Loading...
LEGAL APPROVAL ~ The City of Boynton Beach DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISON 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 TEL: 561-742-6260 FAX: 561-742-6259 June 16,2009 www.boynton-beach.org Mr. Michael DeSimone 6462 NW 63rd Way Parkland, FL 33067 Re: For: File No. Location Ocean 95 Exchange Plaza Site Plan Time Extension SPTE 09-005 514-518 W. Ocean Ave. Dear Mr. DeSimone: Enclosed is the City of Boynton Beach Development Order completed to document the City Commission's action on May 19, 2009 denying the request for a one-year time extension of new site plan NWSP 06-020 originally approved on October 17, 2006. Therefore, the site plan is now expired. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office at (561) 742-6269. Sincerely, ~ Michael W. Rumpf Director of Planning & Zoning Enclosure S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Ocean 95 Exchange Park\SPTE 09-005\DENIAL time extension.rtf . c . DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA Development PIZ Building Engineering Occ. L1cen.. Deputy City C.... PROJECT NAME: Ocean 95 Exchange Plaza APPLICANT'S AGENT: Mr. Michael DeSimone ~ _. "u_ APPLICANT: Mr. Michael DeSimone APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 6462 NW 63rd Way, Parkland, FL 33067 DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: May 19, 2009 TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request a one (l)-year site plan time extension until February 23, 2010, to construct 133,911 square feet of office / warehouse on a 6.77-acre parcel in the M-1 Light Industrial zoning district. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 514 though 518 West Ocean Avenue, which is located on the south side of West Ocean Avenue, directly abutting the east side of the C.S.X. Railroad tracks and the west side of Interstate 95 (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map) DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO. X THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the public finds as follows: 1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations. 2. The Applicant ~NOT established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested. 3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on Exhibit "0" with notation "Included". 4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby _ GJ3ANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof. ~ENIED 5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk. 6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this orde 7. Other DATED: ~ Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 28, 2009 1. Final disposition of the March 24, 2009 Planning and Development Board Meeting Agenda items. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, reported on April 21, 2009, the City Commission approved the following: . Dr. Sibia office building site plan · Land Development Code amendments to the banner regulations In response to a concern from the Board, a handout regarding the status of the fence at the Charter School of Boynton Beach was distributed, a copy of which would be forwarded to Mr. Poznak. Mr. Breese announced Mr. Lis had a scheduling conflict and could not attend the meeting. Chair Jaskiewicz had received comments from him that would be read into the record regarding the agenda items. 6. Old Business. None. 7. New Business. Attorney Alexander administered the oath to all who would be testifying. A. Ocean 95 Exchange Plaza Site Plan Time Extension 1. PROJECT: AGENT: OWNER: LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: Ocean 95 Exchange Plaza (SPTE 09-005) Michael C. De Simone Michael C. De Simone 514-518 West Ocean Avenue Request for a one-year time extension for a new site plan (NWSP 06-020) approved on October 17,2006, thereby extending site plan approval from February 23, 2009 to February 23, 2010. (Note: a Mitigation Agreement changed the approval effective date of the development order to August 23, 2007). Kathleen Zeitler, Planner, presented the request for a time extension as contained in the staff report. The property was located south of West Ocean Drive, between the CSX Railroad tracks (to the west) and Interstate 95 (to the east). The staff report for the approved site plan proposed a total of 133,911 square feet of light/industrial flex space, an office/warehouse use on a 6.77-acre site. It included a designated truck access route to 2 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 28, 2009 the project along West Ocean Drive. Alternate access to the project was explored by the City. The mitigation agreement allows the developer to proceed with the development of the project, without regard to the City's plans to construct the necessary roadway improvements to the truck route, or to secure an alternate access route. The justification for the request for the extension was the current economic conditions were not conducive to undertaking the project. It also indicated the applicant remained committed to the successful development of the project in the future, as economic conditions improved. More formal criterion for evaluating requests for the time extension was compliance with traffic concurrency requirements. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the traffic study for the project based on 1,089 new daily trips generated by the proposed development. The approval included a restriction that no building permits for the project would be issued after the build-out year of 2009, and an updated traffic approval letter with an updated build-out date would be required from traffic engineering prior to issuing the first building permit for the project. Staff recommended approval with two conditions of approval. If the request is approved, the expiration would be extended to February 23, 2010 and all outstanding conditions of approval for the prior development orders must still be addressed during the building permit process. Michael DeSimone, the owner of the property, explained he owned the property since 1995. They met all the requirements of the City, and the Planning and Zoning Division wanted the one-year extension because the economy was not conducive to construction. No alterations had been made to the site plan submitted. Mr. DeSimone advised he did not know if the project would be similar to a condominium concept as time would determine if the project would be a rental or sold to various individual owners. The mitigation and access status was questioned. Ms. Zeitler explained that at the last City Commission meeting the consultant presented his study. The City Commission was aware the applicant would come before them on May 19, 2009 with the site plan and they had questions and deferred making a decision until that time. The railroad represented the southern access route, which involved changes to the design of the railroad crossing and other items. The cost would be approximately $1.5 million. It was questioned whether the railroad would incur some of those costs. Mr. DeSimone advised he met with the consultant and there were many questions raised that they had not considered. He thought an alternate location would be difficult because of insurance, easements, the distances between the railroad crossings, and the railroad having to close one opening and open another. Bulldog has a perpetual easement and there were insurance issues associated with that. The estimate of $1.5 million was a conservative estimate. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 28, 2009 The Board inquired about the criteria to approve a site plan time extension. Ms. Zeitler responded the access route was a site planning issue and the site plan was approved twice. The merit of the project is not considered and would not come into play with the extension. The basis for approval or denial was strictly whether the project met the criteria for the extension or not. Examples of criteria used were things the developer or owner has done to move the project forward such as permits, fees, traffic concurrency. Mr. DeSimone had not pursued permits because once a permit is obtained, there was a limited amount of time to start the project. He would like an extension; he paid the road impact fees, and they have not changed the plans. Ms. Barritt noted the condition that if the building permit was not issued by the end of the year, the applicant had to return to the County for a traffic concurrency study. Mr. DeSimone had no 'objection to the condition and explained he would like to move forward, but he did not know where things would be in 2009. He had a moratorium imposed on him for a year, and the project should have been constructed already. The property is being marketed and was for sale. He was open to suggestions. Chair Jaskiewicz opened the floor for public comments. Attorney Alexander administered the oath to Ms. Mahoney. Carol Mahoney, 737 SW 1 st Avenue, commented the study was done and it was feasible to move the truck route as it would pass a park and travel through a residential neighborhood. Truck traffic would increase from 10 trucks a day to 1,180 trucks a day. Her daughter personally walks the truck route home from school and would for the next three years. She requested the Board deny the extension. Chair Jaskiewicz pointed out it was not the site plan the community was objecting to; it was the traffic route and every effort was being made to alter the route within reason. It was explained the project met the zoning requirements. John Fox, 135 W. Ocean Drive, requested the Board reconsider the extension based on the study presented. An alternative route could increase public safety and there would not be an excess of commercial traffic or 53-foot trailers driving through. The community has signs indicating there are no trucks allowed through the neighborhood at every entrance with the exception being the entrance by the former Waffle House. The railroad crossing would need to be moved, which would benefit the community and public safety. He reported the Department of Transportation has a campaign to reduce crossings or improve their safety. The current crossing was outdated and moving it and updating it with modern signals would allow the trains to not sound the whistle. He thought there would be some adjustments to the site plan to make it work for everyone. He suggested it be reviewed before making a decision. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 28, 2009 Chair Jaskiewicz explained there would not be trailers as there were smaller bays at the site. She agreed with his comments about access but indicated the comments should be submitted to the railroad company. Vinola Rada, 718 SW 3rd Avenue, announced the City Commission approved the study which indicated they approached Mr. DeSimone and asked for an access easement from Bulldog Fence Co. and he refused it. She announced the residents present agreed with Mr. Fox's statement and were present for the safety of the community and children. They will attend the Commission meeting and she advised that Commissioner Rodriguez does not feel the site plan should be approved. She also indicated there was an area in the bay for trucks to unload and there were loading docks. Chair Jaskiewicz explained large trucks need elevated loading docks, and the plans she reviewed did not have elevated loading docks. Ms. Rada disagreed and advised there were loading docks. Jonah Tennant, 653 SW 4th Avenue, advised his son rides his bicycle to the park. If the Board approves the extension, it has the potential to open the back area by the Winchester property and the Woolbright Bridge that crosses 1-95. There would be more traffic traveling . there. He reported that Commissioner Rodriguez, at the last meeting, alluded to Mr. DeSimone being unwilling to change the plans or obtain an easement with Bulldog Fence. Bulldog Fence would drive through his property to get to their property, and the applicant was driving through their neighborhood to get to his property. He advised they did not want that and he did not know what kind of person would do that to families. There were signs on 1- 95 advertising industrial suites. Now the sign says property for sale. Mr. Tennant explained if they can prevent one child's death it was worth it. He requested they take a hard look at the extension and deny it. Chair Jaskiewicz explained the Board's job is to determine whether the applicant meets the criteria for the extension. The City has granted other extensions and to deny this request would be difficult without a valid reason. She acknowledged Mr. Tennent's concerns and advised that previously there was a heavier intensity of use, although the lighter use would still increase traffic. Additionally, the use would still need to meet the building and zoning requirements, which was M-1, Ught Industrial. Mr. Tennant inquired if the Board approved the extension, if the permits were transferrable to a new owner. Ms. Zeitler explained the extension would only keep the site plan alive for another year. Once building permits are issued, the clock stops and the projec;:t is no longer vested or subject to site plan expiration. If another owner comes along, they could construct the same thing, but if they wanted to change anything, they would have to obtain a major site plan modification and the clock would start all over again. Site plan approval, versus not having the approval, would make a big difference in the value of the property. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 28, 2009 Wendy Franklin, 121 NW 6th Street, indicated trucks for Bulldog Fence come in the morning, load a couple of trucks and are gone all day. The semi tractor-trailors were great, but the applicant could not guarantee there would not be semi tractor-trailers. She asserted even without a dock, a semi could be loaded. The drawings the City Commission had reflected the project going south through the other property. The City Commission indicated they would pursue the southern route, and the railroad was contacted. She contacted the railroad two years ago and reported they were always willing to relocate a crossing when it came into a residential neighborhood and there was a danger. The City has to obtain a sliver of land from a bank that probably does not want it because the property is landlocked. The obstacle holding up the project was who would want to rent the building when they saw where they have to go. She advised he could have his own road right off of an 1-95 exit. Individuals going south on 1-95 would see the property. The City Commission approved obtaining the information from DOT. Additionally, Ms. Franklin recalled the residents were told the neighborhood would be notified when the item would be heard. The City Commission had a meeting last week and they were not notified. Accordingly, they had no input. Jeff Morgan, 745 SW 1st Court, urged the Board to consider denying the extension. He thoughy things had changed since the original site plan. They had not considered the southern alternate route. By denying the extension, it could turn the project into a positive. The property cou~d be viewed in a new way - as a project tha.t could adapt to the community. They could work together, instead of having a project the community does not want. He reported because of the possible route to the south, it made the site plan different. Jim Bogart, 721 SW Lake CO!Jrt, the former President, Vice President and Treasurer of Palm Beach Leisureville explained Ocean Drive traverses their community. Traffic would impact them and their community is a senior community. Residents have canes, and walkers; some residents have poor sight and poor hearing. He advised the traffic would be a safety issue for their co'mmunity just as much as it would be for the children in the neighboring community. Real estate values would be impacted and the traffic co'uld run down both communities. He asked the members to consider the factors, be cognizant of the wants of the community, and how they would feel if the project were put in their community. ' Victor Norfus, 261 N. Palm Drive, spoke on behalf of the community and was not in favor of the project. He clarifyied he did not live there; however, he grew up in the area. He indicated now that Interstate 95 was constructed it would be difficult to have an industrial area there. There was an old train station there, and at the last City Commission meeting, they discussed the cost to improve it. He expressed it should remain a residential area and housing should be there as opposed to a business that would attract heavy truck use. Additionally, the route the trucks would use was not designed for heavy truck traffic. He thought it was a bad idea and it would not be successful in the present economy having a traffic route there. He was against it. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 28, 2009 Chair Jaskiewicz indicated she was unsure the Board had the authority to deny the request, as the property was for sale and the project may be non-existent. Attorney Alexander explained the authority of the Planning and Development Board is advisory and they should recommend to the City Commission whether the extension should be approved or not. The City Commission, based on whatever factors it considers relevant, would decide on the extension of the site plan. The Board needed to recognize that certain permits and other items may expire that would have to be renewed prior to issuance of a final building permit. Approval can be recommended with conditions to the City Commission, and they make the ultimate decision. Mr. Myott expressed the site plan expired and the Board was being asked for an extension. Ms. Zeitler clarified the plan had not expired because they submitted the request for extension prior to the expiration date. Mr. Myott expressed he did not believe the Board was obligated to approve it. The time for the applicant to obtain his permits and drawings was going to expire, and the Board did not have to allow him time to obtain them. Attorney Alexander explained there was no automatic approval of the site plan extension request, but it has been the City's practice to recommend approval at least upon the first request. Other projects requested extensions citing the same general market conditions and the Board approved them. . Mr. Myott felt other requests did not have the impact this project did. He also indicated he would vote on the extension the way he would have voted on the initial request, had he served on the Board when it was heard. Ms. Zeitler was not aware of any variances attached to the property. She clarified if the property was zoned M-1, the applicant has the right to build it to the use it was zoned for. She announced they could make recommendations to make it as safe as possible. similar to the conditions they imposed with the Charter School. Ms. Mahoney indicated the only thing the Board had to do was deny the application. Chair Jaskiewicz read Mr. Lis' comments into the record on the request as follows: "Okay, as long as they have complied with all previous conditions." The previous conditions included in the consensus of the Board when it was approved was an alternate route be studied and pursued. It was also noted Mr. Barnes had previously requested different elevations on the buildings facing the neighborhood Vice Chair Saberson agreed the Board would not like to see traffic going through the neighborhood but he was unsure how they could proceed. When it was initially heard, the motion had the caveat that the site plan was okay but there was a traffic issue. He noted the applicant had the right to develop the property, but off-site impacts are considered. Unless the City can achieve a more satisfactory resolution of ingress or egress, he was not in favor of furthering the site plan. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 28, 2009 Mr. Fox responded most residents were not opposed to having something developed on the site. The problem was they did not want the route through the residential area, and the site plan currently is not conducive to the alternate route. That was why they wanted the extension denied, so the plan could be revised and opened to the southern route. Chair Jaskiewicz recalled when the plan was presented, the consensus was it was an improvement to what was on the property. There were drug deals and many calls to the police about it. The property degraded the neighborhood. The recommendation made was to have another route for ingress and egress. Chair Jaskiewicz sympathized with the residents but disagreed to the earlier comment there were loading docks. Mr. Tennent announced the property was land locked by the residential neighborhood. There was a property owner at the south end (Winchester Property) and they tried to enlist their cooperation and press for the railroad crossing being moved there to give him access before he decided to develop. Ms. Grcevic spoke about the industrial park by L.A. Fitness, which had garages and trucks that could pull in the back. There were no semis there. The park on High Ridge Ro.ad had a higher intensity of use and had a lot more trucks. If the project was similar to L.A. Fitness, there would be less of an impact. Mr. Bogart emphasized the concern was there was a lack of cooperation if they did pursue the southern route in granting an easement through the property, and moving the railroad crossing. Chair Jaskiewicz pointed out there was good will, otherwise they would not have authorized the study. Ms. Franklin explained at the City Commission meeting, they were advised that Mr. DeSimone was not interested in cooperating. She explained she owns the property across the railroad tracks and there was never a problem with drugs or vagrants; rather, there were more problems at the American Legion Hall and the industrial area by L.A. Fitness did not have a school. Chair Jaskiewicz pointed out the Charter School was nearby. Ms. Killian was aware the community has been pursuing the issue for 2.5 years. She acknowledged the resistance was not to the project, it was with the access. She advised she could not support the project the way it was, and there had to be a way to come to terms with it. Chair Jaskiewicz requested a motion and asked that the approval be contingent on pursuing an additional ingress and egress, and they want them to continue to pursue another route as legally, the B<?ard could only recommend. Motion 8 Meeting Minutes Planning and Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida April 28, 2009 Mr. Myott moved to deny the time extension for the project. Ms. Killian seconded the motion. Mr. Saberson disclosed his son lives in the affected area. He consulted with Attorney Alexander who indicated he did not need to abstain, only to make the declaration. Mr. DeSimone acknowledged the situation but he was caught in the middle. He owned the property for 14 years and he was trying to develop it. He advised the loading bays were non-existent as the property is long and narrow, and not conducive to a tractor-trailer. When he first received site plan approval, the Board recommended a study based on eliminating a few homes and entering through a north route. In time, the route was deemed inappropriate. The southern route was fairly new. They approached him eight or nine months ago about it and said he would consider it and he was open to suggestions. The project was fine. The problem was the roads to it, and he has no control over them. He was willing to sit down with engineers and he was not opposed to anything. As a father and grandfather, he also advised he did not want anyone to get hurt. Vote A roll call vote was taken and cthe motion failed 3-4 (Chair Jaskiewicz, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Grcevic and Ms. Barritt dissenting.) Motion . i Mr. Barnes moved to approve the site plan extension subject to all the previous conditions and subject to the condition that the developer seriously explore the southern access route. Ms. Grcevic seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and th~ motion passed 4 to 3 (Vice Chair Saberson, Ms. Killian and Mr. Myott dissenting.) Mr. Breese requested the following two items be heard together and action taken by two separate motions at the end. B. Interim Amendment to the land Development Regulations: Funeral Home with Cemetery as allowed use in C-3 Zoning District Code Review 1. PROJECT: AGENT: DESCRIPTION: Funeral Home with Cemetery (CDRV 09-004) City-initiated Request for interim amendment to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning to allow Funeral Homes with Cemetery in the Community Commercial (C-3) zoning district, on parcels in excess of 10 acres. Mr. Breese advised both amendments are intended to accommodate the current 9