AGENDA DOCUMENTS
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned
Meetin2 Dates in to City Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meetin2 Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
0 March 16, 1999
0 April 6, 1999
0 April 20. 1999
0 May 4, 1999
March 5. 1999 (noon)
o May 18. 1999
t8] June I, 1999
o June IS, 1999
o July 6, 1999
May 7, 1999 (noon)
March 26. 1999 (noon)
May 21, 1999 (noon)
April 9, 1999 (noon)
June 4, 1999 (noon)
April 23. 1999 (noon)
June25. 1999 (noon)
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
o Administrative
[gJ Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o Development Plans
o New Business
o Legal
o Un[mished Business
o Presentation
RECOMMENDATION: Please place the request below on the June I, 1999 City Commission agenda under Consent-
Ratification of Planning and Development Board Action. As you recall, this request was postponed at the May 18th meeting
at the request of the applicant to prepare a presentation on current project progress. The Planning and Development Board
recommends denial, based on the lack of development activity and approval of repeated extensions. For further details
pertaining to this request see attached Department of Development Memorandum No. 99-088.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT: Palm Walk ACLF
AGENT: Richard T. Sovinsky, RA
Ehasz Giacalone Architects, PC
Palm Walk Associates
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.
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
PROGRAM IMPACT: NM
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
Interim City Manager
- rr /' "( .-/,.---:::>
Plannin~oning Director
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
S:IPLANNlNGISHARED\WP\PROIECTSIPALM WALK ACLF(CUTE 99-OOI)\AGEl-.'DA ITEM REQUEST CC 6-1-99.DOC
EXHIBIT "e"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Palm Walk ACLF
File number: CUTE 99-00l/CNTE 99-001
Reference: Letter ofreouest 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
FORE STER/ENVIRONMENTALI ST
Comments: None X
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None X
ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
l. Denied X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
2. To be determined.
DDCldim
J:\SHROATAIPlANNING\SHAREOIWP\PROJECTSIPAlM WALK ACLF(CUTE 99-001)\COND. OF APPROVAL 5-11.DOC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SERVICES
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 99- 088
FROM:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
(l;c>e
Michael W. Rumpf
Planning and Zoning Director
,tJ'J(..,R 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 TD, 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 "B" - 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 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
.operat~r 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 sho14ld 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 99-0(1)\T1ME EXTENSION STAFF REPORT. DOC
:b