Loading...
Minutes 10-26-21 DRAFT MINUTES � a PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD 100 E. OCEAN AVENUE, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2021, 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Trevor Rosecrans, Chair Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Administrator Chris Simon Luis Bencosme, Planner 1 Tim Litsch Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner Kevin Fischer Sean Swartz, Attorney Thomas Ramiccio Lisa Tayar, Prototype-Inc. Jay Sobel, Alternate ABSENT: Butch Buoni, Vice Chair Darren Allen Lyman Phillips, Alternate GUEST: Bradley Miller, Urban Design Todd McLeod, Engineer The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Roll was called and it was determined a quorum was present. 3. Agenda Approval Upon Motion duly made and seconded, to approve the agenda. In a voice vote, the agenda was unanimously approved (6-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.A. Approve board minutes from the 09/28/2021 Planning & Development Board meeting. Motion made by Mr. Sobel, seconded by Mr. Simon,to approve the September 28,2021 meeting minutes. In a voice vote, the minutes were unanimously approved. (6-0). Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 2 October 26, 2021 5. Communications and Announcements: Report from Staff Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Administrator, introduced Luis Bencosme, Planner, and Andrew Meyer, Senior Planner. Two meetings are coming up in November and December, which are close to the holidays. He requested everyone check their calendars and email the City to let them know if there are any issues with attendance. He stated a poll could be taken via email. 6. Old Business -None. 7. New Business 7.A. CLM Apartments Abandonment (ABAN 21-004) —Request for the abandonment of a 119-foot-long segment of the 57-foot-wide SE 21" Avenue right-of-way, extending from the FEC Railroad right-of-way to SE 3rd Street. Applicant: Lawrence Mastropieri, CLM Capital LLC. 7.B. CLM Apartments (LUAR 21-001) - Approve request for Future Land Use Map amendment from Medium Density Residential (MEDR) to High Density Residential (HOR), and Rezoning from R-3, multi-Family 11 du/ac to (PUD, Infill Planned Unit Development, property located at 2107 SE 3rd Street. Applicant: Lawrence Mastropieri, CLM Capital LLC. 7.C. CLM Apartments (MSPM 21-002)—Approve Major Site Plan Modification to allow the addition of a four (4) unit apartment building, associated parking, and related site improvements on a 0.86-acre parcel, located at the northwest corner of SE 20th Court and SE 3rd Street, and east of the FEC Railroad, in the IPUD (Infill Planned Unit Development) zoning district. Applicant: Lawrence Mastropieri, CLM Capital LLC. NOTE: Items 7.A, 7.13, and 7.0 were heard in tandem and voted on separately. Bradley Miller, with Urban Design Studio, 610 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, was present on behalf of the applicant. He explained they were adding one building and four units to an existing development that has eight existing units and there are a few hurdles with the application to get the Land Use and Zoning in place to allow that following the CRA Redevelopment Plan and then the Site Plan. It is an overall improvement to the property, which is located north of SE 23rd Avenue and west of Federal Highway. Railroad tracks abut the property on the west side. There are two existing buildings on the southern part of the property; each have four units on .86 acres and the northern building in the little cutout is a storage/garage type building that will come out as part of this development. There are three components to the application, and one is a right-of-way abandonment at the southern end of the property where there is an old right-of-way that does not cross the railroad tracks. Their client is taking half and the property owner to the south is getting the other half. They are changing the Land Use and Zoning and doing a major Site Plan application. Mr. Miller presented a brief Power Point Presentation as follows: • 2107 SE 3rd Street LLC is the official owner; they are a subsidiary of CLM Capital. 0 Lighting, cameras, and a maintenance program have been added. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 3 October 26, 2021 • The abandonment part of the project shows as a lot, but it is considered a right-of-way. An easement is being put back in due to some existing utilities, so the City has continuation of access to those utilities. • This site is designated for high density residential of 15 units per acre and currently it is one category lower. They are asking for consistency of the CRA Redevelopment Plan to follow as development moves forward. • Regarding the Land Use and Zoning site, they are proposing the area to go to high density residential. From the Zoning standpoint, they are going from R-3 to an Infill Planned Unit Development. The IPUD is in the Code for sites like this, it grants flexibility, but adds some protection and amenities, especially for residential projects. The large component is that recreational amenities must be implemented as part of the IPUD criteria to get the flexibility,which they have met. • As far as the Site Plan,Buildings A and B are existing and Building C is the new proposed building. There are going to be two different areas of parking with 13 parking spaces between Buildings A and B. A floating dumpster will be at the northeast corner of Building B allowing better access for Public Works to get to the dumpster,which would be enclosed with landscaping and screening. Parking next to Building C is another 13 parking spaces, so they are going from eight units that had 16 parking spaces to 12 units with 26 parking spaces. • There is a railroad to the west and a landscape buffer from the railroad. There is a special buffer along the northeast side, a single family home adjacent to that property, and a six-foot wall with a hedge on both sides, which they will be responsible for maintenance. There are trees and groundcover along the buffers and foundation plantings around the building. • A drainage system will be installed by doing small areas throughout the property of dry retention areas and connecting that, providing an outfall. • The proposed building will be a walk up with two units on the second floor and two units on the ground floor; each are three-bedroom/two-bath units, a little over 1,100 square feet. The other two buildings will be improved to match. • An aerial from of the northeast looking to the southwest of how Building C would be added into the existing development was shown. They are asking for the recommendation for the right-of-way abandonment, which is more of a cleanup item that gives benefit to them and the property owner to the south. He mentioned part of the agreement was to rebuild the driveway for the property owner to the south that crosses the center line. There is a change to the Land Use and Zoning to bring it into consistency with the CRA recommendation and then to the Site Plan by adding the new building, parking, landscape, and recreation areas. There will be a recreation area on the north and south sides, so there will be two separate areas with improvements such as barbecues, benches, and a passive area. Chair Rosecrans opened discussion to the public. Ernest Mignoli, 710 NE 71' Street, Apt. 407, questioned occupancy, EPA compliance, soil tests, parking, handicap parking, moderate income on new units, driveway for homeowner to the south, noise requirements, and safety. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 4 October 26, 2021 Mr. Miller indicated that the two buildings and eight units are currently occupied. They would follow all City and other mandatory regulations for drainage, etc. As part of that, there will be soil tests to firm up the drainage requirements and the ability to withstand the weights of the building, which is required as part of the permitting process. There are currently eight existing units and 16 parking spaces, and they are proposing four more units for a total of 12 units and 26 total parking spaces,with four handicap spaces as part of that plan. Regarding the price structure,there is no formal commitment, but these are estimated to be rentals between $1,600 and $2,000 a month. As far as the driveway to the south, with the approval of the abandonment,the property owner to the south will acquire the southern half of that right-of-way by Deed, so no easement is required. Likewise, their client will get the northern half and then they are granting an easement over their portion for existing utilities. Their client has also agreed to rebuild the adjacent property owner's driveway, so it is completely on his property. Regarding notice for the tracks, an enhanced landscape buffer will be put in and in addition, the new building will have hurricane glass, which has double panes. Mr. Litsch commented that the Site Plan showed three handicap spaces. Mr. Miller clarified that one handicap space is required for every 25 spaces, so technically, they are supposed to have two and they have one extra. In response to Mr. Sobel, Mr. Miller stated the City currently owns the right-of-way. Mr. Sobel commented that Mr. Miller was asking the Board to provide their ownership of City property. He mentioned the property has value and questioned if they were proposing to pay the City anything for the property they would be granting. Mr. Miller replied that was correct, it would be abandoned from City ownership. Regarding payment for the property, Mr. Miller replied they are not paying for the property, those discussions have not come up with staff. Mr. Sobel indicated that as a fiduciary responsibility of the City, he thought the City was entitled to some compensation from the property they are granting. He questioned if granting of the property would increase the rate of an assessment of the property to the owner. He commented that the City is giving away property free and clear; they are giving a gift, and he questioned if the City would get anything out of this. Mr. Miller replied they would be getting four additional units of taxable income producing property and the ability to implement Code to make it a better project. He stated the southern part allows for a recreation area, which is better for residents of the community. The property is not being used for a road right-of- way, and the utilities running through the property are accommodated by the easement they are granting. Mr. Sobel questioned the value of that piece of property if it were sold as an incremental addition to that property. Mr. Miller did not know; he noted he could check on that. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 5 October 26, 2021 Mr. Rumpf indicated the property is not in City ownership, it is in public ownership. The abandonment process reverts the right-of-way back to where it came from. The City did not pay for the property to begin with, they took it to improve a road. Mr. Fischer mentioned the Site Plan and the 790-square-foot drainage area to the south of Building C and the 337 square feet at the northern end of the property. He questioned if the thought of combining the northern and southern drainage areas to provide a gap between the existing building and the area south of Building C was explored. Mr. Miller advised the idea was explored, but because of the configuration of the property and how it wedges up is how the building fits. Several sketches were considered and although this one gets into the proximity of Building B; it also allows a nicer area on the north side of the drainage and the recreation area combined with the dry retention area. In response to Mr. Sobel, Mr. Miller explained there are two different recreation areas on the Site Plan. The north side is completely within the parent parcel, which is on the north side of Building C. The area being abandoned on the south end is for an area of recreational space and amenities, such as barbecue, benches, and picnic tables, which will be in the boundaries of the parent parcel. Mr. Sobel questioned if the right-of-way was not granted if the project would be jeopardized. Mr. Miller thought it would affect the project economically. It is road right-of-way that would never be used, so it allows for a better community with an area for recreation on both ends of the property, for the full 12 units, and parking to go along with it. He believed it would add value to the property because of the open spaces. Mr. Sobel mentioned Building C has a recreation area on the north and questioned if Buildings A and B were being changed. Mr. Miller stated the entire project has a recreation area and Buildings A and B are not being changed. Mr. Litsch asked if a fire hydrant was being installed. Mr. Miller indicated there is an existing fire hydrant at the corner and they are adding a second. Mr. Ramiccio commented this is a good project and fit under requirements for PUD. All amenities are there and meet the requirements. He questioned if there will be a walking trail and/or gym. Mr. Miller explained Part 2 emphasized the "I", the Infill; the IPUD was adopted into the Code. It allows flexibility on setbacks, and it comes down to the recreational area for small parcels. Some amenities usually get negotiated out as they go through the process with staff. This site is less than an acre, so it is not a place that would have a gym and pools. Overall, this property with the landscaping is going to be elevated to another level he believes is a benefit for everyone. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 6 October 26, 2021 Mr. Ramiccio mentioned the odd shaped lot and commented that he would have liked to see design changes and limitations on the configuration of the lot and the parking broken up a little. Mr. Miller indicated the parking area between Buildings A and B is existing and will be improved with the surface and how the spaces are designed, as well as curbing for landscape islands, etc.; it meets all IPUD requirements. Mr. Rumpf mentioned the IPUD and questioned what amenities are being provided. He explained the parameters of the IPUD. In response to Mr. Simon, Mr. Miller advised without the abandonment area the maximum number allowed is 11 units. Mr. Simon questioned if 11 units could be developed without changing zoning and the right-of-way portion. He would like to see CRA Redevelopment in the area. Mr. Miller advised he would have to look at it. According to the CRA Redevelopment Plan, the entire area has been recommended to have a higher density. Mr. Simon mentioned setbacks, adjustment of overall site calculations, drainage, owner costs, fencing on the left side to avoid extra traffic, sewer, and utilities. He suggested a parking rotation, splitting parking between Buildings B and C, and add a few more on the south side. Mr. Miller stated that yields less parking due to access and the turn radius. As a result, there would be 13 parking spaces in the proposed area. Mr. Simon questioned the maximum number of residents allowed per unit. Mr. Rumpf indicated there is not a maximum number of residents for zoning purposes. The Building Code requirements are one person per 50 square feet of a bedroom; it is not based on an entire unit,just bedrooms. Restrictions are based on bedroom square footage. Mr. Miller commented that the County allows 2.39 residents per unit. Mr. Simon mentioned the dumpster location and the open gate and questioned what prevents the gate from hanging open. Mr. Miller stated that is a management and Code Enforcement issue. Mr. Simon stated smaller waste areas could be used instead of dumpster plant types. Mr. Miller advised they could entertain another type of species. They are using hedge density to screen the single-family homeowner. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 7 October 26, 2021 Chair Rosecrans thought the plans were a little messy and that drainage was on the landscape plans. It looks like there is a retention area between Buildings B and C; there are three dry retention areas. He wanted to verify that the dashed line on the southern area where it says recreation area is in fact recreation area and not part of the 2,377 square feet of drainage or if it was the dry retention area. He noted the parking and pervious area was already paved on the north side and questioned if it was a serious area in pervious area. Todd McLeod, Engineer, clarified there is a dry retention area between Buildings B and C and a slope butting up against the foundation. Those two areas would be separated; the dashed area is just recreation area, and the dry retention is completely outside of that. He did not have the calculations, but visually, he thought Chair Rosecrans was correct regarding the pervious area between the building and existing pavement. Motions for Items 7.A, 7.13, and 7.0 were made separately as follows: Motion made by Mr. Sobel, seconded by Mr. Litsch, to approve item 7.A. In a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously (6-0). Motion made by Mr. Sobel, seconded by Mr. Ramiccio,to approve item 7.13. In a voice vote,the motion passed unanimously (6-0). Motion made by Mr. Sobel, seconded by Mr. Ramiccio, to approve item 7.C. In a voice vote,the motion passed unanimously (6-0). 8. Other—None. 9. Comments by Members Mr. Simon mentioned the building location change after Board approval; the 7-Eleven shifted north and Taco Bell moved closer to the road. There was a concern about the community not knowing about the revisions and he questioned where the oversight was. Attorney Swartz advised that sometimes Conditions of Approval do not capture something that was critical during approval. Many times, changes occur because the project goes to a design stage. Mr. Rumpf indicated that Taco Bell had some complications with respect to easements and utilities,which could have caused some modifications to the design. He suggested that critical or contention issues in the Conditions of Approval not be modified through a minor modification process. They would have to go back to the Commission to amend the Conditions of Approval and the Commission could remand it back to the Board for review. Attorney Swartz stated what is approved at Commission level, is what must be submitted for permit, but major modifications of a Site Plan would have to be requested to be brought back to the Board. Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Page 8 October 26, 2021 Mr. Rumpf clarified a major modification would have to be brought back before the Board, but a minor would not be brought back. Mr. Litsch questioned if there is an entity in the City that checks landscaping against original plans to see what has been modified. Mr. Rumpf indicated that inspections are conducted during the completion of projects. 10. Adjournment Upon Motion duly made and seconded, the meeting at was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. [Minutes prepared by C. Guifarro,Prototype,Inc.]