Loading...
Minutes 09-27-05 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 AT 6:30 P.M. Present Lee Wische, Chair Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair Sergio Casaine Shirley Jaskiewicz Roger Saberson William Cwynar Diana Johnson Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Ed Breese, Principal Planner Eric Johnson, Planner Absent Joseph Baldwin, Alternate 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Wische called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Members recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Chair Wische. 2. INTRODUCTION OF THE BOARD Chair Wische introduced the board members and City staff. He welcomed Diana Johnson to her first meeting as a regular member. Although she had been introduced as the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Johnson wanted it known that she is serving on the board as a citizen of Boynton Beach, and not as the President of the Chamber of Commerce. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that passed 7-0. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion Mr. Casaine moved to approve the August 23, 2005 minutes as presented. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that passed 7-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the August 23, 2005 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FI September 27, 2005 Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, reported on the planning and zoning items heard by the Commission at its September 20, 2005 meeting. . Cortina @ Boynton Village new site plan approved with modifications recommended by board. . Boynton Town Center new site plan approved. . Boynton Village new site plan approved. The Commission only revised one condition of approval to update with current unit counts for purposes of recreation impact fee calculation. . High Ridge New Urban Communities new site plan approved. . Boynton Village Parcels 4 & 5 and Parcel 3 conditional use approved. Mr. Rumpf inquired whether the board would be rescheduling or canceling its December 27 meeting as usual. He needed to know in order to schedule hearings accordingly. After discussion, the board's consensus was to change its December 27 meeting to Thursday, December 22, 2005. 6. Old Business A. Master Plan Modification Descri ption: Fosters Mill (MPMD 05-010) Bernard Malatesta, Vice PresidentjTreasurer N/A North of Miner Road between Lawrence Road and Congress Avenue Request for Master Plan Modification to reduce side yard setbacks from ten (10) feet to eight (8) feet for construction of screened roof enclosures. 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Chair Wische stated that staff had pulled Item 6.A.1 from the agenda. Chair Wische recognized the presence in the audience of Commissioner Mike Ferguson. 7. New Business The Recording Secretary administered the oath to all persons who would be testifying during the public hearing. A. Conditional Use/New Site Plan 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Learning Place II (COUS 04-006) Dave Beasley Scott and Cathy Freeland East side of Lawrence Road, approximately 1,100 feet north of Gateway Boulevard 2 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FI September 27, 2005 Description: Request for Conditional Use and New Site Plan approval for the construction of a 7,800 square foot Day Care Center and related site improvements on a 0.839-acre site, zoned Single-family Residential (R-l-AAB) Chair Wische read the project details and invited the applicant to come forward to answer questions. Dave Beasley, agent for owner, 2385 S.W. 13th Terrace, commented that the applicant owned the Learning Center on Woolbright and 1-95 and this one would be patterned after it in color, design, and signage. He also stated the applicant agreed with all 40 staff comments. Chair Wische noted item #34 in the conditions of approval pertaining to a recommendation from staff, "For consistency and maximum buffering, staff recommends that the wall (proposed along the north, south, and east landscape buffers) be six (6) feet in height and comprised of either Ca.5. or masonry, and painted to match the building. " When Chair Wische asked Mr. Beasely how the applicant felt about this recommendation, it turned out that there had been a misunderstanding between staff and the applicant on this point. Scott Freeland, 4770 Glen Eagles Drive, said they had found nothing in the Code that required a C.B.S. or masonry wall in this circumstance and they believe that aesthetically speaking, a fence buffered with hedges on both sides would look better than a wall. Ms. Jaskiewicz' understanding was the plans called for a C.B.S. wall on both sides. Mr. Freeland said there would be a concrete retaining wall to the elevation of the landscaping and then at that point, they would put a fence. Mr. Beasley stated that the retaining wall was needed to harmonize the very different grade elevations between this project and the adjoining property. According to Mr. Beasley, there were utility easements in the rear of the property that would have to be left open in any kind of barrier, fencing or a wall. The rear of the property faces Lawrence Lakes, but there is a very large landscape buffer at present between the two properties. Ms. Jaskiewicz inquired whether the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods had been made aware of the proposed project, and the applicant responded that they had so notified them. A considerable discussion ensued about the wall. Mr. Saberson and Ms. Jaskiewicz expressed a strong preference for the concrete wall recommended by staff as being more protective than the fence and landscaping. Each of them was concerned about the proximity of the single-family residential neighborhood to the project. Ms. Jaskiewicz believed that landscaping could die and concrete would not. Other board members 3 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FI September 27, 2005 seemed to feel that the proposed fence and landscaping would provide an acceptable buffer. Placement of the wall/fence was also an issue. Ms. Johnson asked about the hours and days the daycare would be operated. Kathy Freeland, 4770 Gleneagles Drive, responded that the hours for the daycare center would be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, no weekends. Eric Johnson, Planner, stated staff had reviewed the site plan for compliance with all applicable rules and regulations and recommended approval of the site plan contingent upon complying with all conditions of approval. Non-residential uses are allowed in single- family residential zoning districts as long as the property is located along an arterial or collector road. This change to the Code had taken place since the Freelands had opened their first daycare facility and staff wanted to insure there was enough buffering between this use and the adjacent single-family community. That was the reason for the recommendation for the wall. A daycare center would be an appropriate use for this area and staff recommended approval. In response to questions from the board, Mr. Johnson stated staff would not agree with the applicant's request for a chain link fence and hedge in place of a C.B.5. wall. Staff wanted to have a six-foot high wall around the north, east, and south sides of the property. He added that the wall was requested to provide a sound barrier as well as a visual one. The children's play area would create noise. Mr. Casaine asked the applicant if there were a problem about the six-foot wall. Mr. Beasley said this discussion had been held before. The applicant believed that a concrete wall on three sides of the property would make it look like a big "compound" and would not be nearly as attractive as the proposed fence and hedges. Also, he commented the children were only playing during the day and most people were not home during the day. Mr. Beasley said in regard to a wall on the south side of the proposed property, there was a house. If they ran a wall, it would be a concrete wall from the resident's side. From Lawrence Road, there would be a concrete wall and they proposed putting a butterfly garden inside the wall. On the other side there was a canal and Citrus Grove Elementary School. There was brush and nothing over there to buffer from. They felt the retaining wall, fence and hedges were a more attractive solution to the problem. A discussion ensued about which directions really needed buffering in an attempt to find an acceptable compromise on the wall issue. (**) Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, proposed eliminating the request for a wall on a portion of the north buffer west from the building, and placing a wall along the eastern, rear boundary. A canal and elementary school abut the property to the north, so that did not warrant a solid buffer wall and sound buffering and so forth. Mr. Rumpf felt that a child would be less likely to get over a wall than a fence, but that was not in the Code. There was really no Code saying there had to be a buffer wall around the property 4 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FI September 27, 2005 for safety reasons. He further clarified that as an alternative, a portion of the north leg of the wall could be replaced with landscaping and perhaps vinyl-covered fencing and that same length of wall, in CBS or masonry, could be placed on the eastern side of the property . Mr. Beasley said they had no problem with the wall on the south side of the property since it definitely abutted residential. Ms. Johnson confirmed with Mr. Rumpf that staff would require a six foot wall on the east side of the property and Mr. Rumpf said that was correct, for the buffering intent. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Beasley how he understood this. Mr. Beasley said he understood staff's proposal, but disagreed with a part of it. They had made their own proposal and he thought it was a reasonable one. The Code said, "a wall and/or landscaping and a berm." It did not say "wall." Mr. Cwynar had heard this also. Mr. Beasley said that according to the Code, the applicant did not have to put a wall around any of it. Mr. Saberson said that according to the Code, conditional use approvals required compatibility with adjacent and nearby properties and this was an independent standard, separate from any requirement for a wall or fence in any particular case. If staff felt that a wall was necessary in order for it to be compatible and protective of the uses adjacent to the proposed use, unless the applicant complied with that additional requirement, the conditional use itself did not have to be approved. What staff was proposing was far less of a problem than a determination that the conditional use should not be approved at all. Mr. Beasley said both sides had made a proposal and that both proposals fell within reasonable guidelines. It was up to the board to interpret this. Of course they would do what they had to do. If the board passed staffs recommendation, they would have to comply, but they believe they had proposed something reasonable and acceptable and it was up to the board to make that determination. Chair Wische opened the floor to the public for comment, and closed it when no one came forward to speak. Motion Mr. Saberson moved approval of learning Place II's conditional use and site plan approval contingent to all conditions in the staff report as modified by the staff recommendation just made regarding the wall. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. Mr. Casaine felt the matter needed clarification. The applicant had accepted part of it and staff had not commented about whether staff agreed with the compromise. Mr. Saberson felt that staff had made its recommendation and it was a reasonable compromise. He stood by the motion. Ms. Johnson asked for clarification about what was actually being agreed to. Chair Wische asked for clarification from Mr. Rumpf. Mr. Rumpf reiterated his recommendation (** see page 4). 5 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FI September 27, 2005 Mr. Cwynar believed to put a solid wall on the north and east sides would be a waste of money. There was already a landscape buffer back there and from the aerial photograph, the landscaping was heavy in the Lawrence Lakes corner abutting this project. The houses that were there were far away. He understood the six-foot wall on the south property line, but not on the east or the north. He felt a chain link or vinyl-link fence would be acceptable. Mr. Beasley said that a green vinyl fence would blend in with the landscaping and not be seen - a C.B.S. wall painted white would really "stick out." Mr. Casaine agreed with Mr. Cwynar's comments. He felt the project was secure with the fence proposed by the applicant and that the children would be safe. It was clear the applicant was willing to put up a wall on the south side, in the rear. The applicant clearly preferred to have a fence and hedge on the north and east sides, and this was close to staff's recommendation. Ms. Jaskiewicz noted that this was a conditional use and that professional staff had made a recommendation for the reasons stated. This was a use abutting a single-family residential area. She thought staff's compromise was reasonable. A vote was taken on Mr. Saberson's motion. At the Chair's request, the Recording Secretary polled the vote and the motion failed 2-5, Mr. Casaine, Mr. Cwynar, Vice Chair Hay, Ms. Johnson, and Chair Wische dissenting. Motion Mr. Casaine moved to approve the conditional use/new site plan request for construction of a 7,800 square foot daycare center and related site improvements on a 0.839-acre site, zoned Single-Family Residential (R-l-AAB) with the conditions expressed by staff with the exception of those of the clarification presented by the petitioner. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Saberson and Ms. Jaskiewicz asked what that clarification was. Mr. Casaine indicated he would rely on the record of the secretary since there had been a lot of discussion. Mr. Saberson asked Mr. Casaine to express his understanding of the clarification so it could be included in the motion. It was Mr. Casaine's understanding there would be a wall on the rear, south side and none on the north or east. Vice Chair Hay indicated acceptance of this. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked staff if this had been what they had suggested, and staff responded in the negative. At Chair Wische's request, the Recording Secretary polled the vote and the motion passed 5-2, Mr. Saberson and Ms. Jaskiewicz dissenting. B. Use Approval 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Quantum Park Lot 3 (USAP 05-001) Joey Caballero, 5th Avenue Inspections, Inc. Joey Caballero 6 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FI September 27, 2005 Location: Description: 2419 Quantum Boulevard, Lot 3 Request Use Approval for a School and Educational Services - Home Inspection Trade Training Center (weekends only) Chair Wische described the project and invited the applicant to come forward. Joey Caballaro, 7456 Liverpool Court, Boynton Beach, stated he agreed with the condition of approval. Eric Johnson, Planner, had nothing to add except that staff recommended approval of this request. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment and closed it when no one wished to speak. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved approval of the request for use approval for a school and educational services - home inspection trade training center (weekends only) subject to the staff condition of approval. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion that passed 7-0. C. Malor Site Plan Modification 1. Project: Quantum Park Lots 15 & 16 (MSPM 05- 009) Eric Anderson, Anderson Architecture Quantum Corporate Center LLCP 3601 Quantum Boulevard Request for Major Site Plan Modification to complete construction of a partial second floor of a two-story building, adding approximately 9,000 square feet of new office space to the existing 40,000 square foot building and conversion of the building entirely to office use. Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Chair Wische described the project. Chris Hair, Project Manager from Anderson Architecture, Inc., 399 W. Camino Gardens Boulevard, Boca Raton, stated the applicant agreed with all the staff conditions of approval. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, had nothing to add beyond the staff report and its conditions. Staff recommended approval with the conditions. Chair Wische opened the floor to the public for comment and closed it when no one came forward. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FI September 27, 2005 Ms. Jaskiewicz asked when the applicant would comply with condition of approval #18 to remove or replace missing or dead trees. Mr. Hair commented that this would be shown at the time of permitting. Ms. Jaskiewicz confirmed with Mr. Hair that this was a requirement and condition of approval. Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve request for major site plan modification to complete construction of a partial second floor of a two-story building, adding approximately 9,000 square feet of new office space to the existing 40,000 square foot building and conversion of the building entirely to office use, subject to all staff conditions of approval. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that passed 7-0. 8. Other 1) Discussion regarding request for a joint CRA/P&D workshop on development activities in the respective sectors of the City Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, placed this on the agenda because Diana Johnson contacted him with a request to determine whether the two boards would like to meet jointly to discuss development within each other's boundaries. It was felt that this would help each board to get a better idea of the big picture for the whole City. For example, the residents are concerned about traffic and the number of units coming into the City. The CRA does not know what projects the Planning & Development Board has approved west of 1-95 and vice versa. Mr. Rumpf thought it would also be helpful at some time to have a joint workshop with the City Commission to address the projects currently approved and planned, even though the projects might not be on the ground for two or three years. In this way, everyone could get a better idea of the effect decisions were having on the entire City. The board members were very receptive to this idea and looked forward to such a meeting. Mr. Rumpf will try to set the meeting up and advise the board members when and if a meeting is arranged. 2) Notification from City Clerk's Office of Role of the Recording Secretaries in Relation to the City Advisory Boards Mr. Rumph read a letter from the City Clerk outlining this. The gist of the letter was that the board members were to interface with the Board Liaison on any problems that might arise. The Recording Secretary is present to record the proceedings only and should not be considered a member of the board. The letter was circulated to all the advisory boards. 3) Chamber/City/CRA Community Development Forum Ms. Johnson advised that this forum would feature four or five of the current mixed-use projects in the City. Many supporting businesses such as architects, commercial lenders, title companies and similar entities will be present. The event will be at the Holiday Inn 8 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FI September 27, 2005 Catalina on Thursday, September 29, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. They hope to present this every four or five years. 9. Comments by Members - None 10. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~.- I Susan Collins Recording Secretary (092805) 9