Planning Board March 20, 2012 Meeting Minutes Commission Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Steven Mayans, Chairperson Gregg Weiss, Vice-Chairperson Virginia Dominicis, Member Charles Jackson, Member Jeffrey Kotzen, Member Keith Williams, Member Todd McLeod, Alternate *Voting Member Keith Spina, Member

MEMBERS ABSENT:

STAFF PRESENT:

Rick Greene, Planning Manager Ana Maria Aponte, City Urban Designer John Roach, Senior Planner Samuel Thomas, Senior Assistant City Attorney Laura Aral, Board Secretary

I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Planning Board (PB) was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, in the Commission Chambers on the first floor, 401 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. Laura Aral, Board Secretary, called the roll and it was determined that a quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen made a motion to APPROVE the February 22, 2012 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Keith Williams. Approved 7-0. No opposition. III. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING STAFF Mr. Rick Greene, Planning Manager, presented updates on the cases previously heard by the Board. IV. REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON

Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, explained the rules and procedures of the meeting. Ms. Virginia Dominicis entered the meeting at 6:05 p.m. V. DECLARATION OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION None. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. SWEARING IN OF THE SPEAKERS Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, swore in all of the members of the public and Staff who might wish to speak. B. CONTINUED CASES
Text Amendment, Artificial Turf Code Revision Case No. 12-02

A City-initiated request to amend the City's Zoning and Land Development Regulations to allow the use of artificial turf under limited conditions, and revise the minimum qualifications required for the preparation of Landscape Plans, excluding those prepared for single-family homes. Location: City-wide. Mr. John Roach stated that this case is a City-initiated text change to the Zoning and Land Development Regulations to allow the use of artificial turf under limited conditions. He said two (2) provisions within the Code address this matter: 1) Section 94-442(b)(1) specifies that all open space must consist of grass, ground cover, shrubbery or other live plant material, or of other circulation areas containing pools, etc.; 2) Section 94-445(3) states more specifically that plastic or other non-organic material shall be prohibited, and shall be in non-compliance with the spirit and intent of the section. He said the use of artificial plants or turf is therefore prohibited at this time. Mr. Roach stated that there has been a growing interest over the years to allow the use of artificial turf under certain conditions as an alternative to traditional sod. He said artificial turf is manufactured from synthetic material, and is often seen in indoor sports arenas; since the 1990s and more recently, there has been a growing interest in using artificial turf as a low-maintenance alternative to sod and landscaped areas in residential and commercial applications such as playgrounds, athletic fields, high-traffic courtyards, and shaded areas where it is difficult for sod to grow. He noted that recent technology has created a very life-like product. Mr. Roach stated that Staff did research throughout the country, including the states of Florida, New York, California and Colorado, to determine how other municipalities have handled restrictions in regard to artificial turf, and to review the research associated with it. He discussed the benefits and concerns addressed, as follows:

Benefits: 1) Water Conservation: Mr. Roach said the savings from the reduced need to water live plant material on a regular basis is significant, and is important in Florida due to water restrictions resulting from drought conditions in recent years. He noted, however, that artificial turf does not eliminate the need to utilize water, as it must be cleaned on a regular basis and in some instances, cooled with water on an extremely hot day. 2) Green Waste Reduction: Mr. Roach said artificial turf reduces the need to collect and discard lawn clippings in certain areas. 3) Noise and Pollution: Mr. Roach said artificial turf reduces the amount of mechanical equipment required to maintain a lawn, as well as the associated noise and pollution. 4) Chemical Applications: Mr. Roach said with artificial turf, there is no need to fertilize a lawn, and therefore no run-off of chemicals into the storm water system, nor leaching into the ground system below. Concerns: 1) Aesthetics: Mr. Roach said artificial turf comes in a variety of colors, lengths of fiber, texture, and durability; some is very life-like, and some is like an indoor-outdoor carpet it depends on the cost. For this reason, he said there is a need to establish minimum standards to ensure that artificial turf is used in an appropriate manner, and that it is maintained to the aesthetics desired by a municipality. 2) Heat: Mr. Roach said because artificial turf is an inorganic material, it absorbs heat more than a natural grass surface, creating an increase in surface temperature; in places such as large sports fields, the use has been restricted to certain times of day in order to avoid heat stress on the athletes. 3) Rubber Infill Material: Mr. Roach said the area in between the blades of artificial grass is made of up substances such as sand, and more commonly crumb rubber, which is composed of recycled tires that have been shredded and had the metal removed. He explained that the infill provides weight and a life-like appearance of the blades which stand up from the infill. He noted that studies were performed in 2008 and 2009 by the State of New York in response to concerns about the hazards of the infill material; both studies found that the infill did not pose an environmental threat or a public health hazard. However, he added that other studies performed have indicated otherwise. 4) Lifespan & Disposal: Mr. Roach said one municipality has restricted the materials that may be utilized for artificial turf, so that it may be disposed of in a regular landfill at the end of its lifespan. He said all municipalities have included warranties and longevity requirements.

5) Bacteria: Mr. Roach said there have been some concerns about pets on artificial turf and children with abrasions who come into contact with artificial turf. He said he was unable to find any studies performed in regard to the likelihood of contracting infections on artificial turf, but he noted that artificial turf must be cleaned periodically. 6) Lead Content: Mr. Roach said lead has primarily been used for colorfastness in artificial turf material. However, he said although the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced in July of 2008 that there is no increased risk from lead through its use in artificial turf, the industry has taken the initiative to remove the lead, thereby removing the concern. Mr. Roach stated that although Staff has a concern that artificial turf is not an equal substitute for natural grass, Staff has no objection to its use as an alternative to impervious surfaces such as asphalt or concrete. He emphasized that Staff wishes to maintain the percentage of natural landscaping on a site; Staff does not want artificial turf to take away the natural vegetation, but recognizes that in certain circumstances an artificial product may be permitted. He said Staff is proposing that artificial turf: shall be permitted in the side and rear yards of single family residences as long as it is not visible from the public thoroughfare; shall be permitted in public or private athletic fields or playgrounds that are part of a community center, park, school or university; and shall be permitted as part of a sites impervious surface in all other developments. He noted that the use of artificial turf shall not be permitted as part of any buffers required in the Zoning and Land Development Regulations, and shall not be visible from the public thoroughfare. He said newly created Section 94-451 outlines the circumstances in which artificial turf is allowed, and includes requirements for: a green, life-like blade of grass; a minimum pile (blade) height and tufted weight; an eight (8) year manufacturers warranty against color fading or a decrease in pile height; a material content that is lead-free and capable of being disposed of in a regular landfill; a prohibition against indoor-outdoor carpeting; and provisions with regard to installation and maintenance in order to ensure that quality is maintained over the product lifespan. Mr. Roach said based on the findings that this petition meets all of the Amendment Standards found in Section 94-32 of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Code Revision Case No. 12-02. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Dr. Kotzen stated that he does not like the idea artificial turf. He wondered what has driven this process who is looking to approve artificial turf? Mr. Roach stated that the Citys Parks and Recreation Department has been looking to use artificial turf in some of the park facilities, such as playgrounds and athletic fields because of the savings in maintenance costs. Additionally, he said there is some interest in the development community to use artificial turf around pools or courtyards, and in

areas shaded either by natural vegetation or a location between buildings where sod does not easily grow. He said Staff is proposing that artificial turf shall be allowed in areas which would otherwise be brick pavers, asphalt, concrete, or any other impervious surface. Dr. Kotzen said he still does not like artificial turf, both because it is artificial and because there is a heat issue in South Florida which will limit the use of recreational areas in mid-day. He said he does not know what kind of studies may have been performed in Florida, as compared to Minnesota. Additionally, Dr. Kotzen said the proposed amendment does not address the issue of maintenance it only requires a warranty, and that does not require an owner to replace the product when damaged. He noted that there is a clause in the Code regarding poorly maintained natural grass, but nothing to address artificial turf in that regard. Mr. Roach said such requirements can be added to the text amendment if that is the desire of the Board. Dr. Kotzen recommended that such a provision be added if the Board approves the request. Mr. Williams asked if it is correct that artificial turf is considered to be an impervious surface. Mr. Roach said yes. Mr. Williams stated that he has similar concerns to those voiced by Dr. Kotzen. He said there are very good artificial turf products, but there are many bad products as well it is all about the type of product used and who is installing it. He said there is maintenance involved in maintaining fake grass, and the idea of allowing its use in single-family or multifamily homes is frightening. He pointed out that the side and rear yards of homes are visible to neighbors, and if artificial turf is not maintained, it can be unsightly; he believes this is the wrong precedent to set for a private residence. He said artificial turf is more appropriate for campuses, football fields, or rooftop terraces. He asserted that there are many details to be considered before approving something like this and the product starts turning up everywhere. He said it could look funny seeing fake grass up and down our streets. Mr. Roach emphasized that the proposed amendment limits artificial turf to the side and rear yards of residences, and specifies that it must not be visible from the street. He said it will have to be on the side or rear of the house, and obscured from view. Dr. Kotzen pointed out that while the artificial turf may not be visible from the streets, it would be visible to the adjacent neighbors.

Mr. Jackson raised a question about liability. He said many athletes suffer from turf toe as a result of injuries suffered on artificial turf. He wondered who will be liable if, for example, children get injured playing on artificial turf. Mr. Samuel Thomas, Senior Assistant City Attorney, stated that liability would likely be upon the homeowner or the manufacturer of the product.

Mr. Weiss wondered if the City would be liable for injuries on artificial turf in the City parks. Mr. Thomas advised that the typical negligence principles would apply in such cases.

Dr. Kotzen pointed out that artificial turf is meant to replace areas such as concrete and other very firm substances rather than natural landscaping, and he noted that one would not have children playing on concrete. He said there may be some liability in substituting out a product that may not be intended to be used for that process. Mr. Roach said Staff is not requiring artificial turf, only proposing the option of using it in an area where concrete or another hard surface would have been allowed.

Mr. Weiss asked if water will percolate through artificial turf into the water supply. Mr. Roach said yes.

Mr. Weiss said weeds and grasses grow between paver, and he assumes they would grow through artificial turf. He asked how it can be maintained. Mr. Roach said part of the maintenance required of a property owner is to remove any debris. He said in circumstances where weeds were to grow through the artificial turf, the homeowner would have to remove it.

Mr. Weiss asked who will ensure that artificial turf is kept in good condition; he suggested that there should be a process to make someone come into compliance if the turf is not properly maintained. He said he is very concerned about allowing artificial turf in private residences. He asked if the prohibition of being visible from the public thoroughfare applies to commercial as well as residential property. Mr. Roach said the prohibition applies in all circumstances, with the exception of an athletic field that is part of a community center, park, or school.

Ms. Dominicis stated that she has seen an artificial product rolled out in a playground environment. She wondered what that product is, and if such a product is allowed in Palm Beach County. Mr. Roach said sometimes a rubber mulch surface is used in such instances.

Mr. Greene stated that he oversaw the construction of a barrier free playground in Wellington on Forest Hill Boulevard. He said the surface consists of a layer of silica sand with rubberized mulch on top to form a sub-layer as a cushion to which the artificial turf is glued. He said the turf holds tight, and unlike grass, the maintenance is minimal. He noted that it is comfortable to sit on. He said heat does become an issue in the summer, but most of the areas are heavily shaded. Ms. Dominicis asked why this amendment is required if such things are already permitted. Mr. Greene said they are currently not permitted in West Palm Beach. Ms. Dominicis said she understands that artificial turf can be a valuable product for childrens playgrounds, community service facilities, and schools, but she said the proposed amendment is a little bit too open. She said she understands that it is not a substitute for required landscaping, but she believes it should be limited to specific types of projects, and to a specific percentage of the impervious area of a project. Mr. Greene noted that Staff can recommend that the amendment be limited to specific uses. Mr. McLeod stated that he is less concerned about the use of artificial turf in commercial applications because he assumes that the installation will be inspected. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Roach replied that artificial turf is not a part of the Building Code. He said there are nationwide standards in regard to how the product should be installed, but a contractor does not require a license to install artificial turf, and the guidelines on installation can vary from product to product. Mr. McLeod said it has already been noted that even though artificial turf must not be visible from the right-of-way, it may be visible from the sidewalk, or to adjacent neighbors. He asked if there are any written regulations that Code Enforcement can use in response to neighborhood complaints. Mr. Roach said if maintenance provisions are added into the amendment with regard to such things as discoloration and tears, then Staff would be able to monitor such problems. But Staff will not be able to respond to complaints simply because the artificial turf is visible to the neighbors. Dr. Kotzen asked if the proposed amendment applies only to multifamily projects, not single family residences. Mr. Roach said no, Section 94.451(a)(1) states that in single family and duplex residential uses, artificial turf may only replace natural grass in rear and side yards, and shall not be visible from the public thoroughfare.

Dr. Kotzen asked if that Board recommendation can include multifamily projects, and exclude single family. Mr. Roach stated that the text can identify when artificial turf is allowed, and when it is not.

Mr. Mayans said he agrees with many of the comments made by the Board, particularly those by Mr. Williams. He said the Board appears to have a great discomfort with the proposed amendment: on the one hand, the Board understands that in specialized locations, artificial turf may be appropriate; on the other hand, there is real resistance to artificial turf in single family backyards. Mr. Mayans suggested that a better approach to the amendment might be to start out smaller to try it on areas where there is a broader consensus, and to gain some experience in the use of artificial turf before expanding it to other areas. Mr. Roach advised the Board that they may eliminate the sections of text that they would like to exclude.

Mr. Mayans asked if there is a consensus among the Board in regard to athletic fields and playgrounds. Mr. Jackson expressed a concern that artificial turf is made up of tires, which in some circumstances is considered to be hazardous waste. Mr. Mayans pointed out that one of the proposed requirements is that the artificial turf must be disposable in a regular landfill. Mr. Roach explained that the tires are ground up and the metals are removed so that it does not cause any of the issues mentioned by Mr. Jackson. He said in many of the applications he has seen, the rubber mulch is mixed with sand it is a combination of materials.

Mr. Williams asked if there is any reason why installation inspections are not mandatory for this material. He said it is construction, not landscaping. Mr. Roach replied that any improvement to ones property requires a permit.

Mr. Mayans asked if there is any procedure in the City whereby a variance might be obtained for the installation of artificial turf. Mr. Roach said no; inorganic material is prohibited, so changing the Code is the only alternative.

Mr. Mayans wondered if the Board would be amenable to artificial turf being allowed based on a hearing before a board, on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Weiss suggested starting out slowly, with the athletic fields and perhaps some commercial applications such as interior courtyards and rooftop areas. He added that he likes the idea of a permit being required to ensure that the installation is properly performed. Dr. Kotzen said he still does not like it, but if it is going to be approved on such things as athletic fields, he suggested imposing a heat restriction so that it may not be used in areas that will exceed a certain temperature. He said he does not know if the use of artificial turf is widespread in South Florida, but he is not used to seeing it, and he is scared of it. Mr. Jackson pointed out that the use of artificial turf in the City will impact landscape workers, which will impact the City. Mr. Mayans said he does not believe any Board members are in favor of the use in single family residences.

Mr. Mayans commented that it is possible that artificial turf might be safer for athletes than natural turf. Mr. Weiss stated that he makes it a habit to travel to some of the Citys parks. He said some of the parks he visited were closed due to the drought. He suggested that perhaps artificial turf would be a good alternative.

Executive Session Mr. Keith Williams made a motion to APPROVE Code Revision Case No. 12-02, a Cityinitiated request to allow the use of artificial turf under limited conditions, with the following modifications: 1. The use of artificial turf shall be limited to community, commercial projects, sports utility fields, and rooftop terrace; 2. The use of artificial turf shall be prohibited for single family and multifamily homes; 3. Specific guidelines shall be established as to what products are acceptable, and what products are not acceptable; 4. The installation of artificial turf shall require a City permit and inspections. Seconded by Mr. Gregg Weiss. Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen proposed an amendment to the motion, to provide stronger language surrounding the issue of how artificial turf is to be maintained. Mr. Keith Williams, as maker of the motion, and Mr. Gregg Weiss, as second, accepted the amendment to the motion that: 5. Stronger language shall be provided with regard to the issue of how artificial turf is to be maintained.

Approved 6-1. Mr. Steven Mayans, Mr. Gregg Weiss, Ms. Virginia Dominicis, Mr. Charles Jackson, Mr. Keith Williams, and Mr. Todd McLeod in favor. Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen opposed. C. PLANNING BOARD CASES

Major Amendment, Baywinds Residential Planned Development (RPD) Planning Board Case No. 1087TTT

A request by Brian Terry, of Land Design South, on behalf of Okeechobee 9847 LLC, for a Major Amendment to the Baywinds Residential Planned Development (RPD) to provide for medical office as a permitted use within the commercial pod. (The Applicant is requesting a 30-day continuance of this case.) Planning Board Case No. 1087TTT was continued to the April 17, 2012 Planning Board meeting. D. CODE REVISION CASES
Text Amendment, Signage Requirements Code Revision Case No. 12-01

A request by Joseph Verdone of Carton Fields, P.A on behalf of KPC Lakeview Development, LLC for an amendment to Section 94-110 Signage Requirement, regarding internally illuminated signs. The amendment will affect properties located within Commission District No. 3 Commissioner Kimberly Mitchell. Ms. Ana Maria Aponte stated that this case is a request for a text amendment to Article IV Downtown Master Plan (DMP) Section 94-110 - Signage Requirements regarding internally illuminated signs. She said the Applicant is the owner of the Hyatt Hotel, a five (5) story, 165room building located at 295 Lakeview Avenue, which was constructed in 2008 under the 1994 DMP rules. She said the Applicant now wishes to install a new vertical sign on the east faade. She explained that the building currently has two (2) signs composed of internally illuminated letters: a sign band located above the entrance canopy, and an identity sign at the top of the building. She said both signs were approved and permitted under the previous Code, but the current stricter interpretation of the signage regulations precludes the Applicant from installing a new identity sign with internally illuminated letters. She said Section 94-110(c)(1) states that: Up to two building identity signs, with the same identity, shall be allowed on buildings three or more stories in height. Only one building identity sign shall be allowed per faade. Such signs shall not be internally illuminated and shall not exceed a total sign face of 100 square feet. Ms. Aponte stated that the Applicant is proposing to amend the DMP signage code to allow internally illuminated letters and primary logo elements for identity signs. She noted that the Code defines identity signs as: any sign which is located on a building to identify the name of the building or the primary tenant of the building, if one exists. She said the DMP permits identity signs on buildings of three (3) or more stories, up to a maximum size of one hundred 10

(100) square feet, but prohibits internally illuminated identity signs. She explained that although the DMP generally prohibits internally illuminated box signs, Staff has considered internally illuminated channel letters to be appropriate for a downtown environment because they are more subtle and have less impact than the Plexiglas box signs which are back-lit, illuminating the entire sign. However, she said because internal illumination is strictly prohibited in identity signs, the Applicant is proposing to amend the DMP signage regulations to allow internally illuminated letters and primary logo elements in identity signs. Ms. Aponte said based on the findings that this petition meets all eight (8) of the Amendment Standards, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Code Revision Case No. 12-01. She said Staff recommends the inclusion of language to state that: 1. Internally illuminated box signs are prohibited; 2. Individual letters shall be attached to the building faade; 3. Support panels shall be allowed only in those cases where the letters cannot be directly attached to the faade. Ms. Aponte noted that the Downtown Action Committee recommended approval of Code Revision Case No. 12-01 on February 8, 2012 by a vote of 7-0. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Dr. Kotzen asked what is directly east of the proposed sign. He wondered if a building could be constructed close by that would block the sign. Mr. Joseph Verdone, of Carlton Fields, stated that if another building were constructed that blocked the view of the sign, the Applicant would likely search for another location for the sign. Mr. Williams stated that he has no objections to the proposal, but he wondered why the Applicant wishes to place a sign in the proposed location. Ms. Aponte replied that the sign is intended to capture the drivers heading west from Palm Beach into the downtown. Mr. Verdone reminded the Board that the proposed text amendment is not specifically related to the Hyatt sign, but rather to allow internally illuminated channel letters in the downtown. He mentioned that in daylight the letters look black, and at night have fully lit colors. Ms. Aponte stated that Mr. Verdone made an important clarification. She said the Board will not be approving the subject sign; Staff displayed the sign because the Applicant for the text amendment wishes to construct such a sign. She said the amendment before the Board is to allow internally illuminated individual letters for identity signs in the Downtown.

11

Mr. Weiss asked why Staff is allowing two (2) signs on the same faade. Ms. Aponte explained that Staff considers the proposed sign to be on the east, rather than the south faade because the sign faces east.

Ms. Dominicis asked if it is correct that only the letters are illuminated. Ms. Aponte said yes. She mentioned that the Applicant is using a back panel to support the letters because they cannot be directly attached to the faade.

Ms. Dominicis asked if the letters are back-lit. Ms. Aponte said no, the letters are internally illuminated; they consist of a perforated material that looks black during the daytime and is lit at night.

Ms. Dominicis asked how Staff will interpret the size of such signs. Ms. Aponte said the only size restriction for identity signs is that they are limited to one hundred (100) square feet.

Ms. Dominicis stated that the proposed Hyatt sign seems to project into the street. Mr. Verdone said that is incorrect, it does not project into the street. Ms. Aponte emphasized that the sign has been used only as a reference.

Public Comment None. Executive Session Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Code Revision Case No. 12-01 a Cityinitiated request for an amendment to Section 94-110 Signage Requirement, regarding internally illuminated signs.. Seconded by Dr. Jeffrey Kotzen. Approved 7-0. No opposition. E. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Laura Aral, Board Secretary, indicated that a comment card for Code Revision Case No. 12-02 was submitted by Mr. Joshua Long prior to the start of the meeting. She said she forgot to read the card into the record as there were no members of the public in the audience. She read a statement attached to the comment card as follows: We support the Citys request to amend the Code to permit artificial turf. Technological advances within the artificial turf

12