Loading...
Minutes 05-23-00MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman Nicholas lgwe, Assistant City Attorney J. Stanley Dube, Vice Chair Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Larry Finkelstein Zoning Maurice Rosenstock Lusia Galav, Senior Planner Woodrow Hay Hannah Matras, Economic Research Steve Myott - Analyst Robert Ensler, Alternate ALSO PRESENT Pat Frazier, Alternate ABSENT Michael Friedland 1. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of Board Members/Recognition of Visitors Chairman Wische introduced all of the Board members, staff, and welcomed the visitors to the meeting. 3. Agenda Approval Vice Chair Dube moved to accept the agenda as presented. Mr. Rosenstock seconded the motion that passed 7-0. 4. Approval of Minutes A motion was made to approve the minutes of the April 25, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded and passed 7-0. 5. Communications & Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Finan disposition of agenda items from the April 25, 2000 Planning and Development Board" meeting. i �r _4 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23,'2000 Mr. Rumpf reported on the results of the May 2, 2000 City Commission meeting as follows: (a) The Martin Luther King Boulevard Overlay District was approved. (b) The Bethesda Memorial Hospital New Site Plan was approved. (c) The Bethesda Memorial Hospital Parking Lot Addition Land Use - Amendment/Rezoning was also approved. (d) The Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Conditional Use and Site Plan was approved. Mr. Rumpf reported on the results of the May 16, 2000 City Commission meeting as follows: (a) Under first reading of Ordinances, Bethesda Memorial Hospital Parking Lot Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment and the Rezoning from R-1AA to C-1, were approved. (b) Also under firstreading of Ordinances, the Aboveground Swimming Pool Amendment was approved. Mr. Dube asked Mr. Rumpf if the parking lot addition at Bethesda was going to have one driveway or two? Mr. Rumpf replied that there would be one driveway. The Board believed it had added a requirement for two driveways. Mr. Rumpf replied that Bethesda had agreed to consider it but had decided on one. Mr. Rumpf went on to say that the Planning Department would make sure the gate is kept open during peak hours to prevent any back-up. 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS Assistant City Attorney Igwe administered the oath to all the persons planning to testify during the meeting. A. Public Hearing Zoning Code Variance 1. Project Name: DON TRACEY (Front Setback) Agent/Owner Don Tracey Location: Lot 8, Subdivision Las Palmas Landing Description; Request relief from Chapter 2. Zoning,Section 5(C)(2)(a), which requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet, to allow a 15 foot front setback, or a 10 foot 2 _, - MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 front setback reduction (variance), to construct a single-family home. Mr. Rumpf addressed Chairman Wische, who had been handed a petition with ten signatures. Mr.Rumpf explained that the petition was received from property owners who. five in the vicinity of Mr. Tracey's property. The second item given to the Board was a report by the Planning and Zoning Department, which presented the case in a graphic manner. Mr. Dube asked to have the petition read into the record. Mr. Rumpf read the petition, which follows: "As residents of Las Palmas Park, Boynton Beach, Florida, we are against granting the variance requested by Donald Tracey to change the established setbacks on Lot8, Las Palmas Landing, Boynton Beach, Florida. Mr. Rumpf replied that the petitioners were present to state their reasons for not being in favor of allowing the variance. Mr. Rumpf further stated that the issue seemed to be drainage and presented the following points as background information for the Board: (1) A drainage line is located in the easement between the subject lot and the adjacent lot 7. A single family home was recently constructed on lot 7 and during construction, a culvert/drainage line was covered up. The City is very aware of that and is going to take steps to go and dig it up and extend it to the Intracoastal Waterway, which should alleviate the current drainage problem: (2) The second - issue had to do with on-site drainage, specifically the elevation of the property. a) They have to meet a minimum finished floor elevation per the City's code as well as any drain standard that may be set by the Flood Zone in which the residence is located. b) The City's code also requires that a certain amount of drainage must be maintained on site for a certain duration of storm. An Engineer must, .through our permit process, certify. that this site will conform to these drainage requirements. The applicant, Don Tracey, 31 Swallow Drive, Boynton Beach, took the podium. Mr. Dube asked. Mr. Rumpf if the culvert extended on the west side to a storm drain manhole. Mr. Rumpf believed' there was something to that effect in existence. On the drawing Mr. Dube said it looked as if there were a manhole there. Mr. Rumpf said it may not be on that easement and it may continue off this property. Mr. Finkelstein asked if the 12 foot drainage, easement was covered up (with six feet of it on the petitioner's lot)? Mr. Rumpf said not necessarily the easement itself but the 3 `MEETING MINUTESPLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARDBOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000culvert was filled in. It did not extend the full length of the easement to the water. Priorto the development of Lot 7 the finished elevation was much lower.Mr. Rumpf said that the reason he prepared a graphical presentation for this case was todocument the specifics of the case and the lot. He stated that the subject lot 8 wasplatted with understood or assumed setbacks. In most of those cases they are probablycorrect according to regulations and they all have access from the same right of way.However, the unique lot in the, group is lot 8. It was shown with the same setbacks.However, the lot is oriented in the opposite direction and, thereby, according to the City'smethodology and regulations, the setbacks get reversed. The narrowness of the lotmade this point more significantChairman Wische stated that staff had denied the request for the front setback but hadmade a suggestion of a five-foot reduction instead of ten feet. Chairman Wische askedthe petitioner if he agreed with that suggestion. Mr. Tracey replied that he was notcomfortable with that suaaestion. He said it was a very irregular shaped lot and hewanted to get as much s4jare footage on the waterfront as possible.Chairman Wische asked the persons in the audience who wished to speak on this itemto approach the podium one by one and briefly state their reasons.Ms. Hope DeLong assumed the podium and spoke in favor of Mr. Tracey's request.She stated that they had just built the house on lot 7 and would be directly impacted bythe type of home that Mr. Tracey would be allowed to build. She said that the increasein square footage Mr. Tracey would need to build the type of home he wanted to buildwas acceptable. They were also working with the City to correct the drainage problemfor the people behind Las Palmas. She said that Mr. Tracey was willing to work with theDeLong's and they are trying to cooperate. She said that in trying to build their homethey had met with a lot of negativity and that if anyone was impacted, it would be sheand her husband. She asked the City to grant Mr. Tracey's request.Mr. Jim Warneke, 617 Lakeside Harbor, took the podium and said he had lived at thataddress for the past 37 years. He stated that the drainage swale near lot 7 and 8 mustbe opened up. He said that all of the properties built in the last few years had honoredthe City's setback requirements. If this property had a variance, it would destroy theaesthetics of the area. That house would not line-up with the rest of the properties and itwould: probably impinge on the turnaround area that the City trucks have to use to godown to the end of the street to pick up garbage and so forth. Also at the end of the loton the right at the Intracoastal is a line of sea, grapes, which must be preserved, so theactual waterfront has already been blocked off. He would like to see the variance deniedon the basis that it would not be aesthetically pleasing to the people on the street. Hesuggested that a smaller house could be built there without a variance.Mr. Todd Pertosi, 626 Lakeside Harbor, took the podium. He stated that the drainagewas a big concern of his since he had been flooded out in every rainstorm since therecent construction. He could no longer pump his yard out. He mirrored Mr. Warneke'sconcerns I and hoped that the drainage problem would be addressed quickly as muchdamage was being done. �1! [---------- —`'----�--------~^� MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON REACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 No further comments were made and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dube asked who owned the dock? Mr. Tracey was not sure. A woman from the audience said it belonged to all the residents of Lakeside- Harbor. Then Mr. Dube addressed Mr. Tracey, saying that Mr. Tracey had said the road ended at his property yet there was a road easement going through the property which meant that they still had to go through his property to, get to the: dock. Mr. Frederick Peppard, 631 Lakeside Harbor; Boynton Beach, took the podium to answer the previous question. Mr. Peppard said that back in 1947 each side of the street was owned by a different individual:; and each side deeded to the other side the right of easement of 7.5 feet from the center of the road to every member who lived on the street and a lawyer took up the case. The net of it was that the street belongs to all the people who Live on there and the dock belongs to all the people who live on there. They all have access and all have to maintain the property in front of their homes, the road, and the dock. Mr. Dube said the reason he asked was that they were talking about a 15 -foot setback but it is a 7.5 -foot setback because if you deduct the road easement, it is no longer part of the setback. Mr. Rumpf said that same thought process goes throughout the whole street, i.e. they don't really have a 25 foot setback they have that less the street from the center line. Everyone is the same. Mr. Rosenstock asked Mr. Rumpf to show him on the map where the road was and Mr. Rumpf displayed a slide, and indicated the location of the parcel. Mr. Rosenstock, while viewing the slide, asked Mr. Rumpf if staff wanted to reduce the setback on the north edge of the parcel by five feet and Mr. Rumpf replied that this was the case. Mr. Rosenstock then asked- Mr. Rumpf to show him the other setback on the rear, south side. Mr. Rumpf proceeded to display that view and they discussed the rear setback. Mr. Rumpf replied that the variance that had been requested for the rear of the lot was equal to the side setback of the opposite lot. They were side-by-side. Mr. Rosenstock said the neighbor says it is O.K. to reduce it but would that throw it out of conformity with the rest of the housesonthe street? Mr. Rumpf replied no and visually demonstrated that this was not the case. Mr. Tracey said that the main issue seemed to be a drainage one and the culvert does stop about halfway down the south side of the property, which is going to be extended to ; the Intracoastal, and that should take care of any drainage issues that -would be impeding on anyone else's property. Mr. Tracey also stated he would have his property engineered in such a way as to retain all his own drainage on his own property. He also said he understood that this would be_a point of conformance when he went in for permitting and inspections. Mr. Rosenstock asked _Mr. Tracey when he bought the parcel? Mr. Tracey said approximately eight weeks ago. Mr. Rosenstock asked Mr. Tracey if he had been aware of the setback issue and he said he had questioned Mr. Rumpf about the setbacks and foundout that the setbacks were not going to be in conformation with the City of Boynton 5 - MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 Beach and much discussion ensued between the parties. The conclusion was that I was going; to have to go for a variance and I did not believe I would be impeding on anyone else's property. Mr. Rosenstock wanted to ascertain if Mr. Tracey had been aware prior to the; purchase that the setbacks existed and Mr. Tracey affirmed that he had known. Mr. Ensler asked if Mr. Tracey wouldaccept the recommendation of staff concerning the setbacks? After some discussion Mr. Tracey said yes. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Tracey if he had studied what his square footage would be with what staff recommends and also with no relief at all? He wondered what size house would be considered. Mr. Tracey said he did not want to get into the planning stages at this point. Mr. Myott asked hire about the footprint? Mr. Tracey said it was about 5,300 feet. Mr. Myott said he would end up with a little less than that with the staff proposal Most importantly, Mr. Tracey said, with the five-foot relief on the setback, it was a pie - shaped lot and when you get down near the water he would still only have 40 feet on the water. Mr. Rumpf responded to the comments brought to the Board and Mr. Tracey by the public. He said it was 'a unique location and staff believed it had considered it from every angle. The drainage issue, which is more related to the permitting process, was brought before him today. He commented on the setback impacting other properties along the street that it fronts. He displayed a chart, which showed the Lakeside Harbor area and the street in question. He did not believe that you would be able to tell the five- foot difference from the other properties due to the mature vegetation up and down the street. Regarding the turn -around impact, he said it was a dedicated easement and the setback would 'keep that area well away from the turnaround area. As to the seagrapes on the waterfront, with the setback along the property set at 20 to 25 feet, there should be minimal impact on the waterfront and, that any impact would have to be permitted and likely would be avoided. A statement was made that a smaller home could be constructed and still conform to the setbacks. Actually, what would happen if the property owner still pursued construction of a single family home on the lot if the variances were denied, it would basically' allow him to construct the same size of home as he wants now but further to the west. Mr. Tracey could easily construct a two-story home with 6 to 7,000 square feet on that lot but it would have to be moved backwards and westward towards the older homes, which would not be favorable, in his opinion. Mr. Tracey said it was not consistent with the homes on the waterfront and would look out of place and Mr. Rumpf agreed. In summary, Mr. Rumpf said that what the variance did was to allow the applicant to build his home in a placement consistent with the other homes in the subdivision with which it was platted and really, farther away from the existing single-family homes to the west. Since it is on the end of the street or easement there would be less impact as long as minimum pedestrian access were to be allowed to that waterfront dock. Motion Mr. Dube made a <motion that the request be approved for relief from Chapter 2.` Zoning, Section 5(C)(2)(a), which requires a minimum front setback of 25 feet, to allow a 20 foot 6 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 front setback (or a five foot front setback reduction) variance to construct a single family home subject to all staff comments. Mr. Dube commented on the fact that he had changed the request from what staff had recommended. To explain, the applicant had requested a front setback of fifteen feet, a ten-foot reduction, and Mr. Dube suggested they approve a twenty-foot front setback, a five-foot reduction, in the front. Mr. Myott seconded the motion. Motioncarried 7-0: Zoning Code Variance 2. Project Name: DON TRACEY (Rear Setback) Agent/Owner: Don Tracey Location: Lot 8, Subdivision Las Palmas Landing Description: Request for relief from Chapter 2. Zoning, Section 5(C)(2)(a), which requires a minimumrearsetback of 25 feet, to allow a 10 foot rear setback, or a 15 foot rear setback reduction (variance), to construct a single -family home: Chairman Wische read the request and commented that staff had recommended approval of this variance. Mr. Jim Warneke approached the podium and asked if Mr. Tracey planned to live in the house? Mr. Tracey replied that he did plan to live in the house: Motion Mr. Finkelstein made'a motion to allow relief from Chapter 22oning, Section 5(c)(2)(a), which requires a minimum rear setback of 25 feet, to allow a 10 foot rear setback, or a -15 foot rear setback reduction (variance), to construct a single -family home. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. B. Time Extension 1. Project Name: STOR-ALL TIME EXTENSION (Limited-access self-storage facility) Agent: Lindsey A. Walter, Kilday & Associates, Inc: Owner: Charlie Anderson Location: Southeast corner of Old: Boynton Road and Knuth Road' Description: Request for an eight-month extension of the conditional use approval granted on May 4, 1999 which would extend the expiration date of this conditional use approval from May 4, 2000 to January 4, 2001. 7 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 Chairman- Wische stated that staff was in favor of approving the request for a time extension. Mr. Lindsay Walker of Kilday & Associates, West Palm Beach, Florida, took the podium to address comments or questions from the public and the Board. There were no comments in the public hearing. Mr. Ensler asked if there had been a zoning change required for the initial application? Mr. Rumpf replied that he believed there was an historic PCD on the property, which had expired, but the zoning was still technically PCD,, so through Ordinance it was changed to C-1. Mr. Ensler wondered if the location was an appropriate place for a self -storage facility. Mr. Rumpf added that there had been a change in the Code to allow the creation of limited -access self -storage businesses that are totally enclosed. There are no exterior bays or truck drive -ups or people working inside their individual bays. It was intended to fit into office -type environments such as is found at this location. It is a pretty upscale project and he referred to one in town that was even larger than this one. He said they were not the typical, bright orange self -storage facilities usually found in industrial districts. Mr. Ensler also noticed there was a big, beautiful banyan tree on it and he wondered if it was going to be saved? Mr. Walter statedthat there were specific conditions pertaining to preservation of native vegetation on site. In fact, probably the south 1/3 of the property would be preserved because there was a considerable amount of slash pines on the property. He was not sure where the banyan tree was. They made every effort to work with the vegetation on the site and were creating a large buffer on Knuth Road in response to the adjacent neighbors. The building was located as far to the east as possible to still allow circulation. Mr. Rosenstock commented that in May of 1999 the Board had granted the conditional use and all the applicant was requesting was an extension and that he saw no harm in allowing a first-time request for extension. Mr. Rumpf said they would do a building permit next week and they were ready to get started, Mr. Herb Suss, 1711 Woodfern Drive, Boynton Beach, Florida took the podium. Mr. Suss saidhelived near this facility and was concerned about the traffic that it would generate. Mr. Rumpf replied that this request had been processed over a year ago and he did notrecall the trip' distribution of the traffic study. Mr. Rumpf replied that the location of this building was not in the vicinity of Woodfern Drive, Mr. Suss said that with 240 apartments going in on Knuth Road that was potentially 480 people and with Wal- Mart going in and the widening of Woolbright, their community on S.W. 2e had already been impacted. They were concerned about more traffic coming down Knuth to avoid Military and Congress and using 26th Street as a north -south bypass. Mr. Rosenstock 8 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 stated that his concern should have been directed to the City Commission and the Planning Department along time ago. Motion Mr. Rosenstock made a motion to approve the request for an eight-month extension of the conditional use approval granted on May 4, 1999, which would extend the expiration date of this conditional use approval from May 4, 2000 to January 4, 2001. Mr. Dube seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. C. Use Approval 1. Project Name ORIANA GRANITE Agent: Robert Sullivan, Quincy Johnson Architects Owner: Oriana Granite Location: tot 50-A, Quantum Park Description: Request for use approval to add stone cutting and finishing to the Quantum Park PID list of permitted uses for all parcels with an industrial master plan designation. Chairman Wische explained the request for use approval of Oriana Granite. Mr. Myott stated that he would have to abstain from any vote due to a conflict of interest as he was employed by Quincy Johnson, Architects, the agent. A Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal, and Other Local Public Officers formwas duly filled out by Mr. Myott and is on file with the original minutes of this meeting. Mr. Robert Vaughn, representative of Quincy Johnson Architects, 949 Clint Moore Road, Boca Raton, Florida took the podium. Ms. Galav of the Planning Department stated that stone -cutting and finishing was an approved use in their industrial zoning classification so this application was consistent with an industrial use that was already permitted. Ms. Galav explained that this request was only to be added to!the Quantum Park PID list. There was no comment :during public hearing. Motion Mr. Dube made a motion to approve the request for use approval to add stone cutting and finishing to the Quantum Park PID list of permitted uses for all parcels with an industrial master plan designation.. Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0 (Mr. Myott abstaining). 9 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 D. Site Plan 1. Project Name: Oriana Granite Agent: Robert Sullivan, Quincy Johnson Architects Owner: Oriana Granite Location: Lot 50-A Quantum Park Description: Request for new site plan approval to Construct a 24,020 square foot industrialloffice facility on 1.42 acres Mr. Robert Vaughn remained at the podium from the first Oriana Granite case. Mr. Myott repeated his intention to abstain for the aforementioned reason, form on file with the minutes. There were no comments during the public hearing. Mr. Rosenstock asked the applicant how he planned to buffer the facility from the streets, roads and potential parcels in the area The architect showed the Board the rendering of the proposed building that showed the site surrounded by landscaping. The Park had very stringent requirements on the landscaping, according to Mr. Vaughn, and the design that was provided by the architects exceeded the Park's requirements. They had taken extra steps in areas they thought might be of concern. Continuous hedge, which wraps all the way around the rear side of the property was put in the plan. Also, Mr. Vaughn stated that the sides were going to be facing the rear and sides of similar uses. Mr. Rosenstock asked; Mr. Rumpf about the height of the trees. The Board perused the drawings and according to Ms. Galav, onthesheet entitled L-10 there was a landscape list. Mr. Rosenstock said he saw trees 12 to 14 feet high. Ms. Galav said they were 40 feet on centers as required by Code, and that eight -foot plantings were the minimum for the City. For the Board's information, Ms. Galav said that on the east side, where the applicant was proposing to have an area for the open doors, staffmade " the recommendation that hedge be maintained at six foot high. Mr. Rosenstock said that 40 -foot centers were a little bit much and he hoped that at some point in the future this part of the Code could be addressed and reduced substantially. Ms. Galav said it was being addressed currently with the landscape plan revisions the Planning and Zoning Department was drafting. Mr. Ensler noted that the parking spaces for the proposed building were 9 feet "wide, which met the current requirements. However, he said staff had gone to Engineering to discuss widening the parking space requirements to 10 feet as have many adjacent cities such as Boca Raton, Highland Beach, Royal Palm Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, Riviera Beach, Deerfield Beach and others. The reason was obvious, he said. In nine - foot spaces, the opening of car doors often leads to "dinging" adjacent cars. Mr. Ensler asked the applicant if they would consider changing the width of the parking spaces to MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 10 -foot spacing. Mr. Ensler said that the 31 spaces would ,probably be decreased at most by three spaces. He said there were only 25 people to use the spaces and on another page it showed 22 people. In both cases the resulting number of spaces would be more than enough. Ms.. Galav said that this project required 25 parking spaces currently which was six more than the required parking on the plan; however, staff reviewed it based on the current regulations, which call for a 9 x 18 space. Mr. Rosenstock asked the applicant if they had any objection to making the parking spaces wider? After discussion Mr. Vaughn agreed to make the parking spaces 10 feet wide. Chairman Wische noted that there were 23 staff comments and asked the applicant to confine his remarks to those items on which clarification was desired or where there was disagreement. The applicant said they had read through the comments and did not have any objections to any of the comments. Chairman Wische asked if that included item13, the 144 (feet versus 150 feet required on the driveway spacing dimensions, also? Ms. Galav said the applicant was in the process of providing an application for a variance. Chairman Wische also asked about comment #18, which pertained to environmental review permits. Ms. Galav said that was a standard comment for this particular type of operation and could be done any time throughout the review process. The applicant had no problem with that. Mr. Ensler asked if the plans had been brought before the Quantum Architectural Review Committee? Ms. Galav said that they had submitted a letter to Quantum. There were no comments in public hearing. Motion Mr. Dube made a motion to approve the request for new site plan approval to construct a 24,010 square foot industrial/office facility on 1.42 acres on Lot 50-A in Quantum Park. Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion that carried 6-0 (Mr. Myott abstaining). Mr. Ensler asked Chairman Wische if the motion had to contain wording about the ten foot parking spaces. Chairman Wische asked that the motion be amended to include the following statement: "Applicant has agreed to change all parking spaces to a - ten foot width." A new vote was taken on the amended motion. Mr. Dube and Mr. Finkelstein agreed with the amended language and the motion carried 6-0 (Mr. Myott abstaining). 2. Project Name: , COMMERCE ROAD REALTY CO., LLC Agent: Def Swilley, Del Swilley, Inc. 11 -, MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 Owner: James K. ClarkMmothy W. Swilley Location: High Ridge Commerce Park Description: Request for new site plan approval to construct a 20,380 square foot industrial/office/warehouse facility on 1.26 acres Mr. Del Swilley, President of Del Swilley, Inc., assumed the podium. Chairman Wische stated that there were 24 staff comments and asked Mr. Swilley to confine his remarks to those items on which clarification was desired or on which a disagreement existed. Mr. Swilley stated that he agreed to conform to all of the staff comments. There was no comment in public hearing. Mr. Ensler asked the applicant if he could increase the size of the parking spaces from 9 feet to 10 feet wide. Mr. Swilley said that he would be very happy to accommodate the request but they did not have the luxury of having any extra parking spaces. He stated that all 37 spaces were required for the planned building. Mr. Rosenstock asked how many spaces would be eliminated by looking at 10 feet? Mr. Swilley said the total would fall by four spaces. Mr.. Myott said that the parking spaces at this kind of facility were not the ones that the Board needed to concern itself with but instead, those at retail facilities, the mall and similar areas. Mr. Ensler asked Ms.. Galav if, in their consideration of changing the parking space requirements, this project, in this environment, would be one where ten -foot would be applicable? Ms. Galav said she would agree with Mr. Myott that it may or may not be applicable. In industrial uses it might not be a problem and currently there were no requirements in the Code except for on that drawing. There is an engineering standard the City uses. Ms. Galav also stated that when the Code is looked at they might have to look at the Parking chapter and add some additional conditions as to when it may or may not be appropriate and they would consider it. Mr. Ensler said it made no difference to him where he parked, whether it was in a public shopping center or on a visit to someone in an industrial area. In his mind widening the parking spaces would be doing a service to the employees working in the building. The applicant said that they shared his concerns but that in this particular instance, they did not have any extra parking spaces unless they could get a variance. Some discussion on this item followed. Mr. Rumpf said that in the past the City had been very inconsistent in the variances and recently there had been a straightening of that line in trying to hold to the traditional criteria of hardship. That was one issue. Sometimes it is difficult because you find other justifications and rationale as we have on other projects where you want to use variances, which would quickly allow a project to go forward. In a project like this, one needs to be cautious because this industrial project could be more intense. There are multiple bays in this building. Right now it is being reviewed at the least intensive parking ratio requirement of just warehouse and office. It is very feasible 12 MEETINGMINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 that one or more of the bays could be used for an active manufacturing process. Theoretically that would= increase the parking need. Right now in Commerce Park PID, all those lots are similar. The only way to do it is to reduce the size of the building and ,that is a real estate issue. Mr. Rosenstock said his point was well taken. Mr.Ensler said the issue was that developers try to maximize the size of the building at the expense of parking spaces, and that it was a question of dollars; however, he believed there was a responsibility to protect the vehicles and provide adequate parking to the people who work there: Mr. Rumpf also said that maybe there was a difference in performance or needs between an industrial or a retail business as to parking spaces, referring to the. County which, coincidentally, had two different standards for parking spaces; 9.5 feet for retail and 9 feet for others, excluding handicapped. Mr. Mlyott- asked the applicant if he planned to move his offices there? The applicant said yes. Motion Mr. Hay made a motion that the request be approved for new site pian approval to construct a 20,380 square foot industrial/office/warehouse facility on 1.26 acres subject to all staff comments. Mr. Dube seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-1 with Mr. Ensler dissenting. 3.- Project Name SAMMY BERRY BUILDING Agent Kimberly A. Dellastatious AIA, PA Owner: Sammy Berry, Jr. and Eula Mason -Berry Location: 110 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Description: Request for new site plan approval to construct a 2,950 square foot retail/office facility on 0.28 acres Ms. Kimberly Dellastatious, 422` N. Dixie Highway, Lake Worth, assumed the podium. Chairman Wische noted that there were eighteen staff comments and asked if there were any concerns or if any clarification was required. Ms. Dellastatious stated that all the concerns had been addressed and that they agreed with all staff comments. Ms. Galav said that this site plan had been processed a couple of months back and the Board had heard some variances concerning this particular site, specifically the front setback as ,it was in Martin L. King. The site plan is coming back to the Board and is conditioned on the Martin L. King Overlay District being finally adopted by the City Commission, which would mean their setbacks would meet the requirements of the Overlay District. Chairman Wische asked if that was three to ten feet and Ms. Galav said yes, three feet in front. 13 - -„ MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 There were no comments in the public hearing. Mr. Rosenstock asked- for Mr. Rumpf s confirmation that this was the first parcel being developed in the Martin L. King Overlay District and Mr. Rumpf indicated that it was. Mr. Rosenstock asked the applicant what materials were being ,used for the project, to which Ms. Dellastatiousreplied, stucco. Mr. Rosenstock asked what the blocks were and if they were cinderblocks? Ms. Dellastatious replied that they were textured, colored blocks and distributed a small sample for the Board's information and review. Mr. Rosenstock then asked what the material was for the awnings? The applicant stated that the awnings were made of metal and that the black, arrow indicated the sample chosen. Mr. Rosenstock noted that there was very little distance between the sidewalk and the planters. The applicant said there was a three feet landscape buffer separating the City sidewalk from their building. Mr. Rosenstock asked if the Planning Department was happy with the way the building looked and Mr. Rumpf replied that they were. Mr. Ensler asked the applicant to consider changing the parking lot width to 10 feet. The applicant did not believe that would be wise due to changing parking needs for possible future tenants. Mr. Myott said he really liked the project but did not care fpr the side elevation parapet walls with the little piece of metal extending to 3 or 4 feet b ck. Mr. Myott said the metal should be extended to the edge of the metal awning an � asked the applicant if they could do something else with the parapet walls. Various ideas were discussed. Mr. Myott said he wouldn't have a problem with the eight inches if it wrapped to give it more of a pitched roof feel than just a gable or a front on a flat building. if the ends wrapped back you would not see that thickness. Mr. Finkelstein also commented that if someone built next to this building the lack of a continuous roof would not be as visible as it is now. Chairman Wische asked if changing the parapet walls would create a problem for the applicant. Ms. Dellastatious said she would need to discuss it with her client, as it would increase the cost of the building. Mr. Dube asked for Mr. Berry's comments on the issue. Mr. Samuel Berry, owner of the proposed building, assumed the podium. He said thattheyhad worked with staff and that they had been helpful as to how to steer the project through the process. He said he remained optimistic and flexible but it did get to a point where it became a matter of economics. They believed they would face some tremendous obstacles in building in that area, efforts the City is putting in to develop the area notwithstanding. He said he was a criminal defense attorney and the kind of people who congregate in that area were not going to willingly give it up in terms of their practices and habits. My architect will have to tell me what it means in terms of dollars and cents. He stated that a change costing up to $2,000 would be manageable, but that anything over that would be a significant problem. 14 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 23, 2000 Ms. Dagmar Brahs, 6655 O'Hara Avenue, Boynton Beach took the podium and said she was very excited about the proposed building. She believed the City should view this building in; the light of its ability to attract the next building and the next building and so forth and before you know it, she said, the entire area would be going through the rejuvenation process. She believed that was what the City had in mind and that the City should not be afraid to ask for a little `bit more. She was concerned about he landscaping on the west side of the building, believing it was only a hedge ,of Coco palms, no trees. She told the applicant that no one wanted them to "go away" and that if some minor, inexpensive modifications could improvethe appearance of the building, she.encouraged the applicant to consider them: Mr. Herb Suss, 1711 Woodfern, Boynton Beach. He also was very excited about the prospect of this building and 'believed more greenery was important, without spending too much more money. He believed the project should be approved unanimously, which would send out a -message to: other' citizens that if they want to come in and get things started, they can. He believed it would be:a mistake to delay the project. Mr. Rumpf said this was a streetscape issue and that when they first started, presenting the draft of the overlay regulations to the ;City, there was an immediatereaction of "We, need more landscaping in front, more esplanade, promenade". Look at Ocean Avenue, he said. You have one decorative tree planter for every "X number of feet and you have some portable planters. Ideally there is going to be another building on the side of it. When you look at the side of -a building it, looks different. The sides of a building in the past would have a parapet that extendedlfve to ten feet above the roof of the building and it was, not continued along the side. You could see that from the side angle but the side was not the featured part of the building, it was the front. We are always trying to get something better but we have to realize lwhat our perspective is. Motion Mr. Dube made a motion to approve the request for a new site plan approval to construct a 2,950 square foot retail/office facility on 0.28 acre, subject to all staff comments. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. 8. Other None 9. Comments by Members None 10. Adjournment At 8:40 p.m. a. motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting. -15 r � FORM 811IVIEwJORANDUM OF VOTIN'4 CONFLICT COUNTY, MUNICIPAL,, AND OTHERS LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST \AMF Fik3! \-\�fF MII71N t--NAME�R� NAME OF HOARD,,COUNCII_ pmMiSSION. AU7NC7krrY. OR COMMITTEE' MAILItiG +0 )I7kt'tiS rHE WARD, COUNCII.. COMMISSION, A117"HORIIY OR CORiMiTTEE ON WHICH I SFRVE IS A UNITOF: Cfl'Y / L- C'OUN7Y CITY Q COUNTY 13 OYHER 1-OCAI. Ar,ENCY & NAME OF POtaTICAL SUBDIVI,SSIION: DATE ON WHICH V01 OCCURRED •� j ' /� /%'l/�,1 MY POSITION IS: G�csCs O ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE - L WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level`of government on an appointed council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who elected re presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which 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 instructionson this form before completing the reverse side and filing, the form: INSTRUCTiONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from Voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special' gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained: In either case, you 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 which 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 OFFICERSr A person holding appointive'county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gaits. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which 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 otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision by oral or written 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 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. • The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. CE FORM xe- IAI PAGE 1 PAGE CE FORA 98. 1-91