Loading...
Minutes 04-09-91MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HELD IN CO~MISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1991 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Maurice Rosenstock, Gary Lehnertz, Vice Chairman Nathan Collins Cynthia Greenhouse Murray Howard Marilyn Huckle Shirley Stevens ABSENT William Cwynar Chairman Chris Cutro, Director of Planning Tambri Heyden, Senior City Planner Jorge Gonzalez, Assistant City Planner Jim Cherof, City Attorney Yamile Trehy, Asst. City Attorney Chairman Rosenstock called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was said. The Chairman acknowledged the presence in the audience of Mayor Arline Weiner, Vice Mayor Edward Harmening, Commissioner Lynne Matson, Commissioner Jose' Aguila and Former Mayor Ralph Marchese. It was pointed out that Gary Lehnertz had been reappointed to the PZB. Marilyn Huckle and Shirley Stevens had both been recently appointed. AGENDA APPROVAL Due to the fact that the Public Hearings had been advertised to begin after 7:30 P.M., Chairman Rosenstock suggested that the Board begin the meeting with the last two items on the Agenda. "Request to amend the list of permitted uses at the Boynton Commerce Center P.I.D. to include relay towers," was moved up on the Agenda, as well as "Consistency Review - Proposed amendment to Zoning Code to revise the regulations governing service stations with or without major repairs.~' Vice Chairman Lehnertz moved to approve the amended Agenda. Mrs. Greenhouse seconded the motion which carried 7-0. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN chairman Rosenstock had called the City Attorney's attention to a "quirk" in the law. The Chairman explained that once appointed, the Chairman of any Board in the City is entitled to serve for the full term of his office. Chairman MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 Rosenstock did not choose to do so. He wished to abide by past precedent until the City Commission can address this. City Attorney Cherof remarked that officers cumulatively and does not have been appointed. the Charter addresses distinguish when they Nominations for the position of Chairman were opened up. Mr. Lehnertz moved.to appoint Maurice Rosenstock as chairman for the next year. Mr. Howard seconded the motion. There were no other nominations. The vote was 7-0 to appoint Mr. Rosenstock as chairman of the PZB for the next year. Mr. Howard moved to appoint Gary Lehnertz as Vice Chairman. Mrs. ~uckle seconded the motion. There were no other nomi- nations. The vote was 7-0 to appoint Mr. Lehnertz as Vice Chairman of the PZB. USE APPROVAL (Pursuant to Appendix A-Zoning, Section 7.E.) 1. Request to amend the list of permitted uses at the Boynton Commerce Center P.I.D. to include relay towers Ms. Heyden outlined the contents of her Memorandum No. 91-066 to the PZB, a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Addendum A, Attorney Alan Gabriel had requested use approval for a relay tower and unmanned equipment shelter at the Boynton Commerce Center, zoned P.I.D. The purpose of the proposed use is to establish communication equipment for BellSouth Mobility, Inc., which provides mobile cellular telephone services. The proposed tower location is adjacent to Golf Rd. and is at least 750' from residential developments in the area. The Planning Dept. believes this use is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P.I.D. district. The Planning Dept. recommended the list of permitted uses for the Boynton Commerce Center be amended to include relay towers. In response to a question raised, Ms. Heyden indicated that when the application comes forward for site plan approval, a height exception will have to be applied for as well. Mrs. Greenhouse was disturbed that the Planning Dept. had recommended approval of this. She thought this tower was going to be a monstrosity. She pointed out that the 45' height limitation is a political issue. It seemed to her that the City Commission should be the body making a deter- mination on whether to allow this 150' high tower. Discussion took place about the list of prohibited uses for this P.I.D. and the process whereby the list of permitted uses can be amended by the PZB. Mr. Cutro pointed out that MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRZL 9, 1991 anyone can ask that a use which is prohibited be moved "to the other side of the slate." Some uses are not specifi- cally listed. Attorney Alan Gabriel, 2455 East Sunrise Blvd, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, was present to represent BellSouth Mobility, Inc. Chairman Rosenstook asked how far microwaves carry from tower to tower. Attorney Gabriel responded the towers are about 10 to 15 miles apart. The Chairman .asked why the same application had been applied for in Delray Beach. Attorney Gabriel explained there are certain requirements that determine whether the need for a tower exists. Those are determined by the traffic that moves from one site to another. It is determined by engineering standards only. Attorney Gabriel provided technical explanation on how one tower services another tower. The tower in Delray Beach may possibly be fed to a tower in the west. He remarked that the proposed site for the tower had been leased. BellSouth Mobility believes this site is the best site for them to provide their service to the community. The Chairman asked what the ~ss.essed County valuation of a typical tower would be. Attorney Gabriel responded they run about $250,000. Chairman Rosenstock pointed out that some people would con- sider the tower to be an eyesore. Attorney Gabriel stated they had tried to take into consideration what the com- munity's response would be. As a result, they ha~ located it in an area that is bounded by natural boundaries. Photographs of the area were viewed. The tower is to be located back "off the beaten path." It will be located directly across the street from the Home Depot property and will sit on the southeast corner of the property, rising above the 1-95 overpass. Attorney Gabriel wished to return before the Board with a formal site plan and to obtain, if possible, a special exception for the height. At that time he would provide more specific details on the tower. He stated they would not be able to do that if the PZB would not give them permission for the use. The closest residen- tial community is located to the west of the site. That community would be separated from the site by tall trees which would reduce the visibility. Lengthy remarks were made. Attorney Gabriel explained that as more and more people use cellular service, the traffic is becoming too great for existing facilities to handle. This particular site is to pick up that overload. The FAA requires any structure over 200' high to be painted red and white. This tower is not that high so it will not be painted. One member expressed a concern about use of strobe lighting. Attorney Gabriel responded that in the past, when requested by various - 3 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 governmental authorities, they had requested the FAA provide a waiver on the lighting. Lighting is determined by the FAA, depending upon location of airports, etc. In certain instances, the FAA has waived the strobe lighting and allowed for red lights or something of that nature. Mrs. Greenhouse felt the "cart was being put befone the horse" in thi~ instance. She believed the tower would be clearly visible from probably every point in the City. She understood the same application is being made in Delray Beach. Delray Beach's PZB deferred making any kind of a ruling until they found out from their C~ty Commission whether they wouTd be inclined to grant the variance to their height restriction. Mrs. Greenhouse believed this was a political decis'ion. Mrs. Greenhouse moved to table this request as it can go before the City Commission. It return to the PZB. until such time could then Attorney Gabriel stated he was under the impression that he could not go before the City Commission until he had a proper use. He didn't think the Commission would issue an advisory opinion. Mr. Collins thought if the proposal goes right to the City Commission, it would not really be going through the process in the normal fashion. Mr. Collins believed that Attorney Gabriel was trying to do this properly according to City procedure. Mr. Collins had a problem with the PZB telling him to do this a different way. Remarks were made about two tall existing towers near the old sewer plant site. Mr. Cutro noted there are one or two other tower proposals "floating" around right now. Ms. Stevens was concerned about how the City would handle complaints if this is approved and citizens experience problems with TV and radio reception. Attorney Gabriel stated there wouldn't be interference. This system is operating throughout south Florida and they are not experiencing interference as a result of the cellular phone networks. Ms. Stevens asked if any of the homeowners in the area had been notified of this. Mr. Cutro responded negati- vely. He explained the request initially goes to the PZB for a use determination. At the time of site plan review, that might be proper. He was willing to do whatever the Board wished in that regard. Ms. Stevens didn't see how this would have anything to do with setting a precedent against the City's height restric- tions on buildings. She didn't think this pertained to MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYlqTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 that. She had seen something in the printed backup about that, and she inquired. Chairman Rosenstock thought it was "crystal clear" that there is a height restriction regardless of whether it is a tower, a flagpole, etc. There already exist some towers which have been "grandfathered in." Mr. Cutro pointed out the existing radio towers pro- vide service to the Police and Fire Depts. There are also a few dishes on those towers that are rented out to other cellular phone companies and to relay companies as well. Other remarks were made. Attorney Gabriel was asking the PZB to say this particular use would be acceptable at 45'. Mrs. Greenhouse asked if there would ever be a tower that was only 45' hiqh? Attorney Gabriel responded they probably would not build one that height because it would not provide sufficient height. If this is listed as a permitted use, Mrs. Greenhouse was concerned that a precedent would be set for other cellular phone companies to come in and request variances. Attorney Gabriel clarified that cellular phone systems are operated by private individuals but there are public snti- ties that have them as well including Police, Fire, ambu- lance and other services that use them for emergency purposes. He stated BellSouth Mobility had been designated as a State emergency preparedness operator for cellular phones. Although this is a private venture, cellular phones benefit the public as well. Chairman Rosenstock thought the statement that this violates the Code with regard to the height limitation was a valid remark. He agreed this is a political subject because the City had recently almost put this before the citizens at a referendum. In his personal opinion (not as Chairman), he believed the majority of the citizens would be against a tower of this height with a strobe light flashing. He disagreed with Attorney Gabriel and believed it would be visible. He didn't think the PZB should "pass the buck." The Board had been appointed to advise the City Commission and he felt they had a responsibility to take a stand. Mrs. Greenhouse stated she wished to withdraw her motion to table the item. Discussion ensued among the members about advantages of having the tower versus disadvantages. Mrs. Greenhouse remarked that she has a cellular phone. She didn't know where the signals were coming from, but she had never experienced a problem making or receiving signals in Boynton Beach. Attorney Gabriel pointed out this tower will not only service the 1-95 corridor, but will provide service to - 5 - MINUTES - PLAI~NING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 the City as a whole, including residential areas to the east and west. Chairman Rosenstock stated if the PZB tables this request, it will be viewed as a negative vote. If they did that, he believed the Board might be remiss in its responsibility. The Chairman thought Attorney Gabriel or the company repre- sentative should have come more prepared. Mr. Cutro inter- jected this was not an advisory opinion of the City Commission. It is a final determination for the PZB. City Attorney Cherof responded that statement was not correct. He pointed out the City Commission recently adopted an Ordinance saying all opinions of Boards are advi- sory opinions. The statement that this is a final deter- mination was not correct. Mr. Cutro asked if that was the case for master plans and P.I.D.s as well. Attorney Cherof responded it carves out certain exceptions for certain items that are regulated by Sta~e law or by Boards that are quasi- judicial in nature. On all other types of opinions, they are construed to be advisory opinions to the City Commission. Attorney Cherof remarked that the Commission had indicated it is not appropriate to table an item as that would be con- sidered as no vote at all. Mr. Cutro remarked that he stood corrected. Attorney Gabriel stated he was not asking that this be tabled. He was prepared to provide answers to any questions they may have. He was prepared to explain why they needed the additional height and provide additional information. The height decision could be made at another time. He was present to ask that the use be permitted on this site. If this is approved, Ms. Stevens wondered if it would allow someone to come in and say, "You have a 150' tower, so I should be able to build a 150' building." City Attorney Cherof responded negatively. The Chairman did believe that if approved, other persons milght attempt to construct simi- lar towers, city Attorney Cherof agreed they could probably anticipate that happening. Other remarks were made about the height of the proposed tower. Attorney Gabriel indi- cated he could come back with plans for a shorter tower, if that is what it would take. Vice Chairman Lehnertz referred to the list of permitted uses in a P.I.D. Sometimes that list is amended. If this is approved, they W~Uld be allowing towers as a use. They were not saying anyone would be given a variance. This would allow the person the opportunity to make a presen- tation with a site plan and ask for a conditional use. The - 6 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 Vice Chairman felt 150' was too tall, but he did feel the applicant should be allowed a chance to return with a site plan. Mr. Collins agreed. First Motion Mrs. Greenhouse moved that the request to amend the list of permitted uses at the Boynton Commerce Center P.I.D. to include relay towers be found inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the permitted uses section. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Discnssion about 5he motion ensued. City Attorney Cherof pointed out the requirement of the Code is that when they are examining a new permitted use, they must have a specific finding that it is consistent with the intent and purpose of Section VII of Appendix A. Therefore, the motion Should be that the use is either consistent or inconsistent with the P.I.D. District. Mrs. Greenhouse stated she wanted to leave her motion as she had stated it. The Chairman called for a vote. The motion FAILED 3-4. Vice Chairman Lehnertz, Mr~ Eoward, Mr. Collins and Ms. Stevens voted against the motion. Several moments later, Chairman Rosenstock indicated he misunderstood and he wished to c~ange his vote to "Nay." Since the vote h~d been completed, the Chairman was not able to change his vote. Second Motion Vice Chairman Lehnertz moved that the PZB approve the request to amend the list of permitted uses at the Boynton Commerce Center P.I.D. to include relay towers. The PZB finds the proposed use will not be in conflict with the per- formance standards listed in Section 4.N of the Zoning regu- lations and that the use proposed is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P.I.D. district. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Under discussion, it was clarified that the Board was not setting any type of height on this. It was Mr. Cutro's understanding that this would become a permitted use in the district, as long as it meets the height restriction. If it goes over the height restriction, then there will have to be a h'eight exception made and there will still have to be site plan review. There was agreement. If this passes, Mrs. Greenhouse wanted to know if a four-story relay tower would be a permitted use in any M-1 District. It was pointed out that if this pas. ses, it would be only in this P.I.D. They would be amending the list of allowable uses in this P.I.D., not the Code itself. 7 w MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 Chairman Rosenstock called for a vote of all those in favor of the motion. The motion carried 4-3. Mrs. ~uckle, Mrs. Greenhouse and Chairman Rosenstock voted against the motion. Mr. Cutro sugges%ed the Board next address the rezonings. The Board members agreed. New Business A. PUBLIC HEARINGS REZONINGS - Pursuant to 1989 Comprehensive Plan Mr. Gonzatez explained the City's Comprehensive Plan recom- mends several changes in land use and zoning in the City. These changes wsre analysed during 16 different advertised workshops and Public Hearings held during the Plan adoption process in early to mid-1989. The changes to the Land Use Map were implemented when the Plan was adopted on November 7, 1989. Corresponding changes in zoning will be processed during the next several months, in order to implement the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, which brings the zoning map into conformance with the Future Land Use Map. Even though these rezo~ing changes have not been officially made, they have been enforceable since the Plan was adopted. Five rezoning applications were before the Board at this time. Next month there will be ten. This proces.s will continue for two to three months. Other explanatory remarks are found in Mr. Gonzalez' Memorandum No. 91-062 to the Board, a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Addendum B. APPLICATION NUMBER 1 Applicant: Agent: Project Name: Owners: Location: Description: City of Boynton Beach Christopher Cutro Planning Director Application No. 1 (Planning Area 4.b) E. G. & Helen D. Galliers, Grace I. Golden & Patricia A. Cox, John & Bettye C. Gloskowski, Ken Hall, Cott C. & Tina M. Dean, Ernest & Ann Cordone, Allen W. & Victoria Valentine, F. H. & Jarsnne Linn Block bounded by S.W. 2nd Ave., S.W. 1st Street, S.W. 3rd Ave., and S.W. 2hd S~Peet RequeSt to rezone from R-2 (Duplex Residential)-tO R-IA (Single-Family Residential) for the purpose of - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan Mr. Gonzalez explained this request includes 8 lots or a total of 2.03 acres. The Land Use Designation in place is low density residential which is consistent with the requested zoning district, R-lA. The basis for this rezoning is Planning Area 4.b of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section of the Comprehensive Plan. Seven out of the eight lots have existing single-family homes. One lot is vacant. This is the only block in the Crescent Heights Subdivision that is zoned R-2. All the other blocks are zoned R-lA. If denied, a Land Use Amendment will be necessary to change the land use from medium density to residential. A Text Amendment will also be necessary to delete the recommendation in Planning Area 4.b. Chairman RosensCock asked if there was any input from the public. Mr. Ken Hall, 110 S.E. 3rd Ave., stated he was 100% opposed to this rezoning. Mr. Hall owns the vacant lot in this block. He was concerned that the rezoning would affect his property rights by denying him the purpose for which he bouqht the lot two years ago~ namely, to build a duplex. He was also concerned that the valuation of the parcel would be affected and he could suffer financial loss. If rezoned, he will only be able to build a single family home on the pro- perty. Mr. Halt pointed out the surrounding area is bounded on the north by duplexes. His lot is in the northeast corner of this block. It is bounded on the east by R-3. Even though the rest of the block is built up, the rezonlng might cause a loss of value in connection with resales, as the ability of homeowners to add onto their homes or to enclose their carports would be affected. Mr. Hall remarked that he had been in the construction busi- ness for many years. He is employed for the City of Boynton Beach in the Engineering Dept. In connection with the other rezonings, Mr. Hall referred to three areas in which he believed the City was looking to relax zoning requirements to encourage development. By imposing more stringent requirements on empty lots that remain east of 1-95, he did not think people would be encouraged to develop their empty lots. Mrs. Greenhouse asked the City Attorney when people buy land, do they have a rlqht to expect the zoning to stay the same. City Attorney Cherof responded negatively. '~nen people buy the land they are "constructively on notice" that the zoning could be changed at any time. Mr. Hall stated - 9 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 they should walk cautiously when they start changing peoples' zoning. Chairman Rosenstock pointed out that every developer should know that whatever is bought today, is sub- ject to changes in the zoning codes in the future. Other remarks were made. Mr. Hall requested that Mrs. Greenhouse abstain from voting on the issue .as Mr. Hall believed she had a conflict of interest. Mr. ~Iall stated Mrs. Greenhouse represents a client that he had filed a grievance against in the City. Mr. Hall believed she was prejudiced of anything that might have to do width him. Mrs. Greenhouse replied she had no conflict amd she had no intention of abstaining. Chairman Rosenstock stated that if Mrs. Greenhouse has no monetary gain or loss in the ma~ter, he didn't think the Board had the right to force her to abstain. City Attorney Cherof stated the ~nly person that could make the determination of Whether to abstain or not is Mrs. Greenhouse. Mrs. Greenhouse stated she had nothing to gain and nothing to lose by voting on this. Mr. Hall believed Mrs. Greenhouse may be prejudiced because of the way she had treated him in the past. Mrs. Greenhouse repeated she had no conflict. Motion Mrs. Greenhouse moved that the City of Boynton Beach request to rezone from R-2 (Duplex Residential) to R-lA (Single-Family Residential) for the purpose of implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan for the block bounded by S.W. 2nd Ave., S.W. 1st Street, S.W. 3rd Ave., and S.W. 2nd Street be approved. Mr. Howard seconded the motion. Chairman Rosenstock asked if there were any from the audience. As there were none, THE WAS CLOSED. further comments PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Hall stated if this vote goes against him, it might be reasonable to consider leaving his lot out of the rezoning. Chairman Rosenstock called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried 7-0. APPLICATION NUMBER 2 APPLICANT: Agent: Project Name: Owners: City of Boynton Beach Christopher Cutro Planning Director Application No. 2 (Planning Area 4.c) Mary Ann Siciliano, Robert H. Wickman, Terrence F. & Jean Ruzycki, Edith Granby, James E. & Tressa J. 10 - MINUTES PLAATNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 Location: Description: Scramlin, Mary R. Hahn, Richard E. & Linda Spears, Jay B. & Mary K. Galoci, Gene & Barbara Esper Lots on the south side of S.W. 10th Ave., north of Forest Park Elementary School Request to rezone from R-1AA (Single-Family Residential) to R-lA (Single-Family Residential) for the purpose of implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gonzalez explained this request contains 10 lots or a total 1.68 acres. The Land Use Designation in place is low density residential. The basis for this rezoning is Planning Area 4.c of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section of the Comprehensive Plan. These are the only lots in the Bellamy Heights Subdivision that are zoned R-1AA. All the others are zoned R-lA. Nine of the ten lots on the block have existing single-family homes on them. Chairman Rosenstock asked if there was any input from the audience. As there was none, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chairman Lehnertz moved to approve the request to rezone from R-1AA (Single-Family Residential) to R-lA (Single Family Residential) for the purpose of implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, the area being Planning Area 4.c. The lots are on the south side of S.W. 10th Ave., north of Forest Park Elementary School. Mrs. Greenhouse seconded the motion which carried 7-0. APPLICATION NUMBER 3 Applicant: Agent: Project Name: Owners: Location: Description: City of Boynton Beach Christopher Cutro Planning Director Application No. 3 (Planning Area 4.h) Ronald E. Panucci, Samuel J. & Laura B. Christopher, John S. & Patricia I. Leombruni, F. & M. Marjorie Gensheimer, Mohammed S. & Fazia Lam, Michael Fanning, Allen W. & Dorothy A. Leinweber, Angel & Miriam Alicea, Iris G. & Annette B. Williams, Harry E. Baus, Jennifer L. Fletche Lots on S.E. 34th Avenue and S.E. 4th Street, west of the F.E.C. tracks Request to rezone from R-2 (Duplex Residential) to R-lA (Single-Family 11 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON ~EACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 Residential) for the purpose of implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gonzalez explained this request includes 11 lots or a total of 2.06 acres. The Land Use Designation in place is low density residential which is consistent with the R-lA district. The basis for this rezoning is Planning Area 4.h of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section of the Comprehensive Plan. This is the only subdivision in the general area that is zoned. R-2. The rest are zoned R-lA. All 11 lots have single-family homes on them. Ii denied, a Land Use Amendment will be necessary to change the land use to medium density residential. Chairman Rosenstock asked if there was any input from the public. As there was no response irom the audience, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Collins moved to approve the request to rezone from R-1 (Duplex Residential) to R-lA (Single-Family Residential) for the purpose of implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. The lots are located on S.E. 34th Ave. and S.E. 4th Street, west of the F.E.C. tracks. Mrs. Greenhouse seconded the motion. It was noted that a "typo" occurs on the Agenda and these lots are currently zoned R-2 (Duplex Residential). Chairman Rosenstock called for a vote of all those in favor of the motion. The motion carried 7-0. APPLICATION NUMBER 4 4e Applicant: Agent: Pro~ect Name: Owners: Location: Description: City of Boynton Beach Christopher Cutro Planning Director Application No. 4 (Planning Area 8.a) Carney Bank, James & Jean R. Smith, Verbon O. & Wendy J. Franklin, Charles B. & Frances Austin, Antonio Velardo, Lu Ella & Dawn Rutherford, Joyce E. Worpell, Donald E. & Eleanor & Karen Tagner, Frank L. & Paula S. Leon, Julie T. Daceus, Americo Pirozzi Lots bounded by N.W. 1st Avenue, S.W. 6th Street, S.W. 2nd Ave., and the S.A.L. tracks Request to rezone from R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) to R-2 - 12 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 (Duplex Residential) for the purpose of implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gonzalez stated this request included 13 lots or a total of 2.17 acres. The Land Use Designation in place is medium density residential which is consistent with the R~2 zoning district being applied for. The basis for this rezoning is Planning Area 8.a of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section of the Comprehensive Plan. If denied, a Land Use Amendment will be necessary to change the land use to high density residential. Chairman Rosenstock asked if there was any input from the public. As there was none, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mrs. Greenhouse moved that the request to rezone from R-3 (Multiple-Pamily Residential) to R-2 (Duplex Residential) for the purpose of implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan for the lots bounded by N.W. 1st Ave., S.W. 6th Street, S.W. 2nd Ave., and the S.A.L. tracks be approved. Mr. Howard seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Lehnertz stated he is within 400' of this area and he did notification of this. Mr. Gonzalez into this. listed as a homeowner not remember receiving indicated he would look Mr. Collins left the dais at 8:15 P.M. Remarks were made about a very small lot at the end of S.W. 2nd Ave. It was noted that the small piece is not part of the Tradewinds property. Mr. Cutro referred to this as "POD Chairman Rosenstock called for a vote on the motion. motion carried 6-0. The Mr. Collins returned to the dais at 8:18 P.M. APPLICATION NUMBER 5 Applicant: Agent: Project Name: Owner: Location: Description: City of Boynton Beach Christopher Cutro, Planning Director Application No. 5 (Planning Area 8.A) American Legion Club of Boynton Lots on northeast corner of Ocean Ave. and S.W. 6th St. Request to rezone from R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) to PU - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 (Public Usage) for the purpose of implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gonzalez explained this request includes one lot or a total of .44 of an acre. The land use designation in place is Public and Private Governmental and Institutional which is consistent with the PU zoning district that is being applied for. The basis for this rezoning is Planning Area 8.A of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section of the Comprehensive Plan. If denied, a Land Use'~endment will be necessary to change the Land Use to high density residential. Chairman Rosenstock asked if there was any input from the public. As there was none, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chairman Lehnertz moved to recommend approval of the request to rezone from R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) to PU (Public Usage) for the purpose of implementing the 1989 Comprehensive Plan for the lots on the northeast corner of Ocean Ave. and S.W. 6th St. Mr. Howard seconded the motion which carried 7-0. Other B. CONSISTENCY REVIEW (Pursuant to Chapter 163.3194 F.S.) 1. Proposed amendment to Zoning Code the regulations governing service with or without major repairs. to revise stations Mr. Cutro explained this was the first in a series of up- dates on items that have been in a "holding pattern." It will consist of three items, namely, 1) The request for a change in distance waiver for service stations, 2) Non- conforming uses, and 3) Chapter 19. They would probably be dealing with them in that order, on a monthly basis. Mr. Cutro stressed this was an opportunity for Board input. This item could be pulled and did not have to go on recom- mended to the City Commission, if the PZB is uncomfortable with it. Mr. Cutro would be happy to discuss changes to it as they move along in the next few months. Mrs. Greenhouse asked about work Mr. Cutro has been doing on an 18 month extension "loophole" relating to Master Plan Modifications. Mr. Cutro indicated he had not really made any progress on this. If they wanted it "shored up," that could be done. He felt it would be a fairly quick text change. Mr. Cutro indicated he should have it prepared for the next meeting. 14 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 Mr. Cutro outlined the contents of his Memorandum No. 91-064 to the Board, a copy of which is attached to these Minutes as Addendum C. At the January, 1991, PZB meeting, discussion occurred regarding the reduction of the 1,000' separation for service stations. One oi the questions raised was whether or not the 1,000' is an arbitrary figure. Mr. Julian Bryan, a Consultant/Planner had indicated that a more equitable method might be to develop a series of standards for lo~cating automotive service stations and work that into the Co~e as an "Overlay District." At that time, the PZB had expressad an interest in having staff explore this. Staff had dra~wn up certain criteria which was before the Board at this meeting. Mr. Cutro provided lengthy technical explana- tion. Placed into the criteria would be factors that would limit these, without being arbitrary. They triedto avoid the 1,000' linear separation. Mr. Cutro outlined the purpose of these regulations as explained in Addendum D, which is attached to these Minutes. ~e believed the Board needed to further discuss convenience stores that pump gas and whether they want to keep free- standing convenience stores in. Mr. Cutro didn't really want to put a limitation on a convenience store that is located ~n a shopping center. "Kiosks" that sell gas would be c~vered under this Ordinance. Mr. Cutro believed they needed to "clean up" som~ of the language. He explained how the ~e~elopment standards established by this section would "overlay" the development criteria. These would be addi- tional requirements on top of the C-2, C-3, or C-4 zoning districts. It was pointed out that the development standards will apply to all services stations. They would also apply to rehabi- litations of existing service stations when there are material changes involved. Mr. Cutro believed that in cer- tain situations where people are coming in to rehabilitate a very substandard station, based on this criteria, they could deny that site plan application and remove some of those uses. The definition of automotive service station which was before the Board, needed to be looked at very carefully ~n Mr. Cutro's opinion, as it may need some work. Mr. Cutro explained the items listed under "Development Standards" pertaining to Location, Minimum Plot Size, Minimum Street Frontage, Driveways, and Setbacks. (See _Addendum D attached). When discussing the proposed setbacks for car washes, Mr. Cutro pointed out this was intended for mechanized car washes. Ii someone came in with a "hand washing" operation, that would be a separate primary use and 15 - MINUTES - PLi~NNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 he didn't think that would be compatible. would have to be a separate standard and He thought there review for that When addressing Buffers for interior property lines, "When adjacent to other commercial property" Mr. Cutro pointed out staff didn't feel there was a need for a buffer. They did need to make sure that the Landscape Code "kicks in" so there is a normal, continuous buffer that is required, whether it's on the subject property or on an adjacent pro- perty. Under Buffers "When adjacent to residential property," Mr. Cutro preferred that the hedge be located on the outside of the fence to soften the effect. He thought perhaps this requirement should be "tightened up" a little, as opposed to allowing the hedge to be placed anywhere in the buffer. Relative to Buffers and allowing openings for gates, Mr. Cutro pointed out the gate would serve two functions. It would allow aceess to maintain the hedge material. There could be a situation in a neighborh©od where because of the locations of entrances and exits, a.person who is located right next to ~the gas station might be forced to drive all the way through the subdivision, out onto the road and back to the facility. The person ~ay only want to purchase a newspaper. Mr. Cutro thought if the neighborhood was willing to put up with the opening, and they could arrange for closing hours, etc., it might make sense to try one or two of these. If it created security problems, obviously they could ~sk that the gates be closed. Mr. Cutro remarked that the criteria they had just reviewed had been reviewed by the TRB. The Building Dept. had suggested that a berm be added to the landscaping as a part ~f a substitute for the continuous hedge. Mr. Cutro did not have a problem with this and requested feedback from the Board members. They needed to add the following language: "The Landscaping Code shall be met and all other City Codes shall be met." There was also a minor conflict between the proposed Landscaping Code which requires trees every 30' as this suggests requiring trees every 50'. Mr. Cutro believed 30' to 40' would be better. He pointed out that when trees are planted 30' from one another, they tend to grow into each other. If the tree is supposed to be 40' wide, 20' off the stem, once those two trees grow together, they stop growing in that direction~ He thouqht that was something they should consider in the spacing requirement. The question of whether they should take the 1-95 corridor out of this was raised by Mr. Cutro~ The 1-95 corridor is an arterial but it does not have the normal street corners. - 16 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 You have entrance and exit ramps, but the corners are buried below the height of the road and accessing them would be extremely difficult. Mr. Cutro noted there is a major concern with old service stations in the downtown area. The best way to deal with that is to ban service stations in the downtown zoning district. They could make them non-conforming and not allow them to come back in under an expansion of a non-conforming use. Mr. Cutro repeated he was open to discussion and suggestions with regard to the question of freestanding convenience stores. A large map was viewed which showed existing con- venience stores. There seemed to be a line of them east of 1-95, to the west of Federal Hwy. One combination full con- venience store with gas facilities exists at the corner of Hypoluxo Rd. and Congress Ave. It is located in a shopping center. The map also showed gas stations without service. These also sell small amounts of commercial goods such as bread, milk, newspapers, etc. These were originally built as gas stations, however, the buildings have been modified to the point that they are now used to sell commercial goods. There are no repairs at these~stations. Specific sites were pointed out on the map. The map also showed traditional gas stations that not only sell gas but provide repair services. The majority seem to be along the Federal Hwy. corridor. A few are located along the Boynton Beach Blvd. corridor. Staff's analysis of the situation is that the proposed Ordinance would create a total of four new sites in the City. These Would be located 1) at Congress Ave. at Hypoluxo Rd., 2) N.W. 22nd Ave. at Congress Ave., 3) Woolbright Rd. at Congress kve. and 4) (if Golf Rd. ever goes to four lanes) at Golf Rd. at Federal Hwy. This would be diagonal to the existing station at that location. Staff had not done an analysis to determine what some of these sites are presently being usmd for and what some of these corner sites are used for. A lot of these do not even have the proper zoning or land use. Other remarks were made about variances to the 1,000' separation. Mr. Cutro stated if this is adopted, there would be four more potential sites for gas stations in the City. Mr. Cutro requested input. If the Board was comfortable with this, it would be forwarded on to the City Commission. Chairman Rosenstock commended Mr. Cutro and staff for the thoroughness of the research that had been conducted. He noted that information had not really been delineated in front of the Board yet. He personally wanted to see the - 17 - MINUTES - PLAATNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 exact verbiage before the Board was asked to make any recom- mendation. Mr. Cutro appreciated the Chairman's feelings in this regard and indicated that was no problem. Mrs. Greenhouse wanted to talk about the driveways. It appeared to her that there may be some conflicts in the Code. The Parking Lot Code requires a distance of 180' from the driveway to the intersecting rights-of-way. There was now a proposal to require Only 110'. They were talking about major arterials and for safety reasons she believed there should be a d~istance of 180'. She pointed out that another section of the Code allows a minimum street frontage of 175'. They were looking at a minimum of 30' between a driveway and an adjacent p~operty line, and 30' for a drive- way. 175' has to be ~he minimum total ~rontage. If you add 180' to that you get 240'. It seemed to Mrs. Greenhouse that they should go with the 240' wh~ich would be in the best safety interests of the citizens, rather than the smaller f~g~re of 110' which would regally benefit the developer. If the total frontage were increased to 240', they could require the 180' between thle intersecting rights-of-way and the driveway. Other remarks were made about safety near intersections an~ difficulties cars can experience pulling out into traffic. There was discussion between Mrs. Greenhouse and Richard Staudinger, P.'E. regarding the 180' as opposed to the 110'. Mr. Staudinger referred to a problem when a gas station comes in with a 175' frontage on two sides, plus a driveway located within that. Sometimes they are faced with putting that driveway very close to~ the interior property line. Mr. Staudinger was very uncomfortable with that because then the driveway comes out and "flicks around" into an adjacent driveway, within a very small distance. That is a very poor maneuver on the roadway. Most of the gas stations he had been involved with in recent months had been trying to obtain a variance to move those driveways much closer to the intersection. Mrs. Greenhouse asked why 175' was the "magic" number. Mr. Staud~g~r d~dn t view ~t as a "magic" number. The number could b~ changed if the City chose to do so. Mrs. Greenhouse repeated she would like to see the figure increased to 240'. (Based on 180'/30'/30') She hated to see the Codes relaxed in this case. Mr. Cutro interjected there could be a problem with this because the 180' figure doesn't deal with gas stations. He stated the way the Code ~s constructed, the present gas sta- tion requirements overlay the other codes. This is a spe- cial set of standards that would be an overlay. Mr. Cutro had taken the existing 175' and extended that on both sides. Under the present Code, he belieued they could go to within 40' of the intersection. Mrs. Greenhouse thought that - 18 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 should be eliminated if that was the problem. She pointed out that staff proposed changing this. In her opinion, it should be changed to be in the best interests of the resi- dents. Chairman Rosenstock pointed out there were approximately 25 gas stations within the City. An additional option would be to reconstruct some of the Zoning Codes to say we don't want any more gas stations in the City. That was an issue that would have to be decided by the City Commission. Mr. Staudinger clarified he was not saying they couldn't go to 240'. They could go to whatever distance they liked. He wanted them to understand that currently when a gas station comes in to TRB, they are faced with gas stations coming in with only 40' or 50' from the intersection. In his opinion, that is unsafe. This proposed overlay is an attempt to work something out that is much safer. The Board could provide staff direction. Mr. Staudinger was very uncomfortable with the 40' to 45'. He was much more comfortable with the 110'. Mrs. Greenhouse asked City Attorney Cherof why the 45' was still in the Code. She thought it should be eliminated. Attorney Cherof responded that could occur. It would take Commission action. Mr. Cutro interjected this point had been discovered in about the last six weeks. This is in Section L of Appendix A. Attorney Cherof remarked that is the Section that deals specifically with service stations. He read tbs language from the current Code. Mr. Staudinger was not comfortable with this language. Other remarks were made. Mrs. Greenhouse asked why is a convenience store attached to a gas station being construed as being exempt from the parking lot driveway requirements. City Attorney Cherof responded it was not being construed in that fashion. Ne referred to a three page memorandum that he had recently produced and which addressed this issue. He explained there is no specific definition for anything but an automotive service station. That definition covers any type of faci- lity that sells gasoline, whether it be a traditional ser- vice station or one of the newer "kiosk" type centers that exist today. Attorney Cherof remarked the Code had never been modernized. Mrs. Greenhouse asked if a "kiosk" type facility came in, would it be exempt from the parking lot requirements. Attorney Cherof responded it is not an issue of exemption. The Parking Lot Ordinance does apply, but it must be read in con]unction wi~h~the specific section on service stations. The meaning from both must be applied, if it's possible to do it. Mrs. Greenhouse thought there was a conflict. One pcint says you have to have a minimum of 175' lot frontage. A - 19 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 different point says 180' from a connecting arterial. City Attorney Cherof stated that is not a conflict because the Section on service stations controls. Mr. Staudinger wanted to make sure one thing was understood. They were not decreasing this figure to 110' When service stations presently come in proposing 40' to 45', that is allowed under the Code. They proposed increasing that to i10'. If the Board wanted to increase that even more, that was their prerogative, and he didn't have a problem with that. Other remarks were made by Mr. Staudinger and Mrs. Greenhouse. Mr. Collins reminded the Board that Mr. Cutro had indicated that if the Board was uncomfortable with this, this doesn't have to move forward to the City Commission at this time. It could be worked on further. Mr. Collins suggested the Board move on. Chairman Rosenstock thought Mr. Cutro ~eeded direction in specific areas. Mr. Cutro suggested they go over the proposed Development Standards individually for a consensus of opinion. Relative to Location, Chairman Rosenstock asked if any of the members felt service stations should be located at any other place than what Mr. Cutro had specified. The members were satisfied with Mr. Cutro's proposal. The Chairman stated that assuming the City Commission will approve any additional gas stations or say they don't want any more gas stations, the proposal will be that they will only be located on corners as recommended by the Planning Dept. Minimum Plot Size - Mr. Cutro remarked this would increase from the 30,000 sq. ft., if they increase the minimum front- age. The members understood this point. Minimum Street Frontage - Mrs. Greenhouse proposed this be increased to 240' She repeated the math discussed earlier in the meeting, namely, 180' + 30' ~ 30' = 240' She pointed out that items D. 1, 2, and 3 (on the Development Standards outline) should be used in order to arrive at Item C. Chairman Rosenstock asked if there was any opposition to this being 240' Commissioner Jose' Aguila thought they might want to talk with representatives of service stations to find out the economic feasibility of buying a 1.3 acre site (which would be the minimum site) to build a gas station. This might be beyond economic feasibility. Some members noted it would then be difficult to open a gas station in Boynton Beach. Differing opinions were expressed on this point. The con- sensus was to go with the 240'. - 20 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYI~TON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 Setbacks - Mr. Cutro stated these were copied out of the districts in which these were located. The important items were listed under "Other." These related to canopy loca- tion, pump location and car washes. The members had no problem with this section. Buffers - Vice Chairman Lehnertz agreed the hedge should be on the residential side of the wall. He also agreed that the Landscape Code should be met along with the rest of the Code. Relative to spacing between trees, he explained why he felt trees located every 35' to 40' would be better than every 50'. He thought when tree canopies do grow together, that isn't entirely bad. They would end up having a nice, solid row of trees. Mr. Cutro stated that when the City looks at the Landscape Code, they need to look at planting larger trees than what we are presently planting. He noted they couldn't reach the canopy he was talking about by planting 8' trees. Mr. Cu~ro u~derstood the new Landscape Code would require 10' to 14' trees. Chairman Rosenstock suggested they comply with the Landscape Code so there is no confusion. There was agreement to go with 40' spacing on the trees. Gas Stations - Chairman Rosenstock thought the final issue was whether the City Commission wants to have additional gas stations in the City. He requested the Board come to a con- sensus in this regard. The Board could make a recommen- dation to the Commission, if they wished. Ms. Stevens pointed out that if this is approved, they would be adding four potential gas station sites in the City. She wondered if this would eliminate any sites. Mr. Cutro responded some sites would be grandfathered in, but when you go to retrofit a site, meeting some of these standards will be very difficult. Mrs. Greenhouse commented on how hard it can be to get rid of a gas station. Ms. Stevens responded that gas stations are needed somewhere in the community. Mr. Cutro stated there are some gas stations in town that are located on very small sites. Those would have a problem meeting the basic standards such as driveway distances off ¢orners~ etc. If they wanted to do a ma~or renovation, whea the site plan comes through, the City Commission, TRB, and the PZB would have a right to say "No." Chairman Rosenstock asked if that would be grandfathered in, in perpetuity, if they do not change. Mr. Cutro tended to believe that the very small site, that could not be upgraded, would eventually fall out of the loop in terms of people going there. Mrs. Greenhouse wasn't so sure that would happen. She referred to an incident involving a local service station which she believed had changed its use entirely by becoming a tire store in the CBD. She pointed out that business is still operating. - 21 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 Commissioner Lynne Matson wished to comment not as a Commissioner, but as a homeowner. She thought they should look at locations also. Reference was made to the intersec- tion of Congress Ave. and Hypoluxo Rd. which she thought is a very dangerous intersection. She described the situation at that location where a gas station could exist. She thought they should look at the individual locations and not lump them together. Mr. Cutro asked if they wanted to include freestanding con- venience stores, so they would be controlled by this Ordinance. He personally would like to come up with language which would separate out the freestanding con- venience stores similar to the one that is located across from City Hall. He thought they should try to control these. He pointed out these locate because of traffic. The members were agreeable to Mr. Cutro seeking such language. Mrs. Greenhouse brought up an unresolved point mentioned earlier in the meeting. The point had to do with requiring a berm verses a continuous hedge. Mr. Cutro replied he would like to explore this question with the Building Dept. He stated it would be "either/or". They could either put in the continuous hedge or the berm. There was agreement. In connection with the idea of "carving out" the 1-95 corri- dor mentioned earlier, Mr. Cutro stated he didn't know how they would locate them at the corners because the access is virtually impossible. He thought they would have to work on that language. Mrs. Greenhouse suggested Mr. Cutro coor- dinate with the Engineering Dept. in that regard. Mrs. Greenhouse asked about banning services stations in the CBD. Mr. Cutro stated that was something they would have to do with a separate zoning district. It was pointed out they are already non-conforming uses in the CBD. The Chairman thought in view of that fact, they didn't have to worry about it. Mr. Cutro indicated he would pull these changes and bring them back to the PZB next month. There was agreement. Chairman Rosenstock asked for a consensus on whether the PZB wanted any additional gas stations in the City. Mrs. Greenhouse stated she would be in favor of a moratorium. She also suggestgd another concept. She thought i~ someone wanted to build a gas station west of town, they could be required to "buy out" a gas station on the east side of town or else buy the property. Ii they would eliminate one, then they could have a station somewhere else. She remarked this would provide incentive. There were mixed reactions to her idea. City Attorney Cherof interjected that type o~ - 22 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 recommendation was beyond their power unless they deal with it within the context of their review of the Comprehensive Plan. Tl~e Chairman thought perhaps they should do it on that basis then. City Attorney Cherof pointed out that was not an item pending before the Board at this time. It would be procedurally improper. The Chairman accepted Attorney Cherof's remarks. Other comments were made. Mr. Cutro remarked there were some persons present in the audience who were present specifically to speak on this issue. It was noted that one of the original persons who had requested review of the 1,000' gas station separation requirement was present. This person had submitted a plan which was presently in a "holding pattern." Mr. Cutro explained the TRB reviewed, on a complimentary basis, the preliminary plans. Staff had turned over its comments. The person had not resubmitted the drawing for official TRB review. The Chairman and City Attorney reminded the Board this issue was not before the Board. i~h~ Chairman attempted to proceed with the meeting. Mr. Cutro asked if Chairman Rosenstock was going to allow the people to comment on the proposed change. The Chairman responded negatively. The unidentified representative for the gas station attempted to address the Board. Chairman Rosenstoek again responded negatively and brief discussion ensued w~th City Attorney Cherof. The City Attorney indi- cated it was up to the Chairman's discretion whether he wanted to entertain any comments on this. Chairman Rosenstock didn't wish to entertain public comments because the issue was not before the Board. The Chairman again a~tempted to proceed with the meefing. The representative for the gas station again interupted and stated he was not present to speak on that site but rather he wished to speak on the Ordinance that they had just voted on changing. Chairman Rosenstock declared the man out of order and pointed out the City Attorne~ had corrected him (Chairman Rosenstock) earlier in the evening and the counsel had been accepted. The Chairman stated, ~'If the City Attorney's counsel is good for me, then it's good for you." Please see related remarks on this topic at end of meeting. Comments by Members Board Decorum Mrs. Huckle requested that the PZB maintain better decorum. She thought it was rude for members to interrupt one another. She thought the Board needed to "shape up." Chairman Rosenstock agreed with the recommendation and hoped all members would abide by this. 23 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 9, 1991 Discussion Regarding Time of Meetings There was discussion about the Board's recent change from 7:30 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. for its regular monthly meetings. Several members remarked on their personal circumstances and preferences in this regard. The Board members were polled for their preference. The majority preferred to meet at 7%00 P.M. Public Input Ms. Stevens remarked that she felt the gentleman who wished to speak on the service station issue earlier in the meeting ~hould have been allowed to speak. Chairman Rosenstock pointed out that since he had been Chairman, the PZB had with great patience listened to argumentative opinions from the public for hours sometimes. The Board has to abide by certain rules and regulations. If something is not on the Board's Agenda, if the Board hears someone and makes an exception, then they could be accused of being discrimina- tory if the Board doesn't hear other people at other times. The Chairman felt he had abided by the rules as adjudicated by the City Attorney. The Chairman appreciated MS. Stevens opinion° ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Shannon Burkett Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) - 24 - pLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 91-066 TO: T~LRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chairman & Members p~&~lng Board christopher Cutro Planning Director Tambri 3. Meyden Senior City Planner April 4, 1991 Boynton Commercenter - BellSouth Mobility Use Approval - File NO. 585 Alan L. Gabriel is requesting use approval for a relay Tower and unmanned equipment shelter a= the Boynton commercenter, zoned planned industrial Development (PID); see attached correspondence- The purpose of the proposed use is =o estabTish communication equipment for BellSout~ Mobility, Inc., which provides mobile cellular telephone services. According to Appendix A-Zoning, Section 7.E., in approving uses in the PID, the Planning and Zoning Board shall make findings that the use proposed will no~ be in conflict with the performance s~andards listed in Section 4.N. of the zoning regulations, and that the use proposed is consistent with the intenu and purpose of the planned industrial developmenu district. The proposed use conforms to the performance standards relative to noise, vibration, smoke, dust, or other particulate matter, odors, fumes, uoxic or noxious matter, glare, heat, humidity, radiation, fire, explosion hazards, liquid waste, and solid waste. =rdin electromagnetic interference, the performance s=andards Reg~. . g ........ es abnormal degradation of performance of any electromagnetic receptbr of quality and proper design, or which causes electromagnetic radiation and objectionable reception. The city's communication tower, located along the will not be a problem with interference with the City~ facility. There is a very slight possibility, as is the case with any television reception in close proximity to the tower; however, most radios and televisions are equipped with filters for this Regarding the inten= and purpose of the p.I.D, district which, among other things, is to provide a zoning classification for light industrial developmen= that will better satisfy current demands fo~ light industrial zoned lands, the M-I, Light Industrial District, Appendix A, Section 8.A.4.b. permits co~,~mercial television, radio and micro,ave broadcasting or relay towers as a principal use subjec~ tc conditional use approval. This implies that relay ~owere ~re an appropriate light industrial use subject to certain restrictions or provisions to mitiga=e any negative i~pacts. Of the following s=andards for evaluating conditional uses: ingress/egress, parking, refuse and service areas, utilities, buffering, landscaping, ~etbacks, traffic safety, s=ruoture heigh=, economic effects, and compatibility and h'armony with nearby properties, all but the last ~wo standards listed, will be reviewed whe~ the approval of the site plan and height exception for the 150 foot tower are ADDENDUM A pM91-066 -2- Apr. 4, 1991 and compatibility of the =ower with nearby properties, the proposed location, adjacent to Golf Road, is an least 750 feet from the residential developments in the area (Leisureville, Golf View Harbour, High Point West Condominiums, Bethesd& Park Condominiums and Forest Hills). The proposed tower location is immediately adjacent to the seaboard Airline Railway, Golf Road and the remainder of the P.I.D. which, as is required, has an existing perimeter buffer. In addition, Golf Road is at an elevation higher than the height of the one-story industrial buildings at the southeast corner of the P.I.D. where the tower is proposed. Another issue that arises with this use relative to compatibility with nearby properties (especially residential properties) is the markings required by the Federal Aeronautics Administration° At this point in the process, the applicant has not decided what type of markings will be used (strobe, flashing red lights and/er painting). However, owing to the current demand for mobile phones necessitating relay towers located near major highways and the appropriateness of this use for the light industri~al soned land at the Boynton Com~ereenter, discussed above, it can be concluded that this use is consistent with the inteat and purpose of the P.I.D. district. Based on the analysis above regarding the na=ure of the proposed use wi~h ~he performance standards, consistency of the proposed use with the in=eh= and purpose of the P.I.D. district and compatibility of the proposed uss with the permitted uses (see attached list) which have been approved a~ the Boynton Commercenuer, it is recommended that the list of permitted uses for the Boynton Co~mercenter be amended to include relay towers. TJH:frb Eric C:PM91-066 THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: PLANNXN~ DBPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO, 91-062 Chairnan and Menbers Planning and Zoning Board Christopher Cutro, AICP Planning Director Jorge L. Gonzalez Assistant City Planner April 3, 1991 Rezonings Pursuant to 1989 Comprehensive Plan During the next several months the City of Boynton Beach will be initiating a series of rezonings recommended in the. 1989 Comprehensive Plan. The accompanying agenda includes the first five rezoning applications (Applications 1-5}. The purpose of these rezonings is to bring the zoning map into conformance with the future land use map. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan and future land use map were adopted by the City Commission on N~vember 7, 1989 (Ordinance Number 89-38). The City's zoning regulations (Section 9.C.2. of Appendix A-Zoning)~ do not require the Planning Department to provide an analysis of zoning changes which are for the purpose of implementing the Comprehensive Plan. These zoning changes have already been analyzed by the Planning Department, the Planning and Zoning Board, and the City Commission through the workshops and public hearings that were held as part of th~ plan adoption process. Furthermore, the City Commission has already determined, by adopting the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, that these land use and zoning changes are desirable. The Planning and Zoning BosFd will need to conduct separate public hearings and make recommendations to the City Commission on each of the five rezoning applications. If the Planning and Zoning Board recommends approval of these applications, each recommendation should include a finding that the application is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. If the Planning and Zoning Board recommends denial of any particular rezoning application, this recommendation should include consideration as to whether the City should initiate a land use amendment. L. GON A~LEZ a:pzbmemo/89rezon~ngs ADDENDUM B PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 91-064 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board Christopher Cutro Planning Director April 3, 1991 Service Stations, Gasoline Sales, Stores and Convenience At the January meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, a presentation was made regarding the reduction of the 1000 foot separation for service stations. One of those presentations (made by Julian Bryant)indicated that a more equitable method for locating such facilities would be to design development standards that would separate such uses. Board members at that meeting asked staff to look into such development standards. In addition, the City Conmnission also asked staff to pursue this direction. Staff drew up the attached criteria based on the materials presented to the Board. If approved, these development standards would be substituted for Section L of Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances. In addition, staff reviewed the existing spatial distribution of service stations, convenience stores and other similar uses. We found that using the attached criteria would separate such uses by more than one thousand.feet. The only problem area would be in the south east portion of the City where a number of arterial and collectors are close together. Staff will have a map au the Board meeting that will show collectors and arterials and locations of existing service stations and convenience stores. We will also identify vacant sites and potential sites for new facilities using the new criteria prepared by staff. CC: frb C: PM91- 064 ADDENDUM C SERVICE STATIONS WITH OR WITHOUT MAJOR REPAIR AND COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS SELLING GASOLINE ADDENDUM D 1 · PURPOSE The purpose of these regulations is to establish development standards for establishments selling gasoline and service stations with or without ma]or repair or any combination of these uses. The development standards established by this section would overlay the development criteria stated in the zoning district in which the uses are allowed. The development standards shall apply to all service stations constructed on or after the adoption of this amendment. Where an existing service station is modified in any way, the technical review board, planning and zoning board, and/or city commission may impoee~anY or all of the following development standards where doing 'so would c=eate significant benefits to the public safety an~ welfare, and wherethe standards co~tained in the following regulations could be reasonably acdommodated on the existing site. 2. DEFINITIONS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATION. The use of a building or other structure, cna lot or parcel of land which includes any retail sale of gasoline or other motor fuels, and accessory uses such as the sale of lubricants, accessories, or supplies, the lubrication of motor vehicles, or the minor adjustment or repair of motor vehicles (see definition: "minor repairs"). No vehicles shall be stored nor major repairs done on the premises. A public parking lot or public parking garage shall not be a permitted accessory use to an automotive service station. 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Location. Ail service stations regulated by this section shall be located at the intersection of any combination of, county arterial, state arterial, local collector, or county collector. 2. Ail roads must be four lanes or larger. The maximum nut, bet of establishments located at any intersection shall be two. These uses will be located diagonally to each other. Minimum Plot Size - 30,000 square feet. Minimum Street Frontage - 175 feet on each frontage measured from the intersecting right-of-way lines of the public streets. D. Driveways No driveway shall be located less than 110 feet from the intersecting right-of-way lines of public streets. Driveways shall be 30 feet in width. Driveways up to 40 feet in width can be allowed by the City Engineer. Driveways shall not be located less than 30 feet from any interior property line. Setbacks (Primary Building) Front - same as zoning district in which the property is located. 2. Side - 15 feet 3. Rear - 20 feet 4. Other so no canopy shall be located less than 15 feet from any property line. b. no Gasoline pump island shall be located less than 25 feet from any property line. co the entrance to a building wherein mouor vehicles are washed by mechanical means shall be located a minimum distance of seventy~five (75) feet from the street line to provide an off-street area for waiting vehicles. Buffers A ten foot wide landscape buffer shall be located along the street frontage. This buffer shall contain one tree every 50 feet, a continuous hedge, grass and/or ground cover and flowers. 2. Interior property lines. When ,adjacent to other commercial property - None. bo When adjacent to residential property - a 10 foot landscaped buffer with a five foot concrete fence; continuous hedge and trees every 50 feet shall be provided. The wall shall be kept in good repair and appearance at all times. Openings with gates may be allowed where deemed appropriate by the City Commission.