REVIEW COMMENTS
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 99- 088
FROM:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Soard
j7;c/e
Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
(lJcR A
Dan DeCarlo '
Assistant Planner
TO:
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. T.he property, zoned R-3, consists of 1.96 acres of
vac~nt. 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 "S" - 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,
I
, 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 limir. 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 30-6Q 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 commencem~nt 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:\SHRDATA\PLANNING\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\PALM WALK ACLF(CUTE 99-001 )\TlME EXTENSION STAFF REPORT. DOC
c0
EXHIBIT "A "L()~ATION MAP--
PALM WALK
'-" '-', . .'~ T;.
." " I~: Ii ::.r:.',;~, '~f: '~"""""'" .,:~ .!T--" '
~'______ _ - .", ill ,'=.d." 1, I s ~ '-'.y . ........ .,~,,~. >,.....,. '."'. .,''$'' ~',
~.i _'I .)<,. . i" . .' ~ ~ .'. ~< i' . " .... .
- .-J,; . '\.";;'i:' \\ \\11 [!, '~~::.I~~~.~;'sr':"')I"~""'>~~;~ ;;-;~
;!f~"""; 11 '1 . '\ \\Ji "- ';:~:'~~:,-,~.~'/, '''. ..~\".:\\~~ '.'~,'.
I:, ,. .....~~.~ a "'~ ,JI ~ .1",,- :-.....'.:':~/fA.. A- '.\ \l\\', ~..:..
or ~ \., . ~~~'~~7'" ',' . ~ ~ ". "\,, '.e \1 '.,1..
' I, .f " ~.,' ,J I . .1...., "~':' .' .....7 .' .' :. \. .~ 1 · \ '. .\~A . '\ ~ ~', .
,I ~~ f I;~:~~"'.. ..;'j ! ~;T_.' /~o/..' ...,J,-:.i... - f. . -: L" ". \. ' ,:.~.:~.
'. ~.} 4 : /" ~ ':~. I l ~'. .-11......."l.. <-:. 2ai\i. rm t.~ :3 ; ~~:-.J>' \:-r.':,;..--. '
-- - . - -, .. w - . - - .. - - . ~-:::.. , ~ '_. ,.' ~.:: .' : \ , _ ~ _ I:
~- .... T'T~-l- ....... I I \.; "':r-.t'''''l'''-
LU.: I'.T f^ ~.u[:r-'~-: t: t:).. '--'11:" .. j ll'l'l: ",' \. ~- -- ....~ t.:; ~
; ;:-:'~-';~UI:4.u ;~,~ II ! -l~'~~: Ft'14~' "~~c.: t-mE'~~'U~. ~: :~,.
.5 -CJ :.'.....' "'"'. I,:', ^ KEB OF. ~; ....... ' V l1a, J -. '~--r:--'... I,~ , - - t ~. - ..r ~ a 'J1"
-- ..-.- -.4 i 'r.~' It.. -/.I~' T " I. I ~\.- ~: .... .:....;.;..~
. r- - ...::....; ~ f- "","' l'" II-- i W
. :.',.,....; ~~~~ ',>ifE~ I : .~~-:l'I': II ;:.~ f ~'r~'~I:,}f-'~ ~.~:
I.... : ~. :f.\ . .~",.! .. ~>m:tD t: ~ . ':!l ::, ,- . 1 I 11 _ ~..~
" .0,. r..... IJ' , . ~ .... ; ~ I --,' ". ~I L -.--\ t:
~.. ..... I ~ ' T ~:t. ~ II V' 11111 Y _. ,. A IoJ rt". . ~ IS
..,. .::- : -: :...:..:=~ -,"- -i q 1 I" .... .'.i' .~:3 I I c.~.". .
-'--~' ,- - - l__ . ,,~ ~. ~..': _.:,. ""gC'd~/~(fr ~ L l~ '
, - -'.~- .-C.... -IT ' ,....- f'T '\ ............iT'-rIT!. '1. co.. ~.'. 'I ! I I ~ '..J ~. i. ,......
,--.."",,',"nr:.o,:;.,...\ (I/II,~_: ,- -~ ,~. ~~:.l J' 'I ' -r. "';.y.;+~ ,I IIEEJ,tl~
,~ 1 TI .-.' , r- t ~. 1 ,... 'I. ." L ,_
'J.t".i'~ : .,,:Jt'.:'-';.: ~t .~~3 ~.~ t ~"f J.4-t .. ~'i: Jr;-t~, i-
I- .- \\.~ ..... \, ..~;-;~. ': I PC...~ t:-.~.r.;; 1= r &:D";'" 7 V-.c1'!
\. '-. 'J\. 1/ It;'11l \rl-n~'~j~,:.; ~: . . oi: '~~ ~ r~.' .'t;. . ....~)~~~:I~ i
J ,: t! I ...:' .... ,i ~.+.: . m Ri.~~~' /~:,,, . 'l'
//,' ~lrl"ltl~ill" Ii ;---- ~..r... 1 -:~~f ..':: .~EC ~.~~~~: }\':-)
;. .~ t-r. uW,.-...--.. -_.~ ~ I.... .' " /"'..J'->\~~- '{Y /
'. ( r~>. ~~i.~r~ r\tr. 'T4it' ~~:.) ~ ~tlf tt " ~ .... \ I:J ~ ~j' ~<"'5~" <. '<;~: ~( (/
. .\ ~. lllW I' , 4I't ,,' ~ T :;'". 7"'; V . .,."
. \' ~ .~." ... . .::~ rt ,_;,'~'J>. . -:;<i......~ ~~", .', '.,~ \-...-
:;-:---~) :.. 'Q-ili' '1-liC""hAKSJ~~.. .JI. ~t:" b-r: r1:~~~"--'_' '/'~~~k~"'l ">, ',,/,/ '. \\>;z:::e:::-
I ~ .:.'~ ~, -...J 1oI\'~ V I ~ - .1: ~ t. '!- : "[;lt4. " ..' \ t, \~~~~.
,1 "[L........u:a..I: \. "4' 1 <- -1" +,~~Lq-:lf','L~.~~'~'" .;." .....:.-\t ,.1\\'.'.1-:--
.-// . ,.' 'f"~'" ,..;.;. . . -. . ~f~"!li'l.. . ~ .,' ~'it~h.~ .
~, --- n r ;;~,'''';', - ;. ~",....:~~-U:;ll-1 -''':''~:'~~~'~~-::l'\~''':'
.. ,- J II I:.... :.. ..,- J~'~~"~":-'~'\",( I ;::;'0 C:1 ._.~ ~.qt'++j~ -~ t +t+ -+~tttnr ~;~.
- - I'" I - · . ~ ~ . I ~ ~.:..l. ,; . ~
_ _ '~'r' &H. ""J.Si RCAO _ '-~ , {_
\ . I , \ l ., ""'- ) I l . I It. I . y_ ~
------- ... ." .-... .,-.. "'--3' E' .~\: r ~'::) I .- ".J. t i . I! . , . . .: '-' -.' .. --~
- . -. . , f . _ _~ . ......;3 _ _. __ __-'--/..._...-L._ -- ...l.J....--~ _. _
. i\- 1,'1 '1-',.; [ L' ~ m ; L:. ;~L J ~ ' -::-:---:-= OJ , =-- '- [---;..- ~-r fTl4=. _"
r .''-; , I I "f I L15 - . ~1:. ...~.,~ -;A.....;".... . : I _ ...:'__.f= ~.
.. ~"-:-.. -.. : ~ I. .: T; I . \. W ".. ~..... __... __... __ ..-.--_. - -- 1 r
. . '.. ! i II r -.--t l.ql':" ,~-, ~; .' .' ----'--{;!.-
/ . ~ .' I . ';-':'1m ''''''L'''- W . ~r ..-. , ,.... ~~ ,..----... -
, I- \ t..J:;u. _~-:~~ '..~. .'__ --~ I . . . .'-, I .
"', '. ,: I'. j' . ~- -- ~ ~~"''''~: ,.:-: ;:;:. .' _. .... : . . . ., ,
I I - - L_J--:1 "", :.. . . ---...:- ------+r_.
<\ . . liD U ..., ~. lI!.:5F~ ~"'; .':.~. .' . e. - ...... ..;;:=-~."'.
"\t \1:~~~'I~~i~~ ~.". .~[ ..#~R:~'AA~: ./:. ;>:!:'.'
~ '..--.;-)r.' .. t -..... -. I ..........;,. . .oJ.: ." ,I." '..!-.
!\J ~~'t - '[to ArJ~iOf ~: €i~~- ':- ...~':. -.~.- .- ; .1: J f-;.-!~: :'~-"
...' ':~ "l. I q {) ! - 'Te~~Aiua~t j F 8'f?~ .:::.. . . '~ ~-
. /1~ _-.l_r:: ( ~_ . ~ ~ ) l:U':=~~.:=2-"',~.' 0 1 /8 MILES'IV" '\
. '. ~l..-:.;I! I .:-~.~~W f . , . ~~~~ . .\. I ~
_\::H~~ - Cih~"U~~A~l:S ~~~~: / '0 I 1110. S!O .~.~~T _.:. oz/96
--" T ,--. _ ..._...,_ .-.
-
- p
--
- U
: 0
-
-
~
~.~.
..1., \
--}..
.
~ ~..,;"~ ~~~-;:4"."."'-' ~-
J. l .., . .....,;.~.'"./~;~i(.j~.~.......~
; f .' i { > I ~ ~ . ."....... "7'
\d~CA~.t.il~""3J~
dfdit.n ~a~!i)>
__d,.,lplodE"
!11.111,,'lll'll~
! I ;! 1II al'l p! i i)>
~tP'pPt ~'l'C
l\! i! I t i III i 1;1 i
c f'd~LI.t1q
lIP' I..
I I I f
1
:.: I
I'
I
I I
I I
I I.
I I
,
I , I
-
.. i
!
I r
:,!
. '
i' t'
-.
~ ~ ~.,..::
0,.. .... .~".'
~.. . .\
. 1""",' , '.
3:.
I~;
~J ."
, .......,,-
....~.:....,.....-
, ,.:~ .-..",..,
-----..-
I
! }
!
l
\H" I' ...1
~
. . ..
:1 I' .
. ...
'M ' I
I 3
~ 1"=
\
~ 1;~
~ ,,;:x
f;j~
a ~
! :t
.
~
c
.,..
on...
~---
I --
=: ,~
--- ~
--I
I
\
.~ ~
~"
,
~ - . -
.' ,
,
,
.'
I
j j:" .
: 'I 'I ,.' :, I
I ' II; ! i I
, L .',. ,,' .-
; ~--.,' "..,.'."""., ' ". ,.- '
~ ~l:" . 1; · .19'~c:~<~:~ .... i~
. " . ' ' .
l ' :: : '" ,'''' ..
j .. . . . . ' . I
I !! . ij 1):jE' :::; >. .. "1'
, ' :; . , . I . :':" \
. .! Ii" " :' I.' . ,;, : I
, " . ,'" .'
: : i:". :: ij:'; ~ ..." :" " .,' ,
! t':> ,: 1 i ;~---- Iii 'l~' ".,;:",1
.: " ., " -_._-~_., ' '
", ' ." . : ,,'.'.. '"" '
. : ' _.,-,' 0: .r> '- ..:.
u_:; -.rn-- ,'./" ',. >. '
r, ---. ~ .'" .. ,'.,'
~~! r: !;~::~. --,-..:.-~: :'. ~,,; -< _-..~~'.,'-. , :' 1; ';;".. 0 .,-.
r, it.~ _ _......... .. . ~ W. '" =
:: ..._~ ....
: ., ~ . _::--- -,--""t~ -'-'-:, I
.:; _ _ -'" :.:;;,.1:.: _ _ i
. '
j
\
.'
" .
~
~
<J>
...
i ~
. ~
~ ;~:
~
, ~"
,....:t.~-~
j I
!j
I
.~
J
I
:.
,;
\
"-
...
~~ ,.. ii "...,,~
J .;,
j ..' N
f! d r, ~~ ',.
~ ~
~ . .. N'
,-,:~ ..
n ; I' g
.9 -:~
, ~~
~
f. H ~ ~ ~ I
" oIl~' " t r: r
j ~ 11 ~ (. ~ (.
i. ; r. ,: ': ~ c
... ~l F. l~ ~ 5 ..: to
'0\ J j .' ~
(.,~ ~ ~ f-::
.. ~ l~ !..
I. tl ..t.
- n'~
r L~
~ ' j';
~ :: ~ .~ ~~ ~,~
'. ;, ~ "~.,,, r
~ .. .. .
:~ ~
, ~
""
~ ~~? ~~~';':
; ~.i 'I:' ..1
~V~ r.! ~~
_ ~~ i ~~ . .
'-""'"':~ ,.~ ~
~~~ ~ : ',::
I::>: ~ It::
:t :, r--
, /t,u
~ '.' \~:
'.
~ r
::! ' I~;'
, ..
-.6 ::
;: I..~_;: 1 ~ ~:
f;': d .~
..::~ : 'ij ; ';
~i. ~ t ~ I~
fl' ,..:,' t.
;.:l l.'" ..
~; ,
~
. .
10.' I'
. .
~ ~
EXHIBIT "e"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Palm Walk ACLF
File number: CUTE 99-001/CNTE 99-00 I
Reference: Letter of reauest dated March 23 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. Denied X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
2. To be determined.
DDC/dim
J:ISHRDATAIPlANNING\SHARED\WPIPROJECTSIPALM WALK ACLF(CUTE 99-001 )ICOND. OF APPROVAL 5-11.DOC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 99- 232
TO: Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
THROUGH: Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM: Scott Barber
Acting Senior Planner (Gee & Jenson)
DATE: November 1,1999
SUBJECT: Palm Walk Adult Congregate Facility (ACLF)
- Conditional Use Time Extension
- File No. CUTE 99-001
NATURE OF REQUEST
Mr. Lewis E. Feldman, of Palm Walk Associates, L L C, property owner, is requesting a six month,
second time extension, of the conditional use approval 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 March 2, 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 "B" - Approved Plan). On May 5, 1999 the current owner requested their first a one year time
extension to the approval of the latest revised site plan. Staff was told that this extension was needed
to find an ideal operator for the facility, finalize financial issues and secure a contractor for the
proposed Jan. 2000 construction start date. A 120 day extension was granted, extending the date of
minimum completion of 25% of the site improvement requirements until September 2, 1999. On July
6, 1999, the owner produced the fees and a verbal request for a second time extension of the
conditional use approval. A faxed request for the six (6) month extension was received in the
Planning and Zoning office on October 8, 1999. A new check to replace the one issued on July
6,1999, was received on November 1, 1999.
Memorandum No. 99-232
Palm Walk CUTE 99-001
Page 2
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 was
requested on July 6, 1999, well prior to the expiration date of September 2, 1999. Furthermore, 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. 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 of the following: 0% improvement has been done since the latest extension of 120 days was
approved by the City Commission; banking negotiations status is 95 % complete through the
following funding institutions: Mellon United National Bank, Sun Trust Bank, and Ocean Bank; there is
no development schedule at this time; CRSA Holdings, Inc., has been retained as management
company for this project; and, finally, a six month extension period was requested. Staff was told that
the need for this time extension request is created due to the untimely process of securing project
finances. Since a lender requires information on the operator, securing financing has been timed with
operator selection. 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; and due to the fact
that the granting of this extension request is not holding up any other significant developments and
that it secures development progress of a much needed use, staff recommends approval of a time
extension that will allow the developer to proceed with the original construction date of January, 2000
as requested on the time extension approved on May 5, 1999.
Memorandum No. 99-232 Page 3
Palm Walk CUTE 99-001
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 placed on the May 5, 1999
approval for time extension required improved site maintenance. Staff visited the site on October 6,
1999, and observed the property in an acceptable condition. The same condition shall apply to any
subsequent extension approvals
DDC:dim
Xc: Central File
J:ISHRDATA\PLANNING\SHARED\WPIPROJECTSIPALM WALK ACLF(CUTE 99-001 )ITIME EXTENSION STAFF REPORT 3.DOC
~~~
.0
~
,4, 'tj
....
~ ...;eTING MINUTES
(0 ,REGULAR CITY COMMISSION
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 1, 1999
o
local vendor who could provide what they wanted. The team wants to move forward by putting
up a prototype. It would then be reviewed and evaluated.
Ms. Farace reit ated . ,that the team has been meeting since November and they now need
official direction fro the Commission so that the team could either stop meeting or begin to
make progress.
Commissioner She n likes the idea but there are uncertainties regarding the total cost of this
project and the need it while under construction. He learned today that the City intends to
put signage on the Ocean enue project indicating this is the beginning of our downtown
redevelopment.
Motion
Commissioner Sherman moved 0 delay this particular Progress Trail project until we have a
better grip on the total cost and a ress the issue about other kiosks. Commissioner Sherman
thinks it is too sudden. Vice Mayor n seconded the motion.
When Commissioner Denahan attempted t make a counter motion, Attorney Cherof advised
that on a motion to table, there is no discussi .
Ms. Shabotynskyj asked for an explanation of the uncertainty. Mayor Broening had no
uncertainty.
" Commissioner Weiland said he was in favor of thl roject but would like a consensus that the
team would lGOk into alternatives rather than just sta with one sign and seven signs would
not be located on one street once Ocean Avenue is finish .
Commissioner Sherman pointed out that by waiting awhile, e team might be able to secure the
sponsors. Commissioner Sherman doE!s not believe the Co mission has a firm grip on the total
cost of this project and he does not see the need for dou Ie signage while Ocean Avenue is
under construction.
Mayor Broening is in favor of this idea: Part of the Visions 20 recommendations was to have
a marketing program to inform people about what is going on in tti redevelopment of the City.
This is one method of getting the information out. This is not a ne concept. Concerns about
design and funding are legitimate, but the concept is outstanding.
The motion carried 3-2. (Mayor Broening and Commissioner Denahan
.'
When Ms. Farace questioned whether or not the process should contin
responded affirmatively and volunteered to sit on the committee. . .
t
IV-D.2.Palm Walk ACLF - (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 (TABLED FROM MAY
18TH MEETING)
9
~
..<-?~~~:~o "C~~71'
~ ~-S- ~~O
~;,~ ~
JU ~. i6- ~
NE 1, 1.9,.... .,.
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSIOh
. BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Commissioner Sherman requested elaboration on this item.
.
Joe Lelanic of Land Design South advised that the Planning & Development Board
recommended denial of this request because they did not know all of the history of this site.
The Planning & Development Boarc:l has been dealing with this site for many years but they are
unaware of its recent history. The applicant feels there are substantiated reasons for keeping
the project alive. Mr. Lelanic displayed exhibits that indicated the project was originally
approved in 1994. It received a couple of time extensions until January of 1997. There was no
progress up to that point. That scenario was under the original contract purchaser for the site.
At this point in time, Mr. Lelanic represents Palm Walk Associates, the client who purchased a
part of the site in January of 1997. The remaining portion of the site was purchased in early
March of 1998. Therefore, the starting point should be January of 1997 - not 1994.
The original approval was for a 17,000 square foot facility with 42 beds. Each bedroom
consisted of two beds. This was an institution-type establishment. When Palm Walk
Associates purcha$ed the property in early 1997, they began looking at better alternatives for
use of the site. They decided on an ACLF geared toward Alzheimer patients. The applicants
reappeared before the previous Commission in 1998 to change the facility to an upscale
establishment with one bed per room for a total of 42 bedrooms. They also increased the size
to 24,000 square feet.
The applicant is requesting another one-year extension to cOntinue to secure building permits
and :other items needed for completion of the project. Mr. Lelanic provided documentation of
_AI..... made by the client over the last year to acquire funding and contractors. The .
applicant went into contract with __ ~ to develop the site. Palm Walk Associates
also marketed OaI_Bank8nd MeIon88nk to provide funding for the project. Mr. Lelanic was
in possession of a letter from Ocean Bank that indicated contact with Palm Walk Associates and
willingness to move forwarc:l with funding. The next course of action would be to come up with
actual marketillg user for this Alzheimer's site. The applicant
has been getting e facility and is willing to commit to doing the
following in the future:
J~ Ii ~ if ~l oll' .~ ....
.
.
~
..
.
...
Mr. Lelanic said this is a good facility for the City and the present owner has expended close to
$600,000 on the cost of the property and consultants. He urged the Commission to grant the
additional one-year time extension in orc:ler to allow time to get the property up and running.
When Commissioner Sherman asked how many of these types of facilities Palm Walk
Associates has managed in the past. Mr. Jim Tomasello of Brookeville Consulting Corporation
said Palm Walk Associates has two other facilities in contract with Epic Development. They
have expended a great deal of money by purchasing this property for cash. They are ready to
move forward. Palm Walk does not operate its own facilities. Palm Walk develops the sites and
they have managers to operate the facilities.
I
10
.
- ._----~-_..
---.--- --_._~---~----
,.
~~
,"-r
~
(ofO ....EeTING MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 1, 1999
o
Vice Mayor Tillman pointed out that the letter from the tMftft' 'erMy'indtGate8 an intentIOn to
participate. The project is not yet financed. Mr. Lelanic agreed that the project is not yet
financed but there are two banks that are interested.
Vice Mayor Tillman explained that the applicant is now requesting another year to get the things
done that could not be accomplished over the past years.
Mr. Lelanic explained that although financing is not in place yet, the applicant has two banks
that are very interested and he is trying to shop the best price. In addition, it has taken one year
to negotiate with the general contractor (Styles). The applicant has been moving forward.
Commissioner Sherman asked Mr. Rumpf why the previous applicant was granted three
extensions. Mr. Rumpf was not absolutely sure, but felt it was probably "to get his ducks in a
row".
Commissioner Sherman does not understand why the applicant could not get everything in
order before asking the City to grant a fourth extension.
o
Mr. Tomasello reported that the property was under Qption and Palm Walk Associates
purchased one piece. Palm Walk Associates got involved in this because Mr. Fasi had spoken
to at least 50 developers.to try. to bring them into the deal. Mr. Fasi kept getting extensions from
the City even though he had no. money.in the' project. The major difference in this case is that..
P.~lm Walk Associates has $600,000 invested in t1.is project. The applicant owns the property
and has everything ready to go. Mr. TomaseJlo attended the Planning & Development Board
meeting on behalf of the owner in case there were any questions. The owner did not anticipate
, problems because staff recommended an additional time extension. However, when the board
...far. tifM tine, Mr. TamMIJla .. not able to provide that lnform8tian. Over the last two ..'
weeU,. time tine was d8'f8loped that will be aciheAMt to:
Commissioner Denahan said she rarely contradicts the recommendation of the Planning &
Development Board; however, this application represents the fiat'.- ..1.'......."...
C..". pNJjIct _ ..,..a_In 1918. She does not believe' all of the information was available
during the Planning & Development ~C?ard meeting. .
Motion
Commissioner Denahan moved to approve the request for a one-year time extension for
conditional use approval with concurrency certification to construct a 48-bed adult living facility
to be known as Palm Walk.
"
Mayor Broening said he was intrigued by this application because staff recommended approval
and the Planning & Development Board unanimously overruled ti1at recommendation. The time
line begins approximately 1 % years. He does not believe Palm Walk Associates could be
accused of requesting more than one extension. Mayor Broening said it is important to
remember what is in this for the City and its citizens. The language of the LDRs says the time
extension should not be granted if the City opposes permitting the land speculator to retain an
approval to more readily sell the land. Mayor Broening does believe this is the intent of Palm
Walk Associates. There is a lack of in-hand financing and no signed agreement by a
management firm. Mayor Broening feels there is room for negotiation. If this enterprise is good
11
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSIO."
. BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
(~ p "t"
~~ ~ ~O
~~~~
~~. 0-
JUNE 1, 1999
for the City of Boynton Beach, the Commission should not turn it down at this point. The item .
should be tabled and we could wait for the financing and management firm to be assigned.
Vice Mayor Tillman is,not in favor of granting a one-year time extension. He would like to see
this settled and see some movement on this project. Addressing Mr. Lelanic, Vice Mayor
Tillman said he would like to table this matter and bring it back up for discussion if and when
financing has been secured within time limits set by the City. This would ease the confusion
with this issue. He asked Mr. Lelanic if he would be able to secure financing within a 90-day
period of time.
Mr. Lelanic said he anticipates securing the financing in August. That would be a 90-day period.
He recommended granting a three-month time extension. At that time, the applicant would
come back before the Commission if that obligation has been met.
Amended Motion
~ --.
. . -.1--
Commissioner Denahan amended her motion to change it from a one-year time extension to a
This would allow the applicants to get everything in order as the
d.
--~---- - - ---- - --. -
. ..;.' .... . - - ~ - . I
Commissioner Weiland would be in favor of granting an extension of four or six months and this
Id be granted to this property whether or not the.
reo .'
Mr. Lelanic said he would require a IitUe more time in order to subrr : for permits. If financing is .
secured within 90 days (120 would be even better), the applicant would immediately submit for
the building permit. Four to six months is tight for the applicant to .go through that process and
receive their building permits.
When a question was asked about _, Mr. Hawkins said staff could work
with them as long as there is a com~ That would minimize comments.
Mr. Lelanic.advised that if it were possible to submit the plans under _nd
get everything reviewed by the City, thEm a six-month time frame woul~able. '
Vice Mayor Tillman would not support approving this project until their financing is secured.
Mr. Tomasello feels it would be better to get the financing and then be able to submit the plans
for permitting. He recommended giving the applicant 120 days to get financing. At that point,
the Commission could approve the time extension. The applicant can then submit for plans and
fast-track the project.
f
12
.
-------=-~.-.-.,....,~----~- --
o
o
o
,.... .
~
'oro
....eETING MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION
. BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
JUNE 1, 1999
Mr. Lelanic then confirmed that the applicant would have to get the financing and the permits
prior to the expiration of the 120 days extension. Attorney Cherof explained that what the Code
contemplates is that when the time period expires, the applicant would have at least 25% of the
project under construction. This motion extends the time period by 120 days.
Mr. Lelanic s id his understandin was that the a Iicant would secure financing and ~
Attorney Cherof explained that this motion requires the applicant to come back and request an
extension before 120 days expire. If the applicant shows good faith as contemplated by the
Commission, there is a likelihood that it would be granted. However, there is no guarantee that
the time extension would be granted. Mr. Lelanic was willing to accept that condition as long as
the applicant has the ability to extend. Attorney Cherof reiterated that the applicant has that
ability based upon a majority vote of the Commission. At this point, the applicant proceeds at
his own risk.
Maurice Rosenstock, resident of One Villa Lane and member of the Planning & Development
Board, said this is not the first time these types of requests have surfaced. It is a fact that
developers have traded in land by getting planning and developm~nt concepts placed before a
board, not doing anything and extending the time. As time passes, the land becomes more
valuable and the permits that have expired add to the value of the property. By passing the
motion, the City Commission has' accomplished nothing because they could secure fin'ancing
and still not do anything about develQping plans. Banks will nOt give them the money they need
without a complete set of plans. He recommended theat the City Commission amend the motion
to demand that the applicant have plans ready for submittal to the City. If the plans are ready
and the financing is in plaCo, then they would hav~ .shown their intent. He recommended that
the City Commission Mhold their feet to the fire" in the interests of the citizens of this City.
Mayor Broening asked Mr. Rosenstock to explain the jeopardy to the City in this case. Mr.
Rosenstock said the City Commission would be setting a precedent with regard to extensions of
time limits. He questioned why we have this rule in the Code. In his opinion, the rules are not
meant to be broken.
Mayor Broening said the reason people are elected to office, people are appointed to boards,
and administrators are paid salaries is to make informed decisions. The City Commission is
expected to make decisions. He thanked everyone for their input.
Commissioner Weiland referred to the actions of the Code Compliance Board with respect to
large fines. When violators come before the Commission, the Commission works with them.
Although the City would like to hold their feet to the fire, the' Commission does not want to
persecute people. It is important to work on a case-by.case basis regardless of whether it is a
Code Compliance issue or a planning and zoning issue.
Attorney Cherof feels certain that the app lcan WI pear e ore e I om miss
request an additional extension because he would not be able to comply with the conditional
use approval even with the additional 120 days. The nature of the motion does nothing more
than allow them 120 days. Because of where they are in the development process, they cannot
develop the project within that time period. They will have to come back for an additional
request. Perhaps their future request would be to pick up the balance of the one.year they
13
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMI~ .,
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
-I-' Qo-: ....
~~ t:>,,'<'~
<-; , ~~ OIS)
0-
JUNE 1, 1.~~~
4
originally requested. When the applicant goes to the lender, the lender will attach a condition
that requires receipt of a definitive approval of a reasonable extension.
~
Mr. Lelanic agreed with Attorney Cherofs remarks. Mr. Lelanic said the applicant intends to
move forward with arranging the financing and they will return in 120 days to show the
Commission their progress.
IV-D.3. ABC Fine Wine and Spirits (Northeast corner of Boynton Beach
Boulevard and Winchester Park Boulevard) - Request new site
plan approval for the construction of a 9,000 square foot retail
(liquor/wine) store and related improvements on 0.84 acre
Vice Mayor Tillman requested that this item be tabled.
Motion
Commissioner Denahan moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Development
Board. Vice Mayor Tillman seconded the motion that carried unanimously.
Attorney Cherof advised that the Planning & Development Board would hear this request on
June 8~ and this item will reappear on the June 15th agenda.
V. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
Wilfred Haw.kins, Interim City Manager, reported on the following items:
. Kids Kingdom - Staff began with the intention of repairing the playground. However, the
existing plans are too vague to get bids to do the repairs. The new course of action is to
rebuild the entire playground. 1 his will require us to work with Leathers & Associates'
original concept to produce a set' of plans we can build from. This will provide us with an
opportunity to receive good bids from contractors. In addition, this will result in an extension
of time needed to get the project underway. Therefore, the playground will not be open for
the summer. Once built, it will be a brand new structure and we will have plans tt-tat we can
work from in the future. . -
,
. Ocean Avenue - Staff has developed an in-house project team consisting of consulting
engineers from Gee & Jenson, Planning staff and Building staff. The course of action on
Ocean Avenue will be as follows:
~ The initial time line for bidding out the project is the end'of October of this year. We will
immediately set forth the process of finalizing the design based upon the initial concepts
outlined in the Visions 20/20 project. We have a basic design to work from and we will
be soliciting input from the public as to the final designs of Ocean Avenue. We will
accomplish this input through several public meetings. We will invite people who live
along Ocean Avenue to have a key role in determining the outcome of the design of this
project. Other members of the community can also offer input. There will be an MAM and
MBM choice. The public will give input as to the choices and we can move forward to the
bidding stage. The public meetings are being scheduled for sometime in July. It is
anticipated that the first meeting will be held on July 15th. Prior to that, staff will work
-
14