Loading...
Minutes 11-23-99 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS~ C~TY HALL~ BOYNTON BEACH~ FLOR[DA ON TUESDAYt NOVEMBER 23~ 1999 ~ 7:00 P,M. PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman 3. Stanley DubS, Vice Chairman Pat Frazier Mike Friedland Woodrow Hay Steve Myott Larry Finkelstein, Alternate ABSENT Maurice Rosenstock Mike CirulIo, Assistant Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zor Nancy Byrne, Acting Director of Hanna Matras, Economic Rese Lusia Galav, Se 1, Pled e of Alle lance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and led the Pledge of Allegiance t, 2. Introduction of the Board Chairman Wische introduced the board members, Assistant City Attorney Cirullo, Mike RumpI Hanna Matras, Nancy Byrne and Janet Prainito. / 3. ~roval Motion Vice Chairman Dub~ moved to move up the High Ridge Properties application (Item 7.B.: applications (Items 7.A.7 and 7.A.8) before hearing the Lowe's requests. Mr. Friedland seco that carried unanimously. Motion Vice Chairman Dub6 moved that the board hear Items 7.A.9 (Amendment to the Comprehen Land Use Map and rezoning) and 7.B.1 (Master Plan Modification) beCause if these two applic approved~ the remainder of the Lowe requests would be moot. Mr. Friedland seconded carried unanimously. Motion Vice Chairman Dub~ moved to approve the amended agenda. Mr. Friedland seconded the m( unanimOusly. 4. ~inutes Motion Mr; Finkelstein moved to approve the minutes. unanimously. Vice Chairman Dub~ seconded the mot 1 Attorney ng Director ,,velOpment rch Analyst Dr Planner the Flag. Lusia Galav, ,and Carsrud ed the motion ce Plan Future ions were not motion that n that carried ~n that carried MEETING MINUTES PLANNZNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA NOVEMBER~ 23~ 1999 5. C~C_C_Communications and Announcements. A. Pianninq and Zonina Report 1) Final dispus~on of the November 9, 1999 Planninq and Develol meetin, a enda items Mr. Rumpf reported the following City Commission action on items reviewed by the board: · The applicant withdrew the site plan review for Quantum - Lot 7 the day of the meE They have found an alternative site. · Melear PUD - Master Plan Modification - Approved · Palm Walk ACLF - Time Extension, Conditional Use and Concurrency - Approve 6. Old Business None 7. New Business: Chairman Wische announced that anyone wishing to speak on an,/of the agenda items wot sworn in. Attorney Cirullo administered the oath to all that would testify during the proceedings. C. SITE pLANS MajOr Site Plan Modiflcatiop 1. PRO3ECT NAME: HTGH R/DGE PROPERTIES AGENT: Tom Kasischke- Seminole Bay Land Comp~ APPLICANT: Clark Construction Service, Inc. OWNER: Mark Fender LOCAT/ON: 2900 High Ridge Road DESCRIPT[ON: Request to amend the approved site plan v of attached one-story, 35,820 warehouse/Office building to the existing foOt warehouse/office building. ~nd improvements. Total building area ~s mo square feet, and parking spaces increase( Tom Kasischke~ seminole Bay Land Company, 2646 NE 3~ Street, BovntOn Beach, podium and announced that the applicant agreed With all of the staff conditions of appro¥~ CHAIRMAN WISCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBI TC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT ~ SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION. )ment Board. lng, d have to be ly th the addition square foot 35,634 square related site ~sed to 71,454 to 1~. ~pproached the 40 WISHED TO MEE'I'ZNGIVLTNUTES pLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH~FLOR/DA NOVEMBER 23, 1999 M~otion rove High Ridge Properties, 2900 High Ridge Road request ~c~ amend the Mr. Fdedland moved that we .a,p..p. ............. 35 820 sauare foot warehouse/office; building to ' lan with the aoo~oon or a~acneu u.,~-~v, y, , ~. · ~- -~^~' ~,,"~ n~ area approved site p ~ ,-~ ~,,~.~ ~ related site lmprovemenL~. , u~, ~,,~ ~ . e existing 35,634 square foot warenouse/u,,,~= ...... ,,? ~nd ~ ~_ ~o .,,~+ to all staff comfnents. Vice ~increase-d to 71,454 square feet, and parking spaces increaseu Chairman Dub& seconded the motion that carried unanimousIy. CHAIRMAN W~SCNE ACKNOWLEDGED THE ARRIVAL OF COMMISSIONER RON WEILAND. hat the Planning & Development Board makes recommendations to the City Attorne. Cirullo announced t ...... -~.~^.~ it i~ r mmen~ed that the Comml~/~ion. The City Commission must conr~rm mese acoons applicants attend the City Commission meeting. A. PUBLZC HEARZNG Conditional Use 1, PRO3ECT NAME: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: F.H, FOSTER OZL _loseph 3. Verdone, Carlton Fields F.H. Foster Oil Corporation 319 Industrial Avenue Request for conditional use approval to allo~ to fuel dispensers and equipment as require( together with the addition of three (3) fuel improve convenience and drculation, and la parking lot improvements. modifications by State law, ~ispensers to dscaping and applicant has AGENT: OWNER: Motion ' oved that we approve the request for conditional use approval.t? ailo~v modifications V~ C.ha,l[man Dube m~ ~ ........ ~ ~ .e~uired by State law together with the addition of three (3) fuel to tuel alspensers ana ~quq~,,,=,,~ ~ · ~ - dispensers to improve convenience and Circulation, and landscaping and parking lot improv ments, subject to all staff conditions on Exhibit"C" which includes the Palm Beach County Traffic Perform; nce Standards. Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion that carried unanimously. CHAIRMAN WISCHE ANNOUNCED THE ARRIVAL OF MAYOR JERRY BROENING, 7, PROJECT NAME: CARSRUD Harry Risley, Risley Development & Desi n Corporation Dale Carsrud loseph 3. Verdone, Tequesta, Florida~ approached the podium and announced that th~ reviewed ail of the staff conditiOns of approval and agreed with them, CHAIRMAN VCLSCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON TH~S APPLiCATION, Mr. Myott asked Mr. Verdone if truckS would be fUeled at this location. Mr. Verdone respond I affirmatively and advised that this is a wholesale fuel distributor that loads large truckS that serve'the ricultUrat and construction communities. There would be no retail sales at this location, MEE'I'/NG MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH; FLOR/DA NOVEMBER 23~ 1999 LoCAT[ON: Southwest corner of N.E. 7tn Street and N.E. 8~ Avenue. DESCRIPT[ON: Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Sectior~ 5(D)(2)(a) requiring a minimum ~ of 25 feet, to allow a 10 foot side setback variance, or a side setback of :15 feet to construct a single-family dwelling. ched the odium and advised that at the gate ~Dale Carsrud, 9510 NW 82n° Stre. etr ~Tam. ar ,a?.~a~pfpnrr°ta~e eas en~ of 30' and aside setba!k on the .8.m · ' here is a trent s~Lu~,..v. ~.,- -- t . approaches on the original plat t ........... ~='--+~=ck is renuired. This would t:ons~deraoty S~reet side (north) of 15'. Planning tk/_onlng aovise~ L,~ ~ ~ ...... reduce the construction area for a single-family home. · lats have historic setback documentation ane ciimensions. Over the years, theHr' Rum. pl. exp!a,neC~coee nas I~een amuuucutha~t-s~°~m~ e~"P'ao,,~ -~he". are no longer applicable. The setbacks are ',ntende~ to provide' uniformity along the street fronts. The setbacks that are oriented north set the tone. . reviewed for hardship as well as impact. ~n this case, the side s~tback would [qr. Rumpf said vada. nc.e.s, are, 2. ~-bere is a so a un que parce to the immediate west tli.at flanks t.h.e produce the umque ou!l.o ng.l.oca .... ¢ ~k~ ,r~e,h, Th s parcel is not developable ane is currently property on what woula De tne rear slu~ u, ~,,~ ~ ,-~ .-~. vacant. However, the property next to it could be developed with it. At the present time, there is nothing opposite that building to compare it to, If the lot were to be developed, it would be a side that would be down to 7~/z'. There is now a setback in excess of 20' to 25'. Chairman Wische announced that staff had recommended eenial of the request. In response to Ms. Frazier, Mr. Carsrud said he needs a building area of 42' x 85'. The request is to have a idth s rice 37' is very narrow for a single-family home. Mr. Carsrud said he F oposes 2,300 larger area in w . .............. ~ thoumht he could build the house he war ed. He didnt square feet under air. ~e sale ne rounu tu~ o,~o ~,,,~ = ~ealize there would be a 25' side setback. When. Hr. IVlyott asked if the house had already been designed, Hr. Carsrud said he asked t e architect to design' the house to fit on the lot. This is a custom design that would fit his furniture and pr( ,ide the space he needs. ~n response to Vice Chairman DubA, Mr. Carsrud advised that he purchased the lot in either ~pril or Hay of this year. Vice Chairman Dub~ pointed out that'in considering a variance, one of the criteria s the hardship that exists. Nothing has changed since Hr. Carsrud purchased the property. Therefore, Vice :hairman Dub~ feels Mr. Carsrud did not investigate thoroughly enough to know these setbacks were requ] ed. Mr. Friedland asked Hr. Carsrud if he would be able to put another home on this parcel if t~ board denied his request. Mr. Carsrud said he plans to develop the property because he likes the area. Carsrud said that if the board were not willing to give him a :10' variance, he would like to have at least 5'. Chairman Wische said the board was required to address only the present agenda item. idtb of the right-of-way adjacent to this property on the north side~ versus the eas~ Mr. Mott referred to the w .......... ,~,~ ~k ...... ,, ar a is extra wide in this area. He asked Mr. Rumpf if staff considered that fact. Mr. Rumpf said it is relative to the built environment along the right-of-way. CHAIRMAN WISCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC NEARING. MEETZNG MzNUTES PLANN.rNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACHf FLOR/DA NOVEMBER 23~ 1999 eman n the audience approached the podium and reported that he owns property sligl A gent ......... ve the area and he would like t¢ see that happen. I~e ~ this location. A new nome wou~u ,,,,p,v build a house in this area and will probably ask for the same setbackS being requested, 3eanne Heavilin, 734 NE 9m Avenue, is familiar with Risley Development and she would like to ha' in the neighborhood. However, she has concerns about drainage. At the present time, there is of vacant land that serves as retention. She checked the tax rolls and learned that there are a ~ rx 91 vacant lotS with an average s ze 50 130'. This amounts to approximately 13 acres of vac four-block area. Future development will impact drainage and she ~equested that the board kee before granting variances. Motion. Vice Chairman Dub~ moved to deny the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Sectk requiring a minimum s_ide (corner lot) setback_ of 25 feet, to allow a 10-foot side setback varia setback of 15 feet to construct a single-family dwelling. In Vice Chairman Dub~'s opinion, a not eXist. Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion that carried 6-1. (Mr. Friedland dissented.) 8. PRO3ECT NAME: CAR~RUD AGENT: Harr~ Risley, Risley DeveIopment& Design OWNER: Dale Carsrud LOCAT[ON: Southwest corner of N.E 7th Street and DESCR~PT[ON: Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Seal requiring a minimum rear setback of 25 feel foot rear setback variance, or a rear setba( construct a single-family dwelling. CHAIRMAN WISCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLiCATiON. There were no additional comments from staff or the board members. :ly south of ould like to ~ this house ~ great deal proximately ant land in a ) this in mind 1 5(D)(2)(a) ce. or a side ~rdship does :orporation 8m Avenue. 5(D)(2)(a) to allow a 10 K of 15 feet to tHO WISHED MOtion · - ' ved to den the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5(D)(2)(a) Vice .C. halr_m~:n_,D~.u.b~ ~m~o~ setback ~Y25 feet, to alloW a 10 foot rear setback variance, or atear setback of requiring a 15 feet to construct a single-family dwelling. Mr~ Myott felt this was not a standard size lot and therefore, a hardship exists. THE MOT[ON DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Motio~ rove the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5(D~(2)(a) requiring Mr. Finkelste n moved to app ........ ,...-,~ ....nr ~ rear setback of 15 feet to a minimum rear setback of 25 feet, to allow a zu roo~ rear se~u~ ~o,,~, ,~, .... , f construct a single-family dwelling for the project name of Carsrud, owner Dale Carsrud, sot ~hwest corner o NE 7 Street and NE 8th Avenue. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that carried 6-1. (Vice ~hairman Dub~ dissented.) 5 MEET/NG MTNUTES PLANNTNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR/DA NOVEMBER 23~1999 L~ nd Use Plan Amendment/Rezoninq PROJECT NAME: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATiON: DESCRIPTION: LOWE'S HOME CENTER Robert E. Basehart, Basehart Consulting, Inc. Woolbright Partners, [nc, Southwest corner 1-95 and Woolbright Road Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan F~ Use Map from "Industrial" to "Local Retail Cot and rezone from Planned Industrial Developnr (PID) to Community Commercial (C~. Bob r~-har[, 333 Southern Boulevard. West Palm Beach. reported that the app[i( agreement with the one staff condition of approval. CHAIRMAN W[SCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBI TC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATiON, :ure Land mercial" ~nt District mt was in ~ISHED TO Vice Chairman Dub6 asked Mr, Rumpf to explain the impact of this change if Lowe's pulls out of t~is deal and the City is left with a lot that has been rezoned to C-3. Mr. Rumpf explained that if nothing happens on the lot in a year, the zoning could revert back to PID. Hr, Rumpf said 10.5 acres in this area are already zoned properly for the use. Mr. Myo[t confirmed with Mr. Rumpf that this would fall under minor boundary adjustments for with a highly specialized nature. Motion -fill parcels Mr. Hay moved approval of the project named Lowe's Home Center, request to amend the Co~ )rehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from "Industrial" to "Local Retail Commercial" and rezone from Plann I Industrial Development District (PID) to Community Commercial (C3). Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motior hat ~arried unanimously. B. SUBDIVTSTON Master Plan Modification 1. PRO.1ECT NAME: AGENT: OWNER: LOCA~ON: DESCRIPTION: BOYNTON COMMERCE CENTER P./.D, Robert E. Basehart, Basehart ConsuKing, Inc Woolbright Partners, Inc. Southwest corner 1-95 and Woolbright Road Request to modify the master plan induding~ removal of ~arcel 3A from the Boynton Commerce Center P.I,D. in connection with the assembly of land for the adjacent Lowe's Home Improvement Center project Bob Basehart, 333 Southern Boulevard~ West Palm Beach, reported that the appli~nt was in agreement with all of the staff conditions of approval. CHAIRMAN WISCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUB!J[C HEARING THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO ~/ISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPI TCAT[ON. MEETING MINUTES pLANNTNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD -BOYNTON BEACHf FLORTDA NOVEMBER 23f 1999 Mr. Finkelstein referred to Condition #3 on Page 5 that read as follows: "Shov~ d/mens/on and label on the new master plan drawing the periph greenbelt that is required around the per/meter of the PID, " Mr. Finkelstein asked Mr. Rumpf to explain where the greenbelt would be once the property and the driveway is moved south. Mr. Rumpf said staff tried to ensure that all conditions co,re properly, landscaping requirementS that ~ projects where there are boundaries that split the buffer. It is parking areas cannot be met. Inthis case, the PID regulations require a perimeter than the requirements of some other zoning districts. The buffer will be placed in the green ars - area the majority of it meets the width and greatc end of Lowe%, With the excep, t!on of o,n~e~_. ~, landscaping buffer required in parking areas ~vill be accomplished that woulO exceeo u,~ ~ ..... ~e is moved ponded. In e placed on lightly wider at the south landscaping Motio~n Mr. Friedland moved to approve the request to modify the master plan including removal of the Boynton Commerce Center p.I.D, in connection with the assembly of land for the adjacen' Improvement Center project on the southwest corner of [-95 and Woolbright Road, commentS. Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion that carried unanimously. 2. PRO3ECT NAME: LOWE'S HOME CENTER AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Robert E. Basehart, Basehart Consulting Woolbright partners, Inc. Southwest corner of [-95 and Woolbright Request conditiona use approval for the ( a [35,1_97 square foot home improvemen 48,472 square foot garden center on 15.2 ~rcel 3A from Lowe's Home ~ject to staff oad ~nstruction of store with a acres. ;taft conditions: ~ob Basehart, 333 Southern Boulevard, West Palm Beach~ spoke about the following ~u//gng ~ond/tion #~0_ - "Add detailed and dimen~oned elevation view drawings o/the e's sign signage to the submittal. The total area that is indicated on the plans for each ~ n area shall include the area of the background co/or, gee the is not correG. The s~ ........ ~ of the Land Development/~. ulaUons de#n/t/on of sign area in the dellnl£1on (Chapter ~). Amend the aggregate sign area anO prov/de computa#ons that verk ~ all wall signage complies with the Sign Code. Drawings of the s/gnage shall comply with the app#cable regula#ons spec/#ed in Article IV, SeoYon 2 of the Sign Code (Chapter ?~ o£ the L~nd Development Regulations). ~' Mr. Basehart advised that there is a Lowe's sign on the elevation at the main entrance to ~e building. The BuiIding Division interprets the Code such that the blue backgrouno area on the building ~ould have to be rea of the sign. The applicant disagrees with this comment. '~ ~is area is part of counted toward the face ~ .......... , ...... ,~ nn' arev it would not be very attT ctive, but then it the architecture of the builalng, zl L-,~ ~'~"~ ...... ~_lnted ~ _, would not be counted as part of the sign. The applicant requested that the board accept tt sign on the face of the building as shown with the calculation of the sign area only being the squared off -nensions of the lettering itself.. - . , ut on site signage, staff consistently tabu ares ti~e area that Mr. Rumpf adv,sed th.at .t.e. co,de_ ,_s~n_o~t.~Cleaar~ab, nlate or face) behind the letter,ng that ,slof s,m,lar mater,al is not only the letter, Dut also ~ne g:,,~,o, - ~ ' ' ' ' ' or color. With the board's concurrence, staff is willing to tabulate only the sign area. MEE'I'ZNG M'rNUTES PLANNTNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH~ FLOR[DA NOVEMBER 23~ 1999 Mr. Basehart confirmed with Chairman Wische that Mr. Rumpf agrees with the applicant's request and is not encouraging the app cant to paint the building grey beh nd the sign area. The applicant is willi.~g to agree to a compromise in that in calculating the sign area of the site sign, they would agree w th the n'derpre~tion if the board is willing to calculate only the boxed letters for the building sign. Chairman Wische urged the applicant to work out these details with staff prior to the Commission meeting. Ms. Frazier asked about the height of the letters. ,Mi,k,,e Reynolds, Highway 268 East, North Wilksporo, X!orth Caro ina, advised that the height of the letters is 7 -2. When Ms. Fraz er expressed concern tha'~ this would be a very large sign, Mr. Rumpf explained that this sign would not belv sib (~ from a great d stance because of the building orientation. This size lettering for this type of building is in scale. Mr. Myott felt staff correctly calculated the sign because ail signs generally have a letter with a contrasting background. Mr. Myott also agreed with Ms. Frazier that this is a very large sign. Mr. Basehart said he would work out the details of the calculation with staff prior to the City Commission meeting. Condition #24 - "~?'re s/gnage (not inc/uding building signs)/s Ilmited to one 20' t ~h~ freestanding sign~ with a maximum 64 square foot of sign face. Staff recommends b~a, ~he site si~, (/ettering~ be p/aced on the existing wa//sign~ or receive a variance for muJ ~/e signs and p[ace site sign behind wa//sign~ design sign compa#ble (material~ shape and c /or) with the wall s/gn~ and sign should not exceed 12 feet in height. Proposed pole sign. ~a// be eliminated or approved through variance (see AfVCV 9~-0~4 and AAICV ~-0_~S~. ExL Yng wall sign counts toward total site sign tabula#on. An? sign in excess of 64 s~uare feet ~ ,ust be revised to compl~ or approved through the necessary variance approval." Hr. Basehart felt this condition might be a moot point. The applicant requested a variance th~.t would be heard later in th s meet ng This condition rela~es to that variance. Mr. Basehart recommende~ discussing this issue when the sign variance request was discussed. Chairman Wische agreed. CondlUon #29 - "Project co/or (buil~ng) shall be of compabble tone to a. dj, ace, nt Commerce Center (B~11137). If gmy tone is used, tone shouldbe ora gastel category ~#ght grey~. ~rov/de co/or samp/es endmanufac~urer's codes. '~ The applicant believes the color is consistent with the buildings in the area. It is lighter than t e grey tone Fir. Finkelstein expressed his opinion that the Discount Auto Parts store "sticks out like a sor~ humb' and he would not want to continue that color because it does not fit in with the adjoining properti( Mr. Fiyott and Ms. Frazier agreed with Mr. Finkelstein, After viewing the color chart, Mr. Myott felt the pn osed shade was too dark and needed to be lightened substantially. Lane Adams, Proiect Architect: Hiahwav 286 East, North Wilksboro~ North Carolina, offered to work with staff=to arrive at a lighter color scheme that would be more aesthetically pleasing; Fir. Basehart said the applicant was in agreement with all remaining conditions of approval. Mr. Finkelstein referred to Condition #30 that read as follows: MEET/NG MXNUTES PLANNXNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACHf FLORtDA NOVEMBER 23, 1999 " ffic shall be separated from vehicular traffic along the (shared drive) west s(de of Truck tr~ ~ ........ ,-~ desianate ~ncl~'ng signs and arrows) and ~ ~bel Building "A" of the PID. on me stce U~a~,, -. =. - ,~ ,, the proposed truck route that is to be located along the eastside of Bu/l~'ng · OR "Redesign truc~ mute to p/ace on pmpertJ4, in p/ace of parking spaces and request van if necessary for reducb'on in parking spaces." Mr. Finkelstein had a problem with the direction noted in this comment. He believes it should condition would " Mr side of Building A. . Rumpf advised that Mr. Finkelstein was correct and the Mr. Finkelstein added that the "eastside" goes to"north". CHAIRMAN W~'SCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBI TC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WH£ SPEAK ON THIS APP~CATION. Mr. Myott asked if staff had an opportunity to review the d~fferent Lowe prototypes. Mr. Ru~ affirmatively. He said staff was recommending a white building that is similar to another because they reit it was more comparable to The Home Depot. In addition, Mr. Rumpf ad, applicant has added some building elements of columns along the garden area that were proposed. rICe ~ad "no~_ corrected. V~SHED TO ~f responded xisting store sed that the ~ot originally Motion an Dube moved to approve the request for conditional use approval for the construction of a 135, Vice Chairm ' . nter on 15 27 acres subject ~97 square foot home improvement store w~th a 48,472 square foot garden ce · to all conditions with the following changes: k · That in ~tem #10 of Exhibit"C", the second sentence be removed and the third se,tence be changed to the sign area shall not include... · Item #29 is to be worked out by staff. · Corrections to Ttem #30 Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion, Mr. Myott c arified with Vice Chairman Dub~ that the motion recommended that the applica[~t include only the lettering as the basis of the sign calculation. The motion carried 6-~. (Mr. Myott dissented. He does not agree with the amended signl portion of the motion.) Zonin Code Variances 3 PRO3ECT NAME: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: LOWE'S HOME CENTER (NUMBER OF i[GNS) Robert E. Basehart, Basehart Consulting ~c. Woolbright Partners, Inc. Southwest corner of [-95 and Woolbright Load Request for relief from Chapter 2~. Signs, ~ tide iV, Section 2(B) which limits a single use to one (1) site sign to allow the erection of two (2) site signs. 9 MEETING M~NUTES pLANN'ENG 8t DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH,, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 23, 1999 Bob Basehart, 333 Southern Boulevard, West Palm Beach. said the applicant does not agree with ~taff's conclusion that there would be three signs on the site· Th~ .,'e is an existing sign on the Icorner that · we's s roposing a monument sign and a freestanding sign. The identifies the Commerce Pa. rk .Lo --P' - - ~ o~n because that is a sign on the p,,operty that Park si n shoula not be coun~ea a~ ~ >,~ °'~ ...... ~ .... ~e sinn A though the Code Commerce __ --,.g.=~. ~- +he nronertv The existing sign woukl u~ ~- u,, u..~,,,.~ = does not permit that type of sign, it is a valid nonconforming sign. ~t is in place by virtue of an easement and Lowe's cannot remove it. It is unfair to penalize the site by counting it as a site sign, · and worked out a compromise, The applicant s willing to ~itharaw the The a I cant has met w~th staff ........ ~ ~' ~ Nh In its nlace, the apBlicant would requesPtP~r the po e sign and the variance mat reques~ mat ,~ u= -= !, ~ · - . . t si' n On the site in addition to the e~osting Commerce Park aclree that~here would be on y one mo.nume, n -~ - ~inl~ ~×ceo 'on o¢ 30' nsteed of 49'. T Is request ~s - . e~. -~ ti . . I~. . · . The a 1~cant requested that the Doa. m .g.rant?~, .~ r~-~,'~ ~n a~ld ~ion the ago cant is willing to ~istent ~ the variance that was granted for Th~ H~ ...... ~ ......... , use similar materials that were used on The Home Depot sign. At Mr. Besehart's request, Nr. Rumpf explained that the variance for The Home Depot sign almost a variance · e the Cede imits variances for signs to a percentage thresholdI He felt that granted for the variance .beaus ...... ¢ _,~ the Citv felt it deserved something more titan the Code perhaps because of the ~ocadon ann ~.ypu u~ u=~ a lowed. . r two siqns, Mr. Rumpf explained that staff recommended denial of their Returning to the first r.eque,st !~. ~..,_~_~, m~ site Staff favors this type of entry stgnageland does not request because one sign alreeuy ~x,~ ,~,, ---- · ' recommend removing it. Staff does not oppose two signs. Mr. F nkelstein confirmed that the monument sign would be 20' tall and would be located behi d the existing Commerce Park sign. Mr. Rumpf explained that the grade behind the sign comes to app )ximately the second tier of the wall. The sign would start at the top of the wall and goes up 20'. Mr. Basehart said the applicant would eliminate the pole sign and put the monument sign sot ewhere in the middle of the site. It would not loom over the Commerce Park sign. The sign would be ful within Lowe's property. Chairman Wische favored this proposal and agreed with Mr. Basehart that the existing sig should not be counted against the applicant. · ' eo out that the board was being asked to approve something that h~s not yet been Vice Chairman Dube point . . ' hat as before the submitted. He reminded the members that ~t was ~mportant to vote onl.y .o.n the ~tem t board. Chairman .Wlsche agreed that the board must vote on the agenoa ~tem. · ed with Mr. Rumpf that the one s gn that staff agrees with islthe one that is Vice Chairman Dube con!~rm .......... r ..... aaron Lowe's would not get a s~gn. Mr. Rumpf already existing. ~f the ooaro follows s~d,, ~ ,~ ......... ~'nts the existing sign as one I Therefore, the explained that the variance is for two signs. However, that co ' · si n There is a nonconform ng sign on the property. When a property is modified applicant ~s entitled to one ~g . ._. : ......... ~ ....*~ r~M~ excent for those that are ~empt by Code. in a mai y, - - .......... ~ fhPv wo be approving tne ex sting sign plus ^ o~,~, i= nnr ~x~mnt If the boaro approves ml~ ,~4u=*-, --~ _._uld __ I a~li~' ~'r~a'l"~;g-~'~o"r~L~)we's. Hr. Rumpf is in favor of that approval. i - ~n response to Ns. Frazier, Chairman Wische advised that Lowe's name would not be add? to the exist, ng sign because it is not a reader board. Hr. Finkelstein inquired about whether or not the beard would be approving the conditions i~ the conditional ;0 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA NOVEMBER 23, 1999 use that limits the signage to size and square footage if they approved this request. Mr, Rumpf advisecl that - d as wr tten for two signs, it would be necessary to recognize the · the var ance appl~cabon were approve ....... ~ ~nf~in~ snecific recommendations incl,~.ding area. ilf~nn,,aae in the conditional use (Item #24) be~u=~ ,,,~,~:~]'.~:,;;-= variance addressing that i~sue. .~-=.--~ ..... : ....~ ~he maximum sign area ano u~ere ,=,,~ - Neither or me ~,~,,= ,,,~ ~ Mr. Finkelstein confirmed that if the board includes Comment #24 from the prewous applidation in the motion~ staff's concerns would be covered. Motion - he re uest for relief from Chapter 21~ Signs, Article ~V,, Section 2(B) · 'rman Dube moved to approve t q ...... ~ ....t~ c;~-m ~in S subie~t to all staff Vice Chal , ·, which limits a single use to one k*j comments. Mr. Friedland seconded the motion. · word no that included "two site signs"· Mr. Myott also pointed out · Frazier was not comfortable with the ~ ' Vice a'rman Dub~ disagreed ~nd exp ained Ms et on wou d oppose Mr. Rumpfs recommendation that this m ......... ~ ,*,ould be approving one s~gn. that one site sign alreaoy exists anu Modif~d Motion Vice Chairman Dub~ modifiee the motion to read "...limits a single use to one site sign to ailc the addition of one more s~te s~g · Hr. Friedland seconded the motion. Attorney Cirullo administerec the oath to Commissioner Ron Weiland. Ron Weiland, 2540 SW Z4~" Street, asked if the approval would address the location of the and what · he construction of the base of the sign. Commissioner Weila~ said the sign material would be used for t ......... ~ ~^ mnunt on a 24' base to reach a peak he~I ~t of 30'. would be 6'-4'' tall and 20' wloe ano ~ wuu,u u= ...-- ed Chairman Wisci~e advised that ti~e board was addressing only a sign at this point and the; ~plicant would have to meet Code when he submits the sign. 'ned that the applicant would not put tl~e second sign behind the existin! sign. They will Mr. Basehart expla~ ............ ~ ....... Park si~n and eliminate the pol~ sign. One sign eliminate the sign proposeo DenlnQ tne ~oy.~u,, ~.~,,,,,,~-~ ~ will be located somewhere in the central part of the site. Attorney Cirullo explained that the board's responsibility was to address the variance regarding the number of sign - not the sign contents. Mr, Rumpf advised that it would be in the applicant's best interest to narrow down these issues. The motion carried 6-1, (Mr. Myott dissented.) LOWE'S HOME CENTER (POLE SIGN ~IEIGHT) 4, PRO3ECT NAME: Robert E. Basehart, Basehart Consulting Inc. AGENT: OWNER: Woolbright Partners, ~nc. LOCATION: Southwest corner of 1-95 and Woolbright Road DESCP.~PTION: Request relief from Chapter 2:L, Signs, ~rticle ~V, Section 2(B) which limitS maximum sign height to 20 feet to allow for erection of a 49 foot high pole sign. MEET';NG M~'NUTES PLANN~.NG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH,, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 23~ 1999 Chairman Wische advised that staff denied this request, but agreed to allow a 25% increase that: would take the height of the sign to 25'. The applicant is requesting 30'. · hart said the applicant would agree to eliminate the pole sign in favor of a monume@t sign. The MrrequestBa~e. ror ~u ........ ~s uo~u~ on the fact that Woolbr ght Road is an elevated roadway. There would §e only a 20' height above the road grade at the center of the site. Mr. Basehart said the proposed Lowe's sign would roughly align with The Home Depot sign across the street. · need for the base of the sign to be solid when it is so high· He requested Mr, Myott did not und. e~nd t.h_e~_~,,,,, for that feature- Mr Basehart said it was an att.em.p.t to ~e c.o~la_.n.t~' that Mr. Basehart. expla .n ~ne r~.~.u. Was ~ ~one- ' a~-~"~ ....... ~-h~ ~re~t~, ..... He aoreed~ w th Mr i~yott an ~. poln~eu. UUn with the design of the s~gn base tna~ - ' .... a~ ,a d they wou d be open to, hscusston o · · ' is where the messag~ ,~ that the important th~ng to Lowes ~ _ .. · ..... ;~ ~id he did not believe the base of The -Iome Depot this issue· Mr. Finkeistein agreed w~tn i,~r. i,~you. ~,,~ ~ was solid, ~lr. Fdedland questioned whether or not it would be necessary to have a 30' s~gn 'n this Iocati~ ~ since ~here is nothing else around this structure, Nr. Basehart said the additional height is needed to achi~ ze vision and view from the motoring public. ~f the sign were limited tc~ 10~, ~2' or 14', it would be below th, grade of the road and it would be worthless, Hr, Rumpf po nted out that the project originally pEoposed a sign n excess of ~00' so that~they. Icou_ld ac.hie, ve visibility on T-95. Staff opposed that request and it was downsized to 49' to match the Lrac~er ~arre s gn - 'zed they were still in excess of Code and downsized it again. Th~ ~-95 corridor along ~-95. The apphcant rea ~ -- ' ..... ~ .... eater than 40' Therefore, nothing ~nore,could. be signage potential would not t~e acmeveo u¥ ~,,y,-,,!,~, ~] ...,~ ~ ~n, hi, h si~n Staff reviews~isibility when · ' · han could be accompllsnefl wtul a ~u ~ = - accomplished with this sign turve O~ ....... the ,uou,~ the sion. will not be visible ail the way down the corrl.dor.' o! reviewing s~gns. Due to the c ........... nCnot achieved a 30' high sign that IS in erxcess or wna~ Woo bright Road Mr. Rumpf agre.eO ~a~.l_n~e2~'.~ ~h-~ ~:~cumentation exp ained only that the approval °f the maximum variances allow in the ~.ooe d~ ~ that sign did not recognize that percentage limitation. ~A~o, rney Ci,rullo advised that the board was being asked to review a variance of a pole sign [~o go from the 20 to a 49 maximum. There is a limitation in the Code that if you are going to consider a variance to a height or area of limitation, the maximum authority the board has is a 25% variance. · ' nted out that the applicant withdrew the po e sign, Mr. Basehar~ explained that When Vice Chatrm.a.n Dube .po ..... ~ rCnuest'to 30' and make it a monument sign. The applicant would the applicant woulo agree [o reau~ ~,~ like to reduce the request to 25'. Mr. Friediand inquired whether it would be possible for the applicant to return to the board iI two weekS for ~4°rlS;duerm~va°fs toh~trhe~uo~;t~ion that the lesser request could be approved under the g!idelines of the advertisement. Hr. Basehart indicated that if the request were reduced to 25', it would be acceptalJle because the aovertisement was a greater request. Mr. Myott questioned when the board would have the opportunity to see the sign that Wo~JId be designed. Mr. Basahart said the applicant would agree to a condition that prior to the issuance of the~ sign permit, the board must review it. The board members were in agreement. 3_2 MEET~'NG MZNUTES PLANNZNG 8t DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACHf FLOR/DA NOVEMBER 23~ 1999 Motioq Vice Chairman Dub& moved to approve the request for relief from Chapter 21, Signs, Article ~/, Section 2(B) which limits maximum sign height to 20 feet to allow for erection of a 25 foot high sign. Attorney Cirullo said he would like to review the legal notice that went out to ensure that it d,"id not over- specify the type of relief that was being requested. Vice Chairman Dub6 amended his motion to add "subject to the attorney's interpretation of the ~ga notice". Attorney CiruIlo said he would clarify this issue prior to the City Commission meeting. Ms. Frazier confirmed that the reduction would be to 25'. Mr. Friedland seconded the motion that carried unanimously. 5. PROOECI' NAME: LOWE'S HOME CENTER AGENT: Robert E. Basehart, Basehart Consulting, In¢. OWNER: Woolbright Partners, Inc. LOCATION: Southwest corner of 1-95 and Woolbright R~ad DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from the City of Boynto~ Beach Land Development Regulatons, Chapter 23, ArtiCle 11. (A)(7) which limits the maximum number of driveways along a single street to two (2), to allow a totall of three (3) driveways. · aim Beach. advised that the third ddveway would serve ,ob Basehad:, 333 _S.o. uthem .Bo.o!e~.ard. W~e~$t.~P~,~,p II,~ 's no increase in driveway~ on Corporate as a shared access with the pro]eO: t.o me sou~n; --=,~,~-~,. - _~ ~ qufficient To keep the{ traffic flowing Wa. Because of the size of the pro]?., two dr,veways w_o~_ld~'^'.~f~'.~;~ i~ the Cocie that the applicant prOPerly, the additional driveway is justirled. There are a nu,,,u=, ~ ........... has met to justify the granting of the variance. Mr. Rumpf had no additional comments. SENT W ' O V~SHED TO CHAIRMAN WISCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRE t~ SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION. / Ms. Frazier questioned whether this project would be as large as The Home Depot. Mr. Base, art responded that this project would be larger than The Home Depot. Motion Vice Chairman Dub6 moved to approve the .request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land ions Chater 23, Article 1~. (A)(7} which limits the maximum number of driveways D. evelop?en,t Re~cj_u_l~a~_ ~,.~,^ m~P ~n ~llow a ~otal of three C3) driveways subject to the follov~ing conditions: along a single s~reu~ ~u ~wu ~.~, -~ - · The delivery truck traffic shall be prohibited from using the southern driveway; provide note and signage indicating same; and · - rovides for both vehicular truck ~raffic along the · Prov,de ev,den.c.e of shar~?~.a.,crc~atffihcata P o a route leading through Buildings "A" and '~B" of southernmost onveway anu uu~ ......... Ion~ the Boynton Commerce Center PID. 13 MEETTNG MI'NUTES PLANNrNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA NOVEMBER 23, 1999 Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion that carried unanimously. 6. PROJECT NAME: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Bob Basehart, 333 Southern Boulevard. West Palm Beach, reported that this is at the fro and only approximately 15 lineal feet is over the 45' limit, That amounts to 4% of the length of t The entry feature is a minimum of 350' from any prqperty !ine. Therefore, there would be nc anything else. There are nine criteria in the Code that must be evaluated ~co approve a he ght The applicant has met all of the criteria. LOWE'S HOME CENTER Robert E. Basehart, Consulting, Inc. Wooibdght Partners, Inc. Southwest corner of 1-95 and Woolbright RoaQ Request for a height exception in accordance With the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.F.1 to allow a five ~5) foot increase from the maximum forty-five (45) foot height ii lit, or a 50 foot high roof feature at project entrance. t entrance e building. impact on ~ception, Chairman Wische announced that staff recommended approval of this request. Hr. Frie,dland ,s, aid the board voted a number of weeks ago to change the height of single-family, dwellings from 25 to 30. With that in mind, Mr. Friediand felt this variation was not a problem and feelslwe should continue to do this throughout the City. Mr. Myott disa~creed with Mr. Friedland. He felt this was not a 5' addition to the building, but rather a 5' addition to the sign. He could consider this request if it was for an important function. However, he feels this request is for all the wrong reasons. Mr. Finketstein is in favor of the entry feature because without it, it would be a long, boring building. Chairman Wische is in favor of this request. This entry feature beautifies the project. He pointed out that the current height limit throughout the City is 45'. Mr. Myott felt that if 5' were eliminated, no one would know the difference. Motion Vice Chairman Dub~ moved to approve the request for a height exception in accordance with ~the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.F.1 to allow a fi~e (5) foot increase from the maximum forty-f'Ne (4-5) foot height limit, or a 50 foot high roof feature at projedt entrance. Mr. Friedland seconded the motion that carried 5-2. (Ms. Frazier and Mr. Myott dissented.) Chairman Wische thanked the applicant and welcomed him to the City of Boynton Beach. Mr. Basehart announced that construction should begin in March 2000. 8. Other None MEETt'NG MrNUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 23, 1999 9. Comments by members Vice Chairman Dub~ advised Mr. Rumpf that his copy of the Land Development Regulations ~ missing Chapters 11 through ~_9 because they were never received. Mr, Rumpf said he would forward Vice Chairman Dub~ a new copy of the Land Development RegUlations. 10. Adjournment There being no further business to Come before the board, Vice Chairman Dub~ moved to adj~ourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Finkelstein seConded the motion that carried unanimously. Prainito Deputy City Clerk (Two Tapes) 15