Loading...
Minutes 12-10-96MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1996, AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT J. Stanley Dub6, Chairman James Golden, Vice Chairman Jos6 ^guila Robert Eisner Lee Wische James Reed, Alternate ABSENT Barry Hill Maurice Rosenstock Pat Frazier, Alternate Tambri Heyden, Director of Planning and Zoning Mike Rumpf, Senior Planner Mike Haag, Zoning and Site DeVelopment Administrator Jerzy Lewicki, Assistant Planner 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Dub6 called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited. 2. INTRODUCTION OF MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS AND BOARD MEMBERS Chairman Dub~ introduced the members of the Board. In the absence of Mr. Rosenstock, Mr. Reed sat at the dais as a voting member. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL No additions, deletions, or corrections were made to the agenda. Motion Mr. Wische moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No additions, deletions, or corrections were made to the minutes of the last meeting. MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 Motion Mr. Aguila moved to approve the minutes of the November 12, 1996 meeting. Mr. Wische seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department 1. Final Disposition of Last Meeting's Agenda Items This item was dispensed with later in the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Hearing Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Boulevard Center Charles Putman and Associates, Inc. Howard S. Scharlin, Trustee South Side of Boynton Beach Boulevard between South Leisureville Boulevard and Northwest 8th Street Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2:5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commemial, rezone from R-l-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use. Bradley Miller, a planner with the firm of Charles Putman and Associates, Inc., represented the applicant and owner of the property, Howard Scharlin. He Spoke of the appropriate land use and zoning category of this 2.5 acre site for future development. He stated that 2 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 this site is not appropriate for residential uses. It has direct access to Boynton Beach Boulevard, and it is a strange configuration in that it is narrow. To develop it as residential uses is very restrictive and would be financially infeasibi~. He advised that staff concurs with this, as indicated in their report and recommendations of approval. Mr. Miller believes C-2 uses are appropriate with the appropriate planning and buffering for the site. He displayed a conceptual plan and committed to the following: Around the perimeter of the site where it abuts the residential, he proposed a 6 foot high masonry wall, finished on both sides. He also proposed a 10 foot wide landscape buffer with 10 foot high trees spaced every 30 feet. The Code only requires the landscape buffer to be 2 1/2 feet, so this is far above the Code criteria. In addition, .he agreed that the site would b)e limited to a one-story building. He reduced the amount of building square footage to 46 percent of what the site could build based on the F.A.R. for this zoning district, and provided the 30 foot building setback that is required adjacent to residential property. He said staff has come up with an alternative recommendation of C-1 for a portion of the site. He agreed with the C-1 uses, still continuing to provide the 6 foot wall, the 10 foot landscape buffer, the landscaping, and single-stow building. He pointed out that the wall ~s not a requirement where C-1 abuts residential. The differences would be the uses that would be permitted by C-1. With regard to the depth of the parcel, he said staff recommended that the C-1 portion of the site be equal to the C-2 uses that are to the east of this parcel. He did not agree with this. He felt that because of the depth of the parcel, the concessions of C-1 uses, and the buffering and limitations that are being provided, the entire site will be appropriate for the C-1 uses. With regard to the possibility of a portion of the property being offered to the City to add to the park site, he displayed an aerial showing the site with Boynton Beach Boulevard to the north and the 3.5 acre park site that was dedication by the applicant to the City in 1990 for a park on the south. He offered the southern half acre of the parcel to add to the park site to be acquired by the City at an appraised value. That would give the northern portion of the property about 2 acres to be rezoned for the C-1 This is not inconsistent with other areas ~n the City. Several areas of C-1 in the City that abut single-family residential have a depth equal to or greater than what he proposed. More importantly, it is not inconsistent with a prewous application for this same property, n 1991, an application was filed for C-1 uses on the northern two acres of the site. Staff recommended approval and the Planning MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 and Development Board unanimously recommended approval. However, there was very little discussion at the City Commission meeting at which it was denied. At Chairman Dub6's request, Mr. Rumpf explained C-1 and C-2 zoning districts and uses for the benefit of the audience. Mr. Miller added that the C-1 district is established to provide a transition between the more intensive commercial uses into the residential category. He referred to Exhibit "D" (Conditions of Approval!) ~nd stated that Condition 4 limits the site to office professional or institutional uses. The uses are not intrusive to the adjacent residential; otherwise, they would not be there. All of the uses ~n the C-1 zoning district will be appropriate with this site, considering the buffering and screening requirements that the applicant has committed to. With regard to Condition 3, which deals with text amendment and planning for acquisition of the park, Mr. Miller did not think this was the correct forum to discuss this matter. He said the applicant would be willing to meet with staff on this and work out an arrangement. Mr. Miller referred to Condition 1 again. Although he thinks the C-2 uses are appropriate with the proper buffering and planning, he agreed with the C-1, but not the depth of 220 feet that is proposed in Condition 1. He would like the entire property to be allowed to be developed as C-1. In addition, there are two parcels between this site and the funeral home. One of them has an historic house on it and the other s vacant. Staff recommended that the applicant do a unified development plan that includes those parcels. Mr. Miller pointed out that the applicant does not own those parcels and has no control over them. Mr. Aguila inquired about the depth of the property. Mr. Miller advised that it varies because of the angle. It is about 575 feet deep on the east side and 520 feet deep on the west side. The portion to the rear is about 108 feet. At one time, that was to be dedicated to the Dick Webber Center. However, there was a reverter clause in the contract that brought that back into the same ownership. Chairman Dub6 opened the public hearing. Richard Kerr, 148 N.W. 10th Court, submitted a petition consisting of six pages signed by several residents of Palm Beach Leisureville, Lake of Boynton Estates, and other residents of this area, in opposition to the reclassification from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, and rezoning from R-l-AA to C-2. Mr. Kerr said the residents do not want a strip mall like the one on the east side. He expressed concern about the additional traffic problems that this will create. He submitted a conceptual plan showing that 11 4 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 houses like the ones in Leisurevitle could be built on this property. Aisc, there is no water and sewer in that area. Everything west of N.Wl 8th Street is on septic tanks. In addition, he did not know what could be built on this property because there is muck on it. Fred Meyer, 118 N.W. 10th Court, stated that most of the people who purchased their homes adjacent to the area in question did so because of the beautiful trees and fields which are presently well kept by the City. They are going to be destroyed by this rezoning. Most of the occupants are in their 70s, 80s, and 90s. The entranceway will be on a dangerous bend of the road. He believes the senior citizens of Leisureville contribute much to the City and need to be protected against having this property rezoned.to retail or commercial. Many of'the residents wa k to exerc se The traffic cut~ing through is going to make it very dangerous for them to walk, At this time, Chairman Dub6 acknowledged the presence of Mayor and Mrs. Jerry Taylor. Jean McNally, 128 N.W. 10th Court, recently purchased her home and invested a lot of money in it. She checked the zoning before she purchased her home, and it was zoned residential. Rezoning this to commercial is going to devalue the surrounding properties. She did not think; that was fair. She stated that Mr. Scharlin purchased this property when it was residential and she felt he should be held to that. No one else wished to speak; therefore. Chairman Dub6 declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Miller referred to Mr. Kerr's concern about strip commercial. He felt the C-1 uses address this concern considering the uses that are permitted there. The uses as part of the C-1 are more of the professional and doctor office and do not allow the retail uses that Mr. Kerr was concerned about. He said the whole corridor of Boynton Beach Boulevard has become much more intense, which is another reason why residential is not appropriate there and should ~)e more of a commercial or office situation. With regard to the wall situation, he emphasized that one of the conditions of approval is to limit the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m With the wall, the landscaping, and the limitation of hours, it is going to be a much more controlled situation than having an open field next to the existing homes with no wall, allowing anybody to walk through there. With regard to the City maintaining the trees, Mr. Miller advised that this property is privately owned. Aisc, the majority of the trees are Me~aieuca and Australian Pine, which need to be taken out anyway because of the problems experienced with those species. Mr. Miller asked the board to recommend approval, considering the C-1 uses and the proposed buffering, for the entire 2.5 acre site. 5 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 Irene Ventres, 130 N.W. 10th Court, said the City maintains the 20 foot right-of-way between her property and the trees. She understands that the owners of Quantum gave a certain amount of their back property to the City when Leisureville was built to use as a right-of-way. She asked how close to the back of her property line is the 6 foot wall going to be. She also asked if a road is going to be built through the property and if there are go!rig to be high poles with bright lights shining ail night long. Mr. Rumpf believes there is a two foot setback from the wall to the property owner. Ms. Ventres thought itwas 20 feet when she purchased her home. Mr. Rumpf was not describing the easement. He :does not believe the easement is located on this parcel. It is adjacent to this property, along the back yards of S.W. 10th. The setback of the wall from thiS property line and, therefore, this easement, would be 2 feet. However, if the property was site planned, and through the site plan process techn ca staff realized a ~otential problem there with the easement and servicing it, comments could be generated that migh'~ address that issue at that time. Mr. Miller said the easement Ms. Ventres referred [o is to the west of the applicant's property, tine, to the rear of the lots. In addition, no roads are proposed immediately adjacent to the property line. There is a 10 foot landscape buffer. Chairman Dub6 pointed out that once it is rezoned, a site plan could come in showing a road. Mr. Miller said the conditions are implementing what is being proposed, which is a 10 foot landscape buffer along that property line. Mr. Aguila asked if the wall is completely on three sides, without any openings. Mr. Miller answered affirmativelY. He said it will be all the way around. The only area that might conflict with that is the northern 200 feet where it is adjacent to the existing C-2 zoning. He did not know if the applicant would be opposed to putting a wall next to C-2 zoning. Mr. Aguila stated that even though C-2 is adjacent to the property in question, if the historical house that is. residential maintains residential character, it is going to be impacted by the proposed commercial development. He would like the applicant to commit to bringing the wall all the way across. Mr. Miller said staff recommended that those parcels be zoned from C-2 to C-1 but yet implement the house as part of the development plan for commercial development. He was willing to work with the City on the details. Mr. Aguila asked the applicant if he would extend the wall completely on all three sides and separate the C-1 from the C-2 on all three sides if this board and the Commission do not go along wi~h the ur~ifying ofth0se properties. Mr. Miller answered affirmatively. Mr. Wische said he was on the Commission in 1989/90 when [his came up and the Commission denied it. Mr. Wische said he is going to vote against this tonight for the 6 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 same reason he did in 1989/90, which was because of the impact it would have upon the residents in Leisureville. He felt anything other than one family homes would have a terrific impact upon the people, not only in Leisureville, but in th a surrounding areas. He did not think a hardship s involved. The was also concerned about the traffic impact. In addition, he pointed out tha! if it is office professional, you are still going to have 1o deal with dumpsters and sanitation trucks. Chairman Dub~ agreed with Ms. McNa y that before people buy their homes, they take into consideration the surrounding area. Vice Chairman Golden did not see any change in c~rcumstances since 1990 that warrants approval of this. Motion Mr. Wische moved to deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-l-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and amena Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use. Vice Chairman Golden seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department 1. Final Disposition of Last Meeting's Agenda Items Ms. Heyden reported on what transpired at the City Commission meeting with regard to the items on the previous Planning and Development Board agenda. 7. NEW BUSINESS B. Use Approval Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Quantum Park PID James G. Willard Quantum Associates West side of the intersection of Interstate 95 and Gateway Boulevard 7 -- MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 Description: Request to amend the Quantum Park list of permitted uses to allow cosmetic manufacturing on lots designated as industrial on the master plan. Mr. Willard was unable to attend this meeting, but Mr. Lewicki advised that he had no objection to the one and only staff condition of approval. Motion Vice Chairman Golden moved to recommend approval of the request submitted by James Willard to amend the Quantum Park list of permitted uses to allow cosmetic manufacturing on lots designated as industrial on the master plan, subject to all staff comments. Mr. Eisner seconded the motion Ms. Heyden advised that there is an error on the agenda. The description should include perfume manufacturing as well. The motion carried 6-0. C. Subdivision Master Plan Modification Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Quantum Park PID James G. Willard Quantum Associates West side of the intersection of Interstate 95 and Gateway Boulevard Request to amend the previously approved PID master plan in connection with an amendment to the DRI to change the use'designation of lots 32, 33, 34A, 34B, 35, 36, 37 and 38 from Office to Office/industrial/Research and Development to allow a proposed manufacturing use and to change the use designation of lots 80, 81 and 82 from office to industrial/commercial. Mr. Willard was unable to attend this meeting. According to Mr. Willard's December 1, 1996 memo to Ms. Heyden (attached to the original minutes on file in the City Clerk's MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 Office), he objects to the deletion of note 4 because it was approved by the City Commission last July. Ms. Heyden advised that this is a request to add additional uses to the uses designated for Lots 32 through 38. Quantum Park is a DRI and is governed by a master plan. The procedure for changing that master plan is set forth n the Zoning Code as welt, as in the Flodda Stafutes. This request is beihg triggered by BGI (Beauty Group lndustr es). BGI is located in Peru and is interested in relocating to South Florida. The Oity has been competing with other cities and counties in the area to entice them to locate in the City of BoYnton Beach. There is a timing concern with this application. BGI has a potential closing date of December 20th. Also. Lots 80, 81 and 82 were part of the request for the DRI amendment that came before this board in the summer. However, when it went to the City Commission, a representative from DCA said they had to be deleted because there was a land use change that was necessary for those three lots. Although those lots were owned by Quantum Park. they were not part of Quantum Park, and they had a different zoning. There is a section of State Law under the DRI section that says any property owned by the applicant must be included in the DRI. Therefore, we had to bring that property in. With this app caton we weCe piggyback ng it to get that reso ved However, it has been p>rerewewed Technically, that could constitute a substantial deviation. However, Ms. Heyden's argument to the State and Treasure Coast was thal it has already been prereViewed because it was part of'the original application, and it is merely being included for bookkeeping purposes. There are a number of criterion in the Florida Statutes that govern the minimum time and maximum rime'that a DRI amendment can be reviewed. Thirty days is the minimum and 45 days in the maximum if it falls under an E3 change, Based on the time that this was submitted, and the desired date of approva that time frame is a little short of 30 days. The City is anx ous to get this approved and has been working very hard to ure th s applicant to Quantum Parkto keep the image of Quantum Park as an industrial park. This difference.of anE2 change versus an E3 change gets a little technical, but the bottom tine is that we can still meet the requirements and satisfy everybody's needs. Ms. Heyden heard from the State today, and they agree with Treasure Coast that it is an E3 change. However, it can be disputed that this can be approved in less than 30 days, and a public hearing is not needed if clear and convincing evidence, which was not previously submitted with the application, ~s submitted. Even though clear and convincing evidence was not submitted to the State and the Treasure Coast, Ms. Heyden believes 9 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR[DA DECEMBER 10, 1996 there are no regional impacts, even taking into consideration the fact that this property abuts a sandpine preserve. There are some hazardous materials that are associated with this type of use; however, she fell that can be taken care of through the local environmental review process. Althougt~ there are some issues that could be regional, Ms. Heyden felt they can be taken care of and everyone's concerns can be addressed. Ms. Heyden advised that some cities process DRI amendments by resolution, not ordinance. The City of Boynt0n Beach processes them by ordinance, and an ordinance requires a public hearing. If the State decides this is an E3 change, a public hearing is required. Although we did not meet the 15 day notice, we met the standard 10 day notice for an ordinance. Regarding staff's recommendation of removal of note number 4 on the last master plan, Ms. Heyden stated that there were a lot of changes to the master plan. The master plan that went to the Planning and Development Board had a lot more lots designated for commerciaL, and the City Commission wanted about a third of them removed from the commercial designation. Many master plan changes occurred at the very last day that the ordinance was~adopted, and note number 4, which was not requested by staff, was put on by the applicant and it slipped through the cracks. This note states that any future changes to the master plan that involve a commercially designated lot do not have to go through State and Treasure Coast review and is not a DRI amendment. Treasure Coast has reminded Ms. Heyden that this violates State law. Therefore, Ms. Heyden recommended that this note be removed. She realizes that it should have been caught with the last DRI amendment: Since the location of commercial has a significant impact on this intersection and neither the Planning and Zoning Department nor the Engineering Department have theability to review traffic studies, and because there are regional impacts with State roads and County roads, Ms. Heyden advised that it is not agood idea to exclude them from the review. Therefore, she recommended that this go forward as an E2 change and,that a public hearing be held to adopt the ordinance in the time frame that has been set forth, which is less than. 30 days, and that this be approved subject to the ,conditions in Exhibit Mr. Aguila pointed out that Greg Stuart from DCA should have known that this was in conflict with State Statutes and objected to it at that time. Ms. Heyden explained that she spoke to Mr. Stuart about that, and the problem was that we thought the note meant something else. It can be interpreted in the worse possible way, which is "totally exclude any DCA and Regional review from a change". She advised that Mr. Willard said he will bring any changes to them; however, the note is on the master plan and can be interpreted to exclude them 10 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD ;BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 Mr. Aguila asked if she has talked to Mr. Stuart about rewording the note so that it clearly states that if anybody has the lawful right to review it, the note does not remove their right. Ms. Heyden explained that the reason the note was put there was because the last time Mr. Willard came before the Planning and Development Board with a DRI amendment, he told the board that this DRI is old and different from other DRIs because it allows less flexibility. Most master plans are more general. The State agreed with Mr. Willard and told him what he had to do. Mr. Willard has not done that and does not want to. He felt that by putting this note onthere, it could serve the same purpose, but it does not. Mr. Stuart had that conversationwith Mr. Willard, but it was misconstrued in such a way that the note ended up totally excluding DCA and the Region from that review. Chairman Dub6 recalled that the City Comm ssion wanted to hand e this on a lot by lot bass Mr Heyden advsed tw defntey gotbrpugh the C. . ty's master p an modfcaton process. However, this involves 1-95, an interchange, and County and State roads, and because of this option on the lots, the traff c conditions have become very complicated that nobody understands them.anymore. She said everybody needs to get involved in the rewew to work out the traffic concerns in the ev~.n.t there s a change in the commerc a Iocation, lan~d we p an io do that n the e~/ent Mr. Willard decides to d~) a brand new master plan he has ag[eed o~)e~ the telephone yesterday wth Reg onal Coast to do that. In the meantime, we wan'[ that note removed. Cha rman Dub6referred to Mr. Willard's December 10, 1996 memo wherein he requests that condition 3;:be .d, eleted;beca,use he sees no purpose served by it. Chairman Dub6 asked why that Condition was put ~n there, Ms. Heyden advised that the Technical Rev ew Committe~ made that c0mme~t, She Called Mr. ~)illard today and told him that she would be willing to delete that comment. Susan Delegal; Attorney with the law firm of Holland & Knight, represented BG International. Regard ng the requirement for the issuance of the building perm t, she concurred with Mr. ~/itlar8 s comments and appreciated Ms. Heyden's offer t(~ withdraw this comment, Chairman Dub6 allowed comments from the audience. Stella Rossi, 625 Whispering Pines Road, asked if the lot abuts the sandpine preserve and what kind of protection there is going to be from the last industrial lot into the sandpine preserve. Ms, Heyden believes that the DRI requires fencing, and fencing exists. In addition, Quantum Park regularly submits an annual report that monitors that preservation area. There will not be any additional buffering. There is another requirement in the DRI, 11 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 namely, a hazardous materials response plan, which would be part of the environmental review. Motion Mr. Wische moved to approve the request to amend the previously approved PID master plan in connection with an amendment to the DRI to change the use designation of lots 32, 33, 34A, 34B, 35, 36, 37 and 38 from Office to Office/Industrial/Research and Development to allow a proposed manufacturing use and to change the use designation of lots 80, 81 and 82 from office to industrial/commercial, subject to staff comments, excluding comment number 3. Vice Chairman Golden seconded the motion, which carried Project: Agent: Location: Description: Citrus Glen Sheryln McAilister Southeast corner of Lawrence Road and Miner Road Request to amend the previously approved master plan setbacks to reduce the non-zero side setback from 15 feet to 10 feet to construct screen enclosures (with screen roof), pools, spas and jacuzzis. Mr. Lewicki advised that the Commission determined this to be minor and recommended approval Ms. McAllister and her father. Art Albrecht, were present. Mr. Albrecht agreed to the staff comments. Motion Mr. Aguila moved to approve the request to amend the previously approved master plan setbacks to reduce the non-zero side setback from 15 feet to 10 feet to construct screen enclosures ('with screen roof), pools, spas and jacuzzis, subject to staff comments. Vice Chairman Golden seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. Subdivision Master Plan Project: Agent: Owner: Orchard Landing Daniel Diamond Harvey Lang 12 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 Location: Description: East of Federal Highway and 180 feet south of 23rd Avenue Request to approve a master plan to subdivide a 2 acre parcel into three lots for single-family homes. Mr. Diamond commended staff for being very helpful and getting him here in record time. He agreed with all of staff's comments. Motion Vice Chairman Golden moved to recommend approval of the subdivision master plan for OrChard Landing, to subdivide a 2 acre parcel into three lots for single-family homes, Subject to staff comments. Mr. Eisner seconded the motion, Which carried 6-0. D. Site plans Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Hills at Lake Eden PUD Burlison Gentry Frank Pinto Northwest corner of Seacrest Boulevard and Gulfstream Boulevard (S.E. 36th Avenue) Request for site plan approval for perimeter wall and buffer landscaping, common area landscaping, gated entry, preserve area fencing and signage. Mr. Gentry and Mr. Pinto were present, Mr. Gentry advised that this site plan has been developed in conformity with the master plan. The setbacks relating to the spacing of the trees and the heights have been complied with. The wall will be six feet with a concrete cap, and there will be a feature on the entrance. He stated that the sign was not indicated on the plan that was originally presented. When he applies for a building permit for that sign, he will make sure it complies with the minimum requirements of 32 square feet. He said the developer is willing to comply with all the staff comments and will satisfy them prior to pulling the building permit. Mr. Aguita would like to delete comment 22. He could not imagine why we would want to replace the chain link fence with a wooden fence which will eventually rot and fall apart. In addition, on the northeast, southeast, and southwest corners of the property where the north/south masonry wails end, he asked the applicant to return those walls 90 degrees 13 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 towards the property for a distance of 60 feet. He felt that bringing the chain link fence all the way up to the wall on the street is not going to look nice. Mr. Burlison said the developer would be willing to make a return there, at least for one of those sections, so there would ~e a column set back at least 20 feet. He pointed out thal the owners will probably bring in some landscaping that will be a part of the single family, and the fence ~/ould ta~ke over from there. He assumed the people who buy in there will do a substantial amount of landscaping on the lots as part of the building permit process. After conferring with Mr. Pinto, Mr. Budison offered 10 feet. Mr. Aguila recommended no less than 20 feet. Mr. Haag asked if Mr. Agt~ila was talking about returning on all four corners. Mr. Aguila clarified ~hat the northwest corner already has a wall. He was concerned that as you travel on Seacrest and Swinton that you not see some return to that element. He did not think 20 feet ~vas enough, but considered it a compromise. With regard to comment 22, Mr. Aguila recommended that the wooden fence be omitted. Mr. Haag was agre,eable to t~hat. He said his concern was that the vinyl slats in the fence are riot ~.ttractiv~ a)ter the fii'st three or four months they are in place. Mr. Haag advised that comment 25 has been complied with. All of staff had signed off the master plan today. Chairman Dub~ allowed comments from the audience. Mrs. William Eckler, 2750 Seacrest Boulevard, Delray Beach, said her husband and she own the 5 acres immediately south of this property. She asked if the chain link fence is going to be landscaped. Chairman Dub~ advised that the developer agreed to install a native hedge along there, as suggested by staff. Stella Rossi, 625 Whispering Pines Road, thinks the two strips are an insult to the preservation of that site and to the environment. She commended the applicant for agreeing to buffer the south and north with a native hedge. However, she felt there should be some native trees, and that if you destroy native, you should replace with native. She stated that Queen Palms from Australia do nothing for the habitat or wildlife and do not provide shade. Mr. Aguila agreed with Mrs. Rossi that there should be landscaping on the north and south property lines as they abut residential. Chairman Dubb explained that what the developer originally asked for is no where near what he has, and what is before this board was 14 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 worked out with the City Commission. The whole site ~s a compromise from what the developer wanted and what the City wanted. If this board recommends something else, it would be going against what the City has already comprised with the developer. Motion Mr. Aguila moved to approve the re(: uest for site plan approval for perimeter wall and buffer landscaping, common area andscaping, gated entry, preserve area fencing and signage for the Hills at Lake Eden PUD, subject to staff comments and the following: Delete the words "either a solid wood fence painted a neutral color or" from Comment 22; Delete Comment 25 since it has been resolved; and Add the following comment: The developer will return a minimum of 20 feet on the masonry walls in the northeast, southeast, and southwest corn ers of the property before commencing the chain [ink fence. Mr. Reed seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Golden said he ~s going to vote against this to be consistent with previous actions. The motion carried 5-1. Vice Chairman Golden cast the dissenting vote. E. Time Extension Project: Agent/Owner: Location: Description: Whipowill Arms Burton Metsch 515-513 S.E. 4th Street Request for a second one year time extension for concurrency and site plan approval. Mr. Metsch was not present. Chairman Dub6 pointed out that when the board approved the previous time extension, it was for the exact same reason, which was that the applicant could not get financing. Mr. Aguila asked why the Utility Department recommended that the plan not proceed through the review process. Ms. Heyden explained that they never got their reservation fee so they do not feel that the applicant is trustworthy of turning in that fee. ThiS condition MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 was included so that if we do not get the money, then at that point, it becomes null and void. Motion Mr. Aguila moved to deny this request for a second one year time extension for concurrency and site plan approval. Mr. Wische seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. F. Other Discussion (continued from last meeting) Proposed changes to Chapters 2 and 5 of the Land Development Regulations Chairman Dub6 advised that a joint Planning and Development Board and City Commission workshop to discuss all the LDR changes is scheduled for January 9, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall at the Mall. He explained that only Chapters 2 (height of hedge issue only) and 5 will be discussed this evening. The rest will be discussed at the January 9th workshop. The members of the board did not propose any changes to these chapters. Ms. Heyden said the only substantive issue is the change that would no longer require us to require surety to be turned in for improvements that, although required by our Code, would not be dedicated to the City. She said this is sort of a philosophical issue regarding what you see the City's role being to insure that a project is completed per the plans that were approved by the City. She expressed concern about page 4, which appears to state that the City will hold up accepting public improvements, even though they are complete, if there are private improvements that are not complete. She did not know if we can do that. At this time, William Hukill arrived. He explained that a surety was added and one was eliminated. The surety that was added is a restoration surety for restoring a site to the condition it was in when the developer came on it. Under this new condition, the developer, or the City if the surety is called, would be required to restore the property (grade it, stop the blowing dust and sand, sod or seed it, etc.) to the way it was the day the developer started toget it back to its original condition. The surety that was eliminated was for the. improvements that a developer puts in that the City does not have any ownership, operation, or maintenance interests in. For example, 16 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 water, sewer, or roads. This does not change the testing procedures or acceptance level, and will eliminate the possibility of having an attractive nuisance. Surety will not be required on privately owned improvements that the City will never have an ownership or maintenance interest in. Mr. Hukill pointed out that most cities have been unsuccessful or unwilling to declare a developer bankru pt and to call the bond and successfully pursue it. Mr. Aguila asked how the value of the surety would be establish ed, who would establish it, and if the City would document what is originally there. Mr. Hukill explained that two documents are involved. One already exists, and the other we are requiring is in this Chapter. One document is the set of construction documents which delineates what you start with and what we expect to get it back to. There are several ways to evaluate that. The way we delineated it was the same way that we est mate the cost of requ red improvements namely we ha~e to have a.ce~ f ed eSt mate from a ~es gn professional of the coCt to restore tl~e site to its original condition.' That is an additional o~)st item that is submitted upfront. Ms. Heyden referred to Section 4 and asked if this means that if all the public improvements have been done but the private improvements have not, we cannot accept the public improvements. Mr. Hukill stated that the thing that determines it in Boynton Beach is the status of the water and sewer, whether, the air tests and television tests are done. and whether they accept the water and sewer because without the water and sewer, you cannot do anything else. The Utility Department supports this because they think asking them to release surety is a waste of their time since they do not use the required improvement test to determine whether a project is done. Ms. Heyden asked if this change will affect our ability to get private improvements done on time. Mr. Hukill did not think it would have any affect on that. Ms. Heyden advised that from her observation, what always ends up hanging is the landscaping of the comrr an areas and the swales and sometimes the drainage areas that end up being privately owned and maintained. Mr. Hukill said there are oftentimes conditions ~n one of the development orders that will trigger a mechanism for a particular ~mprovement. For example, at Leisureville along S.W. 8th where there was a condition that the planting will go in when a certain event has.occurred and all the other events:around it occurred, but the developer did not want to do that until the end. He felt that will continue. Another thing that happens all the time is that home builders typically do not w~nt to build the sidewalks until all the houses are sold in an area. The~, want to do it ~,ith tl~e house, or last, because they have construction traffic going across them ali the time. He did not see this as a detriment. There is another part of this Chapter that requires a second lift of asphalt to allow the delay 17 MINUTES pLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 in the ~lacement of that until you reach the state where you have a neighborhood essentially completed. Mr. Aguila pointed out that the words "paragraph 3" in Section 2 on page 4 of the ordinance should state, "paragraph A3". Ms. Heyden asked if the Building Division can still hold up Certificates of Occupancy for houses that require improvements even though they are to be privately owned. Mr. Hukill said they can, unless there is a development order that changes that, which there often is. Mr. Hukill advised that there is a provision ,n Chapter 5 where a developer can ask for relief from a platting requirement. We have taken the rev ew of the replat request away from the ~lanning and Development Board. It is an admin stratve decision, based on the Lan d Development Regulations. If they want to appeal it, there is language in there dealing with the new appeals process for administrative decisions. There were certain kinds of decisions that could be appealed which the Land Development Regulations and the Code were both silent on, and this created a problem There have been a series of administrative appeals with respect to the Building Codes which are typ ca ly adjud cated by ~he Bbard of i~uilding Adjustments and Appeal. Other decisions have been made by administrators amd accepted by the people ~because they fet the adm n strator had enough credibilityt° do that. H~wever, there was an exampl~e of an admin strative process gone awry (the Roberts case). Part of the re&son wasthat there was not a. clearly delineated process. There were 50 places in the Code that dealt with appeals, exceptions, and variances. They have now all been pla~ed,in the first chapter. We have set up a process for appeals where any administrative decision can b,,e appea ed to the administrator who made the decision. From t~,ere, an appeal ~f the Building Codes or Electrica Codes goes to ~he Buiidir~g Board of AdjUstments a~nd/~ppea and f t does not f t n~o any of the other categories, it goer to:?he B~ard of Z0ning ,~ppeals. If t s app~ated further, it goes to the City Commission and then io CourL Mr. Hukill requested more idialogue o~ this. In his opinion, the logical place for those appeals to go, with the exception of zoning appeals, is to the Planning and Development Board. However, he did not send them here because the City Commission made this board an advisory board nqt aquas -judc a board. Mr Hukill sa d we do not need advice. We need decision. Wher~ a developer comes through the process, he wants to go someplace where he can w~ork something out and get an answer. MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 8. COMMENTS BY MEMBERS Vice Chairman Golden announced that he has another commitment and will not be able to attend the workshop. However, he had previously given his comments to Ms. Heyden. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Eve Eubanks Recording Secretary (Three Tapes} 19 MEMORAN,DUM TO: ~UBJE CT: DATE t CIT~ OF BOYNTON BEAC~ PLANNING AND DEV~LOP~V~ENT BOARE C/O ~S. TAMBRI HEYDEN Ji~ES G. WILLA.~D, ATTORNey FOR QUA/~TUM ASSOCIATES USE APPROVAL AND .u2%STE~ PLAN MODIFICATION December 10, 1995 Due to an unavoidable conf!icu, I will no= be able personally attend tonight's Pla~n%ng and Developmen~ Board meeiln~. Therefore, I would like this letter uc be made part of the rocor= considered by you as you make your recommendations at uon~gh~'s meeting. I concur with staff's recommendation on the Use Approval and have no objections to the Cond/tions of A~prova! set forth in Exhibit "C". Attorney Susan Delegal from the ~o!land & Kni~hU law firm, representing B$I Industries, Inc., will be at tonight's meeting on behalf of BGI. Please consider any co==.en~s desired to be made by Ms. Delegal. ~araoraDh 7.C.1. Ma~tm~ 9i~ Modification. The following comments relate to the numbered comments contained in Conditions forth in Exhibl~ "D" to the staff report: Correspondlngi¥ of Approval se= 1. We object 'to the deletion of note 4. This note was specifically negotiated a~d approved by the City Commission last July after inDuu by the developer, City staff and Mr. Grog Stuar= from DCA. In fact, Mr. Stuar: specifically approved t_he language of this no=e. The effort by City staff :~ ~e!ete no~e 4 a: this time is &nappropriate and bears no connection ~o the land use change involving the transaction that is before ~he Board. 2. Aqreed. This change has been made on the revlsed Master Site Development Plan dated December 6, which was delivered yes:erday =o City staff. 3. We request condition 3 to be dele=ed, we see no purpose servmd By this ¢or. dltion. If the rev±~ed land use aDPr°pria~e,' it sho~/d not make a ~Soc£&teS.4' Agreed. These fee~ will be paid by evanin;, but ! aPpreCiate your ~--,~ -- before you this commenns. - - ~-=o&mera=lon of the f~regoing JSW/smw cc: SUSan DQlegal, Esquire S=e~Qn E. FtVel, Esquire