Loading...
Minutes 09-28-04MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 AT 6:30 P.M. Present Lee Wische, Chair David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Sergio Casaine, Vice Chair Michael Rumpf, Planning & zoning Director Mike Friedland Ed Breese, Principal Planner Woodrow Hay Dick Hudson, Senior Planner Roger G. Saberson Mike Fitzpatrick, Alternate Shirley Jaskiewicz, Alternate Absent William Cwynar Jose Rodriguez I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance Chair Wische called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited, led by Mr. Casaine. II. Introduction of the Board Chair Wische introduced the Board members, Assistant City Attorney Tolces, and City staff. Chair Wische recognized and welcomed Commissioner Bob Ensler. III. Agenda Approval There were no changes, additions, or deletions to the Agenda. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion that passed 7-0. IV. Minutes Approval Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the minutes of August 24, 2004 as presented. Mr. Friedland seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 28, 2004 V. Communications & Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the July 27, 2004 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, gave the following update of action taken by the City Commission at its September 7, 2004 meeting: 1) All Consent Items were approved including the Citrus Glen Master Plan Modification; Quantum Park use approval for Lions Club meeting place; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Master Plan Modification; Quantum Park NOPC on DRI to add Land Use Category; Car Rental Code Review. 2) The abandonment of utility easement on Lot 3, Block 26, Lake Boynton Estates passed on second reading of the Ordinance. The City Commission September 21, 2004 items: 1) Ordinance on Quantum Park NOPC approved on first reading. Mr. Rumpf announced that due to a power outage at the Benvenuto Restaurant, the annual Board dinner was being cancelled and would be rescheduled after the first of the year. VI. Old Business None VII. New Business Assistant City Attorney Tolces swore in all the persons who expected to testify during the proceedings. A. Rezoning 1. Project: Boynton Mango (REZN 04-004) Agent: Maggie Barszewski Owner: Boynton Mango LLC 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 28, 2004 Location: Northwest corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and NW th Court Description: Request to amend the Future Land Use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and rezone from R -1-A Single - Family Residential to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Report on this item. Staff recommended approval of the request with two conditions: 1) The buffer wall required between commercial and residential zoning districts shall be enhanced and set back an additional 2.5 feet from the property line for an overall setback of 7.5 feet from the property line, with appropriate landscaping on both sides, and shall extend south along the east property line a minimum distance to buffer the adjacent residence without interfering with planned driveways and clear site triangles; and 2) Any structure placed on the property shall be located as close to Boynton Beach Boulevard as Code permits to lessen the intrusion into the existing single-family neighborhood. Jim Knight, 740 Havana Drive, Boca Raton, representing the applicant, asked for clarification of the conditions. Mr. Hudson explained the background and history of this property and the conditions surrounding it. He noted that the building setback of 30 feet still existed but the use of the land was no longer restricted to drainage and landscaping, and could be used for parking or something else. Also, a wall would have to be built an additional 2.5 feet from the property line and landscaping would have to be done on both sides of it. The total area of the wall and landscaping would be 7.5 feet. If a building were to be built on the property, it would have to be placed as close to Boynton Beach Boulevard as the Code would allow and it would have to be non -intrusive in relation to the single-family residences surrounding it. A great deal of discussion ensued among staff, the Board, and the applicant's representative in order to resolve the perceived inconsistencies. At the end of the discussion, Mr. Knight stated that he had been operating under a misconception and now understood the conditions. Chair Wische opened the floor for the public to speak, and closed it when no one wished to do so. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the request to amend the Future Land Use designation from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and rezone from R -1-A 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 28, 2004 Single -Family Residential to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial for REZN 04-004, Boynton Mango, subject to all staff conditions of approval. Mr. Friedland seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if the applicant had agreed to the conditions. Mr. Knight responded that now that he understood them, he agreed with the conditions. The motion passed 7-0. B. Zoning Variance 1. Project: Ward Variance (ZNCV 04-004) Agent: Hyacinth and Larry Ward Owner: Hyacinth and Larry Ward Location: 230 Gateway Boulevard Description: Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.D.2.A, requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for a single-family home within the R -1-A zoning district, to allow for a variance of 9 feet, and a rear yard setback of 16 feet. Hyacinth and Larry Ward, 230 Gateway Boulevard, Boynton Beach, came to the podium. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, stated that staff recommended approval of the request. It was a subdivision in which the setbacks were actually shown in the plat. The corner lots are subject to three 25 -foot setbacks (front, side, and rear), which makes normal household expansions very difficult. The City believes that the request should be approved for this reason. Chair Wische added the comment from the Staff Report that Staff found that a "hardship" existed. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment, and closed it when no one wished to speak. There were no further comments from the Board. Motion Mr. Friedland moved to approve ZNCV 04-004, the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning Section 5.D.2.a, requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet for a single- family home within the R -1-A zoning district, to allow for a variance of 9 feet, and a rear yard setback of 16 feet. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that passed 7-0. E Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 28, 2004 C. Site Plan Time Extension 1. Project: Ed Carey Design (SPTE 04-006) Agent: Susan Carey, Vice President, Ed Carey Design Owner: Ed Carey Design Location: 2600 High Ridge Road Description: Request for a one (1) year time extension of the site plan approval granted on July 15, 2003 from July 15, 2004 to July 15, 2005. Ed Carey, 2600 High Ridge Road, Boynton Beach, came to the podium and stated that he was in agreement with the conditions of approval. Chair Wische noted that staff had recommended approval of this request with two conditions of approval: 1) An updated concurrency letter of approval from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering must be provided prior to issuance of any permits; and 2) All conditions of approval included in the initial development order must still be satisfactorily addressed. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment, and closed it when no one wished to speak. Mr. Carey asked when he should get the new traffic count, and Mr. Breese responded that he should do so as soon as possible, and that his approval was not final until the concurrency letter was received. Motion Mr. Casaine moved to approve the request for a one-year time extension of the site plan approval granted Ed Carey Design on July 15, 2003, from July 15, 2004 to July 15, 2005. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that passed 7-0. D. Other Project: Venetian Villas (Plat and Amended Alhambra Square Settlement Agreement) Agent: Bonnie Miskel Owner: Venetian Villas LLC Location: South side of Southwest 23rd Avenue (Golf Road) approximately 600 feet east of Congress Avenue Description: Request for review for compliance with site plan and amended settlement agreement. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 28, 2004 Chair Wische asked if the applicant agreed to the conditions of the settlement agreement as ordered by the Court. Bonnie Miskel, 222 Lakeview Avenue, West Palm Beach, stated that they had revised the Covenants and Restrictions, which had been executed by all the parties, and they were in concurrence with all the new conditions. Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, offered to answer questions. Chair Wische wanted to make certain that all the former conditions of approval, were still in effect, along with the new conditions of approval with this request. Mr. Rumpf stated that this was correct, as finalized by the Commission and its additional changes. Chair Wische opened the floor to public comment and closed it when no one came forward to speak. Mr. Fitzpatrick pointed out to the Board that this project had once been denied. Chair Wische reminded him that his comments should be limited to what was before the Board at this meeting. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked staff what level of service had been applied to Golf Road currently, and whether it was C, D, or F. Staff did not have that information in front of them. Ms. Miskel stated that they had produced a concurrency certificate for the revised traffic at this location, approved by Palm Beach County. She did not have the information that Mr. Fitzpatrick requested either. Mr. Fitzpatrick's observation was that the traffic on Golf Road was pretty bad. Ms. Jaskiewicz noted that on the title certification, it indicated there were written encumbrances on the property. She asked that Ms. Miskel state what the encumbrances were and what effect they would have on the future of the project. Ms. Miskel believed that the encumbrances were some easements serving the perimeter of the property, but she did not have the list with her. She stated that the engineer who prepared the plat and site plan had found them to be consistent with the project. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked for clarification of the statement, 'for good and valuable considerations" in the Settlement Agreement. He asked what the City had "given up." Ms. Miskel stated that a number of concessions had been given, from the wall along the back to added landscaping as far as height, to limitations on the height of the building, to additional landscaping around the entire perimeter, to closing off access points. Almost all of the conditions that were contained there were given as concessions and in 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida ber 28, 2004 exchange for that they were allowed the approval. Those conditions were negotiated, not simply with the community (they met with both of the associations that neighbor the property), but there were conditions imposed on them by the City Commission that they also agreed to. Essentially, they agreed to do everything they were asked to do, in order to obtain permission to build the project. Mr. Saberson stated that on the list of conditions, there were two categories, "Include" or "Reject," and there were some conditions that were in the Settlement Agreement that were not rejected. Did that mean that staff no longer recommended them to be included or the City Commission recommended they not be included? For example, Condition 37 said '"A combination of landscaping and walls shall be constructed on the south property line and then goes on from there. It was now under the category of ""Reject." It said that the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement required that Alhambra Square and Alhambra Square ACLF do the following: the wall and landscaping. Mr. Rumpf responded that whenever a staff condition shows "rejected", a Board or Commission condition supersedes it. In the case mentioned, he referred Mr. Saberson to Condition 46, which explained the conversion of that condition to its final form. For example, Condition 46 reads, regarding Condition 37, in lieu of buffer wall, developer will provide adequate landscaping, shrubs along the southern property line adjacent to the LWDD Canal in order to provide screening and security. The omission of a buffer wall would require amending the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. Mr. Rumpf continued, saying that any fine tuning or revisions generated by the legal documents, the Amendment, would supersede this also. Attorney Tolces stated that the item before the Board was the plat approval. It was his understanding that the plat had been made to be consistent with the Amendment of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Alhambra Square. The Board was looking at the plat itself. Chair Wische agreed. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked what was finally decided on conditions 37, 38, and 46? Mr. Rumpf stated that condition 2 in the Amendment document superseded them all. The wall would be a continuous coated aluminum bar fence, six feet high, with concrete columns and no gates or openings. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented on condition 24 regarding the type of trees to be planted. He suggested that Quercus Virginia, and/or Swetenia mahogany might not be the best choices in light of the recent hurricanes, and suggested that this item be opened up and addressed again with that in mind. N Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 28, 2004 Motion Mr. Friedland moved to approve Venetian Villas (Plat and Amended Alhambra Square Settlement Agreement) request for review for compliance with site plan and amended settlement agreement. Mr. Saberson seconded the motion that passed 7-0. VIII. Other Discussion to consider regulating building colors on major thoroughfares Mike Rumpf opened the discussion by saying that the City Commission had asked staff to review the Land Development Regulations in regard to changing exterior paint colors on buildings. The Commission asked staff to obtain the opinion of the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Planning & Development Boards regarding the current codes. The emphasis from the City Commission was on reviewing colors on major corridors where changing colors had the most impact or greatest visibility. Currently, staff considers changes in paint color to be minor site plan modifications and reviews them administratively. The more the proposed color departs from the approved one, the more intense the review. Staff asks the applicant to provide color swatches and palettes and manufacturer's codes, and generally tries to review the requests in the same manner as the Boards. He asked the Board if they would be in favor of a more formal review in regard to changing colors of paint on existing buildings in major corridors. Mr. Saberson thought the City would want to have that kind of review, especially on site plans. If the applicant wanted to change the paint later, they should be subjected to the same kind of review as in the initial site plan review. Ms. )ackiewicz was totally in favor of implementing stronger guidelines in order to assure some kind of conformity with existing buildings in the community. Chair Wische asked if persons could change colors on previously approved buildings without any review. Mr. Rumpf responded that the city interpreted the Code in such a way that on projects that were normally subjected to the site plan process (commercial and multi -family, mixed use, etc.), changes to paint color were treated as minor site plan modifications. Staff reviews them for whether there was an approved color and whether the Board put any conditions on the colors, and do their best to review the change. Chair Wische thought Mr. Rumpf believed there were enough safeguards if the City implemented its current policies. Ten years ago all non -conforming signs had five years to be eliminated, and Mr. Oyer's building still had the same sign painted on the building. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 28, 2004 Mr. Friedland stated that there were paintings on buildings and signage that aggravated him personally and even after several meetings on the subject, nothing had been done. He hoped that results would be obtained if conditions were put on paint colors. He hoped the City could control this type of thing. Mr. Fitzpatrick said Mr. Oyer's sign was grand fathered in and he had been 50 years in the same location. He personally liked it, pointing up the comment made earlier in the meeting that color preferences were subjective in nature. Mr. Saberson said it was pretty common for cities to regulate colors during site plan approval. In some subdivisions, approval must be obtained from the architectural review committee before proceeding with any building alterations. He thought the City would be remiss if it did not regulate colors, especially along arterial roads. He thought that staff was saying they wanted it to be more formalized and it could come back to the Board in the form of an Ordinance. He would be in favor of that. Mr. Casaine agreed that there should be an amendment to the Code with a specific plan for regulating this through the Board review process. The major thoroughfares were defined as Congress Avenue, Boynton Beach Boulevard, and U.S. 1. Others that could be included would be Woolbright, Gateway, and Hypoluxo. There were thought to be the roads with the most impact on the image of Boynton Beach. Conclusion Mr. Rumpf said he would, 1) review the comments to determine whether additional regulations were needed to mandate color change reviews; 2) determine whether the regulations should be enforced citywide or just on the principal corridors; 3) determine whether the review should be done by staff but with additional teeth in the Code or Board review with ultimate decision by City Commission. Staff will consider all comments and formulate regulations to be forwarded to the City Commission for consideration. The Commission might refer the matter back to the Boards for ratification. Staff did not want to overregulate the community and this would be a key factor in the regulations they devise. Mr. Rumpf stated that the CRA had already discussed this. They did not want a specified color palette to which everyone had to adhere. They recommended that this type of decision be elevated to the Boards to relieve staff of the burden of review. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to authorize and request staff to prepare a Code amendment that they would bring back to the Board addressing the issue of color review, limited to 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida September 28, 2004 major arterial roads in the City addressing commercial, multi -family, industrial, and similar buildings. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that passed 7-0. IX. Comments by Members There was more discussion on the sunset feature of the regulations on non -conforming signs. Mr. Rumpf's understanding was that the language pertaining to the mandatory pursuit of non -conforming sign holders had not been upheld. X. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -9�a t, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (082504) WE