Loading...
Minutes 04-09-02 (2) MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING, HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2002 AT 6:30 P.M. Present Larry Finkelstein, Chairman ~ Josh Aguila Alexander DeMarco Don Fenton Jeanne Heavilin, Vice Chair Michelle Hoyland Henderson Tillman I. Call to Order Quintus Greene, Director of Development/CRA Lindsey Payne, Board Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director Chairman Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and introduced the Board members. Mr. Greene introduced the Planning & Zoning staff. II. Roll Call The roll was called and all Board members were present. III. Agenda Approval There were no additions, deletions, or corrections to the agenda. Motion Mr. Aguila moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Vice Chair Heavilin, and carried 7-0. IV. Minutes of March 12, 2002 Meeting Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the March 12, 2002 minutes, seconded by Vice Chair Heavilin, and carried 7-0. V. Director's Report A. Financial 1) March 2002 Financial Statement Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 Quintus Greene pointed out that the beginning balance was $6,202,173. The CRA earned $446 in interest during March and the ending balance after expenses of $162,679 was $6,039,940. The $468 for copy machine rental should be $300 and will be back-charged and corrected. The $218 for advertising was for the web advertising for the CRA Director's position. The $1049 for business meetings included travel reimbursement and lunches for the interviews. The $914 for office supplies covered such expenses as paper, ink, and so forth, which the City has been bearing and will begin to transfer to the CRA. The CRA paid $59,702 and $98,947 for principal and interest, respectively, on its $3M loan. Pursuant to the Board's direction, $5.5M was transferred to a new account at Sun Trust Bank that is currently paying 2.18% versus the 1.9% the money was earning in the State Pool. Mr. Greene and Diane Reese, the Finance Director, made a decision to hold back $750,000 of the fund in the existing Pool because the Sun Trust account charges a fee for over three withdrawals a month. The $750K represents the operating budget as well as the anticipated requirements for property acquisition. Mr. Greene reported that staff costs for the month of March had been $2,256.40 plus $519.60 in expenses. From October 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002, the staff costs have been $22,304.82, plus expenses of $2,351.05. The City has been careful to include direct staff costs for CRA work only. B. Project Updates 1) Federal Highway: Staff is continuing to work to finalize the standards and criteria for Mixed Use and Mixed-Use Light Zoning Districts authorized by the City Commission. They are also considering a new infill PUD Zoning District for the Federal Highway Corridor and expect that this will be brought to the CRA at its May 14 meeting. 2) Heart of Boynton: Staff is continuing to work on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for submission to the Department of Community Affairs. The City Manager's office has had ongoing discussions with the County regarding a possible land swap that would facilitate the transfer of the Cherry Hills Public Housing site to the City. 3) Ocean District: Phase II of the Ocean District Planning process continues with a community visioning session scheduled for Thursday, April 11 at 6:00 p.m. in the Library Program Room. The purpose is to solicit input from residents and businesses in the area regarding the future of the District. 4) Marina/Promenade/Riverwalk: A revised Marina Development Agreement is tentatively scheduled for City Commission action on April 16. The Resolution of Necessity authorizing the use of Eminent Domain to acquire property for the Promenade and the Riverwalk is scheduled for the May 7 City Commission meeting. 5) Wayfinding Signage Program: Public Works Staff has provided a Scope of Work to the City of Hollywood and is scheduled to meet with them this week to discuss this. 2 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 6) Property Acquisition: Mr. Greene introduced Jim Nardi, Vice President of The Urban Group, to give a brief update on property acquisition. Mr. Nardi stated that his company had received authorization to proceed with property acquisition for seven parcels identified by the Board. The seven parcels are owned by six people. To date they have contacted five of the owners. Of those five, there is one unwilling seller and a willing but unreasonable seller for two other parcels. They are still pursuing two agreements and attempting to make contact with the sixth seller. Mr. Tillman asked if there were a timeframe when the deals could be concluded with the two willing sellers. Mr. Nardi stated they were pursuing an option agreement and once they were negotiated, they would meet with the Board and identify the parcels that the CRA could acquire and at what expense. At this time a determination could be made about whether the Board wished to pursue the option or have them do further due diligence. In order to get the option agreements signed, they need to do a little more research on the value and, should have something on paper within two to four weeks. Mr. Tillman asked whether the Board would be informed by its next Board meeting and Mr. Nardi said yes. Mr. Nardi also commented that they were dealing with some individuals and some corporations and that some decision-making was still going on by the sellers, which also takes time. Mr. DeMarco asked Mr. Nardi if they were getting appraisals done on the property. Mr. Nardi said some appraisals were available and his company was doing market value analyses. Mr. DeMarco asked if they would continue to try to work with the unreasonable willing sellers and Mr. Nardi stated they would. Mr. Tillman asked for an explanation about a motion made at the previous meeting about a parking change in the MLK Overlay Zone. He did not think that the Heart of Boynton plan was fully set yet. Chair Finkelstein stated that staff had brought this item before the Board as a means of loosening the parking requirements as an initial step to allow more development on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard until the Heart of Boynton Plan was finalized. C) Future Agenda Items Mr. Greene advised the Board that it would have six items to consider at its May 14 meeting - three Zoning Code variances, two new Site Plans, and a Height Exception. D) City Commission Action None VI. Unfinished Business None VII, Public Hearings Chair Finkeistein advised the audience about the procedures to be followed for Public Audience. 3 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 Attorney Payne administered the Oath to all persons who would be testifying. Zoninq Code Variance Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Boynton Hills Block C Lot 152 Ash Bullard P.B. Horizons, Inc. Boynton Hills, Block C, Lot 152 Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.D.2.a, requiring a minimum front setback of 25 feet for a single-family home within the R-1-A zoning district, to allow for a variance of 8.7 feet, and a front setback of 16.3 feet. Request relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.D.2.a, requiring a minimum rear setback of 25 feet for a single-family home within the R-1-A zoning district, too allow for a variance of 17.5 feet, and a rear setback of 7.5 feet. Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, gave the Board some background on this request. Staff's research revealed that a hardship exists as a basis for granting this variance and recommended approval. Ash Bullard, Lorraine Court, North Palm Beach, agent for the owner, stated that the owner has agreed to all the Conditions of Approval. Since no one wished to speak on this subject, Chair Finkelstein closed the Public Audience. Mr. Tillman asked about the reaction of the neighbors. Mr. Rumpf replied that notices had been sent out to all homes within 450 feet of this property and the City had not received any negative comments. Motion Mr. Aguila moved to approve the request for relief from Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5.D.2.a, allowing for the requested front and rear setback variances, subject to all staff Conditions of Approval. Mr. DeMarco seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Annexation Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Office/Warehouse Condominiums, CKS, Inc. Jeffrey Smith, JMS Design, Inc. CKS, Inc. Lot 44 of Tradewinds Estates - South of Miller Road, East of FEC Railroad Request for annexation of 0.67 acre of vacant land located in unincorporated Palm Beach COunty 4 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, presented the request for Annexation and the Land Use Amendment/Rezoning simultaneously. The Conclusion and Recommendations portion of Memorandum PZ 02-065 dated April 1, 2002 relate that this request is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, will not create additional impacts on infrastructure that have not been anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan, will be compatible with adjacent land uses, and will contribute to the overall economic development of the City. Staff recommended approval of all three actions: annexation, land use amendment, and rezoning. Jeffrey Smith, JMS Designs, Inc., 211 South Federal Highway, offered to answer questions from the public. Since there was no one that wished to speak, Chair Finkelstein closed the Public Audience. Mr. Tillman asked who would pay for the wastewater hookup to CKS and Mr. Hudson replied that CKS would. Chair Finkelstein asked if the extension of wastewater to this area were in any of the City's plans and Mr. Hudson replied that it was not. Motion Mr. DeMarco moved to approve the request for annexation of 0.67 acre of vacant land in unincorporated Palm Beach County. Mr. Tillman seconded the motion that carried 7-0. Land Use AmendmentJRezoning Project Name: Agent: Owner: LoCation: Description: CKS, Inc. JMS Designs, Inc., Jeffrey Smith CKS, Inc. Lot 44 of Tradewinds Estates - South of Miller Road, East of FEC Railroad Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Commercial (Palm Beach County) to General Commercial (GC) for 0.67 acres of vacant land located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway between Miller Road and Gulfstream Boulevard Request to Rezone General Commercial (CG-Palm Beach County) to General Commercial (C-4) on 0.67 acres of vacant land located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway between Miller Road and Gulfstream Boulevard. Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Audience but closed it when no one wished to speak. 5 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 Motion Ms. Hoyland moved to approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Mr. Tillman seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Motion Ms. Hoyland moved to approve the request to Rezone General Commercial (CG-Palm Beach County) to General Commercial (C-4) on 0.67 acres of vacant land located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway between Miller Road and Gulfstream Boulevard. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion that passed 7-0. Conditional Use/Site Plan Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Wendy's @ Riverwalk Jennifer Liszak, Land Design South Riverwalk Plaza Joint Venture SE corner Woolbright Road and Federal Highway/US1 Request Conditional Use Approval for a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through facility. Eric Johnson, Planner, gave the Board some background on the project, which is a Major Site Plan Modification for the Riverwalk Shopping Center. A restaurant is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district. The Conditional Use is only required for the drive-through feature proposed for the east side of the building. Mr. Johnson explained the standards used to evaluate this Conditional Use and a detailed analysis is contained in Memorandum No. PZ 02-066, attached to the original minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office. Based on their analysis of the project, compliance with development regulations, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommended that this request be approved subject to satisfaction of all Conditions of Approval. Also, staff recommended that a one-year time period be allowed to initiate the project. Joe Lalonek, of Land Design South, 1280 North Congress Avenue, West Palm Beach, appeared for the property owner and Wendy's. He stated that the owners agree with all the Conditions of Approval. Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Audience. Michael Weiner, appeared on behalf of Gulfstream Harbor Apartments, the property across the street from the proposed project. Mr. Weiner commented that the apartment complex has 160 units and so the development in the shopping center would have a major impact on them. They did not wish to stop the development, but wanted to make some suggestions and ask some questions. Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 ¢' How short are the 457 parking spaces from the requirements of the present Code? ¢' Are there any other non-conforming standards, especially with respect to landscaping, that might be addressed if future development plans for the shopping center come through? ¢' Does the lack of an "X" next to Traffic Concurrency in the Staff Conditions of Approval mean that no study was done? ¢' The neighbors are concerned about potential noise from the drive-through and Mr. Weiner inquired about the use of directional speakers and state-of-the-art menu boards. ¢' What are the exact hours of operation at Wendy's? ,,' Will the signs be standard Wendy's signs or are there any waivers or variances for signs? In Mr. Weiner's words, "They hoped to see the project go up; they hoped to see it pretty; and they hoped they would not be able to hear anyone ordering hamburgers." Since no one else wished to speak, Chair Finkelstein closed the Public Audience. Joe Lalonek responded to Mr. Weiner's comments and questions. The parking originally vested was based on 457 parking spaces for the site. The current Code requires much more than that; however, they are proposing 532 spaces, which is more than the original vesting, so they would be helping to alleviate that problem. They will meet all Code requirements along Woolbright for landscaping. They are not addressing the entire Riverwalk Shopping Center, only the area that is being redeveloped for Wendy's. It is not Wendy's intent to produce any noise pollution and they will work with the neighborhoods and with the Code requirements to make sure that noise is not a problem. Wendy's operates from lunch to just after midnight. Most of its deliveries would come during normal business hours. Ms. Hoyland inquired if the east and west designations were reversed on the elevation drawings and Mr. Lalonek replied that the north and south designations were correct, but that the east and west had been reversed. Ms. Hoyland inquired of staff what requirements had to be met if the Board made a condition that the project must begin within one year. Mr. Johnson responded that the applicant must pull a permit within one year and that they wou~d be inspected six months later. Mr. DeMarco inquired about the seating capacity at Wendy's. Chair Finkelstein stated that the staff report stated 80 seats and the plans said 77. Mr. Lalonek believed that 77 was the correct number, with 80 being the maximum at any one given time. Mr. DeMarco asked the question because it would have an effect on the parking situation. 7 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency' Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 The issue of lighting came up and Mr. Lalonek stated that the engineer was not present but that the standards for this facility were similar to the lighting standards in the rest of the shopping center with the same intensity being used thrOughout. Mr. Aguila asked if there were a maximum height on light poles in the Boynton Beach Code. Mr. Johnson responded that there was not and that it was only addressed in the design criteria. Mr. Aguila suggested that staff might wish to look into this issue since if they become too tall, they could become a problem for the neighborhood. Mr. Aguila noted that there was no rooftop equipment shown on the drawing. He added a Condition of Approval that the screening would be such that the top of the screen is no lower than the height of the tallest piece of equipment to be covered. Mr. Aguila observed that Wendy's had a tendency to trim their landscaping hedges down to about six inches from the ground. He added a condition that the hedges are not to be trimmed down below 30 inches during normal maintenance procedures. Also, along Woolbright Road there are four live oaks and two of them appear to be sick. He added a Condition of Approval that if the City Forester deemed that these two trees would not meet the City's standards, they be replaced with the same plant material. At the drive going into and out of the Wendy's property, there is only one tree on a length of more than 100 feet. He wanted to see three trees, evenly spaced, in this area with one at the north and south ends. Mr. Lalonek stated that the applicant needed to retain visibility to the Wendy's signage but that they understood the requirements. Motion Mr. Aguila moved to approve the Conditional Use of Wendy's @ Riverwalk subject to all staff Conditions of Approval and with the additional comments from the Board: 1) that future maintenance include a provision that the hedges never be cut below 30 inches; 2) that all rooftop equipment be shielded from view so that the top of the screening material be no lower than the top of the highest piece of equipment; 3) that the two trees on the northern property line on Woolbright Road that do not look healthy be replaced, to be determined by the City Forester; and that two additional trees be added on the western boundary of the leased parcel, one north and one south of the existing oak, equal in size and appearance; and that Condition of Approval #6 be changed to read "to meet current Code" versus the 110 MPH wind load. Ms. Hoyland seconded the motion that passed unanimously. Conditional Use Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Caf6 La Notte Lisa Collomb Schgai, Inc. 2280 North Federal Highway Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 Description: Request Conditional Use Approval to allow operation of a nightclub in a C-3 zoning district. Mr. Al DeMarco stated that the City Attorney advised that he should refrain from discussing or voting on this matter due to former dealings with this particular property. He filled out a Form 8B and gave it to the Recording Secretary to be attached to the original minutes on file in the city Clerk's office. Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, reported that Caf6 La Notte was an existing restaurant in a 14,099 square foot, two story building, with on-site parking and outdoor amenities. It is located on the Intracoastal Waterway and includes boat docks. Occupational License records indicate that since 1983, seventeen different restaurants and businesses have occupied the property, some of which simultaneously operated a lounge on the second floor. A lounge was opened up and licensed by the City prior to the City having any particular review process for lounges, nightclubs, or bars. In 1988 City regulations were modified to require that bars and lounges be reviewed for Conditional Use Approval if they were within six hundred feet of a residential zoning district. In December of 2000, City regulations were again amended to specifically establish a "nightclub" as a Conditional Use, regardless of distance from a residential zoning district. It is understood that a nightclub use on the property was ultimately discontinued and not licensed for over six months, consequently losing its legal, nonconforming status. Current regulations now apply to the property including the requirement for Conditional Use approval. Mr. Rumpf read the Conditions of Approval. The property has been reviewed for general conformance with Codes including buffering, landscaping, and parking. Staff .Report Memorandum No. PZ 02-061 summarizes the conditions. Staff acknowledges that if this use were reviewed as a new issue, it would probably not recommend approval, given its close proximity to residential property or, within its Site Plan review process, would have recommended extensive buffering, separation, and landscape requirements. Staff concluded that since the structure was built for a waterfront restaurant and nightclub, had prior licensed use as a nightclub, and could be compatible if the site improvements and operational restrictions contained in the Conditions of Approval were followed, that the request be approved, subject to those conditions. Peter Gondolfo, 6921 Giralda Circle, Boca Raton, owner and landlord for the property, stated that he had built the restaurant and nightclub twenty years ago. There was a period when he leased it to someone who ran a nightclub called the Bay Club that admitted teenagers and there were many problems. He wanted it to be understood that if the City permitted this use now, no person under the age of 21 would be allowed in the nightclub. Chair Finkelstein asked Mr. Gondolfo if he had any problems with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Gondolfo had never seen them. Mr. Rumpf responded that they had been sent to the agent, Lisa Collomb, who came to the podium to join Mr. Gondolfo. Ms. Lisa Collomb, 6921 Giralda Circle, Boca Raton, responded that she was not really the agent, and that the Conditions of Approval had been sent to the agent, Christina Auer. 9 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 Mr. Greene clarified that Christina Auer was a professional expediter. Mr. Rumpf provided a copy of the Conditions of Approval to the respondents and they were given time to read them. Chair Finkelstein opened the Public Hearing. Sally Dalton, 650 Las Palmas Park, Boynton Beach, referred to the problems she experienced when the property was leased to the Bay Club and questioned the Police call statistics in the staff report, believing that many more calls were made than the report indicated. When a big-name entertainer made an appearance, people parked in her driveway and all over the place. When she moved there in 1971 the property had been a marina and then a fire burned the marina down. She was there when the City bought the property to the south for a park. She asked, "Do you really want to have a nightclub next to your park?" Sandra Bailey, 644 Las Palmas Park, Boynton Beach, stated that her backyard abuts the parking lot of the property. Through the years she had made at least 500 calls to the Police Department complaining about noise. There have been times when she was unable to go to work because the noise would run until 2 or 3:00 a.m. and then the staff had race contests. She had to replace the liner in her pool at a cost of $3,000 due to damage caused by a bottle being thrown over to her property. The owner or lessee of the property never returned her calls. The Police told her, "We can't prove where the bottles are coming from", even when a policeman was standing in her yard one evening and nearly missed being hit by a thrown bottle. She did not mind who had a business there as long as she did not know they were there. She wants to be able to sleep at night, even with her windows open. She stated that if something could be done about the noise and the garbage and bottles being thrown into her yard, she would not object to the nightclub. She had a nice house and lived in a nice neighborhood, but it was not nice to have a nightclub next door. Julie Szymkowski, 655 Las Palmas Park, Boynton Beach, had been in the neighborhood since 1972 so she remembered how nice it had been at that time. She was against the proposal because she remembered the previous nightclubs as noisy during operating hours. She also recalled all of the problems that occurred after closing. She made about 400 calls to the Police, usually after midnight. She recalled the traffic on their road and picking up the beer cans and empty alcoholic beverage bottles from her lawn and from the vacant lots. She was opposed to the project because nightclubs are not good neighbors and it did not seem appropriate. Grover Jones, 728 Manatee Drive, stated that he was building a house two streets from the property in question. He approved of what the City was doing with the Intracoastal Park area but said it was for young kids. He could not conceive of having a bar and restaurant right next to a City Park. He had been in a rock and roll band and did not understand how they could control the noise from the nightclub. He realized the City was trying to make a family area and believed that the nightclub did not belong there. 10 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 Shelley Parpard, 631 Lakeside Harbor, two blocks north of La Notte, stated that she had been in the area since La Notte originally opened. They were concerned about the noise. Even though they are two blocks away, there is a condominium behind them, and on Saturdays and Sundays when La Notte has its pool parties, the noise travels and bounces off the condominium and comes back to them. They can't sit in their backyards by their pool area or even in the house without hearing every single word the DJ's in the bikini contests utter. She was concerned about the Saturday and Sunday hOoting and hollering that goes on. When they were inside during the evening hours, there was not that much noise. She hoped that if this use were approved, that the City would take this problem into account. Michael Singer, 695 Lakeside Harbour, stated that his home was on the Intracoastal and that he had used the restaurant facilities a few times and appreciated the fact that it was there. He added credence to his neighbors' comments about the outdoor parties. He has a loudspeaker at his home at his pool area, and is not able to hear his own music over the music coming from the club. He thought it was not good for the children of the community or for the park. This caters to an adult, hooting crowd, and in another location, it would be fine. He did not think this was a good location for outdoor parties. He suggested that the restaurant makes sense and adds to the community well being. However, a total ban on outdoor parties with a speaker system should be applied to this property. Saturdays and Sundays were the only days that many people had to enjoy their properties and :the loud outdoor music was definitely a nuisance. Mr. Fenton noted that in Condition #5, outdoor events including music, intercoms, loud speakers, and so forth would be prohibited. Condition #6 extends this by saying, "No music, other amplified sounds, or vibration generated from the interior of the building, whether from the restaurant, lounge or nightcub, shall be audible from adjacent properties except for that generated during the occasional opening or closing of doors during operation (no exterior doors shall be left open except during periods when no amplified music or noise is generated from the property." Mr. Singer thought they could do a better job of soundproofing than they have so far and if they turned the volume down some and restricted music strictly to the second floor, there might not be a problem. Board Attorney Payne advised the Board that David Teitsma of 656 Las Palmas Park had submitted a letter with a number of questions and concerns about this proposed use. His letter was against having a nightclub on the property for the same reasons mentioned by his neighbors - noise, fights, drugs and so on. He was concerned about night boat traffic for reasons of danger to manatees and as a cover for drug running operations when the nightclub closed for the evening. His letter was circulated for the Board members to read and is attached to the original minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.. Lisa Collomb, agent for the property, asked whether weddings would be allowed outside as this was something they definitely wanted to do. They had two tiki huts in which they desired to perform wedding ceremonies and offer receptions that would entail some music, which could be controlled with a volume level. If they decided to have a bikini contest, they could have it indoors to avoid problems with the neighbors. She could not 11 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 agree with the stipulation of no outdoor music whatsoever because they would be limited as to what they could offer fOr entertainment. Mr. Gondolfo stated that they never have a band on Saturdays (in response to a comment from the neighbors). Ms. Collomb stated that the problems of the past had no bearing on the way the facility was being operated today as a restaurant and banquet hall. They would only operate the nightclub on weekend nights, and would close at 2:00 a.m. Ms. Collomb referred to Condition #4 for providing additional screening (vegetative or other) on the south side of the dumpster to reduce sounds and odors from carrying southward. She stated there was a concrete wall that acted as separation between the properties near the dumpster. She did not see how they could put any more screening at that loCation. Mr. Rumpf advanced several theories about how it could be done but further discussions would have to take place between staff and the applicant on this issue. Mr. Aguila remarked that if the request were for a restaurant, he would have asked that the dumpster be kept inside and air-conditioned. Ms. Collomb inquired about Condition #10, which concerns optimal policing for special events to avoid noise and other related problems. She stated that if they were to have a special event that would entail having a lot of people in attendance, they anticipate hiring at least two Boynton Beach police officers. She asked for an explanation of the wording on this condition. She asked if they would have an obligation to the Police Department and Mr. Rumpf replied that they would. He stated that they would have to discuss the event with the Police Department and if they decided that the event would require four policemen, they would have to abide bY the Police Department's decision. Mr. Gondolfo explained that in the nightclub area he has double-glazed windows that muffle noise. He invited the City to come out and measure the decibel levels that come from the proposed nightclub area while music is playing. If they had music outside, it could be on Sundays from 3:00 to 7:30 p.m. only. He also commented that they had only two major, big-name entertainers in twenty years and would not have one again because of the disturbance 1:o the neighbors. He stated that if they had outdoor music, they would use the volume control to avoid disturbing the neighbors. Mr. Aguila asked staff what would happen if this use were approved and did not work out and became a public nuisance. He asked if the approval could be rescinded or could a condition be added that if, in fact, they had an excessive amount of police calls, that the approval could be rescinded. Ms. Hoyland did not think it would be wise to put a limitation of a certain number of police calls. Mr. Tillman said if this were the case, they would have to put similar stipulations on all projects that came before them. Ms. Hoyland asked if the Police or Engineering Departments had a way of measuring decibels and that this might be the best way to handle this. If it became an out-of-control issue, it would become a Code Enforcement violation. She believed that once the CRA approved it, it would be out of their hands. Enforcement would be up to the Police and Code Enforcement Departments. 12 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 Vice Chair Heavilin thought the City had just passed a noise ordinance and Mr. Rumpf agreed, and stated that the current regulations would be in place and continue - it was a distance/decibel type of regulation. She did not believe the Board could judge the project based on the bad history of the past. If all the Conditions of Approval were to be met, it could work. She agreed with the applicant on the use of the outdoor tiki bar and pool area and to not allow any music out there would basically shut them down, especially for weddings and receptions. She believed there had to be a compromise on Condition #5 which bans all outdOor amplified music. Mr. Fenton stated that the operator could not control what the people do in the parking lot. Would it be feasible to put in a Golf Course-type netting up from the wall to stop them from throwing beer bottles into the Yard? Mr. Rumpf did not believe there was a Code to address that. Mr. Aguila thought this might be something staff would want to look at. Mr. Fenton stated he had been to La Notre many, times and had not found conditions to be too bad but that parking was a problem. He did not feel that parking was adequate for special events. He referred to boxing events that had been held upstairs in the past and noted that cars had been parked all ,over north Boynton Beach. He thought the issue needed to be addressed. Mr. Rumpf thought that Condition #10 could handle this. Parking standards are not based on the extreme. This type of facility has the potential of exceeding that demand. Mr. Rumpf suggested that Condition #10 could possibly require that in the event of special events, they be required to provide a shuttle to another parking lot in the City. Board Attorney Payne suggested that if this were of interest, the Board should put more definitive language in this Condition because it seemed to relate only to Police and noise and security. If desired, it should be expanded to include additional parking if necessary depending on the projected number of attendees. Mr. Aguila said that the applicant has to demonstrate that during special events, they can meet all of the requirements for life safety, fire, parking, and other necessary safeguards. Motion Mr. Fenton moved to table the issue until the next meeting. He thought Condition #1 or 2 had been resolved. On Condition #5, the applicant disagreed and will not go along with it. It' needs to be reworded in such a way that the applicant and staff can be satisfied. There is a question about Condition #6 and he thought Condition #10 had to be reworded pertaining to special event parking. He thought staff and the applicant needed to rework the issues. Mr. Rumpf advised that the recommendation to table would be forwarded to the City Commission and that the City Commission had the option of accepting that and allowing the case to come back before the CRA or not. Mr. Tillman seconded the motion. Mr. Aguila believed they would be putting off something unnecessarily. He believed that the Board has enough experience and knowledge to act on this. Ms. Hoyland agreed. A roll call vote was polled by the Recording Secretary and the motion to table failed 4-2 (Mr. Aguila, Chair Finkelstein, Vice Chair Heavilin, and Ms. Hoyland against, Mr. Fenton and Mr. Ti#man in favor.) 13 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 Motion Ms. Hoyland made a motion to approve Caf6 La Notte's Conditional Use request with an added condition that the applicant provide a site lighting plan to show compliance with the Site Lighting Code in photometrics and lighting, Comments #1 and 2. On Comment #10, that language is included that if parking requirements cannot be met for special events, the special event shall not be approved, and to include all other Conditions as specified by Staff. Chair Finkelstein asked if she wished Staff to add the language prior to going to the City Commission and Ms. Hoyland replied that she did. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion. Ms. Hoyland stated that if the project came to the Board as a banquet hall and it was specifically designed and oriented towards special events such as weddings, retirement and anniversary parties, then she would support allowing some kind of outdoor music, keyed to a decibel rating. Since this request was for a nightclub, she did not think it was appropriate to have outdoor, amplified music at all. The Recording Secretary polled a vote that resulted in the motion failing 3-3 (Messrs. Aguila, Fenton, and Vice Chair. Heavilin against and Chairman Finkelstein, Ms. Hoyland and Mr. Tillman in favor.) Vice Chair Heavilin had a problem with the restriction on outdoor music. Mr. Aguila did not want to see the use continued at this location. He believed that while they might state that they would control the volume, it would continue to be a mess and a nuisance to the neighborhood and he did not support it, even if all the conditions were met. He did not think this was a proper use and wanted to see the property used as a restaurant and for banquets. Motion Mr. Aguila moved to deny the Conditional Use request for Caf6 La Notte. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion Ms. Hoyland moved (including conditions she stated in her previous motion) that a reasonable decibel level for outdoor music be defined by Engineering, staff, and the Police Department, to allow outdoor music at a reduced decibel level and only on Friday and Saturday, Vice Chair Heavilin seconded the motion. Mr. Rumpf thought that staff needed more time to come up with something. If he went to staff with this request, they would say that a noise ordinance already exists. He was not sure that the existing ordinance was good enough for this location and use. Chair Finkelstein stated that Ms. Hoyland had been willing to allow Staff to be in charge of resolving Conditions of Approval #1 and 2 and inquired if she would be willing to leave Condition #5 about outdoor amplified music up to Staff as well. Ms. Hoyland replied that she would. Ms. Hoyland suggested, however, allowing outdoor music only on Friday_ 14 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 and Saturday .......... ~ and reducing the allowed decibel levels to half of the decibels allowed by Code. The Recording Secretary polled the vote and the motion passed 4-2 (Messrs Aguila and Fenton dissenting.) Chair Finkelstein advised the applicant that the request would be forwarded to the City Commission who would have it on their agenda for their April 16, 2002 meeting, which was to be held at the Citrus Cove Elementary School. He also advised the applicant that the City Commission would make a final determination on the matter. VIII. New Business A, Impact Fees Mr. Greene explained that the City imposes a park and recreation facilities impact fee in order to provide the City with revenue to fund the construction or improvement of the City's park system. The Comprehensive Plan requires a review of the Parks Impact fees every five years and the proposal changes the way the fee was determined in the past, which was by the land value, to one that is based on an established flat fee per dwelling unit, depending on the type of dwelling unit. Mr. Greene introduced Hannah Matras, Economic Research Analyst, to elaborate on the proposed change. The Board members were given copies of the proposed Ordinance with their agenda packets and it is attached to the original minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office. Attachment A gives the Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Formula with Cost per Capita Calculations and Cost per Dwelling Unit (Impact Fee) Formula. Vice Chair Heavilin inquired about how many units constitute a multi-family dwelling and the reply was four or more units. Mr. Fenton asked how much of an increase these rates were over the previous ones and Ms. Matras could not say - the previous formula was not a flat rate. The first formula was completely dependent on the price of the land for a particular project. On average, a developer would pay less with the proposed formula than the older one but they could, conceivably, pay more. Ms. Hoyland asked if the formula were based only on residential and Ms. Matras replied that this was correct, although she believed Dade County was considering charging commercial developers as well. She also said that some cities do not charge impact fees at all. Delray Beach charges a flat $500 fee, independent of what kind of development is involved. Boca Raton has a very complex formula but since there is a ceiling, they all pay a flat fee of $1K. Ms. Matras believed that the Boynton Beach fees would be in the middle of the wide range of fees charged in the area. Ms. Hoyland asked if this item were informational only for the CRA. Mr. Greene replied that it was a discussion item. When the City Commission asked if the CRA had seen it 15 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 and it was determined that they had not, the proposal was forwarded to the CRA for discussion, comments and recommendations. Ms. Hoyland had no problem with the proposal. Chair Finkelstein said it mentioned charging fees but that someone could request a refund if the fee were not used. Are the fees accounted for by the developer? Ms. Matras stated that the Department of Finance keeps a Developer Trust Fund and tracks which developer's money has been spent. A reasonable time for the money to stay in the Fund and not be used by the City is considered to be six years. Mr. Tillman stated that since the CRA had no authority to act on this issue, he wondered why the City Commission had sent the matter to them for review. Mr. Greene stated that the issue would have citywide impact and the City Commission felt that both the Planning & Development and CRA Boards needed to have an opportunity to review and make comments on it prior to the City Commission taking any action. Chair Finkelstein wanted verification from Ms. Matras that these fees were fairly assessed based on the cost of park purchases and her investigations surrounding other municipalities and how they operate. Or, was it just a matrix? Ms. Matras said that the City had not been developing parks for quite some time now. The land values vary significantly among the cities so the question was difficult to answer. Chair Finkelstein thought it was not based on land values and Ms. Matras said that it was but that the City is small and they took an average land value in the City. Mr. Fenton thought it was anti-growth and another form of taxation, and if he were on the City Commission, he would vote against it. Chair Finkelstein would have liked to see some kind of relationship to the money that has been collected in the past and the parks that had been bought with the money. To his knowledge, the City had not bought a park in a long time. Mr. Aguila said that there were some priorities outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for small parks, medium parks, and so forth but he did not know what the record had been. Chair Finkelstein had not seen anyone acquiring parcels of land for a park. He did not know what the Parks Department was doing in this area. The general consensus of the Board was that the proposal should be forwarded to the City Commission. IX. Public Audience Enrico Rossi, 625 Whispering Pines Road, spoke about the time in December of 2000 when the City Commission voted to relieve Quantum Park from paying any recreation impact fees, which amounted to about $180K. He said there was no provision in the new scheme for any additional credits, regardless of what they put up to establish credits. He asked if his understanding was correct on that. Ms. Matras asked what he meant by credits. Mr. Rossi said that on Ms. Matras' breakdown, some of the figures were per capita and unit. He gave an example of the 16 Meeting Minutes Community Redevelopment Agency Boynton Beach, Florida April 9, 2002 $656 Ms. Matras had related for apartments and asked if that would give rise to someone coming in and saying, "1'11 pay that, but I want credit for all these other things?" Ms. Matras stated that if a project were built on a site where other units were built previously and then demolished, a developer could have credit for the impact fee paid for the units that were demolished. Mr. Rossi wondered how the new fees would be related to Quantum Park. He heard that at a TRC meeting when the subject of impact fees came up, Quantum Park stated ',Don't worry about that, we'll work it out." Chair Finkelstein stated that this issue would have to go to the Planning & Development Board first and would then go back to the City Commission, probably at its May 7 meeting. X. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (three tapes) 04/10/02S:\CC\WP\MINUTES\CRA\040902REGULARMTG.doc 17 V. I)ir'~cl'or.'s I~ or'l' V. ,A. VII. A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM #PZ 02-059 Staff Report Community Redevelopment Agency Board and City Commission Meeting Date: April 9, 2001 File No: ZNCV 02-001 - Front and rear setback Location: Boynton Hills Subdivision, Lot 152, Block C Owner: P.B. Horizons, Inc. Project: Building a single-family home on a parcel zoned R-1-A. Request: Request for two (2) variances from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 5, F.2.a. to build a single-family home on a lot zoned R-l-A: 1) to include an 8.7-foot reduction from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback required by code to allow a 16.3-foot front setback; and 2) to include a 17.5-foot reduction from the twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback required by code to allow a 7.5-foot rear setback BACKGROUND The subject property, located on the southeast corner of N.W. 1st Street and N.W. 8~n Avenue is zoned R-l-A, single family residential (see Exhibit "A"- Location Map). The lot is currently vacant and remains as originally platted. The Boynton Hills subdivision was origin.ally platted in 1925. Contrary to the gridiron pattern used in the development of most American towns, this subdivision used the radial scheme and diagonal avenues over the grid (see Exhibit "B" - Boynton Hills Subdivision). This design created many irregularly-shaped and substandard lots by current regulations. The majority of the subdivision is developed including a large portion of the original substandard lots. Mr. Ash Bullard, agent for P.B. Horizons, Inc. is requesting the above-referenced variances. The applicant proposes to construct a single-family home on a trapezoid-shaped parcel (see Exhibit "C" - Proposal Survey). The total site is approximately 6,900 square feet and has a frontage of 140.25 feet. The parcels on both sides of the subject property are developed. The requirements to build a single-family dwelling unit within the R-1-A zoning district are as follow: · Front setback: 25 feet; · Rear setback: 25 feet. -~'e applicant is proposing the following setbacks: · Front setback: 16.3 feet; · Rear setback: 7.5 feet. Page 2 Boyn[on Hills Block C Lot 152 Variance File "4o. ZNCV 02-001 The construction of a single-family home with the above-referenced characteristics requires the two (2) variances as described herein. It is practically impossible to build a single-family home on this shallow lot that will meet both minimum size requirements and setbacks. Staff visited the area and observed that the majority of'dwelling units in the neighborhood are detached single-family homes, built on irregular and substandard lots, with some of them having either front or rear setback deficiencies relative to current Land Development Regulations. The subject lot has similar lot constraints (see Exhibit "D" - Survey). ANALYSIS The code states that the zoning code variance cannot be approved unless the board finds the following: That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same zoning district. b. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. c. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any. special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. That literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the ordinance and would work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. e. That the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. That the grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter [ordinance] and that such variance will not be injurious to the area involved or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff reviewed the requested variance focusing on the applicant's response to the above criteria contained in Exhibit "E". Indeed, this circumstance is a result of the subdivision being platted in 1925 according to less stringent standards, and following the aesthetic approach of the City Beautiful movement. In 1975 the City adopted new zoning regulations which caused many parcels to become legally non-conforming, including those in the Boynton Hills Subdivision Plat. Staff verified by site visit that the substandard conditions still exist. Consequently, a large number of those parcels have been developed for single-family homes. Staff concurs with the applicant that special conditions and circumstances exist, related to lot depth, that are not the result of actions by the applicant, therefore satisfying criteria "a" and "b" above. Staff also concurs with the applicant that the approval of the variances will not confer any special privileges. There are several substandard parcels within the area, similarly zoned, which were also the subject of variance approvals in conjunction with the development of single-family homes. For example, a single-family home exists on the adjacent lot #139 with a 17.1-foot front setback, which is comparable to the applicant's request. Therefore, denial of this variance request would deprive the applicant of the rights already enjoyed by others. Therefore, criteria "c"and "d"are satisfied. With respect to criterion "e", which considers if the request is the minimum necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the property, a unit design I~as been selected. Regardless of the building configuration on the lot, any single-family dwelling that would meet the minimum living area standard Page 3 Boynton Hills Block C Lot 152 Variance File No. ZNCV 02-001 vould still encroach into the front and rear setbacks. This proposed application represents the minimum 'ariance required in achieving the reasonable use of the land. In addition, it should be notec that both lots located to the east and south of the subject property are developed, thereby preventing further land assemblage to create a lot sufficient in size to comply with the minimum lot standards. Lastly, staff finds that granting the variances will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare. On the contrary, the proposed improvement will be consistent with existing characteristics of the neighborhood including lot sizes, lot frontages, house sizes and styles. CONC LUSIONS/RECOMII.,1EN DATION~ Based on the analysis contained herein, staff finds that:a "hardship" exists. Staff also concludes that the approval of the requested variances will enhance the community by supporting new infill housing development in the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends that the requested variances be approved, thereby granting relief from the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2-Zoning to allow: 1) An 8.7-foot reduction from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback required by code to allow a 16.3-foot front yard setback; and 2) A 17.5-foot reduction from the twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback required by code to allow a 7.5-foot rear yard setback. approved, it should be noted that relief should apply to the subject property only as represented in ×hibit "C" of the staff report thereby limiting the minimum 7.5-foot rear setback to a corner of the unit, ~d precluding the application of thi~ rear setback to the entire rear of the proposed structure. Any conditions of approval added bY the Community Redevelopment Agency Board or City Commission will be placed in Exiqibit "F". MP-JMDA S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\BOYNTON HILLS BLOCK C LOT 152\STAFF REP-Front and rear setback.doc Location Map Boyn[on Hills Block C Lot 152 EXHIBIT "A" 400 0 400 800 1200 Feet S:LPlanningkSHARED\WP\PROJECTSkBOYNTON HILLS BLOCK C LOT 152\Location Map.doc EXHIB ? 1:R-'f-b7 G--~-"P®2,,7--]E)~[-¥-Tz:-'?W'-- ..... EXHIBIT "C" SURVEY SKETCH £C~4LE ~ = ~' STF"'~T ADDRESS : VAC..JqT LOT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA GRAPNIC ~CALE VACANT 5' CLF LOT 151 BLOCK C LOT 139 I)LOCK C LOT 140 BLOCK C LOT 141 i~LDCK C ELEV,4TZ~"5' ,~A~7',,/N HE;eE"EN ~ VERTI~At DATUN ~f' 19E~ HAROLD NEEDL~ PL~ #,q45P tllY 15~, I~DC.K C, ~tlYNT~llV HILLS ACgl?RillN~ TB T~E PL~T THE~E~ ~ RE~ ~ PLAT ~Agt~ # aT FLOOD ZONE : C COMMUNITY PANEL : 120192-0190B gAT'ED *. ~]--2--g9 (FLOOD ZONE: '8','C','D', & 'X" ARE NOT IN DESIGNATED FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AREA.) M & P LAND SURVEYORS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS &: MAPPERS DRAWN BY: J -'IN J CHECKED ElY: J HN P.O. BOX 770157 CORAL SPRINGS, FLORIDA 33077 954--240-8219 954-24.2-6067 FAX 954-340-84-55 REVISIONS ~/m/o2 HOUS., LAYOU~ PROJECT NO: lH-21007 !SURVEY SKETCH EXHI.BIT "D" ST~T ADDRESS : SCALE 1' = 30' G~APH[C SCALE VAuaNT LOT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA VACANT CLF LOT 151 BLOCK C / LOT 139 BLOCK C LOT 140 BLOCK C LOT 141 BLOCK C EL£V&TIEN~ SHiPment ~ ARE ~45E1~ ~ TH~ NAT, D~AL 6ED2ETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 19c~5~ HAROLD /~EDLF_,, PLS ~§452 FLOOD ZON~ : C COMMUNITY PANEL : 120192-0190B D A.'["ED : 6-2-99 (FLOOD ZONE: "B=,'C','D". ,~' 'X' ARE ',,lOT N DESIGNATED FLOOD HAZARD ZONE AREA.:] M & P LAND SURVEYORS PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS &: MAPPERS DRAWN BY: I HN I CHECKED BY: I HN P.O. BOX 770157 CORAL SPRINGS. FLORIDA 33077 954-240-8219 954-242-6087 FAX 954--540--8455 REVISIONS PROJECT 1H-21007 EXHIBIT "E", P B Horizons, Inc. 701 NW 13th St. B 1 Boca Raton, FI.33486 Special conditions, hardships, or reasons justifying the variances;~ A) This is an odd shaped tot, which differs from most of the neighborhood lots, which are 50' wide by varying depths of 100' down to 70'. B) This lot was sub-divided prior to P B Horizons purchasing it. Subsequent to the establishment of this lot, zoning requirements have rendered it unusable for a single-family dwelling. c) There are houses on similar sized lots in the district. The proposed house will be in keeping with the neig/~borhood. D) The present setback requirements present a hardship in that the lot is unbuildable. £) F) We have downsized the house to the dimensions of 28' X 50'thus allowing the greatest possible setbacks. By doing this we have fallen below the minimum sq. footage requirement for this zone, thus our request for the second variance. *- The house proposed will be an addition to the neighborhood. It will be new and landscaped which will be a great improvement over the existing vacant lot. THE PROPOSED UNIT DIMENSIONS STILL MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR MINIMUM LIVING AREA EXHIBIT "F" Conditions of Approval Project name: Boynton Hills Block C Lot 152 File number: ZNCV 02-001 Reference: DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DMSION Comments: None. PAR.KS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Relief should apply to the subject property only as represented in Exhibit "C" of the staff report thereby limiting the minimum 7.5-foot rear setback to a comer of the unit, and precluding the application of this rear setback to the entire rear of the proposed structure. Conditions of Approval 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: t. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONqDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Hills\BIk C- Lot 152\Condition of Approval 2 page revised 2002 form.doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Boynton Hills Subdivision, Lot 152, Block C APPLICANT'S AGENT: Ash Bullard APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 2644 Lorraine Court DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: April 16, 2002 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request two (2) variances to build a single-family home on a lot zoned R-1-A to include an 8.7-foot reduction from the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback required by code to allow a 16.3-foot front setback; and to include a 17.5-foot reduction from the twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback required by code to allow a 7.5-foot rear setbacK. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Boynton Hills Subdivision, Lot 152, Block C DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. X THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. o Ail further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other DATED: City Clerk S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Hills\Develop. Order Boynton Hills Bk C Lot 152.doc VII. El. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLAN ~.'NING & ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 02-065 TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: Proj ect/Applicant: Agent: Owner: Location: File No: Property Description: Chairman and Members Planning and Development Board Dick Hudson, Senior Planner ~ Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning April 1, 2002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Office/Warehouse Condominiums, CKS Inc. Jeffrey Smith, JMS Design Inc. CKS Inc. East side of Old Dixie Highway between Miller Road and Gulfstream Boulevard Annexation (ANEX 02-001) Land Use Amendment/Rezoning (LUAR 02-001) Vacant property of 0.67 acres of land located in un/ncorporated Palm Beach County, classified Commercial and zoned GC (General Commercial) Proposed change/use: To annex the subject property, to reclassify from Commercial to GC (General Commercial), and rezone from GC (General Commercial) to C-4 (General Commercial). Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: North: South: East: X, Vest: Undeveloped property classified Commercial and zoned GC (General Commercial - Palm Beach County) Developed property (Broward Pump and Supply Co.) classified GC (General Commercial) and zoned C-4 (General Commercial) Developed property (mobile home park) classified Commercial and zoned GC (General Commercial - Palm Beach County Right-of-way of Dixie High;vay, further west F.E.C. Railroad right-of-way, then Seacrest Scrub Preservanon Area Page 2 CKS, Inc. File Numbers: ANEX 02-001 and LUAR 02-001 PROJECT ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 9.C.2(2) of the Land Development Regulations, staff is not required to revie~v the petition against the eight (8) criteria by which rezonings are to be reviewed as indicated in Section 9.C.7., as this petition is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for properties to be annexed within this vicinity. Instead, staff analysis will relate to consistency ~vith other relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan, the city's annexation program and service capability. This commercial property is less than t0 acres in size, and therefore this proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan is considered a "small-scale" amendment and is not subject to "compliance review" by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). This means that the proposed amendment, if desired by the city, will be adopted first, then for~varded to the DCA for their records ("large-scale" amendments cannot be adopted until found "in compliance" by the DCA). The annexation of this parcel is consistent with the only policy within the comprehensive plan on annexation. Policy 8.10.4, which reqmres the establishment of an annexation program, promotes orderly annexation, and prohibits the creation of new enclaves. The annexation of the subject property will further the efforts of the annexation program through reduction in the number of enclave properties. State annexation law allows the annexation of enclaves that are less than 10 acres without the consent of property owners. Currently, objectives of the annexation program include annexing alt enclaves less than 10 acres, and to incrementally annex enclave properties with the intent to reducing them below the 10- acre threshold. The requested land use and zoning is consistent with the recommendations of Section VIII Land Use Problems and Opportunities, sub-section 1.q., found in the support documents for the 1989 CiW Of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan. In connection ~vith previous annexation, studies, departments most affected by annexations (e.g. Police, Fire, and Public Works), have been surveyed for issubs related to serv/ce capability and costs. All opinions previously collected fi-om these departments supported the incremental annexation of enclaves. These opinions have been based on the following: 1) 2) 3) The enclaves are all immediately adjacent to areas within the city that currently receive urban services; Ample service capacity exists to serve adjacent unincorporated properties; and Most enclaves currently receive serv/ce from the city via the mutual aid agreement (Police and Fire/EMS only). With respect to impact upon roadways, the Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the project and determined that it meets Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. However, with respect to water and wastewater utilities, the review of the proposed site plan (which was ro have been reviewed concurrently with the subject applications) identified the absence of wastewater lines directly accessible to the subject property. As part of site plan approval, access to city utilities, or an acceptable alternative, must be designed. The review of the site plan application has been delayed to allow for project eng/neers to evaluate and address this situation. Page 3 CKS, Inc. File Numbers: ANEX 02-001 and LUAR 02-001 CONCLUSIONS/RE COMMENDATIONS As indicated herein, this request is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; will not create additional impacts on infrastructure that have not been anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan; will be compatible with adjacent land uses and will contribute to the overall economic development of the City. Therefore, staff recommends that the subject request be approved. If conditions of approval are recommended by the Planning and Development Board or required by the City Commission, they will be included as Exhibit "B". ATTACHMENTS J:\S HRDATAXP lannin g~Hudson\C KS Inc\ LUARX,staff report, doc Locatio.n Map CKS Inc. EXHIBIT "A" 8OO / 800 1600 2400 Feet LN L VII. C. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 02-065 TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: Proj eot/Applicant: Agent: Owner: Location: File No: Property Description: Chairman and Members Planning and Development Board Dick Hudson, Senior Planner ~'~ Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning April 1, 2002 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Office/Warehouse Condominiums, CKS Inc. Jeffrey Smith, JMS Design Inc. CKS Inc. East side of Old Dixie Highway between Miller Road and Gulfstream Boulevard Annexation (ANEX 02-001) Land Use Amendment/Rezoning (LUAR 02-001) Vacant property of 0.67 acres of land located in unincorporated Palm Beach County, classified Commercial and zoned GC (General Commercial) Proposed change/use: To annex the subject property, to reclassify from Commercial to GC (General Commercial), and rezone from GC (General Commercial) to C-4 (General Commercial). Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: North: South: East: West: Undeveloped property classified Commercial and zoned GC (General Conunercial - Palm Beach County) Developed property (BroWard Pump and Supply Co.) classified GC (General Commercial) and zoned C-4 (General Commercial) Developed property (mobile home park) classified Commercial and zoned GC (General Commercial - Palm Beach County Right-of-way o£Dixie Highway, further west F.E.C. Railroad right-of-way, then Seacrest Scrub Preservation Area Page 2 CKS, Inc. File Numbers: ANEX 02-001 and LUAR 02-001 PROJECT ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 9.C.2(2) of the Land Development Regulations, staff is not required to review the petition against the eight (8) criterSa by which rezonings are to be reviewed as indicated in Section 9.C.7., as this petition is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for properties to be annexed within this vicinity. Instead, staff analysis will relate to consistency-with other relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan, the city's annexation program and service capability. This commercial property is less than 10 acres in size, and therefore this proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan ~s considered a "small-scale" amendment and is nor subject to "compliance review" by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). This means that the proposed amendment, if desired by the city, will be adopted first, then forwarded to the DCA for their records ("large-scale" amendments cannot be adopted until found "in compliance" by the DCA). The annexation of this parcel is consistent with the only policy within the comprehensive plan on annexation. Policy 8.10.4, which requires the establishment of an annexation program, promotes orderly annexation, and Prohibits the creation of new enclaves. The annexation of the subject property will further the efforts of the annexation program through reduction in the number of enclave properties. State annexation law allows the annexation of enclaves that are less than 10 acres without the consent of property owners. Currently, objectives of the annexation program include annexing all enclaves less than 10 acres, and to incrementally annex enclave properties with the intent to reducing them below the 10- acre threshold. The requested land use and zoning is consistent with the recommendations of Section VIJ_I Land Use Problems and Opportunities, sub-section 1.q., found in the support documents for the 1989 City Of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan. In connection with previous annexation, studies, departments most affected by annexations (e.g. Police, Fire, and Public Works), have been surveyed for issues related to service capability and costs. All opinions previously collected from these departments supported the incremental annexation of enclaves. These opinions have been based on the following: 1) 2) 3) The enclaves are all immediately adjacent to areas within the city that currently receive urban services; Ample service capacity exists to serve adjacent unincorporated properties; and Most enclaves currently receive service from the city via the mutual aid agreement (Police and Fire/EMS only). With respect to impact upon roadways, the Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the project and determined that it meets Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. However, with respect to water and wastewater utilities, the review of the proposed site plan (which was to have been reviewed concurrently with the subject applications) identified the absence of wastewater lines directly accessible to the subject property. As part of site plan approval, access to city utilities, or an acceptable alternative, must be designed. The review of the site plan application has been delayed to allow for project engineers to evaluate and address this situation. Page 3 CKS, Inc. File Numbers: ANEX 02-001 and LUAR 02-00.1 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS As indicated herein, this request is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; will not create additional impacts on infrastructure that have not been anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan; will be compatible with adjacent land uses and will contribute to the overall economic development of the City.. Therefore, staff recommends that the subject request be approved. If conditions of approval are recommended by the Planning and Development Board or required by the City Commission, they will be included as Exhibit "B". ATTACHMENTS J:\S HRDATA\Planning~Hudson\CKS In¢\LUAR~taffrepom aoc Location Map CKS Inc, EXHIBIT "A" 8O0 1600 / 2400 Feet --;OO LN L N DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 02 - 066 VII. FROM: Chairman and Members Planning and Development Board Michael W. Rump{ ~ ("~--"~ Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: SUBJECT: April 4, 2002 Wendy's at Riverwalk Plaza - COUS 02-001 Conditional Use / Site Plan Approval - (Drive-through window facility for the Wendy's Restaurant to be located within the River~valk Shopping Plaza) PROPOSAL SUMMARY Land Design South, agent for River~vatk Joint Venture is seeking conditional use / major site plan modification approval for a restaurant with a drive-through facility. The applicant proposes to construct a one- (1) story, 3,170 square foot fast-food restaurant to be located in the Riverwalk Shopping Plaza. Currently, the location of the proposed restaurant is developed as a parking lot to support the R/verwatk Shopping Plaza. A fast-food restaurant is a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district. ~e conditional use is only required for the drive-through feature proposed at the east side of the building. The ive-through lane will commence at the west side of the building, wrap around the south of the building and ~,,rminate on the east side of the building. No portion of the drive-through feature will be located along Woolbright Road. The Riverwalk Shopping Plaza site plan identified the subject site for future development as a restaurant. For technical clarification, this project is not a new site plan on a vacant out-parcel but rather a major modification to the River~vatk Shopping Plaza site plan. The boundary of the "leased area" is not used to determine setbacks, parking, and landscape requirements. The entire project is to be built in one (1) phase. Applicant/Agent: Riverwalk Joint Venture / Land Design South Project name: Wendy's at Riverwalk Plaza General Description: Fast-food restaurant (3,170 square feet) with a drive-through feature Overall Property size: 426,670 square feet (9.795 acres) "Leased Area" size: 30,032 square feet (0.69 acre) Land use: Local Retail Commercial (LRC) Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3) T ~cation: South side of Woobright Road, west of the Intracoastal Waterway, east of U.S. 1 in Riverwalk Shopping Plaza (See Exhibit "A" - Location Map) Total Building area: 3,170 square feet (See Exhibit "B"- Proposed Site Plan) Wendy's at Riverwalk Plaza - COUS 02-001 Page 2 Memorandum No. PZ 02 - 066 urrounding land uses/zoning: North - Right-of-;vay for Woolbright Road, farther north, Gulfstream Apartments classified High Density Residential (HDR), zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3); East - South - Riverwatk Shopping Plaza classified Local Retail Commercial (L. RC), zoned Community Commercial (C-3) and farther east is vacant property classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC), zoned Community Commercial and still farther east is the Intracoastal fight-of-way; Riverwalk Shopping Plaza classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC), zoned Community Commercial (C-3) and farther south is undeveloped property classified High Density Residential (HDR), zoned Multi-family Residential (R-3); and West - Riverwalk Shopping Plaza / Southtrust Bank classified Local Retail Commercial (LRC), zoned Community Commercial (C-3) and farther west is the U.S. 1 fight-of-way. STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING CONDITIONAL USES AND ANALYSIS Section 11.2.D of the Land Development Regulations contains the following standards to which conditional uses are required to conform. Following each of these standards is the Planning and Zoning Division's evaluation of the application as it pertains to standards. .e Planning and Development Board and City Commission shall consider only such conditional uses as are ,~,thofized under the terms of these zoning regulations and, in connection there~vith, may grant conditional uses absolutely or conditioned upon the conditions including, but not limited to, the dedication of property for streets, alleys, recreation space and sidewalks, as shall be determined necessary for the protection of the surrounding area and the citizens' general welfare, or deny conditional uses when not in harmony with the intent and purpose of this section. In eva.luating an application for conditional use approval,, the Board and Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed use on the general health, safety and welfare of the community and make written findings certi .lying that satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following standards, where applicable: Ingress and egress to the subject property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automobile and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic fi'ow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. The subject property will be located in the northeast corner of the Riverwalk Shopping Plaza. Comparable to ourparcels located in Planned Commercial Districts, this project will utilize existing access drives of the Riverwalk Shopping Plaza. Currently, the shopping plaza has three (3) main points of ingress / egress. Two (2) of the access drives are located along Woolbright Road and the third is located along U.S. 1. None of the shopping center's access drives will be altered as a result of this project. This project does not propose any direct connection onto ~Voolbright Road. The restaurant "leased area" will have one (1) point of ingress and one (]) point of egress. These drive aisles will connect with an existing drive aisle in the Riverwalk Shopping Plaza. The width of each proposed drive aisle that surrounds the proposed restaurant will be 19.83 feet. Sidewalks and their respective markings wilt connect the restaurant to Woolbright Road in order to provide added safety to pedestrians. This project must obtain Wendy's a[ Riverwalk Plaza - COUS 02-001 ~age 3 Memorandum No. PZ 02 - 066 Palm Beach County Traffic Division approval with regard to traffic concurrency prior to the issuance ora City building permit, /see Exhibit "C "- Conditions of Approval). Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with particular attention to the items in subsection above, and the economic, glare, noise, and odor effects the conditional use will have on adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. Required parking for restaurants ia' based upon either one (l) space per I00 square feet of gross floor area or one (]) space per 2.5 seats, whichever is the more stringent methodology of the two. Since the more stringent parking requirement is based upon the total square footc~ge of the restaurant, the required parking for the restaurant will be 32 spaces. City records indicate the shopping plaza is vested for 457 parking spaces. This figure is based on a parking ratio that was in effect at the time the center was constructed. There are 50 existing parking spaces where the restaurant is to be built. The Wendy's "leased area" will restore 32 parking spaces, including two (2) spaces designated for handicap use (see exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). This net loss of]8 parking spaces will not cause the Riverwalk Shopping Plaza to fall below its vested number. Angled parking spaces (60 degrees) are proposed along the east and west sides of the restaurant. The parking space dimensions will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations and City Engineering Drawings. The handicap spaces ,viIl be located near the west entrance of the building. The parking, drive-through lane, and drive aisle areas will surround all sides of the building. No parking however is proposed north of the building. 3. Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the items in subsection 1 and 2 above. A dumpster enclosure will be located at the southeast corner of the subject site. It wilt be located in an area that is unobtrusive to pedestrian and vehicular traffic and is unnoticeable from Woolbright Road, U.S. ], or residentially zoned property. The dumpster location is positioned in such a way to facilitate efficient removal of trash. 4. Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and city regulations, all utilities, including potable water and sanitary sewer are available for this project. 5. Screening, buffering and landscaping with reference to type, dimensions, and character. The proposed pervious or "green" area is 2,849 square feet or 9% of the total "leased area" of the site. As proposed, the development of the restaurant would cause an insignificant change to the total amount of pervious area for the entire shopping plaza. Currently, the site is developed as a parking lot for the Riverwalk Shopping Plaza. The project is designed to eliminate and / or reconfigure the parking spaces in order to construct a restaurant and to enhance the perimeter landscaping. The north (along lXZoolbright Road) and east landscape buffers contain Live Oak trees and Redtip COcoplum hedges and proposes Ixora Nora Grant shrubs, and Dwarf Schefflera. The west landscape buffer will contain existing trees and proposes Redtip Cocophtm hedge. The plant material that will surround the building will consist of the following: Solitaire Palms, Spanish Stopper, [xora Nora Grant, F'ariegated Liriope, and DwarfAllemanda. The intent of the code is to have all parking lot areas screened with landscaping from public rights-of-way. If the construction of the restaurant causes a ground elevation change, rendering the existing landscape material along l/Voolbright Road to become inadequate as it Wendy's at Riverwalk Plaza - COUS 02-001 Page 4 Memorandum No. PZ 02 - 066 relates to the intent of the code, then said landscape material shall be enhanced subject to the satisfaction of the City landscape inspector. Staff also recommends that the applicant meet with the City Forester / Environmentalist to review the existing landscape material/irrigation system east of the Winn Dixie building. The requirement would be to enhance the existing landscape material to be equal to or better than the originally approved plan &ee Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). Signs, and proposed exterior lighting, ~vith reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with adjacent and nearby properties. This conditional use application proposes two (2) wall signs for the r, estauranr. These wall signs are proposed on the front (north? facade and the side (~vesU building facades. The wall sign proposed on the front facade will be 43.75 square feet in area. The second wall szgn ('west elevation) will be 21.75 square feet in area. Collectively, both wall signs will be 65.50 square feet in area, including the "~Vendv's Girl" logo. Should the building size or~'ontage slightly change during the permitting process, ail wall signs on the building (north and west elevation) must comply with Chapter 2~, Article IV, Section 3. C. (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approvat). The north walt sign will face north and have direc~ exposure onto Woolbright Road. The smaller wall sign (west elevation) will also be visible from Woolbright Road. The applicant is not proposing any freestanding monument or pole signs. The required site lighting for the parking areas will exceed development standards. Site lighting shall not be of an intensity that produces glare on adjacent properties (Chapter 9, Section 10. CO. Staff recommends that the proposed outdoor freestanding lighting fixtures and lighting levels (footcandles) shall be compatible with the existing shopping center so as to not cause excessive glare within or onto adjacent properties, specifically the residentially zoned property directly to the north of Wootbright Road (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). The photometric plan will be reviewed at the time of permitting. 7. Required setbacks and other open spaces. The proposed buildings and drive-through lane will meet all setback requirements of the C-3 zoning district. The building and open space will meet minimum code requiremenrs. 8. General compatibility with adjacent property and other property in the zoning district. In general the proposed use is compatible with the commercial uses of the existing shopping center and the C-3 zoning district. There will be minimal on-site impact and no adverse effects will occur from the fast-food restaurant use. The site plan provides adequate buffering and the drive-through lane will have little or no impact on the adjacent properties or the surrounding area. The front entrance for the restaurant will face towards Woolbright Road, although a second entrance is proposed along the west building side. The building colors and roof material are compatible with the existing buildings in the shopping plaza. Height of building and structures, with reference to compatibility and harmony to adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. The maximum allowable height for the C-3 zoning district is 45feet. The proposed Wendy's restaurant building is designed as a one-story structure with the mc~¥imum height not to exceed IS feet. The building height is compatible zn comparison with the neighboring commercial properties. 10 Economic effects on adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. Wendy's at Riverwalk Plaza - COUS 02-001 Page 5 Memorandum No. PZ 02 -066 The proposed use will constitute additional convenience and choice for the CiO; residents. It fronts on a major arterial OVoolbright Road) and is in close proximity to Interstate 95, which makes the proposed restaurant an appropriate use for this site. Also, it's close proximi.tv to residential neighborhoods makes the proposed location a good place for this type of development. 11. Conformance to the standards and requirements which apply to site plans, as set forth in Chapter 19, Article II of the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. (Part III Chapter 4 Site Plan Review). With incorporation of staff comments, the proposed project will comply with all requirements of applicable sections of city code. 12. Compliance with, and abatement of nuisances and hazards ~n accordance with the performance standards within Section 4.N. of the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2; also, conformance to the City of Boynton Beach noise Control Ordinance With incorporation of all conditions and staff recommendations contained herein, the proposed restaurant with drive-through facility would operate in a manner that is tn compliance with the above-referenced codes and ordinances q£the City of Boymon Beach. Also, staff recommends that the audio component and menu board for the drive through facility project its sound to the interior of the site and be of a level as to not create a disturbance to the residential neighborhood to the north (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). In conclusion, the applicant will have to apply for and obtain all necessary approvals and licenses in order for a certificate of occupancy to be issued. RECOMMENDATION Based on the discussions contained herein, compliance with development regulations, and the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that this request be approved subject to satisfying all conditions of approval as contained in Exhibit "C". Furthermore, pursuant to Chapter 2 - Zoning, Section 11:2 Conditional Uses, a time limit is to l~e set within which the proposed project is to be developed. Staff recommends that a period of one (1) year be allo~ved to initiate this project. LG/elj S:~a~Iann£ng~SHARED\WP~PROJECTS\Wcndy's ~ Riverwalk\COUS\StaffReport,doc LOCATION MAP Wendy's at Riverwalk Plaza EXHIBIT "A" PU S! II i II I f~/--- t EXHIBIT "B" U RIVERWALK SHOPPING PLAZA WENDY'S OUTPAROEL I=~REPARE~ FOR RIVERWALK Pf..AZA JOINT VENTURE CITY QF BQYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DESIGN SOUTH EXHIBIT "B" I' iI RIVERWALK SHOPPING PLAZA WENDY'S OUTPARCEL PREPARED FQR PJVIEFIWALK PLAZA JOINT VENTURE DESIGN SOUTH \\Senvec~.\pnoiects\l~andys\8oynton - lqivec~a!kXA2.d~g Fei Man 22 ~.6;05:~7 2002 EXHIBIT "B" I! III il l~l !i! I!! !iii / / EX,.HIB T11 B !1 11 B !! · ,w'.,=~.,,..~-,,w. ~ ~ t _~ HOLLYCE LANGE HOOVER, PE  17§ SI~JTH SE'A'ALL'S i:~NT ~ ~ SLr~tALL'S POINT, ~O~tDA ~ ~' DETAILS ~ , J ~ (561) 21~1-~761~ PAX: (58i) 21~-~757 EXHIBIT "C" Conditions of Approval Project name: Wendy's @, Riverwalk Plaza File number: COUS 02-001 Reference: 2nd review plans identified as Conditional Use/Site Plan xvith a March 26, 2002 Planning & Zoning date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General =' Comments: None ~ PUBLIC WTORKS- Traffic Comments: None !UTILITIES . . Comments: '~ 1. All utility easements shall be shown on the rectified site plan and landscaping drawings so that we may determine ;vhich trees may interfere with utilities. In general, palm trees ;vill be the only tree species allovced within utility easements. Canopy trees may be planted outside of the easement so that roots and branches will not impact those utilities within the easement in the foreseeable future. The LDR, Chapter 7.5, Article I, Section 18.1 gives public utilities the authority to remove any trees that interfere with utility services, either 'in Utility easements or public rights-of- ;vay. 2. Palm Beach County Health Department perm/ts will be required for the ;vater and se;ver systems serving this project (CODE, Section 26-12). 3. Fire flow calculations ;viii be required demonstrating the City Code requirement of 1,500 g.p.m. (LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 16), or the requirement imposed by insurance underwriters, whichever is greater (CODE, Section 26-16(a)). comments: ' 4. Design documents where underground ;vater mains and hydrants are to be provided, must demonstrate that they will be installed, completed, and in service prior to construction work per the Florida Fire Prevention Code, (2000) Section 29-2.3.2. POLICE ] Conditions of Approval 2 DEPARTMENTS I 12'4CLUDE REJECT Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: 5. Show- all existing utilities on site characteristics map (survey) and site development plan (LDR, Chapter 4, Section A.3). Master Site Plan and survey do not agree. 6. On the lighting plan, specify that the light poles shall withstand a 110 MPH wind load. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: 7. Verify that the proposed elevation is in compliance with regulations of the code by adding specifications to the site data that address the following issues [Section3107.1.2, Chapter 31 of the Boynton Beach amendments to the I997 edition of the Standard Building Code]: a) The design professional-of-record for the project shall add the following text to the site data. "The propose.d finished floor elevation__ __ NGVD is above the highestl00-year base flood elevation applicable to the building site, as determined by the South Florida Water Management District's surface ~vater management construction development regulations." b) From the FIRM map, identify in the site data the title of the flood zone that the building is located within. Where applicable, specify the base flood elevation. If there is no base flood elevation, indicate that on the plans. c) Identify the floor elevation that the design professional has established for the building within the footprint of the building that is shown on the drawings titled site plan, floor plan and paving/drainage (civil plans). 8. Place a note on the elevation view dra~vings indicating that the wail openings and wall construction comply with Table 600 of the 2001 edition of the Federal Building Code. 9. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the proposed construction. 10. At the time of permit review, submit for review an addressing plan for the project. Conditions of Approval 3 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: 11. Submit detailed irrigation plans for right-of-way landscape and irrigation improvements during the construction document permitting stage, for revfew and approval by Parks Department and Public Works Department staff. Include on the plan location of any existing irrigation in the right-of-way. FORE STER/ENVIRON2vIENTALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 12. Provide a detail of the outdoor lighting structure, including the dimensions, color, and material. Site lighting to be consistent with shopping center. 13. Site lighting shall not be of an intensity that produces glare on adjacent properties (Chapter 9, Section 10.C). Staff recommends that the proposed freestanding outdoor lighting fixtures and ilium/nation levels shall be compatible wSth the existing shopping center. 14. On the site plan, add to the note regarding deliveries the hours of operation for the restaurant. 15. Include a color rendering of all elevations prior to the Community Redevelopment Board meeting (Chapter 4, Section 7.D.2.). 16. On the landscape plan plant schedule, indicate the specifications for the double-trunk Solitaire Palm (PE) trees. 17. All parking lot areas shall be screened with landscaping from public fights-of way. If the construction of the restaurant causes a ground elevation change, rendering the existing landscape mater/al along Woolbright Road to become inadequate as it relates to the intent of the code, then said landscape mater/al shall be enhanced subject to the satisfaction of the City landscape inspector. 18. All above ground mechanical equipment such as exterior utility boxes, meters, and transformers, shall be visually screened (Chapter 9, Section 10.C.4.). Equipment placed on the walls of the building shall be painted to match the building color. 19. Re-label the elevation drawing to show that 67.5 feet is the maximum allowed for all ~vall signs. Conditions of Approval 4 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 20. Should the building size or frontage slightly change during the permitting process, all xvall signs on the building (north and west elevation) must comply ~vith Chapter 21, Article IV, Section 3.C. 21. On the elevations, correctly label each fagade as north, south, east or west. 22. The current site plan does not show proposed awnings to be placed over the drive-through windows. Please sho~v these on the plans submitted for building permit review. Awnings must comply with all applicable code requirements. 23. Staff recommends that the audio component and menu board for the drive through facility project its sound to the interior of the site and be of a level as to.not create a disturbance to the residential neighborhood to the north. 24. Pursuant to Chapter 2,Zoning, Section 11.2 Conditional Uses, a time limit is to be set within which the proposed project is to be developed. Staff recommends that a period of one (1) year be allowed to initiate this project. 25. The project must receive approval for traffic concurrency from Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering prior to building permit issuance. ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: 26. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: 27. To be determined. 1 S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Wendy's @ Riverwalk\COUS\Condition of Approval 2 page revised 2002 form.doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CiTY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Wendy's @ Riverwalk Plaza APPLICANT'S AGENT: Land Design South APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 1280 North Congress Avenue, Suite 215 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: April 16, 2002 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Conditional Use / Major Site Plan Modification LOCATION ,OF PROPERTY: Northwest corner of the Riverwalk Shoppi~ng Center located on the south side of Woolbright Road, east of U.S. 1 and west of the Intracoastal Waterway. DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. X THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows: OR THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other DATED: City Clerk \\CH\MAIN\SHRDATA\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Wendy's @ Riverwalk\COUS\DO.doc VII. E. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 02-061 TO: FROM: Chairman and Members Community Redeve!opment Agency Michael Rumpf i}t~0;~ Director of Planning and Zoning DATE: March 26, 2002 SUBJECT: Caf~ La Notte - COUS 02-002 Conditional Use Approval - Nightclub/Restaurant PROPOSAL SUMMARY Contained herein is a description of the subject project. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to operate a nightclub n a restaurant under the name of "Caf6 La Notte". The use is proposed for the existing 14,099 square foot, two-story building located at 2280 North Federal Highway. The current zoning of the property is C-3 requiring conditional use approval for the nightclub. The site is situated on the east side of Federal Highway at the foot of Gateway Boulevard just south of Las Palmas. It has approximately 124 feet of frontage along the Intracoastal Waterway. Boat docking facilities are also available at the site. 'he entertainment proposed by the applicant includes amplified music provided by live entertainment or y a Disk Jockey. The hours of operation will be from 9:00 PM to 2:00 AM. Alcoholic beverages will be ~erved. Prior to 1988, bars and coctail lounges were permitted uses within the C-3 zoning district. A nightclub has been intermittently operated at this location for many ~;ears. The city had licensed the nightclub use prior to 1988, as well as for several years after 1988 based on its legal-nonconforming status. It was in 1988 when city regulations were amended to require that bars and cocktail lounges be conditional use if within 600 feet of a residential zoning district. In Decemeer, 2000, city regulations were again amended to specifically establish the "Nightclub" as a conditional use, regardless of distance from a residential zoning district. Under current regulations a "nightclub" is defined as "a restaurant, bar, lounge or similar establishment serving alcoholic beverages, that feature dancing, theatrical, cabaret, or similar entertainment and/or electronically amplified music". It is understood that a nightclub use on the property was ultimately discontinued and no longer licensed for over 6 months, consequently losing its legal-nonconforming status. Current regulations now apply to the property including the requirement for conditional use approval. Applicant/Agent: Lisa Collomb Project name: Caf~ La Notte General description: Property size: nd use: Conditional use approval for Restaurant with Nightclub Total Site: 4.159 acres/181,166 square feet Local Retail Commercia (LRC) L...,Jrrent Zoning: Community Commercial C-3 Caf~ La Notte - COUS 02-002 Page 2 Memorandum No. PZ 02-061 Location: 2280 North Federal Highway (See Exhibit "A"-Location Map). Building area: 14,099 square foot existing, two-story building (See Exhibit "B" - Site Plan). Surrounding land uses/zoning: North - Texaco Gas Station zoned C-3 and single-family homes within Las Palmas zoned R-l-AA; South - Vacant parcel (future Intracoastal Park) zoned REC; East - Intracoastal Waterway/Lake Worth; West- U.S.-1 and FEC railroad right'-fo-way, and farther west a convenience store zoned C-2. STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING CONDITIONAL USES AND ANALYSIS Section 11.2.D of the Land Development Regulations contains the following standards to which conditional uses are required to conform. Following each of these standards is the Planning and Zoning Division's evaluation of the application as it pertains to standards. The Planning and Development Board and City Commission shall consider only such conditional uses as are authorized under the terms of these zoning regulations and, in connection therewith, may grant conditional uses absolutely or conditioned upon the conditions including, but not limited to, the dedication of property for streets, alleys, recreation space and sidewalks, as shall be determined necessary for the protection of the surrounding area and the citizens' general welfare, or deny conditional uses when not ~n harmony with the intent and purpose of this section. In evaluating an application for conditional use, the Board and Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed use on the general health, safety and welfare of the community and make written findings certifying that satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following standards, where applicable: Ingress and egress to the subject property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automobile and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Adequate access exists on site. The parcel has access from Federal Highway to the west and Las PalmaS to the north. Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with particular attention to the items in subsection 1 above, and the economic, glare, noise, and odor effects the conditional use will have on adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. A restaurant/nightclub use is required to have one (1) parking space per two and one-half (2. 5) seats, but not less than one (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area. Using that methodology the proposed use requires a total of 232 spaces. This is based on the nightclub capacity of 580 seats (2~ floor only). The site has 244 off-street parking spaces. Therefore, parking requirements are met, based in part, on the assumption that use of both the restaurant and proposed nightclub would have offsetting hours of peak operation. 3. Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to the items in subsection 1 and 2 above. _ Caf6 La Notte - COUS 02-002 Page 3 Memorandum No. PZ 02-061 Dumpsters are located on site and waste is removed by the City of Boynton Beach. conditions of approval for recommendations relative to added screening. 4. Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility. See The Utility Department has indicated that utility services/capacity are available for this new tenant use. Screening, buffering and landscaping with reference to type, dimensions, and character. No new site improvements are proposed. A six (6) foot high wall and '10 to 'I2 foot hedge extends along the north side of the property where the property abuts those single-family homes located west of the adjacent canal. This wall separates the adjacent homes from the parking lot and a portion of the existing structure. However, the hedge stops prior to the dumpster enclosure, and the wall stops midway along the building, at the easternmost terminus of the finger canal from the Intracoastal Waterway. The remainder of the northern perimeter has limited landscaping, some apparently within planter boxes or pots, and is naturally limited by lack of adequate space to allow the continuation of the buffer wall along the entire length of the property (the code requires a CBS wall, painted to match the structure, where a commercial district abuts a residential district). This buffer wall would have limited affect as a' sound buffer due to the close proximity to the adjacent residential properties, and due to the fact that the commercial building is two stories in height. Staff was unable to determine if a variance or relief against this segment of the wall was ever approve or determined unnecessary possibly due to separation by the canal. Although there also exists several mature canopy trees spotted along the perimeter wall, but not dense enough to form a continuous buffer or screen above the wall, the mature hedge is very tall and therefore likely blocks the majority of light, and some sound generated from the parking lot. With respect to the south property line, where the property abuts the planned city park, there exists a six (6) foot hedge along the first half of the parking lot, which increases to approximately 10 feet for the remainder of the distance to the building. Signs, and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with adjacent and nearby properties. The parking lot contains lighting. No new lighting is proposed. The Engineering Division has requested a certification letter stating that the site meets the minimum lighting regulations ('See Exhibit "C"- Conditions of Approval). the position of staff that the subject site lacks the proper landscaping to adequately buffer the adjacent residential uses from the proposed (nightclub) use. No new signs have been submitted with this conditional use application. One freestanding pole sign is located at the Federal Highway entrance. Required setbacks an(: other open spaces. The proposed use does not affect setbacks or open space requirements. General compatibility with adjacent property and other property in the zoning district. The subject property has been used as a restaurant and lounge for over 20 years. Occupational License information indicates that since 1983, the property has been occupied by '17 restaurant businesses, some of which simultaneously operated nightclubs. The current code requires the conditional use application for the nightclub. 10. I2. Caf6 La Notte - COUS 02-002 Page 4 Memorandum No. PZ 02-061 The proposed use and the adjacent, waterfront single-family homes are not typically compatible uses, particularly in locations with lower density housing or outside the immediate downtown core. It should be noted that the property is currently under contract for purchase by a residential development company, and staff has met with two developers (residential) in the past 2 months to discuss development scenarios and allowable densities on the site. Staff reviewed police records that document calls on the subject property, and determined that in 1992 there were 105 complaints on/calls to the subject property. This total included categories such as "disturbance" (including "disturbance-noise)", "suspicious incident'; "burglary': "unwanted guest", "vandalism'; "narcotics'; "assault", and "trespassing': It should be noted that this list contains 22 calls for noise disturbances, and that this list is not all inclusive as it excludes other categories including "accidents': "civil", and "larceny': Calls from an earlier period, 1989, were also tabulated and revealed that a total of 39 calls to the subject property related to noise. It is also noteworthy that the majority of police calls occurred on Sundays, during the afternoon or early evening periods. Staff is unable to determine the total days the nightclub operated during the two-year periods for which police records were reviewed. The subject commercial property basically represents an isolated district or spot zone, unrelated to adjacent land uses (excluding those land uses on the opposite side of Federal Highway). Despite its current existence, and that it was originally developed for a restaurant and nightclub, the proposed use, at minimum, should not generate nuisances within this residential neighborhood. Height of building and structures, with reference to compatibility and harmony to adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. The existing two-story building meets the code requirements for the C-3 Commercial zoning district. Economic effects on adjacent and nearby properties, and the city as a whole. The restaurant use is cperafional. Approval of this conditional use application will allow the addition of the nightclub operation. Qne lot immediately adjacent to the existing building remains vacant, however, the adjacent neighborhood is nearly built-out with upscafe, waterfront, single- family homes, some of which are new or under construction. Due to the existence of the waterfront amenity, the negative characteristics generated from the nightclub or restaurant may be offset (staff did not review nor compare comparable residential property value records). Qtherwise, given the current characteristics of new homes within the adjacent neighborhood, it is difficult to determine the potential local and city-wide economic impacts from the past operation of the nightclub. Conformance to the standards and requirements that apply to site plans, as set forth in City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4 Site Plan Review. With incorporation of staff comments, the site will comply with most requirements of applicable sections of city code, Compliance with, and abatement of nuisances and hazards in accordance with the perfcrmance standards within Section ,~ of the zoning regulations; also, conformance to the City of Boynton Beach Noise Control Ordinance Caf~ La Notte- COUS 02-002 Page 5 Memorandum No. PZ 02-061 With incorporation of the site lighting, landscaping, and specific operational requirements as indicated herein, the use would likely operate in a manner that is in compliance with the above- referenced codes and ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach. Of course, strict enforcement and policing are necessary to minimize or eliminate associated nuisances. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION Given that the structure was built for a waterfront restaurant and n~ghtclub, its prior licensed use as a nightclub, and the possibility for compatibility if the aforementioned restrictions are followed, staff recommends that this request be approved, subject to the following site improvements and operational restrictions which are also included within Exhibit "C"-Conditions of Approval: 1) The nightclub use shall be imited to only the 2n° floor of the existing structure; 2) Provide additional screening (vegetatiVe or othe£) on the-,seet-b side of the dumpster to reduce sounds and odors from carrying s'etCa~c,acd; 3) Outdoor events which would include music, intercoms, loud speakers, etc. shall be prohibited; 4) No music, other amplified sounds, or vibration generated from '/he interior of the building, whether from the restaurant, lounge or nightclub shall be audible from adjacent properties except for that generated during the occasional opening or closing of doors during operation (no exterior doors shall be left open except during periods when no amplified music or noise is generated from the property); 5) No project lighting shall produce glare onto adjacent residential property; 6) No nightclub shall remain open after 2:00 a.m.; 7) Nightclub operation shall be limited to F land Sunday's until 2:00 a.m.); and 8) If/when regular attendance at the ts or exceeds capacity, or when special events are anticipated to attract same, the Police Department shall be consulted with to determine optimal policing/security for and avoid potential noise and other related problems. Recommendations f nt shall be adhered to. 9) The nightclub operator shall present when applying for an occupational license, a notarized affidavit agreeing to the operational :requ rements that become conditions of approval. MR/Ig Attachments \\.CH\MA1N\SHRDATA\Planning\SHARED\WP~PROJECTS\Cafe La Notte\Staff Report-COUS 02-002.doc Location Map Cafe La Notte 800 0 800 '1600 2400 Feet Caf~ La Notte EXHIBIT "E EXHIBIT "C" Conditions of Approval Project name: Caf6 La Notte File number: COUS 02-002 Reference: 2"a review plans identified as Conditional Use Site Plan with a March 19, 2002 Planning & Zoning date stamp marking. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS- General Comments: None PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DMSION Comments: 1. Provide location of site lighting prior to CRA meeting. 2. Provide photometrics to assure safety and demonstrate no "bleeding" of light onto adjacent properties (north side). A certification letter showing that this site meets minimum regulation is adequate. BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST Comments: None Conditions of Approval 2 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PLANNING AND ZONING 3. The nightclub use shall be limited to only the 2nd floor of the existing structure. 4. Provide additional screening (vegetative or other) on the south side of the dumpster to reduce sounds and odors from carry/ng southward. 5. Outdoor events which ~vould include music, intercoms, loud speakers, etc. shall be prohibited. 6. No music, other amplified sounds, or vibration generated from the interior of the building, whether from the restaurant, lounge or nightclub shall be audible from adjacent properties except for that generated during the occasional opening or closing of doors during operation (no exterior doors shall be left open except during periods 'when no amplified music or noise is generated from the property). 7. No project lighting shall produce glare onto adjacent residential Property. 8. No nightclub shall remain open after 2:00 a.m. 9. Nightclub operation shall be limited to Fridays and Saturdays (and Sunday's until 2:00 a.m.). 10. If/when regular attendance at the proposed nightclub meets or exceeds capacity, or when special events are anticipated to attract same, the Police Department shall be consulted with to determine optimal policing/security to prepare for and avoid potential noise and other related problems. Recommendations from Police Department shall be adhered to. .11. The nightclub operator shall present when applying for an occupational license, a notarized affidavit ageeing to the operational requirements that become conditions of approval. DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE I REJECT ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS Comments: t. To be determined. ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS Comments: 1. To be determined. S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Cafe La Notre\Condition of Approval 2 page revised 2002 form.doc DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PROJECT NAME: Caf~ La Notte APPLICANT'S AGENT: Lisa Collumb APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 2280 North Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, FL 334 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: April 16, 2002 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for Conditional Use Approval for a nightclub in a C-3 zoning district. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 2280 North Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, FL DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Development Board, which Board found as follows: OR X THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered [he relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the publiC and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included". The Applicant's application for relief is hereby GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. DENIED This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order. 7. Other DATED: City Clerk S:~Planning\SHARED\WP'tPROJECTS\Cafe La Notte\DeveloD.Orde¢ Form-2002-Re',,lsed.doc April 9, 2002 Community Redevelopment Agency Board City of Boynton Beach (by hand delivery) Re: Hearing on request for conditional use change or approval for Night Club at Lot 6, and the west 326.91 feet ... etc. Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, First, ! am an immediate neighbor to this site. Second, while ! received written notice, I today talked with another neighbor who told me that this was a surprise to hers and she said that she had not received any notice. Thirds even with the conditions which ! understand will be recommendeds this is a lousy idea, because it will bring noise and drunks fighting in the parking lot and drug deals and drug dealers and prostitution and all of the bad stuff that everybody knows goes on at gathering places at 2 o'clock in the morning. And it won't just be until 2:00 a.m. It will be until 3 or 4:00 a.m., because people linger after an establishment closes. Back when this property was operated under the name "Shooters", at least one neighbor was calling the police almost every night because of noise and disturbances. I think you should get the candid opinion of the Coast Guard, the Marine Patrol, the Palm Beach County Sheriff (and law enforcement in neighboring counties), and the Drug Enforcement Agency. What do you think will be going on with boat traffic coming and going at 2 and 3 o'clock and later? Just the mere activity alone is a drug dealer's dream come true, keeping !aw enforcement distracted and offering excuses for boat activity at those hours. You should also be concerned about manatees and the effect of heavier boat traffic in daylight and in nighttime hours. Fourth, your proposed conditions are not clear enoughs and are also inadequate. At least, they seem so to me, without having done a thorough review as of yet. If the second floor is used as a nightclub until 2:00 a.m., will the restaurant and lounge continue until later? Sound screening ... How can you adequately screen for sound carrying over water? Do you want to pul up bulkheads that are 15 or 20 feet tall, like we see as the adequate sound buffers alongside 1-957 Will buffers be out in the water? Sound comes not just from the establishment itself, you know, but also from boats. Have you ever heard a big boat engine throbbing on a still night? As far as opening only on Friday, Saturday and Sunday - Saturdays and Sundays are supposed to be days of rest, which are needed by the citizenry at large, and homeowners in this neighborhood, in particular. Fifth, what kind of planning is it to propose a city park on the land to the adjacent south? What other community allow a night- club right up against a park in the middle of what otherwise is basically a residential area? Sixth, as to the numbers of people who may be at the site at different hours: do your proposed solutions just mean "call the police" when there are too many people? Or when there is much noise? (Ask your police department about how effectively noise complaints are enforced.) Or when there is too much glare? There are already drunks and good time people and jerks who like to throw bottles against the sides of the dumpster at the site, and who do so almost every night, and up to about midnight or Thank you. Very truly yours Dave Teitsma FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS rANI NAMF ilR'~1%&MI Mll)IHI. N^MF MAll INtl .\I)I)RI.SN CI I'Y NAME (.)F' BOARD. COIIN('II., C()M MI.%~ ION, AU I IIORI1 Y. OR COM MIT1 F E I HE I~(i&RI). COUNCIl . COMMISSION. Alii HORI1Y I'~R COMMIll'EE ON WHICtt I ,%FRYE I,",; A tlNII'OF: xCI1Yl-I .COUNTY. 1:3 OILIER I.OCAI. AGENCY NAME OF IK)I.ITICAI. SUBDIVISION: MY POSITION L~: m ELECTIVE 4APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at Ihe count.,,', city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board. council, commission, authority, or committee, it applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointwe positron. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED OFFICERS: A person holding elective county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from young on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited frOm knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agent') by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. A person holding an appointive, local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict of interest, but must disclose the nature of the conflict before making an.,,' attempt to influence the decision by oral or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: · You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. · A copy of ~he form should be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. · The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. ('E FORM ~B - 1-~1 P.~GE I IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: · You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. * You should complete the'-~rm a-nd file it within 15 days after.the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the mi ~s of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes, DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST AO:, (a) A. measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) I~inured to my special private gain; or 19__: __ inured to the special gain of , by whom i am retained. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Filed / Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQU 'D DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOW'..G: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION. REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. CE FORM mB- 141 PAGE MIlL A. ORDINANCE NO. 0~- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING PART HI, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE V IMPACT FEES AND DEDICATIONS, BY AMENDING SECTION 3. PROVIDING FOR IMPLEblENTATION OF A PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES IMPAC~ FEE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFEC'FIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, by Policy No. 1.8.2 requires a review of Parks Impact fe~s every five years; and WHEREAS, as a result of this rev/ew, staff recommends the hnposition of a park and recreation facilitates impact fee to provide a source of revenue to fund the construction knprovernents of the City park system; and WHEREAS, the implementation of this ordimmce will ensure that aH future residential land development creating an hnpact on park and recreational facilities within the City shall bear a proportionate sham of the co~t of capital expenditure ne~.~xy to provide such fac/lifies in accordance with the open space and recreation element of the comprehensive plan; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH FLORIDA, THAT: Section t. ~ Article V. Impact Fees a~ Dedications, Section 3. Boynton BeaCh fees/dedications., is hereby amended by adding ~ words and figures in underlined ~e, and by deleting the words and figures in struck through type, as follows: Section 3. Boynton Beachf::~,~:dlc='.i==: Pa~ and Recreation Faeilities Impact, A. P~ and recreational areas. ;:~CA~Ii~mc~\LDR CIm~'~k Fee Ontinance,doc 2. RECREATIONAL AREAS. a. PURPOSE. This subsection is enacted to insure that future land ~ development within the city provides land and facilities for park or recreational purposes in accordance with the open space and recreation element of the comprehensive plan adopted by the City of Boynton Beach. In order to prcvide water /,4 .... 1 Unit: 2 + !999 - 5:\CA~Ordinancea\LDR Chans~\Park F~ Ordinance.doc S:~A\Ordin~nc~s\LDR Changes~:~k F~ Ordinance. doc ;:'~CA\Ordinanc~\LDR Chang,",LPm'k F~ Ordinance.doc .-., ............ : .~. ~, .......: ac, · "~'~ park prcpe:./. k~CA\Ordinanc~s\LDR Chang~P~'k Fe~ Ordinance.doc Family picnic S:\CA\Ordinanc~s\LDR Chang,,'e~Park F~ Ordinance.doc (1) PURPOSE OF IMPOSITION OF FEE. The imposition of a park and recreation facilities impact fee is to provide a source of revenue to fund the construction or improvement of the CiW park system necessitated by growth as delineated in the capital improvement element of the proposed comprehensive plan. The purpose of thia section is to ensure that all future residential land development creating an impact on park and recreational facilities within the city shall bear a proportionate share of the cost of capital expenditure necessary to provide such facilities in accordance with the open space and recreation element of the com:rehensive plan ado~ted by the City of Bovnton BeaciT~._The provisions of this section sha not apply tO.uonre.: ~enfial subdivisions. (2) DEFINITIONS. When used in this section, the following term~ shall have the following meanings: Applicant shall mean the person or entity applying or required to apply for a buildin~ [permit by the City code, for the construction of one or more dwelling units or for Imodification(s) to one or more dwelling units. IDwelling unit shall mean a living facility for not more than one househoid, such as a one- family house, an apartment or a condominium. Impact_fee shah mean park and recreation facilities impact fee. [m__~,act _.fe~' coordinator shall mean the Director of Parks or their designee, to perr(.~..:~ such functions as designated under tkis section. Obligor shall mean any person or entity who is obligated to pay a park and recreation facilities impact fee pursuant to the City's Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee ordinance. Park shah mean a public park within the City that is not owned or operated bv the County. Residential unit shah mean apartment, condominium, single-family detached house, mobile home, single-family attached house or multi-family housing established for human habitation. (3). IMPACT FEE IMPOSITION. ?' , park an.c: -~reation facilities impact fee_applies to all persons and entities, including Out not liri?...,~:ed to, businesses, organizations, and S:~CA'Ordintnc~s\LDR Chan$~s',Park Fee Ordinance.doc agencies, that possess an interest in propertg~.'upon which residential units are to b,, constracted, or are to be modified, within the City limits. (A). Impact Fee Coordinator. The City hereby establishes the desi~7~ation of ar, Impact Fee Coordinator, to be the Director of Parks or the desieT~ee of the Director of Parks. The duties of the Impact Fee Coordinator are set forth in the Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance, as may be amended from time to time (4). IMPACT FEE PAYMENT PROCEDURE. Payment of Park and Recreation Impact Fee and/or conveyance of a real property shall be made prior to the-issuance of an applicable building permit. If land dedication is proposed, the oblieor will follow the procedures set forth in the section entitled "LAaND DONATION AS IMPACT FEE OBLIGATION SATISFACTION". The obligation for payment of the park impact fee shall nm with the land. (5) IMPACT FEE CALCULATION: The formula used to develop Park and Recreation hcilities impact fee assessment is set forth as Attachment A, at the end of this Section (6) IMPACT FEE AMOUNT. The established park and recreation facilities impact fee ~er residential :unit is as follows: Type qf Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Single Family, detached $940 Single Familvi attached $771 Multi-family $656 7) CREDIT TOWARDS IMPACT FEE IMPOSITION: Where a building consisting of :>ne or more dwelling units is rePlaced by another building of one or more dwelling units, there shall be a credit against the payment of the fees imposed herein of the amount that ~'ould have been paid for the destroyed or removed building had it been assessed hereunder, or, if it had b~n assessed hereunder, of the amount of the impact fee actually said. 8) LAND DONATION AS IMPACT FEE OBLIGATION SATISFACTION. Some or ri of the park and recreation facilities impact fee obligation may be satisfied by tedication of land to the City for park and recreation facilities, at the discretion of the, 2ity Commission aa follows: (A) The City Commission shall determine whether it accepts the proposed land dedication by consideration of the following: Suitability. The land should be suitable for futUre park and recreation facilities b~ed upon the size, shape,, topo~l'aphv, geology, access and location of the proposed development; l:~CA~Ordinanc,s\LDR Changes~ark Fe~ Ordinan¢~.do~ No defects. The land must have no known physical problems such problems with drainage or flooding, or on-site safety hazard.~ associated with it; Consistency. The location of the land and its potential for development should be consistent with the City's comprehensive park and recreation land use plan. In order to provide water based recreation in accordance with the Citv's Comprehensive Plan, waterfront Park sites acCePtable t° th'e City s14~tl be encouraged. (B) PROCEDURe. The value of the credit to the impact fee obligation shall be the fair market value of the proposed dedicated land, as determined by the procedure set forth in this section. I. The value of the proposed lind to be dedicated shall be based upon a written appraisal of fair market value by a qualified and professional appraiser .and based upon comparable sales of similar property between unrelated .parties in a bargaining transaction, if available. The appraiser must be a Member of the Appraisal Institute (M.A.I.),: must have his/her principle office tbr business in Martin, Palm Beach or Broward County, and must have been qualified to testify as an expert on land valuation in a Court proceeding in at least three (3) legal proceedings involving a governmental entity. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit to the Impact Fee Coordinator a proposed plan for the dedication of land for impact fee satisfaction. The proposed plan shall include a legal description of the land, a written appraisal of the land, along with a proposed date for the donation of the land. 3. Upon receipt of the proposed plan, the Impact Fee Coordinator ~hall schedule a heating before the City Commission at the next re._~ularl¥ scheduled meeting for the purpose of reviewing the proposed plan and. shoal! provide the applic~t written notice of the time and place of the h_~_4ng. Such heating shall be held in accordance with the Cit~ Commission rules for conducting Quasi-Judicial heatings. 4. Nothing contained herein should be construed to prevent the Cite Com~nission from exercising its authority to decline the donation of land as partial or full satisfaction of the park and recreation impact fee: (C) In the case where the applicant proposes, and the City Commission accepts a. dedication of land, the fair market value of said land will be credited to the applicant a~ainst the impact fee as set forth in this section. If the fair market value :\CA'Ordinance~\LDR Chanse~",Park Fee Ordinance.doc exceeds the applicant's impact fee obligation, the reimbursement will be made the applicant by direct cash payment fi-om the trust funcl (9) USE OF PARK k-MPACT FEE PROCEEDS. (A). The funds collected pursuant to the Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee. ordinance shall be paid to the City of Bovnton Beach and placed in armst fund to be known as the reserve for parks and recreational facilities. This account shall be. used solely for the acquisition, improvement, expansion or implementation of parks and recreational facilities in the City of Boynton Beach. Funds shall be used first for the pumose of providing park or recreational facilities reasonably related to serving said subdivision by way of the purchase of land, or, for improving said land for park and recreational purposes. If both adequate land and improvements exist in the area, funds may be spent to acquire or improve park and recreational facilities elsewhere in the city. (B). The amount of the Park Impact Fee collected pursuant to this ordinance plus any interest accrued may be returned to the person or entiW that paid the fee, upon petition for refund, only if such fees have not been expended or encumbered by the end of the fiscal year immediately following the sixth (6) anniversary of the date upon which such fees were paid. Refunds shall be' made. in accordance with the following procedure: I. The completed petition for refund must be submitted to the Imoact Fee Coordinator via certified mail, remm receipt requested, and shall.consist of: a. A notarized sworn statement that the petitioner was the entity that paid the impact feel b. A copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of the impact fee or such other record that would indicate pawnent/credit for such fee; c. A certified copy of the latest recorded deed; and d. A copy of the most recent ad valorem tax bill. e Within ninety (90) days from the date of a receipt of a complete petition for refund, the impact fee coordinator will advise the petitioner of the status of the request for refund, and if such impact fee or portions thereof have not been spent or encumbered within its applicable time period, then the.fee or portion thereof not spent or encumbered shall be returned to the petitioner. For the purposes of this section, fees collected shall be deemed to be spent or encumbered on the basis of first fee in, first fee out. B. Adequacy of sites for utilities and public facilities. :\CA\Ordinanc,'~\LDR Chansm~ark Fee Ordinance.doc As part of the review and approval of development projects, the city shall evaluate the need for sites for major utility and public facilities and require dedication of same, w~thout penalty for the density or intensity of use, where doing so would be reasonably possible; otherwise consider the purchase of property, if dedication of land is not feasible. C. Utility fees. Capital facility charges, connection charges, reservation fees and/or other additional charges associated with water, sewers and city utilities are outlined in Chapter 26, Part ff (Code of Ordinances). Section2. Each and every other provision of Chapter 26; not herein ~pecifieally amended shall remain in full. force and effect as previously enacted. Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed. Section 4. Should any section or provision of this ordinance or Portion hereof, any paragraph, sentence or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the remainder of this ordinance. Section 5. Authority is hereby granted to codify said ordinance. Section6. This ordinance shall become effective ninety (90) >assage. FIRST READING this . day of , 2002. SECOND, FINAL READING AND pASSAGE this day of days at, er ,, 2002. ;:~CA~Ordin~ac~LDR Ch~nse~P:u'k F~ Ordinanem. doc ATTEST: City Clerk 'CORPORATE SEAL) S:~CA~Ordinnnces~LDR Chanses~ark Fee Ordinance. do~ cITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR.IDA Mayor Vice Mayor Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Attachment A Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Formula COST PER CAP/TA: CALCULATIONS. The cost per capita of park land and each type of recreational facility is calculated by multiplying the standard park acreage and recreational facilities by the m, erage cost per acre or [klcility as/bi[ow,g: Standard x Average = Cost Per Cost Per Capita per Facility Capita The cost per capita is calculated by multiplying the standard quantity of park land and facility bv average cost per facility. The standard quantity is based on actual provision. The land value is the average assessed value per acre of all vacant parcels within the city of more than two (2) acres. An additional Thirty-thousand dollars ($30, 000) has been added to the crverage assessed value to account for basic civil and site development costs. The table below lists the components of land and facilities that make up the City's park s~stem. For each component, the Table displays the City's ,guideline or service per capita. the average cost per facility and calculates the capital investment cost per capita bv multiplying the standard quantity bv the average cost. COMPONENT STANDARD AVERAGE COST COST PER PER CAPITA PER FACILITY CAPITA Land acres O. 0049 l 6 SI 73~ 954 $855.16 Playgrounds O. 000248 $50,000 $12.40 Basketball Courts O. 000199 $30,000 $5.97 Handball/Racquetball Courts 0. 000099 $68,000 $6. 73 Baseball/Solqball Fields - Youth 0.000116 $275,000 $31..90 Baseball/Softball Fields - Adults O. 000017 $350,000 $5.95 Football/Soccer Fields O. 000017 $350.000 $5.95 Tennis C~mrts O. 000464 $40.000 $18. 56 Shuffleboard Courts O. 000265 $15,000 $3.98 . Picnic Areas O. 000167 $50,000 $8.35 Fitness Trails O. 000389 $48,000 $18.67 TOTAL COST PER CAPITA $973.62 S:~CAhOrdinancesq..DR ChamlesXPark Fee Ordinance.doe b. ADJUSTMENT RATE. Based on park improvement budgets over the last four /~scal ?ears, sixty three (63%) percent of cost of park development is anticipated to be ,~enerated by the citT. with the remaining thirty eight (3 7%) percent covered by funds from the trust fund established for deposition of impact fees. In the calculation below, other revenues that are being used to pay for new parks and recreational [~tcilities and/"or improvements of existing/?wilities are subtracted from the total per capita cost, as shown: Total [m, estment Cost Less Credit: Percent Net Unfunded Cost per Capita Other Revenues per Capita $973.62 63% 3360. 24 c. COST PER DWELLING UNIT (IMPACT FEE) FORMULA. The cost of parks and recreational facilities per dwelling unit is the impact fee. It is determined by multiplying the park and recreational facility cost per person (a{?er the credit reduction for other revenues) bv the average number o[' persons per dwelling unit in a given type of structure: Unfunded Cost Persons per Impact Fee per Per Capita X Dwelling Unit = Dwelling Unit Type o[' Net Unfunded Cost Persons per Impact Fee per Dwelling Unit Per Capita Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Single Family; $360.24 2. 61 $940 · detached Single Family, $360.24 2.14 $771 attached Multi-famil~ $360.24 1.82 $656 The persons-per-unit numbers are currentt¥ based on the 1990 Census data. The numbers will be reviewed when such data from Census 2000 becomes available. SACA'OrdinanceaLLDR C~ng~W~u~ F~ Ordinan~.do~