Loading...
Minutes 01-14-09 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2009, AT 6:30 P.M. IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PRESENT: Shirley Jaskiewicz, Chair Roger Saberson, Vice Chair Matthew Barnes Sharon Grcevic Candace Killian Jeff Lis Steve Myott William Poznak, Alternate Mike Rumpf, Planning Director Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Attorney ABSENT: Amber Barritt, Alternate 1. Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Jaskiewicz called the meeting to order at 6:28 p.m. Ms. Killian 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 Mr. Barnes moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Saberson seconded the motion that passed unanimously 4. Approval of Minutes. Motion Mr. Barnes moved to approve the minutes of December 23, 2008. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 1 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27, 2009 5. Communications and Announcements. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of the December 23, 2008 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director, reported the following items were approved at the January 20, 2009 Commission meeting. ?Sam's Club/Northstar Annexation, Land Use Amendment/Rezoning ?New Urban High Ridge Land Use Amendment/Rezoning ?Habitat for Humanity Abandonment ?The Arches ?Tuscan Villas Site Plan Time Extension ?Lake Worth Christian School Site Plan Time Extension ?Text items initiated by the City: Pet Care Boarding; & Daycare and Temporary Banners ?The Arches which incorporated the Board's comments Site Plan Time Extension, into the conditions of approval, together with the preexisting conditions and the new condition that this be the last extension granted. The Harbor Cay Site Plan Time Extension had been withdrawn by the applicant and was not heard. It was believed the withdrawal was based upon the understanding that the project would expire. Any road improvements made by residents would have to be coordinated with the owner. 6. Old Business Mr. Lis pointed out the palm trees planted along U.S. 1 had not been maintained for The Arches project, nor had the Palm Cove landscaping. He believed a more realistic approach was necessary to the approvals granted by the Board to ensure the protection of the community. Developers should not have the opportunity to appear before the Board for site plan extensions unless they had fulfilled all of their obligations. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27, 2009 Chair Jaskiewicz suggested the comments made by the Board during the meeting be added to the conditions of approval. Mr. Rumpf would check the status of the conditions of approval required for The Arches. As to Palm Cove, Mr. Rumpf explained the agent had not appeared at the November 18, 2008 City Commission meeting when the item had been addressed. As a result, an additional condition had been added that the applicant submit written acceptance of the conditions of approval. A period of 90 days was given to submit the letter or to install the necessary landscaping improvements along the right-of-way. If the applicant did not comply, the project would expire. It was questioned whether an ordinance would be necessary requiring irrigation and plantings during the site plan extension period. Mr. Rumpf advised an ordinance had been adopted several years ago which specifically granted the Commission the ability to require additional conditions on the base project at the time of site plan extension review. It was inquired whether Mr. Rumpf could provide an update on the Holiday Inn Express which had been brought before the Board several months ago. It appeared nothing had been done at the site, and the roof was exposed. Mr. Rumpf did not have any information available. Chair Jaskiewicz opined the conditions of approval were not being enforced. Mr. Rumpf believed Planning and Development would have to take a more proactive role in ensuring the parties were complying with the conditions of approval. Board comments incorporated into motions were included in the conditions of approval and ultimately the development orders. Code Compliance was reactive, and he believed complaints made by Board members or citizens would trigger action. It was suggested the property be taken care of before an applicant approached the Board for a site plan extension. Mr. Rumpf believed that would require an amendment to the Land Development Regulations. The Commission and the Board had only recently added conditions of approval on landscaping improvements along major rights- of-way on the sites that had been subject to time extension requests. Criteria would likely be needed to create a typical streetscape for vacant parcels or cleared land along a major arterial roadway. It was questioned whether fines were assessed for non-compliance of standards. Mr. Rumpf responded Code Compliance had a system in place. Chair Jaskiewicz suggested Board members attend the Commission meetings to comment on the projects, and inquire about enforcement of the conditions and the timeframe. It was suggested at the time of the first site plan approval, a specific 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27, 2009 timetable be required for landscaping to be installed, whether the development went forward or not. Board comments should be included in the conditions of approval as well as in the minutes, and the conditions should be very specific and contain a time element. It was questioned whether anything could be done to ensure a neater appearance for the fences surrounding project sites. Mr. Rumpf noted Part II of the Code of Ordinances addressed the proper maintenance of property, but was not always specific as to residential, commercial or pending development. Property maintenance regulations had been further expanded to be more comprehensive with regard to improved buildings, beautification, and maintenance of walkways and railings. It was agreed the issues addressed regarding conditions of approval would continue to be pursued. Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all who would be testifying. 7. New Business A. Boynton Beach Cancer Center Zoning Code Variance 1. PROJECT: Boynton Beach Cancer Center (ZNCV 09- 001) AGENT: Richard K. Brooks, Jr. AIA, NCARB OWNER: Boynton Beach Radiation Oncology LOCATION: 2301 Woolbright Road (northwest corner of nd Woolbright Road and SW 22 Street) DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11.H.16.d(19), requiring 32 parking spaces, to provide 26 parking spaces; a variance of 6 parking spaces, to allow an addition to a medical office within a C-1 Office Professional zoning district. B. Boynton Beach Cancer Center Zoning Code Variance 1. PROJECT: Boynton Beach Cancer Center (MSPM 09- 001) 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27, 2009 AGENT: Richard K. Brooks, Jr. AIA, NCARB OWNER: Boynton Beach Radiation Oncology LOCATION: 2301 Woolbright Road (northwest corner of nd Woolbright Road and SW 22 Street) DESCRIPTION Request for major site plan modification approval for an approximately 1,000 square foot, second story medical office addition in the C-1, Office Professional zoning district. Mr. Rumpf requested the Board consider the Zoning Code Variance and Major Site Plan Modification together with separate motions. There was no objection from the Board. Mr. Rumpf presented the requests. The proposed modifications included a 1,000 square foot addition to the second floor. The proposed improvement would comply with all Land Development Regulations except for the parking space requirements. The additional space required five additional parking spaces, for a total of 32 spaces. The 4/10 acre site was built out, with a total of 26 parking spaces. The plans reflected 27 spaces, and it was believed the additional space was used as a turnaround. A variance application had been filed requesting relief from the parking requirements in the amount of six spaces. Submitted in support of the application and hardship was an explanation of the uniqueness of the cancer treatment center and a corresponding parking study conducted by local professional transportation engineers. The equipment to be added governed the patient load of the medical office. Two 1,000 square foot treatment rooms would simultaneously accommodate two patients and two technicians, or the equivalent of four vehicles. The parking regulations would require 10 spaces for the 2,000 square feet. The parking analysis supported this position, noting the maximum accumulated parking resulted in 18 spaces for the existing 5,180 square foot medical office facility. With 100% occupancy and no seasonal adjustment, and with a 15% adjustment factor to allow for orderly turnover of spaces, 21 spaces or 1 space per 246 square feet was needed. The expansion of the project called for 26 parking spaces based on the total square footage. Staff made repeated site visits to observe the parking characteristics and noticed similar activity, with an average of 13 spaces being used, which was less than 50% of the total parking spaces provided on the site. Chair Jaskiewicz noted an instance when 21 spaces had been used. She questioned whether patients and employees could be accommodated. Mr. Rumpf explained the 21 spaces were referenced in the parking study and included parking for employees as well as patients. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27,2009 Based on the analysis contained in the report and the parking study submitted, staff determined a hardship existed based upon the use and operations of the facility, and a parking regulation that did not adequately address deviations in business operations. The variance would be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the ordinance and would not be injurious to the area involved or the public. Staff recommended both the Major Site Plan Modification and variance request be approved, together with the 12 conditions of approval. Richard Brooks, 4800 N. Federal Highway, architect, noted the facility was well utilized and currently over-parked. He would be preparing the plans for the expansion. He noted parking spaces had always been available at the site. Various types of medical facilities had different parking requirements. Surgeons required fewer spaces than general practitioners. The addition would be made to the rear of the building which was bordered by a canal on the north and west sides. He had already submitted a landscaping plan, and he believed the final product would be greatly enhanced. In response to the inquiry of Chair Jaskiewicz, Mr. Brooks estimated there were approximately 10 employees at the facility. Chair Jaskiewicz noted many of the residents in the area had been concerned with radiation emissions and further expansion. She had previously observed parking on the swale areas. Mr. Brooks noted the landscaping would be redistributed to include the street side and swale areas. Chair Jaskiewicz inquired as to the precautions for radiation emissions. Mr. Brooks responded the equipment had been analyzed and protections were incorporated into the structure. A great deal of criteria was required to ensure there were no radiation emissions occurring in the building. The final inspection would be approved by the Center's physicist. Mr. Myott noted a scattered diagram furnished by the equipment's provider evidenced the amount of radiation emitted, and the physicist would specify the shielding requirements for the floor, ceiling and walls to be incorporated into the construction drawings. A building inspector would conduct an inspection to assure tea lead lining, if required. Mr. Brooks noted his client owned the building which was built for this specific use. It was noted if the Board were to approve the request, the applicant would have fewer parking spaces. While this would be suitable for the current use, it would not be suitable for a general or pediatric practice. Mr. Brooks pointed out cancer treatment centers either had two rooms or a maximum of three. Any more than that would constitute a full medical facility. Treatments were provided on a referral basis. Chair Jaskiewicz felt that while the Center was located in an advantageous spot, the site was very small for that particular building. It was suggested a condition be imposed that the variance only be approved for this 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27, 2009 site plan. Even if it were to remain a cancer center, new technology could be formulated, resulting in five or six patients to a treatment room. It was questioned whether there were any licensed traffic engineers to review Kimley- Horn's study. Mr. Rumpf responded there were no qualified parking experts on staff. Studies usually received by staff had more to do with traffic than parking. Transportation studies were usually reviewed by Mr. Livergood, a member of the Technical Application Review Team (TART). It was suggested developers making application similar to the current request attend a methodology meeting and pay for the cost of hiring a third-party consultant. This would assist staff and facilitate the approval process. Mr. Rumpf indicated staff had discussed including the suggestion in the new Land Development Regulations. It was noted, if the request were to be approved, a distinction should be made in that the Board would be allowing the project to provide six fewer parking spaces based on the medical use proposed and the increased square footage. Mr. Rumpf stressed the site had been built out and would now be intensified. While a unique condition existed, the parking variance would become null and void. As such, either a portion of the building not in use should be closed down or parking spaces added. Highlights of the Board's discussion included: ?Another parking study should be made. ?While the use was less intense, the impact on the neighborhood should be taken into consideration. ?Parking requirements for any subsequent tenant or owner must conform to the current parking study or a subsequent completed parking or use analysis. ?Concerns remained regarding radiation emissions, traffic, parking and the possibility the doctors could relocate. ?Current occupancy usage should be given consideration. ?Future enforcement should be considered. Mr. Rumpf pointed out the Board's support was based upon the data analysis provided. A subsequent use would have to be similar in intensity, as set forth in a prior analysis, 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27, 2009 and confirmed by a current parking and use analysis. Based upon the characteristics of the building, Mr. Rumpf did not believe it was likely another smaller oncology type clinic or similar use would desire that type of building. It was questioned whether the City's Business Tax Receipt required parking and other requirements to be met by a new medical profession. Mr. Rumpf advised the Business Tax Division of the Development Department reviewed each and every Business Tax Certificate applied for or renewed. Chair Jaskiewicz suggested a motion be made, allowing an addition to a medical office within the C1 Professional district for this specific use only. Motion Mr. Lis moved to approve the request to grant the variance of six parking spaces, from 32 to 26 spaces, to allow the second floor addition of an individual cancer treatment room to an existing medical building within the C-1 Office Professional zoning district for the Boynton Beach Cancer Center, and that any subsequent purchaser or any subsequent user of that facility be required to meet the Parking Code regulations applicable to their particular use in the future. Ms. Grcevik seconded the motion. Mr. Barnes believed a future physician should have the ability to have another traffic study conducted. Mr. Saberson pointed out, if the Code in effect for a subsequent user with the same type of use required 32 parking spaces, the motion stated by Mr. Lis reflected the user would be required to have 32 spaces, even if he or she could meet the same parking demand required for this particular practice. The subsequent user should be given an option to meet the same parking demand required for this particular practice, or comply with the Parking Code requirements in effect for that use. Motion Mr. Lis moved to amend his motion to include Mr. Saberson's comments. Ms. Grcevik seconded the motion to amend. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and the public hearing was closed. Vote The motion as amended passed unanimously. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27, 2009 Motion Mr. Lis moved to approve the Site Plan Modification proposed for approximately 1,000 square feet to add a second treatment room to the facility subject to the 12 conditions of approval. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed unanimously. B. The Learning Place II Site Plan Time Extension 1. PROJECT: The Learning Place II (SPTE 09-003) AGENT: Scott Freeland and Catherine Freeland OWNER: Scott Freeland and Catherine Freeland LOCATION: 8518 Lawrence Road, immediately south of Citrus Grove Elementary School and the LWDD L-21 Canal DESCRIPTION: Request for a third one-year time extension for the new site plan and conditional use (COUS 04-008) approved on October 18, 2005, thereby further extending site plan approval from October 18, 2008 to October 18, 2009. Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented the request. The site consisted of 8.39 acres in a single-family residential R-1-AAB zoning district and was approved for a conditional use for a 7,800 square foot daycare center. The site plan was originally approved by the City Commission on October 18, 2005, subject to 41 conditions of approval. If the request for an extension were approved, the site plan, including concurrency approval, would be extended to October 18, 2009. Construction plans had been submitted and were in the building review process. Revisions were required to comply with all conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval with one condition, that the site plan time extension would still be subject to the conditions of approval from all previous applications. th Dave Beasley, 2385 SW 13 Terrace, noted the project was proceeding and clearing permits were in place. Mr. Freeland had been working with the South Florida Water Management District regarding clearing on the right-of-way. Mr. Freeland obtained a sign permit, and a temporary sign had been installed. Technical issues remained, but 90% of the comments had been addressed. Chair Jaskiewicz believed the need existed for the Learning Center regardless of current economic conditions. She commented on the attractiveness of the exterior of the building, and Mr. Beasley assured the exterior had not changed. 9 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27, 2009 Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward and the public hearing was closed. Motion Mr. Barnes moved approval of the request for a third one-year time extension for the new site plan and conditional use approved on October 18, 2005, thereby further extending the site plan approval from October 18, 2008 to October 18, 2009, inclusive of all previous conditions. Mr. Lis seconded the motion that passed unanimously. C. Chow Hut Site Plan Time Extension 1. PROJECT: Chow Hut (SPTE 09-004) AGENT: Douglas Peters OWNER: Douglas Peters LOCATION: 558 Gateway Boulevard DESCRIPTION: Request for a third one-year site plan time extension for the major site plan modification (05-007) approved on November 1, 2005, thereby further extending site plan approval from November 1, 2008 to November 1, 2009. Ms. Zeitler presented the request. Chow Hut was located on the south side of Gateway Boulevard west of Federal Highway on .18 acres in a Neighborhood Commercial C-2 zoning district. It was approved for a take-out restaurant with a maximum of 32 outdoor seats. The site plan was approved by the City Commission subject to 28 conditions of approval. If the request for an extension were approved, the expiration of the site plan would be extended to November 1, 2009. The applicant indicated that after reviewing and modifying the plans, the project was moving forward and finalized plans had been submitted to the Health Department. The applicant anticipated submitting plans to the City for site permits in early 2009. Staff recommended approval with one condition, that the site plan time extension would still be subject to the original conditions of approval. Douglas Peters, 6023 Le Lac Road, owner of Chow Hut, advised the project was moving forward and stamped, completed, plans approved by the Health Department had been secured. He was awaiting the architect's approval. The property had always been maintained and no violations had ever been issued against the property. This would be his final request for an extension. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the public hearing. No one came forward, and the public 10 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida January 27,2009 hearing was closed. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the Chow Hut one-year site plan extension subject to all previous comments. Mr. Saberson seconded the motion that passed unanimously. 8. Other None 9. Comments by members Chair Jaskiewicz discussed a brochure provided by Mr. Rumpf monthly to the Board members. The brochure included an article regarding the ideal Planning Commission. She believed the Board met or exceeded the expectations set forth in the article. She thanked the Board members for renewing their applications to continue on the Board. 10. Adjournment There being no further business to discuss, the meeting properly adjourned at 7:57 p.m. J&p-~ a Stephanie D. Kahn Recording Secretary 012808 - 11