Loading...
REVIEW COMMENTS MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, MAY 11,1999 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman J. Stanley Dube, Vice Chair Mike Friedland James Reed Maurice Rosenstock Frances Cleary, Voting Alternate Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning Mike Cirullo, Acting Assistant City Attorney Hanna Matras, Economic Research Analyst ABSENT Pat Frazier Steve Myott Woodrow Hay, Alternate 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. INTRODUCTION OF COMMISS~ONERS AND BOARD MEMBERS Chairman Wische introduced the Board Memhers, Acting Assistant City Attorney Mike Cirullo, Mike Rumpf, Direct0r of Planning and Zoning and Hanna Matras, Economic Research Analyst. Chairman Wische advised all those persons who would be testifying this evening to please rise and be sworn in by Acting Assistant City Attorney Cirullo. Attorney Cirullo administered the oath. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Wische called for a motion to approve the Agenda. Motion Vice Chair Dube moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Reed seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES r ~:l ' 'II' G (~ i? n rr p I~ 1- I !__..J ,-, ~'--, !I .1/ !~ ;' U .1. --"_.__::0'._. - - l:l ,~ . " '-"~'-1 ! I ~; - -.- ru l"' "," f1 '; I I \'. .. L",>t. " Z" - -----..:...-.....--.-.-.. MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 11, 1998 Vice Chair Dube said there was something in the minutes of the last meeting, which he wished to clarify. Vice Chair Dube stated it was what he said, but was not the way he meant it. Vice Chair Dube wished to clarify the next to the last line in the next to the last paragraph on Page 14. The sentence now reads "He feels the new Commissioners are not aware of that process." Vice Chair Dube would like the sentence to read "The old Commission anytime they got a change in a site plan would send it back to this Board and give the Board this consideration." Vice Chair Dube said he wasn't really criticizing the Commission, he just wanted to see if they would do the same thing. Motion Vice Chair Dube moved that the minutes of the April 27, 1999 meeting, as amended, be approved. Motion seconded by Mr. Friedland. Motion unanimously carried. 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Planning and Zoning Report (1) Final disposition of the April 27, 1999 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items Mr. Rumpf reported that on May 4, 1999, the City Commission took the following action on items previously reviewed by the Planning & Development Board. (a) Mobil S.tation Use Approval at Quantum Park was approved. (b) MFT Development, Lot 58 site plan at Quantum Park was approved. (c) Stor-AII Conditional Use Approval was approved. (d) Mobil Gas Station was approved for Quantum Park. 6. OLD BUSINESS None 7. ZONING CODE VARIANCE A. PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Code Variance 1. Project Name: Agent/Owner: The Center for Self Discovery Anne Salter & Carrie Mathews 2 ____....L____ .' MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 11,1998 Location: Description: 112 SE 23rd Avenue Request for relief from Chapter 21, Signs, Article III, Section 5. Requiring a 10-foot front setback for a sign, to allow a 9-foot variance, or 1-foot front setback. Chairman Wische requested the agent take the podium. Ms. Anne Salter, the co-owner of The Center for Self Discovery took the podium. Chairman Wische noted that the request has been denied by staff, but staff is recommending a more acceptable alternative to grant relief from the Code Section to allow a 7 -foot side set back variance for a sign and to allow the site sign to be placed three feet from the side property line. . Ms. Salter said she has had a sign in the front of the property for 18 years and just wanted to put a new attractive sign in its place. Ms. Salter said she hired a sign company and the sign company informed Ms. Salter that she needed to apply to the City. Ms. Salter said she has applied to the City and since last October has been dealing with City staff. Ms., Salter presented photographs of the sign to the Board and said the sign was only 10' square by 80" high, which is smaller than permitted by the Codes. Ms. Salter said she went through the application' process and was informed that she could replace the sign by making some minor alterations in the structure. Ms. Salter said that when it came time to get the permit, it was denied because of the new codes dealing with the location of the sign. Ms. Salter said she was informed that if the structure hadn't been torn down, she could have done something with the existing structure. Ms. Salter said she had a meeting with the Planning staff in March and was told that she qualified for a variance. Ms. Salter said she applied for a 9-foot variance to put the sign back where it was. Putting the sign on the side of the property wouldn't look as nice and might impede parking, since there is a very limited parking lot. Ms. Salter said she has been allowed to put up a temporary sign. Ms. Salter did not think the sign was a safety hazard and presented pictures of the sign and the view of the street when exiting the parking lot. Ms. Salter said she is still requesting that she be allowed to place her sign in front of the property. Chairman Wische inquired if Ms. Salter was told that once she took down the old sign she would have to conform to the present codes and she said she was not told this. Mr. Rumpf is not sure what transpired between the applicant and the Building Department. Mr. Rumpf said that staff is familiar with non-conforming regulations and should have informed the applicant accordingly. Mr. Rumpf said that the application received was for the front 3 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 11,1998 variance. Mr. Rumpf said that the temporary approval means that the sign can be temporarily kept there and is actually permanently in place. Vice Chair Dube stated that all non-conforming signs in the City have to be removed by a certain date. Therefore, the sign still has a date when it would have to be removed. Mr. Rumpf said there have been multiple interpretations of this requirement. Mr. Rumpf said when Attorney Cherof and the former Planning Director discussed sun-setting the signs at the end of 1999, it was interpreted to mean the signs had to have three primary limitations of non-compliance-set back, height and area. Mr. Rumpf said approximately 15 to 16 signs were identified as being subject to the sunset. This particular sign is non- conforming from a certain respect, but is not subject to the sun-setting clause because it is conforming in both area and height. Vice Chair Dube said that once the variance was approved, the sign would stay. Vice Chair Dube said that he looked at the sign and it is obvious that the sign is permanently in place and is not a temporary sign. Vice Chair Dube said you cannot see the bottom of the sign coming from the west because the hedge cuts it off. Vice Chair Dube said that putting the sign in permanently was in complete defiance of the City denial for the variance. Ms. Salter said' she made a mistake in good. faith and she would never have taken the old sign down if she could not have replaced it. Ms. Salter said she has tried to do everything what the City has asked. Ms. Salter said she had to spend another $400 to apply to the Board and she operates a small business. Vice Chair Dube said Ms. Salter's old sign was sitting on top of the sidewalk. Ms. Salter said it has been hurting her business not to have a sign. Mr. Friedland said he has driven by the sign and thinks it is an attractive sign, but said it was obtrusive because of the location of the sign. Mr. Friedland thinks that staff has come up with a workable solution. Mr. Friedland pointed out to Ms. Salter that the City has been trying to institute new sign regulations and did not want to see the sign almost on the sidewalk. Chairman Wische pointed out that the City tried to work out a solution and asked Ms. Salter if she was not going to accept the City's recommendation. Ms. Salter said she was not going to state that she would not accept the City's recommendation. Mr. Rosenstock inquired if a great deal of the applicant's clients are walk-ins. Ms. Salter said she has gotten hundreds of clients from the sign on the property. Mr. Rosenstock pointed out to the applicant that there has to be certain parameters that the City must set in its Codes. Mr. Rosenstock did not feel that the applicant's request for a variance meets the requirements. Mr. Rosenstock said that whether the sign sits on the street or a number of feet back from the street, he did not feel it would have any effect upon the 4 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 11, 1998 applicant's business, and therefore did not feel that the Board should grant the variance. Vice Chair Dube asked Attorney Cirullo if the City could approve a 7' side setback tonight instead of the request for the front setback, or would the issue have to come back to the Board as a second request. Attorney Cirullo stated that the notice was for a 9' setback and the Board is being asked to consider the City's denial, not to approve a side set back. Mr. Rump stated this was correct. Attorney Cirullo said that the side setback couldn't be considered this evening because the location of the set back on the property has been changed. Attorney Cirullo inquired if side and front set backs were covered by different Code sections. Chairman Wische announced the public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Attorney Frank Palen of Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell of West Palm Beach took the podium and requested clarification if this Board merely makes recommendations for approval and denial to the City Commission. Chairman Wische stated was that correct. Attorney Palen stated if the advertising was not correct to allow the Board to make a recommendation to the City Commission would the variance, need to be re-advertised. Chairman Wische asked Attorney Palen if he did oot want it on the record that the variance was denied, but would like the variance to be re-advertised with the side setback of 7'. Attorney Palen stated that the lot is a non-conforming lot and the applicant has a right to have a sign somewhere on the site. Attorney Palen asked if the problem could be corrected tonight and forwarded to the City Commission. Attorney Cirullo stated that Mr. Rumpf informed him that the side and front setbacks were the same Code sections. However the set back is for a different location on the property. Attorney Cirullo said he has concerns about the notice. Mr. Rosenstock asked if the request should be tabled and re-advertised correctly and then placed back on the agenda. Attorney Cirullo said if the Board is dealing with an application for a specific variance and at the same time being asked to consider staff recommendations, then the request could be withdrawn by the applicant for re-notice. Vice Chair Dube asked why the request couldn't be tabled and have the applicant change the application and then come back before the Board. Ms. Salter inquired if she would be required to pay another $400. Vice Chair Dube said he was trying to avoid this. Mr. Rumpf said that all the work has been done and did not think the applicant should be charged another $400. Attorney Cirullo said that the applicant must request that the variance be re-noticed. Therefore, Attorney Cirullo said that the request should be withdrawn and re-noticed so that the Board can properly vote on staff's suggestion. 5 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 11,1998 Mr. Rumpf said that the applicant could modify the application with the assistance of staff and there would be an additional advertisement fee, which would be between $100 to $160. Mr. Reed felt the applicant has been mislead by the City and unless there is something completely fatal, the Board should approve the decrease requirement as proposed by staff and not require the applicant to go through anymore processes nor spend any more money. Attorney Cirullo asked to see a copy of the notice. Mr. Rosenstock pointed out that notices must be very clear as specified by statute. Mr. Rosenstock said that if the notice is improper and the Board allows this, what would happen if someone objects when the sign is erected and this is a flaw, the City would be at fault. Attorney Cirullo said he had an opportunity to examine the notice and the notice refers specifically to a 10' front setback reducing a 9' to a l' front set back. There is no mention of changing a side setback from a 10' side setback to a 7' side setback and this is a material change. Attorney Cirullo did not think that the Board could approve staffs recommendation tonight based upon the notice before the Board this evening. Attorney. Cirullo said that the setback has to be re-noticed. Mr. Rosenstock said he would suggest that the applicant withdraw her application and reply for the side setback. Ms. Salter said this has been a real hardship for her and she is not sure if She wants to go through this process again and have the new request turned down. Ms. Salter said she has nowhere else to place a sign. Chairman Wische pointed out that this Board has to follow the legal advice of its attorney. Ms. Salter requested that the City not charge her any more fees. Chairman Wische said the Board has no, jurisdiction on this. Attorney Palen requested a clarification from Attorney Cirullo on the process. Attorney Palen said if the issue is withdrawn, there would be no new application information that would be necessary for his client to present. Attorney Palen said he had concerns that if the applicant withdraws, it would take months for the request to be re-heard. Attorney Palen requested that the request be re-advertised correctly based upon staffs recommendations. Mr. Rumpf said it would take a total of 20 days to re-advertise. Therefore, the request could be heard at the June 22nd meeting. Mr. Rosenstock asked why the applicant was having difficulty accepting the process and stated she currently has a sign on the property and no one is telling her to take it down. Ms. Salter said she would not be able to attend the June 22nd meeting and requested another date. 6 '.4': MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 11,1998 Attorney Cirullo suggested that the Board table the request to a date certain in order that the variance can be noticed properly. Ms. Salter requested that her request for a variance be tabled. . Mr. Reed requested that the request be re-advertised with no cost to the applicant. Chairman Wische said that is not within the Board's jurisdiction. Motion Vice Chair Dube moved to table the applicant's request to the first meeting in July. Motion seconded by Mr. Rosenstock. Motion carried 6-0. Ms. Salter requested the date of the first meeting in July and was informed it was July 13th. Abandonment Descri ption: Mark Daly City of Boynton Beach East Coast Railroad Avenue, between S.E. 10th Avenue and S.E. 8th Avenue Request approval for abandonment of a portion of street abutting property. (POSTPONMENT REQUESTED TO JUNE 22, 1999 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING TO ALLOW FOR THE CONCURRENT REVIEW OF A RELATED VARIANCE REQUEST.) 2. Project Name: OWlier: Location: Attorney Cirullo requested that the Board vote on the request for postponement. Motion Vice Chair Dube moved that the request for postponement by Mark Daly be approved. Motion seconded by Mr. Reed. Motion carried 6-0. B. TIME EXTENSION Owner: Palm Walk ACLF Richard T. Sovinsky, RA Ehasz Giacalone Architects, PC Palm Walk Associates 7 1. Project Name: Agent: MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 11,1998 Location: Description: Southwest 19th Street Request for a one year time extension for Conditional Use approval and concurrency certification (May 5, 1998 to May 5, 2000) to construct a 48 bed adult living facility to be known as Palm Walk. Chairman Wische asked if there were any staff comments and Mr. Rumpf said there were no additional comments. Vice Chair Dube asked the agent if he was present at the hearing last year and he said he was. Vice Chair Dube said he remembers asking the question about another request to extend for another year and at that time the Board was informed that this was a new applicant and that the old builder was no longer involved because he couldn't get funding. Vice Chair Dube said he remembers asking the applicant at the time what would prevent him from coming back in a year and the applicant said he had the funding and everything was ready to go. Mr. Jim Tomasello said he was requested to appear tonight and said he was not the person that Vice Chair Dube spoke to at that time, but he was present in the audience. Mr. Tomasello said he was asked by Palm Walk Associates to inform the Board that they are ready to go, but have not concluded their contract negotiations with their national manager, which is very vital to their project. Mr. Tomasello said that they have an architect and a general contractor, but need the extension to allow them to get the manager on board. Mr. Rosenstock asked if the owner has a time certain when construction would begin. Mr. Tomasello said he could speak to the owners of the project and as soon as the agreement with the manager is made, a time line could be given. The owners have everybody in place. Mr. Rosenstock felt 30 to 60 days should be sufficient. Mr. Tomasello requested that the Board consider a six-month extension. Mr. Rosenstock said that the project has been discussed since 1995, but Mr. Tomasello said that was a different developer. Chairman Wische announced the Public Hearing. No one wished to testify and Chairman Wische closed the public hearing. Motion Mr. Rosenstock moved that the extension for Palm Walk Associates be denied. Motion seconded by Ms. Cleary. Motion carried 6-0. 8 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA May 11,1998 Vice Chair Oube said that in the past the Board has approved extensions, but added the caveat that there would be no more approvals and Vice Chair Dube requested that this be noted in the file. Mr. Rumpf said in this case staff would not accept an application for a postponement, but Mr. Rumpf was not certain that staff could deny a request for postponement. 8. OTHER None 9. COMMENTS BY MEMBERS Chairman Wische said that this Board requested a meeting with the Attorney and the City Commission on issues pertinent to this Board and the City Commission. Chairman Wische said he asked Ms. Byrne to coordinate the meeting. Mr. Rumpf said he had two dates available for the Board's consideration. The Commission is requesting that a joint meeting be considered prior to one of this Board's regular .meetings to begin at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 25th or Tuesday, June 22nd. Mr. Rumpf said it is anticipated the meeting would take one and one-half hours and the Board's regular meeting would begin at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Rosenstock asked what the specific issue for the meeting was. Attorney Cirullo said that this Board wanted to have a joint meeting to discuss the interaction between this Board and the Commission and the review of this Board's recommendation. After discussion, it was determined to hold the meeting on June 22nd at 6:00 p.m. when all the Board members would be available. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion Ms. Cleary moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mr. Rosenstock. The meeting properly adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,--lhvtu.L-~-- A _ )~Lu&t?L~ Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (one-tape) 9 00 ~ ~ ~~.: ~ ill MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEI TING HWU~~Wt?'. . COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26,1997, AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Lee Wische. Chairman Jim Golden. Vice Chairman Mike Friedland Stan Dube Pat Frazier Maurice Rosenstock James Reed. Alternate Tambri Heyden. Planning and Zoning Administrator Jerzy Lewicki. Assistant Planner Michael Pawelczyk. Assistant City Attorney ABSENT Jose Aguila Steve Myott. Alternate 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited, 2. INTRODUCTION OF MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS AND BOARD MEMBERS Chairman Wische introduced Vice Mayor Jamie Titcomb. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL Item 8,C.3 was moved up to be heard before Item 8.C.1. to accommodate the citizens who came to speak on this item. Motion Mr. Dube moved to approve the agenda as amended. Vice Chairman Golden seconded the motion. which carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No additions. deletions, or corrections were made to the minutes of the last meeting. MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA AUGUST 26, 1997 Motion Mr, Rosenstock moved to approve the minutes of the August 12. 1997 meeting as submitted. Mr. Friedland seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department 1. Final City Commission Disposition of the agenda items from the last Planning and Development Board meeting This item was postponed until the arrival of Ms. Heyden. 6. SWEARING IN OF WITNESSES Attorney Pawelczyk swore in all those who planned to testify this evening. At this time. Chairman Wische introduced the members of the board and Attorney Pawelczyk. 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department 1. Final City Commission Disposition of the agenda items from the last Planning and Development Board meeting Ms. Heyden reported the following: . The BGI Industries Zoning Code Variance was approved. . The Lee Manors Isles Subdivision Zoning Code Variance for an increase in the height of a single-family home from 25 feet to 35 feet was postponed until the September 2. 1997 City Commission meeting. . The Melear PUD Master Plan Modification was approved subject to staff comments and the Planning and Development Board comments. . The Shoppes of Woolbright PCD Master Plan Modification was postpone until the September 2na City Commission meeting. 2 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEET1NG BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA AUGUST 26, 1997 . The Boynton Beach Mobil Village Community Design Plan Appeal for the dumpster enclosure was denied. . The ARC of Boynton Beach Site Plan (ACLF) was approved subject to staff comments and the Planning and Development Board conditions. . The Woolbright Medical Office Site Plan was postponed until the October r' City Commission meeting. . The Boynton Beach Mall, Department Store 'F'. Site Plan Time Extension was approved. . The Palm Walk Adult Congregate Living Facility concurrency and conditional use time extension was approved subject to staff comments. Mr. Dube asked if a liquor store is allowed in C-2. Attorney Pawelczyk advised that the sale of beer and wine is permitted in a C-2 district however, the sale of alcoholic beverages is prohibited. 7. OLD BUSINESS None. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Hearings Zoning Code Variance Description: Mobil Gas Station and Convenience Store Anna Cottrell Mobil Oil Corporation 2605 S.W. 1 SIn Avenue (northwest corner of Woolbright Road and Congress Avenue) Request for a variance to Chapter 2 - Zoning, Section 11.L.3.d(1) of the Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations to allow an access driveway located 65 feet, rather than the required 110 feet, from the intersecting right-of- way lines of Woolbright Road and Congress Avenue. 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: 3 7.B.1 PALM WALK ACLF TIME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 99- 088 TO: FROM: Chairman and Members Planning and Development Board fJ;c/e Michael W, Rumpf Planning and Zoning Director f7/vR z?.- Dan DeCarlo Assistant Planner THROUGH: DATE: May 21,1999 SUBJECT: Palm Walk Adult Congregate Facility (ACLF) - conditional use time extension - concurrency time extension File No. CUTE 99-001/ CNTE 99-001 NATURE OF REQUEST Richard T. Sovinsky, of Ehasz Giocalone Architects, agent for Palm Walk Associates, L TO, property owner, is requesting a twelve (12) month time extension of the conditional use approval and concurrency certification granted on May 5, 1998. The property, zoned R-3, consists of 1.96 acres of vacant property located on the north side of S.W. 19th Avenue, approximately 350 feet east of Congress Avenue. If approved, the request would extend the expiration date of this conditional use approval to May 5, 2000 (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map). BACKGROUND On August 16, 1994, the City Commission granted conditional use approval for the Palm Walk ACLF; a 17,042 square foot, 48 bed, specialized adult congregate living facility with limited nursing services for Alzheimer's and dementia patients. The approval was subject to staff comments and included concurrency certification for all applicable levels of service. A total of three (3) time extensions have been granted for projects approved on this property; two extensions were granted to the former owner/applicant, and one extension was granted to the current owner, for the original project. The time extensions extended the project from August 16, 1995 to August 16, 1996, from August 16, 1996 to August 16, 1997, and from August 16, 1997 to August 16, 1998. On May 5, 1998, the current owner received approval for a new conditional use, which modified the original approval from a 21,172 square foot ACLF with 24, 2-bed units to a 24,500 square foot ALF with 48, 1-bed units (see Exhibit liB" - Approved Plan). This extension request represents the second request by the current property owner, but the first request to extend the current conditional use approval. ANALYSIS Prior to the January 21, 1997 adoption of major revisions to the LDRs, Chapter 1,5, Article VI, Section 12.J governed concurrency time extensions. This section stated that requests for time extensions "may be filed not later than 60 days after the expiration of said certificate". It further stated that "time extensions may be granted for any length of time which does not exceed one year". However, the current language regarding who approves concurrency time extensions is unclear and the language regarding when it must be filed is left out of the current code. Regardless, the time extension request was submitted on March 25, 1999, well prior to the expiration date of May 5, 1999. Furthermore, , Memorandum No. 99-088 Palm Walk CUTE 99-001/CNTE 99-001 Page 2 since extension of a development order is meaningless without concurrency approval, and since extension of the conditional use does require Board and Commission approval, it follows that such a time extension approval brings with it concurrency re-approval. Regarding expiration of the conditional use approval, Chapter 2, Section 11.2.E.2.b.(2) of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) indicates that when the land has not been substantially physically improved, consideration shall be given to the applicant's genuine desire to physically develop the land involved as evidenced by his diligence and good faith efforts to actually commence and complete construction of the project for which original approval was granted. As stated in the LDRs, "In determining good faith, some of the factors to be considered are: the extent to which construction has commenced; when construction has occurred and the extent to which there has been a bona fide continuous effort to develop, but because of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, it was not possible to meet the time limit". The intent is to oppose permitting a land speculator to retain an approval to more readily sell the land. No construction has commenced on the subject property and no permit applications have been submitted to date. However, staff spoke directly with a principal of Palm Walk Associates to determine the specific status of this progress and the current efforts to date. Staff was informed that the applicant has been searching for an ideal operator of the facility, and is currently negotiating with a "top ten" firm with the expectation of closing the deal within 30-60 days. Secondly, since a lender requires information on the operator, securing financing has been timed with operator selection. However, oral commitments have been received from two (2) South Florida lenders, and financing is expected to be finalized within the same 30-60 day time period. In response to staff inquiring whether a shorter time extension would be acceptable, the applicant prefers to request 12 months to avoid future extensions in the event of unanticipated delays in securing an operator and financing, and building permits. Furthermore, the extended time period should be sufficient to allow for closure on the current issues as well as to allow for the commencement of construction. With respect to specifics of the approval, neither the property nor area are the subject of specific recommendations generated from the Vision 20/20 Planning Study, or to be generated from the Comprehensive Plan EAR-based amendments which would negatively affect the subject approval. Therefore, there are no existing changes, nor anticipated changes to circumstances on which the 1998 conditional use approval was based, RECOMMENDATION Based, in part, on current project progress; the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan which allows such uses within this land use classification contingent upon residential compatibility; upon the circumstances that the current conditional use approval were based which remain unchanged; and upon the fact that, despite the history of time extensions involving this property, this application represents the first extension request for the current project as approved in 1998 (which is the same plan submitted by the current applicant and owner of the project). Of course all conditions on which the 1998 project received approval remain conditions of the project if this request for time extension is approved. If additional conditions of approval are required by the Board or City Commission, for the approval of this request, said conditions will be included on the attached Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval. It should be noted that a condition of a prior approval for time extension required improved site maintenance. Staff visited the site on May 6, 1999 and observed the property in an acceptable condition. DDC:dim Xc: Central File J:ISHRDATAIPLANNING\SHARED\WP\PROJECTSIPALM WALK ACLF(CUTE 99-001)\TIME EXTENSION STAFF REPORT,DOC ;h ::XHIBIT "A"LC~ATION MAr PALM WALK .. ,'-....." I P L-=-:. -Jl '-- . .-- , \.~: \ \\1 \ U "~I' ~~,~_-F~ \ 'i ' .~. \u, o 1.-, ~ ~\ ".~' '-II \: ,; .;~- a :)~ ; f, ,/,,~ ~~ I \ J \ \ \ "'~ f I;~:~*': /' i ! , ----v', ~ : ;, ~ ':V' I . I -. .. -~. -..... (' \ \' , /., I j, '\ I _\ '\:, -;;--~ \" .-_ __ -<... a I '\ '\ I) \ :.'~ , J /1 .-" n . . J ~. _...~ ............ --. t I "\'T \'\'I~\ , . t",-~' '\ , ' '...,! . ./ '"J i ; " ,i \ . ,-.,,".: " I.:'. ;, t ~\~\ ,\ \- t .' ~_. .;..-' \ ,i~ ..)r '" f~~l '! (1 '.\ 1 , , ~ .'1 ' ;~, /t~~" J'U \ \ : l _ ~ ' -.- ..-.~~- " ' i Dr -j f"UJ.J:>tI"-t~ I . 02/98 . ....L-..::..- __ _~_---' __- _ _ -,,__- -:c:'- ----' ; '~,i 1\:~:):~:~;,~~0;~:~i~'/~;:":''::' ~ \ ~pnUHI\\n~l2l,):>- 't\:.t"t"lll).li9~ ~ ' t ; \ f tit . t ~ . t ~ r ~ \ l \ \ L \ ~ \ r-\~ \ ~ \ 1:;\1 ~\\:\\\\i~\\ \\\~ 'e, ,,\'\ ,\'\!~$ \ ~ \ \ \ . ,\ ~ \ ~ ~ l'l \ ~'li; {~~;\ \'11''i~ij\ \\\1'iin~ U\.lm t ~~'\d;~l\' l\. ~ <j \ in.t\\~ !\ ,'-I \ \, ~ ~t~ . i . ~, ~ I ~ ' , \ . \ \ \ \ \ \. \ \ \ \ . \ \ \ \ EBz ~. '-~;. ~ -*" ~. . ,..,... . ' ~\ " /~"l.., "0'.... . .... . ~.... ;,,' 3:': ~: ~,.' ~ ~ ~ :Ii ,.' ~ :; l" ~. t!iI . ~ . ~\~ ---,t ... . .J-:"" i :~." ." ~ ~~~4 l .~.:~ , 1'" ~-.'~ ~ ~ 1 rt .... " . } . . \--:-1 \' , . \~ l .1, \ \ \~ \ .' _._'- ,,_' --,-~E_~ \1 , D' I - ~.o.,;.' ~ , i I t\ I , " ;. .t----'" . . I , '. I. I' ,'; Is ,. ,~ I. I' I" , .~ I' , ~ ." . I I I 1 < ~\ '. I \ ~ ~ ~ \ d \ \ \ ~ \ ~ ,\ ~ .\\\ . III - ~ ~! :~'. I '- lit , 1i. e' ...~~ ~ '4. ~- '!- "...'10"'- 5~ l< ~~ '.6 ~ ~= ~~ r, ,," ~ ~ i",t ,~-: .. \ i'" V. ~\: ''i ; I' '~t A \~ .~ i' .. " " fe'.- ,; ~: 'l~ ~~r. ~i, '. ~-l ~". .. ~ ~~~:_~~ 'J\ ~". ~~'( l\ ", .~~ , \i~' , ~~l~, I ~. -l:~ ~~;~, '/,~ :i~>~ .' . ~ r ~~ , ,. . ~ \) fi J~.... ~~ :t ~~, ,,"- l' :~ ~,': ~ ~ t: (, ; (, 11. . \~ ,'\' 1[. . .' ~ ~ r ,. \; ~'I \, , ~\ ,. \' ( \~,' " ~ ~~~~ ~.': '~ ~, .. .l ~. .. 'f,~ ~ t ' i ~~, :;~ \' \. , . ~ ~ , ' ------------ ,.-" ..,","----,------------ EXHIBIT "e" Conditions of Approval Project name: Palm Walk ACLF File number: CUTE 99-001lCNTE 99-001 Reference: Letter of reauest dated March 23 1999 . DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS Comments: None UTILITIES Comments: None FIRE Comments: None POLICE Comments: None ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None FORE S TER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST Comments: None PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS 1. To be determined ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 2. To be determined. DDC/dim J:ISHRDATAIPLANNINGISHAREDlWPIPROJECTSIPALM WALK ACLF(CUTE 99-001 llCOND, OF APPROVAL 5.11.DOC 5 DEVELOPMENT ORDER CII ( OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORID;.. PROJECT NAME: Palm Walk ACLF APPLICANT: Palm Walk Associates, L TD APPLICANT'S AGENT: Richard T. Sovinsky Ehasz Giacalone Architects P.C. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 431 Conklin Street, Farmingdale, New Yoek 11735 DATE OF HEARING BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: May 18,1999 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Concurrency Time Extension/Conditional Use Time Extention LOCATION OF PROPERTY: North side of S.W. 19th Avenue approximately 351 feet east of Congress Avenue. DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO. 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: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant HAS HAS NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. 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 "B" with notation "Included". 4. 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. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this order, 7. Other DATED: City Clerk J:\SHRDATA\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Palm Walk ACLF(CUTE 99-001)\DEVELOPMENT ORDER,doc (p cr (OF BOYNTON BE. :H PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, May 11,1999 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: Commission Chambers 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Introduction of the Board. 3. Agenda Approval. 4. Approval of Minutes. 5. Communications and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report 1) Final disposition of the April 27, 1999 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. 6. Old Business None 7. New Business: A. PUBLIC HEARING Zonina Code Variance 1. PROJECT NAME: The Center for Self Discovery AGENT/OWNER: Anne Salter & Carrie Mathews LOCATION: 112 S.E. 23rd Avenue DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from Chapter 21, Signs, Article 111., Section 5. Requiring a 10 foot front setback for a sign, to allow a 9 foot variance, or 1 foot front setback. Abandonment 2. PROJECT NAME: Mark Daly OWNER: City of Boynton Beach Page 2 0 f 2 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda' May 11, 1999 LOCATION: East Coast Railroad Avenue, between S.E. 10th Avenue and S.E. 8th Avenue. DESCRIPTION: Request approval for abandonment of a portion of street abutting property. (POSTPONMENT REQUESTED TO JUNE 22, 1999 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING TO ALLOW FOR THE CONCURRENT REVIEW OF A RELATED VARIANCE REQUEST.) B. TIME EXTENSION 1. PROJECT NAME: Palm Walk ACLF AGENT: Richard T. Sovinsky, RA Ehasz Giacalone Architects, PC OWNER: Palm Walk Associates LOCATION: Southwest 19th Street DESCRIPTION: Request for a one year time extension for Conditional Use , approval a'nd concurrency certification (May 5, 1998 to May 5, 2000) to construct a 48 bed adult living facility to be known as Palm Walk. 8. Other None 9. Comments by members 10. Adjournment NOTICE ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED, (F.S.286.0105) ALL ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT PUBUC HEARING, Will GO FORTH TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. THE CITY SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDMDUAL WITH A DISABilITY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTMTY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY. PLEASE CONTACT JOYCE COSTELLO, (561) 742-6013 AT LEAST TWENTY (24) HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST. xc: Central File J:ISHRDATAIPLANNINGISHAREDIWPIAGENDAS\P&D 1\1999 P&D AGENDAS\5-11-99 P&D.DOC Idim cr~ I OF BOYNTON BE~~H PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE : Tuesday, May 11, 1999 TIME: 7:00 P.M, PLACE: Commission Chambers 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 1. Pledge of Allegiance, 2. Introduction of the Board, 3. Agenda Approval. 4. Approval of Minutes. 5. Communications and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report 1) Final disposition of the April 27, 1999 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. 6. Old Business None 7. New Business: A. PUBLIC HEARING Zonina Code Variance 1. PROJECT NAME: The Center for Self Discovery AGENT/OWNER: Anne Salter & Carrie Mathews LOCATION: 112 S.E. 23rd Avenue DESCRIPTION: Request for relief from Chapter 21, Signs, Article 111., Section 5. Requiring a 10 foot front setback for a sign, to allow a 9 foot variance, or 1 foot front setback. Abandonment 2. PROJECT NAME: Mark Daly OWNER: City of Boynton Beach Page 2 0 f 2 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda May 11, 1999 LOCATION: East Coast Railroad Avenue, between S.E. 10th Avenue and S.E. 8th Avenue. DESCRIPTION: Request approval for abandonment of a portion of street abutting property. (POSTPONMENT REQUESTED TO JUNE 22, 1999 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING TO ALLOW FOR THE CONCURRENT REVIEW OF A RELATED VARIANCE REQUEST.) B. TIME EXTENSION 1. PROJECT NAME: Palm Walk ACLF AGENT: Richard 1. Sovinsky, RA Ehasz Giacalone Architects, PC OWNER: Palm Walk Associates LOCATION: Southwest 19th Street DESCRIPTION: Request for a one year time extension for Conditional Use approval and concurrency certification (May 5, 1998 to May 5, 2000) to construct a 48 bed adult living facility to be known as Palm Walk. 8. Other None 9. Comments by members 10. Adjournment NOTICE ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F.S.286.0105) ALL ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT PUBLIC HEARING, WILL GO FORTH TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, THE CITY SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY. PLEASE CONTACT JOYCE COSTELLO, (561) 742-6013 AT LEAST lWENTY (24) HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST. xc: Central File J:\SHRDATA\PLANNINGlSHAREDlWPIAGENDAS\P&D ~1999 P&D AGENDAS\5-11-99 P&D.DOC /dim FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 96-295 TO: T ambri Heyden, Director Planning Department ~illiam D, Cavanaugh, FPO I (I iii (~/ //J . A ,f' FIre Department /( 'Lv ~ \-.t;:(A/;t~ ~ September 9, 1996 FROM: DATE: RE: Palm Walk ACLF SW 19 Ave. & Roma Way We have no objections at this time. cc: Deputy Chief Ness FPO II Campbell File ij '\f1 ~ \UNNING EAptND ZONING D . rn TO: PLANNING AND ZONING DEP ARTME~T ,,11 ~~t.' MEMORANDUM NO. 96- ~ It' \lY ~J 1Jl~>~~~~',A1 VbJf>- ~ ~ f 0 Y ({\t-tfV' ) " ,-0 'I 'ir . (/'^ D\' vl . f~ l~' Chairman and Members Planning and Development Board FROM: Tambri J. Heyden, AICP Planning and Zoning Director SUBJECT: September 5G 996 Palm Walk ACLF - CUTE 96-001 /CNTE 96-001 Time Extension (Conditional use and concurrency certification) DATE: NATURE OF REQUEST Mark Fassy, owner and agent for Trio Associates, Inc., is requesting a one year time extension for conditional use approval and concurrency certification for the Palm Walk ACLF- adult congregate living facility (see Exhibit "A" -letter of request dated August 14, 1996). The proposed ACLF is to be located on a 1.955 acre parcel, zoned R-3, Multi-family Residential, on the north side ofS.W. 19th Avenue, approximately 351 feet east of Congress Avenue and 598 feet south of Woolbright Road (see Exhibit "B" -location map). BACKGROUND On August 16, 1994, the City Commission granted conditional use approval for the Palm Walk ACLF; a 17,042 square foot, 48 bed, specialized adult congregate living facility with limited nursing services for Alzheimer's and dementia patients (see Exhibit "C" - approved site plan). The approval was subject to staff comments and included concurrency certification for all levels of service. Also approved was a request for a Community Design Plan Appeal (under the former Community Design Plan) to the "Modem" design district to allow a white cement roof rather than the required metal, tar and gravel or built-up with deck and space frame with skylight. On September 19, 1995 the City Commission granted approval of a one year (August 16, 1995 to August 16, !996) time extension for conditional use approval (48 bed ACLF) and concurrency certification (all levels of service) for the Palm Walk A CLF proj ect. ANAL YSIS Two sections of the Land Development Regulations govern these types of extensions. Regarding expiration of the project's concurrency certification, Chapter 1.5, Article VI, Section 12.J of the Land Development Regulations states that such request for time extensions "may be filed not later than 60 days after the expiration of said certificate". It further states that "time extensions may be granted for any length of time which does not exceed one year". The project's conditional use and concurrency certification expired August 16, 1996. Since the time extension request was submitted prior to this expiration date, the request is timely. Regarding expiration of the conditional use approval, Chapter 2, Section 11.2.E.2.b.(2) of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) indicates that when the land has not been substantially physically improved, consideration shall be given to the applicant's genuine desire to physically develop the land involved as evidenced by his diligence and good faith efforts to actually commence and complete construction of the project for which original approval was granted. As stated in the LDRs, "In determining good faith, some of the factors to be considered are: the extent to which construction has commenced, when construction has occurred, and the extent to To: Plmll~~ment Board Page which there has been a bona fide continuous effort to develop but because of circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, it was not possible to meet the time limit". The intent is to oppose permitting a land speculator to retain an approval to more readily sell the land. No construction has commenced on the subject property and no permit applications have been submitted to date since the original approval. The attached letter of request (Exhibit "A"), from the applicant has been submitted as the applicant's verification that he has made a good faith effort to develop the property. RECOMMENDA nON On September 3, 1996, the Technical Review Committee (TRC)/ Concurrency Review Board met to discuss the time extensions for Palm Walk. At this meeting the following recommendation was formulated for consideration by the Planning and Development Board and City Commission (see Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval): approval for a one year time extension (August 16, 1996 to August 16, 1997), subject to continued maintenance ofthe property and adherence to all staff comments that conditioned the original approval (this would include the Community Design Plan appeal that was granted). The basis for this recommendation was that in staffs opinion, the applicant's difficulties with financing were out of his control and that no city requirements had changed since the original approval. TJH:dar Attachments xc: Central File c:palmwalk.mem