Planning and Zoning Board

FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD COMMISSION CHAMBERS 2020 WILTON DRIVE, WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA 33305 5 MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2019-7:00 P.M. Life's Just Better ere 7 8 MEMBERS ATTENDANCE 9 Nick Berry, Chair p 10 Don D'Arminio, Vice Chair p 11 Robert Cassidy p 12 Daniel Keester-O'Mills p 13 Richard Safaty p 14 Brad Sterl p 15 Tim Theisen p 16 Jeb Shafer (alternate- non-voting) p 17 18 Staff 19 Mike Cirullo, Assistant City Attorney 20 Roberta Moore, Community Development Services Director 21 Evy Kalus, City Planner 22 Lisa Tayar, Prototype, Inc. 23 24 I. Call to Order 25 26 Chair Berry called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 27 28 II. Roll Call 29 30 Roll was called by Ms. Tayar, and a quorum was present. 31 32 Ill. Pledge of Allegiance 33 34 IV. Approval of Minutes 35 36 a) January 14, 2019 37 38 Motion made by Vice Chair D'Arminio, seconded by Board Member Cassidy, to 39 approve. 40 41 Vice Chair D'Arminio noted the following corrections to the January 14, 2019 minutes: 42 • P. 2, line 42: remove the phrase "short-term or" 43 • P. 6, line 24: change to "vacation rentals are a subcategory of short-term rentals" 44 • P. 8, line 11: change "for" to "which would replace" 45 • P. 11, line 19: change "is granted" to "is not granted" 46  Wilton Manors - Planning & Zoning March 11 , 2019 Page 2 1 It was determ ined that approval of the January 14, 2019 minutes would be tabled and 2 the audio reco rding of the meeting would be re-checked for accuracy before changes 3 are made top. 2 and p. 8. 4 5 Vice Chair D'Arminio withdrew his earlier motion to approve. 6 7 Motion made by Board Member Sterl , seconded by Vice Chair D'Arminio, to table the 8 January 14 minutes until the next meeting. In a voice vote , the motion passed 9 unanimously (7 -0) . 10 11 b) February 11 , 2019 12 13 Vice Chair D'Armin io noted the following corrections to the February 11 , 2019 minutes: 14 • P. 6, line 4: change "seventy (70)" to "seven (7)" 15 • P. 6, line 21 : change "creating " to "converting" 16 17 Motion made by Board Member Sterl , seconded by Board Member Safaty, to approve 18 with the changes as stated . In a voice vote , the motion passed unanimously (7-0). 19 20 V. Public Comments - None 21 22 V. Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing 23 24 Assistant City Attorney Mike Cirullo explained the quasi-judicial process and announced 25 that those wishing to speak on the application (V 19-01) should raise their right hand 26 and be sworn in . Mr. Cirullo performed the swearing in for the hearings. 27 28 a) V 19-01 29 New Global Holding , Inc. 30 215 SW 125Avenue 31 Plantation , FL 33325 32 33 Deena Gray, Esq ., Agent, on behalf of New Global Holding, Inc., property 34 owner, is requesting a variance from Section 050-020(A)(2) of the City's 35 Unified Land Development Regulations to reduce the distance separation 36 requirement for the sale of alcoholic beverages from any established place of 37 worship , or public or private school , other than a pre-kindergarten school , 38 nursery school or day care center, or adult education center from one 39 thousand (1 ,000) feet to two hundred and nineteen (219) feet for the property 40 located at 2349 NW 9 Avenue . 41 42 Appl icant 43 Deena Gray, agent for the property located at 2349 NW 9 Avenue, showed slides of the 44 property, stating that the building was constructed in 1984. At least three other 45 convenience stores which sold alcoholic beverages have occupied th is site over the  Wilton Manors- Planning & Zoning March 11,2019 Page 3 1 years. While the Applicant was cleaning the building in preparation to open for business, 2 a place of worship also submitted a Business Tax Receipt (BTR) application . The 3 church 's BTR was issued prior to the Applicant's submission of their BTR application . 4 5 The B-2 zoning district includes a provision that businesses may not serve or sell 6 alcohol within one thousand (1 000) feet of a place of worship. There is no such distance 7 separation in other zoning districts. A representative of the church has provided a letter 8 of support for the approval of the Application. Ms. Gray characterized the area as 9 underserved, with few other grocery stores within walking distance for residents . The 10 BTR was issued for the sale of grocery items but does not permit the sale of alcohol. 11 Without approval for alcohol sales, the Applicant does not feel the business can survive. 12 13 Questions from the Board 14 Board Member Safaty asked if the Applicant purchased any assets from the previous 15 store owner, such as the takeover of liens. Ms. Gray advised that there was no 16 continuation of use from the prior tenant. The Applicant obtained a BTR application in 17 July 2018 , but the process of cleaning the site and having it inspected meant the 18 application was not approved until December 2018. 19 20 Board Member Sterl requested clarification of the percentage of convenience store 21 sales that include alcohol. Ms. Gray replied that while she did not have an exact 22 percentage , alcohol constitutes a significant portion of sales. If the requested variance is 23 not granted, the Applicant does not feel the business would be viable. 24 25 Vice Chair D'Arminio noted that one criterion for a variance is that "circumstances or 26 conditions are peculiar to this such land or building and do not apply generally to land or 27 buildings in the same district." He advised that he found this statement problematic, as 28 the restriction on alcohol sales would apply to any building within one thousand (1 000) 29 feet of the church. Ms. Gray confirmed this, but described the situation as unique 30 because of the property's history as a convenience store that sells alcohol. 31 32 Board Member Theisen asked when the Applicant's lease on the property was signed. 33 Ms. Gray replied that it was signed in July 2018 . The BTR for grocery sales was issued 34 by the City in December 2018 . There was approximately one month between signing 35 the lease and submitting the BTR application. 36 37 Board Member Cassidy commented that if the Applicant had filed the BTR application 38 before the church moved near to the property, the Applicant would still be in violation of 39 the regulation , despite having obtained the necessary approvals . Ms. Gray explained 40 that had the Applicant submitted the application when they signed the lease and had not 41 completed interior cleanup first, the store would be allowed to remain. Board Member 42 Cassidy pointed out that this made the issue peculiar to the subject property. 43  Wilton Manors - Planning & Zoning March 11, 2019 Page 4 1 Board Member Keester-O'Mills requested clarification of the cleanup performed by the 2 Applicant prior to opening the business. Ms. Gray replied that her understanding was 3 that the building was very dirty, as the prior tenant had left with no notice. 4 5 Board Member Cassidy asked if all the individuals who had signed a petition in favor of 6 the Application were from the same area of Wilton Manors as the business. Ms. Gray 7 stated that the signatures are from customers who came into the store, where the 8 petition was made available. She read the petition into the record [attached], adding that 9 the letter of support from the church requests that alcohol sales be limited to beer and 10 wine . 11 12 Staff 13 City Planner Evy Kalus read from the Staff Report [attached] , stating that the entrance 14 of the church is located two hundred and nineteen (219) feet from the conven ience 15 store property. The Appl icant is requesting a reduction in the required distance between 16 a place of worship and a business selling alcohol. 17 18 The criteria for granting a variance are as follows : 19 • Special circumstances or conditions that apply to the land or building for which 20 the variance is sought that are particular to that land or building and do not 21 generally apply to other land or buildings within the same district 22 • The granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land or 23 build ing and is the minimum variance needed 24 • Granting the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and would 25 not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare 26 27 Staff's analysis is that the distance requirements for alcohol and beverage sales are 28 consistent throughout the B-2 and B-3 zoning districts, and that the requirement does 29 not deprive the Applicant of reasonable use of the land, as a BTR has been issued for 30 the convenience store . The store has operated since that time without the sale of 31 alcohol. Based upon this analysis and the criteria for granting a variance, Staff 32 recommends denial of Variance 19-01 , as it does not meet all three criteria regarding 33 variances. 34 35 Questions of Staff 36 Board Member Safaty asked how long it typically takes for a business to receive its BTR 37 once the application has been submitted . Community Development Services Director 38 Roberta Moore explained that this depends upon the documentation submitted , as well 39 as any outstanding documentation. In this case, the BTR application was received on 40 August 16, 2018 ; however, from August through November, additional documentation 41 was received fo r the application , including : 42 • October 2018 : Fire Department inspection was conducted 43 • November 9, 2018 : Food safety inspection was conducted 44 • November 13, 2018 : Liquor license application (2COP) was submitted 45 • November 19, 2018 : Fictitious name was filed for the business  Wilton Manors- Planning & Zoning March 11,2019 Page 5 1 2 Ms. Moore concluded that the BTR approval process can last anywhere from one week 3 to a number of months. Staff works with applicants to ensure they know what 4 documentation is required , as well as what may be missing , in order to receive a BTR. 5 6 The church submitted its BTR application on June 20 , 2018 and received it in 7 September 2018. Board Member Safaty commented that this meant the Applicant 8 already had an issue at the time the lease for the subject property was signed in July, as 9 the church had already submitted its BTR application by that time, although the 10 Applicant would have no way to know this . 11 12 Board Member Sterl asked if the Applicant was aware of all requirements for a BTR at 13 the time of initial submission. Ms. Kalus replied that these requirements are listed on the 14 BTR application and the Applicant submitted this documentation along the way. Ms. 15 Moore added that Staff notified the Applicant as soon as they became aware there was 16 an issue regarding the distance separation . The Applicant also sent an email to Staff on 17 October 4, 2018 , requesting the issue of a BTR without the sale of alcoholic beverages. 18 19 Board Member Sterl asked if the subject property is in compliance with all other Code 20 requirements. Ms. Kalus recalled that issues on the property have been resolved. There 21 are no outstanding Code violations. 22 23 Board Member Sterl continued that the State of Florida does not place any restrictions 24 on the sale of alcoholic beverages within a certain distance of houses of worship ; 25 additionally, some Florida counties have either shortened their distance requirements 26 from one thousand (1 000) feet or removed this requirement altogether. He asked if Staff 27 has reviewed Code to determine if it is out-of-date. Ms. Moore replied that Staff is 28 looking into the possibility of updating Code. 29 30 Vice Chair D'Arminio asked if municipalities surrounding Wilton Manors have similar 31 Code restrictions regulating distances of alcohol sales from houses of worship . Ms. 32 Kalus replied that this is not an uncommon requirement, and that distance requirements 33 vary from one city to another. 34 35 Vice Chair D'Arminio stated that had the Applicant received his BTR before the church , 36 there would have been no issue in allowing the church to move in nearby. He did not 37 feel granting the variance would solve this problem , nor that the Applicant should be 38 granted the variance; however, he did feel the Town should update its Code to remove 39 any double standard. He felt the Board should recommend that Code be changed 40 accordingly. Ms. Moore advised that while the Planning and Zoning Board may not 41 direct Staff, this concern would be reflected in the meeting minutes. 42 43 Board Member Theisen asked if the Applicant had had any conversations with City Staff 44 prior to signing a lease on the property. Ms. Moore replied that Staff met with the 45 Applicant, although she did not recall exact date for this meeting. Once the issue of  Wilton Manors- Planning & Zoning March 11 , 2019 Page 6 1 alcohol sales was brought to her attention , she met with the Applicant to discuss 2 options . The church was already at its current location when the Applicant signed the 3 lease and submitted the BTR application. Board Member Theisen agreed that the City 4 Commission should direct Staff to explore Code revisions. 5 6 Board Member Keester-O'Mills asked if the variance request could be appealed to the 7 City Commission if the Board does not recommend approval. It was confirmed that such 8 an appeal would be necessary before any litigation could be initiated . He also asked if a 9 change in ownership and transfer of a BTR would be permitted if a church infringed 10 upon the required distance separation . It was clarified that BTRs are not transferable. 11 12 Board Member Cassidy stated that because the property has been used as a 13 convenience store by previous tenants, the property owner likely had the expectation 14 that it would continue to be possible for another convenience store tenant to be able to 15 sell alcohol at the site . He characterized this as the City taking away the owner's right to 16 sell beer and wine , as his ability to rent the site was diminished by proximity to the 17 church . Mr. Cirullo pointed out that Code has not been changed . 18 19 Ms. Kalus explained that if a business's BTR expired after the church moved in nearby, 20 the business would lose its right to sell alcohol. BTRs are valid until either September 21 30 or the time the City is notified that a business has closed . The City also 22 communicated with the church to inform them that they needed to obtain a BTR. 23 24 Chair Berry asked if the specific section of Code dealing with the distance issue is 25 believed by Staff to be antiquated and in need of an update. Ms. Moore replied that 26 based on this and other situations, there are concerns that the section should be 27 revised . Staff is reviewing Code by comparing it with what is done by other cities in 28 order. Ms. Moore added that in Wilton Manors' Urban Center zoning district, there is no 29 requirement for this type of distance separation . 30 31 Board Member Sterl asked if there might be a way to issue a conditional variance, 32 which might sunset after a specific length of time or if Code is updated. Mr. Cirullo 33 replied that he had never seen a variance granted with a sunset date. He pointed out 34 that the Board is charged with determining whether or not this specific Application meets 35 the criteria for a variance under Code, not with making legislative or policy decisions. 36 37 Board Member Sterl commented that the Board may wish to grant a variance but avoid 38 establishing a precedent for future variances. Mr. Cirullo stated that every case must 39 stand on its own merit. While a decision by the Board may appear to set a practical 40 precedent, it would not be considered a legal precedent. Chair Berry added that quasi- 41 judicial cases are always site-specific. 42 43 Vice Chair D'Arminio asked if the City prohibits the church from serving alcoholic 44 beverages during events. It was clarified that the church is bound by state regulations ,  Wilton Manors - Planning & Zoning March11,2019 Page 7 1 although there are options such as temporary licenses and exemptions under State 2 Statute. 3 4 Vice Chair D'Arminio continued that he felt this Application represented a Code Section 5 issue rather than a variance issue. He asked if there might be a way to prioritize this 6 Section for an update, as there may have been similar issues for other businesses in 7 the past. Ms. Moore reiterated that Staff must receive direction from the City 8 Commission . 9 10 Board Member Theisen asked what process the Applicant would need to follow if the 11 Board denied the variance request and the Applicant chose to appeal to the City 12 Commission . It was clarified that the additional cost of an appeal would be two thousand 13 five hundred dollars ($2500) . 14 15 Public Comments 16 At this time Chair Berry opened public comment. 17 18 Paul Vermette, Administrative Director of Sts. Francis and Clare Church , 2300 NW 9 19 Avenue, stated that the Applicant spoke to him regarding the va riance request. The 20 church was aware that beer and wine have been sold at the subject location and did not 21 object to the va riance request. He noted that the Applicant has improved the property. 22 23 Susan Bourne, 956 NW 26 Court, advised that she lives directly behind the business. 24 She advised that the store is convenient and serves the neighborhood , as traffic makes 25 it difficult to shop elsewhere. She requested that the variance be granted . 26 27 Sal Torre, 309 NW 20 Street, President of the Westside Association of Wilton Manors, 28 stated that he opposed the requested variance. He recalled that during the recent 29 Broward County waterway cleanup , the Westside Association picked up a great deal of 30 debris including wine and/or beer bottles and cans in the surrounding neighborhood . He 31 also expressed concern with the possibility that granting the variance could establish an 32 unwanted precedent. 33 34 Rebecca DeForest, 2434 NW 9 Terrace , commented that the previous convenience 35 store at the subject location was problematic for the surrounding neighborhood . Since 36 the Applicant has leased the property, the site has been cleaned and the landscaping 37 improved . She did not believe the business could survive without the ability to sell 38 alcohol , and that a subsequent tenant might take less care of the property. She 39 requested that the variance be granted . 40 41 Mike Santavero , 1425 NE 23 Street, stated that Code should be rewritten to allow the 42 business to sell alcohol. 43 44 As there were no other ind ividuals wishing to speak on this Item , Chair Berry closed 45 public comment.  Wilton Manors- Planning & Zoning March 11 , 2019 Page 8 1 2 Arthur Zhukasyan , Applicant, 511 NW 132 Terrace , Plantation , Florida , explained that 3 the business in question is the sole means of support for himself and his family. He 4 pointed out that the store does not currently sell alcohol and therefore could not have 5 contributed to discarded containers from alcoholic beverages. He concluded that the 6 store cannot survive without selling items its customers want, such as beer or wine. 7 8 Ms. Gray emphasized that variances are granted on a case-by-case basis due to 9 unique circumstances, citing the timel ine of the business submitting and receiving its 10 BTR application as an example. She reiterated that alcohol sales are permitted within 11 the B-2 district, and that other zoning districts do not have the same separation 12 requirement as B-2 . She noted that variances do not establish precedent. 13 14 Motion made by Board Member Cassidy, seconded by Board Member Safaty, that the 15 Board approve the variance for 2349 NW 9 Avenue from Section 050-020 (A) (2) of the 16 City's Unified Land Development Regulations. 17 18 The Board discussed the motion further, with Board Member Safaty pointing out that 19 the timing issue created a unique circumstance and that the Code issue may not be 20 addressed soon . He also noted that the church and most neighbors did not object to the 21 variance. 22 23 Board Member Sterl requested clarification of whether or not liquor other than beer or 24 wine may be sold at a convenience store. Chair Berry replied that a liquor license is 25 much more expensive than what is required for the sale of beer and wine . Ms. Moore 26 clarified that the application received by the City was for a 2COP license. 27 28 Board Member Cassidy and Board Member Safaty amended their motion to refer 29 specifically to the sale of beer and wine. 30 31 Vice Chair D'Arm inio asked how quickly the Code Section might be rewritten if Staff 32 receives this direction from the City Commission . Ms. Moore advised that Staff would 33 need to draft the new or revised Ordinance as directed , followed by a hearing before the 34 Planning and Zoning Board and two hearings before the City Commission . She 35 estimated that this process could take approximately three months. 36 37 Board Member Theisen commented that his inclination was to deny the variance 38 request, as he did not believe the Application met the criteria for a variance , and let the 39 City Commission rule on the issue. Another option might be for the church to surrender 40 its BTR for a short time in order to allow the Applicant to reapply for the BTR, after 41 which time the church could reapply as well . Vice Chair D'Arminio stated that he felt the 42 appropriate section of Code creates a double standard which should be corrected . 43 44 Board Member Keester-O'Mills did not believe that approving the variance request was 45 appropriate, considering variance criteria . He felt Board Member Theisen's suggestion  Wilton Manors - Planning & Zoning March 11 , 2019 Page 9 1 that the church withdraw its BTR to allow the convenience store to reapply would not be 2 inappropriate. 3 4 Board Member Cassidy observed that there are unusual characteristics of the request, 5 which he felt constituted reason for granting a variance. He pointed out that the 6 circumstances of the request were not created by the Applicant or the property owner, 7 but were due to an accident of time. He concluded that a variance seemed to be the 8 best mechanism by which to address the situation . 9 10 Chair Berry advised that he had reached out to three City Commissioners for advice 11 regarding this Item , but none could make a decision. He felt there were special 12 circumstances in this case, and that granting the variance would not be injurious or 13 otherwise detrimental to the neighborhood or to public welfare. 14 15 Board Member Sterl and Vice Chair D'Arminio also noted that they had spoken to 16 members of the City Commission regarding the Application. Board Member Safaty 17 pointed out that the property value of the site decreases if the owner can no longer rent 18 his property for use as a convenience store. 19 20 Mr. Cirullo requested clarification of whether the motion was intended to be attached to 21 the land or to be limited to the Applicant's state license. Board Member Cassidy replied 22 that he would like the motion to be limited to the Applicant, with the hope that the City 23 will look into potential Code revision so this issue does not recur. Mr. Cirullo confirmed 24 that as long as the Appl icant retains his state license, the variance would be valid . 25 Board Member Safaty agreed with this clarification for his second as well. 26 27 In a roll call vote, the motion passed 4-3 (Vice Chair D'Arminio , Board Member 28 Keester-O'Mills, and Board Member Theisen dissenting). 29 30 The Board took a brief recess from 8:55 to 8:59 p.m . 31 32 VI. Public Hearing 33 34 a) Amendments to Article 85 of the Unified Land Development Regulations 35 relating to Site Plans. 36 37 Staff 38 Ms. Moore showed a PowerPoint presentation on proposed Amendments to Unified 39 Land Development Regulations (ULDR) Article 85 , which addresses the Site Plan 40 process . This section establishes the procedures for Site Plan review. Based on 41 applications that have come before the Board , as well as discussions with business and 42 property owners , Staff hopes to introduce Major and Minor Site Plans as an economic 43 development tool. Minor Site Plan applications would go before the Development 44 Review Committee (DRC) with public notice. 45  Wilton Manors- Planning & Zoning March 11 , 2019 Page 10 1 Ms. Moore explained that under Code Section 085-030 , portions of Code referring to an 2 addition or alteration to an existing commercial building would be deleted . This section 3 also deals with Urban Centers , commercial properties that abut residentially zoned 4 properties, or redevelopment areas. Section 085-040, which establishes the standards 5 of review, would be changed to Code Section 085-050 . Existing Section 085-050 would 6 be renumbered as 085-030 under Site Plan Processing . This would provide for new 7 regulations for major and minor Site Plans. 8 9 The category of Major Site Plans would include development applications for new 10 commercial , residential , or industrial mixed use. The following scenarios would 11 constitute Major Site Plan applications: 12 • Application requires the allocation of flex or reserve units 13 • Application requires the addition of square footage to an existing building 14 • Application includes another type of application , such as rezoning , variance , 15 conditional use, or vacation of right-of-way 16 • Any other type of application the Community Development Services Director 17 would deem a Major Site Plan due to its significant impact on surrounding 18 development 19 20 Chair Berry commented that he felt the proposed Amendments described procedural 21 changes rather than changes to Code. Ms. Moore clarified that Minor Site Plan 22 applications would still go through the DRC process. Examples of Minor Site Plans 23 would include applications deemed to be minor by the Community Development 24 Services Director, such as the addition , removal , or relocation of a window or door. The 25 intent is to make the process more business- and resident-friendly. 26 27 Ms. Moore emphasized that notification of adjacent residents or business owners would 28 be required for both Planning and Zoning Board and DRC meetings at the time an 29 application is submitted . She pointed out that the cost of processing a Site Plan through 30 DRC only is significantly less expensive than processing through both DRC and the 31 Planning and Zoning Board . 32 33 Board Member Cassidy observed that City-owned parks would also fall into the 34 category of Minor Site Plans, and asked if this might apply only to certain improvements 35 for City-owned parks , such as landscaping or creation of new pathways. Ms. Moore 36 explained that City-owned parks are discussed in depth by the Parks and Recreation 37 Board , wh ich adds another level of review to proposed changes. Board Member 38 Cassidy expressed concern that this would exempt changes to City-owned parks from 39 being considered major improvements. He recommended that the reference to City- 40 owned parks be deleted . 41 42 Board Member Theisen asked if other changes to City property would not be considered 43 minor because the reference to City property is not included in the list of Minor Site Plan 44 improvements. Chair Berry pointed out that the Community Development Services 45 Director would still have discretion to deem a Site Plan Major or Minor. It was also noted  Wilton Manors- Planning & Zoning March 11,2019 Page 11 1 that the deletion would remove only the reference to City-owned parks, not other City 2 properties. 3 4 Board Member Cassidy reiterated that his concern was for City-owned property to be 5 treated the same as privately owned or commercial property, and that the Community 6 Development Services Director would have the right to determine whether a project in a 7 City-owned park were Minor or Major. 8 9 Board Member Sterl requested clarification of the process by which the Director would 10 determine a project to be Major or Minor. Ms. Moore explained that there would be 11 accompanying documentation in the application's file. She emphasized the importance 12 of transparency in identifying Major or Minor Site Plans in Code, noting that this 13 determination would need to be made once specific plans are presented . 14 15 Ms. Moore continued that under Section 085-040, supplemental application regulations 16 would be revised to require title policy or work to be submitted and reviewed by the City 17 Attorney's Office. This section would also delete the requirement for the color Site Plan . 18 Under 085-050, clarification would be added to ensure that Site Plans conform to all 19 other applicable regulations. 20 21 Chair Berry referred to p. 9, Supplemental Application Requirements , recommending 22 that line 28 be made the same as line 32: "Boundary surveys must be certified , signed, 23 and sealed, and current to within one year." He added that pp. 10-11 include a list of 24 Site Plan requirements but do not refer to drainage elevation, fencing , or mechanical 25 equipment. Ms. Moore replied that while conceptual drainage plans may be submitted 26 through the Site Plan process, final drainage plans are submitted during the building 27 permit process . Fences fall under the category of structures. 28 29 Board Member Keester-O'Mills referred to p. 6, line 14, asking if industrial use was 30 intentionally left out of the list of uses. Ms. Moore stated that this can be added for 31 consistency. 32 33 Board Member Keester-O'Mills noted that while there was a reference to different fees 34 for Major and Minor Site Plans, he had not seen these fees listed. Ms. Moore advised 35 that at present, a single fee is required for an application to go through the DRC, with an 36 additional fee for appearance before the Planning and Zoning Board. The language of 37 the fee schedule would need to be revised . 38 39 Public Comment 40 At this time Chair Berry opened public comment. 41 42 Ray Carrier, 2048 NE 6 Terrace, expressed concern with leaving applications for 43 additional windows and/or entrances to the DRC alone rather than coming before the 44 Planning and Zoning Board as well. He explained that he lives near a development to 45 which a new owner hopes to create a second entrance and add doors and windows. In  Wilton Manors - Planning & Zoning March 11,2019 Page 12 1 addition , when the Board reviews a plat without a Site Plan , the City Commission may 2 give significant weight to the Board's decision even when the Board did not have all the 3 information . He recommended changing the ULDR to have Site Plans and plats 4 processed together. 5 6 As there were no other individuals wishing to speak on this Item, Chair Berry closed 7 public comment. 8 9 Ms. Moore reiterated that the intent of the proposed Amendments is to help expedite the 10 approval process for minor changes for the City's businesses. With regard to plat and 11 Site Plan approval , future proposed changes may be made to ensure that these 12 applications are made concurrently. 13 14 Board Member Cassidy noted that the proposed Amendments could place significant 15 pressure on the Community Development Services Director. Ms. Moore replied that 16 many cities offer Major and Minor Site Plan processes. She did not feel the process for 17 the Director would be significantly different, as the Director currently makes a 18 recommendation to the Board based upon the findings of the DRC. She felt the 19 expedition of the process could remove a financial burden on City businesses. In 20 addition , some City fees may be more than the cost of minor improvements. 21 22 Motion made by Board Member Cassidy, seconded by Board Member Keester-O'Mills, 23 to recommend to the [City Commission] the proposed Amendments to Article 85 of the 24 Unified Land Development Regulations pertaining to Site Plans, with the following 25 modifications: 26 1. Deletion of City parks on Item 2G , p. 6 27 2. P. 9, line 28 to be consistent with the language on line 32 , "to be current 28 within one year" 29 3. Add the word "industrial" to Code Section 085-030 .B.2 where different 30 districts are listed 31 32 Ms. Moore clarified that Code Section 085-030 B.2.G addresses City-owned parks , and 33 that Section 085-040 (A)(1) would be made consistent with( A)(2) 34 35 Board Member Safaty asked if notice would be sent to adjacent properties if a minor 36 change , such as the addition or relocation of a door, is made to commercial property. It 37 was confirmed that while this change would go before the DRC and not the Planning 38 and Zoning Board , neighboring properties would still be provided with notice. 39 40 Board Member Theisen referred to p. 6, lines 24-25 , asking if the Community 41 Development Services Director would be able to deem a change specified under Major 42 Site Plan as Minor instead. Ms. Moore replied that this could not be done for an item 43 that is specifically listed as Major. She added that she would work with the City 44 Attorney's Office to ensure that all the proposed language is specific and no potential 45 loopholes exist.  Wilton Manors- Planning & Zoning March 11 , 2019 Page 13 1 2 Board Member Theisen also addressed the concern raised during Public Comment, 3 asking if the DRC would be able to deem some changes Major and/or refer an 4 application to the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Moore stated that if there are 5 questions regarding the designation of an application , this can be addressed in pre- 6 application meetings, where additional information could be provided to help determine 7 if the change should be Major or Minor. These meetings include DRC members. 8 9 Chair Berry asked if an applicant may appeal a DRC decision to the Planning and 10 Zoning Board . Ms. Moore confirmed this is part of the appeal process. 11 12 Vice Chair D'Arminio referred to a specific application from the Shoppes at Wilton 13 Manors, asking if this application would have triggered the requirement for a ten (1 0) 14 foot buffer had it not been accompanied by a plat amendment request. Ms. Moore 15 replied that the Site Plan , not the plat, triggered this requirement. 16 17 In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (7-0) . 18 19 VII. Staff Comments 20 21 Ms. Moore addressed the earlier discussion of rewriting Code, stating that Staff is 22 currently in the final stages of reviewing the Code of Ordinances for potential changes . 23 These changes are being addressed by the City Attorney's Office and the City's 24 planning consultant. Once changes are finalized and a final Staff meeting is held , Staff 25 plans to host a workshop with the City Commission regarding the proposed changes . 26 After this workshop , Staff can go into greater depth to prepare these changes for first 27 and second public readings . Code changes will not come before the Planning and 28 Zoning Board ; however, changes proposed to the ULDR will come before the Board . 29 30 Vice Chair D'Armin io commented that while the City regulates the use of pods, they do 31 not regulate other items such as trailers, recreational vehicles (RVs) , or boats , among 32 others. He pointed out that these items may remain idle for a number of years , and 33 suggested that these items be addressed under Code. Ms. Moore advised that if the 34 items do not have valid license plates , they can be addressed by Code Enforcement. 35 36 Board Member Theisen recommended caution when addressing idle items, as this 37 could be perceived as a property rights issue. Vice Chair D'Arminio stated that these 38 items should not be permanent structures within a residential neighborhood . Chair Berry 39 noted that this may depend upon where an item is located on the property. 40 41 VIII. Board Comments- None 42 43 IX. Adjournment 44 45 Upon motion duly made and seconded , the meeting was adjourned at 9:43p .m.  Wilton Manors - Planning & Zoning March 11,2019 Page 14 1 -c---- --...4--- s;:: ! 5 Chair 2 ~-~ \\ · \2 , "2_0{) Date 6 7 8 [Minutes prepared by K. McGuire, Prototype , Inc.]