full length and width. Any conditions required by the Planning and Development Board and the Commission will be placed Page 3 Memorandum No. PZ 13 -037 ABAN 13 -004 in Exhibit "E" - Conditions of Approval. S: 1PlanninglSHAREDIWPIPROJECTSINE 4 ` h Avenue AbandonmentlABAN 13- 0041Staff Report.doc EXHIBIT "A" - SITE LOCATION MAP NE 4TH AVENUE ABANDONMENT (ABAN 13 -004 oull 0 ' tttttttttti fi O � {j J - 4 NE 6TH AVE U NE 5TH AVE 5 M -1 CBD SITE NE 4TH AVE CY) z � Q LL � M - z NE 3RD AVE CBD 1 I ri b tt - it ( + nr , Df y t t t, t ( 7, 1 5t �� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiil ((�3 i S 1�i E BOYNTON BEACH BLVD NE 2ND AVE i" rlti }; ;11 }ilj,1� t� I t �SY t 1 }4 _�� y lii l�l, t i t t, I t 3 � I it I i3� tt3 jj t 3 3 � 1 (iytC �- y3 i (n iSStll} Yji�tl t� st I( 1t s �� 3 �� i�tt i�'r� ji t 4 7 - f e ��I( it !� f r �t4t t�s( itt l jst 3 lj i t \t y+ t it1� t s i' r i t - ti s r )rf NN 150 75 0 150 300 450 600 o\�/� Feel - " �,7i S EXHIBIT "B" Legal Description of 25' Wide Road Right-of-Way Abandonment Portion of 25' wide road Right of-wav located between Lots I I & 12 in Block 4 And Lots I & 2 in Block 5, of ROBERT ADDITTION of Town of Boynton Plat Book 1, Page 51 of the Public Records Palm Beach County, Florida A portion of land lying in th( South East 1 /4 of the South East 1 /4 of Section 21, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, lying East of the East Right-of-way line of F.E.C. Rail Road, said portion of land being more particularly described as follows: A Portion oF25 wide road Right-of-Way known as N.E. 4 th Avenue, running East- West, according to above mentioned Plat; being bound on the North by the South Line of Lot 11 & Lot 12, of Block 4, Less the East 35 feet for Federal Highway (US 1) Right-of-Way; being bound on the East by the West Right-of-way Line of Federal Highway (US 1), being bound on the South by the North Line of Lot I & Lot 2, of Block 5, Less the East 35 feet for Federal Highway (US 1) Right-of-Way and being bound on the West by the East Right-of-Way Line of N.E. 4 th Street. (N.E. 4 th Avenue is shown as "3 Str.", N.E. 4 th Street is shown as "6 Str." And Federal Highway (U.S. -1) is shown as "5 Str.", according to said plat). Said parcel of land contains 3,153 square feet, more or less. e CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE PG. NO. MAR. 20131 LEGAL DESCRIPTION L 2 OF 3 EXHIBIT "C" LOT LOT 3 LOT 4 !I ° o �I l + 2 ' RW -1 4 LOT °�{'' LOT 6 LOT 5 °nl I ROBERT ADDITION TO I _ _ TOWN OF B OYN TON —1 SCALE: I "=60' 3� P. B. 1 PG. 51 I o LOT 4 LOT 7 LOT 8 �I Bl BLOCK 4 - I LOT 10 LOT 91 $I o �� RW RWJ Lfl', L � "� �' LOT 11 LOT 12 i b Iv'b I n LOT 0 ABAND.: , N. E. 4TH AVE. (3 Stc_(P)) I z ". BY RES. 7 Z gT (25 R/w) w 61.5'(P) 7L50,T w 0 I uj LOT 6 3-� L ° LOT 2 �I o SITE TO - -�- -i oo 149,T cv A D 1 3 25' R AD W,� LOT Is LOT I LOT 4 �I z 76 —FF & 77 - BILK � I L BLOCK.. 5_ I 113.2' J 1 Rw Rw _.. a ` LOT � LOT 6 LOT 5 i' F �I o af .OT 1 ROBERT ADDITION TO I ROBERT ADDITION 0� I a I It .TOWN OF BOYNTON — TOWN OF BOYNTO � :B. 1 PG. 51 I I P. B. 1 PG. 51 I LOT 4 �I LOT LOT 8 I � ' LOTB �I•� N .._.... LOT 10 LOT � al Rw CITY - OF BOYNTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT / ENGINEERING DIVISION R. 2013 SKETCH 3 P G. OF 3 s• • 1 �a r 'St y Y � • i � t {j � �t �j II I • • 0 KJ +JK $� x kf �yK M �a' K >Ki`iljlyw '«y1y�q a^. '< N ro + >�yr � �`. >+ ✓K +°'m +Jby +i � • ''v +yK,r +i +iKJKJKyK K + .w 'I K y + y K yKJbridy a` J J /'� y �' + y�K y k y iJ11y+1y y y Jt K��yt y�y�.° iyiyK' P�yi' iwlKi�9% e ' Jy +f A✓' *y, rKj«KyKI'�'y "y'•a ° � Ky1y1yK K K + > +JwJKJK> i 1 i'IK wy+y 4jKy! >+lylyllwJ� i I .i I I +IKl +I iKyK <+ KIt{+ybptr \f!'tip'L ° p< + • ♦ w ♦ wiKJ wiK.:K.KiKAyty�JS..•i.K;j'y +J« Kh * KJKyty y.A + y K IKf�y +dKI +IKPKJK yKy6yYyYy�eyK K 1 K 1 . ♦ K e. m# �SKaKhywt��ev4 >yk4vi4ayw+.�y�y� .a +�K� t. J JwJKylywy• • yK > .• yjV t I v hmP Fh � • • j R N6 a BILLER `OO F, Boynton Re Blvd. LAND Boynton Becxch FIL 3,3435 Fox w f,561) 736.80, KE ,�'- �rw�d�' r - al9 ir' 8h� " 6I "o lr0s� � :Y `d "3 4 TH AVE, ABANDONMENT g.ast 2013 Justification Statem I rti r Cr ", behalf of the City of Boyr t ara Beroch'i, tl afrx -)tic atic }n par000ses 11y10 Of 25 wide *ad ri htrt`at...way, also kn %w rags WE, 41h , yer,,r)e; file` °ip_th - ot ry is ioc rer`j jug l ncrI1- of Boynion B, eoch, Nvd. on 9r °ile west side :gat F( ?d ercai Highway- NEU 11 Av( -, ue is approxir"nalely 12 ft, long and p rovides access io NE 4 `a,lreel ti p^,io•rlh f edercal ( NE 4"' ASPCr'ru& creates an unscre condition for <rnolorists t'in'nin o n tai Federal I h`avv ay its } to building encrsar=actiment £nfo the corner clip cil' rd Paralle parking along f =ederd t"tigh wkay tl - 10 I"T)OK S it CliffiCUlt 10 We Qrir;rarniri l trt,alti P, TI - rc ,, b(=- ir idcriraie-rit of NI 4 Avenue will n ase safely byr°r ducr rl the potential for arriffic;. coNsions. Forlheomore, lh'ir r°rband nines - rt of NIE zl °n Ave, w 1H lrnprove traffic f cw l'y?+y reducing 11he r ur'nber of curb cuf� along Federal I- li{ghw ay. tti ui - r� °ire r.r °�t ftF fatiw r "iu ��¢i!1 r°1Crt �i`:iy irii it ahf - [I (,, cr t saffy bud als irr`iiarra° ih e :e x desIriara environment. Ihe property owner or,, eith ei' si'de c A 4 Aver - rue pmoose fc) repk.ice the right wit ^°ray with r larada� - - - q fed pedestrion thoroughfare urghfa and utflHy easement, This JwIII s t']fly r�l'I prove wC ) f -.r;r V' farlul i 4tfr lN'I, access to focal bu&inc7mv efloblid tr l `i The =' ulfipr`var'lily (,f ve"ka ;,n emt kr °raawn as TI f'r n')enad tcac;(ated across Federal Highway. The proposed Wilily � as 'm nl will allow tatiiity departn"l r'7t ; and _ rripcan'ees to mair'toil OCCI s" l ihir exisfing AlNes within the r gh of w ay Rev iew rirf ri a Per Chaplet ),. Articl e 11, Seclion 2.G.3 of rhe Le`ori L evel ;arr Re r lalioris, ff following r �drP -rife a sh;; � ru5��i t' t ,$,it`y' �a rbrlit �a9 carat Access Th e p r,rpe "br sed abandcrlirt "lent will L. ccjus. ct or ye %H in ca rperrrronen stoppage inlerrup flan, or aq unacceptable level of tor neigl -1 orink'y bats,, subdvkiom, C,;r ateveio Miner - )rs with respect to solid w axle rernsiv ai, Police, flre, or 01fi ai s ervices- C ,E, 4i'l7 Avenue is one of r cille -yti th eia pri,')vid k'.;rc-cez to N.E. 4 Street from Nodhi Federcil l f - ay. As s'r Ch, access try N,F, 4" Sireel will be r°r"uair`ut ir.ed Via .. 3 =t; Ave. located ted c,pap i NX H, ;oljlh of fhe pfro used a aaador"irner°ait, sand wK,a N.E. 5t Ave, locraicd ca proxirrcallely k10 (1`; rior of the proposed rabori`clonrrier)L . U1111fl AF&T. ti riir.os'I, P'l and a P (:)vver X i,..lghl Company, Bell Soulh°, FI()rida F'l-rblic U'nitres, al"id site= City{ at B ya °i1 rr Beach 'Util les Departrr=Ar nl have nP beeri rratlfived of the proposed cjt:saridonrn(- -,r °rl of NF 4r. Ave nue, 'thee �nforriied ern if es e lftioi h(aw ^e no objt,,clions to tta�a ra a rr antis n1 r;.,rr 1'icive rot resporlded try flhe notific;;r°alion, in which case if is assumed iholl 1h ere cire no objeclicns to the orop~b sed 0L)(ar'idonrneri1,. NE Wh Ave. Abandonment 2 Avyu'rJ 7, 2013 ..... . ........ ......................... . II M be ]"Oted that the City of Boy ntori 13( Wilifies Depadmer'll has ,-O elate clioll to the proposed abarrdonment on the conc lhal a ufiFty easemenI is gronled to, Ill City over the enil I re wise 1h of the 25 fl, righl-ol-way. Scilid ufilliy easen')en ls being lo 11 application. 3, Dr ' Laing Ae The erXiSHI UfNfl�C'B fOCOI( within flt righf-cf-way (wale, rnuwl and storm water) will be r'n�jinlunod ihuough Ihe prot WWtV easernen! rnertioned obove., There nor e, the proposc-d obandoi vvifl n car"5c- 01 re'5uJI 4 ci permcner'0 sToppage, interrupflon. or unacceptable level oaf servce, 4. Conservation As the 25' flght-of -way M a paveid rcicid the subjecl land does not confam'), wr"Porl'. or allovv the rneon5 for ihu conservat or preservalion of florn or founci, jCosing This c')pplicafion proposes an aband ru c the 25' wide righT-cat. YrIy 0150 known as NE 4 Aveniue', fl - e righl-cA-way is described above cJior-g with fhc:',' Juslificalion of hovv the stondclrds orc mel for approval of rhe e re�r,, 04 the proposed obar"idonr'nenl c planed improver erns will inc ease trfalfic salely, vvalk-albWtv, anci Pedestrian connection, tP�AWr` ha we respec"ully r esl approval of n application i 'c)v NE 4'I',Averi1.)(,-. EXHIBIT "E" Conditions of Approval Project name: NE 4 th Avenue Abandonment File number: ABAN 13 -004 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS/ UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. The abandonment of the right -of -way is subject to the recording of an easement acceptable to the City in the County records. 2. Public access, as generally depicted on "Exhibit C ", shall be maintained for pedestrian connectivity purposes. 3. The property owner shall make application to the Florida Department of Transportation for closure of the curb cut on Federal Highway within six (6) months of abandonment approval and complete the improvements depicted on "Exhibit C' within an additional six (6) months. 4. Should the property owner desire to temporarily enclose or prohibit access to the property prior to closure of the curb cut on Federal Highway, an application shall be filed with the City to temporarily close the former street in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Conditions of Approval Page 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: To be determined. S: \Planning \SHARED \WP \PROJECTS \NE 4 ` Avenue Abandonment\ ABAN 13- 004 \COA.doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: NE 4 th Avenue Abandonment (ABAN 13 -004) APPLICANT: Andrew Mack, Building Official /City Engineer APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd., Boynton Beach, FL 33435 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: November 19, 2013 APPROVAL SOUGHT: Abandonment of NE 4 th Avenue between Federal Highway and NE 4 th Street LOCATION OF PROPERTY: NE 4 th Avenue between Federal Highway and NE 4 th Street DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER was presented to the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the approval 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 approval sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant X HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the approval 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 "E" with notation "Included." 4. The Applicant's request is hereby _ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 above. 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: DATED: City Clerk S: \Planning \SHARED \WP \PROJECTS \NE 4 th Avenue Abandonment\Aban 13- 004 \DO.doc NEW BUSINESS 6.B. Reasonable Accommodation Application &Review Procedures (CDRV 13 -007) Code Review DEPARTMENT' OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND ZONING lie I Memoi PZ 13-034 TO. Chair and Men Ptanning & Dv,'ek) ent.Board FROM: NfiQhael Rampf Pbmnhg and Zoming Moor DATE4 October 17,2013 Rh Reasonable aud Review Proced. qCDRVL-I� 0'7 -- Appmve anvrodmovs to the L,and [,)evelopment Regulations Chapter 2 Articles I ami 11 esLablishing the frjCCCSS, a . 1 - y pmess U) emsider and au upon appeals ftw reasonable acconunodabons in ruhs, policies, practim or mvices to aMyrd eligible individuals, the equal o], it.,) use and enjoy ImAng as req u i red by Be Arn cricuns wil h D i sabil i tics Act (A 1) A,) and/or ala Fai r I fousing Act (F] ]A). City-inifinied, The rem"Tile ofthe City's hind develOpnICTIt TV�O—T]LlflCMS g[,DR) aflowed slaff'io perfi)rm aI camliete review and analyMs of each stantkhFd, FCgLI[ati(Tn ti 111,d prucvss� As l of ttic Masi-adol'.)1ion process, statT micipaics; Be perit)(fic reed fim and, is prcpamd to cxpedifiotjs,iy process. uj.)& , , , uid anlendtnenks to the LDR 14r on or more (it=' the 1' bllara iris reasons or inifiarkes: I Business and cconomic developrnern jnjfiauves� I SustainabiNty inidativem 3. Ndaintairdrig internal consistency, A AcAevJngI COTY1.13harwe; and 5� IncorporatOg hioemismakin StAback necussary to meet original or CUM111 OQjectives and visim. 11he j, omendmen! wauld Other reziscm ;34, - I - BACKGROUND Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, is known as the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate in the sale, rental, financing, or insurance of a dwelling, or in any other type of housing related transaction on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, color, disability, or familial status (the presence of children under the age of 18 in the household). In addition, certain multifamily dwellings, constructed after 1991, are required to be accessible to persons with disabilities. With respect to the Fair Housing Act and the zoning and regulating of land use, the Fair Housing Act defines a dwelling to include "any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof'. Therefore, decisions related to the development or use of such land may not be based upon the race, sex, religion, national origin, color, disability, or familial status of the residents or potential residents who may live in the dwelling. Similarly, a municipality may not make zoning or land use decisions based on public concerns over being affected by neighboring housing occupied by members of these protected classes. Most significantly, zoning ordinances may not contain provisions that treat uses such as affordable housing, supportive housing, or group homes for people with disabilities differently than other similar uses. Further, municipalities may not enforce ordinances more strictly against housing occupied by members of the protected classes compared to the enforcement of ordinances applicable to housing occupied the general population. Discrimination in zoning and land use regulation may also occur when an ordinance has direct or indirect harm or causes disproportional harm, to a protected group. Although zoning and land use is an area where municipalities have primary power, courts have consistently held that the Fair Housing Act prohibits local governments from exercising their zoning and land use powers in a discriminatory manner. In addition to prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities, the Fair Housing Act also makes it unlawful to refuse to make "reasonable accommodations ", or changes to rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations are necessary to allow persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use or enjoy a dwelling. Under the Fair Housing Act, an accommodation is considered "reasonable" if it does not impose an undue financial or administrative burden and if it does not fundamentally alter the zoning ordinance. Unless a municipality can prove that an accommodation request is unreasonable according to the above criteria, the municipality must grant the accommodation. The FHA and ADA covers all other physical and mental impairments, which means coverage goes well beyond what many typically think of as handicapped — persons in wheelchairs or the blind. Such persons may include alcoholics, the mentally ill, persons with learning disabilities and infirmities associated with old age. -2- The ADA defines the term "disability" with respect to an individual as -- (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment. These regulations are consistent with Federal Law which provides an avenue for individuals and qualified entities who believe they were denied the use and enjoyment of property to appeal that determination. ANALYSIS & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The proposed additions to the Land Development Regulations are principally process in substance, and are therefore being inserted into Chapter 2. Land Development Process. The new process would be listed in Chapter 2, Article I, Table 2 -1, where in all processes administered by the Department are summarized, and inserted in its entirety in Chapter 2, Article II, Section 4. Relief Regulations. This new process would represent the new subsection "F ", Requests for Accommodation. This new process to enable and guide requests for reasonable accommodation read as follows: Section F. Requests for Accommodation 1. General a. Purpose & Intent. The purpose of this section is to implement a procedure for processing requests for reasonable accommodation to the City's Code of Ordinances, Land Development Regulations, Rules, Policies, and Procedures for persons with disabilities as provided by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (42 U.S.C. 3601, et. seq.) ( "FHA ") and /or Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (42 U.S.C. Section 12131, et. seq.) ( "ADA "). b. Applicability. Any person who is disabled, or qualifying entities, may request a reasonable accommodation with respect to the City's Land Development Regulations, Code of Ordinances, rules, policies, practices and /or procedures as provided by the FHA and the ADA pursuant to the procedures set out in this ordinance. For purposes of this section, a "disabled person" is an individual that qualifies as disabled and /or handicapped under the FHA and /or ADA. The word "individual" shall include, for purposes of this section, multiple people, or qualified entities. C. Notice to the Public of Availability of Accommodation. The City shall endeavor to provide notice to the public, advising that a disabled person may request a Reasonable Accommodation. Such notice may include, but is not limited to, displaying a notice in the City's public notice bulletin board and to maintain copies available for review in the Planning and Zoning Division, the Building Division, and the City Clerk's Office upon request, and advising that the -3- public disabled person may request a reasonable accommodation as provided herein. 2. Submittal Requirements. A request by an Applicant for reasonable accommodation under this section shall be either oral or written. A written request may be submitted by completion of a reasonable accommodation request form, which form is maintained by (and shall be submitted to) the Planning and Zoning ( "P &Z ") Division of the Department of Development or other designee. The reasonable accommodation form shall contain such questions and requests for information as are necessary for processing the reasonable accommodation request. The reasonable accommodation request form shall be substantially in the form set forth in Subsection D, below. The following considerations shall be applicable for any application, information or documentation required: a. Confidential Information. Should the information submitted by the disabled person to the City include medical information or records, including records indicating the medical condition, diagnosis, or medical history of the disabled person, such disabled person may, at the time of submitting such medical information, request that the City, to the extent allowed by law, treat such medical information as confidential information of the disabled person. The City shall thereafter endeavor to provide written notice to the disabled person and /or their representative, of any request received by the City for disclosure of the medical information or documentation which the disabled person has previously requested be treated as confidential by the City. The City will cooperate with the disabled person to the extent allowed by law, in actions initiated by such disabled person, to oppose the disclosure of such medical information or documentation, but the City shall have no obligation to initiate, prosecute or pursue any such action, or to incur any legal or other expenses (whether by retention of outside counsel or allocation of internal resources) in connection therewith, and may comply with any judicial order without prior notice to the disabled person. This subsection shall be subject to local, state, and federal revisions to privacy laws, including but not limited to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), as it may be amended from time to time. b. Address of Applicant /Address of Housing. Unless governed by 42 USC § 290dd, in which case the address shall not be required, the applicant may be requested to provide documentation to substantiate a claim for verifying applicability. C. Fee. There shall be no fee imposed by the City in connection with a request for reasonable accommodation under this section or an appeal of a determination on such request to the City Commission, and the City shall have no obligation to pay a requesting party's, or an appealing party's, as applicable, attorneys' fees or costs in connection with the request, or an appeal. -4- d. City Assistance. The City shall provide such assistance and accommodation as is required pursuant to FHA and ADA in connection with a disabled person's request for reasonable accommodation, including, without limitation, assistance with reading application questions, responding to questions, completing the form, filing an appeal, and appearing at a hearing, to ensure the process is accessible. e. Findings for Reasonable Accommodation. (1) In determining whether the reasonable accommodation request shall be granted or denied, the requesting party shall be required to establish that they are protected under the FHA and /or ADA by demonstrating that they are handicapped or disabled, as defined in the FHA and /or ADA. Although the definition of disability is subject to judicial interpretation, for purposes of this ordinance the disabled individual must show: (i) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities; (ii) a record of having such impairment; or (iii) that they are regarded as having such impairment. (2) The requesting party will then have to demonstrate that the proposed accommodations sought by the requesting party are reasonable and necessary to afford handicapped and /or disabled persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. (3) The foregoing (as judicially interpreted) shall be the basis for a decision upon a reasonable accommodation request made by the applicant to the Planning & Zoning Director, or his /her designee, or by the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals in the event of an appeal. f. Action by Appropriate City Official. A written determination shall be issued by the Planning Director, or his or her designee, within forty -five (45) days of receipt of an application determined to be sufficient. (1) If reasonably necessary to reach a determination on the request for reasonable accommodation, the Planning & Zoning Director, or his /her designee, may, prior to the end of said forty -five (45) day period, request additional information from the requesting party, specifying in sufficient detail what information is required. (2) The requesting party shall have fifteen (15) days after the date of the request for additional information to provide the requested information. In the event a request for additional information is made, the forty -five (45) day period to issue a written determination shall no longer -5- be applicable, and the Planning & Zoning Director, or his /her designee, shall issue a written determination within thirty (30) days after receipt of the additional information. (3) If the requesting party fails to provide the requested additional information within said fifteen (15) day period, the Planning & Zoning Director, or his /her designee, shall issue a written notice advising that the requesting party had failed to timely submit the additional information and therefore the request for reasonable accommodation shall be deemed abandoned and /or withdrawn and no further action by the City with regard to said reasonable accommodation request shall be required. g. Notice of Proposed Decision. The Planning & Zoning Director, or his /her designee, shall have the authority to consider and act on requests for reasonable accommodation. When a reasonable accommodation request form has been completed and submitted to the Planning and Zoning Division, it will be referred to the Planning & Zoning Director, or his /her designee, for review and consideration. The Planning & Zoning Director, or his /her designee, shall issue a written determination within forty -five (45) days of the date of receipt of a completed application and may, in accordance with federal law: (1) grant the accommodation request; (2) grant a portion of the request and deny a portion of the request, and /or impose conditions upon the grant of the request; or (3) deny the request, in accordance with federal law. Any such denial shall be in writing and shall state the grounds therefore. All written determinations shall give notice of the right to appeal to the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The notice of determination shall be sent to the requesting party, i.e. the disabled individual or his /her representative, by certified mail, return receipt requested. h. Appeal. Within thirty (30) days after the Planning & Zoning Director, or his /her designee's, determination on a reasonable accommodation request is mailed to the requesting party, such applicant may appeal the decision. All appeals shall contain a statement containing sufficient detail of the grounds for the appeal. Appeals shall be to the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals which shall, after public notice to the parties and a public hearing for appeal, render a written determination as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later than sixty (60) days after an appeal has been filed. The decision of the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall be a final determination, subject only to appeal by petition of certiorari to the Fifteenth (15 Judicial Circuit Court, pursuant to all applicable local and state laws and standards governing petitions for certiorari. i. Stay of Enforcement. While an application for reasonable accommodation, or anappeal of a determination of same, is pending before the -6- City, the City will not enforce the subject zoning ordinance, rules, policies, and procedures against the applicant. 3. Request Form for Reasonable Accommodation. a. Contents of Reasonable Accommodation Request Form. The contents of a reasonable accommodation request form shall contain the following items, to the extent provided by law: (1) Name and contact information of the applicant (2) Description of property at which reasonable accommodation is requested, including the address of such location; (3) Description of the accommodation and the specific regulation(s) and /or procedure(s) from which accommodation is sought; (4) Reasons the accommodation may be necessary for the Applicant or the individuals with disabilities seeking the specific accommodation, and if relating to housing, why the requested reasonable accommodation is necessary to use and enjoy the housing; (5) Description of the qualifying disability or handicap; (6) Other relevant information pertaining to the disability or property that may be needed by the City in order for it to be able to evaluate the request for reasonable accommodation; (7) Signature of applicant; (8) Date of application. 4. Expiration of Approvals. Approvals of requests for reasonable accommodation shall expire within one hundred eighty (180) days if not implemented. CONCLUSION / RECOMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed code amendment. These regulations are consistent with Federal Law which provides an avenue for individuals and qualified entities who believe they were denied the use and enjoyment of property to appeal that determination. S:APlanning\ SHARED \WP \SPECPROJ\CODE REVIEW\CDRV 13 -007 Reasonable Accommodation \Staff Report.doc -7- EXHIBIT " E " Conditions of Approval Project name: NE 4 th Avenue Abandonment File number: ABAN 13 -004 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS/ UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. The abandonment of the right -of -way is subject to the recording of an easement acceptable to the City in the Coun records. 2. Public access, as generally depicted on "Exhibit C ", shall be maintained for pedestrian connective purposes. 3. The property owner shall complete the pedestrian and landscape improvements depicted on "Exhibit C" within six (6) months of approval of the abandonment. 4. The property owner shall provide the City a signage and pavement marking plan for review and approval prior to any change to traffic patterns 5. Should the property owner desire to temporarily enclose or prohibit access to the property prior to making the pedestrian improvements depicted in "Exhibit C ", an application shall be filed with the City to temporarily close the former street in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. MINOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION SUBMITTALS SEPTEMBER 2013 DATE PROJECT ADDRESS SITE MODIFICATION 09 -04 -13 Tite -Dri Industries 3030 SW 13 Place transformer & pad 09 -04 -13 Village Royale on the Green 2615 NE I" Court patios 09 -19 -13 Vee Industries 211 SE 8` Avenue fence 09 -26 -13 Hunters Run 3500 Clubhouse Lane concession building