Loading...
Minutes 11-27-07 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD REGULAR MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2007, AT 6:30 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Present: Jon Blehar Sergio Casaine Shirley Jaskiewicz Jeff Lis Roger Saberson Sharon Grcevic, Alt. Matthew Barnes, Alt. Ed Breese, Principal Planner Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Attorney Attorney Alexander announced there currently was no Chair or Vice Chair for the board and as such, it would be necessary to select an Acting Chair for tonight's meeting. Nominations would be held for the new Chair and Vice Chair at the appropriate time. She called for nominations. Ms. Jaskiewicz nominated Mr. Saberson to act as Chair for the meeting. Mr. Lis nominated Mr. Casaine. Ms. Grcevic seconded the nomination. Vote Attorney Alexander called for a vote on the nomination for Mr. Casaine. There were no objections, and Mr. Casaine was elected to serve as Acting Chair for the meeting. 1. Pledge of Allegiance. The board recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Acting Chair Casaine introduced the members of the board. 3. Agenda Approval The agenda had been amended prior to the meeting to add Item 7F, Mr. Hand Wax Mobile Vending Unit. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 4. Approval of Minutes. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved approval of the minutes. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 5. Communications and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report Final disposition of the October 23, 2007 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, announced the City Commission approved items from the last board meeting including the Brisson pool variance and the Pylon Interstate Plaza conditional use and height exception. The City Commission tabled the Cortina Site Plan extension, pending review of the problems relating to blowing sand, the fence screening and temporary landscaping. Mr. Breese indicated there would be no meeting in December 2007 unless the board took action to the contrary. It was noted there was no need for a motion to accept the report. Acting Chair Casaine welcomed Mayor and Mrs. Taylor, Commissioner Weiland and Commissioner Hay, seated in the audience. 6. Old Business Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) - based Comprehensive Plan Amendments Status Report Mr. Breese noted Hanna Matras, Economic Planner, had previously provided the board with an update on the matter. She also provided a status as to the elements requiring minor changes and those undergoing extensive rewriting. The board would be receiving a complete package of the proposed EAR-based amendments to the Comprehensive Plan in early 2008. The EAR was required to be submitted to Tallahassee in the summer of 2008. 7. New Business A. Ticket Clinic Annexation 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27,2007 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Ticket Clinic (ANEX 07-001) Bradley Miller, AICP, Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc. Jer Enterprises, LLC 3349 North Federal Highway (South of of Turner Road on the east side of Federal Highway) Request to annex the subject property (0.37 acres) Ticket Clinic Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning 2. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use: Ticket Clinic New Site Plan 3. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: Ticket Clinic (LUAR 07-005) Bradley Miller, AICP, Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc. Jer Enterprises, LLC 3349 North Federal Highway (South of of Turner Road on the east side of Federal Highway) Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from CHIS Commercial High/with underlying medium density residential of S du/ac (Palm Beach County) to Local Retail Commercial LRC; and Request to rezone from CG General Commercial (Palm Beach County) to C- 3 Community Commercial. Professional Office Ticket Clinic (NWSP 07-006) Bradley Miller, AICP, Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc. Jer Enterprises, LLC 3349 North Federal Highway (South of of Turner Road on the east side of Federal Highway) 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27,2007 DESCRIPTION: Request for new site plan approval for the redevelopment of a 2,400 square foot commercial structure and related site improvements on 0.37 acres to be rezoned C-3, Community Commercial. Mr. Breese suggested all four items, Annexation, Land Use Plan Amendment, Rezoning and the New Site Plan, be discussed collectively. However, each item would require separate motions upon the conclusion of discussion. The board concurred. Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all who would be testifying. Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, Inc., 420 West Boynton Beach Boulevard, advised he represented the applicant for all four items. Mr. Breese provided a brief PowerPoint presentation on the four items being considered. The property was located on the east side of Federal Highway, just south of Turner Road. Adjacent uses included: To the north, developed commercial property within Palm Beach County; to the south, a City-approved project for 22 townhomes (Tuscan Villas); to the west, right-of-way for Federal Highway; and to the east, a residential subdivision (Tradewinds Estates). As noted, the applicant was requesting the following: (1) annexation of the 0.37 acre parcel; (2) a change in land use from County CHIS, which was Commercial High, to a Local Retail Commercial (LRC) within the City; (3) a change in zoning from CG General Commercial in the County, to C-3 Community Commercial within the City; and (4) a site plan approval for building and site improvements for a 2,400 square foot structure. The applicant proposed to improve the existing structure with architectural details, paint, awning, decorative shutters and the removal of an overhead door installed by the previous tenant. Improvements were also anticipated to the parking lots, drainage system, and a six-foot buffer wall against the residentially-zoned properties. The 14-foot high monument sign on the property did not conform to the City's Sign Code, which only allowed 8 feet in height. The sign also encroached into the City's mandatory setback, which was within five feet from the front property line, rather than the minimum ten feet required. The City's Sign Code required all non-conforming signs annexed into the City be brought into compliance within six months. The sign appeared to have no preexisting approval at the County level, and staff recommended it be brought into compliance as a condition of the annexation. Existing signs along the corridor represented a combination of commercial signs from the 19S0s and 1960s, as well as a new mix of signs for the projects that had been approved on south Federal Highway. These consisted of stucco, tile, channel letters and external illumination. The 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 City wished to proceed in this direction, rather than continue with the raised, internally illuminated signs. Staff recommended approval of the annexation, land use amendment and rezoning as the annexation was consistent with the objectives of the City's annexation program, the land use and rezoning were consistent with respective current designations in Palm Beach County, and the request would not create additional impacts on infrastructure that could not currently be accommodated by the City. Additionally, staff recommended approval of the site plan, subject to the conditions of approval noted. Mr. Miller advised he proVided the City with an alternative plan proposing to relocate and lower the sign in order to meet the height and setback requirements. He provided a brief PowerPoint presentation with regard to the alternative plan. The sign appeared to be stark, but this would change as the site was developed. Mr. Miller and his clients had issues with condition #2 of the land use amendment and rezoning, and condition #27 of the site plan, which he contended called for the creation of a residential sign for a commercial project. They agreed to shift the sign to meet the 10-foot setback requirement, and to reduce the height to meet the 8 foot requirement. He noted the importance of the sign face in terms of visibility. In addition to the annexation, land use amendment, rezoning and site plan approval, they requested the board consider eliminating condition #2 of the land use amendment and rezoning, and condition #27 of the site plan. Ms. Jaskiewicz commented on the garishness of the colors and cluttered wording on the sign. Mr. Miller contended the City required the sign indicate the nature of the business, and the colors were the corporate colors of the business. Mr. Breese advised staff did receive the alternative plan referred to by Mr. Miller. Staff preferred to have the sign mirror the colors on the building rather than having randomly-selected colors. In considering the appearance of a corridor, staff determined the color and style desired. Muted, soft earth-tone colors were selected, which were residential in nature and predominant in the redevelopment of South Federal Highway. Acting Chair Casaine inquired whether staff would consider an exception. Mr. Breese replied staff might allow some variation but he did not believe the internally-illuminated plastic sign face would be the direction in which the City wished to proceed with the Federal Highway corridor. He added modifications could be made to the sign which did not require it to be completely rebuilt. The sign could be designed to appear as though it was a tile type sign, rather than a metal-type of sign with a plastic face. Mr. Miller remarked the base of the sign would be obscured by the landscaping, and would tie into the color of the building. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 Acting Chair Casaine invited public comments. No one having come forward, public comments were closed. Mr. Blehar indicated he would not be inclined to vote in favor of the exception requested by the presenter. The nature of the business could be promoted through radio advertising, and the name on the sign would immediately indicate the nature of the business. The mere fact that other unattractive signs adorned Federal highway was not justification for adding another unsightly sign. Mr. Lis observed the address for the property was in Delray Beach. Mr. Miller advised the property was not contiguous to Delray Beach but was contiguous to Boynton Beach. Upon annexation, the property would be redefined to a Boynton Beach address. Mr. Miller's client did not wish to develop the property in Delray Beach as the County's regulations were more onerous than those of Boynton Beach. Mr. Lis objected to the signage as proposed. He believed the sign was too yellow and the wording should be limited to the name of the business. Mr. Saberson agreed with the board's comments pertaining to signage and believed the board should accept staffs recommendation. Ms. Jaskiewicz believed the building itself would be more compatible and aesthetically pleasing in an earth tone and believed the sign was garish. Aside from the sign, she believed the project was a good one. Mr. Miller advised the color of the sign was based on the standard yellow traffic signage. Mr. Miller indicated a modification of the sign represented a hardship to the applicant, as the sign face would have to be removed, at great expense. Ms. Grcevic inquired whether the business was part of a franchise. Mr. Miller replied he did not know whether they were franchised, but they had multiple offices, and the signs incorporated the colors presented. Staff recommended approval with conditions #2 and #27 as noted pertaining only to the lettering and color of the sign. Mr. Miller advised the applicant objected to conditions #2 and #27, but was in agreement with all other conditions. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27,2007 Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the request to annex the subject property (0.37 acres) into the City, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibits E. Mr. Saberson seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from CHIS Commercial High/with underlying medium density residential of 5 du/ac (Palm Beach County) to Local Retail Commercial LRC, subject to all conditions of approval recommended by staff. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Motion Mr. Saberson moved approval of the requested rezoning, subject to all staff- recommended conditions. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Motion Mr. Saberson moved approval of the requested site plan approval, subject to all staff- recommended conditions. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that passed unanimously. B. Ocean Drive Hotel ZoninG Code Variance 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use: Ocean Drive Hotel (ZNCV-08-001) Bonnie Miskel, Lauren Lending Boynton Holdings, LLC North side of Ocean Drive, approximately 500 feet east of Congress Avenue Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, zoning, Section 6.C.3, Community Commercial zoning district, to allow a variance of 19 feet, and a building height of 64 feet. Hotel 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 Bonnie Miskel, appeared on behalf of the applicant, and was accompanied by the architect, George White. Mr. Breese provided background and a PowerPoint presentation on the item. He advised the 2.73 acre property was located on the north side of Ocean Drive, 500 feet east of Congress Avenue. The applicant wished to construct a hotel on the property and believed additional height was necessary. The proposed hotel would not front on either Congress Avenue or Boynton Beach Boulevard, and would be located behind the commercial structures in the Forum Shoppes. As a result of the expense associated with the complete construction drawings, concurrent site plan approval was not sought at this time. The applicant had provided preliminary drawings which were included in the packets. The Code required a zoning variance could not be approved unless special conditions and circumstances existed which were peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which were not applicable to other land, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. The applicant noted, in its justification, the subject site was located directly behind a commercial plaza and the height variance was necessary for the purpose of visibility. In contrast to that justification, the applicant also indicated the height increase would allow the construction of one additional floor of rooms. The signage was to be placed on the raised portion of the parapet and facade, which was approximately 40 feet wide and 64 feet tall, and designed in conjunction with the front entrance. It was the applicant's intent for the mechanical equipment to be placed in this area as well. The typical roof line of the building was SO feet, 8 inches, or S feet 8 inches above the 4S feet allowed in the C-3 zoning district. A 5-foot parapet would bring the roof to 5S feet, 8 inches. While this was at issue, the variance was requested for the building height of 64 feet. The applicant believed the proposed variance would not confer any special privileges denied by the ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district and the subject site was unique in its configuration, limited roadway access and location behind existing commercial development. Staff agreed the location of the zoning district was unique. Generally, commercially-zoned parcels were located adjacent to major thoroughfares. The site may have been part of one parcel when the shopping center was built, but was now a stand-alone parcel, separate and apart from a major thoroughfare. Another criterion required the variance granted would be the minimum variance that would make possible the reasonable use of the land or structure. As noted, the greater portion of the building representing approximately 80% of the building mass was S feet, 8 inches above the 4S-foot requirement. If the intent for the signage was to be visible from Congress Avenue or Boynton Beach Boulevard, a 64-foot-high parapet with signage on it would be visible from either right of way, whereas the remaining building proposed to be SO feet, 8 inches high served no purpose other than to provide 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27,2007 additional rooms. With respect to the reasonable use of the land, the subject property could be improved with other uses that did not rely on direct visibility. Such uses would include general professional offices, financial institutions, medical offices, churches, and multi-family dwellings. Staff did not support the position for the requested variance as it was not consistent with the intent and purposes of the City's zoning regulations, although the lower components of the project could be easily screened with walls and landscaping. It would be difficult, however, to screen anything above 4S feet in height. Staff recommended the request for a variance be denied. In lieu of the variance request, staff recommended the proposed project be redesigned, with the bulk of the building complying with the maximum height allowed in the C-3 zoning district, and if the higher element was necessary for visibility, it should be applied as a height exception, rather than as a variance. The alternate design would accomplish the visibility objective of the applicant, while maintaining the mass of the building in compliance with the City's zoning regulations. With regard to ingress and egress, Mr. Breese believed the applicant was attempting to work with the bowling alley for an access easement and possibly a sign easement. It was noted the hotel would be the tallest building in the shopping center and even at four stories, would tower above the other structures. Mr. Breese indicated staffs recommendation would be to lower the 80% portion of the building that was at 50 feet, 8 inches, down below the 4S-foot height limitation within the zoning district. While this would result in the loss of a floor of rooms, a higher entry feature to the hotel would be retained for signage purposes, and could be handled as a height exception, rather than a variance if architectural detail was added and the mechanical equipment was concealed. Ms. Miskel commented prior to embarking on the process, the applicant met with members of the manager and master association for Leisureville, and they provided input on the original proposal for a six-story building. Thereafter, modifications were made and the plan was scaled down. The hotel was intended as a Holiday Inn, and a minimum of 110-120 rooms was required. The applicant proposed 112 rooms. In consideration of comments from the Leisureville community, the applicant attempted to find a way to maintain the minimum number of rooms while positioning the building as far off the property line as possible. The applicant exceeded the setbacks by utilizing 60 feet intended as a buffer. The applicant also agreed to an eight-foot wall, extensive vegetation and taller-than-normal trees to be installed prior to construction. Leisureville residents indicated they preferred less building mass and more trees. To that end, the applicant intended to move the building as far north as possible and adding landscaped islands. It was the applicant's intent to make the project as palatable as possible while 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 having sufficient rooms to keep a large hotel such as the Holiday Inn interested in the site. In order to work with the neighborhood, the applicant was attempting to relieve the traffic on Ocean Drive by purchasing an easement across the bowling alley. The terms of the contract were being negotiated. In addition to purchasing the easement, the applicant would provide for a left-turn in and right-turn out on Ocean Drive so that the neighborhood could not be used as a cut-through. They lowered the building by one story, moved the building west towards Congress Avenue, agreed to locate the main driveways on the west side of the building, and would not use illuminated signs. In order for the project to go forward, the applicant would require 112 rooms and visibility from the major thoroughfares. Ms. Miskel reviewed a list of requests and concerns submitted by a resident of Leisureville and the manner in which they would be addressed. They would agree to an 8-foot wall, if allowed by the Code; they agreed to provide a flat sum of money to be utilized for painting, installation of hurricane windows, doors and shutters, or in any manner in which the residents elected to utilize the funds. The applicant would not agree to an escrow but would have the general contractor maintain at least $lM of insurance, naming the residents as additional insureds. The applicant would also provide a conference room for meetings. Ms. Miskel believed the request for the relief sought was reasonable and was prepared to mitigate any impacts. Acting Chair Casaine invited public comments. James Bogert, 721 SW Lake Court, President of the Palm Beach Leisureville Community Association, was present to share the community's impressions pertaining to the development. A meeting was sponsored with the developer for the associations close to the development, and in particularly, Building I, which abutted the hotel development. The developer was cooperative, and it appeared the hotel would provide quiet use of the property. It was believed the enterprise could serve the community in accommodating events and parties. Generally, the impressions provided by people throughout the community had been favorable. Considering other commercial uses for that property, the community felt this was the most compatible with the interests of Leisureville. AI Horowitz, Building I, Apartment 119, Leisureville, expressed concerns relating to the project, but believed the community would be willing to work with the developer. He felt the structure would prove to be a first-class hotel. The developer appeared to be sincere in making the project palatable for the community. He presented a letter written by the building secretary. Patricia Moore, Building I, Leisurevil/e, expressed concerns relating to the building, including traffic, the view, loss of privacy and hotel guests wandering in the community. 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 Dennis Mozier, 2329 SW 13th Avenue, Building H, Leisureville, Director for building H, was asked by the residents of building H to attend the meeting, as they believed the project would obstruct their view. The issue was dividing the community. John Hagdorn, Building H, Leisureville, Treasurer of the condominium association, favored the project and believed a hotel would be most beneficial use of the site. No one else having come forward, publiC comments were closed. Ms. Jaskiewicz expressed surprise in staffs consideration of the site, as it was in an isolated area. She believed it would be more amenable if there was no access to Ocean Drive. She inquired whether additional hotel projects were anticipated on Federal Highway. Mr. Breese indicated County Inns and Suites were approved, and another project was anticipated next to the Hampton Inn on Gateway Boulevard. The Hampton Inn had 164 rooms and the Holiday Express on I-9S had 100 rooms. The Holiday Inn Catalina had 240 rooms. In response to Mr. Lis' inquiries, Ms. Miskel advised the applicant exceeded the parking and open-space requirements. Mr. Lis also inquired whether the applicant could take up some of the parking field by lowering the building and extending its length. Ms. Miskel noted, as the first floor was comprised of offices, check-in and breakfast areas, 2S% of the rooms would be lost by lowering the building by one story. There were four floors of bedrooms, with approximately 25 rooms per floor. Mr. Lis suggested the 25 rooms be spread over three floors rather than four floors. The length of the building could be extended, the height lowered, and the variance would not be necessary. Ms. Miskel advised they had prepared a plan for four stories but parking could not be accommodated. They also would have been required to push the building closer to the east property line and reduce the vegetative areas. She agreed Mr. Lis' suggestion could be accomplished, but other variances would have been required and the buffers would have been reduced. She indicated the applicant had not explored other variance options with the community. Mr. Lis disagreed with the applicant's argument that a variance would not confer a special privilege as the added floor would have provided additional economic benefits. He suggested the applicant heed staffs recommendation by lowering the height, and requesting other variances, if required. Ms. Grcevic believed it was a courageous move to develop in that spot and believed it would benefit the businesses in the area. The ingress and egress relating to Ocean Drive equated to a commercial faux pas made by the City some time ago. She believed the applicant was attempting to limit traffic. While she indicated she was in favor of the project, she did not believe the argument for a height variance was valid. 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 Mr. Saberson agreed with comments made by Mr. Lis. He objected to the height of the structure and would rather it be spread out. He believed staff had correctly analyzed the criteria for a variance, and although circumstances were unique, they still did not meet the criteria. Ms. Jaskiewicz agreed the applicant had not met the requirements as staff indicated. Mr. Barnes believed visibility was not the issue, and the problem pertained to the number of floors requested. He added many hotels agreed to the lower height restrictions. He felt the only peculiar condition of the property was that it did not meet the Holiday Inn's expectations or requirements and believed the basis for the variance request was not accurate Mr. Blehar expressed disappointment in the low turnout for the Leisureville community. He believed the architect did a good job of breaking up the five stories, and making it an attractive building. However, he agreed with staff's viewpoint that the case for allowing the height variance was weak. Acting Chair Casaine indicated he was in favor of the project and believed it was necessary. However, he believed the recommendations offered by staff were valid and should be further explored. He would like to see the organization represented have the amount of rooms sought, providing they met the criteria presented by staff. He did not believe the location was a problem. Holiday Inns were managed well and patronized for their competitive rates. While he observed wide support for the project and would like to see it go forward, he indicated his agreement with staff's recommendations. Motion Mr. Saberson moved that the variance requested be denied. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that passed unanimously. c. Meadows Townhomes New Site Plan 1. PROJECT: AGENT: Meadows Townhomes (NWSP 07-005) Steven L. Cohen, Steven L. Cohen & Associates, P .A. NICO Development, Inc. 100 Meadow Circle; north of Meadows Boulevard, approximately 2,SOO feet west of Congress Avenue Request for new site plan approval for 34 townhouse units and related site improvements OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 on 7.966 acres zoned PUD. Mr. Breese reviewed the request. The site was approved in 2006 by this board and the City Commission for the 34 townhouse units. The property was subsequently sold and the approvals expired prior to the new owner's application for the necessary permits. The subject site plan was nearly identical to the previous project. The noted modifications included the introduction of garages, elimination of the lift station and dumpsters against the west property line, and the facades were changed slightly with the inclusion of the garages. The two-story units within the seven townhouse buildings were arranged along the lake in clusters of four and six units in each building. The units would consist of three-bedrooms and 2.5 baths, with air-conditioned living areas ranging between 1,S73 and 1,S88 square feet. The plan indicated a landscaped berm 1S feet in width between the proposed parcel and Nautica Sound, with Areca palms planted on top, ranging at approximately 18 feet in height. Staff recommended any gaps in the landscaped berm be filled in with like-sized Areca palms to provide the necessary buffer. Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations required that perimeter buffers matched the setbacks of adjacent properties. The Nautica Sound rear setback against the property line was 1S feet. The closest building within this project was at 26 feet, 4 inches and was five feet further from Nautica Sound than the previously- approved site plan. Staff recommended approval of the site plan, subject to the satisfaction of the conditions of approval in Exhibit C. Steven Cohen, architect for the project, and representing the applicant, advised he was the original architect on the project. He met with Nautica Sound relating to problems on the site. Thereafter, additional landscaping was added along the berm and the berm was modified to provide greater protection. The client then sold the project and the new client wished to improve the project, and add townhomes. Pricing was intended to start at below $300,000. The dumpsters were removed, as the garages were designed in a manner that the trash cans could be stored in the garages and put out during trash pickups. Acting Chair Casaine invited public comments. Ms. Grcevic suggested the applicant remove the grass in between the driveways in order to facilitate water conservation. Mr. Cohen believed the suggestion was valid and agreed to have the grass removed. Diane Schrader, 7164 Chesapeake Circle, indicated she would be personally impacted by the project, and contended no one had ever come to any meeting and met with anybody as a group in their community, and that no one in Nautica Sound was aware of this project. Last year she met with City Officials and requested the property be flipped. Costs associated with moving the utilities precluded flipping the property. She 13 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 believed the project would impact 90 homes, and felt the issues which existed in 2006 still existed, with the exception of the modifications proposed. She contended a City file contained a document relating to a pre-application conference review, which contained a notation by Mr. Breese indicating the allotted amount of units were built for tracts G and H. She argued if the 36 units were surplus, the Property Owners Association for the PUD would need to authorize the reallocation of the units. She requested clarification from Mr. Breese. Mr. Breese pointed out the Master Plan had to be modified to accommodate the use and this was done last year when approval was rendered. The modification was authorized by the Property Owners Association before it was approved by the City Commission. Ms. Schrader inquired as to the manner in which the property could be flipped. Mr. Cohen advised he discussed with Mr. Breese, Mr. Rumpf and the City Manager the concept of flipping. Alternatives were considered which would have been very costly to the developers, as all the existing utilities would have to be relocated. Garages were added to the units, dumpsters were removed in favor of trash cans, and most of the lighting was removed. They redesigned the berm, adding 30% more landscaping, and replaced trees. The applicant's consultant met with the president of the association and reviewed the plans. The president had no objection to the project. Ms. Schrader acknowledged a meeting did occur between the association's president and the applicant's representative, Mr. Katz. However, the association's president did not advise the residents of the meeting or his approval of the proposal. She believed the property could be flipped and requested the board defer voting on this item until the association had an opportunity to be heard. She contended the association's agent was not properly noticed with regard to this Planning and Development meeting. Acting Chair Casaine advised this item was approved by the board last year and went before the Commission with the understanding that the applicant would meet with a representative of the residents. As evidenced, that meeting did occur. Acting Chair Casaine did not believe it was this board's responsibility to notify everyone on the board of Nautica Sound, nor was it the applicant's responsibility. The applicant met with the association's president. The fact that he did not provide the proper notification was not the fault of this board. He believed the applicant had lived up to his responsibility in communicating with the president of Nautica Sound's Association. Ms. Grcevic inquired whether the modified the plans called for town homes, or whether more apartments could have been constructed. Mr. Breese advised they could have built apartments instead of townhomes and would only have been allowed to build 35 units. They are building 34. 14 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27,2007 Ms. Schrader expressed appreciation for the board's assistance but objected to the notification of only ten days, for which she believed the City was at fault. No one else having come forward, public comments were closed. Mr. Cohen indicated they did meet with the City Manager and with Mr. Breese with respect to the project and had worked with the City to make this a viable project. Ms. Grcevic pointed out she resided in Nautica Sound and would prefer this project to a car wash or other commercial project. Mr. Blehar inquired whether there was a fence on the west property line. Mr. Cohen replied he believed there was a fence on the property. However, there was a large berm on the applicant's side of the property which would be reconfigured to prevent water runoff. Mr. Blehar inquired whether there was adequate access for the sanitation trucks. Mr. Breese advised an evaluation had been made and the trucks could make the turn. Mr. Lis inquired whether the surface of the lake area still met minimum requirements. Mr. Breese advised that type of review was done in the permitting process. They did preliminarily consider the design, but the actual drainage review occurred at the time of permitting. Mr. Cohen added that particular lake was not a retention lake, but an aesthetic lake. Ms. Jaskiewicz expressed appreciation for the increased landscaping and other improvements. Acting Chair Casaine pointed out there were 43 staff comments. Mr. Cohen advised most of the comments were agreed to and taken care of. Mr. Breese advised the project as proposed complied with the Code of the City of Boynton Beach. Staff recommended approval with the conditions set forth. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the request for a site plan approval for 34 townhouse units subject to all 43 conditions of approval and also taking into consideration the board's recommendation with regard to the driveway area, and removal of the grass in between the driveways. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. 15 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 Vote The motion passed 6-1 (Mr. Lis dissenting). The meeting recessed at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 12 p.m. D. Boynton Mausoleum Maior Site Plan Modification 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Boynton Mausoleum Jason Mankoff, Weiner & Aronson, P .A. City of Boynton Beach 1611 South Seacrest Boulevard Request for a major site plan modification for the addition of an approximately 3,162 square foot mausoleum building, on a 0.93 acre parcel zoned PU Public Usage. Mr. Breese advised the proposal was for a 3,162 square foot mausoleum structure. Boynton Beach Mausoleum entered into a 30-year lease agreement with the City in 1978 to construct and maintain mausoleum structures with crypts, niches and a chapel along the west side of the cemetery. The landscape plan would be similar to the rest of the mausoleum structures. The design would provide for a hedge along the east side of the mausoleum, adjacent to the circulation drive. The building design was proposed to match the other buildings already on the site. Three sides of the building would consist of polished marble, with marble edging and limestone fascia. The fourth side (south elevation) was proposed as a stucco finish with marble edging and limestone fascia. The building was designed at approximately 16 feet in height, well within the 45 feet allowed in the Public Usage (PU) zoning district. It appeared as though the building as designed would not fit completely on the 40 foot wide lease area. A condition of approval required the building be modified or sited to avoid any encroachments and to ensure its placement was within the lease area as indicated in the agreement with the applicant. Staff recommended approval of the request. Ms. Jaskiewicz inquired whether the condition had been resolved. Mr. Breese advised staff had discussions with the applicant and he did not foresee a problem with the condition. Jason Mankoff, Weiner & Aronson, P.A., advised they had accepted all the conditions of approval, and the issue had been resolved. The architect was drawing up the plans indicating the building was within the 40 foot wide area, and the plans would be submitted to the City some time next week. 16 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 Acting Chair Casaine invited public comments. No one having come forward, public comments were closed. Mr. Blehar inquired whether the applicant could improve the landscaping along the perimeter. Mr. Breese commented it would not be an issue for the applicant, as it was a City-owned cemetery. He added palm trees were recently planted at the site, but it would be a tremendous expense to lushly landscape around the perimeter of the site. Motion Mr. Lis moved approval. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that passed unanimously. E. High Ridge PUD Maior Site Plan Modification 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESSCRIPTION: High Ridge PUD (MSPM 07-010) Tim Hernandez, New Urban High Ridge, LLC New Urban High Ridge, LLC Northwest corner of High Ridge Road and Miner Road Request for a major site plan modification to change the type of housing unit approved from 48 single-family detached units (a net reduction of 64 units), and to change other site-related improvements on 18.44 acres zoned PUD. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, advised the project was previously approved for a total of 174 units consisting of 48 single-family detached and 126 townhouse units. The applicant wished to reduce the number of units to 110 single-family detached units. The property located at the northwest corner of Miner Road and High Ridge Road was previously approved and received a site plan time extension. The reduction in density would decrease from 9.43 dwelling units per acre to 5.96 dwelling units per acre. A revised traffic concurrency approval would be required as a condition of approval prior to permitting. The applicant recently received the school concurrency approval. In the previously-approved development, single-family detached units were located on the larger lots to the west, adjacent to the country club. The smaller lots were along High Ridge Road where the fee-simple townhouse units were going to be built. The applicant proposed a new site plan that basically was the same with respect to the large lots. The lake and amenity areas with the pool and pool house remained. The only changes were to the street and lot layouts along High Ridge Road, where single-family 17 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 units would be substituted for the townhouses. A re-plat of the subdivision would be required prior to permitting. The landscaping' was very similar to that which was previously approved. The landscape buffer along High Ridge Road was previously approved at a width of 8 feet. However, the County had required the dedication of a 15-foot wide strip along High Ridge Road for a future right-of-way. There were no plans to widen High Ridge Road, and it was unlikely the landscaping would be removed in the future. The applicant was also proposing to add landscaping trees and shrubs on each lot in the development. A variety of models were proposed, ranging from one-story to two-stories. The smallest home would provide 1,875 square feet of air-conditioned space, while the largest would provide 3,009 square feet of air-conditioned space. All units would include two-car garages and additional parking would be provided within the development for guests and overflow. Ms. Zeitler believed this was a much better plan than that which was previously approved. As a condition of approval, staff was requiring a 6-foot masonry buffer wall along the north property line adjacent to the single-family home to the north. The project also was required to comply with the Art in Public Places ordinance. Staff recommended approval subject to satisfying 55 recommended conditions of approval. Ms. Zeitler believed the applicant was in agreement with all the conditions, except for the buffer wall. Tim Hernandez, New Urban Communities, 398 NE 6th Avenue, Delray Beach, believed, with the preponderance of town homes existing along U.S.1 and Congress Avenue, there were few opportunities for single-family detached homes. They would be able to offer single-family homes starting below $300,000. With regard to the conditions of approval, they objected to condition #53, contending there were no previous requirements to place a concrete wall along the north end of the property. Additionally, they did not believe the wall fit in with the character of the neighborhood. They agreed to landscape the property, install a fence or whatever else was desired in lieu of a concrete wall. He requested the condition not be imposed. Secondly, they questioned the public art contribution requirement. While they were supporters of art in the community, the additional fee would be difficult for them. They did not believe the fee was equitable as the density and impact were decreasing. They had no objection to the remaining conditions. Mr. Hernandez pointed out there was one single-family dwelling on an acre lot where the wall was required. He indicated he was philosophically opposed to concrete walls separating residential uses. Additionally, the wall would require maintenance. If the intent were to proVide a visual barrier, he had no objection to the addition of a fence, hedge or trees. 18 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27,2007 Ms. Zeitler presented a map reflecting the lot ran the entire length of the north property line. Most of the homes would include rear-loaded garages. Residents would drive in the community at night, using headlights. Staff felt the masonry wall would protect the adjacent property from the headlights. Acting Chair Casaine inquired whether a hedge would suffice as a buffer. Ms. Zeitler pointed out the hedge would probably be maintained at three feet in height and it could take some time for the height to reach a level where it would provide screening. Additionally, Ms. Zeitler was unaware of whether the hedge would be opaque enough to screen headlights and noise from the vehicles and units. Mr. Hernandez indicated they would work with staff and a horticulturist to put in a hedge immediately that would grow to a height of six feet. They had no intention of maintaining the hedge at a three-foot height. Acting Chair Casaine invited public comments. No one having come forward, public comments were closed. Board comments included consideration of foliage or vegetation rather than a wall. Ms. Zeitler pointed out condition #53 required a hedge be placed on the outside of the wall as well. Thus, the wall would not be directly on the property line, but would be moved into the middle of the buffer, with hedges on both sides. Mr. Lis and Ms. Grcevic believed Mr. Hernandez should be given the opportunity to meet with the homeowner on the lot in question and present the options available. Ms. Zeitler indicated PUDs typically had masonry buffer walls along the interior property lines. Staff did not request a buffer along the west property line as it was adjacent to the country club which provided a large buffer. Ms. Jaskiewicz believed hedges could provide greater soundproofing than a wall could and would agree to a foliage or vegetation buffer in lieu of a wall. Discussion ensued as to the application of the Art in Public Places ordinance to major site plan modifications, and why the condition requiring the wall was being imposed at this time when it was not previously required. Mr. Blehar inquired whether staff believed placement of a traffic light at High Ridge and Miner Roads would be consistent with good traffic planning. Ms. Zeitler believed the applicant had a traffic study made, and it was determined this development would not warrant a light at this intersection. Mr. 'Blehar inquired as to why the developer elected to construct the garages on the alley side. Mr. Hernandez noted the garages were placed in the back for aesthetic purposes. 19 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 Mr. Barnes inquired whether the board had the discretion to recommend not applying the conditions. Mr. Breese believed the City Commission would need to revisit their ordinance and make adjustments for major site plan modifications and other desired exemptions. Motion Mr. Barnes moved to approve the project, subject to condition #40 being reviewed by the City Commission as to whether it could be waived or not, to recommend waiving the fee in this case, and to modify condition #S3 to include a fence and hedge instead of a wall. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that passed unanimously. F. Mr. Hand Wax Mobile VendinQ Unit 1. PROJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Mr. Hand Wax (MVU 08-001) Jamil Haddad Simon Properties Group Boynton Beach Mall Leased Area Request for a mobile vending unit permit to operate an auto detailing business at the Boynton Beach Mall in accordance with Ordinance 07-024. Mr. Breese advised this was the first application to be reviewed under the new adopted mobile vending unit ordinance. The applicant was requesting formal approval to operate a mobile vending unit and had negotiated a new lease with Simon Properties Group, owners of the Boynton Beach Mall. He noted the board was the ultimate deciding board on this application. It would not go on to the City Commission unless it was appealed by another party, principally the applicant, if he was not satisfied with the decision. Staff had reviewed the request and was satisfied all City requirements and conditions of approval would be fully met. Mr. Breese reviewed all the conditions #1 through #4, which were set forth in the packet. Jamil Haddad, 114S2 Sage Meadow Terrace, Royal Palm Beach, advised he was the owner of Mr. Hand Wax. Ms. Jaskiewicz inquired whether this project differed in any way from the previous business. Mr. Haddad advised the mall required new equipment that was more representative of the image pursued by the mall owners. The equipment was removed each day. Mr. Haddad agreed to comply with all four of the conditions and understood this was necessary in order to be operative. 20 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27, 2007 Acting Chair Casaine noted he had observed the operation, and it was clean and well maintained. As there was no one in the public to discuss this item, Acting Chair Casaine called for board comments. Mr. Lis inquired whether any process had been established to monitor the operation. Mr. Breese pointed out the mall attracted many patrons, including City employees, who would be monitoring the operation. Additionally, the Utilities Department would regularly be checking on the operation to ensure compliance. If the operation was not in compliance, Code Compliance would be brought into the process immediately. Mr. Haddad described his equipment which included a van and a 200 gallon mobile water tank. Each car wash required 200 gallons of water. The business had been at the same location for nine years. The mat used to absorb water was equipped with a sump pump and a filter. As there were no drainage facilities, Mr. Haddad took the filtered water to his home and discarded it. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the request for a mobile vending unit permit to operate an auto detailing business at the Boynton Beach Mall in accordance with Ordinance 07-024, subject to all conditions of approval. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion. Mr. Haddad, pOinted out the current mobile vending unit ordinance did not effectively consider his need for an awning on private property. Therefore, he was requesting the City consider a revision to allow for a freestanding awning structure on private property. In the interim, any awning uses would be attached to their vending unit. Mr. Breese advised staff would not be in favor of a freestanding structure. The awning had to be affixed to the mobile vending unit in some fashion. Staff did not intend to vary this requirement or modify the ordinance to make that possible. Motion The motion passed unanimously. 8. Other None. 21 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development board Boynton Beach, Florida November 27,2007 9. Comments by members None. 10. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting properly adjourned at 10:04 ~R Stephanie D. Kahn Recording Secretary 112807 22