Loading...
Minutes 05-26-20 Minutes of the Planning and Development Board Meeting Held on Tuesday, May 26, 2020, at 6:30 P.M. Via Zoom Online Meeting in Boynton Beach, Florida PRESENT: James DeVoursney, Chair Mike Rumpf, Development Director Trevor Rosecrans, Vice Chair Ed Breese, Planning and Zoning Administrator Tim Litsch Amanda Bassiely, Principal Planner Susan Oyer Hanna Matras, Senior Planner Chris Simon James Cherof, Board Counsel Darren Allen Lyman Phillips, Alt (voting) Jay Sobel, Alt ABSENT: Butch Buoni At 6:30 p.m. Colin Groff, Assistant City Manager, explained the meeting procedures and how to participate. James DeVoursney, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. The meeting was held online via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 1. Pledge of Allegiance Ms. Oyer led the members in the Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Roll was taken. A quorum was present. Chair DeVoursney recognized Board Alternate Lyman Phillips to vote during the meeting as a regular member was absent. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Litsch moved to approve the agenda. Ms. Oyer seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from the April 28, 2020, Planning and Development Board meeting. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve the amended minutes. Mr. Simon seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Ed Breese, Planning and Zoning Administrator, announced the City Commission approved, at the last meeting, the 7-Eleven Land Use and Rezoning and Master Site Plan Modification on second reading, and the Land Use and Rezoning for Miraflor and Madison on the Avenue on First Reading. A question was asked if the applications were approved as presented. Mr. Breese explained there were slight modifications e and three conditions of approval added. The pumps remained where they were, but the vents would be moved further east on the site. 6. Old Business None. 7. New Business 7.A. REQUEST: Approve amendments to the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (CDRV 20-002), revising Chapter 3. Zoning: (1) Article III. Zoning Districts and Overlays, Section 1.13. and Sections 2.0 and 2.E., to set maximum building height consistent with Single-Family regulations and to modify development standards for selected non-conforming lots; and (2) Article IV. Use Regulations, Section 3.D. Use Matrix, to revise the locational criteria and regulations for Automobile Rental and to allow Professional & Technical Schools in Industrial (1) pods within Quantum Park, and to allow Self-Service Storage in the C-4 zoning district; and (3) Article V. Supplemental Regulations, Section 3.D. Swimming Pools and Spas, amending locational criteria, and to add Section 3.AA, In-ground Storm Shelters. Chair DeVoursney presented the item. Motion 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 Ms. Oyer moved to have a separate vote on each amendment. Mr. Simon seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. Amanda Bassiely, Principal Planner, reviewed the proposed revisions as follows: • Expanded locations for selected uses, including automobile rental in SMU and MU-4 Districts, selected self-service storage in the C-4 District, and adding PID to Industrial lots for professional and technical schools. These amendments were to accommodate increased demand and add flexibility in the Code. • Maximum Building Height in R-2 Zoning District, which proposed to increase building heights from 25 to 30 feet for single-family and two-family residences. Single family districts have a height maximum of 30 feet and the R-2 District, which allows height for duplexes and single-family homes, has height capped at 25 feet. This amendment made it consistent with lower intense uses. • Construction of pools for homes on corner lots. This amendment would allow individuals with homeowners on corner lots to construct pools in the front or corner side yards and added setback and screening requirements. The current Code mandates pools could only be constructed in the rear or interior side yards. The revision allows individuals with homes on corner lots to have greater flexibility. • Allow for in-ground storm shelters. Presently, there are no provisions in the Code for the structures. This would allow them as permitted for any type of in-ground storm shelter. • Non-conforming lot standards. This specifically pertained to the Heart of Boynton (HOB) area due to several lots lacking buildable square footage or lot frontage due to lots being non-conforming, irregularly platted or subdivided. Staff modified the building and setback requirements to allow single-family homes to be constructed on most of the lots. Chair DeVoursney reviewed the change in maximum building height. Mr. Simon inquired if the setbacks would be adjusted with the height increase and learned the setbacks would remain the same. There were no other comments received. Chair DeVoursney reviewed the construction of pools on corner lots. Ms. Oyer had concerns about safety as youth could climb over the fences and drown. She supported six-foot fences instead of the four-foot fence and did not understand why screened enclosures were prohibited on those lots. Mr. Breese explained the Building Code only requires four-foot fences, and this amendment would be consistent with the Code. Additionally, since pools will be allowed in front and side corner yards, six-feet fences are prohibited. Mr. Simon suggested when a pool is to be approved in the front or side 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 corner, the four-foot fence be solid, and not chain-link or rail, so passersby cannot see through them and they are difficult to climb. He was unsure having only shrubbery or vegetation as a screen would be adequate. Ms. Oyer agreed and thought landscaping should also be required. Chair DeVoursney noted the backup information specifies the pool would need to be screened with an opaque fence a minimum of four-feet tall, a wall and landscape buffer was required. Ms. Oyer thought the working should say "must." It was noted the allowance was for inground pools and not above ground pools. Mr. Phillips asked if the four-foot fence was from the ground up or the total length of the fence and learned it should be as measured from an adjacent grade. Mr. Allen agreed with Ms. Oyer's concerns. He noted there are pools in backyards that abut city streets and asked if there any provisions to require four-foot fencing for them. Mr. Breese explained the four-foot fence is regardless of where the pool is on the property, or if it abuts a street or other property. Chair DeVoursney reviewed automobile rental locations. This amendment adds the use to additional commercial zoning districts, such as the C-3 District, which usually have large shopping plazas and power centers that could accommodate parking for the rental fleet. Criteria will include the requirement that the use be located on properties at major intersections and that any on-site, outdoor vehicle storage will require Conditional Use approval. Mr. Simon inquired if Enterprise or Hertz could have an office and vehicles on site. Ms. Bassiely explained the approval is for the office to be located there, but if they want to store vehicles outdoors, they would need to receive conditional approval from the City. He asked if a major intersection was the only location where an auto rental office could be located. Ms. Bassiely responded it was, as long as the intersection was within the zoning districts staff was expanding them into. It was not an across the Board criteria for every zoning district and she noted other districts permit the use. The locational criteria was only specific to the SMU Districts, which are mixed-use districts. Ms. Bassiely elaborated there is an SMU District on Congress Avenue. The mall is being rezoned to SMU. The east side of Congress is SMU, as was Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway. The MU-4 District is an urban mixed-use district and mixed-use zonings are planned developments. She noted staff is rezoning other properties to those districts. If 500 Ocean wanted to allow one of their bays to be used as an office for Enterprise, because they are an urban mixed-use district, and their residents do not have cars, but need to rent cars, the use would be permitted. Staff would not be able to rezone a property to SMU in order to grant an automobile rental office on a corner somewhere. The use has to be integrated into a larger mixed-use development. Mr. Litsch noted the amendment allows a maximum of 20 vehicles to be parked in marked stalls in the parking lot of the shopping center where the office would be located. He further noted the rental office was allowed to store another 20 vehicles if 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 they receive conditional use approval from the City and the landlord. Mr. Breese clarified the first 20 vehicles must be in marked parking spaces and must be excess parking spaces. The office would be allowed up to another 20 vehicles, but they must be parked in service areas, such as behind the building, or in areas that do not affect business, EMS access or general traffic circulation. Mr. Litsch inquired if vehicles would be towed if someone parked in the rental parking lot. Mr. Breese responded it was up to the rental agency and the center owner to decide if they would use tow warning signs, but it was possible the vehicles could be towed. Mr. Breese pointed out the spaces would not be near the stores, but they will be marked for rental agency only. Mr. Litsch was concerned, they would be closest to the car rental office and would not want car rentals to be visible from his office. He queried how many handicapped spaces would be eliminated. Mr. Breese responded no handicapped spots would be eliminated. Mr. Litsch commented there is a Hertz office in Delray on Federal Highway that is overflowing with rental cars because no one is renting them, and they are spilling out onto the street. He did not know if 20 or an additional 20 spaces would be adequate if the office is responsible for 100 vehicles. Mr. Breese explained they are not trying to be a car rental hub, just a local pick-up/drop-off location and keep it at a minimum so it does not impact the property, of become a Code nightmare. Ms. Oyer asked about exact locations that would be able to have a rental office in the MU-4 District. Ms. Bassiely explained she provided locations based on what the redevelopment plan calls for when rezoning property in the area. Woolbright Road and Federal Highway could accommodate the use and there was a smaller node at Gateway Boulevard and Federal Highway. She pointed out it is what can be redeveloped under the CRA Redevelopment plan, but not necessarily by right at this time. Chair DeVoursney reviewed staff proposed in-ground storm shelter regulations for residents who, rather than fortify the exterior of their residence or construct safe rooms within the home, prefer to utilize an in-ground storm shelter as their means of protection. With South Florida being prone to hurricane strikes, and the tornadoes spawned by them, this type of shelter can provide another form of protection. Staff decided to draft this code amendment following several inquiries by a property owner who is very interested in adding a shelter to his back yard. Currently, the LDRs are void of such regulations. Mr. Simon inquired about setbacks and learned they could be as close as three feet from the side property line. Mr. Breese explained a portion of the shelter could be above ground for the entrance, and some people like storm-rated windows up to four or five feet in height for natural light. He further noted that the structure could be no closer than five feet from the rear property line. The shelter can be as tall as the principal structure, however, in area between 15 feet and five feet from the rear property line, the structure can be no taller than five feet. Mr. Simon was concerned that three feet from a 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 property line would compromise the integrity of walls or pools, but it was pointed out construction details will be provided how to shore up the soil and how installation of the improvements would be made. As to a generator, gas or electric provided to the site, the regulations would remain and not be altered for these structures. There is a specific building code for storm shelters and they would need to meet all of its requirements. Vice Chair Rosecrans asked about setbacks away from existing utilities and how flood zones will impact the shelters. Mr. Breese explained the structures are not allowed to exceed the maximum impervious area of the sites, which is usually 40% to 50% of building coverage on the site. An above ground shelter would have to meet the same criteria as a home would. Vice Chair Rosecrans asked about buoyancy. Mr. Breese explained that would be addressed in the engineering plans. Mr. Simon asked what elevations the shelter is built at to ensure the structure would not be underwater as the finished floor elevation is underground. Ms. Bassiely explained those regulations are handled in the building and engineering codes. Mr. Breese had spoken with the Chief Building Official. If the structure cannot not meet the Code, it can not be built, but shelters have successfully been constructed and this provision will incorporate them into the Code. Mr. Sobel asked what the maximum depth a structure could be. Ms. Bassiely explained there was no maximum depth in the Code. Mr. Groff explained this shelter is considered living space and living space cannot be below a flood plain, zone or line and must be one foot above. If someone is five feet above sea level and the finished floor is eight foot. They could not build a shelter, and generally, the only location to build these shelters is along the ridge. Only the above ground portion of the shelter is calculated into the maximum lot coverage. Anytime over 800 square feet is built on a property, an engineer would have to show how the water percolates and is being maintained on site. Chair DeVoursney read the staff report which proposed to expand the permitted locations for Self-Service Storage businesses by adding this use to C-4 General Commercial zoning district, except on locations that front an arterial road. Currently, the use is permitted within the Industrial zoning district (M-1) and conditionally permitted within four (4) other zoning districts. Ms. Bassiely explained the City does not have many C-4 properties. They are usually lining industrial properties, there are some on the west side of the railroad tracks. Ms. Oyer asked if there was C-4 by Bowers Park. There was some north along Boynton Beach Boulevard along the tracks and along Federal Highway, but this use would not be permitted on Federal Highway. There are a few other locations around town, but the largest concentration is on Boynton Beach Boulevard and near the tracks. Ms. Oyer inquired if there was a company that was interested. Mr. Breese explained there are companies looking for additional self- storage in town. The C-4 District is a cross between high intensity commercial and low intensity Industrial. Staff viewed this as areas where additional area self-storage could be located in addition to the other areas listed. Ms. Oyer did not think the City needed any more self-storage facilities and thought they were unsightly. She favored better tax producing businesses in these locations. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 Mr. Simon asked if requiring onsite storage could be incorporated in upcoming projects, such as mixed use or multi-family housing. Ms. Bassiely responded they have seen self-storage integrated into mixed-use projects, but the City has not required them. They are already allowed in the SMU District. Staff is reviewing the use matrix and it is a good topic to discuss, as they may be integrated into urban districts as well. She commented the feedback from the businesses about this is not well received. Mr. Breese explained Renaissance Commons has storage in the complex and it is well disguised. 500 Ocean does have small storage spaces within their building. The Riverwalk Project was also doing the same thing. Chair DeVoursney presented the Professional & Technical Schools Locations within Quantum Park. Ms. Oyer was concerned about the Bald Eagles nesting on the south portion of Quantum Park. Mr. Breese responded there are only two parcels on the south side that are undeveloped. He did anticipate anyone having a school on an undeveloped lot, rather they would locate in an existing building. Ms. Oyer commented the City has discussed having technical training for city residents so they could obtain construction jobs and asked if this item was related to it. Mr. Breese explained it was for any technical or professional school, and they would see them as a user of one or two spaces within an existing building. Mr. Sobel asked if it could be structured that they have to use an existing building in order to protect the eagles. If there is a restriction added, they could only occupy an existing building, which would restrict further development. Ms. Bassiely explained the eagles are protected regardless of what type of business it is. Chair DeVoursney read the staff report regarding non-conforming housing as staffs Housing Work Group continues to evaluate the City's regulations and processes for opportunities to eliminate barriers to construction of affordable and workforce housing, and now forwards for consideration this code change that targets a group of non- conforming lots within some of the older neighborhoods in the City. Left as either remnants from prior lot splits, or were vacated after regulations increased leaving them currently unbuildable due to current deficient lot size or frontage requirements. In order to allow single-family residences to be built on these lots, staff proposes modified development standards including revisions to lot area, lot frontage, setbacks, as well minimum livable area. Not only would the amendments create buildable lots, but they would allow for the construction of small, and even more affordable houses. This amendment furthers the City's goal of increasing the inventory of attainable housing. Ms. Oyer questioned whether the amendment would be City-wide or just in the Heart of Boynton and learned the revisions specified they pertained to the HOB. The lots could accommodate a 750 square-foot home, at a minimum. The non-conforming lots vary in size and a larger home could be built as long as they meet the standards. The amendment would prohibit tiny homes. Ms. Oyer asked if there would be room for landscaping and learned there was. The required setbacks could accommodate trees. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 Mr. Simon asked if the amendment contemplated the same setbacks. Ms. Bassiely explained the goal is to make the lots buildable. Any properties that were originally platted or were non-conforming as of today would use the regulations. Vice Chair Rosecrans inquired about utility connections and learned those regulations and easements would still apply. Mr. Sobel asked if the setbacks would impact neighbors who have greater setbacks or if they are isolated lots. Ms. Bassiely explained the lots are sprinkled throughout the HOB, but there are some clusters on 11th and on both sides of Seacrest. Mr. Sobel noted a home with 15-feet of frontage would impact a neighboring property with a 25-foot setback and learned they would be allowed under these regulations. Mr. Breese explained under the current rules, an administrative adjustment can be requested by the property owner to within 20 feet of the front setback. Additionally, a few years ago, the City adopted regulations that allow front porches to within fifteen feet of the property line so it would be consistent with what other property owners could do. Mr. Sobel thought if it was not consistent on the street, it would impact the neighbors. Mr. Breese noted historically, older homes have a variety of setbacks depending on how old the house was. The HOB is an older district. Some new communities have very strict front setback, but these homes were not Row Houses. Chair DeVoursney supported the idea and thought it was a smart move by the CRA. Chair DeVoursney opened public comment. No one came forward. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve amendments to the Land Development Regulations (CDRV 20-002), revising Chapter 3. Zoning: (1) Article III. Zoning Districts and Overlays, Section 1.13. and Sections 2.0 and 2.E., to set maximum building height consistent with Single-Family regulations. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve Swimming Pools Located Within Front and Corner Side Yard Setbacks. Mr. Litsch seconded the motion. Ms. Oyer wanted to add conditions to the motion. Attorney Cherof explained a motion to amend the motion was needed and then voted on. If passed, it will be part of the main motion, which would also be voted on. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to amend the motion to ensure the wording includes four-foot solid or opaque fencing and landscaping to have a dual barrier. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 Vote There was a vote on the amendment. The motion passed 6-1 (Mr. Allen dissenting.) Vote There was a vote on the main motion. The motion unanimously passed. Motion Mr. Simon moved to approve the Automobile Rental Locations. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion failed 2-5 (Messrs. Litsch, Simon, and Phillips, Vice Chair Rosecrans and Ms. Oyer dissenting.) Motion Vice Chair Rosecrans moved to approve the in-ground storm shelters. Mr. Simon seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion Mr. Simon moved to approve the self-service storage locations. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-3 (Messrs. Litsch and Allen and Ms. Oyer dissenting.) Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve Professional & Technical Schools Locations. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion Ms. Oyer moved to approve Nonconforming Lots Standards in the HOB. Mr. Litsch seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 (Mr. Simon dissenting.) 8. Other 9. Comments Ms. Oyer referenced item 3, the auto rental location, and asked if they could review it a second time and adjust it to only the SMU and not the MU-4 District, which was why she opposed the item. She did not want to see them on the nodes on Federal Highway Chair DeVoursney noted they were pretty reassuring it would only be on the west side of the track. He thought the parcels did not have much value. Mr. Breese explained in the mixed-use districts, that type of use has to be within a parking structure, it cannot be within an open parking lot of a shopping center and it was not was something one would 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 26, 2020 see at major intersections. Ms. Oyer noted they were already short parking on Federal Highway at each node and could not justify taking 100 spaces for Hertz in a downtown location. She thought there was more than enough room to accommodate the request at the mall or on Congress Avenue. Mr. Breese emphasized in MU-4, it has to be in an enclosed parking structure and use excess parking and all of the regulations are still in place. Attorney Cherof explained the item was disposed of by motion and vote. To revisit it, a motion to reconsider the item needs to be made and seconded and then it could be revisited. Without it, the item was disposed of. Vice Chair Rosecrans asked about the 7-Eleven gas pumps noting the Code says gas stations shall not be within 200 feet of a residential structure. He asked how the item could be approved, if a variance was given or if it was discussed on the City Commission level. Mr. Breese explained if they are greater than 200 feet away from a residential district, they are allowed by right. If within 200 feet, it requires a conditional use approval, which was the process the applicant went through. 10. Adjournment Motion There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Oyer moved to adjourn. Vice Chair Rosecrans seconded the motion. The motion unanimously passed. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 10