Loading...
Minutes 11-14-02MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. Present Mike Friedland, Chairman Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair William Cwynar Edward Hillery Mike Fitzpatrick Alice Otis, Voting Alternate Absent Ed Currier Maurice Rosenstock Bob Ensler, Alternate 1. Pledge of Allegiance David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Maxime DuCoste, Planner Chairman Friedland called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and led members in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Chairman Friedland introduced the Board Members, Assistant City Attorney Tolces and staff. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Hillery moved to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Hay and unanimously carried. 4. Minutes Approval - October 22, 2002 Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Ms. Otis. Assistant City Attorney Tolces requested that the minutes be changed on Page 11 to indicate that it was Chairman Friedland who informed Mr. Tedtmann to leave the Chambers, and not Assistant City Attorney Tolces. The amended minutes were unanimously approved. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 14, 2002 Communications and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report (Addressed later in the meeting) 1. Final disposition of the October 22, 2002 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items 6. New Business PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST POSTPONEMENT TO THE NOVEMBER 26, 2002 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING A. Land Use Plan AmendmentJRezoninq Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Motorola (LUAR 02-007) R. Duke Woodson, Foley & Lardner Maury L. Carter & Associates, Inc. Southeast corner of Gateway Boulevard and Congress Avenue Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map to reclassify 49.695 acres of the Motorola DRI from Industrial (IND) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC); and Request to Rezone 49.695 acres of the Motorola DRI from Planned Industrial Development (PID) to Community Commercial (C-3) for multi-family, ancillary commercial development. Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to postpone. Motion seconded by Mr. Cwynar and unanimously carried. Assistant City Attorney Tolces administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying. B. Administrative Appeal Project: Agent: Owner: Boynton Beach Medical Pavilion (ADAP 02-001) Kieran Kilday, Kilday & Associates, Inc. Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 14, 2002 Location: Description: 2815 Seacrest Boulevard Appeal from the October 3, 2002 administrative decision denying Boynton Beach Medical Pavilion's request for building permit submittal due to site plan expiration. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the item. The case involves an appeal of an administrative determination of a site plan expiration. Mr. Rumpf presented an outline of events leading up to the appeal as follows: The original site plan approval was for a project to construct a two- story, 29,173 square foot building for medical office uses in place of the existing three office buildings totaling 23,149 square feet. The site plan was approved on September 4, 2001. In accordance with LDR, Chapter 4, Section 5 a site plan expires in one year and the expiration date was September 4, 2002. On October 1st permits were requested and at that time the applicants realized that the site plan approval had expired. Staff issued a formal determination on October 3, 2002. A request for appeal by the applicant was applied for on October 4, 2002. The applicant's justifications for appeal were based upon the fact that the site plan approval included as conditions of approval (i) a Code amendment and (ii) a height exception. Because the conditions of approval (i) and (ii), above, did not occur until two months later, this delayed the official approval of the site plan, thereby making November 6, 2002 the official expiration date. The Code review was required because of the height of the parapets and the parking required a variance. Mr. Rumpf stated that the date of the site plan approval is the date that the Commission approves it, as indicated in the official Development Order. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that the Code review was completed subsequent to the site plan approval and was a condition of approval. He also noted that the Code allows for a one-year time extension. The one-year time requirement is sufficient to meet the necessary time requirements to complete the site plan and any subsequent related improvements and applying for the building permits. Staff recommends denial of the appeal in accordance with the Code requirements. Staff recognizes that the merits of the project in all probably will be supported and approved by the City. In the event this happens, staff notes that there have been no applicable changes to the LDR that would affect the project to further warrant the process to start over again. The reason that there are time limitations is to keep projects moving. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 14, 2002 Mr. Rumpf reported that the project has been moving along in good faith; contractors have been hired; DOT and County permitting work has been done; and there has been preparation of permit plans. As an alternative to the appeal, staff is recommending that the Commission approve a retroactive time extension. No one wished to speak during the Public Audience. Kieran Kilday, of Kilday & Associates represented the applicant and stated that there have been no changes to the site plan. He felt that it was merely a communication issue and that the owner of the property had proceeded in good faith. The contractor went to the Building Department on October 1, 2002 totally unaware that there were any issues and at that time was informed that the site plan had expired on September 4, 2002. If they had been aware of the expiration date, they would have filed a request for an extension. Mr. Kilday noted that if the applicant had to go through the entire site plan process again, this would cause a significant time delay, while pointing out that there have been no changes to the original site plan. Mr. Kilday requested that a recommendation be made to the City Commission to grant the six-month retroactive time extension. Motion Mr. Hillery moved to deny the appeal and to go along with the recommendation from staff that the applicant ask for a six month extension retroactive. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Hay. Mr. Fitzpatrick pointed out that all the parties were professionals and should have known about the one-year requirement. He noted that developers are constantly pushing staff to approve items and questioned if this was the best route to proceed. He thought that some type of example should be set so that this doesn't happen with other developers. Mr. Rumpf did not think that the City would have much to gain by holding the applicant up any further and making them begin the project all over again. Vote Assistant City Attorney Tolces requested that the motion be amended to include "from September 9, 2002" after the word "retroactive." Mr. Hillery agreed to amend his motion and Vice Chair Hay seconded the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously. C. Zoning Code Variance Project: Agent: Owner: Fookes Shed (ZNCV 02-014) Kevin and Anna Fookes Kevin and Anna Fookes 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 14, 2002 Location: Description: 3220 Canal Drive Request for relief from Land Development Regulations Chapter 2, Zoning Section 4.B.2, requiring a detached storage structure not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet in area and seven (7) feet in height to be erected at a minimum of three (3) feet from the rear and side property lines providing that no easement rights are abridged, to allow a variance of 1.5 feet and an 8.5' high storage shed in a residential zoning district. Maxime DuCoste, Planner, presented the case for staff. Mr. DuCoste stated that the subject property was located on the east side of Canal Drive and the shed is located at the northeast corner of the property. The shed measures 8' by 12' and is 8 ¼' in height. For a shed of this size, the Code requires a 25' rear setback and a 10' side yard setback. If the shed were less than 100 square feet and less than 7' high, the minimum required setback would be reduced to 3' from the rear and side, provided that no easement was encroached. The storage shed has been placed 3' from the side property line and 4 ¼' from the rear property line. As a result, the shed encroaches on a 5' easement in the rear of the property. Chapter 2, Zoning Section 4.B.2 does not allow an encroachment on a utility easement and included in the agenda packet is a memorandum of the Engineering Division stating that improvements are not permitted within a utility easement. Mr. DuCoste further pointed out that the owner did not apply for a building permit, which resulted in the property being cited by the Code Compliance Division for the construction and location of the shed. In response to the citation, the applicant has submitted the variance request to rectify the situation. If the variance were approved, the owner would be required to obtain all the necessary building permits. The LDR states that an owner must meet the hardship condition for a variance, which the owner does not. Mr. DuCoste did point out that the structure is not entirely visible from adjacent properties, but the shed is visible from Canal Drive. If the applicant had applied for a building permit, they would have learned during the permit review process about the proper size and placement of the shed on the property. The zoning code also requires that there be a 12' separation between the principal building and any ancillary buildings. Staff requests denial due to the lack of traditional hardship and due to the circumstance being created by simple home improvements and unit layout on a standard platted lot. There are no conditions of approval recommended. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 14, 2002 However, if the variance is approved, staff requests that the applicant (1) immediately apply for and obtain all required building permits; (2) relocate the storage shed out of the utility easement and locate it at a minimum of 5' from the rear property line; and (3) landscape the side of the property where the shed is visible from Canal Drive. Mr. DuCoste noted that staff received a letter of objection from John Rogers who resides at 714 Hillcrest Road, which was submitted into the record. Mr. Hillery inquired about the relationship between Hillcrest Road and Canal Drive. Mr. DuCoste was not certain, but stated that it is in the Chapel Hill subdivision and he must have received the mailed notice. Anna and Kevin Fookes stated that they have absolutely no storage space on their property because they have no garage, porch, carport or attic, which was the reason they purchased a storage shed. Ms. Fookes said that the shed dealer informed them that they did not need a permit because it is not a permanent structure. Also, she stated that they were not aware of the 5' setback requirement. She pointed out that this is the only place in the yard that the shed could be placed because of the layout of the house and yard. Ms. Fookes pointed out that there is a 7' fence on the property that is not set back 5' and in any event the Utilities Department would have a problem getting to the easement. The shed is the only place that they can keep their lawn equipment and other storage. She noted that Hillcrest Road is a block and one- half to the south of their property and questioned why this neighbor would object to the shed. Ms. Fookes noted that they paid $1,700 for the shed and that it is an attractive shed that can sustain winds of 150 mph. Vice Chair Hay questioned the applicants why they did not check with the City to determine if they needed a permit, regardless of what the dealer informed them. He pointed out that it is the owner's responsibility to determine these things. Vice Chair Hay inquired if the Board approved the shed, would the applicant be willing to move the shed in order to meet the setback requirements? Mr. Fookes said that they would be willing to move the shed. Mr. DuCoste responded that the location of the shed does not meet the Code requirements for a detached storage structure. In order for the shed to comply with the Code, it has to be less than 7' in height and must be under the maximum of 100 square feet. Mr. Hillery asked if the applicant had applied for a permit, where would the City advise them to place it? Mr. DuCoste stated that they would have been informed that they could not have the shed at that location because there is no room to place the shed on the property since they cannot meet the setbacks. Mr. Rumpf responded that the shed must meet the 25' rear setback and a 10' side setback, while being separated from the main structure at 12'. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 14, 2002 Ms. Otis inquired what materials the shed was made of and the applicant stated that it was made of metal with wood on the inside and very well made. Mr. Fitzpatrick felt that the applicant should have gone to the City to determine the requirements for a shed and that the applicants were being rewarded for ignorance. Mr. Rumpf pointed out for clarification that staff is not recommending approval of the variance due to the easement and some building issues. Vice Chair Hay inquired if there were any precedents. Mr. DuCoste stated that there had been a similar case that the Board heard and it was denied by the Board at staffs recommendation. Mr. DuCoste did not want to set any precedents by allowing these types of requests. Vice Chair Hay asked what the outcome would be if the variance were denied. Mr. DuCoste stated that the shed would have to be removed. Assistant City Attorney Tolces noted that the Board makes recommendations to the City Commission and that the applicant could still present their case to the Commission. Mr. Cwynar stated that he lives in the Chapel Hill area and there are sheds throughout the neighborhood. He asked about the 7' fence that the applicant mentioned since the maximum allowable fence is 6'. Mr. DuCoste stated that staffs report does not address the height of the fence. Motion Mr. Cynwar moved to recommend to the City Commission that Kevin and Anna Fookes receive a variance for the height of 1 ¼' for the storage shed provided that they move the shed out of the easement and provide the minimum 3' setback on the north property line and that the shed be located outside the 5' easement. Motion seconded by Mr. Hillery. Mr. Fitzpatrick felt that it would be inappropriate to allow the variance, which is contrary to the City's Code on what constitutes a storage shed. If the variance were allowed, this would open the door for everyone else to do the same thing. He was recommending that the variance be denied. Ms. Otis pointed out that the Board just granted an administrative variance to a developer and she did not think it would be fair to deny this variance, even though she felt that the variance would set a bad precedent. Mr. Hillery requested that if the motion passed, he would like a requirement that the property owner place some landscaping around the shed to screen it from Canal Drive, which Ms. Fookes agreed to do. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 14, 2002 Mr. Fitzpatrick pointed out the difference between the previous project and this project and that the two projects were entirely different. Mr. Fitzpatrick felt if the variance were approved everyone throughout the City would increase the size of their tool sheds. For clarification purposes, Assistant City Attorney Tolces pointed out that the motion as stated would grant the appeal to allow a 1.5' variance to the height requirement and require that the shed be moved out of the easement. It was also requested that the motion be amended to include screening. Mr. Cwynar amended his motion to include screening, which was seconded by Mr. Hillery. Vote The Recording Secretary called the roll. The motion failed 4-2. (Chairman Friedland, Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Vice Chair Hay and Ms. Otis dissenting.) Motion Mr. Fitzpatrick moved to deny the request for relief from LDR Chapter 2, Zoning Section 4.B.2, requiring a detached storage structure not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet in area and seven (7) feet in height to be erected at a minimum of three (3) feet from the rear and side property lines providing that no easement rights are abridged, to allow a variance of 1.5 feet and an 8.5 foot high storage shed in a residential zoning district. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Hay. The motion carried 4-2 (Messrs Cwynar and Hillery dissenting.) The applicants were advised that they could bring their request to the City Commission for consideration. Mr. Rumpf noted that his regular presentation regarding the action taken at the last City Commission Meeting on P&D items was not addressed. Chairman Friedland requested that Mr. Rumpf give his report. 5. Communications and Announcements (addressed out of order) A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the October 22, 2002 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items The following items were addressed at the November 6, 2002 City Commission Meeting: The Nautica right-of-way abandonment was approved. The New Alliance Haitian Church was postponed and was sent back to this Board for review regarding specific roadway 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, FL November 14, 2002 improvement design alternatives, as well as to hear public comment that may have not been communicated and considered when it was first reviewed. The Watershed site plan in Quantum Park was approved. The site plan and corresponding community design plan appeal in Quantum Park allowing for an industrial building with overhead bay doom facing 1-95 was approved. Mr. Rumpf distributed an email regarding water consumption in the City. 7. Other Comments by Members Chairman Friedland inquired if the gasoline station off Gateway Boulevard would be coming back to the Board? Mr. Rumpf responded that the item had only been postponed and would be coming back to the Board. Mr. Fitzpatrick expressed disappointment that the Motorola item had been postponed. He had to take vacation time to be present at tonight's meeting, which was set specifically for that purpose because the applicant could not wait until the November 26th deadline. Mr. Rumpf responded that the legal ad was published prior to some issues that surfaced and a decision was made that additional information was needed prior to the item moving forward. Mr. Rumpf stated that he would report further on the item at the November 26th meeting. 9. Adjournment There being no further business the meeting properly adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (one tape) (November 15, 2002) 9