Loading...
Minutes 03-27-01MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN THE COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS, CITY HALL BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman J. Stanley Dubb, Vice Chair Mike Fitzpatrick, Alternate Robert Ensler Woodrow Hay Steve Myott* Maurice Rosenstock James Barretta, Alternate Nicholas Igwe, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Lusia Galav, Principal Planner Hanna Matras, Economic Research Analyst Eric Johnson, Planner ABSENT Mike Friedland 1. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and led the Board and audience in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. A quorum was present. 2. Introduction of the Board Members Chairman Wische introduced the Board Members; Assistant City Attorney Igwe; Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director; Lusia Galav, Principal Planner; Hanna Matras, Economic Research Analyst; and Eric Johnson, Planner. 3. Agenda Approval Vice Chair Dub~ requested that Item C, Master Plan Modification for the Stonehaven Homeowners Association be moved up first on the agenda. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the agenda, as amended, which was seconded by Mr. Ensler and unanimously carried. *Mr. Myott requested that an alternate member take his place on the dais since he had just returned from vacation and did not have time to read the back up material. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 Chairman Wische also introduced Commissioner Mike Ferguson who was in the audience. 4. Approval of Minutes Motion Vice Chair DUb6 moved that the minutes of the March 13, 2001 meeting be approved. Motion seconded by Mr. Hay and unanimously carried. 5. Communications and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of March 13, 2001 Development Board meeting agenda items. Planning and Mr. Rumpf reported on the disposition of the following items by the City Commission at their March 20, 2001 meeting: 1. The outpatient clinic which this Board recommended denial, was tabled to the April 3, 2001 meeting at the request of the applicant. 2. The Rowe rear setback variance was a pp roved. 3. The Villa Del Sol site plan was approved. Mr. Ensler requested that Mr. Rumpf report on the conditions that were included with the Villa Del Sol approval. Mr. Rumpf noted that two additional comments were added: 1) A $250,000 letter of surety was required to cover the recreation impact fee in the event the negotiations for the property across the railroad tracks were not successful. A 60-day time limit was set in negotiating the land purchase. 2) A condition was added requiring that the western buffer along the railroad tracks allow the City use of this land as a pedestrian/bike path. Mr. Ensler requested that Mr. Rumpf update the Board at the end of the 60 days on the results of the additional conditions. Chairman Wische instructed Assistant City Attorney Igwe to administer the oath to all persons who would be testifying. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 7. C. MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION (moved up on the agenda) Project Name: Agent: Owner: Description: Stonehaven Homeowners Association Gerald Van Gelder Stonehaven Drive Request for a master plan modification to include the closure of Stonehaven Drive, the installation of gates at project entrance and masonry wall. Mr. Gerald Van Gelder, 1841 Banyan Creek Circle North, Boynton Beach took the podium. Chairman Wische informed the agent that there were nine staff comments and requested that he address only those comments they do not agree with or need clarification. Mr. Van Gelder said that he spoke with Mr. Livergood regarding the Public Work's comments contained in the Conditions of Approval. The comment dealing with undertaking a bicycle and pedestrian study (comment #3) was done and it was determined that nine (9) people walked through the property and two (2) bicycles operated by school-age children also went through the property.' With regard to comment #1 recommending that a traffic study be undertaken, the homeowner's association did do such a study for five (5) days and counted traffic going both ways. The results were furnished to staff. Staff did not feel that the traffic study was accurate. The traffic count was between 140 to 1',200 vehicles per day with speeds from 25 mph to 60 mph. Mr. Van Gelder stated that the traffic going through the property neither live in the adjoining apartment complex nor live in the area at all. These vehicles use Stonehaven Drive as a by-pass of the traffic signals at Congress Avenue and Boynton Beach Boulevard and at Winchester and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Van Gelder pointed out that the community now has a great deal of young families with young children that play in the streets. With regard to comment #2, the agent pointed out that at their annual meeting in September 2000, a petition was signed by the residents agreeing to the one way in and one way out. Residents also acknowledged that the potential exists for a delay in EMS/fire/police response as a result of the closure of Stonehaven Drive. However, residents felt with the opening of Knuth Road, the time delay would be minimal. The petition is included in the agenda packet. Residents are willing to accept the delay in response time in order to have the road closed. Mr. Van Gelder said that it has always been their intent to have their community privatized. They do not want speed bumps or other types of traffic calming 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27,2001 measures and are only looking to privatization, which has been their intent for over 10 years. With regard to comment ~ dealing with police and fire capabilities, the agent said he spoke to two Boynton Beach Police Officers and they did not feel that the closure of Stonehaven Drive would pose any problems. Mr. Van Gelder said that the association has purchased a Knox lock and is willing and ready to install it for fire department access. They agreed with the Fire Department comment that they would not install the gates or close the road off until completion of Knuth Road. With regard to comment #7, plans have already been submitted. Mr. Van Gelder said that they were under the impression that since Stonehaven Drive is a private road they already had City permission to install the gates. They moved forward with filing the permit and submitted the appropriate drawings signed and sealed by an engineer. The permit should still be on file. With regard to comment #8, Mr. Van Gelder said that the drawings submitted contain all the necessary information on the gates and where the construction would be. AlSo, the places and types of signs were illustrated on the plans. Mr. Van Gelder said that comment #9 defeats the purpose of privatization. The agent stated that unauthorized people have been coming into the community damaging property and equipment. Crime has increased. There has been an increase in accidents to property that has cost the association money for repairs. With regard to the comment of obtaining strong consensus and approval from both communities, Mr. Van Gelder presented and read a letter from Equity Residential Properties Trust, the management company for the apartment complex, which in summary stated they were agreeable to the closure of Stonehaven Drive. Mr. Rumpf stated that staff does not oppose the improvement of neighborhoods, but staff feels that road closures should be a last resort in order to address crime and traffic issues. Mr. Rumpf said they looked at the application from the standpoint of odginal design. If the project came in as a new master plan, staff which has been consistent in requesting multiple access points, not only for emergency purposes, would not endorse a project of this size to have a single access point. Mr. Rumpf agreed that Stonehaven Drive is a private road; however, it was approved with the current access points and should remain this way. Mr. Rosenstock inquired how many people reside in the community? The agent stated there are 166 homes. Mr. Rosenstock also inquired if all 166 homes were polled to determine if everyone wanted limited access? Mr. Van Gelder said they 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 were not polled, but were informed at the annual meeting. Mr. Rosenstock pointed out that in order to make a major change in a community, a certain percentage of the residents have to agree to the change. Mr. Van Gelder stated 77 people signed the petition in favor of the closure. Mr. Ensler stated that there were 51 home units that signed the petition, even though there were 77 signatures. Mr. Rosenstock felt that at least a majority of the home units would be necessary. Further, Mr. Rosenstock stated that if a majority of the residents don't agree, the change cannot be done legally, regardless if this Board approved the project. Mr. Rosenstock stated that a single entrance is a dangerous situation and noted in emergency cases, adequate accessibility is necessary, which the applicants have not shown. Mr. Rosenstock asked the applicant how they planned to address this? Mr. Ensler inquired if the applicant would be agreeable to having one entrance at Banyan Creek and one at Banyan Lake with no gates between. Mr. Van Gelder stated this was not acceptable to them and feels both developments are separate. Mr. Van Gelder stated that in the event of an emergency, the gates could be unlocked for access. Mr. Rosenstock suggested installing breakable gates that if hit slightly by the bumper of a vehicle would separate the gates. Chairman Wische opened up the meeting to the public. Mr. Roger Bennett, President of the Stonehaven Homeowner's Association, said he is appalled at what is taking place. In 1990 the Commission approved the plans and it was never intended to have two gates. It was always intended to have one gate or double gates to the front, which had been approved by the City Commission at that time. It was intended that the back would be closed solid. However, since that time it was-agreed that gates with a lock box would be installed. Mr. Bennett stated that there is a crime element coming into their neighborhood from the apartment complex and they have the right to close off their community. Mr. Bennett did not feel that they had to appear before the City to get this approved since they own the roads. He further felt that at some point in time there would be a fatal accident on the road if it was not closed off. Mr. Bennett inquired if there was some kind of law or statute that would prohibit them from closing Stonehaven Drive off? Mr. Bennett also felt that a lock box on the gates would suffice in the event emergency vehicles have to enter the community. Mr. Bennett stated that just because some staff members did not approve of private communities was no reason to deny them the right to close off Stonehaven Drive. Mr. Rosenstock inquired why the association did not want to install gates that could be controlled by a person to allow ingress and egress? This would prevent non-residents from entering their community. Mr. Bennett said that they plan to 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 close the south end of Stonehaven Drive without any type of access. Entrance to the community would be on the west and there will be two gates; one for entering and one for exiting the community. Mr. Bennett was also against maintaining a bike and pedestrian path and stated the only ~people that should be allowed in their community are the residents of the community. Mr. Dave Yeagar, a resident and member of the Board of Directors of Stonehaven, said that during the past four years there have been four new complexes built between Quail Ridge and Lawrence Road and all four have only one entrance. It was pointed out that these developments are not within the City limits. Mr. Yeagar noted they only have 160 homes and only need one entrance. Mr. Fitzpatrick pointed out that two entrances are needed in the event any type of emergency situation or if evacuation of the community becomes necessary. Mr. 'Fitzpatrick also stated if a lock box were installed on the gates, this would add another minute or two to any emergency response time. Mr. Rosenstock suggested that guards and/or attendants could be placed at the gates, which would prevent non-residents from getting intO their community. Mr. Bennett responded that he saw no reason why these two communities cannot be separated, since they are distinct and separate from each other. He did not feel that an apartment complex should have access through a single- family community and that a traffic hazard exists. In summary he stated that the City committed to this 10 years ago. Mr. Ensler asked the applicant if they agreed to staff's comment that they would recommend approval if certain conditions were met. Mr. Van Gelder stated they do not agree with staff's recommendations. Mr. Van Gelder requested to-respond to Mr. Fitzpatrick's statement and stated that he too is a flrefighter and when people signed the petition they fully understood that there would be an increase in response time in the event of an emergency. Mr. Van Gelder stated that the gates being proposed for Stonehaven Drive would have a Knox lock with Knox key switches, which would allow the fire and police access. Chairman Wische closed the public hearing. Mr. Hay inquired why the agent did not get enough signatures on the petition and Mr. Van Gelder said they were not aware of the number of signatures that were necessary. Mr. Van Gelder stated if more signatures are necessary, he would obtain them. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 Motion Mr. Barretta moved for approval. Chairman Dub6 inquired if the motion was subject to all staff comments? Mr. Barretta replied that his motion was not subject to staff comments. Chairman Wische passed the gavel and seconded the motion. Vice Chair Dubb called for a vote. The motion failed 2 in favor and 5 against (Messrs. Ensler, Hay, Rosenstock, Fitzpatrick and Vice Chair DubS. dissenting) Motion Vice Chair Dubb moved to approve the request for a master plan modification to include the closure of Stonehaven Drive, the installation of gates at project entrance and masonry wall, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by Mr. Ensler and carried 7-0. 6. Old Business A. PUBLIC HEARING Zoninq Code Variance 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: M & M Appliance Klm Dellastatious Michael and Marsha Morakis 915 N. Federal Highway Request relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning Section 11, H.16.d (12) to allow nine (9) parking spaces in lieu of the sixteen (16) required by Code, a variance of seven (7) spaces for a retail business in a C-4 zoning district. Ms. Kim Dellastatious, 422 North Dixie Highway, Lake Worth, Florida assumed the podium. Chairman Wische noted that staff recommends denial. Ms. Dellastatious stated the building has been an existing building for many years and the approved site plan shows the existing square footage with six (6) parking spaces. A previous owner built an un permitted structure adjacent to the permitted structure, which is a storage area for appliances. The owner was cited and in order to resolve the violation, the apPlicant would like to tear down the 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 non-permitted use building, enclose the back portion into a warehouse area in order to eliminate washers and dryers on the lawn. Ms. Dellastatious said that in accordance with existing zoning and approvals, the applicant could tear down the permitted use and have open yard storage. The applicant would like to enclose the storage for better appearance, redo the parking lot, and add additional landscaping and drainage. Ms. Dellastatious pointed out in accordance with the Code, in a C-4 zoning, a warehouse by itself is non-permitted. C-4 requires that a warehouse would have to be an accessory use to the main use. The warehouse parking should not be calculated at the same rate as the mercantile. The warehouse parking on its own would require two additional parking spaces. The agent pointed out that M & M is an existing site with six aPproved parking spaces and there is no way they Could ,add any land to their site to increase the parking. Ms. Galav distributed to the members pictures of the site. Mr. Rumpf responded that the request represents an intensification of the site. There has been unpermitted work performed at the site and there are appearances of outdoor storage of appliances. Staff feels that the project is an increase to the square footage of the building. Mr. Rumpf stated if this plan came in today as a new plan, there is no proper turnaround and no proper delivery areas. In staff's opinion this represents non-conforming elements to the site. Mr. Rumpf felt that the applicant has probably begun to outgrow the capacity of the site. Mr. Rumpf did point out that this project contains attractive site elements compared to other southward projects downtown; however, the site has limited space. Ms. Dellastatious also handed out photos to the Board members. Vice Chair Dub6 inquired what would happen if the applicant sold the property down the line and there are only six parking spaces and the new owners utilize the warehouse? There certainly would not be sufficient parking. Mr. Ensler noted that the applicant intended to construct a one and one-half story building and questioned this. Ms. Dellastatious replied that the owner wants to have enough height to include a mezzanine for storage of parts. Mr. Ensler asked the agent if they would accept the condition that the addition would only be used for storage and they would no longer store anything outside of the storage area? Ms. Dellastatious asked the owner to address these questions. Mr. Mike Morakis, 5604 Second Road, Lake Worth, owner of the property, said that if the vadance is approved, he is going to have to set up an area out back to clean the used appliances in order to resell them. He stated this area would be outback near the railroad tracks and would not be visible from the parking area nor the back because there is a fence. Mr. Ensler inquired why this cannot be done inside the storage area? Chairman Wische noted that Mr. Ensler was 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 referring to the wrong item. Mr. Morakis stated they had to conform to the environmental standards. Chairman Wische requested that only the parking item be addressed. Chairman Wische announced the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired if there are any other businesses in the area that have this great a variance in parking spaces? Mr. Rumpf was unsure of this. The applicant pointed out that they have added a great deal of grass and landscaping to improve the property. Mr. Barretta said the City is currently undertaking a study to enhance Federal Highway through the CRA with a goal to beautify the City. If the City continues to grant variances for non-conforming uses, this impedes the City's progress. Motion Mr. Barretta moved to deny the request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11, H. 16.d. (12) to allow nine (9) parking spaces in lieu of the sixteen (16) required by code, a variance of seven (7) spaces for a retail business in a C-4 zoning district, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick, which unanimously carried. 7. New Business: a. PUBLIC HEARING Abandonment Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Boynton Commerce Center John T. Doogan Nayrot Realty, Ltd. South of Woolbright/West of Seaboard Railroad Request for Abandonment of all that portion of the 65 foot ingress and egress easement, lying between Parcel 3B and 3C, BOYNTON COMMERCE CENTER, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 46, Page 126 and 127, in the Public Record of Palm Beach County. 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 Vice Chair Dub~ noted that the previous applicant, M & M Appliance, had another item on the agenda. Mr. Rumpf stated that the applicant did not feel that the site plan change could survive without the parking variance. Mr. Barretta inquired if the applicant wished to withdraw the item and Mr. Rumpf said he did not think so. Chairman Wische stated that since the next case had already been called that the M & M Appliance item would have to wait until this case is heard. John T. Doogan, from the firm of Avirom & Associates, Inc. took the podium. Chairman Wische pointed out that approval is subject to recording of the easement. Mr. Doogan stated the document has been recorded and presented a copy of the recorded document to the members. Motion Vice Chair Dubb moved to approve the request for abandonment of all that portion of the 65 foot Ingress and Egress Easement, lying between Parcel'3B and 3C, BOYNTON COMMERCE CENTER, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 46, Page 126 and 127, in the Public Records of Palm Beach County, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by Mr. Rosenstock and carried 7-0. B. MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: M & M Appliance Klm Dillastatious Michael and Marsha Morakis 915 N. Federal Highway Request for approval of modification for a 1,196 addition to an existing building on 0.25 acres. a site plan square foot commercial Kim Dillastatious assumed the podium. Chairman Wische noted that staff denied the item. Chairman Wische asked the applicant if she wished to withdraw the item and Ms. Dillastatious stated she did not wish to withdraw the item and requested that the Board address it. Motion Vice Chair Dub~ moved to deny the request for approval of a site plan modification for a 1,196 square foot addition to an existing commercial building 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 on 0.25 acres, subject to all staff comments. Rosenstock and unanimously carried. Motion seconded by Mr. Zoning Code Variances Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Packaging Concepts-Driveway Separation Winston Lee, ASLA, AICP PJM and Associates, L.C. Quantum Park Lots 47, 47B, 47C, and 47D Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 7 - PID, H.3, to reduce the required driveway distance separation from one hundred and fifty (150) feet as required by code to one hundred and seven (107) feet within a PID zoning district, to allow a forty three (43) foot reduction. Chairman Wische noted that staff recommends approval of the item. Mr. Winston Lee, as agent for the owner, 7114 Washington Road, West Palm Beach, assumed the podium. Mr. Barretta inquired why the internal connection between the two parking lots forced the circulation off site onto a public right of way and then back onto the site? Mr. Lee replied (while pointing out the buildings on the blue print) that after the first building was built, the additional property next to it became available and the current owner purchased the property and expanded. Mr. Lee said that they looked at several scenarios and the ddveway in question for both variances is the middle driveway. Overall, what is being presented tonight was the best configuration. Since the site is located at the end of Quantum Park on the second to the last cul-de-sac, there is minimal traffic and the rear lot is for employees only. Mr. Barretta suggested taking the green area in front of the building and using this as a connection between the parking lots. Mr. Barretta also pointed out that many municipalities prohibit internal circulation out onto a public right of way and then back into the site again. Mr. Barretta felt this was a dangerous precedent to set. Mr. Lee did not think that people would be entering one parking lot and then back onto the road to enter another parking lot. Guests will be the only ones utilizing the front area. Mr. Barretta inquired why the applicant did not wish to use the green area for parking. Mr. Lee stated that aesthetically they preferred to have the landscaping in front of the building, as opposed to more driveways. 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 Chairman Wische announced the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 7 - PID, H.3, to reduce the required driveway distance separation from one hundred and fifty (150) feet as required by code to one hundred seven (107) feet within a PID zoning district, to allow a forty-three (43) foot reduction. Motion seconded by Mr. Rosenstock and carried 6-1 (Mr. Barretta dissenting). Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Packaging Concepts - Driveway Separation Winston Lee, ASLA, AICP PJM and Associates, L.C. Quantum Parks Lots 47, 47B, 47C and 47D Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 7 - PID, H.3, to reduce the required driveway distance separation from one hundred and fifty (150) feet as required by code to one hundred and forty-five (145) feet within a PID zoning district, to allow a five (5) foot reduction. Motion Vice Chair Dub6 moved to approve the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 7 - PID, H.3, to reduce the required driveway distance separation from one hundred and fifty (150) feet as required by code to one hundred and forty- five (145) feet within a PID zoning district, to allow a five (5) foot reduction. Motion seconded by Mr. Rosenstock. Motion carried 6-1 (Mr. Barretta dissenting). MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Packaging Concepts Winston Lee, ASLA, AICP PJM and Associates, L.C. Quantum Park Lots 47, 47, 47C and 47D Request for approval of a site plan modification for a 28,000 square foot addition to an existing industrial/warehouse building located on 3.65+ acres in Quantum Park. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida March 27, 2001 Mr. Lee remained at the podium. Chairman Wische noted there were 12 staff comments. Further, staff has approved the item, contingent upon the two parking variances being approved. Mr. Lee stated they agreed with all staff comments. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the request for approval of a site plan modification for a 28,000 square foot addition to an existing industrial/warehouse building located on 3.65+ acres in Quantum Park, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by ViceChair Dube. Motion carried 6-1 (Mr. Barretta dissenting). None 9. None 10. Other Comments by Members Adjourn ment There being no further business, the meeting propedy adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (two tapes) 13