Loading...
Minutes 12-23-08 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23,2008, AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Shirley Jaskiewicz, Chair Roger Saberson, Vice Chair Matthew Barnes Candace Killian Jeff Lis Steve Myott Amber Barritt, Alternate (arrived 6:33 p.rn.) William Poznak, Alternate (a"ived 6:35 p.rn.) Ed Breese, Principal Planner Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Attorney ABSENT: Sharon Grcevic 1. Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Jaskiewicz called the meeting to order at 6:29 p.m. Mr. Barnes led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board. Chair Jaskiewicz introduced the members of the Board. 3. Agenda Approval. Motion Vice Chair Saberson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 4. Approval of Minutes. Motion Vice Chair Saberson moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. 5. Communications and Announcements. A. Planning and Zoning Report 1 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 1. Final disposition of the October 28, 2008 Planning and Development Board meeting Agenda items. Mr. Breese reported the following items were approved at the November 18, 2008 City Commission meeting: ./ Casa Del Mar Site Plan Time Extension ./ Sparkle Clean Car Wash Conditional Use ./ National City Bank New Site Plan ./ Palm Cove PUD Site Plan Time Extension ./ Bru's Room Revocation of Conditional Use ./ Jaffe Variance (Amber Barritt a"ived at 6:33 p.m.) Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all who would be testifying. 6. Old Business None 7. New Business A. Sam's Club I Northstar Annexation LOCATION: Sam's Club I Northstar (ANEX 09-001) Bonnie Miskel and Scott Backman Walmart Stores #8140 I Northstar Cemetery Services of Florida, LLC West of North Seacrest Boulevard, South of Hypoluxo Road. 7233 Seacrest Boulevard and 3691 Seacrest Boulevard Request to annex the properties. 1. PROJECT: AGENTS: OWNER: DESCRIPTION: Sam's Club I Northstar Land Use Amendment IRezoninQ LOCATION: Sam's Club I Northstar (LUAR 09-002) Bonnie Miskel and Scott Backman Walmart Stores #8140 I Northstar Cemetery Services of Florida, LLC West of North Seacrest Boulevard, South of Hypoluxo Road. 7233 Seacrest Boulevard and 3691 Seacrest Boulevard 2. PROJECT: AGENTS: OWNER: 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map classification on ~41.49 acres of land from Commercial High (CH /5) and Institutional (Palm Beach County) to Local Retail Commercial (LRC); and Request to rezone from Palm Beach County Commercial General (CG) and Residential Multifamily (RM) to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and C-3, Community Commercial. Hanna Matras, Senior Planner, requested the Board consider the annexation, land use amendment and rezoning together and then approve or deny them by separate motions. The two properties comprised about 42 acres and per State requirements, required a Large Scale Amendment. The Board would be making a recommendation to the City Commission to transmit them to the Department of Community Affairs for a sufficiency review. Staff recommended approval of the requested items based on the requests being consistent with the annexations and other relevant objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would benefit the City by contributing to the diversification of the City's economy and tax base, and the proposed amendment would not create additional impacts on infrastructure that could not be accommodated within existing capacity, nor would it generate negative impacts on adjacent nearby properties. (Mr. Poznak arrived at 6:35 p.m.) Bonnie Miskel, Attorney for the Northstar Cemetery and Sam's Club, was present to answer any questions of the Board. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Myott requested information about the County having difficulty with the application. Ms. Miskel explained, at one point, the County approached City staff about a traffic issue and the City held a meeting with all parties regarding concerns on the north end of the Sam's Club site. There was a roadway/driveway that brings the Sam's Club customers in off of Hypoluxo Road that was part of the Sam's Club property. The concern initially was the annexation would create an enclave to the west, which was an unrelated commercial property. It was determined an enclave would not be created. The applicants agreed, if it made it easier, to exclude the roadway and allow it to continue and the easements that were originally there would continue to the public. The parties met with the City Manager because the County wanted verification from the City Manager that the City was interested in the property, and the annexation was more of the City's interest than the applicants. Ms. Miskel explained it was a mutual interest. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 Ms. Matras explained, if the City Commission desired to proceed with the annexation request, the City would begin annexing the remaining parcels to the west after the Sam's Club and Northstar annexation was formally adopted. The City would meet with the Palm Beach County Sheriff regarding an interlocal agreement regarding service for the area during the months in which the issue would be active. These annexations would later require a Small Scale Amendment. Chair Jaskiewicz explained the next item pertained to changing the Land Use Map, the Future Land Use classification and rezoning from Palm Beach County Commercial and Residential Multi-Family to Planned Commercial Development and C-3 Community Commercial. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Myott inquired if any further developments for the property were planned. Ms. Matras explained Sam's Club was planning a fueling facility. They were requesting a planned commercial district and the staff report included a view oftheir preliminary master plan. A car wash may also be included. The Northstar Cemetery would be adding a crematorium, but it was not clear when they would proceed with the request. Chair Jaskiewicz inquired about the billboard and if it pertained to the Cemetery and Sam's Club. Ms. Miskel explained the billboard was intended to be located on the Cemetery property somewhere along the 1-95 corridor. There was a lawsuit that was settled pertaining to the property and the billboard and an agreed order was issued. The billboard would be consistent with the agreed order. Chair Jaskiewicz noted it was distressing to see a billboard because in the 90's the City worked to eliminate them. Ms. Miskel also noted since it was Cemetery property, they intended to locate the sign in a way so as not to impact the Cemetery operation. The sign would be far enough away from the residential area that it would not be seen by the residents. They would attempt to hide it from other interior views and situate it so it would only be seen from 1-95. The purpose of including the Cemetery property in the request was because it would not be contiguous without the property. Another reason was because the Cemetery was also interested in being located within the City for use of its water, sewer and other utilities. The property was mapped to be within City limit. It was noted they were also planning another building in the future. Attorney Alexander advised three separate motions were needed. The first motion pertained to annexation of properties for the Cemetery and Sam's Club. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 Motion Mr. Myott so moved. Ms. Barritt seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The next motion was for the land use amendment and rezoning as contained on the staff report. Motion Mr. Myott so moved. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. Mr. Myott clarified his motion to approve the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map of the Sam's Club parcel and the Cemetery from Commercial High CH/5 and Institutional (Palm Beach County), to Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and request to rezone from Palm Beach County Commercial General (CG) and Residential Multi-Family (RM). It was requested just the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map portion be approved. Mr. Myott moved to approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Ms. Barritt seconded the motion that unanimously passed. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the request to rezone from Palm Beach County General (CG) and Multi-family Residential, RM to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and C-3 Community Commercial. Ms. Killian seconded the motion that unanimously passed. B. New Urban High Ridge Land Use Amendment I RezoninQ 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: New Urban High Ridge ( LUAR 09-001) Timothy L. Hernandez New Urban High Ridge, LLC Northwest corner of High Ridge Road and Miner Road Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map classification on ~18.44 acres of land from Medium Density Residential to Industrial and; Request to rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to M-1, Industrial. Ms. Matras presented the request and noted the request was also a large scale amendment requiring approval by the Department of Community Affairs, if approved by the City Commission. She explained the City annexed the property in 2005. The first site plan was a mix of town homes and single-family homes. There were some issues with the county pertaining to the landscaping of High Ridge Road. The applicant requested a time 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 extension followed by a Master Site Plan Modification changing the type of housing to single family. In the meanwhile, the housing market collapsed. The applicant did what they could to promote and sell the units, but it was clear that type of project was not financially feasible at this time. The applicant is now requesting a change of land use and zoning to Industrial. Staff was in favor of the request. It is consistent with policies in the Comprehensive Plan which encouraged zoning to industrial uses. It was also consistent with recommendations of the 2006 analysis of the M-1 zoning district. The proposal would benefit the City because of the shortage of industrial land . Industrial uses help to diversify the economy, create jobs and lessen the negative impacts during economic downturns. The amendment would not create an impact on infrastructure that could not be accommodated within existing capacities. The potential impact on surrounding properties could be mitigated through landscaping which would be addressed at time of site plan. It would require approval by the Planning and Development Board at a later time. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. Paul Morris, a resident of Cedar Ridge, a community just east of the subject property, was present. He expressed concern about the negative impact it would have on his community. Mr. Morris explained the property was originally zoned for single-family townhomes and now would be industrial. The housing market was down and the price of homes declined. His concern was the industrial site would further reduce the value of the homes in the area. Chair Jaskiewicz noted there are different classifications of industrial zoning. This property would have an M-1 designation. Ms. Matras also explained there were a number of industrial uses in the area and staff believed the extensive buffering that would be used on the site should effectively address any negative impacts. The project was probably the same type of project that was directly south of the site which had flex-use condominiums. The Code requires extensive buffering when an industrial district is located by residential neighborhoods. As part of the Land Development Code rewrites, there are other options to create a barrier between the industrial districts and the residential districts. She noted it takes time for the large scale amendment to be processed and by the time the site plan was ready to be heard by the Planning and Development Board, it was likely the new regulations would be effective thereby allowing for the more extensive barriers. She noted there are other industrial uses that are adjacent to residential uses. Chair Jaskiewicz noted the City is very particular when industrial projects are in the vicinity of a neighborhood and/or a residential district. Mr. Morris requested a definition of buffering. Ms. Matras responded buffering was using the landscape vegetation to mitigate visual impacts. Chair Jaskiewicz explained other items could be used or requested, such as a wall. The property to the north was residential. It had single-family homes and was designated LR-2, Low Density Residential. The zoning designations of adjacent parcels were reviewed 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 and were residential. It was noted there were existing homes in the area; however, there were no letters or phone calls received in opposition to the request. Ms. Matras explained the uses that would be available on the site in the M-1 designation were the same as on the southeast and the south. It did not include heavy industrial uses, only light. The flex-use condominium can be made to look attractive. The staff report included a section of the Code that pertained to the appearance of the industrial uses along High Ridge Road and it was noted they look much nicer than what people normally imagine. The zoning history was again reviewed and to staff's knowledge, the site was never zoned industrial. It was single-family residential. Attorney Alexander administered the oath to a resident of 704 NE 2nd Street, Pompano Beach. He was aware of the property's history and had made an offer on the property, which was unsuccessful. Many years ago, when it was County property, it was zoned for industrial. When it was annexed into Boynton Beach, it became single-family homes with one or two-acre parcels. High Ridge Commerce Park had buffers against Cedar Ridge. They constructed a block wall with landscaping on both sides and a 40-foot setback from each building. The flex-use condominium south of the subject property had a 60-foot buffer behind it and vegetation could not be removed. He explained he thought the request was consistent with the growth. There were no further comments received from the public. Chair Jaskiewicz asked for a motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map classification from Medium Density Residential with a maximum density of 9.68 dwelling units per acre to Industrial with a maximum FAR of .50 Motion Ms. Barritt so moved. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that unanimously passed. The second request was to rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to M-1lndustrial District. Motion Mr. Myott so moved. Ms. Killian seconded the motion that unanimously passed. C. Habitat for Humanity Abandonment 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: Habitat for Humanity (ABAN 09-001) Peter Blacklock of Ruden, McClosky City of Boynton Beach West of the FEC Railroad right-of-way, north of NE 11th Avenue 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 DESCRIPTION: Request for abandonment of an unimproved portion of Railroad Avenue approximately 15 feet wide and 45 feet long, located west of the FEC Railroad right-of-way and approximately 50 feet south of N.E. 12th Avenue, in connection with the plan to build infill single-family housing. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented the request to abandon a portion of Railroad Avenue. Habitat for Humanity had assembled several parcels to develop infill housing. The property was zoned R-2, which allowed for single family residences. The segment of right-of-way to be abandoned was approximately 15-feet in width by 45-feet in length and contained about 681 square feet. The applicant submitted an Ownership and Encumbrance Report and found the property to be abandoned was a portion of a dedicated right-of-way .There was no other encumbrances on the title. Similar requests had been approved in the past. The property to be abandoned was not used by the public and if abandoned, would be used for access solely by the applicant and adjacent property owners. It would provide for a unified development of the site. Public notice was given, as was notice to the utility companies. The Engineering Division notified the FEC Railroad Company but no response was received. There were no objections from other utility providers. The land to be abandoned served no public purpose and would not impact or have adverse effects on adjacent properties. The abandonment was exclusive to Habitat for Humanity who owns parcels two, three and four, that are adjacent to the property to be abandoned. A site plan had not been submitted showing a layout, but it was intended to solely serve their development. Chair Jaskiewicz inquired, if no response from FEC was received, if it would negate any future concerns. Ms. Zeitler explained the City was just abandoning its interest in the subject portion of the public right-of-way. Peter Blacklock, Ruden McCloskey, explained granting the application would allow for unified development of the property. A site plan had not been submitted, but the land was currently vacant and they would reconfigure the property if the abandonment was approved. It had no other public purpose and no negative impacts on surrounding properties. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed. Motion Vice Chair Saberson moved approval of the abandonment. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that unanimously passed. D. Harbor Cay Site Plan Time Extension 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 DESCRIPTION: Harbor Cay (SPTE 08-007) Sid E. von Rospeunt Harbor Cay, LLC East side of North Federal Highway, approximately 160 feet north of Gateway Boulevard Request for a second one (1 )-year time extension of the site plan (NWSP 06-011) approved on May 2, 2006, thereby further extending site plan approval from May 2,2008 to May 2,2009. 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: Kathleen Zeitler presented the request which was previously approved for 23 fee-simple townhomes. The second site plan time extension was approved on May 2,2006. At the time, the regulations provided the applicant with one year to secure a building permit, but the regulations changed and allowed 18-months to obtain a permit. A previous site plan time extension of the project was approved September 18, 2007, which extended the plans from May 2, 2007 to May 2, 2008. If the request was approved, the site plan time extension, with concurrency approval, would be extended to May 2, 2009. The justification for the request was due to the real estate slump with recovery not projected for a year. The applicant needed to obtain new funding, and future funding had not been finalized. The applicants demonstrated good faith efforts regarding reconfiguring utilities and engineering revisions, and platting and construction plan revisions to address the conditions of site plan approval. The Site Plan Time Extension was subject to the original 85 conditions of approval including the Art in Public Places. The capacity reservation fee was paid at the time of the first site plan extension was granted; however, the annual fee is due once again. Staff recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant pay the fee to ensure capacity was available when the project moved forward. Staff recommended approval of the second site plan time extension with two conditions. Michael Weiner, Attorney for the owner, explained the project encompassed 23 units, which would be located next to a gas station. The project was not at the maximum density and was a townhouse type development. He explained they were unable to obtain construction financing and the owner wanted to wait and get the project underway if circumstances turned around. Mr. Weiner agreed to the original conditions of approval and the added condition of payment of the Capacity Reservation Fee. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the floor for public comments. Grover Jones, 628 Lakeside Harbor, provided a history of what the community endured during these extensions. It was important in order to determine if the future would be the same. There was a dock, which is privately owned and deeded to the neighborhood for fifty years. The residents went to court, at a considerable expense, to prove the community owned the dock, and won the case. The owner had the property up for sale with a sign saying it had a deeded dock. Mr. Jones explained the dock was damaged twice, and the community residents paid for the repair. 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 There were also issues with the street and needed repairs that were poorly made by the owner. Lot maintenance was a problem as was a pedestrian gate that disappeared. He also understood the owner was in negotiations with a gas station. Mr. Jones applauded what was originally designed and he spoke for most of the neighbors. There were promises that were never kept. The applicant was to pay the water fee and he inquired if that was done. He suggested planning should be done for the good of the residents and requested the issues be weighed very heavily. Chair Jaskiewicz explained there were 85 conditions of approval when the request was originally approved. Those conditions would have to be met and strictly adhered to otherwise the project would not be approved. Mr. Grover acknowledged that and urged the Board to have some compassion for the residents who have to continually call and complain. They had contacted Code Enforcement. Chair Jaskiewicz explained his concerns would be forwarded to the City Commission who may impose further improvements. The access road was a private street owned by the residents who maintain half the road in front of their property. A photo of the street taken on a cell phone was shown to the members. The members discussed the condition of approval pertaining to the payment of the utility reservation fee and noted this applicant had to pay the fee when other site plans did not. Ms. Zeitler explained it was a standard condition of approval that informed the applicant that the utility reservation fee was due, should they want to reserve utility capacity when they built the project. It did not force them to pay it. Staff left it to the developer to decide whether they wanted to pay the fee or take the risk of not having the capacity available. Ms. Zeitler further clarified the applicant paid some of the fee prior to City Commission approval of the first time extension. There was discussion regarding the private road and whether the applicant needed it for access to move forward with the project. Mr. Weiner responded there were a number of conditions of approval that dealt with the private road and how it would be handled in order to proceed. The private road was the only access into and out of the community and was needed to develop the project. He explained the matters brought up pertaining to the dock and the street, were a civil matter. He could not say, as a matter of law, the residents had a right to collect monies, but if so, then those lot owners would have to contribute. The private rights would be dealt with by the private parties. He pointed out the request was to approve a site plan which would determine if they could get the project underway within the next six months or so. Mr. Weiner explained this was the first time he appeared on behalf of this project and he would be more than happy to meet with them. The project would provide additional amenities and improve property values as well as the road. When the application was originally heard, a condition was added they had to improve the 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 appearance of the property within a limited time. The Board noted the owner should have consideration for the residents. Discussion followed whether the dock related to this enclave. The dock was available for use by about 12 homes on the street. The dock access was a court case which defined how many of the lots were able to use the dock for recreational purposes. Mr. Lis noted the testimony given indicated the applicant was promoting the property claiming they had access to the dock. Mr. Weiner clarified they were in accord that the dock was available for the enclave. The property had access, but it was a private road. The item they were not in agreement with had to do with a monetary contribution. All else was consistent. He pointed out the Board was not established to settle money issues. It was acknowledged the matter was a neighborhood issue and Mr. Weiner reiterated he had distributed his card in hopes of settling the matter. Code Enforcement had been to the site and was working with the owner to maintain the property as it pertained to the Community Appearance Codes. It was not known if Code Enforcement had any jurisdiction over the road maintenance because it was a private road and not a public right-of-way. Ms. Barritt noted the site plan expired December 2008. Ms. Zeitler explained the request was submitted prior to the expiration of the site plan and it was delayed by the applicant several times. Mr. Lis left the dais at 7:34 p.m. Ms. Zeitler explained if the extension were not approved by the City Commission, the approved site plan would be null and void and expired. They would need to start the site plan process all over. It was noted the extension was to May 2, 2009. Mr. Lis returned at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Weiner explained the laws had not changed, so starting the site plan process again would be ministerial. Mr. Weiner explained he was not contacted by any of the neighbors. It was suggested to Mr. Jones that when the request is heard by the City Commission he voice his concerns. They may be able to obtain some repairs to the street. It was recommended the parties try to work out how the property would be maintained before the development occurred. Mr. Jones indicated the developer was supposed to be fined. Some repairs had been made, but they were poor quality repairs such as filling up a pothole with sand. Chair Jaskiewicz explained the minutes would accompany the request to the City Commission. She requested as a condition of approval, a recommendation be added that the parties pursue a method of improving the road in the interim. William Poznak pointed out the road was the only way in and out of the community. 11 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 There were 12 homes and each property owner was responsible for maintaining half the roadway in front of their dwelling. The applicant owned both sides of the road so the entire road going through the property was the applicant's responsibility. If the road were not properly maintained, it would be an issue during an emergency. It was suggested this be added to the motion. Chair Jaskiewicz closed the floor for public comments. Motion Mr. Myott suggested an additional condition of approval be added that requires the applicant to maintain the roadway at a public standard so emergency vehicles, etc., can access the property and the applicant communicate with the other neighbors regarding this issue and it would be continued at the City Commission. The motion was clarified to approve the extension subject to all the original conditions and adding the two additional conditions of approval in the staff report and the additional condition that the street be maintained at a public standard as required by City Code, and they meet with the residents living on the street and keep them informed. Vice Chair Saberson seconded the motion. Ms. Barritt suggested another condition of approval be the applicant would be required to maintain the property according to Code Compliance standards. Mr. Myott agreed to the additional condition suggested by Ms. Barritt. Vice Chair Saberson agreed to the amendment. Vote A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Mr. Lis dissenting.) Mr. Lis inquired if Mr. Jones was happy with what transpired regarding the request. Mr. Jones expressed he was not. He was appreciative of the added conditions, but he was not happy the project was moving forward as he felt the applicant had not been a good neighbor. Mr. Lis advised he wanted Mr. Jones comments on record. E. The Arches Site Plan Time Extension 1. PROJECT: AGENT: DESCRIPTION: The Arches (SPTE 08-010) Bonnie Miskel, Esq., Siegel, Lipman, Dunay, Shepard & Miskel, LLP Boynton Ventures I, LLC Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway Request for a third one (1 )-year time extension of the site plan (MSPM 05-008) approved on OWNER: LOCATION: 12 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 September 6, 2005, thereby further extending site plan approval from September 6, 2008 to September 6,2009. Mr. Breese presented the request and advised the plan was previously approved to include 378 dwelling units and 40,596 square feet of residential living space and a height exception of 17 feet to cover and conceal the rooftop equipment, stairwells and elevator shafts. The request was originally approved in 2003 and received two additional site plan time extensions. In 2005, the project received a major site plan modification which created a new approval date. The applicant was severely constrained by the current housing market, coupled with the credit crunch. The inability of the applicant to obtain the additional financing necessary for the project and for potential buyers to obtain loans, impacted the project as well as the projects reliance on the Tax Increment Funding (TIF) from the Community Redevelopment Agency. The extension was needed to obtain additional funding, as well as allowing the market to recover. Postponement of the addition of new units into the market would hopefully allow the supply and demand in the housing market to balance it out. Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering acknowledged the project was within the Traffic Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and met the traffic performance standards of the County. The Utilities Department noted the applicant prepaid their Utility fee and no further fees were due at this point. Since the original project approval, the City adopted new zoning regulations relating to taller buildings which set a six-to-one ratio of vertical versus horizontal planes. The Arches would comply with the new ratio with the exception of the south fa9ade. To comply with that, it would need to be redesigned and have some of the interior space rea Ilocated. Staff recommended approval of the extension, but had concerns due to the project area comprising two city blocks in the heart of the downtown on a key parcel. Because it was vacant, it was not assisting with the redevelopment of the downtown area. Accordingly, staff recommended this request be the last site plan time extension to be approved. Mr. Breese explained a TCEA area was exempt from the concurrency requirements due to it being in a redevelopment area and close to transit. There were parking standards and some improvements would be made; however, there was no room for improvements to the right-of-way. Improvements were proposed for 4th Street, but not on Federal Highway. Bonnie Miskel, Attorney for the applicant, explained since the original approval and due to financial reasons, the applicant had to modify the site plan. Part of their financing package included TIF funds. When the applicant extended the site plan, their TIF agreement was due to expire. The applicant had an agreement with the Community Redevelopment Agency, that when they were ready to move forward, they would return and request the funds, as opposed to encumbering the funds prematurely. When the applicant was considering moving the project forward in the City, the Strand lawsuit arose which caused the project to stall. She advised since the Strand decision was overturned, the TIF funds 13 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 became available. In the interim, the land lender contacted them and requested they contribute additional equity because the value of the property decreased. The applicant intends to develop the site and was hopeful the economy would turn around towards the end of 2009. They were seeking to be positioned for that occurrence. The previous request to the applicant to plant vegetation along the parcel as completed. They were committed to the investment and being a partner with the City. The applicant acknowledged the extension would be the last extension. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the floor for public hearing. Harvey Oyer, 512 N. Seacrest Boulevard, explained he owns three buildings directly across from the subject property, and thought the plan was an abomination. He provided a history of the property and advised in 1982 the voters approved a 45-foot height limitation. Approximately seven years ago, the former Chairman of the Community Redevelopment Agency was advised by the City Attorney the referendum could be ignored. The Chairman flipped the property and made a commission. When that occurred, individuals began buying property with the understanding they could develop high-rise buildings. Developers closed businesses and demolished buildings; however, the market changed. He explained there was an excess of condominiums being constructed across the state and it affected taxes. It also adversely affects the maintenance of the buildings. He explained owners can demolish existing structures and replace them with high rises, which he expressed was a detriment to the community, businesses and residents paying the taxes. Chair Jaskiewicz explained the time for comments was when the original plans were presented, and the Board was only deciding to grant a time extension. She doubted, with the lessons learned from the Marina, the applicant would scale down the project more, seeing the lack of tenants at Marina Village. Mr. Oyer recalled he lived through the Depression and it took longer for this area to recover. The current fiscal environment was difficult. He recommended turning the project down, and the applicant re-approach the Board with a new plan when it was ready to be developed. He also suggested they recommend the City lease the property for approximately three years for $10 per year, remove the fence and landscape it. By doing so, it would help stabilize the community. Chair Jaskiewicz closed the public hearing. Ms. Miskel explained she spoke with staff, who understood the financial crisis, but expressed they were hopeful 2009 would bring some changes to the economy. She also clarified, when the project was reviewed, the City Attorney advised their plan met the Comprehensive Plan and zoning requirements. Mr. Lis observed the palm trees planted on the property were planted behind the fence and had not been trimmed or maintained. He also acknowledged the extension was a place holder, and the site plan was aggressive in its time. He commented a project approved three years ago may not be appropriate a year from now. He did not think a project that 14 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 had greater density and intensity than the proposed project would be wanted and he would not want to limit the extensions for those reasons only. Staff's decision to limit the extension was based on it being such a large parcel in the very heart of the downtown area. The vacant parcel was not enhancing the City's image Ms. Killian questioned the look of the project. It was explained it was the concept for the heart of the downtown area where the marina was. It would be a wedding cake type of design with the tallest buildings in the heart of downtown and sloping down at the perimeter. The design was approved by Visions 2020 and other entities in the City. Ms. Killian recognized the City needed a downtown, but could not support the request. She expressed Las Ventanas was heinous, and did not believe Boynton Beach should have high rise buildings. It impacted individuals' homes, and she did not want a conglomeration of enormous buildings. Chair Jaskiewicz explained the original plan was not for high rise buildings. Ms. Miskel indicated to have an area that would be successful, there needed to be sufficient demographics to support it. Accordingly, there would be an urban core. Chair Jaskiewicz asked for a motion to include the original conditions of approval and the additional condition there would be no further time extensions and this site plan would expire September 6,2009. Motion Ms. Barritt so moved including the preexisting conditions and the new condition that the approval would be their last and final site plan extension. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 5-2 (Mr. Lis and Ms. Killian dissenting.) F. Tuscan Villas Site Plan Time Extension 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Tuscan Villas (SPTE 08-011) Ken Tuma, Urban Design Studio Tuscan Villas @ Boynton Beach East of Federal Highway; approximately 1,100 feet north of Gulfstream Boulevard Request for a second one (1 )-year site plan time extension of the site plan (NWSP 06-002) approved on April 18, 2006, thereby further extending site plan approval from October 18, 2008 to October 18, 2009. Kathleen Zeitler presented the request and explained the project was zoned infill PUD and had a special high density, residential land use. The project was approved for 22 town- house style condominium units. If the request is granted, the site plan including concurrency certification would be extended to October 18, 2009. The applicant demonstrated good faith efforts to move the project forward and secured permits from 15 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 FDOT for drainage, temporary and permanent driveways, fire rescue and submitted revised utility plans and plats for engineering approval, and revised construction drawing to address comments from prior reviews. The request would be subject to the original 36 conditions of approval including the Art in Public Places Ordinance. The capacity utilities reservation fee expired and staff recommended as a condition that the applicant pay $3,243 for the fee in order to ensure capacity was available when the project begins development. Staff recommends approval with two conditions for the second time extension. Ken Tuma, agent for the property, accepted all the conditions, both previous and the ones associated with the second site plan time extension. He indicated the property was well maintained. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed. Motion My Myott moved approval of the second one-year site plan time extension subject to staff comments. Ms. Barritt seconded the motion that unanimously passed. G. Lake Worth Christian School Site Plan Time Extension DESCRIPTION: Lake Worth Christian School (SPTE 09-001) Jeff Zito, Project Manager Lake Worth Christian School Society, Inc. 7592 High Ridge Road, east side of High Ridge Road approximately one-half mile north of Miner Road Request for a one (1)-year site plan time extension of the conditional use/major site plan modification (COUS/MSPM 07-003) approved on July 17, 2007 for 18 months, thereby extending approval from January 17, 2009 to January 17, 2010. 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: Mr. Breese explained the original staff report indicated the applicant received approval for a 19,555 square foot classroom addition and a 15,000 square foot general use building and 6,000 square foot athletic building. The applicant also received a height exception of one foot, ten inches to accommodate the elevator shaft on the two-story classroom addition. After the applicant received City Commission approval, the architect redesigned the interior of the building to provide for better operations, which resulted in a minor plan modification which was approved by staff in October. Since then, the architect has been working on the permit plans. The development order was set to expire in January and they did not feel there was enough time to obtain the needed permits to keep the project alive. Accordingly the applicant was requesting the time extension. Staff recommended approval of the 16 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 request. Michael LaCoursiere, was present on behalf of Lake Worth Christian School Society, and was in agreement with all the conditions of approval. The utility fees were due and were minimal, but it was a capacity reservation issue. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed. Motion Ms. Barritt moved to approve the one-year site plan time extension of the Conditional Use Major Site Plan Modification approved on July 17, 2007 for 18 months, thereby extending approval from January 17, 2009 to January 17, 2010 subject to the previous conditions of approval. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that unanimously passed. H. Pet Care Code Review 1. PROJECT: AGENT: DESCRIPTION: Pet Care (Boarding & Daycare) (CDRV 09-001) City-initiated Request for interim amendments to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning to add provisions and regulations for Pet Care (Boarding and Daycare) in the C-3, C-4, CBD, PCD, SMU, MU-L 1, MU-L2 and M-1 zoning districts. Mr. Breese explained staff was proposing interim amendments to the Land Development Regulations in the M-1 District to support immediate business development in the City and within the C-3, C-4, CBD, PCD, SMU, MU-L 1, MU-L2 and M-1 zoning districts in order to implement other provisions of the draft zoning matrix related to pet care and boarding. The amendment was requested by a property owner, whose property was zoned M-1 , and an applicant desiring to be a tenant on the property in order to operate a pet boarding and daycare business. The current Code only allowed this use on parcels located on a thoroughfare. The draft zoning matrix staff was working on in the Land Development Regulations would allow the use as a conditional use on the parcel requested. Staff recommends the use be allowed and the amendments to the LDR be allowed for the dog daycare and boarding operation in the M-1 District because the draft matrix permits it also in the C-3, C-4, CDB, PCD, SMU, MU-L 1, MU-L2 Districts. The Code amendment would have three tiers of review for varying levels of operations. One tier would be for pet care involving boarding and daycare accessory to a veterinary, pet store, or pet groomer use. Staff recommended those accessory uses be allowed without a conditional use provided it did not exceed 25% of the floor area of the principal use or 2,500 square feet, whichever was less. A second tier would be when the boarding and daycare are a principal and stand-alone use 17 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 in the C-3, C-4, CBD, PCD, SMU, MU-L 1, and MU-L2. Staff was recommending those uses be a conditional use in those zoning districts, thereby the applicant would need to show how they are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The third tier would be in the M-1 district and would be a stand-alone operation, provided it was 600 feet or more from residentially zoned property and that those uses would be allowed by right. If the business were less than 600 feet, it would be by conditional use and the applicant would have to show compatibility with surrounding land uses. Staff recommended approval of the proposed interim amendments to the Land Development Regulations and that the proposed future zoning matrix be amended to correspond with the item being heard. This was a City-initiated application, but there would be affected owners. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the floor to public hearing. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Breese clarified the 600 foot distance requirement was from property boundary to property boundary and several other uses had that same requirement. There was also a question on the definition of a pet, i.e. goats, horses, elephants, as it related to how they are boarded, taken care of in the community, and how they are transported and returned. Mr. Breese explained pets could be defined as a domesticated animal. Vice Chair Saberson recused himself from voting and declared he had a potential conflict of interest due to a family member being in business with one of the affected property owners. Motion Ms. Barritt moved to make an interim amendment to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning to add provisions and regulations for domesticated Pet Care (Boarding and Daycare) in the C-3, C-4, CBD, PCD, SMU, MU-L 1, MU-L2 and M-1 zoning districts. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that passed 6-1 (Vice Chair Saberson abstaining.) I. Temporary Banners Code Review 1. PROJECT: AGENT: DESCRIPTION: Temporary Banners (CDRV 09-002) City-initiated Discussion of possible interim amendments to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 21 Signs, Article III, Sec. 6(F) to increase the time period to 90 days that an existing business may display a temporary banner. 18 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 Mr. Breese explained the City Commission requested staff review this regulation, which pertained to temporary banners for promotion of existing businesses and propose alternative requirements to address the needs for local merchants. Staff surveyed surrounding municipalities and advised the City's banner regulations were in line with others for new businesses, but restrictive on existing businesses. Staff recommended during the recessionary period that the time frame for which banners could be erected for existing businesses be extended from 14 days to 90 days to match the new business sign regulations. Mr. Breese explained it was important to note, at some point in time, relaxation of the Sign Code may lead to a cluttered non-attractive look. The City noticed non- compliant banners and various signs in the City. In tough economic times, the City Commission was hearing from businesses they needed the exposure. Staff explained the impact of the proposed amendment would be reviewed in one year and they would report back any negative impacts to determine if they should continue the regulation or allowing it to sunset. The members expressed a concern that ninety days was a long time for a sign and given the weather, the signs would deteriorate. Enforcement was also an issue. The business owner had to obtain a permit, in order to have the temporary sign, which would be marked with a start and end date. This would enable Code Enforcement to verify when it should be removed. The members expressed signs were difficult with the current regulations and relaxing them would result in a City of signs that would be unsightly. Other Board members had issues with the number of days and expressed 45 to 60 days might be more reasonable. New business owners receive 90 days for the banners during the course of the year. They usually put them up for the entire grand opening period, but could split it up. Existing businesses did not have to display the sign consecutively, but they would have to apply for the permit each time they put a banner up. Other comments received were the existing requirement of 14 days was sufficient and signs for new businesses should be limited to 60 days. The signs would be limited to the current regulations of 20 square feet. It was emphasized the banners are not to be placed in the public right-of-way or landscape buffers. Mr. Breese explained the item was a request from the City Commission. Motion Ms. Barritt moved to pass along the staff memo analysis to the City Commission for their review. Mr. Lis seconded the motion. Mr. Breese explained that would be endorsing the recommendation. The item had to be reviewed by the Planning and Development Board because it was an amendment to the Land Development Regulations. He suggested if the Board had a different recommendation as to the number of days, to state them and the City Commission would review both staffs and the Board's comments. Chair Jaskiewicz opined for existing businesses, 14 days would be more than sufficient 19 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 23,2008 and 90 days was too long, even for a new business. She recommended 14 days and 60. Mr. Barnes also agreed. Motion Mr. Lis moved the existing code, with regard to the signs stay in place, with no changes of any kind whatsoever. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 6-1 (Mr. Barnes dissenting. ) There was an inquiry whether the 90 days for new business was consistent with other municipalities. Mr. Breese explained the City was lenient with that, as they saw 30 to 60 days was typical for new businesses. 8. Other 9. Comments by members Chair Jaskiewicz wished the members a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah and a prosperous New Year. 10. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. /. .' . eaklLt/d/~JL C!A~k/d J_ Catherine Cherry . 7 Recording Secretary 122408 20