Loading...
Minutes 03-28-06 MEmNG MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEmNG OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2006 AT 6:30 P.M. Present: Lee Wische, Chairman Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair (left 6:40 p.m.) Sergio Casaine William Cwynar Diana Johnson Roger Saberson Joseph Baldwin, Alternate Sharon Grcevic, Alternate David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Absent: Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair Shirley Jaskiewicz I. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Wische called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. He led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. II. Introduction of the Board Chair Wische introduced the Board members. III. Agenda Approval Ms. Johnson asked for Agenda Items 7.C-l and 7.D-l, Zoning Code Variance Requests, to be heard first, so the applicants would not have to wait through the more involved items. Motion Mr. Casaine moved to approve the agenda as amended. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion that passed unanimously. IV. Approval of Minutes Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the minutes of February 23, 2006. Mr. Baldwin seconded the motion that passed unanimously. v. Communications and Announcements Board Attorney Tolces swore in all the persons who expected to give testimony on items that were on the agenda. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 Chair Wische recognized the presence of Mayor Taylor, his wife, and Commissioner Ensler. A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the February 23, 2006 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items Ed Breese, Principal Planner, informed the Board of the actions taken by the City Commission on items previously heard by the Board: 1) The Ruffini abandonment at 504 S.W. 7th Street was approved on first reading; 2) the Healing Heart Veterinary Clinic major site plan modification was approved. VI. Old Business - None VII. New Business C. Zonina Code Variance (Heard out of order by consensus) 1. Project: 912 N.W. 13th Avenue (Hatcher) (ZNCV 06- 004) William Hatcher York Builder, Inc. 912 N.W. 13th Avenue Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2, requiring a foot minimum lot frontage of 60 feet to allow a frontage of 50 feet, a variance of 10 feet within the R-1-AA Single-Family Residential zoning district. Agent: Owner: Location: Descri ption : Chair Wische explained the variance request and stated Staff had recommended approval. Stan Rothman, 6965 Ashton Street, Boynton Beach, advised he had contacted Marcus Acevedo, the person who owns the house to the right, which also includes a 40-foot vacant lot. He offered to buy either the entire lot or ten feet of the lot so as not to require a variance. Mr. Acevedo declined to sell the property. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, reported the subject property was currently an undeveloped lot on N.W. 13th Avenue between N.W. 8th Court and N.W. 8th Street in Laurel Hills. The subdivision is zoned R-1-AA and was platted in 1951, with the majority of the lots having a 50-foot frontage. This parcel abuts the canal to the north. It is a 50-foot lot in excess of 200 feet in depth. The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum lot frontage requirement of R-1-AA lots platted prior to 1975, which requires 60 feet, in order to construct a Single-family dwelling. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance based on findings of hardship. Staff concurred with the applicant that special conditions and circumstances exist that are not the result of actions by the applicant. This request will not be injurious or detrimental to the area, and the variance requested is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 the land. The construction of a modern single-family home on the subject lot, representing reasonable use of the land, can be accommodated and still meet all of the minimum development regulations for the R1-AA zoning district and be compatible with the neighborhood. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment. Arnold Thompson, 1307 N.W. 8th Court, Boynton Beach, lives around the corner from the subject property. He did not think granting the variance would create a problem in the vicinity, but was concerned about another lot to the east of him on which the owner could possible request a variance. He made the Board aware if another 50-foot lot came in for a variance, there would be considerable opposition from the neighborhood. Dr. Jerome Vincenti, occupant of the lot next to the subject property, believed the applicant's 50-foot property would not be adequate once construction began. There was a sharp drop off of two to three feet from Dr. Vincenti's property to the lower elevation of the subject property. He did not know how this could be accommodated and thought the construction would have serious negative effects on the value of his property. Chair Wische closed the floor for publiC comments when no one else came forward. Mr. Casaine inquired if Dr. Vincenti had sought professional advice about what would be required if the construction would put his property at risk. Dr. Vincenti responded he had short notice of the project and was very busy. He added when building took place on adjoining lots with different elevations, something had to be done to accommodate the difference. Mr. Casaine asked Staff if they had taken Dr. Vincenti's observation into account during their analysis of the request. Mr. Breese confirmed this property would probably have to have additional fill for the final floor. Even if that was not the case, the drainage and erosion effect on adjacent properties is taken into account during the review and if necessary, a retaining wall would be built between the two properties. Vice Chair Hay had to leave the meeting at about 6:40 p.m. and was replaced on the dais by Ms. Grcevic, Alternate Board member. Motion Mr. Casaine moved to approve the request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2, requiring a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet, to allow a frontage of 50 feet, a variance of 10 feet within the R-1-AA single family residential zoning district with the conditions that the Board presented. Mr. Baldwin seconded the motion. Attorney Tolces commented there were no conditions, unless the Board wished to add them. Mr. Casaine understood from Staff that, if necessary, a retaining wall would be built between the two properties and that this was a condition. Attorney Tolces indicated this would take place as a matter of course during the permitting process. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 Mr. Casaine changed his motion to approval without conditions and Mr. Baldwin, who seconded the motion, agreed. The motion passed 7-0. D. Zoning Code Variance (Heard out of order by consensus) 1. Project: 1370 S.W. 26th Avenue (Kervern) (ZNCV 06- 005) Scott and Stephanie Kervern Scott and Stephanie Kervern 1370 S.W. 26th Avenue Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations, E., requiring minimum rear setback of 8 feet from the property line for the construction of a pool, to allow a rear setback of one (1) foot, a variance of 7 feet within the R-1-AA zoning district. Agent: Owner: Location: Descri ption : Chair Wische explained the variance request and stated that Staff had recommended approval. Scott and Stephanie Kervern, 1370 S.W. 26th Avenue, Boynton Beach, offered to answer questions. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, outlined the adjacent uses to the Kevern's property. The applicants were requesting a variance to the rear setback to allow for the construction of a standard size pool approximately 14' by 33'. The homeowners' French doors lead out to the rear of their residence to a patio, necessitating a distance separation from the pool to create a safe zone. This led to a proposal to have the pool five feet away from the rear of the house, causing the pool to be placed one foot from the rear property line. To the rear of the applicant's property is an 80-foot canal right-Of-way, a part that is a 13-15' grassy area, terminating at the edge of the water by the homeowners' seawall. Mr. Breese reviewed the variance against the criteria and agreed with the applicants that granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that had been denied to others in the same zoning district. City records show that out of 489 parcels on the Plat of Golfview Harbour, Section 2, 113 lots had been the subject of variance approval since 1970 for rear setbacks, and 105 of those 113 lots were located on the water. Denial of the request could potentially deprive the applicants of rights enjoyed by others in the same area and same zoning district who have received variances to the rear setback, some of which had been for pool installation. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment, closing it when no one came forward. Motion Mr. Baldwin moved to approve the request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations, E., requiring minimum rear setback of 8 feet from the property line for the construction of a pool, 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 to allow a rear setback of one (1) foot, a variance of 7 feet within the R-1-AA zoning district. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Attorney Tolces commented there were three Lawrence Road items and he asked if the Board wished to hear all the presentations concurrently. Mr. Weiner, the applicant's representative, agreed. Chair Wische wished to take the applications in agenda order. A. Annexation 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Lawrence Road Property (ANEX 06-003) Brian Terry, Land Design South Vermac Properties 6 LLC NE corner of Lawrence Road and 71 st Avenue South, approximately 350 feet south of Hypoluxo Road. Request to annex the subject property Description: Land Use Amendment/Rezoning 2. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Lawrence Road Property (LUAR 06-004) Brian Terry, Land Design South Vermac Properties 6 LLC NE corner of Lawrence Road and 71 st Avenue South, approximately 350 south of Hypoluxo Road Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from MR-5 (Palm Beach County) to Medium Density Residential (MEDR); and Descri ption : Proposed Use: Request to rezone from Agricultural Residential (AR, Palm Beach County) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) 90 multi-family residential units New Site Plan 3. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Lawrence Road Property (NWSP 06-006) Brian Terry, Land Design South Vermac Properties 6 LLC NE corner of Lawrence Road and 71 st Avenue South, approximately 350 south of Hypoluxo Road Request new site plan approval to construct 90 fee- simple townhouse units on a 9.35-acre parcel in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district. Descri ption : Michael Weiner of Weiner & Aronson, P.A., Boynton Beach, explained the applicant had arranged the presentation to mirror the Staff reports, which addressed zoning and annexation together and the site plan separately. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 Chair Wische deferred to Eric Johnson, Planner, who responded Staff did not have an issue with the annexation request, but annexations had to have a land use designation and a zoning district. Of the three applications, Staff had a problem with the proposed land use and the zoning. He recommended all three items be heard at the same time. The Board agreed. Mr. Johnson characterized the surrounding properties, uses and zoning classifications: Grove Plaza Jonathan's Grove Nautica Sound Palmyra I Local Retail Commercial Low Densi Residential Low Densi Residential Palm Beach County Medium Density Residential The subject property is now located within the unincorporated area of Palm Beach County and has a Palm Beach County land use of Medium Residential, 5 units per acre (MR-5). Its zoning district is Palm Beach County Agricultural Residential (AR). The proposal is to annex into the City of Boynton Beach and be classified with the Medium Density Residential Land Use and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district. Staff reviewed the proposal and concluded there was an issue with the proposed density of 9.63 dujacre. This density is at the high end of the Medium Density Residential land use of 9.68 dujacre. The proposed density is just under the City's High Density Residential land use and is not compatible with the surrounding properties. The subject project is surrounded on three sides by Low and Medium Density Residential land uses, R-1-AA Single Family Residential, all having densities of less than 5 du/acre. The applicant believed the proposed project would fall into the Medium Density Residential category because the project would act as a bufferjtransition between the existing land uses. However, Mr. Johnson noted there was a 240-foot length of single-family homes that also abutted the same commercial properties as the proposed project. Mr. Johnson displayed the site plan. The project is comprised of eighteen different townhouse buildings with a clubhouse building and recreation facility. Cars would have a single pOint of ingress and egress from Lawrence Road. Mr. Johnson referred to an advisory section in the Comprehensive Plan saying that if this property were ever annexed into the City, it should have a Low Density Residential land use. The proposed project would exceed the advisable density. The advisory also calls for single- family homes for the area. Under the County's laws, the developer could get up to 5 dujacre. The County also had other programs where the developer might be able to capture additional units. Staff could make concessions in the type of dwelling units proposed such as a mix of town homes and single-family homes, or even all town homes, but not at the proposed density. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 If annexed and developed, the City services would be adequate to meet the demand and traffic concurrency was met. The site plan meets all the City's Codes and any facet that did not would comply after satisfaction of the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C. Staff recommended denial of the annexation, land use and rezoning requests. Chair Wische asked Mr. Johnson to comment on Objective 1.16 in regard to having development orders be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. He asked whether decisions were made based on the future or present. Mr. Johnson responded the Future Land Use was part of the Comprehensive Plan and this particular 9.35-acre parcel was not located within the City, so it could not be a part of the Future Land Use Plan. However, they did have an advisory document recommending if annexed, the property should be Low Density Residential. Attorney Tolces added they were attempting to affix a land use to this property and that would then be part of the Future Land Use Map for the City. At that point in time they would assign a zoning category that was consistent with the land use designation Brian Terry and Bob Vince of Land Design South, 2101 Centre Park West, West Palm Beach, made a presentation. Michael Weiner of Weiner & Aronson, P.A., also participated in the presentation. Mr. Weiner pOinted out the areas in which Staff agreed with the developer. He contended the Comprehensive Plan advice to develop the area with Low Density Residential was at best an advisory. He acknowledged the County would allow them to have 15% higher density, but they wished to be in Boynton Beach and have a PUD. They met all site plan requirements and did not disagree with any of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Terry displayed a PowerPoint presentation on this project, which is also known as Parc Central. A copy of this presentation is attached to the minutes on file in the City Clerk's office. Mr. Terry declared the site plan had been designed to be inward looking to enhance compatibility with the surrounding uses. A significant fountain feature is placed at the entrance. The site would be pedestrian friendly, gated, and have buffering around the entire property. In addition to the clubhouse and recreation center, there is a tot lot and cabana with a pool and spa. They were not proposing any walls on the Lawrence Road side. Almost 4 acres of the 9.35-acre parcel was dedicated to open space, which was located on each end of the site. A pedestrian corridor runs through the center of the development and also between each row of units. The proposed townhouses would be fee simple and not condominiums. The residents would own a lot as well as a town home. The site plan allows SO feet of separation from the neighborhoods, much more than would be POSSible with single- family homes. The applicant believed Nautica Sound had actually been built out at 6.S du/acre. Mr. Terry displayed the architectural elevations for the project. During the Board discussion following this presentation, many Board members commented on the attractive appearance of the project. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 Chair Wische asked whether the applicant agreed with the 48 Conditions of Approval. Mr. Weiner indicated they agreed to all conditions. Mr. Weiner addressed the eight criteria for approval as listed in the Land Development Regulations. 1. ConsistenC'i with Comorehensive Plan - The project location was unique since it had residential on three sides and commercial on another, which limited development potential for single-family homes. Requiring single-family homes on this site would go against Objectives 1.19 and 1.17. Juxtaposing single family to commercial made no sense. 2. Consistency with Established Land Use Pattern - Grouping the buildings in the center of the project created as much distance as possible from the obnoxious uses to the north and the surrounding single-family residential communities. Single-family homes would be much closer to the neighbors. 3. Changed Conditions - The changed condition was the intense commercial, automotive, development to the north of the proposed project, negating the advisory in the Comprehensive Plan calling for a Low Density Residential land use and single-family homes for this area. The City's Code requires it to recognize changed conditions. 4. Concurrency and Annexation - There was agreement between Staff and the developer that concurrency had been met and annexation could be supported. 5. Compatibility with Ad;acent Properties - Precedence - The proposed use provided a traditional step-down in intensity to the adjoining intense commercial use. Approving this project would not set a precedent. There was a project on Federal Highway and Gulfstream Boulevard on which the City had ignored an advisory in the Comprehensive Plan due to changed circumstances in the area. 6. Economically Develooable under Existing Zoning - The existing zoning is AR, which could be one house on five acres or a farm. The site was not economically developable under those conditions. Other County programs would allow them 15-20% more density, but the intent was to be in the City and have a PUD. 7. Needs of the Neighborhood - Market Demand - Staff agreed housing was critical to the City and that meant the project would meet the reasonable needs of the neighborhood. If forced to do single-family housing, the housing would cost more than the mean average in Palm Beach County of $420K and that was not realistic for this site in today's market. Boynton Beach needs homes in the median range. 8. Adequate Sites Elsewhere - Alternate Locations - The Staff Report indicated the only other suitable sites would be on Federal Highway. This was one of the few adequate sites in this quadrant for this kind of project. The developer initiated discussions with the neighbors early in the planning stages. To relieve their concerns, the project would have tiers of landscaping that would be mature at planting. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 There would also be the highest possible berms allowed by Code and the topography. They did not plan to place walls on the FPL easement. In summary, the developer believed the project met the criteria against which it was reviewed and that the project was the best POSSible solution for this site. Chair Wische opened the floor for the public to speak. Carol Fink, 3813 Jonathan's Way in Jonathan's Grove, lives in property that backs up to the proposed property. Ms. Fink was not against the project, but objected to the increase in traffic 90 new units would add to the roads, especially at peak times. According to the Palm Beach County Traffic Department, the road could not be widened any further. The Traffic Department advised a developer's request to "break through" a median on Lawrence Road had been denied since there was already too much traffic on Lawrence Road. Ms. Fink contended the Jonathan's Grove wall would be opposite a high berm on the proposed site, creating an alleyway where undesirable activities could take place at night. The easement was also for the existing paved road that would be relocated inside the proposed project boundaries, to become part of its entrance. She suggested moving the wall out to their property line. Jerry Dozer, a resident of Lot No. 6 in Jonathan's Grove, would agree to the project with less density, even if it were more expensive. Mr. Dozer believed it would be impossible to accommodate the increase in traffic the project would bring. He remarked the people living next to the FPL easement paid taxes on it although they did not have access to it. He was sure the engineers had looked at flood control issues, but noted engineering designs did not always work as planned and this was an area of concern. Lisa Crandall, 1088 Fairfax Circle West, lives in Lawrence Grove, one quarter mile to the south of the proposed project and was in favor of the project. She lives in a single-family detached community and to get to any of her common grounds, it was necessary to walk in the middle of the road, including children running to the pool and playground. What she most liked about the concept of the proposed project was that the entire roadway was on the perimeter of the property. Not only would children be safe going to and from the play areas, adults would not have to fight traffic to get to their common areas. It would be positive for people with children in schools. Chair Wische closed the floor for public comment when no one else came forward to speak. Eric Johnson added several people had come into the Planning and Zoning Department, but had not expressed any objection or approval for the project. However, a letter had been received from Jennifer Humphrey at 7067 Chesapeake Circle, Nautica Sound, objecting to the density of the project and indicating she planned to bring a signed petition from her neighbors to the City Commission meeting. Mr. Weiner responded the developer understood the concerns of the neighbors. They realized single-family homes were being built, but not behind carwashes, a 7-11 store, and a tire repair shop, which made the project unique. He commented in the Nautica project, the homes 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 bordering the lakes had the highest values and the homes bordering the commercial properties had the lowest values. Adjusting the timing of traffic lights could often relieve traffic congestion. The project had been reviewed by the Traffic Department and it met all traffic concurrency requirements. The project would be unsafe with single-family detached homes. They purposely had a roundabout so the traffic stacking was far greater than anything to be seen in a single-family development. Also, there would be right turns in and right turns out and no ability to cross the median in the middle of the road. If the neighborhood is concerned about safety, a PUD is the way to go. In reference to a comment regarding the maximum density, the County would allow higher density, but they wanted to be in a PUD because it fit the transition and took the buildings off the property and lot lines. Mr. Weiner encouraged the neighbors speak with FPL about their concerns regarding the easement. The developer was not going to change anything related to the easement. The berm was not eight feet high, but probably closer to 18-24 inches high. Even if the density were decreased, roads like Hypoluxo and Lawrence experienced approximately 20K trips a day and a single family house contributes about four trips a day. Taking twenty units out of the project would create an infinitesimal difference in conditions and mean an even more expensive house. Mr. Weiner urged the Board to recommend approval of the requests. Board Comments Mr. Cwynar mentioned 3.5 acres of the parcel were devoted to recreation, leaving about 5.81 acres on which to place 90 dwelling units, which translated to 15 du/acre. Mr. Weiner responded if the net number were used, their neighbor's numbers would double and triple also. Mr. Cwynar's felt making a sharp, 90 degree turn into the garages would be challenging. He questioned whether there would be enough parking for friends and grandparents. Mr. Terry responded an additional twelve parallel spaces were located along the north side of the site. The people on the south side would be served by spaces located at each end of the project. According to the criteria, they met parking regulations and were over parked by 11 spaces. Ms. Grcevic appreciated the project's appearance and could accept it, but the increased traffic was a serious issue. An adult pedestrian was killed a year ago coming out of Nautica Sound. It was practically impossible to get to the school in the morning. Diana Johnson thought the project was beautiful, but did not believe more density was needed on the north end of town. She was pleased to hear Staff say the project was too dense, something she had not heard from this Board or the CRA in some time. She also did not agree with dumping 200 additional cars twice a day onto the surrounding roads. 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 Mr. Casaine congratulated the architects and designers for producing one of the best-looking projects he had seen. He agreed with his colleagues on the traffic problem; however, he believed traffic congestion was widespread in Boynton Beach and would probably continue until someone devised a pattern to address the way the traffic flowed. He believed some project would go here and this was nicer looking and better organized than some. If he were going to be against density, he would have to be against a great deal of density that had already been brought into Boynton Beach. He felt it represented progress. Mr. Saberson believed the voice of the citizens who specifically looked at this area and determined how they wanted to see it developed should be respected. Whether or not that advisory was legally binding, it constituted a compact with the citizens of the area that this Board should not lightly recommend be overturned. Mr. Saberson also contended the Board had to do all in its power to protect single-family uses in the City. Considering the density of the proposed plan, he would support Staff's recommendation for denial. Mr. Baldwin recalled when the neighbors of the Serrano development fought for single-family homes, instead of 97 multi-family units, the developer built 47 single-family homes. He would prefer to see single-family at this location. He congratulated the developers for a beautiful, well thought out project. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to support Staff's recommendation of denial on annexation of the Lawrence Road Property, also known as Parc Central. Mr. Baldwin seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary conducted a roll call vote. The motion to deny annexation passed 4-3, Chair Wische, Mr. Cwynar, and Mr. Casaine dissenting. Motion Mr. Saberson moved if annexed by the City, the Parc Central property be annexed at the Low Density Residential land use category with a maximum density of 4.84 units per acre. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary conducted a roll call vote. The motion to deny the applicant's request for the Medium Density Residential land use classification passed 4-3, Chair Wische, Mr. Cwynar, and Mr. Casaine dissenting. Motion Mr. Saberson moved in favor of Staff's recommendation for denial on the Parc Central site plan. Ms. Johnson seconded the motion to deny that passed 4-3, Chair Wische, Mr. Cwynar, and Mr. Casaine dissenting. The Board recessed from 8:11 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m. B. Conditional Use 1. Project: Quantum Park & Village South Commercial COUS 06-003) Eugene Gerlica Agent: 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 Owner: Location: Quantum Park & Village, LLC Southwest corner of Gateway Boulevard and High Ridge Road Conditional use/major technical site plan modification approval to construct a total of 129 dwelling units, distributed amongst a five (5)-story condominium building (at approximately 65 feet in height), three (3) mixed-use buildings, and a two (2)-story apartment building. The project also proposes 18,768 square feet of office, 23,262 square feet of retail, and 39,722 square feet of restaurant on a 14.265-acre parcel on a Mixed-Use (MU) pod in the Planned Industrial Development (PID) zoning district. Descri ption : Eugene Gerlica, 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Boynton Beach, explained this was a conditional use, site plan and master plan change request for the 5th story of a condominium building in Quantum Park. The applicant agreed with the Conditions of Approval except they wanted to change #37 and delete #51. Mr. Gerlica asked Condition #37 be amended to change the second sentence to read, "If conditional use is granted, the time limit to develop the conditional use shall be one year from the date of issuance of the building permit for the five-story structure. " They wanted to delete Condition of Approval #51 entirely because they did not think it was appropriate to require the applicant to certify the work of a duly licensed professional surveyor and licensed architect. The documents submitted were prepared by those two professionals, signed and sealed by them, and were done in accordance with the comment. Mr. Johnson wanted to ensure the plans submitted were going to be the plans of record and that there would be no additional "taking" that would cut into the landscaping any further. Staff would accept the request to delete Condition #51 from the Conditions of Approval. Eric Johnson reported Staff had reviewed the request for conditional use approval against the standards on which such uses are evaluated, and found the project met all standards. Staff recommended approval subject to the comments itemized in Exhibit C, Conditions of Approval. Chair Wische opened the floor for the public to speak, and closed it when no one came forward. Attorney Tolces asked for clarification on the second sentence of Condition #37. He asked if the applicant were stating that they would have a certificate of occupancy within one year from the issuance of the building permit. Mr. Gerlica denied that, saying the proposed alternate wording for sentence two stated the time limit to develop the conditional use is one year from the date of permit issuance. He wanted to use the term developed instead of C.O. 'd, constructed, or building permit as originally written. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve Item VII.B-1, Quantum Park & Village South Commercial conditional use/major technical site plan modification to construct a total of 129 dwelling units, distributed amongst a five-story condominium building (at approximately 65 feet in height), three mixed-use buildings, and two 2-story apartment buildings. The project also proposes 18,768 square feet of office, 23,262 square feet of retail, and 39,722 square feet of restaurant on a 14.265-acre parcel on a Mixed-Use pod in the Planning Industrial Development zoning district with the modifications of the applicant on Item 37 and the rejection of Item 51 in the Conditions of Approval, Exhibit C. Mr. Baldwin seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Master Plan Modification 2. Project: Quantum Park &. Village South Commercial MPMD 06-001) Eugene Gerlica Quantum Park & Village, LLC Southwest corner of Gateway Boulevard and High Ridge Road Master site plan modification approval to construct an additional 129 dwelling units (for a total of 363 dwelling units), 18,768 square feet of office, 23,262 square feet of retail, and 39,722 square feet of restaurant on a 26.17-acre parcel on a Mixed-Use 9MU) pod in the Planned Industrial Development (PID) zoning district. Agent: Owner: Location: Descri ption : Chair Wische asked the applicant's position on the five Conditions of Approval. Mr. Gerlica responded they accepted all five conditions. Board Attorney Tolces swore in Mr. Doug McDonald, the owner. Doug McDonald, Chief Executive Officer, Quantum Group of Companies, 2500 Quantum Lakes BOUlevard, spoke of the nine buildings visible along Gateway Boulevard. This is where the 39,722 square feet of restaurant would be. What they tried to do was coordinate the outside patio areas of the proposed development with the single use retail buildings, which range in size from 6K square feet down to 3.5K square feet. They maximized as much interconnecting area as they could to create the patio areas, but different tenants would require different kinds of patios. They over landscape everything in Quantum Park. Unlike many other developers, he had been coming to the Board for ten years and they still owned all of Gateway Boulevard except the piece they sold to the School District. This stretch of Gateway Boulevard from High Ridge Road west is what Quantum Park was really about, and it had taken years to do it. His vision was to come before the Board in a couple of months with a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC-16), which would encompass some more land they own along Gateway Boulevard. It would take the mixed-use project and keep moving it down the street and create a pedestrian corridor from Renaissance Commons all the way to 1- 95. It was there now. They wanted to embellish it. He had heard Staff and the City Attorney say 13 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 that Quantum was the jewel of Boynton Beach. He thought they had done a pretty good job of it so far, but what they were starting to do now was what was really important. He hoped the City would be flexible. Mr. McDonald declared Quantum was the largest single generator of tax dollars for Boynton Beach. He invited everyone to check out the improvements going in on Gateway Boulevard because he believed they were going to be very special. Mr. Johnson reported Staff reviewed the master site plan modification request to make sure it complied with the LDR and it did, subject to satisfaction of all comments in Exhibit C, Conditions of Approval. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comments, closing it when no one came forward. Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to grant master site plan modification approval for Quantum Park & Village South Commercial to construct an additional 129 dwelling units (for a total of 363 dwelling units), 18,768 square feet of office, 23,262 square feet of retail, and 39,722 square feet of restaurant on a 26.17-acre parcel on a Mixed-Use pod in the Planned Industrial Development zoning district, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Casaine seconded the motion that passed 7-0. C. Zoning Code Variance (Moved to start of publiC hearing) 1. Project: 912 N.W. 13th Avenue (Hatcher) (ZNCV 06- 004) William Hatcher York Builder, Inc. 912 N.W. 13th Avenue Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.C.2, requiring a foot minimum lot frontage of 60 feet to allow a frontage of 50 feet, a variance of 10 feet within the R-1-AA Single-Family Residential zoning district. Agent: Owner: Location: Descri ption : D. Zonina Code Variance (Moved to start of public hearing) 1. Project: 1370 S.W. 26th Avenue (Kervern) (ZNCV 06- 005) Scott and Stephanie Kervern Scott and Stephanie Kervern 1370 S.W. 26th Avenue Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, Supplemental Regulations, E., requiring minimum rear setback of 8 feet from the property line for the construction of a pool, to allow a rear Agent: Owner: Location: Deseri ption : 14 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 setback of one (1) foot, a variance of 7 feet within the R-l-AA zoning district. E. New Site Plan 1. Project: Commerce Bank @ Winchester Shops (NWSP 06-005) Kim Glas-Castro, Bonnie Miskel, Ruden McClosky Commerce Bank, N .A. 389 Winchester Park Boulevard Request for new site plan approval to construct a 4,222 square foot bank and 13,709 square foot of retail space in a C-3 zoning district. Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Kim Glas Castro, Ruden McCloskey, spoke on behalf of Commerce Bank, the owner and applicant. In response to Chair Wische's question, Ms. Castro stated the applicant would comply with all 33 Staff Conditions of Approval. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, explained the Commerce Bank at Winchester Shops was a previously approved project that did not follow through in the timeframe allowed for permitting. Ms. Castro brought this project forward and it was a hybrid of the previous retail project with the bank on the corner. Staff recommended approval of the project, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Chair Wische opened the floor to the public, and closed it when no one came forward. Motion Ms. Johnson moved to approve the request for new site plan approval for Commerce Bank @ Winchester Shops to construct a 4,222 square foot bank and 13,709 square feet of retail space in a C-3 zoning district, subject to all Conditions of Approval. Mr. Saberson seconded the motion that passed 7-0. E. Site Plan Time Extension 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Neptune Commerce Center (SPTE 06-003) William Wietsma of William Wietsma Co., Inc. Pelican Estates, Inc. South side of Neptune Drive, approximately 1,300 feet east of South Congress Avenue Request for a one-year time extension for a new site plan approval granted on March 1, 2005, from March 1, 2006 to March I, 2007. Description: Attorney Tolces swore in William Wietsma of William Wietsma Co., Inc. 578 Palm Way, Gulfstream. 15 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 28, 2006 Ed Breese, Principal Planner, reported the applicant had requested a one-year time extension on the site plan approval and Staff concurred. All plans were in place and permits had been applied for. The hurricanes of 2005 played a role in building construction costs. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment, closing it when no one came forward. Motion Mr. Baldwin moved to approve the request for a one-year time extension for a new site plan approval granted on March 1, 2005, from March 1, 2006 to March 1, 2007 for Neptune Commerce Center. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that passed 7-0. VIII. Other - None IX. Comments by Members - None x. Adjournment Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m., seconded by Mr. Casaine, and passed 7-0. Respectfully submitted, ~~'J Susan Collins Recording Secretary (03-29-06) 16