Loading...
Minutes 06-22-10 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FL., ON TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2010 AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT Matthew Barnes, Vice Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Sharon Grcevic Director Shirley Jaskewicz Eric Johnson, Planner Candace Killian Kathleen Zeitler, Planner Steve Myott Jamila Alexander, Assistant City Warren Timm Attorney Leah Foertsch, Alternate ABSENT Roger Saberson, Chair 1. Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Barnes called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. and acted as Chair in Mr. Saberson’s absence. Ms. Jaskiewicz led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Mr. Barnes introduced the members of the Board. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the agenda. Ms. Killian seconded the motion that carried unanimously. 4. Approval of Minutes Ms. Grcevic requested a correction to the advisory board list to indicate that she is a broker/owner of a real estate company. Motion Ms. Grcevic moved to approve. Ms. Foertsch seconded the motion that carried unanimously. 5. Communications and Announcements – Report from Planning and Zoning Director Mike Rumpf provided an update of items that were considered by the Planning and Development Board. The following are items approved by the City Commission on June 1, 2010: 1 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL June 22, 2010 Timeless Life Care Items including a Mixed Use project on South Federal Highway (formerly known as Boynton Lofts) included a Zoning Code variance for parking spaces, conditional use, new site plan (to replace the old site plan) and rezoning Indoor Athletic Use for Instruction and Training Code Review – City Initiated – Second Reading The following are items approved by the City Commission on June 15, 2010: Conditional Use for Telecommunications Equipment at the Renaissance Commons Building on rooftop Low Voltage Fences (Electrified Fences) for Security Purposes in the M-1 and PID Zoning Districts – City Initiated – First Reading 6. Old Business: (Tabled at the May 25, 2010 Planning & Development Board meeting and the June 15, 2010 City Commission meeting) Jamila Alexander administered the oath to all who would testify in these proceedings. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to take it off the table. Mr. Timm seconded the motion that carried unanimously. A.1. 3416 South Lake Drive (Jaffe Variance), (ZNCV 10-006), Zoning Variance – 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 18 feet and a front yard setback of 7 feet Applicant: Dr. Steven D. Jaffe 2. 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 20 feet and a rear yard setback of 0 feet for a proposed carport accessory to a single- family residence within the R-1-AAB Single-family Residential Zoning District Applicant: Dr. Steven D. Jaffe Kathleen Zeitler made the presentation reporting that this property is in Lake Eden Subdivision, abutting the LWDD E-4 Canal to the east. In 1973, this property was developed as a one-story single-family residence with an attached two-car garage. 2 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL June 22, 2010 The property also contains a swimming pool and a new freestanding three-car garage. In 2008, the applicant was granted variances to the front and rear setbacks to construct that garage with reduced setbacks of 14 feet in the front yard and two feet in the rear yard. The applicant is now proposing a freestanding open carport to use for boat storage next to the existing three-car garage. The carport dimensions are a width of 12 feet, a length of 24 to 26 feet which is approximately 288 to 312 total square feet and a height of seven (7) to eight (8) feet. This carport would be anchored into an existing concrete slab. The applicant has no specifications at this time since he has not yet decided which company where he will buy the carport from. The applicant understands that if the variance requests are granted, the Building Code will require the carport to meet wind loads of 140 miles per hour. Staff reviewed the requested variances focusing on the applicant’s responses to the variance criteria. The zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the Board finds compliance with all the stated criteria and at this time, only some of the criteria have been met. The property includes a residence with an attached two-car garage, a pool and a detached three-car garage. This represents reasonable use of a parcel zoned for single-family homes. A hardship clearly does not exist in this case because the situation was created by the applicant’s desire to have multiple accessory structures on a small lot that is already built out. The variance request could be avoided by either covering the boat trailer with a tarp or storing the boat trailer off site at a storage facility. Based upon these findings, staff denied this request. However, staff offers the following information for consideration: ? While the proposed carport is to be located seven (7) feet from the front property line, South Lake Drive is a local street with 60 feet of right-of-way width consisting of 20 feet of asphalt and 20 feet of swale on each side. There are no sidewalks in the Lake Eden neighborhood; therefore, the proposed carport would be located a total of 27 feet from the edge of the asphalt roadway which would maintain adequate space and views along South Lake Drive. ? The proposed carport is to be located on the rear property line; however, the subject property abuts a 150 foot wide canal right-of-way to the rear (east) which provides greater than typical separation between single-family dwellings and would prevent any negative impacts on adjacent properties to the east. ? The carport for boat trailer storage would be located on the north edge of the property. There are no abutting residences to the north. Only Lake Worth Drainage District (LWDD) right-of-way abuts the property thereby preventing any impacts of the proposed carport on adjacent properties to the north. 3 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL June 22, 2010 ? The location of the proposed carport would not block the views of motorists backing out of their driveways or other driveways along South Lake Drive as the approximate length of driveways is 45 feet and most residences have circular drives in addition to the driveway in front of their garages. ? The proposed carport would not be visible from the right-of-way or adjacent properties due to hedges along the front property line and some smaller hedges within the LWDD canal right-of-way or near the rear property line around the edge of the existing slab. ? Staff has received no letters or phone calls of objection regarding the requested setback variances. Staff recommends two conditions of approval if the Board decides to approve the variance request. They are as follows: 1. The carport shall be required to be constructed as an addition to the existing three-car garage with the same architecture, building materials and building colors so that it is more compatible with the existing accessory structures in the area; and 2. The plans submitted for building permit shall reflect no carport overhang on the LWDD E-4 Canal right-of-way or shall include submission of a letter authorizing such overhang from the LWDD. Ms. Jaskiewicz inquired if staff discussed with the applicant the two conditions of approval as an alternate to the carport presented. Ms. Zeitler responded that there had been no discussion; however, the applicant was aware of the conditions since the staff report was sent to him. In response to Mr. Timm, Ms. Zeitler said she did not know if the applicant agreed to the two conditions of approval. Mr. Barnes asked if a variance had been granted for the one carport that exists in the neighborhood. Ms. Zeitler responded that she had not located any variances in the records for carports in that area. While there were no letters of objection received by staff, neither were there any letters of support of this variance request received by staff. Dr. Steven Jaffe, applicant, surgeon at Bethesda Memorial Hospital, said some of the data provided was correct and some of it was incorrect. The home is a 1,500 square foot, three bedroom, two-bath home with a one-car garage. The garage measures 15 feet by 19 feet. With regard to an earlier comment about the tennis court, Dr. Jaffe and LWDD had an agreement to remove the tennis court because of a federal guideline that mandated access to their canal. 4 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL June 22, 2010 With regard to the hedge that is only half-grown, Dr. Jaffe and LWDD are debating when they will complete fencing the area. Once the fencing is supplied, Dr. Jaffe will install hedges leaving a 14 foot gate accessible to LWDD. There are a number of steel carports and tarp carports in the area and Dr. Jaffe offered to provide photos if necessary. Ms. Jaskiewicz referred to the conditions of approval; namely, the condition that requires the carport shall be required to be constructed as an addition to the existing three-car garage with the same architecture, building materials and building colors so that it is more compatible with the existing accessory structures in the area and asked if the applicant had considered this condition. Dr. Jaffe said the price would be incredible. He explained the hedges eventually would get as high as the hedges surrounding the property. With respect to constructing another carport, Dr. Jaffe felt he should have made a 4½-car garage because the amount of money that is necessary for the carport is exorbitant. He feels his property may be more difficult to sell in the future with a permanent carport rather than one that could be moved or removed. Ms. Jaskiewicz explained that in going over the bridge, the structure would be very visible and it would not aesthetically complement the area. Dr. Jaffe said the hedges have only been in place for six months and he believes that within a year, they will probably be as high as the front hedges. Dr. Jaffe reminded the members of the issue he brought up earlier about the debate that is ongoing with LWDD regarding who will pay for the fencing. If necessary, he agreed to pay for the fence and gate. Considering there is a 60 or 70 foot breach between the canal and the existing hedge, Dr. Jaffe would need only 14 feet for a movable gate. He would place green interwoven slats to block any view of the structure. The existing hedges are eight feet or higher. Mr. Barnes noted the way staff worded the condition of approval. He questioned what staff meant by the wording. Ms. Zeitler explained that it would be open and tied into the garage, built with the same materials. Dr. Jaffe said the condition of approval is not acceptable to him. The cost of that carport would be enormous. A steel carport is approximately $1,500. He believes the roof alone would probably cost $20,000 and would far exceed the cost of a steel carport which would not be visible within a year because of the hedges. Mr. Myott felt this was a case of trying to squeeze too many structures on the lot. It is very visible and it is a great-looking spot. He would not support it with a pre- fabricated carport. It is a creative idea to tie it into the existing structure, but it is very prominent and it does not go with the rest of the house. Ms. Grcevic inquired if there was enough room on that spot to put in a pool. Ms. Zeitler explained that there is already a pool between the freestanding garage and the house. Ms. Grcevic questioned whether they could build anything else in that area without requiring a variance. The response was negative. Ms. Zeitler said a 5 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL June 22, 2010 slab could be installed and could be used for a basketball court or a patio, but there is not enough room for a structure. When asked if he planned to use this carport for boat storage, Dr. Jaffe responded affirmatively. It was pointed out to him that there would be seven feet between the hedge and the front of the area and he was questioned how a boat would fit in this area. Dr. Jaffe said he had a 20 foot bass boat. He is confident he could park a boat in this area. Ms. Killian asked how the metal structure compared to the building structure. Dr. Jaffe said it would be half the size of the building structure. He felt the structure depicted was 20 feet or larger. The steel structure would be half that size. Ms. Killian questioned if there were any options for the type of structure. Dr. Jaffe made this inquiry, but learned that it would not pass the Palm Beach County wind loads. Dr. Jaffe said he received a quote of almost $5,000 for a retractable awning; however, it had to be attached to the slab and that makes it a permanent structure. Mr. Barnes opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this application. Mr. Barnes closed the public hearing. Ms. Jaskiewicz would support the variance if the conditions of approval were included. Having seen this site, she does not believe a metal carport would enhance this area. Mr. Myott felt it might be helpful to work out the issues with Lake Worth Drainage District, install the hedge and then come back. Dr. Jaffe said the tennis court has been down for two years and he is still waiting for LWDD to come and see the property and put up the fence. Mr. Myott felt that if the hedge were established, it could be well hidden; however, it would not be well hidden at this point and there is no assurance it will be hidden. Dr. Jaffe said the hedges around the slab have been in place for six months and they could extend to the front; however, they do not extend to the front at this time. Dr. Jaffe said he would have no problem extending those hedges if an approval were to be based on that issue. Mr. Myott said if everything were in place, he might consider this request differently. Mr. Myott will not support this application. Mr. Barnes agreed with Ms. Jaskiewicz that Dr. Jaffe had an odd lot and therefore, it meets the criteria for a weird shaped lot. In his opinion, Dr. Jaffe’s application met the criteria for a, b, c, d, and e. He does not feel the application meets the criteria for “f”. Mr. Barnes drove through the area and saw the other carport in the neighborhood which is compatible with the development pattern in the area. He would support the variance if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval. 6 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL June 22, 2010 Mr. Myott inquired why Dr. Jaffe would not use a tube steel awning with a terracotta canvass. Dr. Jaffe responded that if he was away when a hurricane came, it would not meet Code. Ms. Grcevic inquired about the number of other people in the neighborhood that have campers and boats. Dr. Jaffe’s response was, “everybody”. Ms. Grcevic was not pleased with the aesthetics of this proposed carport; however, she would support it. She would like to see him make aesthetic improvements to buffer it from the neighborhood. Mr. Barnes reminded the Board members that they could add conditions to an approval. He suggested that the motion include another condition or a replacement condition which addresses hedges. Ms. Grcevic explained that if he invested the money in a nicer carport, he would get his money back at the time of sale. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the variance with the conditions of approval as noted, Conditions 1 and 2 included, under those circumstances. Mr. Myott seconded the motion. Ms. Grcevic asked for clarification of the conditions. Mr. Barnes explained the conditions are worded in the staff report, Exhibit E. Attorney Alexander reminded the members that two motions would be required since there were two requests. Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the variance, taking into consideration the 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 18 feet and a front yard setback of 7 feet and including Conditions of Approval in Exhibit E. Mr. Myott seconded the motion which carried 5-2. (Ms. Grcevic and Ms. Killian dissented.) Motion Ms. Jaskiewicz moved to approve the 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 20 feet and a rear yard setback of 0 feet for a proposed carport accessory to a single-family residence within the R-1-AAB Single-family Residential Zoning District including Conditions of Approval as noted in Exhibit E. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that carried 5-2. (Ms. Grcevic and Ms. Killian dissented.) 7 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL June 22, 2010 Ms. Jaskiewicz asked to be excused at 7:26 p.m. to visit her daughter in the hospital. Ms. Jaskiewicz inquired why the City is still giving incentives for affordable housing. Eric Johnson, Planner, reported that the language in the Code has not been changed. A more comprehensive review would be in order once the LDR rewrite is complete. Amendments could be made at that time. 7. New Business: B.1. Land Development Regulations – Rewrite Group 8, (CDRV 07- 004), Code Review – Request approval of a portion of Group 8 deliverable, pursuant to the LDR Rewrite Work Schedule, including: Chapter 1, Article I. General Provisions; Chapter 1, Article III. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan; Chapter 1, Article IV. Redevelopment Plans; Chapter 1, Article V. Housing Initiatives; Chapter 1, Article VI. Concurrency Management System; and amendment to Chapter 2, Article II. Planning and Zoning Division Services to add Modification to Development Order provisions; and an amendment to Chapter 3, Article V. Supplemental Regulations to add Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) provisions. Eric Johnson presented a portion of Group 8 which is the final portion of the rewrite. A time schedule is now involved due to the approach of the end of the fiscal year and the money that will be spent on this rewrite. He requested a recommendation from the Board so that he will be able to bring forth the second portion of Group 8 next month. In August, the entire new LDRs will be brought to the Board in final version. Group 8 changes Chapters 1, 1.5 and Chapter 20. This will also amend previously approved portions of the proposed Code; namely Chapter 2, Article II and Chapter 3, Article V. The existing Code is now 23 chapters long. It will be condensed into four chapters with multiple articles. Chapter 1 is the General Administration portion of the Land Development Regulations. Chapter 2 is all of the land development processes and Chapter 3 is the zoning chapter. The objectives of the project remain the same which is to preserve the initial work efforts and maximize user friendliness of the Code. Article I is Chapter 1 of the existing Code which is comprised of purpose and intent, catch lines and penalties. Some important aspects of penalties are the General Penalties, Imprisonment and Stoppage of Work. Article III is the Code’s relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. This would amend Chapter 1.5, Section 7 of the existing Code. This is meant to have a formal 8 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL June 22, 2010 connection between the LDR and the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is comprised of different elements such as the Future Land Use Element, Housing, Utilities, Recreation and Open Space, etc. Article IV contains redevelopment plans. Four redevelopment plans have been approved by the City Commission. They are the Federal Highway Corridor Redevelopment Plan, the Heart of Boynton, the Ocean District and the Downtown Vision and Master Plan. Currently, the LDR mentions only the Federal Highway Redevelopment Plan. It makes sense to include the other redevelopment plans. This will assist staff to take into consideration each Plan’s recommendations or guidelines during reviews. Article V is the Housing Initiatives. Not much of this information has been changed. Two entries were found under HIP – the Art in Public Places fee exemption and the expedited review for projects that qualify. Article VI – Concurrency Management System – These are the regulations that require that all infrastructure be in place by the time of completion of the project. This is technical information; however, concurrency looks to make sure that roadways, potable water, sanitary sewers, solid waste, drainage, park facilities, and school facilities are all available to the development coming in. Staff found four findings that will be used to make a determination that a project complies with concurrency. The Concurrency Review Board, mentioned in the old Code, was never created and has been removed from the new Code. Staff has streamlined 33 different categories of development orders. Mr. Johnson advised that staff is proposing language to modify a development order. Kathy Zeitler reported that Chapter 10, Wireless Communications Facilities, of the LDRs has been totally rewritten and updated. There is new legislation since the current ordinance was written in 1996 that requires cities to allow them in more areas. There are also technology differences because towers do not need to be as tall. User-friendliness of the tower ordinance has been increased. Tables were included for the approval process, setbacks and the allowed heights. The new regulations are based on the different types such as detached or freestanding, concealed or not, the zoning district where it is located and the impacts it would have on adjacent land uses as well as the purpose and intent. Ms. Zeitler explained that staff made the regulations more compliant with the legislation and allowed it in more zoning districts with restrictions and proper site standards for residential compatibility. A chart showing the zoning districts has been included. The mitigation of existing towers has been included into the ordinance in order to reduce non-conformance. There is also a provision whereby they must reserve space on their structure for City equipment for Police and Fire emergency services. The setbacks have been increased from residential uses based on the type of wireless communication facilities, the zoning district in which it is located and the height. The City has maintained the current separation distance 9 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL June 22, 2010 between freestanding towers of 750 feet and added new maximum height based on type and building height of the zoning district. Staff has clarified response for landscape maintenance costs. Many of the existing towers have buffering that has died because of lack of water and maintenance. It is usually the responsibility of the tower owner, not the property owner. Staff is working on this issue to get these structures into compliance and spell out responsibilities. On high security buildings such as the water plants, landscape contractors maintain the properties. On those properties, the tower provider would be required to reimburse the City on an annual basis for landscape maintenance costs. Staff has also kept the same language that the City has the right to inspect these facilities for structural and electrical especially after storms. With the presentation concluded, Mr. Timm asked if the wireless standards were reviewed by anyone in the wireless industry and what was there impression. Ms. Zeitler advised that the draft was presented to City staff and the industry. There was a lot of good feedback which was considered and resulted in revisions. When staff felt they had a final draft, it was reviewed by Legal for input and revisions. It has been well scrutinized. Mr. Myott asked if the new technology means there will be more and more antennas. Ms. Zeitler reported that no new towers have come into the City. There have been some additional co-locations on existing towers in the last couple of years and there is some in-fill with rooftop antennas which are stealth facilities. There is a new tower proposed in the County which is on City property and has been approved by the City Commission. Ms. Zeitler said it is her opinion that the technology is changing whereby the industry will not need the 150 foot height anymore. Mr. Barnes commended staff for the great job they have done on this ordinance. Motion Mr. Myott moved to recommend the approval to continue on with the process of the LDR Rewrite and the inclusion of supplemental regulations to add the Wireless Communication Facilities provisions. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion that carried 6-0. 8. Other None 9. Comments by Members None 10 Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, FL lune 22, 2010 10. Adjournment Motion Mr. Myott moved to adjourn. Mr. Timm seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting properly adjourned at 7:53 p.m. ~.Yn. p~ Unet M. Prainito, MMC City Clerk Transcribed from One (1) Recording 6/23/10 6/23/10 11