Loading...
LEGAL APPROVAL The City of Boyliton Beach DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISON 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 TEL: 561-742-6260 FAX: 561-742-6259 www.boynton-beach.org December 14, 2007 Michael S. Weiner Weiner & Aronson, P.A. 102 North Swinton Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 Re: For: File No. Location Makrista Baby Administrative Appeal ADAP 07-002 C-1 Zoning District Dear Mr. Weiner: For our respective files, this letter is intended to document that the City Commission denied the above-referenced request on November 20, 2007. The request was for appeal ofthe administrative determination that the subject use, Makrista Baby, is not similar to a tailor and dressmaker and therefore not an allowed use within the C-1 Office and Professional Commercial Zoning District. Should you have any questions regarding this denial, please feel free to contact this office at (561) 742-6269. Sincerely, ,/ 'r I , ..~ t-- {r--" Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning & Zoning MWRljdc S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Makrista Baby ADAP\Denial Letter after CC.doc .' . ' Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beacb, florida September 25, 2007 DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2. Zoning, Section l1.E. Swimming Pools, requiring a minimum rear setback of 8 feet from the property line for the construction of a swimming pool, to allow a rear setback of 2 feet, a variance of 6 feet within the R..l..AA single-family residential zoning district. This item was postponed to the October 23, 2007 meeting at the request of Mark and HolIi Brisson. B. Makrista Baby Mmlo'stratlvt ~RI~I 1. PROJECT: AGENT: DESCRIPTION: ~IiII.JY(AlMO:l~..) MichaelS. Weiner, Weiner 8t Aronson, P.A. Request for appeal of the administrative determination that the subject use, MakristaBaby, Is not similar to a tailor and dressmaker, and therefore not an allowed use within the C-l office and professional commercial zoning district. Chair Wlsche read the appeal and advised the applicants were present. Jason Mankoff, attorney with the firm of Weiner & Aronson, P .A., 209 N. Seacrest Boulevard, advised he was appearing on behalf of Michael S. Weiner, Esq. and Makrista Baby. Mr. Rumpf advised the appeal was filed by Mr. Mankoff. The appeal was to the zoning Interpretationofthe subject use, MakrlstaBaby, a retail/wholesale line of baby clothing. It was not similar to a tailor or dressmaker, as Intended for the C-l office and profeSSional district. Therefore, the subject use was determined not to be allowed in the C-l zoning district. Mr. Rumpf noted such appeals were rare, as the City's zoning regulations were based on model ordinances used nationwide, recognizing the standardized method of arrangement and, enforcement of zoning regulations and uses. The zoning regulations were also enforced uniformly and consistently. Appeals for variances were requested when a party found. themselves under contract or as a nevvowner of property, before confirming the subject property was zoned for theIr business plan. Then, backing themselves into the process, an argument would be attempted to connect the proposed plan with the adopted zoning regulations. 3 , ' Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Bca~@eac~r 'Iorida september 25, 2007 Mr. Rumpf pointed out, in this case, the argument presented In support of the appeal pertained to the preparation of the clothing line for sale, similar to tailor and dressmaker uses, currently conditional uses in the C-1 zoning district. The argument was speCifically that the subject use utilized slmUarequipment and processes In preparing its clothing line products. Photography equipment was also referenced as being used and, therefore, argued to be similar to another use allowed In the C-l zoning district, photography studios. A few points clearly distinguished between the allowed uses under C-1 zoning and the subject use that sold baby and toddler clothing. The C-1 zoning district utilized a unique set of uses involving primarily office, professional and financial uses,. medical uses and facilities, churches, schools and personal services. The personal services were limited to customer care With retail sales .assubordinate and. .accessory. It was the C-2 zoning district that clearly<lntroduced retail sales as a principal use into the zoning regulations as a zoning district, including uses carrying specific lines of merchandise, such as clothing. It was traditional for such uses as barbershops and taUors to be in close proximity to professional offices. Given the nature and. characteristic of the category to provldeone--on--one services to patrons, a dressmaker exCludedlarger..scale textile operations which were otherwise limited to districts allowing manufacturing. Mr. Rumpf commented that any equipment used by tailors and dressmakers were usually Intended for performing a service on the Individual materials brought by the customer. In contrast, the subject use, MakrlstaBaby, was described as a company whose primary business was that of a small children's clothing line. Further, the operation was described as using equipment that was normally a part of Iight-to-heavy commercial operations allowed In the C-3, C-4 or M-1 districts for similar product handling. The narrative provided in the justification, and on the company's website, described what was characteristically known as a boutique retailer, which provided a special retail product unique to that provided by national or other larger retailers. Staff recognized It was common today for many uses to have Increasingelearonic business using the Internet. However, the subject business also accommodated walk..ln customers and did not operate to reduce walk-In customers. Therefore, this review had not accounted fore-commerce or any suggested reductions in site impacts or performance. In the past, staff had been requested to consider that aspect of a business. Staff still reviewed this, the product to be handled, the processes to be used, and whether walk-In traffic was allowed. In conClusion, staff recommended the appeal be denied and that the staff determination regarding the dissimilarity between the proposed business and the use "tailors and dressmakers,"asaUowed In theC-1 zoningclistrlct, be upheld. This recommendation was based partly on the following: (1) the subject use, Makrlsta Baby, consisted of a prinCipal 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boy.n.,.d1, fIorida september 25, 2007 use that was clearly a retail operation marketing a product line consisting of baby and toddler clothing; (2) except for commercial or Industrial businesses, to accurately access compatibility with adjacent businesses, uses were evaluated based on the service of products provided, rather than solely on the equipment or processes used; (3) the C-1 zoning district was not Intended for retail businesses, except for those uses related to the medical or health Industry; and (4) there were other districts dearly intended for the subject use Including the C-2, C-3, C-4 and PCD zoning districts. Mr. M$nkoff distributed a handout pertaining to Makrlsta Baby, a small business owner desiring to establish Its operations In Boynton Beach. Mr. MankOff disagreed with staffs conclusiOn, as he believed staff was overly concerned If the appeal were approved, similar appeals would be filed. These appeals would continue to be rare. In the event additional appealswereftled,lt would be unlikely there would be a similarity of use request In which there was a synonym to the proposed use already included in the Code. In this case, "garment maker" was listed In Roget's Thesaurus as a synonym for tailor and dressmaker, which were bOth conditional uses In the C-1 zoning district. MakristaBaby's use was classified as a garment maker and he believed the similarity of use should be approved. Applicants believed staffs concern for setting a precedent was unfounded In this case. Mr. Mankoff drculated the prOduct beIng used, opining the baby garments did not appear to be a final product which would result from heavy Industrial uses and he did not believe the business should be dasslft.ed in M-1, <::,,3, or <::-4 zoning districts. The City'S June 15, 2007 letter Indicated the proposed use utilized similar equipment as a tailor or dressmaker. Although there currently was no Intent for walk-in customers, the applicants would like to have walk-4lncustomers, but this was not critical. Therefore, they would agree to a condition indicating' there would be no walk-In customers. NotwithstandIng regulations and the City's correspondence, the applicants believed the proposed use was similar to the conditional use of tailor or dressmaker. He contended they had not brought the tailor In as they did not wish to attract traffic to the site. Mr. Mankoff contended MakristaBaby, a high-quality baby-garment maker, had a niche In the market, was highly respected and would benefit the City. There would be no density, height or traffic issues associated with the relief requested. Even if the board agreed with the applicants as to the similarity of use, they would still be required to proceed with a conditional use. They hoped the board would allow Makrista Baby to establish Its operation In the City. of Boynmn Beach. Chair Wlsche opened the public hearing. No one having come forward, public hearing was closed. 5 Meeting Minutes Plannin and Development Board september 25, 2007 Stacy Beck, Makrista Baby, 4310-D Village Drive, Del ray Beach, commented the products were custom made. As the garments were requested, the patches were applied. The requesters were customers as well as stores. She commented It would be fair toconc:lude the business Included walk-ins requesting custom-made garments, while also accommodating requesters from out of state requesting 10,000 custom-made garments. KrlstyGolden, Makrlsta Baby, 4310-D Village Drive, Delray Beach, pointed out the business could not accommodate 10,000 pieces at the site. Mr. Lis discussed possible manufacturing aspects of the business and his concerns, as C-1 was not a manufacturing district. In addition, tailors and dressmakers attended to the local community, not the country or the world. The Internet had opened up the business to the country andthewortd. The business was already marketingto the country and the world, yet requested the City allow the business to operate In the C-1 zoning district. Mr. Casalne did not believe the business operated as a manufacturer in terms of quantity and expressed disagreement with staff, as he believed the proposed use was similar to a tailor and dressmaker. Ms. Golden Indicated they had no long-term plan for the business, and just "fell into the business." If the business were to increase substantially, the work could not be done at the site, which was.a converted house with small square footage. Ms. Beck indicated the business might be hiring four or five employees, most of whom were family members. In a diSCUSSion pertaining to tee-shirts featuring sports logos, Mr. Blehar Inquired whether any such firms were located in the City. Ms. Grcevic advised IEmbroiderMe" was located In the City. Mr. Rumpf Indicated years ago staff processed a request for tee-shirts using printed or silk screened logos for abusil1ess located north of Boynton Beach BOulevard, east of SeacrestBoulevard, andwestoftheFEC tracks, which would be C-4 or M-1, and that was all they did. They had silk screen presses and the necessary equipment on the premises. Ms. JasRJewlczpolnted out, In the rewriting of the Code, C-3, and possibly C-2, would be appropriate locations for the business, as the products were being made to seUlocally, and the business would therefore be a retail operation, which was not permitted In C-1. Therefore, she would vote consistent with the recommendation of staff. Quintus Greene, Develol'ment Director, advised City staff was supportive of Incubating new businesses and would be supportive of this particular business, provided It was in a proper zoning district. The C-1 zoning district emphasized personal and professional 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board B~..n BeadI,Florlda September 25, 2007 services. 1l1epersonal services listed were those that supported the professional services listed. This particular use was not apersonalseMce In support of professional services. 1l1erefore,based on what was allowed in the district, staff had no choice but to determine this was not an appropriate use for this district. Discussion ensued as to whether personal services were being provided within the C-1 district that were not supporting professional services, and the manner In which this applied to Makrlsta Baby. Mr. Lis commented on the limited uses within the zoning district. Mr. Rumpf pointed It was his responsibility to determine whether uses conformed to the dlfferenteategorles. He pointed out Mr. Mankoffnoted a certain degree of difference was acceptable In determining similarity. The Issue of difference between the C-l district and the C-2 district was retail sales. While a function of the business might be similar to what someone might do as a taIlor, this WOUld be just one component of the business. Mr. Rumpf set forth the criteria for determining whether a use was allowed. Discussion ensued as to whether an exception should be considered for Makrlsta Baby In the event the Code was not followed conSistently. Mr. Rumpf indicated, If a varianceapplleatlon was supported by the City, and there were other lots for which the City would have approved the same request, a policy Issue might exist, which would require the zoning to be amended. In this case, unless there were a niche or characteristic In this business that differentiated It significantly from other retail establishments, a Code amendment might be appropriate. In response to Vice Chair Hay's Inquiry, Mr. Rumpf advised If the appeal were denied, the applicants would be in violation of C-1 zoning ordinances. Mr. Saberson believed the distinction referred to was between services and retail. Although the Code provided for services that supported profesSionals in the district, these services were provided not only to professionals, but to the public at large as well. Motion Mr. Casaine moved that the request for appeal be approved. Mr. Lis seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote The Motion failed 2-5, (Chair Wlsche, Vice Chair Hay, Ms. Jaskiewicz, Mr. Blehar, and Mr. Saberson dissenting). 7