Loading...
Minutes 10-28-08 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2008 AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Shirley Jaskiewicz, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning Director Roger Saberson, Vice Chair Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Attorney Sharon Grcevic Candace Killian Jeff Lis William Poznak, Alternate ABSENT: Matthew Barnes Steve Myott Amber Barritt, Alternate 1. Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Jaskiewicz called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Introduction of the Board. Chair Jaskiewicz introduced the members of the Board. 3. Agenda Approval. Chair Jaskiewicz suggested discussing the November and December meeting dates under Item 8 and Item 9. She requested when the motion is made to approve the agenda, the motion include that change. Motion Mr. Poznak so moved. Ms. Killian seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 4. Approval of Minutes . Motion Mr. Poznak so moved. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 5. Communications and Announcements. Ms. Jaskiewicz introduced Jamila Alexander, the City Attorney who works with the Board. 1 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all who would testify. A. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the September 23, 2008 Planning and Development Board meeting Agenda items. Ed Breese , Principal Planner, reported the Land Development Regulations rewrite regarding property maintenance was forwarded to the City Commission and they accepted the recommendation. 6. Old Business None. 7. New Business .3416 South Lake Drive A Zoning Code Variance 3416 South Lake Drive (ZNCV 08-005) 1. PROJECT: AGENT: Steven Jaffe OWNER: Maxine Jaffe LOCATION: 3416 S. Lake Drive DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2 Zoning, Section 5.B.2.a., requiring a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet, to allow a variance of 11 feet and a front yard setback of 14 feet, for a proposed garage accessory to a single-family residence within the R-1- AAB Single-family Residential zoning district. Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2 Zoning, Section 5.B.2.a., requiring a minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet, to allow a variance of 18 feet and a rear yard setback of 2 feet, for a proposed garage accessory to a single-family residence within the R-1- AAB Single-Family Residential zoning district. Kathleen Zeitler , Planner, presented the request and advised the subject property was located in the Lake Eden subdivision on a .29 acre lot on the east side of South Lake Drive abutting the Lake Worth Drainage District E-4 Canal. The property is zoned R-1- 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 AAB Single Family Residential. The applicant was proposing a freestanding three-car garage, north of the residence and pool and may convert the existing one-car garage to additional living space. As such, the applicant was requesting a variance of 11 feet to the front setbacks, and proposing a new 14 foot front setback. The applicant was also requesting a variance to the rear setback of 18 feet and proposed a 2 foot rear yard setback for the proposed accessory garage. The garage was 36 feet wide by 25 feet deep and approximately 912 square feet. It would be connected to the residence by a masonry wall five feet in height. The architecture of the building materials and colors of the garage would be similar to the residence. No new curb cuts were proposed and the driveway of the garage would tie in to the existing circular drive. The lot abuts open space to the rear and has a privacy hedge. The applicant provided photographs for the lot and most lots in the neighborhood have two-car garages. The applicant has met the notification requirements and no objections were made. Staff reviewed the variance request focusing on the criteria required for a variance such as unique conditions and characteristics other than those created by the landowner or previous owner that establish the basis of hardship and natural or unique limitations relative to other properties in the neighborhood that are similarly zoned. Staff provided a report to the Board and demonstrated how each criterion was satisfied. Staff finds a hardship does exist and recommended approval of both variance requests with no conditions. Dr. Steven Jaffe, residing at the residence, was present. He explained the property was atypical in nature and the only encroachment would be on Lake Worth Drainage District, who provided a letter indicating they had no objection to the setback. Chair Jaskiewicz indicated Lake Worth Drainage District requested an agreement be signed. Dr. Jaffe responded the agreement is that he and his mother own about five percent of the tennis court, which was built 35 years ago. Under the new regulations Lake Worth Drainage District was being requested to remove the tennis court. Neither Dr. Jaffe, nor his mother, objected to the removal of the tennis courts. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Poznak inquired who owned the other 95% of the tennis courts. Dr. Jaffe responded Lake Worth Drainage District owned that portion. The tennis courts would be removed and would become open space. There was a large hedge of Areca Palms abutting the tennis courts on the east side adjacent to the canal that extended from the northern part of the tennis court to the south. He was unsure of Lake Worth Drainage District’s thoughts on the Palms, but they were on their property. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 Ms. Killian disclosed she had a telephone conversation with Dr. Jaffe. She sported the request because she supported property owners trying to improve their properties. The area warranted the improvements and they did not offend the surrounding property owners. Dr. Jaffe was under the impression the prior property owner received the variance because he was informed he would build a 7,000 square foot home on the property. The home currently is 1,500 to 1,600 square feet. The prior owner had plans to have the garage in its present location and then extend it back and up. Chair Jaskiewicz was impressed the neighbors had a positive response to the request. She thought it would enhance the area. The front doors of the building would face west, the back two windows would face east and it paralleled the canal and was just north of the pool. Mr. Lis inquired if any of the neighbors who signed the petition were located across the street. Dr. Jaffe explained the hedge in front of the garage was high and the neighbors would only see the top of the roof, and the roof line was the same as the home. Every neighbor that could see the home had signed the document. Motion Mr. Poznak so moved. Chair Jaskiewicz noted only one motion was needed and the language was contained in the report. Mr. Saberson explained the motion was to approve the staff recommendation on both variances. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Bru’s Room Sports Grill B. Conditional Use Bru’s Room Sports Grill (COUS 08-005) 1. PROJECT: AGENT: Bob Brudzinski OWNER: Bob Brudzinski LOCATION: 1333 North Congress Avenue DESCRIPTION: Request to rescind the recent Conditional Use approval for a nightclub (amplified music), at Bru’s Room Sports Grill, located on a 1.08-acre parcel zoned C-3 Community Commercial. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 Mr. Breese explained Bob Brudzinski, owner of Bru’s Room Sports Grill requested to rescind the conditional use for a night club and a major site plan modification for a 775 square foot addition to his restaurant. He requested Conditional Use 05-009 be rescinded and the major site plan modification be modified to remove the performing stage area of the restaurant. Mr. Brudzinski submitted a minor site plan modification showing the proposed improvements, the elimination of the stage area and the addition of a covered seating waiting area at the rear of the building. Staff recommended approval of the request with the understanding the elimination of live entertainment would have a positive effect on surrounding properties. The applicant was present and had no comments. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and the public hearing was closed. Chair Jaskiewicz noted there were public comments received when the request was presented; however the comments pertained to the entertainment. She was please to rescind the use and convert it to a seating area. Motion Ms. Grcevic moved to approve the request to rescind the conditional use approval for operation of a nightclub with live entertainment. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Sparkle Clean Car Wash C. Conditional Use Sparkle Clean Car Wash (COUS 08-006) 1. PROJECT: AGENT: Jason S. Mankoff of Weiner, Aronson & Mankoff, P.A. OWNER: Boynton Beach Car Wash, LLC LOCATION: 3008 South Congress Avenue East side of Congress Avenue, approximately 275 th feet north of SW 30 Avenue DESCRIPTION: Request to add automobile detailing service to a previously approved 4,880 square foot, fully automated carwash facility (COUS 05-004), located on a 0.88 acre parcel zoned M-1 Light Industrial. Mr. Breese explained Mr. Mankoff was seeking conditional use approval for additional services to the pre-existing car wash, which was a full service car wash located at 3008 South Congress Avenue. The site was originally approved as Rapido Rabbit Car Wash, and now known as Sparkle Clean Car Wash. One of the conditions of the original approval was if any additional services were requested by the applicant, that they would 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 need to receive Planning and Development Board approval as well as approval from the City Commission. The agent was looking to add two services. The first was an express wax and the second was a full detail service. The express wax would consist of a spray on application of wax and toweling with vacuuming, cleaning the windows, dashboard and vacuuming the floor mats. This would be about a 15 minute process. The full detail service involved hand wax and buffing services plus the other services named earlier. Shampooing the upholstery and carpet would also be included in the service, which was anticipated to add about 45 minutes to one hour to complete. The applicant indicated the addition of the services would add one to three employees to the site, which would bring the total employees to three and five employees on site. Staff was recommending all parking services occur within the designated parking spaces and no parking in any of the circulation areas or on the landscaping. The parking lot where they intend to provide the services was located on the east side of the car wash under a canopy being about 50 feet long by 18 feet wide. It would be about five parking spaces and a couple of vacuum stations. The parking lot is landscaped on all four sides and it should not cause any glare or noise issues above and beyond the carwash mechanical equipment currently used and the vacuum cleaner stations. It should not be visible from Congress Avenue because of the intervening car wash facility and the landscape buffer. The closest residential properties were 350 feet away across the canal. There was also landscaping located there. Staff recommended approval with the conditions that the parking and the hours of the detailing operation coincide with the carwash which was limited in the original condition of approval. Those hours were from dawn to dusk, and in no instances later than 7:00 p.m. Michael Weiner, Esq., was present on behalf of the applicant. He recalled when the original application was reviewed, it received immense scrutiny and many conditions of approval were made. He explained the conditions of approval, in essence, required the owner to be a good neighbor. Mr. Weiner explained the owner recently received a letter from the president of the Hamlet commending his work in the neighborhood and has proven he was a good neighbor. The original staff report indicated if there were other services the owner wanted to provide, he would be able to come back at a later time to seek approval for them. Mr. Weiner explained there were 12 conditions of approval, which were all met. Since the services being added were far less noisy than the vacuum cleaners that have proven to be sufficiently quiet, he requested the Board’s approval and then the City Commission’s approval. Chair Jaskiewicz inquired if the applicant agreed with the two staff comments. Mr. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 Weiner responded the applicant absolutely agreed with them. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and the public hearing was closed. Motion Mr. Poznak moved to approve the request of the applicant subject to the conditions that were enumerated by staff. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Chair Jaskiewicz announced Commissioner Hay was present. She advised he was a former member of the Board. National City Bank D. New Site Plan National City Bank (NWSP 08-004) 1. PROJECT: AGENT: Duncan Jappy, Interplan, LLC OWNER: 1950 Congress Avenue, LLC LOCATION: 500 N. Congress Avenue DESCRIPTION: Request for new site plan approval for a 5,087 square foot financial institution and related site improvements on a 1.66-acre parcel zoned C-3 (Community Commercial). Ed Breese explained Duncan Jappy of Interplan, LLC, representing 1950 Congress LLC and National City Bank was requesting new site plan approval for the construction of a 5,087 square foot bank building on out lot 1 at Boynton Village and Town Center located on the northeast corner of Old Boynton Road and Congress Avenue. The out lot was previously approved for Smokey Bones Restaurant; however, the parent company decided not to construct at the site. The site requires 21 parking spaces based on the calculation of one parking space per 250 square feet of building. The site plan requires 35 parking spaces, or in excess of 14 parking spaces. The master developer entered into cross access and cross parking agreements across all the parcels within Boynton Village and Town Center to accommodate overflow parking when necessary. Staff requested the applicant reduce the sod areas on the site in order to reduce the irrigation needed. The applicant submitted a revised landscape plan that showed additional shrubs in an effort to reduce the isolated areas of sod. Staff had concerns that the corner was prominent and wanted a more substantial structure than a traditional bank. The band was designed with more square footing than 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 the traditional prototype. They angled the building on the corner with the door aligned with the corner of the intersection. They added a tower feature which was a prominent feature within Boynton Village and Town Center. They added a stone clad knee wall that connected to the building and ran east along the property line. It gave the appearance of the building wrapping around the corner. A gazebo with benches was added and tall Medjool Palms which anchored the building. Staff recommended approval of the request with the conditions listed. Ms. Lis inquired about the overflow parking. Mr. Breese explained the parking for Boynton Village and Town Center was designed for cross access and cross parking agreements. During peak times, the parking for one of the establishments could overflow into the additional segmented parking lots throughout the Center. Mr. Breese explained when Smokey Bones was approved, it had 100 parking spaces. With the bank, they have 35 parking spaces. Staff did not want to see a lot of sod, which was what occurred when they did away with much of the asphalt. Staff recommended the applicant come back with more shrubbery as opposed to sod areas. Duncan Jappy , the agent for National City Bank, had no objections to the staff comments and could comply with all of them. Chair Jaskiewicz noted the master developer was responsible for the perimeter landscaping of the property. Mr. Jappy explained the bank and developer were currently in negotiation about the plan. As to the cost, Mr. Jappy said the improvements would take place either way. Chair Jaskiewicz liked the wall wrapping around the corner and the gazebo and was happy with the submittal. She felt it was an important corner within the City and it was the right project for it. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and the public hearing was closed Mr. Lis inquired when the entire development was put together, if they put together reciprocal agreements for the out parcel and master maintenance agreements. Mr. Breese responded they had. The master developer did the majority of their landscaping and it was only the balance of the landscaping for the out parcel that would be done with the construction of the bank. Mr. Lis noted PNC Bank was purchasing National City Bank. Mr. Jappy confirmed that as correct, and advised it would have no impact on the project. All projects that had letters of intent to purchase or lease, that were signed, would proceed. PNC has no presence in Florida and did not intend to enter where they would be unknown. He explained they were assured things would continue as planned. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 Mr. Lis expressed his opinion on the recent Wall Street bailout and bank acquisition. He expressed he had somewhat ambivalent feeling about it, but advised he supported the request and complimented the agent on the design. Motion Mr. Saberson moved for the staff recommendation. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Chair Jaskiewicz inquired when they would begin constructing the building. Mr. Jappy responded they planned to submit building plans just after the November 18, 2008 meeting, or as soon thereafter as possible. Mr. Breese also thanked the applicant for working with staff in great detail. He complimented them on their design. Palm Cove E. Site Plan Time Extension Palm Cove (SPTE 08-008) 1. PROJECT: AGENT: Bonnie Miskel, Esq. of Siegel, Lipman, Dunay, Shepard, and Miskel, LLP OWNER: Boynton Townhomes, LLC LOCATION: Old Dixie Highway and South Federal Highway approximately one-quarter (1/4) mile north of Gulfstream Boulevard DESCRIPTION: Request for a second one (1) year time extension of the site plan (NWSP 05-031) approved on January 3, 2006, thereby further extending site plan approval from July 3, 2008 to July 3, 2009. Kathleen Zeitler presented the request which pertained to a 7.4 acre property situated between Old Dixie Highway and South Federal Highway one-quarter mile north of Gulfstream Boulevard. The property had Special High Density residential land use and was zoned PUD. The site plan for the project was approved by the City Commission on January 3, 2006 for 121 townhouse units, recreational amenities and related site improvements. The site plan approval was valid for 18 months, giving the applicant one and one-half years to secure building permits for the project. The first time extension was approved on July 3, 2007, extending it to July 3, 2008. Bonnie Miskel, Agent for the applicant was requesting a second one-year time extension to July 3, 2009. The justification letter indicated that due to the downturn in the residential market, the applicant was unable to secure new construction financing or pre-sales of units. The developer was working to secure funding and wanted to research potential alternatives to the approved uses. 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 There were no new regulations in place against which to review the project. The traffic concurrency included a restriction that no building permits would be issued for the project after the build-out date of 2007, and the applicant would be required to obtain a new traffic concurrency approval with a new build-out date prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Commission imposed a condition of approval for the first site plan time extension that required the applicant to plant along Federal Highway to improve the appearance of the property. Staff recommended the applicant satisfy the condition by adding 10-12 foot Coconut or Royal Palms on the inside of the fence and opaque screening on the fence which was consistent with plantings for other projects along Federal Highway. The applicant planted a few Pygmy Date Palms approximately three to four feet tall. Staff was recommending a more specific condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide additional plantings in the form of 10 to 12 foot Coconut or Royal Palms and opaque screening on the fence. The Utilities Capacity Reservation fee expired on April 28, 2007 and the annual fee is once again due. The renewal fee was based on 121 units including the clubhouse, and was $17,754.66. Without payment of the fee, the Utilities Department cannot guarantee capacity would be available when the developer was ready to move forward. Staff recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant pay the fee. Another staff recommendation was that the original conditions of approval would still be satisfactorily addressed during the building permit process. Staff recommended approval of the request to extend expiration of the PUD site plan to July 3, 2009, subject to the conditions stated. Bonnie Miskel , Esq., Agent, for the applicant was present. She explained the applicant applied for the site plan at the end of the building boom, and was slowed down due to their assembling properties. Some of the properties had title issues. She agreed with staff’s revised conditions, specific to the additional landscaping, and vegetation on Federal Highway. They would return to the Board if they had to change the plans due to the market conditions, but they hoped the market would change prior to the expiration contained in the staff report. The applicant wanted to maintain the same conditions and the approval that were imposed a few years ago. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Saberson expressed his disappointment the City Commission requested they undertake beautification and they did not. Now they were back requesting another extension. The staff condition relative to the beautification recommended 10 to 12 Coconut or Royal Palms be planted along the property line. The actual condition did not 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 give a number of Coconut or Royal Palms. It only specified they be 10 to 12 feet high and be planted on the inside of the fence. He wanted to know when it would be done, and if they did not do it would the extension terminated. He did not want to wait another year to find out they did not do anything the City asked them to do. He questioned when the Reservation Fee should be paid. Ms. Zeitler responded the Utilities Department did not want to make that into a time certain condition of approval and wanted it to be a “For Your Information” item. Mr. Saberson inquired if City staff was satisfied with saying the applicant would pay it when they got around to it, and if it came down to them starting construction, if the capacity was not there, they would not go forward. Ms. Zeitler indicated the staff report contained the exact wording given by the Utilities Department. Ms. Miskel explained the original condition arose at the City Commission meeting and was not part of a prior staff report. Her client agreed to it. There was not the same level of specificity. Rather, it was something that came from a Commissioner and it did not indicate size or quantity. The applicant did install something. Her understanding of this report was staff wanted greater specificity to which they had no objection. Mr. Saberson inquired if Ms. Miskel had any objection to planting 10 to 12 of the Coconut/Royal Palms at the height recommended by staff in the staff report. Ms. Miskel had no objection. He inquired if they were agreeable to doing so within 90 days or the extension would terminate. Ms. Miskel did not believe her clients would have a problem with that. Chair Jaskiewicz agreed with Mr. Saberson’s comments and thought it should be included in the motion. Mr. Poznak requested clarification of the matter. He explained the report indicated how high the vegetation should be, and inquired how many. Ms. Zeitler indicated the report referred to the height. The typical spacing for those trees was one tree per twenty feet. Ms. Zeitler would add the spacing requirement and 90-day requirement. Mr. Lis inquired about the Utilities Capacity Reservation Fee and he indicated it was paid at one time. He inquired why staff would not recommend it be paid now, rather than wait for another time given the budget constraints the City had. He inquired what the fiscal rationale was. Mr. Breese responded this was a reservation fee and it was something the applicant could choose to pay or not pay. It only bought capacity. The applicant could pay the full one-time Utility fee at this point as opposed to paying a capacity charge, but the one-time fee was more expensive. It was the applicant’s option. Mr. Lis thought it was disjointed that staff would go through the time and effort to review and approve a project that may not have water or sewer capacity because the City does 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 not require the Reservation Fee be paid to guarantee the capacity would be available when they execute the project. Mr. Breese explained they get paid to do the review. If the applicant chooses to let their traffic concurrency lapse and road capacity is not available for them when they are ready to move forward, it was their judgment. Ms. Killian inquired how many times a site plan can be extended. Ms. Zeitler responded the Code did not set a limit. Chair Jaskiewicz also believed the City was being more flexible about these items due to the economic climate. Motion Mr. Saberson moved staff recommendation on the item with the following exception: that approval of the extension request is specifically conditioned upon the applicant, within 90 days from today’s date, completing the installation of 10 to 12 foot Coconut or Royal Palms planted 20 feet apart all along the Federal Highway frontage of the property. In the event it is not completed within 90 days from today’s date and approved by the City, the extension shall terminate. Ms. Miskel noted the City Commission had to approve it, and prior to City Commission approval, she did not think anyone would want to spend any funds, given today’s market. She suggested if the language could be rephrased, they would know it was ultimate approval. th Mr. Saberson agreed to the language up to and not exceeding November 18. Mr. Lis requested confirmation the applicant was supposed to plant the vegetation and did not. Ms. Miskel clarified a condition was imposed by a City Commissioner that did not specify the quantity of the trees. It was only to improve the frontage on Federal Highway. The language was much more specific, and was reasonable. Mr. Saberson acknowledged the condition was ambiguous. Mr. Lis thought it would be a gesture of good faith to plant the vegetation prior to City Commission. Ms. Miskel thought it may be difficult to accomplish. Mr. Lis seconded the motion. He requested Ms. Miskel make the recommendation to her client they plant the vegetation prior to the City Commission. Vote The motion passed unanimously. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 Casa del Mar F. Site Plan Time Extension Casa del Mar (SPTE 08-009) 1. PROJECT: AGENT: Lauren Lending of Siegel, Lipman, Dunay, Shepard, & Miskel, LLP OWNER: Ocean Boulevard Properties, LLC LOCATION: 2632 North Federal Highway DESCRIPTION: Request for a second one (1) year time extension of the site plan (NWSP 06-015) and Height Exception (HTEX 06-007) approved on July 18, 2006, thereby extending site plan and height exception approval from July 18, 2008 to July 18, 2009. Mr. Breese presented the request for a second one-year time extension. The site plan originally approved was for 42 townhomes and 40 condominium units. The height exception approval was for nine feet to cover the areas of the stairwell and elevator shaft roof for the condominium. The applicant was working with the South Florida Water Management District on the permits. Once all the permits are obtained, they will enter the City’s permitting process. The applicant will need a new approval letter for their traffic concurrency and also the Utility Reservation Fee was due. If they wanted to guarantee capacity, the payment should be made. Staff recommended approval of the request for the one-year time extension, subject to the original 74 conditions of approval. Bonnie Miskel, Esq., Agent for the applicant explained similar to the prior request, the project came in at the very end of the building boom and was suffering due to it. She obtained approval on the site plan for the property to the north, which was phasing the project. Unfortunately, the lender refused to extend the commitment they had previously. This developer was working to obtain permits for the project which was an upscale development and was pursuing the water portion of the project and pursuing the required permits. The applicant had no objections to staffs recommendations and conditions. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Saberson inquired about the property being in the Coastal Residential Exception 13 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 area of the County, which exempts them from concurrency. He explained staff indicated they needed to obtain concurrency. Mr. Breese explained because there was a 2008 build-out date on the letter, the County needed to recertify the project to capture the trips and keep their traffic model updated. It would keep the County’s traffic model current. Mr. Lis inquired what was occurring with the County regarding their renewals. Ms. Miskel was aware they were re-evaluating their traffic model. They realized they overstated their traffic on the road. They made adjustments to it and there is actually less traffic on the road than they previously reported. They had discussed making other adjustments to the model so the applicants did not have to come back just to advise their projects were still in the pipeline. Chair Jaskiewicz inquired about the water management and environmental resource permits. She asked if that was still in the process. Ms. Miskel responded her client has another consultant handling that, and who had been working through the conditions that were previously submitted to them by the district. Ms. Miskel agreed to the three conditions of approval. Motion Mr. Lis moved approval subject to staff’s conditions. Mr. Saberson seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 8. Other Chair Jaskiewicz had requested the Board discuss the meeting dates for November and December, which were November 25, 2008 and December 23, 2008. She inquired if the members had any suggestions for the dates. The meeting dates did not affect staff. Mr. Breese indicated Mathew Barnes called to say he would not be able to make the meeting and would be unable to make the November 25, 2008 meeting. Chair Jaskiewicz polled the members for both the November and December meetings. While some members were not available, at each meeting there were enough members for a quorum to be present. Accordingly, the meeting dates would remain as November 25, 2008 and December 23, 2008. Mr. Breese reminded the members that Advisory Board Application forms were due on Friday. It was noted this also pertained to Alternates of individuals whose terms would expire in December. 9. Comments by members Chair Jaskiewicz thanked the Board for carrying on so well in her absence last month. 14 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida October 28, 2008 She expressed a Chairperson does not have to be infinite in the position. Everyone on the Board was well qualified to take over. 10. Adjournment Motion There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Saberson moved to adjourn. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m. ClltLuu"rU- Qlw'LlJ Catherine Cherry U Recording Secretary 15