Loading...
AGENDA DOCUMENTS 2NCO c,~1- 001' CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned , Meeting Dates in to City Clerk's Office Requested City Commission Meeting Dates Date Final Form Must be Turned in to City Clerk's Office 0 July 20, 1999 0 August 3, 1999 ~ August 17,1999 0 September 7, 1999 NATURE OF AGENDA ITEM July 7, 1999 (5:00 p.m.) o September 21, 1999 o October 5, 1999 o October 19,1999 o November 2, 1999 October 20,1999 (5:00 p,m.) September 8, 1999 (5:00 p.m.) July 21,1999 (5:00 p.m.) September 22, 1999 (5:00 p.m.) August 4, 1999 (5:00 p.m.) October 6, 1999(5:00 p.m.) August 18, 1999 (5:00 p.m.) o Administrative ~ Consent Agenda o Public Hearing o Bids o Announcement o Development Plans o New Business o Legal o Unfmished Business o Presentation RECOMMENDATION: Please place the request below on the August 17, 1999 City Commission agenda under Consent- Ratification of Planning and Development Board Action. The Planning and Development Board with a unanimous vote, recommended approval. No conditions of approval are recommended...For further details pertaining to this request see attached Department of Development Memorandum No. PZ 99-196. EXPLANATION: PROJECT: APPLICANT/OWNER: LOCA nON: DESCRIPTION: PROGRAM IMPACT: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/ A ALTERNATIVES: N/A The Center for Self Discovery Anne Salter & Carrie Mathews 112 S.E. 23RD Avenue Request for relief from Chapter 21, Signs, Article III., Section 5., requiring a 10 foot setback for a sign, to allow a 7 foot variance, or 3 foot side setback. City Manager's Signature fitrO. ~ Planning and oning Director City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources 1:\SHRDATA\PLANNING\SHARED\WP'.PROJECTS\CENTER FOR SELF DISCOVERY\AGENDA ITEM REQUEST 8-17.9900T Dc \F ~LOPMENT SERVICES DEPAF\. ,v.cNT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION MEMORANDUM #99-196 Staff Report Planning and Development Board and City Commission Meeting Date: August 10, 1999 File No: ZNCV 99-004 Sign setback from side property line (formerly front setback request) Location: 112 SE 23rd Ave Owner: Anne Salter I Carrie Mathews Project Name: The Center for Self Discovery Variance Request: Request for a variance from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 21, Signs, Article III. Section 5., to allow a nine (9) foot reduction from the minimum ten (10) foot front setback. BACKGROUND The subject property, located on the south side of S.E, 23rd Avenue just east of the intersection with Seacrest Boulevard, has been used for a medical or professional office since 1981. The sign identifying this business had been in place for the last 18 years, and as it was located one ~ (1) foot from the front property line, it qualified as a legally non-conforming, or "grandfatheredn sign (see Exhibit "An - Location Map). In October of 1998, the applicant contacted City staff to obtain information relative to sign replacement. The applicant ultimately applied for the necessary sign permit and, removed the existing non-conforming sign not realizing the consequences of this action (a newly erected sign must conform to current regulations). The permit was then denied based on non- compliance with required setbacks. Exhibit "Bn shows the former/proposed location, the location recommended by staff, and the proposed sign. This segment of S.E. 23rd Avenue consists of many former single family homesllots that have been converted, beginning with the rezoning process, to medical offices. Due to lot constraints, limited parking facilities occupy most front yards thereby leaving minimal space for site signage. Most signs in this vicinity do not conform to the minimum setback of 10 feet. Staff viewed nearby signs and estimates that front setbacks for other site signs within.this area range between one (1) foot and six (6) feet. , Page 2 Center for Self Discovery File No. ZNCV 99-196 With respect to future right-of-way expansion, the survey submitted with the application shows the existence of a 15 foot wide "Proposed Right-of-Way dedicationn across the property's front Ya.~d running parallel to SE 23rd Avenue, (see hatched area on survey - Exhibit "Cn). An explanation of said 15 foot right-of-way was required as given its potential effect on the review of this request. The applicant's explanation is contained in Exhibit "Dn. ANAL YSIS The code states that the zoning code variance can not be approved unless the board finds the following: a. 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. d. 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. f. 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. (Exhibit "En contains the applicant's response to the above criteria.) Staff has conducted this analysis with the assumption that, based that on the city's prior approval of the rezoning of said lots from residential for professional offices, that the city has acknowledged the potential for creating certain hardships and non-conformities on these lots along S.E. 23rd Avenue (e.g. parking space deficiencies, signage, building setbacks, etc). Therefore, staff has focused this analysis on item "en above, which requires that the request represent the minimum possible deviation from city regulations...staff reviewed the site with this intent, and determined that the request for a side setback variance of 7 feet represents the minimum variance necessary to maintain a site sign on the property. Rather than requiring a variance from the front setback as required to return a sign to theoriginallocation, the alternative location would meet the front setback of 10 feet, and only require a side setback variance of 7 feet, to allow the sign to be placed 3 feet from the side property line. Although this alternative may result in the justification for a higher sign, to provide for proper visibility over '2.. Page 3 Center for Self Discovery File No. ZNCV 99-196 the existing hedge, this alternative will minimize the variance required (requiring a 7 foot variance rather than a 9 foot variance), and will minimize the potential for the sign to obstruct th~, vision of exiting patrons. It should be stated that this analysis placed low emphasis on the issue of potential roadway expansion and the County's thoroughfare plan, as the right-of-way has not been acquired; the adjacent road is not on the county's road improvement plan, the expansion of this roadway may never occur, and even if right-of-way was acquired and expanded the sign could be easily relocated. As indicated on the attached survey (Exhibit "Cn), and described in the letter from the attorney for the applicant, future right-of-way is shown on the survey but has not been acquired nor dedicated (see Exhibit "Dn). RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that this request for relief from Chapter 21, Signs, Article III. Section 5 to allow a 7 foot side setback variance be approved. Staff has not recommended any conditions of approval; however, If conditions of approval are added by the Board and Commission, said conditions shall be listed in Exhibit "Fn. \\C~IN\SHROATA\Planning\SHAREO\WP\PROJECTS\CENTER FOR SELF OISCOVERY\2nd ZON.VAR S'rAFF REP-SeIf Oiscovery.doC 3 EXHIBIT ", .- ,-1;;;i.I - --- - --- C3 .... ~j ~ i~ : ___L -- -~ . 'I. ""'"f/!' '~~:( :", ,-. : . "j . , I ./1 ; .t_'--" - ~ T--r rlR U L i . ,I --:. -r=.-""'- . , : -~i-: I -~ . 1~7B~ M ' 1._" .l~l. "I _' I ~ ~_' -. f''''-~--- ril : ..........~j r--- I.' . . .. - - ~~ ' .1_----1 I fJ 1..-.---- .. -- ~.-----' -- .....- I , \.-'/ ,:I~R\3 .... :3 ,R.:EC: '/ ~~ i' - ",._411' , r::--- ...;;, ............ ..- ~ 1_'1 /- ~>:-:., l:-i. 'i._ . -. ;--' .0\, . , '_ I #. , . - .., t : . .... . .lRj3 , d L-- _ -, .J~1 /' ..../ - .... ~ ~ .0 1/8 """" 'I. "0400. 'SOO FEET , ~ ....1,,,-. . , --~ ,-- ., ~ .. ,- . ....~ -n:c: . '. . l. 'll:l ~ _ ... . .......olI .. i aa..~~" L-.-S. ~.. I .. I ".I; .r" -"r--_.4 .. i '.' T'~l!"'" .. -f - I ... ~ 1.. J .. . ,I ~. ... .. . .. - "" .,;... -J:.i . .....:..-l -- ~~ .. .. ,.. <4 :::....... ~ E)a-l~BIT "B" ~~ I ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ .;' ,,~.. ...." ,," ~ ~ .C>~ . .... ~u ~, , ~ ~ ~ t . ... ~ ~~, ~~~ii ~~~ '- ~J ~ ~,~l ~~I~~t ~{ill ~~:. ~~~ " h" ~~, ,,~~, . .~" , " ~ ~ ~ . . g ." '\I . ,,::qB liT " GlP """" ~ij" !Ii!: ~"'';:J ' .t~'. '''10. !~i ~~.ii '.4t,_......AI.....v . ..Pdt ~j? /~ V#-JPIJU... .-. c 0 :;::; i as () .2 If: i ... U; -8 ~I .... c 8 1 tl ... 0100 CD .- Q E B~I ~. .... ~I I 0 o~i .-ft"1 - ~J~ ~ i Ii ~I c~J ~J CDa co E. i! 0 ~ ~~I () , j@ .. ~ ~~ (!'j {J IME B '" ij' ~ ... () @:Q) ...., j"" ~ ~ '" 0 ;o~ ~ii ;;o~ .. -- -.---" ~i2 ~ ~~iD ~@~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~i co ~o~ ~ M:!Iy ~ ~~ - ._-- ~ - ....:...- ! ~y ~ 5 .- . -~ J ~ ~ ,.' ~::'.::>. :~:. Y'~i.: '~'''?4!j;b,t?' . f~'~:-~df/1!)~~~' ". \,. 'r~P'A/i?" .. ~"/~j(i,,,,.. ..:. ~A,,; '..~ . .....(,,~ .'. . ,",i.,...". not: . wllldwhhout .... . .lIIllioaMct.... ..Id~~" 7/#/$"" ~A'..G" .I'/',fT,H'#f. ~~.;~t(lJII"M .. .... ..i' .. ...-~ .M ,..__.....~..t-M...-.;.;..,;..._;.;:..~ ..~- ,"~~-t.~::.:y~:.~j:~:'.:i.E;;,3:~:h~:;\.~.I.;}}.; ~~I. .":'. .' .:: , .,....__...::..' ~~. If...!,'!'I!'l..........._......~J..~.~.' . .,.II;~._.. ..' .~~;~.a:~o'. ,., -~~.. ..~f~~"'~!-!""'~'-'''-''''~''''IIIfIIl'~': .1''91" 1he1lf-;,ot:...'*'lIIIP!...4!I!I-....~..,IlI'.~.l'f!l'f!!il&A*lJjnl..,......~..:.' ".;..' : "'0". ... "":'. ~,.~;;.~~;;~)i~';l.h~~~~:;.~;~.;:~ij}.:::.(;l;;..":..<:"~'::."~: :':~;::::', .... ".;::':'." ".::;,' .:..:~:~.~Qf".IIO.I;,,:4:,fJ.. 'J ._. ...r..; ......~~.... .~.;...:,l..\... ..l.~,..:., . '.~~..: . ...~... ~. &J. EXHIBIT "I RUDEN MCCLOSKY SMITH eCH~STER & RUSSELL, P.A. 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE SUITE 800 WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401-6112 1St; 11 8JlS-4500 F1\X: (561l 832-3036 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: (5611838-4538 E..-.v.Il; FSP@RUDEN.COM ATTORNEYS AT LAW April 29, 1999 VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Michael Rumpf, Director Department of Planning & Zoning City of Boynton Beach P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 Re: Center for Self Discovery (V.A Salter). 112 S.E. 23d Ave., Sign Code Variance Request (planning & Zoning Board Meeting of 5/11/99) Dear Mr. Rumpf: I represent the owners of the above-referenced parcel who have applied for a variance from the Boynton Beach Sign Code in order to install a commercial identification sign in the front yard of this Property. The site is U5ed for professional offices. I am informed that your variance application requirements include a survey of the property, I am further informed that your office gave permission to the property owners to use an existing survey of their property with the caveat that they assume responsibility for any matTers of record contained in or missing from the survey. The survey proffered by the o\\ners was prepareu in 1990 by the firm of O'Brien Suiter & O'Brien, Inc. (Field Book 8100, Page 72, Job No. 82-305-A) (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A"). This survey contains a handwritten notation (in the form of hatch marks and printed words) indicating the existence ofa 15 foot wide "Proposed Right-of-Way Dedication" across the property's front yard running parallel to S.E. 23d Avenue. I understand that your office has asked for an explanation of this notation because it may affect your recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council regarding the variance request. My letter is intended to address your concerns. Inaneffiorttoaddre"~th1'''I!1atte'' Ih!n,p~."';l'ou,~11hAf.;..11",..,:...,.A"'~"4""'._" '1\':-.:" ".', . -,t:1=' ..;;1 . ,j.l ...._. _..... __.. _~ .......... .J.'\..___ .'.eJO _J....-..........' "J".,.,. _..< ..... -'..' (2) an Ownership and Encumbrance Report for the Property prepared for lJ~e by COlrlmOf1'."elli:h Land Title Company (File No. FM-86379, 4/13/99) (attached as .:xhibit .'B~'); fu!d (3~ th.: P!~;! of Highpoint Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 225, Official Re~ords ofPahll Bc~.:h COtlr.ty. Florida (attached as Exhibit "e"). I have also spoken to Mr. David Cuff, P.E.. Assistant Cour.ty Engineer in the Land Development Division of Palm Beach County Dt:partment of Engim:t"ring ~.nd Public Works (561-684-4090). Based on-my research. I conclude there is no matter of record constitutin~ an encumbrance on the Property which is reQuired to be shown ,on. asurv.ey pursuanttothe>"Minimum Technical Standards for Land Surveyin~" contained in Chapter 21 HH-5. Florida Administrative Code. Neither the Plat nor any other instrument of record creates a 15 foot "proposed right-of-way dedication" across the Property. The notation on the 1990 survey was reportedly added at the suggestion of a contractor who was then doing some unrelated work for the owners. No one has a cl~ar recol~~riva' WPB:9218S:1 FORT LAUDERDALE. MIAMI. NAPLES. ST. PETERSBURG. SARASOTA. T.\Li.I-H.4.SSEC . TAMFA 1 The following addresses question #S of application requirements (re: special conditions, __ ~dships or reasons justifYing the requested variance): A. The special circumstances surrounding this property is that the parking area covers a majority of the front 1/3 of the property which eliminates the ability to be within the sign set back requirements. B. The parking area is required by code due to the size of the building so eliminating parking spots would not be allowed. C. No privilege is requested other than allowing this business the ability to have a sign to identify their business at a location it has done so for the past 18 years. D. Considerable hardship is created by having to follow the existing guidelines of the sign code as it would eliminate 1-2 parking spots to this business with considerable cost in the removal and relandscaping of that area. Additionally, without a sign. this business losses its ability to be easily identified by it's clients and potential clients. E. We believe that the requested variance works better within the overall scope for the sign code and parking code requirements. F. The sole purpose of this sign is to improve the look of the front of the property. We feel all of the ndghbors will appreciate the appearance and look of our new sign. Sincerely, ~a-~ Scott Bedford ~ Ifryu; j;~ V. Anne Salter Property Owner g ( EXHIBIT "E" SIGNS BY TOMORROW 2440 OKEECHOBBEE BLVD WEST PALM BEACH. FL 33409 March 31, 1999 Planning & Development Board City of Boynton Beach 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beac~ Fl. 33424 Re: Sign Variance for 112 S.E. 23rd Ave. The purpose of this variance request is to replace the main business sign at the above property. The old sign was at this same location for more than 18 years. Initially we went to the city to build a new sign at the site of the old broken down sign. It was turned down due to not being in compliance with the set back requirements. After meeting with the Technical Review Committee, they recommended the modification of replacing only the faces of the signs, and using the existing CBS structure. This was to be approved through the regular .permit process without any variance. When this paperwork was submitted, it was again denied. The old structure was then demolished as requested by building official Warren DeLoche. This created a really major problem for us, for as it turns out my client. Anne Salter was "grandfathered in" if the structure had not been removed. Thus, after removing the structure we were apin turned down. At this point there were already 2 (two) signs constructed as we, in good ~ were, ready to replace the old weathered 2 sided sign with 2 new ones we believed were acceptable. With this latest turn do~ we then tried to place these 2 signs (not designed for this), on the building, only to realize space was totally inadequate and that this was extremely unappealing visually. Finally, myself and my client (Anne Salter) met with a pre-variance application committee 0;11 March 22nd where we all attempted to find a solution. As a result of this meeting we'are now requesting a variance for the set back requirement for 9' from the North property line so that we can place the sign approximately where.it has always been located. 9 Mr. Michael Rumpf, Director April 28, 1999 Page 2 -_ of why the notation was added. In 1990, the County was planning to expand the intersection of Seacrest Boulevard and GolfRoadlS.E. 23d Avenue. We have no way of knowing, but this project (which has since been completed) may have been the source of the notation on the survey. However, based on my review of the public record, it appears that the notation on the survey was added in error. I spoke personally to Mr. David Cuff in an effort to determine if Palm Beach County is aware of any right-of-way "dedications" in the vicinity of the Property. He responded that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the source of the notation on the owners' survey. However, he speculated. the Board of County Commissioners has adopted as part of the County Comprehensive Plan a "Thoroughfare Right-of-Way Protection Map" (the "Thoroughfare Plan''). This is a planning document intended to guide the County in planning for future roadway expansions. This planning document creates no encwnbrances on private property. It does indicate that the County would like to have 80 feet of right-of-way for future expansion of Golf Road/S.E. 23d A venup. from Seacrest Boulevard to U.S. 1. At the present time, the County owns 50 feet of right of way. The County's ultimate expansion plans would therefore require acquisition of another 30 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Cuff speculates that the 15 feet shown in the notation om the survey would correspond to half of the additional 30 feet the County Thoroughfare Plan provides. Typically, he reports, the County would assign half of the desired additional 30 feet -- i.e. 15 feet -- to the property owners on either side ofS.E. 23d Avenue. If this property were located within the unincorporated area, there would be no prohibition on erecting signs within the "ultimate right-of-way." The County Land Development Code provides for a system of waivers whereby property owners can install improvements (such as signs) within future rights-of-way shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. However, to my knowledge, the County Thoroughfare Plan has no binding force within a municipality and should not be a factor in your evaluation of the variance request.. Your decision to permit the property owners to use an older survey is greatly appreciated. The notation on the survey has unfortunately, required a great deal of time and effort to explain. We . can at this point only speculate about the reason for the notation. However, my review of the public record reveals the notation was added in error and should not affect your review of the varbnce request. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely yours, 1;a~L~ Frank S. Palen Attorney,. Enclosures cc.. V. Anne Salter Scott Bedford WP9:9218S:1 10 EXHffiIT "F" Conditions of Approval Project name: The Center for Self Discovery File number: ZNCV 99-004 (setback for a sign) Reference" Zoninll Code Variance ADDlication 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 FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST Comments: None X PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: None X ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS 1. None. X ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 2, To be determined. MWR:dim J:\SHROATAIPLANNING\SHAREO\WP\PROJECTS\CENTER FOR SELF DISCOVERY\CONO. OF APPR 8-17.99 CC,DOC ) l ;t . DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 99-089 TO: Sue Kruse City Clerk FROM: :>'Y/ 0tZ Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning and Zoning DATE: April 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Center for Self Discovery File No. ZNCV 99-004 Accompanying this memorandum you will find an application and supporting documentation for the above-referenced case. A check in the amount of $400 to cover the review processing of the application request to vary the zoning code has been forwarded to the Finance Department. The legal advertisement for this request will be forwarded to your office after review by the City Attorney. The requested variance is scheduled for the May 11, 1999 Planning and Development Board meeting. MWR:jma Attachments