Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 10-14-03
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tuesday, October 14, 2003 Commission Chambers Boynton Beach 6:30 P.M. I. Call to Order. I]~. Roll Call. I]:I. Agenda Approval. A. Additions~ Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda. B. Adoption of Agenda. l'V. Consent Agenda ,-~'~,~ A. Approval of Minutes - September 9th Meeting & September 24th Workshop.' B. Financial Report. ~ C. Approval of Petty Cash form. ~ ~ ~ I V. Public Audience. ~ J~ V?. Public Hearing ~ ~ l~'~' ' A. Zoning Code Variance 3 5[ 1. PROJECT: Gateway Texaco (ZNCV 03-010 thru 03-012) AGENT: Beril Kruger, Planning & Zoning Consultants OWNER: SUAU Enterprises LOCATION: 2360 North Federal Highway DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the · oceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 3476 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opporttmity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchin.qon at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. Supplemental Regulations L.3.d. (1) requiting parking lot driveways to be located 120 feet from the intersection of the right-of-way lines along streets of higher classification to allow, 97-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 23 feet, and to allow a 88-foot variance for a second driveway, resulting in a distance of 32 feet from the intersection of Federal Highway and Las Palmas Avenue for an existing gas station business; and request for relief fi:om the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.d. (3) requiring that driveways shall not be located less than thirty (30) feet from any interior property line to allow a 10-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 20 feet for an existing gas station business; and request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations, L.3.d. (4) requiting that driveways will be limited to one (1) per street frontage to allow two (2) driveways along the street frontage for an existing gas station business. 2. PROJECT: Gateway Texaco (ZNCV 03-013) ,~ ~'~ AGENT: Beril Kruger, Planning & ZOning Consultal~ts OWNER: SUAU Enterprises LOCATION: 2360 North Federal Highway DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. (3) requiting a twenty (20) foot rear setback to allow a 10-foot variance, resulting in a rear setback of 10 feet for an addition to an existing gas station. 3. PROJECT: Gateway Texaco (ZNCV 03-014 and 03-015) AGENT: Beril Kruger, Planning & Zoning Consultants OWNER: SUAU Enterprises LOCATION: 2360 North Federal Highway DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the City of B oynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made; which record 'includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 3477 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and servi_ces where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits ora service, program, or activity conducted by the CRAi please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. Gateway Texaco (ZNCV 03-014 and 03-15) cont'd. Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. (a) requiring that no Canopy shall be located less than twenty (20) feet fi:om any property line to allow a 10.5-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 9.5 feet for an existing canopy for a gas stations business; and Request for relief fi:om the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. Co) requiring that no gasoline pump island shall be located less than thirty (30) feet from any property line to allow a 10.2-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 19.8 feet for an existing gasoline pump island for a gas station business. 4. PROJECT: Gateway Texaco (ZNC¥ 03-016 and 03-017) ~q AGENT: Beril Kruger, Planning & Zoning Consultants OWNER: SUAU Enterprises ~//38,A~ ' LOCATION: 2360 North Federal Highway DESCRI?TION: Request for relief fi:om the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.f. (1) requiring a ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer along the street fi:ontage and to include one tree ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet in height with a minimum three-inch caliper every forty (40) feet, a continuous hedge twenty-four (24) inches high, twenty-four (24) inches on center at time of planting with flowering groundcover to allow a variance of 10 feet, resulting in a zero (0) landscape buffer along the street frontage for an existing gas station building; and Request for relief fi:om the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.f. (2)(a) requiring a ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer on all interior property lines to allow a variance of 5 feet, resulting in a five (5) foot buffer for an eXisting gas station business. 5. PROJECT: Gateway Texaco (ZNCV 03-023) ,,~ ~q AGENT: Beril Kruger, Planning & Zoning Consultants Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the ~roceedmgs is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 3478 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program~ or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. OWNER: SUAU Enterprises LOCATION: 2360 North Federal Highway D ESCRIPTION: ~.~.~J~equest for relief fi:om the City of Boynton Beach Land ~1 ¥ - D~velopment Regulations, Chapter 21, Signs, Article 1II Section ,,~i~ It' 5 requiring that all signs must meet a minimum ten (10) ~, setback from the property line to the closest surface of the sign to allow a five (5) foot variance from the property line, resulting in a five (5) foot setback for an existing gas station business. 6. PROJECT: Gateway Texaco (ZNCV 03-024) 25 q- AGENT: Beril Kruger, Planning & Zoning Consultants OWNER: SUAU Enterprises ~~' ~. LOCATION: 2360 North Federal Highway DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Environmental Regulations, Article II Section 3, B.4., to allow parked vehicles to encroach two and one-half (2.5) feet into the rear five (5) foot landscape buffer area required by code for an existing gas station business in a C-3 .zoning district. B. Conditional Use 1. PROJECT: Gateway Texaco (COUS 03-007) ~ ~" ~>~ AGENT: Beril Kruger, Planning & Zoning Consultants OWNER: SUAU Enterprises . ~ · b41 4'w LOCATION: 2360 North Feder~ighway ¥ , DESCRIPTION: Request for con~tional use / major site plan modification approval for a~l"square foot addition to an existing gas station/convenience store on a 0.48-acre parcel in a C-3 zoning ~ district. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the teStimonY and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 3479 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy'the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561~737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. C. New Site Plan 1. PROJECT: Marours Car Wash (mVSP 03-0 ) © AGENT: Beril Kruger, Planning & Zoning Consultants OWNER: Zuhair Marouf LOCATION: 2360 North Federal Highway DESCRIPTION: Request for new site plan approval for a 1,311 square foot car wash on a 0.22-acre parcel in a C-3 zoning district. D. Site Plan Time Extension 1. PROJECT: Sunbelt Hydraulics (SPTE 03-003) ~ ~ c{ t~ AGENT: Joseph Houston Kerns Construction, Inc. OWNER: C & C Realty Investments LOCATION: Lot 9 West Industrial Avenue DESCRIPTION: Request for a one (1) year site plan time extension for a one (1)- story, 12,480 square foot industrial building with related parking for a business that services tmek bodies on a 1.44-acre parcel in the M-1 zoning district E. Code Review 1. PROJECT: Sign Code Amendments-Sign Heights 3~,~--~ OWNER: City Initiated DESCRIPTION: Request for amendments to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 21 .Signs, to provide definitions for monument and pole signs and establish maximum sign heights that correspond with road type. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the COmmunity Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the 0roceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon whichthe appeal is to be based. 3480 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchin,qon at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. VII. Director's Report: ~ ~-~ A. Updates ..~ ~,~c~ VIII. Old Business: ~G.~ ~ A. Consideration of Approval of the Contract with the Owner's Representative (CRA) Firm Jonathan Ricketts Inc. for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension, Promenade and RiverWalk Design/Build Project. B. Discussion of Douglas C. Hutchinson's employment Contract. ~1.~ ~ IX, New Business ~ ~ j ~) A. Selection of Feasibility Study Team for Savage Cre, e~ures of Ancient Seas Attraction. B. Consideration of the Arches Contract. ~r~ i~x/ C. Consideration of the Business Genesis Program~ D. Consideration of Acquisition underwriting for Heart of Boynton Properties. E. Consideration of Request for Appraisal on Phase 1 Redevelopment Properti,e~s Heart of Boynton Area. "--~5_.~ / in the F. Cons~derabon of waving the title work for BOyntOn Seafood, Inc. Dev~s,r~pment Regions CoreGrant Contract. ~,(.,, G. Consideration of a proposed amendment to the existing contract with Kimley-Horne. H. Recommendation of members to be selected for the CSC Committee to review the Financial Advisory Services RFQ...~ Gq I. Consideration of Rescheduling the CRA November Board Meeting due to the Holiday.~(~(o~ X, Commission Action ...%<~ A. City Commission review of rotation of CRA Chair to another member of the CRA. No Action taken removed from agenda. XI. Board Member Comments ,~ ~ ~ XII. Legal A_ny person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community .Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record include~ the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 3481 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal oppommity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. Xlll. Other Items. ~c~r/~ XlV. Future Agenda Items ,,~ "L~ A. Consideration of special pilot program for Police Patrol in Heart of Boynton and the CBD. B. Consideration of pilot program for trolley service in the CBD. C. Marina Parking Garage Expansion. D. Consideration of securing CBD Surface Parking Rights. XV. Adjournment. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Coramultity Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the '~roceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. ~482 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services wnere necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program~ or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. IV. Consent Agenda Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Bo~d with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the · )roceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 3483 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. MEETTNG MTNUTES OF THE COMMUNZ'I'Y REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD IN COMM~'SSI'ON CHAMBERS~ CTTy HALL~ BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA ON TUESDAY~ SEPTEMBER 9~ 2003 AT 6=30 P.M. Present Larry FinkelStein, Chairman Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director .~eanne Heavilin, Vice Chair Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney Don Fenton Charles Fisher Michelle Hoyland Absent Alexander DeMarCo Henderson Tillman Call to Order Chair Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m, II. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. III. A0enda Approval A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda There were no additions, deletions, or corrections to the Agenda. B. Adoption of Agenda Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve th~ agenda as presented. Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the motion that carried unanimously. 1¥. Consent Acjenda A. Approval of Minutes of August 12, 2003 and August 21, 2003 B. Financial Report C. Budget Transfer Request Mr. Fisher requested that ]:tem C, Budget Transfer Request, be removed from the Consent Agenda and moved to the "Other" portion of the Agenda. 3484 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 Motion Vice Chair Heavilin moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that passed unanimously. V, Public Audience Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Audience. Klm Kelley, owner of Hurricane Alley, 529 East Ocean Avenue~ Boynton Beach, stated that the downtown merchants needed to have a conformed parking lot with security and ample lighting. She suggested that if the proposed trolley were to be run initially on weekends, it could be successful. She was in favor of the trolley system, believing that it would bring more business to the Ocean Avenue merchants on the west side of Federal Highway. Ms. Kelley stated that the merchants did not have enough parking now and that even the 35 additional spaces that the CRA was paying The Related Group to build would not provide enough. Captain Burr, part owner of the Seamist I~larina, spoke in favor of the trolley for the downtown area on the weekends and holidays and during the season. He also spoke .of the lack of parking in the marina area, especially during the season, and asked for secure parking to benefit the existing businesses and support the vitality of the downtown area. He stressed the importance of having enough security so that people could visit and park in the area with a feeling of safety. Bill Skaggs, Two Georges, partial owner of the Seamist Marina, stated that his chief concerns were security and parking. Since the Two Georges reopened about a year and a half previously, they had experienced four robberies in the parking lots that their employees use. The marina merchants have been pushing for more parking for the last five years and he was here to let the Board know that this was still an issue. Ginny Foot, The Art of Framing, 638 East Ocean Avenue~ spoke on behalf of the Boynton Ocean District Association (BODA), and read a letter addressed to the CRA Board from Ms. Kristen Conti, the president of BODA. Ms. Conti's letter expressed the desire of that organization to join forces with the CRA and other organizations to find solutions to the issues surrounding the redevelopment of the downtown area. BODA participants are all very concerned with the safety issues of clients and customers getting to their businesses from parking lots that are not immediately adjacent to their businesses. They believe that parking and security issues should be dealt with now, before the major projects come forward and become more pressing. Realizing that the CRA was meeting to approve its 2003-04 budget, BODA encouraged the CRA to give consideration to approving a budget with a "people-moving system" and the security needed to secure its operation. The letter is available with the minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Ms. Foot then spoke as a citizen and owner of the Art of Framing on Ocean Avenue, saying that it was very important to keep the existing businesses in the area viable throughout the redevelopment process, and that this was helped by the proper transportation aids and security. She spoke of Police Chief Gage's talk about the need for additional security downtown 3485 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 and that being the burden of the CRA. She realized that there would be businesses that would probably be displaced by redevelopment and might not be able to return to business; however, there are many other businesses that need the support of the CRA since they are an integral part of the Ocean District for the future. Mr. Fisher asked for and received confirmation from Ms. Foot that BODA wanted the trolley and extra security. Buck Buchanan, 807 Ocean Tnlet Drive, Boynton Beach, stated that he was one' of the founders of the :Inlet Cove Neighborhood Association (INCA) and on the Board of Directors for the Chamber of Commerce. He is also the coordinator for the Wheels Weekend Car Show. His background is in Engineering and Law Enforcement. He was, however, speaking for himself when he urged the CRA to approve the CRA Director's contract at this meeting. He praised Mr. Hutchinson as a unique individual, a visionary, and someone who could provide just what the City needed at this time. He credited him with seeing solutions, not problems, and being dedicated and hard working. He believes that Mr. Hutchinson' is crucial to the long-term redevelopment of the downtown area and that he will put the City on the path to success in an undertaking in which many other cities have failed. Lynn Simmons, owner of Splash Down Divers at the f4arina, stated that she had been operating a business in the area for about 20 years. She expressed appreciation for the extra parking that was going to be provided for them; however, the parking lot that the CRA proposes seems to be a long way away. Still, her customers will use it if that is what is available, if their physical persons and vehicles are safe. Ms. Simmons appealed to the CRA for support on this issue. Barkley Garnsey, 326 S.W. 1`t Avenue, Boynton Beach, spoke in support of the budget items for the trolley and the extra police patrols. He stated that the business owners were trying to help by encouraging their employees to park in the remote lots so that the customers could have more room to park. He stressed the importance of having some kind of security in the area and thought that having police officers on the street and "people-movers" circulating around would provide tangible evidence of an active, safe, and viable downtown. Chair Finkelstein closed the Public Audience portion of the meeting. He also acknowledged and welcomed Commissioner Mack McCray, City Manager Kurt Bressner, Assistant City Manager Dale Sugerman, Police Chief Gage, Development Director Quintus Greene, and Ms. Diana .~ohnson, President of the Chamber of Commerce. Public Hearino Attorney Payne administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying in the Public Hearing. New Business A, Abandonment 3486 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 Project: The Harbors (ABAN 03-004) Agent: Gregory Hire, P.S.M., Keith & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers Owner: Schgai Location: 2300 North Federal Highway Description: Request for abandonment of a 15-foot wide utility easement. Eric Johnson, Planner, presented the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval of the Abandonment, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Johnson asked for and received confirmation from the applicant that the FPL conditions had been met. Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Audience but closed it when no one wished to speak. Mr. Fisher asked how the relocation of sewer pipes would affect the residents on President's Way. The applicant's representative, Mr. Mire, stated that the new installation would only affect the property within the development. Mr. Fisher asked for and received confirmation from Mr. .lohnson that there would be absolutely no effect on the surrounding residents from the sewer pipe relocation. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve the Harbors Abandonment (ABAN 03-004), subject to the Conditions of Approval. Ms. Hoyland seconded the motion that passed unanimously. VT]:. Director's Report - Updates A report was included in the Agenda Packets of the Board members for informational purposes. Ms. Vielhauer introduced the newly hired CRA secretary, Ms. Garine Ghazarian, and the Board members welcomed Ms. Ghazarian to the organization. VT]:]:. Old Business A. Proposed Lan§ua§e C:han§es for the Procurement and Financial Manual~ Mr. Hutchinson explained that the procedures outlined in these manuals were in line with those of other CRA organizations in the area and sought the Board's direction on the proposed changes. Ivir. Fisher noted that there was not an actual listing of expenditures and he wanted to see one each month in the agenda packets, if possible. Mr. Hutchinson agreed to provide this. Chair F=inkelstein asked what time period was covered in regard to the proposed change in the matter of ped:ormance monitoring, page 3407, item 1, and Mr. Hutchinson replied that it was for a one-month period. 3487 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 MQtiQn Mr. Fisher moved to approve the proposed language changes for the Procurement and Financial Manuals, with t~vo changes: 1) The Director will include an itemized report to the Board members each month showing the total expenditures for the month; 2) In the CRA's monitoring of the performance for the Purchasing Credit Card, the period of time will be added and it is "monthly." Ms. Hoyland seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 7.X. New Business A. Consideration of an ordinance designating the downtown area as an Urban Central Business District. Quintus Greene, Development Director, spoke about an Ordinance that would establish an Urban Central Business District (UCBD) and set forth the boundaries of that district. With the loss of Motorola, the City's second largest property tax payer, it was now necessary for the City to try to attract a major employer to the City. Having that employer in the downtown district would also serve to balance the higher density of residential mixed-use development in the downtown core. Current Land Use and Zoning categories allow over a million square feet of mixed-use development; however, no single development can exceed 300K square feet without triggering a Development of Regional :Impact (DR.[), and these tend to be project specific, such as Quantum Park, Motorola, and the Mall. Also, the process for obtaining approval for a DR]: is lengthy and the cost is high. The proposed designation of Urban Central Business District would change the allowable square footage to 450K square feet (before triggering a DRY) and increase the City's chances of attracting a major employer to the downtown area. Later on in the process, the Regional Plan could be amended to add a Regional Activity Center, which would allow the threshold on square footage to go even higher, to 600K square feet. Mr. Hutchinson assured that this was not a change in policy, but a housekeeping device that would allow the CRA to obtain approval for projects that were coming in at greater than 300K square feet. Mr. Fisher asked whether this would inject another layer of bureaucracy into the current slate of players and Mr. Greene advised that it would not do so and would only affect the square footage threshold. Mr. Fisher wanted to confirm that there would not be any rezoning done to any residential neighborhood as a result of this change and Mr. Greene responded that there would not be any such rezoning. MotiQn Vice Chair Heavilin moved to recommend that the City Commission adopt an ordinance to establish an Urban Central Business District. Ms. Hoyland seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 3488 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 B. Review of the design to date (15% schematic design) of the Boynton Beach Boulevard Promenade RiverWalk Project and consideration of the next phase of work (30% design development package) Mr. Hutchinson stated that staff had sent the schematics, which were a compilation from many people, out to City Departments for review and comments. Mr. Livergood stated that a traffic study would have to be done at the intersection of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway due to loading and unloading issues. Also, the lane widths would have to be 12 feet versus the 10 feet shown on the schematic sections. Fire hydrants and restrooms need to be added to the schematics. Mr. Hutchinson asked for a 90% draw until the changes have been accomplished and verified, followed by the remaining 10%. At the end of the 30% phase, Burkhardt will bring Cost Projections to the Board. The initial design concepts and schematics are in a very early stage of development but the Director sought the Board's input on the schematics. He asked Mr. Dennis Haynes from Burkhardt Construction, Inc. to take notes and make the appropriate modifications. The next step would be to approve a Scope of Work and Contract to get to actual engineering drawings. The task at this meeting is twofold: 1) accepting the Draft Design Concepts and Schematics and, 2) approving the Scope of Work to move on to Phase 2, bringing it up to 30%. Mr. Fisher was desirous of having the Police and Fire services involved in this project, even in its earliest stages, to prevent things like discovering later on that the materials they were choosing were fire hazards, for example. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the CRA frequently met with key City staff including the Police and Fire Chiefs and that they would be involved anyway due to their position on the Technical Review Committee that reviews and comments on all new developments in the City. Mr. Fisher commented that the TRC was part of the sign-off process and not an integral part of the design process, a concept that Mr. Fisher believed to be crucial to the success of the project. Mr. Hutchinson will see that this happens. Chair Finkelstein stated that in regard to the Roadway item in the Scope of Work, the Board had originally said it did not want parallel parking in the first block of the Boynton Beach Boulevard extension East of Federal Highway due to the heavy load of traffic; however, there was a portion of the designated parallel parking that could become part of the roadway and should be looked at in reference to the turn lanes. On page 34:~3, Boardwalk (1) "..and continue north to the property line" is not shown on the draft schematic. There is supposed to be an initialed design concept item showing this as part of the RFQ. This involves pages 3 and 4 of the schematics. Mr. Fenton agreed with Chair Finkelstein's point about the parallel parking and the turn lanes on Federal Highway. He asked if the CRA would be required to build the lanes. Chair Finkelstein stated that Mr. Livergood was asking that the CRA have a traffic study to see if the lane(s) would need to be done. The intersection improvements might not be necessary. Mr. Fenton did not know how a traffic study could be done based on the future, with no museum and other improvements. Mr. Hutchinson said that the CRA has a 10% profile block by block in downtown and that there were maximum buildouts for each block. The CRA will turn over the CRA's announced known projects to the traffic consultant and ask that they be factored in to the 3489 6 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 results, along with a museum option and so forth. The needs will be forecasted and Mr. Hutchinson is comfortable with that. Mr. Fenton also inquired whether the turn lane would be taken from CRA property if the traffic consultant required a turn lane. Mr. Hutchinson said that additional property might be needed and this would be part of the project cost that the CRA would have to look at providing, based on the traffic study. Mr. Hutchinson stated that he would bring this item back to the Board at a later date. Mr. Fenton remarked that if the CRA would have to build the turn lane, reserves would have to be allocated for it. Mr. Hutchinson said that the rule of thumb was that there was $2M in reserve cash flow forecast for the whole project. The Board will have to make decisions about what amenity packages it wants for the area. Chair Finkelstein noted the absence of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in the list on Page 3420 under Task 2, Initial Permit Coordination and Data Collection, and the Burkhardt representatives offered to correct this oversight. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve payment of the Burkhardt Construction, Inc. invoice for the 15% Schematic Drawings for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Promenade/RiverWalk project payment less 10% to be retained until verification of required changes. Ms. Hoyland seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Since this item was listed in the agenda along with the 30% design development package, Mr. Fisher asked that in the future, items that require separate motions be separated in the agenda. Chair Finkelstein noted that on page 3422 of the agenda in reference to the "Expense" line item, that it would be on a reimbursable basis and the representatives from Burkhardt Construction, Inc. agreed. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to amend the initial contract to change from 15% to 30% and direct staff to include the Police and Fire in all future design elements. Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the motion. Mr. Fenton announced that he would have to vote against it because he did not think it was necessary to have the involvement of the Police and Fire services in all future design guideline discussions and events since it would not always be relevant. Also, the Police are understaffed and this would be an unnecessary administrative burden to put on them at this time. Mr. Fisher said that he understood Mr. Fenton's concern with bureaucracy, but since they were investing so much money in the future, he wanted to give the Police and Fire services an opportunity to comment on the design. He was confident that staff would not micromanage. Ms. Hoyland asked if the Police and Fire should be listed in the group underneath "Initial Permit Coordination and Data Collection," and the Board did not believe that this would be necessary. The motion passed 4-1, Mr. Fenton dissenting. 3490 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency _ Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 C. Consideration of approval of the contract between the owner/representative and the firm Jonathan Ricketts, Inc. and the CRA for the Boynton Beach Boulevard Promenade RiverWalk pro~ect. Mr. Hutchinson introduced Mr. Ricketts, who was present to answer any questions the Board might have about his contract. The Board members were given the most current draft of this contract, which is on a cost/as- needed basis. There was discussion over exactly what the Board wished Mr. Ricketts to do, at what time, and for how much. A discussion of the terms of the contract and Scope of Work ensued. One of the issues was the length of time that Mr. Ricketts would be "on call" and at what point his rates might change. The length of the contract was listed as six weeks and 12-16 weeks in different documents and even at the longer stage, this would only allow for the use of Mr. Ricketts' services during the design phase. This was not the Board's initial intention. Ms. Hoyland pointed out that the contract was based on 12-16 weeks of service for the overall project when it should probably state 12-16 weeks of service for design and development phase. The mention of "fees" in Mr. Ricketts' proposal is not relevant because there are no "fees." Mr. Ricketts would be retained on a "rate card" basis. Mr. Ricketts asked for indemnification by the City/CRA in case a third party sued everyone involved with the project. Attorney Payne has objected to this and negotiations are ongoing. Mr. Hutchinson asked the City to give him a copy of contracts where the City has used a "construction overseer." Mr. Hutchinson stated that he would work with the consultant and legal to tweak the contract and bring it back to the Board after settling some of the open issues raised at this meeting. Motion Ms. Hoyland moved to 'table approval of Jonathan Ricketts, :[nc.'s contract until the next meeting, subject to staff addressing the concerns that arose at this meeting. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that carried 5-0. D. Consideration of employment contract for CRA Executive Director Chair Finkelstein stated that the contract had already been approved. Mr. Hutchinson replied that Legal had provided an amended version that incorporated the changes requested by Mr. Hutchinson and the revised contract was being presented to the Board for final approval at this meeting. Mr. Hutchinson supplied the Board members with a chart showing the various salaries, including midpoints, amount of T]:F income, CRA acreage, population, size of staff, and other information on the CRA Directors in the surrounding communities. 3491 8 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 Mr. Fisher asked whether the termination of the director's services, as shown in the contract, would take place by using a simple or super majority. After discussion, it was agreed that a simple majority was sufficient, even though Mr. Fisher preferred to have a super majority in such a case. The Chairman collected responses from Board members relating to their suggestions of salary amounts for Mr. Hutchinson and some members wanted to increase his salary by more than 10% and others wanted to increase it by :L0% and revisit it in six months' time. A 16% increase was discussed but ultimately rejected. MQtion Ms. Hoyland moved to approve the contract for the CRA Executive Director with a new annuaJ salary of $88,000, a 10% increase from his current salary, with a review of the contract in six months with an opportunity for the Board to make adjustments in Mr. Hutchinson's salary, benefits and the opportunity to give him a bonus, as agreed to by the Board. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that passed 4-1, Mr. Fenton dissenting. Later in the meeting, Mr. Fenton wanted to be assured that the contract terms were retroactive and this was confirmed. At $:$0 p.m., the Board took a br/ef recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. E. Consideration of the CRA 2003/2004 Budget Staff made the budgets adjustments suggested at the budget workshop and recommends approval of the 2003-2004 budget by resolution, in accordance with Florida Statutes. Mr. Hutchinson asked that the Board reconsider its position on pilot programs for the trolley and extra security. 3ust putting the items in the budget did not guarantee that they were going to happen; it would still be necessary for staff to present concrete, detailed proposals to the Board for their review and consideration before implementation. The Board asked how soon the presentations on were going to come to the Board. There was concern on the part of some Board members about putting these items in the budget since it was their experience that once an item is in the budget, people will expect the money to be spent. Mr. Hutchinson also commented that the CRA had unused money in the current year's budget. There was also some concern about the high dollar amounts in the budget for these items. Mr. Hutchinson replied that these figures were subject to downward revision after more information was obtained and after working with the Marina people. Chair Finkelstein did not think it was appropriate, to have these items in the budget this year and thought that the next year was a possibility, citing the fact that there would not be any residences at the Marina until the summer of 2005. Chair Finkelstein favored looking at these two items (trolley and security) closer to when the need for them would arise. Mr. Hutchinson felt that the need was present now, in spite of the lack of residences in the Marina currently. Chair Finkelstein noted that if these two items were taken out of the budget, it would not be necessary to borrow $2M to cover them. Mr. Fisher thought that it was in the budget for planning purposes only. 3492 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency _ Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 Kurt Bressner, City Manager, spoke of his budget philosophy saying that as far as the City was concerned, their approach was not to put in budget because they had to spend the money. In the General Fund last year, for example, the City did not spend close to $1.2M of expenses and just said they would not spend it and put it back. He asked the CRA to consider leaving the trolley and security items in their budget since staff was required to come back to the Board with a request for a specific contract and authorization to proceed. More important than this consideration, though, was that the inclusion of these items in the-budget would send a symbolic message to the business owners in the area that the City and the CRA care about them, are interested in their well being and viability as businesses. Mr. Bressner stated that he also had questions about the trolley system such as where it should go, timing, and so forth, but felt that this could be dealt with later when the items come before the CRA. He asked that the Board trust staff since they were also stewards of the public dollar. When staff brings concrete proposals and contracts before the Board, the Board can decide that it does not want to spend the money and that would be a policy decision. Mr. Bressner stated that he was on record as saying that if the Board put this money in the budget for the trolley and extra security, he would not come before them later and say, "But you've got it in the budget," if the Board decided not to do the project(s) after all. Mr. Bressner told the Board that the City Commission had recently approved a reduction in the millage rate from 7.6 to 7.5%, which will amount to $23,500 less in T.I.F. for the CRA. Chair Finkel.stein had the same problem with the CBD parking garage as he did with the security and trolley. It seemed as if they were being asked to approve buying rights to possible future parking that may or may not be built and without seeing a complete proposal. There was some feeling on the Board that it would prefer allocating the money to an analysis or study of the situation rather than a pilot project. Mr. Fisher asked that the CRA staff touch base with the City's Finance Director, Ms. Diane Reese, in terms of what percentages of increase could be expected in regard to Workman's Compensation and other similar programs. He thought that this information would be important now and for the five-year plan. Mr. Hutchinson stated that they had worked with their insurance companies but he noted Mr. Fisher's comment. Ms. Heavilin asked about the CBD parking garage and whether it would be free to park there, Mr. Hutchinson stated that the site and garage were not purchased yet but when staff brings in a request for acquisition of the site rights for the parking, free or paid parking would be determined. The trend in CRAs right now is to get away from paid parking. Mr. Fisher asked whether dollars were allocated for marketing outside the area. Mr. Hutchinson responded that the dollars were included in the Web Site, a very effective marketing tool. Also, under printing projects there is money for promotional items. Staff would present anything extraordinary in a special request to the Board, if necessary. Mr. Fisher just wished to note that if attracting businesses from outside the area were a priority, it might be necessary to spend more money on promotion than was in the current budget. Mr. Fisher preferred to budget $120K and actually spend $60K for an item, to avoid going back to the well to make adjustments. 3493 :tO Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 Mr. Fenton asked to hear from Police Chief Gage to hear the results of the negotiations about extra police service. Mr. Hutchinson stated that he had told the Police Chief that he was cutting the proposed amount in half and asked him if he could live with it. Police Chief Gage indicated that they would develop a program that will serve the peak needs and look at bringing it back to the Board. Marshall Gage, Chief of Police, offered to answer questions. Mr. Fenton asked that the concerned parties get together and bring some details to the Board rather than just have a line item in the budget saying $175K. Chief Gage stated that he, also, did not have an obligation to spend all the money that is allocated in his budget. He returns money every year. The plan for extra security has been pared down to two officers in each of the two designated districts. Even if the full proposal were before the Board and the Board approved it and wanted it to begin immediately, Chief Gage could not spend all the money. He would have to recruit officers to fill the positions and take 14 weeks to train them, at his department's expense. He was also giving the CRA starting salaries on officers. He stated that it was not his intention to provide rookie officers and that there would be experienced officers who wanted these positions. Chief Gage declared his intention of working with the CRA Director to come up with a pilot project that is palatable. "Tell us what you want, and well do our best to provide that." F. Approval of the CRA 2003/2004 Budget by Resolution 03-01. Attorney Lindsey read the ReSolution No. 03-01 by title only. Motion Mr. Fisher moved to approve Resolution 03-01 adopting the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2003 and ending September 30, 2004. Mr. Fenton seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary polled the vote and the motion passed 5-0. G. Consideration of recommendation of Feasibility Study Team from the Savage Creatures of Ancient Seas Selection Committee. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the proposals that were received were very close and that staff recommended hearing from both respondents at the October meeting. After discussion, the Board decided to have a special meeting on October 14, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. in the Chambers, which would include vendor presentations from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., followed by 30 minutes for the Board to choose which group it wants for this project. At 6:30 p.m., the regular meeting agenda will commence. Finger sandwiches will be available. Chair Finkelstein wanted to have the presentations made by the individuals who would actually handle the analysis and feasibility studies as opposed to having an architect present, for example. X, Other Tterns Consent Agenda Item C.,.Budget Transfer Request 3494 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida September 9, 2003 Mr, Fisher asked why legal expenses were so much higher than originally budgeted. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the CRA had created itself from scratch. All the manuals had to be read by the legal department, for example. Also, there was no track record so estimating was difficult. Mr. Fisher then asked about the money spent for business meetings. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there were a couple of workshops under that with announcements of large projects. Mr. Fisher also wanted to know if the CRA went into its reserves when necessary. Mr. Hutchinson said that there was one Fund and that transfers are made from the reserves and added back to the reserves. Mr. Fisher asked if the reserves were intact and Mr. Hutchinson responded that they were. There was some confusion because Mr~ Fisher thought that the CRA had reserves in the same sense as the City Commission, and that was not the case. Mr. Hutchinson explained that T.I.F. was the CRA's income; the budget represents their expenses; and everything that is left over becomes reserve. The suggestion was made to pose this issue to the auditors and find out how 163 entities are supposed to set that up because it is slightly different than municipal auditing. Motion Ms. Hoyland moved to approve the budget transfer request. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion that passed unanimously. X. ~ Ms. Hoyland asked whether staff could put Future Agenda Ttems on the agenda, specifically Planning & Zoning issues. Mr. Hutchinson explained that his attempts to get this information from Planning had, so far, not been successful. The Board supported Ms. Hoyland and directed staff to pursue this to its conclusion. A suggestion was made that Mr. Hutchinson should call the City Manager and discuss this. Mr. Fisher noted that the Planning & Zoning staff provides this information to the City Commission several months in advance. XT. Adjournment There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (091003) 3495 12 MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP HELD IN THE LIBRIARY PROGRAM ROOM, 208 SOUTH SEACREST BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 AT 6:00 P.M. Present: Larry Finkelstein, Chairman Douglas Hutchinson, CRA Director Jeanne Heavilin, Vice Chair Annette Gray, Administrative Assistant City Alexander DeMarco Charlie Fisher Absent Don Fenton Michelle Hoyland Henderson Tillman I. Call to Order Chairman Finkelstein called the Workshop to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Workshop A. RMPK Group Presentation of Boynton Beach Boulevard Corridor Plan Jody Rivers, Russell Moore and Corey Malyszka were present on behalf of the RMPK Group. Ms. Rivers stated that Mr. Malyszka has been doing urban planning for RMPK and will be working on the project. Ms. Rivers reported that they have done the site inventory, the analysis and have begun the concepts. Also a public meeting was held recently. The project location is 1-95 to Seacrest Boulevard. Ms. Rivers presented a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office, and she reviewed the salient points of the presentation. Inventory When they looked at the inventory, they looked at zoning, vacant lots, bus stops, transportation, parks, access points, pedestrian paths and the usual items people look at when doing an inventory. 3496 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Workshop _ Boynton Beachf FL September 24f 2003 Zoning · There are four zoning categories: C-1, C-2, C-3 and R-lA. There are some vacant parcels of land. The largest one has already been sold and there are plans to develop this land. · There are also two parcels north of the Boulevard that could be used as open public space that could act as a pedestrian enhancement to get people from the neighborhoods to the Boulevard. · Barton Park is located on the northwest side of the Boulevard. There is no access to Barton Park from Boynton Beach Boulevard. · There are two stoplights; one at 1-95 and one at Seacrest. There is no pedestrian crossing between those two points. There are two existing medians towards the west end of the Boulevard and three bus stops. Slides of the existing buildings were viewed. With regard to the private and residential portion of the inventory, they looked at infrastructure, lighting, landscaping, bike lanes, lack of pedestrian amenities and lack of neighborhood access. There is no sidewalk access from Boynton Beach Boulevard into most of the neighborhood streets. Therefore, people going from the neighborhoods to the corridor have to walk in the street. There is a major hotel on one side and a Church and Post Office at the other end of the Boulevard. Signage is a hodgepodge. There is a variety of architecture and physical structures and each property has its own vehicular access. There is no on-street parking. Boynton Beach Boulevard is the main corridor to downtown and is the first impression people get of the City when they exit 1-95 to get to downtown Boynton Beach. The Boulevard should be an easy access to the Marina, parks, City Hall and downtown. Input gathered 'from the public meetings indicated that traffic is too fast and pedestrians do not feel safe crossing the Boulevard. The Boulevard lacks amenities such as landscaping, benches, trashcans and pedestrian friendly streetlights. Also, it would be a benefit to the area if there was direct access to Barton Park that could become a nice amenity. Mr. Hutchinson noted that from the public input, residents wanted to make their neighborhoods stronger and do not want to lose their identify. They do not want to see Boynton Beach Boulevard become merely an access to downtown. Chairman Finkelstein pointed out that one of the original CRA goals was to consider adding medians to Boynton Beach Boulevard, but the businesses were opposed. Now, they would like to see medians. 3497 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Workshop Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2003 Mr. Moore said that it is critical to the future mix how Boynton Beach Boulevard is developed. It can either become a condo area where people just zip through, or it could have some uses that would slow the speed of the traffic. B. Question & Answer Vice Chair Heavilin inquired about the area on Boynton Beach Boulevard that is east of Seacrest. Mr. Hutchinson responded that eventually the districts would be realigned once the entire area is studied. Chairman Finkelstein thought that they would do the entire area and then do an overlay for the entire Corridor Plan. Mr. Hutchinson said that this area has been approved by staff to be included with the Ocean District area. It is the Oity's intent to get the Boynton Beach Boulevard Plan done. After that, The RMPK Group would do the LDR and the design guideline overlays to configure the areas so that they would match up. When the Boynton Beach Boulevard Plan is done, The RMPK Group would put everything together to create a "Vision 20~20"- update so that everything ties into the LDR and the design guidelines. Chairman Finkelstein felt that the Boynton Beach Corridor should have some consistency as it navigates, and Mr. Hutchinson agreed with this. Chairman Finkelstein noted that this is a corridor plan and not a district plan. Therefore, he felt that an entire overlay of the entire corridor would be done, i.e. from 1-95 to Federal Highway. Mr. Moore noted that from the public's perception the roadway would go all the way through, but the land use districts would be totally different. Whatever theme the CRA develops for Boynton Beach Boulevard should continue all the way through. This could be addressed through the design guidelines. Mr. Hutchinson stated that once this plan is complete, they would come back to the Board with Land Development Regulations and design guidelines that would match, as well as a consolidation of all the plans. Mr. Hutchinson also noted that there is provision to do a traffic study as well, which will be done when this plan is done. Chairman Finkelstein asked why only part of the corridor was being done without doing the entire corridor so that the entire corridor would match the re-write. Mr. Hutchinson said that this was not necessary because the Ocean District has been done. Mr. Hutchinson noted that the Boynton Beach Corridor plan actually involves three different planning areas, and he would like to get this small piece done first and then look at the rest of the plans.' Mr. Fisher questioned why they would have to write the language in two phases, i.e. 1-95 to Seacrest and then Seacrest to Federal. Mr. Hutchinson said that when this is complete, it will fit into the new language, which is why they chose to remain with The RMPK Group. Mr. Moore pointed out that The RMPK Group will be taking all the pieces to come up with a uniform design for zoning, economic development, housing and urban design treatment. Mr. Hutchinson noted that by doing it this way it would not be necessary to 3498 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Workshop Boynton Beach, FL , September 24f 2003 rewrite the District Plan because it will match the new formats. This is the last piece needed for the 1983 Plan update. Vice Chair Heavilin inquired if the traffic studies would involve the entire corridor, and Mr. Hutchinson stated it would encompass the entire CRA. Mr. Fisher asked about the Federal Highway Corridor Study that was done awhile back. Mr. Hutchinson responded that the studies would be coordinated. Chairman Finkelstein wanted assurances that the Corridor would be done because it is very important that this be consistent with the rest of the plan. Mr. Hutchinson noted that they are working on this. Ms. Rivers explained that the current land use regulations on Boynton Beach Boulevard do not allow for a great deal of redevelopment and prohibits a big development push as well as a variety of uses. Also, parking and access are an issue and there is inconsistency in the landscaping and architecture. Ms. Rivers next discussed concept plan elements that they have developed. In the private sector they looked at mixed-use buildings and redevelopment of the Holiday Inn site. The issue of the U.S. Post Office has also been addressed, as well as connections into the neighborhoods. Considerations for on street parking, streetscape and signage for the area were also looked at. Members were referred to the Concept Plan contained on Page 45 of the report and the significant points were: · On the west end of the-project there would be some kind of signage, with landscaping, welcoming people to Boynton Beach. · The FDOT property in front of the Holiday Inn needs to be addressed and spruced up. · The cyclone fence in front of the Holiday Inn could be changed to an iron fence. This could also be done for the school across the street. Chairman Finkelstein stated that the chainlink fence in front of the Holiday Inn actually belongs to the FDOT. · The Holiday Inn could become the hospitality center for the downtown. · They are recommending a mixed-use with Iow density. The first floors of buildings could be retail/commercial and the second floors could contain housing. Mr. DeMarco wants to make sure that developers are aware of what the CRA's uniform concept for Boynton Beach Boulevard is. He would like to see some kind of brochure developed that would show the developers what the CRA wants to see on Boynton Beach Boulevard. He felt that there are a lot of people that would be interested in developing this area. Mr. Moore pointed out that the diagrams in the report address the first step of what Mr. DeMarco brought up. Mr. Moore stated that if some of the lots were combined, they would be able to come up with development and design concepts that were discussed 3499 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Workshop Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2003 where the buildings would be closer to the street and parking would be in the back that could be accessed through alleys. There would also be parallel parking on Boynton Beach Boulevard. If the Board agreed, this is how they want to proceed. The next step would be to take the concept plan and turn it into a development project. Mr. Fisher wanted to make sure that there would be sufficient room for landscaping and Mr. Moore stated that there would be landscaping along the street. Mr. Moore pointed out that currently they were only looking at a zoning diagram. Mr. DeMarco was not in favor of having the buildings placed right up to the sidewalks without any landscaping. He felt that landscaping was very important so that people would enjoy walking down Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Moore said that there should be a code that would dictate how the private sidewalks should be built to match the public sidewalks. These are things that they will be addressing in the near future. Mr. Fisher inquired what types of businesses would the redesigned Boynton Beach Boulevard attract. Mr. Moore stated that it could attract offices, medical clinics, professional offices and neighborhood services. Mr. Hutchinson noted that at the time of public input people were optimistic that the buildings could be rented. Mr. Fisher inquired if three story buildings would be appropriate. Chairman Finkelstein noted that this was possible since 45' is permitted. Ms. Rivers next addressed the Post Office. She envisions taking the full block and the concept for this site was contained on Page 49 of their report. A service center Post Office would remain, but there would be no trucks. Ms. Rivers noted that there are appropriate small size service center Post Offices that would suffice and there is still the need for a Post Office downtown. They are recommending a 60' tall building on the corner, and Chairman Finkelstein stated that if 60' were used, he would like the stair- step effect employed. Ms. Rivers said that they are recommending four floors on the neighborhood streets and six floors along Boynton and Seacrest Boulevards. Also, the steeple of the new Church across the street will be quite tall. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that the height east of Seacrest to the railroad is 75' and then it goes to 150'. Ms. Rivers pointed out that these are conceptual drawings without any architectural features, and they will come back with new drawings that will display the recessed buildings being recommended. Chairman Finkelstein did not think it would be appropriate to have a tall massive building on the corner of Seacrest and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Moore pointed out that this is a key intersection in an employment area and this would be a good opportunity to bring in some neighborhood related commercial. He feels this is an important node. They are also proposing a parking garage as well. Vice Chair Heavilin said that she was not opposed to the building being close to the sidewalk as long. as there was adequate landscaping. Discussion ensued about introducing some type of caf6 with tables outside. Mr. DeMarco noted that if verandas were added, this would provide shade over the sidewalks. 3500 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Workshop Boynton Beach, FL September 24, 2003 Vice Chair Heavilin inquired why the bike lanes were not officially noted as bike lanes. Ms. Rivers pointed out that they are not identified as bike lanes because they do not meet FDOT's official standards, which is 5'. Ms. Rivers questioned if the Board wanted to have bike lanes on Boynton Beach Boulevard. Ms. Rivers was in favor of bike paths, but felt they should be located elsewhere. Sometimes the straightest route is not always the safest route. Chairman Finkelstein asked if the northern corridor boundary was correct as noted on the drawing, and Mr. Hutchinson stated this is where the Heart of Boynton ended. Chairman Finkelstein did not think that this was the correct boundary. Ms. Rivers agreed and said that they will be looking at this. Chairman Finkelstein suggested that members take the Plan home and review it. Ms. Rivers said that she would need comments as soon as possible because they are working on the final plan. Chairman Finkelstein requested that the comments be provided to Mr. Hutchinson by Monday. Ms. Rivers noted that they would be coming back to the Board with the final Plan. III. Other Items None IV. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (September 30, 2003) 3501 6 MEMO TO: CRA Board FROM: Susan Vielhauer SUBJECT: Financials DATE: October 7, 2003 Staff has contacted Linda Dufresne & Associates CPA, which the CRA has contracted with to perform our annual audit. Staff is working with the auditors via e-mail for year end entries and adjustments and we have also set aside November 4th and 5th to work with the auditors on site. We received $4,343.52 in interest from the Money Market Account this month. The CRA paid out two payrolls in the month of September which included previous raises and the new position of Secretary. Staff did not anticipate the final impact of the raises and the new position of Secretary on the salary expense budget line. We finished filing all of the paperwork to set up the Life Insurance for the CRA Employees and have paid the first month installment. The payroll taxes for the weekending September 23, 2003 were paid on October 1,2003. The CRA paid $5000 to the RMPK Group for Task #1 Inventory on the Boynton Beach Plan Contact, which has been completed, The CRA had originally budgeted $495 to renew the Florida Redevelopment Association membership in October 2003. The CRA had to pay the renewal by September 30, 2003, which has created a negative balance in the Membership & Subscription budget line item for the 2002-2003 year. 3502 Accounts Payable includes the following bills which were incurred in September 2003 and paid on October 7, 2003; American Express $23.88, Aqua Springs Water & Coffee $52.50, Fed Express $257.01, FPL $208.69, Hands Stationers $73.50, Imagistic $343.00, Office Depot $719.68, and Petty Cash $73.26. Accrued Liabilities include Accrued Salaries of $563.42, Accrued Payroll Taxes of $2,131.19 and Accrued Health Insurance of ($53.00) for a total of $2,641.61. The Note Payable has also been adjusted by the principal payments of $127,886.44 for 2002-2003. Staff is also submitting a Statement of Cash Flows DRAFT for the CRA Board to review and comments. Staff will supply this Statement of Cash Flows each month which details the income received for the month and the expenditures paid for the month. 3503 Community Redevelopment Agency of Boynton Beach Balance Sheet Government Funds September 30, 2002 Total Community Redevelopment ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 5,206,893.81 Receivables Prepaid Expenses $ - Inventory $ - Fixed Assets Real Estate Relax Inn $ 886,135.30 RiverWalk / Promenade / BBB Extension $ - RiverWalk / Promenade / Land $ - MLK . $ - Accumulated Depreciation- Fixed Assets $ - Work in Progress Assets Relax Inn $ - RiverWalk / Promenade / BBB Extension $ 105,094.22 RiverWalk / Promenade / Land $ 283,871.49 MLK $ 3,400.00 Total Work in Progress Assets Furniture / Equipment $ 15,550.46 Accumulated Depreciation-Furn ./Equip $ (2,017.18) Total Assets $ 6,498,928.10 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts Payable $ 1,751.52 Accrued Liabilities $ 2,641.61 Note Payable $ 2,752,345.10 Total Liabilities $ 2,756,738.23 Fund Balances: General Fund $ 2,915,187.01 Change in Fund Balance $ 827,002.86 Total Fund Balances $ 3,742,189.87 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $ 6,498,928.10 INCOME STATEMENT September 30, 2002 Revenue Current YTD Current Total Tax Increment Funds Tax Increment Funds: $0.00 $1,330,408.92 $1,330,408.92 Total Tax Increment Funds $0.00 $1,330,408.92 $1,330,408.92 City Funds City Transfer Funds $0.00 $17,834.98 $17,834.98 Total City Funds $0.00 $17,834.98 $17,834.98 Grants, Project Reimbursements Grant Funding $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Grants and Projects $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Interest Income Interest Income $4,343.52 $73,409.73 $77,753.25 Total Interest Income $4,343.52 $73,409.73 $77,753.25 Other Income Other Income $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Other Income $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Sources of Funds $4,343.52 $1,421,653.63 $1,425,997.15 INCOME STATEMENT Uses of Funds Current YTD Current Total Debt Service Debt Service Principal Payment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Interest Expense Payment $94,432.50 $94,999.34 $189,431.84 Total Debt Service $94,432.50 $94,999.34 $t 89,431.84 Project Expenses Festivals / Events / Seminars $0.00 $21,115.68 $21,115.68 Way-Finding Signage $0.00 $14,548.98 $14,548.98 Fa(~ade Grant Program $0.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Economic Incentive Program $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 High School Project $0.00 $499.02 $499.02 Total Project Expenses $0.00 $51,163.68 $51,163.68 General & Administrative $101,346.04 Salaries & Contract Labor $13,771.73 $143,328.60 $157,100.33 Payroll Tax $1,074.71 $7,922.26 $8,996.97 Property/General Insurance $0.00 $991.44 $991.44 Workers Compensation $0.00 $1,463.94 $1,463.94 Health Insurance $38.22 $10,546.45 $10,584.67 Life Insurance $34.00 $0.00 $34.00 Professional Fees - Audit $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Professional Fees - City Staff $338.63 $4,558.85 $4,897.48 Professional Fees - Contracted Services $5,500.00 $26,597.48 $32,097.48 Professional Fees - Legal $0.00 $41,347.50 $41,347.50 Professional Fees - Maint. & Cleaning $327.00 $2,854.11 $3,181.11 Professional Fees - IT Support $0.00 $6,647.50 $6,647.50 Advertising Expense $0.00 $1,412.49 $1,412.49 Telephone Expense $468.96 $7,120.49 $7,589.45 Electric Expense $208.39 $1,860.75 $2,069.14 Rent Expense $0.00 $12,440.00 $12,440.00 Office Leasehold Improvements $70.51 $1,285.70 $1,356.21 Printing Office Supplies $0.00 $2,915.06 $2,915.06 Printing Programs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Mileage & Delivery $422.16 $846.72 $1,268.88 Seminars Staff / Board $0.00 $4,793.34 $4,793.34 Business Meeting Expense $51.81 $4,566.62 $4,618.43 Licenses, Fees, Permits $45.00 $208.50 $253.50 Membership, Subscriptions $696.49 $3,773.37 $4,469.86 Books & Publications $0.00 $698.18 $698.18 Career Development $0.00 $2,092.73 $2,092.73 Office Supplies $1,637.35 $8,141.27 $9,778.62 Office Furniture / Equipment/Setup ($1,015.00) $17,110.24 $16,095.24 Professional Insurance $0.00 $7,046.21 $7,046.21 Equipment Leases $343.00 $3,307.54 $3,650.54 Miscellaneous $0.00 $267.77 $267.77 Car Allowance Director $276.92 $3,323.04 $3,599.96 Bonding Insurance $0.00 $101.07 $101.07 Disability $132.02 $132.02 $264.04 Retirement 457 Plan $0.00 $2,250.00 $2,250.00 Interest Expense $3.57 $4.88 $8.45 Depreciation Expense $2,017.18 $0.00 $2,017.18 Total General & Administrative $26,442.65 $331,956.12 $358,398.77 Total Application of Funds $120,875.15 $478,119.14 $598,994.29 Fund Sources in Excess of Application ($116,531.63) $943,534.49 $827,002.86 Budget to Actual Comparison 2002-2003 Community Redevelopment Agency of Boynton Beach September 30, 2002 2002/2003 Year To Current YTD 02/03 % of 2002/2003 Amended Date Period Totals including Budget Budget Bud~let 9/9/2003 Totals September Current Month Remaining Remaining =3eginning Balance 5,780,416.00 5,790,391.00 5,790,391.00 5,488,208.73 5,790,391.00 5,790,391.00 Revenues TIF Taxes 1,675,380.00 1,330,409.00 1,330,408.92 0.00 1,330,408.92 0.08 0% City Transfer Funds 0.00 0.00 17,834.98 0.00 17,834.98 0.00 N/A Hall Property Transfer 385,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Grant Funding 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Interest Income 15,000.00 77,900.00 73,409.73 4,343.52 77,753.25 146.75 0% Other Income 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Total Revenue 7,855,796.00 7,198,700.00 1,421,653.63 4,343.52 1,425,997.15 146.83 Expenditures Personal Cost Salaries Salary Expense 101,346.04 13,771.73 115,117.77 Contract Labor 41,982.56 0.00 41,982.56 Total Salaries 155,000.00 155,000.00 143,328.60 13,771.73 157,100.33 -2,100.33 -1% Payroll Taxes 11,625.00 11,625.00 7,922.26 1,074,71 8,996.97 2,628.03 23% Disability 0.00 396.00 132.02 132.02 264.04 131,96 33% Retirement 457 Plan 0.00 3,250.00 2,250.00 0.00 2,250.00 1,000.00 31% Workers Comp 8,130.00 1,530.00 1,463.94 0.00 1,463.94 66,06 4°/° Health Insurance 21,000.00 15,000.00 10,546.45 38.22 10,584.67 4,415.33 29% Life Insurance 540.00 540.00 0.00 34.00 34,00 506.00 94% Total Personal Cost 196,295.00 187,341.00 165,643.27 15,050.68 180,693,95 6,647.05 3% Professional Services Legal 21,600.00 47,600.00 41,347.50 0.00 41,347.50 6,252.50 13% City Staff 6,000.00 6,000.00 4,558.85 338.63 4,897.48 1,102.52 18% Contracted Services 100,000.00 100,000.00 26,597.48 5,500.00 32,097.48 67,902.52 68% Audit 7,500.00 7,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,500.00 100% Maint. & Cleaning 2,700.00 3,700.00 2,854.11 327.00 3,181.11 518.89 14% I.T. Support 12,000.00 12,000.00 6,647.50 0.00 6,647.50 5,352.50 45% Total Professional Servlcse 149,800.00 176,800.00 82,005.44 6,165.63 88,171.07 88,628.93 50% 'Ice Rent Expense 38,880.00 16,000.00 12,440.00 0.00 12,440.00 3,560.00 22% Phone Expense 9,360.00 9,360.00 7,120.49 468.96 7,589.45 1,770.55 19% Electric Expense 2,100.00 2,100.00 1,860.75 208.39 2,069.14 30.86 1% Office Total 50,340.00 27,460.00 21,421.24 677.35 22,098.59 5,361.41' 20% Equipment Leases Expenses 3,600.00 3,600.00 3,307.54 343.00 3,650.54 -50.54 -1% Insurance Property/General Insurance 1,850.00 1,250.00 991.44 0.00 991.44 258.56 21% Bond/Liability Insurance 400.00 1,850.00 101.07 0.00 101.07 1,748.93 95% Professional Insurance 2,000.00 7,200.00 7,046.21 0.00 7,046.21 153.79 2% Insurance Total 6,050.00 10,300.00 8,138.72 0.00 8,138.72 2,161.28 21% Travel Expense Business Meetings 1,500.00 5,000.00 4,566.62 51.81 4,618.43 381.57 8% Seminars 2,000.00 7,800.00 4,793.34 0.00 4,793.34 3,006.66 39% Mileage & Delivery Services 1,750.00 ' 1,750.00 846.72 422.16 1,268.88 481.12 27% Car Allowance- Director 3,600.00 3,600.00 3,323.04 276.92 3,599.96 0.04 0% Total Travel Expenses 8,850.00 18,150.00 13,529.72 750.89 14,280.61 3,869.39 21% Office Supplies 1,800.00 9,000.00 8,141.27 1,637.35 9,778.62 -778.62 -9% Llcenees, Books, Publication Licenses, Fees, Permits 250.00 250.00 208.50 45.00 253.50 -3.50 -2% Memberships, Subscriptions 2,000.00 4,000.00 3,773.37 696.49 4,469.86 -469.86 -12% Books & Publication 250.00 1,000.00 698.18 0.00 698.18 301.82 43% Total Licenses, Books, Publicatl 2,500.00 5,250.00 4,680.05 741.49 5,421.54 -171.54 -4% Advertising & Public Notices 4,000.00 4,000.00 1,412.49 0.00 1,412.49 2,587.51 65% Career Development 750.00 2,750.00 2,092.73 0.00 2,092.73 657.27 24% Printing Office Expense 1,250.00 3,250.00 2,915.06 0.00 2,915.06 334.94 10% Miscellaneous / Interest 500.00 500.00 272.65 3.57 276.22 223.78 45% ': Service · .,~cipal Payment 0.00 130,640.53 63,653.37 63,673.37 127,326.74 3,313.79 3% Interest Expense 0.00 186,657.74 94,999.34 94,432.50 189,431.84 -2,774.10 -1% Total Debt Service 0.00 317,298.27 158,652.71 158r105.87 316,758.58 539.69 0% Operating Expense 425,735.00 765,699.27 472,212~J~9 183,475.83 655,688.72 110,010.55 26% 3507 ~- Budget to Actual Comparison 2002-2003 September 30,2003 2002/2003 Year To Current YTD 02/03 % of 2002/2003 Amended Date Period Totals Including Budget Budget Budget 9/9/2003 Totals September Current Month Remainin~l Remaining PROGRAMS: Office Equipment/Furniture 20,000.00 26,556.00 26,652.92 -15.00 26,637.92 -81.92 0% Office Leasehold Improvements 35,000.00 3,000.00 1,285.70 70.51 1,356.21 1,643.79 55% Printing Programs 25,000.00 25,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 100% Festivals/Events/Seminars 50,000.00 50,000.00 21,115.68 0.00 21,115.68 28,884.32 58% Facade Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 85,000.00 85% Economic Incentive Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 100% PROJECTS Relax Inn Closing & Demo 1,100,000.00 886,136.00 886,135.30 0.00 886,135.30 0.70 0% RIv®rwalk! Promenade Projects 750,000.00 750,000.00 874.22 104,220.00 105,094.22 644,905.78 86% MLK Commercial 250,000.00 250,000.00 3,400.00 0.00 3,400.00 246,600.00 99% Way-Finding $1gnage 25,000.00 25,000.00 14,548.98 0.00 14,548.98 10,451.02 42% Rlverwalk /Promanade Land 200,000.00 282,200.00 282,111.19 1,760.30 283,871.49 -1,671.49 -1% High School Project 0.00 0.00 499.02 0.00 499.02 -499.02 N/A TOTALS EXPENSES 2,877,526.00 3,263,591.27 1,723,835.90 289,511.64 2,013,347.54 1,250,243.73 Note Payable 2,877,526.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL RESERVE BALANCE 2,100,744.00 3,935,108.73 5,488,208.73 5,203,040.61 5,203,040.61 4,540,294.10 3508 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS REVENUES DRAFT -Interest Income SunTrust Bank Interest $ 4,343.52 Total Interest Income $ 4,343.52 TOTAL REVENUES $ 4,343.52 EXPENDITURES Salaries Expense Douglas Hutchinson $ 2,305.58 Douglas Hutchinson $ 2,305.58 Susan Vielhauer $ 1,322.51 Susan Vielhauer $ 1,452.57 Annette Gray $ 1,100.70 Annette Gray $ 1,125.95 Garine Ghazarian $ 479.57 Total Salaries Expense $ 10,092.46 Payroll Tax Expense 941 Deposit $ 1,074.71 Total Payroll Tax Expense $ 1,074.71 Health Insurance Expense American Dental Plan $ 38.22 Total Health Insurance Expense $ 38.22 Life Insurance Expense 1st Colony Life Insurance $ 34.00 Total Life Insurance Expense $ 34.00 ST / LT Disability Principal Financial Group $ 132.02 Total ST / LT Disability $ 132.02 Professional Fees - City Staff City of Boynton Beach $ 206.84 City of Boynton Beach $ 131.79 City of Boynton Beach $ 154.12 Total Professional Fees- City Staff $ 492.75 Professional Fees - Contracted RMPK Group $ 5,000.00 HR Partners $ 500.00 Total Professional Fees- Contracted $ 5,500.00 Professional Fees - Maint. & Cleaning Stiles Landscaping $ 170.00 Cleaning Systems Inc. $ 150.00 Total Professional Fees - Maint. & Cleaning $ 320.00 Advertising Palm Beach Post $ 283.50 Total Advertising $ 283.50 Electric FPL $ 205.52 Total Electric Expense $ 205.52 Telephone Cingular Wireless $ 68.27 Bell South $ 220.00 FDN Communications 3509 $ 180.69 Total Telephone Expense $ 468.95 Office Leasehold Improvements Lowes $ 70.51 Total Office Leasehold Improvements $ 70.51 Mileage & Delivery Federal Express $ 150.15 Total Mileage & Delivery $ 150.15 Licenses, Fees, Permits City of Boynton Beach $ 45.00 Total Licenses, Fees, Permits $ 45.00 Membership, Subscriptions Daily Business Review $ 157.94 Sun Sentinel $ 43.55 FRA $ 495.0O Total Membership, Subscriptions $ 696.49 Office Supplies Super Signs $ 8.40 Aqua Springs & Coffee $ 12.50 Office Depot $ 539.47 Hand Stationers $ 316.25 Total Office Supplies $ 876.62 Printing Office Supplies Delray Blueprint $ 65.38 Total Printing Office Supplies $ 65.38 Principal and Interest Payment (Loan) Bank of America $158,649.14 Total Principal and Interest Payment (Loan) $158,649.14 Riverwalk / Promenade/BBB Extension Burkhardt Construction, Inc $104,220.00 Land Design South $ 1,760.30 Total Riverwall(/Promenade/BBB Extension $105,980.30 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 285,175,73 TOTAL REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES $ (280,832.21) 3510 BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO: CRA Board Members FROM: Lindsey A. Payne, CRA Board Attomey,.ff,~ DATE: October 6, 2003 RE: Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency ('CRA")/Petty Cash Reimbursement Attached is a petty cash voucher reimbursement form and a proposed amendment to the purchasing/petty cash policy. This is being recommended for use in response to questions recently raised regarding reimbursement of petty cash. LAP/ia Attachment \UGCDE_FSXLIBRARYX1998\980465~003 MEMOSXPetty CasEdoc 3511 - ' BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENTVOUCHER FOR EXPENSES OTHER THAN TRAVEL Pay to No. Date Receipts for all items $1.00 and over must accompany this Voucher Date Item Purpose Amount I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that the mounts, scheduled above are just and true in all respects and were expended by the undersigned for CRA purposes and that payment therefor has not been received. Total Amount $ (Signature) By (Date) Tide 3512 C:~Documents and Settiags\vielhauers.C~cal Settings\Temporary Iaternet Files\OLK65 l XPetty Cash Voucher.doc CRA PURCHASING POLICY MANUAL PURCHASING/PETTY CASH PURPOSE: This policy will establish the procedures required for a petty cash fund in the amount of $500.00. POLICY: The CRA Staff has the authority to request petty cash for the petty cash fund to meet small incidental purchases for facilitating the transaction of CRA business such as: small purchases that must be made from vendors that do not offer the CRA credit, postage for special delivery, toll receipts, parking, etc. Petty cash requests will not be authorized for individual purchases that exceed $100.00. The Controller will be responsible for controlling the flow of cash in and out of the Petty Cash Fund, making sure proper receipts are obtained for each purchase, assuring that proper forms are obtained for each purchase, assuring the proper forms are filled out completely and authorizing signatures obtained. The Controller will also be responsible for reconciling the Fund as needed and applying for reimbursement. Procedures for a petty cash fund are as follows: 1. Petty Cash Payments - When an employee requests reimbursement or receives an advance from petty cash, the Petty Cash reimbursement Voucher form Reeeif~ must be used. This form provides for identification of: dollar amount of receipt or expenditure, reason for purchase, ,.,,,4,., signature of employee receiving petty cash ~,,,4 Cc.".trcl!cr. Anytime a disbursement is made from petty cash it is required that this form be completed in full. 2. Petty Cash Reimbursement - Petty cash funds should be reconciled on a weekly basis. Reimbursement request will be submitted by the Controller on a Form 121 with the description stating "Petty Cash Reimbursement". The account codes from the Petty Cash Receipts will be summarized on the Form 121. The Form 121, Petty Cash Receipts, and supporting invoices will be sent to the CRA Director for approval of the reimbursement of petty cash. Sales tax should not be paid. 3. Discrepancies in Petty Cash - Any discrepancies in the petty cash fund maintained by the Controller should be brought to the immediate attention of the CRA Director. 3513 26 V. Public Audience 3514 A_uy person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. VI. Public Hearing Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the oroceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 3515 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION -' MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-230 STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency and City Commission THRU: Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Maxime Ducoste Planner DATE: September 29, 2003 PROJECT NAME/NO: Gateway Texaco Variances Driveway variances ZNCV 03-0'10, 03-0'1 '1 and 03-0'12 REQUEST: Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section '1 '1, Supplemental Regulations L.3.d. ('1) requiring parking lot driveways to be located 120 feet from the intersection of the right- of-way lines along streets of higher classification to allow a 97-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 23 feet, and to allow a $8-foot variance for a second driveway, resulting in a distance of 32 feet from the intersection of Federal Highway and Las Palmas Avenue for an existing gasoline dispensing_ establishment; Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 1 '1, Supplemental Regulations L.3.d. (3) requiring that driveways shall not be located less than thirty (30) feet from any interior property line to allow a '10-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 20 feet for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment; Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 1 '1, Supplemental Regulations L.3.d. (4) requiring that driveways will be limited to one ('1) per street frontage to allow two (2) driveways along the street frontage for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: SUAU Enterprises Applicant/Agent: Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Consultants Location: 2360 N. Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL Existing Land Use/Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3)/Local Retail Commercial (LRC) Oroposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: 681 square foot addition to gasoline dispensing establishment (limited to a maximum of 600 square feet bv Condition of Approval for appeal - ADAP 35115 Staff Report Driveway variances z~NCV 03-010, 03-011 and 03-012 Memorandum No PZ-03-230 Page 2 02-001). Acreage: 0.48 Acre (20,830 square feet) Adjacent Uses: (see Exhibit "A"- Location Map) North: Multi-family residential property, zoned Community Commercial (C-3); South: Right-of-way for Las Palmas Avenue, and farther south are single-famiiy attached townhouses under construction (The Harbors), zoned Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD); East: Vacant commercial lot zoned Community Commercial (C-3) currently under review for a proposed car wash, and farther east is a single-family residential dwelling (part of Las Palmas development), zoned Single-family residential, (R-I-AA); and West: Rights-of-way of U.S. 1 and the Florida East Coast Railroad, and farther west developed commercial property classified Local Retail CommerCial (LRC) and zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). BACKGROUND Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants, agent for SUAU Enterprises Incorporated, is requesting conditional use / major site plan modification approval to construct a 681 square foot addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. In addition, the applicant is proposing new parking spaces, a new access drive that would lead to the property directly to the east, and a general "make-over" of the exterior facades of the gasoline station building and canopy. The number of gasoline pump islands and fueling positions would remain unaltered. The proposed 681 square foot addition to the gas station is considered as a conditional use in the C-3 zoning district. Also, the gas-station is a legal non-conforming use because it does-not comply with Chapter 2, Section 11 .L.3.a.(2) due to the fact that gas stations may only be located at intersections "consisting of roads of four (4) lanes or wider". Earlier last year, Mr. Beril Kruger, acting on behalf of Mr. Zuhair Marouf, expressed a desire to construct a building addition to the existing gas station, in part, to satisfy outstanding code enforcement violations. He also proposed direct access between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east (which was earmarked for a mechanical car wash) in order to minimize vehicular traffic onto Las Palmas Avenue. These inquiries were based on the presumption that the proposed addition would be allowed and that direct access would only require site plan review. However, after careful consideration, staff determined that the addition would not be permitted because it would represent an unlawful expansion of a non-conforming (a gasoline-dispensing establishment). To answer Mr. Kruger's inquiries, on July 16, 2002, the Director of Planning & Zoning issued an administrative determination letter that basically prohibited the applicant from increasing the size of the gas- station building becaUse doing it would constitute a violation of Chapter 2, Sections D and G of the Land Development Regulations. Regarding the direct access between lots, the Director determined that the proposed driveway connection between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east could be permitted. However, the direct access would only be allowed contingent upon the recordation of a legally binding cross- access agreement. On July 31, 2002, Mr. Kruger addressed a letter requesting a formal aPpeal, of the aforementioned administrative determination. According to the staf~13/ort, "in summary, the appeal justifies the proposed Staff Repc,'t Driveway variances ZNCV 03~¢ 10, 03-011 and 03-012 Memorandum No PZ-03-230 Page 3 expansion by the position that retail sales at this business is a separate component from the non-conforming aspect-gasoline sales, which component can therefore be altered / expanded independent of the gasoline sales element of the business. Staff disagreed with the applicant's position. The City Commission approved the appeal with the condition that the expansion would be limited to 600 square feet. Therefore, this major site plan modification and accompanying variance requests represent the applicant's continuing effort to construct a building addition and mechanical car wash on the abutting property (see Exhibit "B" - Site Plan and Survey). If approved, the construction of the addition, parking lot, and fa~;ade improvements would occur in one (1) phase. As part of the major site plan modification process, the site has to meet all the requirements of the Land Development Regulations or obtain relief if necessary. The subject property, Gateway Texaco, owned by SUAU Enterprises is located at 2360 N. Federal Highway. The agent, Bedl Kruger is requesting relief from the above-referenced Land Development Regulations, which requires that parking lot driveways be constructed at least one hundred twenty (120) feet from streets of higher classifications. The existing gas station business includes two (2), existing driveway entrances measuring 30 feet wide providing ingress and egress along North Federal Highway and one (1) existing driveway entrance measuring . 30 feet wide along Las Palmas Avenue. The southernmost entrance driveway on North Federal Highway is located approximately 23 feet from Las Palmas Avenue, while the second driveway is located 103 feet from Las Palmas and 20 feet from the interior property line (north property line). The existing ddveway is located on a major artedal (Federal Highway), therefore, the 120 foot separation from the intersection and interior property line is required. As indicated on the site plan associated with the proposed addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a 681 square foot addition located at the rear (east side) of the existing gas station building along the east property line (see Exhibit "B" - Proposed Site Plan). The subject parcel is approximately 0.48 acres in size with approximately 153 feet of frontage along North Federal Highway, and 136 feet of frontage along Las Palmas Avenue (see Exhibit "B" - Survey). The special lot conditions that exist are the short frontage distance along the North Federal Highway right-of-way and, that the driveways are existing and necessary for fueling tanker circulation. As such, limiting the site to one ddveway access point on North Federal Highway, at the minimum driveway separation of 120 feet, which meets site circulation needs is not feasible. If such redesign could meet this standard and operational needs, it is likely that other deficiencies, and the need for other variances would be generated. ANALYSIS The code states that the zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the board finds the following: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the/and, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other/ands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not resu/t from the actions of the applicant. c. That granting the variance requested wi//not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other/ands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights comrnon/y enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possib/e the reasonable use of the /and, building, or structure. 3518 ,Staff Report Driveway variances ZNCV 03-010, 03-011 and 03-012 Memoranelum No PZ-03-230 Page 4 f. That the granting ~f the Variance wi~~ be ~n harm~ny with the genera~ intent and purp~se ~f this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff has conducted this review with the assumption that, based on the city's prior approval of the administrative appeal acknowledging the increase in intensity of this non-conforming use, that the city is aware of the potential of certain hardships and non-conformities associated with the site. Staff also reviewed the requested variances focusing on the applicant's response to the above criteria contained in Exhibit "C" - Statement of Special Conditions, as well as existing site restrictions, and proposed design requirements. Staff has determined that site constraints at this location are a partial justification for granting, this variance. In order to satisfy the Land Development Regulations, the driveways along North Federal Highway would have to be placed 120 feet from the intersection of Las Palmas Avenue. This scenario would not leave the additional linear footage necessary to provide the 30-foot minimum ddveway width and the 30-foot minimum distance from the interior property line, as required by code. Further complying with code would result in the elimination of both existing driveways on North Federal Highway. This would create inefficient internal and external vehicular traffic circulation and undue hardship, which could force the closing of the business or negatively affect the neighborhood to the east. The driveways on Federal Highway minimize the traffic impact of this existing business onto Las Palmas Avenue. If there was only one project entrance (the Las Palmas Avenue entrance), traffic exiting from the site including refueling trucks would have insufficient stacking length at the adjacent traffic signal/intersection. This situation would congest the secondary roadway and adjacent residential neighborhood. Leaving the existing driveways on North Federal Highway lessens this potential traffic problem. It should be noted that granting a variance for the southernmost driveway distance would also cover the distance variance requested for the northern driveway. In keeping with the City's Land Development Regulations, the applicant's response to the above criteria is included within Exhibit "C" Statement of Special Conditions justifying the requested variance. In summary, granting this variance may be supported for the following reasons: a. A special condition exists which is peculiar to the subject property; b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of dghts commonly enjoyed by other properties similarly zoned; c. The variance requested represents the minimum variance needed to utilize the property for access (the existing driveways are located along the western extent of the property); and d. That the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general intent of the regulation to promote safe and adequate traffic circulation. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis contained herein, Staff recommends that the requested variances be approved. No conditions of approval are recommended; however, any conditions of approval added by the Community Redevelopment Agency Board or the City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval. MW P,/M D S:\Plannlng~SHARED~WP~PROJECTS~Gateway Texaco~ZNcV 03-010 thru 03-017, 023, 024 ',STAFF REP ZNCV 03-010 to 03-012 Ddveway Variances.doc 3519 Location Map ~x.,~,,..... Gateway Texaco SITE IPUD R3 ~~~© REC R3 REC 3520 · .. ¢ ,,,-,i .... ,, ~-~1,,., .,- , ..- . , ,.~ J,, ~ J, L,. _ ._ .,. ,, "J" '":' ' - Ji --' I- j' t-~'l ii- ' iz , '~. s .... .i- ~ ' a jl ,I '-. ~ ~.~ . ~,~ / ~ '*'$ J~ J* .. i ,~,... ~ ,*~ , ~,e, I t · J~ ~ ii.. 'J,,-~ ¢~ .~,~.,:I!~ -,-~. · ' ~. ~. / ~ ',~- ~., ~ _ . , ~, ~ ~'~,: , ~.:.".-':'.'..:." '. :~ rt~.::.~ ~ .: . . ... .-...~: ~:~ ~ ... j ~'~*~ ~.:¢~".'.', :..: ,... 4 .... =~'.:,,- ' .' ' "~ ' ~jl ~,.......: . ..- ........ .., , ]~ ~ a ~. , ~~.:-~,.... ,,,, ~4 t ~'~ :~, '..'-:'7:' ~. '.," ';V, .'~ '~-'.. '-- 7. ~ l~ ¢ ".'..~' '~' "~'' i-. J.'.~: I ~ ~ /......: ..... ,...: . . . ..-.. , . , : .,.,.., ..........,... · *~- /~ * - . ...., .. / .;': .) ':'....: ~ ~ ~ / / ~ > .~. ~ .. , ~-~ " "' ,;" ,-- .... EXHIBIT "C" I STATEMENT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS STATEMENT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district: There are special conditions and circumstances which exist and are peculiar to the land in this case. The gas station is existing and the only renovation to the pro~perty and building is to upgrade the exterior with new fascia, colors, landscaping, and textures so to make the gas station fit in with the neighborhood. The property is not big enough to place the driveways the proper distance from the intersection nor to move the gas islands or canopy. The number of driveways must remain due to the location of the fuel filling ports which the gasoline tankers must unload, there would not be enough room for them to leave the property with fewer drives. B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant: Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant because he bought the property as it is. He is just trying to upgrade the exterior and landscaping to fit in with the changing neighborhood. C. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district: Granting these variances will not confer any special privileges that are denied by this ordinance to other lands within the same zoning district. D. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undo hardship on the applicant: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zoning district and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on him because it would force him out of business. E. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure: 3523 Granting of these variances is the minimum variances that would make possible the reasonable use of the land and building. It would be impossible to operate this business and upgrade the exterior if these variances are not granted. By granting these variances, you are allowing this business to be upgraded with exterior finish and landscaping which will better fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. F.That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the .~ area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare: Granting there variances Will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this chapter and that these variances will not be injurious to the area but an asset to the area. This business will not be a detriment to the neighborhood but the opposite, it will be an asset to the community. 3524 EXHIBIT "D" - : Conditions of Approval Project name: Gateway Texaco File number: Driveways ZNCV 03-010, 03-011 and 03-012 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DMSION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None 3525 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD Conditions sf Approval DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determ/ned. S:~Planning~SHARED\WP~PROJECTS\Gateway TexacoX~qCV 03-010-03-017,23,24\COA Driveways ZNCV 03-010, 03-011 and 03-012.doc i 3526 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION-OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Gateway Texaco APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 9 Northeast 6th Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 21, 2003 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Variances ZNCV 03-010, 03-011 and 03-012 Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.d. (1) requiring parking lot driveways to be located 120 feet from the intersection of the right-of-way lines along streets of higher classification to allow a 97-foot variance, result~g in a distance of 23 feet, and to allow a 88-foot variance for a second driveway, resulting in a distance of 32 feet from the intersection of Federal Highway and Las Palmas Avenue for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment; Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.d. (3) requiring that driveways shall not be located less than thirty (30) feet from any interior property line to allow a 10-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 20 feet for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment; Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.d. (4) requiring that driveways will be limited to one (1) per street frontage to allow two (2) driveways along the street frontage for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2360 North Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3527 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". 4. The P.?plicant's application, for relief i-: hereby ... GRANTED subject to the condit'ions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. ' DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other DATED: City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP~PROJ ECTS\Gateway Texaco~ZNCV 03-010-03-017,23,24\DO Driveways ZNVC 03-010, 03-011 and 03-0112.doc 3528 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION -' MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-23'1 STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency and City Commission THRU: Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Maxime Ducoste Planner DATE: September 29, 2003 PROJECT NAME/NO: Gateway Texaco Variances Building setback variance ZNCV 03-013 REQUEST: Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. (3) requiring a twenty (20)foot rear setback to allow a 10-foot variance, resulting in a rear setback of 10 feet for an addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' Property Owner: SUAU Enterprises Applicant/Agent: Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Consultants Location: 2360 N. Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL Existing Land Use/Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3)/Local Retail Commercial (LRC) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: 681 square foot addition to gasoline dispensing establishment (limited to a maximum of 600 square feet by Condition of Approval for appeal - ADAP 02-001). Acreage: 0.48 Acre (20,830 square feet) Adjacent Uses: (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map) North: Multi-family residential property, zoned Community Commercial (C-3); South: Right-of-way for Las Palmas Avenue, and farther south are single-family attached townhouses under construction (The Harbors), zoned Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD); East: Vacant commercial lot zoned Community Commercial (C-3) currently under review for a proposed car wash, and farther east is a single-family residential dwelling (part .of Las Palmas development), zo~Single-family residential, (R-l-AA); and Staff. Report Memo;-3ndum No PZ-03-231 ?age 2 West: Rights-of-way of U.S. 1 and the Florida East Coast Railroad, and farther west developed commercial property classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). BACKGROUND Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants, agent for SUAU Enterprises Incorporated, is requesting conditional use/major site plan modification approval to construct a 681 square foot addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. In addition, the applicant is proposing new parking spaces, a new access drive that would lead to the property directly to the east, and a general "make-over" of the exterior facades of the gasoline station .building and canopy. The number of gasoline pump islands and fueling positions would remain unaltered. The proposed 681 square foot addition to the gas station is considered as a conditional use in the C-3 zoning district. Also, the gas-station is a legal non-conforming use because it does not comply with Chapter 2, Section 11.L.3.a.(2) due to the fact that gas stations may only be located at intersections "consisting of roads of four (4) lanes or wider". Eadier last year, Mr. Beril Kruger, acting.on behalf of Mr. Zuhair Marouf, expressed a desire to construct a building addition t° the existing gas station, in part, to satisfy outstanding code enforcement violations. He also proposed direct access between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east (which was earmarked for a mechanical car wash) in order to minimize vehicular traffic onto Las Palmas Avenue. These inquiries were based on the presumption that the proposed addition would be allowed and that direct access would only require site plan review. However, after careful consideration, staff determined that the addition would not be permitted because it would represent an unlawful expansion of a non-conforming (a gasoline- dispensing establishment). To answer Mr. Kruger's inquiries, on July 16, 2002, the Director of Planning & Zoning issued an administrative determination letter that basically prohibited the applicant from increasing the size of the gas- station building because doing it would constitute a violation of Chapter 2, Sections D and G of the Land Development Regulations. Regarding the direct access between lots, the Director determined that the proposed driveway connection between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east could be permitted. However, the direct access would only be allowed contingent upon the recordation of a legally binding cross-access agreement. On July 31, 2002, Mr. Kruger addressed a letter requesting a formal appeal of the aforementioned administrative determination. According to the staff report, "in summary, the appeal justifies the proposed expansion by the position that retail sales at this business is a separate component from the non- conforming aspect-gasoline sales, which component can therefore be altered / expanded independent of the gasoline sales element of the business. Staff disagreed with the applicant's position. The City Commission approved the appeal with the condition that the expansion would be limited to 600 square feet. Therefore, this major site plan modification and accompanying variance requests represent the applicant's continuing effort to construct a building addition and mechanical car wash on the abutting property (see Exhibit "B" - Site Plan and Survey). If approved, the construction of the addition, parking lot, and fa(;ade improvements would occur in one (1) phase. ANALYSIS The code states that the zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the board finds the following: 3530 a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the 'same zoning Staff Report Memorandurn No PZ-03-231 Page 3 district. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. c. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the appficant of fights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district underthe terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. e. ~, That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. f. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff conducted the analysis 'focusing on the applicant's response to the above criteria contained in Exhibit "C", which require the request be initiated by special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the subject land, structure, or building, which are not the result of the actions of the applicant, and that the request is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The subject request has been initiated in preparation for the construction of an addition to the existing gas station business. The applicant desires to build along the rear of the original building leaving all mechanical equipment in their existing location, which forces the encroachment into the rear seatback. The stepping back of the addition from the rear of the existing structure to accommodate the mechanical equipment has generated the circumstances. The subject property has been improved with a gas station business, and occupied since 1965. The fact that the applicant has the ability to construct at the appropriate setback line clearly demonstrates that, criteria items "a" and "c" are not met. Further, since the necessity for the vadance has been caused by the proposed addition, condition "b" above is also not satisfied. The overall objective of the Land Development Regulations is to insure the welfare and safety of the public by providing regulations and standards in which to achieve consistent equitable developments. The proposed addition would setback approximately ten (10) feet from the rear property line, half of the distance required by code. Furthermore, notwithstanding interior layout and design objectives, there currently exists nearly 34 feet of depth to the rear property line when measured from the deepest dimension from the existing rear fa(;ade. The expansion could be as deep as 14 feet, and extend over 50 feet in length without encroaching into the rear setback, if the mechanical equipment was relocated. To further support the potential for the expansion to be designed to comply with setbacks is the existing requirement that it be reduced in size to comply with the condition for approval of the administrative appeal. The granting of this variance would be an acknowledgement that there exists no alternative in either the structure size or location. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION 353! Based on a strict interpretation of the vadance criteria, Staff recommends that the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. (3), requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet for a gasoline dispensing establishment within the C-3 zoning district, to allow for a variance of 10 feet, and a rear yard setback of 10 feet be denied, due to the lack of hardship, and due to the circumstance being created by the actions of the applicant. Staff Report Memerandurn No PZ-03-231 Page 4 Staff should indicate that past variance requests have been reviewed by the city using more than the "traditional" criteria, or interpretations of this criteria placing greater emphasis on other associated characteristics. Should the Board or Commission desire to approve this request, the following factors should be considered before rendering a final decision: 1. The variance request is for the construction of an addition to a existing gasoline dispensing establishment; 2. The location of the proposed addition, which is located at the rear of the subject property; 3. The immediate parcel to the east is proposed to be developed as a car wash; 4. Staff has not received any objections from adjacent property owners regarding the subject variance request. Should the subject request be approved, Staff is recommending that the addition be limited to a maximum of 600 square feet as prescibed by condition of approval for appeal ADAP 02-001. Any additional conditions of approval added bythe Community Redevelopment Agency Board or the City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval. MWR/MD S:\Planning~SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Gateway Texa~o~ZNCV 03-010 thru 03-017, 023, 024 ~STAFF REP ZNCV 03-013 Building Setback.doc 3532 Location Map .×,,.,~.,~.. Gai~way Texaco ~SITE ~. . '"" I )IPUD R3 ~~~¢ REC R3 REC / 3533 EXHIBIT ,"B" .I -'~1 ' :"-'- ;~ 1 ;~ '.._.__ ! .~~~.._.._ ~ ' ,'~ c. ? . ~ ~ / 4.--'-,- .J-~,J ,7 ~ It ':-: ". "- ~' i - ~ I ~ "T ~'"'"., 4 ~ ,-, ~ · I :i // , II ;. ;,,.' ..-, ,/ ~.!/, ~ ,~r.--.q., ~ .I I0 I ! lit/ . .... ~.j ; r- ', .... : > ! j~ ...... :.;Z'.-:~, = !> ;j~? ~ '"~ (17. CONDI¥tONS STATEMENT OF SPECIAL CONDI¥1ONS A. That~/~cl=,~-':~ '-~ conditions and circumstances exist which' ' are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district: There are special conditions and circumstances which exist and are peculiar to the lanc~ in this case. The 9as station is existing and the only renovation to the pro'~erty and building is to upgrade the exterior with new fascia, colors, landscaping, and textures so to make the 9as station fit in with the neighborhood. The property is not big enough to place the driveways the proper distance from the intersection nor to move the gas islands or canopy. The number of driveways must remain due to the location of the fuel filling ports which the gasoline tankers must unload, there would not be enough room for them to leave the property with fewer drives. B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant: Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant because he bought the property as it is. He is just trying to upgrade the exterior and landscaping to fit in with the changing neighborhood. C. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district: Granting these variances will not confer any special privileges that are denied by this ordinance to other lands within the same zoning district. D. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undo hardship on the applicant: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zoning district and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on him because it would force him out of business. E. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure: 3536 ,' ....... ' EXHIBIT "C Granting of these variances is the minimum variances that would make possible the reasonable use of the land and building. It would be impossible to operate this business and upgrade the exterior if these variances are not granted. By granting these variances, you are allowing this business to be upgraded with exterior finish and landscaping which will better fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. F. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the :., area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare: Granting there variances will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this chapter and that these variances will not be injurious to the area but an asset to the area. This business will not be a detriment to the neighborhood but the opposite, it will be an asset to the community. 3537 EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of Approval Project name: Gateway Texaco File number: ZNCV 03-013 Building Setback Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None ,. PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None 3 53 8 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD Conditions of Approval DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT CONDITIONS Comments: 1, To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDIT. IONS Comments: 1. To be determined. SSPIanning~SHARED\WPXPROJECTS\Gateway Texaco~'4CV 03-010-03-017,23,24\COA Building setback ZNCV 03-013.doc 3539 DEVELOPMENT ORDER oF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Gateway Texaco APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants APPL CANT'S ADDRESS: 9 Northeast 6th Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 21, 2003 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Building setback ZNCV 03-013 Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. (3) requiring a twenty (20) foot rear setback to allow a 10-foot variance, resulting in a rear setback of 10 feet for an addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. LOCAI'ION OF PROPERTY: 2360 North Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as fOllows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other DATED: City Clerk DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING. AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-232 STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency and City Commission THRU: Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Maxime Ducoste Planner DATE: September 29, 2003 PROJECT NAME/NO: Gateway Texaco Variances Canopy and Gasoline pump islands setback variances ZNCV 03-014 and 03-015 REQUEST: Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. (a) requiring that no canopy shall be located less than twenty (20) feet from any property line to allow a 10.5-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 9.5 feet for an existing canopy for a gasoline dispensing establishment; Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. (b) requiring that no gasoline pump island shall be located less than thirty (30) feet from any property line to allow a 10,2-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 19.8 feet for an existing gasoline pump island for a gasoline dispensing establishment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: SUAU Enterprises Applicant/Agent: Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Consultants Location: 2360 N. Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL Existing Land Use/Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3)/Local Retail Commercial (LRC) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: 681 square foot addition to gasoline dispensing establishment (limited to a maximum of 600 square feet by Condition of Approval for appeal - ADAP 02-001). Acreage: 0.48 Acre (20,830 square feet) Adjacent Uses: (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map) 3541 North: A multi-family residential property, zoned Community Commercial (C-3); Staff Report Mernor~'~durn No PZ-03-232 Page 2 South: Right-of-way for Las Palmas Avenue, and farther south are single-family attached townhouses under construction (The Harbors), zoned Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD); East: Vacant commercial lot zoned Community Commercial (C-3) currently under review for a proposed car wash, and farther east is a single-family residential dwelling (part of Las Palmas development), zoned Single-family residential, (R-I-AA); and West: Rights-of-way of U.S. 1 and the Florida East Coast Railroad, and farther west developed commercial property classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and ~, zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). BACKGROUND Mr. Beril Kruger ef Bedl Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants, agent for SUAU Enterprises Incorporated, is requesting conditional use / major site plan modification approval to construct a 681 square foot addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. In addition, the applicant is proposing new parking spaces, a new access drive that would lead to the property directly to the east, and a general "make-over" of the exterior facades of the gasoline station building and canopy. The number of gasoline pump islands and fueling positions would remain unaltered. The proposed 681 square foot addition to the gas station is considered as a conditional use in the C-3 zoning district. Also, the gas-station is a legal non-conforming use because it does not comply with Chapter 2, Section 11 .L.3.a.(2) due to the fact that gas stations may only be located at intersections "consisting of roads of four (4) lanes or wider". Eadier last year, Mr. Beril Kruger, acting on behalf of Mr. Zuhair Marouf, expressed a desire to construct a building addition to the existing gas station, in part, to satisfy outstanding code enforcement violations. He also proposed direct access between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east (which was earmarked for a mechanical car wash) in order to minimize vehicular traffic onto Las Palmas Avenue. These inquiries were based on the presumption that the proposed addition would be allowed and that direct access would only require site plan review. However, after careful consideration, staff determined that the addition would not be permitted because it would represent an unlawful expansion of a non-conforming (a gasoline- dispensing establishment). To answer Mr. Kruger's inquiries, on July 16, 2002, the Director of Planning & Zoning issued an administrative determination letter that basically prohibited the applicant from increasing the size of the gas- station building because doing it would constitute a violation of Chapter 2, Sections D and G of the Land Development Regulations. Regarding the direct access between lots, the Director determined that the proposed ddveway connection between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east could be permitted. However, the direct access would only be allowed contingent upon the recordation of a legally binding cross-access agreement. On July 31, 2002, Mr. Kruger addressed a letter requesting a formal appeal of the aforementioned administrative determination. According to the staff report, "in summary, the appeal justifies the proposed expansion by the position .that retail sales at this business is a separate component from the non- conforming aspect-gasoline sales, which component can therefore be altered / expanded independent of the gasoline sales element of the business. The applicant disagreed with the applicant's position. The City Commission approved the appeal with the condition that the expansion would be limited to 600 square feet. Therefore, this major site plan modification and accompanying variance requests represent the applicant's continuing effort to construct a building addition and mechanical car wash on the abutting property (see Exhibit "B" - Site Plan and Survey). If approved, ~IL;onstruction of the addition, parking lot, and fa(;ade Staff Report Memorandum No PZ-03-232 Page 3 £ improvements would occur in one (1) phase. ANALYSIS The code states that the'Zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the board finds the following: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. c. ', That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district underthe terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that wi#make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. f. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staffconducted the analysis focusing on the applicant's response to the above criteda contained in Exhibit "C", which require the request be initiated by special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the subject land, structure, or building, which are not the result of the actions of the applicant, and that the request is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The subject request has been initiated in preparation for the construction of an addition to the existing gas station business. The applicant desires to maintain the existing canopy and gasoline pump islands at their current location, which do not conform to current setback requirements. The subject property has been improved with a gas station business, and occupied since 1965. In order to meet minimum setbacks, the canopy and gasoline pump islands would have to be relocated, which may be cost prohibitive or significantly impact the business operation due to site constraints. Understanding that the structures exist and the subject requests represent the minimum variances that will make reasonable use of an existing gasoline dispensing establishment, and will not be injurious to the areal criteda items "e" and "fl' appear to be supported by the variance request. The overall objective of the Land Development Regulations is to insure the welfare and safety of the public by providing regulations and standards in which to achieve consistent equitable developments. Staff understands that the proposed requests represent a modest distance to sustain existence of components necessary and integral to the functions of the applicant's business. Although the pump island setback is in part related to life safety, with physical barriers between the pumps and adjacent right-of-way, and modern shut-off equipment, staff cannot measure the decrease, if any, in safety as a result of the pumps being approximately 10 feet closer to the right-of, way than allowed by code. 3543 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis contained herein, Staff recommends that the requested variances be approved. Staff Report ' Memorandum Ne PZ-03-232 Page 4 No conditions of approval are recommended; however, any conditions of approval added bythe Community Redevelopment Agency Board or the City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval. MWPJMD S:\Planning\$HARED\WI:APROJECTS~Gateway Texaco~ZNCV 03-010 thru 03-017, 023, 024 \STAFF REP ZNCV 03-014 and 03-015 Canopy and gasoline pump island setback.doc 3544 Location Map Gat y - ewa I exaco I CONDITIONS STATEMENT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. T,hat special ccnditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district: There are special conditions and circumstances which exist and are peculiar to the land` in this case. The gas station is existing and the only renovation to the pr°'~oerty and building is to upgrade the exterior Nvith new fascia, colors, landscaping, and textures so to make the gas station fit in with the neighborhood. The property is not big enough to place the driveways the proper distance from the intersection nor to move the gas islands or canopy. The number of driveways must remain due to the location of the fuel filling ports which the gasoline tankers must unload, there would not be enough room for them to leave the property with fewer drives. B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant: Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant because he bought the property as it is. He is just trying to upgrade the exterior and landscaping to fit in with the changing neighborhood. C. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district: Granting these variances will not confer any special privileges that are denied by this ordinance to other lands within the same zoning district. D. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undo hardship on the applicant: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zoning district and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on him because it would force him out of business. E. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure' 3548 'EXHIBIT C Granting of these variances is the minimum variances that would make possible the reasonable use of the land and building. It would be impossible to operate this business and upgrade the exterior if these variances are not granted. By granting these variances, you are allowing this business to be upgraded with exterior finish and landscaping which will better fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. F. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the :., area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare: Granting there variances will be in harfhbny With the intent and purpose of this chapter and that these variances will not be injurious to the area but an asset to the area. This business will not be a detriment to the neighborhood but the opposite, it will be an asset to the community. 3549 EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of Approval Project name: Gateway Texaco File number: Canopy and gasoline pump islands setback ZNCV 03-014 and 03-015 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None 3550 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD Conditions of Approval DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. S APlanning\SHARED\WP~PROJECTS\Gateway Texaco~'NCV 03-010-03-017,23,24\COA Canopy and Gasoline pump islands ZNCV 03-014 and 03- 015.doc 3551 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE · CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Gateway Texaco APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 9 Northeast 6th Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 21, 2003 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Canopy and gasoline pump islands ZNCV 03-014 and 03-014 Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. (a) requiring that no canopy shall be located less than twenty (20) feet from any property line to allow a 10.5-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 9.5 feet for an existing canopy for a gasoline dispensing establishment; Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.e. (b) requiring that no gasoline pump island shall be located less than thirty (30) feet from any property line to allow a 10.2-foot variance, resulting in a distance of 19.8 feet for an existing gasoline pump island for a gasoline dispensing establishment. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2360 North Federal Highway Boynton BeaCh, FL DRAWING{S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" A'I-i'ACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediatel~bc~n issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditinns of thi.~ nrder. 7. Other ' DA~ED: City Clerk S:~lanning\SHARED\WP~PROJECT$\Gateway Texaco~.NCV 03-010-03..017,23,24\DO Canopy and gasoline pump island ZNCV 03-014 and 03-015.doc 3553 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION " MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-233 STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency and City Commission THRU: Michael W. Rumpf'~?~''' Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Maxime Ducoste Planner DATE: September 29, 2003 PROJECT NAME/NO: Gateway Texaco Variances Landscape buffers ZNCV 03-016 and 03-017 REQUEST: Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 1'1, Supplemental Regulations L.3.f. (1) requiring a ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer along the street frontage and to include one tree ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet in height with a minimum three-inch caliper every forty (40) feet, a continuous hedge twenty-four (24) inches high, twenty-four (24) inches on center at time of planting with flowering groundcover to allow a variance of 10 feet, resulting in a zero (0) landscape buffer along the street frontage for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment; Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.f. (2)(a) requiring a ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer on all interior property lines to allow a vadance of 5 feet, resulting in a five (5) foot buffer for an existing gas dispensing establishment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: SUAU Enterprises Applicant/Agent: Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Consultants Location: 2360 N. Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL Existing Land Use/Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3)/Local Retail Commercial (LRC) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: 681 square foot addition to gasoline dispensing establishment (limited to a · maximum of 600 square feet by Condition of Approval for appeal - ADAP 02-0..01). Acreage: 0.48 Acre (20,830 square feet) Adjacent Uses: (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map) 3554 Staff Repo~ Memorandum No PZ-03-233 Page 2 North: A multi-family residential property, zoned Community Commercial (C-3); South: Right-of-way for Las Palmas Avenue, and farther south are single-family attached townhouses under construction (The Harbors), zoned Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD); East: Vacant commercial lot zoned Community Commercial (C-3) currently under review for a proposed car wash, and farther east is a single-family residential dwelling (part of Las Palmas development), zoned Single-family residential, (R-I-AA); and ~, West: Rights-of-way of U.S. 1 and the Florida East Coast Railroad, and farther west developed commercial property classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). BACKGROUND Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants, agent for SUAU Enterprises Incorporated, is requesting conditional use / major site plan modification approval to construct a 681 square foot addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. In addition, the applicant is proposing new parking spaces, a new access drive that would lead to the property directly to the east, and a general "make-over" of the exterior facades of the gasoline station building and canopy. The number of gasoline pump islands and fueling positions would remain unaltered. The proposed 681 square foot addition to the gas station is considered as a conditional use in the C-3 zoning district. Also, the gas-station is a legal non-conforming use because it does not complywith Chapter 2, Section 11 .L.3.a.(2) due to the fact that gas stations may only be located at intersections "consisting of roads of four (4) lanes or wider". Earlier last year, Mr. Beril Kruger, acting on behalf of Mr. Zuhair Marouf, expressed a desire to construct a building addition to the existing gas station, in part, to satisfy outstanding code enforcement violations. He also proposed direct access between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east (which was earmarked for a mechanical car wash)in order to minimize vehicular traffic, onto Las Palmas Avenue. These inquiries were based on the presumption that the proposed addition would be allowed and that direct access would only require site plan review. However, after careful consideration, staff determined that the addition would not be permitted because it would represent an unlawful expansion of a non-conforming (a gasoline- dispensing establishment). To answer Mr. Kruger's inquiries, on July 16, 2002, the Director of Planning & Zoning issued an administrative determination letter that basically prohibited the applicant from increasing the size of the gas- station building because doing it would constitute a violation of Chapter 2, Sections D and G of the Land Development Regulations. Regarding the direct access between lots, the Director determined that the proposed driveway connection between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east could be permitted. However, the direct access would only be allowed contingent upon the recordation of a legally binding cross-access agreement. On July 31, 2002, Mr. Kruger addressed a letter requesting a forr~al appeal of the aforementioned administrative determination. According to the staff report, "in summary, the appeal justifies the proposed expansion by the position that retail sales at this business is a separate component from the non- conforming aspect-gasoline sales, which component can therefore be altered / expanded independent of the gasoline sales element of the bdsiness. The applicant disagreed with the applicant's position. The City Commission approved the appeal with the condition that the expansion would be limited to 600 square feet. Therefore, this major site plan modification and acc~o, rp. panying variance requests represent the applicant's Staff Report Memorandum No PZ-03-233 Page 3 continuing effort to construct a building addition and mechanical car wash on the abutting property (see Exhibit "B" - Site Plan and Survey). If approved, the construction of the addition, parking lot, and fa(;ade improvements would occur in one (1) phase. ANALYSIS The code states that the zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the board finds the following: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not app#cable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. b.'., That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the appficant. c. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. d. That fiteral interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the appficant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district underthe terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. f. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff has conducted this analysis with the assumption that, based on the city's prior approval of the administrative appeal acknowledging the increase in intensity of this non-conforming use, that the city is aware of the potential of certain hardships and non-conformities associated with the site. Staff has focussed this review based on the applicant's response to the above criteria contained in Exhibit "C", which require the request be initiated by special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the subject land, structure, or building, which are not the result of the actions of the applicant, and that the request is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The subject request has been initiated in preparation for the construction of an addition to the existing gas station business. The applicant desires relief from the required landscape buffer along the front (North Federal Highway) and the interior (north) property lines of the subject property, since they do not exist on the already confined site. The subject property has been improved with a gas station business, and occupied since 1965. In order to meet the landscape buffer as required by code, the applicant would need additional linear footage along North Federal Highway or to eliminate the existing first two (2) gasoline pump islands. This scenario would likely be cost prohibitive or significantly impact business operation. Understanding that site layout is existing and cannot easily be altered without significantly impacts to the business operation the requests represent the minimum variances that will make reasonable use of an existing gasoline dispensing establishment and will not be injurious to the area. Therefore, cdteria items "e" and "f" appear to be supported by the variance request. 3556 The overall objective of the Land Development Regulations is to insure the welfare and safety of the public by providing regulations and standards in which to achieve consistent equitable developments. The intent of the landscape buffer is to visually screen the vehicular use from the adjacent properties and right-of-way. Staff Report Iv~-'.morandum No PZ-03-233 Page 4 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis contained herein, Staff recommends that the requested variances be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Providing a substitute form of screening of the site along North Federal Highway where possible such as planter pots or boxes. However, any additional conditions of approval added by the Community Redevelopment Agency Board or the City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval. MWPJMD S:~Planning\SHARED~WP~PROJECTS\Gateway Texaco~.NCV 03-010 thru 03-017, 023, 024 \STAFF REP ZNCV 03-016 and 03-017 Landscape buffers.doc 3557 Location IVlap GatoWay Texaco / / SITE P IPUD R3 '~~~ REC R3 REC EXHIBIT :"B" ' Ii [.:~i -":-'-<: [ ............... ,= -s - ;-'~..::~;i; i ,:~ --:'?_-'..'.:,~;::,:~..!~;'-.~': -~_.'~-- ~ . --':':- ' ? .~ 5 0 L' N 2 U. "-'-/ I i ~ T"~ .--~---~..~ ,~ ,. u. I . '~ /,'l ,.~/.,,// ~/...' .;- ~'~""-;'--------~--,--'~ =.-= .... i = t~;' :~:' - -/ ///",i ,'.//,~ '-~ ....... ./ ,;- , iii !¢ *,.., ~, , . ~, ,. ., ~,: ~' - , , ,,,,.; ! ¢ ¢ -,. ,,.:,- / ., ,,,, .~.._ '-'u ~..__,// / /i ,'. ~---4L Ill ";"iii' l~ '- ,',t, "; ' ', - , ," i' -;~ . ~. - ~,-I , t.' J I : o : I :'--/'-~~.; x,, ../ .... ,.. :'""i_il ! I ' ' " '~.,-'"'- ,' , ,," ," , -----'~--="" ""- I~ ~ i '~-~ ! ~"-I /'. ! FF , Il!fl -- !'"'' , , I. .¢~ l;~i ;~ ] j ~ / ..___. - ...... ~ ' ' ' ti! i! ' I 'x ~ 'k2 i ~. ' >i / ~, ~-"--~ "~-~'~: · ~/ r- i i / -' ~ xXl...'~ ' ,- ' "£ ~ , ~' "~---- '" '":~ ~"~'" >,. I I i -= ? ,x ¥.:;-..~ · . , . ! ~ ~ :.,....:,:.,:~:.:.:..,:-:.. i . z~ °": lC! J ?' '--' '=Ill ~ s'-_j: · · ;ill ~ / i L '. .... EXHIBIT "r', CONDITIONS STATEMENT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS A That seecial ccndi::~ ,~.,s and circumstances exist which ere ~eculiar to the la,~ structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district' There are special conditions and circumstances which exist and are peculiar to the land, in this case. The gas station is existing and the only renovation to the pro'~erty and building is to upgrade the exterior with new fascia, colors, landscaping, and textures so to make the gas station fit in with the neighborhood. The property is not big enough to place the driveways the proper distance from the intersection nor to move the gas islands or canopy. The number of driveways must remain due to the location of the fuel filling ports which the gasoline tankers must unload, there would not be enough room for them to leave the property with fewer drives. B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant: Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant because he bought the property as it is. He is just trying to upgrade the exterior and landscaping to fit in with the changing neighborhood. C. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district: Granting these variances will not confer any special privileges that are denied by this ordinance to other lands within the same zoning district. D. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undo hardship on the applicant: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zoning district and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on him because it would force him out of business. E. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure' 3561 EXHIBIT "C Granting of these variances is the minimum variances that would make possible the reasonable use of the land and building. It would be impossible to operate this business and upgrade the exterior if these variances are not granted. By granting these variances, you are allowing this business to be upgraded with exterior finish and landscaping which will better fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. F. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent '~ and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the ,, area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare: · Granting there variances will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this chapter and that these variances will not be injurious to the area but an asset to the area. This business will not be a detriment to the neighborhood but the opposite, it will be an asset to the community. 3562 EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of' Approval Project name: Gateway Texaco File number: Landscape buffers ZNCV 03-016 and 03-017 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 3563 1. Providing a substitute form of screening of the site along North Federal Highway where possible such as planter pots or boxes. Cond.itk~ns of Approval .' DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. S APlanning\SHARED\WPkPKOJECTS\Gateway Tcxaco~ZNCV 03-010-03-017,23,24\COA Landscape buffers ZN'CV 03-016 and 03-017.doc 3564 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Gateway Texaco APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 9 Northeast 6th Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 21, 2003 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Landscape buffers ZNCV 03-016 and 03-017 Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.f. (1) requiring a ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer along the street frontage and to include one tree ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet in height with a minimum three-inch caliper every,forty (40) feet, a continuous hedge twenty-four (24) inches high, twenty-four (24) inches on center at time of planting with flowering groundcover to allow a variance of 10 feet, resulting in a zero (0) landscape buffer along the street frontage for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment; Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations L.3.f. (2)(a) requiring a ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer on all intedor property lines to allow a variance of 5 feet, resulting in a five (5) foot buffer for an existing gas dispensing establishment. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2360 North Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida 'appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. ~ DENIED 3565 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other DATED: City Clerk S:\Planningt, SHARED~WP~PROJECTS~,Gateway Texaco~NCV 03-010-03-017,23,24'~DO Landscape buffers ZNCV 03-016 and 03-017,doc 3566 DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-234 STAFF REPORT TO' Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency and City Commission THRU: Michael W. Rumpf ~'~.Lv'~'~ Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Maxime Ducoste Planner ~' DATE: September 29, 2003 PROJECT NAME/NO: Gateway Texaco Variances Sign setback ZNCV 03-023 REQUEST: Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 21, Signs, Article II1. Section 5 requiring all signs must meet a minimum ten (10) foot setback from the property line to the closest surface of the sign to allow a five (5) foot variance from the property line, resulting in five (5) foot setback for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: SUAU Enterprises Applicant/Agent: Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Consultants Location: · 2360 N. Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL Existing Land Use/Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3)/Local Retail Commercial (LRC) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: 681 square foot addition to gasoline dispensing establishment (limited to a maximum of 600 square feet by Condition of Approval for appeal-ADAP 02- 001). Acreage: 0.48 Acre (20,830 square feet) Adjacent Uses: (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map) North: A multi-family residential property, zoned Community Commercial (C-3); South: Right-of-way for Las Palmas Avenue, and farther south are single-family attached townhouses under construction (The Harbors), zoned Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD); East: Vacant commercial lot zoned Community Commercial (C-3) currently under review for a proposed car wash, and farther east is a single-family residential dwelling (par'[ of Las Palmas development), zoned 3S:~le-family residential, (R-I-AA); and Staff Report Memorandum No PZ-03-234 Page 2 West: Rights-of-way of U.S. 1 and the Florida East Coast Railroad, and farther west developed commercial property classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). BACKGROUND Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants, agent for SUAU Enterprises Incorporated, is requesting conditional use / major site plan modification approval to construct a 681 square foot addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. In addition, the applicant is proposing new parking spaces, a new access drive that would lead to the property directly to the east, and a general "make-over" of the extedor facades of the gasoline station building and canopy. The number of gasoline pump islands and fueling positions would remain unaltered. The proposed 681 square foot addition to the gas station is considered as a conditional use in the C-3 zoning district. Also, the gas-station is a legal non-conforming use because it does not comply with Chapter 2, Section 11 .L.3.a.(2) due to the fact that gas stations may only be located at intersections "consisting of roads of four (4) lanes or wider". Earlier last year, Mr. Bedl Kruger, acting on behalf of Mr. Zuhair Marouf, expressed a desire to construct a building addition to the existing gas station, in part, to satisfy outstanding code enforcement violations. He also proposed direct access between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east (which was earmarked for a mechanical car wash)in order to minimize vehicular traffic onto Las Palmas Avenue. These inquiries were based on the presumption that the proposed addition would be allowed and that direct access would only require site plan review. However, after careful consideration, staff determined that the addition would not be permitted because it would represent an unlawful expansion of a non-conforming (a gasoline-dispensing establishment). To answer Mr. Kruger's inquiries, on July 16, 2002, the Director of Planning & Zoning issued an administrative determination letter that basically prohibited the applicant from increasing the size of the gas- station building because doing it would constitute a violation of Chapter 2, Sections D and G of the Land Development Regulations. Regarding' the direct access between lots, the Director determined that the proposed driveway connection between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east could be permitted. However, the direct access would only be allowed contingent upon the recordation of a legally binding cross- access agreement. On July 31, 2002, Mr. Kruger addressed a letter requesting a formal appeal of the aforementioned administrative determination. According to the staff report, "in summary, the appeal justifies the proposed expansion by the position that retail sales at this business is a separate component from the non-conforming aspect-gasoline sales, which component can therefore be altered / expanded independent of the gasoline sales element of the business. The applicant disagreed with the applicant's position. The City Commission approved the appeal with the condition that the expansion would be limited to 600 square feet. Therefore, this major site plan modification and accompanying variance requests represent the applicant's continuing effort to construct a building addition and mechanical car wash on the abutting property (see Exhibit"B"- Site Plan and Survey). If approved, the construction of the addition, parking lot, and facade improvements would occur in one (1) phase. ANALYSIS 3568 The code states that the zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the board finds the following: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other/ands, structures or buildings in the same zoning Staff Report Memorandum No PZ-03-234 Page 3 district. b. That the specia/ conditions and circumstances do not resu/t from the actions of the app/icant. c. That granting the variance requested wi//not confer on the app/icant any specia/ privi/ege that is denied by this ordinance to other/ands, bui/dings, or structures in the same zoning district. d. That/itera/interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance wou/d deprive the app/icant of rights common/y enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance and wou/d work unnecessary and undue hardship on the app/icant. e. ';l'hat the variance granted is the minimum variance that wi//make possib/e the reasonab/e use of the /and, bui/ding, or structure. f. That the grantingof the variance wi//be in harmony with the genera/intent and purpose of this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance wi//not be injurious to the area invo/ved or otherwise detriments~ to the pub~lc we/fare. Staff has conducted this analysis on with the assumption that 'based on the city's prior approval of the administrative appeal regarding the increase in intensity of this non-conforming use, that the city has acknowledged the potential for revealing certain hardships and non-conformities to. the site. Also, the analysis focused on the applicant's response to the above criteda contained in Exhibit "C", which require that the request is initiated by special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the subject land, structure, or building, which are not the result of the actions of the applicant, and that the request is the minimum vadance that will make possible the reasonable use of the structure.. The subject request has been initiated in preparation for the construction of an addition to the existing gas station business, which represents a major site plan modification. Through this process every aspect of the project is reviewed for compliance, if a requirement cannot be met, relief from the code may be required. As such, the applicant desires to maintain a freestanding sign at its existing location. The subject property has been improved with a gas station business, and occupied since 1965. Staff reviewed the site and determined that the request for a sign setback variance of five (5) feet may not represent the minimum variance necessary to maintain the site sign on the property. Staff acknowledged that the applicant could meet the sign setback as required by code. The sign can be move an additional five (5) feet to the east and two (2) feet to the north while maintaining the same orientation, and without interfering with the vehicular use area for the station. This scenario would meet both the code and maintain the same visibility for the applicant's business. Understanding that the subject request does not represent the minimum variance that will make reasonable use of the structure, criteria item "e" is not met. The overall objective of the Land Development Regulations is to insure the welfare and safety of the public by providing regulations and standards in which to achieve consistent equitable developments. The intent of the sign setback is to provide reasonable visibility for a sign without interfering with visibility along a right-of-way. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION 3569 Based on the analysis contained herein, Staff recommends that the requested variance be denied, due to the lack of hardship, and due to the avoidable circumstance being created by the actions of the applicant. However, if approved any conditions of approval added by the Community Redevelopment Agency Board or .se City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval. MD/MWR S;~Plannin¢SHARED~WPU'ROJECTS~Gate,,,,y Te~co~.NCV 03.010 th,~ 03.017. 023. 024 ,,STAFF REP ZNCV 03.023 Sign setback.doc Location E~, ~,, ! Gateway Texaco ~ EXHi~.i~' 'A" / ~$1TE ~ IPUD 3570 " : . i-"": EXHIBIT ,C' 7"-.,.'ATEIV ENT' OF SP C!AL CONDITIONS STATEMENT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. That special ccnditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district: There are special conditions and circumstances which exist and are peculiar to the lan~, in this case. The gas station is existing and the only renovation to the pro'party and building is to upgrade the exterior with new fascia, colors, landscaping, and textures so to make the gas station fit in with the neighborhood. The property is not big enough to place the driveways the proper distance from the intersection nor to move the gas islands or canopy. The number of driveways must remain due to the location of the fuel filling ports which the gasoline tankers must unload, there would not be enough room for them to leave the property with fewer drives. B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant' Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant because he bought the property as it is. He is just trying to upgrade the exterior and landscaping to fit in with the changing neighborhood. C. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district: Granting these variances will not confer any special privileges that are denied by this ordinance to other lands within the same zoning district. D. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the Ordinance and would 'work unnecessary and undo hardship on the applicant: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zoning district and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on him because it would force him out of business. E. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure: 3573 ,- ' :'"' EXHIBIT "C': Granting of these variances is the minimum variances that would make possible the reasonable use of the land and building. It would be impossible to operate this business and upgrade the exterior if these variances are not granted. By granting these variances, you are allowing this business to be upgraded with exterior finish and landscaping which will better fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. F.That the granting of the variance v/ill be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the ? area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare: Granting there variances will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this chapter and that these variances will not be injurious to the area but an asset to the area. This business will not be a detriment to the neighborhood but the opposite, it will be an asset to the community. 3574 EXHIBIT "D" Conditions of Approval Project name: Gateway Texaco File number: Sign setback ZNCV 03-023 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DMSION Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None 3575 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD CONDITIONS Conditions of Approval 2 ' ' DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT Comments: 1. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. S:kPlanning\SHARED\WP~PROJECTS\Gateway Texaco~NCV 03-010-03-017,23,24\COA Sign setback ZNCV 03-023.doc 3576 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Gateway Texaco APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 9 Northeast 6th Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 21, 2003 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Sign setback ZNCV 03-023 Relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 21, Signs, Article Ill. Section 5 requiring all signs must meet a minimum ten (10) foot setback from the property line to the closest surface of the sign to allow a five (5) foot variance from the property line, resulting in five (5) foot setback for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2360 North Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT"B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other 3577 DATED: City Clerk S:~Plann~ng\SHARED\WP~PROJECTS\Gateway Texaco~ZNCV 03-010-03-017,23,24\DO Sign setback ZNCV 03-023.doc DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-235 STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency and City Commission THRU: Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Maxime Ducoste Planner ~' DATE? September 29, 2003 PROJECT NAME/NO: Gateway Texaco Variances Vehicle encroachment ZNCV 03-024 REQUEST: Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Environmental Regulation, Article II Section 3, B. 4., to allow parked vehicles to encroach two and one-half (2.5) feet into the rear five (5) foot landscape buffer area required by code for an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Property Owner: SUAU Enterprises Applicant/Agent: Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Consultants Location: 2360 N. Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL Existing Land Use/Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3)/Local Retail Commercial (LRC) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: 681 square foot addition to gasoline dispensing establishment (limited to a maximum of 600 square feet by Condition of Approval for appeal -ADAP 02-001). Acreage: 0.48 Acre (20,830 square feet) Adjacent Uses: (see Exhibit "A"- Location Map) North: A multi-family residential property, zoned Community Commercial (C-3); South: Right-of-way for Las Palmas Avenue, and farther south are single-family attached townhouses under construction (The Harbors), zoned Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD); East: Vacant commercial lot zoned Community Commercial (C-3) currently under review for a proposed car wash, and farther east is a single-family residential dwelling (part of Las Palmas development), ~josr~l:l Single-family residential, (R-I-AA); and Staff Report Vehicle encroachment ZNCV 03-024 Memorandum No PZ-03-235 Page 2 West: Rights-of-way of U.S. 1 and the Florida East Coast Railroad, and farther west developed commercial property classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). BACKGROUND Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants, agent for SUAU Enterprises Incorporated, is requesting conditional use / major site plan modification approval to construct a 681 square foot addition to 'an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. In addition, the applicant is proposing new parking spaces, a new access drive that would lead to the property directly to the east, and a general "make-over" of the buildir~g facades of the gasoline station building and canopy. The number of gasoline pump islands and fueling positions would remain unaltered. T.he proposed 681 square foot addition to the gas station is considered as a conditional use in the in the C-3 zoning district. Also, the gas-station is a legal non-conforming use because it does not comply with Chapter 2, Section 11 .L.3.a.(2) because gas stations should only be located at intersections "consisting of roads of four (4) lanes or wider". Earlier last year, Mr. Beril Kruger, acting on behalf of Mr. Zuhair Marouf, expressed a desire to construct a building addition to the existing gas station, in part, to satisfy outstanding code enforcement violations. He also proposed direct access between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east (which was earmarked for the mechanical carwash) in order to avoid unnecessary vehicular traffic onto Las Palmas Road. These inquiries were based on the presumption that the proposed addition would be allowed and that direct access would only require site plan review. However, after careful consideration, staff determined that the addition would not be permitted because it would represent as an unlawful expansion in a non-conforming use (of a gasoline-dispensing establishment). To answer Mr. Kruger's inquiries, on July 16, 2002, the Director of Planning & Zoning issued an administrative determination letter that basically prohibited the applicant from increasing the size of the gas- station building because doing so would violate Chapter 2, Sections D and G of the Land Development Regulations. Regarding the direct access between lots, the Director determined that the proposed driveway connection between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east would be permitted. However, the direct access would only be allowed contingent upon the recordation of a legally binding cross-access agreement and that the Texaco site would have to brought into total compliance with the current Land Development Regulations. On July 31, 2002, Mr. Kruger addressed a letter requesting a formal appeal be processed to the aforementioned administrative determination. According to the staff report, "in summary, the appeal justifies the proposed expansion by the position that retail sales at this business is a separate component from the non-conforming aspect-gasoline sales, which component can therefore be altered / expanded independent of the gasoline sales element of the business. The applicant supports this position that retail sales is distinguishable from gas sales by the absence of other nearby convenience stores, and therefore, the high demand for convenience item sales at this location". Staff disagreed and recommended denial of Mr. Kruger's administrative appeal based on three (3) main points. Firstly, staff argued that the determination represented the position consistently communicated by staff and therefore, the consistent interpretation of clearly written Land Development Regulations. Secondly, the sale of gasoline is the principal use of the subject business, which is located on one parcel within a single structure, and therefore, cannot be viewed separate from accessory components such as retail sales. Lastly, the applicant did not prove that the expansion of the retail aspect of the business would have been mandatory for the continued operation of the principal use, and that if denied a hardship would have been imposed. The Community Redevelopment Agency voted concurred with staff but the City Commission voted in favor of the applicant with the condition that the expansion would be limited to 600 square f~j~St~gTherefore, this major site plan modification and Staff Report Vehicle encroachment ZNCV 03-024 Memorandum No PZ-03-235 Page 3 accompanying variance requests represent the applicant's continuing effort to construct a building addition and mechanical car wash on the abutting property (see Exhibit "B" - Site Plan and Survey). If approved, the construction of the addition, parking lot, and facade improvements would occur in one (1) phase. ANALYSIS The code states that the zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the board finds the following: a. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. b. ~ That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. c. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. d. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district underthe terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. f. That the grant ~f the var~ance wi~~ be in harm~ny with the genera~ intent and purp~se ~f this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff has conducted this analysis on with the assumption that based on the city's prior approval of the administrative appeal regarding the increase in intensity of this non-conforming use, that the city has acknowledged the potential for revealing certain hardships and non-conformities to the site. Also, the analysis focused on the applicant's response to the above criteria contained in Exhibit "C", which require that the request is initiated by special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the subject land, structure, or building, which are not the result of the actions of the applicant, and that the request is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the structure. The subject request has been initiated in preparation for the construction of an addition to the existing gas station business, which represents a major site plan modification. Through this process every aspect of the project is reviewed for compliance, if a requirement cannot be met, relief from the code may be required. The subject property has been improved with a gas station business, and occupied since 1965. Staff reviewed the site and determined that the request for a 2.5-foot encroachment represents the minimum variance necessary to maintain an additional parking space on the property. However, staff acknowledges that the encroachment is not supported by parking requirements and should therefore be eliminated. The required parking for a gasoline dispensing establishment is based on one (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. Based on this methodology, the proposed expansion, coupled with the floor area of the existing building would require 10 parking spaces. The applicant is providing 12 parking spaces. An option to meet code requirements would be to eliminate the easternmost parking space, thereby reducing the parking provided to 11 spaces, and avoiding the encroachment with the perimeter buffer. 3580 This scenario would meet both the code and still exceed parking requirements for the gasoline dispensing establishment. Understanding that the subject request does not represent the minimum variance that will make reasonable use of the structure, criteria item "e" is not met, Staff Report Vehicle encroachment ZNCV 03-024 Memorandum No PZ-03-235 Page 4 The overall objective of the Land Development Regulations is to insure the welfare and safety of the public by providing regulations and standards in which to aChieve consistent equitable developments. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis contained herein, Staff recommends that the requested variance be denied, and that the proposed eastermost angled parking space be eliminated. However, if approved any conditions of approval added bythe Community Redevelopment Agency Board orthe City Commission will be placed in the Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval. MD/MWR SSPlanning\SHARED',WFAPROJECTS\Gateway Texaco~ZNCV 03-010 thru 03-017, 023, 024 ~STAFF REP ZNCV 03-024 Vehicle encroachrnenl.doc 3581 Locatio_n Map EXHIE .~¥ "A" Gamwav i exaco / ~SITE R3 ~~~ REC Ill REC 3582 ~.EXHIBIT "B" I1! ,,.:~,,,,--,,,:,,~-::l.~,ii --., c-' ~-": '"-'"'-'*:'""':' " ~-;._ i!.. -, '..;. L i~l k :~, ;; :, ,~ ' , t-"='.:~-"-"~,? :11 - ', /~ :1,?-_~.' - ~ ,--.. "pi,/ j /ii',, ~--4- ,'!/~ ~ ~ '~ li.L;I >-.- , IF,.~ ,; Ii, ',, :~ .;1 ;. J'li. ! /;, ' ]~ L~-. ?. ,'.q= .=:~, ,, · _-' i'" I Jj ~"-~;, ~ ; Il _.~ , ;~., ; ~ '7' ;I I / I ...m ~: ~ f,=~ ' .-:' :: ~. ? :_~ .:,..,,-, m!~,;~ '"i ~IF]-i'''' [J!]Ii;": ';':""': '- i]!-~;'ilJi '4 , r-'~ ":,',-,' ', J '':" -"~ !~..:-I; i ii · '"':" ,. ' ..-. ;-"-. EXHIBIT "C" STATE : ENT SPECtraL : CONDITIONS STATEMENT OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS ~.. That soeci~l ccnditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, · I~ structure or building involved and which are not app~ca-le to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district: There are special conditions and circumstances which exist and are peculiar to the land, in this case. The gas station is existing and the only renovation to the prO'j~erty and building is to upgrade the exterior with new fascia, colors, landscaping, and textures so to make the gas station fit in with the neighborhood. The pr°perry is not big enough to place the driveways the proper distance from the intersection nor to move the gas islands or canopy. The number of driveways must remain due to the location of the fuel filling ports which the gasoline tankers must unload, there would not be enough room for them to leave the property with fewer drives. B. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant: Special circumstances and conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant because he. bought the property as it is. He is just trying to upgrade the exterior and landscaping to fit in with the changing neighborhood. C. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, buildings or structures in the same zoning district: Granting these variances will not confer any special privileges that are denied by this ordinance to other lands within the same zoning district. D. That literal-interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the Ordinance and would work unnecessary and undo hardship on the applicant: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the Ordinance would depriv, e .the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zoning district and would work an unnecessary and undue hardship on him because it would force him out of business. 3585 E. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure: "' EXHIBIT "(" Granting of these variances is the minimum variances that would make possible the reasonable use of the land and building. It would be impossible to operate this business and upgrade the exterior if these variances are not granted. By granting these variances, you are allowing this business to be upgraded with exterior finish and landscaping which will better fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. F.That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and that such variance will not be injurious to the ~'~ area involved or otherwiSe detrimental to the public welfare' Granting there variances Will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of this chapter and that these variances will not be injurious to the area but an asset to the area. This business will not be a detriment to the neighborhood but the opposite, it will be an asset to the community. 3586 EXHIBIT "D"' Conditions of Approval Project name: Gateway Texaco File number: Vehicle encroachment ZNCV 03-024 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: None UTILITIES comments: None FIRE Commehts: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING 3587 Comments: None ,.. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD CONDITIONS Conditions of Approval DEPARTMENTS 12xlCLUDE REJECT Commcrlts: 1, TO be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Cofflments: 1. To be determined. S:XPlanningkSHARED\WP~PROJECTS\Gateway TeXacokZNCV 03-010-03-017,23,24\COA Vehicle encroachment ZNCV 03.024.doc 3588 D-'."~.; VELOPM ~ NT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-228 TO:' Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency Board THRU: Michael Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Eric Lee 3ohnson, AICP c~',// Planner DATE: k September 30, 2003 PROJECT: Gateway Texaco / COUS 3-007 REQUEST: Conditional Use approval for a 68:L square foot addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment PRO3EC'F DESCRZPTI:ON Property Owner: SUAU Enterprises, Incorporated Applicant/Agent: Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & COnsultants Location: 2360 North Federal Highway (see Exhibit "A'- Location Map) Existing Land Use/Zoning: Local Retail Commercial (LRC) / Community Commercial (C-3) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed Use: 68! square foot addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment Acreage: 0.48 acres (20,830 square feet) Adjacent Uses: North: A multi-family residential property'zoned Community Commercial (C-3); South: Right-of-way for Las Palmas Road, and farther south are single-family attached townhouses (The Harbors), zoned Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD); East: Vacant commercial lot (proposed car wash), zoned Community Commercial (C-3), and farther east is a single-family residential dwelling (part of .Las Palmas development), zoned Single-family residential (R-1AA); and West: Rights-of-way of U.S. 1 and the Florida East Coast Railroad, farther west 3589 Gateway Texaco - COUS 03-007 Page 2 Mernorandum No. PZ 03-228 developed commercial property classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and zoned C-2 Neighborhood Commercial. BACKGROUND Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants, agent for SUAU Enterprises Tncorporated, is requesting conditional use / major site plan modification approval to construct a 68:L square foot addition to an existing gasoline dispensing establishment. ]:n addition, the applicant is proposing new parking, spaces, a new access drive / easement to facilitate internal access to an adjacent parcel, and a general'"make-over" of the exterior building facades of the gasoline station building and canopy. The number of gasoline pump islands and fueling positions would remain the same. The subject property is a separate lot from the abutting propertyto the east. The proposed 681 square foot addition to the gas station is considered a conditional use in the C-3 zoning district. Also, the gas station is a legal non-conforming use because it does not comply with Chapter 2, Section 11.L.3.a.(2) which requires that gas stations should be located only at intersections "consisting of roads of four (4) lanes or wider". Earlier last year, Mr. Beril Kruger, acting on behalf of Mr. Zuhair Marouf, expressed a desire to construct a building addition to the gas station, in part, to satisfy outstanding code enforcement violations over the use of a parked vehicle as storage space. He also proposed direct' access between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east. The abutting lot to the east was earmarked for a mechanical carwash. The direct access was proposed between the lots in order to minimize vehicular traffic onto Las Palmas Road. These inquiries were based upon the presumption that the proposed addition would be allowed and that direct access would only require minor site plan review. However, after careful consideration, staff determined that the addition would not be permitted "by right" because it would be an unlawful expansion of a non-conforming use (gasoline-dispensing establishment) and that it would exceed the threshold for a minor site plan modification. To answer Hr. Kruger's inquiries, on .luly :[6, 2002, the Director of Planning & Zoning issued an administrative determination letter that basically prohibited the applicant from increasing the size of the gas station building citing Chapter 2, Sections D and G of the Land Development Regulations (non- conforming uses). Regarding the direct access between lots, the Director determined that the proposed driveway connection between the subject lot and the lot directly to the east would be permitted. However, the direct access would only be allowed contingent upon the recordation of a legally binding cross-access agreement and that the entire Texaco site would have to brought into total compliance with the current Land Development Regulations. On July 3:[, 2002, Hr. Kruger filed an appeal (ADAP 03-00:[) to the aforementioned administrative determination. According to the staff report, "in summary, the appeal justifies the proposed expansion by the position that retail sales at this business is a separate component from the non-conforming aspect-gasoline sales, which component can therefore be altered / expanded independent of the gasoline sales element of the business. The applicant supports this position that retail sales is distinguishable from gas sales by the absence of other nearby convenience stores, and therefore, the high demand for convenience item sales at this location". Staff disagreed and recommended denial of Hr. Kruger's administrative appeal based on three (3) main points. Firstly, staff argued that the 3590 Gateway Texaco - COUS 03-007 Page 3 Memorandum No. PZ 03-228 determination represented the position consistently communicated by staff and therefore, the consistent interpretation of clearly written Land Development Regulations. Secondly, the sale of gasoline is the principal use of the subject business, which is located on one parcel within a single structure, and therefore, cannot be viewed separate from accessory components such as retail sales. Lastly, the applicant did not prove that the expansion of the retail aspect of the business would have been mandatory for the continued operation of the principal use, and that if denied a hardship would have been imposed. 'The Community Redevelopment Agency voted and concurred with staff but the City Commission voted in favor of the applicant with the condition that the expansion would be limited to 600 square feet (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). Therefore, this major site plan modification and accomp,,anying variance requests represents the applicant's continuing effort to construct a building addition on the subject property and a stand-alone mechanical car wash on the abutting property. Staff provides both an analysis and recommendation for each variance request in their respective staff report. ]:f approved, the construction of the addition, parking lot, and fagade improvements would occur in one (1) phase. STANDARDS FOR EVALUA'I'~NG CONDITIONAL USES AND ANALYST~ Section 11.2.D of the Land Development Regulations contains the following standards to which conditional uses are required to conform. Following each of these standards is the Planning and Zoning Division's evaluation of the application as it pertains to standards. The Community Redevelopment Agency and City Commission shall consider only such conditiOnal uses as are authorized under the terms of these zoning regulations and, in connection therewith, may grant conditional uses absolutely or condiUoned upon the conditions including, but not limited to, the dedication of property for streets, alleys, recreation space and sidewalks, as shall be determined necessary for the protection of the surrounding area and the citiZens' general welfare, or deny conditional uses when not in harmony with the intent and purpose of this section. In evaluating an application for conditional use approval, the Board and Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed use on the general health, safety and welfare of the community and make written findings certifying that satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following standards, where applicable: 1. ]:ngress and egress to the subject property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automobile and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. No driveway openings are being altered as a_result of this major site plan modification. The site plan (sheet 1 of 4) shows that there are two ex/sting (2) "curb drops" on North Federa/ Highway. According to Chapter 2, Section 11.L.3.d. (1), driveway openings for gas-stations are required to be /ocated at/east 120 feet from the intersection of the right-of-way lines along streets of higher classification (North Federal Highway). According to the site plan, the northern "curb-drop#is /ocated 102 feet from the intersection of North Federa/ Highway and Las Pa/mas Avenue. The southern "curb-drop" on North Federa/ Highway is located on/y 23 feet from the intersection of U.S. I and Las Palrnas Avenue. The proposed building addition is a major site p/an modification and therefore, the entire site would have to comply with today's code. However, the app/icant is not proposing to a/ter the driveway opening and is requesting a 97-foot variance (ZNCV 03-010) from 3591 Gateway Texaco - COUS 03-007 Page 4 Memoran;~;m No. PZ 03-228 the 120-foot requirement (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). This single variance request would be applied to both non-conforming driveway openings. Staff supports this variance request (see Staff Report ZNCV 03-010). According to Chapter 2, Eec't/on JLL.3. d. (3) of the Land Development Regulations, driveway openings shall not be located/ess than 30 feet from any interior property //ne. The northern driveway on North Federal Highway does not comply w/th this requirement because it is located only 21 feet away from the interior north s/de property//ne. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a lO-foot variance from this restriction (ZNCV 03-011). Staff supports this variance request (see Staff Report ZNCV 03-01i). A/so, the supplemental regulations for gas stations I/mit the number, of driveway openings to one (]) per street frontage. The subject site has two (2) driveway openings on North Federal Highway. The applicant is requesting a variance (ZNCV 03-0]2) from Chapter 2, Sect/on 1L3. d(,t) to a/Iow for these two driveway openings. The Engineering D/v/s/on reviewed the site p/an arid recommended that no closures should occur to any of the openings due to the proposed on-site tra~c circulation and the anticipated comp/et/on of the Harbors townhouse project. Note: direct access from the subject lot to the lot directly to the east may only occur a~er the recordation of a cross-access agreement (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). Therefore, staff is recommending approval of this variance request to a/Iow two (2) driveway openings (see Staff Report ZNCV 03-0]2). [n any event, ail three variance requests regarding the existing driveways would require review and approval by the City Commission. The site plan (sheet ] oral) shows an existing driveway opening is located on Las Pa/mas Avenue. This opening is currently located 32 feet from the/ntersecb'on of the right-of-way lines and comp#es w/th the Land Development Regulations. No change is proposed to this opening. The survey shows that there is no sidewalk along Las Pa/mas Avenue. However, according to Chapter 6, Art/de IV, Sect/on 10. T of the Land Development Regulations, a sidewalk is required within this right-of-way. A sidewalk would a/so be required within the right-of-way (of Las Pa/mas Avenue) in front of the abutting property to the east where the car wash is proposed (NWSP 03- 021). The applicant submitted an administrative waiver to this requirement but was subsequently den/ed by the Engineering D/v/s/on. The applicant is appealing the ~dm/n/strat/ve dec/s/on regarding the sidewalk requirements for both lots. 2. Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with particular attention to the items in subsection above, and the economic, glare, noise, and odor effects the conditional use will have on adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. The required parking has been tabulated based on a gasoline dispensing establishment use. The ratio utilized is one (1) space for each 250 square feet of the gross floor area. Based on this methodology, the proposed expansion, coup/ed with the floor area of the existing building would require JO parking spaces. The required number of park/ng spaces needs to be accurately shown on the site p/an (sheet i of ~t) tabu/ar data (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). The site p/an shows that 12 parking spaces would be provided. The applicant intends to re-stripe the ex/sting spaces and create three (3) more spaces and a drive aisle at the northeast corner of the property. The backup d/stance behind the newly created parking spaces would adhere to current d/mens/on standards. However, one (]) of the new parking spaces would encroach into the required lO-foot w/de interior landscape buffer along the east property//ne. This encroachment w/II be discussed later/n this staff report, 3592 Gateway Texaco - COUS 03-007 Page 5 Memorandum No. PZ 03-228 3. Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the items in subsection 1 and 2 above. The survey shows that the dumpster /s currently located one foot from the south property line at the southeast corner of the property. The site plan (sheet 1 of,t) shows that the dumpster would be moved five (5) feet away from the south property line and one (1) foot- eight (8) inches from the east property line. It would be located within a dumpster enclosure as per code. It should be noted that staff would prefer to have the location of the dumpster enclosure away from the highly visible areas such as from the rights-of-way. However, staff acknowledges that the current site layout (i.e. bu#ding, parking space, driveway openings) limits the number of choices for its relocation. The pre~ent location fac#/tares the efficient removal of trash and that this efficiency could be jeopardized if located elsewhere on the site. 4. Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility. Cons/stent with Comprehensive Plan poi/c/es and city regulations, all ut/l/t/es, including potable water and sanitary sewer are ava#able for this project. 5. Screening, buffering and landscaping with reference to type, dimensions, and character. The subject site had been previously developed as a gas station and related parking areas under former, less stringent standards for gas 'stations. Therefore, the existing landscape buffer areas are non-comp#ant. According to Chapter 2, Section 11.$.f(I) of the Land Development Regulations, a ten (10) foot wide landscape buffer is required along both North Federal Highway and Las Palmas Avenue. The buffer is required to contain a tree every 30 feet. A continuous row of hedges and flowering groundcover are also required. The intent is to screen the vehicular use areas from the public rights-of-way. The landscape plan (sheet L-l) shows that no change is proposed to the driveways or parking areas. Bas/cai/y, there is no landscape buffer along North Federal Highway. Since lO-foot w/de landscape buffers are required along rights-of-way, the applicant/s requesting a variance (ZIVCV 03-016) from the code to have no landscape buffer along North Federal Highway and a live (5) foot w/de landscape buffer along Las Pa/mas Avenue (see Exhibit "C"- Cond/b'ons of Approval). As/n the case w/th the driveway openings, since both landscape buffers are/ess than 10 feet/n width, one (1) variance request would apply to both buffers. The justification//es/n the fact that/f a lO-foot variance were approved to allow for a zero (0) foot w/de landscape buffer, then that same variance approval would null/fy the need for a five ($) foot wide buffer. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request due to the'unavoidable site constraints (see Staff Report ZNCV 03- 0~I 5). However, staff/s recommending approval w/th the stipulation that/n the southern landscape buffer (along Las Pa/mas Avenue), the proposed row of £xora 'Nora Grant' shrubs be 36 inches/n height at the t/me of installation. A/so, staff/s recommending, where possible, add/bona/screening be provided (/.e. planters) along North Federal Highway (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). As a/ways, the variance request would have to be reviewed and approved by the City Commission to allow for a deviation from the Land Development Regulations. According to Chapter 2, Sect/on 11.L.3.f.(2), a landscape buffer 10 feet/n width/s required on along all interior property lines. The landscape p/an (L-l) shows ex/sting landscape buffers along the north and east property lines. However, the ex/sting landscape buffer along the north property//ne/s 3593 Gateway Texaco - COUS 03-007 Page 6 Memorandum No. PZ 03-228 : approximately five (5) feet/n width and does not comply w/th the JO-foot wide buffer requirement. Therefore, the applicant/s requesting a variance (ZIVCV 03-0]?) from the aforementioned Land Development Regulations to reduce the landscape buffer by five (5) feet in order to allow a five (5) foot w/de landscape buffer/n lieu of the required JO-foot w/de landscape buffer. The var/ance's just/ficat/on and analysis/s provided/n the respect/ye staff report. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request due to the ex/sting site constraints. Again, the variance request would have to be reviewed and approved by the City Commission. The survey shows that along the north property//ne, the ex/sting parking lot appears to encroach into the required north landscape buffer. The ex/sting north landscape buffer does not comply w/th co~e because/t/s/ess than l0 feet/n width. A/so, the plans show that a proposed angled parking space would encroach into the eastern landscape buffer. The east landscape buffer comp#es with code. However, vehicle encroachment into landscape buffers/s not permitted pursuant to Chapter 7.5, Art/de _TI, Sect/on 3. B.,t of the Land Development Regulations. Therefore, the applicant/s requesting a variance (ZNCV 03°024) from Chapter ?.5, Art/de .TI, Sect/on 3, B. ,t., 'to allow a parked vehicle to encroach two and one-half (2-~) feet into the east landscape buffer. The two and one (2-~) foot encroachment assumes that the City Commission would approve the variance request for the reduction /n buffer width. .Tn both cases, staff/s recommending approval of reducing the required width of the north and east landscape buffers to allow for five (5) foot w/de landscape buffers (see Staff Report ZNCV 03-01?). Staff supports this encroachment into the required north landscape buffer,/n part, because the parking lot a/ready exists. However, staff opposes allowing any new spaces / areas of vehicular encroachment. This would occur, by the proposed angled parking space into the east landscape buffer. The project requires only l0 parking spaces, not 12 spaces and therefore, any excess parking that would be provided should comply w/th all aspects of the code. $imp/y put, the el/m/nat/on of the proposed angled parking space (at the northeast corner of the property) would cancel the need for this variance. (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). The variance would only apply to the ex/sting conditions at the northern port/on of the property. As /n all cases, this variance would require City Commission review and approval. The north landscape buffer would contain Crape Plyrt/e, 'Dahoon Ho//)/, and Alexander (doub/e- trunked) palm trees. Green Buttonwood and Redtip Cocop/um hedges would be installed at the base. The east landscape buffer would contain Saba/ palm trees, Green Buttonwood / Redt/p ¢ocop/um hedges, and an ex/sting live (5) foot high concrete wa//. 6. Signs, and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with adjacent and nearby properties. This conditional use application proposes wa//signs on mu/t/pie facades. The elevation pages (sheets 3 and 4 of 4) show the existing wa//signs with the proposed wa//S/phage. The max/mum allowable wa//signage area would be based on the length of the front building facade facing North Federal Highway. According to Chapter 21, Art/de IV, Sect/on 2. C of the Land Development Regulations, the max/mum area for all wa//signs shall be one and one half (1 ~) square feet of sign area for each one (1) foot of//near building frontage. The elevations do not/nd/cate the proposed cumulative wa//S/phage area. However, the proposed wa//and canopy signage are itemized on an attached 8-~ by 11 inch sheet. This attached sheet/acks the wa//signage area in /ts entirety because it om/ts the ex/sting / proposed signs on the north and south s/des of the bu#ding. As proposed, it appears that the wa//signage area would not comply w/th the maximum allowable 3594 Gateway Texaco - COUS 03-007 Page 7 Memora,,-~ :~: 'i', No. P£ 03-228 signage area. Staff's goal/s not to regulate the content of the sign but rather to ensure comp/lance w/th code and to maximize sign aesthetics thereby preventing project s/phage from degrading the development's appearance. In order to reduce the wa// sign area and upgrade the overall appearance, staff recommends eliminating all non-word depictions (Texaco's corporate/oqo which/s a white-star-in-red-circle) that do not directly correspond w/th wording (see Exhibit "C"-' Conditions of Approval). For example, staff recommends eliminating the isolated non-word depict/on (shown as Sign 'N "on the attached $- ~ by 11 inch sheet) because this non-word depict/on is not attached or a part of a sign containing words. Non-word depictions signs "C" and "D" are acceptable because "C" /s associated w/th the "Food Narc sign and Sign "D" /s associated w/th the "Texaco" sign. Ne/ther~ Sign "C" or Sign "D" appear to be isolated non-word depictions. Chapter 21, Art/de Hi, Section 5 requires all freestanding signs to be located at/east 20 feet from the property lines and//m/ts the height to 20 feet. The ex/sting sign/s currently located only five (5) feet from the property//ne and stands over 33 feet tall. Its on-site location is shown on the survey and site p/an and/ts e/eraS'on is shown on the attached $ Y2 by 21-inch sheet. The applicant/s proposing to add more sign area to this non-conforming structure. The pole sign/s non-conforming because it exceeds the height Iimita~'ons and does not meet m/n/mum setback requirements. The structure must be setback at/east 20 feet from the properly #ne(s). As proposed, the new "Car Wash" portion would be added to the structure. However, no existing sign area is shown on the attached sheet. Therefore, it is unclear if the proposed signage area would comply with Chapter 22, Article J~, Section 2. B of the Land Development Regulations. The code al/ows for a maximum of 64 square feet of sign area (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approva/). Also, the proposed sign itse/f (Car Wash) appears to be advertising for the mechanical car wash facility, which is proposed on the abutting lot the east. It must be noted that the abutting lot to the east is an entire/y separate lot and that no adverb'sing for it may occur on the subject property due to' the sign code restrictions regarding off-premise signage (Chapter 22, Article II, Section 3.S. of the Land Development Regulations). A/so, because the gas station is a non-conforming use, a Unity of 77tie cannot combine the two (2)/ots together. However, if the "Carwash" wording is a component of the official business name of the gas station on which the pole sign is located, then the applicant should provide documen~'on for verification. Wording on the sign should graphica#y and accurate/y rerTect / correspond with the o~cial business name of the business on the subject property (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approva/). Since the structure is non-conforming due to it currently being/ocated within the required setbacks, the app#cant is requesting a l~ve (5) foot variance (ZNCV 03-023) to al/ow the sign to be located ~ve (5) feet from the property line rather than 20 feet as norma/ly required by code. In this instance, staff is recommending denial of the app#cant's variance request (see Staff Report ZNCV 03-023). The structure can be removed, reduced in height, and re/ocated on the property so that it would st#/ be high/y visib/e from the rights-of-way while complying with today's setback, height, and cross-visibi/ity restrictions (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). The variance request wou/d require City Commission review and approva/. 7. Required setbacks and other open spaces, The existing building meets the setback requirements of the C-3 zoning district. However, the proposed building addition wou/d not meet the rear setback requirements. The required rear setback is 20 feet. The proposed building addition would encroach into the setback by 20 feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a JO-foot variance (ZNCV 03-023) from Chapter 2, Section 22.L.3. e.(3) to 3595 Gateway Texaco - COUS 03-007 Page 8 I,<~emorand~,'m No. PZ 03-228 allow the add/t/on to encroach into the required 20-foot rear setback. As previously mentioned/n the Background sect/on of this staff report, the City Commission approved the applicant's Administrative Appeal (ADAP 03-001) to allow a 600 square foot add/t/on. The size of the .proposed building add/t/on (681 square feet)/s not cons/stent w/th the previous C/b/ Commission approval (600 square feet). Staff/s recommending den/a/of this variance request (see Staff Report ZNCV 03-013). The proposed add/t/on could be configured or reduced /n such as way as to meet the setback requirements of the C-3 zoning d/strict and therefore, not need a variance. Since this/s a major site p/an modification, ali structures (including the canopy and fueling pumps) are required to meet setback requirements. The ex/sting canopy over the gas pump/s/ands does not rne~t the 20-foot setback requirement. The ex/sting pump/s/ands do not meet the 30-foot setback requirement. The applicant/s not proposing any changes to the canopy structure other than cosmetic enhancements. Therefore, the applicant/s requesting a 20-~ foot variance (ZNCV 03-14) to allow the ex/sting canopy to be located n/ne and one-half (g -~) feet from the west property//ne instead of 20 feet as required by code (see Staff Report ZNCV 03-014). A/so, the ex/sting pump /s/ands are located only 19 feet- 10 inches from the west property//ne. Therefore, the applicant/s requesting a variance (ZNCV 03-015) to a/so allow the gas pump/s/ands to be located doser to the west property//ne rather than the 30 feet required by code (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). Again, staff is recommending approval of both variance requests. As a/ways, they would require C/C/ Comrn/ss/on review and approval 8. General compatibility with adjacent property and other property in the zoning district. The proposed use/s a conditional use/n the C-3 zoning d/strict. A/though auto-intensive/n nature, the use/s generally compatible w/th the use of the abutting property to the north. The property d/rect/y to the east/s vacant and zoned C-3. This vacant lot/s earmarked for a mechanical car wash. Car washes are typically accessory uses to gas stations so therefore/a gas stat/on use would be compatible w/th the anticipated use of the abutting property to the east. The property south of Las Pa/mas Avenue was previously zoned C-3, the same as the subject property. However, /t was recently rezoned from C-3 to In/ill Planned Unit Development (IPUD) for the construct/on of over 50 fee-simple townhouses. Un/ess properly buffered, a gas stat/on use could be/ncornpat/b/e w/th a res/dent/a/use. Buffering would include extra landscaping or a buffer wa//. The ex/sting gas stat/on /s separated from the townhouse project by Las Pa/mas Avenue and a proposed five (5) foot w/de landscape buffer. A' gas stat/on/s a cornpat/b/e use w/th other uses/n the ¢-3 zoning d/strict. The proposed building expansion (for extra storage area) would be compatible w/th both commercial and res/dent/a/uses. The proposed building co/ors would be compatible w/th the ex/sting and proposed buildings w/thin the immediate area. The elevations/nd/cate the proposed co/ors to be dark green (Benjamin Noore - Chrome Green), white (Benjamin P/oore - Brilliant White), and gray (Benjamin fv/oore - San Antonio Gray). These are the corporate Texaco co/ors and are recognized nationwide. 9. Height of building and structures, with reference to compatibility and harmony to adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. The rnax/rnurn allowable height for the ¢-3 zoning d/strict/s 45 feet. The ex/sting building was designed as a one (1)-story structure. The top of the ex/sting canopy/s 16 feet - n/ne (g) inches/n 3596 Gateway Texaco - COUS 03-007 Page 9 Memorandum No. PZ 03-228 height. The elevations show that a "custom dad metal framed decorative element"is proposed at 20 feet- six (6) inches in height. The building and canopy are we//be/ow the maximum height /imitation and are compatible with the surrounding properties. However, the non-conforming freestanding pole sign would be incompatible w/th ail signs in the ¢-3 zoning district and neighboring properties. 10. Economic effects on adjacent and nearby properties, 'and the city as a whole. The existing gas station represents one (2) of two (2) Texaco stations throughout the City Of Boynton Beach. The other Texaco stat/on is located at 645 West Boynton Beach Boulevard. The nearest gas station to the subject property would either be the Nob# gas station, located on the southwest corner of Gateway Boulevard and High Ridge Road or the Citgo gas station, located at the southwest corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway. Therefore, the subject gas station represents additional convenience and choice for the City residen~ which is not offered elsewhere in this area of the city. The applicant states that "there are no detrimental economic effects on adjacent and nearby properties and the city as a whole': 11. Conformance to the standards and requirements which apply to site plans, as set forth in Chapter :[9, Article ]:T of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. (Part ITT Chapter 4 Site Plan Review). The existing use and site is non-conforming in many ways. Zf a// requested variances are approved and ail staff comments are addressed, the proposed project would comply with ail requirements of applicable sections of the city code. However, staff is recommending den/a/of two (2) of the lO requested variances and that these aspects of the site be retrofitted to comply w/th city regulations. 12. Compliance with, and abatement of nuisances and hazards in accordance with the performance standards within Section 4.N. of the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2; also, conformance to the City of Boynton Beach noise Control Ordinance. With incorporation of ail condib'ons and staff recommendations contained here/n, the proposed storage addition to the ex/sting gas-stat/on would operate in a manner that is in compliance with the above-referenced codes and ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach. RECOMMENDATZ0N The City Commission approved the applicant's Administrative Appeal (ADAP 03-00:[) to allow a 600 square foot storage addition to the existing gas station. The existing use (gas sales) and site is non- conforming. The building addition represents a major site plan modification, which requires that the entire site be brought into compliance with current code. However, the applicant is only proposing to expand the building area to accommodate the extra storage area and has no intention of improving the remaining portion of the site to bring it into compliance with today's standards, which would also be cost prohibitive or even impossible due to site constraints. To remedy the situation, the applicant is requesting :[0 variances that address the non-conforming aspects of the subject site. However, the proposed area of the addition is not consistent with the area that was conceptually ~pproved by the City Commission. Furthermore, the proposed expansion itself does not comply with the 3597 Gateway Texaco - COUS 03-007 Page 10 h::.~morandum No. FZ 03-228 setback requirements of the C-3 zoning district. This is a situation where staff concurs with the applicant's justification for eight (8) of the 10 variances requested that are directly rebted to existing non-conforming aspects of the site. However, staff is recommending denial of two (2) of the 10 requested variances that specifically pertain to the new or proposed improvements (i.e. building addition, new sign area) that could, in staffs' opinion, be built to comply with the current code. Also, staff is recommending specific conditions be applied to two (2) of the other variance requests that specifically deal with buffering the subject site from the adjacent properties (i.e. vehicular encroachment into buffer, potted plants, if possible, along North Federal Highway). Therefore, based on the discussion herein, staff recommends approval of the project contingent upon sabsfy~ng all the conditiOns of apprOval. Any additional conditions by the Community Redevelopment Agency or the City Commission would be placed in Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval. Pursuant to Chapter 2- Zoning, Section 11.2 Conditional Uses, a time limit would be required for project development. Staff recommends a period of one (1) year be allowed to obtain a building permit (excluding permits for land clearing). EL5 S:~Planning~HARED\WP~PROJECTS~,Gatcwa¥ Texaco\COUS 0~-007 Gateway T~ta~ Rt'port. doc 3598 TexacO r~ A SITE IPUD R3 ~~ REC R3 REC 3599 EXHIBIT "B"' i .,m,,~, .. - ,~ [ill[[ ili i!! '"':"'* Ii] J~. ' :l: . r , ~',,,~: i i ': :"':" '-' I] :iI .: .. !1-4 . l~,:: i1[i~ J:: I,,. ,, I Ii EXHIBIT "B" 3602 -- EXHiBi~r: ;,B, ' 3603 Landscape Plan . :x :' · ' r-' ~ n > .... -~ m' ~il i~ { i ~' ~' ~" ~. -,< s i~= I i{ I, 3607 , ; , hTigation Details & Notes , '" ..... ' EXH , , . ................. ....- IBIT "B" :' 3608 .... ~' '. :. . ~ = . ~,~ j ~ ~ Landscape Plan. Details. , ~ISTING SIGNAGE ..... '" . -- "F~d Ma~" IDENTIFICATION - ~ · 2 2.76' EXISTING SIGNAGE Car ~OU~ ' ~=~J J EXISTINGSIGNAGE ~ ~.16' "Diesel" ~1 '~~AGE ~OP[N ~" I t EXISTING SIGNAGE W/ ~ , PROPOSED ADDITION ~/4 G~T~AY TEMCO 3609 2360 NORTH FEDE~L HIGHWAY ~OY~TO~ BEAOH, FkORI~A 33435 EXHIBIT "'B" 3610 GATEWAY TEXACO _-..~,,~ · 3~o N. ~E~ H~. EXHIBIT "B lC. ii fit:ii4 I!]i, ! .~: .: '~ h'~ -~ I:t ' 11.1 ,1'..i-',,,, :,:,.1~ !,, I.. h,,l~l :: ,I Ill,,, ~-I, ~II ,!I, ~. ; , : i:'~: "'ii i t ' I EXHBIT "C" .. Condition~ of Approval Project name: Gateway Texaco File number: COUS 03-007 Reference: 3rd review plans identified as a Conditional Use with a September 23, 2003 Planning and Zoning Department date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS ] INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS - General Corr~ents: None PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic Comments: 1. Show parking stops on the plans. These will be required to prevent vehicles from overhanging sidewalks and reducing accessible width. 2. A signed and executed ingress / egress easement must be reviewed and approved b7 Cit7 prior to the issuance of a building permit. UTILITIES Comments: 3. Utility construction details as shown on Civil Engineering (CE) sheets 3 of 3 will not be reviewed for construction acceptability at this time. All utility construction details shall be in accordance with the Utilities Department's "Utilities Engineering Design Handbook and Construction Standards" manual; the7 will be reviewed at the time of construction permit application. ENGINEERING DMSION Comments: 4. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the Commission and at permit review. 5. Proof of other agency permits shall be required prior to the issuance of the paving and drainage permit. 6. Sidewalks shall be four (4) feet wide along local streets, and five (5) feet wide along streets of higher classification (LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 10.T., and Chapter 22, Article I, Section 5). 3613 7. Show sight triangles on the landscape plans (LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 5.H.). Use 25 (twenty-five) foot triangles for the driveway onto/off of COA !-0/08/03 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT Las Palmas. Please note, in accordance with the referenced section of the LDR, that the sight triangles are placed at the intersection of the property line and side of accessway. Use FDOT Standard Index 546 for the sight triangles along Federal Highway, following that standard for triangle placement. 8. The medians on Federal Highway and the chase area(s) in the vicinity of this project have existing irrigation and plant material belonging to the City of Boynton Beach. Any damage to the irrigation system and/or plant material as a~'result of the contractor's operations shall be repaired or replaced to the equivalent or better grade, as approved by the City of Boynton Beach, and shall-be the sole responsibility of the developer. Please acknowledge this notice in your comments response and add a note to the plans with the above stated information. 9. Full drainage plans in accordance with the LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5 will be required at the time of permitting. Any work done within the right-of-way and/or to existing facilities within the fight-of-way of Federal Highway will require review, approval and permitting by the Florida DOT. 10. Paving, drainage and site details as shown on site developmen~ sheet 3 of 3 will not be reviewed for construction acceptability at this time. The details provided are outdated. All engineering construction details shall be in accordance with the "City of Boynton Beach Engineering Design Handbook & Construction Standards and will be reviewed for constructability at the time of construction permit application. The Engineering Design Handbook may be obtained b7 contactin~ the En~ineerin~ Division. FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: 11. Buildings, structures and parts thereof shall be designed to withstand the minimum wind loads of 140 mph. Wind forces on even building or structure shall be determined by the provisions of Chapter 6 of ASCE 7, and the provisions of Section 1606 CWind Loads) of the 2001 FBC, Calculations that are signed and sealed by a design professional registered in the state of Florida shall be submitted for review at the time of permit application. 3614 12. Add a labeled symbol to the site plan drawing that represents and delineates the path of travel for the accessible route that is required between the COA t0/08/03 3 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT accessible parking spaces and the accessible entrance doors to the building. The installed symbol, required along the path, shall start at the accessible parking spaces and terminate at the accessible entrance doors to the building. The symbol shall represent the location of the path of travel, not the location of the detectable warning or other pavement markings. The location of the accessible path shall not compel the user to travel in a drive/lane area that is located behind parked vehicles. Identify on the plan the width of the accessible route. (Note: The minimum width required by the code is forty-four (44) i~ches). Add text to the drawing that would indicate that the symbol represents the accessible route and the route is designed in compliance with Section 11- 4.3 (Accessible Route) and 11-4.6 (Parking and Passenger Loading Zones) of the 2001 FBC. Please note that at time of permit review, the applicant shall provide detailed documentation on the plans that will verify that the accessible route is in compliance with the regulations specified in the 2001 FBC. This documentation shall include, but not be limited to, providing finish grade elevations along the path of travel. Parking access aisle shall slope no more than 1:50 per Florida Buildin~ Code 11-4.6.3. 13. Identify within the site data the finish floor elevation (lowest floor elevation) that is proposed for the building. Verify that the proposed elevation is in compliance with regulations of the code by adding specifications to the site data that address the following issues [Section 3107.1.2, Chapter 31 of the 2001 FBC]: a) The design professional-of-record for the project shall add the following text to the site data. "The proposed finish floor elevation NGVD is above the highest 100-year base flood elevation applicabie~o the building site, as determined by the SFWMD's surface water management construction development regulations." 14. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the proposed construction. 15. A water-use permit for the irrigation system is required from the SFWMD. A copy of the permit shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S. 373.216. 16. The propane gas storage area shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 58. Indicate the capacity of the container, how the container is protected from physical damage, etc.. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None 3615 FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: COA 0/08103 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 17. The applicant must indicated on the landscape plan the existing trees / vegetation that will be preserved, relocated or removed / replaced on the site. A separate symbol should be used on the landscape plan to identify these trees / vegetation (Tree Legend) (Chapter 7.5, Article II Sec. 7.C.). 18. The Las Palmas road right-of-way must receive Flofitam sod and irrigation (Chapter 7.5, Article II Sec. 7.C.). PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 19. If approved, the proposed building addition would be limited to 600 square feet in order to be consistent with the previous City Commission approval of the Administrative Appeal (ADAP 03-001). 20. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of the requested driveway variance (ZNcv 03-010): see accompanying staff report. If approved, this variance must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. 21. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of the requested driveway variance (ZNCV 03-011): see accompanying staff report. If approved, this variance must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. 22. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of the requested driveway variance (ZNCV 03-012): see accompanying staff report. If approved, this variance must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. 23. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of the requested building setback variance (ZNCV 03-013): see accompanying staff report. However, if approved, this variance must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. 24. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of the requested canopy setback variance (ZNCV 03-014): see accompanying staff report. If approved, th/s note must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. 25. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of the requested canopy setback variance (ZNCV 03-015): see accompanying staff report. If approved, this note must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. 3616 26. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of COA J0/08/03 5 DEPARTMENTS EqCLUDE REJECT the requested buffer variance (ZNCV 03-016): see accompanying staff report. If approved, this note must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. Also, staff recommends that the Ixora "Nora Grant" shrubs be 36 inches in height at the time of installation within the landscape buffer along Las Palmas Avenue and where possible, additional screeni,ng shall be provided (i.e. planters) along North Federal Highway. 27. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of the requested buffer variance (ZNCV 03-017): see accompanying staff report. If approved, this note must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. 28. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of thc requested sign variance (ZNCV 03-023): see accompanying staff report. If approved, this variance must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. 29. Approval of the proposed building addition is contingent upon the granting of the requested buffer variance (ZNCV 03-024): see accompanying staff report. If approved, this note must be indicated in the site plan's tabular data. Staffis recommending that the angled parking space, which is proposed to protrude into the east landscape buffer, be eliminated so as to nullify thc need for the variance. If the proposed parking space were eliminated, the variance would only apply to the vehicular encroachment into the north landscape buffer. 30. Revise the site plan tabular data so that it correctly indicates the number of required parking spaces (2,400 square feet ~ 1/250 = 10 spaces). 31. The cross-access agreement between the two (2) lots must be approved by the City Attorney's office and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. 32. The existing wail must be refurbished (in those areas of its decay) and repainted to match the color of the Gateway Texaco building. 33. Ensure that all the proposed plant quantities correspond between what is shown on the graphic illustration and its corresponding plan list on sheet "L- ,,. 34. Non-word depictions on signs shall be limited to 20% of the area of the sign erected. Color limitation shall not apply to non-word depictions on signs (Chapter 9, Section 10.I.4.). On the elevations, indicate the area of the non- word depictions in order to ensure compliance with the aforementioned code. 35. The freestanding pole sign is nonconforming in terms of its height and setback. The maximum sign area for the freestanding pole sign shall be one (1) foot of sign area for each linear foot of street frontage; no such sign shall exceed 64 square feet in area (Chapter 21, Article IV, Section 2.B.). On the elevations, indicate the existing signage area of the freestanding sign to ensure compliance with the Regulations. 3617 COA 10/08/03 6 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 36. Any sign or additional signage area proposed on the subject property that advertises for a use on an adjacent property would be classified as an off- premise sign. An off-premise sign is not permitted pursuant to Chapter 21, Article II, Section 3.S of the Land Development Regulations. However, if the "Carwash" wording is part of the official business name, provide document to verify same. Wording on the sign should graphically and accurately reflect / correspond with the official business name. 37. On the elevation pages, calculate the area (in square feet), including their dimensions, of each sign so that collectively, the cumulative area of all wall signage complies with Chapter 21, Article 4, Section C.3. Also, indicate the letter colors and sign material. Chapter 9, Section 10.1.6 of the City Of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations requires that project signage be in scale with the building. 38. Rooftops will be treated as part of the building elevation. All rooftop equipment must be completely screened from view at a minimum distance of 600 feet (Chapter 9, Section 11.E.). 39. Equipment placed on the walls of the buildings shall be paint_ed to match the building color (Chapter' 9, Section 10.C.4.). Place a note on the elevations indicating this requirement. 40. Also, if approved, pursuant to Chapter 2 - Zoning, Section 11.2 Conditional Uses, a time limit would be required for project development. Staff recommends a, period of one (1) year be allowed to obtain a building permit (excludin~ permits for land clearing). ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGNECY COMMENTS: Comments: 41. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION COMMENTS: Comments: 42. To be determined. ELJ 3618 S:\Planning\Shared\Wp\Projects\Gateway Texaco\COUS 03-007 Gateway T~COA.doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON. BEACH, FLORIDA ~- PROJECT NAME · Gateway Texaco APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants AGENT'S ADDRESS: 9 Northeast 16th Street Delray Beach, FL 33444 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 21, 2003 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request conditional use / major site plan modification to construct a 681 square foot addition to an existing 1,719 square foot gasoline- dispensing establishment for a total of 2,400 square feet on a 0.48 acre lot in the C-3 zoning district. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2360 North Federal Highway DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, which Board found as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of BOynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner conSistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS . HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. . DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other 3619 DATED: City Clerk S:~lanning',Shared\Wp~rojects\Gateway Texaco\COUS 03-007 Gateway T~DO.doc DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 03-209 STAFF REPORT TO: Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency and City Commission THRU: Michael Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director / FROM: Eric Lee .lohnson, A]:CP d,,/~/ ~ Planner DATE: August 29, 2003 PROJECT NAME/NO: Marouf Carwash / (NWSP 03-011) REQUEST: New Site Plan PRO.1ECT DE$CRIPTZON Property Owner: Mr. Zuhair Marouf Applicant: Mr. Zuhair Marouf Location: A portion of lots ~, & 5 of Sam Brown Subdivision, approximately :[37 feet east of U.S. 1, north of Las Palmas Avenue (see Exhibit"A"- Location Map) Existing Land Use/Zoning: Local Retail Commercial (LRC) / Community Commercial (C- 3) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change Proposed Use: Request site plan approval for the construction of automated carwash facility Acreage: 0.23 acres (9,908 square feet) ' Adjacent Uses: North: A multi-family residential property zoned Community Commercial (C-3); South: Las Palmas Road right-of-way, and farther south is residential property ('l-he Harbors), zoned ]:nfill Planned Unit Development (]:PUD); East: A single-family residential dwelling (Las Palmas development), zoned Single-family Residential (R-I-AA); and 3620 West: Developed commercial (Texaco Gas Station), zoned CommUnity Commercial (C-3). Memorandum No PZ 03-209 Page 2 Site Characteristic: The subject property is currently zoned Community Commercial (C-3) and located in the Sam Brown .Ir. Subdivision. The Sam Brown fir. Subdivision was platted in 1924 with typical lot sizes that varied between five (5) acres to ten (:[0) acres. Subsequent to platting, some of the original parcels had been subdivided to create smaller parcels. The subject property is a rectangular-shaped tract of undeveloped land located in Planning Area Number :L of the Federal Highway Corridor Study. On May 15, 2001, the City Commission approved a variance (ZNCV 0:~-008) to allow the development of a carwash facility on this 9,908 square foot parcel in lieu of the 15,000 square foot minimum lot area required by the C-3 zoning district. The survey shows that a Royal and Sabal Palm tree are located on the property. BACKGROUND Proposal: Hr. Beril Kruger of Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants is requesting new site plan approval to construct an automated car wash and an accessory "knock- down tent area" on the above-referenced lot (see Exhibit "B"- Site Plan). A car wash is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district. The site had been previously approved for an automated mechanical carwash in .ianuary 2002 (NWSP 0:~-017). However, the applicant never secured the permits for the project and the site plan subsequently expired. A request for site plan time extensionwas never submitted. As currently proposed, the structure would be comprised of a wash bay, storage area, and bathroom. According to the applicant, one (1) employee would be present on-site during regular business hours to collect money for the car-wash service and provide detailing service in the "wash-down" tent area. Although the property owner proposing the carwash is the same owner as the abutting property to the west (gas station), this project is considered separate from the gas station. This lot could be sold to another party in the future. The project would be built in one (:[) phase. ANALYSZS Concurrency: Traffic: A traffic statement was sent to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division for concurrency review in order to ensure an adequate level of service is maintained. The Traffic Division has determined that the project meets the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. Drainage: Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City's review. As is customary, the Engineering Division has found the conceptual information to be adequate and they are recommending that the review of specific drainage solutions be deferred until time of permit review (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). School: School concurrency is not req~ro~for this type of project. Driveways: The project intent is to have a fully automated carwash for customers who would remain in their vehicles as they drive through the structure. When the project was reviewed last year, the City Commission approved the project with a condition Staff F,~pol i - Marou¢ Carwash (NWSP 03-0'i i ) _Memorandum No PZ 03-209 Page 3 stipulating, "City staff and project designer shall work together to attempt to redesign the project driveway to discourage left-out movement". The site plan (sheet t of 4) shows a driveway is proposed on Las Palmas Avenue. This driveway would allow for vehicular egress only. In compliance with the City Commission condition, it has been designed at an angle in an effort to direct motorists exiting the site into right-turn (west) movement. This is also illustrated by the "right-turn" pavement markings shown on the site plan. The point of ingress is proposed at the northwest corner of the lot. This driveway is the only point of ingress. The project requires a cross-access agreement (approved by the City Attorney's office) due to the fact that no access is provided on a public / private right-of-way. The successful execution of a cross-access agreement would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). The site plan shows a "Do Not Enter" sign would be provided at the point of egress on Las Palmas Avenue. To discourage vehicles from entering the lot from Las Palmas Avenue (because that driveway opening is for exit-only), staff recommends moving the monument sign and relocating it to an area closer to the true entrance of the lot (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). Parking Facility: According to Chapter 2, Section :[1.H.5, no fewer than four (4) parking spaces shall be provided for any non-residential use. However, the Land Development Regulations do not specifically address the parking requirements for automated car wash facilities. It is staff's determination that the site plan meets the intent of the Code based on the use, characteristics, and performance of an automated carwash facility. Customers remain inside their vehicles and exit the site without the need for on-site parking, similar to accessorY carwashes of contemporarY gas stations. According to the applicant, the nature and operation of said business requires one (1) on-site employee to monitor, handle, and accept payment for service. Only one (:t) parking space is necessarY to accommodate this employee. It is the intent to discourage individuals'from parking their cars at the facility, walking to and from the gas station, and working on their cars (detailing, washing, vacuuming, etc.) on the subject property. Limiting the amount of on-site parking would minimize potential Impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood. Also, no pedestrian traffic is anticipated to result from a vehicular carwash. The site plan proposes two (2) parking spaces in part, to comply with ADA requirements. If no employee parking were proposed, then there would be no need for the handicap space. Landscaping: As previously mentioned, the survey shows that the subject lot contains a Royal and Sabal palm tree. These trees would be relocated elsewhere on the site. The proposed landscaped (pervious) area would be :[,809 square feet or :[8.25% of the site. The landscape plan plant list (sheet L-:[) shows that the front (south) landscape buffer would be approximately seven (7) feet In width. This landscape buffer would contain Pigeon Plum, Sabal palm trees and Yellow Elder trees with a row of Indian Hawthorne and :[xora "Nora" Grant shrubs installed at the base. The side (east) landscape buffer, which abuts a single-family residential neighborhood would be at least five (5) feet in width and contain clusters of three (3) Sabal palm trees. It would also contain a row of Green Buttonwood hedges, installed along the interior of the six (6) foot high buffer wall. This buffer wall would be finished and. 3622 SL~i'i' R~pu~L- ' ................... I¥ii:llUUl CalWd~il ~1N1¥¥0i-' U,.~-L/ I I) :Memorandum No PZ 03-209 Page 4 painted on both sides. Staff recommends incorporating cornices, score lines, and caps into the design of the wall (see Exhibit "C' - Conditions of Approval). The rear (north) landscape buffer would be approximately five (5) feet in width. It too would have the six (6)-foot high buffer wall and shrubs planted at the base. This buffer would have Sabal palm and Dahoon Holly trees. The side (west) buffer would have clusters of Sabal palms and two (2) Royal palm trees. Building and Site: The building and site design as proposed would generally meet code requirements when staff comments are incorporated into the permit drawings. The proposed automated car wash has been designed as a one (:L)-story structure. The maximum building height in the C-3 zoning distdct is 45 feet. Although not dimensioned, the proposed building would be approximately 16 feet tall, measured at the mean roof height. The top of cupola would be 24 feet - four (4) inches in height. These height increments need to be shown on the elevations (sheet 3 and 4 of 4). Tn any case, the proposed building would comply with the zoning district's height limitations (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). The required front setback in the C-3 zoning district is 20 feet; the plan provides over 32 feet. The required side setbacks are zero (0) feet on the west side and 30 feet on the east side; the plan provides two (2) feet - six (6) inches and over 30 feet respectively. The required rear setback is 20 feet; the plan provides over 44 feet. The Land Development Regulations requires a buffer on a commercial property where it abuts residential property. As previously mentioned, the applicant would provide a six (6)-foot high buffer wall along the north (rear) and side (east) property lines. According to Chapter 2, Section 4.L., the buffer wall is required to be located at least two (2) feet from the property line (to allow for maintenance). However, the property directly to the east has a five (5) foot high buffer wall (along its west property line). With the buffer wall proposed on the subject property, the plan complies with code. However, complying with code would create a situation where there would be a two (2) foot wide gap between the subject property's proposed buffer wall and the existing buffer wall (on the abutting property to the east). ]nstead of applying for a variance, staff recommends that the applicant work with the abutting property owner to see if there may be mutual interest in removing the existing wall (on the abutting property) and constructing a new decorative wall on the subject property (see Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). The survey shows that there is no sidewalk along Las Paimas Avenue. However, according to Chapter 6, Article ]:V, Section 10.T of the Land Development Regulations, a sidewalk is required within this right-of-way. A sidewalk would also be required within the right-of-way (of Las Palmas Avenue) in front of the abutting property to the west (existing gas station COUS 03-007). The applicant submitted an administrative waiver to this requirement arguing that there are no other sidewalk segments along Las Palmas in which to connect. However the Engineering Division subsequently denied the request. Therefore, the applicant is appealing the administrative ~$~ion to the City Commission. The applicant is proposing a rolling gate along Las Palmas Avenue. This gate would be in the closed position when the business is not in operation. Staff SiaF~' P..cpur[- M,~uui' Curw,~il (N'v'v'.SD 03-01 i) -Memorandum No PZ 03-209 Page 5 recommends installing another rolling or swing gate at the lot's ingress (see Exhibit "C' - Conditions of Approval). This would keep motorists from entering the site after business hours to find that they could not egress onto Las Palmas Avenue from the car wash lot. This additional restricted entry would help to avoid potential confusion and loitering after business hours. Design: As previously mentioned, the proposed building would be one (].) story tall. The design of the building is to resemble a single-family residence in order to blend ~ with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The elevations show that the carwash opening would be ].0 feet in height by ].2 feet in width. This drive-through feature would resemble the garage of a single-family home. At night when the business is closed, the drive-through opening would have a metal door. The "front" door would be seven (7) feet tall and three (3) feet wide. :It too, would be made of metal but painted green (Chrome Green). A decorative cupola with plastic slats and green metal is proposed on top of the pitched, white (Brilliant White) cement tile roof. Decorative score lines would be throughout the south, east, and west building facades. The proposed building color Is gray with a green accent color. $ignage: The applicant is proposing one (1) monument sign to be located in the southwest corner of the site. The elevation shows that it would be five (5) feet - six (6) inches in height and six (6) feet wide. The sign's letter colors are undetermined at this time. This information would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit (see Exhibit "C' - Conditions of Approval). The IocaUon of the sign, however, does not comply with the setback requirements. It needs to be located at least l0 feet from the property line. As previously menUoned, staff recommends relocating the monument sign away from Las Palmas Avenue to discourage motorists from incorrectly accessing the site from Las Palmas or from making U- turns. RECOMMENDAT'~QN: The Technical Review Committee (TRC) has reviewed this request for new site plan approval. Staff recommends approval, contingent upon all comments indicated in Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval. S:\Planning\$hared\WP\Projects\Gateway Texaco\Marouf's Car Wash NWSP 03-011\staff report, doc 3624 LOCATION MAP Zuhair Mar0uf Proposed Gar Wash EXHIBIT "A" 0 t~. _ ' ':-' ' ....~_: ___ ~' : '- L I 'llnl-,- ~ ~ ,:' ,~ ~ ~ .. ........ -.~ ~. ,,~' ~ e~ i ,'' I, :~ i ~ ".:': ~ ~ ,/ · ~ ri . ' ~ ~'/ ~ I/ ~' ~'.~ ']'. -'/~ ~ ':/:~,:-..........~:' ':, .... -.~_ .... :~ , / -:...~,...-..~. ~. . . . ~ I ft.'. : · ' - ' ,' ~,' · ~' / ~/'k~' .... ' ..... ~,1 · - I,,, .' .... ~ .... ' ..' ' ~ . I~.l ' ~ ' ~ ~ '. · ~ ---~ ' , ~. ' .~' : . .' ~1 .... , . .- , .... t ' · ~' i~ '..~.'7 '' '.... · · ' I ~ · ';.~.~ ~ . ..... ..../..... .... "'""': '.~: ~'2. '"~~ 0~, -..~....: ....,.... .....:...-.. ...~.~ ~ '~ ~ ~1~ ~ ' ' . /t ~1' ~ ~ 'x ~ , , ~! " ~' ~ ,,. -~ " i" '- '- ,,i,:~,'-:,_. · ..... ~'" . · ~:h:~l~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,,,~. ~ ~,-~ ..... ~ ................. ,,, · ":' ' '- :' ,:":Iii' : ~':' ' ~, i; .llii:kL ,~l~ ,: ,: - ::Ih:.,:::,.:., l:l i, ...o ,,- , ~ ... i. ] ill[Ill i [,~..,:.i.:.,:: ._.i , .,.,!. ...' ' '"'"'":'"'"' ~ . ~ , ,. /. ~ ~',~...~'~"'z~,,~i~. V--".,'~-~-~":~ -.. .... ~ ~ '-~ ' ~ i~ ~i .,/ ~ _~ ' ~ ' ; ~:~ ~:~i~ ," / " ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ': :, 3628 ~ ~ z -'>' ' =' ~ "''"~~ MAROUF'S CAR WASH ~-F ~," ~ ~ = 3629 3630 EXHIBIT "B" ' i'"' '"' i ; I? ,"~ '~-r, ..... ~ ....... -:- ~-'- .... ': ",:~ .... ',- - - ~- ~' ' I'~l ' r-,[-~ i ' ~ .~tl ,'111 ~ II17!~ '"111~"' ~, ' : ~7-_-EZZZE--T~ ............. ;'-'; - :I '- ......... J : ,ILl ::: ,,, iii '" I ............... l~ ~l~[[~ilr ~ i ~ I ! : i . , EXHIBIT "B" EXHIBIT"B" . ~-~ ~' ~. ~ ~. ..-=, ...~ ,~.,_.,... ~ ~'. ~ ~-~ ~= : . : / , ; ., a ~i',/.'~r :- = i ,,, .,=,=. ~. ~ ~' ,. ~im ~ =.~ ~ ~ ~a'~' , .> _= =.~ ~= - -~. ~ 3634 · :.,:':,' ." l ~tlll :,,,,, I :4'i' ,Il [..~':'] · _ Ill: I 'l Ill [l:"li~i ,~il !~ l [ ~, I ~,lt Iii ,l,:,,m , :~ ' ~~l,~[ ~,,~,,,, · .. '~'., ~ x ,. ,, .~ ,, ~,. ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ' ~. ~ 4. 13 ;: ' 'I' ;~ · h ~=~ ~ ~o 3636 : .... ' ~ ._L~. ~ f ,EXHIBIT?B". -~- ~"r · : , , 3637 ?' ' ~ i Irrioation Details & Notes .... :'"':: .... "; ;'; EXHIBIT "C' .- Conditions of Approval Project name: Marouf's Car Wash File number: NWSP 03-011 Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a New Site Plan with a September 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning date DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS - General Comments: 1. Prior to permit application, contact the Public Works Department (561) 742- 6200. regarding the storage and handlin~ of refuse. 2. Indicate in your response how solid waste will be handled at this site, by rollout cart or dumpster. If the expected level of trash cannot be handled by rollout cart, a dumpster enclosure will be required and shall be constructed in accordance with Cit7 Standard Drawin~ G-4. PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic Comments: 1. Provide a copy of the thirteen (13) foot ingress/egress easement through the Gateway Texaco station for review and approval and reflect it on the site plan. 2. Provide complete detail(s) for handicap parking, using City Standard Drawings K-3 and K4. UTILITIES Comments: 3. Palm Beach County Health Department permits may be required for the water and sewer systems serving this project (CODE, Section 26-12). 4. Fire flow calculations will be required demonstrating City Code regulations of 1,500 g.p.m, as stated in Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 16, or the requirement(s) imposed by insurance underwriters, whichever is gleater. 5. The CODE, Section 26-34(E) requires that a capacity reservation fee be paid for this project either upon the request for the Department's signature on the Health Department application forms or within 30 days of site plan approval, whichever occurs fn'st. This fee will be determined based upon final'meter size, or expected demand. 3638 6. Utility construction details as shown on the Site Development Detail sheet 3 of 3 will not be reviewed for conslruction acceptability at this time. All Utility construction details shall be in accordance with the Utilities Department's COA t0/0~/03 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT "Utilities Engineering Design Handbook & Construction Standards" manual; the), will be reviewed at the time of construction permit application. ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: 7. Proof of other agency permits shall be required prior to the issuance of the p~aving and drainage permit. 8. The Scale of the landscape plan shall match that of the site plan (Chapter 4, Section 7.C.1.). The use of a 1:10 scale is preferred. 9. The Pink Tabebuia (proposed east of the driveway) shall be relocated after revising the si~lat triangles. 10. Sidewalks shall be four (4) feet wide along local streets, and five (5) feet wide along streets of higher classification (LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 10.T., and Chapter 22, Article I, Section 5). 11. Sidewalks shall meet or exceed State Handicap Code requirements and comply with the Standard Building Code and amendments thereto (LD1L Ch/tpter 23, Article II, Section K). 12. Sidewalks adjacent to parking lots shall be continuous through all driveways and shall be six (6) inches thick within driveways (LDR, Chapter 23, Article II, Section P). 13. Full drainage plans in accordance with the LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5 will be required at the time of permitting. 14. Will the existing masonry wall on the adjacent property (to the east) be removed prior to construction of the new six (6) foot masonry wall? If the existing 70 feet of six (6) foot wall on the abutting property (shown on the survey) is not to be razed, obtain approval of the property owner to tie into that wall. If the new privacy wall must be constructed, then arrangements should be made to remove the existing wall, otherwise there will be two (2) six- foot walls with approximately three (3) feet between them. 15. Paving, Drainage and Site details as shown on the Site Development Detail sheet 3 of 3 will not be reviewed for construction acceptabihty at this time. All engineering construction details shall be in accordance with the applicable City of Boynton Beach "Engineering Design Handbook & Construction Standards" manual and will be reviewed for constmctability at the time of construction permit application. 3639 FIRE 0/0.9/03 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT Comments: None POLICE Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: 16. Buildings, structures and parts thereof shall be designed to withstand the minimum wind loads of 140 mph. Wind forces on every building or structure shall be determined by the provisions of Chapter 6 of ASCE 7, and the provisions of Section 1606 (Wind Loads) of the 2001 FBC. Calculations that are signed and sealed by a design professional registered in the state of Florida shall be submitted for review at the time of permit application. 17. At timeof permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the proposed construction. 18. A water-use permit for the irrigation system is required from the SFWMD. A copy of the permit shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S. 373.216. PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: 19. The applicant must indicate on the landscape plan the existing trees / vegetation that will be preserved, relocated or removed / replaced on the site. A separate symbol should be used on the landscape plan to identify these trees / vegetation (Tree Legend) (Chapter 7.5, Article 17 Sec. 7.C.). 20. The Las Palmas road fight-of-way must receive Floritam sod and irrigation (Chapter 7.5, Article I1 Sec. 7.C.). PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 3640 21.- The City Commission must approve the administrative appeal to the denial of . the sidewalk waiver or provide sidewalk as required. COA 0/09/03 4 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 22. As per the past City Commission condition: the hours of operation shall be limited to day light hours (due to lack of site lighting), not to exceed 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 23. As per the past Community Redevelopment Agency Board condition: no sound system shall be on the property for music or communication with employee or customer that would be audible from the adjacent residential properties. 24. As per the past Community Redevelopment Agency Board condition: the proposed parking space shall be limited to employee parking and not used for vehicle servicing. 25. Construction of the new buffer wall (along east property line) shall be completed pr/or to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion (Chapter 2, Section 4.L.). 26. All height dimensions, including mean roof height and top' of cupola, need to be shown on the elevations. 27. Ensure that all the proposed plant quantities correspond between what is shown on the graphic illustration and its corresponding plan list on sheet "L- ,,. 28. The proposed monument sign must be located at least 10 feet from the property line (Chapter 21, Article In, Section 5). Either eliminate the monument sign or relocate it elsewhere on-site to comply with code. Staff recommends relocating the structure away from Las Palmas Avenue since the subject lot's in,ess is proposed at the northwest comer of the site. 29. The base of the proposed monument sign shall be enhanced with colorful groundcover plants, and a minimum of two (2) colorful shrub species (Chapter 7.5, Article ri, Section 5.0.). 30. On the monument sign, indicate the anticipated letter colors (Chapter 9, Section 10.F.). 31. Staff recommends installing security gates at all points of access on the subject property. 32. Instead of applying for a wall variance, staff recommends that the applicant work with the abutting property owner (to the east) to raze the existing wall (on the abutting property) and construct a new wall in its place on the subject property. 33. Staff recommends that the buffer wall (along the east property line), be enhanced with score lines, cornices, and caps. 3641 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY'REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COA -10/09/03 5 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT COMMENTS: Comments: 34. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION COMMENTS: Comments: 35. To be determined. ELJ S:~Planning\Shared\Wp\Projects\Oateway Texaco\Marouf's Car Wash NWSP 03-01 l\COA.doc 3642 DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Marouf's Car Wash APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Beril Kruger- Beril Kruger Planning & Zoning Consultants APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 9 Northeast 16th Street, Delray Beach, FL 33444 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 21, 2003 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request new site plan approval for the construction of a mechanical car on a 0.23-acre lot in the C-3 zoning district LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2360 North Federal Highway DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, which Board found as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative st~ff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's .application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other 3643 DATED: City Clerk DE~;."E LOpid{ EN'F DEPARTMENT ELA~'NI.NG AN~ ZONING DIVISION MEMORAN'~'UM NO. ~- ~ 03-225 Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency THRU: Michael Rumpf' Director of Planning and Zoning FROM: Eric Lee .Johnson, AICP Planner DATE: October 2, 2003 PROJECT: Sunbelt Hydraulics / SPTE 03-003 REQUEST:. Site Plan Time Extension pRO3ECT DESCR]:PTTON Property Owner: C & C Realty Investments Applicant/Agent: Mr. Joseph F. Houston with Kerns Construction, Incorporated Location: Lot 9 of Boynton Beach Industrial Park North(see Exhibit "A" - Location Map) Existing Land Use / Zoning: Industrial (I) / Industrial (M-l) Proposed Land Use/Zoning: No change proposed Proposed'Use: A one (1)-story, 12,480 square foot industrial building with related parking for a business that service's truCk bodies Acreage: 1.44 acres (62,730 square feet) Adjacent Uses: North: Developed industrial property (Dock & Deck Lumber Company) with an Industrial (I) land use designation, zoned Industrial (M-l); South: Vacant industrial property (approved for Vermeer Southeast Sales) with an Industrial (I) land use designation, zoned Industrial (M-l) East: Right-of-way for C.S.X. Railroad, then farther east is right-of-way for Interstate 95; and West: Right-of-way for West Industrial Avenue, then farther west are single-family homes with a Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation, zoned Single-family Residential (R-l-A). 3644 Page 2 Merno,.'sndum No. PZ 03-225 BACKGROUND Mr. Joseph Houston of Kerns Construction, agent for Sunbelt Hydraulics and C & C Realty Investments is requesting a one (::[)-year time extension on the new site plan approval (NWSP 02-008) originally granted on August 6, 2002. According to the previous staff report (Memorandum PZ 02-128), the subject site was pre-cleared and predominately vegetated with a variety of overgrown grasses. There is no other vegetation of any significance on-site. The subject property is surrounded by other industrial uses, and zoned fVl-l. The north property line is partially screened by a chain link and wooden fence. The project was approved for a 12,480 square foot building. The proposed business, Sunbelt Hydraulics, would be engaged in the installation and maintenance of (garbage) truck bodies and the repair of their seals, hoses, and hydraulic systems. The required parking was based on the ratio of one (1) space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. The site plan was approved for one (1) point of ingress / egress off of West Industrial Avenue. This driveway was to be located at the southwest corner of the site. The intent was for Sunbelt Hydraulics to share this driveway with the property to the south. The property to the south, Vermeer Southeast Sales (NWSP 02-013), was approved on lots 6, 7, and 8 of Boynton Beach industrial Park North for the construction of a 14,222 square foot building. Vermeer Southeast Sales is a business that services and sells construction machinery. Both Sunbelt Hydraulics and Vermeer Southeast Sales would share the driveway that is proposed on West Industrial Avenue. If this request for site plan extension for Sunbelt Hydraulics were approved, the expiration date of Sunbelt Hydraulics' site plan would be extended to August 6, 2004. ANALYSIS On August 6, 2002, the City Commission granted site plan approval for the above referenced project. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division's Traffic Performance Standards Review was approved with a build-out year of 2002. The applicant submitted a revised traffic impact statement with this request for site plan time extension. The revised traffic imPact statement (with a build-out date of 2004) was approved by the Palm Beach County Traffic Division. In any event, the 24 conditions of approval for the original project would still apply with this request for site plan time extension. According to Chapter 4, Section 5 of the Land Development Regulations, "the applicant shall have one (1) year to secure a building permit from the Development Department". It states further that the City Commission may extend the approval for one (1) year provided that the applicant has filed a request for a time extension prior to the expiration of the original approval. In this case, the applicant has met the requirement. The Planning & Zoning Division received the application for this site plan time extension on ~luly 30, 2003, prior to the expiration date. On February 20, 2003, the applicant submitted drawings (Permit #03'0553) for the building and irrigation well (Permit #03-1452). Building Division staff reviewed the permit application and prepared comments to the applicant. A request for a time extension for the building permit application was submitted on August 6, 2003 and set to expire on November 4, 2003. 3645 Also, the applicant Stated in their site plan extension application that, "the budget for the project was reviewed and adjusted to reflect changes incorporated during the approval process and necessitated by existing site conditions. As a result of some of these changes, the adjustments to the budget impacted the project to the extent that the financial viability of the project became questionable. As a result, the owner found it necessary to suspend the project until he was able to work out the necessary financing". Page 3 l',,'i~mo:~ndL~n': No. PZ 03-225 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this request for a one (1)-year time extension of the site plan approval (NWSP 03-003). This recommendation is based on the "good faith" effort shown to build the project (while in the permitting process) and that an updated traffic impact statement was approved with a build. out year of 2004. Furthermore, no changes have been made to the Land Development Regulations that would impact this project since it was approved in 2002. ApprOval of this request for site plan extension would extend the project's expiration date to August 6, 2004. All conditions of approval included in the initial development order must still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. Any new conditions of approval recommended by the Board or required by the City Commission will be placed in Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval. Staff would not support a second extension, if so requested, due to the upcoming rewrite of the Land Development Regulations. The site plan would be required to meet all new regulations at that time. S:U=lanning\Share~Wp\Projects~Sunbelt Hydraulics~SPTE'~Staff Report.doc 3646 Loc~.tion IV]ap ~x~,~,~,,~,, Sunbelt Hydraulics 400 0 400 800 1200 1600 Feet 3647 3651 3652 EXHIBIT "C" Conditions of Approval Project name: Sunbelt Hydraulics File number: SPTE 03-003 Reference: Application received July 30, 2003 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None · PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Comments: 1. To be determine. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION COMMENTS Comments: 3653 2. To be determined. S:~Phnnin~l~l~WpL~¥oject~Sunbelt Hydraulics~SPTL~COA. doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA . PR.OJECT NAME · Sunbelt Hydraulics APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Joseph F. Houston with Kerns Construction, Incorporated APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 2720 Windsor Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33407 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: October 21, 2003 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request site plan time extension for a 12,480 square foot industrial building on 1.44 acres in the M-1 zoning district, including a one (1) year time extension of the site plan approval granted on August 6, 2002 (an extension to August 6, 2004. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Lot 9 of Boynton Beach Industrial Park North DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, which Board found as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: I. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other DATED: 3--6-5-4- City Clerk S:~Planning\Shared\Wp\Projects\Woolbdght P~aza\SPTE 03'001\DO.docS:~Planning\Shared~Wp~Projects\Sunbelt Hydraulics\SPTL~DO.doc James R. (Jim) Warnke 617 Lakeside Harbor Boynton Beach, F1 33435 561-732-4567 Fax 561-732-0377 warnke~bellsouth.net October 4, 2003 Dear Larry, I am writin[ regarding the public hearing for conditional use approval on October 14~' requested by SUAU Enterprises, Inc. This is a Flor/da Corporation wholly owned by Zuhair Marouf and the corporation address is the Texaco station at 2360 N. Federal. Some time ago he got CONDITIONAL approval, from the City Commission for a car wash next to the station despite many angry protests by the residents next door and on Las Palmas Blvd. He is now requesting variances so he can go ahead with the controversial car wash next to R1AA homes. I can see a couple of small variances might be in order but he is asking for TEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITY CODES. We think that so many variances totally defeat the purpose and meaning of our city codes. Why have codes at all if they can be easily manipulated for a car wash???? I live on Lakeside Harbor, the next street north of Las Palmas, and about 400 feet from the property in question. We urge .... you_,~ to, vote no!/~.~~~_z~~ Jim Warnke (speaking for concerned residents on Lakeside Harbor.) cc: Members of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board Palm Beach' Post Attachments: Picture and Corp. information Division of Corporalions http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordct.exe?al=DETF1L&nt=P97000... Florida Profit SUAU ENTE~SES~ ~C. PRINCIPAL ADDRESS 2360 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY BOYNTON BEACH FL 33435~2446 US Changed 06/03/1998 ~II,1NG ADDRESS 2360 N. FEDERAL HIGHWAY BOYNTON BEACH FL 33435-2446 US changed 06/03/1998 Document Number FEI Number Date Filed P97000066134 650771405 07/31/1997 State Status Ettective Date FL ACTIVE NONE Last Event Event Date Filed Event Effective Date REINSTATEMENT 11/07/2002 NONE Registered Agent Name & Address MAROUF, ZUHAIR 1142 GRAND CAY PALM BEACH GARDENS FL 33418 Nam. Ckanoeti Address Changed: 08/2'3;2000 COMMUNI"rY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ROLL CALL VOTES YES NO YES NO YES NO Chairman Finkelstein Alexander DeMarco Charles Fisher Don Fenton Vice Chair Heavilin Michele Ho__yland Henderson Tillman YES NO YES NO YES NO Vice Chair Heavilin Alexander DeMarco Charles Fisher Don Fenton Chairman Finkelstein Michele Ho~/land Henderson Tillman -- YES NO YES NO rvlichele Hoyland Alexander Dervlarco Charles Fisher Henderson Tillman Chairman Finkelstein Vice Chair Heavilin Don Fenton -- YES NO YES NO YES NO Henderson Tillman Chairman Finkelstein Charles Fisher Michele Hoyland Alexander DeMarco Vice Chair Heavilin Don Fenton s:\cc\wp~ninutes\cra\roll call sheets.doc Members - 4 Yr. terms COMMUNm REDEVELOPMENT AGENCy' 2003 LAs1- NAME FIRST EXPIRES ADDRESS PROFESSIONAL NAM E ASSOCIATION DeMarco Alexander 6/20/06 10817 QUAIL COVEY RD Arvida Realty BOYNTON BEACH 33436 901 N Congress Ave - Ste. B-102 (561) 732-6789 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 ~/ (561) 736-2400 Ext. 107 ~' Fax (561) 736-1560 cristale@bellsouth.com Fenton Don 1/10/06 2556 SW 23RD CRANBROOK DR Edward `lones & Company BOYNTON BEACH 33436 901 N Congress Avenue, Ste B-101 .9 (561) 737-0793 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 ,! (561) 737-1442 ~' Fax (561) 364-1536 Finkelstein Larry 1/10/05 LAMAR REALTY CORPORATION Lamar Realty Corporation 114 N FEDERAL HVVY, STE 202 114 N Federal Hwy., Ste 202 ~_/j BOYNTO N BEACH 33435 Boynton(561)Beach,736_O790FL 33435 Chair ii Fax (561) 423-2432 Ifgi@aol.com Fisher Charles,, 6/20/04 8069 STIRRUP CAY COURT Image Solutions :~ ~'J BOYNTON BEACH 33436 Boynton Beach, FL (561) 364-8717 c.m.fisher@att.net Heavilin Jeanne 1/10/05 PO BOX 3693 (734 NE 9TM AVE) Sailfish Realty BOYNTON BEACH 33424 532 E Ocean Avenue ~.i~ ]~) (561) 731-4474 Boynton Beach, FL 33435(561) 738-6613 i/ice Chair Fax (561) 738-7911 jheavilin@msn.com Hoyland Michelle 1/10/04 926 SUNSET ROAD City of Delray Beach BOYNTON BEACH 33435 Planning & Zoning Dept. (561) 736-8668 100 NW ist Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 (561) 243-7040, Ext. 7047 Fax (561) 243-7221 mhoyland@delrayplanning.org Tillman Henderson 1/10/05 54 BENTVVATER CIA Spanish River High School /~ ^ BOYNTON BEACH 33426-7646 5100 .log Road (561) 965-6776 Boca Raton, FL 33496 (561) 241-2200, Ext. 2540 6 S:\CC\WP~BOARDS\LISTS\CRA Board.doc - bg - 10/14/2003 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Special Meeting Tuesday, October 14, 2003 Commission Chambers Boynton Beach 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order. II. Roll Call. III. Public Audience. IV. New Business A. Presentation of Qualification from the two finalists selected through the RFQ process for the Savage Creatures of Ancient Seas Feasibility Study. V. Other Items: VI. Adjournment. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. MEMO TO: CRA Board FROM: Don Fenton SUBJECT: Reconsideration of CRA Executive Director's Salary DATE: September, 18, 2003 As the CRA Board may or may not know, the CRA Executive Director has chosen to not sign the CRA board contract offer. I am requesting that the CRA Board reconsider the salary of $88,000.00 given to the CRA Executive Director at the September 9, 2003 meeting. After reviewing the recommended listed below from each board member regarding the salary of the CRA Executive Director, I believe that the salary of $88,000.00 that was offered was considerably lower than it should be. Henderson Tillman $ 93,500.00 Alexander DeMarco $ 96,000.00 Michelle Hoyland $ 88,000.00 Jeannie Heavilln $ 88,000.00 Don Fenton $100,000.00 Larry Finkelstein $ 88,000.00 Charles Fisher $ 88,000.00 Total $641,500.00 Divided by 7 7 Average Total $ 91,642.86 3681 I am recommending that the CRA Board consider the amount of $93,500 which would put his salary $500 above the lowest paid CRA Director in this area and $1,500 under the mid range of the current pay scale of the CRA. Further, as I stated at the last CRA Board meeting, I feel that Douglas Hutchinson has been a driving force behind the dynamic changes that Boynton Beach has seen in the last two years. 3682 THIS CONTRACT is entered into between the Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, hereinafter referred to as "CRA", and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON. RECITALS The CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON acknowledge the following as the basis for this contract: A. The CRA is desirous of retaining the services of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON to serve as the Executive Director of the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON agrees to provide said service. B. In selecting DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON to be the Executive Director of the CRA, the CRA has relied on all information and materials appearing on or furnished in connection with his application for that position, including representations made in oral interviews. DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON represents that all such information and materials are accurate, complete and authentic and that he is qualified and has the expertise to serve as the Executive Director of the CRA and that the performance of such duties are specialized in nature. C. The CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON wish to reduce their agreements to writing, in order to describe their relationship with each other and to provide a basis for effective communication between them as they fulfill their respective governance and administrative functions in the operation of the CRA. D. The position 'of Executive Director is a contractual position controlled by the terms hereof. TERMS~ CONDITIONS AND CONVENANT~ Accordingly, based upon the forgoing premises and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Contract, the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON agree as follows: ARTICLE I A~reement for Services 1.1 The CRA hereby contracts with DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON to serve as Executive Director of the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON hereby agrees to provide the services as hereinafter set forth. 3~83 1.2 DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON is an at will employee of the CRA. By acceptance of the Contract, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON acknowledges that there has been no representation or promise, expressed or implied fixing the term of this appointment, except as provided for herein. The Human Resources Policy and Procedures Manual does not apply hereto except as specifically referenced herein and the following Articles shall specifically apply: 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 3-3, 5-4, 5-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10 and 6-11. ARTICLE 2 Duties and Obli.qations 2.1 Principal Duties and Obligations. Subject to the CRA Board direction and supervision for the overall operation of the CRA, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall: 2.1.1 be the Executive Director of the CRA and is responsible for all activities asSociated with the CRA. Some of those responsibilities are as set forth (Exhibit "A") in the CRA Executive Director Job Description. 2.2 Manner of Performance. Except as otherwise expressly provided by the Contract, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall at all times: 2.211 devote all his time, attention, knowledge and skill solely and exclusively to the business and interest of the CRA during normal working hours and at CRA related events after normal business hours; 2.2.2 perform his duties and obligations faithfully, industriously and to the best of his ability; 2.2.3 disclose all employment to the. CRA Board and not engage in any conflicting outside employment except with prior written permission of the CRA Board; 2.2.4 keep the CRA Board fully informed in advance of all travel and activities that take him out of the office for more than a day at a time. 3684 3432 Page 2 of 13 ARTICLE 3 Annual Performance GoalS and Evaluation 3.1 The CRA shall review and evaluate the performance of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON at least once annually no later than forty-five (45) days prior to end of the term of each year of this Agreement. The review and evaluation shall be in accordance with performance criteria developed by the CRA, and such criteria must be provided to DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON in advance of the commencement of the period of evaluation. The criteria may be added to or deleted from as the CRA may from time to time determine, except that DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall not be evaluated for his work if no performance criteria has been established. Further, the CRA shall provide DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON with a summary written statement of the evaluation and provide an adequate opportunity for DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON to discuss his evaluation with the CRA. 3.1 3.2 periodically, the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall define such goals and performance objectives that they determine necessary'for the proper operation of the CRA in attainment of the objectives and shall further establish a relative priority among those various goals and objectives, which shall be reduced to writing. ARTICLE 4 Compensation and Benefits 4.1 Compensation reviews are not subject to any specific formula applicable to other CRA personnel. Wage adjustments shall be at the sole discretion of the CRA and are subject to the appropriation of funds by the CRA. 4.2 Base Salary. The CRA shall pay DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON an annual compensation of dollars ($ .00) for all services performed, payable in equal installments at the same time as the CRA employees are paid. 4.3 Benefits. The CRA agrees DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON may participate and have the following benefits as set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual, Section 6 that applies to the CRA employees; i.e., retirement, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, holidays, sick leave, compassionate leave and vacation leave. Page 3 of 13 4.4 Business Expenses. The CRA agrees to reimburse DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON for out of pocket expenses made on behalf of the CRA and approved by the CRA Board 4.5 Automobile Expenses. The CRA agrees to pay DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($3,600.00) per year payable in equal installments at the same time as the CRA employees are paid. 4.6 Additional Benefits. The CRA Board may, in its sole discretion, reimburse DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON for membership fees in various organizations and for subscriptions to various related publications which remain the property of the CRA. ARTICLE 5 Duration of Contract 5.1 This Agreement shall be for a term of one (1) year, but may-be automatically renewed until replaced or superceded by subsequent Contract(s) of Employment to provide continuity of employment for operations, insurance and benefits, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Article 7. The term of the Contract shall begin on June 1st, 2003. ARTICLE 6 Indemnification and Reimbursement 6.1 The CRA Shall: 6.1.1 defend and indemnify DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON against all claims and action, civil or criminal, provided that claims or actions arise out of and in the course of the performance of his duties and responsibilities pursuant to this Contract; 6.1.2 pay any judgment that may be entered against DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON in a civil action arising out of and in the course of the performance of his duties and responsibilities pursuant to this Contract, except a judgment based on intentional wrongdoing or willful neglect by DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON; 6.1.3 the CRA reserves the rights to select, appoint, retain or discharge legal counsel necessary to provide the foregoing defense. 3686 Page 4 of-13 ARTICLE 7 Termination of Contract 7.1 Events of Termination. This Contract shall terminate immediately, if, and when, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON becomes a non-contract employee of the CRA. This Contract shall terminate: 7.1.1 at any time by the mutual agreement of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON and the CRA; 7.1.2 by unilateral termination of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON's contract for the position; DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON serves at the pleasure of the CRA and may be terminated by the CRA Board, without cause, upon forty-five (45) days written notice to DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON. However, the CRA Board of Directors may, if it is deemed in the best interest of the CRA, relieve DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON from his duties immediately; 7.1.3 by the resignation of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON. DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON may terminate this Employment Contract without cause upon written notice to CRA. A resignation shall be submitted in writing and shall provide for an actual resignation date no later than fourteen (14) days following the date of notice of resignation, unless the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON mutually agree to another number of days; 7.1.4 upOn DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON'S sustained inability for all or substantially all of one hundred and six (106) calendar days to perform his duties and obligations pursuant to this Contract as a result of physical or mental illness or condition. This inability may be verified at the CRA's expense (to the extent not covered by applicable medical insurance maintained by the CRA) by a licensed physician mutually, agreed upon by DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON and the CRA, provided that state or federal law or regulations would not preclude or prohibit DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON separation under the condition. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree on a physician within ten (10) days of a request for selection, the examining physician will be selected solely by the CRA; 7.1.5 upon the death of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON; 7.2 Rights and Obligations Upon Termination by Mutual Agreement. If this Contract terminates Upon mutual agreement of the parties, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall be entitled to: 3_687. Page 5 of 13 7.2.1 base salary for services performed to the effective date of the termination plus a payment of ninety (90) days pay, payable upon contract termination agreement, calculated as follows: Employee's annual base salary shall be divided by three hundred sixty-five (365.) days and that sum shall be multiplied by ninety (90) days, less customary withholding; 7.2.2 reimbursement of as-yet unreimbursed expenses pursuant to this Contract; 7.2.3 any amount for accrued and unused vacation leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.2.4 any amount for accrued and unused sick leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.2.5 any life and / or disability benefits if applicable; 7.2.6 the total accrued retirement as provided for in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.2.7 automatic vesting of all CRA matching retirement to date of termination. 7.3 Rights and Obligations upon Unilateral Termination by the CRA. Unilateral termination shall be in writing, signed by the CRA and need not reflect performance related reasons. If this Contract is terminated by unilateral action of the CRA, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall be entitled only to the following; unless it is determined that DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON is guilty of misconduct or gross neglect of duty or is charged with a crime and in that case he shall be compensated only for actual time worked: 7.3.1 if given forty-five (45) days notice or less, such as immediately set forth below; base salary for services provided to the effective date of the termination plus one hundred twenty (120) days pay, payable upon termination notice by the CRA, calculated as follows: Employee's annual base salary shall be divided by three hundred sixty-five (365) days and that sum shall be multiplied by one hundred twenty (120) days, less customary withholding; if dismissed immediately; base salary for services p~ovided to the effective date of the termination plus one hundred fifty(150) days pay, payable upon termination notice by the CRA, calculated as follows: Employee's annual base salary shall be divided by three hundred sixty-five (365) days and that Page 6 of 13 sum shall be multiplied by one hundred fifty(150) days, less customary withholding; 7.3.2 reimbursement of as-yet unreimbursed expenses pursuant to this Contract; 7.3.3 any amount for accrued and unused vacation leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.3.4 any amount for accrued and unused sick leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual. 7.3.5 any life and / or disability benefits if applicable; 7.3.6 the total accrued retirement as provided for in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.3.7 automatic vesting of all CRA matching retirement to date of termination. 7.4 Rights and Obligations Upon Termination Due to Resignation. If this Contract terminates due to DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON'S resignation, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall be entitled only to the following compensation and benefits: 7.4.1 the base salary through the last day that the DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON performed services to or on behalf of the CRA; 7.4.2 reimbursement of as-yet unreimbursed expenses pursuant to this Contract; 7.4.3 any amount for accrued and unused vacation leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.4.4 any amount for accrued and unused sick leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.4.5 any life and / or disability benefits if applicable; 7.4.6 the total accrued retirement as provided for in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual. 7.5 Rights and Obligations Upon Termination Due to Disability or Death. If this Contract terminates due to DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON'S physical disability or Page 7 of 13 3689 death, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON'S or his guardian or personal representative shall be entitled only to the following compensation and benefits: 7.5.1 the base salary through the last day that the DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON performed services to or on behalf of the CRA; 7.5.2 reimbursement of as-yet unreimbursed expenses pursuant to this Contract; 7.5.3 any amount for accrued and unused vacation leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.5.4 any amount for accrued and unused sick leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.5.5 any life and / or disability benefits if applicable; 7.5.6 the total accrued retirement as provided for in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual. ARTICLE 8 Modification or Amendment of Contract 8.1 Modification and Amendment. No modification of or amendment of this Contract shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties. ARTICLE 9 Waiver 9.1 The CRA Waiver of any breach of any term, condition or covenant of this Contract shall not constitute the waiver of any other breach of the same or any other term, condition or covenant of this Contract. 3690. Page 8 of 13 ARTICLE 10 Applicability to Successors 10.1 This Contract shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of: 10.1.1 DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON heirs and personal representatives; and 10.1.2 the CRA regardless of changes in the persons holding office as members of the CRA. ARTICLE 11 Non-Assignability and Subcontractin~ 11.1 This Contract is not assignable. 11.2 DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall not subcontract any portion of the work of this Contract without the prior written approval of the CRA Board. ARTICLE 12 Severability of Provisions 12.1 If any provision of this Contract or the application of any provision to any party or circumstance shall be prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, the provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibitions or invalidity without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Contract or their application to other parties or circumstances. ARTICLE 13 Governing Law and Venue 13.1 This Contract and the terms, conditions and covenants contained in it shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, and any action brought in connection with. this Contract shall be brought in Palm Beach County, Florida in State Court and in the Southern District Court of Florida in Federal Court. 3691. Page 9 of 13 ARTICLE 14 Integration of All A.qreements and Understandings 14.1 This Contract contains the entire agreement between the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON. All prior agreements and understanding, whether written or oral, pertaining to this Contract with DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON are fully abrogated and of no further force and effect from and after the date of the Contract. 14.2 Regardless of which party or party's counsel prepared the original draft and subsequent revisions of this Contract, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON and the CRA and their respective counsel have had equal opportunity to contribute to and have contributed to its contents, and this Contracts shall not be deemed to be the products of and, therefore, construed against either of them. 14.3 The omission from the Contract of a term or provision contained in an earlier draft of the Contract shall have no evidentiary significance regarding the contractual intent of the parties. ARTICLE 15 Execution of Contract 15.1 This Contract may be executed in duplicate or in counter parts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which tOgether shall be deemed one and the same instrument. No term, condition or covenant of this Contract shall be binding on either party until both parties 'have signed it. Notice 15.2 Whenever any party desires to give notice unto any other party, it must be given by written notice, sent by certified United States Mail, with return receipt requested,' by hand delivery or by facsimile transmission with receipt of delivery, addressed to the party for whom it is intended and the remaining parties, at the places last specified, and the places for giving.of notice shall remain such until Page 10 of 13 ~ '- they shall have been changed by written notice in compliance wit the provisions of this section. For the present the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON designate the following as the respective places for giving of notice: CRA: Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Attention: CRA Chairman 639 East Ocean Ave., Suite #107 Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Telephone: (561)737-3256 Facsimile: (561) 737-3258 COPY TO: Lindsey A. Payne, Esquire Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: (954) 771-4500 Facsimile: (954) 771-4923 EMPLOYEE: Douglas C. Hutchinson 9480 South Military Trail, Unit 4 D Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Telephone: (561) 734-7762 EXECUTED on the resPective dates set forth below. DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON: BY: Dated: Douglas C HUtchinson BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: BY: Dated: CHAIRMAN 3693 Page 11 of 13 . : " EXHIBITA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Classification Description CLASSIFICATION TITLE: Community Redevelopment Executive Director Exempt Contract Position WORK OBJECTI'VE This is highly visible and responsible administrative and operational position managing and directing the Community Redevelopment Agency programs which ~ are established under Chapter 163 of the Florida State Statutes. An employee in this classification is responsible for planning, initiating and directing programs and projects for the physical and economic improvement and redevelopment of the designated community. Responsibilities include organizing, assigning, directing and reviewing the activities of professional, technical and administrative support personnel engaged in the compilation, analysis and interpretation of data. Such work shall lead to the preparation of reports and recommendations effecting community planning and redevelopment. Work is performed under'the general direction of the City of Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRA Board). The employee serves as the primary staff liaison to the office of the City Manager for the City of Boynton Beach. The position has considerable latitude for independent judgment, initiative and is reviewed by observation of results achieved, periodic conferences and reports. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS Provided herein is a general description of duties that may be assigned. The CRA Board reserves the right to establish, assign, reassign and redistribute work to meet business needs. The statements herein do not preclude the CRA Board from assigning other duties similar in nature, complexity and responsibility to the position within this classification. · Plans, organizes, assigns, directs and reviews the activities of professional, technical and clerical personnel engaged in the compilation, analysis and interpretation of data and preparation of reports and recommendations affecting community planning and redevelopment. · Oversees the preparation of the CRA Redevelopment Plans and its implementation. · Selects, assigns, trains and evaluates staff. · Administers consultant agreements for services provided to the CRA. · Serves as an in-house consultant and represents the CRA in dealing with other agencies with respect to related matters. Prepares reports and studies at the direction of the CRA Board. Page 12 of 13 3694 · Negotiates the acquisition and disposition of real estate for the CRA as well as manages the commercial and residential real estate assets held as and when directed by the CRA Board. · Directs processes and procedures into workable projects through the preparation of objectives, descriptions, budgets, work programs, reports and contract materials. · Directs the identification, review, analysis and cataloging of potential funding sources and serves as administrator coordinating application and administration of the process. · Oversees the preparation of the annual operating budget and capital plan for presentation and approval by CRA Board. · Approves budgetary requests and reviews all financial reports prepared by the controller. · Represents the CRA on matters within the scope of Community Redevelopment Agency activities. · Conducts public relations activities to promote CRA programs and projects. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITITLES · Extensive knowledge of the principles, methods and practices of urban planning and redevelopment. · Extensive knowledge of federal, state and municipal legislation impacting municipal government enforcement regulations. · Extensive knowledge of management and supervisory principles and techniques, research and design methodologies and report preparation. · Knowledge of laws and ordinances affecting redevelopment processes. · Knowledge of economics, public finance, capital programming and other fields applied in Redevelopment Service related functions. · Ability to present technical information clearly, concisely and in an compelling manner both orally and in writing to lay groups, the general public, City management and the CRA Board. · Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, City and government officials, community leaders and the general public. · Ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in subordinates and provide coaching in the development of their skills while establishing a positive atmosphere, which provides challenge and encouragement. · Ability to translate CRA Board direction into effective administration and implementation of CRA redevelopment requirements. · Skill in empowering others with the authority necessary to accomplish their objectives. · Strong customer service skills, including both internal and external customers. H:\1998\980465\AG MT~HutchlnsonEmploymentOontractRevised7-6-03),doc 36~'5 Page 13 of 13 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT THIS CONTRACT is entered into between the Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, hereinafter referred to as "CRA", and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON. RECITALS The CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON aci<nowledge the following as the basis for this contract: A. The CRA is desirous of retaining the services of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON to serve as the Executive Director of the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON agrees to provide said service. B. In selecting DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON to be the Executive Director of the CRA, the CRA has relied on all information and materials appearing .on or furnished in connection with his application for that position, including representations made in oral interviews. DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON represents that all such information and materials are accurate, complete and authentic and that he is qualified and has the expertise to serve as the Executive Director of the CRA and that the performance of such duties are specialized in nature. C. The CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON wish to reduce their agreements to writing in order to describe their relationship with each other and to pYovide a basis for effective communication between them as they fulfill their respective governance and administrative functions in the operation of the CRA. D. The position of Executive Director is a contractual position controlled by the terms hereof. .TERMS, CONDITIONS AND CONVENANT~ Accordingly, based upon the forgoing premises and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Contract, the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON agree as follows: ARTICLE I Aqreement for Service_~ 1.1 The CRA hereby contracts with DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON to serve as Executive Director of the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON hereby agrees to provide the services as hereinafter set forth. 3696 1.2 DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON is an at will employee of the CRA. By acceptance of the Contract, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON acknowledges that there has been no representation or promise, expressed or implied fixing the term 'of this appointment, except as provided for herein. The Human Resources Policy and Procedures Manual does not apply hereto except as specifically referenced herein and the following Articles shall specifically apply: 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 3-3, 5-4, 5-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10 and 6-11. ARTICLE 2 Duties and Obligations 2.1 Principal Duties and Obligations. Subject to the CRA Board direction and supervision for the overall operation of the CRA, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall: 2.1.1 be the Executive Director of the CRA and is responsible for all activities associated with the CRA. Some of those responsibilities are as set forth (Exhibit "A") in the CRA Executive Director Job Description. 2.2 Manner of Performance. Except as otherwise expressly provided by the Contract, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall at all times: 2.2.1 devote all his time, attention, knowledge and skill solely and exclusively to the business and interest of the-CRA during normal working hours and at CRA related events after normal business hours; 2.2.2 perform his duties and obligations faithfully, industriously and to the best of his ability; 2.2.3 disclose all employment to the CRA Board and not engage in any confliCting outside employment except with prior written permission of the CRA Board; 2.2.4 keep the CRA Board fully informed in advance of all travel and activities that take him out of the office for more than a day at a time. 3697 Page 2 of 14 ARTICLE 3 Annual Performance Goals and Evaluation 3.1 The CRA shall review and evaluate the performance of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON at least once annually no later than forty-five (45) days prior to end of the term of each year of this Agreement. The review and evaluation shall be in accordance with performance criteria developed by the CRA, and such criteria must be provided to DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON in advance of the commencement of the period of evaluation. The criteria may be added to or deleted from as the CRA may from time to time determine, except that DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall not be evaluated for his work if no performance criteria has been established. Further, the CRA shall provide DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON with a summary written statement of the evaluation and provide an ~, adequate opportunity for DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON to discuss his evaluation with the CRA. 3.2 Periodically, the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall define such goals and performance objectives that they determine necessary for the proper operation of the CRA in attainment of the objectives and shall further establish a relative priority among those various goals and objectives, which shall be reduced to writing. ARTICLE 4 Compensation and Benefit-~ 4.1 Compensation reviews are not subject to any specific formula applicable to other CRA personnel. Wage adjustments shall be at the sole discretion of the CRA and are subject to the appropriation of funds by the CRA. 4.2 Six Month Compensation Review. A review of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON compensation may, at the sole discretion of the CRA Board, be reviewed at the regular March 2004 CRA Board meeting. DOUGHLAS C. HUTCHINSON's compensation may, at that time, be adjusted by increasing the base salary, providing a bonus or increasing any of the benefits provided in this contract. The method for determining any change in compensation or benefits shall be within the sole discretion of the CRA Board. 3698 Page 3 of 14 4.3 Base Salary. The CRA shall pay DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON an annual compensation of Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($88,000.00) for all services performed, payable in equal installments at the same time as the CRA employees are paid. 4.4 Benefits. The CRA agrees DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON may participate and have the following benefits as set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual, Section 6 that applies to the CRA employees; i.e., retirement, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, holidays, sick leave, compassionate leave and vacation leave. 4.5 Business Expenses. The CRA agrees to reimburse DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON for out of pocket expenses made on behalf of the CRA and approved by the CRA Board 4.6 Automobile Expenses. The CRA agrees to pay DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON Three Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($3,600.00) per year payable in equal installments at the same time as the CRA employees are paid. 4.7 Additional Benefits. The CRA Board may, in its sole discretion, reimburse DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON for membership fees in various organizations and for subscriptions to various related publications which remain the property of the CRA. ARTICLE 5 Duration of Contract 5.1 This Agreement shall be for a term of one (1) year, but may be automatically renewed until replaced or superceded by subsequent Contract(s) of Employment to provide continuity of employment for operations, insurance and benefits, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Article 7. The term of the Contract shall be retroactive.and shall begin on June 1st, 2003. ARTICLE 6 Indemnification and Reimbursement 6.1. The CRA Shall: 6.1.1 defend and indemnify DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON against all claims and action, civil or criminal, provided that claims or actions arise out of and in the course of the performance of his duties and responsibilities pursuant to this Contract; 3699 Page 4 of 14 6.1.2 pay any judgment that may be entered against DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON in a civil action arising out of and in the course of the performance of his duties and responsibilities pursuant to this Contract, 6.1.3 except a judgment based on intentional wrongdoing or willful neglect by DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON; 6.1.4 the CRA reserves the rights to select, appoint, retain or discharge legal counsel necessary to provide the foregoing defense. ARTICLE 7 Termination of Contract 7.1 Events of Termination. This Contract shall terminate immediately, if, and when, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON becomes a non-contract employee of the CRA. This Contract shall terminate: 7.1.1 at any time by the mutual agreement of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON and the CRA; 7.1.2 by unilateral termination of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON's contract for the position; DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON serves at the pleasure of the CRA and may be terminated by the CRA Board, without cause, upon forty-five (45) days written notice to DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON. However, the CRA Board of Directors may, if it is deemed in the best interest of the CRA, relieve DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON from his duties immediately; 7.1.3 by the resignation of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON. DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON may terminate this Employment Contract without cause upon written notice to CRA. A resignation shall be submitted in writing and shall provide for an actual resignation date no later than fourteen (14) days following the date of notice of resignation, unless the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON mutually agree to another number of days; 7.1.4 upon DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON'S sustained inability for all or substantially all of one hundred and six (106) calendar days to perform his duties and obligations pursuant to this Contract as a result of physical or mental illness or condition. This inability may be verified at the CRA's expense (to the extent not covered by applicable medical insurance maintained by the CRA) by a licensed physician mutually agreed upon by DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON and the CRA, provided that state or federal law or regulations would not Page 5 of 14 3700 preclude or prohibit DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON separation under the condition. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree on a physician within ten (10) days of a request for selection, the examining physician will be selected solely by the CRA; 7.1.5 upon the death of DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON; 7.2 Rights and Obligations Upon Termination by Mutual Agreement. If this Contract terminates upon mutual agreement of the parties, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall be entitled to: 7.2.1 base salary for services performed to the effective date of the termination plus a payment of ninety (90) days pay, payable upon contract termination agreement, calculated as follows: Employee's annual base salary shall be divided by three hundred sixty-five (365) days and that sum shall be multiplied by ninety (90) days, less customary withholding; 7.2.2 reimbursement of as-yet unreimbursed expenses pursuant to this Contract; 7.2.3 any amount for accrued and unused vacation leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.2.4 any amount for accrued and unused siCk leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.2.5 any life and / or disability benefits if applicable; 7.2.6 the total accrued retirement as provided for in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.2.7 automatic vesting of all CRA matching retirement to date of termination. 7.3 Rights and Obligations upon Unilateral Termination by the CRA. Unilateral termination shall be in writing, signed by the CRA and need not reflect performance related reasons. If this Contract is terminated by unilateral action of the CRA, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall be entitled only to the following; unless it is determined that DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON is guilty of misconduct or gross neglect of duty or is charged with a crime and in that case he shall be compensated only for actual time worked: 7.3.1 if given forty-five (45) days notice or less, such as immediately set forth below; base salary for services provided to the effective date of the termination plus one hundred twenty (120) days pay, payable upon Page 6 of 14 370! " termination notice by the CRA, calculated as follows: Employee's annual base salary shall be divided by three hundred sixty-five (365) days and that sum shall be multiplied by one hundred twenty (120) days, less customary withholding; if dismissed immediately; base salary for services provided to the effective date of the termination plus one hundred fifty(150) days pay, payable upon termination notice by the CRA, calculated as follows: Employee's annual base salary shall be divided by three hundred sixty-five (365) days and that sum shall be multiplied by one hundred fifty(150) days, less customary withholding; 7.3.2 reimbursement of as-yet unreimbursed expenses pursuant to this Contract; 7.3.3 any amount for accrued and unused vacation leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.3.4 any amount for accrued and unused sick leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the m°st current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual. 7.3.5 any life and / or disability benefits if applicable; 7.3.6 the total accrued retirement as provided for in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.3.7 automatic vesting of all CRA matching retirement to date of termination. 7.4 Rights and Obligations Upon Termination Due to Resignation. If this Contract terminates due to DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON'S resignation, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall be entitled only to the following compensation and benefits: 7.4.1 the base salary through the last daY that the DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON perfOrmed services to or on behalf of the CRA; 7.4.2 reimbursement of as-yet unreimbursed expenses pursuant to this Contract; 7.4.3 any amount for accrued and unused vacation leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.4.4 any amount for accrued and unused sick leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; Page 7 of 14 3702 7.4.5 any life and / or disability benefits if applicable; 7.4.6 the total accrued retirement as provided for in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual. 7.5 Rights and Obligations Upon Termination Due to Disability or Death, If this Contract terminates due to DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON'S physical disability or death, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON'S or his guardian or personal representative shall be entitled only to the following compensation and benefits: 7.5.1 the base salary through the last day that the DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON performed services to or on behalf of the CRA; 7.5.2 reimbursement of as-yet unreimbursed expenses pursuant to this Contract; 7.5.3 any amount for accrued and unused vacation leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human ResoUrces Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.5.4 any amount for accrued and unused sick leave, not to exceed the maximum number of days set forth in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual; 7.5.5 any life and / or disability benefits if applicable; 7.5.6 the total accrued retirement as provided for in the most current Human Resources Policy and Procedure Manual. ARTICLE 8 Modification or Amendment of Contract 8.1 Modification and Amendment, No modification of or amendment of this Contract shall be valid unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties. ARTICLE 9 Waiver. 9.1 The CRA waiver of any breach of any term, condition or covenant of this Contract shall not constitute the waiver of any other breach of the same or any other term, condition or covenant of this Contract. Page 8 of 14 3703 ARTICLE 10 Applicability to Successors 10.1 This Contract shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of: 10.1.1 DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON heirs and personal representatives; and 10.1.2 the CRA regardless of changes in the persons holding office as members of the CRA. ARTICLE 11 Non-Assignability and Subcontractin_~ 11.1 This contract is not assignable. 11.2 DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON shall not subcontract any portion of the work of this Contract without the prior written approval of the CRA Board. ARTICLE 12 Severability of Provisions 12.1 If any provision of this Contract or the application of any provision to any party or circumstance shall be prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, the provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such prohibitions or invalidity without invalidating the remaining provisions of this Contract or their application to other parties or circumstances. ARTICLE 13 Governing Law and Venue 13.1 This Contract and the terms, conditions and covenants contained in it shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida, and any action brought in connection with this Contract shall be brought in Palm Beach County, Florida in State Court and in the Southern District Court of Florida in Federal Court. 3705 Page 10 of 14 ARTICLE 14 -Integration of All Agreements and Understandin.q~ 14.1 This Contract contains the entire agreement between the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON. All prior agreements and understanding, whether written or oral, pertaining to this Contract with DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON are fully abrogated and of no further fOrce and effect from and after the date of the Contract. 14.2 Regardless of which party or party's counsel prepared the original draft and subsequent revisions of this Contract, DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON and the CRA and their respective counsel have had equal opportunity to contribute to and have contributed to its contents, and this Contracts shall not be deemed to be the products of and, therefore, construed against either of them. 14.3 The omission from the Contract of a term or provision contained in an earlier draft of the Contract shall have no evidentiary significance regarding the contractual intent of the parties. ARTICLE 15 Execution of Contract 15.1 This Contract may be executed in duplicate or in counter parts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall be deemed one and the same instrument. No term, condition or covenant of this Contract shall be binding on either party until both parties have signed it. Notice 15.2 Whenever any party desires to give notice unto any other party, it must be given by written notice, sent by certified United States Mail, with return receipt requested, by hand delivery or by facsimile transmiSsion with receipt of delivery, addressed to the party for whom it is intended and the remaining parties, at the places last specified, and the places for giving of notice shall remain such until 3706 Page 11 of 14 they shall have been changed by written notice in compliance wit the provisions of this section. For the present the CRA and DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON designate the following as the respective places for giving of notice: CRA: Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Attention: CRA Chairman 639 East Ocean Ave.i Suite #107 Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Telephone: (561) 737-3256 Facsimile: (561) 737-3258 COPY TO: Lindsey A. Payne, Esquire Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: (954) 771-4500 Facsimile: (954) 771-4923 EMPLOYEE: Douglas C. Hutchinson 9480 South Military Trail, Unit 4 D Boynton Beach, Florida 33436 Telephone: (561) 734-7762 EXECUTED on the respective dates set forth below. DOUGLAS C. HUTCHINSON: BY: Dated: Douglas C Hutchinson BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: BY: Dated: CHAIRMAN 3707 Page 12 of 14 EXHIBIT A COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Classification Description CLASSIFICATION TITLE: Community Redevelopment Executive Director Exempt Contract Position WORK OBJECTIVE This is highly visible and responsible administrative and operational position managing and directing the Community Redevelopment Agency programs which are established under Chapter 163 of the Florida State Statutes. An employee in this classification is responsible for planning, initiating and directing programs and projects for the physical and economic improvement and redevelopment of the designated community. Responsibilities include organizing, assigning, directing and reviewing the activities of professional, technical and administrative support personnel engaged in the compilation, analysis and interpretation of data. Such work shall lead to the preparation of reports and recommendations effecting community planning and redevelopment. Work is performed under the general direction of the City of Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRA Board). The employee serves as the primary staff liaison to the office of the City Manager for the City of Boynton Beach. The position has considerable latitude for independent judgment, initiative and is reviewed by observation of results achieved, periodic cOnferences and reports. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS Provided herein is a general description of duties that may be assigned. The CRA Board reserves the right to establish, assign, reassign and redistribute work to meet business needs. The statements herein do not preclude the CRA Board from assigning other duties similar in nature, complexity and responsibility to the position within this classification. · Plans, organizes, assigns, directs and reviews the activities of professional, technical and clerical personnel engaged in the compilation, analysis and interpretation of data and preparation of reports and recommendations affecting community planning and redevelopment. · Oversees the preparation of the CRA Redevelopment Plans and its implementation. · Selects, assigns, trains and evaluates staff. · Administers consultant agreements for services provided to the CRA. · Serves as an in-house consultant and represents the CRA in dealing with other agencies with respect to related matters. Prepares reports and studies at the direction of the CRA Board. Page 13 of 14 3708 , Negotiates the acquisition and disposition of real estate for the CRA as well as manages the commercial and residential real estate assets held as and when directed by the CRA Board. · Directs processes and procedures into workable projects through the preparation of objectives, descriptions, budgets, work programs, reports and contract materials. · Directs the identification, review, analysis and cataloging of potential funding sources and serves as administrator coordinating application and administration of the process. · Oversees the preparation of the annual operating budget and capital plan for presentation and approval by CRA Board. · Approves budgetary requests and reviews all financial reports prepared by the controller. · Represents the CRA on matters within the scope of Community Redevelopment Agency activities. · Conducts public relations activities to promote CRA programs and projects. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITITLES o Extensive 'knowledge of the principles, methods and practices of urban planning and redevelopment. , Extensive knowledge of federal, state and municipal legislation impacting municipal government enforcement regulations. ° Extensive knowledge of management and supervisory principles and techniques, research and design methodologies and report preparation. · Knowledge.of laws and ordinances affecting redevelopment processes. · Knowledge of economics, public finance, capital programming and other fields applied in Redevelopment Service related functions. · Ability to present technical information clearly, concisely and in an compelling manner both orally and in writing to lay groups, the general public, City management and the CRA Board. · Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with employees, City and government officials, community leaders and the general public. · Ability to identify strengths and weaknesses in subordinates and provide coaching in the development of their skills while establishing a positive atmosphere, which provides challenge and encouragement. · Ability to translate CRA Board direction into effective administration and implementation of CRA redevelopment requirements. · Skill in empowering others with the authority necessary to accomplish their objectives. · Strong customer service skills, including both internal and external customers. H:\1998\980465'~AG M~HutchinsonEmploymentContractRevised( 9-1 t -03).doc.doc 3709 Page 14 of 14 IX. New Business Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the '~roceedings is made, wh/ch record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 3710 The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits ora service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request. Memo To: CRA Board From: Douglas Hutchinson Subject: Savage Creatures of Ancient Seas Finalist Selection Date: October 6, 2003 At a special posted meeting held prior to this regular board meeting, the two Selection Committee finalists made presentations to the Board, Staff requests that the Board select the finalist for the "Savage Creatures of Ancient Seas" Feasibility review. The Finalist will then be asked to develop a fee amount and contract, which will be brought back to the CRA Board for approval. 3711