REVIEW COMMENTS
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach. Florida
C c.v--...c.( ('kt,:::'''''''' ~-
~c: ik., _L<"_ ~,..: ~:'j ~,<"-
~LLt'\~. .
~'122" 11-tc"io
August 20, 2002
Ninety individuals submitted green cards that expressed opposition to the application
and those cards are attached to the minutes.
Motion
Commissioner Fisher moved to deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map for a 1.43-acre parcel from Low Density Residential (LOR) to
Public and Private Government/Institutional for Bethesda Hospital (LUAR 02-004).
Commissioner Ferguson seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Weiland stated that in the interest of clarity, a statement was made to him
that his opening statement led them to believe his mind had been made up before
hearing the facts from both sides. He said he had spent countless hours over the last
six months hearing from both sides and that many of the people were people he had
known for many years and considered friends. He attended meetings with the residents
and at the Hospital. He came into the meeting with the idea that this would be a good
project but he believed he could be swayed either way. He still firmly believed that one
thing that bothered people most was that the Hospital would continue encroaching on
land to the west until they got to 1-95. He assured everyone that this would not happen.
They were also worried about their property values. He stated that he would rather live
on the west side of 4th Street so he could see the green space and the mature trees and
shrubbery, street lamps, and benches. He believed if the project were to be approved.
there wouldn't be one resident who wouldn't look at it and state that it was very nice.
If the motion to deny failed. there would still be things to talk about such as the deed
restrictions. Even though they were not talking about the Site Plan, they needed to
discuss such things as landscaping and the applicant must be willing to discuss such
things in depth. He valued everyone's opinions and appreciated their coming out to this
meeting. He knew several people from Boards that had made statements and he valued
their opinions also. He compared this project to where he was born in Holy Cross
Hospital in Fort Lauderdale. where a community had sprung up around the hospital and
where property values were high. He wanted to see the project done and done in the
right way and he hoped that his opinion would be whether the project passed or failed at
this meeting.
Mayor Broening stated one of the hardest things an elected official had to do was make
decisions regarding a public need and a local concern. He said the Commission had
made some hard choices and had not always voted unanimously. The issue of whether
or not the applicant had met the conditions was based upon the description of what the
Hospital is and it had been determined that it most closely resembles a commercial
operation, due to the intensity of the operation in precisely the area in question. It was
suggested that to grant this would be somehow spot zoning. He had not heard staff
address that and did not believe it made that cut The other problem was the linearity of
the existing zoning and that the breaking of it He was clearly inclined to meet a
community need, which not only includes the 63,000 residents of Boynton Beach but a
large number west of the City. That is what he felt was his responsibility if he gained
assurance that the conditions were not a legal "sticky wicket", in terms of meeting the
requirements to make a zoning change. They had precedent in the City for making
zoning changes where a neighborhood had been involved. It was a tough decision and
brought the Krispy Kreme issue to mind. Staff was in favor of that and the Commission
18
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 20. 2002
ultimately, with one dissention voted for it. After some time and with some legal tests, it
appeared that it would prevail. He called the question.
Mayor Broening called the question.
City Clerk Prainito called the roll and the motion failed 3-2.
Vice Mayor Weiland directed his comments to Mr. Kilday. saying that he wanted both
parties to be clear about the deed restriction and that If the parking ga@9.e.J.Jj<j not-SQ_
forward, that the land would revert back to a Resid~Jltial classific~ti()n. Mr. Kilday said
that would need to be worded, deferring to the City Attorney. in such a way that you
would revisit the land use change. You would formally have to make a motion to turn it
back. It has been done. There could be a reversion mechanism where it is brought back
to the Commission for reconsideration.
Vice Mayor Weiland stated that in the same deed restriction, he wanted to make it clear
that now and in the future, whether two years or twenty-two years from now, that there
would be no ingress or egres~.onto S.w:_4th Street. Mr. Kilday agreed.
t..'<'
(.
'(/(\
L'
Vice Mayor Weiland confirmed that the applicant would use 20 to 24 foot trees in the
.~arrier side/whether on the lower or upper side of the retaining wall, whatever m~de it
work to hav/; a compatible landscape plan with the existing treellhat are there no~ and
that the undergrowth be to or above Code alon!;! the property line. He did not wish to set
dimensions for caliper of the trunks or the spread of the trees; for instance, there could
be a tree with a ten foot spread and a three inch caliper trunk because that is just the
way it grows and vice versa. The applicant and staff ne~d toy.rork_!ogeth~.rJ.9JQ[mulate a
plan on landg:'~'ping that uses very mature material. He wanted staff to note that.
(One of his biggest concerns was to protect the S.W. 4th Street residents when
construction starts to happen from Day One, not 30 or 60 days after the project started.)
He did not want to see eighteen-wheelers going up and down S.W. 4t~ Str!9pt. trying to
make U-turns. ~nety-nine percenLQLcgnstruction traffic needs to ente"'(onBethesda
p.1QQerty fr.9m _~he ejlst sid.e Qf the proje.cLand exit from that side as well. Towards thl1<.-
end of the project there might have to be a little larger trucks to deliver landscape .,,~
material. In the event that anything was damaged in homeowners yards as a result of
traffic from a landscape or construction vehicle, that the a0llicant would ~ responsible
for remedying the dam~. TherEl. need to be Proiect Managers. The City, in certain
situations, designates an individual to work very closely on projects to make sure that it
goes as it is intended to go. Mr. Kilday said there could be a telephone number at the
Hospital and a direct contact for any issues that would be publicized to all the neighbors.
In the past that has been a problem that people do not know who to call in the Hospital.
They could do that.
Vice Mayor Weiland stated that if the project were to pass at this meeting. he wanted to
,!Je kept in_ theJo~'pers9Q13!IY'_of i.lny 1l1E2.E3Jlngs.that were scheduled so he could attend
and know first-hall~t \',Ias being discussed with the neig..h.9.QN, He wanted to make
sure, 100%. that this neighborhood was protected and that its integrity was kept to the
highest standard that it is right now or better.
19
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August20,2002
Mayor Broening stated that his decision also hinged on certain Site Plan issues, even
though that was not directly on the agenda. Mayor Broening thought this discussion was
germane because the appearance of the intended application had a bearing on granting
the req uests.
Commissioner Fisher asked staff if Site Plan issues were germane to the question.
Attorney Cherof stated that the representations made by the applicant are material to the
two agenda items before the Commission. They may allude to issues with respect to the
Site Plan but they were clearly relevant in terms of supporting the two agenda items and
material to that He stated that it was important for Mr. Kilday to make certain that his
client was in agreement with those representations because it was clear from the Vice
Mayor's comments that they were pertinent to his and the Mayor's decisions.
He asked about a condition of approval regarding :'.no more western expansion." Can a
future Commission override that? The answer was that they could. Attorney stated
there would be some limitations on that Once a Commission acts upon a land
development matter before them, if there is reliance upon that Commission action by the
applicant, if construction is undertaken or a significant and substantial of funds is in
planning. they have something close to "vested" rights. It would be hard for a potential
Commission to reverse that without having to pay a cost of doing so in terms of
damages to the applicant
Robert Hill from BMH stated that they had no problems with the subjects just mentioned
and could agree to them. Two of their Board members were with him at the meeting.
They would be more than happy to go on the record to state that they would do all of
those things.
Mr. Bressner discussed the iseued covered versus surface parking)with Mr. Kilday.
who stated that the applicant uld be guided in this by the resident~and that if this
were to be approved. they wou d meet with the residents to ascertain their wishes and
commit to their choice. Vice Mayor Weiland stated that the idea of a structure was an
attempt on the part of the applicant to make the project more compatible with the
residents, by having a hous-Iike structure rather than vehicles facing their street Mr.
Bressner was just verifying choice, not advocating either one. (Mr. Kilday said that they
would hold a meeting with the neighborhood to determine the best choice before making
any re-submittals to the City)
Mayor Broening asked Mr. Hill if the Hospital had a Comprehensive Plan for its growth.
Mr. Hill stated that they obviously do annual planning at all times and have a
comprehensive view of where they are )loing for the next several years, as much as you
can look down the road in healthcare. ~t is very easy to go on the record of saying 'We
do not need to go west any further than this project) The fact that we would try to cross
4th, 5th, and 6th Street is absolutely nothing that we wbuld ever surmise doing."
Mayor Broening stated that based on future growth in the this City and to the west, he
wanted a long-range view that tried to look at things from every aspect - the Hospital's
present campus and the probability of going up, since they were landlocked.
20
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 20. 2002
Mayor Broening stated that one of the problems with the project from the standpoint of
the residents was their perception that the Hospital had not been responsive to their
concerns in the past He had only heard it anecdotally. This told the Mayor that the
Hospital had a real challenge on its hands in the way it presented itself to the
community.
Mr. Bressner stated that Mr. Kilday had mentioned earlier that there was an ongoing
parking study that had not completed. It was important for the Commission to be part of
that process, as much as possible, and to understand as early as possible what the
Hospital's needs were. For example, the current building height is 45 feet but in the
event that an exception to that would be beneficial to the Hospital and the community.
the City needs to have an early indication of that to have a voice in the siting of future
improvements. He stated that the Hospital had to define where such things as a future
parking garage might go. how it would be designed, and make sure that it was integrated
into a long-range master plan for their campus. Mr. Bressner stated that staff stood
ready to work with the Hospital to help address those long-term issues, to the extent that
they can be ascertained, so that the Hospital could put together a Master Plan that
would give the City an idea of where the Hospital is going in a more global sense. He
stated that the City was looking for a commitment from the Hospital to work with the City
on this issue. Mr. Hill stated that as soon as they had that type of study done, they
would be prepared to sit with City staff and discuss those issues if that was the final
outcome of that study.
Motion
Vice Mayor Weiland moved to approve the ~<jUestfo~a 1.43-acre parcel from R-
1-AA to PU, with the restrictions he and Commissioner Fisher had mentioned, including
/7 tbe reversion clause, 00 acc!lSJLlO,or{[QIIIS.W 4th Street, n.~estern exp<ln~io!l
(' i~l!!i;ljl1g !.hJUl!.Qperly line going to the north.
Attorney Cherof asked that they first consider a motion for the land use amendment and
follow it with this one. They may want to defer consideration of the rezoning to
consolidate that with the Site Plan consideration. Vice Mayor Weiland wanted to have
the Site Plan issue heard separately.
Motion
Vice Mayor Weiland moved to amend the Future Land Use Map for a 1.43-acre parcel
from Low Density Residential to Public and Private Government/Institutional.
\
\ Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-2, Commissioners
Ferguson and Fisher dissenting.
,
\ Motion _ _
~ice Mayor Weiland /in-;;ved to -app~~~e the rezoninq> of a 1.43-acre parcel from R-1-AA
to PU with the caveats that if the Hospital did not apply permits within two years frQIDJhe
date of this meeting, the propertr.\I\IouldrElveJ:Llo R-A-AA, no inqress or eQreJ>S lo,S.W.
4'" 1)treet fro~ate of start,C)f construction eXCept for what is needed to complete the
landsc@ir'-g an.9.-imQrovements on tb.e barrier/pathway area, and no ingress or egress to
the site during constr\!.ctioO_~J<.cept from the hospital property, and an assurance that the
Hospital would not expand to ~ffiewesfalonQ-the ,north p~ line. Commissioner
McCray seconded the motion. ',------ -
~<:..v<!'"-c
21
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 20. 2002
Mr. Monaghan, the applicant's attorney, stated that it was difficult to condition something
you did not own, in reference to the expansion issue. Mr. Kilday suggested that the
Hospital could, through its Board of Directors, [lass a Resolution to that effer.;L and
provide a copy to the City.
The motion carried 3-2. Commissioners Fisher and Ferguson dissenting.
Attorney Cherof stated that as in all rezonings, this would be returned to the Commission
in the form of an Ordinance and there would be two readings and an opportunity to make
the conditions more specific.
THE MEETING RECESSED AT 10:40 P.M. AND RESUMED AT 10:50 P.M.
C.
Project:
Bethesda Hospital Rezoning (REZN 02-004)
(TABLED AT AUGUST 6, 2002 CITY
COMMISSION MEETING)
Jaime Gentile, Kilday and Associates, Inc.
Bethesda Memorial Hospital
South side of Southwest 23'd Avenue (Golf Road)
between South Seacrest Boulevard and Interstate
95
Request to rezone a 10.37-acre parcel from PUD
(Planned Unit Development) district to PU (Public
Usage)
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
D.
Project:
The Harbors (LUAR 02-005)
(TABLED TO CRA MEETING OF SEPTEMBER
10,2002)
Jennifer Morton, Land Design South
Schgai, Inc.
2300 North Federal Highway
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map from Local Retail Commercial (LRC)
to Special High Density Residential (SHDR); and
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Proposed Use:
Request to
Commercial
Development
Development of 54 fee-simple townhouses
rezone from (C-3) Community
to (IPUD) Infill Planned Unit
E.
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
The Residences at Marina Village (REZN 02-005)
Bruce Jarvis, The Bruce Group, Inc.
AERC of Virginia Inc.
743 NE 1st Avenue
Request to rezone the 6.93-acre Marina property
from Central Business District (CBD) to Mixed Use-
High Intensity (MU-H) to allow for the planned
Mixed-Use Marina Project
F.
Project:
Cafe La Notte (COUS 02-002)
22
- .
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
August 20, 2002
Lisa Collomb
Schgai. Inc.
2280 North Federal Highway
Review of sound impacts on adjacent
neighborhood (90-day test period)
G. Notice of Intent (Resolution No. R02-135) to adopt pending Land
Development Amendment - Self Storage Facilities
23
"'"\.o-;-.,{\,,,,.'.T~.......g~"
. ..............~.
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach. Florida
August 20, 2002
Mayor Broening stated that one of the problems with the project from the standpoint of
the residents was their perception that the Hospital had not been responsive to their
concerns in the past He had only heard it anecdotally. This told the Mayor that the
Hospital had a real challenge on its hands in the way it presented itself to the
community.
Mr. Bressner stated that Mr. Kilday had mentioned earlier that there was an ongoing
parking study that had not completed. It was important for the Commission to be part of
that process, as much as possible, and to understand as early as possible what the
Hospital's needs were. For example, the current building height is 45 feet but in the
event that an exception to that would be beneficial to the Hospital and the community.
the City needs to have an early indication of that to have a voice in the siting of future
improvements. He stated that the Hospital had to define where such things as a future
parking garage might go, how it would be designed, and make sure that it was integrated
into a long-range master plan for their campus. Mr. Bressner stated that staff stood
ready to work with the Hospital to help address those long-term issues, to the extent that
they can be ascertained, so that the Hospital could put together a Master Plan that
would give the City an idea of where the Hospital is going in a more global sense. He
stated that the City was looking for a commitment from the Hospital to work with the City
on this issue. Mr. Hill stated that as soon as they had that type of study done, they
would be prepared to sit with City staff and discuss those issues if that was the final
outcome of that study.
Motion
Vice Mayor Weiland moved to approve the request to rezon~a 1.43-acre parcel from R-
1-AA to PU. with the restrictions he and Commissioner Fisher had mentioned, including
the reversion clause, IJQ...9CCess_to_Qr f[omS.w. _4t~_St[e_et, nQ....western expansion
in~LJQi0g the Rrop.er1y line going to the north.
-' -
/f
,
",,~,::ay Cherof asked that they first consider a motion for the land use amendment and
~ follow it with this one. They may want to defer consideration of the rezoning to
consolidate that with the Site Plan consideration. Vice Mayor Weiland wanted to have
the Site Plan issue heard separately.
I
\
\
~\Motion
'Vice Mayor Weiland ~d to approve the rezoninq> of a 1.43-acre parcel from R-1-AA
to PU with the caveats that if the Hospital did not apply permits within .two years from the
date of this meeting, the ro ert would revert to R-A-AA. no inqress or eqress to S.YV.
4 treet rom ale of start of construction except for whCl1Js needegJo completeJhe
1~@iQg and improvements on the barrier/pathway area, and no ingressoregress to
the site durlnq construction exc,ept from the hospital pro~r:!Y, and an assurance that the
Hospital would !lot expand to the west along the north proQerty line. Commissioner
McCray seconded the motion. "-----.
~ c.V~.c-
Motion
Vice Mayor Weiland moved to amend the Future Land Use Map for a 1.43-acre parcel
from Low Density Residential to Public and Private Government/Institutional.
Commissioner McCray seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-2, Commissioners
Ferguson and Fisher dissenting.
21
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach. Florida
August 20. 2002
Commissioner Fisher asked staff if Site Plan issues were germane to the question.
Attorney Cherof stated that the representations made by the applicant were material to
the two agenda items before the Commission. They may allude to issues with respect to
the Site Plan but they were clearly relevant in terms of supporting the two agenda items
and material to that. He stated that it was important for Mr. Kilday to make certain that
his client was in agreement with those representations because it was clear that they
were pertinent to the Vice Mayor and Mayor's decisions.
Commissioner Fisher then asked about the condition of approval concerning expansion
and inquired whether a future Commission could override that. The answer was that they
could. Attorney Cherof stated that there would be some limitations on that since it would
be hard for a future Commission to do that without paying damages to the applicant.
Mr. Robert Hill stated that the Hospital had no problems with the subjects just discussed
and could agree to them.
Mr. Bressner discussed the issue of covered versus surface parking with Mr. Kilday. Mr.
Kilday stated that if their requests were to be approlled, they would meet with the
residents to ascertain their wishes and commit to their choice. Vice Mayor Weiland
stated that the idea of a structure was an attempt on the part of the applicant to make
the project more compatible with the residents. by having a house-like structure rather
than vehicles facing their street.
Mayor Broening asked Mr. Hill if the Hospital had a Comprehensive Plan for its growth.
Mr. Hill stated that they obviously did annual planning and had a view of where they
were going for the next several years. It was very easy to go on the record and say: 'We
do not need to go west any further than this project. The fact that we would ever try to
cross 4'h. S'h. and 6th Street is absolutely nothing that we would ever do." Mr. Bressner
referred to the parking study that Mr. Kilday had alluded to and stated that it was
important for the Commission to be involved in this and to understand as early as
possible what the needs of the Hospital were. He stated that the Hospital had to define
where a future parking garage might go, how it would be designed, and make sure that it
was integrated into a long-range master plan for their campus. The City was looking for
a commitment from the Hospital to work together on this issue. Mr. Hill stated that as
soon as they had that type of study done, they would be prepared to sit with City staff
and discuss those issues.
Mayor Broening stated that one of the problems with the project from the standpoint of
the residents was their perception that the Hospital had not been responsive to their
concerns in the past. He had only heard it anecdotally. This told the Mayor that the
Hospital had a real challenge on its hands in the way it presented itself to the
community.
Attorney Cherof asked that the Commission consider a motion for the land use
amendment and follow it with the rezoning. He thought they might wish to defer
consideration of the rezoning and consolidate that with the Site Plan consideration. Vice
Mayor Weiland wanted to have the Site Plan issue heard separately and wanted to
move on the land use amendment and rezoning at this meeting.
17
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 02-142
TO:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Dev I p nt Board
Dick Hudson en r Planner
j
THROUGH: Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning and Zoning
FROM:
DATE: July 15, 2002
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project/Applicant: Bethesda Memorial Hospital
Agent: Jamie Gentile/Kilday and Associates, Inc
Owner: Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Sintilien Georges, Jesus & Joan Santiago
Location: 2700 block of SW 4th Street (Seacrest Hills) (See Exhibit A)
File No: Land Use Amendment/Rezoning (LUAR 02-004)
Property Description: Four single-family homes as well as vacant property comprising :tL43 acres,
classified Low Density Residential (LDR) and zoned R-l-AA (Single Family
Residential)
Proposed change/nse: To reclassify the subject property from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Public
& Private Governmental/Institutional (PPGI). and rezone from R-l-AA (Single
Family Residential) to PU (Public Use) for the purpose of building an auxiliary
parking facility.
Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning:
North: Developed single-family homes in the Seacrest Hills subdivision. designated Low Density
Residential (LDR) and zoned R-I-AA (single family residential).
South: Developed single-family homes in the Seacrest Hills subdivision, designated Low Density
Residential (LDR) and zoned R-l-AA (single family residential).
East: Developed property (Bethesda Memorial Hospital campus) designated Public & Private
Governmental/ Institutional (PPGI) and zoned PU (Public Use).
West: Right-of-way of SW 4th Street then developed single-family homes in the Seacrest Hills
subdivision, designated Low Density Residential (LDR) and zoned R-I-AA (single family
residential).
PROJECT ANALYSIS
The subject parcel totals :tl,43 acre. Because of the size of the property under consideration, the Florida
Department of Community Affairs classifies this amendment as a "small scale" amendment. A "small-
scale" amendment is adopted prior to forwarding to the Florida Department of Community Affairs and is
not reviewed for compliance with the state and regional plans prior to adoption.
Page 2
Bethesda Memorial Hospital Auxiliary Parking
File Number: LUAR 02-004
The criteria used to review Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings are listed in Article 2.
Section 9, Administration and Enforcement, Item C. Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Rezonings. The
criteria are required to be part of a staff analysis when the proposed change includes an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
a. Whether the proposed amendment/rezoning would be consistent with applicable
comprehensive plan policies including but not limited to. a prohibition against any increase
in dwelling unit density exceeding 50 in the hurricane evacuation zone without written
approval of the Palm Beach County Emergency Planning Division and the City's risk
manager. The planning department shall also recommend limitations or requirements, which
would have to be imposed on subsequent development of the property, in order to comp~v
with policies contained in the comprehensive plan
Policy 1.16.1 provides a definition of the Public and Private Governmental/Institutional land use
classification and lists the uses generally allowed, including: "institutions and quasi-public uses;
hospitals, nursing homes. and other health-care services or agencies.
There are no other Comprehensive Plan policies dealing with this land use classification or the interaction
of the uses allowed in the classification with those allowed in other land use classifications. The intensity
of a hospital use. however. is closely related to more intense commercial or industrial uses. both in terms
of traffic generated, hours of operation, number of persons employed, light and noise impacts. as well as
in terms of benefits to the community. There are policies addressing the incompatibilities between
residential uses and both high-intensity commercial and industrial uses. Policies 1.17.3 and 1.17.4 of the
Future Land Use Element read as follows:
1.17.3 "The City shall continue to utilize and enforce requirements for buffer
walls between residential and commercial or industrial districts as set
forth in the zoning regulations "; and, 1.17.4
1.17.4 "The City shall adopt and enforce regulations to require solid vegetative
screening between industrial and residential uses, wherever practical. in
addition to buffer walls. "
The justification statement submitted by the agent on behalf of the applicant (Exhibit B) underscores the
existing incompatibilities, stating, "Due to the intense nature of the various mechanical equipment that is
located behind the hospital. near the western property line, there have been inevitable conflicts between
the neighbors and the hospital. Discussions with the neighbors have revealed that the primary issue for
them is the noise that the mechanical equipment creates."
b. Whether the proposed amendment/rezoning would be contrary to the established land use
pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. or
would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted
with the protection of the public welfare.
The applicant offers that by extending the hospital-related parking uses into the residential neighborhood;
a suitable and significant buffer can be created to alleviate the incompatibility issues. The proposed land
use amendment and rezoning might appear as ancillary to the abutting hospital uses to the east.
nevertheless, the change would create an intrusion of an incompatible and intense use into the stable
residential neighborhood to the west Even though the hospital's most intense impacts are in very close
proximity to the homes. there is a regular and accepted boundary separating the two uses. The intrusion
of the hospital's uses will not only serve to weaken the existing fabric of a stable residential
neighborhood, but could also have a negative effect on property values, in part by establishing a unique
element that would make the neighborhood less desirous as a place to live.
Page 3
Bethesda Memorial Hospital Auxiliary Parking
File Number: LUAR 02-004
c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable.
The applicant has cited increasing demands for hospital parking as an on-going problem, and proposes to
solve a part of that dilemma with the construction of two covered parking structures for physicians. A
July 1999 in-house parking study. prepared for Bethesda Memorial Hospital by Kimley-Horn and
Associates. Inc.. outlined eleven (II) options (Exhibit C) for meeting the projected increased parking
demands. The expansion proposed in this application was not among those options. and staff is unaware
of any, more recent. update to that 1999 study, which would change those original options.
In June 2000. staff recommended approval for a land use amendment and rezoning for the hospital that
became the site of ancillary parking on the southeast comer of Seacrest Boulevard and SE 24th Avenue.
At that time staff requested that the hospital share their long-range expansion plans with city staff. so that
the hospital's plans could be coordinated with the city's future land use plan. The request has been
repeated several times to various representatives of the hospital who have approached the city in
exploring different parking options.
d Whether the proposed use would be compatible with utility systems. roadways, and other
public facilities.
The proposal to remove four existing dwellings and four vacant parcels from the land supply for residential
use will in turn reduce the demand for water and sewer services as well as recreation facilities and
services. The traffic statement submitted by the applicant states that the proposed parking facilities would
not be provided access to S. W. 4th Street. potentially reducing traffic on the residential street by as many
as 40 trips per day. and is not expected to generate any additional traffic to the overall hospital property.
With respect to solid waste the Solid Waste Authority has stated. within a letter dated December 18. 2001,
that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the county's municipalities throughout the 10-year planning
period. Lastly. drainage will also be reviewed in detail as part of the review of the conditional use
application. and must satisfY all requirements of the city and local drainage permitting authorities.
e. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatihle with the current andfuture use of
adjacent and nearhy properties, or would affect the property values of adjacent or nearby
properties.
As stated in response to criterion "b" above. both the applicant and staff agree that the use is incompatible
with the abutting residential uses. While the applicant sees the construction of parking structures as an
enhancement to the residential neighborhood that could have a positive influence on property values, staff
is of the opposite opinion.
f Whether the properZv is physical~v and economical~v developable under the existing zoning
Physically. the vacant property is developable for single-family homes. In the justification for the
amendment/rezoning, the applicant states that some of the most noxious uses associated with the hospital
abut these properties. thereby already reducing the economic value of them for residential use; and further
states. that the size and dimensions of the property make it unsuitable for any hospital-related use other
than parking.
g Whether the proposed amendment/rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the
needs of the neighborhood and the ciZv as a whole.
Based on site plans submitted for the parking structures, there will be a total of eighty-five (85) covered
parking spaces provided. Given the existing spaces that will be lost to circulation and landscaping. the
net increase is seventy-three (73) spaces. This increase may relate to the immediate needs ofthe
hospital's doctors; however, it seems to be only another incremental adjustment to temporarily solve a
problem that should be handled through a comprehensive master parking plan. In addition. while solving
Page 4
Bethesda Memorial Hospital Auxiliary Parking
File Number: LUAR 02-004
its own immediate problem, the hospital is creating lasting problems for the stable residential
neighborhood that must absorb its impacts.
h. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the city for the proposed use, in districts
where such use is already allowed
Because of the very nature of an accessory parking use, a citywide consideration of sites is not applicable;
however. based on the information contained in the 1999 parking study, there are no other areas adjacent
to the hospital that can serve as parking and would also afford the physicians the proximity to the hospital
that they require.
CONCLUSIONSIRECOMMENDA nONS
As indicated herein. this request is not consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Granting the
applicant's request will not create additional impacts on infrastructure that have not been anticipated in
the Comprehensive Plan; however, the amendment and rezoning will be incompatible with adjacent land
uses and could have a negative effect on the value of the adjacent residential properties. Therefore. staff
recommends that the subject request be denied. Jfthe final recommendation is for approval of the
request. conditions should be added to the approval that would ensure the construction ofa solid six (6)
foot masonry wall and heavy landscaping completely along the boundary separating the hospital uses
from the residential neighborhood, in conformance with the Future Land Use Element policies 1.17.3 and
1.17.4. These would be included as a separate exhibit
ATTACHMENTS
\\Ch\MAIN\SHRDA T A\PlanmngISHARED\ WPIPROJECTSIBelhesdalLUAR 20U2\staff report,doc
23RP 1ER
~W~~?IHA\:,J;'~ .
, ' 'AREA "An'
--- -~
,
--~
'c~-=-- --R- . 'mA' ". ' ".'.
-- ,------ --<, .~
. . I
, - - ' .--','
, ciJ- -;--
u~ :1E-
_____---J
-;,
--,- (f) - -
,- .'-.1 - .,' I <
· --1 -c - I ~ ',<- ~~
~ I ~-i - ' ~--f--- CJ'1_~~
~.--C" .....--1 II
" m...--, I, '- -, ::E-"c - (f)'
~_~,_"C --,= (1)_ -_~' ''--;L
, :1E,.
--~ - .q)- -
i --1~ - ~_.- ~ -
--,.c.--'-,I
300
Location Map
Exhibit A
R3
24-TH..AVE
PUD
s
. ___;-___ ,-----c--...----
E",24J
!
, ' ;
25TtlAVE
6'
i ! '
I ,
_5_ m7wE~~'-
PU
.::,.Q-- - ' --- -
<$' , .
t.;-~ --'-c-. 1H,~VE _.. _.'-c
~ II i I.. ....
0_ --'-t--1--L, - . '.
S I',l! i~-[;-
0,---=-~E--2,7'+HA VE~
o r=~-' i-: '~~
--~Ir- --~
! I I
c~~~7'-THc.G+. _-=-'
_ A
,..-----
----:-~ ~
o
,
w-<?-'
300
600 Feet
s
Kilday & Associates
Landscape Architects / Planners
1551 Forum Place, Suite 100A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(561) 689-5522' Fax (561) 689-2592
E-Mail: info@kildayinc.com
Exhibit 8
JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
Bethesda Hospital Land Use / Rezoning
This petition is presented by Kilday & Associates, Inc, as authorized agent for the
property owners. to amend the land use designation and zoning on property located
around the Bethesda Memorial Hospital. This application will amend the land use
designation on a 1.43 acre from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Public-Private,
Government/Institutional (PPGI), and the zoning from RIM to Public Use (PD). Upon
approval of this application (as well as a concurrent rezoning application on 10 acres
along the northern property line of the hospital) the entire hospital property will be under
a single land use designation (PPGI) and zoning district (PU). which are consistent with
the uses associated with the hospital.
The subject property includes eight lots. six (lots 1-6) of these are owned by the hospital.
The remaining two lots (lots 7 & 8) are under contract by the hospital for purchase.
These eight lots are part of an established residential subdivision called Seacreast Hills.
A central problem that the hospital has repeatedly faced over the years is a shortage of
adequate parking spaces. This has created an unsightly and dangerous situation for its
staff. patients, and visitors. Presently, the most acute parking shortage for the hospital is
in the physician parking area behind the main building. Therefore, the hospital is
proposing to construct additional parking spaces, within a covered parking structure,
which will serve the hospital's physicians. A concurrent site plan application has been
submitled with this application for these covered parking spaces.
This proposal will serve two purposes. First. it will provide the necessary parking spaces
for the hospital physicians. close to the physician entrance. Second. it will help to resolve
some of the incompatibility problems that currently exist between the hospital and
adjacent homeowners. The area subject to this application currently serves as a buffer
zone between the residential community and the hospital. The current uses on site (single
family homes and vacant lots) have failed to provide a sufficient functional barrier
between the adjacent incongruent land uses. Due to the intense nature of the various
mechanical equipment that is located behind the hospital. near the western property line,
there have been inevitable conflicts between the neighbors and the hospital.
Discussions with the neighbors have revealed that the primary issue for them is the noise
that the mechanical equipment creates. These residents have recommended that a solid
wall be constructed to act as a visual and functional barrier along the western property
line. The proposed land use amendment, rezoning, and subsequent site plan approval will
permit the hospital to rectify the existing incompatibilities along this property line by
JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
Bethesda Hospital
Pagel of 4
~
incorporating a substantial barrier between the hospital and adjacent homes. In addition,
some of the existing parking pressures that exist within the hospital property can be
relieved with the physicians parking area.
RESPONSES TO APPliCATION OUESTIONS
II (g)
1) Whether the proposed land use amendment/rezoning would be consistent with
applicable comprehensive plan policies.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies described in the
previous section.
2) Whether the proposed land use amendmentlrezoning would be contrary to the
established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to
adjacent and nearby districts or would constitute a grant of special privilege to
an individual property owner as contrasted with the protection of the public
welfare.
The existing land use pattern along the west property line of the hospital has been
established and has proven to be problematic for both the hospital and the adjacent
homeowners. The various mechanical uses located in the rear of the hospital property,
combined with the lack of a significant physical buffer, have created this problem. In
addition, the hospital's unsatisfactory parking situation for their physicians is a problem
that the hospital must resolve. This petition helps to rectify both situations.
3) Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed land use
amendment/rezoning desirable.
The continued mechanical operations behind the hospital have created compatibility
issues for the adjacent neighbors. In addition. the hospital's parking needs are contingent
upon the growth and continued success of the medical facilities.
4) Whether the proposed land use amendmentlrezoning would be compatible with
utility systems, roadways and other public facilities.
Since this application will result in a reduction of eight dwelling units, this petition will
reduce the impacts on the City's public services.
5) Whether the proposed land use amendmentlrezoning would be compatible with
the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties or would affect
the property values of adjacent and nearby properties.
As a result of this land use/rezoning approval, the incompatibility issues that currently
exist along the western property line of the hospital can be alleviated. The value of the
adjacent properties will benefit from the creation of a substantial, attractive buffer along
this property line. Also, property values will increase by virtue of fact that their will now
be certainty in the hospital boundaries and its proposed uses for the area.
6) Whether the property is physical and economically developable under the
existing land use designation/zoning.
The subject lots are adjacent to the most noxious uses associated with the hospital, which
has created problems for several of the current residents. Obviously. developing the
JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
Bethesda Hospital
Page 2 014
~
remainder of the lots as single family homes, as is currently permitted in the land use and
zoning district, would be a grievous error. Bringing these lots, six of which are already
owned by the hospital, into the overall Bethesda Hospital plan is the best use for these
properties.
7) Whether the proposed land use amendmentlrezoning is of a scale that is
reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the city as a whole.
The scale of this land use/rezoning has been established to meet the exact needs of the
hospital. the surrounding community, as well as the City's healthcare needs.
8) Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the city for the proposed use, in
districts where such use is already allowed.
Considering the fact that the physicians parking area must be in close proximity to the
hospital and the fact that there are existing incompatibility issues which can be rectified
with this petition. there are no other similarly available site.
Il(h) ].5
A comparison of the impacts that would be created by the development under
the proposed zoning with the impacts that would be created by development
under the proposed zoning.
The existing zoning for is RIAA. There are eight platted single family lots on the
property. Therefore, eight single family homes could be built on the site. each with
driveways accessing SW 4th St. This rezoning to PU is to permit the area to be used for
physician parking and will eliminate the accesses onto SW 4th St. The size and
dimensions of the site essentially make it unsuitable for any other hospital uses. By
eliminating the potential for eight homes, the impacts on water. sewer, traffic, etc will be
diminished with this rezoning approval.
Il.(h)6
Comparison of water demand for proposed and existing zoning.
The Palm Beach County standard for determining water demand is 180 gallons per capita
and 2.4 persons per unit. Under the existing zoning the site would generate a total of
3,456 gallons per day. Under the proposed zoning, there are no anticipated no water
needs. In addition, the landscaping irrigation facilities that will serve this site
landscaping are already available to the property.
Il(h)(7)
Comparison of sewer demand for proposed and existing zoning.
The Palm Beach County standard for determining sewer demand is 100 gallons per capita
and 2.4 persons per unit. The existing zoning will generate 1,920 gallons per day. Under
the proposed zoning. there are no anticipated sewer needs.
JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
Bethesda Hospital
Page 3 0/4
"
II.c.(8-12)
At the request of the Planning Department, Planning and Development Board,
or City Commission, the applicant shall provide additional information
regarding the site.
The proposed zoning changes will only decrease the impacts on the community's water.
sewer, and roadway facilities. In addition, the adjacent properties will be served by
providing a solid, aesthetically pleasing buffer between the back of the hospital and the
existing residential community.
Additional information will be provided to staff or officials as needed.
JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
Bethesda Hospital
Page4of4
~=~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
AL TERNA T1VES FOR PARKING EXPANSION
Options
To accommodate this increase in demand, the following options for parking
expansion were identified by the Bethesda Memorial Hospital staff:
1. Northwest parking lot - converting to a three-level garage
2. Northwest parking lot - converting to a two-level garage
3. Northeast parking lot - converting to a three-level garage
4. Northeast parking lot - converting to a two-level garage
5. 23"' Avenue property (north of hospital) - constructing a suiface parking
lot
6. 23"' Avenue / Seacrest Boulevard property - constructing a suiface parking
lot
7. 2800 Seacrest Boulevard property - constructing a suiface parking lot
8. 2800 Seacrest Boulevard property - constructing a two-level garage
9a. 2800 Seacrest Boulevard property - constructing a two-level garage + J
story building
9b. 2800 Seacrest Boulevard property - constructing a three-level garage
10. Early Learning Center border expansion - constructing a suiface parking
lot
II. Westchester residential area - constructing a suiface parking lot
Table 3 lists the approximate number of parking spaces that could be added by each
option listed above. The actual number of spaces that can be built on a site is
highly dependent on a number of factors, including site configuration, parking
space dimensions, and landscaping requirements. The estimates provided in this
04059600-0899
Page 10
Exhibit C
GOLF RD.
~
,.----,
N.W. I
PARKING I
GARAGE I
G)@:
I
I
I
I
I
)
/
/
'" /
.... /
0"'"
"
,
~
~
)
NOT TO SCALE
.-\_~.-.-,-
23rd AVE.
r - NE.- -1 L _~~ :~~ :~R~~L_~_ _ ~,,:~/
I PARKING I r,..-..:-..;--- ---- ---- --~....
I GARAGE III I
r;::J\ rA\ III I
I ~~ III I
I r--JII I
I I II I
I I II I
I II I
I I II IEARL Y
I : II ILEARNING
I I II ICENTER
I II IBORDER
~ J II IEXPANSION
-- ::@:@1
II I I
~..:-:____________J
WESTCHESTER
RESIDENTIAL
AREA
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
/
/
I
/
"
"
"
(
I
I
I
24th A V.
FIGURE 3
BETHESDA HOSPITAL
PARKING ALTERNATIVES
~=~ =tes.lnc.
.
040690.00