Director Glas-Castro stated the Applicant for Items #2 and #3 requested a continuance to the February 10, 2015 meeting.

Transcription

1 VILLAGE OF PALM SPRINGS MINUTES OF MEETING LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD WORKSHOP JANUARY 13, :30 PM CALL TO ORDER The meeting held in the Council Chambers at Village Hall was called to order by Chairman Wong at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Chairman Ronald Wong, Vice Chairman Charles Nefzger, Ralph Lashells, Johnnie Tieche and Dawn Cox Staff in attendance: Land Development Director Kim Glas-Castro, Land Development Planner Susan Mubeezi, Village Attorney Brian Shutt and Deputy Village Clerk Jane Worth Absent: Richard Hughes ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGENDA Director Glas-Castro stated the Applicant for Items #2 and #3 requested a continuance to the February 10, 2015 meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Minutes from December 9, 2014 A motion to accept the minutes was made by Mr. Nefzger and seconded by Mr. Tieche. Motion carried 5-0 ORDER OF BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTE: CLERK TO ASCERTAIN IF THERE ARE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO BE DISCLOSED DURING QUASI JUDICIAL DISCUSSIONS. CLERK TO SWEAR WITNESSES FOR TESTIMONY VARIANCE - QUASI JUDICIAL The following variance is an application submitted by Sucheta Bhatt, Applicant and Owner, of Sunshine Liquor Store, to be located at 2480 S. Congress Avenue, Suite C. 2. PSV15-04 Variance relief from Section Distance Separation, to allow a package liquor store within a 125 foot separation from a neighboring church in lieu of the 500 foot required separation. 3. PSSE15-01 An application submitted by Sucheta Bhatt, Applicant and Owner of Sunshine Liquor Store, requesting approval of a Special Exception Use to allow a

2 package liquor store within a commercial plaza located at 2480 S. Congress Avenue, Suite C. Items #2 and #3 were continued to the February 10, 2015 meeting. REGULAR AGENDA 4. Resolution No An application submitted by Ross Lavin, Managing Member of Damocles Investment, LLC, for a Site Plan Review (SPR15-02) for construction of an additional duplex structure for the property containing an existing single family residence, located at 3348 Kirk Road, resulting in a total of three (3) dwelling units on the property. Planner Mubeezi stated it was a Minor Site Plan application, located at 3348 Kirk Road, 29,185 sq. ft., adding a duplex to an existing single family residence, located in a residential multi-family zoning. Surrounding area was also zoned residential multi-family. Contingent upon the applicant s submission of a revised Site Plan, for a concrete or asphalt driveway, Staff recommends approval. Mr. Ross Lavin, applicant, stated he was available for any questions the Board might have. He stated after speaking with his contractor there would not be a problem with the concrete driveway that the Village had requested. The Board asked if the driveway would be brick up to the concrete and were the neighbors surrounding zoned single family? Mr. Lavin stated north of his property was a single family home and then the new Cumberland Farms. To the immediate south was another single family home. It was suggested by the Board that the applicant should submit a site plan that met Village standards; a survey was not the way that a Site Plan is normally submitted. The Board asked if there were any minimum standards in terms of information required on this site plan. Director Glas-Castro stated it was for a duplex addition, staff allowed them to use the survey for their site plan and drainage plan. There was plenty of room, it met setbacks, there were no variances needed. The Board asked about the existing driveway. Mr. Lavin stated the existing driveway pulled into the south side of the existing residence, and there was a fence there and that led you into the back yard. The front of the house would be the designated parking for the existing residence. The existing driveway to the south of the existing residence into the back would serve as accessibility and parking for the new duplex. The Board stated since the property would now be considered multi-family residential, there were concerns with exiting the property from the duplex driveway. Mr. Lavin stated he would put the recommendations in the lease regarding exiting the back of the property. Director Glas-Castro stated they would have to comply with the landscape requirements for a multi-family residence. There were also fourteen conditions of approval and the new one regarding replacement of the millings with the paved surface. none, a motion to recommend approval of Resolution No , including the fourteen mentioned conditions of approval and the landscape requirements, was made by Mr. Nefzger and seconded by Mr. Tieche. Motion carried 5-0 2

3 5. Resolution No An application for the preliminary plat review for RaceTrac for the property located at 3032 Lake Worth Road and the abandonment of a 10 ft. utility easement. Director Glas-Castro stated RaceTrac had come through for Site Plan approval in Due to easement issues they are now able to bring forward the preliminary plat with the boundary configurations, access ways and included access to the property from the south. There would be an old utility easement that would be abandoned, and all utility companies have submitted letters of approval. Permit application plans have been reviewed and approved, issuance of the permits were on hold until the plat was recorded. none, a motion to recommend approval of Resolution No , was made by Mr. Nefzger and seconded by Mr. Tieche. Motion carried Ordinance No Application for land use change for a parcel of land consisting of less than 10 acres, owned by Jerjo Inc., located at 4050 Forest Hill Boulevard, amending the existing land use to high density residential (>10.01 <19.0 DU s/acre). Village Attorney Shutt stated since Board Member Ms. Cox was employed by Wantman Group, Inc., which was a division of Land Design South, he advised Ms. Cox to abstain on Items #6, #7 and #8, and asked for her to fill out the proper Form 8B for Voting Conflict. Director Glas-Castro stated the original Site Plan was approved in At that time medium density land use was the most intense category of the Comprehensive Plan. They were allowed a maximum of 104 units, based on the gross acreage of the property. The applicant was requesting a land use change to high density residential to facilitate the development of the area that was previously reserved for drainage and open space. She said the Board would be determining if the land use was appropriate for the property and compatible with the surrounding. Staff did find the residential high category was consistent given the volume of traffic along Forest Hill Boulevard. With buffering, the high density was compatible with adjacent multi-family and single family uses. The land use amendment would allow additional utilization for the property and add economic value for the Village tax base. She said the applicant was present. The Board asked if this was approved at a prior date. Director Glas-Castro stated it had been presented in June, 2014, but the applicant withdrew the considerations. It was requested that Director Glas-Castro do an overview of Items #7 and #8. The Board stated there would be much discussion on Items #7 and #8, therefore suggested Item #6 should be discussed separately. Chairman Wong stated Item #6 was to concede if the land use change was justified. He stated the applicant was present to answer any questions. Miss Michelle Hoyland, Land Design South of Florida, Inc., Applicant, prepared a power point presentation for the Board, regarding the location of the apartment complex, the request for the Site Plan of the three (3) two-story apartment buildings, the amenities 3

4 that would be included with the complex and the parking accommodations. When she completed the presentation she stated that Staff had recommended approval on all of the requests made, which included, the Site Plan, the parking waiver, the plat release dedication as well as the future land use amendment. none, a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No , was made by Mr. Lashells and seconded by Mr. Nefzger. Motion carried Resolution No An application submitted by Palm Springs Apartments which intends to abandon/release the recreation/open space Dedication on Tract 1 of the Palm Springs Addition Plat, as recorded in Plat Book 82, pages 74 & 75. Director Glas-Castro informed the Board in the southwest corner of the property, there was a 1.06 acre tract dedicated to Palm Springs. It was not owned by the Village, but the Village had open space recreational interest in it. The Village had not pursued use for public purposes and had no plans to improve the property. The acreage was not included in the inventory of park land used to calculate level of service for the Comprehensive Plan and capital budgeting. By releasing the open space dedication it would allow for the addition of units to bring economic value to the Village, and Staff was supportive of releasing the dedication. The area would serve as recreational purposes for the residents of the apartment complex. The applicant had requested release of the dedication. Presentation by the Applicant was included in Item #6. The Board had the following concerns regarding Resolution No : 1) The area had been abandoned for open space/recreation use since 1982; taxes had not been paid on it since that date. In exchange for the dedication of the open space, should the Village not be compensated for some of those taxes? Attorney Shutt stated once the dedication went into effect, the property owner would have notified the property appraiser s office and stated they needed an adjustment as they could not use the property to the fullest of their ability. Ms. Hoyland stated her client had paid taxes on the property. Director Glas-Castro stated the Property Appraiser s Office informed them there was no contributory value assigned to the portion of the site which had been viewed as unbuildable land with little or no contributory value to the apartment property. The property was assessed based on the number of dwelling units which was $5,500 per dwelling unit. It would not be based on the land area; it would be based on the units. 2) At the time of the approval for the Palm Springs Apartments, per the plat it was dedicated to the Village. Why was there not a transfer of ownership? Attorney Shutt stated on a dedication there would not be a formal transfer of ownership, it would be on the plat and dedicated for park purposes. He informed the Board in other Municipalities and the County also, when there has been development, you ask for dedication for a future road width, for example, even if there were no plans to expand the roadway. Years later the property owner would come wanting to develop the rest of that property and ask for release of the dedication. It is a common practice and this is not the 4

5 first time such a case has happened in a legal aspect. The Board continued to discuss Items #7 and #8 in length with the Applicant. Chairman Wong asked the public or the Board for any additional comments. Mr. Gary Ready, 3118 Meadow Road, stated part of the track being discussed was a swale where the drainage came in, the other side was overgrown with bushes, at the end was a water pumping station that Palm Springs maintained daily and as far as the trash, that was from the people on Forest Lane. He was a Community Police Officer and viewed that personally. Ms. Hoyland stated she understood what the Board was asking with respect to conditions of a previous approval, but the Board was approving what was before them tonight and that amended the previous approval. She respectively disagreed with the Board adding the conditions to the release of an easement; she would almost prefer they would add them elsewhere. She questioned why the dedication had not been discussed when this was brought to the Board two (2) years ago. Attorney Shutt stated if Staff went back and found the previous conditions, and found an issue, by having the condition on there, then it would allow Staff to bring it back to the Board prior to going to the Council. If approved without the condition, it would go to Council on February 12, A recommendation of approval of Resolution No , based upon the increase in the tax base and contingent on Staff to review the original conditions on the original Site Plan and if there were conditions that were in conflict with what was discussed at the meeting tonight, it would be brought back at the February 10, 2015 meeting for discussion, was made by Mr. Nefzger and seconded by Mr. Tieche. Motion carried Resolution No An application submitted by Richard Lundy, agent for the owners, Jerjo, Inc., for a Site Plan Review (SPR15-03) for construction of an additional three (3) two-story apartment buildings, for a total of 48 units, for Palm Springs Apartments Rental Community, a 9.36 acre site located at 4050 Forest Hill Boulevard. Director Glas-Castro informed the Board on Item #8 that the applicant proposed an addition of three (3) buildings, for a total of 48 units. There would be a tot lot and barbeque picnic area for the residents. It was a planned development and fell under the new Planned Development regulations, which increased the parking from 2 parking spaces per unit to 2.5 spaces per unit with an additional 25% guest parking. The applicant was requesting a waiver to reduce parking and the reduction was based on their need that was based on their other rental communities. The applicant was asking for a reduction of 48 parking spaces. The Village Engineer had concerns with the parking layout as well as the parking reductions and that was noted in the Staff report. A traffic performance letter was outstanding from the County; the build out date of the additional buildings would be based on that letter, drainage needed to be finalized by the Village Engineer and Lake Worth Drainage District. 5

6 Presentation by the Applicant was included in Item #6. The Board asked the following questions: 1) Referencing Staff Recommendations, VIII Staff recommended the waiver for reduction of parking. The concern, how would Palm Springs Apartments limit parking to two (2) spaces per apartment? The Village Engineer did not support the waiver, how did Staff consider the support? Ms. Hoyland stated it was written in the lease agreement as to how many automobiles are allowed per unit. There were some tenants that used public transportation. It was more of a family community and not a singles community. Director Glas-Castro stated the Engineer had not been in on many of the discussions that had taken place with the Board since they were an outside consultant. The Applicant had also presented documentation of their other apartment complexes and they have a controlled registration base and they know who lives in the units. There were no extended families or unknown tenants sharing apartments. It was not like someone leasing a home and did not check on who was living there. There were Village Codes that limited unrelated persons to three (3) people which was hard to catch and enforce it. 2) What were the garages being used for? Ms. Hoyland stated either vehicles, storage or one garage was being used for the maintenance golf cart. There was an onsite leasing office that managed the complex. none, a motion to recommend approval of Resolution No with the 22 conditions recommended by Staff, and the two (2) car limit to be added to the lease agreement which would make a total of 23 conditions, was made by Mr. Nefzger and seconded by Mr. Lashells. Motion carried Ordinance No Authorizing the Mayor and Village Clerk to Execute a Nunc Pro Tunc Agreement with Sunshine City BBQ, Inc., Lessee and Operator of a mobile food trailer on the Home Depot property, located at 4241 Lake Worth Road. Director Glas-Castro stated this was a result of a Council directive. During the public hearing for the annexation of the Lake Worth Road/Military Trail area, which included the Home Depot, the operator of the hot dog cart outside the Home Depot, spoke up and was concerned that they would be shut down because the Village did not have a process for mobile food vendors. There were other mobile food vendors that were existing in the County, and had special permits to operate, and the Village did enter into an annexation agreement with them. The Board questioned the reasoning for the twelve year agreement. Director Glas- Castro stated that was what was provided for Tacos Al Carbon and Bob s Auto Glass. none, a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No , was made by Mr. Tieche and seconded by Mr. Lashells. Motion carried 5-0 6

7 10. Ordinance No Amendment to Chapter 34 Land Development, Article IV Signs, Division 1 Generally, Section Prohibited Signs and Division 2 Permits Section Required; Exemptions, to provide regulations regarding flags. Director Glas-Castro informed the Board the Code Enforcement Staff recommended this to provide better specificity on flags that are permissible verses those that were not. It would limit the number of flags that were allowed on properties. none, a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No , was made by Mr. Nefzger and seconded by Mr. Tieche. Motion carried Ordinance No Application for land use change and rezoning for five (5) parcels, individually owned, located at 4360 Diamond Lane, 3824, 3842 and a vacant parcel on Patio Court, and a vacant parcel on Evergreen Lane, amending the existing land use to low density residential for the parcels on Diamond Lane and Evergreen Lane, and medium density residential for all parcels on Patio Court, concurrently designated within a Land Development residential multi-family zoning district. Director Glas-Castro informed the Board this was the next step in finishing up the annexations. The County Commission approved the Interlocal Agreement, affectively annexing these parcels into the Village. none, a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance No , was made by Mr. Lashells and seconded by Mr. Nefzger. Motion carried 5-0 OTHER BUSINESS Director Glas-Castro stated Board had been provided on the thumb drive a PDF file of the new Village limits, which included all properties annexed through The Council made the decision to not annex Vicliff, Canal Road and Park Lane, finding there was not a lot of economic value in annexing the residential properties compared to the cost of extending services to those areas. The decision to scale back on the annexations was so the Village could concentrate on areas that have been annexed to date. She added if a commercial owner petitioned the Village for annexation, consideration would made for that, for example, the old Mermaid bar had been purchased by the Regency Party Rental owner, and Regency has asked for voluntary annexation into the Village and to expand that for the rental business. There were some commercial properties along Congress down to 6 th Avenue South; those would also be considered in the future. This would give Staff time to look into the corridor studies to discuss with the Board along with economic incentive strategies. Director Glas-Castro informed the Board that they would be working on some clean up language in the Code. While that would be taking place, there would be future code amendments that have come up at Land Development and Council meetings. She said Staff had been discussing the fact that there should be a process for Minor Site Plans, which would be a Land Development decision and would not go to the Village Council. 7

8 The Board mentioned the possibility of having a workshop to go over the items. Director Glas-Castro agreed, because she also wanted to discuss items such as distance separation variance regarding alcohol regulations, signs, CG uses, cross access, parking of boats, RV s etc. on residential property, parking of Commercial Vehicles, outdoor display/storage and shopping carts. She said these items were to be looked at over the next few months, but she did want to address the subject of Minor Site Plans. The next meeting was scheduled for February 10, Director Glas-Castro wanted to let the Board know that on March 10, 2015, if there were to be a Municipal Election, there would be a possibility of having the Land Development meeting in the Multi- Purpose Room so it would not have to be cancelled. She said they would know definitely at the next meeting in February. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no other business, Chairman Wong adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Approved by Board (Date) Deputy Village Clerk Chairman 8