Loading...
Minutes 11-23-21 MINUTES � a PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2021, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Administrator Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner Tim Litsch Sean Swartz, City Attorney Kevin Fischer Jennifer Oh, Prototype-Inc. Thomas Ramiccio ABSENT: Darren Allen Lyman Phillips, Alternate Chris Simon Jay Sobel, Alternate GUEST—None. The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Motion made by Mr. Litsch, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve the agenda. In a voice vote, the agenda was unanimously approved (5-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from the 10/26/2021 Planning & Development Board meeting. Motion made by Mr. Litsch, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve the October 26, 2021 meeting minutes. In a voice vote,the minutes were unanimously approved. (5-0). 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mr. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Administrator, introduced Jennifer Oh with Prototype, Inc. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 November 23, 2021 Chair Rosecrans announced there will not be a December meeting due to lack of quorum. The next meeting will be January 25, 2022. 6. Old Business -None. 7. New Business 7.A. Approve 3518 Ruskin Avenue request for Annexation(ANEX 21-001)of a 0.8-acre parcel located at 3518 Ruskin Avenue. Applicant: Steven W. Siebert, Steve Siebert Architecture, Inc. Steven Siebert, 12257 Calloway Gardens Road, Boynton Beach, FL, and 466 North Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, FL is their current office. They have been looking for land for a while and preferred to stay Downtown,unfortunately, it is not working out;everyone wants to hold onto their land and are willing to lease, but not sell. They found something that could be a fit to annex into Boynton. Mr. Siebert provided a brief slide presentation and noted the following: • The location of the Boynton Beach Mall and Washington Prime, the owner, is currently in bankruptcy. The little box shown immediately to the west of the mall is the property being discussed; the south edge is on Old Boynton and Javert Street is a County road adjacent to the City. Boynton Beach is to the south and east, so they are asking to infill a corner. • Currently, the property is a residential single-family zone, and they are proposing a C-1 Commercial Office zone, which matches caddy-corner across the street. • There is not currently a public sewer at this lot. A map was found, and the green indicates gravity lines, and the red indicates pressure lines. They have talked to three Civil Engineers they might entertain to do their site development drawings and one of the Engineers would like to talk to Washington Prime about the gravity line in their parking lot. They would have to file an easement to get to the gravity line, but it is an option. Another option suggested was extending the pressure line because they do not have to worry about invert depts and fall. • The red line is the gravity line extended to the north side of Old Boynton, and they would tie into what would potentially be their southeast corner. Everything in the easement becomes public and once they put it there it is a public force main. • The Future Zoning Map has the property in the County as multi-family residential, so the 0.8-acre lot they just purchased could be five-unit townhomes or multi-Use development. They are proposing under Boynton's future to be Office Commercial. They would like to stay in the City of Boynton, and this is an option that may work for them. In addition, zoning at the County would not work and in an informal conversation, they were not inclined to change it to Neighborhood Commercial but were happy to let them annex to Boynton. Chair Rosecrans opened discussion to the public. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 November 23, 2021 Ernest Mignoli,resident, 710 NE 7h Street,Apt. 407, Boynton Beach, FL, commented that he has become interested in the meetings, development, variances, applications, changing of zoning, and trends that are happening. He questioned what the office was for. Chair Rosecrans stated the packet is available on the City's website. It would be beneficial to review packets available, so the Board does not go over the same items that have already been covered. Mr. Mignoli indicated when he comes to a public meeting the presenter is supposed to present and everything is supposed to be up on the board. They were speaking about converting a residential area to an Office Commercial area,but the County did not want to, so they came before the Board. He questioned if Notices were sent out to people within 100 to 400 feet of the property and why none of the properties can remain residential. Hearing no further comments, Chair Rosecrans closed the public discussion. Mr. Ramiccio questioned if they are creating an enclave on the north side of Old Boynton by having one parcel carved out. He is in favor of annexation, they are taking a vacant lot, changing the zoning, and allowing a professional office, which makes sense with existing zoning to the east and north. He mentioned the car route on the north side and asked if it was considered an enclave. Mr. Meyer advised it would not be considered an enclave, the State has regulations for annexations. Any proposed annexation must be compact, so it does not create enclaves or pockets. This site was reviewed by City and County staff, and they also concurred this does not create an enclave as a pocket as part of the annexation. Mr. Rumpf questioned how far in the Future Annexation Element of the Comprehensive Plan the annexation goes. Mr. Meyer did not recall off hand. Mr. Rumpf stated that was created a few years ago and it has been a while since the Comprehensive Plan and the Data Analysis has been updated. He always refers to or corresponds with the Water Utility area because that is where they could legally annex through executing the Water Strips Agreement requirement for annexation,which goes out through the E3 canal west of Military Trail. When annexation was studied, that was the area they were using for their analysis. The E3 canal is north and south like the E4 canal, which is near Congress Avenue. Mr. Litsch commented this site is 0.8 acres and the County would permit five units to the acre, which means they would permit four single-family homes or townhomes, not five. The plan looks good, they are stepping down from the mall to Light Commercial in a residential area and that is the way zoning should go in a step mode. He would like to see evidence that the Code Enforcement case has been closed, that the fill and open storage has been removed, and the property is up to their standards when accepted. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 November 23, 2021 Mr. Fischer commented that the County's Comprehensive Plan also has a Future Municipal Annexation area to the canal west of Military Trail. He does not see that much land area being annexed into Boynton. Looking at aerials, this parcel has been vacant for years and when looking at the location next to the mall on Old Boynton,they are proposing Cl zoning,which is limited as to what can go there, it is not restaurants or retail, it will be office professional use, which he thinks is a logical use for this site. With a Future Land Use Change, it is Legislative in nature, so there is more room under allowable uses for Cl, such as banking and financial institutions. Many banks have drive-thrus, to minimize impacts on homes to the west, and he was thinking about putting a condition not to allow a drive-thru. Vice Chair Buoni mentioned the County report, which says right-of-way access to the property would be limited to Javert Street, so it is one-way in and one-way out of Javert Street and Old Boynton. Mr. Rumpf indicated as a general sense, attaching conditions to a Commercial zoning district may fall under a category of Contract Zoning. Vice Chair Buoni stated the only concern he had was having commercial traffic in a residential neighborhood. Chair Rosecrans questioned how long the property has been vacant. Mr. Meyers advised he was able to go back to 2008 and the property is still vacant. Motion made by Mr. Litsch, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve Item 7.A., 3518 Ruskin Avenue request for Annexation (ANEX 21-001) of a 0.8-acre parcel located at 3518 Ruskin Avenue. Applicant: Steven W. Siebert, Steve Siebert Architecture, Inc. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (5- 0) Approve 3518 Ruskin Avenue, request for Future Land Use Map Amendment from Palm Beach County's Medium Residential Classification with a maximum density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre(MR-5)to Office Commercial(OC). Applicant: Steven W. Siebert, Steve Siebert Architecture, Inc. Motion made by Mr. Fischer, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni,to approve Item 7.A., 3518 Ruskin Avenue, request for Future Land Use Map Amendment from Palm Beach County's Medium Residential Classification with a maximum density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre(MR-5)to Office Commercial(OC). Applicant: Steven W. Siebert, Steve Siebert Architecture, Inc. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (5-0) Approve 3518 Ruskin Avenue request for Rezoning from Palm Beach County's Single- Family Residential (RS) District to Office Professional (C-1). Applicant: Steven W. Siebert, Steve Siebert Architecture, Inc. Motion made by Mr. Litsch, seconded by Mr. Fischer, to approve 3518 Ruskin Avenue request for Rezoning from Palm Beach County's Single-Family Residential (RS) District to Office Professional (C- Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 November 23, 2021 1)under Boynton Beach. Applicant: Steven W. Siebert, Steve Siebert Architecture, Inc. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (5-0) City Attorney Swartz announced that since the holiday is causing a slight deviation with Public Hearing schedules, this item would normally go to next month's second meeting for Commission review, beginning with a First Reading Public Hearing. There is not a second meeting due to the holidays, so it will go to the January 4, 2022 meeting and then to the January 18, 2022 meeting. 7.B. Approve amendments to the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 4, Article IV, Sign Standards, that update the City's Sign Standards intended, in part, to increase allowable sign types, add flexibility to, and further incentivize the use of sign programs in multi-tenant and planned developments; add provisions for shared signage to increase awareness of secluded industrial businesses; decrease minimum sign setback requirements; and establish rules for "human" signs. Mr. Rumpf provided a brief Power Point presentation. Due to various complaints, comments, and feedbacks from businesses or the sign industry,based upon lack of flexibility or different issues in curbing reviews and process requirements, staff was prompted to evaluate the sign code for a possible update. The target objectives considered had to do with increasing sign area and opportunities, adding flexibility to the sign program requirement for shopping centers and multi-use developments. Staff wanted to be sure they were reviewing the sign code to be defensible and consistent with legal precedence and other related mandates and State Statutes that might address sign code regulations, business and sign visibility, transit needs, and whether the code warranted changes to their relief standards. They proposed to add digital, also called Electronic Message Centers, or changeable copy enhancements, as well as A-frame signs, and to increase wall sign area for small spaces. One of the few regulatory additions would be addressing human signs, sign waivers, or walkers. Opportunities are proposed to enhance canopy signs, provide portable and flexibility, and reduce sign setbacks, as well as addressing signs on an individual basis. Several scenarios were reviewed regarding lighting and Electronic Message Centers. The maximum area of existing signs is 50% or 35%, depending on the type of sign. They can require signage to be automated and sophisticated, so it can dim automatically under different lighting conditions;control or regulate whole time to prevent lights from flashing, flicking, and moving quickly to attract more attention; and they can require signs to have a default message if it malfunctions. Signs would be limited to one per property or use. The sign program would have to be updated for the project to be allowed to have the sign. After the draft was provided at the last meeting, a provision regarding use of colors was added; signs are restricted by maximum colors. Mr. Ramiccio mentioned allowable copies that might be offensive and questioned how that would be addressed. Mr. Rumpf stated there is currently wording in the code that addresses objectionable and offensive things. The language might be old and more applicable to the adult entertainment world; otherwise, they stay away from regulating copies. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 November 23, 2021 Mr. Ramiccio commented on the number of copies on a fixed building and questioned how that would be handled. Mr. Rumpf advised it is based on the object itself, the size of the screen is what is measured to the overall area of the sign, each screen image does not necessarily represent going toward the maximum sign area the project is allowed. The image must be static for a certain amount of time and then it changes. Mr. Litsch questioned if the City Attorney was comfortable limiting the number of signs per element; the slide shows there cannot be more than one Electronic Message Center on a property. If there are two businesses on one piece of property, he questioned how they would tell one business they could not have a sign because the other property already has one. City Attorney Swartz indicated only one business per site could have a sign and then the next business would not be able to have the same sign. Mr. Rumpf clarified there would either be a standalone business, which would be allowed to have a sign, or a shopping plaza, or power center, which are limited to a certain number of signs. Examples of what will not happen is signs will not be on the wall, only on monument signs, which is shared space along all tenants on the property. It will be up to management of the property owners as to what goes on the sign and how it is leased and charged for that space. Vice Chair Buoni expressed concern regarding size and location and questioned if there is a square footage requirement. Mr. Rumpf reiterated it must be on the signage itself, it is called a site sign, not a wall sign. The sign cannot exceed 50% of 35% of the monument sign, depending on the type of sign. Chair Rosecrans asked about the neighbors to the north and south and their electronic signs. Mr. Rumpf stated he would check and noted this is not loud on certain corridors, particularly within the CRA. Vice Chair Buoni mentioned night illumination in Tampa and stated it pops,which is one thing that scares him. Mr. Rumpf commented it could be negligence on part of the jurisdiction to not manage the sign properly. He wrestles with technology as to which system to regulate them by, whether it is illuminations or luminance; there are two styles that require two different measurement devices. One is a cheap simple light meter and the other is more expensive and would be cost prohibitive to use on a common scale. Mr. Meyer advised he is familiar with Lake Worth's code, and they permit this type of signage, but have similar restrictions regarding message length and transition time; they only restrict it to certain uses, such as government or church type uses, not for commercial use. He thought indoor recreation was the only commercial use they would allow. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 7 November 23, 2021 Mr. Rumpf mentioned A-frame signs, which the City does not allow, but many people use them anyway. Provisions are being placed and it encourages use of a site program and in a shopping center multi-use project does not have them. They thought about producing a standard template or option that could be used to maintain some standards; materials must be quality, low tech. One of the objectives was to see what areas do not have the opportunity for ideal signage and those were found to be isolated industrial pockets. Some areas were not planned with that type of signage and were not planned districts, they are just conventional industrial areas off the path and would be prohibited because it would be considered an off-site sign that has never been allowed. Provisions of exceptions to that rule are being created. In speaking with Economic Development staff,they were interested. They have networked with some of the business communities and were enthusiastic about setting up discussions to see what they could coordinate. Currently, the wall sign is a factor of linear frontage. Small businesses would not have equitable sign rights given the fact they would be the same distance to roadways or pedestrians. Language has been carefully crafted, which is believed to be within the limits of free speech rights, laying out how they can operate and can be with respect to the business they advertise. Currently, City regulations regarding awning signs only allow brief use of the awning itself or the valance, which is the flat portion that hangs down. There are three examples of body signs, and they are proposing to introduce the flat metal canopy sign, which the code is silent to right now. They are encouraging its use and not preventing its use based upon whether the business is already maxed out of their maximum allowed allocation. The City has been strict with signs for planned unit developments given the fact many communities are gated and out of sight for the public,which opens the door for them to use a sign program. Site Plan and Flexibility is the most significant change. The sign program provisions and regulations require the sign program to coincide or satisfy all the requirements of the sign code itself, meaning maximum area, type, size, etc. It does not allow a give and take circumstance but allows them to be flexible as long as it meets general objectives of the sign code. The Betterment Plan was introduced into landscaping regulations when the code was updated in 2010. It allows for qualified, experienced landscape architects to come to the City with a landscape project that deviates from City standards when it could be better. Regarding reduced sign setback, currently the setback is ten feet, and can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis on a permit review less than five feet. Other amendments worthy of recognition were some cleanups in the code,removal of murals because that is administered under a different City program and exempting municipal signs. Currently, there is no illumination through exterior means in a residential zoning district, but there are non-residential uses in the residential zoning district, and some are not excluded, such as churches or schools along major roadways. Allowing flexibility and design allows signs to have greater architectural elements and features or artistic or enhancements of the sign and those, up to a certain dimension, would not count against the sign area calculation. Signs in urban areas should be considered for an exception of landscaping as there may not be space versus the pedestrian way. Accessory type signs are encouraged. Extensive resources were used in updating and proposing changes, not to mention other City regulations, including the International Sign Organization, regarding the Electronic Message Center sign technology. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 8 November 23, 2021 A few photographs were added for visual aids if needed. COMBINE THESE INTO ONE PARAGRAPH —DON'T KNOW WHO SPOKE Mr. Rumpf mentioned snipe signs and the overall aesthetics when looking at the streetscape. It is all about enforcement; there is a standard and signs are limited to the entrance door, a percentage of area on the glass, and lighting around the windows is not allowed. It is important the Board and Commission review and consider this as to where they want to go. There will be more of a Boca look, which is more stringent regulations, versus the greater variety in terms of color, font, and styles. No one will see a combination of channel letter signs next to cabinet signs. Over time, they might be reviewing new businesses and require channel letters versus older signs that might be box or cabinets. Mr. Litsch noted Line 572 through 598 are duplicates. Vice Chair Buoni questioned if there was enough staff to initialize and cause this to happen, but to follow up on ensuring the right thing is being done. Mr. Rumpf heard two different questions, one is an increase in workload and the other is the ability to review these in an administrative realm. He replied yes and yes. They have a fair number of challenges with respect to sign applications that do not conform, and staff must go back and forth in the reviews. A low percentage do not get worked out, so the increase from this is going to be minimal. It will push sign programs like they do now. The workload is not going to differ too much. Regarding technical and professional abilities, two staff members are trained architects. He stated they would be watching these closely to see if they are getting objectives and if things are not working the way they want, they will change them. Chair Rosecrans mentioned reducing the setback from ten feet to five feet and asked if Engineering would review that for horizontal stopping site distance. Mr. Rumpf stated it would probably be an Engineer. In looking at changes compared to existing regulations, are and height are not increasing. Motion made by Mr. Litsch, seconded by Mr. Fischer, to approve Item 713, amendments to the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, Chapter 4, Article IV, Sign Standards. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. (5-0) 7.C. Approve amendments to the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,revising Chapter 1, Article 11. Definitions, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 1. Operational Performance Standards, and Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.D. Use Matrix and Notes as necessary to show compliance with and implement new state laws regulating applicable to Home-based businesses. City initiated. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 9 November 23, 2021 Mr. Rumpf explained this group of amendments has been prompted by changes in the last Legislative session in the State of Florida, somewhat preempting the City's ability to regulate what is currently called Home Occupations. The first one is to implement changes into regulations to show conformance with State Statutes, but also an attempt to put some parameters on the vague language they have put into place from this Bill. Over half or three-quarters of the language is to bring in terms, census, characteristics, and spirit of the law itself in addition to adding some standards. The change to the definition is in the attachment; changing from Home Occupation to Home-based Business, which is per the Statutes. He mentioned the Statutes and stated the most provocative is opening the door for any type of business to operate in a residential environment in the home with only the restriction of parking and how it performs and appears. A subjective appearance must be maintained in spirit of the natural environment, and they proposed to put a couple of standards in place to put some definition to it. He has worked with the City Attorney's office to find what might be an acceptable ground without getting too close to pushing the limits on the regulatory limit the State of Florida executed. • A new maximum percentage of the area that can be used for the business increasing the current maximum of 20%to 50%. • If Inspectors saw a room engulfed with equipment there could be a question of residential use. • Residents would need to get approval and licenses to operate,but after that,the use might begin to grow and work into something greater, which might push the envelope on residential use. Mr. Rumpf complimented the regulations that prohibit parking on surfaces that were designed or approved for parking. Currently, basic property maintenance standards do not prohibit parking on non-driveway surfaces, and they do not restrict parking on swales. If the Swale becomes deteriorated or a certain percent of the lawn is gone, then Community Standards has a code to enforce. This regulation says business vehicles are those related with the business cannot park in the street, on the sidewalk, or hang over the sidewalk. Ernest Mignoli, resident, 710 NE 7h Street, Apt. 407, Boynton Beach, FL, commented that people are allowed to run businesses from their homes and when calls are made to the City requesting an inspection, they are told they cannot inspect. Planners and City Attorneys make it sound like everything is being enforced, but nothing is being done. Chair Rosecrans advised Mr. Mignoli was provided a copy of the State Statutes, which has warranted the Board's actions. Mr. Fischer stated the County has a department that follows Legislative actions, which was something the County was not supportive of. In terms of a Home-based business being an accessory to the home, he would like to see the percentage less than 50%. There are other standards in the code where things go up to 25%, so there are examples where lower percentage thresholds are used for accessory type uses. He requested clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Rumpf stated it is a grey area and is subjective. He thinks the City Attorney's office is ruling on the conservative side. City Attorney Swartz read the Statute. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 10 November 23, 2021 In response to Chair Rosecrans, City Attorney Swartz clarified they cannot be regulated in any way, that is in violation of the Statute. If someone says this is their secondary use as a Home-based business, how can they argue it is not secondary if it is up to 49%. From a legal perspective, they are trying to stay away from violating the Statute and that is what the City must do. Mr. Rumpf mentioned the application process and whether it is accessory or secondary; they require a floor plan be provided so it shows what space in a use is allocated. He questioned if staff could require the same under the Home-based review. Chair Rosecrans stated as long the other businesses are regulated the same way. Mr. Ramiccio heard through the Legislative buzz that this is coming back through a Committee. During Covid a lot of businesses struggled, so a lot more Home-based businesses were applied for, and many people worked from home. There are a lot of areas that need to be fixed. He thinks their best hope would be to be as stringent as possible, but 50% is too much. Regulations are the only way to control this and to limit it as much as possible. Chair Rosecrans asked when this needs to be put in the code. Mr. Rumpf advised it has been in effect since July 1, 2021. Vice Chair Buoni mentioned Homeowner's Association and condominium documents prohibit businesses. He stated the Declarations for his Village state there will be no businesses and he questioned if that was precedence where they cannot deny them a business. City Attorney Swartz read 5A of the Statute and said it does not apply. Chair Rosecrans mentioned enforcement and personnel because he does not see any enforcement. Vice Chair Buoni commented that self-reporting things were brought up before and he thinks if it is in violation of the Homeowner's Association or condominium documents it would have to be reported as a violation for anyone to do anything about it. There is an internal process between Homeowner's Associations and condominiums before it comes outside of the gates. City Attorney Swartz indicated it does not supersede existing or future documents. Ernest Mignoli, resident, stated he does not want any massage parlors next to him. City Attorney Swartz indicated enforcement is already in effect. Motion made by Mr. Litsch, seconded by Vice Chair Buoni, to approve the amendments to the LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, revising Chapter 1, Article 11, Definitions, Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 1, Operational Performance Standards, and Chapter 3, Article IV, Section 3.D. In a roll call vote, the motion failed. (1-4) Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 11 November 23, 2021 Ayes: Fischer Nays: Buoni, Ramiccio, Litsch, Rosecrans 8. Other—None. 9. Comments by Members Vice Chair Buoni commented that it would be nice to have larger screens on the laptops. 10. Adjournment Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. [Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.]