Loading...
Minutes 04-14-98MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS~ CITY HALL; BOYNTON BEACH,. FLOP. Z[ ON TUESDAY,. APRZL 14~, 1998 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman James Reed, Vice Chairman J. Stanley DubA Pat Frazier Mike Friedland Maurice Rosenstock Vance M. Gragg, Alternate- Voting Member William Sherman, Alternate ABSENT Steve Myott Tambri Heyden, Planning Director Mike Pawelczyk, Asst. Cit Mike Rumpf, Senior Plann Bulent Kastadak, Dir. of DE 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGTANCE Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Al the Flag. 2. TNTRODUC'/zON OF MAYOR~ COMMTSSTONERS AND BOARD MEMBER Zoning ~,ttorney veloprnent Chairman Wische acknowledged the presence ~n the audience of Vice Mayor Jaski~wicz and Commissio~r~Denahan and introduced the board members, Attorney Pawelczyk, Mr. Kastarlak, Ms. Heyden, Mr. Rumpf and the Recording Secretary. Chairman Wische noted that there was no water for the members. Attorney Pawelc k offered to reiterate the board~ request for water at their meetings. 3, AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Dub~ moved to approve. Mr. Rosenstock seconded the motion that carried unani ously. 4. APPROVAL OF MTNUTES Mr. Rosenstock moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Dub~ seconded ~e motion that carried unanimously. 5. COMMUNTCAT/ONS AND ANNOUNCEN ENTR A. Planning and Zoning Report 1 giance to MEET/NG MZNUTES -~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR[DA 1 APRTL 14, 1998 Final disposition of the March 24, 1998 Planning & Development Board meeting agenda items: Ms. Heyden reported that the two items that appeared on the last agenda were tabled and appear on tonight's agenda. Ns. Heyden announced the reappointment of some of the board members and the a ~pointment of two new board alternates. She advised that the election of chairperson and vice chairperson would appear on the next meeting agenda. Chairman Wische apologized for not recognizing William Sherman, a new boar~l alternate member who was present in the audience. Bm Filing of Quarterly Report for Site Plan Waivers and Minor Site Plan Modifications Chairman Wische pointed out that there are a number o,f items on the Quarterly I have been pending for a long period of time. IVlr. Dube added that the oldest it report involves "ShowTime". This item is 15 months old, and it will never be appro Mr. Dub~ understands that Planning & Zoning cannot close the item because t Division has it as an open item, it does not make sense to keep this item open on th~ eport that m on this ted. While le Building report. Ms. Heyden explained that in some cases, a pending item can mean that staff is st reviewing the item, sent out first review comments, or even second review comments and th applicant has not yet resubmitted. Pending means a permit has not been ~ssued. ]En ~]e case of "Show'l'ime'; staff is woddng with the City Attorney's Office to work out interior renovations can be accomplished rather than a building addition. Hr. Kastarlak apologized for some of these items remaining unresolved, but explair does have an excuse for undeserved delays. His policy is to be timely, and he will enforce that policy. The department is instituting a tracking system that is continger arrival of new computer software. At this point, the department is tracking manually. He promised to do a better job in the future. ~d that he )ntinue to upon the .:se items Mr. Rosenstock questioned the life of a variance application and a permit applic~ Heyden explained that the items on the Report were standard permit application., permit is issued, it is valid for six months unless there is activity on it. The same permit applications if there is no activity on that application. Motion :ion. Ms. Once a ~pplies to Mr. Rosenstock moved that all applications for permits or variances any longer than s~x months be removed from the City's agenda and anybody that takes any longer than that withe)ut a valid reason in the eyes of the Planning Director that those be automatically removed and they have to reapply. Hr. Dub~ seconded the motion. Chairman Wische asked for an opinion on the motion from the attorney. MEETI'NG M'rNUTES ~ PLANN]'NG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR[DA APR.TL 14,, 1998 AttorneYthis su$7gesb'ontoPaWelczYktheeXplainedcity Commission.that the Planning & Development Board has the powel to present With Mr. Rosenstock's approval, Chairman Wische clarified that the motion s~nds as a suggestion to the City Commission. The motion carried unanzmously. C. 3oint City Commission, Planning & Dev..elopment Board and Cl~amber of Commerce Workshop to be held April 23~ 1998 at 6:30 p.~. in the Library prOgram Room j Ms. Heyden reminded the board members of the joint workshop meeting that will be held on Thursday, April 23t :[998 at 5:30 p.m. in the Library Program Room. Property ov ~ers along Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway have been invited to attend. 6. OLD BUS~[NESS None 7, NEW BUS[NESS A. PUBLTC HEARING Attorney Pawelczyk administered the oath to all witnesses who would testify Jring this evening's proceedings. Chairman Wische recognized the presence in the audience of Commissioner Titcomb. Conditional Use (Tabled at the February 24, 1998, Hatch 10, 1998 and March 24, 1998 Planning & Development Board ~etings.) Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Palm Walk ACLF Ehasz Giacalone Architects Palm Walk Associates SW 19~" Avenue Request for conditionaJ use approval to constru( Alzheimer care living facility to be known as the adult living facility. Richard Sovinsky, of Ehasz Giacalone Architects, 431 Conklin Street, Far~ New Yorlg said the project is basically the same building that was before this board The only change is the facility is now a 48-bed facility with 3,000 additional square applicant has attempted to keep the building similar to the original design. The changed from the original plan. a 48-bed aim Walk ingdale, *eviously. =eet. The roof was MEETING MINUTES ~_t PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH~ FLOR[DA i APRIL 14, 1998 CHAIRMAN VVISCHE SOLICITED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. THERE VV~ PRESENT VVHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICAI-~ON, Chairman Wische reminded the applicant that there are approximately 40 staff associated with this application He asked the applicant to address only those c( disagrees with or that require clarification. NO ONE comments nments he Mr. Gragg questioned why the applicant dec ded the height of the building need( Mr. Sovinsky explained that he tried to give a high pitched roof with cathedral windows above the dining and living areas. The rooms that are around the dinin( areas would get natural light from the top. r. Dube pointed out that when th!s project was originally brought to Leisureville, t agreement with the plan. Mr. Dube questioned whether Bill Lynch was aware of the Mr. Lynch said Boynton Leisureville was unaware of any changes that had been ma~ his understanding that this building was almost identical to the building proposed bi However, this proposal is not what Mr. Fazio proposed, and it does not compl surrounding buildings and structures in Boynton Leisureville. Mr. Lynch advised th Leisureville would oppose this project. Having heard these comments, Mr. Sovinsky said he could reduce the height of the However, he will review the plans to see what can be done. He feels confident he with the 20' maximum height, but believes there may be some fiat-roof areas. Chairman Wische recommended that the applicant work out these details with staff City Commission meeting. Mr. Sovinsky agreed to comply with all other staff comments. Mr. Rosenstock advised that he would not support this application. He referred to report that described the differences between ALFs and nursing homes. He express~ about the future potential of changing the ALF to a nursing home that would not be a use in this location. He pointed out that there are three other sites in the City tha same problem. The City would not be able to follow up because the change wo~ visible from the exterior of the building. Mr. Rosenstock questioned how this situatio le, It was imf. Fazio. ! with the ~t Boynton structure. ~n comply ior to the .: back-up I concern )ermitted have the Id not be could be ~n and the depicted ight of the to be 36'. :ilings and and living were in hanges, Mr. Rumpf explained that staff is attempting to be consistent with the original pi review of the original application that was approved for this site. The first propo., the height of the building at 25'. Staff's condition, at that time, was to reduce the structure to 20f to maintain compatibility with the adjacent residential structures. Comment #43 The structure ,depicted on the plan is 36' in height. Th~ comment requires that a height reduction to 20. Wh ]e the app icant s w ng to reduce the 3iq' he nht it would be d fflcult. The bu ld ngs approximate y 85 w de. Even f the applicant use~, 4 on 12 roof, the center would be approximately 24' to 25'. MEETZNG MZNUTES ~* PLANNZNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APRIL 14, 1998 corrected. He inquired why staff is not enforcing the Code more strictly prior to accepting these applications, Ms. Heyden explained that staff has enforced the Code and watches these situations by checking the si~uat!on on a yearly basis at Occupationa~ License renewa time ~he Drnhl~rn tha ' ' ' ' ~ ---'" t Is being .enco.untere.d ~s that we no longer have an Occupational License Jn~spector and renewa s are o0ne by mai~. Mr. Kastarlak p~inted out that although the Occupational License Division does not have an enforcement b~nch, arrangements have been ~ade with Code Compliance to act as the watchdog of th~ OcCupational License Division. At renewal time, Occupational Liceose Divisio~ looks at the site. If action is needed on the City's part, Code Compliance stepsl in. These situations are not being ignored. Hr. Rosenstock ~explained that a great deal of time was spent on the Comprehensivel' Plan to determine districts and classifications. He po nted out that once the City allow~ people to violate the Comprehensive Plan with respect to zoning districts, precedents are s~ for future violators. Mr. Rosenstock said he lives in this particular area and wants to be very c; reful about what is developed here He wants strict enforcement of the designations in this City Mr. Kastarlak re terated that there is enforcement of the des gnat ons. One of the Zoning Division activities is the corre ation of types of uses. ]:his allows us to know standards we should be working under. ~r. Kastarlak explained that the question going on beh nd the doors?" Enforcement is always an issue in all types of uses. H Rosenstock to bring forward specific cases he would like investigated by the City. Mr. Dub~ addressed Mr. Lynch about a previous request from Boynton Leisurevillel the canal between this parcel and LeisurevilIe. Mr. Lynch advised that Boynton requested a fence along the L-26 canal The applicant agreed with the request. Motion Mr. Dub~ moved to approve the request for conditional use approval to constru( Alzheimer care living facility to be known as the Palm Walk adult congregate livi subject to all staff comments. Ms. Frazier seconded the motion that carried 4~3. Wische and Messrs. Rosenstock and Friedland dissented .) Rezoninq (Tabled at the March 24, Z998 Planning & D~ Board meeting.) 2. Project: Agent: Location.' Description: ~lanning & the type of is "what is urged Mr. Hills at Lake Eden PUD Mike Zemen 15.40 acres of property located between S. Boulevard and Swinton Avenue, just north of the extension of Gulfstream Boulevard ( 10 Lake Eder related to .eisureville 48-bed Ig facility, 'Chairman elopment Seacrest westward Drive). Request to modifi/the approved ~rezoning mast~ plan to reduce the required minimum rear setback for pools and 5 MEETING MTNUTES "~ P~NZNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BO~yON BEACH, FLoR[DR APRIL 14, 1998 screen enclosures from 29' to 20' on Lots #1 and on Lots #17 through #25; and to reduce minimum side building setback from 10' to 71/2 through #8; and to modifi/two conditions of PUD rezoning to reduce the required minim~ unit size from 2,400 square feet (under ai sq.u.are feet (under air); and to reduce ti m~n~mum average dwelling unit size from 2, feet (under air) to 2,450 square feet (under air Chairman Wische read the description of the request and noted that there w( comments associated with this application. Mike Zemen, Proiect Manaqer for Kennedy ProPerties, Ltd., advised that tf are being requested because the restrictions placed on this project were too tigh .~hrough #9 ne required on Lots #1 ~he original m dwelling ') to 2,250 ~e required iO0 square 'e no staff variances The lots sizes and setbacks cannot accommodate homes that are a minimum square foot, ; of 2,400 and average square footage of 2,600. Mr. Zemen advised that although many of~he models could fit on the lots, no enhancements such as screen enclosures or pools can be added. Mr. Rumpf provided a brief history of this project. This project was originally appr~)ved on an application submitted by another petitioner on March I9, :1996. There was a gr~at deal of debate and controversy associated with the orig na proiect There was a Iht n~ Anm=~,,,,=, ,pposlt. on a.n._d co. ncer.n tha.t, the project be as compatible as possible with the surro~r~dino area or a conven[ional zoning d~strlct neighborhood and not a zero-lot-line developmen[ simTlar to those on Lawrence Road. To accommodate those concerns, the City Commission a[ proved the project master plan that laid out more stringent setbacks than what is typi:al of the conventional zoning district for the area ~n addition, they established minimum un. sizes and minimum average unit size requirements. On May 21, 1996, the same applicant came back when he realized that the requirer ents were not feasible. They claimed that in explor ng marketing requirements and conditi s of the buyers' market, their project would not meet those requ rements. They requested that only the minimum area and minimum average area (under air) be reduced. Their request wa~ to reduce the minimum living area requirement from 2,400 square feet to 1,800 square feet. _lThey also requested that the City a ow them to decrease the minimum average living area requirement from 2,600 square feet to 2,400 square feet. The most notable difference between this petiton and the previous one is the m n ma] livin area requirement. This petitioner is requesting a reduction of only 150 square t~et. Theg petitioner justifies his request on us ng a specific housing product. Therefore, staff Lis able to see what does and does not fit on the lots. The first request was solely based on reducing the housing product sze to meet anticipated market demands This request is based on aln attempt to increase the. magnitude of the housing product This' housing product does not~t on the lots, This request also includes a reduction in setbacks for pools and screen enclosure§. In the past, focus was on lot area. This request focuses on living area. Staff reviewe~ neighborhoods and compared~ the worst case. The adjacent zoning district requir 6 adjacent only a MEE'T~NG H]*NUTES .... PLANN]:NG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACHr FLORTDA APRIL 14, 1998 m~mmum of 1,800 square feet even though that is not typical in the area. However. there are a wide variety of homes in the area. If this request were approved, based on the d~ta collected from the adjacent neighborhood, the smallest unit n th s project would exceed the smallest un t in the sample collected by 367 square feet Therefore, with respect to size, there i.~ no drast c incompatibility. This product will be different because it is a new generation produ ; however, the value should be reasonably comparable and the housing product shou d bJe~t~asonably comparable. Mr. Rumpf explained that there are no conditions of approval because of the limited nature of the request. Ms. Hoyden advised that when staff was reviewing this project and negotiatir developer, there was a focus on setbacks and lot size to make sure the regula developed were compatible with the adjacent zoning districts. When this project City Commission at the rezoning stage, the idea of average living area, minimum livi "under air" came up for the first time. No one knew at that time that the conditk were not practical. Ms. Heyden explained that she did not believe the applicant ~ her the plan could not work. She spent two hours with the applicant looking at the each of the lots. That was proof that the lots are a little too small to make the cone I with the ions being 'ent to the ~] area and s imposed en he told models on ions work. Ms. Heyden referred to Exhibit "C" of the back-up material and pointed out the n odels that work on the lots and the ones that do not. The applicant requested much more ti' ~n what is now being requested, staff worked with the applicant and reduced the request to th. minimum to allow it to work and still meet, as closely as possible, the original zoning conditions, Ms. Heyden explained that the Zoning code defines square footage and allows sorel areas of the home that are not under air to be in.c uded. The condition of approval at tl~e time of ra?rZ. Oning placed a minimum square footage based on parts of the hom~ that were 9n y under Mr. Zemen explained that the 2,400 square foot home does not include the garao~, coverec~ patio or entryway When that square f~otage is calculated in, the square footacle ~n~reases to over 3,200 square feet. A 3,200 ~quare fool home will not fit on a 7,150 square ~oot let. CHAIRMAN WISCHE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. .Brian Gas, of 702 SW 34m Avenue, lives directly across the street from this projec appeared before the City three times and is concerned because he felt all issues worked out. He feels that if the houses do not fit on the lots, Perhaps the lots should He said the homes in this development are not compatible with his neighborhood. reminded the board members that this plan was negotiated among the City, the dev the residents. He has ad been ~e larger. Mr. Gas )er and Zsrael Cohen of 922 SW 36m Avenue said he was part of the original group th~ opposed this project. The residents of the surrounding community came to the City on r Jmerous occasions in great strength to be heard by P anning & Development and the City COr mission. A deal was negotiated but there always seems a reason to have to come back. Every itime the residents have to come back before the City, it is harder and harder to mobilize the co~ nmunity. The residents are ooking to the board and City to protect them from this attempt to tal :e pieces 7 MEETI'NG MI'NUTES ~'~ PLANNZNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA API~L 14, 1998 off the deal that was agreed upon by all. Even after negotiation, this project does not fit the neighborhood. He urged the members to adhere to the agreement. THERE BEING NO ONE ELSE WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS PETITION, CHAIRN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. At the request of some of the board members, Chairman Wische asked the applk was not present for the last meeting. Hr. Zemen explained that this is his first ti this process and he believed the last meeting was a staff meeting. He sa d he wa: he was supposed to be present for the me~Ung. When he was telephoned at th advised that he could have oeen present within 15 minutes. However, the postponed to th s meeting. In response to Ms. Frazier's question, Mr. Rumpf advised that this project has come board three Umes. When some of the board members were of the opinion that this been before them four times, Hr. Rumpf explained that many years ago, an appl processed that never received approval. tN WISCHE int why he ~e through not aware ~ time, he latter was before the roject had :ation was Mr. Rosenstock referred to the plan depicted on the overhead projection. In his o inion, th s plan is an example of what not to do in a community. He pointed out to the ap~,licant that there is barely enough room for children to play in the backyards. He feels this Is a prime example of a developer trying to milk a piece of land to gain the greatest percentage of profit possible. Mr, Rosenstock ~eels this board has a w der scope .of surveillance as to wheat projects should be built and what they should look like. If this developer wanted to do something for this City, he would put a few less houses on this property. He feels they chose to push the law as far as possible and then request a variance from the law. Hr. Fdedland asked the applicant if it would be possible for him to remove some of tjx, houses and redesign them to mal~ the lots lar~er. Mr. Zemen advised that at this point, it i However, on the outside perimeter of tl~e property, the lots are wider in some Iocati houses and shallower houses could oe placed on those lots. However, the setbacks and Seacrest would not permit a pool or screen enclosure even with wider lots. Mr. Friedland would like to see another presentation of this development. Mr. Dub~ reiterated that the board turned down this project three times. The worked out a deal with the developer and he will have to live with it. Mr. Dub~ will nc this request. Mr. Gragg referred to staff's summary and confirmed with Mr. Rumpf that in tern neighborhood to the west, 1/3 of the homes were smaller in square footage than the ~ square foOtage placed on this project. Therefore, there are homes in the neighborho west that are smaller than the size being requested for this project. Also, he q~ whether the sPaceS between the homes in the neighborhood to west are different spaces in this project. Mr. Rumpf explained that the homes in the neighborhOod to were constructed in the R-i,AAB zoning district. There is a difference in the building s~ of 5'. 8 ; possible, is. Wider Sw~nton lmission : support of the laximum d to the estioned rom the he west ~aration MEETTNG MTNUTES .... PLANN]'NG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA APR..q. 14, 1998 Hr. Gragg pointed out that without the modest change being proposed, the b~l der cou d enlarge some of the lots on the perimeter. However, g ~;~n the impact of the setba ks on some of,th~ tots, he wou d n~t be able to meet the cond t OhS of the Development Order.t Mr. Rumpf agreed wKh Mr. Gragg s remarks. Hr. Gragg cent nued that the de~eloper s n~lrefusing to honor the deal. He is Saying he cannot do it. In additon, the developer cannot addl value ~hat means higher prices for houses on these lots. Hr. Rumpf agreed. Mr. Gragg furt~her pointed out that when ;the deal ~vas negotiated during the Cty Comm ssion meeting, the ide of putting square footage sizes on these homes came up. No one checked the mpact in relati?.hship to ot sizes. Subse~luen~ to that, when it came tinge to build, it was determined this cou dj not work. Ms. Heyden a~d Hr. Rumpf agreed. Mr. Rumpf explained that quite a few of the hcjmes would fit on the lots as they are currently des gned. However, two of the un ts do nc meet the minimum requirement and the majority o~ th~m cannot b~ constructed With a pool md screen enclosure. Hr. Gragg conc oded that the developer would have to build units of'less ¢alue if he is not granted these m,°deS[,changes Mr. Gragg explained that i37 square feet am unts to an area a~proximately :[0 x :~2. This is an ir~significa~t amount of:space, He Said th; ~ he could probai~l~ take a h~lf-foot off the perimeter of the build~ng envel6Pe and come Ul ~quare/~eet ~ithin the property, with ~37 Mr. Zemen said the building envelope is 50' x 69'. At this, Mr. Gragg remarked that i ~e change is imperceptible. Hr. Rosenstock said the point is the City made a bad deal. Mr.. Zemen. further explained that when the project was purchased from New ort, design .cnte. na was 25% of covered areas, 50% of garage and 10% of screened areas ~Po~ b~ ~e z)nsidered m a~r conditioned square footage. When the models were designed and submitted I ~ the City under that criteria, the developer was advised that the criteria was incorrect and inst~ ~d should be 2,400 square feet minimum under air. What that means is covered areas, garage ~reas and screened areas cannot be included in the calculations. Hr. Gragg added that the City's Code is what Mr. Zemen described. However, concept" of only counting air-conditioned square footage messed up the math. Hotion Mr. Rosenstock moved that we reject th s rezoning request. Mr. Dub6 seconded tf that carded 4-3. (Ms. Frazier, Vice Chairman Reed and Mr. Gragg dissented.) _ZonJna Code Variapr,~ Project: Agent: Location: Description: 658 Hanor Drive (Barbara Bradshaw) Peter H. Schmidt 658 Manor Drive Request for variances from the City of Boynton Be Development Regulations, Chapter 2 - Zoning, 5.G.2 to aJJow a reduction of the minimum 9 his "new motion :h Land Section Je yard M EET'J[NG MTNUTES PLANNTNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORZDA APR/L 14, 1998 requirement from 20' to :L.6' and the minimum rear yard requirement from 40'to 10.7; respectively. Zonino Code Variance 4. Project: Agent: Location: Description: Motion 658 Manor Drive (Barbara Bradshaw) Peter H. Schmidt 658 Manor Drive Request for variances from Chapter 2- Zonipg, Section 5.G.2,a, to allow for a reduction of the required minimum 750 square feet of living area for apartment L~nits to 370 square feet for Unit #5; 568 square feet for ~it #9; and 499 square feet for Unit #10 Mr. Dub6 moved to table Items 7.A.3 and 7.A.4 to the May 12th Planning & Devel¢ meeting. Vice Chairman Reed seconded the motion that carried unanimously. New Site Plan Project: Agent: Location: Description: Englewood Medical Building Kres Mihelich 906 S. Federal Highway Request for site plan approval to construct a foot medical office building on a 0.696 acre par Chairman Wische advised that there are 34 staff comments concerning this appl requested that the applicant address only those comments he disagrees with or clarification. Mr, Dub~ acknowledged the fact that he knows Dr. Provenzano but has never d] project and has no financial interest in this project. Kres Mihelich, Architect, addressed the comments as follows: Comment #19 The property is surrounded by three rights-of-way (US #1, and 9th) and is located in the C-3 zoning district. There's a provision of the real that if public right-of~way exists, the rear can be reduced. The applicant is declarir frontage with the property to the north as side, and because the property s on a o is a second frontage. The applicant would like to move the building toward the b~ way up to 15'. Since staff interpreted that the applicant is on three streets, all of t~ are frontage. Therefore, the applicant is penalized. Ms. Heyden said the comment is insignificant because the building meets the zonir However, there is a note on the plan that was contrary to how the Code reads. building nor the site requires redesign. Mr. Miheiich agreed that the applica~ 10 ~ent Board 480 square :el of land. :ation. He hat require cussed the 7TM Avenue setback so ~ US #1 as ~rner, there ck right-of- ose streets ~ setbacks. tleither the complies. MEETTNG MI'NUTES PLANNTNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLOI~DA APRIL 14, 1998 However, he would like to move the building to narrow the throat of the circulatic He pointed Out that the 5' requirement on the front makes sense, but it does not mE the rear. Hs. Hoyden reiterated that the site plan works with respect to traffic and circul pointed out that Mr. Hihelich disagrees with her interpretation of the front yard. T meets her interpretation, but he does not like that interpretation even though he ha.' Dr. William Shaps & Dr. Provenzano. 1230 South Federal .Hiohwav app~ ~ of trucks. (e sense in ~tion. She ~e site plan complied. )ached the podium. Dr. Provenzano explained that Mr. Davis took a one-line drawing to the City prior to their ourchase of the property. At that time, a 15' rear setback came up. Initially, ~e site plan was desmgned on that :15 rear setback. The plan was submmtted and comments w 'e received and comp ed with. The applicant complies With the requirement, but pointed oL: additional shrubbery could be included in front and better traffic flow could be provided. This project will be buffered from the rear. It is his oPinion that the 15' rear easement wou be more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Hoyden reiterated that the plans, as submitted, meet the setback requirements. There was a note that was inconsistent with how the building was laid out. However, it does omply with Code. Ms. Hoyden recommended that Con-rnent #19 not be removed because t e incorrect note must be corrected. Setbacks are addressed in two ways on the drawings, graphically and with a note. The two do not match and he must either remove the note from the plan or match the two items. Attorney Pawelczyk explained that this comment could be revised to solve this Plroblem. It could read, "_~_et~b~a.c~ no['ea aro to be read aa fo~lows: front (al~ street fro~'tagea) 20' m/n. and roar 30 m/n. Ch.2. S~.6 Par. C.3.b.~ or tho note aha// be removed from tho plan. Comment #34 Mr. Mihelich advised that the applicant submitted a etterI from their engineer that they wil be reducing the number of trips. He questioned whethe~ or not the applicant must go to Palm Beach County with respect to this issue. Ms. Hoyden advised that this is a formality and the City has not yet received any re: ~onse from the County on this issue. Motion On the project known as Ttem 7.A.5, Englewood Hedical Building, located at 906 Sc Jth Federal Highway, request for site plan approval to construct a 5,480 square foot medical of ce building on a 0.696 acre parcel of land, Hr. Rosenstock moved that we approve this request with all staff comments. Hr. Dub~ seconded the motion. Attorney Pawelczyk questioned whether or not the motion included the amended Comment #19. Hr. Rosenstock responded negatively. The motion carried unanimously. 11 MEET/NG M~'NUTES PLANNI'NG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR.TDA APR][IL '14, 1998 Ms. Frazier questioned when this project would commence, Dr, Provenzano is hopef[ul they will be in the bui ding at this time next year, Dr. Provenzano explained some of the steins he must take at this point and pointed out that Code Compliance would like him to paint the building that has been vacant for at least 16 years. He has cut the grass and trimmed the shrubs. Mr. Gragg was ~mpressed with the fact that the parking has been moved to the rear of the building He hopes he will see more of this on future site plans. 8. OTHER Mr. Dub~ advised that Vice Hayor .laskiewicz had been prepared to speak to the I- last meeting but did not have the opportunity because the meeting adjourned. He to the podium. Vice Mayor .laskiewicz was thrilled with the last project and feels it will be a beautifu the City. Vice Mayor ]askiewicz complimented the board on Boynton Commons. She fee beautifully designed center and one of the biggest assets on Congress Avenue. .laskiewicz admitted that she is slightly anxious about Video Avenue. She also wish former board member .los~ Aguila for his service to the City. Chairman Wische thanked Vice Mayor .laskiewicz for her remarks about the board she had saved the remarks for a City Commission meeting when the reporters are p~ ard at the invited her addition to this is a Vi. ce Mayor ~ to thank nd wished :sent. Tn response to Ms. Frazier's question, Ms, Heyden reported that there will be a clock on one of the outparcel buildings in the Boynton Commons shopping center. 9. COMMENTS BY MEMBERS None 10. AD3OURNMENT There being no further business to come before the boarc~, the meeting properly 8:30 p.m. Prainito Deputy City Clerk (Two Tapes) imp i:\shrdata\cc\wp\minutes\pdb\04 ~-498.doc 12 ourned at