Loading...
Minutes 09-24-02MTNUTES OF THE PLANNTNG AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD t4EETZNG HELD I'N COMMTSSZON CHAt-tBERS, CZ'I'Y HALL~ BOYNTON BEACH, FLORZDA ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. Present Nike Friedland, Chairman Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair Ed Currier William Cwynar Nike Fitzpatrick Edward Hillery Bob Ensler, Voting Alternate Alice Otis, Alternate Absent Maurice Rosenstock 1. Pledge of Allegiance David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Nichael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Lusia Galav, Principal Planner Eric Johnson, Planner Chair Friedland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the members in the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Friedland called for a moment of silent prayer for Board member Naurice Rosenstock who is recovering from an illness. 2. Zntroduction of the Board Chairman Friedland introduced the regular Board members, the Assistant City Attorney and staff. Chair Friedland also recognized Lee Wische, former Planning & Zoning Board Chairman. 3. Agenda Approval MotiQn Mr. Hay moved to approve the agenda as given. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that carried 7-0. 4. Minutes Approval MQtion Mr. Hay moved to approve the minutes of the August 27, 2002 meeting. Mr. Ensler seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 5. Communications and Announcements A. Planning & Zoning Report Final disposition of the August 27, 2002 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, reported that at the September 3, 2002 City Commission meeting, the Quantum Park and Village South Master Site Plan Approval request was approved. At the September 17, 2002 City Commission meeting, the Woolbright Plaza wall variance request was discussed and the request was sent back to staff and the Planning & Development Board to convert that variance request to what the applicant felt would be more desirable - a parking space variance request. That will happen unless the applicant can follow through with the project without a variance at all. They are discussing potentially making room on the site for the wall so that neither variance would be required. Two Ordinances were approved at the September 17, 2002 City Commission meeting: 1) the Bethesda Hospital rezoning of a 10.37-acre parcel from a Planned Unit Development to a Public Usage district, and 2) the rezoning of the 6.93 Marina property from Central Business District to Mixed Use-High :Intensity to allow for the planned Nixed-Use Marina Project. Mr. Rumpf requested that the Board consider having a special meeting on November 14 in connection with the Motorola DR[ Notice of Proposed Change Application recently received by staff. Public Hearings may not be held until 45 days after the application is submitted and two readings of the Ordinance are required also. Mr. Currier inquired about the wall at Walgreens and their plan to change the number of parking spaces. He asked if they had to come in for a variance on a parking space change. The parking spaces were predicated on the square footage of the building and that had not changed. Mr. Rumpf responded that this had not been calculated and that the assumption was made that if they reduced the entire aisle or row of parking spaces up against that west side of the property, that it would fall below the minimum required for the project and it would require that a variance be processed. ]:f they provide full parking spaces and provide the wall on the property, as the Code requires, then technically, they would not require any variances at all. Mr. Ensler asked if the wall would transition the entire property or only a section of the property. ]:f it were only for a section of the property, would that require a variance for the balance of the wall as well as the parking. Mr. Rumpf replied that the wall was Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 required along the entire side of the property by Code. If it were not provided on any portion of it, a variance would be required. Motion Mr. Currier moved to approve a special meeting of the Planning & Development Board on November 14, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Chambers to consider the Motorola DRI NOPC. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Assistant City Attorney Tolces administered an oath of truthfulness to all those who would be testifying at the meeting. 6. New Business A. Public Hearing Development of Regional Impact Amendment/Master Plan Modification 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Quantum Park DR]: NOPC/Master Plan Amendment #13 (DI~A 02-001/MPMD 02-002) David B. Norris, Esq., Cohen, Norris, Scherer, Weinberger & Wolmer Quantum Limited Partners, LLC Quantum Park DR[ Request to amend the Quantum Park DR[/Master Plan to change the permitted use on Lot 89B from "Office Industrial" to "Mixed Use;" Lot 3 from "Industrial" to "Office Industrial;" and Lot 34-C from "Reserved" to "Open Space/Detention." Lusia Galav, Principal Planner, presented this agenda item. Staff determined that in accordance with Chapter 380.06 (19) of the Florida Statutes, this would not create a substantial deviation. A letter was distributed to the Board from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council that reviewed the DR[ NOPC and came to the same conclusion. Staff had not received any letter of review from the Department of Community Affairs. Staff agreed with two of the proposed changes and recommended denial of the change for Lot 89B from Office/Industrial to Mixed Use. Staff recommendations are based on several things that are outlined in the staff report. Staff felt that the City was losing potential industrial land to other categories. Also, staff felt that the Mixed Use POD 'area that they approved in Amendment #10 was the first POD that was changed to Mixed Use. At that time they gave the DRI 500 dwelling units; subsequently, the northwest corner lot was changed to Mixed Use as well and 500 additional dwelling Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 units were added. The two areas that were changed previously were very compact. The last approval of the Master Site Plan for Quantum Park and Village South was developed in conjunction with what was already permitted there. Staff's opinion was that Lot 89B did not really fit in with the area. It was surrounded by industrial and office uses currently and separated by High Ridge Road. This is not like Quantum Park East and West, where there was a roadway that was internal to Quantum Park and on which they were able to make some changes to the circulation. High Ridge Road carries industrial traffic from the M-1 Districts to the north. The applicant indicated that the recreation facility on Quantum Park Village North would be used by the homeowners on Lot 89B, which means that they would have to cross High Ridge Road to access it. Engineering staff expressed concern about the curve on High Ridge Road and believed there was a safety exposure. Staff recommended denial of this portion of the request, based on these local issues. Eugene Gerlica, representing the applicant, Quantum Limited Partners, and employed by them, was present. Mr. Doug McDonald, the president and CEO of Quantum Limited Partners was present along with Mr. Tom McGillicuddy. David Webber from Westbrook Homes, the contract purchaser for the northern half of Quantum Park and Village North and also the 89B parcel, was also present. Mr. Gerlica wished to rebut some staff comments. He stated that this NOPC was #13 and that no one had indicated that this change would be a substantial deviation. They were not increasing any intensities in any of the land use designations. They were not increasing any traffic. There was no regional impact. On Lot 3, they had taken the opportunity to conveniently return it to its DR[ land use designation of Office and ]~ndustrial, which it had been before the site plan approval for that lot. That site plan subsequently expired after they had changed it to industrial, which made it unpermittable for building permits in the City's interpretation of its Ordinances. This was a problem for the landowner and this would be a very cooperative fix for that issue. On Lot 34C, the last time the DR[ was modified during NOPC #12, it was profiled that the land had not been encumbered by any drainage requirement and was not earmarked for any development. They wanted to use it for industrial development. ~[t was put into a Reserve category on the urging of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, whose leadership had resolved some of the Park's environmental issues. From NOPC #12 to NOPC #13, Quantum Limited Partners has sold that land to the Quantum Community Development District and it was now in public ownership. They were bringing that land forward to be used to address the open space concerns of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the environmental interests. They were including it for wet detention to augment their water management system and to 4 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 provide a kind of "moat" along the eastern boundary. This would abate some of the off- road vehicles that are entering the sand pine preserve and harming it. They had also looked at the use for Lot 89B when they received site plan approval for the Quantum Park and Village South project with commercial and some apartments. Before the Board at this meeting was a companion development for commercial and residential that was fee simple, not apartments. They had worked closely with staff and Westbrook Homes to come up with a sustainable development, something that would sell and continue to be leased on the commercial side, and be a source of pride. In looking at Lot 89B, they were looking at horizontal connectivity. Rather than having a mixed use vertical type of development like CityPlace and Mizner that were expensive, they were going to work on horizontal connectivity by getting pedestrian access across Gateway Boulevard at a signalized intersection. This would give them two sides of the road that were commercial, give good visibility to the tenants, and have residents nearby -something which the commercial developments appreciate - and integrate them with footpaths. Their site plans reflect that. Lot 89B was the most difficult lot to develop as office or industrial, but especially industrial, due to its configuration. In order to use that land, they proposed it for mixed use, which did not preclude office, but included residential. It only excluded industrial. In their view, Lot 89B could be integrated into their overall development with a mixed-use land designation, and it could be done properly. Mr. Gerlica indicated that they believed that the proposed project fit in with the surrounding uses. Their apartments were adjacent to the office building and the warehouse and were without substantial buffers, walls, or fences, and people liked them. The recreation use on 89B is a site plan issue. He wished to address it at that time but it did not have to be accessible from 89B if there were a residential use there to come into the Quantum Park and Village North residential areas. There are people who like to live in an area where there is no pool because they do not have to pay for it and they do not have the 'noise associated with it. They wanted to leave that open for the marketing consideration of selling those units. Mr. Gerlica indicated that there were five conditions of approval and they objected to two of them. Condition of Approval #1 They had asked staff to remove this Public Works Department's traffic comment. They had requested at the time of first comments that staff remove this and deal with it at the Master Site Planning level for the different areas. They believed it was a site planning issue. The Traffic Analysis had been presented as requested except for the Lot 3 traffic analysis. ]:f it is developed as it was previously site planned and goes to Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 the building permit stage, those issues had already been addressed. confusion from the approval, they wanted this item to be removed. To remove Condition of Approval #5 They also wished to remove Condition of Approval #5, which dealt with the buffer requirements in the Quantum Park Peripheral Landscaping Buffer Plan. They did not want to confuse the issues. Mixed use can be something other than residential and they wanted the mixed use on Lot 89B and thought it would add value to the land. They wanted to discuss the buffer issues when the site plans were reviewed at this meeting. They believed that this was actually a technical site planning issue. Lusia Galav responded to Mr. Gerlica's comments. She noted that on Condition of Approval #1, the last sentence said that the Traffic impact Analysis must be provided at time of Master Site Plan submittal for Lot 89B and Quantum Village North. She did not think that was cause for removal. They expect that to occur at the time that those two site plans are approved. They are in front of the Board today. On Condition of Approval #5, staff is saying that it would apply if 89B were to be developed as residential and there was no speculation as to whether there would be a residential component on Lot 89B. The applicant is proposing 39 town homes for that site. Staff uses that information when it deals with the DRI. She stated that it was not mixed use - it was the balance of the 1,000 dwelling units. Staff wanted the 39 dwelling units put on the lots that it had already designated as Mixed Use. She did not see any need to remove either comment. Mr. Gerlica stated that the Traffic impact Statements should be dealt with as part of the Site Plan. The Master Plan was submitted with traffic, reviewed, and the comments were contained in the project. They were not objecting to the condition or the issues of the condition - they were objecting to its placement on this particular approval. The issues in the condition are valid but they dealt with them as they went through the TRC Review. He felt that the comment was redundant. The buffers are specific to the application and the application for the Master Site Plan approval of Lot 89B. They want that application to stand on its own merits. They were the applicant because they were the landowners but had a contract buyer and they could deal with the buffer issues, it did not mean that they did not have merit to having a Mixed Use designation on Lot 89B for the reasons that were stated previously. CHAI~R FR~EDLAND INVITED COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC. SINCE NO ONE WI~SHED TO SPEAK, HE CLOSED THE PUBLIC AUDIENCE. Mr. Gerlica introduced Sara Lockhart of Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc., representing Westbrook Homes, the developer of the proposed 39 fee-simple townhouse units on Lot 89B. She stated that there were issues in the staff report that needed to be discussed and also issues that demonstrated why Lot 89B should be 6 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 residential. She felt that the regional issues had to be separated from the local ones. The NOPC specifically dealt with regional impacts as part of the DR]:. A buffer requirement is not a regional issue and so procedurally, they were asking that Condition of Approvals #:L and 5 be removed so they could be considered during the Site Master Plan. Lusia Galav responded that on a DR]: they deal with regional and local issues. The City of Boynton Beach is a party, with the applicant, to that development order and they have an obligation to deal with regional and local issues. They had indicated that regionally, it was not a substantial deviation. They had every obligation to bring forth the local issues at this time and had done so. Eugene Gerlica wished to discuss some of the local issues and introduced Tom McGillicuddy, 1902D Palmland Drive, Boynton Beach, representing Quantum Park and Village South. Mr. McGillicuddy wanted to offer some insight into their motivation towards a Mixed Use designation. Mr. McGillicuddy stated that Ms. Galav was correct in that traditionally, staff opposed any loss of industrial square footage or acreage. He pointed out that in 3anuary of 2000 when NOPC #10 came before the Board, a threshold was established of 2,275,000 square feet for industrial use in Quantum Park. Today, considering projects either built, site planned, proposed, or under contract, they had 2,158,000 sq. ft. of industrial in Quantum Park or 95% of the original threshold amount. Mr. McGillicuddy stated that he was the broker and the one that got all the calls for the sale of land and leasing. This parcel of land, 89B, had been a nightmare to do something with because of its configuration. On three different occasions he had tried to sell this land but they could not get the maximum use from it for office or industrial. They could only get about half of a decent-sized configuration. He stated that when the new Emissions Control facility had been put in there, the site was compromised. They were lucky that someone was willing to take Lot 90, even though it sold for the lowest sq. ft./dollar in-the Park. Board Comments Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that he had spoken with Mr. McGillicuddy at Quantum Park the previous week. Chair Friedland stated that he had also done so. Mr. Ensler stated that he had driven to the site and walked around the property with Mr. McGillicuddy. He thought that having a community with residential on both sides of the street was better than having it only on one side. He favored the changes. t4otion Mr. Ensler moved that the modifications requested for Lots 34C, 3, and 89B for Quantum Park Amendment No. 13 be approved subject to staff Conditions of Approval 7 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 l, 2, and 3 in Exhibit D of the Staff Report. Mr. Hillery seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Mr. Currier did not see that trading industrial for residential made much of a difference. He stated that it would not be right to have Quantum placed in a situation where they were unable to obtain any income from their property. He was in favor of approval. Mr. Gerlica asked for a clarification on which comments Mr. Ensler wanted to be included in the approval. Mr. Ensler stated: :Items ]., 2, and 3. Ms. Galav stated that Condition of Approval #4 absolutely had to be included. They had to have approval from Palm Beach County for their traffic. ]:t was a requirement. They did not have it yet and had to have it. Mr. Ensler asked Mr. Tolces whether this item should not be considered under the Site Plan. He asked if the issue could be approved with the Condition #4 as part of the Site Plan. Mr. Tolces said that in this instance he would have to refer to staff. Ms. Galav stated that a traffic study was required for every Notice of Proposed Change. Traffic was a major component of a DI~. The study was sent to Palm Beach County and the City's staff also reviewed it. The condition had to be met. Mr. Gerlica stated that they did not have any objection to Condition of Approval #4. Comment #1 was the one that he preferred be dealt with during the Site Plan consideration since it related to the development on those specific lots. Mr. Ensler asked Ms. Galav if Condition of Approval #1 had to be a part of this approval and she replied that it did. Since it was necessary, Mr. Ensler amended his motion to say: Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 instead of 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Hillery seconded the amended motion for purposes of discussion. Chair Friedland asked Mr. Gerlica if he could work with staff on this if it were made part of this approval. Mr. Gerlica stated that in essence, yes, but he believed it confused the issue. They really did not have an objection to ~, 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Hay asked for clarification on the motion. Mr. Ensler responded that the motion approved the request by Quantum for the changing of Lot 34(:, Lot 3, and Lot 89B. Staff agreed with the change for Lot 34C and Lot 3, but did not agree with the change for Lot 89B. The motion encompasses all the Conditions of Approval as prepared by staff except for Condition #5, which will be covered later this evening as part of the Site Plan approval. -Mr. Hillery asked staff if Condition #5 would be included in the Site Plan discussion. Ms. Galav stated they would talk about buffers when they talked about the Lot 89B Master Site Plan. There was a similar condition. Mr. Hillery also asked if their Traffic 8 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Analysis encompassed everything on this particular site or if it covered everything they would be talking about tonight. Mr. Gerlica stated that Traffic Impact Analyses had been submitted for Quantum Park and Village North and also for Lot 89B on those specific Master Site Plans. Tn addition, they had submitted information in support of NOPC #13 that demonstrates that they were not increasing the intensity of traffic at all by the proposed change. Mr. Hillery asked if it considered the other sites as well and Mr. Gerlica stated that the Traffic Analyses had covered everything in Quantum Park. The motion carried 6-1, Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting. B. Subdivision - Master Plan 1. Project Name: Quantum Park and Village North (SBMP 02-002) (P]:D Master Site Plan) Agent: Eugene Gerlica, P.E., Quantum Limited Owner: Quantum Park & Village, LLC Location: North of Gateway Boulevard, West of High Ridge Road Description: Request for Master Site Plan Approval with waivers for 103,844 square feet of office/retail (including six (6) rental apartments) and 136 fee-simple townhouse units on 22.50 acres in the Quantum Park DR/. Eric Johnson, Planner, presented this item on behalf of staff. He stated that the applicant, Quantum Park and Village L.L.C., were proposing to construct a Mixed Use project in Quantum Park. The site plan proposed commercial, retail, and residential uses throughout the 22.50-acre parcel. This project was for Quantum Park Lots 83 - 88. The commercial/retail portion of the project is limited to six buildings in the southern half of the parcel. The townhouses are proposed for the northern half of the parcel. According to the plans there will be sixteen different residential buildings. The maximum number of residential units allowed per the DR]: may not exceed 1,000 units. The subject project, in conjunction with the request to develop Lot 89B, will reach the total maximum allowable number of units for the Quantum Park P]:D. A traffic statement for the project was submitted and sent to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division for approval. They had not issued an approval to date. Their approval is necessary in order for the applicant to obtain a building permit. The landscaping proposed for the site is conceptual. Detailed landscaping plans will be required during a Technical Site Plan Review, which will not be seen by the Board. The applicant has requested a waiver to allow less than 50% of the overall site landscape materials to be of native species. Staff supported this request for the material that was over and above the required landscaping. 9 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Staff recommended approval of this master site plan subject to the comments included in Exhibit "D," Conditions of Approval. There are a total of seven waivers that were requested in conjunction with this application. Staff recommended approval of all waivers, except for the waivers related to buffer width. The buffer waivers that staff objects to are the following: 1) Waiver of 25 feet to allow a reduction in peripheral buffer from 40 feet to 15 feet where adjacent to residential (along western boundary of Lots 83 and 87) 2) Waiver of 20 feet to allow a reduction in the peripheral buffer from 25 feet to 5 feet along the northern boundary line Staff recommended denial of both waiver requests due to the future possibility of abutting incompatible land uses. There are 49 Conditions of Approval. Mr. Johnson was notified that Condition #42 could be deleted since staff had just received a letter of approval from the Quantum Park Architectural Review Committee. Rebuttal/Comments from (~uantum Park Representatives Mr. Gerlica stated that they rejected two of the Conditions of Approval: #19 and #34. Three of them just required minor modifications to the wording but the conditions were acceptable: #23, #24 and #44. They accepted two of the conditions but had rebuttal in regard to the buffer waiver request and staff's recommendation for denial. They had some information for staff that could allow approval of the waivers: #29 and #30. There were four conditions that had staff comments as integral parts of the condition and in the past, these comments had been separated from the Conditions of Approval. This required clarification. They did not necessarily object to the recommendations, but did not want the comments to become requirements. Mr. Gerlica wanted to know what staff meant by "recommend" in the context of the Conditions of Approval. A clarification on this point would give him the necessary knowledge of whether to accept, deny, or modify the conditions. Michael Rumpf stated that the recommendations were comments that staff felt were important to the approval of the project. They might not be supported by Code citations, but staff felt that they were necessary. :If the comments go forward without their specific removal or modification by this Board and the City Commission, they would become an official part of the Development Order. Condition of Approval #12 Mr. Gerlica stated that they wished to modify Conditions #12 and #45 regarding the location of the pool. 10 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Mr. Johnson read from Engineering Division Condition #12 in the Conditions of Approval. The applicant met with staff and staff determined that the recreation lot is not in the optimum location due to safety concerns from heavy, high-speed traffic on High Ridge Road. Staff felt that the location of this recreation area should be more internal to the whole parcel rather than be located along the roadway. Sara Lockhart of Calvin, Giordano & Associates, [nc., representing Westbrook Homes, stated that the "tot lot and pool area" made a nice entry feature for the project. They located it outside the residential area to protect the residents from the noise that such a use would generate. They thought that proper signage and proper lighting should satisfy any safety issues. Tt was not a high-speed road but had a 30 mph speed limit. They checked accident data since 1999 and there had been no accidents on that stretch of road. Mr. Currier stated that there appeared to be quite a bit of vegetation between the recreation area and the road. He thought that the area would be all but obscured from the view of passing motorists. Ms. Lockhart indicated that there was also a sidewalk on High Ridge Road. Mr. Currier asked why they reduced the number of native plants. Ms. Lockhart stated that this related more to the commercial project. They planned to do the 50% native on their parcel. Mark Hanson of the Olen Development Company stated that in their project to the South they put in 100% of the required species or natives. They normally do three times the amount of the minimum requirement. Mr. Hillery returned to Condition #12, the location of the pool, and asked if it were gated. Mr. Gerlica stated that the community was gated and that an important point on High Ridge Road was that there was a wall along the side of the road. Mr. Hillery understood that this was just vegetation. Mr. Gerlica stated that there was a wall and it was gated. Mr. Hillery's concern was that on a public road, people would stop their cars and jump in the pool and there would be problems if it were accessible. He asked how high the wall was and Mr. Gerlica responded, six feet. Mr. Rumpf stated that the placement of a residential project at that location would require the application of a Code Ordinance relative to sound to the vicinity. He pointed out that the applicant stated that the principal reason for the placement of the recreation area outside of the core of users was to take away the potential sound of children from the residential units. There was no consideration of the sound that might be generated from an industrial factory, the fabrication and manufacturing plant that had cutting instruments and tools with large overhead bay doors that remains in that old emissions facility. That facility would transmit noise to the town homes next door. Mr. Gerlica stated that they could deal with the sound issues on Lot 89B. 11 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Mr. Gerlica reiterated that High Ridge Road was not a high-speed road and that every road in Quantum Park had four lanes and a 30-35 mph speed limit. Trucks would not be coming south on High Ridge unless they originated in the areas immediately north of Quantum Park because High Ridge Road prohibits through trucks. Mr. Gerlica stated that they did not want to relocate the pool area and that also applied to Condition of Approval #45. Condition of Approval #19 Mr. Gerlica stated that this was a duplication of Condition of Approval #15. Condition of Approval #29 & 30 These are the waivers on which staff recommended denial. Condition #29 was the reduction in the perimeter landscape buffer from 40 feet to 15 feet along the western edge of the residential area. When the 40- foot landscape buffer was required in the area, Quantum Park envisioned industrial use there and the adjacent land outside was and is zoned residential. They would be protecting that residential land from the industrial uses in Quantum Park. With the Master Plan before the Board today, they honored the buffer requirement in the commercial portion but in the residential portion they were requesting this waiver. There would be a 15-foot buffer and the adjacent land had some environmental quality. Tf residential were approved, they could provide a fifteen-foot buffer, which would be adequate. If it were to be changed to industrial, they could provide the buffer at that time. Condition #30 pertained to the reduction in the peripheral buffer from 25 feet to 5 feet. In that area, 25 feet is the typical PTD buffer. Tn order to site plan the units as designed, and in light of the use in the north, they requested this reduction in the buffer. [t was noteworthy that on the land north of Lot 88, the land has been reviewed by the same environmentalist that maintains and reviews their sand pine preserves and water management tract. He had identified those areas to be preserved when any development comes through there. That is good habitat and they would be required to preserve up to 25% of their entire lot area in native vegetation without development. In that location there is the ability to have a significant buffer from their residential to whatever use is on that property and preserve that land. Mr. Currier stated that when Mr. Gerlica spoke of the area being preserved to the north of the site and the 25% mandate for preservation, he wanted to know whether that was adjacent to the Lot. Mr. Gerlica responded that it was exactly adjacent to the site. The environmental report reads that the extreme southernmost and westernmost portion of that land - the offsite land - is the best environmental land. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Ms. Galav commented on the northern buffer. She stated that the property to the north of that was industrial in land use and in zoning. Staff was concerned about separating those uses from the fee-simple town homes. They anticipated complaints from the property owners if there were to be a conditional use on the property. That was the reason they wanted the industrial and residential uses separated by a buffer. They were not dealing with the site plan of the property to the north. Staff does not have that site plan yet. This property is the property at issue now. The buffer is a PID buffer requirement and was particularly crucial in the northern portion of the site. Chair Friedland stated that if the land were to be used for an industrial purpose, there would be a 45-foot requirement. Mr. Gerlica stated that this was a good point. Tom McGillicuddy stated that the Environmental Assessment Report indicated that the City of Boynton Beach would still require 2.5 acres of preservation based on their current Ordinance. Therefore, in order to minimize edge effect and preserve the area with the least amount of disturbance, the western and southern portions of that site should be set aside for preservation. So, you would have a 2.5-acre buffer. Chair Friedland would like to see that in writing. Mr. Currier stated that Mr. McGillicuddy had said it should be set aside rather than would be set aside. Five to ten years down the road, if someone wanted to develop that site and wanted a variance to reduce it to five feet, that would be a possibility. When they spoke of five feet, were they speaking of a vegetative barrier. Mr. Gerlica stated that it was the landscape buffer. Mr. Currier asked if it would create a hardship to put a six-foot wall across there in addition to the vegetative matter. That would circumvent any possibility of industrial expansion. Mr. Gerlica stated that in the timeframe before that development in the north, they wanted to afford the residents a view of natural beauty. ]~n case the industrial land did come in and they proposed to destroy that environmentally sensitive land, they would build a wall. Mr. Hillery stated that in most cases, a wall was required to separate industrial from residential. He asked what was wrong with a wall. Mr. Gerlica stated that cost was one factor. Mr. Hillery stated that if they were going to put people into a place just because they could not sell it, why not make it nice for them. Chair Friedland wanted to see some kind of indenture or commitment of that 25% preservation area. Ms. Galav stated that they were not dealing with that piece of property. The applicants had no authority to speak for that site. The owner was not present and had not been notified. Ms. Lockhart spoke about the perimeter buffer and said that they wanted to put in more greenscape for a soft buffer. She thought that most people did not want to look - out and see a wall. 13 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Mr. Hillery asked what was wrong with a wall with hedges in front of it. Ms. Lockhart said that because they were two-story units, more of a screen could be obtained with plant material by staggering it and creating a better design overall. Mr. Ensler suggested that not allowing the thirteen units on Lot 88 to have screen enclosures in the rear would provide a twenty-foot setback. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented on two serious accidents that had taken place in the vicinity and the fact that people did not always follow the 30 mph speed limits. He was not, however, concerned about the location of the recreation area. He said that all talk of what other owners would do about the buffers was purely speculative. He thought that Quantum was trying to put too much on too small an area so they wanted to chop off the buffer zone. He was totally opposed to that. Mr. Ensler returned to the issue of setbacks and separationsi Ms. Galav stated that Quantum Park had a buffer plan that was adopted and in different areas there were different buffer designations. In the western area the peripheral buffer plan showed 40 feet so they were asking for a waiver from that peripheral buffer plan. A regular P~[D buffer, around the entire PI~D, is 25 feet. Mr. Ensler stated that their request had been to go from 40 feet to fifteen feet and Ms. Galav replied that this was correct, on the west. Mr. Ensler asked if there were any reason that could not be changed to 25 feet. Ms. Galav stated the applicant had asked for fifteen feet. l~f they wanted to change the request, they would have to readvertise it. Mr. Cwynar asked Ms. Galav what the zoning was on the western property line that did not belong to Quantum. Ms. Galav replied that the zoning was R-:~AA but the land use was ]~ndustrial. Mr. Cwynar asked what the required buffer was for the R-1AA zoning and Ms. Galav replied, 25 feet. Mr. Ensler stated that the recommendation from staff only addressed Lot 83 and 87 and he thought it should have stated 83, 87, and 88. Mr. Gerlica agreed. Mr. Ensler stated that on the west side, the drawing showed 15 feet for the screen enclosure and a 5-foot setback beyond that. Mr. Gerlica stated that where the residential units back into the buffer, they were looking at a six-foot wide screened-in area and the rest of the fee simple lot would be grass. Mr. Ensler remarked that if they wished, they could have a 14-foot buffer. Mr. Gerlica replied that this could be part of the lot and part of the landscape buffer. Mr. Ensler stated that the 25 feet could be achieved if each of the buildings on that street were set back 15 feet instead of the proposed 20 feet. Mr. Gerlica stated that this was actually a site plan consideration but that doing this would cause a loss of parking space for the units. He said that along the western 14 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 boundary, residential on residential, they were asking for 15 feet and 25 feet would be a 40 foot buffer between the fee-simple lots. On the north side, their motivation was not to have a wall in light of the environmental land but if it helped, a wall and landscaping could be put along the northern boundary line and landscaping could be done in the five feet. They were not necessarily objecting to that. Chair Friedland asked if it would be possible on those lots where they were stymied to consider a wall along with vegetation. Mr. Gerlica stated that they wanted to consider having walls where they abut the industrial section. On the west side or in the residential-only area, they were asking for 15 feet and would like to go without the wall. They could accommodate the 40 feet in the commercial section. Condition of Approval #34 Mr. Gerlica asked that this comment be deleted because rather than be bound by the Quantum Park Buffer Plan for species, quantity, and planting patterns, that they have a five foot and a fifteen foot buffer. Through the technical site plan process they would present landscape plans and would provide vegetation, landscaping, and irrigation that would meet the intent of the Plan and might even be more than the Plan. Ms. Galav stated that the Quantum Park Peripheral Buffer Plan was the currently adopted Plan. If they wanted to eliminate it, they would have to request a waiver for it. Mr. Gerlica stated that they wanted the Plan to stay in effect but wanted a waiver for this Master Site Plan. Ms. Galav stated that they would have to request a waiver. Mr. Gerlica stated that they had. Ms. Galav stated that they had not. Mr. Gerlica stated "from 40 feet to 15 feet". Ms. Galav stated that the waiver had only been for the 40 feet to 15 feet but not for the planting portion of it. Mr. Gerlica stated they would submit landscape plans. Ms. Galav realized that but said they still had to meet that planting plan. Mr. Gerlica indicated that they could live with this. Condition of Approval #~.~. Mr. Gerlica wished to'modify this condition to read that they would provide a bus stop but not a shelter. He thought that this would be a function of Palm Tran and was not their responsibility. Mr. Johnson stated that staff felt that a shelter would be preferable to a sign. Condition of Approval #45 Mr. Gerlica stated that they had asked that this location be kept as proposed. Condition of Approval #48 They liked their configuration and felt that following staff's recommendation of mixing more commercial with residential uses in the same building would cause them to exceed their maximum number of residential units. 15 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Chair Friedland asked staff if they could live with this condition being deleted. Mr. Johnson replied that they could. Condition of Approval #49 Ms. Lockhart stated that staff was asking for the addition of towers and more diverse roof articulation in the residential portion to match the commercial. Since they were fee-simple owned properties, they did not want to do this. Also, such features would increase the price. They were willing to work with staff in order to make the architecture compatible with the commercial property. Mr..lohnson felt that the facades of the townhouses could be enhanced. The towers were just one example of how they could be enhanced. They had an obligation to suggest enhancements for the benefit of the City. Hr. Tolces suggested that the Board make the motions first on the various waiver requests before making a decision about the master site plan. Ms, Galav read the sections of the Conditions of Approval pertaining to the waivers. She stated that staff recommended granting the waiver in Condition of Approval #27. Motion Mr. Currier moved to approve the waiver for Condition of Approval seconded the motion that carried 7-0. #27. Mr. Hay Ms. Galav read the waiver contained in Condition of Approval #28 and stated that staff approved the waiver. Motion Mr. Currier moved to approve the waiver in Condition of Approval #28. seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Vice Chair Hay Ms. Galav read the waiver contained in Condition of Approval #29 and stated that staff recommended denial of this waiver. Motion Mr. Fitzpatrick moved to deny the waiver contained in Condition of Approval #29. Hillery seconded the motion, Mr. Chair Friedland requested a roll call vote and the Recording Secretary polled the vote. The motion passed 4-3, Chair Friedland, Mr. Currier, and Mr. Ensler dissenting. Ms. Galav read the waiver contained in Condition of Approval #30 and stated that staff recommended denial of this waiver. 16 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 l~lotion Mr. Currier approved the waiver request in Condition of Approval #30 with a condition that a six-foot wall be erected along with the vegetative buffer. Mr. Hillery seconded the motion. Chair Friedland requested a roll call vote and the Recording Secretary polled the vote. The motion passed 5-2, Mr. Fitzpatrick and Vice Chair Hay dissenting. Ms. Galav read the waiver contained in Condition of Approval #31 and stated that staff recommended granting the waiver. Hotion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve the waiver contained in Condition of Approval Chair Hay seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Vice Ms. Galav read the waiver contained in Condition of Approval #32 and stated that staff recommended granting the waiver. Hotion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the waiver in Condition of Approval #32. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that carried 6-1, Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting. Ms. Galav read the waiver contained in Condition of Approval #33 and stated that staff recommended granting the waiver. Hotion Mr. Cwynar moved to grant the waiver in Condition of Approval #33. seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Vice Chair Hay The Board returned to a consideration of the remaining Conditions that were at issue. They agreed that #19 was a duplicate and could be deleted. Mr. Ensler introduced a new motion on Condition of Approval #29. 14otion Mr. Ensler moved that the setback be reduced from 25 feet to 14 feet based on the earlier discussion on screen enclosures and that the waiver be granted in Condition of Approval #29 from 40 feet to 24 feet, which is consistent with residential buffers. Ms. Galav stated that this would be their back yard - it sounded like this would include the owner's backyard as part of the buffer. Ms. Galav stated that the buffer could not be within their property line. The motion died for lack of a second. Chair Friedland wanted to go ahead with the vote on the whole project, leaving #29 to be determined between Quantum and staff. Mr. Gerlica thought this would be a good 17 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 resolution. Mr. Tolces stated that anything that required a waiver would still have to come back before the Board for approval. Mr. Gerlica stated that Ms. Galav's point was a good one and grass was a bit of a buffer. As long as it is fee-simple, the backyard could be grass and those 15 feet could be landscaped and encumbered through the plat as a common maintained area. He stated that he believed Mr. Ensler was looking for a 24 foot green space with the 9 feet of grass. Ms. Galav asked if any part of the buffer would be in their platted property line. Mr. Gerlica stated that their use in the backyard could be restricted to grass. they wanted to plant trees they could. Ms. Galav reiterated her question. Mr. Gerlica replied, "not the recorded plat." Ms. Galav stated that if it were a buffer it would be an easement on the plat. Mr. Gerlica stated that an easement could be put on a platted lot. ]:f they looked at the technical site plan, this was going to be replatted and it could all be worked out then. For purposes of the master site plan a 24-foot green space was suggested. Ms. Galav stated that this would not be acceptable and that staff was asking for a buffer, not a green space. The buffer had to be outside the owner's property line. Hotion Mr. Currier moved to reconsider the approval of the waiver associated with item #33. Mr. Ensler seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. The vote was 6-1, Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting. Mr. Currier wanted to insure that the number of handicapped spots would not be reduced when the overall numbers of parking spaces were reduced. Mr. Gerlica stated that this was reasonable. I~lotion Mr. Currier moved to add a condition to Condition of Approval #33. The number of handicapped spaces will be retained at the larger number. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Mr. Ensler offered a new motion on Condition of Approval #29. On the west side of Lots 83, 87, and 88, that the Board approve green space of 24 feet since the request for 15 feet was denied. I~lotion Mr. Ensler moved to readdress the waiver associated with Condition of Approval #29. Mr. Currier seconded the motion. (This motion was not voted on and Mr. Ensler introduced a new motion.) -Vice Chair Hay believed that there had to be a motion to reconsider but Mr. Tolces advised that since the earlier motion had denied the waiver request and was essentially 18 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 a failed motion, that this was a second motion on the item. The earlier motion passed but the waiver request failed. Mr. Tolces commented on the use of the term green space versus buffer, and stated that there was a Code requirement with respect to the term "buffer". For the record, he wanted to be clear about the difference between a green space and a buffer to make sure that compliance with the Code was achieved. Ms. Galav stated that the buffer was a Code requirement as defined in the Code. In this case it is adopted by Ordinance. There is a PID buffer for Quantum and it has a planting plan associated with it. It is a required buffer. She did not have a definition for green space. That term was not used. Mr. Currier asked whether grass was included in the buffer. Ms. Galav stated that the buffer could have grass but in this particular case there was a certain planting plan that was associated with the buffers. Mr. Gerlica stated that if the motion were crafted so that it stated a 24 foot buffer, they could accommodate that in their land plan with the required planting and the necessary landscape screening, fee-simple or not. Hotion Mr. Ensler moved to approve Item #29 with a 24-foot buffer on the lots on the western boundary of the property, specifically on Lots 83, 87, and 88. Mr. Currier seconded the motion. Mr. Hillery asked Ms. Galav how the applicant could get this space. Ms. Galav deferred to the applicant. It sounded to her that certain town homes would not have a yard. Mr. Gerlica stated that they were talking about the units that would back up to the western and northern property lines. Those units will be restricted to the six-foot wide screened patio area if they want one. The encumbrance with regard to the buffering and landscaping in the 24 feet that would be available could be done in a number of ways. They would use a combination of the 15-foot buffer that would be common space owned by the Property Owners Association. On the plat there will be a buffer easement on the rear part of the yard that will have requirements on the Plat and on the HOA document that say how it must be planted and maintained. Ms. Galav stated that in looking at their site plan, they had 15 feet for a rear yard and a 5-foot buffer. They would have no yard. If that is what the applicant wants to do that is fine but no patio, no screen enclosure, or anything else would be permitted back there. She was not sure that this would be what the Board wanted. Mr. Gerlica stated that this was what they wanted. 19 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Vice Chair Hay suggested going back to the original discussion that had been to let staff and the applicant work together to resolve this issue. Chair Friedland stated that it would come back to the Board alter that for approval anyway. At the Chair's request, the Recording Secretary polled the vote. The motion carried 5-2, Messrs. Fitzpatrick and Hillery dissenting. This ended the waiver portion of the request. The following motion encompasses the entire project. Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve the agenda item 6.B.1 for the Quantum Park and Village North (SBMP 02-002), PID Master Site Plan. This is the request for Master Site Plan approval with waivers for 103,844 square feet of office/retail (including six rental apartments) and 136 fee-simple townhouse units on 22.50 acres in the Quantum Park DRI, with the deletions of Conditions of Approval #12, 19, 42, and 48. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Gerlica wanted to specifically query some of the items that he had requested be rejected. He inquired about the bus shelter mentioned in item #44, which they did not wish to build. He asked for a reading on item #49, which dealt with the towers and roof treatments that they did not wish to do on fee-simple homes. Mr. Tolces stated that there were deletions on Items #12, #19, #42, #48, and #45. Mr. Rumpf stated that staff understood that #49 would be acceptable less the words "towers" and "more diverse roof articulation." Mr. Gerlica stated that they had requested a modification to #44, to remove "shelter." Mr. Tolces re-stated the motion with the Board's permission. He mentioned the deletion of #12, #19, #34, #42, #45, and #48. Item 44 is amended to remove the term "shelter" and Item 49 is amended to remove the reference to the addition of "towers and more diverse roof articulation," and subject to the waivers as approved. Mr. Gerlica agreed. Mr. Cwynar and Vice Chair Hay agreed with the motion as restated. Mr. Hillery asked if the pool were for both sides of the road and he was advised that it was. He suggested that the speed limit be reduced to 25 mph to provide some protection for the children that would be crossing the road to get to the pool. He wished to attach that to this motion. Mr. Gerlica agreed. Mr. Cwynar and Vice Chair Hay agreed to the modifications. 2O Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Mr. Currier wished to make an addition to the motion of having a speed bump at the crossing but Mr. Hillery disagreed. Mr. Gerlica wished to delay some of that discussion to the next case, Lot 89B, because he had some thoughts that might solve the issue. The motion carried 6-1, Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting. TI'lB I~IE~I'XNG RE¢£$$£D A 7' 9:.~0 P.I~I. AND R£¢ONV£N£D A T 9:20 B. Subdivision - Master Plan 2. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: (~uantum Park and Village Lot 89B (SBMP 02-003), PTD Master Site Plan Sara Lockhart of Calvin, Giordano & Associates, ]:nc. Quantum Limited Partners, LLC North of Gateway Boulevard, east of High Ridge Road Request for Master Site Plan Approval with waivers for 39 fee-simple townhouse units on 3.99 acres in the Quantum Park DR1. Eric Johnson, Planner, presented this project on behalf of staff. He reported that the request was to construct 39 fee-simple townhouse units on 3.996 acres east of High Ridge Road and north of Gateway Boulevard. Staff did not want to change the land use from Office ]:ndustrial to Mixed Use but NOPC #13 was approved at this meeting and this changed the land use category to Mixed Use. Staff recommended denial of this site plan request due to remaining outstanding issues itemized in the Conditions of Approval. The applicant was requesting four waivers from the Land Development Regulations with this request. Staff would support approval of all waivers, except for the waivers related to the buffer width, Condition of Approval ]:terns #22 and #23. The buffer waiver items were read. Staff recommended denial of both waiver requests due to the abutting incompatible land uses. As proposed, the northern perimeter buffer would be reduced in the areas where the proposed residential townhouses would directly abut industrially zoned property. Also, the town homes would be 20 feet from the north property line and the extent of their rear yard would only be 5 feet from the north property line. ]:t was staff's conviction that no buffer width waivers should be granted. 21 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Mr. Johnson stated that there were 35 Conditions of Approval. Ttem #29 had been satisfied and could be deleted. Sara Lockhart of Calvin, Giordano & Associates, ]:nc., representing the contract purchaser of Parcel 89B, Westbrook Homes, stated that they had a nice entry feature into a gated community with fee-simple town homes. She stated that the surrounding properties were on existing land uses. There would be no surprises from the residents because everything was already built out and established. She addressed the bay doors on the industrial building to the north of the proposed project, saying that they did not face the residential area. There was one building that had bay doors that did face the residential area, but they did not believe this would be a constraint because it was very tight and narrow and would not permit a lot of tractor-trailer deliveries as part of the operation. She stated that the occupant in the former emissions facility was a Iow- impact user. She asked to clarify some of the Conditions of Approval and then identify the problematic ones. On Condition #2, she requested that the word "relocate" be stricken and replaced with "redesign." After the word "north" in the same sentence, put a period and strike the part that says: "so that the three-lane section extends to the north property line of Lot 89B." This is because they had a design in mind to present to staff that would address staff's issues. Mr. 3ohnson stated that they would not be qualified to report on this item. The comment was made by Public Works and no one was present from Public Works. Their comment would be to keep the condition as it was originally stated. On Condition #3, Ms. Lockhart asked to strike the words "on Gateway Boulevard" in this condition. She felt this item should stand alone and that it had been addressed in the previous application. Mr. Johnson stated that their comment was the same on this item. On Condition #9, Ms. Lockhart wished to add at the beginning of the sentence, "At the time of technical site plan review." Mr. Johnson agreed with this request. Ms. Lockhart believed that they had already submitted the flood information requested in Condition #10 and had also assembled and labeled the property line (Condition #11). Mr. Johnson stated that if they did this, it would be addressed at the time of permitting. Ms. Lockhart agreed. Ms. Lockhart stated that they had provided the information request in Condition of Approval #16 on September 3. Mr. 3ohnson stated that he would have to check to see 22 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 if a tree survey had been received. He did not want to see anything deleted from this condition because he had spoken to the City's forester, who wanted to see Conditions :~5, 16, and 17 retained in the Conditions of Approval. Ms. Lockhart suggested stating, "At the time of technical site plan review." Mr. Johnson agreed. On Condition #22, the request to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet, Ms. Lockhart stated that staff had recommended denial and Mr. Johnson stated that this was still the case. Chair Friedland stated that this would be addressed after the other modifications were made. On Condition #23, they requested a reduction in the peripheral buffer from 25 feet to 5 feet from the north property line. Staff had recommended denial. Chair Friedland stated that this would be addressed later. On Condition #31, it should say "building" in front of permits. Mr. Johnson stated that, ultimately, this was correct but that the Palm Beach County Traffic Division had not yet approved the traffic study and would have to do so. Ms. Lockhart mentioned her understanding that the reference to "towers and more diverse roof articulation" had been deleted, with staff's approval. Mr. Johnson asked for clarification on the conditions #9, 10, ~.1, 16, 22, 23, 3:~ & 36. Mr. Johnson thought that on #9 and #16 the applicant was requesting that the words "at the time of technical site plan review" be included. He did not believe that the intent was to delete the conditions. Ms. Lockhart agreed. The Board proceeded to address the two conditions with waivers on which staff recommended denial. Condition #22 Mr. Currier asked staff their reasons for denial. Mr. Johnson replied that the proposed residential project was surrounded by industrially zoned property. A reduction in the rear yard setback would be a detriment to the townhouses. Mr. 3ohnson read the staff comment that explained this in greater detail. Mr. Ensler stated that Items #22 and #23 related to each other. The request on Item 23 was to go from 25 feet to 5 feet for the peripheral buffer. He was looking at a letter signed by Ms. Lockhart and on page 2, it stated that they were requesting a waiver of five feet to allow a reduction in the peripheral buffer from 25 to 20 feet for Lot 89B. Ms. Lockhart stated that they had discussed this with staff and what had been advertised was the correct wording of the item. The letter was now in error. The letter also 'indicated that they were going to put in a wall but on the drawing a chain link fence was depicted. Ms. Lockhart stated that the client had not initially wanted to do the wall. 23 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Mr. Ensler stated that if they wanted to put a building up to five feet from the hedge, it was right up against the industrial area. There is an industrial building that is 30 feet from the road and hedge - he inquired how far back the building and screen enclosure would be. Ms. Lockhart stated that there was a road that services the industrial park and there was a five-foot strip on their property with a hedge. This building has no windows, doors, or other types of openings that would look out onto the residential property. There was also an overhead power line. They proposed a 15-foot rear yard with a 5-foot buffer. Mr. Hillery stated that in the previous project they denied this based on what might happen in the future. Now they know what is on the other side, and it is an industrial area. 3ust because there was only one building with an opening facing the residences, if you were on the second floor looking down, you would see nothing but an industrial complex. He stated that there was concrete, a building, and noise. He thought that if they did anything at all that they should put in a wall and he did not think six feet would be high enough. He believed that something had to be done to protect the residents in the town homes from the industrial uses. Chair Friedland asked if they could work with the City on this and provide a wall. Ms. Lockhart suggested a six-foot wall with palms clustered on either side of the wall. They had to take the overhead power lines into consideration. She stated that it was not quite an industrial complex - there were only two buildings there and one building housed four bays, two of which were vacant. The other two were occupied by Iow- intensity uses. Mr. Hillery stated that those uses could change on a daily basis. She stated that Westbrook Homes had been in business in the area since 1978 and had a reputation to uphold. They did not want to build something that would be a detriment in the future. She suggested that the wall and the landscaping along the back property line might alleviate the concern.' Also, the property owners could be given a disclosure pertaining to the industrial use. Mr. Hillery asked what the setback would be on the west property line. Ms. Lockhart stated it was a side-yard setback that the drawing depicted as 20 feet. Ms. Lockhart was asked about the overhead power lines in reference to their being able to build a wall and associated vegetation. Ms. Lockhart responded that FPL would allow certain things within their utility easements with permission, such as Areca palms, Cabbage palms, and also Washingtonians. Mr. Currier asked why they would have a chain link fence and Ms. Lockhart stated it would be for security purposes in this gated community. Mr. Currier mentioned a 24 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 current incident involving a chain link fence where a fence was peeled back and a major theft occurred. The Board suspended this discussion to consider Condition #22, which was not as controversial as Condition #23. Condition #22 Mr. Ensler stated that they wanted a rear yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet. After considerable discussion, Mr. Ensler asked the applicant whether they could live with the 30 feet. Ms. Lockhart stated that on that property line, no because it was a tradeoff. They did not want to design something that would create problems. They had more open space and areas elsewhere on the property. Mr. 3ohnson had asked that when they laid it out, that they use the residential zoning district guidelines for R-3 and this is where the request came from. They were really requesting a waiver from R-3. Mr. Cwynar stated that there had been a set of architectural plans in their agenda packets. Sheet A-1 showed that at the rear of the buildings there was a note "optional screen enclosure." Also it showed a fence or a wall separating the units and a dimension line out to the end of the optional fence or wall. He asked if these would be the actual drawings that would be used. Ms. Lockhart stated that each unit had green space. Their intent was to put fifteen feet on the back of each property. Then if an individual wanted to put in a screen enclosure, they could do so. She stated that the plans Mr. Cwynar was looking out might be in error. Mr. Currier asked Ms. Lockhart if the applicant would be agreeable to providing a solid wall. Ms. Lockhart stated that this would be acceptable. I~lotion Mr. Currier moved to grant a waiver from the LDR Chapter 2, Section 11.H.2, requesting a waiver of 10 feet to allow a reduction in the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet, contingent on the applicant providing a six-foot solid concrete wall including accompanying landscaping as discussed. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Hillery stated that the applicant had indicated that they would put clusters of palms on either side of the wall and Ms. Lockhart stated that this was their intent. Mr..Johnson asked if the solid CBS wall would be required on all property lines or just the north property line. Mr. Hillery responded that when they got to that item it might be. Ms. Lockhart stated that they had agreed on the north property line. Mr. Hillery asked Ms. Lockhart to define the north property line and she outlined it on the rendering. 25 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Mr. Ensler was trying to support the motion. He thought that putting a two-story building along that wall was the wrong thing to do. He asked the applicant to reconsider having two-story units to avoid the view into the industrial section. Mr. Tolces stated that there was a motion to approve the waiver request in Item #22 subject to providing a six foot high masonry wall with associated landscaping to include the clustering of palms along the north property line which is adjacent to the townhouses at the north side of the lot. The motion carried 6-1, Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting. The Board returned to their consideration of #23. Condition of Approval #23 Chair Friedland read the request, which was to allow a reduction in the peripheral buffer from 25 feet to 5 feet along the northern property line. Staff recommended denial of the request. Mr. Ensler stated that they had an amendment on the other project. He asked for a recommendation from the applicant of how this could be reworded to get some green space. Ms. Lockhart stated that this was the same issue that they had on the western parcel. What they did over there was to say that the five-foot buffer now included a wall. They were not asked to increase the buffer over there and in order to be consistent, they had 20 feet and a wall in a 5-foot buffer. On the western side, they went up to 24 feet, so the green space would be on the western side. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the problem with Ms. Lockhart's argument was that over on the west side, the applicant said they only needed a five foot buffer because there was l0 acres of Class A scrub, 25% of which was preserved. On this side, they did not have that so how was that equivalent? :It was not equivalent - it was just real estate talk. Hotion Mr. Hillery moved to follow staff's recommendation to deny the waiver request in Condition #23. Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. Mr. Cwynar asked if the peripheral buffer included the entire site. Ms. Lockhart stated that the site peripheral buffer on this project was the buffer for the entire Quantum Park. When you are adjacent to an industrial area, the buffer area is 25 feet. When you are adjacent to a residential area, the buffer goes up to 40 feet. The only place where they were not adjacent to Quantum Park was on that north property line. Mr. Cwynar asked if any approval of the waiver would apply to the entirety of Quantum Park. He was told that it would not. 26 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Chair Friedland asked the Recording Secretary to poll the vote. Mr. Tolces reiterated that the motion was to follow staff's recommendation and deny the waiver request on item #23. The motion to deny passed 5-2, Messrs. Currier and Friedland dissenting. Staff's recommendation to deny was upheld. Condition of Approval #24 Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve Condition #24. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Condition of Approval #25 Mr. Cwynar moved to approve Condition #25. carried 7-0. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that Mr. Currier brought up Condition #23 again, asking why a wall was allowed on one part of the northern boundary and was disallowed on the other part of the northern boundary, which was almost identical. He questioned the logic of this. Ms. Lockhart agreed. Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve item 6.B.2, the request for master site plan approval with waivers for fee-simple townhouse units on 3.99 acres in the Quantum Park DR[ on Quantum Park and Village Lot 89B (SBMP 02-003, PID Master Site Plan) with the following modifications: On item #2, replace word "relocate" with "redesign." After the word north in that sentence, place a period and remove "so that the three-lane section extends to the north property line of Lot 89B." On item #3, the term "as necessary" in the second line would be removed. On item #9 the phrase "At the time of technical site plan review" would be inserted at the beginning. On item #16, "At the time of technical site plan review" would be inserted at the beginning, item #29 has been deleted, item #31 should include the word "building" in front of permits. On item #36, remove reference to towers and more diverse roof articulation. Ms. Lockhart pointed out that the words "as necessary" were not to be removed from #3 and a period would come after the word "necessary" and "on Gateway Boulevard" would be stricken. Mr. Tolces stated that it would now read: "At the time of technical site plan review, extend the medians on High Ridge Road in accordance with FDOT specifications to guide traffic into the proposed ingress lanes." Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. 27 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Mr. Gerlica wanted clarification on the two variances on which staff had recommended denial. He wanted to know what the status of Item 23 was. Chair Friedland stated that their waiver request on Item 23 had been denied because of the industrial buildings behind it instead of open space. Mr. Gerlica wanted to suggest an alternate motion after the vote was taken. Mr. Tolces noted that in addition to that waiver there was a requirement for a six-foot wall and accompanying landscaping. Mr. Gerlica stated that they would be able to do as they did on the western side and encumber some of the fee simple lots in the backyard up to that screen enclosure and get an additional nine feet. They could have the requirement for the wall within the perimeter buffer, which gives them a 14-foot greenbelt perimeter buffer in addition to the wall. Chair Friedland asked if the makers of the motion would agree to include this condition in the motion. Mr. Tolces said that there was a current motion pending to approve the entire master site plan. If the Board wanted to consider a motion with respect to the waiver, which was denied previously, then they would need a new motion with respect to approving a waiver with different conditions. He stated that if the person that had made the motion for the master site plan wished to table their motion they could do this. Mr. Cwynar tabled his motion to approve. Hotion Mr. Ensler moved to approve the waiver for Item #23 to allow a reduction in the peripheral buffer from 25 feet to 14 feet along the northern property line. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked Staff how they saw it playing out - the fact that one request was approved and the other denied. Mr. Rumpf stated that if the new recommendation had not been inserted by one of the agents, staff would have interpreted the northern boundary to be more restrictive -- not that they were approving development within the perimeter buffer. That would have prevailed and you would have had the perimeter buffer setback being 25 feet on the north side and all the other setbacks would have been 20 feet. On the northern boundary the building would follow the minimum perimeter buffer at 25 feet. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if the fee-simple owners would own that and Mr. Rumpf replied that there were two separate issues: l) where you are building, and 2) where are your property lines. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that as it was now, 'there would be a 25-foot open space or buffer and if they own any of that, they would have an easement saying that they could not place a screened porch on it. Mr. Rumpf agreed that this was the current standing before the vote was taken. 28 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 A vote was taken, after which the Board requested a roll call vote. The Recording Secretary polled the vote and the motion passed 5-2, Messrs. Fitzpatrick and Hillery dissenting. The Board asked that the motion to approve the master site plan be restated. Mr. Tolces restated the motion to approve the master site plan as presented subject to the comments contained in Exhibit D which include the following amendments: Item #2 - deleting word "relocate" and replacing with word "redesign;" and the other amendments previously stated, subject to waivers previously approved. The motion carried 6-1, Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting. C. Site Plan Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: New Alliance Haitian Church (NWSP 01- 008) Alfred Daise New Alliance Haitian Church Hoadley Road, east end Request for site plan approval for a one-story, 240-seat church on a 1.9-acre parcel. Eric Johnson presented this project on behalf of staff. He indicated that there were 23 Conditions of Approval and that the applicants agreed with all of them. The applicant will be required to apply for a variance for the width of the road right-of-way in conjunction with their request for a sidewalk waiver. Mr. Johnson advised that the Engineering Division had indicated that they would be in favor of a sidewalk waiver and of allowing a variance for reduction of the road right-of-way from 50 feet to 30 feet. Public Audience Kirk Orlovsky, 410 Hoadley Road, Boynton Beach, submitted a copy of a letter he had written to the Board and this letter is attached to the original minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Orlovsky was not contesting the church but was very concerned about Hoadley Road itself, the site of the proposed church. Mr. Orlovsky's comments are summarized as follows: conflict in the dimensions of Hoadley Road, the sewer line, and the property line width of road is actually eleven feet - unsafe for garbage trucks and emergency service vehicles and potentially hazardous to the residents and the persons who would attend the proposed church Hoadley Road floods a lot; if the road were widened to 20 feet and no additional underground drainage were added, the condition would worsen. 29 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Requested a survey of Hoadley Road as it is today. If none, one was needed to include power and phone poles, existing trees, location of drainage grates and fields, and comprehensive elevations sufficient to correct these conditions. Called for a comprehensive plan for Hoadley Road that addressed public safety, public services, and quality of life issues for the twenty plus families who live on and use Hoadley Road as well as the 240 plus part-time users potentially accessing their church at the end of Hoadley Road. Vice Chair Hay stated that he had visited the road on the day before this meeting and he agreed with Mr. Orlovsky's comments. He believed that the road was no more than twelve feet wide. A car going one way had to wait for cars going the other way before proceeding. He believed that the road was under Code and that it had to be upgraded before a building could be put on it. Mr. Ensler agreed with those comments and added that he could not find a turnaround for fire engines on the drawings and he did not know how a fire truck could get in and out of the site. Mr. Johnson stated that a member of the Fire Department on the Technical Review Committee reviewed the Site Plan for that issue and found the plans to be acceptable as they are right now. No cul-de-sac is required. Staff felt that a fire truck could make the turnaround inside the site via one of the two points of ingress and egress. Mr. Ensler stated that he specifically discussed this with the Fire Department and they said you could use a parking lot but then that space had to be dedicated for fire engines only - it could not be used for parking. Mr. Ensler also measured the width of the road as 13 feet, 3 inches. One of the utility poles he saw was two feet back from the road. This had nothing to do with the church but did have to do with the safety of vehicles coming into and out of the property. If there were a fire and the parking lot was full (and possibly parked along the road if there were an overflow), he did not know what would happen. He asked if it were a City road and Mr. Johnson replied that it was a public right-of-way. Mr. Ensler felt the road issues had to be addressed before the Board could consider approval of the church project. Mr. Johnson stated that when plans are submitted to the City, they must be accompanied by surveys of the property, landscape plans, and everything to do with Hoadley Road. When reviewing a site plan, as Planning & Zoning representatives, they had to assume that every TRC member had reviewed the plans for the Code requirements for which they were responsible. They had to assume, therefore, that the road was wide enough to accommodate service vehicles, the fire engine turnaround, and everything else. If that were not the case, the item would have to be tabled. 30 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 Alfred Daise, general contractor and developer for the New Alliance Haitian Church, introduced Don Senatore, the architect for the project, to speak about Hoadley Road issues. Don Senatore stated that they had looked at Hoadley Road and surveyed it. They had also platted the trees along the road. The applicant did not feel that they should be prohibited from going ahead with their project due to the road problems. They thought that the City should address the problems related to the road width. Mr. Currier asked Mr. Johnson if he knew of any plans that the City might have in regard to this road and Mr. Johnson did not. Chair Friedland said that he would be in favor of the project if it were not for the road issues. HQtion Mr. Currier moved to approve the request for site plan approval for a one-story, 240- seat, church on a 1.9-acre parcel for the New Alliance Haitian Church (NWSP 01-008). Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion, subject to the comments that were made. Mr. Ensler wanted to make it subject to the City providing an adequate road, whatever that meant. :If the City is not willing to pay for and fix the problems in the road, then it would be wrong to build a church there where a fire engine could not get in or where people could get stuck in cars. Chair Friedland thought that the motion should be made with the condition that the Fire Department and all other departments review the request for a second time (the TRC Committee). Mr. Hillery agreed. Hr. Currier wished to note that this would come up before the Commission and it was within their power to move on this; therefore, if the Planning & Development Board held up the building of the church, the road would not be helped. Hotion Hr. Fitzpatrick moved to table the issue. Mr. Hillery seconded the motion. Mr. Daise stated that time was of the essence and that they needed to begin building. They had installed the fire engine turnaround within the church's property. :It was heard at the TRC hearing. He did not know anything else the church could do to assist the City. The City shows that Hoadley Road ends farther than the actual road. Where the City says there is road, there is nothing. :It seemed to be an internal City problem and not something that should affect the applicant in their building process. The motion to table failed 5-2. 3! Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 24, 2002 The previous motion was restated by Mr. Currier. Motion Mr. Currier moved to approve the request for site plan approval for a one-story, 2,~0- seat church on a 1.9-acre parcel for the New Alliance Haitian Church (NWSP 01-008) with the provision that the City Commission address the upgrading of the road leading into the church, the sewer system, the turnaround, and whatever is required to make this project feasible, in addition to staff comments as contained in Exhibit D. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1, Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting. Mr. Ensler stated that he hoped staff could work on the issues between now and next Tuesday so that the Commission was not put into the ~ame difficult position as this Board. Mr..~ohnson assured the Board that the fire engine turnaround issue had been addressed and it did comply. The Board examined the fire engine turnaround depicted on the plans. Mr. Hillery stated that the Board had passed a motion earlier contingent upon reducing the speed limit on High Ridge Road. He recalled that this would require the City Commission to pass a special Ordinance. Mr. Tolces indicated that this issue would be addressed when the City Commission was given the item for consideration. Michael Rumpf stated that it was the policy of staff to provide copies to all Board members of items that were requested by a single Board member. He distributed an Appendix C to the Future Land Use Element Support document of the Comprehensive Plan. VIII. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (three tapes) (092502) 32