Loading...
LEGAL APPROVAL DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning and Zoning Building Planning & Zoning Engineering Occupational License Community Redevelopment August 27, 1999 Anne Salter & Carrie Mathews 112 S.E.23rd Ave. Boynton Beach, FL 33463 Re: The Center for Self Discovery File No.: ZNCV 99-004 Location: 112 S.E.23rd Avenue Dear Ms. Salter and Ms. Matthews: Enclosed is the City of Boynton Beach Development Order for zoning code variance granted on August 17, 1999. Knowing what frustration you have felt while being an applicant in the City permit and variance processes, I sincerely hope I may assist you in the future if needed, to ensure that subsequent experiences are efficient, pleasant and flawless. Please contact me at (561) 742-6260 if ever you have any questions or need assistance with City related matters. Sincerely, -/G-CJ r+ Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning & Zoning MWRlnl 1:ISHRDA TA\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROIECTSICENTER FOR SELF DISCOVERY\Dcvelopment Order Letter,doc America's Gateway to the Gulfstream 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd., P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 375-6260 FAX: (561) 375-6259 . DEVELOP -. ORDER OF THE CITY COMr-1"'-'N OF THE ell f OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLOt\ID", -z..AJcU q9- oo'-f PROJECT NAME: The Center for Self Discovery APPLICANTS AGENT: Anne Salter & Carrie Mathews APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 112 S.E. 23rd Avenue DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: August 17,1999 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Sign code variance (side setback) LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 112 S.E. 23rd Avenue DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "sn 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: 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 -X- 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 "Cn with notation "Includedn. 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby .lL 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. \'- \\\\\\\11" 1/11111. ~~\'\ -.{ tHO^, 1110 ~'? q,O .......... ~-'" ~ :0-.",; .- ()R.4 a. ,...- ;;"~ ~ 4;. ..~? ~. - ~ ~.. . "" e. ,. ,.. =:: 0 :~9 a \ 0 ~ ==>-: ;:1::: -.- ..- :.\-: ::: - - . t')iQ'- ~ 0 .... ~ 9'-- ,.: ~ :.::-: .... \ .... ~ ~ ......... Q'?" . ~ ~I/ F=LO~\ \"~ "1111111111 \I \ \ \\ \\\ 7. Other DATED: a(fJ~4& /~ /ppp l LA~.,r::;;2:2-~~~.",,~ ~ City Clerk J:\SHRDATA\PWning\SHAREO\WP\PROJECTS\CE~ FOR SELF OISCOIlERY'.OO 8-17 CC,doc EXHIBIT "F" Conditions of Approval Project name: The Center for Self Discovery File number: ZNCV 99-004 (setback for a sign) Reference' Zoninll Code Variance Aoolication dated March 31 1999 . DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS Comments: None X UTILITIES Comments: None X FIRE - Comments: None X POLICE Comments: None X ENGINEERING DIVISION Comments: None X BUILDING DIVISION Comments: None X PARKS AND RECREATION Comments: None X FORE STER/ENVIRONMENTALI ST Comments: None X PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None X ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS 1. None. X ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 2. La b~ determill,:d.. ~NS' V MWR:dim J\SHROATA\PLANNING\SHAREDI'lJP\PROJECTS\CENTER FOR SELF OISCOVERY\CONO, OF APPR 8-17-99 CC,OOC 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 Station 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 Zonina Code Variance 1. Project Name: Agent/Owner: The Center for Self Discovery Anne Salter & Carrie Mathews 2 - ,~._,._-~-~-_..._._,._'''-- 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 1 Q-foot front setback for a sign, to allow a 9-foot variance, or i-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. Sal~er 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 not 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 staffs 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 CiruUo did not think that the Board could approve staff's 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 staff's 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 -.;j': 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 Description: 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: OWlter: 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: