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

MINUTES OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPEARANCE BOARD CITY OF DELRAY BEACH REGULAR MEETING MEETING DATE: MEETING PLACE: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: City Commission Chambers Chair Shane Ames, Shannon Dawson, Rustem Kupi, Scott Porten, and Nick Sadowsky Roger DeCapito and Sigurdur Hardester Scott Pape, Rebecca Truxell and Assistant City Attorney Terrill Pyburn I. CALL TO ORDER: 6:06 p.m. Upon roll call it was determined that a quorum was present. There were no changes to the agenda. Chair Ames 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. Porten, seconded by Mr. Sadowsky and passed with a 5 to 0 vote (Mr. DeCapito and Mr. Hardester absent) for approval of the Minutes of October 26, 2011. III. PROJECT PLANS A. Midtown; 4600 Linton Boulevard; Weiner & Lynne, PA, Agent; Class - III Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Architectural Elevations associated with the replacement of the previously approved 751 sq. ft. pool house and construction of a new 1,683 sq. ft. club house. Minor changes to the internal lay out of the units along with replacing an approved single window with a double window in the ground floor at the rear of the buildings. There was no ex-parte communication on this item. Mr. Scott Pape, Senior Planner described the proposal to the Board and entered the file into the record. Applicant s Presentation Mr. Michael Weiner of Weiner and Lynne, P.A., attorney for the applicant pointed out that several of the Board members had seen this project several times before. He stated that the proposal now before the Board involved some changes to the clubhouse and some changes to the windows. He said that all of the professionals involved in the proposal were present if the Board had any questions for them. Public Comments There were none. Page 1 of 7

Board Discussion The Board indicated they liked the proposal. Mr. Kupi commented that the finished floor heights shown on the elevations were different than those previously approved but there was nothing in the staff report or in the presentation referencing this. He asked whether they were supposed to be approving this change since it was not addressed in the staff report. Mr. Porten said that staff s recommendation only referenced approval of the elevations of the clubhouse. Mr. Jim Williams of AW Architects then addressed the Board and stated that the issue regarding the change in roof height had been discussed with the planner who had stated that he was not concerned because it was still under the maximum height allowance. Mr. Pape then suggested that, in order to address this, the Board could add a condition of approval stating that the roof height must meet the LDR requirements. MOTION/FINDINGS It was moved by Mr. Kupi, seconded by Mr. Porten and passed with a 5 to 0 vote (Mr. DeCapito and Mr. Hardester absent) for approval of the request for a Class III site plan modification for Midtown Delray Club House, 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)(5), and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following conditions: 1) Submit three (3) sets of copies of the plans addressing all technical items included in the staff report for final certification; and 2) That the applicant indicates on the site plan where the club house maintenance shed is located and clearly depict the location of the roll-out trash bin on the site plan and floor plan of the proposed club house. It was moved by Mr. Sadowsky, seconded by Ms. Dawson and passed with a 5 to 0 vote (Mr. DeCapito and Mr. Hardester absent) for approval of the landscape plan for Midtown Delray Club House, 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 criteria set forth in Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1) Submit three (3) sets of copies of the landscape plan addressing all technical items included in the staff report for final certification. It was moved by Mr. Porten, seconded by Mr. Sadowsky and passed with a 5 to 0 vote (Mr. DeCapito and Mr. Hardester absent) for approval of the proposed elevations for Midtown Delray Club House, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request meets criteria set forth in Section 4.6.18(E) of the Land Development Regulations and any other pertinent regulations for the height, subject to the following condition: 1) Subject to staff approving the increased elevation. Page 2 of 7

B. Harbor s Edge; 401 East Linton Boulevard; Life Space Communities Inc.; Class - III Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Architectural Elevations associated with the renovation of a 3,294 sq. ft. interior area for the Independent Living Commons; installation of impact resistant windows and doors; a 1,190 sq. ft. new kitchen addition to the Health Care facility building; a 2,920 sq. ft. of new construction for the Health Care building which includes lobby, physical therapy, speech therapy, kinesis area and a new entrance canopy area. There was no ex-parte communication on this item. Mr. Scott Pape, Senior Planner described the proposal to the Board and entered the file into the record. Applicant s Presentation Mr. Todd Anthony of CC Hodgson Architects addressed the Board and said that it had been quite some time since any upgrades had been made to the facility and they now wanted to make some changes to improve the marketability. He said he was available for any questions the Board might have. Public Comments There were none. Board Discussion Mr. Porten asked if they were changing to impact glass and if that had caused the change in the overall location of the windows. Mr. Anthony replied that they were governed by the number of square feet allowed in using impact glass which resulted in the windows being a little tighter now, with mullions. MOTION/FINDINGS It was moved by Mr. Porten, seconded by Ms. Dawson and passed with a 5 to 0 vote (Mr. DeCapito and Mr. Hardester absent) for approval of the request for a Class III site plan modification for Harbor s Edge Residential and Health Care Development, 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)(5), and Chapter 3 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1) Submit three (3) sets of copies of the plans addressing all technical items included in the staff report for final certification. It was moved by Mr. Sadowsky, seconded by Ms. Dawson and passed with a 5 to 0 vote (Mr. DeCapito and Mr. Hardester absent) for approval of the landscape plan for Harbor s Edge Residential and Health Care Development, 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 criteria set forth in Section 4.6.16 of the Land Development Regulations, subject to the following condition: 1. Submit three (3) sets of copies of the landscape plan addressing all technical items included in the staff report for final certification. Page 3 of 7

It was moved by Ms. Dawson for approval of the proposed elevations for Harbor s Edge Residential and Health Care Development, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request meets criteria set forth in Section 4.6.18(E) of the Land Development Regulations. Ms. Porten seconded for discussion and asked if there were to be any color changes to the elevations. Mr. Anthony replied that they were adding a blue tile box at the Health Care Center and it was determined that no color sample had been provided. Ms. Dawson amended her motion to include the following condition: 1) That the applicant submits a color sample for the change in the architectural elevations, to be subject to staff s approval. Mr. Porten amended his second and said motion passed with a 5 to 0 vote (Mr. DeCapito and Mr. Hardester absent). C. SpoonFed; 217 East Atlantic Avenue; Weiner & Lynne, PA, Class III site plan modification associated with the conversion of the second floor office area to restaurant. There was no ex-parte communication on this item. Mr. Scott Pape, Senior Planner described the proposal to the Board and entered the file into the record. Applicant s Presentation Mr. Michael Weiner of Weiner & Lynne, P.A., attorney for the applicant stated that the analysis in the staff report stated that the proposal meets the development requirements regarding parking. He said they agree to the condition in the staff report regarding the venting if they use hibachi tables. He said there were also positive required findings. Mr. Weiner stated that the proposal had also been reviewed and approved by the DDA and the CRA as well as the City Commission, although that was not noted in the staff report. He pointed out that the PMAB and the City Commission had both approved the in-lieu parking spaces. Mr. Weiner continued by stating that a restaurant is a permitted use in the CBD district although the SPRAB does not review allowed uses. He then read an article about a case titled City of Gainesville v. GNV Investments, Inc.. He said that the City of Gainesville discovered that their City Ordinances allowed state parks in shopping centers and went to court on this issue. The court ruled that the plan met all of the technical requirements of the City Ordinance and that the proposal before the SPRAB also meets all of the technical requirements of the City Ordinances. Mr. Weiner concluded by stating that he was not in agreement with the statements made in the Assessment and Conclusions section of the staff report and stated that he hoped the Board would vote favorably on the Class III site plan modifications. Public Comments Ms. Alice Finst, 707 Place Tavant stated that it seemed there should be some way to stop the do it now, apologize later method that keeps happening before this Board. She said that when this building was demolished, Mr. Weiner assured that what would be built would be identical to the old building. She said that there was now hardly any evidence of the historical reproduction. She also said that the awnings on the building have advertising on them which she did not believe was allowed or that the Board had approved it. Ms. Finst said that the Page 4 of 7

current building and proposal look nothing like the former historical building and she asked the Board to act to get back that look. Applicant s Rebuttal Mr. Weiner said he would like to address Ms. Finst s comment as they are always important. He said, however, that he disagreed that they had not maintained the historical look of the building. He stated that this Board was not the Code Enforcement Board if there were issues with things such as the Buddha which had been swapped out or with the ways things were installed. He said that the owner, Mr. Lipnick, was a restaurateur not familiar with zoning codes and that he apologized for any missteps that may have occurred and Mr. Weiner said this would not happen in the future. Staff Rebuttal There was none. Board Discussion The Board indicated they had no problem with changing out the Buddha statue. MOTION/FINDINGS It was moved by Ms. Dawson, seconded by Mr. Porten and passed with a 5 to 0 vote (Mr. DeCapito and Mr. Hardester absent) for approval of the building elevations for Atlantic Ocean Club, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the modification is consistent with Section 3.1.1(Performance Standards), Section 4.6.18, and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) (Findings) of the Land Development Regulations. Board Discussion Mr. Porten addressed Assistant City Attorney Pyburn and stated that staff was recommending in their report that they recommend denying the Class III Site Plan request based upon the change in use. He said that he had to agree with Mr. Weiner that this was not what the Board was tasked to do and he did not see how they could consider staff s recommendation. She replied that she thought perhaps any issue regarding the use should be worked out before a site plan was brought before the Board and asked Mr. Pape for his comments. Mr. Pape replied that, despite what Mr. Weiner had stated, the Board does consider some esoteric things such as impact on surrounding properties and that was what he addressed in his assessment, the impact this ongoing process had on the surrounding properties. Mr. Porten stated that if the Board denied this request, the applicant would probably appeal to the Commission again and have the Board s decision overturned. He said he was not blaming Mr. Pape as he was sure this was not his individual decision and suggested that perhaps the Director should address the Board in situations like this. Chair Ames said he agreed. Mr. Sadowsky asked if there was a metric to quantify impacts and Mr. Pape replied that there had been changes to the parking code recently and that it seemed these changes were happening quite often. He said he believed there are some quantifiable percentages now in the code. Page 5 of 7

MOTION/FINDINGS It was moved by Mr. Sadowsky, seconded by Mr. Porten and passed with a 5 to 0 vote (Mr. DeCapito and Mr. Hardester absent) for approval of the Class III site plan modification and architectural elevations for Atlantic Ocean Club, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the request is consistent with Section 3.1.1(Performance Standards) and Section 2.4.5(G)(5) (Findings) of the Land Development Regulations. IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Alice Finst, 707 Place Tavant, said that SPRAB had approved an awning for SpoonFed several weeks ago but she was sure they did not approve the wording now on the awning, Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner. Chair Ames replied that they had not approved such wording and asked staff if the Sign Committee might have approved it. Mr. Pape replied that they might have, if it met the Code. When Ms. Finst commented that all signs should come before this Board, Mr. Pape asked the Board if they wanted to review perhaps thousands of signs each year which, of course, they said they did not want to do. Mr. Sadowsky pointed out that, once the Board approves an awning, whatever is installed is no longer part of the SPRAB s jurisdiction but a Code Enforcement issue. Ms. Finst then suggested that there be a policy that whenever an awning comes before this Board the applicant should be told that they cannot do anything with the awning that has not been approved by SPRAB. Mr. Kupi stated that they could not do that because if they come in after being approved by SPRAB and apply for signage which meets the code, as determined by the Sign Committee. At this point, Assistant City Attorney Pyburn offered to check into the issue of the signage on SpoonFed s awning to make sure that it went through the approval process and would let the Board know. After further discussion on this, Mr. Porten said that the bottom line was that the signage had to meet the LDRs. Mr. Kupi agreed, stating that if certain elements, such as inlieu parking, had met the code or been approved by the City Commission there was really nothing else that could be done. Mr. Kupi then asked Assistant City Attorney Pyburn if the time in which someone cited by Code Enforcement could be reduced from the current thirty or ninety days to perhaps a week and she replied that was governed by Florida State law. Chair Ames then concluded by saying that it might help if, when they approve an awning it is included in the motion that it not include signage and if the applicant wants it to include signage, it should come back before the Board. Assistant City Attorney Pyburn said this might work as long as everyone is aware of the process. A. Administrative Matters: Board Comments There were none. Staff Comments Mr. Pape said that he was concerned that it seemed the potential actions of the Board just Page 6 of 7

discussed (related to motions regarding signage on awnings) seemed to be taking away rights of the applicants, particularly since this had not been done in the past. Mr. Porten asked Chair Ames if he meant that all awning approvals contain this motion or that it be done selectively. Assistant City Attorney Pyburn said that she believed this was a communication issue, i.e., what is staff approving, what does the Board have the authority to approve and where does that meet in the middle? Mr. Pape suggested that there be a presentation by staff to redefine the approval process and what should be reviewed by staff and what should come before the Board. Assistant City Attorney Pyburn said that she believed staff may currently be reviewing more sign submittals than previously done and that is should be made clear where the boundaries are. Mr. Porten reiterated that he believed the Director of Planning & Zoning should come to the Board meetings when they are reviewing items that have unusual staff recommendations pertaining to the use of property. He said this might help alleviate the Board opposing staff s recommendation and a possible appeal to the City Commission. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:09 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 which were formally adopted and approved by the Board on, 2012. 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. Page 7 of 7