MINUTES OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH REGULAR MEETING

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH REGULAR MEETING MEETING DATE: February 12, 2014 MEETING PLACE: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: City Commission Chambers Jose Aguila (6:02), Jason Bregman, Alice Finst, Mark Gregory, James Knight, Rustem Kupi, and Terra Spero None Estelio Breto, Candi Jefferson, Rebecca Truxell and Interim City Attorney Terrill Pyburn I. CALL TO ORDER: 6:01 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. Mr. Estelio Breto, Senior Planner and Board Liaison stated the agenda needed to be changed as the applicant for item III.A. would be arriving late and asked that he be placed last on the agenda. Therefore, Item III.A. would become Item IV.D. Chair Kupi read the Quasi-Judicial Rules for the City of Delray Beach and Ms. Truxell swore in all who wished to give testimony on any agenda item. II. MINUTES It was moved by Mr. Gregory, seconded by Mr. Aguila for approval of the Minutes of January 8, Said motion passed with a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. III. MISCELLANEOUS (The item on the agenda as III.A. was moved to IV.D. at the request of the applicant) IV. PROJECT PLANS A. S & H Exxon; 206 NE 4 th Street; Paul Lingerfeldt, MDM Services, Inc.; Class III Site Plan Modification associated with conversion of three (3) existing automotive service bays to retail use for interior expansion of the existing convenience store for the gas station. Chair Kupi asked if there had been any ex-parte communication on this item and Ms. Finst stated she had visited the property. Ms. Candi Jefferson, Senior Planner entered file number into the record and projected a location map as well as an aerial map of the property. She said the action before the Board is to approve a Class III Site Plan modification request to allow conversion of three (3) existing automotive service bays to retail use for interior expansion of the existing convenience store for the gas station, pursuant to LDR Section 2.4.5(G)(1)(c). Ms. Jefferson advised on January 27, 2014 the Planning & Zoning Board considered and approved the conditional use minor modification request to allow conversion of the three (3) existing service bays to retail use for expansion of the existing S & H Exxon convenience store. The approval was made with numerous conditions and she said they had satisfied three (3) of those and two (2) of the remaining conditions are addressed with requested 1

2 waivers. However, Ms. Jefferson said several conditions remain outstanding and have been attached as conditions of approval for the site plan. She said there are additional conditions of approval on the landscape plan and architectural elevations. She then described the aforementioned waivers and conditions. Ms. Jefferson advised that a CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) review had been done by the Delray Beach Police Department and they did not find any significant crime within the area. She said the Board had been provided a record (called a GRID report) of the police activity in the area and nothing of significance was noted for this address. Ms. Jefferson stated the applicant must revise the photometric plan they had submitted and once the plan is brought into compliance with the LDRs it should also assist in deterring crime. Ms. Jefferson then described the proposed elevations and said that staff thought they would be an improvement and recommended approval of the elevations. The site plan shall include the installation of a bicycle rack for patrons who may frequent the expanded convenience store Ms. Jefferson stated and said the provision of an on-site bicycle rack is a condition of approval. She said, as the project is located within the TCEA, this requirement is necessary and, upon meeting this requirement, the development proposal will be consistent with the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan and associated policies. Ms. Jefferson concluded her presentation by stating staff recommended approval of the Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations with the conditions listed in the staff report. Applicant s Presentation Mr. Paul Lingerfeldt of MDM Services, representative for the owner and applicant stated the waivers were required because this is a small site and it was very important that they comply with the parking requirements. He said they would also be significantly increasing the percentage of types of landscaping. Mr. Lingerfeldt said they would be freshening up the exterior of the building and adding a trash enclosure. He said they will now be offering freshly prepared sandwiches and salads in the convenience store and will continue to sell beer and wine. He concluded by stating they agree to meet all of the conditions of approval. Public Comments There were none. Board Discussion Ms. Spero asked about why the windows could not just be brought down towards the finished floors in order for them to comply with the transparency issue. Ms. Jefferson replied they could do so and that, if the Board wished, they could make that a condition of approval. The Board pointed out that the rendering in their packets showed the windows already going to the floor and Ms. Jefferson stated that must have been an old rendering because the current proposal did not show the windows going to the floor. She confirmed that, even if they went to the floor, they were still lacking the required percentage for transparency. Ms. Spero then said that she patronized this station all of the time and that there is always an issue with the way cars maneuver and park there and asked how they planned to resolve this. Mr. Lingerfeldt replied they had added the landscape buffer so you will no longer be able to 2

3 cross into the alley like one could currently do. Ms. Spero asked if people would then be able to pull in only in an east/west direction and Mr. Lingerfeldt confirmed that was correct. Mr. Bregman said he used to go to this station all of the time also but stopped going because the pumps were often not working or overflowing rather than being stopped by the auto-stop mechanism. He said it was an environmental issue as well as the gasoline was leaking into the ground. Mr. Lingerfeldt said the owner/operator was present and he was sure this would be corrected when they took over. Mr. Bregman stated he was also concerned about the lighting and knew there was already a condition regarding reducing the foot-candles but he said that he thought another condition needed to be added that the lights be shielded and between twenty-seven hundred (2,700) and three-thousand (3,000) kelvins so the neighboring residential communities would not be disturbed with excessive light at night. Mr. Lingerfeldt said they were aware there was excessive lighting and they were already working with their lighting manufacturer to correct this. Mr. Bregman then said he was surprised they were replacing the existing light fixture on the pump island and Mr. Lingerfeldt replied they were putting an LED single fixture light there to make sure the customers could read the safety instructions on the pumps. Mr. Bregman then said he would like to see something done with the west elevation, perhaps some planter boxes or some type of vine since there would not be the landscape buffer which would usually be required there. Mr. Lingerfeldt said they could accommodate this. Mr. Bregman then asked about the tables which were still shown on the site plan and said that he thought these should be removed as they contribute to loitering which has been a problem in that area. Mr. Stuart Lutz, potential owner/operator of the station addressed the Board and said he was sorry to hear of the Board member(s) problems with the gas nozzles and said that would not happen if his purchase of the station went through. Mr. Lutz said he did not know there was an issue with having tables where they are shown on the plans. He said they planned to have tables there with paddle fans above them to change the mood of the site to a softer, friendly environment. Mr. Bregman replied that he might be open to this idea, as long as the other Board members were, if the cashier window was expanded so there was some oversight of that space. Ms. Finst asked if they were eliminating any of the pumps and Mr. Lingerfeldt said they were not. Ms. Finst asked about what was in a section of the existing building and Mr. Lingerfeldt said it was old equipment which would be removed. He also said the fence referred to by Ms. Finst would be removed. Mr. Gregory said he was happy to see this project come in as the site really needed to be cleaned up. He agreed with Mr. Bregman that if they want to have tables they need to expand the cashier window. Mr. Aguila said he thought the removal of the vehicle repair facility would be an improvement to the site as that added to the unsightliness of the site. He asked about the hours of operation and Mr. Lingerfeldt said they would be open from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Aguila said he was concerned about what would be happening during the hours the station was closed, such as vagrants sleeping under the tables or benches. He then asked Ms. Jefferson about the required transparency on the glass area and said he was concerned because these types of establishments tended to put lots of stickers on the glass to the point it was almost impossible to see in. Ms. Jefferson said the glass area was supposed to have a 3

4 twenty percent (20%) transparency and they should not have any signage in the windows that did not meet the code requirements. Mr. Aguila then asked if there would be security cameras covering the public areas, including the outdoor seating area that is monitored by the cashier and Mr. Lingerfeldt confirmed there would be. Mr. Aguila stated this should be a requirement. He said there were no exterior colors shown in the submittal and suggested there were inexpensive ways to dress up the exterior by possibly adding banding or scoring or adding additional colors to improve this very bland building. Mr. Lingerfeldt was receptive to Mr. Aguila s comments and suggested some ways he thought they could comply. Mr. Aguila said he thought these architectural features could be approved by staff and not have to come back before the Board in order that the project moves forward. Mr. Knight asked if Mr. Lutz actually planned to go through with acquiring the building and Mr. Lingerfeldt replied that Mr. Lutz is the contract buyer but had not yet closed on the property. Mr. Knight asked if Mr. Lutz did not close on this property would the current owner make the proposed changes if they were approved at this meeting. Mr. Lingerfeldt stated he also represented the current owner and he believed they would follow through. Mr. Lutz then stated that the purchase contract is contingent upon the approval of the convenience store and said that if it was not approved, they would not go through with the purchase. Mr. Kupi said he agreed with all of the comments made by the Board. He said he also agreed with the need for additional landscaping and made some suggestions about how this could be accomplished so the site was not just a sea of asphalt. There was further discussion on this issue and Mr. Lingerfeldt agreed that they would somehow come up with additional landscaping, per the Board s direction. Mr. Kupi said he agreed with Mr. Aguila about dressing up the building by adding some banding, etc. Mr. Kupi and Mr. Bregman then further discussed the landscaping and potential conditions of approval. By Separate Motions: Waiver #1: Mr. Bregman moved for approval of a waiver to LDR (H)(3)(i) which requires terminal landscape islands to be located at the end of each parking row and have a minimum width of nine (9) feet and depth of fifteen feet (15 ) for a total of 135 sq. ft. to eliminate this requirement on either side of the handicap space, and reduce this requirement to 5 4 for the parking row along the east property line. Mr. Gregory seconded and said motion passed with a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. Waiver #2: Mr. Bregman moved for approval of a waiver to LDR Section (H)(3)(d), a five foot (5 ) landscaped buffer shall be provided between the off-street parking area or other vehicular use area and abutting property to allow a three foot (3 ) landscape buffer between the parking row on the east property line and the adjacent alley. Mr. Gregory seconded and said motion passed with a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. Waiver #3: Mr. Bregman moved for approval of a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for a waiver to LDR Section B.14.iv.2., whereas the minimum transparency or glass surface area on the ground floor wall area of all non-residential buildings shall be a minimum of 75% of the wall area for that elevation (0% existing), to allow a 53.4% glass transparency 4

5 area along the front (i.e. NE 4 th Street) elevation in place of the existing roll down doors. Mr. Gregory seconded and said motion passed with a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. Site Plan: Move approval of the Class III site plan modification request for S & H Exxon Convenience Store at 206 NE 4th Street, based upon positive findings with respect to Section 2.4.5(G)(5) and Chapter 3 (Performance Standards) of the Land Development Regulations, and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan subject to the seven (7) conditions in the staff report with the following additional conditions: 8) That security cameras be added around the building that are able to monitor all four (4) sides of the building and the spaces around the building; 9) That lighting for the site shall remain LED but shall be twenty-seven hundred (2,700) Kelvin in temperature color and shielded so that light spillage beyond the property line is minimal; and 10) That a landscape island be added to the west of the handicap parking space with a radius that allows for vehicular and truck entry. That radius may be modified as necessary to allow access for the lids to the gas tanks. Mr. Aguila seconded for discussion and said, regarding the monitoring, he would like it to read that the project provides twenty-four/seven (24/7) CCTV monitoring of all areas of the site. Mr. Bregman amended his motion on condition number eight (8) to read: 8) That the security cameras provide twenty-four/seven (24/7) monitoring of the site for all areas of the site. Mr. Aguila amended his second and said motion passed with a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. Landscape Plan: Mr. Bregman moved for approval of the landscape plan for S & H Exxon Convenience Store, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in Section (C)(1)(a) of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the eight (8) conditions listed in the staff report and the following additional conditions: 9) That planter boxes and/or vine trellis along the west elevation be added to the wall or columns; and 10) That the additional landscape island west of the handicap space have at least one (1) canopy tree and be fully landscaped with low to medium-sized shrubs and ground cover. Architectural Elevations: Mr. Aguila moved for approval of the architectural elevations for S & H Exxon Convenience Store, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report and finding that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in 5

6 Section (E) of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the one (1) condition in the staff report and the following additional conditions: 2) That the applicant work out with staff enhancements to all four (4) exterior elevations, to add some banding, some trim on the column arches, some scoring or other such elements to enhance the exterior elevation and, perhaps, introduce a second color subject to approval by City staff. Mr. Gregory seconded for discussion and Mr. Bregman asked if the glass issue should be a condition of approval on the motion for the elevations. Mr. Aguila amended his motion to include: 3) That the existing window on the west elevation should be extended as far as possible to allow for monitoring of the outdoor seating area from the interior cashier counter serving the convenience store. B. Rainbow Warehouse; 1402 Wallace Drive; Burl Gentry, P.E.; Class V Site Plan request to demolish the existing single family residence and construct a new 5,761 sq. ft. storage, warehouse and office building with associated on-site parking and landscaping. Ms. Jefferson entered file number into the record. She presented a location and aerial map of the subject property. She described the development proposal as shown below: Construction of a 5,761 sq. ft. industrial building Provision of an on-site dumpster enclosure Provision of six (6) standard parking spaces in the rear Provision of five (5) angled parking spaces in the front Inclusion of one (1) ADA compliant handicap accessible parking space in front Installation of a bicycle rack Installation of associated landscaping Ms. Jefferson stated this proposal had been heard and tabled with direction at the December 11, 2013 meeting. The applicant was asked to return to the Board with a clear plan and revised elevations of all four sides. She said, as shown in the presentation, they had provided elevations of all four sides of the building. Ms. Jefferson stated the parking requirements had been met but that two (2) landscape technical items remain. She also said she believed the revised elevations which they had provided met the recommendations of the Board. Ms. Jefferson said this proposal was consistent with the MIC zoning, would not affect the surrounding area and met the requirements of the Wallace Drive Redevelopment Plan. She noted they would be providing a new sidewalk along Wallace Drive and a right-of-way dedication in order to meet the LDR requirements. Ms. Jefferson said there was a concern about the reduced 20 drive aisle width which had been addressed with a condition of approval in the staff report. 6

7 She concluded by stating staff recommended approval and asked for the Board s support of this proposal. Applicant s Presentation Mr. Burl Gentry, representing the owner stated they were in agreement with the conditions of approval and the conditions will be met prior to certification. He said that some of the conditions had already been addressed on the plans before the Board, such as the three (3) interior loading areas. Mr. Gentry stated they had provided the requesting renderings to the Board and he was available for any further questions. Public Comments There were none. Board Discussion Mr. Knight said he was still concerned about the look of the building and said he would like to see more enhancements. He thought it was still just too stark. Mr. Aguila stated he thought the application had made a significant effort to satisfy the Board s request. Mr. Gregory agreed and said he thought they met what the Board had asked for. He said it is in an industrial area and there is sufficient landscaping to disguise it. Ms. Finst questioned why the delivery trucks could not just drive through the building which would alleviate the issue about the loading areas and Mr. Gentry replied there was not enough interior room for that. She asked about moving the building a little to solve this problem and he replied they could not do that because this was a tight space and it was difficult to meet the required setbacks. Ms. Finst asked if anything could be done to make the building more interesting and stated she could not support the current submission. Ms. Finst then asked about what was being done for buffering from the neighbors. She also asked if, rather than demolishing the existing building, perhaps it could be offered to an historical preservation group to see if it could be moved somewhere else in town. She concluded by saying she knew this was an industrial area but this seemed like just another building dropped on a spot and that the Board had the opportunity to stop this. Mr. Bregman said he appreciated that they had added the visual materials but stated they still had not labeled the windows and trim on the elevations. He also mentioned they did not show downspouts and it could be a problem with storm water management depending on how and where they put them and this should be shown on the elevations. He said he agreed with Mr. Aguila that they had done what the Board had asked them to but he thought there should be more detailing on the building even if it is an industrial building. He concluded by saying that the landscaping helped a lot. Ms. Spero thanked the applicant for doing what the Board had requested. She asked him what the material was that was on the front of the building. Mr. Gentry replied that it was stucco on the CBS portion of the building. She reiterated this is an industrial building and said that the Board was so used to seeing flashy presentations for the downtown area something like this was somewhat hard to wrap your head around. Ms. Spero agreed with Mr. Bregman s concerns about the lack of detail regarding the windows and downspouts and said she was okay with staff dealing with these issues but that they needed to be addressed. Mr. Kupi pointed out that those issues would be dealt with by the Building Department. 7

8 Mr. Kupi then said he appreciated what they had done per the Board s direction. He asked the applicant how far the stucco returned on the building before it revealed the metal. Mr. Gentry said it would be several feet on the south side and about thirty feet (30 ) on the north. Mr. Kupi then expressed his concerns about the roofline and also about the accessibility of the loading docks. He said he also had problems with the lack of detail on the elevations. Ms. Finst asked if the proposed landscaping would actually screen the three (3) sides of the building which need to be screened from the adjacent properties. Several Board members said what they proposed met the code. Ms. Finst again stated her concern that the proposed landscape plan would not adequately shield the building and, after further discussion, Mr. Bregman asked the applicant if they would be willing to move around some of the trees currently proposed and perhaps change some of the species. The applicant said they could do that. By Separate Motions Site Plan It was moved by Mr. Gregory for approval of the Class III Site Plan modification for Rainbow Warehouse located at 1402 Wallace Drive, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets criteria set forth in Sections 2.4.5(F) and (Required Findings) of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ms. Spero seconded and said motion failed with a 0 (zero) to 7 (seven) to vote for approval. There was then a discussion about whether to proceed with voting on the landscape plan and the architectural elevations and the applicant was given his options. The Board members then again gave direction to the applicant on what he would need to bring back if he resubmitted. After further discussion, direction from the Interim City Attorney and at the request of the applicant, it was decided that the Board would vote on whether to reconsider the original motion on the Site Plan. Mr. Gregory said he would like to reconsider his motion on the Class V site plan for the Rainbow Warehouse and Ms. Spero seconded. Said motion passed with a six (6) to one (1) vote (Mr. Aguila dissented). Mr. Gregory then motioned to postpone the Class V site plan to allow the applicant to address the Board s concerns at a future date. Ms. Spero seconded and said motion passed with a six (6) to one (1) vote (Mr. Aguila dissented). C. Abbey Delray; 2000 Lowson Boulevard; Todd Michael Anthony; Class III Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations associated with the construction of: 1) a new front entry, 2) additions to the Club House Building, 3) renovation of the existing auditorium building, 4) construction of a new marketing center, 5) construction of an administration pavilion, and 6) construction of a wellness pavilion. The buildings will be connected by a system of covered walkways with landscape spaces in between the walkways and the buildings. There will be no increase in the number of residential units or beds. Chair Kupi asked if there had been any ex-parte communication on this item and Ms. Finst stated she had gone to the site with the plans and a gentleman from the office showed her 8

9 around and pointed out where the proposed changes were going to be. She said this would not affect her vote. There was no other ex-parte communication. Mr. Breto pointed out the complex on the location map and described the numerous proposed additions and improvements within the site plan. He stated there would be no increase in the number of beds or residential units so there would be no change to the currently nonconforming parking requirement. He said the facility would be operated by two-hundred and fifty (250) employees, one-hundred and twenty-five on each of two (2) shifts. He said that there would be nine (9) handicap parking spaces required and seventeen (17) have been provided. Mr. Breto said that the trash generated by the restaurant and the various facilities in the retirement community is transported by the employees who bring it to the trash compactor location. He stated the photometric plan needs to be revised and there is a condition of approval on the site plan motion reflecting those changes. He said the landscape plan also had a number of technical items from the Senior Landscape Planner which must be addressed. He said the proposed elevations will be a definite enhancement to the community. Mr. Breto concluded his presentation by stating staff recommended approval of the proposal and entered the file into the record. Applicant s Presentation Mr. Todd Anthony, representing CCHodgson Architectural Group and on behalf of the owners, Lifespace Communities and Abbey Delray then addressed the Board. He said they were doing the same thing for this campus as they had done for Abbey Delray South and Harbour s Edge. He said the updates had been well received at the other campuses and he hope this one would be also. Mr. Anthony said he would be available for any questions the Board might have. Public Comments There were none. Board Discussion Mr. Bregman asked Mr. Anthony if they were adding any square footage since most of the descriptions of the improvement stated renovation. Mr. Anthony replied they were adding square footage as they were adding the marketing building, the pavilions around the pool, an exercise room and the wellness pavilion. He said they were also adding an administration building and a small addition to the health center totaling around thirty-thousand square feet. Mr. Bregman asked if he was correct in understanding they were adding that amount of square footage but not adding any net parking spaces because the applicant said they are not adding any additional employees. Mr. Aguila commented that is common when such additions involve clubhouses, etc. Mr. Kupi stated they only had fifty-five (55) parking spaces for each shift with one-hundred and twenty-five (125) employees and questioned how this could work. Mr. Anthony stated there is off-site parking and that the owner had an agreement with an adjacent property owner for the employees. He said the employees park off-site and there is a shuttle that brings both shifts to the complex. Mr. Kupi asked how many spaces were within this agreement and Mr. Anthony replied he was not sure but could get that information. Mr. Kupi said if he had produced this information it would have alleviated some of the Board s questions. Mr. Bregman said this was the number one (1) concern with this submittal and Mr. Anthony replied it was the number one (1) issue for the residents as well as they needed parking spots and that is why they have this agreement for off-site parking. 9

10 Mr. Bregman advised Mr. Anthony of the plans for future bike paths proposed for areas adjacent to this community and asked if he thought Lifespace might contribute to this project in order to help make biking and walking paths available for employees who like in the local area. Mr. Anthony said he was sure they would consider this. Mr. Bregman said these improvements are really needed, especially because of the parking issues at this site and the possibility of even more problems in the future in the event they require additional staff. Mr. Bregman said, if the Interim City Attorney agreed, he would like to make this a condition of approval as these bike lanes are part of the City s Master Plan. Regarding the landscape plan, Mr. Bregman asked Mr. Anthony if they were in agreement with the landscape technical comments. Mr. Anthony said he had spoken with the landscape architect who said he would be in contact with Mr. Anuar, the Senior Landscape Planner. He said they did have an issue with relocating the large trees and wanted to try to work with Mr. Anuar to mitigate the tree issue. Mr. Bregman said they would leave this condition in the motion and then see how the issue could be worked out between the landscape architect and Mr. Anuar. Mr. Bregman said the City and the Board really want to keep large trees on site and had made this a condition with several other recent applicants. Mr. Bregman concluded by suggesting they not use cypress mulch on the site. There was further discussion about the parking issue and how the spaces were calculated and Mr. Breto stated he had asked the applicant numerous times about the number of employees and the seeming inadequate parking but was always told the same thing, that they were not increasing this or that. He stated that he had used ratios that were less demanding or they would have had a higher parking deficit. Mr. Anthony then said that all of the additions were just increases in the amenities, there are no additional residents. Mr. Kupi said there was nothing in the staff report about an off-site parking agreement and Mr. Breto stated he had never been made aware of this before hearing of it at this meeting or he would have put it in the report. Mr. Kupi said they really needed to see a copy of the off-site parking agreement in order to approve the site plan showing the proposed parking. Ms. Spero said she was still concerned about the parking and said, with all of the growth in that area she was concerned about the termination date of the off-site parking agreement and the possibility it may not be renewed. She said she was also concerned about the trash having to be transported all the way across the complex to the trash compactor and saw this as a problem. Mr. Anthony stated that everything is transported by golf carts on the campus and people would not be carrying trash bags to the compactor. A discussion followed about the routes the golf carts would take to accomplish various tasks. Ms. Spero stated she was still concerned about the accessibility of the trash compactor, particularly in relation to the Bistro restaurant. Mr. Anthony explained that the food in the Bistro was pre-prepared in the main kitchen and was mostly sandwiches of a grab and go nature that would not generate much trash. Ms. Finst stated she had already disclosed she had gone to visit the site and said the present entrance was very pleasant and peaceful and she thought that would be lost with the current proposal. Mr. Anthony said there would be a courtyard with a water feature which would make it seem like the water was flowing out into the pond. He also said they would be keeping the koi fish. He said the problem with the current entrance was that it was a ramp that you have to go up and this is difficult for the seniors living there. He said with the new proposal, it would all be level with a nice covered pavilion to replace the canvas awning. Ms. Finst said she thought they should have adequate on-site parking, whatever it takes to do it. Mr. Anthony said there was absolutely no place on the campus to add a parking lot and they are not adding to the existing non-conformity because they are not adding any residential 10

11 units. Ms. Finst said they could not rely on the off-site parking being available in the future. She then expressed her concern for the residents during the demolition and wondered what impact the new buildings might have on the views from some of the residences. Mr. Anthony said they had met with the Residents Steering Committee and described the phasing of the project. Mr. Gregory stated he likes the architecture but was concerned about the parking and he would like to see if they have a solid agreement. He said he had been on the campus and it seemed to be run in a very organized way. He said you do not see any trash anywhere and he does not see that being a problem in the future. He concluded by stating he could support this with some documentation of the parking agreement. Mr. Aguila said he thought the proposal was good and well thought out and understood that the current market is the reason for these updates. He said he did not think these changes would generate a new parking problem but that, whatever changes are implemented, it will just continue what existing parking issues they now have. He said that if these changes do make the parking situation worse, it will be up to them to fix it. Mr. Aguila asked the applicant how far from the campus the off-site parking lot was and Mr. Anthony said he believed it was down Lowson Boulevard as had been mentioned to him by the Director. He said he would get the information to staff. Mr. Aguila said he thought that information should be part of the record and, depending on how the vote goes at this meeting they may have to come back before the Board once the off-site parking had been documented. Mr. Knight asked if there was any way to look at compact parking spaces or anything else to create less non-conformity. He said they were adding thirty-thousand (30,000) square feet but there would not be any more people to clean, not any more people to manage. He said it needed to be confirmed that there was a long-term parking commitment and if there was any other way to come back and improve the parking. Mr. Anthony replied there had been an extensive study done to try and find additional on-site parking and the only place they could find was the northeast lot which, unfortunately, was the fruit orchard. Mr. Knight again asked about designating some of the spots for compact cars and Mr. Anthony stated this might be a problem with the residents and they would have to check with the facility being taking such a step. Mr. Kupi asked the applicant how they were going to get rid of the water from the buildings adjacent to the pond since they are showing sloped roofs. Mr. Anthony said they would have a gutter system that would be tied to the storm drains. Mr. Kupi then said that the walkway shown is now wrapping around what would become a much larger service area and with the existing building being demolished the left side of this area would be wide open. Mr. Anthony said there would be an eight foot (8 ) high wall which would help hide this area. Mr. Kupi suggested they should perhaps put more trees in this area to help dissipate this large area of asphalt. He also said the area between the building and the wall (??) would be pretty much enclosed and this would create stagnant, hot air which would not be good for the elderly residents. Mr. Anthony agreed and said it would be good opportunity to have a landscape buffer inside the yard. Mr. Kupi then said he agreed with Ms. Spero s concerns about the trash but he knows what they are proposing (the trash being taken to the compactor via golf carts) is the method being used in many such facilities. Mr. Kupi then asked Mr. Breto about the parking agreement and Mr. Breto replied that it had not been mentioned during the application process or through the several times he had spoken to them. He said they never mentioned that there was any such agreement or that another site was being used for parking. Mr. Anthony said the same thing had been done with Abbey Delray South where they did not add any spaces because they were not adding any 11

12 residential units. Mr. Kupi replied that all of the Board members had a concern about the parking issue and that he agreed with Mr. Knight s assessment that with the addition of all of the square footage, he believed they would need to add more staff. Mr. Kupi concluded by saying he would like to see this parking agreement and that he agreed with Mr. Bregman about saving the trees. He said it would be cost-effective in the long run to save the trees which would provide nice canopies in the future. He then asked Ms. Pyburn if the Board could postpone this item for them to bring back the parking agreement and she said it was entirely up to the Board to decide that. She said they could ask the applicant to come back with the agreement or ask them to provide more parking. She said they could also make it a condition of approval that they provide proof of the agreement and that such agreement be acceptable to staff. Mr. Knight then said that it seemed Mr. Breto had asked several times to see the agreement and it was never provided to him. Mr. Breto said what actually happened was that when he asked several times about required parking for the employees and the answer was always that they were not increasing the number of units, not increasing the number of beds and that they would operate the facility with the same number of employees. He then advised Mr. Anthony that he had never mentioned that there was an agreement for off-site parking and Mr. Anthony replied that he did not know about it until (very recently). Mr. Breto said that he had tried to mitigate the parking issue by using the ratio that would be in his favor. Mr. Kupi stated that, even with using the lower ratio, what they had been given still showed a parking deficiency. He advised the applicant that it appeared it would be in his best interest for the Board to postpone this proposal so that he could come back with the agreement and the parking would then be a non-issue. Mr. Bregman stated he agreed with Mr. Kupi and said the Board needed to see where these off-site spaces were located, if there were any additional available spaces, the term of the agreement, etc. He said that since it appeared the applicant would have to be coming back before the Board, he suggested they include some landscaping along the truck radius and perhaps move some of the larger trees into that area. There was then further discussion between Mr. Bregman and Mr. Anthony regarding the bike paths and associated issues. Mr. Kupi then advised Mr. Anthony that wherever the off-site parking was located it had to be within a certain radii to be eligible to be included in the parking count and Mr. Anthony agreed. It was moved by Mr. Gregory to postpone the proposal for Abbey Delray to allow the applicant to come back and address the Board s comments. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion and it passed with a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. D. Georgia Lime Commerce Center; Located at the northwest corner of Georgia Street and Lime Lane; Salvatore N. Yanello; Extension request for a Class V Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations associated with the construction of a one story 10,712 sq. ft. office and warehouse building consisting of 2,186 sq. ft. of office floor area and 8,526 sq. ft. of warehouse and storage, four (4) bay loading dock, a twenty-two (22) space parking lot and a refuse enclosure. (This was Item III.A. on the agenda, but moved to the last item on the agenda at the applicant s request). Mr. Sal Yanello was sworn in by the Board Secretary. Mr. Breto described the location for the proposal and said it is for an office and warehouse building originally approved in He said this proposal has already had three (3) approved site plan extension requests, one (1) each in 2008, 2010 and He said the applicant has different conditions than the ones previously approved by the Board. Mr. Breto said the currently approved site plan would expire on February 22, 2014 and there were some 12

13 discrepancies with the current plan and the current Land Development Regulations. He explained that the applicant also owns the property to the north and wants to expand his business to the location for the proposal. Mr. Breto said since the approval of the original site plan the City s landscape code and the lighting code have been changed and in order for the site plan approval to be extended, conditions of approval must be placed on such approval requiring a new landscape and lighting plan that meet the current code. Mr. Breto said they would also need a letter from the Traffic Division of Palm Beach County indicating that the proposed project meets the required Traffic Concurrency Performance Standards. He presented some elevations of the proposed project and said that staff recommended approval of the site plan extension request. Mr. Breto then entered the file into the record. Applicant s Presentation Mr. Salvatore Yanello said that he had purchased the adjacent building on Poinsettia Drive three (3) years ago and his business had grown so much that he needed additional space and parking for additional vehicles. Mr. Kupi asked him if he had any problems with the conditions of approval placed on this extension request and Mr. Yanello said they wanted to comply. Board Discussion The Board members indicated they were in agreement with the approval of the site plan extension. Mr. Bregman stated he wanted to make sure when they updated the landscape plan that they fully screen the dumpster. Ms. Finst expressed her concern with the screening of the building from the neighbors to the west and Mr. Kupi stated they were going to have to come back before the Board with a new landscape plan and the Board could make sure that issue was addressed at that time. MOTION/FINDINGS It was moved by Mr. Bregman for approval of the request for an extension of the Class V site plan approval, landscape plan, and architectural elevations approval for Georgia Lime Commerce Center, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request, and approval thereof, meets criteria set forth in Section 2.4.4(F)(1) & (3) of the Land Development Regulations, with said approval to be valid until February 22, 2016 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Gregory seconded and said motion passed with a seven (7) to zero (0) vote. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. VII. OTHER ITEMS Board Comments Ms. Finst commented that sometimes the plans the Board receives and reviews do not have the project name and/or address on them. Mr. Gregory said submittals often do not have photos showing all four elevations though this has been requested many times by the Board. Mr. Kupi said that request was noted within the Minutes of the January 8, 2014 meeting and staff was supposed to ask for those photos to be submitted with all 13

14 applications. Ms. Finst then stated she had gone out to look at all of the signs which were on the listing of signs approved administratively. Mr. Bregman asked if any other Board members had met the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council other than Mr. Kupi. Mr. Knight said he had requested a meeting but had not yet heard back from them. Ms. Spero stated she had heard they were looking into combining the Planning and Zoning Board with SPRAB and Mr. Aguila said that has been talked about for some time but nothing has ever happened. Mr. Kupi said when he met with them, that was not discussed and that they are only focusing on updating the LDRs. Mr. Bregman said he believed that they should be meeting with the SPRAB to have a discussion about what the Board felt should be included in these updates. Mr. Bregman then said there was a movement to combine the two Boards last September and he had spoken at the City Commission meeting on this subject. He said the Commission did vote at that time to modify some of the Board but they agreed not to touch SPRAB at that time. Mr. Bregman then said there is still a push from some aspect of the Commission to get rid of the SPRAB and he thought that was unfortunate as the Board members were volunteering their time and must feel the Board is important enough to the City to keep it active. Ms. Pyburn stated that she thought combining the Boards was pretty much just a rumor but she had spoken with a few people about this possibility. She said the concern was that the Planning and Zoning Board sees projects when they are usually in the concept stage and they would like to see more involved plans and she believed they have made the Commission aware of this. She said they indicated they would like to see the plans that SPRAB sees and she thought the discussion was less about combining the two boards and more about the process. Ms. Pyburn said they would like to see the site plan when they are reviewing what comes before them, such as a plat or rezoning. Mr. Kupi suggested perhaps projects could go to the SPRAB before going to the Planning and Zoning Board so they would know the site plan had already been reviewed and it was workable. There was further discussion on this issue. Mr. Bregman then again asked about how the Board could ask the TCRPC to meet with them and, upon direction from Ms. Pyburn, it was decided that the Chairman would send a written request to the City Manager. Mr. Knight inquired about the Senate/House bills that had been passed during the downturn in the economy that allowed site plan extensions to be extended administratively without having to go through the process (such as the one heard previously in the meeting). There was further discussion on this and Ms. Pyburn said she believed that process had expired but she would check into it and let the Board know. Mr. Knight also stated that he had visited the Fresh Market and found the interior to be quite nice and, as expected, it was packed with customers. Ms. Spero asked what was happening about the brick which had been painted white on the building that used to be City Limits which had come before the Board a short time ago. Mr. Kupi said the Board had placed a condition on their approval of this project that the natural brick was to remain. After further discussion Ms. Pyburn said this would now be a Code Enforcement issue. Mr. Breto said he would notify them about this. Ms. Spero said that she attended a DDA Board meeting and the DDA Board brought up the fact that in this same area (behind Johnny Brown s and Hands Stationers) there are numerous dumpsters that are out in the open, that there are no enclosures for them and they are taking up parking spaces. Mr. Kupi said when you walk thorough that area the 14

15 stench is horrible. Ms. Spero said the persons using these dumpsters are not following the rules and there is a recycling section in this area and she thought the dumpsters could be moved there which would also encourage people to recycle. Mr. Kupi said all of the dumpsters should be moved to one area and have one large enclosure which would then free up the parking spaces. The Board agreed this was another Code Enforcement issue. Mr. Bregman also pointed out another Code Enforcement issue is that the bike rack has still not been installed at the Sequins store at Federal Highway and Atlantic Avenue, although it had been shown on the plan. Ms. Finst expressed her concerns again regarding the elevation changes at Lady Katie and asked what was being done about this issue. Ms. Truxell said she believed they were currently under Code Enforcement action. Staff Comments VIII. ADJOURN There was a discussion about upcoming agenda items, specifically Mussel Beach. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. The undersigned is the Secretary of the Site Plan and Appearance Board and the information provided herein is the Minutes of the meeting of said body for February 12, 2014 which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on April 23, Rebecca Truxell Rebecca Truxell If the Minutes you have received are not completed as indicated above, then this means that these are not the official Minutes. They will become so after review and approval, which may involve some changes. 15