Loading...
Minutes 02-09-93NINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOFHENT BOARD HEETING HELD CONHISSION CHANBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1993 AT 7:00 P.M, PRE~ENT Gary Lehnertz, Chairman Marilyn Huckle, Vice Chairwoman Nathan Collins Ken Johnson Bradley Miller Shirley Stevens Nathan Sussman, Alternate Paul Davis, Alternate Dean Fleming Chris Cutro, Planning & Zoning Director Mike Haag, Zoning & Site Devel. Administrator James Cherof, City Attorney CALL T__O ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Lehnertz called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. INTRODUCTION OF NAYOR~ CONNISSIONERS AND BOARD NENBERS Chairman Leh~ertz acknowledged the presence in the audience of Commissioners Jose Aguila and and Ed Harmening. He also introduced the members of the Board and advised that Paul Davis, an Alternate Board member, was present in the audience. AGENDA APPROVAL There being no additions, deletions or corrections, Mr. Collins moved to adopt the agenda as presented. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which carried 7-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January ~2~ .~993 There being no additions, deletions or corrections, Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Collins seconded the motion which carried 7-0, COMMUNICATIONS ANDANNOONCEMENTS A. Report of the planning and Zontng Department Mr. Cutro bad no report this month. Chairman Lehnertz reported that he received a memorandum from the City Clerk which discusses the fact that on January 19, 1993, the City Commission adopted a policy concerning participation by Board Alternates at Board meetings. Chairman Lehnertz said this Board has been following the policy set forth in the memoran- dum for many years. Chairman Lehnertz offered to circulate the memorandum for review by members. - 1- MINUTES - PLANNING AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD HEETZNG BOYNTON BEACH, FLORZDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 OLD BUSXNE$$ None NE~ BU$IHES$ A. PUBLZC HEARING PARKING LOT VARIAI~E Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Saint Mark Catholic Church Daniel O'Connelt, General Contractor Most ReverendJ. Keith S3gnons, DD 624 NE 6th Avenue Request variances to Section 5-142 (d) Landscaping and (fl Drainage of Article X, Parking Lots Mr. Cutro explained that the Board s responsibility this evening is to review the request for the variances on dKaina~eAQd landscaping. The conditional use and the s~te plan were previously reviewed by the ~Co~inunity Redevelopment Advisory Board (CRAB). Since the ~ew Si~Ptan~ Review Ordi,nance took effect, items such as s~te plans and cond~itional use requests in the CBD now go to the CRAB for their review. The CRAB recommended approval of the conditional use and the site plan subject to the comments listed in the back-up material regarding lighting and drainage. The Planning and Development Board needs Only to ~ote on the two variances this evening. Mike Haag made ~he presentation. Saint Mark's is located in the Central Business DistriCt (CBD)east of]theBoynton Beach Plaza. There are nineteen {19) acres, of mangroves, along this site. The proposed new preschool facility will be in the ~orthwest co. mar of the site. Because of the construction of this new facility, the applicant is being forced to up rude the entire s3te to p - . ~ g - . meet the ark3ng Lot Ordinance and the Landscape Code, After the applicant reviewed both of those Cod~s, he decided to vary only the drainage portion of the Parking Lot Ordinance and the landscaping. With regard to all other por- tions of t~e Parking Lot Ordinance, the site will be up Kaded to meet Code. S ' ' '. ' g Mr. taud~nger w~llihandle the drainage portion of the variance request. Mr. Haag summarized the issue of the landscape variance re uest. The site is presently lands6aped with Ficus hedge and Black Olive tree:. Code prohibits both df these species. The Landscape Code requires the vehicle use to be screened. Ther~ is an existing Picus hedge a~ound the entire perimeter of the property with the exception of ~he eastern portion of the property. The pro- posed aew site will have alt native landscaping including Oak trees and Cocoplum hedgematerial. When p~rking spaces exist on the interior, there is a requirement to provide a certaSn number of trees for a specified numar of square feet of required landscape area. This site is lacking trees in that area. -2 - #INUTE$ - PLANNING A~D DEVELOPHENT BOARD HEETI~G BOYNTON BEA(~I, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 Further, site lighting and pedestrian lighting are part of this Code. Light poles exist in the parking lot and there is some pedestrian lighting along the sidewalk leading to the rectory~ There is building lighting on the church and the lighting on the school shines onto the sidewalk. The Community Design Plan requires 1 foot candle and 3/4 foot candle for pedestrians. Upon checking the lighting levels, the Engineering Department found the levels to be very low. Also, the Landscape Code requires an entrance treatment. There are three (3) entrances into this-site. Suggested landscaping includes the use of Palm trees, and flowering plants. Pedestrian walkways ace Atso covered under the Landscape Code. There are sidewalks lead~ng to?e Church, the rectory, the school and the auditorium. T~e proposed new facili't~/Will also have sidewalks leading to its entrance. Hr. Haag pointed out that his presentation highlighted the Landscape Code. There are also planting specifications included in the Code. This particular site is a fully-matured site; however, the Ficus species does not meet the Code. Also, at certain points there are gaps in the hedge, and it does not reach the perimeter as it should in all areas. In response to Ms, Stevens' question, Mr. Haag suggests the entrance treatment be placed at the first entrance off U.S. 1. This planting bed would include flowering trees and Palms. Hr. Haag pointed out that the trees which are missing from the site can, come from the new site. There are approximately twenty-four extra trees on that site which will have to be disposed of. Kevin Hallahan has suggested: those trees be placed on the site. Mr. Haag confirmed for Chairman Lehnertz that the site would be within 90 to 100 percent of Code requirements when the existing landscaping and proposed landscaping are counted, Mr. Haag further confirmed his recommendation that the Ficus hedge remain. Hr. Haag stated that the replanting of existing trees in different locations on the site would assist in bringing the site up to Code. However, Mr. Haag pointed out that the tree survey submitted by the applicant does not provide the heights of the ~rees. Upon visiting the site, it appears that the trees on the new site would meet the minimum size required by Code° Vice Chairwoman Huckle asked if the existing 24" on center hedge will have to be altered to meet the Code requirement of 18" on center. Hr. Haag stated this hedge should be allowed to exist at 24" on center; however, the new hedges to be added are to match the existing hedge, but will be 18" on center. Ms. Stevens wondered if parking spaces would be lost during the relocation of the trees, and further asked how conformity with the Code will be affected. Mr. Haag said the trees which are missing now would not take any parking spaces. They would be placed in the islands. Mr. Haag further clarified that the spe- cies of trees on the new site are Sable Palms. The Code requires interior trees to be Live Oak. Sable Palms are native trees, but they are not specified in the Code. -3- NINCITES - PLANNING AND DEVELOPNENT BOARD NEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 In response to Ms. Stevens' question regarding parking lot usage in the evening, Mr. Haag reported that he visited the site on Monday and Tuesday evenings, and the lot was quite full. Mr. Miller pointed out that the applicant is requesting a variance for every section of the Landscape Code. His understanding of the criteria encourages minimizing variances as much as possible. He does not feel much effort was put forth by the applicant to minimize the variance and thinks this request is quite extreme for a variance application. Mr. Cutro explained that it was his decision to do this as a blanket variance. Staff feared that breagi~g down the requests may lead to overlooking one or two which would result in ~he applicant having to return to the Board. This is an example of theiinequi~y Of ~he current Code. A small addition is being built, but the appllcani iS ~ipg required to upgrade a very large parking lot. The parking generated by ~thei sc~l is small for the site. The impact on this site is generated: by the church and the auditorium. Mr. Miller asked 'for clarification on how many Code requirements are being varied Once the ,~%af~ ~ne~t~ are applied. Mr. Cutro provided that clarifica- tion for Mr. Millier~anU ~he o~her Board members. He stated in his opinion, these are technic, al ~iances and if the regular Landscape Code for the City were app)ied; thiis ~i~e Would meet the requirements of the Code. Mr. Miller asked .for guidance from City Attorney Cherof. He does not understand how this request ~eets ~he criteria for granting a variance. Attorney Cherof read the introdudtion ~rom the Code section which applies and referred to the standard criteri~ for granting a variance. He advised that the Board should look at the lite~al enforcement of the Code and weigh it against the hardship to the applicant ta~ing into consideration special circumstances and conditions. Because this com~s out, of the Parking Lot Ordinance, it is a special condition. He is not of the ~elief that the Parking Lot Ordinance anticipated some of these problems where a major site is affected by a small site. Mr. Miller asked for further clarification on the variances being requested. Mr. Haag provided a list of the speci%ics. Father Block~ Pa&toro~f~ Saint Nark'$ Church. 624 NE &th Board and expl~i~a t~t this ~t~be ~n~a~ Avenue, addressed the learning center. The present Kindergarten is inadequate. The proposed pre-K will serve as a feeder for the school. The Kindergarten will be moved from the mai~n school. This Kindergarten contains thirty {30) students. Twenty-five {25) preschool children wilt also be acco~odated at ~he new facility. Chairman Lehnertz asked if the site is irrigated so that the trees which will be relocated, can establish themselves. Father Block explained that the entire site, including the islands, is irrigated by well water. Father Block further reported that on January 28th, he, Mr. Schorah and Mr. O'Connell met with Mr. Finizi~ on the site to measure the lighting. It was the applicant's opinion, and he felt Mr. Finizio agreed, that the lighting was ade- quate for the use. However, Father Block agreed to bring the lighting up to Code. He explained that the lot is not very crowded in the evenings with the exception of Monday and Tuesday evenings during Bingo. -4- ~NyUTES, P~ING AND ,DEVELOPI4ENT BOARD NEETING YN--TON BEACH; FLORIDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 In response to Ms. Stevens' question, Father Block stated he cannot recall a vehicle accident taking place in the parking lot of the church. Chairman Lehnertz questioned whether or not the applicant was aware of staff comments regarding lighting and explained that staff recommends site and pedestrian lighting be brought up to Code. Those suggestions include adding new fixtures and increasing the size of the existing fixtures. Father Block agreed that he had no problem with those comments. Mr. Collins feels the lighting should be brought up to Code because no area is safe from crime today. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Cutro suggested the applicant be asked if he agrees with the landscaping conditions recommended by staff. Mtke~ En~t~eer for the~, apologized for the absence of Mr. O'Connell. He asked Mr.---~aa-~-to review the commitments the applicant would be agreeing to regarding landscaping. He stated Father Block has agreed to relocate the trees from the new site to the existing islands. He asked for clarification of the entrance treatment. Mr. Haag explained the following: There is a recommendation to create an entrance treatment which will contain three (3) Palm trees, two (2) flowering trees, and a planting bed with ground cover or mulch. e Five (5) trees will have to be added to the perimeter, the vacant spots of the hedge need to be fiTled in, and the hedge must be brought in line in certain areas. e There is an assumption that the twenty-four (24) trees on the new site will be acceptable for planting in the isles. These trees are not the species required by Code, but nineteen {19) of those trees can be put on the existing site. Mr. Schorah agreed with these requirements. Mr. Sussman asked whether or not the applicant would purchase new trees if it is determined that the twenty-four (24) trees are not fit to be replanted. Mr. Schorah responded in the affirmative. Mr. Miller wondered if the applicant would be receptive to planting shade trees as opposed to Palms. Mr. Cutro stated that if the applicant is willing, staff can work with the applicant in switching the trees to get Palms on the outside. Further, Mr. Cutro stated that if only some of the trees are acceptable, the applicant wilt buy trees to replant the total of twenty-four (24}. Those new trees will be Live Oak or Mahogany, The applicant agreed with Mr. Cutro's plan. -5- NINUTE$ - PLANNING AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 Mr, Collins moved to approve the request for variances of Section 5-142 {d) Landscaping, subject to all comments recommended by staff. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion, Attorney Cherof was questioned by Chairman Lehnertz regarding whether or not specific staff comments should be identified and included as part of the motion. Attorney Cherof stated that these comments can be included by reference, but a document should be prepared reflecting the order of the Board and specifically attaching the conditions. Mr. Cutro stated he will prepare such a document where the individual conditions will be spelled out in time for the City Commission meeting. Mr. Miller pointedlout that the conditions would be a, b, c, d and e, of Mr. Cutro's. memorandum ,dated. February. 1, 1993 to. the Planning and Development Board. Mr. Haag stated that e" is the recommendation for the nineteen {19) trees to be CBD species. He suggested the Board provide some latitude for the applicant. A~nendedMotton Mr. Collins amended his motion to approve the request for variances of Section 5-142 {~) Landscaping, subject to comments a through e with the exception that ninetee~ {19) missi)ng trees be allowed to be replaced with the trees that are being, removed on the si~e. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which carried 7-0. Richard Staudinger, City Engineer, addressed the drainage variance. He stated that this variance is triggered under the Parking Lot Code because of the addi- tion of the facility at the northwest corner. None of the parking lot meets the current Codes for drainaQe. This parking lbt has sheet flow to the east and, at the southeast corner, it overflows into the existing mangroves. At the northeast corner, there are several areas where the sheet flow goes off into the mangroves and mesquito ditches to the east. Staff suggested the applicant attempt to locate, in the northeast an~ southeast corners, several ponds for dry retention and pretreat- ment of water to sl)ow th~ flows and percolate some of it before it overflows. There is no downstneam impact from drainage because the church owns the property tO the east. Also,, there are no major properties on a Storm system upstream which contribute to this situation. The applicant submi:tted a pond location in the northeast corner. Further, they eliminated twenty-siix {26} parking spaces in the southeast corner. Although this will not meet Code, it is better than 50 percent with regard to drainage. Their only other alternative would be to begin anew with the parking lot. This solution would provide minimal impact to the parking lot and provides the City with water quality treatment on the site. The proposed new facility site will meet Code for drainage. Mr. Staudinger feels this is a step in the right direc- tion and an improvement over what is currently there. He recommends approval of the variance. In response to Mr. Collins' question, Mr. Staudinger stated that even though the church wilt be eliminating twenty-six (26) parking stalls, they will still meet Code. -B- HZNUTES - PLAHNING AND DEVELOPMFJqT BOARD NEETZNG BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 Mr. Johnson wondered if this drainage is going into an existing pilot storm drain or a lift station. Mr. Staudinge~ said all of the drainage flows to the mosquito ditches connected to the Intracoastal Waterway. tn response to Vice Chairwoman Huckle's question, Father Block announced that the building appearing on the plan will be demolished. Mr. Cutro made a suggestion that in the southeast corner, where the parking spaces are being removed, he would like four (4) additional interior spaces removed so that there can be a one-way drive through that area, Mr. Schorah pointed out that a light pole exists in that area, but he agreed to remove four (4) spaces on the west side of that pole. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Miller wondered if the environmental agencies will permit this. Mr. Staudinger advised that this solution will provide some pretreatment before the water flows into the mangrove area. The applicant's engineer will have to get this permitted and approved; however, Mr. Staudinger feels DER and DERM will look more favorably on this solution than that which currently exists. Chairman Lehnertz stated that while there is some negative impact to the mangroves, by feeding into them, they are being used to clean up the water going into the Intracoastal Waterway. In response to Mr. Miller's question, Mr. Staudinger said this solution will be 60 percent to Code with the improvements. Right now, it is 0 percent. Alternate Board member, Paul Davis, wondered if the use of seven additional parking spaces would increase the percentage to Code. Mr, Staudinger thinks it would add less than 10 percent. Further, he pointed out that the applicant agreed to eliminate four ~dditional spaces for a travel lane which would reduce the remaining available spaces to three. Mr. Davis was advised that the pro- posed solution does not meet the water quality requirements of the City or of South Florida Water Management District. Mr. Davis suggested doing whatever it takes to improve water quality. Motion Vice Chairwoman Huckle moved to approve the request for variance to Section 5-142 (fl Drainage of Article X, Parking Lots subject to staff comments. Mr. Collins seconded the motion which carried 7-0. COnDITIONAl. USE Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Boynton Beach Promenade John Hoecker Max Developer i101 North Congress Boulevard Conditional use to allow instructional facility to occupy 7,011 square feet of the main building -7- 14INUTE~ - PLANNING ANO DEVELOPi4EHT BOARD NEETING BOYNTOH BEACH, FLORIDA FEI)RIJAE¥ 9, 1993 Mr. Cutro stated this is a request to allow an instructional facility for Motorola in the Boynton Beach Promenade. He corrected the description by noting that the facility will occupy 7,011 square feet. The Planning and Development Board recently approved a site plan for approxi- mately 75,000 square feet which included commercial and office space. This par- cel Cs zoned C-3. The proposed use is allowed as a conditional use in the C-1 category. This site will be located on the second floor of the existing struc- ture. This use is listed in the C-1 zoning district, but there is no further reference to it In the Code. Staff con~iders it to be acceptable because the C-2 zoning district allows repair and service shops. The main function Of this facility Will be training t~ repai~ and assemD]~beepers. This is a very clean use and most cities are very]aNxiouS to get sUCh a use because it stimulates the busi- ness COmmunity. Boynton Beach Mo~Orola is the largest producar of beepers in the world. Mr. Cutro reviewed the standards for evaluating conditional uses. A copy of his memorandum to the Planning a~d Development Board dated February 4, 1993, is on file in.the City Clerk'S Office. The coEditiona] use was reviewed by the Technical Review Com%i[tea, who had no comments on the proposed use. Staff recorrmends forwarding %his conditional use to the City Commission with a recom- mendation for approval. ~a~.~rNotorola~ ~ppro~cned the podium. Mr.' Dirk explained that the ' trainih~:courses will ~a.ry in length and subject matter. It is not expected that any course will~b~ longer than two weeks. The courses are booked through the remainder of this year and for most of next year. The class will consist of a maximum of fifty (5~) persons. In respoose to Ms. Stevens' question, Mr. Dirk confirmed that these people will be using~Boynton Beach hotels and restaurants during their training sessions. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC HEARING. Motion Ms. Stevens moved to recommend approval to the City Commission for the con- ditional use to allow instructional facility to occupy 7,011 square feet of the main building in the Boynton Beach Promenade at 1101 North Congress Boulevard. Vice Chairwoman Huckle seconded the motion which carried unanimously. At 8:30 p.m., Chairman Lehnertz announced that Mr. Collins would have to leave the meeting. Mr. Davis replaced him at the dais. CHAIRMAN LE~ERTZ DECLARED A TEN-MINUTE R~S. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:40 P,M. -8- HINUTE$ - PLANNING AND DEVELOPNENT BOARD HEF-TI:H~ BOYNTOH BEACH, F1ZORIDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 B. SUBDIVISIONS I~TER PLAN I. Project Name: Agent: OwnEr: Location: Description: Boynton Seacrest (f.k.a. Cedar Grove) Julian Bryan Cedar Grove Investments, N.V. The east side of South Seacrest Boulevard, approxi- mately lDO feet south of S.E. 1st Avenue (South Seacrest scrub site) Request for master plan approval to subdivide a 53.69 ac~e parcel Of land into i46 single-family lots, 41 duplex tots (a total of 228 dwelling units) and a 4.2 acre public park and concurrency certification for roads, drainage and neighborhood park facilities. ~ichard Staudinger, City Engineer, explained that what the Board commonly reviews are site plans and specific deVeloPments associated with a~ site. Another section of the Code deals wi~t~ the development of]a large piece of property as a subdivision under existing ~oning. ~his comes underAppendix C. The first step involved is the applicant submits the staff. Staff reviews this Those comments are to resubmit the plan. Afte Planning and Development Boa approved, the applicant plan. If the master plan master plan or decide not to master plan. During this process, it to comments. ; has en opportunity goes to the If it is naster a new The Board will review what was subm)tte~ in October of 1992, the comments from staff, the resubmittal in JanuarY, ig93,~ and further comments from staff. Chairman Lehnertz noted that this Board normally sees requests which are substantially complete, has directed staff to forward only those plans which are questioned the appearance Stau¢inger said he recomme number of unresolved comments. process is over, and the modified plan. The Code s tal. After that, the Stau~inger asked that the the process, and meet City Ordinances. He plan before this Board. Mr. to the Board because there are a large by the appl, icant to get through the begin again ~by submitting a new or one s~bmi, ttal and one resubmit- fee and begin again. Mr. so that the app]icant can move on in In response to Vice Chairwoman Huckle, Mr. Staudinger said the Board is now reviewing the comments from the second submittal. This master plan has been through two TRC meetings. There are still some significant unsettled issues. Mr. Staudinger listeU the options available to the Board: -9- I,U:NUTE$ -.PLAN~TNG AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD t4EET~NG BOYNTOH BEAr, H, FLORZDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 Deny the subdivision master plan due to the number of con~nents after the second submittal including many issues such as the Environmental Lands Ordinance, which was not addressed; Under Article XIII, Section 4, Paragraph F of the Code, send the plan back to the applicant with no action and ask the applicant to resubmit it; or 3. Approve the subdivision master plan despite the number of comments and not addressing the Environmental Lands Ordinance. Staff is not recommending this choice. Mr. Staudinger proceeded with his presentation. A visual projection showed the site. 'Seacrest BouleVard~is located to.the left of the proposed subdivision, and the F.E.C. Railroad is locatedto the right. The pa~k site is located in the northwest corner ~nd iS4.2 acres i]n size. The mainentry road is off Seacrest Boulevard a? directly aligns wi.th Mission Hill Road. There are two additional entrances; one~n the far northeast corner and one in the far southeast corner. The subdiii§~on will consist of ten blocks. Mr. Staudinger stated he w~uld not go through the comments in detail since they are So numerous, Staff!sPent a greai deal of time reviewing this master plan. There are some major ~reas which were not addressed in the two submittals. From an engineering standpoint, there is still a question of stormwater. Mr. St~udinger spoke with~the project engineer, which was followed up with a letter, and it appea~s there maY not be a major problem once the details are reviewed. The first four lots adjacent to Seacrest Boulevard present a problem. They are very close to the BouteYard, and there is a section of the Code which requires a certain distance off a collector before there can be a side street or a drive- way. These particular lots'do not meet that Code requirement. With .regard to traffic, there is a problem with one of the links on the roadways between Seacrest ~nd I-g5 on Woolbright. The applicant must address this issue before the County will give them concurrency for traffic on the site. With regard to utilities, the land at Seacrest rises to the level of the prop~ erty and then falls below that east of the Railroad tracks. No utility layout has b~en provided and it appears a lift station may be required which will elim- inate another lot. Further, no easements have been shown for water and sewer. There are also a significant number of comments from the Planning Department. Mr. Staudinger does not feel the plan is in the kind of condition where approval can be recommended at this time. Chairman Lehnertz referred to the Planning and Zoning memorandum contained in the back-up packet on Page 16, Item #tl refers to the total scrub habitat being 45.69 acres while the total site is §3.69 acres. He wondered why the entire site is not considered environmentally-sensitive land. This site is used by gopher tortoises and scrub jays. Mr. Staudinger stated that the numbers are .L J - 10 - H~NUTE$ - PLAITING AND DEVELOPHEHT BOARD HEET;NG BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 from the PUD submittal and that information is old. The applicant has not pro- vided positive or negative confirmation of any environmentally-sensitive lands on the site. That was a comment of the TRC review in November, but there was no response in the second submittal. Vice Chairwoman Huckle asked for clarification of the Traffic Engineer's letter wherein he says the project may possibly be improved by an Alternate Test I analysis. Mr. Staudinger explained that the roadway link he previously spoke about fails Test I of the Traffic Performance Standards which is on an average daily basis number of trips. The Alternate I Test allows looking at the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic on ~peak days. Mr. Staud}nger-agrees with Mr. Walker that it could p~obably pass the Alternate I Test; however, the applicant has not moved fo~ard to have that done. In response to Mr. Davis' question, Mr. Staudinger explained that no physical structure could be put*into th~ ground which would impact the exfiltration trenches. The trenches typically last seven years without clean out. It appears that a h~meowners' association would be charged with cleaning out the trenches every five tO seven y~ars. This is done by a vacuuming process. Ma[tt~~~ ~ire~)~,rese~ntin9 the appl:tcant~ feels this application has pro~abiy received ~e most significantscrUtiny of any application submitted in the City with the exception of Woolbr~ght Place. He said they have been working diligently to address each comment made by staff through the TRC. Mr. Perry first learned of this meeting yesterday because of an oversight by Mr. Bryan. Mr. Perry stated he and the applicant have been operating under the assumption that they were responding to a January 14th TRC meeting, of which they had no Knowledge. After notification, Mr. Bryan attended the meeting. City Code requires the TRC to respond to the applicant within seven days. The response from that meeting was received by fax on January 27th. Their response to the TRC comments was submitted on February 8th. Mr. Staudinger did not receive his faxed copy due to a secretarial error. A copy of the response was hand delivered to Mr. Staudinger this evening. Mr. Perry believed they were taking part in the process. With regard to traffic, Mr. Perry said the applicant has submitted additional information to Mr, Walker and the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineer which is favorable. Because of the time factor, the papers from Mr. Walker have not yet been verified. The issue of drainage has been addressed twice. They submitted information that this project has received South Florida Water Management District approval. They feel this proposal will work and so does South Florida Water Management District. He feels the City should tell them why they don't like the plan. He further stated that the City has taken this type of position on a number of the comments. - 1t #tHUTES - PLAh~ZNG AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD F1EET]'t4G BOYHTOfl BEACH=, FLOEZDA FEBRUAI~Y 9, 1993 Mr. Perry stated this is an improper meeting. The applicant did not request it. He wondered how the Board could make an informed decision if these comments are not addressed on an individual basls. Hr. Perry referred to a comment from Hr. Staudinger regarding the submittal of an abstract survey. Mr. Perry claims the Code does not say an abstract survey is required. The survey submitted does reflect all of the necessary easements. He said he has asked Mr. Staudinger for guidance on what is required so that the comments can be addressed. Mr. Perry feels this matter is still in process. He said he will discuss the matter of additional filing fees with the City Attorney. The applicant is attempting to address the comments, but there is not sufficient time for a response back to the applicant. He again stated they should not be at this m~eting. He suggested this matter be tabled until the next meeting because this process is unfair. He said the applicant wants to respond and meet all of the Codes. The issue of the environmental preserve area is a significant point. He feels it was the substantial basis for the original denial of the PUD application. The Comprehensive Plan talks about environmental set ~sides. They attempted to comply wi'th that iq their previous appTication. That application was not approved. This Ss a legal issue which will have to be addressed. Either the City Attorney will address it, or t,he Board will make a decision and a court will address it. Hr. Perry believes the City's Environmental Ordinance is so vague and ambiguous that no one can comply with it because no one knows how to address it. NO Ordinances have ever been adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan. That leaves property owners wi~h the problem of tryihg to figure out how to comply with rule~ which do not e×i~. That i~sue may even~tually be answered in a court of law. He said if this applicant is denied this evening, there is 9o.r~course but to go to a court of l~W to get them to order that the City ~alrly consider this appl,i~cation. He does sot believe this application has vet oeen fairly considered. He again suggested this matter be set aside so that the process may continue. Attorney Cherof asked for Hr. Perry's opinion regarding where they should be now. Mr. Perry felt this issue should have been deferred to allow time to focus on those issues. Attorney Cherof wondered what would occur between now and the next Board meeting if this matter is tabled until then. Mr. Perry said they have submitted a detailed response and attempted to submit plans this afternoon. Hr. Finizio refu~ed to accept the plans without a $1,500 filin fee. The have ~rked ~o addresp all of the comments of the January 14th TRC ~eeting. H~ feels ~ne applicant is entitled to have someone review those responses. Attorney Cherof pointed out that he was under the impression the applicant felt the matter was lingering before the TRC and he wanted it to move forward. Mr. Perry could not recall any correspondence of that nature. He said there was a letter written by Jill Jarkesy responding to the first IRC comments where she concludeO a lengthy letter by saying the resubmittal fairly met all of the com- ments of the TRC and hoped the City agreed so that this matter could proceed to the Planning and Development Board. The second TRC meeting proved that they did not feel the appl~icant fairly met all of the comments. The applicant then sub- mitted additional comments. I~ response to Attorney Cherof, Hr. Perry stated - 12 - #IgUTE~ - PLA~I~ AND DEVELOPHENT BOARD ~ETING BOYIiTON BEACH, FLOI~IDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 the resubmittat addresses all of the points and they are ready to argue them before the TRC. In response to Chairman Lehnertz, Mr. Perry advised that a submittal was pre- sented in September of 1992 for the TRC meeting on October 27, 1992. The com- ments from that meeting were received on November 4, 1992. They addressed them and on December 22nd, they sent a letter to Mr. Staudinger with a resubmittal of all plans. There was a second TRC meeting on January 14th. The comments of that meeting were received by the applicant on January 27th, They responded yesterday, by fax, in a lengthy letter. Today, Mr. Bryan attempted to deliver and subm}t ~he drawi~gsaod documentation for that letter. Chairman Lehnertz stated the Board has not seen those responses. He asked how much change was made to the master plan. Mr. Perry reported that no changewas made to the master plan, but responses were supplied to address specific comments, needs t feel~ 1 correct this to the comments that of the City and Lehnertz ~ed it. he will ~ of attitude that nothing to the Board Attorney Chq~of ~tt that ~hen Mr. Staudinger recommended this application come before ~ B~rdj~ there we~ no ~esubm~tat. As of y~st~rday afternoon, there ~s a resubmi~tt~! anU he ~rec~nmtended following one of Mr. Staudinger's recOmmenda- tions Pr~Vi~u~l~!*~aen~iOned.i ~M~. Penry~ndicated th~ apolic~nt is readv to addresS theil~s~?TRC comments 'and he should be given t~t opportunity.- Mr,.Stqud!nger aSked,for cl~arification of Attorney Cherof's suggestion. He exp)aiqedj tha~ th~s :~as be~n~ ~h~ro~gh two TRC meetings. If it goes back, it is a resubmilt~l a~d~re~ubmit~a)]fee is appropriate, i~heprocess would begin again for two addit%O~ai T~C mee6ings~. 'Attorney Cherof pointedout that Mr. Perry may take issu~ wi~h ,~ha~inter~r~{a]tion of the Code, but he offered to discuss that with Mn. Perryt°~orrow moUning, Attorney Cherof suggested whatever is tendered should ibeiaccep~6~, ~ubjec~'to resolution of the issue as to, whether or not a fee is required. Mr. Perry asked that,the record reflect the fact that they do not consider either of their ~responses ~o the TRC comments to be resubmittal. Rather, they are responsesit6 TRb~comme~ts. They have not made substantial changes from the first submittal, They hav~simPly attempted to address comments and that is all they c~ntinueto do. In response tp Attorney Cherof's question, Mr. Staudinger reported that the filing fee is~$1,500. In Vice Chairwoman Huckle's opinion, Attorney Cherof's suggestion has great me~it and shelfeeis ~he responses from the developer should be considered as responses. She feels there is room for negotiation to get to the substance of this situation. - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNI,NG ANO DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIOA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 Norton Vice Chairwoman Huckle moved that the Board accept Attorney Cherof's suggestion and refer this item back to the TRC and to the attorneys for the settlement of the issue of fees and an interpretation of whether this is a response or a resubmittal. Mr, Miller seconded the motion. Mr. Miller noted that there are quite a few comments which might be simple to resolve. Others do not seem to be addressed and might take effort on the part of the applicant. By referring this back, many of the conditions can probably be reduced, Ms, Stevens asked when this would come back before the Board. Mr. Staudinger advised that if the resubmittal is made within the next few weeks, this would go to the February 23rd TRCmeeting. It would probably reappear before the Plan- ning andDe~etopment Board for the April meeting, with a possibility of it coming back for the March meeting, Ms. Stevens hopes when this comes back before this Board there will be substan- tial changes made to 'meet the Code requirements. If not, then this situation has gone onYor a long enough period of time and it will be time to do something about it. Many it~ma need to ~e addressed including the overcrOWded schools, the letter from the SchOOl Board, the water mains, the Fire Department concerns and the utility layout. Ms. Sevens suggested addressing these items so they can be approved or disapproved. The motion carried 7,0. C. OTHER 1. Revle~ Text Amendment for Con$1$tencywtth the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Review proposed text amendment to the C-3 zoning district allowing freestanding automobile repair centers on tracts of land of 75 acres or larger as a conditional use, Mr. Cutro made the presentation. He explained that at the January 19th City Commission meeting, the City Attorney was asked to prepare a text amendment that would allow, as a conditional use, automotive repairs and ti re sales in a freestanding building on very large shopping center sites. The Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan allows this use in the local Retail Land Use category which is interpreted into the C-3 category, and since this clari- fies the locational criteria for this use in the C-3, the recommendation is that it is consistent with the Plan. Mr. Cutro reviewed the proposed text amendment with the members. There was discussion among themembers regarding zoning categorieS, and the recent trend regarding outparcels. - 14 - HINUTE$ - PLANNIHG AND DEVELOPHEHT BOARD HEET~NG BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA FEBRUARY 9, 1993 In response to Mr. Cutro's question, Attorney Cherof stated conditions can be added to this. He feels it is necessary to specify that this use is not per- mitted on site~ less than five (5) acres in Size. Mr. Cutro feels another con- dition should be added to specify that you cannot gain access to this outparcel by way of access from a collector or arterial road and the separate building would have to be self-contained as far as parking, landscaping, etc. Attorney Cherof further pointed out that this use must be under the control of the major shopping center in terms of design, rules and regulations and compliance with their intennal-opera~ing procedures. Mr. Cutro added that this mus{ also be an accessory to theuse in t~e principal building, Attorney Cherof explained that ~here i$ nO reference to accessory use because there would be trouble justifying Sears being permitted such an operation but Goodyear would not have the same ability. Vice Chairwoman Huckle moved tO approve this Text Amendment for Consistency with the Boynton Beach comPrehensive Plan with the addition of comments by Attornew cherof regarding this u~e not being permitted on sites of less than five (5) act? in size, ~nd that the use mu~ be an accessory to the use in the principaT building. Ms. Stevens seconded the motion. Attorney Cherof reported that a new Item #i will read as follows: This use is not permitted on sites of tess than five (5) acres in size. Item #2 will read: On sites greater tham five (5) acres and less than seventy-five (75]... The motion carried 7-0. OTHER Vice Chairwoman Huckle questioned when the workshop meeting on the Community Design Plan will be scheduled. Mr. Cutro explained that the process had to be slowed down because of the upcoming elections. Hopefully, it will be brought back to the regular meeting of the Board in March or a special meeting shortly thereafter. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting properly adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Janet H. Prainito Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) - 15 -