Loading...
Minutes 12-26-00MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN THE LIBRARY PROGRAM ROOM 208 S. SEACREST BOULEVARD, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman Robert Ensler Mike Fitzpatrick, Alternate Mike Friedland Woodrow Hay Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Dick Hudson, .Senior Planner ABSENT J. Stanley Dubb, Vice Chair Steve Myott Maurice Rosenstock 1. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Board and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Members Chairman Wische dispensed with the introduction of the Board Members and staff. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the agenda, which was seconded by Mr. Ensler and unanimously carried. 4. Approval of Minutes Motion Mr. Friedland moved that the minutes of the November 28, 2000 meeting be approved. Motion seconded by Mr. Ensler and unanimously carried. Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2000 5. CommunicationS and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report ~,'I. Final disposition of November 28, 2000 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. Mr. Rumpf reported on the disposition of the following items by the City Commission at their December 5, 2000 meeting: The BoyntOn Shoppes' items were approved, which included the side yard set back and site plan. The Boynton Landings' appeal was denied. The Boynton Shoppes' Master Plan Modification was approved. The Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD, known as BJ's Wholesale Club, right-of-way abandonment was approved. The wall mUral ordinance was denied. Mr. Rumpf reported on the disposition of the following items by the City Commission at their December 19, 2000 meeting: 2. 3. 4. The Grotto Bay, a/k/a Bermuda Place technical site plan was approved. The accompanying Grotto Bay easement was approved. The Woolbright Place PUD (Wood Partners) rezoning/master plan modification was approved. Under first reading, the BJ's Wholesale Club abandonment was approved. Chairman Wische requested that Assistant City Attorney Igwe administer the oath to all persons that would be testifying. 6. New Business A. PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Code Variance 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: LOT 37 BLOCK 3 (LAKE ADDITION TO BOYNTON) N/A Susan Gayhart th 711 NE 9 Avenue Request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, SectiOn 11.1.C.1 to allow construction of a 2 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2000 single family home on a non-conforming lot in R-1-A zoning district. Mr. Michael Goushaw, agent for the owner, took the podium with the applicant. Chairman W'~Sche noted that there was one staff comment with reference to purchase of adjacent property, The agent stated they were aware of this and this could impose a financial burden upon the applicant. Mr. Goushaw said they were going to speak with the adjoining property owner. Chairman Wische pointed out that the only thing that prevents a variance from being approved is if the applicant expresses a hardship or financial problem. Mr. Goushaw stated that this comment was acceptable to them and agreed to further pursue it. Chairman Wische announced the public hearing. Barbara Marasola stated that she owns the adjoining property directly west of the applicant's lot and was unsure of what Chairman Wische just stated. Ms. Marasola stated she contacted Ms. Gayhart and asked her if she were interested in purchasing enough land to make her lot conform to Code. Ms. Marasola stated that the applicant never called her back. Chairman Wische read the staff comment to which he had referred. Mr. Rumpf replied the reason for including the staff comment was due to the fact that staff was aware of Ms. Marasola's willingness to consider selling some of her property to the applicant. Mr. Rumpf stated as a result of this, it necessitated the condition, which is supported by the Code in non-conforming criteria. Mr. Rumpf further stated that this is now a condition which must be pursued if the Commission approves it. It is a conditional approval based upon a reasonable attempt to expand the applicant's property using the abutting property. Chairman Wische requested that the applicant address this comment. Ms. Gayhart stated that she only received the papers that contained the conditional approval on Saturday and when Ms. Marasola had telephoned her on the previous Thursday, she was not aware of this condition. Mr. Rumpf confirmed this. Mr. Brian Edwards, 629 NE 9th Avenue stated he was against the request for the variance. Mr. Edwards, after hearing the previous testimony, was under the impression that the vadance could not be approved based upon the conditions not being met. Mr. Rumpf stated that this was not necessarily the case. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that approval of the variance was conditional and the sole condition for approval is that a reasonable attempt be made to expand the property. The City recognizes that non-conforming lots could present hardships on property owners. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2000 Mr. Edwards stated that the lot is very small and without the purchase of any additional property, building on the lot as is would be ludicrous in the neighborhood. Mr, Edwards felt the only type of house that could be built on the lot would be a cracker box. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that the lot is an historic lot and many y'e-af's ago lots of that size were develoPed. Dina Castellano, 715 NE 9th Avenue stated that iher property is east of the lot in question and she is against the variance. The house, when built, would be very close to her house. She stated that she spent $2,700 on a privacy fence and felt that the fence would be damaged while the appliqant's house is being built. Ms. Castellano was in favor of the applicant building a house on the lot if she purchased some additional property from Ms. Ma~asola. Mr. David Fellows, 638 NE 9th Avenue noted Chat the lot was part of a four- parcel acquisition and that the three other lots have already been built on. Mr. Fellows was in favor of the applicant pursuing to purchase some of the adjoining property. Ms. Mary Kay Martin, 630 NE 9th Avenue is against anything being built on such a small lot and felt that building this houSe would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Martin felt the only thing that could be built on the lot would be an "eyesore". Ms. Martin was in favor of the applicant purchasing additional property from Ms. Marasola. Ms. Audrey Silverman, 641 NE 9th Avenue said she is against building on the lot and feels it would decrease the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Rae Fellows, 638 NE 9th Avenue is opposed to building on the lot in its current size. Ms. Fellows said there are a lot of problems with water drainage and feels the adjoining property would probably be flooded as a result. Ms. Fellows said that they are trying to maintain a quality neighborhood. Mr. Mike Levin, 704 NE 9th Avenue said they recently purchased their house and one of the reasons they purchased the house was due to the appearance of the neighborhood. Mr. Levin would like the neighborhood kept the way it is now and ifa house were built on the lot, he would like to see it built on a 60' lot. Mr. Harrison Allen, 710 NE 9th is against the size of the house unless extre footage were added. Ms. Marasola stated if there was a problem building on the lot that she would be amenable to purchase the lot to expand her home. Also, she stated there is a lot of debris on the lot that poses a danger to the children in the neighborhood. Chairman Wische closed the public hearing. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December26,2000 Mr. Ensler noted that in the backup, Exhibit C, Paragraph b states that "the owner bought the lot believing per zoning ordinance that each individual property owner could build one home on a non-conforming lot in the R-lA classification. The wording-.of the ordinance is confusing". Mr. Ensler questioned what is confusing about the ordinance. The agent replied that when the applicant purchased the lot she did not feel that there would be a problem in getting a permit to build after she read the ordinance. The applicant felt she was buying one lot and building one house and that she had a right to do so. The agent stated there are other lots of this same size in the neighborhood; therefore the applicant did not think there would be a problem. Mr. Ensler asked for staff to comment. Mr. Rumpf said he did not know the history of the transactions and the agent tonight representing the developer bought numerous lots in the neighborhood and did come to the City to research it with staff. However, Ms. Gayhart, to Mr. Rumpfs knowledge, did not come into the office or contact staff for an interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Ensler had concerns about setting a precedent if the variance were granted since there are several other remaining lots that are undevelopable. Mr. Rumpf replied the lots could not be developed without variances. Attorney Igwe stated that each application for a variance should be judged on its own facts and circumstances~ Mr. Friedland asked how large the lot was and Mr. Rumpf replied it is less than one-quarter of acre. Mr. Friedland pointed out that just because a home is small does not make it ugly. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired about the sequence of events should the offer to purchase the additional property be higher than the applicant would be willing to pay. Mr. Rumpf felt if thero was a reasonable attempt and if the price for the additional land were more than fair market value, staff would have to make this determination. Mr. Rumpf stated that this could be added as a condition to granting of the variance. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired if fair market value were offered and not accepted, then the variance would be denied. Mr. Rumpf stated this is possible if it were made a condition of the variance. Ms. Gayhart responded that the lot is not smaller than any other lots and the adjacent lot is the same exact size. Ms. Gayhart stated she intended to build a new home, approximately 1,400 square feet with a two-car garage and does not feel this would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Hay questioned if the applicant purchased additional property from the adjacent parcel, would this make the adjacent parcel non-conforming? Mr. Rumpf 5 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2000 stated this was not an option if the adjacent property would be made non- conforming. The adjacent property would have to have surplus property. Chairman Wische asked the adjoining property owner if she would be willing to sell some oliver property to the applicant and she stated that she was willing. Chairman Wische suggested that the two parties get together and that the application be tabled. Mr. Ensler asked the applicant if she would agree to tabling the item to the next meeting and she stated it would be a hardship and she wanted to move forward since she was not aware of this condition. Ms. Gayhart stated she did not want extra land because her husband is disabled and it would be an additional hardship to maintain. Motion Mr. Friedland moved to approve the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.1.C.1 to allow construction of a single family home on a non- conforming lot in R-1-A zoning district. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Ensler said he still had concerns about the remaining 21 non-conforming lots and noted in the backup under ConcluSions it states that the "City recognized the legal fact that the law cannot remove all reasonable use of a fifty (50) foot wide lot". Attorney Igwe noted that he had stated eadier that each case is treated individually and you cannot justify a variance granted in the past would apply to a current case. The criteria for .each case must be looked at on its own. Attorney Igwe stated in reviewing the minutes of the Commission meeting when theY passed the ordinance, the Commission didn't realize that the new ordinance would create the problem which has surfaced today. The Commission at that time indicated that the only way to grant relief to people that are being burdened by the ordinance 'would be through the variance process. Motion Mr. Ensler moved that the Gayhart variance, a/k/a Lot 37, Block 3 (Lake Addition I , to Boynton) be approved subject to staff comment for expansion of the lot to 60 wide. Mr. Rumpf suggested adding to the qondition the statement that the price be a reasonable price, at fair market value, Or comparable value. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2000 Mr. Ensler amended his motion to include this additional wording. seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick. Motion Mr. Hay said the motion was not clear and questioned if the Board were approving th~ variance if the purchase was made to expand the lot to 60' rather than what it was tOday? Mr. Ensler replied that this puts the requirement on the applicant and the adjacent property owner to act in good faith and to come to terms about the additional 10'. If they negotiate in good faith, the applicant would be required to buy the additional 10'. Chairman Wische feels that if the Board passes the motion on the floor, the applicant has one week to act before the issue goes to the City Commission. Chairman Wische stated if the request were tabled, it would not come back to the Board for two weeks and that would give the applicant three weeks to clear things up. Attorney Igwe pointed out that the Commission could approve the variance on the same conditions that the Board did. Mr. Friedland questioned if it were arbitrary for this Board to put a restriction of adding 10 feet and getting in the middle of neighbors. Chairman Wische noted this was a recommendation of staff, not this Board. Mr. Hay asked if the parties do not come to an agreement, would the applicant be allowed to build? Chairman Wische stated the applicant could only build'by being granted a variance which Mr. Rumpf confirmed. Motion Mr. Fitzpatrick moved to table. Chairman Wische stated that there already is a motion on the floor, which needs to be disposed of first. Chairman Wische called for a vote for the motion on the floor. For clarification purposes, Mr. Rumpf stated that the non-conforming criteria would go into effect and would make the property eligible for development if all the criteria cannot be met. If the criteria can be met the property would become conforming at 60'. Motion carried 3-2 (Chairman Wische and Mr. Friedland dissenting). Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2000 Zoning Code Variance 2. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: BOYNTON TERRACE APARTMENTS Jeff Kammerude/Mike McPhilips Boynton Associated LTD. 700 North Seacrest Blvd. MOdified request for relief from City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11 Supplemental Regulations, H.16.a. (2), requiring a minimum parkin~g space ratio of 2 spaces per unit, to allow a reduction of 84 spaces or a 1 space per unit variance. Mr. Mike McPhilips, 5507 N. Atlantic Avenue, Cocoa Beach, Florida took the podium'and introduced Mr. Keith Roberts. Mr. McPhilips stated they were from the Heritage Company representing Boynton Terrace Apartments. Chairman Wische noted there were five staff comments. The applicant stated they agreed with all staff comments and will far exceed the comments. Mr. Rumpf stated that based upon the hardship criteria which staff must review variances under, they had to deny the variance. Staff summarized the merits of the project and through analysis confirmed there is a possibility that a reduced parking ratio may still work at the project. Mr. Ensler requested that the applicant state their intentions for the project. Mr. McPhilips said they are not part of the current ownership and the current owner has asked them to come up with a plan for this community. The apartment complex is very blighted and they are specialists in applying through the State of Florida Tax Credit Program. If successful, it would produce a large amount of money that would be available for renovations to this community. In this instance it would amount to approximately $3.5 million for renovations. This would allow $37,000 per unit plus re-roof, stucco, and completion of all the interiors with new cabinets, appliances and floodng. The grounds will be landscaped and secudty fencing will be put in. Both entrances would be gated to keep out unwanted traffic. In order to be competitive to get the tax credits a local contribution needs to be made. The State has determined that they want the local community to become involved. By granting the variance, the ~tate deems that the City i~as contributed to the success of the project. Also, by granting the variance the applicant would score higher against the competition. If they are successful, they will be able to close and begin renovations this summer. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2000 Mr. Ensler asked why the applicant is proposing to reduce some of the parking spaces and he replied that they plan on using some of the existing parking spaces to build a 3,500 square foot clubhouse in that area, which would include a computer training room. Also, the applicant would like to plant more green areas. Mr. Ensler felt this program would be a great benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. P, umpf said that in circumstances like this where the code does not adequately assess a developer's performance, staff usually recommends code amendments to tailor the code to the project. Chairman Wische also pointed out that approximately 60% of the residents use public transportation. Therefore, there is no parking problem. Chairman Wische opened up the public hearing. Mr. Terry Pereira said he was in favor of the project and pointed out that this would eliminate a great deal of traffic from cutting through the property. Mr. Pereira would like to see a firm commitment made to put up gates and make it a gated community with guards. This would keep non-residents out. Mr. Willie. Adams, 103 NW 8th Avenue, Boynton Beach said that he lives across the street from the apartments and there are a great deal of people on the property that don't live there. He also would like to see the property gated with a security guard because he complains about the property constantly. Chairman Wische closed the public headng. The agent stated they had no problems with installing securitY gates. They also plan on installing security cameras, but are not certain they could afford to keep a fulltime security guard at the entranceway. Mr. Friedland inquired if there would be parking available for guests? The agent stated there would be parking near the office and community room. Mr. Friedland asked if this would meet the City parking standards and Mr. Rumpf stated the City does not have a guest-parking standard in the code. Mr. Ensler inquired what would happen if the Board approved the variance and the applicant did not receive funding. The applicant stated that the variance request would be conditional on their receiving the funding. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked what parking spaces would be eliminated and asked why 84 spaces was determined. The agent presented the site plan to the Board to review in order to address Mr. Fitzpatrick's questions. 9 Meeting Minutes ' Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2000 Mr. Friedland inquired about the timeframe and was informed that the application would be made in February 2001 and normally it takes between four to six months to receive approval. If the applicant was successful, they would begin immediately. Motion Mr. Ensler moved that File No. ZNCV 00-020, reduction in parking spaces for Boynton Terrace Apartments be approved, subject to all staff comments, subject to approval of State funding and subject to the improvements that the applicant agreed to make during the course of this meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and carried 5-0. Mr. Rumpf confirmed that the additional improvements referred to are a security gate and a security camera. 7. New Business A. CODE REVIEW 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: PARKING REQUIREMENTS (ONE BEDROOM/EFFICIENCY APARTMENTS) Kilday & Associates Wood Partners The west side of SW 8~h Street, approximately 1/8 of a mile north of Woolbright Road Request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.H to require that minimum parking requirements for one-bedroom ahd efficiency units be changed from 2 spaces for the first 10 units to 1.5 spaces, and that Chapter 2.5 Planned Unit Development, Section 9.C be amended to reference the parking requirements within Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.H. Motion Mr. Ensler moved that Item 7.A.1 be tabled until the January 9, 2001 meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Hay and carried 7-0. B. NEW SITE PLAN 10 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2000 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: ALTA CHASE (WOOD PARTNERS) WOOLBRIGHT PLACE PUD Kilday & Associates, Inc. Wood Partners (Contract Purchase) West side of SW 8th Street, approximately 1/8 mile north of Woolbright Road Request for new site plan approval to construct a 216-unit apartment complex with clubhouse, recreation amenities and other related improvements on 14.18 acres of the Woolbright Place PUD. Motion Mr. Ensler moved that Item 7.B.1 be tabled until the January 9, 2001 meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Friedland and carried 7-0. 8. Other None 9. Comments by Members 10. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (2 tapes) 11