Loading...
Minutes 11-25-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Lee Wische, Chairman William Cwynar, Vice Chair Sergio Casaine Mike Friedland James McMahon Steve Myott Mike Fitzpatrick, Alternate Absent: Woodrow Hay Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Ed Breese, Principal Planner Eric Johnson, Planner 1. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. and led members in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Chairman Wische introduced the Board members, Assistant City Attorney Tolces, staff and the Recording Secretary. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Friedland moved to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Casaine. Vice Chair Cwynar requested to move Item 7.E. (Quantum Park Lots 73A - 76) to be heard as the first item under New Business. Vice Chair Cwynar requested that Item 7.B.3. and 7.F.1 be heard together, but voted upon separately. Mr. Friedland agreed to the amended motion and Mr. Casaine seconded the amended motion that unanimously carried. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 4. Approval of Minutes The minutes were accepted as presented. 5. Communications and Announcements Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the October 28, 2003 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda Items Mr. Rumpf reported on the disposition of the following items that were reviewed by the City Commission at the November 5, 2003 meeting: The L.A. Fitness major site plan modification was approved. The variance for the Buyer's Investment Group was approved.' The time extension of the site plan for Monahan & Monahan was approved, as well as the corresponding landscape buffer to allow for the handicap space. 6. Old Business None 7. New Business Attorney Tolces administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying. Site Plan Time Extension (Addressed Out of Order) Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Staff agreed to the extension. Quantum Parks Lots 73A-76 (SPTE 03-005) Joni Brinkman, AICP Winston Lee & Associates Lots 73-A, 73-B, 74, 75 and 76 of Quantum Park, a P.I.D. Request for a six (6) month time extension to the approved site plan for construction of 196,554 square foot office/industrial space, from November 6, 2003 to May 2004. Chairman Wische opened the public audience. Since no one wished to speak, the public audience was closed. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 Motion Mr. Friedland moved to approve the request for a six (6) month time extension to the approved site plan for construction of 196,554 square foot office/industrial space, from November 6, 2003 to May 6, 2004 for Lots 73-A, 73-B, 74, 75, and 76 of Quantum Park, P.I.D. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Cwynar and unanimously carried. B. Zonin.q Code Variance Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Ist Southern Bank Phase II (ZNCV 03-021) Charles Danto Hews Woolbright LLC 1800 W. Woolbright Road (aka 1710 Woolbright Road) Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 21, Signs, Article IV, Section 2(B), limiting a single use to one (1) site sign to allow the erection of two (2) site signs for an office building. Chairman Wische noted that under project description, adjacent uses south, lists Palm Beach Leisureville. This is incorrect and it should be listed as Boynton Leisureville. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the item on behalf of staff. Chairman Wische pointed out that the applicant furnished photos of the site, and Mr. Rumpf noted that these were received after the agenda packet had been prepared. Copies were furnished to the Recording Secretary and are on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Rumpf explained that he would be making a summary of staff's comments, which he has taken from the staff report included in the agenda packet. The applicant is requesting relief from the City's Land Development Regulations, Chapter 21 signs, which limits a single commercial use to one site sign. The applicant is requesting the addition of a second sign to the commercial office-building site. The sign regulations state that "one double-faced, freestanding sign advertising the use of the premises is allowed." Shopping centers are excluded, but the applicant's site is an office project. Mr. Rumpf displayed photos of the existing sign and the location of the proposed second sign to correspond with the westernmost driveway. The existing sign is at the central (east) driveway on the site. Mr. Rumpf explained that there are two buildings and there is one site sign with one address. The tenants' names have been added to the sign to correspond with the first phase, which is the easternmost building. The second phase has the same address and project name is affiliated with the first major tenant, which is the Bank. Mr. Rumpf displayed the driveways to the project and noted that the monument sign is very visible. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 In order to obtain a variance, hardship criteria needs to be met, and one of the tests for a hardship is that the regulations have been equitably applied. There are two nearby complexes that contain two separate buildings on a single parcel and those two complexes only have one sign. Those buildings are larger and are set back further from the roadway, but have only one site sign. Staff considers office buildings to be destination based and it is not necessarily a passerby-type project. Mr. Rumpf stated that identification could also be placed on the buildings themselves and noted that there are two large address numbers on each building to identify them once you enter the site. The shape and typography is not unusual and does not justify a variance in a hardship situation as described in the City's zoning regulations. Also both sites are connected and both buildings sit on one site. Regardless of which driveway a vehicle would enter, there is access to each building. Mr. Rumpf also noted that the applicant could utilize directional signage to steer individuals when they enter the site. Therefore, staff has concluded that there is no hardship and the request should not be approved. Chuck Danto, 6854 Moonlit Drive, Delray Beach, Florida 33446, gave a background of his business experience. Mr. Danto stated that he is the agent for Hews Woolbright that purchased the property from the First Southern Bank and the City had previously approved the plans and specifications. He also gave a brief background of the current owner of the project. Mr. Danto stated that they met with the residents of Boynton Leisureville in order to be a good neighbor and everything the residents of Boynton Leisureville asked for they were granted. They added over 420 feet of shrubs on their side of the wall at a cost of $9,300. Mr. Danto also stated that the owners are trying to assist the Little League in getting new dugouts built. Chairman Wische requested that Mr. Danto address the purpose of their application and explained that it was not necessary to provide a history of the firm. Mr. Danto stated that there is a safety hazard on Woolbright Road where the buildings are located. If you head west on Woolbright from 1-95, it would be necessary to make a u-turn at SW 18th Street in order to access their buildings. They were denied a median cut by the DOT. In making a u-turn the sign at 1700 Woolbright would be visible, but once they make the u-turn they would not be able to see the entrance to phase 2 of the project. Because of a curve in the road, people have gone by the second entrance, and could only see the first entrance. The current pylon sign is visible from both sides of Woolbright and they would like to have this same visibility for the second sign. Mr. Danto presented statistics that he received from the Police Department that showed that a great number of accidents have taken place at this section of Woolbright Road. A copy of the Police Department statistics is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Danto reviewed the information contained in the Police Department Report. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 Chairman Wische requested that Mr. Danto give his reasons why he should receive a variance. Mr. Danto stated that the cost of the pylon sign that they want to put up would cost in excess of $20,000, and they could put up a monument sign for only $8,000. It is not a question of costs, but a question of safety. Mr. Danto requested that the Board approve their request. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Richard Valentino, a resident of Leisureville, presented a handout, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Valentino is opposed to the sign and noted that there are not many buildings that have two large pylon signs. He felt that this would set a bad precedent and other buildings may want additional signs as well. Mr. Valentino pointed out that all the other office buildings and retail establishments in the area only have one sign. If a second pylon sign were put up, it would only be 150' apart from the other sign. He thought that the bushes would obscure the additional sign. Also, there is only 300' from 18th Street to get to current entrance. He felt that there was sufficient room on the existing sign to list all the occupants of both buildings. He lives directly across the street from the project and from his front window he sees trash, dumpsters, a building in need of more landscaping, and now he will see another pylon sign. He pointed out that the 12' Ficus Trees were removed and replaced with 2' bushes. He was totally against having another sign on the property. Harry S. Tuthill, 2208 SW 20th Way, Boynton Leisureville, was concerned about the safety of his community. He pointed out that there were two buildings with two driveways; one was identified and one was not. He felt that this was a safety hazard and there have been four traffic deaths and many accidents at this location. He would have liked to see a turn-in lane to enter the property. He felt that good signage was good safety so people can find places. He noted that currently there is nothing to identify the 1800 building. Woolbright Road has been identified as one of the worst traffic locations in Palm Beach County and he was in favor of a second sign. Ronald Walling, 1408 SW 17th Avenue, is opposed to the sign. Mr. Walling did not feel that two signs were necessary, nor did he think another sign would make the area any safer. He felt that the reason there were so many accidents was due to the speed of vehicles and the sign is not going to stop people from driving fast. Craig Danto, 122 Andrews Avenue, Delray Beach, Florida, stated that he was the builder of the project and he has witnessed cars stopping and almost being hit by cars from behind. He felt that if there was a sign identifying the building, this would prevent accidents from occurring, since people are not sure which building to go to. Chairman Wische closed the public hearing. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired if these were two buildings and two different projects would two separate signs be allowed. Mr. Rumpf responded that if each lot independently met the Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 lot restrictions of the LDR, each building would be allowed one sign. He noticed that the "S" in the road does block visibility and this has been a dangerous intersection for many years. He was in favor of two signs. Vice Chair Cwynar spent time going by the project and his biggest concern was the color of the sign. He felt that the dark green with red lettering made it difficult to read in the evening. He felt that a secondary entrance would allow better ingress and egress and the problem on Woolbright Road is the speed of the traffic. He had no trouble locating the property. Mr. Myott felt that a second sign could be helpful on the west end of the property to allow people to slow down so if they miss the first entrance, they could use the second entrance. He was not in favor of having two signs of the same scale as the current sign. He recalled that the Board discussed pylon signs at the last meeting. He would support a second sign at the west side, but of smaller scale, queuing people before they passed the property. Mr. Casaine had a concern about a blind spot at the location, which he noticed when he drove by. Attorney Tolces explained that the Board is supposed to make its decision based upon the criteria contained in the Land Development Regulations for variances. Mr. Casaine continued and stated that if the sign is necessary so that people could identify that entrance, he suggested that the larger sign be moved to the west side and a smaller sign could be placed where the current sign is located. The current sign has a great deal of visibility and proper signage might help to prevent accidents. The current sign was not in the proper location and the west entrance does need a sign. Mr. Friedland stated that he drove on Woolbright Road several times this afternoon and noted there was a great deal of traffic and is concerned about the safety factor. He noted that the speed limit sign was not even visible. He did not think that any of the signs on Woolbright Road were attractive, but for ease of locating the buildings, he thought that two signs were necessary; however, he was against two large pylon signs. Mr. McMahon also road by the project several times and noted that the hedge on the west of the property is almost 10', which makes it difficult to see the current sign. He noted if people missed the current sign, they had to go to the end of the street, make a u-turn and then make another u-turn. There is a curve in the road and it bends almost 45° from 18th Street to 8th Avenue. He recommended that the applicant work with staff to determine what kind of sign would be appropriate. He felt another sign was needed as a safety factor. Chairman Wische stated that many years ago he went to the County about eliminating the u-turn and the County felt that the u-turn was safer than a traffic light. Chairman 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 Wische is opposed to u-turns and noted u-turns cause more accident. If anyone passes the project, they would have to make tWo u-turns to get back to the project. Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that there is a high hedge that would block a Iow sign at the west entrance. He felt a tall sign was necessary, since the hedge cannot be eliminated due to the residential area that abuts the project. Mr. Myott felt that some conditions would be needed to have the taller sign located at the west end of the property and the lower sign at the east entrance. This would require the builder to move the current sign. Chairman Wische asked the applicant if he was amenable to this request. Mr. Danto said that they would be amenable to anything that makes sense. Mr. Danto said that they would be willing to work with staff to get a second sign. Chairman Wische explained that the City Commission would make the final decision. For clarification purposes, Chairman Wische noted that the applicant was on record that he was willing to work with staff in order to erect a second sign, and Mr. Danto stated that he was. Mr. Casaine felt that if a motion were made, it would have to address various conditions. First, it would have to address the Code. He also noted that the sign would have to comply while taking into consideration the safety factor. Mr. Rumpf said that he would have to hear the motion first before he could respond. Mr. Rumpf did not think that the hedge would interfere with the project, since the current sign is almost on the sidewalk. Mr. Rumpf noted that people going to this project would be looking for addresses and the address on the sign is very clear. There is only one address because the property owner only asked for one sign to correspond with the single building. The sign is very visible and adding another sign of this type would proliferate the City with signage. The buildings were very attractive and it was a good project. Mr. Rumpf thought that the architecture of the building would identify it. Mr. Rumpf also felt that the Police report should not be totally relied upon when considering the second sign. He pointed out that the data in the report goes back much further than when the building was in place. He did not have any information from Chief Gage and he will check with him tomorrow to see if he supports the variance. Normally Chief Gage would have contacted him with his opinion. Mr. Rumpf felt that there was plenty of room for another address on the sign. He also was not aware of any data that Woolbright Road is one of the worst roads. He has seen reports of the worst accident intersections in the County and it did not include Woolbright Road based upon the County's data. Staff would never have supported the current sign if there were only going to be one building. The sign would have to correspond with the size of the property and the building. He felt that it would be more appropriate to have two 8' high monument signs that would be more visually friendly. Staff supports monument signs because they fit underneath the tree canopy. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 Attorney Tolces stated that in the motion the maker should make the specific findings that are required under the Land Development Regulations with respect to variances. Motion Mr. Casaine moved that the request for a variance be approved with some modifications; that there be a second sign, however, at the most crucial entrance and that entrance bear the larger sign, i.e. the western entrance. The other entrance would bear the smaller sign and that these signs would have to be in compliance with the sign regulations of the City. Mr. Rumpf inquired if Mr. Casaine was referring to the sign area and square footage and Mr. Casaine stated he was. Mr. McMahon seconded the motion. Mr. Friedland requested that the maker of the motion amend it to state that the second sign on the east need not match the first sign and could be a smaller sign. Attorney Tolces stated that because the Board is granting a variance it needs to be particularly specific with respect to what the Board is granting because staff does not have the leeway to make their own interpretation with respect to variances. Mr. Friedland withdrew his amendment. Mr. Fitzpatrick felt that the "S" curve in Woolbright Road was blocking the view and the hedge being the special condition caused the variance. Vote Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Wische informed the applicant that he would have to get together with staff to work out the second sign before the Commission meeting. Mr. Danto agreed to meet with staff in order to comply with the variance approval. 2. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Boynton Beach Faith Based Community Development Corporation North Palm Way (ZNC 03-022) David Zimet, Boynton Development Corporation Boynton Beach Faith Development Corporation Beach Community Based Community Lot 2 North Palm Way, approximately 80 feet east of Seacrest Boulevard Request for relief from City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 Zoning Section 5.F.2.a, requiring a rear yard setback of 25 feet, to allow a variance of six (6) feet or a rear setback of 19 feet for a single- family house in a R-1 zoning district. Chairman Wische informed the agent that staff is recommending denial. Mr. Rumpf presented the item on behalf of staff. When the lots were platted in the 1950s, some of the lots had "V" shaped rear property lines. As part of the affordable homes program, the CDC is proposing to construct a single-family home on this vacant lot. The total site contains 5,200 square feet and is 60 feet wide. It is a legal, non- conforming lot because it does not meet the minimum lot area required for the R-1 Zoning District, but is an originally platted lot and exceeds the 50' wide by 5,000 square foot lot requirement for a non-conforming lot. Mr. Rumpf explained that there are code provisions for legal non-conforming lots, which reduce the setbacks as a percentage of lot depth and lot width. When the percent is applied to the lot depth in this case, the setback is reduced to approximately 21'. The vast majority of the surrounding lots are rectangular in shape with the exception of four lots that have the "V" shape. The three other parcels were developed as single-family homes and met all setback requirements. Mr. Rumpf noted that the literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. Based on the lack of traditional hardship criteria, staff must recommend that the request be denied. If the Board approves the request, staff has the following requests: · Due to the magnitude of the variance request that the proposed use would not likely impact or negatively impact adjacent properties, the request will support local affordable housing goals and initiatives and would increase the property values of the community, while decreasing blighted conditions in the neighborhood. · With respect to the anticipated changes to the LDR, a change of this magnitude would be supported by anticipated future amendments. David Zimet, 2191 N. Seacrest Boulevard, Boynton Beach, is the Executive Director of the Boynton Beach Faith Based CDC. Mr. Zimet read into the record a letter from an adjoining neighbor in support of the request for a variance. The neighbors in the area are tired of the vacant lot being a dumping site and the house would improve the quality of the neighborhood. A copy of the letter is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Zimet stated that when they build a home, they build to suit the client. In this instance it is a single mother with two children, who needs a house more than a single person. Mr. Zimet gave a brief background on the person and noted that she is a 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 lifelong resident of the City. He believes that she would be a good neighbor. As Mr. Rumpf pointed out, in the future they would not have a problem getting a variance since it would meet code. By the time the house was completed, they would meet code. The City donated the lot to the CDC in order to built a house for this person. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Myott inquired if this were a standard house that they build and Mr. Zimet stated that it was. Mr. Myott noted that if this particular house design could not be used, the applicant would have to come up with a new house design to fit the lot. Chairman Wische introduced Commissioner Bob Ensler in the audience. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the request for relief from City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning Section 5. F.2.a, requiring a rear yard setback of 25 feet, to allow a variance of six (6) feet or a rear setback of 19 feet for a single-family house in a R-1 zoning district. Motion seconded by Mr. McMahon. Attorney Tolces pointed out that in making this motion the Board is finding that the variance is in compliance with the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Myott stated that the shape of the lot was a hardship and meets those requirements. Vote Motion carried 6-1 (Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting). C. New Site Plan Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Renaissance Commons Phase II (NWSP 03- 016) James Comparato and Carl Klepper, Jr. Compson Associates of Boynton LLC Southeast corner of Congress Avenue and Gateway Boulevard Request for new site plan approval for a 4,200 square foot commercial building on 28.368- acres in a C-3 zoning district. Vice Chair Cwynar recused himself and filed the necessary Form 8B with the City Clerk's Office since Compson Associates of Boynton LLC is one of his clients. Mr. Myott also recused himself for the same reason and filed the necessary Form 8B with the City Clerk's Office. 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 Jim Comparato, of Compson Associates of Boynton LLC, 1500 Gateway Boulevard, Boynton Beach 33426, assumed the podium. Chairman Wische noted that there were 32 staff comments and asked the applicant to address only those comments they do not agree with or need clarification on. Mr. Comparato stated that they agreed with all 32 staff comments. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. On behalf of staff, Eric Johnson, Planner, stated that staff is recommending approval, subject to the 32 conditions of approval. Motion Mr. Friedland moved that the request for new site plan approval for a 4,200 square foot commercial building on 28.368 acres in a c-3 zoning district be approved, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by Mr. Casaine and carried 5-0 (Vice Chair Cwynar and Mr. Myott abstaining). Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Renaissance Commons Phase III (NWSP 03- 017) James Comparato and Carl Klepper, Jr. Compson Associates of Boynton LLC. Southeast corner of Congress Avenue and Gateway Boulevard Request for new site plan approval for the third phase of a mixed-use project consisting of 28,962 square feet of commercial space and 8 apartment units within 3 separate buildings on 5.56 acres in the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Comparato remained at the podium. Chairman Wische pointed out that there were 46 staff comments. Mr. Comparato stated that they agreed with all 46 staff comments. Mr. Johnson noted that comment #37 should be rejected since there is an error in the condition. Mr. Comparato agreed with this. Mr. Johnson stated that staff is recommending approval, subject to the 45 conditions of approval. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion Mr. Casaine moved that the request for new site plan approval for the third phase of a mixed-use project consisting of 28,962 square feet of commercial space and 8 apartment units with 3 separate buildings on 5.56 acres in the C-3 zoning district be 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 approved, subject to all staff comments and with the amendment that #37 be rejected. Motion seconded by Mr. McMahon and carried 5-0 (Vice Chair Cwynar an Mr. Myott abstaining). Project: Agent Owner: Location: Description: Fire Station #2 (NWSP 03-015) David Lui, Deputy Fire Chief City of Boynton Beach Woolbright Road approximately 650 feet west of Congress Avenue Request for new site plan approval for a 23,339 square foot fire station on 3.98 acres in a PU zoning district Mike Flaherty with CH2M Hill, One Harbor Circle, West Palm Beach, represented the applicant. Chairman Wische noted that there were 30 staff comments. Mr. Flaherty only had one comment that they wished to address, which was the overhead doors. Chairman Wische pointed out that this was the second item. F. Community Desi.qn Plan Appeal (addressed out of order) Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Fire Station #2 (CDPA 03-002) David Lui, Deputy Fire Chief City of Boynton Beach Woolbright Road approximately 650 feet west of Congress Avenue Request for an appeal of the Land Development Regulation Chapter 9, Section II.J. to permit overhead bay doors to face Woolbright Road for Fire Department apparatus bays. Ed Breese, Planner, explained that on major thoroughfares such as Woolbright Road, the Community Design Plan does not encourage garage doors to face the road. However, in this particular case, the subject building is a fire rescue station. Response time is essential and staff would like to have the doors face the major thoroughfare. The structure itself will be a picturesque Mediterranean Revival-type structure with a landscape buffer with several ornamental plantings to buffer the view as much as possible. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan and the Community Design Plan Appeal. Attorney Tolces stated that the public hearing could combine both items. Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 Vice Chair Cwynar inquired if this would be the new main station and Mr. Flaherty responded that this would be the new station #2 and would also house the administrative offices of the Fire Department. Mr. Myott questioned why the location number on the sign for the station was at the bottom, since landscaping could obscure it. He thought that the number should be higher up on the sign. Mr. Breese noted that this was discussed at the TRC meeting and staff recommended moving the number up on the sign. Motion Mr. Friedland moved to grant the request for new site plan approval on Woolbright Road, approximately 650 feet West of Congress Avenue, for a 23,339 square foot fire station on 3.98 acres in a PU zoning district, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Cwynar and carried 6-0 (Mr. Fitzpatrick abstaining). Mr. Fitzpatrick previously asked Attorney Tolces if this would be proper since he is employed by the Fire Department. Attorney Tolces recommended that he recuse himself.). Motion Vice Chair Cwynar moved to approve the request for an appeal of the Land Development Regulation Chapter 9, Section II.J. to permit overhead bay doom to face Woolbright Road for the Fire Department apparatus bays, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by Mr. Myott and carried 6-0 (Mr. Fitzpatrick abstaining). C. None D. None E. Site Plan Time Extension (Addressed Previously) Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Quantum Parks Lots 73A-76 (SPTE 03-005) Joni Brinkman, AICP Winston Lee & Associates Lots 73-A, 73-B, 74, 75 and 76 of Quantum Park, a P.I.D. Request for a six (6) month time extension to the approved site plan for construction of 196,554 square foot office/industrial space, from November 6, 2003 to May 6, 2004. F. Community Desi.qn Plan Appeal (Addressed Previously) 1. Project: Agent: Fire Station #2 (CDPA 03-002) David Lui, Deputy Fire Chief 13 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida November 25, 2003 Owner: Location: Description: City of Boynton Beach Woolbright Road approximately 650 feet west of Congress Avenue Request for an appeal of the Land Development Regulation Chapter 9, Section II.J. to permit overhead bay doors to face Woolbright Road for Fire Department apparatus bay. 5. Other Attorney Tolces raised concern regarding personal inspections of property that would be coming before the Board since members are supposed to make their decision based upon the evidence presented at the time of the hearing. Attorney Tolces stated that any communications or actions that Board members take outside of the hearing could be viewed by another party to be prejudicial and cloud the decision of the Board. Mr. Casaine noted that there have been board members who not only have inspected projects coming before the Board, but have also met with people and discussed issues on the agenda. Mr. Casaine felt that these actions were improper. He felt it was very difficult to determine the layout of a project by just looking at the documents furnished, unless you were an expert. Attorney Tolces stated under these circumstances, Board members should feel free to ask questions of the applicant and staff that would help the Board make a decision. Attorney Tolces stated that there have been past court decisions that communications and information received outside of a quasi-judicial hearing could be viewed as prejudicial and could overturn a vote that the Board has passed. 6. Comments by Members 7. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (November 26, 2003) 14 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS I ,*,.',,I %,~M! IIR~t % ~*,11 ¥111)1)1 I ~^MF NAMF (.)1- i,iOARi),L'(j~iN(*U.£OMMI%NION. AIJIH()~I1Y.t)R LOMMIllFE MAll (.'OL % WHO MUST FILl FORM 61 This form is for use by an.,,' person serving at the count.',', city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board. council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non.advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section il2.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced ~ith a measure in ~vhich you have a conflict of interest Will vary ~reatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filin$ the form. INSTRUOTION$ FOR OOMPUAN¢! WITH $1GTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS:'" ....... A person holding electiYe county, municipal, or other local public office .~IUST ABSTAIN from ~otin~ on, a measure which inures to his special pmate gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly votin$ on a measure ~vhich inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agent') by whom he is retained. In either case, )'ou should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on ~¥hich you are abstaining from votin$; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completin$ and filin$ this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meetin$, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from ¥otin$ on a measure ~'hich inures to his special private sain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowin$1y votin$ on a measure ~hich inures to ~he special gain of a principal (other than a $overnment agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he h:~s a conflict of interest, but must disclose thc nature of the conflict before:making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or ~¥ritten communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU iNTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recordin$ the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. · A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other mcmbers of the agency. · The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conRict of interest. P ~L, C'E FORM ~B · i.al IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. · You should complele ~he-rorm a~d file it wilhin 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the rnmu~¢s of the meeting, who should incor .p~,rate ~he form in the minutes. o,s¢,.mu,. LOe,U. ,,mere (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (ch~k one) ~nured to my special priYale gain; or inured to the special gain of (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interesl in the measure is ~ follows: , by whom I am reta,ned. Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (198~), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY. REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $$,000. CE FORM NB - P~,GE FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS I ~.AMF (.)F ~AI~I), COIIN('II , (OMMINMON. A~ I I1()111 Y. OI L OMMI I~ FE C11 &' ~ ITICAI ~ EI.E~I~E ~P~INTIVE WHO MU$'T FILE FORM 81 This form is for usc by any person serving at the count.',', city, or other local I~el of government on an appointed or elected board. council, commission, authority, or committee, it applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies ~,'ho are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced ~ith a measure in ~¥hich you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reYerse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ¢OMPUAN¢! WITH $IG'IION t12.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office NIUST ABSTAIN from ~oting on a measure which inures to his special pmate gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure xYhich inures to the special gain of a principal (,other than a government agen,.~.') by whom he is retained. In either case, )'ou should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of .your interest in the measure on xYhich you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure ~.hich inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure ~'hich inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive local office otherss'ise may participate in a matter in which he has a conllict of interest, but must disclose thc nature of the confli~'[ before"making an.¥ attempt to influence the decision by oral or xYritten communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO ,'VlAKE ANY ATTE,'vIPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. · A copy of the form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · Thc form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of inlerest. p '~C CE FORM I~B- 1-41 IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You should disclose orally the nature of your conflic~ in the measure before participating. · You ,,ihould ¢ompleteihe~orm a~d file it within I$ days after the vote occurs with the person responsible For recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) _ ,nured to my sp¢~.*ial priYate gain; or ~(~inured to the special gain of O/J/A/(" ~l d~ H j~J .~C)~I ~P'~'/"//'7'~C,T",".,, by whom I am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: ,4 / 5 0,g/t/ce Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112_t17 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT. REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM aR. I-el P4GE '