Loading...
Minutes 11-15-93HINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1993, AT 7:00 P. M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Chairman Ben Uleck, Vice Chairman Barkley Garnsey Raychel Houston Nello Tineri James Miriana, Alternate Irving Sechter, Alternate ABSENT Thomas Cordie (Excused) Henrietta Solomon (Excused) James Cherof, City Attorney Mike Haag, Zoning and Site Development Administrator A, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MEMBERS AND VISITORS Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:01P. M. and introduced City Attorney Cherof, the Board members, Mr. Haag, and the Recording Secretary. At the request of Mr. Tineri, a moment of silence was observed in memory of Mr. Thompson's wife. B, AGENDA APPROVAL No one objected to the agenda as presented. C, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairman Uleck moved to approve the minutes of the October 18, 1993 meeting as submitted. Mr. Tineri seconded the motion, which carried 7-D. At this point in the meeting, Chairman Thompson announced that there is a full board present tonight and that it takes five votes to approve any motion and three negative votes to deny a request. He read the Six criteria which the Board takes into consideration when rendering a decision on a variance. D, NEW PETITIONS Case #185 Property Owner: Request: Main Street Car Wash 201E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Kenneth Zengage, Agent for Forward Progress, Inc. A sign variance to reduce the front setback from ten {10) feet to zero {0} feet and reduce the east side setback from ten {10} feet to two {2) feet. The request also includes increasing the allowed height by twenty-five {25) percent and increase the allowed area by nine point four {9.4} percent. The variances are in connection with relocating the existing sign on the subject site .... TABLED NZNUTE$ - BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT NEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVENBER 15, 1993 Notion Mr. Garnsey moved to remove Case #186 from the table. Mr. Sechter seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Ms. Houston read the requested variance and the paragraphs pertaining to this case in BUilding Department Memorandum No. 93-209. She also read into the record the applicant's statement of special conditions, hardships or reasons justifying the requested exception or variance. Mr. Zengage referred to correspondence from A1Newbold concerning the dimensions of the sign. He has since clarified the dimensions with Mr. Newbold and said he is allowed to ask for a 64 square foot sign. He is asking for a 9.4 percent increase in the size of the sign and a 5 foot reduction in height. Mr. Miriana asked if it is absolutely necessary to move the sign. Mr. Zengage explained that the Kentucky Fried Chicken sign and the trees block his sign when traveling east. He would like to put the palm trees on the corner. He said the sign would be more visible if it was moved back to where it was originally. In addition, the corner would be enhanced by the palm trees, In response to Vice Chairman Uleck, Mr. Zengage stated that the current sign is 70 square feet. It cost $7,000, The code allows for a 64 square foot sign. He is asking for a 9.4 percent variance so he does not have to purchase a new sign. He would actually be bringing the sign down 5 feet in height. It is at 30 feet now and he would like tO bring it down to 25 feet. The current code allows signs to be 20 feet high. Mr. Garnsey questioned if the sign was within code when originally installed, prior to the code being changed, Mr. Zengage answered affirmatively. Mr. Miriana pointed out that Mr. Zengage is requesting a variance to the height of the sign, the size of the sign, and the setback. Mr. Zengage stated that many people who have lived in Boynton Beach for many years do not know that his business exists. He pointed out that according to the current code, he is asking for an increase in the height of the sign. How- ever, the height will be decreased from where it presently is. Mr. Sechter stated that the City has initiated a streetscape program to beautify downtown Boynton Beach and will be planting palm trees on the corner of Mr. Zengage's property. He asked Mr. Zengage in what manner the sign would help or obstruct the streetscaping planned on Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr, Zengage advised that if he moved the sign, it would be 70 feet away from the corner. Therefore, it would not be a hindrance to the streetscaping at all. NO ONE ELSE WISHED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST GRANTING THE VARIANCES. Mr. Tineri asked if the Board is going to vote on all three issues separately. Chairman Thompson stated that the Board will vote on the issues as a package. -2- NINUTE$ - BOARD OF ADJUSTI4ENT NEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEFIBER 15, 1993 Assuming the Board grants the variances, Mr. Miriana wondered if this matter wou]d still have to go before the sign committee for approval since the sign would not comply with the sign codes. Mr. Haag stated that if this Board approves all three requests, it would be the Building Department's decision whether or not the sign would have to go through an aesthetic review process. Mr. Zengage believed the sign went through this process three years ago. Mr. Garnsey was in favor of granting the variances since Mr. Zengage wishes to move the original sign back to its original location. Since the sign was made up at considerable expense and was within the code three years ago, Mr. Garnsey felt an extreme hardship exists. He also felt the variances shou]d be granted since: the height of the sign is going to be reduced from what it currently is and because no one spoke out against this item tonight. City Attorney Cherof pointed out that nonconforming signs are required to be corrected within a five year period of time from when the sign code was adopted, which was in 1991. Therefore, any variance the Board grants tonight should include a proviso that that provision of the code still applies to this sign. Mr. permitted to move it; however, he still needs to bring it into con within the same grace period that every other sign in the City is Subject to. This would not extend the grace period for conformance with the sign Code, At best, Mr. Zengage is getting a temporary relocation of the sign. However,code. he ultimately is going to have to bring it into conformance with the Mr. Zengage still desired his request to be considered on a temporary basis and said he would make provisions to conform in the next two years. Vice Chairman Uleck advised that he was on the committee for the sign codes and the committee determined that if a sign is moved it has to conform to the new COde. ' Ho~lon Mr. Garnsey moved to approve the variance to reduce the front setback from ten feet to zero feet, reduce the east side setback from ten feet to two feet, increase the allowed height by twenty-five percent, and increase the allowed area by 9.4 percent. The motion died for lack of a second. In response to Chairman Thompson, City Attorney Cherof stated that at some point the Board needs to make a motion, second it, and vote on it. If the members do not like the motion, they may vote against it. Notion Mr. Garnsey moved to approve the variance to reduce the front setback from ten feet to zero feet, reduce the east side setback from ten feet to two feet, increase the allowed height by twenty-five percent, and increase the allowed area by 9.4 percent. Ms. Houston seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the Recording Secretary. The motion failed 2-5. Mr. Garnsey and Mr. Irving were the only members who voted in favor of the motion. HINUTE$ - BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT NEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEHBER 15, 1993 Case #187 Property Owner: Request: I Vtrglnla Gardens Robert Fay A variance to reduce the required twenty-five (25) feet front setback to nineteen (19) feet, reduce the required ten (10) feet east side setback to one point five (1.5) feet and add an accessory building (garage) to a front yard ................................................ TABLED Mr. Miriana moved to remove Case #187 from the table. Mr. Tineri seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Ms. Houston read the requested variance and the paragraphs pertaining to this case in Building Department Memorandum No. g3-209. She also read into the record the applicant's statement concerning the special conditions, hardships or reasons justifying the requested exception or variance. In addition, Ms. Houston read the letters from the following people who had no objection to this variance: Linda B. Farrell 821 Bamboo Lane Delray Beach, FL 33483 Ronald and Marguerite Dingle 3 Virginia Gardens Delray Beach, FL 33483 Joe DeFeo 815 Bamboo Lane Delray Beach, FL 33483 Michael Hoplamazian 2 Virginia Gardens Del ray Beach, FL 33483 She also read an October 29, 1993 memorandum from the City Clerk's Office stating that Victoria Edlefsen, 35 Colony Club Drive, called to state she had no problem with the granting of this variance. Mr. Fay stated that he brought new information with him tonight that he did not have at the last meeting. He believed this is an unusual situation inasmuch as he is not in a development and on both sides of the garage there are easements. He circulated photographs. Mr. Fay stated that he and Mike Hoplamazian own this private road.and are trying to develop it to increase the property values. To the north there is a 62 foot Department of Transporation storm drain easement. On the other side where he is requesting a 3.5 foot variance, there is a 15 foot easement between his house and his neighbor's house. Nobody can ever build on this easement. Mr. Miriana pointed out that last month Mr. Fay stated that the placement of the garage would interfere with the leaching field. Mr. Fay stated that no matter Where he places the garage, it would interfere with the leaching field; however, this is not a concern of his. He said it does not make a difference to him now because he is going to connect to the City since he has been paying for City sewage for eight years. He will do this at the same time he builds the garage, with or without the variance. His main reason for asking for the variance on the garage is strictly aesthetic. -4- HINUTE$ - BOARD OF ADJUSTNENT HEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVENBER 15, 1993 Mr. Miriana stated that if the garage was moved to the side of the house, a foot and a half would be gained. Mr. Fay stated that the entrance to the garage will be from the west. He referred to the photographs he circulated and said this would not work because there is not enough room, unless the tree line is cut down. In response to Mr. Miriana, Mr. Fay said he could not set the garage back because that would require yet another variance, since according to the Building Code, a detached building must be 12 feet away from the house. Mr. Miriana noticed that on one of the sketches, there is 17 feet from the garage to the house, which is more than enough room. Mr. Fay mentioned the wing wall in front of the house. Mr. Miriani stated that the wing wall has nothing to do with the codes. Mr. Miriana stated that the road is an easement now and is no longer owned by Mr. Fay. Mr. Fay said there is an easement on the use of the road for ingress and egress; however, he still owns it. Mr. Haag confirmed this. Mr. Miriana noticed that the people who sent letters in support of this variance do not reside in Boynton Beach. Mr. Fay stated that these are his neighbors and the people who could see the garage if it was built. He said that according to Mr. Haag, two of his neighbors on his street will be annexed into the City of Boynton Beach in January. In response to Mr. Miriana, City Attorney Cherof felt Mr. Fay's answer is prob- ably the most informative answer the Board can receive. He stated that these people may not be in the City at this point; however, they are in the parameters of the notice requirement. The Board may totally disregard these letters or treat them as extremely important. Even if they were residents of the City, the letters have no weight. They are just opinions of the people in the neighbor- hood. Mr. Fay pointed out that his mailing address is Delray Beach; however, this address is located in Boynton Beach. NO ONE ELSE WISHED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST GRANTING THIS VARIANCE. Mr. Miriani was not in favor of granting this variance. He did not feel a hardship exists and felt the applicant misinformed the Board on several occa- sions He felt the applicant is creating a hardship by planning the garage in this particular location. He could not see where Mr. Fay is being deprived of any rights enjoyed by other property owners. He felt the Board would be granting Mr. Fay special privileges if it grants this variance. He also felt this would not be in harmony with the general intent. Mr. Miriani said Mr. Fay can abide by the code without creating a hardship on the community or himself. Mr. Garnsey felt the variance should be granted. He felt this is a very pecu- liar piece of property. One side of the property contains a DOT easement for a storm drain and the other side contains a private road easement. The City boun- dary zigzags right up against Mr. Fay's property. He felt the special condi- tions do not result from Mr. Fay's actions. Mr. Garnsey felt the granting of this variance would not be creating any special privileges because Mr. Fay's neighbors fall under different zoning requirements. Mr. Garnsey felt this would increase the value of the neighborhood and the structure ~s aesthetically pleasing. -5 HINUTE$ - BOARD OF ADJUST#ENT HEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEHBER 15, 1993 Hotl0n Ms. Houston moved to grant the variance at 1 Virginia Gardens to reduce the required twenty-five feet front setback to nineteen feet, reduce the required ten feet east side setback to one point five feet and add an accessory building (garage) to the front yard. Mr. Tineri seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the Recording Secretary. The motion carried 5-2. Vice Chairman Uleck and Mr. Miriana cast the dissenting votes. Case #188 815 Bamboo Lane Property Owner: Joseph DeFeo, Jr. Request: A variance to reduce the ten (10) feet required west set- back to one (1) foot in connection with the proposed con- struction of a garage to be attached to the west side of the existing residential structure. Ms. Houston read the requested variance and the applicant's statement of special conditions, hardships or reasons justifying the requested exception or variance. In addition, she read the letters from the following people who had no objection to this variance: Roy Chin Sun Wah Restaurant Boynton Beach M. G. Hood 810 Bamboo Lane Boynton Beach Robert J. Fay 1 Virginia Garden Boynton Beach Joseph DeFeo. 808 Bamboo Lane Delray Beach Charles I. Nichols 812 Bamboo Lane Boynton Beach Ms. Houston read a direct quote from Building Department Memorandum No, 93-213. Mr. DeFeo of 808 Bamboo Lane was present. Mr. Miriana asked him if he was aware of the report from the Engineering Department regarding the subdivision. Mr. DeFeo said he was not aware of the report and does not know what it means. Mr. Miriani felt it was unusual to grant a variance before the subdivision is approved. Several members of the Board suggesting tabling this matter until the subdivision is taken care of. Mr. Tineri felt the City should have notified the applicant regarding the sub- division. He wondered what would happen if the Board grants this variance but the subdivision is not approved. City Attorney Cherof advised that if the Board thinks it is appropriate, it could table the matter for any reason whatsoever. He noticed that the Engineering Department suggested the variance conditioned upon the subdivision being approved.Board approve the If the variance is granted and the subdivision is not approved, then there is no variance if such is a condition contained in the motion and if the applicant acknowledges he has two hurdles to clear. In response to Mr. Sechter, City Attorney Cherof advised that if this item is $400tabled, application the applicant fee he would paid. come back at the next meeting and would not lose the - 6 MINUTES - BOARD OF AD&USTMENT #EETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 15, 1993 In response to Chairman Thompson regarding readvertising this public hearing, City Attorney Cherof advised that since this matter is properly before the Board tonight, the public is deemed on notice that there is a proceeding going on and if the Board chooses to table it, the public is deemed to be on notice that it is tab]ed, The minutes will reflect this, In response to Mr. Garnsey, City Attorney Cherof advised that if this matter is tabled, it should be tabled to the next meeting. It can be taken off the table at that time if staff and the applicant are satisfied that it is ready to go forward. At some point the applicant may have to withdraw because of the time period. In response to Mr. Miriana regarding tabling this item for two or three months. City Attorney Cherof advised that the Board could table to a time specific; however,issue, the longer it is pending the more the notice to the public becomes an The Staff Report states that the Engineering Department has indicated that the subdivision of Sun Wah property was performed without City authorization. Mr. DeFeo asked what this means and was advised to speak to someone in the Engineering Department. Mr. DeFeo agreed to table this matter. In response to Mr. DeFeo regarding why he was not notified about this sudivision earlier, Mr. Haag believed the Engineering Department just discovered that the property was separated. City Attorney Cherof stated that it appears that this matter is before the Board without enough information to permit the Board to go forward. Whether the applicant concurs with this or not, it was City Attorney Cherof's suggestion to table this matter. Motion Mr. Miriana moved to table Case #188 until the next meeting. Uleck seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Case #189 Vice Chairman Checkers Drive-In Restaurant - Northeast Corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and New Old Boynton Road Property Owner: Anna Cottrell, Agent for Checkers Drive-In Restaurant Inc. , Request: A sign variance to increase the required number of menu signs from one {1) to two {2) in connection with the pro- posed construction of a two {2} lane drive-in Checkers Restaurant. Ms. Houston read the requested variance, portions of the Staff Report and the Statement of Justification submitted by the applicant. ' Ms. Cottrell referred to Mr. Newbold's comment in the Staff Report relative to the sign variance for the monument sign proposed to be located at the front of -7- HZNUTE$ - BOARD OF AD,.1USTHENT NEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVENBER 15, 1993 the site. She stated that this sign is the only point of purchase sign requested for this site and is well below the maximum allowed by the code, both in size and in height. She stated that Checkers is not seeking variance relief for that and that Mr. Newbold's comments came out of the initial site plan that was submitted. That site plan contained an error in the dimension of the sign from the right-of-way. A revised site plan was submitted to 'staff. She advised that Checkers is not seeking variance from any other asPect of the sign code. In fact, the sign limitations exceed what is being proposed for this site. Ms. Cottrell informed the Board that there have been significant modifications made to the architecture of the building, and because of the design guidelines and the intent of the petitioner to meet the City's design requirements, virtu- ally all other corporate architecture has been eliminated from the site. Ms. Cottrell stated that this is not being proposed for advertising or identifi- cation purposes. This is a device that simply accommodates the drive-in. The placement of the menu boards at each drive-thru lane as proposed allows for five car stacking from the point of ordering to the pick up window. Checkers has discovered through the development of over 360 sites that this is the exact time needed from the point Of ordering to the pick up window to allow the food prepa ration to have been completedby the tlime the customer reaches the win - placement of these menu boards ~ ~A__ ~ .... ; ..... ,i dow. The .,ou a~Juw) 3u~T1clent stacking behind the menu board to accommodate the traffic flow throulghout the site. Eight Cars can be stacked in the drive-thru lane. This is common to virtually all of the Checkers designs and meets their customer service requirements, There is no other way to design this site with one menu board in a way to meet the code and still allow sufficient queuing behind, the and into the parking area in order to accommodate this ~uch stacking the site onto the road and the; stacking between the menu board and the window. The sign code does not contemplate the double drive-thru concePt nor does it accommodate a device that insures customer service and the ability for traffic to get through the site in an efficient manner, In response to Chairman Thompson, Ms. Cottrell stated that the architecture being proposed mirrors the Wellington package and is being proposed as a way to meet the City's design guidelines. The placement of the menu boards and the actualins. She building circulated does photographs, not vary from site to site. Every Checkers has two drive- In response to Chairman Thompson, Ms. Cottrell advised that the two menu boards are freestanding signs. .In response to Mr. Miriana, Ms. Cottrell advised that there is an outdoor seating area. Eighty percent of the customers of Checkers will use the drive-in lanes. About 1D percent will park at the site, walk up to the window to get their food, and then leave the site. Only about 10 percent of the customers will use the sea~ing area on site. -8- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 15, 1993 Motion Vice Chairman Uleck moved to approve the sign variance to increase the required number of menu signs from one to two in connection with the proposed construc- tion of a two lane drive-in Checkers Restaurant. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the Recording Secretary. The motion carried 7-0. E, OTHER BUSINESS Request to Reconsider Case #186 Hr. Zengage stated that he paid two application fees for two variances. One variance relates to the setback. The other variance relates to the height and size of the sign, He asked the Board to vote on the two variances separately. Discussion ensued regarding this being improper and setting a precedence. City Attorney Cherof agreed that this is a unique request and the time for objecting tO the procedure was during the hearing However, the Board is per- mitted to reconsider a matter. ' In response to Mr. Garnsey, City Attorney Cherof advised that for this particu- lar Board, the proper time for a motion to reconsider is before the meeting ends. Notion Mr. Garnsey moved to reconsider Case #186. In response to Chairman Thompson, City Attorney Cherof stated that the Board voted on the variances as a package, which is not improper. Chairman Thompson asked why these requests for variances were not written up separately. Mr. Haag stated that they are identified on the application as two sections; however, they were not specifically listed as two separate variances in the report. They were combined as one. Mr. Sechter seconded the motion. A roll call vote was polled by the Recording Secretary. The motion failed 3-4. Vice Chairman Uleck, Mr. Miriana, Ms. Houston, and Chairman Thompson voted not to reconsider this case. F, ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, Vice Chairman Uleck moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 P. M. Mr. Miriana seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. Eve Eubanks Recording Secretary {Three Tapes) -9-